CHICAGO | Lucas Museum of Narrative Art

[alex1]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

I just can't believe the number of people calling Rahm's motivations in question on this topic. It's quite obvious that Rahm is doing what is best for the city here, potential obscure rules be dammed. Anyone who thinks it is best that we just turn down a multibillion dollar investment in our cultural offerings is a lunatic.

I don't usually wade into these type of debates but this is rather silly to me. Who's saying the city should turn down this museum? I see people clamoring for a different location and/or a different design but I've yet seen someone say the city should turn this down completely.

I also don't usually fight for losing arguments but it does seem that this particular museum would be better suited near Lincoln Park. Near the Nature Museum, perhaps. The current location is extremely high-profile, which seems to be better suited for a museum that would have more permanence. Having said that, the Lucas Museum will get built where it's being proposed. If there's something I'd really like to see the city do is create a long-term Museum Campus plan that looks at future structures, transportation, walkability and so on and on. As much as I don't care for more buildings along the waterfront it's obviously a part of the city's cultural development.

[ardecila]

Future structures? Unless the city decides to start building these things on the public dime, there is no way to plan long-term. Major benefactors will come when they come.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by alex1

I don't usually wade into these type of debates but this is rather silly to me. Who's saying the city should turn down this museum? I see people clamoring for a different location and/or a different design but I've yet seen someone say the city should turn this down completely.

Oh trust me, there are plenty of people out there saying stupid shit like that. They aren't on this forum, but plenty in the anti-Rahm crowd are trying to paint this as a 1%er scratching another 1%er's balls on the public dime. Anyhow, the fact is this is the ONLY site that gets this museum for Chicago and, given the spaces we could have offered, is fairly non-prominent.

[the urban politician]

^ That's my take.

My guess is that Rahm did what was necessary to land the museum, then "figure out the details later" kind of deal.

I'm fine with that. Clearly there are others who aren't. Whatever, I plan to enjoy visiting this museum when it gets built. I think the museum campus is a wonderful thing for Chicago, it sets it apart from many other cities

[ardecila]

Just a quirk of journalism in this town... Everyone thinks they can be Mike Royko and make cynical insinuations about corrupt bargains lying behind every city announcement. To be sure, there are still a lot of hijinks and questionable ethics in Chicago, but in this case as in many others, the key motivation is the obvious one: bringing more tourism dollars to Chicago.

Now, when the Lucas construction contract goes to Walsh...

[munchymunch]

Parks group to sue over lakefront site for Lucas Museum

Opponents of Mayor Rahm Emanuel's plan to allow George Lucas to build his museum on the lakefront will file a lawsuit in federal court on Thursday, the group told the Tribune.

Friends of the Parks President Cassandra Francis said the group will use “public trust doctrine” to make its legal case against the proposed museum site, which currently is home to two Chicago Park District parking lots south of Soldier Field.

Fred Bates, vice chair on the group’s board, said the group views the land as “reclaimed navigable waterway” and suggested the group’s legal strategy could hinge on that argument.

Such a strategy would be a departure from what the group has argued in other cases involving development on the lakefront – that such proposals defy the longstanding ban on further private development east of Lake Shore Drive.

http://my.chicagotribune.com/#sectio.../p2p-81953763/


LOL, why?!?!? It's a parking lot going towards a museum. FUCKING IDIOTS.

[Pilton]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

Spooky - Reminds me of Jarta's supposed line of argument behind his and his neighbors' 'case' at Wolf Point. You sound much more dispassionate here - oh, wait - sorry, I forgot Pilton (=) Jarta. Sorry, some may understand my confusion.

Lawyers, ya gotta love 'em! Salt of the earth, they.....

PS Pilton/Jarta/Whatever You Prefer to be Called Today - Honest-to-goodness serious question rooted in intellectual curiosity: Are you truly as lousy an attorney as you represent yourself to be in these pages, or do you mainly just enjoy the by-all-appearances rotten-faith drama? My suspicion is that it's actually the latter.....

http://scholarlycommons.law.northwes...&context=njlsp

Northwestern lawyers are all dunces, I guess.

I still think the federal court (especially the federal court) would find no standing for the do-gooders to bring the action. Same issue; same result.

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by alex1

Having said that, the Lucas Museum will get built where it's being proposed. If there's something I'd really like to see the city do is create a long-term Museum Campus plan that looks at future structures, transportation, walkability and so on and on. As much as I don't care for more buildings along the waterfront it's obviously a part of the city's cultural development.

A master plan would be a great asset moving forward. Northerly island has already received a framework plan, but the rest of Museum campus could use some work. Wayfinding, pedestrian connections, transit, what happens if/when the IC gets capped, what happens if/when Lakeside gets demo'd, etc.

I have no problem with the LMNA going where it is planned, just the design at the moment. Well, that and I thought they would be wiping out both the Waldron AND South lot.

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by munchymunch

LOL, why?!?!? It's a parking lot going towards a museum.

