CHICAGO | Lucas Museum of Narrative Art

[ithakas]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Not all issues are balancing tests—ugly parking lot vs. popular museum.

Some issues are matters of principle. Parkland that can't be given away to a steel plant or a casino operator also can't be given away to a private museum foundation.

Why haven't FotP's efforts focused on the differentiation between Lucas and other legacy Museum Campus institutions in status of ownership? I think the best compromise would be saying, "This can go here if you follow the precedent set by Adler, Field, and Shedd."

[k1052]

Originally Posted by ithakas

Why haven't FotP's efforts focused on the differentiation between Lucas and other legacy Museum Campus institutions in status of ownership? I think the best compromise would be saying, "This can go here if you follow the precedent set by Adler, Field, and Shedd."

Because they don't want it to go there at all.

[ithakas]

Originally Posted by k1052

Because they don't want it to go there at all.

Ding ding ding!

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by ithakas

Why haven't FotP's efforts focused on the differentiation between Lucas and other legacy Museum Campus institutions in status of ownership? I think the best compromise would be saying, "This can go here if you follow the precedent set by Adler, Field, and Shedd."

Exactly. What's the difference in ownership between something like the Adler Planetarium, Field Museum, etc and Lucas?

[the urban politician]

We can never predict the future.

For all we know, in 100 years the Lucas Museum, having been built in another city, is a giant white elephant whose artwork gets auctioned away.

Would we want that on our lakefront?

I'm playing devil's advocate here, as I personally support the museum. But we shouldn't automatically assume it will be a stunning success. It may very well be an absolute joke of a museum, a flamboyant failure placed next to the city's famed cultural institutions (Field Museum, Shedd Aquarium, etc).

[Mr Downtown]

Friends of the Parks wasn't involved in the LMNA lease negotiations. All they can do is sue after the deal was signed.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

We can never predict the future.

For all we know, in 100 years the Lucas Museum, having been built in another city, is a giant white elephant whose artwork gets auctioned away.

Would we want that on our lakefront?

I'm playing devil's advocate here, as I personally support the museum. But we shouldn't automatically assume it will be a stunning success. It may very well be an absolute joke of a museum, a flamboyant failure placed next to the city's famed cultural institutions (Field Museum, Shedd Aquarium, etc).

You can say that about anything - and there shouldn't be a barrier to development just because it MIGHT be a failure. Anything in the world could be a failure - that's not really a valid argument IMO.

[JK47]

Originally Posted by k1052

Because they don't want it to go there at all.

There's very little difference between them. The Field, Shedd, and Adler are all listed as private institutions that list their buildings as assets on their financial statements (but not the land since that's leased from the Park District).

The argument with LMNA likely centers on the duration of the lease, with it's renewal periods included, creates a de facto transfer in ownership of the land (298 years total).

[JK47]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Not all issues are balancing tests—ugly parking lot vs. popular museum.

Some issues are matters of principle. Parkland that can't be given away to a steel plant or a casino operator also can't be given away to a private museum foundation.

Which is why FOTP sued to enforce the 1973 Lakefront Protection Ordinance and block the Shedd and Adler from building additions in the 1990's since it's a matter of principle. Oh wait, no they didn't.

[Emprise du Lion]

Originally Posted by JK47

Which is why FOTP sued to enforce the 1973 Lakefront Protection Ordinance and block the Shedd and Adler from building additions in the 1990's since it's a matter of principle. Oh wait, no they didn't.

They probably figured that it would be too unpopular, even if they might have had standing to do so, or that the city might have prevailed in the end. For some people, however, an architecturally ugly Star Wars museum is being built on the lakefront, so that might be enough reason for them to fight, even if we all completely disagree.

They have standing, and the court is currently letting their case proceed, but it'll depend on whether or not 1) the city is able to convince the court to allow construction to begin and 2) if Lucas is willingly to fight the FotP. He very well might prevail, but it doesn't appear he is willingly to do so. I wouldn't doubt if the FotP knew that, and that's why they're pushing so hard. They might believe they can get rid of the museum without actually needing to win in court.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Emprise du Lion

They probably figured that it would be too unpopular, even if they might have had standing to do so, or that the city might have prevailed in the end. For some people, however, an architecturally ugly Star Wars museum is being built on the lakefront, so that might be enough reason for them to fight, even if we all completely disagree.

