CHICAGO | Lucas Museum of Narrative Art

[JK47]

Originally Posted by spyguy

From the article


Are they just looking for money? From what I remember, Broad ran into a similar issue with his $1/year lease in LA and just wrote a bigger check to appease the opposition. Lucas could do something similar and tie approval of the museum to a big donation to some public parks improvements and/or even affordable housing (a subject he is familiar with in Marin County) and see what that does in terms of getting public support on his side.

This competing vision for the parking lot they'd like to preserve doesn't seem realistic. I'd like to know where the money for this nature sanctuary (and presumably a replacement parking structure) would be coming from.

[XIII]

Originally Posted by JK47

This competing vision for the parking lot they'd like to preserve doesn't seem realistic. I'd like to know where the money for this nature sanctuary (and presumably a replacement parking structure) would be coming from.

FotPL seems to forget that there were huge concessions needed to get the Bear's approval for just the museum. This includes parking concessions and access concessions.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...as-museum-deal

If they scuttle the Museum, this will likely remain parking lot as long as Soldier Field is there. No reason to pay any mind to the NYT article. It was just a PR play by the Parking Lot Fan Club.

[SamInTheLoop]

Thinking about this more, there's no reason why the arrangement for Lucas ownership should be different than it is for the existing Museum Campus museums..........isn't this the ticket? For those who can't stop gushing about Lucas bestowing the citizens of Chicago with this enormous 'gift'.....if you want to convince anybody that this is a gift to the public, than this museum should in fact be publicly-owned. I really think it's that simple. Wouldn't this solve the legal issue as well? Lucas should rethink this issue and become amenable to this arrangement. If it's good enough for the Adler, Shedd and Field Museum, I believe it should be good enough for George Lucas.

[ithakas]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

Thinking about this more, there's no reason why the arrangement for Lucas ownership should be different than it is for the existing Museum Campus museums..........isn't this the ticket? For those who can't stop gushing about Lucas bestowing the citizens of Chicago with this enormous 'gift'.....if you want to convince anybody that this is a gift to the public, than this museum should in fact be publicly-owned. I really think it's that simple. Wouldn't this solve the legal issue as well? Lucas should rethink this issue and become amenable to this arrangement. If it's good enough for the Adler, Shedd and Field Museum, I believe it should be good enough for George Lucas.

Yes, it is the ticket, but not the narrative that's been offered as a solution by the opposition.

[JK47]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

Thinking about this more, there's no reason why the arrangement for Lucas ownership should be different than it is for the existing Museum Campus museums..........isn't this the ticket? For those who can't stop gushing about Lucas bestowing the citizens of Chicago with this enormous 'gift'.....if you want to convince anybody that this is a gift to the public, than this museum should in fact be publicly-owned. I really think it's that simple. Wouldn't this solve the legal issue as well? Lucas should rethink this issue and become amenable to this arrangement. If it's good enough for the Adler, Shedd and Field Museum, I believe it should be good enough for George Lucas.

The Field Museum isn't publicly-owned (to use one example). The building belongs to the Museum and is listed as an asset on their financial statements. The land the building is on is made available to the Field Museum by the Park District at no cost to the former.

[BVictor1]

http://chicago.suntimes.com/politics...-museum-there/

CHICAGO 04/14/2016, 09:50pm

Rahm plan: Demolish McCormick Place East, put Lucas Museum there

Fran Spielman

McCormick Place East — denounced by former Mayor Richard M. Daley as a “Berlin Wall” along the lakefront that destroyed the Chicago skyline — would be demolished to make way for movie mogul George Lucas’ museum and a giant green roof, under a mayoral compromise in the works.

The proposal to tear down the massive convention center, rebuilt on the lakefront after the original burned down in 1967, would create 12 acres of lakefront park space.

The Lucas Museum would be built on the south end of the site in a space that currently includes the Arie Crown Theater, sources said. Underground parking for 2,000 vehicles as well as subterranean storage, heating and cooling systems would remain, reducing the overall cost to Lucas.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s proposed compromise also calls for expanding McCormick Place yet again, in part, by building a second floor over the street that connects the two newest convention center buildings.

Architecturally and aesthetically, MPE is the nicest of the conference centers buildings.

