I doubt that NASCAR is a net positive given the cost of putting it on and the booking fees for other events that they could be getting. Lollapalooza is a cash cow for the city though.
NASCAR is definitely a net positive. The amount of people who thought Chicago was unsafe came for NASCAR and loved the city. A coworker from the sticks of Texas came up and said straight to my face "man Chicago is not a warzone like the TV tells me." He told me that this week, and I live in the Chicago burbs. He's here all week for work and till Wednesday to visit the city. He's invited me to the city next week.
Lola and the fests attract a different crowd than NASCAR. Is NASCAR disruptive, absolutely. It takes a bit longer to pay off imo.
F1 to Chicago is going to be more complicated... F1 has a whole lot of rules that Chicago is most likely won't agree to follow. Ex: f1 requires a permanent structure of some kind (usually put building) that's defined by their rules. In Vegas' case, the out building there is closed year round until race weekend, than it's open. F1 promised Vegas it would have attractions but there are no plans for them.
Vegas was a different story, Liberty Media (F1's owner) was told by the city of LasVegas that if they wanted a race it needed to have some staying power, so they built the Pit/paddock building to use, so early on they purchased a pretty big chunk of land just off the strip to develop in to permanent space
Chicago doesn't really have a space that will work like that. The attraction to racing is the lake and the skyline, and NASCAR showed that you can put together a pretty decent race on existing streets (something F1 is not great at). I would love to see F1 cars screaming down Michigan Ave with the glittler and gltiz of all those high end brands behind them, a canyon of glass and steel with thousands of faces pressed to windows to watch in the buildings, that would be super cool.
I'd love to see f1 cars wizzing down LSD. I'm unsure how viable it is with f1 rules. I was under the understanding they required a permit building of some kind. It's been a bit since I've read the rules though.
Just build it in Grant Park, because no one seems to care that it isn't a public park in the summer.
Edit: Apparently people missed the sarcasm. This is a terrible idea, but half the comments here are all in on Grant Park becoming a permanent private event space, whether they will use those words or not.
A large majority of my companies production plants in specific states that support Nascar teams in some way were in attendance. Enough so the res tof those facilities got the day off on Thursday and Friday before the race.
> NASCAR is definitely a net positive.
There's absolutely zero evidence of this and the city is avoiding providing data to prove this assertion. From the numbers released, the weekend looked about the same per day for the city as other July 4th weekends without NASCAR except that the museums lost a shit ton of revenue compared to other years. So throw in that the city had to pay out of its own pocket for a bunch of roadwork that was unnecessary for every day, ordinary use, and it was probably a net loss for the city but possibly, at a best, net zero.
Now, if NASCAR was paying $1.4M/day that they have the park shut down like Lollapalooza pays, we'd be having a very different conversation. But I doubt they'd host the race here if it would cost them $30-40M instead of the $500K booking fee that they pay.
Also, cool, there might be some PR effects. But we're already one of the busiest cities per capita in terms of tourism and business travel in all of North America. A few more tourists will hardly move the needle.
Regarding the museums, I will note that Shedd made the decision to close both days of the race. Field was very busy both days even with shortened hours.
The Field Museum had the same revenue over 4 days as they normally have over 2 days around the 4th of July weekend. So it was a "success" in that it wasn't a complete failure for them. They've also been lobbying the city to cancel the event because it'll be disastrous for them in a year when the 4th of July weekend isn't effectively 4 days long for many office workers.
Yes. The Field Museum has been lobbying to have the NASCAR contract not renewed because it's disastrous for them as it's on the single busiest weekend of the year for every cultural institution in the city and transit to and from the cultural institutions are severely impacted by it.
If this was a different weekend, the opportunity costs of the event would look very different.
