CHICAGO | Lucas Museum of Narrative Art

[BVictor1]

Anyone else feel like educating this poster?

http://www.chicagonow.com/mom-think-...y-spendthrift/

[sentinel]

There's no point - you can't fix stupid. Her article is an embarrassment.

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

^Not the Tribune, merely a Tribune business columnist who apparently can't differentiate between preservationists and open space advocates. Editorially, the Tribune still opposes the lakefront site.

I hope you relish your schadenfreude when Chicago loses this museum because you and others like you want to preserve a parking lot, because you can't comprehend that someone with lots of money wants to display and promote their artwork to the benefit of the public. You nitpick and strive to find inadequacies in the argument of others, yet are completely oblivious to your own damaging rhetoric and bitterness - I regret to inform you that you and folks like you are not open space advocates, but nothing more than self-indulgent pillars of exclusivity, masquerading as concerned citizens.

I would REALLY love to see who the biggest donors to FOTP are; seriously, who on Earth is funding this nonsense?

[tintinex]

Originally Posted by sentinel

There's no point - you can't fix stupid. Her article is an embarrassment.

agreed. I still left a small comment though. Inaction from our part makes the other side seem much louder

[Catmendue2]

Originally Posted by migueltorres

agreed. I still left a small comment though. Inaction from our part makes the other side seem much louder

Amen

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by sentinel

I hope you relish your schadenfreude . . because you and others like you want to preserve a parking lot, because you can't comprehend that someone with lots of money wants to display and promote their artwork . . . . I would REALLY love to see who the biggest donors to FOTP are; seriously, who on Earth is funding this nonsense?

And you can't comprehend that people of intelligence and good will can have objections to the actions of public officials based on principle? Why the need for an ad hominem attack or intimations of self-dealing?

I—and FOTP—would have no objection if Lucas were to simply buy some land and build a museum using his own money. Or even if the City of Chicago gave him some free land—that it actually owned.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

And you can't comprehend that people of intelligence and good will can have objections to the actions of public officials based on principle? Why the need for an ad hominem attack or intimations of self-dealing?

I—and FOTP—would have no objection if Lucas were to simply buy some land and build a museum using his own money. Or even if the City of Chicago gave him some free land—that it actually owned.

Because there were certain criteria for landing the museum in the first place; that being near water and sweeping vistas. South Works, while in private hands and land available, is just too far from the population center of the city and the Reese site is separated by 8 lanes of highway. Seeing as he is using his own money to build the facility, that part is covered.

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

And you can't comprehend that people of intelligence and good will can have objections to the actions of public officials based on principle? Why the need for an ad hominem attack or intimations of self-dealing?

I—and FOTP—would have no objection if Lucas were to simply buy some land and build a museum using his own money. Or even if the City of Chicago gave him some free land—that it actually owned.

Because it's a highly FLAWED, confounding and ultimately deleterious 'principle' that you're espousing, that's why. I'm utterly dumbfounded that you continue to champion the needs and rights of an asphalt parking lot. It would be something altogether if this building was being constructed with public funds, which it is not.

Please do not try and sell me on this being about 'good will' - that's an utter joke.

[Vlajos]

Chicago is toast with the likes of FOTP and Chuy running around spewing idiocy.

[ChiHi]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

And you can't comprehend that people of intelligence and good will can have objections to the actions of public officials based on principle? Why the need for an ad hominem attack or intimations of self-dealing?

I—and FOTP—would have no objection if Lucas were to simply buy some land and build a museum using his own money. Or even if the City of Chicago gave him some free land—that it actually owned.

It's comments like these that make me think that if people like this were around in the 20's we wouldn't have places like the Field, Shedd or Adler. They'd find some strange moral high ground to stand on and oppose it.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Mr DT, I'm not going to attack you, but I'm genuinely curious how you justify the Museum Campus (if you do) and not the Lucas Museum. How is it that it was OK to build Soldier Field, Field Museum, Shedd, Adler, and McCormick East along this stretch of lakefront, but it's not OK to build one more museum? If the physical museum itself is owned by the Park District does that make it OK?

I guess I just don't see what the "principle" here is, I don't understand what the hangup is. The precedent for building museums and other public buildings here has already been set half a dozen times. What about this time is different?

Ultimately I think all of this is moot since Rahm will find a workaround to win any court challenges. I just don't see how any court could strike this down if they set up an identical arrangement as they have with the Field Museum or Shedd or Adler.

[Mr Downtown]

The Field, Adler, and Shedd were done long, long ago, on land newly created for the purpose. They are owned by the Park District, not a private entity. When they expanded in the 1990s, they weren't allowed to consume more parkland—not even (gasp!) parking lots—but went underground or (at the Shedd) created more lakefill.

McCormick Place is Exhibit A in why it's a bad idea to trade lakefront parkland for dubious claims of economic development. It should never have been allowed to go there for a half-dozen reasons: not just lakefront access but also hotel and transportation access. The original Grant Park Stadium was for civic events and spectacle. The new Soldier Field facility built a decade ago specifically for American football should have come off the lakefront for, again, a number of reasons including access and historic preservation.

Where do we draw the line about giving away parkland? We've done it a half-dozen times just in the last decade, for needs as prosaic as elementary schools. Have you not noticed that nothing is left of Hanson Park? What park should we offer up for the Oprah Museum?

Ultimately, I do not predict success for the FotP lawsuit, because I've read the opinion in a similar suit over McCormick Place—though there is some hope to be found in the language of the March 12 order. The public trust issues could also be mooted if the General Assembly passed a bill or if an arrangement is found where the Park District retains control of the site and building. And when Mayor Emanuel gets 54% of the vote on April 7, he will take that as a mandate to give away any parkland he wants.