[streetline]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

http://chicago.suntimes.com/politics...-museum-there/

CHICAGO 04/14/2016, 09:50pm

Rahm plan: Demolish McCormick Place East, put Lucas Museum there

Fran Spielman




Architecturally and aesthetically, MPE is the nicest of the conference centers buildings.

This seems like a step in the wrong direction in multiple ways.

They say the museum will be at the southern end of what is now MPE.
What's the point of having a museum campus, if they closest you can put a museum is a mile away? Not many people are going to walk between the museums in this configuration.

And MPE is an attractive, if stark, building in it's own right (even if addresses the lakefront very poorly). It'll be a shame to lose it, especially since it's square footage will need to be immediately replaced to accommodate the conventions that use it.

And "building a second floor over the street that connects the two newest convention center buildings" seems to refer to MLK Drive... It's hard to imagine that not turning a pleasant entry to the convention center into a huge ugly cave. And that's not to mention the cost of building such an ambitious addition over working roads and buildings.

And the museum site is still east of LSD, so what's to keep the Friends of the Parking Lot from becoming the Friends of the Brownfield as soon as you knock down MPE? They claim to be operating on principle, and preferring rubble to a museum in that location seems like a plausible application of their principles.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by streetline

This seems like a step in the wrong direction in multiple ways.

They say the museum will be at the southern end of what is now MPE.
What's the point of having a museum campus, if they closest you can put a museum is a mile away? Not many people are going to walk between the museums in this configuration.

Okay, now step back into the real world. Rahm and Lucas and all the other level-headed people in the world want the museum on the museum campus too. But guess what, an obstructionist lawsuit is creating too much of a problem for that, so we have to get creative and settle for less than what we had hoped.

And "building a second floor over the street that connects the two newest convention center buildings" seems to refer to MLK Drive... It's hard to imagine that not turning a pleasant entry to the convention center into a huge ugly cave. And that's not to mention the cost of building such an ambitious addition over working roads and buildings.

Are you kidding me? A 2 level modernist convention center over a cave as an entryway into a neighborhood? How can it get cooler than that?

And the museum site is still east of LSD, so what's to keep the Friends of the Parking Lot from becoming the Friends of the Brownfield as soon as you knock down MPE? They claim to be operating on principle, and preferring rubble to a museum in that location seems like a plausible application of their principles.

I'm sure the legal case would be much stronger being that there is already an existing building there, and that you are actually dramatically shrinking its footprint. The only issue that remains unaddressed is questions about ownership. One possibility is that Lucas gets into a lease arrangement with McPier instead of with the Park District, and how that would affect legality. But there are plenty of people out there who are way more qualified than I to answer that question.

[lu9]

This is Rahm at his best. The good Rahm.

[marothisu]

All of a sudden, I'm not so hopeful about the museum being built here. Thanks FOTP.

[UPChicago]

Great job Fiends (intentional) of the Park you saved a parking lot, kudos! I think this is actually a much better plan because McCormick Place East is an oversized eyesore on the lake. It would help to connect the lakefront much better if it is replaced by the Lucas Art Museum. This actually makes me more confident that it will move forward. What could FOTP's objection to this plan be? Also with connections to the "new" McCormick entertainment district, it could work to booster some sort of synergy there.

[pilsenarch]

^nope... this is a hail mary pass and one of the worst sounding architectural proposals I've ever heard...

the parking lot friends have won, and we have lost this museum...

[LouisVanDerWright]

Yes, let's demolish a functioning building so we can build the new museum 1 mile away from the rest of the MUSEUM campus. That's very ecofriendly and let's us achieve what is really important: securing the Bears lakefront parking garage for generations to come.

Fucking stupid idea. Once McCormick Place East is gone, then McCormick Place is landlocked permanently. Can't go North through the data centers and arena and prairie Ave. Can't go South through the freeway interchange. Can't go west through the Motor Landmark district. Now we are permanently hemmed in and will eventually be surpassed by other sunbelt convention centers. The immediate idiocy of this is already clear since they are apparently planning to build replacement space over an active roadway, yes that's very affordable and won't immediately result in road closures next time there's some terrorist attack on the other side of the country. That's all of course ignoring the architectural merit of MPE which stands on it's own IMO.

[UPChicago]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

^nope... this is a hail mary pass and one of the worst sounding architectural proposals I've ever heard...

the parking lot friends have won, and we have lost this museum...