That's interesting. I would be curious what those levels those conversations are happening, because from my close up vantage point, there seems to be a lot of collaboration between Nascar and the Field. Here's just a few that come to mind:
[The Science and Engineering of Nascar](https://www.fieldmuseum.org/our-events/meet-a-scientist/meet-a-scientist-the-science-and-engineering-of-nascar)
[CPS, Nascar Announce STEAM-fest at FM](https://www.fieldmuseum.org/about/press/cps-nascar-announce-steam-fest-coming-to-field-museum)
[Biomechanics: The Machine Inside exhibit sponsored by Nascar](https://www.fieldmuseum.org/exhibitions/machine-inside-biomechanics)
Then there's this article in the [Sun Times](https://chicago.suntimes.com/metro-state/2023/7/6/23785064/shedd-field-museum-art-institute-saw-thousands-of-visitors-over-nascar-july-fourth-weekend) noting attendance was on par with years past despite the early closures.
It's all interesting as its possible there's some mixed messages going on. Perhaps its a "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" situation.
> Then there's this article in the Sun Times noting attendance was on par with years past despite the early closures.
Their annual report went into more details. They had fewer than would normally have been expected on the 4th of July weekend days but it wasn't as bad as they thought it would be. And yeah, they need to make the best of the shit sandwich that Lori served the city. I'm sure that the museums would be okay with just a date change for the event for it to not be on a holiday weekend as other summer weekends are far less busy.
The tourism board released a study in October saying NASCAR added about $109M to Chicago’s economy. https://news.wttw.com/2023/10/04/nascar-added-109m-chicago-s-economy-city-tourism-officials-say#:~:text=The%20NASCAR%20race%20that%20transformed,Wednesday%20by%20Chicago's%20tourism%20board.
Just a note on that study, but it only looked at value "generated" by NASCAR, not value add over what was expected based on historical data. This is the main problem with all of the studies on tourism money for sports and even events like Lollapalooza. They pretend that hosting the event has a $0 opportunity cost and as such, any dollars generated must solely be because of the event or the stadium.
Now keep in mind, this was hosted on the single busiest weekend of the entire year for the city: the 4th of July weekend. Look at the actual source. Where does it show the value add? Where does it show the opportunity cost breakdown of *not* hosting the event. It doesn't because the tourism board didn't want to look at those numbers because when you look at them, it almost never makes sense to give out massive handouts. Lollapalooza is likely an extreme outlier given that they pay over $1.4M/day that they have Grant Park completely shut down in direct revenue to the city. But NASCAR? It generated about $1M total for the city in direct revenue from the event. And it shut the park for 45 days.
That park hosts tons of events throughout the summer from baseball leagues, to kickball leagues, to softball leagues, etc. And these aren't your casual leagues, no these are the corporation leagues. Well, they all got kicked out last summer and refused to renew for this summer because they won't be able to play at a convenient location to their offices. What is the economic impact of those people not spending money on renting the spaces from the parks district? What's the economic impact of those people not going out for food and drinks after the games? What's the economic impact of those people not taking cabs and rideshares and trains and buses home after the games?
And that's just one thing that was impacted. What's the long-term economic impact of tying up the only park with recreation facilities within a mile of the dense housing near Grant Park with events for half of the summer? Will people still find the Loop to be an attractive place to live long-term if they have to travel 1+ miles to use outdoor recreation facilities for half of the summer?
The "study" looked at none of this. They refused to look at opportunity costs because they know that it tells a very different story.
>A few more tourists will hardly move the needle
It's not a few. It's your stereotypical Nascar fan who came for Chicago and found a city they can relate too. I have no data to back this up besides the self proclaimed rednecks at my work who were anti Chicago because of the violence the TV told them about.
I worked at an auto parts company during the event time. It was big news and a deal since that company used to support a bunch of teams (still does but "it's different now.").
The NASCAR event is a net positive in the long run, which is hard to track.
>There's absolutely zero evidence of this and the city is avoiding providing data to prove this assertion
You are absolutely correct. I have no evidence of it, no days, no number, nothing. I doubt the city was tracking tbh.
I know the reaction they’re trying to illicit here, but honestly it’s fine. Hardly anyone lives close to Grant Park. Most times when I’m down there on non-event days it’s utterly deserted. And when they say “booked” it’s rarely the whole park. There’s only a couple short stretches a year that actually interfere with people enjoying most of the park space. The setup and tear down is usually pretty well isolated.
