Point home. Point Latest. August-September 2005.

Summer 2005: the Jackson Amendment and IHPA/Chicago Park District accord with reactions

No. 17 in the 2003-2005 Promontory Point series

This page is presented by Hyde Park-Kenwood Community Conference, its Parks Committee and its website www.hydepark.org

Navigator, links/contacts
2003-5 Point Series index
To Page contents Mtg. dates-Sept. 15!
To background on recent news-new plan of IHPA/CPD- Task Force says it doesn't meet standard, Ald. Hairston: Process legitimate; Rep. Jackson's preservation language leaving no wiggle room passes House, up to Obama. Political pressures intense. Public meeting sees vigorous objection but agencies press forward.
HPKCC letters to Park District, IHPA, representatives

August-Sept page gives report on the Sept. 15 meeting, statements and editorials by Hyde Park-Kenwood Community Conference

HPKCC Conference Reporter Summer 2005 feature commentary by Gary Ossewaarde and website homepage editorial (since taken down) are in August_05 page. The article was cited and quoted in the September 14 Herald editorial.

September 15 meeting announcement


Links

View city rendering of its plan in http://www.chicagoparkdistrict.com
August 2005 Point- HPKCC's position on the latest plan
 The Point home with sub page and full outside links navigator.
(To Promontory Point Park page)
Point Feedback: comments and essays on the Point for posting
www.SaveThePoint.org site incl. plans: http://www.savethepoint.org/prop200303/index.html
City/Dept. of Environment site with city plans, updates
Peter Rossi contact peter.rossi@gsb.uchicago.edu
Point Wkg Group (Mediator's) website: http://thepoint.invisibleinstitute.com
Landmark and Preservation status (incl. March 24 Landmark Pres Council of Illinois listing)
The huge inflow of letters to the Herald are cached in www.hpherald.com/pointletters022504.pdf
Alderman Hairston's email. To Alderman's website- find City Council and scroll to name
Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr.: Contact Rick Bryant
Illinois Historic Preservation Agency
The Final Report of Mediator Jamie Kalven and assisting engineer Wayne Brunzel is on the Invisible Institute website (all 32 pages). To page with main parts of text. Highlights of the report are here, with what followed after.

Mid-2003-2005 Series:

1: July 13 Task Force Preservation and Access Plan text
2: Reports and text, views, links to view plans
3: City counter/compromise plan, reinstated January 04
4: September 10 public briefing and summary
 5: Reports of the Mediator of the Working Group meetings and process disc/complaints
6: Reports and Appeals March-December 2003
7: Reports, Appeals, Press from Jan.-Feb. breakdown period, incl. Mediator's Statement
8: Point dispute-statements-coverage-Rossi letter late Feb./March 2004
9: The March 9 summit and costing tasks to lead to final working group report due April 15
10: Listing on the '10 Most Endangered' list; disputes over plans and 1994 Memorandum and defenses of the rival plans
11: Latest Promontory Point news
12: From the Mediator's Final Report May 2004
13: About, Reactions to the Mediator's Report
14: Reactions to the ad hoc group; during the period of its (non) meetings, June-August 2004, other actions including by Rep. Jackson, Il. Hist. Pres. Agency
15: Late 2004, including Mediator's Final Report with a 3rd option
16: 2005 through June
17: Summer 2005-re Jackson Amendment and IHPA/CPD accord [This page]
18: August-September: Sept. Point meeting, docs and HPKCC perspective

Latest page and news

(to pdf of IHPA letter of authority to proceed to Point reconstr. sponsors), (to pdf of National Trust letter to Senator Obama-ignore any script processing error and scroll down to text.)Text v.

Here:

Meetings and presentations

Summer 2005 News

More other views

Frances Vandervoort wrote in the September 7 Herald:

The Herald editorial gave its view, September 7, ahead of the September 15 meeting.

 

An analysis and view of where the sides stand in summer, 2005, from the perspective of their preferred designs.

Gary Ossewaarde

First let me say that the differences between the design approach of the City and the Task Force are in my observation qualitative rather than just involving degrees of difference or how to combine preferences. Since politics is both negotiation and the art of the possible, this will make it difficult to find a solution that is true to preserving our highly treasured Point and satisfies most parties. I think the current city-IHPA plan shows what happens when one says, “let’s do both sides’ plans.”

I cannot presume to speak for the Community Task Force for Promontory Point. However, I checked with a member of its executive committee to make sure that by “preservation” treatment they would still be interested in something like the preservation and access plan of engineers Heitzman and Tjadden, which the Task Force presented in July 2003 to the City and from which they negotiated (likely making some concessions) during the Mediation presided over by Jamie Kalven.

No agreed-upon plan or statement of points of agreement came out of the Mediation, terminated in January 2004. However, Kalven and engineer Wayne Brunzell issued a final report, which described a simplified compromise design that they used to test preservation feasibility and cost. Without being called a recommendation, it in effect was their suggested template for the parties to work from. The Task Force was pleased with this recommendation as a way to move forward, but Alderman Hairston did not (at least publicly) embrace it, and the city and Corps dismissed it.

