CHICAGO | Lucas Museum of Narrative Art

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by ithakas

Because it's their legacy, and they can take it wherever they want to. Has anyone asked Obama why it HAS to be in Chicago?

fwiw I think Lucas has more of a case than Obama does, but id still prefer both of these go elsewhere. heres a novel concept, if youre so independently wealthy, go BUY a parcel and then you dont have to worry about what the public thinks about your proposal.

[ithakas]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

fwiw I think Lucas has more of a case than Obama does, but id still prefer both of these go elsewhere. heres a novel concept, if youre so independently wealthy, go BUY a parcel and then you dont have to worry about what the public thinks about your proposal.

So you would prefer the lakefront's empty parcels be sold to the highest bidder? /s

I think they want public support, and they want it to be successful. Successful means having a great site – whatever they perceive to be a great site. I don't think they understand why this should be incongruous with public support, and I don't think it is. I'm sure both would pay whatever it took to get the sites they want now to avoid legal disputes, but that would set a much more damning precedent, as I referenced in my sarcastic remark above.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by ithakas

So you would prefer the lakefront's empty parcels be sold to the highest bidder?

no, i would prefer they be beautified and maintained with public tax dollars, and access left free to the public in perpetuity.

[Ryanrule]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

im sure lots of billionaires would love to build private homes and museums in Yellowstone or Yosemite too...does that mean we should let them, or perhaps should we consider those protections were put in place for a reason, and that one's wealth should not be a determining factor in public land use?

has anyone actually asked Obama why it HAS to be in Washington Park and not an adjacent parcel? has anyone actually asked Lucas why it HAS to be in this exact location, as if no other will possibly do? allowing these to take place only reinforces that precedent, which in turn invites more people to try and do the same, which in time erodes the entire concept of public vs private ownership.

Are you comparing a private residence in a natural with a billion dollar film museum for the public that will greatly enhance the city being built on a parking lot.

Is that what you are doing?

[Via Chicago]

The basic concept of how land held in the public trust should be treated? Yes.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

The basic concept of how land held in the public trust should be treated? Yes.

I would think most people would see a large difference between a museum accessible to the public that is on public land on a Museum Campus vs. a private residence in a nattional park devoted to nature. But then again, these a strange times where many Chicagoans apparently feel there is money available for all sorts of wonderful public works and amazing benefits for public workers that most in the private sector couldn't dream of.

[ithakas]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

The basic concept of how land held in the public trust should be treated? Yes.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by ithakas

What is so holy about the vast tracts of inactive parkland in Chicago that you can't see the cost-benefit analysis of this situation? I say this as someone who has spent many nights of my life on the Museum Campus, who grew up in the South Loop and has even spent a night on the parking lot that almost never serves the public benefit. It's truly unfathomable that we could be losing this institution because of ideologues like you.

I think it is a difficult argument that a museum campus should not have museums, even if someone isn't keen on the lakefront location. Though altering the design of one of the other parks deserves more specifics. But if the general concern is about the availability of parkland, that can be addressed by expanding park space. For example, Meigs Field and parts of South Works have been converted. Even lakefront is being added as part of the Fullerton Revetment. Seems if the goal is to replace or add parkland, that can be done.

[bnk]

Originally Posted by VKChaz

I think it is a difficult argument that a museum campus should not have museums, even if someone isn't keen on the lakefront location. Though altering the design of one of the other parks deserves more specifics. But if the general concern is about the availability of parkland, that can be addressed by expanding park space. For example, Meigs Field and parts of South Works have been converted. Even lakefront is being added as part of the Fullerton Revetment. Seems if the goal is to replace or add parkland, that can be done.

The [ FOTSPL ] Friends Of The Surface Parking Lot would fight those sites too.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by XIII

This FotP lawsuit stikes me as completely disingenuous.
- There is already precedent for museums on public land in this area
- There is currently a parking lot in the space, not public-use park
- This would RESTORE green space to the park(ing lot)
- This would actually bring more people to the parks in that area, benefiting the system
- The museum with have elements open to free public use and include free days for residents

The only explanation for this is that the proposal must block the lake view for someone at FotP. Why else would a group spend so much time, money and goodwill trying to prevent park improvements and a billion dollar cultural gift and to the city?

Obviously they are using the excuse of the museum being "privately owned" to try to block the museum, which they don't want occupying the space regardless of whether it's privately owned or not.