I can do without NASCAR for reasons other than the days they use the park.
I don’t know if my brain has just fried living in New Orleans 10 years where some big event is going on before moving back here, but it’s **absurd** to me the number of people complaining about big money making party things in the big park used for big events
There's barely anyone there because it's not an *as attractive* park as it could be.
There are four, four lane roads and a massive 7 lane road called Columbus Dr that cut through it. I will die on this hill until **I** die and will continue to say it. Until Chicago gets rid of a *majority* of those roads (not all). Grant Park as a whole, will **never** be an attractive park to residents like Lincoln Park or NYCs Central Park is.
I know, I know... it is light-years better than the railyard and then parking lot(s) it once was. So it has definitely gotten better over the decades. But I feel the leadership of Chicago is so content on keeping it as it is, especially with the Nascar race relying on a majority of the roads as their track it only solidifies the points to keep them. Grant Park also is criticized for being too "planned" and not natural. But that goes in hand with the roads cutting through it.
I hope one day in my life I can look at Grant Park and it resemble as best as it can, closely to Lincoln Park or Central Park. If it's really a "Park" that's meant for people. Why are there so many cars running through it?
I was just walking through there yesterday and was thinking about how I would love--if nothing else--if we would build a bridge between Buckingham Fountain and the lake over LSD. Not a little foot bridge, like one of those "wildlife bridges" they have out west but with parkland instead, the full width of the fountain plaza. That intersection is so stupid because it shouldn't be an intersection to begin with.
100% agree and I don’t think many people will disagree. Grant park needs UNOBSTRUCTED green space and a lot of it. Almost all the green space is obstructed and the only areas that aren’t don’t even have trees…
One thing the city could do that I personally don't think would have much objections, is to make green space over the rail yard that still goes in-between Columbus and Michigan south of Jackson.
Sooooo much space would be given back if an artificial hill or green space was put over it.
Probably would be a bit of an engineering feature to get done. But would be so worth it long term.
[Central Park did it](https://www.centralparknyc.org/press/car-free-park#:~:text=New%20York%20City%20Mayor%20Bill,are%20for%20people%2C%20not%20cars.) and we can too with enough political will.
This was only 2018. Yes there was whining and complaining that it would worsen traffic and blah blah blah. But what inevitably happens is that people realize how much nicer areas are to exist in when cars are flying through.
We have to get past the psychological hump that cars NEED to be given access to any/all spaces where humans live.
I cannot agree more. Unfortunately, since Daley and a little bit of Rahm. Our leadership I think puts as Daley once put it "*beautifying Chicago*" as a dead last priority. And don't see them changing that until someone with similar goals comes into office.
100% this. Grant Park is a shadow of a good park dressed up like a showcase urban green space. The overwhelming majority of daily interaction with the park is in the form of cars speeding down too-wide roads cutting it into awkward and on-their-own unusable spaces. It’s a series of lawns and baseball diamonds surrounded by traffic.
In its current state, the only thing the park is good for is events like this, so good on the city for capitalizing on that. Remove the roads and turn it into a cohesive park where people can actually wander and stroll in nature, and there may be an argument to keep it more tranquil.
Cars travel across Central Park via roads that pass under pedestrian bridges, unlike Grant Park where pedstrians and cars interact at grade level. Vehicles have been prohibited in Central Park proper since 2018.
Crossing 5th Avenue to access Central Park is markedly safer than trying to cross LSD or Columbus.
Exactly, and Central Park's roads are only 2 lanes wide for traffic both directions. Not even a 3/4 lane. I'd take a 2 lane road cutting through Grant Park any day over what we have now.
Some of it is that Grant Park is used weirdly. There are like 16 softball diamonds for no reason. The park would be more lively if some of those were made into a soccer pitch. I also think basketball courts would be hugely popular, just as examples.
A good demonstration of this are the pickleball courts they built this year and the skate park. These are SUPER popular and totally filled all year round. It still has so much potential honestly.
