CHICAGO | Obama Presidential Library

[Khantilever]

Originally Posted by aaron38

We lost The Lucas because he insisted on building it on land that wasn't his. As far as I'm concerned it was never a serious proposal. And neither is this. Serious proposals from serious developers acquire private land and then build on their land.
And as broke as the city is, the asking price for park land (yes, even parking lots in parks) should be 10 times the recent private land sale price in that neighborhood.
I'd bet they'd reconsider the location if they weren't being gifted a massive handout.

We were getting a billion dollar museum for a damn parking lot. And turned it down. It doesn’t matter that Lucas was a douche for wanting that land. We were given a choice, and the only question is whether it was worth it.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by Khantilever

We were getting a billion dollar museum for a damn parking lot. And turned it down.

And it will remain a surface parking lot for our lifetimes.

[Khantilever]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

And it will remain a surface parking lot for our lifetimes.

Good. One thing that FOTP (and the NRA, for that matter) have shown is that being obstinate and extremist pays off. We should fight tooth and nail against this lot ever being returned to parkland to make them live with the consequences.

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

Wow, where do we begin:

The problem with all of your arguments, Mr. D., is that they are always binary... You have your 'rules' and if one of those 'rules' is ever broken, then this new thing must be horrifically bad... black and white... NO grays! No potential benefits for the city or community because my rule was broken!

That's how we lost the Lucas...

At least the Lucus proposal truly was replacing asphalt. It was literally replacing a parking lot. Not to mention the number of acres along the lakefront is magnitudes more than our major inland parks and we could always acquire more of it if we were committed to adding it.

If our inland parks are going to merely be staging grounds for museums then let's at least change the name to Jackson Museum Campus to more accurately signify the reality

[aaron38]

Originally Posted by Chi-Sky21

Gee I wonder how much the art institute or any of the others paid for their land......you gotta give something to get something.

It was just another give away by the city. When the Art Institute was built in 1893, Lake Park (wasn't even Grant Park yet) was just a strip of land between Michigan Ave and the railroad tracks. With the lake on the other side of the tracks.
But the city had already promised land owners along Michigan Ave. in 1839 that the land east of Michigan was "Public ground. Forever to remain vacant of buildings."

But here's the rub. In 1882 the Art Institute purchased a privately owned lot at the SW corner of Michigan and Van Buren. They later purchased another lot due south, also privately owned, and built a building there in 1887. Then when the World's Fair was planned, the Institute got the city to build an exposition building on park land (in clear violation of city promises) and give that land to the Institute. Despite the fact that they already had a facility on Michigan Ave, on private land.

The Worlds Fair buildings were all meant to be temporary. The Art Institute should never have been allowed to move in. They didn't need to move into the park for any reason other than pride. Same goes for every other building past or future. Sorry but them's the facts.

[pilsenarch]

^sure, and Grant Museum Campus and Lincoln Museum Campus... and we should tear down the AIC to make a point...

[Chi-Sky21]

Originally Posted by aaron38

It was just another give away by the city. When the Art Institute was built in 1893, Lake Park (wasn't even Grant Park yet) was just a strip of land between Michigan Ave and the railroad tracks. With the lake on the other side of the tracks.
But the city had already promised land owners along Michigan Ave. in 1839 that the land east of Michigan was "Public ground. Forever to remain vacant of buildings."

But here's the rub. In 1882 the Art Institute purchased a privately owned lot at the SW corner of Michigan and Van Buren. They later purchased another lot due south, also privately owned, and built a building there in 1887. Then when the World's Fair was planned, the Institute got the city to build an exposition building on park land (in clear violation of city promises) and give that land to the Institute. Despite the fact that they already had a facility on Michigan Ave, on private land.

The Worlds Fair buildings were all meant to be temporary. The Art Institute should never have been allowed to move in. They didn't need to move into the park for any reason other than pride. Same goes for every other building past or future. Sorry but them's the facts.

I know the facts...my point was that you want to stick by those silly ideals and not have the Art Institute? MSI? any of them? That just strikes me as silly...and that is putting it MILDLY.

