CHICAGO | Lucas Museum of Narrative Art

[brian_b]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

The lawsuit pleadings are here. I haven't found the Memorandum of Understanding with the Park District, however.

Thanks for that. This lawsuit will ultimately fail, as you can see in paragraphs 37 and 38. The claimed injury is that the museum will impair the right of the public to access and use Lake Michigan for navigation, fishing, boating and recreation which is what the Public Trust Doctrine is all about in regards to the Great Lakes. The proposed museum site does absolutely nothing to impair access and use of Lake Michigan.

[UPChicago]

Interesting read too bad they wasted money on lawyer fees.

[r18tdi]

Originally Posted by UPChicago

Interesting read too bad they wasted money on lawyer fees.

Good for the lawyers at least.

[Pilton]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

The lawsuit pleadings are here. I haven't found the Memorandum of Understanding with the Park District, however.

The MOU is found through a button at the bottom left after the end of the linked complaint. It says about what you would expect it to say.

[10023]

I'm with the Tribune on this. Design aside (and I'm not sold), this has zero business going on the lakefront.

And I don't get the enthusiasm here. Everything Lucas has done since Return of the Jedi has been absolute shit. Are the strong proponents just Star Wars fanboys?

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Chicago could only be so lucky to have a billionaire propose to build a musuem on its lakefront once every century, if ever again. Get a grip, Tribune morons...

Why?

Trust me, no one outside of Chicago will notice or care about this monument to George Lucas' ego, nor will most Chicagoans.

On the other hand, Chicago has precious little open space as it is, and the green "front lawn" between the lake and the skyline is actually recognizable and iconic.

[10023]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

^^^ Again, a total load of crap, the building itself is going to be owned by the Park District IIRC. This is exactly the same situation as Soldier Field which is also owned by the city and leased to a private organization. How anyone can think any argument along these lines is going to work is beyond me. If they rule against the Lucas Museum, then there will be precedent for someone else to sue to push the Bears out of Soldier Field or the Field Museum out of the Museum Campus.

I don't agree. Those exist, this does not. The precedent doesn't apply.

Again, why does anyone even think that this will be an interesting museum? The obsession on SSP with building (anything!) is really over the top sometimes.


I'm a little late to the game here, but this is a shockingly bad idea.

[chris08876]

Depends on the exhibits I guess. Theres always a crowd willing to travel to see such things. You could have a museum on bubble gum found on the street, and you know what, people would visit it. Interesting folk out there.

[sentinel]

Because this is SUCH a better use of the lakefront.

(photo: http://www.chicagomag.com/city-life/...Soldier-Field/)

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by sentinel

Because this is SUCH a better use of the lakefront.

won't somebody please think of the seal-coat industry!

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

won't somebody please think of the seal-coat industry!

that's good.

I think the design is good, but it could be better; there will be a major design overhaul, I am willing to bet on it.

As much as I can appreciate and understand opinions like that of 10023 and Mr. D, I think both are dead wrong. At the same time, I can't for the life of me understand the myopic and completely false assumption that this will solely be a 'Star Wars' museum, which has been refuted (even here) ad nauseam; I mean, all one has to do is go on the organization's website to see that isn't the case. I expect more from certain individuals in this forum, but the deliberate Fox-newsing/spread of misinformation is unfortunate.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by 10023

I don't agree. Those exist, this does not. The precedent doesn't apply.

Do you know what "precedent" means?

The Field Museum was founded by Marshall Field and Edward Ayer to exhibit a random collection of odds and ends left over from the 1893 World's Fair. Today that would not meet your standards for valuable lakefront land and probably wouldn't meet your standards for a museum collection, but it is an indispensable part of Chicago today because it grew over time, especially after the benefactor died.

Granted, I think a better scheme from a lakefront-preservation perspective would be to re-purpose Lakeside Center. Unfortunately, McPier doesn't want to give up any turf and Lucas isn't interested in a hulking modernist box.

Your disdain for this museum is clearly linked to your disdain for Lucas' work, but these are unrelated things. Should you shun the Frick Collection because you hate Frick's union-bashing?

[10023]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Do you know what "precedent" means?

The Field Museum was founded by Marshall Field and Edward Ayer to exhibit a random collection of odds and ends left over from the 1893 World's Fair. Today that would not meet your standards for valuable lakefront land and probably wouldn't meet your standards for a museum collection, but it is an indispensable part of Chicago today because it grew over time, especially after the benefactor died.

Granted, I think a better scheme from a lakefront-preservation perspective would be to re-purpose Lakeside Center. Unfortunately, McPier doesn't want to give up any turf and Lucas isn't interested in a hulking modernist box.

Your disdain for this museum is clearly linked to your disdain for Lucas' work, but these are unrelated things. Should you shun the Frick Collection because you hate Frick's union-bashing?

Frick wasn't alive when the museum came into being, it was merely founded with his collection (and not own works).

There seems to be an awful lot of Star Wars in the initial collection... as if Phantom Menace deserved a museum exhibit:

http://www.lucasmuseum.org/collectio...esign-192.html

http://www.lucasmuseum.org/collectio...esign-198.html


The categories for props are robots and spaceships.