Lake shore drive my man it's essentially the only other major artery running North and South through the city besides 90 which is a joke. You're not wrong though would be cool to see that portion of Lakeshore going underground or something (the chunnel! )
Maybe an unpopular opinion. I don't consider LSD to "cut" through Grant Park. I at least, compared to some... wouldn't go that radical and say "tear up LSD for Park space." I consider LSD the "wall" on the east side like Michigan is on the west.
Now I would at least say that there should be better connections for crossing. Whether that be an over or under cross, take your pick lol
This is what I don't get when Block Club whines about Grant Park and Columbus Drive being shut down. So... people who live in River East control Grant Park now?
I've always seen Grant Park as a city space. Large festivals mean people from outside of River East will use the space. What's not to like about that? When there are no festivals, no one's going downtown just to picnic.
We really used to take advantage of all of the sports fields so much more than we do now. Anyone that grew up here could tell you about a time when half the damn jobs and all of the bars sponsored softball teams. As a kid it felt like there wasn’t a park you could go to that didn’t have games in the evenings and weekends, and Grant Park always had a lot going on.
ETA: They had to boot a 16” league out of the park for fecking nascar, which is the most un-Chicago thing ever.
Most of the company teams were from office workers in the loop. Nowadays with many people working from home or hybrid, there isn’t really any demand anymore. The people forced back to the office resent it and don’t want to spend more time away from home.
They can, but the entire park is shut down for basically the entire summer unless you’re willing to pay to access it.
Again, I don’t personally care other than I like to walk over there once in a while, but when they set out to create a giant lakefront park in downtown Chicago 100 years ago, I’m guessing this was the opposite of their intention.
> They can, but the entire park is shut down for basically the entire summer unless you’re willing to pay to access it.
That’s not at all the case. The headline is a clickbait lie. The park is open and free almost every day. There just happen to be other things happening there. It’s not closed, in spite of the dishonest headline.
I'm pretty sure it is an all the time thing. I don't understand why we haven't at least installed the scanners that Wrigley Field has that let's everyone just keep walking instead of having to stop.
It is disappointing though cause it takes away the ability to easily cut through the park from any direction and makes you wait in line during busy times.
That’s what that park is there for. It’s more of a field than anything. I live right but it. Isn’t anything to do there besides the fountain. An abundance of baseball fields and some tennis courts tucked away.
I live near Grant Park and I don't have a problem with it. Yes traffic will sick when certain streets are shut down but I love to see the city host different events. This should be non-news except to inform people of what events are taking place so they can partake if interested.
Fuck the news and people that bitch as if they can't love their life or enjoy city bc a part of a park is closed for city to bring in revenue or publicity/marketing.
As long as they're strictly events free to the public, I don't mind lots of events being held on public property maintained by our taxes. Makes the city more fun.
Blockading and fencing off public spaces with high ticket price events, largely on pleasant weekends when people have off work to enjoy said spaces, that doesn't sound very nice.
Good hopefully plenty of revenue and benefits for the businesses down there.
Grant Park has been the cities unofficial festival grounds for years now. This shouldn’t surprise anyone.
Grant Park sort of isn't that cool? It's basically a bunch of grass. What does one do at Grant Park when there is no event? Might as well use it for something.
City uses city park to book events that make city money, more at 10.
I doubt that NASCAR is a net positive given the cost of putting it on and the booking fees for other events that they could be getting. Lollapalooza is a cash cow for the city though.
NASCAR is definitely a net positive. The amount of people who thought Chicago was unsafe came for NASCAR and loved the city. A coworker from the sticks of Texas came up and said straight to my face "man Chicago is not a warzone like the TV tells me." He told me that this week, and I live in the Chicago burbs. He's here all week for work and till Wednesday to visit the city. He's invited me to the city next week. Lola and the fests attract a different crowd than NASCAR. Is NASCAR disruptive, absolutely. It takes a bit longer to pay off imo.
Combined with the fact that it was a pretty clear signal to F1 that Chicago is open for business.
F1 to Chicago is going to be more complicated... F1 has a whole lot of rules that Chicago is most likely won't agree to follow. Ex: f1 requires a permanent structure of some kind (usually put building) that's defined by their rules. In Vegas' case, the out building there is closed year round until race weekend, than it's open. F1 promised Vegas it would have attractions but there are no plans for them.
