daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Development News Forums > General Urban Developments > DN Archives



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old May 4th, 2007, 10:11 PM   #301
Sir Isaac Newton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 346
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
I've heard nothing but I'm also kind of surprised at how slowly One Place seems to be going. There's a few people working on foundation forms, but it doesn't even seem like the crane operator is there every day.

By comparison, 900 South Clark, out my other window, seems to add a floor per week. I'm just starting to realize how much of my panoramic view of the West Side will be blocked, but at least it's a good-looking building without an ugly parking podium.
At LEAST a floor a week....maybe even a floor every 4 days....this building will really rise quickly! Even with the Curve and the Lennar high-rises faltering, it is good to see 900 South Clark go up, to give Target some company in the whole Polk/Roosevelt/Clark/Wells area. RC has started some prep work too, which is encouraging.
Sir Isaac Newton no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old May 5th, 2007, 07:37 PM   #302
spyguy
Expert
 
spyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,916
Likes (Received): 97

http://www.nearwestgazette.com/Archi...story0507a.htm

Possible return of bronze statue to 18th and Calumet controversial

By Miriam Cintrón


The City of Chicago is filled with history, from its architecture to the very ground Chicagoans walk on. The park at 18th Street and Calumet Avenue in the South Loop, now bordered by recently constructed townhouses and condominiums, was the setting of a significant yet little known part of Chicago history. On that corner 195 years ago, a group of American soldiers and civilians, including women and children, fought a band of Potawatomi Indians at the start of the War of 1812.

Now, advocates and opponents of a statue commemorating that battle are waging one of their own.

During the War of 1812, as fighting between the British and Americans raged, the British urged their Native American allies to attack American forts. With unrest all around, Captain Nathan Heald, the American commander at Fort Dearborn (at what is now the intersection of Michigan Avenue and Wacker Drive), was ordered to evacuate the fort and head to Fort Wayne, IN.

On the morning of Aug. 15, 1812, about 100 soldiers and settlers began the journey to Indiana. As they proceeded along the lake they fought a group of 500 Potawatomi and other Native Americans nearly two miles south of the fort. Half the American soldiers and settlers were killed, with the other half taken prisoner. The fort was burned to the ground.

Native American chiefs had warned the Americans of the planned attack, but their tip went unheeded. One was Potawatomi chief Black Partridge, who had been friendly with the American settlers at Fort Dearborn and advised Native Americans to preserve their lands using peaceful methods.

Black Partridge could not prevent the attack, but several historic accounts note he was able to save some settlers, including an American officer’s wife named Margaret Helm.

The attack and Black Partridge’s heroism were commemorated 81 years later when railroad car manufacturer George Pullman commissioned a monument called "The Fort Dearborn Massacre: Black Partridge Saving Mrs. Helm." The bronze statue on a marble base features Black Partridge shielding Margaret Helm from an Indian armed with a tomahawk. On the other side of the statue, a Native American drives a spear into a downed man.

It was installed near Pullman’s mansion near 18th and Calumet, the presumed site of the attack. The statue remained there for nearly four decades and then was moved to other locations over the years before being put into storage by the Office of Public Art of the City’s Department of Cultural Affairs.

Now, nearly 200 years after the battle, this part of history intrigued Mark Kieras, chair of the Historic and Educational Committee of the Prairie District Neighborhood Alliance (PDNA) and a resident of the historic Prairie Avenue District for the past four years. Kieras is leading the PDNA’s effort to name the park at 18th and Calumet after Black Partridge and return the statue to its original site.

After learning the park had not officially been named, Kieras asked area residents for name suggestions and submitted them to the Chicago Park District. Citing its goal of naming more parks after women, the Park District replied they were leaning more toward naming the park after Chicago poet Harriet Monroe. Feeling the name should reflect the historic nature of the area, Kieras, a few neighbors, and resident historians continued brainstorming names before hitting upon Black Partridge Park, a name Kieras feels honors the chief and that important day in history.

As for restoring the 114-year-old monument, Kieras will not ask the Park District for the estimated $100,000 to $150,000 it will take. “We as a community are initially going to try to come up with funding solutions and not be looking to the Park District,” Kieras explained.

