[nomarandlee]

renders via Chicago Tribune....

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r77/tootshibbard/Childrens%20Museum/37503956.jpg

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r77/tootshibbard/Childrens%20Museum/37517897.jpg

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r77/tootshibbard/Childrens%20Museum/37518011.jpg

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r77/tootshibbard/Childrens%20Museum/37518010.jpg

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r77/tootshibbard/Childrens%20Museum/37517917.jpg

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r77/tootshibbard/Childrens%20Museum/37518046.jpg

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r77/tootshibbard/Childrens%20Museum/37518025.jpg

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r77/tootshibbard/Childrens%20Museum/37518026.jpg

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r77/tootshibbard/Childrens%20Museum/37517901.jpg

[nomarandlee]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...,7667668.story

Option 2: 'Children's Island'

April 20, 2008

Ever since this page announced plans to help the Chicago Children's Museum find an ideal home, many Tribune readers have nominated a site that belongs high on any list: A new museum in the northern reaches of Northerly Island, south of the Adler Planetarium, could anchor a wealth of cultural, educational and recreational activities. Think of Northerly as a year-round learning and festival site—all tailored for kids. There is, today, nothing like that on Earth.

What a spectacular setting for kids and their imaginations: the water, ships and, in winter, ice floes of Lake Michigan to one side and, to the other, downtown Chicago's mighty ranks of skycrapers. Placing the Children's Museum on Northerly Island would expand and enhance the Museum Campus—a safe and natural home for this facility. And while this is lake frontage, it doesn't have the special legal protections of Grant Park. Northerly Island was built in the 1920s as the first in a chain that didn't materialize. Turning much of Northerly—it's actually a peninsula—into an educational realm for kids is a logical extension of its origins: Crowds flocked there to study botanical exhibits during the 1933 World's Fair................

I like the idea of giving the somewhat ignored Adler a companion in which to increase a draw to both. The idea of also putting it right next to the island park would also be a neat nearby area for kids to explore. However I think it would face the same problems that the Adler has of feeling too remote and poor transit access. Plus if they built on or near where Alder parking lot was then unless they built a costly underground garage where would the needed parking go?

I would prefer somewhere with a bit higher visibility and better accessibility.

[arlekin_m]

oh yes... much, much better than tucked away underground

and as the article says, a much needed opportunity to improve on the attractions

[aic4ever]

I'm personally going to doubt anything will ever occupy Northerly Island from a building standpoint other than a casino. I know nobody will want it but it's the most logical place in the city for one (Navy Pier assumed off limits) if Daley can strongarm one through the legislation. Now wouldn't THAT be a debate!

[Nowhereman1280]

Why the hell would you want to build a casino on one of the least accessible and most visible places in the city? That makes no sense at all. If you are going to build a casino it needs to be by highways so people will actually go there, also, it needs to be hidden so we all don't have to look at its (likely) hideous architecture.

I don't think that it should be built on northerly either, its better than grant park, but why are people so bent on wasting our lakefront space with buildings? We have one of the largest clusters of building in the world, so why the hell are they so bent on putting this building where there are no other buildings instead of with the rest of the buildings where it belongs? We have lots of places to build buildings and very few acres of lakefront, I don't see how anyone doesn't see the utter stupidity of building on the scarce lakefront/parks, when there are hundreds of open lots and parking lots to destroy.

This is one of the few cases where we actually have the luxary of deciding where to put a building, everyone here always complains when a developer tears down some nice old building when there is a perfectly good parking lot right next door, but we have no control over that. THIS we do have control over so why is it logical in any way to do something so stupid.

[aic4ever]

Why the hell would you want to build a casino on one of the least accessible and most visible places in the city? That makes no sense at all. If you are going to build a casino it needs to be by highways so people will actually go there, also, it needs to be hidden so we all don't have to look at its (likely) hideous architecture.

I don't think that it should be built on northerly either, its better than grant park, but why are people so bent on wasting our lakefront space with buildings? We have one of the largest clusters of building in the world, so why the hell are they so bent on putting this building where there are no other buildings instead of with the rest of the buildings where it belongs? We have lots of places to build buildings and very few acres of lakefront, I don't see how anyone doesn't see the utter stupidity of building on the scarce lakefront/parks, when there are hundreds of open lots and parking lots to destroy.

This is one of the few cases where we actually have the luxary of deciding where to put a building, everyone here always complains when a developer tears down some nice old building when there is a perfectly good parking lot right next door, but we have no control over that. THIS we do have control over so why is it logical in any way to do something so stupid.


Hey I didn't say I wanted a casino out there, I just thought it seemed like a logical place for the city if they were ever to accept a casino in the city at all, specifically because it's remote. Access to it would suck, to be sure, but would it increase traffic a whole lot more than it already is at that spot? I don't think it would, it would just be as thick as it ever is, only more constant, which won't make so much difference anymore since they're cutting the pedestrian tunnel through there. The casino's people, drunks and gamblers, would be isolated away from the main part of the city, benefitting the city, and benefitting the hotel a casino might build, since there would be nowhere else for said drunkards to go. Just seems to make sense from that aspect to me. From an access to the island standpoint, it wouldn't be a whole lot tougher to get to than Potowatamie is in Milwaukee. All one ways until you somehow spiral your way into the place.

I just don't really see much else going there for a lot of the same access reasons, and I know Daley has been pushing incredibly hard to be able to get a casino on land in Illinois, and specifically in or close to the city. Just a point to bring up for the sake of argument I think.

As to the CCM, I think putting it on Northerly would be a spectacular failure financially without building a whole second Navy Pier up around it; food, games, etc. I really wonder how many people take their kids to the CCM as their specific destination, and how many people drop in because they were going to Navy Pier and decided it would be fun. From that foot traffic standpoint, I think the location in Grant Park makes a lot of sense. I still consider the design to be completely hideous, however.

[nomarandlee]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politic...seum21.article
Alderman: 24 places fine for kids museum

42ND WARD | Reilly hopes to keep it out of Grant Park site

February 21, 2008

BY FRAN SPIELMAN AND ANDREW HERRMANN Staff Reporters

......Ald. Reilly's alternatives
Here are the alternative sites Ald. Brendan Reilly (42nd) suggested for a new Children's Museum:

* Museum Campus
* Northerly Island
* Logan Square
* Garfield Park Conservatory
* Pritzker Park
* Washington Park
* Bronzeville
* Calumet Park
* Englewood
* State and Van Buren
* McCormick Place East
* Museum of Broadcast History
* Chicago Riverwalk (South Bank at Lake Michigan)
* Michigan and Roosevelt (South Loop)
* Notebaert Nature Museum (Lincoln Park)
* Lincoln Park Zoo (adjacent to zoo)
* Old U.S. Post Office
* Chicago Athletic Association (South Michigan Ave.)
* Carson Pirie Scott Building (State Street)
* Former Brach's Candy Factory
* U.S. Cellular Field (adjacent to ballpark)
* Expansion on Navy Pier
* Montrose Park
* 1 S. Dearborn (50 percent vacant) ..

