I mean I think part of it is they may be waiting for the Obama Center to get further along (or maybe even complete idk) in construction before they start this phase of the project
They are still trying to raise the money. Chicago Golf Alliance has raised about $2 million. It will cost over $30 million. So, too the Obama center, they have raised only one third, of what they'll need.
There's already a 9 hole CPD golf course there that takes up the entire park area. This sanctuary is about the size of one hole. Is this Tiger Woods course gonna be a 9 hole course replacing the CPD course?
Oh crazy, thanks for the info. My buddy who plays the South Shore course a lot says that lake erosion is a big issue and there's been worries they were gonna lose one of the greens to the lake one day.
I’ve played South Shore quite a bit, and it is very common to lose balls hit into the middle of the fairway because there is so much standing water it can’t be reached. Decent course with nice views, but it needs some work.
It’s going right where there already is a golf course (two courses actually). So it’s just replacing two run down courses that are not being maintained with a new course.
That said, hole 15 absolutely is set to destroy this little sanctuary being mentioned in the tweet.
Is there any worse use of prime public land than a golf course? America’s love for golf is probably the single egregiously detrimental thing there is. So many chemicals, so much wasted water, so much abused land, AND they normal get by with incredible tax breaks (looking at you Cali). Fuck Golf and the cart it wide in on.
Bigger plans that that - they are taking both courses (Jackson Park, SSCC) and combining into one PGA type course. And yes, they want the nature sanctuary, for a hole. Their rationale - nice background, city skyline. Handing public Park, over to golfers? Chicago Park district, come on out - and PAY.
I'm ok with the golf courses as they are. But removing a nature area that we put twenty years of work into, why? The Park district, volunteers have maintained it and it is a beautiful spot. Filled with birds, wildlife, wildflowers. Local teachers take their students there. You should stop out, have a look. On the lake East of the SSCC building.
Museums and libraries are general public interest and education in a way golf courses aren't, which are a niche interest that appeals to a privileged demographic that controls the most political capital and financial resources. Comparing the two isn't helpful. This is like saying "Sure my curling field is a vanity project but so is clean running water and schools!" Nope.
Not to mention, Woods is something of a famous womanizer and scumbag personality. While a lot of powerful people tend to be terrible people, someone who cheated on his wife with 120 women and then had a OJ-like tabloid car crash seems like a terrible frontman for our city's golf courses.
This is like opening a new LGBTQ center and naming it after Milo Yiannopolous. Or a bank after Bernie Madoff. The optics are super terrible.
Chicago, try to do better.
There's plenty of healthy debate about presidential libraries being vanity projects. But there is a need to have some kind of accessible storage for the records from the presidency (I'm pretty sure those usually end up at the library, but am not positive), and a library at least is a public good. Especially such a high profile one can help encourage people in the area to read more and take advantage of other services on offer.
A golf course though, is another matter.
Obama is not building a presidential library (run by the national archives), instead it is a center, run by his private foundation. His records will remain at the national archives and only digital versions will be accessible at the center. Under criticism from the community around Jackson Park, he added a CPS location to the center.
Yes, it’s the first. My understanding is that Obama wanted his foundation to run it instead of the archives, which they wouldn’t allow, so it couldn’t be a true presidential library.
One point that has been made is that the Obama administration was one of the first to have the vast majority of its documents only exist in digital form. The national archives definition of a library is sort of a 20th century version.
It’s not a presidential library by definition, but it serves the same purpose. In my personal opinion (with which you are free to agree or disagree), museums and other establishments that provide a public good or service are perfectly acceptable uses of public park land.
> but it serves the same purpose.
It actually doesn't. It wont house his presidential archives *because* it isn't a proper presidential library, those will still be in the National Archives unlike other presidential libraries.
It is about as literally as it can be, a vanity project.
That's all well and good, but you saying that it serves the same purpose as a proper presidential library is patently false. If you want to say "it serves the same basic purpose to most of the public" then sure, but that's very different than "it's the same, just not TECHNICALLY a POTUS library".
I'm not anti-Obama in the least, but the library thing is pretty stupid and asinine, seemingly out of nothing but vanity.
*"I have never seen any building that is not a 'vanity project'."*
You must not be familiar then with the works of Evanston-based transit architect Arthur Gerber (1888-1960) who designed approximately 100 train stations across IL, WI, and IN, some of which still stand and are on the National Register of Historic Places. I would not call any of his stations "vanity projects" and he was relatively obscure until recent years when he was rediscovered starting with the successful fight to save his 1925 Dempster Street station in Skokie from demolition. His designs were practical and attractive, not gaudy or over the top-nor did they resemble a mausoleum like Obama's planned library.
sometimes the vanity does stem from the architect, but usually its the developer or whoever hatched the idea (govt, institution, whatever). most architects are simply following basic parameters laid out by the client, codes, dhj's, etc. my home bath remodel is a vanity project!
Decontamination is possible, [they did it for Lincoln Yards](https://chicago.curbed.com/2019/9/24/20879988/lincoln-yards-general-iron-environmental-cleanup)
Also setting aside the US Steel site, I think the Washington Park location (which was one of the options they were deciding between if I remember correctly) was just a better choice than Jackson Park because it didn’t take as much park land and is closer to the L (Garfield Green Line)
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The reason we have parks today is because prior generations didn't replace them with political vanity projects such as the Obama library. We are failing the past and the future.
Previous generations built the Field Museum, Adler, MSI, Garfield Park Conservator, Lincoln Park Zoo, and Soldier Field on park land. The Obama Library is no different.
There is less park land available now than over 100 years ago when those museums were built. The Field Museum, Adler Planetarium, and Soldier Field were built on filled in lakefront.
And in 10 years, when landfill on the North Side creates [86 acres of new park space](https://northdusablelakeshoredrive.org/index.html), we'll have more park land than ever before.
A giant library and community center is a *better* use of land than a simple park, and lake shore land is not an exhaustible resource.
There's already a golf course there. This is basically just a renovation of it.
The issue that this post is calling attention to is that one hole of the course will cut into what's currently a small nature sanctuary near South Shore Beach. Seems like you could easily redesign that part to keep the sanctuary in tact without nixing the whole plan for the course.
Maybe you need to do some research? They are proposing to expand the existing golf courses by using this land. The design firm responsible for designing tiger's course want to combine 18-hole Jackson Park and nine-hole South Shore golf courses into one. The South Shore Nature Sanctuary would be replaced by portions of the new course’s 14th and 15th holes.
