CHICAGO | General Developments

[UPChicago]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

Wait. Is HOK definitely designing the Obama Library or are they just throwing their hat in the ring?

I assume they were hired by the group placing the bid. But it seems like that is one option of a few to redevelop the site. There were also renders for a casino option at that site.

[Jibba]

If they go with something Classical for the Lucas museum, I would love it if HBRA got the commission. Thomas Beeby does some fantastic historic architecture (entire roof of Harold Washington Library notwithstanding).

[Loopy]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

lol I realize that but that doesn't mean there isn't a favored architect for the Chicago bid

Chicago doesn't have a unified bid for the Library. UIC and UC were competing against each other. Now some Bronzeville neighborhood orgs have put together a bid for the Michael Reese site. They got HOK to do some work on it.


http://issuu.com/paul.robinson/docs/...lle_opl_lowres

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

well, ill admit modern is different. some art simply exists to change the definition of what art can be or to challenge preconceived notions. or to elicit a reaction. and im not opposed to digital art at all.

but i think the whole "storytelling" angle on Lucas' parts seems like a bit of a reach to justify throwing a bunch of unrelated things hes accumulated in his garage together under one roof. ive been in a lot of museums like this, which were built upon collections accumulated by one Rich Guy and they rarely flow well or make much sense being shown side by side. For example, the McNay in San Antonio which, while the grounds are beautiful and the art in general is very nice, dosent really come together to tell a bigger story other than "this is the taste of one individual". I think a lot of the pieces would be more valuable in an encyclopedic type museum where their significance can be placed in context. But thats my 2 cents.

I don't think your concerns here are particularly unfounded. There is a chance that this is the "collection of some rich dude" that don't necessarily flow together very well.

But so what?

The bottom line is, Chicago is getting a billion dollars worth of art housed in a museum, and while nobody can predict the future, there is a good chance that at least some of it will be valued by future generations. In addition, this museum can always grow in its collection and scope, which has been alluded to many times. Not only will Lucas add to it, but long after his death other collections could be added to "complete the experience" so to speak. The existence of such a large collection already will make this particular museum a natural destination for other artworks of this sort.

If handled correctly, I can see this museum evolving into a pop-art type of museum down the road.

[marothisu]

In more boring news - does anybody know what's going in the vacant lot at 1927 N Halsted just south of Armitage? Building permit says 2 story 44,000 sq foot mercantile building with below grade parking.

[ardecila]

The museum is a 100-year investment at least, but Lucas only has another 30-40 years left in him at best... eventually the museum will be turned over to a group of curators who will make strategic additions and turn it into a more well-rounded, cohesive collection.

Honestly, most American museums started this way... some local tycoon collected stuff and decided to build a museum to assuage his wealth guilt. The quality of the museum decades or centuries later has little to do with the taste of the founder and everything to do with the museum's location, its resources/partnerships, and the quality of its curators.

[the urban politician]

Interesting tidbits from Crains regarding this very topic:

“I had dinner with George Lucas and Mellody Hobson to get the story about the museum and I came away excited and enormously impressed with his thoughtfulness,” said Richard Lariviere, president of the Field Museum, referring to Mr. Lucas's wife, the president of Chicago's Ariel Investments LLC. “It's easy to paint a caricature of a famous, wildly rich person indulging in some ego trip, but I'm really impressed with his understanding of story-telling and the importance of story-telling in our lives. That's what this museum is going to be about.”

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Interesting tidbits from Crains regarding this very topic:

Also interesting is this

Mr. Lariviere, Ms. Hobson and Mr. Lucas also talked about the landscaping and green space that are part of plans for the Lucas museum.
“It matches perfectly with what the Field Museum has been working on for decades in terms of developing the Burnham Wildlife Corridor,” Mr. Lariviere said, referring to the land east of Lake Shore Drive.


Those involved with the selection process said Chicago became a shoo-in when it offered 17 acres for the Lucas project. That much space allowed the museum to be more than a building. It will include landscaping that fits with the broader ecosystem.

[the urban politician]

Park Advocates Willing To Sue To Keep Lucas Museum Off Lakefront

[wierdaaron]

Man, I really really support the "don't build stuff on the lakefront" rule because it saved the lakefront from being turned into a neon hotel fiasco like Niagara Falls became (especially on the Canadian side), but fighting a museum just seems silly to me. It's a museum going into an area with 3 other museums and with the word museum in the name. The lakefront should belong to the people, and a public museum counts. I was opposed to this back when I thought it was going to be a Star Wars memorabelia gift shop, but now that I know it's a real museum I have no qualms (pending the building design, of course).

Anyway, here's a timely shot of the area in question from 1938 via The Man on Five:

[k1052]

I don't think this one is going to turn out like the ill fated Children's Museum proposal for Grant Park. Friends of the Park would have to pry the Lucas Museum out of Rahm's cold dead hands.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Park Advocates Willing To Sue To Keep Lucas Museum Off Lakefront

They're seriously ridiculous. This thing is going over a parking lot and the other parking lot will be developed into park space that's a continuation of everything around it. They want to talk about park space, green space, etc but you're blocking shit from being built on a PARKING LOT?

There's no way they win this - they're already fighting a losing battle.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by marothisu

They're seriously ridiculous. This thing is going over a parking lot and the other parking lot will be developed into park space that's a continuation of everything around it. They want to talk about park space, green space, etc but you're blocking shit from being built on a PARKING LOT?

There's no way they win this - they're already fighting a losing battle.

Whats the point of the city enacting an ordinance if its just going to ignore it whenever its convenient? The city council itself passed the rule.

I still fail to see whats so bad about the Reese site.