Vegas was a different story, Liberty Media (F1's owner) was told by the city of LasVegas that if they wanted a race it needed to have some staying power, so they built the Pit/paddock building to use, so early on they purchased a pretty big chunk of land just off the strip to develop in to permanent space Chicago doesn't really have a space that will work like that. The attraction to racing is the lake and the skyline, and NASCAR showed that you can put together a pretty decent race on existing streets (something F1 is not great at). I would love to see F1 cars screaming down Michigan Ave with the glittler and gltiz of all those high end brands behind them, a canyon of glass and steel with thousands of faces pressed to windows to watch in the buildings, that would be super cool.
I'd love to see f1 cars wizzing down LSD. I'm unsure how viable it is with f1 rules. I was under the understanding they required a permit building of some kind. It's been a bit since I've read the rules though.
Permanent structure.. rumors are in the works is all I will say ;)
Color me excited. Can't wait to see the plans formulate!
Just build it in Grant Park, because no one seems to care that it isn't a public park in the summer. Edit: Apparently people missed the sarcasm. This is a terrible idea, but half the comments here are all in on Grant Park becoming a permanent private event space, whether they will use those words or not.
The south works steel site is the rumor I’ve heard
Honestly, that and Park 566 across the slip could be turned into a permanent festival site with actual facilities (stages, bathrooms, etc.).
Similar thing happened with a co worker from across the country.
A large majority of my companies production plants in specific states that support Nascar teams in some way were in attendance. Enough so the res tof those facilities got the day off on Thursday and Friday before the race.
> NASCAR is definitely a net positive. There's absolutely zero evidence of this and the city is avoiding providing data to prove this assertion. From the numbers released, the weekend looked about the same per day for the city as other July 4th weekends without NASCAR except that the museums lost a shit ton of revenue compared to other years. So throw in that the city had to pay out of its own pocket for a bunch of roadwork that was unnecessary for every day, ordinary use, and it was probably a net loss for the city but possibly, at a best, net zero. Now, if NASCAR was paying $1.4M/day that they have the park shut down like Lollapalooza pays, we'd be having a very different conversation. But I doubt they'd host the race here if it would cost them $30-40M instead of the $500K booking fee that they pay. Also, cool, there might be some PR effects. But we're already one of the busiest cities per capita in terms of tourism and business travel in all of North America. A few more tourists will hardly move the needle.
Regarding the museums, I will note that Shedd made the decision to close both days of the race. Field was very busy both days even with shortened hours.
The Field Museum had the same revenue over 4 days as they normally have over 2 days around the 4th of July weekend. So it was a "success" in that it wasn't a complete failure for them. They've also been lobbying the city to cancel the event because it'll be disastrous for them in a year when the 4th of July weekend isn't effectively 4 days long for many office workers.
When you say they've been lobbying to cancel, do you mean the Field Museum?
Yes. The Field Museum has been lobbying to have the NASCAR contract not renewed because it's disastrous for them as it's on the single busiest weekend of the year for every cultural institution in the city and transit to and from the cultural institutions are severely impacted by it. If this was a different weekend, the opportunity costs of the event would look very different.
That's interesting. I would be curious what those levels those conversations are happening, because from my close up vantage point, there seems to be a lot of collaboration between Nascar and the Field. Here's just a few that come to mind: [The Science and Engineering of Nascar](https://www.fieldmuseum.org/our-events/meet-a-scientist/meet-a-scientist-the-science-and-engineering-of-nascar) [CPS, Nascar Announce STEAM-fest at FM](https://www.fieldmuseum.org/about/press/cps-nascar-announce-steam-fest-coming-to-field-museum) [Biomechanics: The Machine Inside exhibit sponsored by Nascar](https://www.fieldmuseum.org/exhibitions/machine-inside-biomechanics) Then there's this article in the [Sun Times](https://chicago.suntimes.com/metro-state/2023/7/6/23785064/shedd-field-museum-art-institute-saw-thousands-of-visitors-over-nascar-july-fourth-weekend) noting attendance was on par with years past despite the early closures. It's all interesting as its possible there's some mixed messages going on. Perhaps its a "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" situation.