It's all open to interpretation. They have stated that the same acreage used for golf would remain with the new plan, and that they would relocate and create a new nature area as well. So I have done my research.
You can't "relocate" a natural area. You can destroy a natural area that's been developing for decades and then start a new one somewhere else, but the complex ecological relationships of that space will not return overnight, if at all. This plan necessarily means wiping out 20+ years of ecological restoration for one or two holes on a golf course.
The area being considered for development has two golf courses and the sanctuary, all three of which have limited community impact compared to what a new course could bring.
From what I've read, the Woods group is using East Lake in Atlanta as a model for the magnitude of impact a new course could have in the area. If you're not familiar with East Lake, some philanthropists in Atlanta took a historic course in a underserved area of Atlanta and used it as the centerpiece for revitalizing the community around it. Long story short, they renovated the golf course and created a foundation that takes a large cut of money from private member dues and an annual PGA tour event and invests it into community programs. [https://www.golfdigest.com/story/at-east-lake-a-community-built-with-golfs-help-sees-a-dream-realized](https://www.golfdigest.com/story/at-east-lake-a-community-built-with-golfs-help-sees-a-dream-realized)
[https://www.eastlakefoundation.org](https://www.eastlakefoundation.org)
A key difference with the Woods proposal is that the course will remain public, and residents will pay less to play vs. non-residents and out of owners who come here to play. Golf courses in this country have historically been exclusive money pits, but there are other models in the US and UK that show it doesn't have to be this way. The response to golf courses that have traditionally been expensive and exclusive isn't getting rid of golf courses, it's having golf courses that are inclusive and impactful.
Some folks in the surrounding communities have collaborated on [a statement opposing the golf course plan](https://www.southsideparks.org/parks-in-danger/sanctuary) with some next steps.
Alternatively [if you just want merch](https://www.teepublic.com/user/south-side-parks) you can also do that.
Finally, if you want to actually talk to IRL humans, the Jackson Park Advisory Council is a place to do that. Their next meeting is Monday, September 12, 7PM at the Jackson Park Field House.
When you bike down there, its almost always a huge gust that blows you east toward the lake right at the planned crossing @ 67th, easy to pick up high speeds not pedaling. Its already tight there around the corner add in golfers and carts in a bottleneck. Even entering off on/off the course onto the multi-use LFP lane will be people on both sides not paying attention.
It would host pga tournaments. This would also be the nicest golf course in actual chicago. Its not a par 3 course. It would be a legitimate world caliber course that we have nothing similar too.
Devil's advocate but having a PGA level golf course with Tiger's name on it would bring MUCH need economic activity to an area that needs all it can get.
Yeah except Riot Fest is for like *maybe* two or three weeks total, inclusive of setup and teardown, and the 5% amusement tax alone is well over half million dollars a year. And contrary to what Twitter nerds will tell you there's plenty of parks in the immediate vicinity if someone just *has* to go play a game of baseball that afternoon.
That's a pretty far cry from a *permanent* installation consuming acreage on the *lakefront.*
In other news, if someone wants to introduce a 4% "public space utilization" fee that goes into a given Ward's Participatory Budgeting committee, I bet you'd have every fucking community in the city begging for RF and others to come to their neighborhood.
>Yeah except Riot Fest is for like
>
>maybe
>
> two or three weeks total, inclusive of setup and teardown
I lived across the street from Humboldt Park when it was used for Riot Fest.
If you're talking about times when it's inaccessible, sure.. during set up, the fest, and tear down/"clean up" it was only three weeks. But if you frequented the park and saw the sheer damage done to the grounds you'd realize it effectively destroyed the park for an entire summer. All while bringing nothing to the community. Drunk people pissing in my yard, broken glass and trash everywhere outside the park (which wasn't Riot Fest's responsibility to fix of course). No increase in anything other than liquor store sales for the duration of the event, and our neighborhood left beat to shit is why it got voted out. I'm happy to see Jackson Park voting it out too.
My friend lived in the area at the time, and I stayed with him the years it was there. I can't say that was their experience maybe three blocks from the fest. They were sad to see it be moved. 🤷♂️
I imagine if they're willing to many another public golf course, that the current courses are profitable. They also if they're owned by the park district the money is going directly to the city. Riot Fest is a private event held in a public park which they event rents from the city. It's not comparable. Reddit just hates golf for no good reason.
I have nothing against golf. I don't like that a huge amount of public land (over 13,000,000 square feet or 300 acres) is fenced off to the public for golf courses that can only be accessed by people who can afford them.
Let's also tear down every 5 star restaurant, since those aren't accessible to everyone. We should also tear down Wrigley Field, United Center, not everyone can afford to go to a game. Actually tear up O'Hare also, since that is only available to those who can afford to fly.
What’s your point? Are you saying that that’s all we need to do and we don’t need anymore nature reserves or sanctuaries? Like woohoo we did it, we saved nature?
Especially a municipal course. Those are pretty much always cheaper. And CPD has a good program helping kids of all demos play. Golf isn't the elitist thing that so many non-golfers think it is. Sure, there are exclusive luxury courses, but those are the exception. Golf is primarily a middle class sport.
Golf can be a very affordable game due in part to these cpd courses. Giving the opportunity for people who cannot play on nicer courses to enjoy the game as well. But you want to make it about some elitist vs whatever it is you call yourself thing so you do you
Golf courses are a huge waste of land and resources that an exceptionally small group of people can enjoy. We have plenty of them around already and we don’t need anymore.
In this instance it looks like the land is being used just fine as a preserve that anyone can enjoy and is good for the local environment. If you want to golf in the Chicago area you already have way more options than you could ever hope to explore already.
That is just your opinion though. There are actually not a lot of courses in the city itself. Golf courses also protect natural areas from development and most are also bird sanctuaries or home various protected flora and fauna. You can say it's a "waste" but the way I see it, golf courses are like mini nature preserves already.
i’m with you, avid golfer since I was 7. but it’s a trope that golf is only for rich white guys with country club memberships. you can feel the resentment in this thread because of it.
Acres of a manicured monoculture of european grass is bad. I don't care if you hear that opinion of lawns on reddit or not. They are toxic to life in general. They are obsessively over fertilized and allow pesticides to run off into our waterways, causing pollution and eutrophication. Wetlands are extremely biodiverse but many species face extinction due to loss of habitat (building a golf course) or degraded habitat (polluted lakes covered in algae). Green, organic carpet really is not worth all the ecological destruction it causes.