[aic4ever]

:previous:

Can't say as I'd be opposed to the associated sprucing up of the surrounding neighborhoods to mine if the CCM were to be built in Bronzeville or near the Cell. Whatever works best for my property value. :D

[BVictor1]

I don't see Northerly Island as being an option because that's where some Olympic events will be held.

[nomarandlee]

If you were to name 3-5 of the best alternate locations (or one not mentioned in the list) what would they be?

For me it would be
1. Michigan and Roosevelt(I would actually put it more above the IC tracks fronting Roosevelt)
2. Chicago Riverwalk (if Hyatt doesn't build their riverwalk protion then maybe slide to #1 as I want dreary E.Wacker to be hidden )
3. Museum Campus (would have to be very sensitvely and precisely placed)
4. Pritzker Park (awesome transit access and central location)
5. State and Van Buren (same as Pritizker Park though like Pritzker may not be the best utilization for a low rise building. A little breathing room could be good for a children's museum which the downtown sports don't much afford)

For some other museums locating them in a neighborhood and spreading the wealth could be a good idea though for a Children's museum I think a downtown location is a better option. Most important is because I think kids love traveling downtown and it provides a central accessible location for schools and parents in which to lug their kids by either public transit, bus, or car pool.

[cbotnyse]

I don't see Northerly Island as being an option because that's where some Olympic events will be held.....if we get the bid. :fingerscrossed:

[Mr Downtown]

I don't understand the difference between Pritzker Park and State and Van Buren.

Either way, I think it's an unbeatable location. Transit, parking, centrality, convenient to library/AIC/Symphony, city-owned, highly visible . . . and crying out for a building to restore the urban fabric of State Street.

[cbotnyse]

Either way, I think it's an unbeatable location. Transit, parking, centrality, convenient to library/AIC/Symphony, city-owned, highly visible . . . and crying out for a building to restore the urban fabric of State Street.That could be the biggest positive for this location. Right now it is an eye sore, used only for homeless people to hang out and sleep in. It would revitalize the area.

[wrabbit]

More critical reaction on the Chicago Children's Museum.

Kamin:
Children's Museum releases aerial view of plan, says more drawings could be made public
Apparently stung by criticism that it has been withholding information about its plans for a controversial, mostly underground museum in Grant Park, the Chicago Children's Museum made public an aerial view of the plan today and a member of the public relations firm representing the museum said he hoped more drawings would be released.....
http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/theskyline/2008/04/childrens-mus-4.html

Becker:
Kamin Joins the Chorus: CCM - Stop Hiding Your Museum!
Blair gets it. Months after we began talking about how the Chicago Children's Museum is deliberately withholding all but the most deceptive images of the large structure they want to muscle into Grant Park, the Chicago Tribune's Pulitzer-Prize winning architecture critic Blair Kamin blasted the museum and its architects, Krueck and Sexton, for withholding all but the most abstracted images on the proposed structure from the public.....
http://arcchicago.blogspot.com/

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ You guys do realize why they are hiding this right? Its because the moment people see the GIGANTIC PIT they have planned its going to unleash a shit storm. So they are just trying to hide them until we MAKE THEM SHOW US while hoping we forget they are trying to desecrate the park...

[cbotnyse]

Its because the moment people see the they have planned its going to unleash a shit storm. :haha: you really hate the current design dont you. You say GIGANTIC PIT everytime you post.

[VivaLFuego]

:haha: you really hate the current design dont you. You say GIGANTIC PIT everytime you post.

That's ok, I never miss an opportunity to call Alderman Reilly a pandering hack :)

By the way, Alderman Reilly is a pandering hack and while I'd rather the museum be built at Pritzker Park than Grant Park for the many reasons enumerated, there is very little I think would be better for the long-term health of downtown Chicago than Reilly getting utterly humiliated and Aldermen in general suffering a blow to their tyrannical and whimsical power over development decisions.

[nomarandlee]

I rather like the pit, it is just the wrong location in which to have it or even more important it is not the best place in which to have the museum.

A re-post of the 1rst Trib idea (Riverwalk)....
.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/chi-0415edit1apr15,0,810851.story

Children's Museum, Option 1

Now imagine a shimmering, multitiered Children's Museum rising from the Riverwalk to an entry pavilion on Upper Wacker Drive. Buses and autos safely could approach on all levels of Wacker, with shuttles ferrying visitors to multiple entry points from Grant Park's underground parking.

Already there's talk of the Hyatt chain augmenting its two existing Wacker Drive hotel towers with a glassy lower structure reaching up from the Riverwalk. This stretch of Riverwalk also might be ideal for a visionary Children's Museum. It could evoke Chicago's origins where river meets lake—with potential exhibits exploiting the nearby site of Ft. Dearborn, and big waterfront bubbles that let kids watch boats ply the river

[nomarandlee]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/chi-0423edit1apr23,0,155489.story

Option 3: 'The Lincoln Campus'

April 23, 2008

............Exit Lake Shore Drive at Fullerton Avenue and you're soon in Chicago's "other" cultural campus. The Peggy Notebaert Nature Museum, the Lincoln Park Conservatory and the Lincoln Park Zoo combine into an expansive wonderland for kids. Adding a Chicago Children's Museum to the mix—perhaps as a thriving partner to revitalize the Notebaert—would create an even more attractive North Side nexus for young people and their families.

This is safe and accessible turf, interspersed with a visually appealing mix of waters—North Pond plus a tame harbor plus, if you're 5 years old and stand on tippy-toes, a view of Lake Michigan's frothy whitecaps.

..........For families from everywhere, a new Chicago Children's Museum would, depending on the time of year, be a stop easily coupled with a visit to the nature museum, the conservatory, the zoo, the nearby Lake Michigan shoreline or all of the above................

[nomarandlee]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/chi-0427edit1apr27,0,3301225.story

Option 4: Pritzker Park
April 27, 2008

This site unfolds immediately north of the Harold Washington Library. If you (and especially your kids!) haven't seen all that the main library has to offer, you're missing a Chicago gem. Between the library and the potential museum site, steps lead up to the CTA Orange, Purple, Pink and Brown Lines. Bad clash of colors, but talk about spectacular public access for people of all economic means and all Chicago neighborhoods.

Stand in Pritzker Park—the place is something of a secret; we didn't spot a nameplate—and your eye wanders to institutions of higher education where today's little museum-goers someday may matriculate: The surround includes buildings of DePaul University, Robert Morris College and John Marshall Law School. (Not far away: Courtrooms of the Dirksen Federal Building and the Daley Center serve as looming reminders that, four times, the Illinois Supreme Court has laid down rules to keep the Children's Museum and anybody else from jamming a building into Grant Park.)