Kieras has submitted the name suggestion to the Chicago Park District’s Board of Commissioners on behalf of the PDNA; he has not received an answer yet. The board’s decision may be affected by concern over possible negative public reaction to a statue that has seen its share of controversy in the past.

The PDNA’s effort to name the park after Black Partridge and bring the statue back has received support from Preservation Chicago, the Glessner House Museum, the Historic Pullman Foundation, and others. American Indian Center Executive Director Joseph Podlasek also supports the name but is “adamantly opposed to the statue.”

“Our elders worked hard to have that removed,” Podlasek said of Native Americans’ fight to have the monument taken off display at the Chicago Historical Society in the 1970s. The statue was “properly put into storage,” he added.

For Podlasek, the statue represents an era that “was not a great time in history.” He hopes a contemporary sculpture could instead be erected at the park. “There should be a new piece of artwork that represents where we are today,” he said.

Kieras recognizes Podlasek’s view but insists the monument is the best way to educate people about a part of Chicago history. “I understand that Native Americans may not have been well represented in the past, but I feel this is an opportunity to focus on a positive act during what has been perceived as a negative event in history,” Kieras said. “I truly believe today people will embrace the statue for what it is, an heroic act by Black Partridge who advocated peace, not war.”

Preservation Chicago Vice President Michael Moran agreed, saying, “We are aware of the concern regarding the statue, however, the good of having this historic, educational, and beautiful piece of art in public view outweighs other concerns. The massacre happened. It was real. We should not sweep these things under the rug.

“The role of Black Partridge in this event is embodied in the statue in a very respectful way,” he went on. “It is a stunning piece of work.”

Kieras and Moran are eager to continue discussions with the Native American community, including the Michigan-based Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, who claim Chicago as their ancestral land.

“We want to sit with them and have a meaningful and open conversation taking into account their perspective as well as expressing our vision,” Kieras said.

As for the American Indian Center, Podlasek said, “We’re open to discussion as long as it doesn’t involve the statue.”

The statue issue is not likely to disappear, however. Brian Hosmer, director of the D'Arcy McNickel Center for American Indian History at the Newberry Library and associate professor of history at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), weighed in by saying bringing the statue to the park "would be an unfortunate thing to do. The statue re-confirms the sterotype of the savage Indian," he said, citing the statue's barely-clothed Native Americans. "It should be in storage, in my view."

Hosmer added that the statue is and examples of "non-Indians taking" Indian history "for themselves and laying claim to a version of the past" that may not ring grue.

In Hosmer's view, the PDNA should instead collaborate with Native Americans to come up with another way to commemorate Native American history in Chicago.

Kieras suspects the statue may not win everyone over, but he seems certain it can both honor the past and educate those who wish to learn.

“Although the statue may be unsettling to some upon initial viewing, once people understand what it represents they'll appreciate Black Partridge's heroic efforts in a turbulent and violent time in history,” Kieras said.


spyguy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 5th, 2007, 11:17 PM   #303
ardecila
Jack-Of-All-Trades
 
ardecila's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Orleans/Chicago
Posts: 1,391
Likes (Received): 2

Wow, something PDNA is doing that I actually support. Where's ErmDiego? I want to congratulate his efforts.

I can understand why Native Americans might be opposed to the statue, but it's part of history, and it shows a kind, beneficial side to the tribes that lived here, as well as some of the nastier sides. I say we keep it.
ardecila no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2007, 02:24 AM   #304
Cullertonian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 12
Likes (Received): 0

The Black Partridge statue is definitely a positive for the PDNA. Adding the statue to the park would be a nice asset for the neighborhood.

On that note, what does everyone else here think about all these little "here's a little odd-shaped piece of land that we can't build on so let's donate it as a park" parks that keep popping up around new developments.
Is the triangle formed by Indiana, 16th, and the railroad tracks going to become one of these afterthought parks? Since the sales center closed on this lot, fences have been installed and what looked to be the beginnings of a park took shape, but it seems to have stalled out with a shell of a sales center remaining.
Cullertonian no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2007, 02:59 AM   #305
ErmDiego
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 2

Black PArtridge Park

Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
Wow, something PDNA is doing that I actually support. Where's ErmDiego? I want to congratulate his efforts.