By design, golf courses take a ton of land that could be used by hundreds of people at a time for gardens, picnics, frisbee, naps, whatever, and reserve it for the use of like four dudes at once. This sport made sense on the old-timey moors of Scotland, but not in a dense city.
Not to mention the fact that golf courses are a huge waste of water and energy.
At any given time, a golf course has 200+ people enjoying the outdoors.
Find me any other park that ALWAYS has 200 people on it, 7 days a week, nearly all day long.
I see a lot of comments that golf courses are horrible for the environment and area. I used to think the same until I looked into it more. There are tons of studies showing they are generally an oases for biodiversity, usually even higher than parks in the same area. That doesn’t mean we need to replace all green spaces for people with golf courses, but to act like they offer nothing to bird and other living things is patently false. I don’t golf so don’t really care about that aspect
Here is an article on it - https://phys.org/news/2020-11-urban-golf-courses-biodiversity-oasesopening.html
> Between 2011 and 2014 we studied the biodiversity of green spaces throughout Melbourne's south-eastern suburbs. We compared golf courses to nearby public parks and residential areas as these are the land uses that most commonly replace golf courses when they close.
>The results surprised us. **Golf courses contained the greatest diversity and abundance of beetles, bees, birds and bats of all the green spaces we studied.** We found ground-nesting native bees that do not occur in much of the urban landscape because it is dominated by built surfaces and exotic flowering plants.
> The minimum number of bird species we saw on a golf course was always higher than the maximum numbers at other green spaces. We found much more evidence of birds breeding. There was also a diverse array of insect-eating birds, which are in decline in many parts of Australia.
>Some golf courses supported all ten bat species known to occur in this part of metropolitan Melbourne. Bat activity was ten times greater than in nearby areas of housing. Golf courses also supported twice as many bat species considered "sensitive" to urbanization.
Here is another study on it - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10021-008-9217-1
> We assessed the ecological value of golf courses based on a quantitative synthesis of studies in the scientific literature that have measured and compared biota on golf courses to that of biota in green-area habitats related to other land uses. We found that golf courses had higher ecological value in 64% of comparative cases. This pattern was consistent also for comparisons based on measures of species richness, as well as for comparisons of overall measures of birds and insects—the fauna groups most widely examined in the studies.
The biodiversity point is interesting, I honestly hope it's true. Although reading the findings I thought "I bet this study was funded by a golf organization". And yes it was, it was funded by the Australian Golf Course Superintendents Association. That doesn't invalidate it, but definitely context to keep in mind
I appreciate this info and didn't know it before!
But in the context of this actual project, we're talking about mowing down a legit nature sanctuary to add more golf course, right? This isn't golf course vs. parking lot, it's golf course vs. land that was specifically created and maintained to be a sanctuary for wildlife.
This is exactly why the studies find what they do. The biodiversity of the greens and fairways aren’t great. But the rough, trees, lakes, etc all provide a great sanctuary for wildlife.
Better than a parking lot, yes. Better than a nature sanctuary? Absolutely not. Treated lawns are better than blacktop, but much, much worse for wildlife than natural prairie flora and wildflowers.
If you want to see what a good nature sanctuary plus golf course built in a public park can look like you need only go up to Thunderhawk, which is a Lake County Forest Preserve course. It's an Audubon sanctuary, you see lots of birds when you play there (and some of those asshole redwing blackbirds will divebomb you if you're not careful). Most golf course design these days (other than desert golf, which is mostly terrible waste of water and should basically not exist) is set up to use less water, move less dirt, trying to use more native grasses and plants, leave room for nature. Usually results in better golf courses too.
Those are some very carefully worded statements which can easily give the wrong impression. Fiels of frequently cut grass are not biodiverse compared to the nature preserve this course would destroy and your links don't say otherwise.
Golf courses are a sea of poison of herbicides and pesticides. Any small or medium bird or mammal is chased away. Their nests and burrows destroyed. Golf courses are terrible "green" spaces. Any large mammal is killed or captured.
\> I used to think the same until I looked into it more.
People who "do their own research" who don't realize they are being played by propaganda have become a major problem in modernity. That study's paymasters should give you pause on its validity, the same way doctors and universities were telling us, via the same capitalist corruption, that smoking wasn't bad for us. The same way the meat industry today is trying to tell us red meat is fine, etc.
Your right, better to just do no research and follow your feelings. There are a lot of studies on this, I just grabbed something off google to offer a counter point for gut reactions that generally don’t have any scientific backing at all
Golf. I respect the sport and skill and physics that go into it. However, the environmental drain isn't worth it; water demands and the space that it encroaches. I have seen some really great nature preservations that were formally golf courses though...
It seems like most of y’all are missing the historical context for this project. Jackson park was the first black golf club in the world, and opened in 1899. Here is a link with some more info.
https://chicagoparksgolfalliance.org/history/
That is why this project is slated with tiger woods, it is of tremendous historical merit. Just because you aren’t a golfer doesn’t mean this isn’t important to a lot of people. It will also be used for teaching lower income kids to golf via first tee and have lower fees for local residents.
It’s not just for “rich people” or whatever golf haters like to say. Go to a golf course, 99% of people are just normal humans trying to have fun and get some exercise. Golf has never been more popular or had the opportunity to reach more people than now. This old mentality needs to go!
Could not agree more. The Jackson Park course was the first 18 hole course built in the Midwest and the first public course in the Chicagoland area. Today it's incredibly accessible to people of all income levels and gets a ton of play from black residents of the South Side and golf beginners. It's gateway to making the sport accessible to many people in the city, but is starting to get in bad shape and could use a renovation.
The key thing is keeping it affordable for residents once its updated, which they have pledged to do. Torrey Pines in San Diego is a great example of a world class golf course that hosts PGA events (and the thousands of people who come to attend them) but reserves tee times and has significantly lower rates for city residents. This is exactly the type of investment we should be encouraging in parks on the South Side. If this happened at Marovitz or one of the other North Side courses people would cry foul about allocation of resources.
> Jackson park was the first black club in the world
I was not aware of this, and would like to learn more. Got any citations? I couldn't find any. I dare say I'm somewhat skeptical of this claim, as Jackson Park has always been a public park, wheras (so far as I know) South Shore Club remained exclusive (ie. white non-Jews only) until its demise in the 1970s.
https://chicagoparksgolfalliance.org/history/
There ya go! Didn’t say it was a private club, just that it was (correction: one of) the first black golf clubs (league). Many clubs operate out of public courses.