This is a good-sized site that could grow bigger. We're told that a small parking facility which keeps the L-shape from being a full rectangle might be removable..................

[nomarandlee]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/chi-0430edit1apr30,0,6713686.story

Option 5: Garfield Park
April 30, 2008

Among these potentially excellent locations: Garfield Park, at roughly the geographic center of the city. Schoolchildren now flock to two of its big draws: the extraordinary Garfield Park Conservatory and the nearby Gold Dome fieldhouse. Between those structures: a Green Line CTA stop—the ornate Conservatory station—at Lake Street and Central Park Avenue.

............Crowds unfamiliar with the area easily navigate to the conservatory and fieldhouse from the Eisenhower Expressway: Some 600,000 people flocked to the conservatory for the Dale Chihuly glass exhibits alone............

[jpIllInoIs]

^ I thought I liked the Pritzker Park location...now I like Garfield Park better..:dissy:

[nomarandlee]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-children-museum-02-may02,0,379640.story

New design takes Children's Museum further underground
Children's Museum's new design to go farther below Grant Park

Tribune staff report
May 2, 2008

With the Chicago Plan Commission preparing this month to consider the Chicago Children's Museum's plans for Grant Park, the museum is revising its building design yet again, trying to further reduce its above-ground presence.

Grant Park Conservancy President Bob O'Neill said Thursday that museum officials told him they hope to release new renderings of the largely underground structure as early as Friday, showing a "reduction in profile."

A source close to the museum confirmed that museum officials intend to file revised plans Friday morning............

Why would one want to hire such architects such as Krueck & Sexton only to bury their work almost completely underground? Just seems so odd to me.

[BVictor1]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-childrens-museum-web-may03,0,2596528.story

Children's Museum lowers its profile in new Grant Park design proposal

By Noreen S. Ahmed-Ullah | Tribune reporter
10:30 AM CDT, May 2, 2008

To circumvent long-standing restrictions barring buildings in Grant Park, the Chicago Children's Museum has once again changed its designs for a proposed location in the northeast end of the park.

To lower the project's physical profile, the museum, which is seeking to move from Navy Pier to Grant Park, has ditched the 16-foot skylight structures it was planning to build in the park and has relocated a glassy entry pavilion onto a nearby sidewalk area so that it is no longer on park property, said Grant Park Conservancy President Bob O'Neill.

[Via Chicago]

I find it ironic that in any other development situation, there would be a flurry of press releases and professional 3D renderings released amid a whole bunch of hoopla. It speaks volumes that the CM has taken every step possible to completely hide the real impact of the structure, and the way it will actually look in context to the rest of the park (not to mention the fact that they're totally unwilling to explore ANY other location options). What a joke.

[Alliance]

God, BUILD IT ELSEWHERE.

[Loopy]

http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/2755/antcx0.jpg

[nomarandlee]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0504edit2may04,0,3599845.story

Option 6: Logan Square
May 4, 2008

.........One unorthodox but intriguing possibility: Erect a combined Children's Museum, activities campus and neighborhood park near, and over, Blue Line tracks southeast of Logan Square on Chicago's Northwest Side. Imagine the thrill for kids of O'Hare-bound CTA trains rolling through one transparent part of a multi-level building that combines the museum with art galleries, athletic facilities and performance homes for dance and drama troupes. The area is spacious enough to hold a large park above a parking ramp on Milwaukee Avenue, across a street from the historic green space of Logan Square and its eagle-topped monument.

This Logan Square option allows remaking four-plus acres now occupied by a discount store and a CTA trench where the Blue Line slips underground. City Hall already wants the store site redeveloped...........

[BVictor1]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-childrens-museum-web-may03,0,2596528.story

Children's Museum takes lower-profile approach

http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2008-05/38428512.jpgThese are the new plans unveiled Friday by the Chicago Children's Museum to comply with long-standing restrictions barring buildings in Grant Park. (May 2, 2008)

By Noreen S. Ahmed-Ullah | Tribune reporter
11:40 PM CDT, May 2, 2008

Digg Del.icio.us Facebook Fark Google Newsvine Reddit Yahoo Print Reprints Post comment Text size: In a new effort to comply with a century-old ban on building in Grant Park, architects have offered yet another set of plans for the proposed Chicago Children's Museum.

Gone are 16-foot-tall skylights—sculptural elements proposed as a way to draw light into the largely underground building. Opponents had called them a violation of Illinois Supreme Court decrees that prohibit structures within Grant Park.

And a 20-foot glassy pavilion at Randolph Street that would have served as an entrance will now be moved off park land and onto an expanded public sidewalk.

"We've eliminated a lot of the questions and concerns," said Chicago Children's Museum President and chief operating officer Jennifer Farrington. "We're even more confident this will meet the restrictions. The Montgomery Ward [decrees] were about views to the park. This uses the grade of the park so no views will be inhibited."

This is the fifth design change since the museum proposed moving from Navy Pier to Grant Park three years ago. This time the changes were sought by the city, and they were announced less than two weeks before the proposal is to be considered by the city's Plan Commission on May 15.

The new proposal demonstrates how the debate around the proposed $100 million museum is turning more toward legal issues.

"I think with the skylights what we realized was that they were on the park level and just no longer were in the strictest sense in compliance, so we said, 'Can we rethink this?' " said architect Mark Sexton, even as he asserted that a strict reading of the old court decisions could ban lampposts or fencing.

Critics, including civic groups and residents in high-rise condominiums across from the site, said museum officials may have tried to work around one of the restrictions in the Montgomery Ward decisions: no building in the park. But they believe another three remain: No obstruction can be built that is private or charges admission, and it must be dedicated for park purposes.

"They may push this museum down to China and it's still illegal," said Jonathan Fine, executive director of Preservation Chicago. "They're just trying to prevent a lawsuit."

Ald. Brendan Reilly (42nd) made it clear that the new plans would not change his opposition.

"I'm still trying to understand why the museum would want to put kids underground in a parking garage and call it an enriching experience."

Businessman A. Montgomery Ward successfully fought in the late 1800s to prevent construction of any buildings by the Field Museum of Natural History and others in Grant Park. Ward wanted to uphold the principle that the park remain "Forever Open, Clear and Free of any Buildings, or other Obstruction Whatever."

What's at stake is how to interpret the Illinois Supreme Court rulings in his favor. Theodore J. Novak, chief lawyer for the museum, denied the plan was an exercise in legal gamesmanship. He said a 1952 Supreme Court ruling allows underground structures like the one the museum seeks.