I can understand why Native Americans might be opposed to the statue, but it's part of history, and it shows a kind, beneficial side to the tribes that lived here, as well as some of the nastier sides. I say we keep it.
The first issue is renaming the park. This should be a no brainer with the history of the site.

The longer term issue is what to do with the park. While logically the statue makes some sense, it will involve many discussions. Ft. Dearborn (and the Massacre event) is a cornerstone of Chicago History, with one of the stars on the Chicago flag dedicated to Ft. Dearborn. The event is history, and why sugarcoat the truth, which actually is more damning of the actions of the white-men than the Indians; the loyalty of Black Partridge to his word is an amazing story. The same picture is captured on the Michigan Ave bridge.

What's funny is many of those speaking against the statue may not even be the actual representatives of the Potawatomi or the Potawatomi Nation involving Black Partridge - there are many Potawatomi tribes and organizations.

In addition from an artistic standpoint, it is an amazing statue; the details are beyond comparison to anything done in the city. It is on par with anything you will see in the European museums. It is currently in a secret storage location somewhere near Roosevelt Road...the base has been destroyed, but the bronze works are in great shape.

We have also been working hard with the city on the Cul-De-Sac project at 1849 S. Prairie (hopefully done in the next two weeks), and layng groundwork for the proposed Community Center at 1801 S. Indiana (vote was deferred this week in Housing Committee hearing). Next up will be infratratructure reviews, push for zoning adjustments, and a traffic plan review for the District to include additional traffic calming options. Expect issues of the Armory to be in play on the next few months.

Last edited by ErmDiego; May 6th, 2007 at 03:11 AM.
ErmDiego no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2007, 03:03 AM   #306
Loopy
Chicago, USA
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 777
Likes (Received): 0

..

Last edited by Loopy; May 18th, 2010 at 07:06 PM.
Loopy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2007, 04:08 AM   #307
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
I can understand why Native Americans might be opposed to the statue, but it's part of history, and it shows a kind, beneficial side to the tribes that lived here, as well as some of the nastier sides. I say we keep it.
^ Are you sure about that? I have heard that the statue inaccurately portrayes Natives as brutal savages. What part of the statue shows their kind, beneficial side?
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2007, 04:34 AM   #308
ErmDiego
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 2

16th St. Park

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loopy View Post
I heard that the old sales trailer had a mold infestation that was required to be abated before the trailer could be removed or demolished.

And yeah, it looks like a park in the works. The dog area is already active with the "kid area" being next.
Which is the dog area, and which is the park? There is a fenced in red asphalt section, but I am not sure if that is intended to be the dog area or children area. With no signs or markings, it is hard to tell what is what.
ErmDiego no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2007, 06:35 AM   #309
Loopy
Chicago, USA
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 777
Likes (Received): 0

..

Last edited by Loopy; May 18th, 2010 at 07:09 PM.
Loopy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2007, 09:21 AM   #310
ardecila
Jack-Of-All-Trades
 
ardecila's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Orleans/Chicago
Posts: 1,391
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by ErmDiego View Post
It is currently in a secret storage location somewhere near Roosevelt Road...the base has been destroyed, but the bronze works are in great shape.
Why is it secret? Are you afraid of vandalism, or was that meant to be a joke...?

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Urban Politician
Are you sure about that? I have heard that the statue inaccurately portrayes Natives as brutal savages. What part of the statue shows their kind, beneficial side?
Did you read the article? The statue shows Black Partridge, an Indian chief, physically protecting the settle Margaret Helm from another Indian with a tomahawk. Sounds pretty beneficial to me.
ardecila no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2007, 10:45 AM   #311
Abner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 232
Likes (Received): 0

Hmmm. The issue here is not whether the statue portrays a "good Indian" or a "bad Indian" (apparently it portrays one of each, anyway). The issue is that regardless, it's a backhanded way of "honoring" a group of people by objectifying them and continuing an incredibly skewed conception of history. Here's how.

Americans used to be obsessed with Indian treachery. Any time Indians attacked Americans, it was recorded in history as a "massacre." This is a pretty problematic word for a lot of reasons. First, it ignores provocation and context. Second, it whitewashes the innumerable events committed against Indians that could also be labeled "massacres" according to the same criteria. Third, it implies that what Indians did was fundamentally different from what, say, the British did in the War of 1812, or what Americans did to each other in the Civil War. White people "battle" or at worst "sneak attack;" Indians "ambush" or "massacre."