Treating the July 2003 Task Force concept and the design in the Mediator’s final report as if they represent the Task Force position, and thinking it useless to consider any ideas not evaluated and presented by engineers, I will briefly compare these with the city/IHPA approved plan and present considerations. Then I will go into some more detail. Following that are attachments with drawings and the executive summary and justification from the 2003 preservation/access plan (not presented here, but in #1 and #2 of the "Current Series"-see at top).

(I should note that the Hyde Park-Kenwood Community Conference by resolution is sticking for now with what it would like to see—no section of the point replaced, but rather repaired or reconstructed, and in a way that preserves rather than mars its beauty, historic integrity, and usefulness to visitors. There was engineering support for this position in Frank Galvin’s reports of late 2002-2003. Frankly, I think most of the active members of the Task Force and the large majority of the community feel the same way. But we have to deal with both feasibility and political realties and frankly what matters to most is the look and feel, not what’s underneath.

The City plan as modified by IHPA, compared with the 2003 (Heitzman) and 2004 (Kalven-Brunzell Figure 1) alternatives

The city plan and the mediator’s 2004 plan treated the whole revetment alike for feasibility and costing, but the 2004 plan asked consideration for minimum treatment of the south and east sides (only armoring the latter). The 2003 plan treated each sector (about 6) differently—and this gained some support during negotiations. All would presumably now agree that there will be at least 2 and up to 4 treatments. A huge difference remains on whether to treat the east and north two thirds all the same way and how to treat them. For engineering, the 2004 plan used the more simple of the city plan structural options and a different construction method similar to the 2003: remove-fix the base-reset-sheetwall. It would also only use single rows of stones for all four steps. The city plan completely removes and builds anew. (Since the plan now is to build in the same footprint, one cannot completely compare construction in the 2003 and 2004 plans).

The biggest difference as to look and feel is that the city plan would have concrete up to the last two steps (vertical step faces “molded” to look like stone blocks), with the top two steps existing limestone blocks (whether with a concrete base is unknown to me.)

The new city plan will keep and repair in place c.30% of the revetment, on the south face. This can have toe-stone in front if it’s visual impact is minimized. Regardless of whether that will create water access and swimming-wading problems, the 2003 and 2004 alternatives also envisioned some protection in front of the present promenade, whether toe stone/stone blocks or sheet wall or both. The 2004 plan for simplicity assumed complete rebuilding of the south side but sought consideration for just repairing it. But all parties now presumably would be on the same page for this part of the Point. The accessibility path for this sector will have to be at the top, but presumably is not to interfere with the Caldwell landscape. Whether, how, and where the access path would be joined to the promenade is to be settled later. Ease of access to the promenade at the join with the new sea buffer at the 57th St. beach needs consideration also.
The rest of the Point (c. 70%) would be treated in the city plan as “new construction.” IPHA’s requirements that the revetment start where the current starts and now only be as wide as the current is intended to “minimize impacts” (!) per the MOA. This makes comparison among older plans difficult.

The 2003 and 2004 plans seek to only “armor” the existing 1960s east side “coffins” promenade and reset the limestone steps.

For the north part, about 40%, the city seeks to completely replace the current structure and build a new one, showing toe stone up to the top of sheet steel, a concrete
promenade (now presumably narrowed to keep the same overall revetment width although the Corps standards are said to require the 26’ width) and two concrete steps (vertical surfaces shaped like existing limestone blocks) with two steps of limestone block on top. The 2003 and 2004 plans use different structures, have all four steps of mostly existing limestone blocks, and incorporate varying amounts of limestone block into mainly the outer side of the promenade (the later conceded to be of concrete and including a smooth accessibility path). Stone on the outside edge of the promenade and set on top of the sheet steel is conceded to be problematic. 2003 has elaborate, safety-concerned provisions for access to the promenade and water for swimming and for disabled experience—more than in the city plan- a plan the city justifies as necessary in part to provide universal access. The Task Force’s degree of commitment to at least some of these access features is uncertain. The 2004 mediator’s test design leaves these details out. It is for this large sector that the community’s desire for maximum or all limestone seems deep and qualitative. There is also concern, often expressed to me, by residents that in all these plans the steps be climbable, at least in places.

In short, the differences grow as one goes from south to north.

Key features of the 2003 Heitzman-Tjadden plan

South and east are just repaired and/or armored.
North has 4 or 5 steps of limestone and a promenade set on a reinforced concrete slab with a concrete accessibility path bracketed by limestone blocks.
Sets of accessible ramps and stairs are provided at the north, east, and south.
This plan has set limestone blocks, not toe stone into the water at several places.
Sheet steel will be hidden in shallow areas by blocks or toe stone and in deeper areas by wooden piles, like the original look of the revetment.
The method is that of the 1930s, with cranes and pile drivers-pull blocks, compact, reset, drive sheetwall. Little storage would be necessary. Caldwell’s landscape is to be restored.

2004 Mediator Kalven-Engineer Brunzell final report highlights

It concludes that a spectrum of preservation-based approaches are feasible, meet the city’s criteria, and can cost less than the city plan, even with a contingent for maintenance. It has four limestone steps and a concrete promenade with limestone edge. Undetermined: whether there can be limestone at the edge, degree of access desirable or possible, whether the coffin section can be just armored, and promenade width.
At the end of mediation, both sides accepted reinforced concrete structure and differed on how much limestone and in what configuration. Both sides were moving toward acceptance of the value of pre