Museum supporters point to other structures built recently in Grant Park, such as Millennium Park's Harris Theater and the Pritzker Pavilion, as precedent.

In the new design, the museum would build a structure at the site of a fieldhouse at Daley Bicentennial Plaza. The structure will still be constructed deep into a parking garage below Randolph. Looking north from the south end of the plaza, visitors will see what appears to be "nothing but a path down," Sexton said.

The entry pavilion on upper Randolph has not only been moved to an expanded sidewalk area but the structure has been reduced from 4,000 square feet to 800. It would contain a small lobby with elevators leading to the museum, the parking garage and a $15 million fieldhouse the museum would build for the Chicago Park District. A design proposed last month reduced the height of the pavilion from 25 feet to 20 feet.

"It's a considerable reduction in profile," said Grant Park Conservancy president Bob O'Neill, who supports a children's museum in the park. "It's going to be very difficult legally to challenge this now."

Save Grant Park, created by residents opposing the museum plans, has formed a coalition with civic organizations opposed to the project—a counterweight to a group formed by the museum last month to generate community support.

"Why only Grant Park?" said Save Grant Park founder Peggy Figiel. "I think it's time for them to consider another site."

Tribune reporter Dan Mihalopoulos and architecture critic Blair Kamin contributed to this report.

nahmed@tribune.com

[Nowhereman1280]

I hate CCM now, what a bunch of fucking morons. Anyone want to go down there and protest this shit if they ever get to the point where they try and build it. How can an institution that claims to be a part of the Chicago community be so against what 75% of the population wants them to do?

About the new design, now the design is just shitty looking, the pit was sweet, but clearly a violation, this one could still count as a violation if they argue that Harris theater has an exception for some reason.

Also, seriously, what kind of fucking retards build a children's museum in a parking garage?

CCM WAKE UP, NO ONE LIKES YOU

Now I'm just steamed...

:haha: you really hate the current design dont you. You say GIGANTIC PIT everytime you post.

That's because that is what it was, I love the gigantic pit, it just doesn't count as not a building.

[Alliance]

^^^ I'd join you.

[wrabbit]

http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/2755/antcx0.jpg

Ha Ha - very good, Loopy! You should send a copy to the OpEd pages at the Trib & Sun Times.

Actually, a giant ant farm would be great for GP. Big enough for the kids to climb around in, with everything scaled up to give you that "I am an ant" feeling. Really, this is a great idea.

Anyway, judging from the design revamp, looks as though someone at CCM has finally looked at the GP dedication & case precedents and tweaked things accordingly.

[Via Chicago]

Anyway, judging from the design revamp, looks as though someone at CCM has finally looked at the GP dedication & case precedents and tweaked things accordingly.

but thats what I dont get...after all is said and done, if you have to bury it in order to fit it into GP, then whats the point?? i just dont understand this group at all. its like they're doing this to spite the community at large, just to say, "hey, look what we got away with. and on a technicality too!"

[Nowhereman1280]

Seriously, just burying it doesn't change anything. This is going to be the highest land use anywhere in the park. The amount of traffic in and out of the CCM will be far greater than anything other than the Art Institute which was given permission to be there by the original rulings. The point of a park is to have low land use so people can go there to enjoy LOW DENSITY. Not so that they can get lost in constant crowds of school Children and be run over by a school bus... (a bit extreme I know, but whatever, I'm pissed)...

I hope that they try and build this and get taken all the way to supreme court (draining the museum of lots of $$$) and then they get struck down and a permanent end is put to this kind of behavior. Also, it would be nice if the bad PR and loss of $$$ would cause the CCM to go broke to punish them for their jackassery...

[BWChicago]

At a lecture last week, in response to a question about his stance on CCM, historian and preservationist Daniel Bluestone suggested that someone make a composite image of all the various proposed 'improvements' to Grant Park over the years to showcase the reality of the slippery slope and how foolish it would be to allow this. He said that was done with NY Central Park.

[nomarandlee]

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2008/05/daley-museum-cr.html

Daley: Museum critics want kids underground
Posted by Hal Dardick at 3:05 p.m.

Mayor Richard Daley said Monday that the proposed Children's Museum in Grant Park is designed to be mostly underground because opponents don't want to see children.

Daley, when questioned about the most recently proposed museum design, which placed even more of the facility beneath a green canopy, said that was done “because of the community. First of all, the community didn’t want to see the children. They didn’t want to see the children coming out of a bus, so they put them below ground, so you won’t see these kids.”

Daley went on to say: “What’s wrong with seeing children? That’s the thing I don’t understand. The community wanted them below ground, so they are on the second level of Randolph Street.”..............

:haha: This really isn't bringing out the best (or logical) in Daley

[Loopy]

How bizarre. He's hired Eric Sedler's P.R. firm to put a strategy together for this project and the chosen tactic is to call their opponents NIMBY's!

[Marcu]

This entire debate is getting way out of hand and is clearly just a front for bigger political power struggle.

[jpIllInoIs]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/

Option 7 United Center

May 7, 2008

Have you noticed that proponents of jamming a Chicago Children's Museum into Grant Park like to talk about kids?

Tuesday morning at Chicago's Union League Club, Jennifer Farrington, the museum's president, offered her defense of the project during a joint appearance with Ald. Brendan Reilly (42nd). Reilly opposes this attempted land grab. Farrington talked about the alleged appeal to kids of a buried museum--or, as Tribune architecture critic Blair Kamin suggests, a place that could be nicknamed the Chicago Children's Mausoleum.

[spyguy]

This entire debate is getting way out of hand and is clearly just a front for bigger political power struggle.

Yup. It's clear no one is actually interested in the museum's future. One side is screaming racist while the other is giving a list of useless alternatives.

[CenIL_LA]

I would agree for the sheer amount of vehicular traffic would create problems for Grant Park with an additional public facility. I doubt it greatly entered Wards perceptions that traffic in the park would be the soul destroyer in what should be a formal and tranquill experience. The roadways through the park would only get more heavily used when the park is already heavily "roomed" into, not so easily accessible sections. Parks should not have 4 lane roadways going through them. Grant Park needs these roadways severely reduced in lanes and numbers.

People would use the park more for passive experiences if they didnt still have to put up with the city they would want to leave behind. The museums plans wouldnt be so harsh on crowds if this was truly only a park and not a mode of transportation for the neighborhoods surrounding it.

[jpIllInoIs]

Yup. It's clear no one is actually interested in the museum's future. One side is screaming racist while the other is giving a list of useless alternatives.

