Are Your Ears Burning? (Part Three)

Via ReallyBoring.Net, I see that Ron Grossman at the Tribune wrote an accurate piece on Hyde Park last week, refuting some of the distortions coming from national publications.  I thought these quotes were pretty interesting:

"Intensity is our byword," said Richard Epstein, a U. of C. law professor.

Politically conservative—he would say libertarian—Epstein finds Hyde Park constantly stimulating, in good part because of all the swimming upstream.

"I would guess 92 percent of Hyde Parkers are for Obama," he said. "Five percent think he is too conservative."

In fact, the university's economics department was where Milton Friedman gave voice to a revival of free-market economics. The law school, where Obama taught, also leans to the right. It's home to a legal philosophy that says the government that governs least governs best.

"The problem with Hyde Park is that there are too many parks," Epstein said. He'd like to see real estate developers allowed to build private housing on the Midway—a great green swath of boulevard on the neighborhood's southern border.

Yikes!  There are a couple of parks I'd like to nibble at, but Epstein's proposal is extreme, completely disrespectful to local history.  The Midway's been that wide for a century and commemorates one of the greatest events ever to take place on the south side.  Far better to continue as the University and the Park District are doing-- improving the Midway piecemeal.

Now, the University might indeed be wise to build residential high rises along 60th Street, possibly with retail on the first floor, then offices above that and finally condos in the sky.  The view north would be spectacular and I'm betting that many of the University's finest would enjoy being a short walk to work.  Such density would provide the Midway with eyes on the street 24/7/365.

Comments

[Steve]

I thought the bit about the Midway was a joke? I took it as a tongue-in-cheek response to all the bad press HP has been getting.

[Market Urbanism]

hmmm...
Although I'm also a free-market-type, I'm hesitant to favor much building on the Midway.

But, it's not that accessible. From either side, you have to cross 2 streets to get to the middle. There must be a way to reconfigure it so the roads don't cut right through the open space. I hate that...

I don't see high rises being too feasible along 60th until housing prices go up there (housing would be the highest and best use along a park), but it wouldn't be so bad to build housing on the north side of 60th would it? I don't travel the Midway too often , but isn't that open space somewhat underutilized?

[withrow]

Yeah, the Midway is definitely underutilized. Thing is, the University and the Chicago Parks District are splitting the cost of a large project to make the Midway more attractive. Some of the plans are here:
http://facilities.uchicago.edu/campusconstruction/projects/g-midway.shtml

Epstein's remarks are consistent with Urbanist thinking, so I didn't take them as tongue-in-cheek. If I were starting Chicago from scratch, I myself would never suggest that a park be constructed that's as wide as the Midway is. For many, many years, it's simply functioned as a barrier between HP and Woodlawn, rather than as something that draws the two neighborhoods together.

Thing is, Urbanism is not the only value; it's one value among many. Tradition & sense of history are important, too. And the boundaries of the Midway are a monument to a great event. I'd prefer to simply spruce up the Midway, as the University is taking the lead on doing, and also build up some density around the Midway-- like putting mixed-use high rises on the south side of 60th St.

BTW I'd be open to building underneath the Midway, as long as the surface remains open and public. I don't know of any plans to do so, but I could imagine putting all the car traffic in a tunnel, for instance, or an underground transit line or even some University buildings that don't need windows-- research labs or libraries or something like that. Again, I'm not aware of any plans like those and I might oppose them due to the details, but I don't believe they're necessarily contrary to the spirit of the Midway. (And some of those plans would do a lot of good if the money were available.)

[DS]

A city can NEVER have too many parks. NEVER.

[withrow]

So, DS, Yellowstone National Park would be your idea of the perfect city-- one with 99% parkland?

If parks go unused, then they're both an expense to the city and an opportunity for converting to something else.

[Market Urbanism]

withrow,

Very interesting points.

I agree, but the expense of constructing under ground would be too great. It's probably better to do nothing than spend billions on underground construction. Just look at Boston's big dig...

If digging suddenly got cheaper, the first thing I would recommend would be to bury LSD and finally connect the neighborhoods with the lakefront...

[Jennifer]

Would it be too late to build that canal, as originally intended?

(Yeah, probably.)

I like the long expanse of grass, especially as seen from the statue on the east end looking west at sunset, but I can't decide whether that really does have some intrinsic value or is just my personal fondness for large grassy areas. So few of those in a neighborhood so otherwise full of trees...

[DS]

I live in the midst of Hyde Park's "too many parks." They're overrun in summer and even visited on all but frigid winter days. So I stand by what I said. Sorry.

[withrow]

So, DS, would you rather have another park in East Hyde Park or would you rather have a coffeehouse?

You're welcome to come down to the Midway and hang out. I'd say that most of the time there are fewer than a dozen people along the entire stretch of the Midway. If the Midway's "overrun", there's always some niche of Jackson Park that's empty. Or large sections of Nichols Park.

I hear HPers talk about their desires for this neighborhood a lot and I don't remember the last time I heard someone say we need another park. I DO hear people ask for plenty of other things-- retail or entertainment or affordable housing for seniors-- that could take the place of small amounts of parkland here and there that I really don't think people would miss if it were sold off. I'm not talking about vast areas of parkland being reconverted to other uses, but there are some key spots I'd like to nibble at.

YMMV, but I think many HPers, if they could overcome the taboo against speaking ill of parkland, would agree we have too much parkland, considering our density. BTW-- and this is a blatant appeal to authority in urbanist circles-- Jane Jacobs had, at best, mixed feelings about parks and she described the security of commercial strips as better than parks.

[DS]

I can't continue this; too many strawmen. The original statement that there are too many parks is ludicrous, but I didn't suggest adding more. (And, er, what makes you think I don't "hang around the Midway"? And, umm, there are plenty of buildings in which to put a coffeehouse. Wow.)

This kind of flippant response is more worthy of that other blog. I'm disappointed to see that.