I really wish people understood what the museum is actually about instead of "Star Wars Museum."

[Emprise du Lion]

Originally Posted by marothisu

I really wish people understood what the museum is actually about instead of "Star Wars Museum."

I understand what it is, but to a lot of people, including possibly those affiliated with the FotP, that's what they think it is.

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by marothisu

You can say that about anything - and there shouldn't be a barrier to development just because it MIGHT be a failure. Anything in the world could be a failure - that's not really a valid argument IMO.

Sure, but we are talking about a piece of land that legally can't be built on, not a private lot where an owner can do what he wishes.

[Emprise du Lion]

Originally Posted by sentinel

For abandoning their mission statement. This is from their website:

"Friends of the Parks is a 40-year old non-profit organization whose mission is to preserve, protect, improve and promote the use of parks and open spaces throughout the Chicago area for the enjoyment of all residents and visitors.

We advance our programmatic, educational, and advocacy work with the support of our members, donors and volunteers and through partnerships with environmental, governmental and corporate organizations."

https://fotp.org/About

Their legal injunction flies in the face of their own intention.

IF FOTP is raising money for their legal services which flies in the face of their entire mission, and if they are classified as a 501c3 for example, then one could argue that they are not complying with the state's Principles and Best Practices guidelines.

https://myforefront.org/sites/defaul...Book%20PDF.PDF

I doubt their mission statement was a legally binding document, so no, they cannot be sued for violating it.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Emprise du Lion

I understand what it is, to be a lot of people, including possibly those affiliated with the FotP, that's what they think it is.

Yeah, that's what my comment was about. It's kind of sad in reality. The museum will be a lot more than that.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by prelude91

Sure, but we are talking about a piece of land that legally can't be built on, not a private lot where an owner can do what he wishes.

I think the greater good for the city outweighs the fact that it's private ownership, and they can do exactly what all of the other museums have done. It's not like the city actually owns the museums themselves.

[JK47]

Originally Posted by Emprise du Lion

They probably figured that it would be too unpopular, even if they might have had standing to do so, or that the city might have prevailed in the end.

Which goes to my point that it's disingenuous to say that this is an issue of principle and not a balancing tests given that the organization has a history of exercising judgment and not adhering to principle.

[Emprise du Lion]

Originally Posted by JK47

Which goes to my point that it's disingenuous to say that this is an issue of principle and not a balancing tests given that the organization has a history of exercising judgment and not adhering to principle.

Welcome to what they view as low hanging fruit. It might be infuriating, but just because they didn't challenge something legally in the past doesn't stop them from challenging a different project on the same grounds today.

Their tactics aside, I really do hope that the court allows for construction to begin. Even if they win their case in the end, I doubt the court is going to order an already existing structure be demolished. Such a ruling might even demoralize the FotP and get them to back off.

[braun06]

I find there are conflicting interests of history here. The museums possibly reside in the park space, because of a famous planning document that most everyone is familiar with. The Plan of Chicago, in grand fashion, placed civic buildings within the open spaces as terminations of view etc. or icons in open space to add intrigue and draw you in.

Private or public doesn't matter because its existence lends purely the greater common good and to provide culture and leisure. We probably wouldn't have the museums in their current locations without that vision way back when, the Art Institute excluded as it was already in place. If a museum fails or people don't like it 30 years from now, a wrecking ball is a simply lovely gift to man, nothing is permanent. It's really not a big deal in that regard.

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Exactly. The ground lease is a transfer to a private party, which violates the public trust doctrine.

But it's a finite lease to a non-for profit foundation, in this case the Lucas foundation - FOTP is basically interfering in the affairs of another non-profit. And if the FOTP lawsuit proceeds, the Lucas foundation can potentially and should sue for damages related to the creation of their foundation centerpiece, the museum and all of the money that has been spent on development at this point.