CHICAGO | Lucas Museum of Narrative Art - Page 17

jcchii · #**321** Posted **Jan 23, 2015, 12:31 AM**

yeah, it is clearly a unique case and it's underutilized land.

interesting Obama library hitting around same time though. City won't see this again for another 100 years

Tom Servo · #**322** Posted **Jan 25, 2015, 1:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

I'm defending the principle that parkland is to be protected, [/I]

Protected parkland since 1915. Good principle to defend.

If we lose this museum due to pure idiocy, then I give up. There's no hope at that point.

ethereal_reality · #**323** Posted **Jan 25, 2015, 3:09 AM**

My God, what an amazing photograph Tom Servo! I could look at that for an hour.

bnk · #**324** Posted **Jan 25, 2015, 4:34 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ethereal_reality

My God, what an amazing photograph Tom Servo! I could look at that for an hour.

Like above your post and toms

Rizzo · #**325** Posted **Jan 25, 2015, 6:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Yes, all land designated as a park is parkland. To argue otherwise would be like claiming Burnham Harbor is not a waterfront site during the weeks each year when it's ice rather than water.

A museum is a park use. I don't see what the base of the argument is here. I suppose parking is a park use but a museum is a better use of public space.

Parks have buildings on them. They've always had. Parks aren't always open land, and if we want more open land, northerly island is on the way.

Vlajos · #**326** Posted **Jan 25, 2015, 6:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hayward

A museum is a park use. I don't see what the base of the argument is here. I suppose parking is a park use but a museum is a better use of public space.

Parks have buildings on them. They've always had. Parks aren't always open land, and if we want more open land, northerly island is on the way.

Exactly, this whole argument against is bizarre.

Ch.G, Ch.G · #**327** Posted **Jan 26, 2015, 12:31 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hayward

Parks aren't always open land, and if we want more open land, northerly island is on the way.

That's a really good point. Completely forgot about that. Makes the opposition seem even more unhinged.

Tom Servo · #**328** Posted **Jan 26, 2015, 5:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

Makes the opposition seem even more unhinged.

Hah, nice.

le_brew · #**329** Posted **Jan 27, 2015, 3:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

If we lose this museum due to pure idiocy, then I give up. There's no hope at that point.

that's a little overdramatic.
if we lose this museum we move on. . . we lost OPRAH, we still live on. . .we lost m. jordan, we are still here. .

this museum looks, feels, and taste like CA, particularly LA (movie-land) and that's where lucas is leaning or he would not have made press about it. he wanted it there in the first place. if pres. obama doesn't move back here or we don't get the museum, guess what, chicago will still press on, because that's the kind of city that it is.

it always, always moves forward and never stops, however at its own pace. how nice it would be to have a well-designed museum on the lake front, but this thing he proposed is not it. the next proposal will come along for that spot and i'm fine with that. if he moves on, i am fine with that as well.

marothisu · #**330** Posted **Jan 27, 2015, 4:21 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by le_brew

that's a little overdramatic.
if we lose this museum we move on. . . we lost OPRAH, we still live on. . .we lost m. jordan, we are still here. .

That is a TERRIBLE analogy. Oprah had a show, she didn't bring in a potential Billions of dollars over many years. Not even MJ had that much economic impact on Chicago.

Quote:

he wanted it there in the first place.

No, he wanted it in SF which he tried for a handful of years to get. That's when he said screw it and came to Chicago. He wasn't even considering LA until recently due to the pure idiocy that's going on now.

UKVGuy · #**331** Posted **Jan 27, 2015, 5:45 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by le_brew

that's a little overdramatic.
if we lose this museum we move on. . . we lost OPRAH, we still live on. . .we lost m. jordan, we are still here. .

this museum looks, feels, and taste like CA, particularly LA (movie-land) and that's where lucas is leaning or he would not have made press about it. he wanted it there in the first place. if pres. obama doesn't move back here or we don't get the museum, guess what, chicago will still press on, because that's the kind of city that it is.

it always, always moves forward and never stops, however at its own pace. how nice it would be to have a well-designed museum on the lake front, but this thing he proposed is not it. the next proposal will come along for that spot and i'm fine with that. if he moves on, i am fine with that as well.

I think this is a fine example of what a previous poster termed "unhinged."

Steely Dan · #**332** Posted **Jan 30, 2015, 4:44 PM**

new tribune poll of city residents:

support FOP lawsuit to block lucas museum: 25%

oppose FOP lawsuit to block lucas museum: 31%

issue does not matter: 37%

no opinion: 7%

marothisu · #**333** Posted **Jan 30, 2015, 4:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

new tribune poll of city residents:

support FOP lawsuit to block lucas museum: 25%

oppose FOP lawsuit to block lucas museum: 31%

issue does not matter: 37%

no opinion: 7%

1) Is this poll still open?
2) I don't understand how people can say it doesn't matter when it has such a big economic impact on the city. Then again, should I really be trusting people to even understand this?

Steely Dan · #**334** Posted **Jan 30, 2015, 4:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by marothisu

1) Is this poll still open?

it wasn't an internet poll, it was a regular old telephone poll, so the results are actually meaningful, as opposed to some grossly unscientific internet poll.

CHI -21c · #**335** Posted **Jan 30, 2015, 7:00 PM**

I think the argument will blow over. What better use will the city find for it?

Does anyone think MAD will change the design?
I can see the lazy, random strokes of his expensive, artist markers (especially in the ring).
They wanted: organic/landscape/nature, they got: totally man-made/industrial/warehouse because of the solid material.

And if we don't like it, MAD/Lucas think it's too bold for us -which is just the opposite. White blobitecture has been done for over ten years now. The attempts to be novel and edgy for the sake of being novel and edgy leave me unfazed.

This is too banal for Chicago.

rlw777 · #**336** Posted **Mar 4, 2015, 2:15 AM**

Oakland courts Lucas Museum - Tribune

And another city looking to pickup the Lucas Museum. Let's hope all goes well on the 12th so Lucas doesn't have to go city shopping.

joeg1985 · #**337** Posted **Mar 4, 2015, 11:01 PM**

Forgive my ignorance, I've lost track of this fight what with the elections and all. What decision is being made on the 12th?

rlw777 · #**338** Posted **Mar 5, 2015, 6:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeg1985

Forgive my ignorance, I've lost track of this fight what with the elections and all. What decision is being made on the 12th?

No decision necessarily. Just a hearing on the federal case.

Via Chicago · #**339** Posted **Mar 12, 2015, 6:35 PM**

Quote:

Lucas Museum plan hits a major legal speed bump

The proposed Lucas Museum of Narrative Art hit heavy legal turbulence today as a federal judge kept alive a lawsuit designed to block the facility and hinted that a change in state law ultimately may be needed if the facility is to be built on a lakefront site just south of Soldier Field.

In a ruling that likely will roil Chicago politics, U.S. District Court Judge John Darrah pretty much gave Friends of the Parks everything it wanted in its suit—short of a final decision...

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...gal-speed-bump

sentinel · #**340** Posted **Mar 12, 2015, 6:46 PM**

^That's unfortunate.