CHICAGO | Lucas Museum of Narrative Art

[rlw777]

Friends of the Parking lots opens door to compromise

“Friends of the Parks appreciates that the City of Chicago finally reached out to us yesterday with the mayor’s new idea for the Lucas Museum. We will discuss and analyze this new information while we review the discovery materials we also just received from the city this week,” said Lauren Moltz, board chair of Friends of the Parks.

“Friends of the Parks will continue in our commitment to preserve, protect, promote and improve the use of our parks and in our historic role in upholding the principles that have fostered the jewel of a lakefront that we all enjoy.”

So... demo a useful existing building to build another building but don't demo a parking lot to build a building. So FotPl "principles" mean exactly jack shit.

[gallo]

Rendering of new site configuration from Trib:

[Via Chicago]

so they moved it south.....what makes them think this wont elicit the same FOTP objection? legitimate question. from the lawsuit standpoint, im not seeing how this fixes anything. might as well just bank on the original spot and let the court battle play out...this is like the exact same proposal, except making it even MORE complicated.

[aaron38]

I have to agree with a previous post. Once McCormick place is demolished, FOTP will argue at that instant, the land reverts to free and open parkland, and cannot be redeveloped, it must be left as open land. If a parking lot can't be redeveloped, neither can a cleared lot.

[Via Chicago]

exactly. this proposal is moot, because it will be held to the same court battle theyre fighting at this exact moment. and if they win they can build the original proposal exactly as they wanted it. so whats even the point of this mindless exercise?

like what am i missing here. the only thing this adds to the equation is additional MCP space which is debatable can even be financed to begin with given all the other obligations the city has just shelled out here.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

so they moved it south.....what makes them think this wont elicit the same FOTP objection? legitimate question. from the lawsuit standpoint, im not seeing how this fixes anything. might as well just bank on the original spot and let the court battle play out...this is like the exact same proposal, except making it even MORE complicated.

Exactly. Doesn't look good for Chicago at all. This City can't help itself.

[marothisu]

A small part of me hopes that the city is not serious and it's just a tactic to show FOTP how silly part of this thing is, but also as the article infers above - shows that the city is willing to try and work it out with them somehow.

Probably not, but you never know. It almost seems, at least mildly strategic to me.

[UPChicago]

Build it on top of MPE, call it a renovation and call it a fucking day.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by UPChicago

Build it on top of MPE, call it a renovation and call it a fucking day.

post of the week!

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

so they moved it south.....what makes them think this wont elicit the same FOTP objection? legitimate question. from the lawsuit standpoint, im not seeing how this fixes anything. might as well just bank on the original spot and let the court battle play out...this is like the exact same proposal, except making it even MORE complicated.

This deal would not move forward without FOTP's consent and formal agreement not to sue.

It's supposed to be a "compromise", after all. FOTP has to give up something.

[Via Chicago]

i mean, are they open to a compromise? or is that just the headline because they didnt immediately say "WERE SUING" before the paper went to press?

the article just seemed to imply theyre A) happy theyre being acknowledged, and B) absorbing the proposal.

if theyre fighting Location A "on principle", then i dont see how they could support Location B since its literally the exact same thing (read: east of lakeshore drive)

and i still dont see where all this magic money for a further MP expansion would come from given all the political capital Rahm used up on the Depaul stadium (not to mention we are literally broke). esp given that the existing setup currently works just fine.

[streetline]

Even if FOTP wanted to prevent a 2nd lawsuit, could they? They don't have an exclusive on the right to sue, and they don't have any authority over the people who give them money. Couldn't their most "principled" donors could just spin up another non-profit and have it bring the lawsuit?

[Mr Downtown]

What a bizarre idea.

Public trust land, it was ruled in the 1950s, can be leased to McPier for use as a trade show facility. We’re still waiting to learn whether it can be leased to a private museum under the kind of agreement reached with LMNA. I don’t see FOTP’s odds of prevailing as real high, though the city has been as clumsy as possible, only turning over the lease documents last week, finally. So what’s the point of starting a new battle with mid-century preservationists who admire Lakeside Center, and spending lots of time and money and political capital creating replacement expo space—when any citizen of Illinois can still sue to prevent turnover of the Lakeside site to LMNA?

Legally, it has nothing to do with whether there’s a building there, or whether it’s east of Lake Shore Drive. It’s the nature of the land (reclaimed from the waters of Lake Michigan) and the turnover to control by a private entity (LMNA).

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by streetline

Even if FOTP wanted to prevent a 2nd lawsuit, could they? They don't have an exclusive on the right to sue, and they don't have any authority over the people who give them money. Couldn't their most "principled" donors could just spin up another non-profit and have it bring the lawsuit?

I was wondering the same thing in conjunction with the idea of negotiating over the initial plan. As I understand it, the group has no special standing to bring a suit. So I would think there is a risk anyone could follow in their footsteps (though I am not an expert).

[ChiTownWonder]

wait they are demolishing McCormick place east?

[Busy Bee]

Could they not just do a radical remodel of MPE to make it look like a grounded Star Destroyer? I mean it's half way there already.

[F1 Tommy]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

What a bizarre idea.

Public trust land, it was ruled in the 1950s, can be leased to McPier for use as a trade show facility. We’re still waiting to learn whether it can be leased to a private museum under the kind of agreement reached with LMNA. I don’t see FOTP’s odds of prevailing as real high, though the city has been as clumsy as possible, only turning over the lease documents last week, finally. So what’s the point of starting a new battle with mid-century preservationists who admire Lakeside Center, and spending lots of time and money and political capital creating replacement expo space—when any citizen of Illinois can still sue to prevent turnover of the Lakeside site to LMNA?

Legally, it has nothing to do with whether there’s a building there, or whether it’s east of Lake Shore Drive. It’s the nature of the land (reclaimed from the waters of Lake Michigan) and the turnover to control by a private entity (LMNA).

You know if McPier sub leased the space(parking lot) to LMNA your lawsuit would be done with. McPier needs complete legal control of the parking lot. I can see that happening unless FOA Parking lot drop their objection first.

[Mr Downtown]

^Courts are not that easily fooled. The parking lot would not be under public control, nor would it be used for trade fair and exposition purposes.

[fimiak]

Look at all the Chicagoans fighting this battle because of NIMBYism. It is because of NIMBYism that this museum relocated out of San Francisco and to Chicago in the first place. No place is safe from baby boomers with views.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by fimiak

Look at all the Chicagoans fighting this battle because of NIMBYism. It is because of NIMBYism that this museum relocated out of San Francisco and to Chicago in the first place. No place is safe from baby boomers with views.

Yeah, it's pretty damn sad. NIMBYism in both cities can suck, though I think NIMBYism in SF can be worse. In any case, I don't even know if you can say it's "baby boomers" can you? From what I've seen, many people in FOTP aren't old enough to be categorized as that - could be wrong though.