CHICAGO | Lucas Museum of Narrative Art

[UPChicago]

Originally Posted by streetline

Why not just make it the museum over LSD rather than beating around the bush with a convention hall over MLK?

Basically its because Lucas wants a lakefront location otherwise I'm sure the city would have offered other locations. Also building over MLK is a lot simpler than building over LSD. MLK could basically become a tunnel.

[spyguy]

Originally Posted by rlw777

I will believe this IF there is ever a real announcement. It's a mess of an idea with too many working parts and too few guarantees.

Completely agree. This sounds like a very complicated, expensive (for everyone), and time consuming plan that will take years before construction ever begins on the museum, even if everything falls into place. Considering all of that, either waiting out the lawsuit or moving the museum to a non-lakefront or Chicago location makes more sense.

Is there some reason why they don't consider Navy Pier as a possible location? Seems like a prominent enough location to satisfy Lucas' ego and if they can propose multistory hotels there, why not another museum?

[maru2501]

Do people really think Lucas woke up this morning and was surprised by this?

he obviously is ok with it as a fallback or it never would have been announced

It's Chicago. It's pre-wired people. Stop acting like Goo goos (google it)

[UPChicago]

I think the only thing working in Chicago's favor is that getting this thing off the ground in San Francisco would probably be way more difficult and he would have to start all over. With Los Angles, where would be put it where he can get the scenery he is requesting (waterfront)?

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by maru2501

Do people really think Lucas woke up this morning and was surprised by this?

he obviously is ok with it as a fallback or it never would have been announced

It's Chicago. It's pre-wired people. Stop acting like Goo goos (google it)

this wasnt announced. it was leaked from "sources".

i have no doubt they talked it over with lucas, it says so right in the article that there was a "museum update" meeting, presumably with lucas. but lucas himself hasnt really commented publicly on anything post-lawsuit so whether hes "ok" with it or this is now his preferred plan is anyone's guess.

i agree that this is a mess of an idea with entirely too many moving parts to ever make it past the brain fart stage.

i still say theres a whole swath of city-owned land right at Michael Reese which is ripe for redevelopment which they could start construction on tomorrow. lucas is shooting himself in the foot with this asinine waterfront requirement.

[maru2501]

this is in the S-T

“Similar to the current parking lot site, we believe McCormick Place would be an excellent location and extend the already world-class museum campus on Chicago’s lakefront to the South Side,” Lucas’ wife, Chicago businesswoman Mellody Hobson, said in a statement.

[JK47]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

lucas is shooting himself in the foot with this asinine waterfront requirement.

Hardly asinine. It's his own money to spend and he's free to spend it however he wants. I've no doubt that eventually he'll get this built on a location he likes. It just might not be in Chicago. Can't fault him for not leaping at the Reese site since it's pretty terrible, the kind of site where I'd expect the city to help finance.

Then again, building there could also free the Museum from the requirement to provide free days and discounts. So that's something.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by JK47

Hardly asinine. It's his own money to spend and he's free to spend it however he wants.

Yes it is, and its also the public's land. Dont be surprised about the results when these two things collide.

[Kngkyle]

Originally Posted by UPChicago

McCormick Place is already hemmed in, its not going to expand on the lakefront so I'm not sure what you're getting at with that argument. If the space lost at LSE can be replaced elsewhere, which I don't know if its feasible or not, then nothing really changes. I don't think the location is the perfect location but as a compromise it may be a good one, although a very difficult one to accomplish considering all the moving part.

It's not hemmed in at all. Just to the south is a massive empty lot for truck staging that was proposed to be the Olympic Village years ago. That then connects to the Michael Reese site. There is plenty of room for relatively easy expansion.

[UPChicago]

Originally Posted by Kngkyle

It's not hemmed in at all. Just to the south is a massive empty lot for truck staging that was proposed to be the Olympic Village years ago. That then connects to the Michael Reese site. There is plenty of room for relatively easy expansion.

very true

[r18tdi]

Originally Posted by ithakas

I have a bad feeling about this now as well. On the surface it reeks of desperation, but it may also be Emanuel laying the groundwork for a plan B to appease Lucas while they wait out the lawsuit.