[aaron38]

I wouldn't be so wasteful as to tear down a good building. But if any building east of Michigan is ever destroyed by fire, my opinion is not to rebuild it there.
Buildings in the urban fabric are superior to buildings in parks. Wrigley field is superior to Soldier Field. The Museum of Contemporary Art is superior to the Art Institute.

The only reason, and I do mean the ONLY reason to put a building in a park is so it can snobbishly sneer down at others and say "Look at me, over here on the lawn all by myself, I'm so much better than you over there". Vanity and pride.

[aaron38]

Originally Posted by Chi-Sky21

I know the facts...my point was that you want to stick by those silly ideals and not have the Art Institute? MSI? any of them? That just strikes me as silly...and that is putting it MILDLY.

We had the Art Institute, it was west of Michigan and it could have stayed there. Should have stayed there.
That is the point Mr. D was making. That we are presented with the false choice of either we put all these buildings on park land or we get nothing.
It has always been false.

[Chi-Sky21]

sorry but i am rather fond of the buildings they are currently in and prefer them there. I think all our museum buildings are spectacular and that where they are located makes them EVEN BETTER. Well worth the cost of parkland IMHO. I am not saying go crazy and use up all the land... but this is why exceptions SHOULD be made. The tough part is figuring out what is really worthy. A small chunk of Jackson park for this is not that big of a deal to me. but whatever, my opinion on this is just as worthless as anyone elses. I dont make the decisions.

[kemachs]

Originally Posted by aaron38

We had the Art Institute, it was west of Michigan and it could have stayed there. Should have stayed there.
That is the point Mr. D was making. That we are presented with the false choice of either we put all these buildings on park land or we get nothing.
It has always been false.

Well, in the case of the Lucas Museum, t'was not a false choice. We indeed got nothing.

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by Chi-Sky21

sorry but i am rather fond of the buildings they are currently in and prefer them there. I think all our museum buildings are spectacular and that where they are located makes them EVEN BETTER. Well worth the cost of parkland IMHO. I am not saying go crazy and use up all the land... but this is why exceptions SHOULD be made. The tough part is figuring out what is really worthy. A small chunk of Jackson park for this is not that big of a deal to me. but whatever, my opinion on this is just as worthless as anyone elses. I dont make the decisions.

The locations are very nice of course. And nobody in their right mind now suggests that we retroactively move or tear them down. But it would also be nice if the lots they sit on were now pastoral and natural.

Do you know where those museums would also look great? On the west side of Michigan Ave. facing Grant Park. Or on the south side of Roosevelt near Michigan Ave. Or if they sat on a quad somewhere along the Chicago River. I dare would argue that they would also likely get higher attendance if they were located close to the Loop than where they are today though that is speculation.

There is a host of places back when those museum location decisions were made that could have made spectacular choices in retrospect but we don't judge the alternatives because we take what resulted so much for granted. A reality that we are generally pleased with but they weren't the ONLY alternatives just like the Obama Library or Lucas Museum was hardly the ONLY great alternatives for both of their proposed locations.

[aaron38]

If Lucas wanted his museum to be in Chicago, it would be in Chicago. It wasn't serious, never was. We didn't lose what never really existed.
I haven't seen all the condo and office towers being built saying they're only economically feasible if they're gifted park land to build on.

We have to stop this socialized subsidization for everything. Museums, NFL stadiums, corporate headquarters. All extorted from the public and we can't afford it.
And the Obama library is just the same. If Obama wants it to be in Chicago, he'll put it on private land where it belongs. Or it's just more theft of the public.

[pilsenarch]

aaron38, ^ that's not the way the real world works now or ever in the past or will ever work in the future...

of course Lucas was serious, he was fighting the FotPL lawsuit, he had SCB working on construction documents and he had purchased a home in the city...

you have yet to really prove that all of the institutions in our parks throughout the city are in any way an actual detriment... they are all, almost without exception (not sure about the benefits of a NFL stadium to the park), rather a huge benefit to the city and to the activity in the parks in which they reside, which can be easily proved...