[wierdaaron]

Can someone provide a link to the text of the ordinance in question?

[Via Chicago]

http://www.cityofchicago.org/dam/cit...dEDS_11_05.pdf

The Chicago Plan Commission requires that the Applicant address the Fourteen Basic Policies of
the Lakefront Plan of Chicago and the Thirteen Purposes of the Lake Michigan and Chicago
Lakefront Protection Ordinance, as listed below, in a written statement to the Commission
attached to this Application Form and labeled Part Four. The statement should indicate which
policies or purposes are or are not applicable to the Applicant’s proposal, and, for those policies
and purposes which are applicable, the statements should discuss the potential impact of the
proposal.

I. Fourteen Basic Policies

1. Complete the publicly owned and locally controlled park system along the entire Chicago
lakefront.
2. Maintain and enhance the predominantly landscaped, spacious and continuous character of the
lake shore parks.
3. Continue to improve the water quality and ecological balance of Lake Michigan.
4. Preserve the cultural, historical, and recreational heritage of the lakeshore parks.
5. Maintain and improve the formal character and open water vista of Grant Park with no new
above-ground structures permitted.
6. Increase the diversity of recreational opportunities while emphasizing lake-oriented leisure time
activities.
7. Protect and develop natural lakeshore park and water areas for wildlife habitation.
8. Increase personal safety.
9. Design all lake edge and lake construction to prevent detrimental shoreline erosion.
10. Ensure a harmonious relationship between the lakeshore parks and the community edge, but in no
instance will further private development be permitted East of Lake Shore Drive.
11. Improve access to the lakeshore parks and reduce through vehicular traffic on secondary park
roads.
12. Strengthen the parkway characteristics of Lake Shore Drive and prohibit and roadway of
expressway standards.
13. Ensure that all port, water supply, and public facilities are designed to enhance lakefront
character.
14. Coordinate all public and private development within the water, park, and community zones.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by wierdaaron

The lakefront should belong to the people, and a public museum counts.

Its "public" in the sense that it would be open to the public as any other general admission facility would be (i.e. OK, its not a country club) but its still a private development no matter how you slice it. And that violates the above.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

Whats the point of the city enacting an ordinance if its just going to ignore it whenever its convenient? The city council itself passed the rule.

I still fail to see whats so bad about the Reese site.

I understand that, but their argument for not wanting it there is very weak. The whole point of not building east of LSD was to not put any commercial or residential stuff there. But a cultural institution taking over parking lots and providing even more green space than what's there already, that will provide the city with possible billions of dollars in added revenue from tourism and taxes? While this is a private investment, it's not like they're building a shopping mall there full of DSWs, A&F, and Best Buys. - financially this is EXTREMELY good for the city. Weak argument against all of that.

Also the Reese site is not bad, but the big draw was the ability to be right near things like the Field Museum. It's clear that Lucas wanted to be close to those because he wanted to work closely with them. Bus service is also better to Museum Campus than it is to the MRH site. Not saying a lot, but it's true. I wouldn't object to having it down in Bronzeville at all, but I think the Obama library makes more sense there.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by marothisu

I understand that, but their argument for not wanting it there is very weak. The whole point of not building east of LSD was to not put any commercial or residential stuff there. But a cultural institution taking over parking lots and providing even more green space than what's there already, that will provide the city with possible billions of dollars in added revenue from tourism and taxes? While this is a private investment, it's not like they're building a shopping mall there full of DSWs, A&F, and Best Buys. - financially this is EXTREMELY good for the city. Weak argument against all of that.

Well, the ordinance dosent say " no additional private development east of LSD....UNLESS IT DELIVERS A NET BILLION DOLLARS IN ECONOMIC IMPACT!" Money has nothing to do with it, and for good reason.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

Well, the ordinance dosent say " no additional private development east of LSD....UNLESS IT DELIVERS A NET BILLION DOLLARS IN ECONOMIC IMPACT!" Money has nothing to do with it, and for good reason.

I guarantee money will sway certain people, considering the city is in financial trouble in some areas and this will cost the city almost nothing to develop this, but the return is massive.Or the fact that 12 acres of park land is going to be developed, much of it parking lot currently. This was a really good strategic move by Rahm and staff. They aren't building this on fucking Northerly Island. They're replacing parking lots which is not park space. And furthermore, it's a cultural institution.

20 years from now, if the design of the building is normal and not crap, nobody in their right mind is going to say "OH GEE. I WISH THOSE STUPID FUCKING PARKING LOTS WERE STILL THERE INSTEAD OF THIS BUILDING WITH A TON OF COOL."

Keep reaching for mediocrity. If this was anything but a cultural institution, I'd be 100% agreeing with you here. Otherwise, you're trying to block a museum from being built on PARKING LOTS? Give me a break.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by marothisu

I guarantee money will sway certain people, considering the city is in financial trouble in some areas and this will cost the city almost nothing to develop this, but the return is massive.

20 years from now, if the design of the building is normal and not crap, nobody in their right mind is going to say "OH GEE. I WISH THOSE STUPID FUCKING PARKING LOTS WERE STILL THERE INSTEAD OF THIS BUILDING WITH A TON OF COOL."

Keep reaching for mediocrity. If this was anything but a cultural institution, I'd be 100% agreeing with you here. Otherwise, you're trying to block a museum from being built on PARKING LOTS? Give me a break.

Im not thinking about this in terms of parking lots and museums. Im thinking about this in terms of what the ordinance says, nothing more. An ordinance that reflects the will of the people. If people no longer like the ordinance than they should lobby to have it changed and a larger debate should take place that includes everyone, not just those in power behind closed doors.