Goto disagree with you here SG.. The list of alternative sites is not useless.
My top 3 from the list to date....
#1 Garfield Park- Great architecural precedent in the conservatory and feild house-great transportation and parking.. up&coming hood that would create synthesis with new museum, central location.
#2 Pritzker Park- Blank slate on downtown location, great transportation, nearby HWLibrary- not great parking
#3 United Center area. If your going to have massive parking lots, might as well use them during the day. Near Ike Expwy, CTA line nearby. decent hood,(on east side) could use another shot in the arm.
#4 Lincoln Park- Enhances the "family museum campus" with LP Zoo, LP Conservatory, Notabart Nature Museim. But no parking or transit.

[Chicago3rd]

#4 is out of the question. Same reason it shouldn't be in Grant Park....too much is being built over already in Lincoln Park.

[nomarandlee]

I prefer a downtown location but I have to admit that the Logan Square idea of building over the tracks kind of appeals to me.

[bnk]

Nothing really new but it is from an out of town paper.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/us/10museum.html?em&ex=1210564800&en=513be0d58e6cb5f4&ei=5087%0A

May 10, 2008

Museum Plan for Chicago’s Treasured Lakefront Stirs a Fight
By CATRIN EINHORN

CHICAGO — A proposal to build a children’s museum in a downtown park here has set off a fierce debate over Chicago’s cherished lakefront.

The dispute has been particularly high-pitched, even for a city that obsesses over changes to its skyline and public spaces. The city’s planning commission is scheduled to take up the museum proposal on Thursday amid accusations of racism and race-baiting, seething editorials in the city’s newspapers and even the conjured-up spirit of a long-dead retail magnate.

...

[LaSalle.St.Station]

not a problem, it is a nice transition from the randolph viaduct to the park....also ,why not to build the parking garage under daley bi but now its an issue.... Riley doesn't want what the highrise folks dont want... alot of city kids were there tennis courts are...... orange whip anyone?

[nomarandlee]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-children-museum-13-may13,0,1559292.story

Grant Park idea panned
Planning council objects as Children's Museum set to seek city planners' OKBy Noreen S. Ahmed-Ullah | Tribune reporter
10:00 PM CDT, May 12, 2008

The Metropolitan Planning Council announced Monday that it could not support the proposed move of the Chicago Children's Museum to Grant Park, citing unanswered questions and a lack of "thoughtful" public discussion about the controversial project.

The group of business and civic leaders, which promotes long-term planning and development policies, issued its critical statement as the museum's proposal faces its first government hearing before the Chicago Plan Commission on May 15.

......"We deserve better than being presented with the proposal to relocate the Chicago Children's Museum to Grant Park as a faitaccompli without the benefit of a thoughtful planning process which would have added and provided answers to many of the issues circling this controversial proposal," said the statement co-writtenby MarySue Barrett, the group's president and former top Daley aide. "In the absence of those answers and a public planning process, we cannot support this plan."............

[nomarandlee]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/chi-080511hydepark-editorial,0,2890888.story

Option 8: A Hyde Park nexus

May 11, 2008

.......Imagine giving Chicago's Museum of Science and Industry a new partner--a similarly classy destination, also skewed toward young people, with which Science and Industry could develop mutual promotions, ticket packages and parking options.

........Where in Hyde Park would a Children's Museum fit? The best site of several suggested by local residents may be the former Doctors Hospital at 5800 S. Stony Island Ave. This is a stylish and solidly built colonial revival that architectural preservationists have been hoping to readapt imaginatively since it closed in 2000. It sits just west of Science and Industry, across a thin strip of Jackson Park greenery. Your mind's eye can envision little legs pumping from one world-class museum to the next.

Visitors would approach as easily as they reach Science and Industry: Green and Red CTA lines to the west, express buses, Lake Shore Drive, Interstate 90/94 and the Metra station at 56th Street and Stony Island. Yes, this building's curved drive and covered entrance are more than big enough to let school buses unload and load............
..

[trvlr70]

I like both the Hyde Park location and the adaptive reuse of the building.

[i_am_hydrogen]

Chicago Children's Museum - Spaghetti Bowl East?

by Lynn Becker
May 12, 2008

This is the underside of the "Spaghetti Bowl", a/k/a the Circle Interchange of highway ramps along Congress between Halsted Street and the old Main Post Office:
http://bp3.blogger.com/_OvonoKii_ds/SCkGopamEYI/AAAAAAAABmM/pgHFr3xWTk4/s400/spaghettibowl.jpg

. . . and this is a just released rendering of the design the Chicago Children's Museum is seeking to clout into Grant Park. (You can see three new renderings released by the museum Monday on Chicago Tribune architectural critic Blair Kamin's The Skyline blog, here.)
http://bp0.blogger.com/_OvonoKii_ds/SCkGo5amEZI/AAAAAAAABmU/03t3rieN8Ok/s400/ccmramp.jpg

http://arcchicago.blogspot.com/2008/05/chicago-childrens-museum-spaghetti-bowl.html

[wrabbit]

^ Great - a bunch of concrete ramps for the kiddies to fall on. Perhaps the surfaces will be rubberized?

But it would make a very nice bus depot.

[simcityaustin]

Those new renderings remind me of an old airport terminal or something. So bland and cold feeling for a children's museum.

[HowardL]

I like how that one little monster in the rendering is getting ready to kick the shit out of that little girl in the matching coordinate outfit.

[aic4ever]

Will the, what looks like possibly concrete block, be removed from the curved corner portion?

That's just plastic for weather protection. The curved area will be curtainwall with, I believe, a decorative metal screening in front of it, assuming the option was approved. The area in general will be an atrium type opening from the second floor through the fifth floor with three flights of curved monumental stairs. Should look pretty cool when it's all said and done.

[pip]

Plan Commission OKs Children’s Museum move

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=29451

looks like its going to to Grant Park.

Not a statement for or against Daley but he won again.

[LaSalle.St.Station]

if i were the king of the LSE mountain... and lets all agree , its all about the old lady's tennis court access here........, but.... shrink columbus ave to a total of 5 lanes and allow the public school intrusion into high end lakeshore east initiative project to proceed.

[Jibba]

^Doesn't this have to get approval from the City Council still?

[emathias]

^Doesn't this have to get approval from the City Council still?

yes, it will still need council approval

[ardecila]

^^ That's gonna be the real battle, since that's where the whole issue of aldermanic privilege comes into play.

Supposedly, Reilly has been drumming up support from other aldermen on the grounds that, if he loses control of his ward, it means a diminishing of the others' control over their respective wards and the development that occurs therein.

At this point, I'm pretty ambivalent about the whole thing. Neither way presents a totally desirable outcome.

-If the museum gets approval, it means that the sanctity of Grant Park is diminished, and a wonderful opportunity to enrich any number of neighborhoods around the city has been lost. But it also means that Daley has once again demonstrated his central power over the City Council, and subdued Reilly and any number of obstinate alderman, at least for the moment.