Second, the issue of Black Partridge being a "good Indian." This is absolutely ridiculous. The British were fighting Americans in the War of 1812. Some Indian groups were allied with the British, some with the Americans. The Indian attacks during the War of 1812 were encouraged and even instigated by their British allies. How come we don't have a bunch of statues in storage of British soldiers stabbing downed men with bayonets? Because we don't objectify the British that way. We take Britain seriously as a nation with legitimate self-interests throughout history, which were at some points aligned with our own and at other points against us. We do not remember the British as being "treacherous" because they fought us in some wars. When it comes to Indian nations, though, the ones that protected white people are the good guys and the ones that fought back were the bad guys. Well, that's a lot of crap, isn't it? It delegitimizes any opposition to American actions at the time. Instead, we have a nasty historical document of a good savage protecting a white woman while a bad (but no more or less brute) savage kills a defenseless man.

It doesn't matter, then, whether the statue is on the balance depicting a "good Indian" or a "bad Indian." It's a bad history lesson that decontextualizes the events of the time, puts White colonists at the center of the universe, and depicts others according to their level of complicity with the actions of those colonists.

I frankly don't care which nation might come out in favor of or opposed to the statue. I'm a white guy, and I oppose it because it's bad history and it encourages people to think about history in the wrong way. I would support restoring the piece and putting it in a museum. It sounds like it's noteworthy for its craftsmanship and its historical significance as an indicator of attitudes toward Indians and local history at the time of its creation. But putting a statue up in public requires a lot more thought than putting it in a museum. When we place a commemorative statue in the public way, we are implicitly honoring the person or event it portrays as it is portrayed by the artist. In this case, we don't have any business honoring this portrayal of this event in this way. I say that this statue is better considered a historical document than a piece of public art deserving the city's official approval.
Abner no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2007, 05:44 PM   #312
ErmDiego
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 2

Statue location

[QUOTE=ardecila;13017853]Why is it secret? Are you afraid of vandalism, or was that meant to be a joke...?

Yes, the city is afraid of theft and vandalism...it's like a where's Waldo adventure. It has been moved around several times from the original location at the existing park, to storage, to the Historical Society, back to Glessner & Woman's Park, and returned to storage.

I find it amazing sometimes in Chicago what gets stored, what gets lost, and what is actually tracted or found. One of my best friends was the project manager for the Cancer Survivor Garden in Grant Park around 2000. The stone 'greek style' columnades used for the project entrance where actually from the old Federal Court House demolished sometime in the 60's or 70's. The storage location - someone remembered that they were put out somewhere in Lake Michigan as rip-rap or breakwaters, and they were able to recover them and restore them for the project.
ErmDiego no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2007, 05:53 PM   #313
Frumie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 717
Likes (Received): 0

Your points are well taken. How many would champion a group statue showing Andrew Jackson sending forth a frightened Cherokee woman clutching a child to walk "The Trail of Tears" and a berobed Chief Justice holding up a fobidding hand?
__________________
You truly want peace? Be righteous.
Frumie no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2007, 05:54 PM   #314
ErmDiego
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 2

[QUOTE=Abner;13018349]Hmmm. The issue here is not whether the statue portrays a "good Indian" or a "bad Indian" (apparently it portrays one of each, anyway). The issue is that regardless, it's a backhanded way of "honoring" a group of people by objectifying them and continuing an incredibly skewed conception of history. Here's how.

Abner, I respect your opinion and agree in some regards. I believe the issue deserves more discussion. One point of contention is that much of the historical research is not soley relying on accounts from the "white man" perspective. Actually a great deal has come from Indian accounts and their relaying the story, as indicated in the 1899 Version of Harpers Weekly (pages 649-656) linked below.

http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-b...ABK4014-0098-6

None the less, it is an eye opening event of Chicago History. Discretely, is does remind us of the Anglo-Euorpean contribution to changing Indian cultural behavior with introduction of weapons, alcohol, etc. - Something that should not be lost on history.
ErmDiego no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2007, 06:31 PM   #315
BVictor1
Chicago's #1 Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,186
Likes (Received): 887

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Urban Politician View Post
^ Are you sure about that? I have heard that the statue inaccurately portrayes Natives as brutal savages. What part of the statue shows their kind, beneficial side?
I think that the statues should be brought back. Unfortunately the event of 1812 is a part of Chicago History, and I don't believe the event should be ignored.