Yes it sucks. I mean it's good to have a plan B in place, but I get a feeling that the museum is ducked.

[JK47]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

Yes it is, and its also the public's land. Dont be surprised about the results when these two things collide.

Who here, on this forum, is surprised that there are complications to building a large project in Chicago? You can't be serious.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by JK47

Who here, on this forum, is surprised that there are complications to building a large project in Chicago? You can't be serious.

A lot of people here seem surprised, actually. Have you been following the thread? And it would seem Lucas and Rahm themselves are surprised given the last ditch efforts being thrown out.

[F1 Tommy]

It is good to see a back up plan. Rahm is doing his job, but this will cost a massive amount of extra money. This museum should be near the other museums on the lake. I did see the lease from Mcpier after they took over the parking lot site could be a loophole and I posted it a few pages back, but I guess the parking lot by SF was to far away(or is it). Good luck fighting this one FOA parking lot. Send the bill for the extra costs to the NIMBYS at FOA Parking lot !!

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by UPChicago

I think the only thing working in Chicago's favor is that getting this thing off the ground in San Francisco would probably be way more difficult and he would have to start all over. With Los Angles, where would be put it where he can get the scenery he is requesting (waterfront)?

The Los Angeles site was Expo Park. Not on a waterfront, but basically their version of Museum Campus.

Very little to recommend it from a natural beauty standpoint, but it is a pleasant part of the city with USC right there.

[ardecila]

I don't really understand this new proposal. McCormick Place spaces are scheduled years in advance. Demolishing Lakeside Center would require breaking the contracts with convention planners, which would either create its own legal issues or trigger huge penalties. Plus, you burn those convention planners and they're likely to decamp for Orlando or Vegas.

If you want to avoid those issues, then you have to just schedule the demolition of Lakeside Center several years out. At that point, you're better off just waiting for the FOPL lawsuit to play itself out and eventually lose.

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Once McCormick Place East is gone, then McCormick Place is landlocked permanently. Now we are permanently hemmed in and will eventually be surpassed by other sunbelt convention centers.

Well, yeah. There's not and never has been unlimited land to build on in the South Loop. McPier has pretty much maxed out what they can feasibly do with eminent domain, and actively encouraged high-value development in surrounding blocks that will be virtually impossible to tear down. Orlando has hundreds of acres of fallow undeveloped land to expand onto, plus larger surface lots that be redeveloped when needed. Vegas has a similar setup.

I'm not convinced McCormick Place should keep pursuing an expansion agenda. Focus on making the convention center more competitive financially by eliminating stupid union rules, and we will continue to do a strong business for the foreseeable future due to Chicago's top-notch air connections and enormous supply of hotel rooms. Any further expansion would have to be off-site, maybe somewhere along the South Branch where it can connect to the Orange Line and I-55.

[ardecila]

--delete--

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by ardecila

The Los Angeles site was Expo Park. Not on a waterfront, but basically their version of Museum Campus.

Very little to recommend it from a natural beauty standpoint, but it is a pleasant part of the city with USC right there.

I don't know the origin of the "waterfront" preference but I would think it is more relevant to Chicago (which is oriented toward the Lake) and possibly San Francisco and the Bay.

[the urban politician]

This ain't going nowhere.

Bye bye, Lucas....

[J_M_Tungsten]

All of this is such BS. Losing this amazing museum would serve us right for having such narrow-minded residents. The argument for keeping that parking lot is also BS. People with money and lake views have nothing better to do with their time and money than to fight a silly lawsuit and stop progress.

What was that massive project that caps the train tracks with buildings and parks? I hope beyond hope that project will proceed to block everyone of the FotP's views because there won't be a damn thing they can do to stop it. I'm sure Burnham did not have parking lots and parking garages in his plans for the lakeshore...