-If the museum is denied, then Grant Park's openness is preserved, but Brendan Reilly and many other alderman will realize that a fight against City Hall (who, sadly, often knows best) is winnable.

[neverdone]

That's just plastic for weather protection. The curved area will be curtainwall with, I believe, a decorative metal screening in front of it, assuming the option was approved. The area in general will be an atrium type opening from the second floor through the fifth floor with three flights of curved monumental stairs. Should look pretty cool when it's all said and done.

Thanks, your description sounds much more appealing. The Ben-day dots on the rendering above, however, do not.


I feel bad for Marina city, Dick's restaurant is the last thing that Chicago treasure needs. :yuck:

[BVictor1]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/959465,childrens052008.article

Children's Museum vote delayed
Opponent says council support is waning

May 20, 2008

BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter
Chicago will have to wait until June 5 to find out whether aldermen are willing to approve Mayor Daley's plan to build a new $100 million Chicago Children's Museum in Grant Park over the objections of local Ald. Brendan Reilly (42nd).

As expected, the City Council's Zoning Committee today put off consideration of the controversial museum plan. Zoning Committee Chairman William Banks said that as many as 22 aldermen -- including several members of his committee -- were unable to attend today's scheduled meeting because they're in Las Vegas attending a shopping center convention.

Banks said the decision to put off the museum vote wasn't a sign of weakness. On an issue that appears headed for the courts, Banks said he wants to make certain a majority of his committee's 14 members are present.

ÒThis is not an issue of having the votes. It’s an issue of having the bodies,” Banks said. “The mayor clearly has the votes. I believe he has 29 or 30.”

Twenty-six votes are needed to pass the full council.

In response to the delay, Peggy Figiel, co-founder of the group Save Grant Park, said: “The museum and the mayor have been saying they have the votes. But this makes it clear that perhaps they do not have the votes and that they are not as confident as they said they are.”

Figiel said she doesn't buy the argument that a majority of committee members are needed to lay the groundwork for a court fight.

“They’re going to vote on all of the other things on the agenda,” Figiel said.

Last fall, Reilly, whose ward covers downtown, set the stage for a confrontation with Daley when he declared his opposition to moving the Children’s Museum from Navy Pier to Grant Park, on grounds that the park should remain “forever open, free and clear,” as Chicago pioneer Montgomery Ward once put it.

Daley responded by accusing opponents of having racial motives, portraying it as a fight for the city’s future and demanding that the decision be made by all 50 aldermen, not one.

That would be a break from City Council tradition, which calls for the council to follow the lead of the local alderman on development and zoning issues.

Banks insisted today that aldermanic prerogative doesn’t apply on an issue that involves a showcase park on Chicago’s doorstep.

“It involves all of the citizens of Chicago, not just one alderman’s fiefdom,” Banks said. “It would be just as ludicrous to say that O’Hare Airport, which technically is located in the 41st Ward, is governed by [Ald.] Brian Doherty.”

Last week, the Grant Park plan was approved by the Daley-controlled Chicago Plan Commission, setting the stage for a City Council showdown. The nine-hour meeting offered a preview of the court fight ahead. Residents of the high-rises surrounding the Daley Bicentennial Plaza site near Millennium Park made their case that, despite five redesigns, the project violates 172 years of legal protections governing Grant Park.

The museum’s team of architects, consultants and attorneys argued that it does not.

“We are not building structures on the park. And that takes us out of the Ward cases. And there is an entirely different standard for below-grade construction,” said zoning expert Jack Guthman, special counsel to the Chicago Park District, a co-applicant with the Children’s Museum.

[nomarandlee]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0525edit1may25,0,5828074.story

Option 9: Make no little plans!
Children's Museum could anchor 'Children's Center of the World' at Navy Pier

May 25, 2008
.

...............Mayor Daley, this is your moment. Make no little plans! Instead, rebuild Navy Pier into "The Children's Center of the World":

Give the Children's Museum all the space it covets to expand eastward. East of that, create an ESPN Zone-like mecca of interactive music, sports and high-tech activities for tweens and teens. Expand the Chicago Shakespeare Theater as a nexus of drama education and pure enjoyment for young people. Off the outdoor concourse, add a water-and-light show spectacular enough to humble the Bellagio's fabled show in Las Vegas. To complete the rebirth, turn the pier's domed (and underused) ballroom into a fabulous International Visitors Center.........

..

[nomarandlee]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/975128,museum052808.article

Children's Museum lists rejected sites
GRANT PARK BEAT OUT 36 OTHERS |
Critics say alternatives never seriously considered

..........The list of existing buildings considered during the museum's three-year search includes: the old Chicago Post Office; Union Station; the Chicago Board of Trade East Building; the Chicago Stock Exchange; the Chicago Board Options Exchange; Sears Tower Condominium; the Apparel Center and Lakeshore Athletic Club.

New construction sites include: Northerly Island; Franklin Point; Wolf Point, the Art Institute block; Pritzker Park; Roosevelt and Michigan; Roosevelt and Clark; 31st Street and Lake Shore Drive; the Chicago Riverfront at Columbus and Lake Shore Drive and 625 W. Adams.

In a letter to Plan Commission Chairwoman Linda Searl, Children's Museum CEO Jennifer Farrington said all of those sites were rejected in favor of a Daley Bicentennial Plaza site that met the museum's core criteria: a central downtown location, easy access to public transportation, access to green space and adjacent covered parking.

In an interview, Farrington said museum officials ruled out sites outside of downtown because they feel the museum needs to be accessible to suburbanites and out-of-town vistors, as well as city residents.............
..

[Alliance]

I agree with the Trib. Navy pier is the place. Then we can address why it doesn't have great access to public trans.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ That list is so ridiculous, what makes them think they even have the right to reject those other options without the say of the people who actually control the land, the residents of Chicago??? They clearly think they are entitled to something just because they are a powerful lobby in city hall. Well they've officially lost all of my respect through this whole thing...

[Chicago3rd]

I agree with the Trib. Navy pier is the place. Then we can address why it doesn't have great access to public trans.

Or a water Taxi from it to the Zoo and to Museum Campus and the Science and Technology Museum. Seeing the city from the water is a childhood memory I will never forget and giving the kids a chance to ride on another mode of public transportation is another benefit.

[Chicago2020]

Why not expand Navy Pier???

[2PRUROCKS!]

City Council approves new home for Children's Museum
By: Lorene Yue June 11, 2008
(Crain’s) — Chicago City Council members voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to allow the Chicago Children’s Museum to build its controversial new home in Grant Park despite the strong outcry and a lawsuit from opponents.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=29787

[Loopy]

Wow. Daley and Council just rammed this baby down our throats!

There was overwhelming public opposition to this move, perhaps 80%, but they just had to have it.

I can't help but wonder what this will do to the public sentiment toward the Olympic bid, which is already soft.