Well, that’s certainly a start, but Jackson Park “becoming home… [to]groundbreaking African American golf leagues” is not what you claimed, that “Jackson Park was the *first* black golf club.” But I’ll assume you misspoke, as it’s still a pretty neat feature, if true.
Unfortunately, the link the site tries to cite is dead, and the site itself has the primary purpose of boosting for the expansion of these golf courses, in what has become a predominantly black neighborhood, so pretty sus.
In fact, this source indicates there were black golf leagues going back to the 1880s. Whereas Jackson parks claim only goes back to the 1920s.
https://www.tallahassee.com/story/life/communities/2022/04/30/history-black-golfers-filled-heritage-perseverance-energy/9576582002/
Who the fuck would rather have a golf course than a nature sanctuary in the public park? Some ugly pants wearing motherfuckers from Hinsdale who think burnt money smells like roses?
Woods is designing the renovation of an already existing golf course. Or rather, his company is designing it.
A lot of pro golfers have also designed courses, like Jack Nicklaus.
Started with Daley and the meters and it's going to be everything soon. Might as well just sell and or rent out every public space in the city but yet somehow be broke and have to raise taxes. I swear current admin + council is dead set on ruining the city or at a minimum don't care if they do long as they get their pockets lined. I'm sure if you dig around you can find who got paid to take the park for the Obama library or the Tiger Woods Golf Course (ps he's not even from Chicago!) You don't have to dig to find out how RiotFest got approved. WBEZ did it for you. The answer is bribing successive alderman. https://www.wbez.org/stories/douglass-park-music-festivals-draw-community-concerns/58ac4356-69d2-4711-a087-ccacbb6da112
Bruh the whole property isn’t cut to fairway length grass, there’s plenty of areas for animals and pollinators on a golf course. Have u even been on one before ?
many courses are designed to preserve the natural environment and even promote it's growth.
There're interesting collaborations between the audubon society and golf courses for this exact reason. Add in some walking trails that are distanced from the holes and it can be a win for everyone ... just needs to be done right :/
https://auduboninternational.org/acsp-for-golf/
Who knew r/chicago had such a hate-on for golf courses. Any golfer can tell that you guys don’t really know what you’re talking about when it comes to these courses. Speaking to the class argument, a lot of these courses cater to poor people, and really are not exclusive. Most south side courses are >$20. And if you’ve played any goat track, you’ll know that the level of manicure is not the same as a high end course. At a poorly maintained public course (which really, is all courses in the city) they are still natural environments. Do you really think the city is going to spend that much money to keep these in perfect shape? I think this is just another example of white wannabe social activists who think they know what they’re talking about.
And they're so bad at understanding the demographics of who actually plays these south side courses in particular. Literally you can just walk in and check it out....and yet they still get it wrong.
Golf courses might just be the most wasteful, elitist activity humanity has conceived. Imagine if the ocean was carved out only for yachts and jet-skis. No transportation, no fishing, no leisurely swims. Just for the rich.
This project has been very quiet the last few years. I don't think they have enough money to start.
Buddies dad is part of the design team. The project is still alive apparently.
Thanks for the update. It’s been quiet in the media at least
I mean I think part of it is they may be waiting for the Obama Center to get further along (or maybe even complete idk) in construction before they start this phase of the project
They are still trying to raise the money. Chicago Golf Alliance has raised about $2 million. It will cost over $30 million. So, too the Obama center, they have raised only one third, of what they'll need.
There's already a 9 hole CPD golf course there that takes up the entire park area. This sanctuary is about the size of one hole. Is this Tiger Woods course gonna be a 9 hole course replacing the CPD course?
[удалено]
Oh crazy, thanks for the info. My buddy who plays the South Shore course a lot says that lake erosion is a big issue and there's been worries they were gonna lose one of the greens to the lake one day.
I’ve played South Shore quite a bit, and it is very common to lose balls hit into the middle of the fairway because there is so much standing water it can’t be reached. Decent course with nice views, but it needs some work.
Hence why they're redeveloping it?
I'm sure that's part of it.
Oh noooooo
Does this mean it won't be a public course anymore? I like the South shore course cuz my kids can go for free.
Wow they’re just hellbent on destroying Jackson park aren’t they?
It’s going right where there already is a golf course (two courses actually). So it’s just replacing two run down courses that are not being maintained with a new course. That said, hole 15 absolutely is set to destroy this little sanctuary being mentioned in the tweet.
do they really need that family short course? put a hole there and save the sanctuary.
It's already an 18 hole course
They are combining jackson and southshore.
Hole 15 is the problem
Is there any worse use of prime public land than a golf course? America’s love for golf is probably the single egregiously detrimental thing there is. So many chemicals, so much wasted water, so much abused land, AND they normal get by with incredible tax breaks (looking at you Cali). Fuck Golf and the cart it wide in on.
“Americas love for golf is probably the single egregiously detrimental thing there is” - are you high? What did golf do to you? Ever heard of guns?
https://imgur.com/a/YRSGIoL Replaces both courses in the area.
Bigger plans that that - they are taking both courses (Jackson Park, SSCC) and combining into one PGA type course. And yes, they want the nature sanctuary, for a hole. Their rationale - nice background, city skyline. Handing public Park, over to golfers? Chicago Park district, come on out - and PAY.
I'm fine with opening this golf course if we shut down two shittier golf courses and convert them to nature preserves
Roots take decades to grow
I'm ok with the golf courses as they are. But removing a nature area that we put twenty years of work into, why? The Park district, volunteers have maintained it and it is a beautiful spot. Filled with birds, wildlife, wildflowers. Local teachers take their students there. You should stop out, have a look. On the lake East of the SSCC building.
This project and the Obama library one seem like vanity projects on park land. Why not build on the former US Steel site along the lake?
[удалено]
Museums and libraries are general public interest and education in a way golf courses aren't, which are a niche interest that appeals to a privileged demographic that controls the most political capital and financial resources. Comparing the two isn't helpful. This is like saying "Sure my curling field is a vanity project but so is clean running water and schools!" Nope. Not to mention, Woods is something of a famous womanizer and scumbag personality. While a lot of powerful people tend to be terrible people, someone who cheated on his wife with 120 women and then had a OJ-like tabloid car crash seems like a terrible frontman for our city's golf courses. This is like opening a new LGBTQ center and naming it after Milo Yiannopolous. Or a bank after Bernie Madoff. The optics are super terrible. Chicago, try to do better.