Originally Posted by BVictor1

there were certain criteria for landing the museum in the first place; that being near water and sweeping vistas.

Neither of which are available at USC. So this ultimatum only applies to Chicago?

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

The Field, Adler, and Shedd were done long, long ago, on land newly created for the purpose. They are owned by the Park District, not a private entity. When they expanded in the 1990s, they weren't allowed to consume more parkland—not even (gasp!) parking lots—but went underground or (at the Shedd) created more lakefill.

McCormick Place is Exhibit A in why it's a bad idea to trade lakefront parkland for dubious claims of economic development. It should never have been allowed to go there for a half-dozen reasons: not just lakefront access but also hotel and transportation access. The original Grant Park Stadium was for civic events and spectacle. The new Soldier Field facility built a decade ago specifically for American football should have come off the lakefront for, again, a number of reasons including access and historic preservation.

Where do we draw the line about giving away parkland? We've done it a half-dozen times just in the last decade, for needs as prosaic as elementary schools. Have you not noticed that nothing is left of Hanson Park? What park should we offer up for the Oprah Museum?....

That's funny, considering Oprah doesn't give two shits about Chicago anymore.

Also, please stop referring to it as parkland; that's insincere and you know it.

So because that land was newly created in the 20s-30s, for those institutions, it should not apply to a new institution of the same or similar purpose because 1. it's a 'vanity' project even though it's primarily for public consumption and 2. Because Lucas didn't want to build elsewhere in the City, we (FOTP et al) will fight him solely on the basis that our opinion alone is sacrosanct. That logic is not self-serving at all.

[LouisVanDerWright]

So your principle is that McCormick Place East should not have been allowed (I agree with that to some extent) and the the older museums are only OK because they were built on new parkland created specifically to accommodate those institutions correct? The additional expansions to Adler or Shedd are OK because they made an effort to keep the vast majority of the expansions underground right? Solider Field's expansion is not OK because it is above ground correct?

[Mr Downtown]

The principle is that parkland is not a land bank for the mayor to use for whatever transaction seems like a good idea at the moment. It is something to be preserved and expanded for future generations.

Otherwise, yours is a reasonable summation of my argument, with the exception of Soldier Field. I don't think of Soldier Field as having been expanded—the delicious irony was that Daley's impetuousness and haste made it too small for Olympics use. My objection there was on preservation grounds, and because a new home for the Bears should have been somewhere other than Burnham Park, where it could enjoy better transportation options, could market naming rights, could seat 80,000, and could be roofed, allowing it to be used year-round for other events as well.

[XIII]

They ARE creating new park land here.

Lucas is paying to move the existing parking lots underground and will be building tons of new parkland on top of them (think millennium park and Maggie Daley). There will also be a museum there, but the vast majority of the footprint will be reclaimed park land.

As a "friend" of parks, how could you not be for another project like this after seeing how transformative Maggie Daley and Millennium have been?

[rlw777]

^^ Practically speaking what you intend to preserve for future generations is a large parking lot on a significantly under utilized and disconnected chunk of parkland. All the slippery slope mayor / oprah stuff is just absolute non-sense. Cause people always volunteer to invest $1bn to build cultural institutions in Chicago right? Thank god friends of the parking lots didn't exist when the Field Museum, Museum of Science and Industry, or the Art Institute were built. God forbid we give future generations another world class cultural institution that enhances the park it's in at the expense of a parking lot and some blind fotpl 'principle'.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

The Field, Adler, and Shedd were done long, long ago, on land newly created for the purpose. They are owned by the Park District, not a private entity. When they expanded in the 1990s, they weren't allowed to consume more parkland—not even (gasp!) parking lots—but went underground or (at the Shedd) created more lakefill.

McCormick Place is Exhibit A in why it's a bad idea to trade lakefront parkland for dubious claims of economic development. It should never have been allowed to go there for a half-dozen reasons: not just lakefront access but also hotel and transportation access. The original Grant Park Stadium was for civic events and spectacle. The new Soldier Field facility built a decade ago specifically for American football should have come off the lakefront for, again, a number of reasons including access and historic preservation.

Where do we draw the line about giving away parkland? We've done it a half-dozen times just in the last decade, for needs as prosaic as elementary schools. Have you not noticed that nothing is left of Hanson Park? What park should we offer up for the Oprah Museum?

Ultimately, I do not predict success for the FotP lawsuit, because I've read the opinion in a similar suit over McCormick Place—though there is some hope to be found in the language of the March 12 order. The public trust issues could also be mooted if the General Assembly passed a bill or if an arrangement is found where the Park District retains control of the site and building. And when Mayor Emanuel gets 54% of the vote on April 7, he will take that as a mandate to give away any parkland he wants.



Neither of which are available at USC. So this ultimatum only applies to Chicago?

No shit Sherlock, which is why the current choice is the best solution. And no, it was criteria for any of the locations. In S.F. it was planned to be along water.

And to be honest MP East is the most aesthetically pleasing of the 4 buildings.

Parkland isn't being given away for this project, asphalt parking space is being repurposed for structure while replacement parking would go below grade and more greens pace actually created.

[pilsenarch]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

The Field, Adler, and Shedd were done long, long ago, on land newly created for the purpose. They are owned by the Park District, not a private entity. When they expanded in the 1990s, they weren't allowed to consume more parkland—not even (gasp!) parking lots—but went underground or (at the Shedd) created more lakefill.

Adler expanded into the park.

[Vlajos]

The parkland puritanism is a bizarre fetish. There is no logic in defending a parking lot over a museum and actual park space.