CHICAGO | Lucas Museum of Narrative Art

[alex1]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Let me rephrase that for you: "anyone who is coming to your city offering a $1 billion civic and cultural gift should be allowed to build a museum on the MUSEUM campus if they wish."

Also what a typically twatty New York attitude. If someone were trying to build a museum on Roosevelt Island or in Central Park New Yorkers would absolutely be debating it. But maybe you can't see that around your huge ego.

It only takes $1b from a private benefactor to get public land gifted for $1? Heh. Life at the top is way better than I ever expected.

If we're lobbing personal insults, maybe it's you who can't see around your insecurities. Relax! The museum can go elsewhere in the city and Chicago can still bask in the glory of some meh art mixed in with a pretty cool media experience! Or if it's built in San Fran we could all visit that marvelous city and ignore the museum because there will always be better things to do while in the Bay area.

BTW, my "twatty NY attitude" (whatever that's supposed to mean) is actually a Chicago attitude without the insecurity (whatever that's supposed to mean).

[Kumdogmillionaire]

Originally Posted by alex1

Problem with your post is I never said Chicago should emulate NY. But I will say that too many Chicagoans need to stop being so damn insecure. Seriously.

There's no reason why Lucas or the people of Chicago can't advocate for a cutting edge museum that's integrated into the urban fabric. I promise you there's land in some great location that tourists and locals can enjoy!

You promise there is land but propose nothing? Nice, same old same old from the people who come in here.

The location for the museum was picked for specific reasoning, and for the amount of space the museum will need, no, there is no better spot. Only debatable location would be on the empty blocks between state and wabash where the L track cuts across, but that would lead to an engineering nightmare, and not really make sense in that given area.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by alex1

BTW, my "twatty NY attitude" (whatever that's supposed to mean) is actually a Chicago attitude without the insecurity (whatever that's supposed to mean).

If LVDW means condescending, arrogant, and patronizing by that I've got to agree with him.

Your promises that there is land mean jack since he came here for a prime waterfront site in downtown, something the city could plausibly deliver (certainly more so than SF) but is in very limited supply. If he wanted to stick it just anywhere he could have landed it in LA's Exposition Park years ago and been done.

[alex1]

Originally Posted by Kumdogmillionaire

You promise there is land but propose nothing? Nice, same old same old from the people who come in here.

The location for the museum was picked for specific reasoning, and for the amount of space the museum will need, no, there is no better spot. Only debatable location would be on the empty blocks between state and wabash where the L track cuts across, but that would lead to an engineering nightmare, and not really make sense in that given area.

You're right. There's only one piece of land (that doesn't require an engineering nightmare) in the entire city that can handle the size of this museum. Heh.

[alex1]

Originally Posted by k1052

If LVDW means condescending, arrogant, and patronizing by that I've got to agree with him.

LOL. Cute. I'm going to focus back to the topic at hand...

Originally Posted by k1052

Your promises that there is land mean jack since he came here for a prime waterfront site in downtown, something the city could plausibly deliver (certainly more so than SF) but is in very limited supply. If he wanted to stick it just anywhere he could have landed it in LA's Exposition Park years ago and been done.

You're saying Lucas is an uncompromising entitled asshole. Great. Awesome. That makes it worse.

[the urban politician]

^ So he wants to build a museum with his own money and wants to have a say in where it is built in a city that he owes nothing, and that makes him an asshole?

[alex1]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ So he wants to build a museum with his own money and wants to have a say in where it is built in a city that he owes nothing, and that makes him an asshole?

What would make him an asshole is if he's unwilling to compromise on land that will essentially be given to him (along with infrastructure improvements).

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by alex1

What would make him an asshole is if he's unwilling to compromise on land that will essentially be given to him (along with infrastructure improvements).

Given to him? You act as if he's building a mansion there, or he'll be storing his private lamborghini collection there for his personal use.

His museum is on a land lease, and his museum will be treated like all of the other museums on the museum campus (public access to the museum and grounds, free admission to Illinois residents on X days of the year).

I think the potential good that could come out of the Parking Lot idiots and their lawsuit (if Lucas doesn't bail on Chicago) is the city could tighten up their agreement with him to get the best possible terms. You know, the whole "don't put up gates and signs that say 'see attendant for access to the museum grounds'" stuff that some of the other ass-clowns in this town have pulled.

[alex1]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Given to him? You act as if he's building a mansion there, or he'll be storing his private lamborghini collection there for his personal use.

No. There has been no talk about mansions and cars, champ. Don't get lousy with your reading comprehension on me, please.

Originally Posted by the urban politician

His museum is on a land lease, and his museum will be treated like all of the other museums on the museum campus (public access to the museum and grounds, free admission to Illinois residents on X days of the year).

Yeah. Like I said—he's getting the land gifted to him (up to 297 years for $0.0028 a month!). I mean, if the city was willing to give me a few acres of land, next to the lakefront, for about a penny every 3 months for the next 297 years I'd consider it a gift! Plus, how about I build a parking garage for cars that will benefit my acreage that the city will pay me back for? Plus, how about I don't pay taxes on the land!