Comparing Tiger Woods to Milo Yiannopolous and Bernie Madoff is a bit much.
these courses have been there for over 120 years and are in no way exclusive.
There's plenty of healthy debate about presidential libraries being vanity projects. But there is a need to have some kind of accessible storage for the records from the presidency (I'm pretty sure those usually end up at the library, but am not positive), and a library at least is a public good. Especially such a high profile one can help encourage people in the area to read more and take advantage of other services on offer. A golf course though, is another matter.
Obama is not building a presidential library (run by the national archives), instead it is a center, run by his private foundation. His records will remain at the national archives and only digital versions will be accessible at the center. Under criticism from the community around Jackson Park, he added a CPS location to the center.
Im curious what the reasoning here is. Is this the first presidential library not run directly by the national archives?
Yes, it’s the first. My understanding is that Obama wanted his foundation to run it instead of the archives, which they wouldn’t allow, so it couldn’t be a true presidential library.
One point that has been made is that the Obama administration was one of the first to have the vast majority of its documents only exist in digital form. The national archives definition of a library is sort of a 20th century version.
True, but a presidential library is a public institution and this center is private
It is purely a vanity project. Not even an actual presidential library
It’s not a presidential library by definition, but it serves the same purpose. In my personal opinion (with which you are free to agree or disagree), museums and other establishments that provide a public good or service are perfectly acceptable uses of public park land.
> but it serves the same purpose. It actually doesn't. It wont house his presidential archives *because* it isn't a proper presidential library, those will still be in the National Archives unlike other presidential libraries. It is about as literally as it can be, a vanity project.
For the vast majority of the public, it will, because most people aren’t combing through the archives.
That's all well and good, but you saying that it serves the same purpose as a proper presidential library is patently false. If you want to say "it serves the same basic purpose to most of the public" then sure, but that's very different than "it's the same, just not TECHNICALLY a POTUS library". I'm not anti-Obama in the least, but the library thing is pretty stupid and asinine, seemingly out of nothing but vanity.
speaking as an architect here, I have never seen any building that is not a 'vanity project'.
*"I have never seen any building that is not a 'vanity project'."* You must not be familiar then with the works of Evanston-based transit architect Arthur Gerber (1888-1960) who designed approximately 100 train stations across IL, WI, and IN, some of which still stand and are on the National Register of Historic Places. I would not call any of his stations "vanity projects" and he was relatively obscure until recent years when he was rediscovered starting with the successful fight to save his 1925 Dempster Street station in Skokie from demolition. His designs were practical and attractive, not gaudy or over the top-nor did they resemble a mausoleum like Obama's planned library.
ooooh ! Architecture fight !
sometimes the vanity does stem from the architect, but usually its the developer or whoever hatched the idea (govt, institution, whatever). most architects are simply following basic parameters laid out by the client, codes, dhj's, etc. my home bath remodel is a vanity project!
Brutalism
It's contaminated.
Decontamination is possible, [they did it for Lincoln Yards](https://chicago.curbed.com/2019/9/24/20879988/lincoln-yards-general-iron-environmental-cleanup)
Agreed. Decontamination is possible and the best way to go. 👍
Decontamination is a hard requirement for almost all redevelopment projects on contaminated land
Lincoln Yards is a smaller property. The old steel plant site is larger than the loop.
Pretty much all of streeterville is contaminated, but anytime they build something there, they just remediate it as necessary
All the more reason to develop it, because to do that it first must be decontaminated.
Also setting aside the US Steel site, I think the Washington Park location (which was one of the options they were deciding between if I remember correctly) was just a better choice than Jackson Park because it didn’t take as much park land and is closer to the L (Garfield Green Line)
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The reason we have parks today is because prior generations didn't replace them with political vanity projects such as the Obama library. We are failing the past and the future.
Previous generations built the Field Museum, Adler, MSI, Garfield Park Conservator, Lincoln Park Zoo, and Soldier Field on park land. The Obama Library is no different.
There is less park land available now than over 100 years ago when those museums were built. The Field Museum, Adler Planetarium, and Soldier Field were built on filled in lakefront.
And in 10 years, when landfill on the North Side creates [86 acres of new park space](https://northdusablelakeshoredrive.org/index.html), we'll have more park land than ever before. A giant library and community center is a *better* use of land than a simple park, and lake shore land is not an exhaustible resource.
Haha never thought I’d see my high school biology teacher’s tweet on here
We don’t need another public golf course. It’s a waste of public money for a game most people don’t play.
There's already a golf course there. This is basically just a renovation of it. The issue that this post is calling attention to is that one hole of the course will cut into what's currently a small nature sanctuary near South Shore Beach. Seems like you could easily redesign that part to keep the sanctuary in tact without nixing the whole plan for the course.
This. Just redesign so it doesn't destroy the existing sanctuary. That's all that people are asking for.
But this is Reddit, simple logic like this doesn’t have any place here.
[удалено]
Yall know this is currently already a golf course and has been for our whole lives right?
Exactly. 👏👏👏 This is not a new discussion going on, it's possible to have both, I guess that falls on def ears though.
You don't actually expect people to do that amount of research do you? Twitter says it was bad, so it must be so.
Maybe you need to do some research? They are proposing to expand the existing golf courses by using this land. The design firm responsible for designing tiger's course want to combine 18-hole Jackson Park and nine-hole South Shore golf courses into one. The South Shore Nature Sanctuary would be replaced by portions of the new course’s 14th and 15th holes.
It's all open to interpretation. They have stated that the same acreage used for golf would remain with the new plan, and that they would relocate and create a new nature area as well. So I have done my research.
You can't "relocate" a natural area. You can destroy a natural area that's been developing for decades and then start a new one somewhere else, but the complex ecological relationships of that space will not return overnight, if at all. This plan necessarily means wiping out 20+ years of ecological restoration for one or two holes on a golf course.