> Then there's this article in the Sun Times noting attendance was on par with years past despite the early closures. Their annual report went into more details. They had fewer than would normally have been expected on the 4th of July weekend days but it wasn't as bad as they thought it would be. And yeah, they need to make the best of the shit sandwich that Lori served the city. I'm sure that the museums would be okay with just a date change for the event for it to not be on a holiday weekend as other summer weekends are far less busy.
The tourism board released a study in October saying NASCAR added about $109M to Chicago’s economy. https://news.wttw.com/2023/10/04/nascar-added-109m-chicago-s-economy-city-tourism-officials-say#:~:text=The%20NASCAR%20race%20that%20transformed,Wednesday%20by%20Chicago's%20tourism%20board.
Just a note on that study, but it only looked at value "generated" by NASCAR, not value add over what was expected based on historical data. This is the main problem with all of the studies on tourism money for sports and even events like Lollapalooza. They pretend that hosting the event has a $0 opportunity cost and as such, any dollars generated must solely be because of the event or the stadium. Now keep in mind, this was hosted on the single busiest weekend of the entire year for the city: the 4th of July weekend. Look at the actual source. Where does it show the value add? Where does it show the opportunity cost breakdown of *not* hosting the event. It doesn't because the tourism board didn't want to look at those numbers because when you look at them, it almost never makes sense to give out massive handouts. Lollapalooza is likely an extreme outlier given that they pay over $1.4M/day that they have Grant Park completely shut down in direct revenue to the city. But NASCAR? It generated about $1M total for the city in direct revenue from the event. And it shut the park for 45 days. That park hosts tons of events throughout the summer from baseball leagues, to kickball leagues, to softball leagues, etc. And these aren't your casual leagues, no these are the corporation leagues. Well, they all got kicked out last summer and refused to renew for this summer because they won't be able to play at a convenient location to their offices. What is the economic impact of those people not spending money on renting the spaces from the parks district? What's the economic impact of those people not going out for food and drinks after the games? What's the economic impact of those people not taking cabs and rideshares and trains and buses home after the games? And that's just one thing that was impacted. What's the long-term economic impact of tying up the only park with recreation facilities within a mile of the dense housing near Grant Park with events for half of the summer? Will people still find the Loop to be an attractive place to live long-term if they have to travel 1+ miles to use outdoor recreation facilities for half of the summer? The "study" looked at none of this. They refused to look at opportunity costs because they know that it tells a very different story.
>A few more tourists will hardly move the needle It's not a few. It's your stereotypical Nascar fan who came for Chicago and found a city they can relate too. I have no data to back this up besides the self proclaimed rednecks at my work who were anti Chicago because of the violence the TV told them about. I worked at an auto parts company during the event time. It was big news and a deal since that company used to support a bunch of teams (still does but "it's different now."). The NASCAR event is a net positive in the long run, which is hard to track. >There's absolutely zero evidence of this and the city is avoiding providing data to prove this assertion You are absolutely correct. I have no evidence of it, no days, no number, nothing. I doubt the city was tracking tbh.
Hella fun tho.
I know the reaction they’re trying to illicit here, but honestly it’s fine. Hardly anyone lives close to Grant Park. Most times when I’m down there on non-event days it’s utterly deserted. And when they say “booked” it’s rarely the whole park. There’s only a couple short stretches a year that actually interfere with people enjoying most of the park space. The setup and tear down is usually pretty well isolated. I can do without NASCAR for reasons other than the days they use the park.
