[pico44]

Originally Posted by DePaul Bunyan

The St. Louis Arch is part of the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial and commemorates westward expansion. It was paid for with a combination of state and federal dollars and is maintained by the National Park Service. The Eifel Tower was built for the Exposition Universelle in 1889 to commemorate the centennial anniversary of the French Revolution. The Statue of Liberty was a gift to commemorate the American Revolution. It was given to us partly because of political turmoil in France; the Third Republic was full of monarchists who wanted to return to having a king. The French gave it to us partly so that they could point to an inspiring symbol of republican values in a fellow republic. The Washington Monument stopped construction for 30 years partly because the Washington National Monument Society ran out of money midway through.

The thing with all of those examples is that they all commemorate something of significant national importance.

Huh? You really couldn't think of one thing this tower could commemorate? Its so easy it's funny. You want a couple examples off the top of my head? Okay, sure: Native American Monument Tower and Observation Deck, Chicago Bicentenial Tower and Memorial, The Spire of the Great Lakes and Museum, The Chicago Monument to Industry and Labor. You really think the St Louis Arch was totally justifiable just because the National Park Service decided it was time to honor our forefather's westward expansion? That's ridiculous.

I understand this is a beautiful building, but it's just that. I think it's insulting and irresponsible to suggest that our tax dollars go towards a condo building that is economically unfeasible without the aid of the government. Chicago has a problem with poverty and their public schools. Has anyone fixed New Orleans yet? There are a million more important things the government should be spending money on. Chicago is the city that works, not the city that needs to get bailed out by the feds to build a 2,000-foot tall condo tower for overseas millionaires. If the only way to get it built is to use public funds, I would rather have it not built at all.

And there weren't more important things to do with the money in 19th century Paris? Or New York or Washington or with any monument created in the history of the world? You know what? You are right, we should wait to build a great monument in Chicago until everything is perfect. Let's wait until the schools are all fantastic and the transportation system is brand new, and nobody is hungry. After all, thats what they did with the Pyramids, the Great Wall, and the Taj Mahal.

You are no visionary, and unfortunately, few of us are anymore. So the city of Chicago develops and builds this tower for two billion dollars, sells 1.75 billion in condos, and takes a 250 million dollar loss. If anyone thinks that wouldn't be worth it, then I feel sorry for you.

Have you ever heard of the Sears Tower?

Meh. I am not much of a fan of the Sears Tower. Not only that, I could easily think of 50 iconic structures more widely recognizeable. For example, I don't know how many times Ive corrected someone who thought JHC was the Sears Tower. For a city as great as Chicago, that's just wrong.