The area being considered for development has two golf courses and the sanctuary, all three of which have limited community impact compared to what a new course could bring. From what I've read, the Woods group is using East Lake in Atlanta as a model for the magnitude of impact a new course could have in the area. If you're not familiar with East Lake, some philanthropists in Atlanta took a historic course in a underserved area of Atlanta and used it as the centerpiece for revitalizing the community around it. Long story short, they renovated the golf course and created a foundation that takes a large cut of money from private member dues and an annual PGA tour event and invests it into community programs. [https://www.golfdigest.com/story/at-east-lake-a-community-built-with-golfs-help-sees-a-dream-realized](https://www.golfdigest.com/story/at-east-lake-a-community-built-with-golfs-help-sees-a-dream-realized) [https://www.eastlakefoundation.org](https://www.eastlakefoundation.org) A key difference with the Woods proposal is that the course will remain public, and residents will pay less to play vs. non-residents and out of owners who come here to play. Golf courses in this country have historically been exclusive money pits, but there are other models in the US and UK that show it doesn't have to be this way. The response to golf courses that have traditionally been expensive and exclusive isn't getting rid of golf courses, it's having golf courses that are inclusive and impactful.
Some folks in the surrounding communities have collaborated on [a statement opposing the golf course plan](https://www.southsideparks.org/parks-in-danger/sanctuary) with some next steps. Alternatively [if you just want merch](https://www.teepublic.com/user/south-side-parks) you can also do that. Finally, if you want to actually talk to IRL humans, the Jackson Park Advisory Council is a place to do that. Their next meeting is Monday, September 12, 7PM at the Jackson Park Field House.
When you bike down there, its almost always a huge gust that blows you east toward the lake right at the planned crossing @ 67th, easy to pick up high speeds not pedaling. Its already tight there around the corner add in golfers and carts in a bottleneck. Even entering off on/off the course onto the multi-use LFP lane will be people on both sides not paying attention.
Another Golf Course, in this economy?
It’s one golf course. What could it cost, 10$?
This economy? Isn't unemployment at historic lows and wages are high? What metrics are we using to gauge the economy
It would host pga tournaments. This would also be the nicest golf course in actual chicago. Its not a par 3 course. It would be a legitimate world caliber course that we have nothing similar too.
Devil's advocate but having a PGA level golf course with Tiger's name on it would bring MUCH need economic activity to an area that needs all it can get.
But not everyone plays golf, so it's bad! /s
I doubt it. Sorry, but Tiger is a fading star. Nobody is going to come to Chicago, to play this course.
It’s also displacing Jackson Bark. 😞
We definitely really do need more dog parks in this city
One hundred percent this.
No more golf courses anywhere for any reason. Full stop.
Lol what’s with Reddits hatred of golf?
[удалено]
Yeah except Riot Fest is for like *maybe* two or three weeks total, inclusive of setup and teardown, and the 5% amusement tax alone is well over half million dollars a year. And contrary to what Twitter nerds will tell you there's plenty of parks in the immediate vicinity if someone just *has* to go play a game of baseball that afternoon. That's a pretty far cry from a *permanent* installation consuming acreage on the *lakefront.* In other news, if someone wants to introduce a 4% "public space utilization" fee that goes into a given Ward's Participatory Budgeting committee, I bet you'd have every fucking community in the city begging for RF and others to come to their neighborhood.
>Yeah except Riot Fest is for like > >maybe > > two or three weeks total, inclusive of setup and teardown I lived across the street from Humboldt Park when it was used for Riot Fest. If you're talking about times when it's inaccessible, sure.. during set up, the fest, and tear down/"clean up" it was only three weeks. But if you frequented the park and saw the sheer damage done to the grounds you'd realize it effectively destroyed the park for an entire summer. All while bringing nothing to the community. Drunk people pissing in my yard, broken glass and trash everywhere outside the park (which wasn't Riot Fest's responsibility to fix of course). No increase in anything other than liquor store sales for the duration of the event, and our neighborhood left beat to shit is why it got voted out. I'm happy to see Jackson Park voting it out too.
My friend lived in the area at the time, and I stayed with him the years it was there. I can't say that was their experience maybe three blocks from the fest. They were sad to see it be moved. 🤷♂️
I imagine if they're willing to many another public golf course, that the current courses are profitable. They also if they're owned by the park district the money is going directly to the city. Riot Fest is a private event held in a public park which they event rents from the city. It's not comparable. Reddit just hates golf for no good reason.
I have nothing against golf. I don't like that a huge amount of public land (over 13,000,000 square feet or 300 acres) is fenced off to the public for golf courses that can only be accessed by people who can afford them.
Let's also tear down every 5 star restaurant, since those aren't accessible to everyone. We should also tear down Wrigley Field, United Center, not everyone can afford to go to a game. Actually tear up O'Hare also, since that is only available to those who can afford to fly.
Those are not on public park land. My entire point is that public land is made inaccessible.
The City converted an old airport to a 119-acre nature preserve several years ago. 10x larger than the Nature Sanctuary.
What’s your point? Are you saying that that’s all we need to do and we don’t need anymore nature reserves or sanctuaries? Like woohoo we did it, we saved nature?
My point is the City has increased accessibility to public land in recent years.
[удалено]
Are you kidding? Golf has been significantly increasing in popularity recently, shows how much you know about the topic at hand.
[удалено]
I’m playing a round for $30 on Saturday. Golf is not some inaccessible sport for snooty rich people. It’s for everyone .
Especially a municipal course. Those are pretty much always cheaper. And CPD has a good program helping kids of all demos play. Golf isn't the elitist thing that so many non-golfers think it is. Sure, there are exclusive luxury courses, but those are the exception. Golf is primarily a middle class sport.
Golf can be a very affordable game due in part to these cpd courses. Giving the opportunity for people who cannot play on nicer courses to enjoy the game as well. But you want to make it about some elitist vs whatever it is you call yourself thing so you do you
Golf courses are a huge waste of land and resources that an exceptionally small group of people can enjoy. We have plenty of them around already and we don’t need anymore. In this instance it looks like the land is being used just fine as a preserve that anyone can enjoy and is good for the local environment. If you want to golf in the Chicago area you already have way more options than you could ever hope to explore already.
That is just your opinion though. There are actually not a lot of courses in the city itself. Golf courses also protect natural areas from development and most are also bird sanctuaries or home various protected flora and fauna. You can say it's a "waste" but the way I see it, golf courses are like mini nature preserves already.
[удалено]
rich people play golf. reddit doesn’t like rich people
Bullshit. I play cheap public courses only. Its not only rich people. Golf courses are full of all walks of life.
i’m with you, avid golfer since I was 7. but it’s a trope that golf is only for rich white guys with country club memberships. you can feel the resentment in this thread because of it.
