Quote:
Originally Posted by rgolch
Meh.... can't say I really care about this one. Not having a blues museum hardy squanders Chicago's image as a major contributor to blues music; and I too can't stand blues music. Moreover, after seeing the total clusterphuck that happened to the Museum of Broadcasting history, I'm not sure I'd trust Chicago to pull it off right. I think St Louis would put more love into it. The only thing I'd say is that, if it were in Chicago, it'd have the opportunity to see far more traffic, as there are way more visitors and tourist who come to Chicago.
In my dream of dreams, I'd love to see a massive expansion of the Museum of Contemporary Art (MCA) in Chicago. I have to admit, I was a little sad to see the Art Institute create a modern wing, as I think it breaks up the city's modern art into two distinct museums (although much of the Modern wing was just moving famous pre-existing modern works at the Art Institute into the wing). The MCA is pretty good as is, but I'd love to see even more, and those types of museums are way more important to a city like Chicago.
|
I think the important thing is having establishments where you can go watch and listen to the blues. It's the most authentic thing...not a pre-packaged corporate experience of recorded audio and computerized visuals and static artifacts.
Still, it's a place people would visit and Chicago already has plenty of cultural attractions that would be too big of competitors to out of state and international tourists that may be short on time.
If this is what will boost tourism further in STL and give it more attractions, they deserve it.