Great job, Rich.

[BVictor1]

Wow. Daley and Council just rammed this baby down our throats!

There was overwhelming public opposition to this move, perhaps 80%, but they just had to have it.

I can't help but wonder what this will do to the public sentiment toward the Olympic bid, which is already soft.

Great job, Rich.

you knew it was coming.


http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/999584,child061108.article

Children's Museum to be built in Grant Park
June 11, 2008

BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter

Bowing to Mayor Daley instead of City Council tradition, Chicago aldermen today approved the mayor’s controversial plan to build a $100 million Children’s Museum in Grant Park.

Rebel rookie Ald. Brendan Reilly (42nd), who dared to defy Daley, had predicted a “close vote,” citing the longstanding practice of deferring to the wishes of the local aldermen on zoning issues.

He was dead wrong. The vote was 33-16. The mayor wanted this one badly and he lobbied aldermen hard to make sure he got it.
Hours before the final vote, Reilly threw in the towel. He said he was no match for the mayor's bag of political goodies.

"There's been a lot of arm-twisting and intense lobbying going on over the last 48 hours. When people are trying to negotiate benefits for their wards, that's not something civic groups, grassroots advocates or I can compete with," Reilly said.

"That's my colleagues' perogative. However, it's disappointing. This is a pretty important public policy question -- and the right thing to do would be to vote no. No to hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars of costly legal fees that city of Chicago taxpayers will be paying. We're gonna be picking up the tab for these lawsuits."

Reilly promised a flurry of lawsuits -- and an attempt to seek a temporary restraining order blocking construction. Museum attorney Ted Novak said he does not believe the opposition will be able to meet the high legal standard needed to obtain a restraining order — including bonding and likelihood of success on the merits.

But he predicted a marathon court battle.

“Historically, that can take a number of years,” Novak said.

More than 172 years of legal protections — affirmed by four Illinois Supreme Court rulings — have kept Grant Park “forever open, clear and free,” as Montgomery Ward sought.

Earlier this week, Daley was asked whether the vote in favor of his pet project would reflect public opinion across the city.

“If I look at public opinion [according to] your newspaper, I would have never built Millennium Park…The way you portray it, no one wants any Children’s Museum, Millennium Park and all the other things,” a defiant Daley said.

“That’s part of leadership. I will fight for children more than your newspaper will. I really believe in children…My role is being mayor of children. To me, that’s the greatest title I could ever have. Children deserve the best in the city of Chicago.”

Last fall, Reilly set the stage for a political confrontation with Daley when he declared his opposition to building the museum in Grant Park.

Daley responded by accusing opponents of having racial motives, portraying it as a fight for the city’s future and demanding that the decision be made by all 50 aldermen — not just one. That’s a clean break from City Council tradition, which calls for the Council to follow the lead of the local alderman on development and zoning issues.

Currently located at Navy Pier, the Children’s Museum wants to build a replacement in Grant Park to replace the ugly fieldhouse at Daley Bicentennial Plaza on Randolph Street just east of Michigan Avenue.

The 145,000 square-foot project would be built largely below ground and has been redesigned five times to lower its profile.

The latest design moved the museum’s entrance from park land to a sidewalk adjacent to Randolph Street to strengthen the legal case for building in Grant Park.

“We were pretty confident in our compliance before. The changes further ensure this is in compliance. It preserves views, seamlessly integrates into the park land and ensures as much green space as is there now,” said Children’s Museum CEO Jennifer Farrington on the day the fifth redesign was unveiled.

Reilly couldn’t disagree more. He has insisted that the museum remains an illegal “land grab — a stake in the ground in specially protected Grant Park” and that it’s profile will be raised down the road.

“Plans have a habit of changing around this particular park,” Reilly said, pointing to the Harris Theater, among other projects.

Although the project has been driven further and further underground, Reilly said, “These five revisions serve as an acknowledgement by the museum that the proposal was ill-conceived and, more importantly, illegal as it violates the special protections that govern Grant Park. This latest revised design still fails to satisfy the Lakefront Protection Ordinance and the four Illinois Supreme Court decisions that govern and protect Grant Park.”

The museum’s high-powered team of architects, consultants and attorneys is now gearing up to do battle in court.

One lawsuit has already been filed seeking to overturn the Plan Commission’s May 15 vote on grounds that residents of nearby high-rises did not get proper notice of the meeting.

“We are not violating any [Supreme Court] decisions for two basic reasons: We are not building structures on the park. And that takes us out of the Ward cases. And there is an entirely different standard for below-grade construction...We feel that the plan, as proposed, meets law and legal precedent,”zoning expert Jack Guthman, special counsel to the Chicago Park District, a co-applicant with the Children’s Museum, said last month.

[Loopy]

you knew it was coming.

LOL. I did indeed. That doesn't make the process any less breathtaking to observe.

[nomarandlee]

Now here comes the costly unnecessarily litigation process.

[spyguy]

I noticed that Fioretti voted yes - I thought he was against the move. What changed his mind? ;)

[Steely Dan]

i am not a fan of this plan for the museum in grant park, but i'm very pleased that democracy has been knocked down a couple of pegs today.

[Abner]

Steely, I think it's kind of strange that you allow yourself to make outrageous editorial comments in this thread like that but do not extend that privilege to anyone else. Anybody responding to your post would be considered off topic.

[the urban politician]

Wow. Daley and Council just rammed this baby down our throats!

There was overwhelming public opposition to this move, perhaps 80%, but they just had to have it.

I can't help but wonder what this will do to the public sentiment toward the Olympic bid, which is already soft.

Great job, Rich.

^ Oh, give me a break. It was sensationalized mumbo jumbo by the press, and you know this. Vast majority of Chicagoans could give 2 shits, and even if they were against this museum moving to Grant Park they won't lose a minute's sleep over it anyhow. At the end of the day they'll say "fuck it" and move on with their lives just as always.

This isn't going to mobilize the masses against Daley, this isn't going to mobilize the masses against the Olympics, and it probably won't make a dent in public opinion about the City Govt anyhow. I can understand why Daley unfortunately just doesn't give a shit any more--I've read the local press, I read the dozens of comments by readers of the Tribune & Crains every day--Chicagoans already think their city Govt is an undemocratic, opaque, fee-for-favors ball of corruption. So what's new?

BTW, this is coming from a guy who also didn't think Grant Park was a good idea for the Museum.

[Loopy]

I read the dozens of comments by readers of the Tribune & Crains every day--Chicagoans already think their city Govt is an undemocratic, opaque, fee-for-favors ball of corruption. So what's new?

What's new is exactly those talkback forums in the Web-ified press and on blogs. They give issues like this a lot more moment than the old media could. I believe that it will definitely change the local political calculus.