Because parks are not merely vacant land for the mayor to give away as he sees fit.

Incidentally, that "parking lot" is a hard-surfaced open space, where things like triathlon starts, circuses, and similar events can take place without tearing up the turf. Yes, it could have more attractive pavers or grasscrete. But that doesn't mean it's worthless, to be traded for a mess of pottage.

[modkris]

Did anyone see Blair Kamin on Chicago Tonight? He had his perpetual smug smirk on his face per usual, and kept talking about how out of scale it was, and there was no public debate, and there is a lawsuit pending. He kept bringing up what a disaster the Soldier Field renovation was. He was questioning the site and even said that a parking lot IS better than this particular design. Maybe he's just attempting to use his voice to push for a better design? I can just hear the NIMBY chorus singing, repeating the words he said though, using the words of our most prominent architecture critic to try to shoot down this project. Personally I think the design needs work but I don't understand the criticism of the site and Blair should know the lakefront protection lawsuit is BS. What kind of architecture critic can think a parking lot is better than a cutting edge piece of architecture? That this museum doesn't belong on the museum campus? It's just baffling to me. Chicago needs to keep pushing the envelope architecturally and we have a chance for something great here. I don't think this design is there yet but this site is just begging for something amazing.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by modkris

What kind of architecture critic can think a parking lot is better than a cutting edge piece of architecture?

A traditionalist, NIMBY minded one who applauds hacks like Robert A.M. Stern...

Fuck Kamin. He's a conceited Yale graduate who's stuck in the past and afraid of new ideas.

[the urban politician]

I love how the Friends of the Parks people see this as some sort of referendum on Mayor Emanuel.

Fat chance, people. Once they lose this lawsuit, the musuem will get built and he'll still get reelected.

Ever heard of the silent majority? The vast majority of people don't have a problem with this museum's location. It's only the same old whiny NIMBY types, nearly 100% being baby boomer former hipsters who can't stop having a cause to fight because that's what they've done all their lives.

[RC Cola 23]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Because parks are not merely vacant land for the mayor to give away as he sees fit.

Incidentally, that "parking lot" is a hard-surfaced open space, where things like triathlon starts, circuses, and similar events can take place without tearing up the turf. Yes, it could have more attractive pavers or grasscrete. But that doesn't mean it's worthless, to be traded for a mess of pottage.

Subjectively, I do not like this proposed design. But objectively, the above quote is pushing the envelope, to say the least, as to what purportedly constitutes some potential indirect benefits of this parking lot. Triathlon starts? Circuses? Come on...a parking lot is a parking lot is a parking lot, and the subject parking lot is an especially poor use of its land.

[Kenmore]

lots of NIMBYs weighing in on WBEZ right now...facepalm city

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by RC Cola 23

Subjectively, I do not like this proposed design. But objectively, the above quote is pushing the envelope, to say the least, as to what purportedly constitutes some potential indirect benefits of this parking lot. Triathlon starts? Circuses? Come on...a parking lot is a parking lot is a parking lot, and the subject parking lot is an especially poor use of its land.

I mean, he has a point, even if a somewhat weak one. There are a few valid uses of paved surface besides the storage of cars.

However, most of the time, this parking lot sits unused and simply sheds massive quantities of polluted stormwater into the sewers. When it does get used, it's mostly used for parking in conjunction with Soldier Field or McCormick Place events. Saying it could be used for triathlon staging or a circus is putting undue attention on the 1% of the time the lot is not full of cars or altogether empty. By contrast, the Lucas Museum will be open at least 5-6 days per week, every week, delivering benefits to the greater public.

[le_brew]

would love to see studio gang's concept for a museum. http://studiogang.net/work
and trust me, kamin would sing the praises of this site then.

[Chicago Shawn]

Fioretti already coming out against the Museum, as expected. Called it "A Palace for Java The Hut" while on camera with WGN. A very intellectually dishonest statement; he really is reaching for any anti-Rahm votes he can get.

I can't wait until this Asshat is out of our city's politics for good.

[Pilton]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I mean, he has a point, even if a somewhat weak one. There are a few valid uses of paved surface besides the storage of cars.

However, most of the time, this parking lot sits unused and simply sheds massive quantities of polluted stormwater into the sewers. When it does get used, it's mostly used for parking in conjunction with Soldier Field or McCormick Place events. Saying it could be used for triathlon staging or a circus is putting undue attention on the 1% of the time the lot is not full of cars or altogether empty. By contrast, the Lucas Museum will be open at least 5-6 days per week, every week, delivering benefits to the greater public.

Actually, Kamin has proposed another site for the Lucas Museum. Nobody has posted about that here. So, I will. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...14-column.html

[Mr Downtown]

^To be fair, that's the site (the McCormick Place truck marshaling area) that Friends of the Parks has been pushing.

[Ryanrule]

whoever wants to put it there can pay for capping the tracks from millenium station down to McCormick as well.

take it or leave it.