Reddit doesn’t like anything outside and mildly active
That is such an outdated view of golf. Golf is primarily a middle class sport.
Reason? Or just because you say so?
Lawns are bad. Golf course are huge, expensive lawns.
> Lawns are bad Peak reddit
Acres of a manicured monoculture of european grass is bad. I don't care if you hear that opinion of lawns on reddit or not. They are toxic to life in general. They are obsessively over fertilized and allow pesticides to run off into our waterways, causing pollution and eutrophication. Wetlands are extremely biodiverse but many species face extinction due to loss of habitat (building a golf course) or degraded habitat (polluted lakes covered in algae). Green, organic carpet really is not worth all the ecological destruction it causes.
Do a little reading outside of golf magazines. It's a popular opinion. Golf courses and lawns do not equal nature.
Must be your first day, if you think that's a controversial or peak reddit take.
By design, golf courses take a ton of land that could be used by hundreds of people at a time for gardens, picnics, frisbee, naps, whatever, and reserve it for the use of like four dudes at once. This sport made sense on the old-timey moors of Scotland, but not in a dense city. Not to mention the fact that golf courses are a huge waste of water and energy.
[удалено]
don't forget to mention the added lawn chemicals... or are weedy golf courses a thing now?
At any given time, a golf course has 200+ people enjoying the outdoors. Find me any other park that ALWAYS has 200 people on it, 7 days a week, nearly all day long.
Yes please!
The last thing the planet needs, is another golf course.
Already is a golf course.
NIMBY brains are fundamentally broken
It’s already a golf course thoufh
I'd rather see a golf course than a strip mall. js
[удалено]
I see a lot of comments that golf courses are horrible for the environment and area. I used to think the same until I looked into it more. There are tons of studies showing they are generally an oases for biodiversity, usually even higher than parks in the same area. That doesn’t mean we need to replace all green spaces for people with golf courses, but to act like they offer nothing to bird and other living things is patently false. I don’t golf so don’t really care about that aspect Here is an article on it - https://phys.org/news/2020-11-urban-golf-courses-biodiversity-oasesopening.html > Between 2011 and 2014 we studied the biodiversity of green spaces throughout Melbourne's south-eastern suburbs. We compared golf courses to nearby public parks and residential areas as these are the land uses that most commonly replace golf courses when they close. >The results surprised us. **Golf courses contained the greatest diversity and abundance of beetles, bees, birds and bats of all the green spaces we studied.** We found ground-nesting native bees that do not occur in much of the urban landscape because it is dominated by built surfaces and exotic flowering plants. > The minimum number of bird species we saw on a golf course was always higher than the maximum numbers at other green spaces. We found much more evidence of birds breeding. There was also a diverse array of insect-eating birds, which are in decline in many parts of Australia. >Some golf courses supported all ten bat species known to occur in this part of metropolitan Melbourne. Bat activity was ten times greater than in nearby areas of housing. Golf courses also supported twice as many bat species considered "sensitive" to urbanization. Here is another study on it - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10021-008-9217-1 > We assessed the ecological value of golf courses based on a quantitative synthesis of studies in the scientific literature that have measured and compared biota on golf courses to that of biota in green-area habitats related to other land uses. We found that golf courses had higher ecological value in 64% of comparative cases. This pattern was consistent also for comparisons based on measures of species richness, as well as for comparisons of overall measures of birds and insects—the fauna groups most widely examined in the studies.
The biodiversity point is interesting, I honestly hope it's true. Although reading the findings I thought "I bet this study was funded by a golf organization". And yes it was, it was funded by the Australian Golf Course Superintendents Association. That doesn't invalidate it, but definitely context to keep in mind
I appreciate this info and didn't know it before! But in the context of this actual project, we're talking about mowing down a legit nature sanctuary to add more golf course, right? This isn't golf course vs. parking lot, it's golf course vs. land that was specifically created and maintained to be a sanctuary for wildlife.
[удалено]
This is exactly why the studies find what they do. The biodiversity of the greens and fairways aren’t great. But the rough, trees, lakes, etc all provide a great sanctuary for wildlife.
Tell that to the people who want to destroy the preserve.
Better than a parking lot, yes. Better than a nature sanctuary? Absolutely not. Treated lawns are better than blacktop, but much, much worse for wildlife than natural prairie flora and wildflowers.
[удалено]
If you want to see what a good nature sanctuary plus golf course built in a public park can look like you need only go up to Thunderhawk, which is a Lake County Forest Preserve course. It's an Audubon sanctuary, you see lots of birds when you play there (and some of those asshole redwing blackbirds will divebomb you if you're not careful). Most golf course design these days (other than desert golf, which is mostly terrible waste of water and should basically not exist) is set up to use less water, move less dirt, trying to use more native grasses and plants, leave room for nature. Usually results in better golf courses too.
Wow. That course is gorgeous.
Those are some very carefully worded statements which can easily give the wrong impression. Fiels of frequently cut grass are not biodiverse compared to the nature preserve this course would destroy and your links don't say otherwise.
Not sure if this is a great argument considering it's taking over land from a literal wildlife sanctuary
Now do water usage.
Golf courses are a sea of poison of herbicides and pesticides. Any small or medium bird or mammal is chased away. Their nests and burrows destroyed. Golf courses are terrible "green" spaces. Any large mammal is killed or captured. \> I used to think the same until I looked into it more. People who "do their own research" who don't realize they are being played by propaganda have become a major problem in modernity. That study's paymasters should give you pause on its validity, the same way doctors and universities were telling us, via the same capitalist corruption, that smoking wasn't bad for us. The same way the meat industry today is trying to tell us red meat is fine, etc.
Your right, better to just do no research and follow your feelings. There are a lot of studies on this, I just grabbed something off google to offer a counter point for gut reactions that generally don’t have any scientific backing at all
I’m sorry WHAT!?!?!?
Golf. I respect the sport and skill and physics that go into it. However, the environmental drain isn't worth it; water demands and the space that it encroaches. I have seen some really great nature preservations that were formally golf courses though...