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I think the potential good that could come out of the Parking Lot idiots and their lawsuit (if Lucas doesn't bail on Chicago) is the city could tighten up their agreement with him to get the best possible terms. You know, the whole "don't put up gates and signs that say 'see attendant for access to the museum grounds'" stuff that some of the other ass-clowns in this town have pulled.

Yeah. That's awesome. And you calling people idiots because their interpretation of Chicago's land ordinance policy on the lakefront is different than yours is not unexpected. I could call it a "Chicago attitude" (without the misogynist language) if lobbing out vapid generalizations wasn't so high school.

[the urban politician]

^ What's with the hostility and the Chicago comments? I'm just disagreeing with you. And people have varied opinions, get over the "I live in New York" stuff that bores me.

It's not a handout of land. Even with this long term lease arrangement, it's not as if the land is being given to him for him to do what he pleases of his own accord. This is a nonsense argument, because it's a public museum surrounded by a public park. He's not building himself a pleasure palace. Public consumption. Museum. Big difference.

[Mr Downtown]

So far as I know, the lawsuit has not yet been decided. So the judge has not ruled that the lease arrangement doesn't amount to private control.

[alex1]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

So far as I know, the lawsuit has not yet been decided. So the judge has not ruled that the lease arrangement doesn't amount to private control.

In some ways the deal Lucas is getting is almost better than private control. He pays two pennies every 7 months and doesn't pay a dime in taxes for prime public land. And he does pretty much anything he wants with the property.

[alex1]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ What's with the hostility and the Chicago comments?

I don't want you to think my "hostility" (your words, not mine) are with the city. Far from it. I'm very confident in the city.

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I'm just disagreeing with you.

Nothing wrong with that. And at least you don't use words like "cunt" and "twatty". Apparently some people think those words can form the basis of effective debate strategies...

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by alex1

Nothing wrong with that. And at least you don't use words like "cunt" and "twatty". Apparently some people think those words can form the basis of effective debate strategies...

No some people just think these words accurately describe the behavior of arrogant trolls.

Your arguments make no sense beyond your trolling. How isbhe an asshole for wanting a waterfront site when the only reason he is offering this gift to Chicago is because he is not being offered a waterfront site elsewhere? That does not make him an asshole, that makes him someone who wants his billion dollar museum on a waterfront site.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

No some people just think these words accurately describe the behavior of arrogant trolls.

Your arguments make no sense beyond your trolling. How isbhe an asshole for wanting a waterfront site when the only reason he is offering this gift to Chicago is because he is not being offered a waterfront site elsewhere? That does not make him an asshole, that makes him someone who wants his billion dollar museum on a waterfront site.

Alex1 has been a forumer here for years, and he wasn't like this before.

He just became kinda cranky, I guess. He also has himself convinced that, now that he has lived in New York for a while, he is going to come back and "save Chicago"

Anyway, I'm getting sleepy...

[alex1]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

No some people just think these words accurately describe the behavior of arrogant trolls.

Your arguments make no sense beyond your trolling. How isbhe an asshole for wanting a waterfront site when the only reason he is offering this gift to Chicago is because he is not being offered a waterfront site elsewhere? That does not make him an asshole, that makes him someone who wants his billion dollar museum on a waterfront site.

Says the guy who's most memorable debate point was a misogynist name call.

Obviously you can't handle differing opinions. That's clear enough. My suggestion to you is to keep your shit together so you don't have to go down the path of lobbing vapid attacks.

BTW, my arguments make perfect sense. You're just fixated on one solution that's run into roadblocks.

[alex1]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Alex1 has been a forumer here for years, and he wasn't like this before.

He just became kinda cranky, I guess. He also has himself convinced that, now that he has lived in New York for a while, he is going to come back and "save Chicago"

Anyway, I'm getting sleepy...

I've always been this way, UP. The only difference between then and now is I don't feel like Chicago needs to prove themselves by giving away assets.

But I will say that the cranks are the ones who can't stick to the topic and feel they must call people "idiots" because they have a differing opinion than them. The even crankier are those who have to use even more extreme language because they're so frustrated or incensed that someone might actually challenge their thinking or what they believe is the status quo.

You know what's funny? I think it's hilarious that you think I want to "save Chicago". Heh. More humor, please.

[spyguy]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/us...tics.html?_r=0

George Lucas’s Museum Plan Inspires ‘Clout Politics’ in Chicago
By JULIE BOSMAN MARCH 26, 2016

From the article

Friends of the Parks would like to see the land turned into a natural sanctuary. Ms. Irizarry said she was especially irked that the museum was offered the land practically free, a 99-year lease for $10, with the option to renew twice.

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.

[ithakas]

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.

Maybe he can donate money to help the Park District fully realize their vision for Gang's design of Northerly Island sooner – especially considering it's an adjacent site already serving as the 'sanctuary' FoTP apparently believes the area needs.

And no surprise, as soon as the Broad opened it became an instant icon for LA. There are very few opportunities to land new cultural/contemporary art museums with backers who are willing to finance iconic architecture.

[woodrow]

Originally Posted by ithakas

Maybe he can donate money to help the Park District fully realize their vision for Gang's design of Northerly Island sooner – ...

I mentioned this in another thread about Northerly Island. If he threw $100mill toward the completion of city's/Gang's vision, what a spectacular coup.