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by 10023

Frick wasn't alive when the museum came into being, it was merely founded with his collection (and not own works).

There seems to be an awful lot of Star Wars in the initial collection... as if Phantom Menace deserved a museum exhibit:

http://www.lucasmuseum.org/collectio...esign-192.html

http://www.lucasmuseum.org/collectio...esign-198.html


The categories for props are robots and spaceships.

Again, you're cherry-picking...but so can I:


Chuck Close (Born 1940)
Self Portrait - Five Part
2009 Jacquard tapestry, 75 x 185 © Chuck Close 2009, courtesy Magnolia Editions
http://www.lucasmuseum.org/collectio...pture-201.html

http://www.lucasmuseum.org/collectio...esign-176.html

http://www.lucasmuseum.org/collectio...cture-147.html

http://www.lucasmuseum.org/collectio...e-art-114.html

etc, etc....

If you made a sizable fortune from one, prime source, wouldn't you want to show that off too?

[Ryanrule]

Originally Posted by 10023

Frick wasn't alive when the museum came into being, it was merely founded with his collection (and not own works).

There seems to be an awful lot of Star Wars in the initial collection... as if Phantom Menace deserved a museum exhibit:

http://www.lucasmuseum.org/collectio...esign-192.html

http://www.lucasmuseum.org/collectio...esign-198.html


The categories for props are robots and spaceships.

so what city did you want the museum to be in?

[msu2001la]

Originally Posted by sentinel

Because this is SUCH a better use of the lakefront.

(photo: http://www.chicagomag.com/city-life/...Soldier-Field/)

Buildings are far more permanent than parking lots.
CPD's past mistakes should not be used as justification for future mistakes along the lakefront.

[sentinel]

^^So what you're saying is, the Field Museum, the Adler Planetarium, the Shedd Aquarium and Soldier Field are all 'past mistakes' and that the City should learn by not adding a 'future mistake' such as the Lucas museum, even though the City relies on so much tourist revenue (among other things) from just this area alone. Got it, thanks.

How come no one (at least on here) discusses how the Museum Campus, actually helps increase visibility and recreational usage along the lakefront? To me, the potential irony is without the extant or future institutions currently within the Museum Campus, that entire stretch of lakefront space wouldn't have nearly as many users as it currently does.

Until someone actually provides a cogent, convincing and objective reason as to why the Lucas museum shouldn't be built along the lakefront, on a existing surface lot, WITH FOUR other comparable precendents within walking distance, with private funding, and which will be accessible to all, I will do my best to refute any lopsided reasoning such as the above.

[r18tdi]

Originally Posted by sentinel

How come no one (at least on here) discusses how the Museum Campus, actually helps increase visibility and recreational usage along the lakefront?

Are you suggesting that Chicago's Museum Campus should contain museums?

That's crazy talk. Clearly you are unsophisticated. blah blah blah Burnham blah blah

[sentinel]

Some of you wanted a legal basis, so enjoy.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...108-story.html

Lucas Museum site does not violate public trust

By Stephen Patton
Stephen Patton is corporation counsel for the City of Chicago.

"The Tribune's Jan. 4 editorial concerning the proposed Lucas Museum of Narrative Arts is based on a false premise and mistaken comparisons that lead to an incorrect conclusion.

Simply because the proposed museum site was formerly "submerged lake bed land" does not mean the state of Illinois is either its owner or "exclusive trustee." In fact, the Illinois General Assembly transferred title to this and other lakefront property to the Park District's predecessor in 1903 and specifically authorized the Park District to contract with private organizations to construct, operate and maintain museums on this and other parkland starting in 1911.

That is why 11 museums currently occupy sites on Park District land without violating the public trust or any other legal doctrine. This currently includes on formerly submerged lake bed: the Field Museum, the Adler Planetarium, the Art Institute and the Shedd Aquarium, and their numerous recent additions.

Under your reasoning, the legality of all these museums would be subject to challenge.

The suggestion that the public trust doctrine has become more restrictive since these museums were built is also wrong. In its most recent decision on the doctrine, the Illinois Supreme Court rejected the claim by Friends of the Parks that use of public funds to renovate Soldier Field pursuant to a long-term lease with the Chicago Bears violated the public trust doctrine, relying on the fact that the property would continue to be owned by the Park District and that the public would also benefit from the improvements...."

[chiphile]

Good... not because I hate the museum, the original design is incredible, but if forward thinking is to only have a home on the coasts, then fuck Chicago and the lamest part of the country surrounding it.

And I think this is a credible threat. SF was the logical choice yet they paid the consequences for dicking around.

--

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...116-story.html

George Lucas: Museum could land in LA if Chicago falls through

By Patrick Kevin Day
Tribune Newspapers

George Lucas said Friday that complications in his plan to build the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art on the Chicago lakefront may put Los Angeles back in the running.

[the urban politician]

^ I think LA is always on the table if Chicago fails. In the end, I think it will mostly depend on Rahm's reelection. If he gets reelected, he will power this (as well as the Obama library) through.