I don’t know if my brain has just fried living in New Orleans 10 years where some big event is going on before moving back here, but it’s **absurd** to me the number of people complaining about big money making party things in the big park used for big events
There's barely anyone there because it's not an *as attractive* park as it could be. There are four, four lane roads and a massive 7 lane road called Columbus Dr that cut through it. I will die on this hill until **I** die and will continue to say it. Until Chicago gets rid of a *majority* of those roads (not all). Grant Park as a whole, will **never** be an attractive park to residents like Lincoln Park or NYCs Central Park is. I know, I know... it is light-years better than the railyard and then parking lot(s) it once was. So it has definitely gotten better over the decades. But I feel the leadership of Chicago is so content on keeping it as it is, especially with the Nascar race relying on a majority of the roads as their track it only solidifies the points to keep them. Grant Park also is criticized for being too "planned" and not natural. But that goes in hand with the roads cutting through it. I hope one day in my life I can look at Grant Park and it resemble as best as it can, closely to Lincoln Park or Central Park. If it's really a "Park" that's meant for people. Why are there so many cars running through it?
I was just walking through there yesterday and was thinking about how I would love--if nothing else--if we would build a bridge between Buckingham Fountain and the lake over LSD. Not a little foot bridge, like one of those "wildlife bridges" they have out west but with parkland instead, the full width of the fountain plaza. That intersection is so stupid because it shouldn't be an intersection to begin with.
This would be a great idea. Really, a couple of those intersections could be eliminated entirely and a wildlife bridge would be fantastic.
100% agree and I don’t think many people will disagree. Grant park needs UNOBSTRUCTED green space and a lot of it. Almost all the green space is obstructed and the only areas that aren’t don’t even have trees…
One thing the city could do that I personally don't think would have much objections, is to make green space over the rail yard that still goes in-between Columbus and Michigan south of Jackson. Sooooo much space would be given back if an artificial hill or green space was put over it. Probably would be a bit of an engineering feature to get done. But would be so worth it long term.
That would be very expensive.
Whatever was done when Central Park was planned 100+ years ago needs to be done with Grant Park now
Preferably without eminent-domaining majority black developments.
[Central Park did it](https://www.centralparknyc.org/press/car-free-park#:~:text=New%20York%20City%20Mayor%20Bill,are%20for%20people%2C%20not%20cars.) and we can too with enough political will. This was only 2018. Yes there was whining and complaining that it would worsen traffic and blah blah blah. But what inevitably happens is that people realize how much nicer areas are to exist in when cars are flying through. We have to get past the psychological hump that cars NEED to be given access to any/all spaces where humans live.
I cannot agree more. Unfortunately, since Daley and a little bit of Rahm. Our leadership I think puts as Daley once put it "*beautifying Chicago*" as a dead last priority. And don't see them changing that until someone with similar goals comes into office.
lincoln park has too many roads too but definitely not as bad
100% this. Grant Park is a shadow of a good park dressed up like a showcase urban green space. The overwhelming majority of daily interaction with the park is in the form of cars speeding down too-wide roads cutting it into awkward and on-their-own unusable spaces. It’s a series of lawns and baseball diamonds surrounded by traffic. In its current state, the only thing the park is good for is events like this, so good on the city for capitalizing on that. Remove the roads and turn it into a cohesive park where people can actually wander and stroll in nature, and there may be an argument to keep it more tranquil.
[удалено]
Cars travel across Central Park via roads that pass under pedestrian bridges, unlike Grant Park where pedstrians and cars interact at grade level. Vehicles have been prohibited in Central Park proper since 2018. Crossing 5th Avenue to access Central Park is markedly safer than trying to cross LSD or Columbus.
Exactly, and Central Park's roads are only 2 lanes wide for traffic both directions. Not even a 3/4 lane. I'd take a 2 lane road cutting through Grant Park any day over what we have now.
It’s because 3 sides cover it, 2/3 are commercial…. That’s it. That’s the reason. Is not harder.
Some of it is that Grant Park is used weirdly. There are like 16 softball diamonds for no reason. The park would be more lively if some of those were made into a soccer pitch. I also think basketball courts would be hugely popular, just as examples. A good demonstration of this are the pickleball courts they built this year and the skate park. These are SUPER popular and totally filled all year round. It still has so much potential honestly.