[the urban politician]

6/11/2008 4:52:00 PM
Fioretti flips on museum vote (http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=60&ArticleID=5105&TM=82494.2)
Vote called ‘shocking’ by Save Grant Park organizer

By MICAH MAIDENBERG
Editor
Second Ward Alderman Bob Fioretti voted Wednesday to support the Chicago Children Museum's controversial proposal to move to Grant Park, stunning many who counted him as a solid 'no' vote.

Fioretti previously told Chicago Journal he would oppose the museum's move to Grant Park. He even said at that time he once advised 42nd Ward Alderman Brendan Reilly, who has led opposition to the museum's plans, that legal precedent was on Reilly's side.

[Loopy]

I noticed that Fioretti voted yes - I thought he was against the move. What changed his mind?
Maybe Daley agreed to support Bob's future campaign to landmark all of the surface parking lots in the South Loop

[VivaLFuego]

While I generally think it's not a great place for it, I feel strongly that Reilly needs to be humiliated and "aldermanic perogative" as regards to land use be attacked and defeated whenever possible. So I'm not too broken up about the vote.

And a big LOL at Fioretti's vote... what was his angle?

[Alliance]

i am not a fan of this plan for the museum in grant park, but i'm very pleased that democracy has been knocked down a couple of pegs today.

I agree with the latter but the people were right on this one. A children's Museum shouldn't be a vault and it shouldn't be in our karking park.

[BVictor1]

6/11/2008 4:52:00 PM
Fioretti flips on museum vote (http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=60&ArticleID=5105&TM=82494.2)
Vote called ‘shocking’ by Save Grant Park organizer

By MICAH MAIDENBERG
Editor
Second Ward Alderman Bob Fioretti voted Wednesday to support the Chicago Children Museum's controversial proposal to move to Grant Park, stunning many who counted him as a solid 'no' vote.

Fioretti previously told Chicago Journal he would oppose the museum's move to Grant Park. He even said at that time he once advised 42nd Ward Alderman Brendan Reilly, who has led opposition to the museum's plans, that legal precedent was on Reilly's side.

Maybe there's hope for this man yet :) :tup:

[Alliance]

No, he just wasted all his "hope" on a project that should have never happened there. Its not out of line for him to be an idiot and support the stupid projects and not the good ones.

[LaSalle.St.Station]

pard on me.... but isn't that oct sectional already built upon a rking garage ...how else do you justify the Ra ddolpfh viaduct

[a chicago bearcat]

No, he just wasted all his "hope" on a project that should have never happened there. Its not out of line for him to be an idiot and support the stupid projects and not the good ones.

I haven't exactly agreed with the guy on much, but it would be at least respectful to not attack him from behind the anonymous shield of the blogosphere.

I know we all fall into that bad habit, but scapegoating doesn't do anything but make us bitter.

[emathias]

I haven't exactly agreed with the guy on much, but it would be at least respectful to not attack him from behind the anonymous shield of the blogosphere.

I know we all fall into that bad habit, but scapegoating doesn't do anything but make us bitter.

Welcome to the forum, Mr. Fioretti.

[Alliance]

I haven't exactly agreed with the guy on much, but it would be at least respectful to not attack him from behind the anonymous shield of the blogosphere.

I know we all fall into that bad habit, but scapegoating doesn't do anything but make us bitter.

Well, this is a public site and welcome to the 21st century. Try reading political blogs and maybe this will seem like strawberries and cream.

Anyway, I'm not scapegoating him, there are multiple players here. I never said I blamed him, so don't put words in my mouth. However, this was a project he was against. He WAS right, but then he had to turn around and be wrong, just because its Fioretti. Finally when the man could have been use and stuck it to Daley, he just failed again.

[ardecila]

^^ I think his point is that complaining in private doesn't do anything to change the situation.. a better use of time would be to start being proactive and contacting Fioretti directly with your concerns. If enough of us do that, then his pandering nature might lead him to make some good decisions.

Some people started that community group over at SSC to advocate dense development and good urban design, but it seems like that just sort of died - I'm not sure, I was never really involved with it. That's really a shame, since it was a great vehicle to get our concerns addressed.

Now, the Childrens' Museum issue is divisive even among us forumers, who usually agree on whether a given development is good or bad for the city..

[Alliance]

Well, if that was the case...I have mixed feelings. This site isn't private and you can bet its read, but I see his point. Also, I don't live in that ward, and i've always doubted that Fioretti would really care. However, I may be living there sooner than Fioretti may like and I garuntee that if that is the case, that man will know my name.

[intrepidDesign]

I'm really opposed to this museum. I say scrap the idea, leave the park intact and spend the money where it's needed most (CTA!)

[the urban politician]

^ :shrug:

That makes no sense at all. In what way does not building the Children's Museum in Grant Park have anything to do with CTA funding?

[a chicago bearcat]

can we all have an agreement not to call people idiots or other general non specific insults just because they disagree with us.

you can call him a pandering politico, or an alderman with no understanding of the history of our lakefront, or just an alderman, because that's essentially sums up everyone's beef with him

but idiot is so non descript and childish it makes this forum seem like it is diverging from explaining opinion and providing information/photos

and I agree TUP the childrens museum is raising it's own money

[BVictor1]

UPDATE

The proposed new Children's Museum


Since the Friends of Downtown was active in opposing the relocation of the Chicago Children's Museum to Grant Park, we thought it would be a good idea to update our members and contacts on the issue since the City Council approved the relocation last year.

Earlier last week, a judge ruled in favor of the City and the Children's Museum on whether or not the process used to approve the relocation was legal. This was the second such decision in their favor. Though this was an important legal step forward for the Museum, it is certainly not the last hurdle. From our point of view, they don't even get to the crux of the reason why we were against the relocation to Grant Park.

Save Grant Park and the residents of 340 and 360 E. Randolph are readying a lawsuit to challenge the big issue, whether the proposed building in Grant Park is in violation of the covenants issued by the Illinois Supreme Court about 100 years ago. According to my sources, this lawsuit will not be filed until the Children's Museum begins plans to put a shovel into the ground at the Grant Park location. We don't know right now when the Museum plans to take that next step.

We will do our best to keep you apprised of this moving forward. At this time, most signs point to a long legal battle ahead. For those of you interested in more background information, please feel free to go to www.savegrantpark.org. Their legal counsel is doing this work pro bono but they are looking for financial assistance to help cover expenses. Additional historical perspective on the Grant Park protections can be found at www.neweastside.org.

The Friends of Downtown still hopes that the Museum will reconsider its decision and work with civic groups to find a new location in Chicago that fits its needs and doesn't violate the Grant Park protections. We think this is a much better use of people's time and resources than multi-year court battles.

Tom Wolf
President
Friends of Downtown