[spyguy]

Column: An Obama tower in an Olmsted park? Yes, but design still needs refinement
By Blair Kamin

During his White House years, Barack Obama did not shy away from big, provocative political issues. The aesthetic instincts of the former president, who once wanted to be an architect, are proving no different.

Seven months after unveiling the design for his Obama Presidential Center, including a stone-sheathed museum tower that I panned as ponderous and Pharaonic, Obama was back last week, via video this time, to tout a revised design for the high-rise — taller, slimmer and even more monumental than the first edition.

Kamin doesn't seem bothered by the setting, just wants refinements to the tower (which I agree with).

[JK47]

Originally Posted by aaron38

The Museum of Contemporary Art is superior to the Art Institute.

The only reason, and I do mean the ONLY reason to put a building in a park is so it can snobbishly sneer down at others and say "Look at me, over here on the lawn all by myself, I'm so much better than you over there". Vanity and pride.

The Museum of Contemporary Art is located on public land that is leased for 99 years at a cost of $1. It was the location formerly of a National Guard Armory (106th Cavalry) which was relocated to a building near Soldier Field that needed to be renovated for use as an armory to the tune of $4.6 Million. The Armory was, as you may have noticed, directly adjacent to a public park in an area where there is little green space.

This Museum is therefore much worse than AIC by your own reasoning.

[Chi-Sky21]

Well i guess even though i am wearing 4 year old jeans from kohls....i am vain and snobbish cause guess what, I like it there, it IS a better location, it is a better looking building and its collection of Art BLOWS AWAY the MCA...so mission accomplished it is better than you over there and i am completely ok with that... the Art Institute is on a level few museums achieve, MCA is not even on the scope

[aaron38]

I wasn't aware of that. I'm not going to defend any sweetheart deals the MCA got. But government land and public land are not the same thing. Armories, like most government buildings are not open to the public for recreational use.
Should the armory land have been turned into parkland? Maybe. But it wasn't a park yet.

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

of course Lucas was serious, he was fighting the FotPL lawsuit, he had SCB working on construction documents and he had purchased a home in the city...

you have yet to really prove that all of the institutions in our parks throughout the city are in any way an actual detriment... they are all, almost without exception (not sure about the benefits of a NFL stadium to the park), rather a huge benefit to the city and to the activity in the parks in which they reside, which can be easily proved...

Suing for free parkland ($10 for 99 years) doesn't count as being serious.

I don't have to prove that buildings in parks are a detriment. Rather, those who want to seize parkland need to show that there is absolutely no other place those buildings could be built. And that these institutions that all charge admission are economically not viable if they have to pay for land like everyone else.

What if Amazon pulls a Lucas and says they'll bring 50,000 jobs to Chicago, but only if they can have a lakefront campus. In Lincoln Park. Wouldn't that be a benefit to the city and increase activity in the park?
This is a real question. Why should Lucas and Obama get Chicago parkland but not Jeff Bezos?

[left of center]

There really isn't a set precedent for a big corporation to move its HQ to parkland in the city. Besides, nothing of the sort was requested by Amazon of contender cities, unlike thinks like transit accessibility.

As for museums, there is decades of precedence of locating them in parks. Almost all of Chicago's most prestigious institutions are on parkland along the lakefront. I think their presence enhances our parks, much like a field house, statue or monument. Having the Lucas museum replace an asphalt parking lot would have been a major win, in my book. Much like the Obama library replacing Cornell Dr.

Now, forcing the city to remove the road and upgrade Stony Island Ave using taxpayer dollars is another argument entirely...

[Khantilever]

Originally Posted by aaron38

This is a real question. Why should Lucas and Obama get Chicago parkland but not Jeff Bezos?

This sounds like the NIMBY reasoning one hears when arguing for why we ought to encourage more development. They always respond saying “why do you care so much about the developers?” It’s as if they can’t see past the first-order effects and recognize that it’s not about the developers’ interests (nor Obama’s or Bezos’ or Lucas’) but about the benefits society as a whole may enjoy. That our interests happen to align with their profit motive or vanity is irrelevant.