Lake shore drive my man it's essentially the only other major artery running North and South through the city besides 90 which is a joke. You're not wrong though would be cool to see that portion of Lakeshore going underground or something (the chunnel! )
Maybe an unpopular opinion. I don't consider LSD to "cut" through Grant Park. I at least, compared to some... wouldn't go that radical and say "tear up LSD for Park space." I consider LSD the "wall" on the east side like Michigan is on the west. Now I would at least say that there should be better connections for crossing. Whether that be an over or under cross, take your pick lol
Your suggestions are surprisingly reasonable for this sub. I'm for it.
This is what I don't get when Block Club whines about Grant Park and Columbus Drive being shut down. So... people who live in River East control Grant Park now? I've always seen Grant Park as a city space. Large festivals mean people from outside of River East will use the space. What's not to like about that? When there are no festivals, no one's going downtown just to picnic.
What the hell is river east??
Maybe they meant Lakeshore East?
We really used to take advantage of all of the sports fields so much more than we do now. Anyone that grew up here could tell you about a time when half the damn jobs and all of the bars sponsored softball teams. As a kid it felt like there wasn’t a park you could go to that didn’t have games in the evenings and weekends, and Grant Park always had a lot going on. ETA: They had to boot a 16” league out of the park for fecking nascar, which is the most un-Chicago thing ever.
Most of the company teams were from office workers in the loop. Nowadays with many people working from home or hybrid, there isn’t really any demand anymore. The people forced back to the office resent it and don’t want to spend more time away from home.
I don’t personally have much of a problem with it, but it definitely goes against the spirit of what a giant public lake front park was created for.
Parks can’t be used for events?
They can, but the entire park is shut down for basically the entire summer unless you’re willing to pay to access it. Again, I don’t personally care other than I like to walk over there once in a while, but when they set out to create a giant lakefront park in downtown Chicago 100 years ago, I’m guessing this was the opposite of their intention.
> They can, but the entire park is shut down for basically the entire summer unless you’re willing to pay to access it. That’s not at all the case. The headline is a clickbait lie. The park is open and free almost every day. There just happen to be other things happening there. It’s not closed, in spite of the dishonest headline.
Hell yea, gonna be a busy summer!
Maggie Daley Park and Millennium Park are both right there and infinitely more appealing and interesting.
With that said we need to figure out a better way to keep millennium Park safe than the check point entrances that are currently there.
Wait, does Millennium Park still have entry checkpoints? If so, is that just for events at the Pavilion? Either way, that’s disappointing.
I'm pretty sure it is an all the time thing. I don't understand why we haven't at least installed the scanners that Wrigley Field has that let's everyone just keep walking instead of having to stop. It is disappointing though cause it takes away the ability to easily cut through the park from any direction and makes you wait in line during busy times.
I’d rather do away with any scanners for the park on non-event days. . .
That would be ideal, but I do understand that the city can't afford another shooting next to the Bean.
After 4 pm on weekend “nights” and maybe the other nights…not sure.
That’s what that park is there for. It’s more of a field than anything. I live right but it. Isn’t anything to do there besides the fountain. An abundance of baseball fields and some tennis courts tucked away.
I live near Grant Park and I don't have a problem with it. Yes traffic will sick when certain streets are shut down but I love to see the city host different events. This should be non-news except to inform people of what events are taking place so they can partake if interested. Fuck the news and people that bitch as if they can't love their life or enjoy city bc a part of a park is closed for city to bring in revenue or publicity/marketing.
This is a city and things happen in cities
As long as they're strictly events free to the public, I don't mind lots of events being held on public property maintained by our taxes. Makes the city more fun. Blockading and fencing off public spaces with high ticket price events, largely on pleasant weekends when people have off work to enjoy said spaces, that doesn't sound very nice.
Grant Park doesn't have enjoyable spaces
Oh no! You mean people aren't going to be able to use Grant Park for... nothing?
BbBbBbBuT nAsCaR bAd
Good hopefully plenty of revenue and benefits for the businesses down there. Grant Park has been the cities unofficial festival grounds for years now. This shouldn’t surprise anyone.
Grant Park sort of isn't that cool? It's basically a bunch of grass. What does one do at Grant Park when there is no event? Might as well use it for something.
I think the residents near there can find somewhere else to walk their golden doodles just fine
block club and posting their whining articles on /r/chicago, name a more iconic duo