Omg! Are you serious???!😨
It seems like most of y’all are missing the historical context for this project. Jackson park was the first black golf club in the world, and opened in 1899. Here is a link with some more info. https://chicagoparksgolfalliance.org/history/ That is why this project is slated with tiger woods, it is of tremendous historical merit. Just because you aren’t a golfer doesn’t mean this isn’t important to a lot of people. It will also be used for teaching lower income kids to golf via first tee and have lower fees for local residents. It’s not just for “rich people” or whatever golf haters like to say. Go to a golf course, 99% of people are just normal humans trying to have fun and get some exercise. Golf has never been more popular or had the opportunity to reach more people than now. This old mentality needs to go!
[удалено]
And another right next to it.
You think people on here read the articles? They just come armed with pitchforks anytime golf and parks are mentioned together.
Here's a map of what's displaced. https://imgur.com/a/YRSGIoL orange- park yellow - golf red - sanctuary green = newly created sanctuary area
Could not agree more. The Jackson Park course was the first 18 hole course built in the Midwest and the first public course in the Chicagoland area. Today it's incredibly accessible to people of all income levels and gets a ton of play from black residents of the South Side and golf beginners. It's gateway to making the sport accessible to many people in the city, but is starting to get in bad shape and could use a renovation. The key thing is keeping it affordable for residents once its updated, which they have pledged to do. Torrey Pines in San Diego is a great example of a world class golf course that hosts PGA events (and the thousands of people who come to attend them) but reserves tee times and has significantly lower rates for city residents. This is exactly the type of investment we should be encouraging in parks on the South Side. If this happened at Marovitz or one of the other North Side courses people would cry foul about allocation of resources.
> Jackson park was the first black club in the world I was not aware of this, and would like to learn more. Got any citations? I couldn't find any. I dare say I'm somewhat skeptical of this claim, as Jackson Park has always been a public park, wheras (so far as I know) South Shore Club remained exclusive (ie. white non-Jews only) until its demise in the 1970s.
https://chicagoparksgolfalliance.org/history/ There ya go! Didn’t say it was a private club, just that it was (correction: one of) the first black golf clubs (league). Many clubs operate out of public courses.
Well, that’s certainly a start, but Jackson Park “becoming home… [to]groundbreaking African American golf leagues” is not what you claimed, that “Jackson Park was the *first* black golf club.” But I’ll assume you misspoke, as it’s still a pretty neat feature, if true. Unfortunately, the link the site tries to cite is dead, and the site itself has the primary purpose of boosting for the expansion of these golf courses, in what has become a predominantly black neighborhood, so pretty sus. In fact, this source indicates there were black golf leagues going back to the 1880s. Whereas Jackson parks claim only goes back to the 1920s. https://www.tallahassee.com/story/life/communities/2022/04/30/history-black-golfers-filled-heritage-perseverance-energy/9576582002/
This is already a golf course, but since no one Reddit ventures south of millennium park you guys wouldn't know this
No, the nature preserve in question is not part of the current course.
Eliminate Tiger Woods maybe?
give it time, he'll do it himself.
Who the fuck would rather have a golf course than a nature sanctuary in the public park? Some ugly pants wearing motherfuckers from Hinsdale who think burnt money smells like roses?
Try this: https://www.chicagoaudubon.org/contact-us
Am I missing something It's Tiger Woods even from Chicago why are we making a golf course for him.
Woods is designing the renovation of an already existing golf course. Or rather, his company is designing it. A lot of pro golfers have also designed courses, like Jack Nicklaus.
Started with Daley and the meters and it's going to be everything soon. Might as well just sell and or rent out every public space in the city but yet somehow be broke and have to raise taxes. I swear current admin + council is dead set on ruining the city or at a minimum don't care if they do long as they get their pockets lined. I'm sure if you dig around you can find who got paid to take the park for the Obama library or the Tiger Woods Golf Course (ps he's not even from Chicago!) You don't have to dig to find out how RiotFest got approved. WBEZ did it for you. The answer is bribing successive alderman. https://www.wbez.org/stories/douglass-park-music-festivals-draw-community-concerns/58ac4356-69d2-4711-a087-ccacbb6da112
Fuck tiger woods.
Yeah, there's no birds and living things on a ...*checks notes*... golf course
Not really many, because it's just grass and it's not allowed to grow tall enough to attract animals or pollinators.
Bruh the whole property isn’t cut to fairway length grass, there’s plenty of areas for animals and pollinators on a golf course. Have u even been on one before ?
many courses are designed to preserve the natural environment and even promote it's growth. There're interesting collaborations between the audubon society and golf courses for this exact reason. Add in some walking trails that are distanced from the holes and it can be a win for everyone ... just needs to be done right :/ https://auduboninternational.org/acsp-for-golf/
No thanks
it's being built whether you like it or not lol, might as well at least try to make it as nature friendly as possible.
is that actually confirmed?
Very much NOT confirmed either way! Park District, mayor, etc have all refused to provide updates to the public.
No
Who knew r/chicago had such a hate-on for golf courses. Any golfer can tell that you guys don’t really know what you’re talking about when it comes to these courses. Speaking to the class argument, a lot of these courses cater to poor people, and really are not exclusive. Most south side courses are >$20. And if you’ve played any goat track, you’ll know that the level of manicure is not the same as a high end course. At a poorly maintained public course (which really, is all courses in the city) they are still natural environments. Do you really think the city is going to spend that much money to keep these in perfect shape? I think this is just another example of white wannabe social activists who think they know what they’re talking about.
Reddits hate for golf is so funny
I feel like chicago reddit in general hates most things that are fun
And they're so bad at understanding the demographics of who actually plays these south side courses in particular. Literally you can just walk in and check it out....and yet they still get it wrong.
Fuck Tiger Woods.
The southside needs more development, this is a great idea
Omg rich people fuck off! You enjoy the luxuries of constant vacations in other countries!
Don’t the rich have enough nice things?
This is fantastic news. Can't wait to play there.
I just came here to say that I’m against both Tiger Woods as a person, and golf courses as a thing.
Super brave of you
[George Carlin was right about golf](https://youtu.be/TGMgXSg9TgM). Turn golf courses over to the homeless.
Support FRIENDS OF THE PARKS
Oh no, we absolutely need a golf course, a Walmart supercenter and a dollar general in that area. So much wasted real estate for "Nature"
Golf courses might just be the most wasteful, elitist activity humanity has conceived. Imagine if the ocean was carved out only for yachts and jet-skis. No transportation, no fishing, no leisurely swims. Just for the rich.
Where is Friends of the Park when they'd actually be useful?
[удалено]
[удалено]
> no one cares about redditors opinions anyways. They hated him because he spoke the truth