Say it ain't so...

[ithakas]

Kamin's crusade to knock down MPE is almost as absurd as his desire to keep the Lucas Museum off the original site. We don't need another stretch of the lakefront path directly open to Lake Shore Drive. When I used to jog or bike this stretch of the lakefront trail multiple times a week, the stretch by MPE was one of my favorites – it's a nice transition heading south from the Museum Campus into the open spaces towards 31st Street Beach and beyond.

I have a bad feeling about this now as well. On the surface it reeks of desperation, but it may also be Emanuel laying the groundwork for a plan B to appease Lucas while they wait out the lawsuit.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Yes, let's demolish a functioning building so we can build the new museum 1 mile away from the rest of the MUSEUM campus. That's very ecofriendly and let's us achieve what is really important: securing the Bears lakefront parking garage for generations to come.

Fucking stupid idea.

Yeah I don't like the plan. Yeah I don't think the building is great, but it brings in tons of revenue already for the city. The best case scenario is keeping it and building the museum on vacant land or over basically abandoned property.

[streetline]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Okay, now step back into the real world. Rahm and Lucas and all the other level-headed people in the world want the museum on the museum campus too. But guess what, an obstructionist lawsuit is creating too much of a problem for that, so we have to get creative and settle for less than what we had hoped.

If George Lucas doesn't want to wait for the lawsuit to play out, maybe the city does need to come up with another site, I just don't see many merits to this particular compromise.
If the city is going to pay to build something on stilts over a major road, why not just make it the museum over LSD rather than beating around the bush with a convention hall over MLK?
Or better yet, build the museum over the parking structure north of the current site (if using an existing building's footprint really makes a significant difference legally as you claim).

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Are you kidding me? A 2 level modernist convention center over a cave as an entryway into a neighborhood? How can it get cooler than that?

I'm going to assume this is sarcasm, but who knows on the internet.

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I'm sure the legal case would be much stronger being that there is already an existing building there, and that you are actually dramatically shrinking its footprint. The only issue that remains unaddressed is questions about ownership. One possibility is that Lucas gets into a lease arrangement with McPier instead of with the Park District, and how that would affect legality. But there are plenty of people out there who are way more qualified than I to answer that question.

In the scenario I mentioned, in which the lawsuit would be strategically filed between demolition and construction, there wouldn't be a building there. And, as shown by this compromise coming forward in the first place, the FotP don't need to win their case, just draw it out enough to frustrate George Lucas; so as long as it is not immediately dismissed the strength of their case may not matter that much.

[UPChicago]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Yes, let's demolish a functioning building so we can build the new museum 1 mile away from the rest of the MUSEUM campus. That's very ecofriendly and let's us achieve what is really important: securing the Bears lakefront parking garage for generations to come.

Fucking stupid idea. Once McCormick Place East is gone, then McCormick Place is landlocked permanently. Can't go North through the data centers and arena and prairie Ave. Can't go South through the freeway interchange. Can't go west through the Motor Landmark district. Now we are permanently hemmed in and will eventually be surpassed by other sunbelt convention centers. The immediate idiocy of this is already clear since they are apparently planning to build replacement space over an active roadway, yes that's very affordable and won't immediately result in road closures next time there's some terrorist attack on the other side of the country. That's all of course ignoring the architectural merit of MPE which stands on it's own IMO.

McCormick Place is already hemmed in, its not going to expand on the lakefront so I'm not sure what you're getting at with that argument. If the space lost at LSE can be replaced elsewhere, which I don't know if its feasible or not, then nothing really changes. I don't think the location is the perfect location but as a compromise it may be a good one, although a very difficult one to accomplish considering all the moving part.

[rlw777]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

http://chicago.suntimes.com/politics...-museum-there/

CHICAGO 04/14/2016, 09:50pm

Rahm plan: Demolish McCormick Place East, put Lucas Museum there

Fran Spielman

Architecturally and aesthetically, MPE is the nicest of the conference centers buildings.

I will believe this IF there is ever a real announcement. It's a mess of an idea with too many working parts and too few guarantees.

[marothisu]

Maybe it's a strategic ploy by Rahm to get FOTP to think twice about what they're doing? Eh probably not..