In other words, it's about using any BS legal argument that will "stick" as long as it achieves the goal of blocking the museum at any cost.

So the city's best course of action is to change the language of their deal with Lucas so that the building and its land be completely publicly owned, which would effectively kill FotP's entire case.

[Mr Downtown]

The Lucas folks have not (so far) been receptive to an arrangement similar to the Field, Shedd, or Adler.

Quoting from yesterday's order: “Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled that the proposed museum is not for the benefit of the public but will impair public interest in the land and benefit the LMNA [Lucas Museum of Narrative Art] and promote private and/or commercial interests.”

What seems to one man a "BS legal argument" is to another a vindication of an important legal principle.

[killaviews]

I thought the original plan said the Park District would own the building. Instead of this 99 year lease.

It seems like the city would have a much stronger case if the Park District owned the building.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

What seems to one man a "BS legal argument" is to another a vindication of an important legal principle.

^ I'm calling it a "BS legal argument" not because the argument doesn't work, but because I know that this is nothing more than an ends justifies the means situation for FotP.

It doesn't matter what legal argument passes muster. If there were a law preventing people with the letters L in their last name to build a museum on the lakefront, and with Lucas having the letter 'L' in it, that would have been the argument in court against this museum. If a law about purple polka dots existed that somehow prevented this museum from getting built, that would have been the argument.

This was a simple "we don't want the museum at any cost, lets dig through the law books and see what we can find to block it" kind of situation. Not particularly noble, as you seem to be attempting to portray it as.

So the city can play the same game, if they can get Lucas to go along.

This whole charade is why, no offense to anyone, so many people dislike lawyers.

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

This was a simple "we don't want the museum at any cost, lets dig through the law books and see what we can find to block it" kind of situation. Not particularly noble, as you seem to be attempting to portray it as.

Exactly like Ward's quixotic and unpopular crusade to block the Field Museum in the middle of Grant Park. Which we today consider noble.

[XIII]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

This whole charade is why, no offense to anyone, so many people dislike lawyers.

And now dislike FotP(arking lots)

[rlw777]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Exactly like Ward's quixotic and unpopular crusade to block the Field Museum in the middle of Grant Park. Which we today consider noble.

Speak for yourself! so FotPL thinks it's noble to put Lucas museum in the middle of nowhere



or maybe you would prefer in the middle of LSD

[the urban politician]

^ The Field Museum is a pain in the ass to get to.

Funny how the FotP people don't have a problem with automobile infrastructure being rammed into their precious "parks". Where were they when all those obnoxious 5 lane roads were being built through Grant Park? What about the giant parking lot that existed until Millennium Park was built? What about the underground parking garages? Are those somehow better than an underground museum?

Grant Park is a failed park in so many ways. FotP or whoever their predecessor was largely failed in their mission because they have often never fought the right battles.

[Mr Downtown]

The Lucas Museum is proposed for a spot that will be even harder to get to.

Friends of the Parks was founded in 1975 and has fought every automotive incursion into the parks ever since. Thanks to them, there's no parking lot in front of the Seated Lincoln at Dearborn and North; thanks to them, there's no parking lot on the Navy Pier headlands. Thanks to them, the South Shore Cultural Center was saved, the city didn't put the new central library into Grant Park, and hundreds of acres (far more than originally slated) at South Works became public parkland. Thanks to them, we have concession stands in the parks and park buildings that are actually open to the public. If you don't remember the dark Kelly patronage days of the Park District, and the groups that changed that situation, don't come in here trying to teach me urban history.

[prelude91]

^^^Completely agree. Honest question though, why are FOTP ok with having a surface parking lot on the proposed site for the Lucas museum? I don't understand the logic of having a bunch of rednecks tailgating on a paved lot in, what should be a public park. If their stance was no to Lucas Museum, AND return the parking lot to parkland, I would actually agree with their. Though the reality is, there is a zero percent chance the lot is ever anything but a surface lot.

[marothisu]

^ They are doing it because they are going in line with the ordinance, even though the parking lot when the ordinance was made was actually on the other side of the road.

I certainly hope they aren't trying to block this because of an actual museum. If so, then they are some of the most logically inept people I've ever read about or met. They are called friends of the parks, yet they would rather keep a parking lot that is grossly underused other than a few times a year, and a space that isn't even green space...than put a new world class cultural institution there which is a gift to the city and privately funded which would create acres more of green space that currently isn't green space which IMPROVES the park. It's so stupid it's mind boggling other than what the ordinance says.