Functional Design Pitfalls

Shortcomings in the complex’s design, as a direct result of the poorly chosen site, are also numerous.  Each of these hurts the long-term prospects of both the Presidential Center as an entity, and the Obama Foundation within it, to thrive and fulfill their missions.

Any monument to a United States President, but in particular one dedicated to President Barack Obama, must strive for utmost sustainability, from multiple approaches: lifecycle energy consumption, site planning, water conservation, ecological impact, embodied carbon, and more.  The attainment of onsite (self-sustaining) Net Zero energy is one of the foremost considerations, as an immediate concern, but additionally for the benefit of the complex serving as an exemplar of responsible action.  The current design simply cannot reach this goal without significant amounts of onsite renewable energy, but this has not been provided.  The design of the tower, the only component of the design with appreciable solar access, has not incorporated photovoltaics.  Similarly, large-scale wind turbines are not practical in this delicate, urban location.  Fanciful notions of putting solar panels below the Jackson Park lagoon, or raising its water level with weirs to create minor hydro-electric power, are unrealistic and completely ignore the sanctuary’s status as a protected wetland harboring important wildlife.

Meanwhile, the current design is hardly at the forefront of ecological planning.  Indeed, most elements of the facility are underground and completely ignore the value of solar design in a northern climate.  Where it exists, dominant glazing faces north or west, the two worst orientations for Chicago’s climate, and effective shading appears not to have been rigorously attempted.  The building’s carbon footprint from a material standpoint is also enormous, due to destruction of hundreds of carbon-sequestering trees, increased vehicular traffic and idling, poor integration with Chicago’s primary public transportation network, low levels of natural light (even in office spaces), and massive amounts of high-embodied carbon materials such as concrete and engineered foam (the latter used to create terraforming of the grounds).  In short, the current design for the Obama Presidential Center is not a sustainably designed building in any conscientious sense of the term.

Chicago is hardly immune from the terrors of climate change, even on an immediate level, as has been recently documented by The New York Times and many others  .  Extended periods of heat and drought are expected to be coupled with torrential rain and rising lake levels.  Is the chosen site, immediately on Lake Michigan, the best location to construct a facility with 40% of its space below-grade?  Surely many mission-critical functions of the complex – art and artifact deliveries and acclimatization, mechanical systems, records keeping, office activities of the Foundation, and others – will be located in these at-risk spaces.

The Overlooked Importance of Great Design

On a strictly architectural level, the current plans flounder, failing to produce the triumphant outcome President Obama deserves.  The design embodies neither his pioneering spirit, nor the compassion and reconciliation for which he is best remembered.  Yet great design is absolutely imperative in the case of the Obama Presidential Center.  Hallmark One: to properly honor the 44th President.  Hallmark Two, equally important: to have the greatest restorative impact on the South Side.  Consider the following:

1. Why are we barbarically constructing a major civic monument literally atop another?  There is no need for further sacrifice to be made on the tattered and neglected streets of the South Side.
2. Why are we burying a large portion of this new civic monument below ground, where it will be invisible?  For the greatest meaning, symbolic and practical, the Obama Presidential Center should strive for maximum visual impact.
3. Why are we forfeiting an opportunity to place this complex in any of Chicago’s many deserving-yet-struggling neighborhoods?  Why are we forfeiting a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make a community whole again?  The project could be, and should be, an unfaltering force for the positive.  The current plans amount to treading water, when what the South Side needs today is a sea change.
4. Why is the new facility, built in one of the nation’s most beautiful parkland settings, a virtual bunker?  Why are there so few windows, preventing the visitors and daily occupants from experiencing the beauty that literally lies at their doorstep?
5. Why is the museum tower proportioned so ponderously?  Its bulky mass dominates the experience of Jackson Park and denigrates the Midway Plaisance, yet is neither tall enough nor dramatic enough to have any real meaning on the Chicago skyline.  It will mostly disappear unless at close-range, where it will distract and dictate the experience of Jackson Park.
6. Is the current design an inviting, nourishing place, one that celebrates President Obama with dignity, grandeur, and grace?  Or, is it a blockade that divides communities, fortifies the bulwark of the University of Chicago, disconnects us from the Chicago lakefront, and ignores our existing lifeways?  Does the design respect, embrace, and strengthen the public experience of Jackson Park, or merely covet its trophy setting?