If the Native Americans are going to bitch about the status, I don't see what they haven't bitched or haven't tried getting removed the relief sculptures on the Michigan Avenue Bridge Houses.

Every race and creed of people have their good qualities and bad qualities and neither shoild be ignored or forgotten.

Besides, I'd have fought to the death against the people trying to **** me out of my motherland also, so i don't see why the native americans should object to the statue. They should be honored, they were fighting for their cause and their home.
BVictor1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2007, 06:38 PM   #316
Loopy
Chicago, USA
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 777
Likes (Received): 0

..

Last edited by Loopy; May 18th, 2010 at 07:16 PM.
Loopy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2007, 08:58 PM   #317
Frumie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 717
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loopy View Post
Thank you for that excellent analysis.
In our pluralistic society all public art is controversial.
Because it's hard enough to get any sort of consensus on Public Art, why needlesly stoke a controversy about our nation's past? It's hard enough to get any kind of aesthetically challenging work into the public forum , why insert historical problems, such as the glossing over of virtual genocide?
__________________
You truly want peace? Be righteous.
Frumie no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2007, 11:45 PM   #318
Abner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 232
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loopy View Post
Commemorative art is even more impossible today. There is very little consensus about who and what is important anymore. I would have no problem with the city "maintaining" the Black Partridge statue if it were in it's original position, but to take it out of storage and re-comission it in a new place is entirely another matter.

Richmond, Virginia has an "Avenue of Confederate Heros", known in the vernacular as Monument Avenue. it is a central boulevard with enormous equestrian statues of Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, J.E.B. Stuart, and Jefferson Davis. Though provocative to some, they are important historical artifacts, and should be maintained, in my opinion. But if Richmond were to decide to comission a new Confederate monument, or take an old one out of storage would be an outrageous act that would correctly invite controversy.
I think this is a great point and a good answer to the question of why we shouldn't be removing the depictions on the Michigan Ave. bridge houses or other monuments that are questionable today (except perhaps in truly extreme cases). There is a balancing point between respecting the city's historical public art and monuments on the one hand, and respecting history on the other. It is implicitly understood that some monuments remain from an earlier time, even though it would be inappropriate to create them today; I think it's clear that re-mounting a statue that was removed implies renewed approval in modern times and is therefore ill-advised in this case.
Abner no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 7th, 2007, 01:06 AM   #319
Chicagotom
Registered User
 
Chicagotom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 420
Likes (Received): 0

South Loop Project South of Roosevelt Updates

OMP1 28th floors 1st setback



OMPW still drilling retaining wall


Looking South on Michigan Ave at Roosevelt Cranes everywere



Columbian (Roosevelt & Michigan)


1340 S. Michigan going loft


Vision 13th & State



1400MP & 1401 S State


1400MP




1401 S. State Lofts





Michigan Ave Tower 2 (14th & Michigan)




Marquee on Michigan






1600MP (16th and Prairie)



1720 S Michigan





Eco18 Demo started (18th & Wabash)



Lexington Tower driving sheet pile (Cermack & Indiana)

Chicagotom no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 7th, 2007, 01:24 AM   #320
Chicagotom
Registered User
 
Chicagotom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 420
Likes (Received): 0

South Loop Projects North of Roosevelt

Spertus Museum



Midrise North of Astoria Tower (8th State)
I checked in with the sales office for Astoria. Everything has stopped because of a one of the 2 projects has a serious water issue and the street work on 14th.



Library Tower



Arworks Building (Sciencetology new owners) 650 s. Clark - sorry for the quality of the interior shots.




Vetro (Harrison & Wells)


Printers Row Corner (Polk & Wells)



Roosevelt Collection ready to go!!



The Curve 900 S. Clark




Burhnam Pointe (Polk & Clark) Vetro in background
Chicagotom no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 11:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu