CHICAGO | General Developments

[Abner]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Yup, 35 years without something happening is proof that it can never, ever happen.

College and university libraries everywhere, even those near water, store books underground. It is absolutely common practice, and probably no less safe than if they were stored up in the air where tornadoes could get at them. I wouldn't be worried... as long as they're not connected to the Loop tunnels.

[harryc]

Originally Posted by Abner

College and university libraries everywhere, even those near water, store books underground. It is absolutely common practice, and probably no less safe than if they were stored up in the air where tornadoes could get at them. I wouldn't be worried... as long as they're not connected to the Loop tunnels.

Loop tunnels never went as far south as UC.
http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohisto...ages/3718.html

[honte]

I love Reilly... at last, we have an intelligent and level-headed guy in City Hall. His argument makes perfect sense. Daley's desperate, and his comments make Chicago sound like a petty backwater.

Now, let's see if we can get the Children's Museum in a place where it can actually give some needed benefit to the surrounding area. I still say, deck over the IC down by Roosevelt.

In the process, this could add a new fieldhouse for South Loop residents, add the dog park they want so much, bridge the IC "chasm", allow Krueck+Sexton to design a visible landmark, and bring the museum campus west so that it can connect with the Roosevelt Metra Station and Michigan Avenue.

___________________

Daley implies opposition to kids museum is racial
GRANT PARK | Daley implies opposition to kids museum is racial

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/5...seum18.article

September 18, 2007
BY FRAN SPIELMAN AND ANDREW HERRMANN Staff reporters
Mayor Daley suggested Monday there are racial undertones to opposition of a new Chicago Children's Museum in Grant Park, and vowed to put the matter before the City Council despite opposition from rookie Ald. Brendan Reilly (42nd).

...

[2PRUROCKS!]

I am not opposed to the Childern's museum going in its curerent proposed location and I like the design. However, I agree with honte that it would be even better if this was used as an oppertunity to cover the tracks somewhere between the AI and Roosevelt. This would allow the bulk of Krueck + Sexton's work to be seen instead of forced below ground, cover an eye sore and add to instaed of take away green space (green roof over tracks). Has this been coinsidered or suggested to anyone with power and influence.

[wrab]

Originally Posted by honte

I love Reilly... at last, we have an intelligent and level-headed guy in City Hall. His argument makes perfect sense. Daley's desperate, and his comments make Chicago sound like a petty backwater.

Now, let's see if we can get the Children's Museum in a place where it can actually give some needed benefit to the surrounding area. I still say, deck over the IC down by Roosevelt.

In the process, this could add a new fieldhouse for South Loop residents, add the dog park they want so much, bridge the IC "chasm", allow Krueck+Sexton to design a visible landmark, and bring the museum campus west so that it can connect with the Roosevelt Metra Station and Michigan Avenue.....

[Marcu]

We’ve won the battle but lost the war. Sure Grant Park was not the best place for the museum but this is just part of a larger trend of nimby-fication of Chicago and an Alderman that is nothing more than a puppet of community interest groups interested in keeping their property values up and outsiders (as Daley smartly pointed out) out. So for all those celebrating the Alderman’s stance, congratulations you let the nimbys take over Chicago.

[the urban politician]

^ I don't have much of an opinion on the Museum issue (surprise surprise), but if anything I am interested in seeing how this pans out. Why? Because I'd like to know how future NIMBY-pandering Aldermanic action will fair up against the centralized machine of Chicago city government.

That said, I found another EXCELLENT post by a group that's shaping up to be my favorite blogger in Chicago. I also posted this at SSC. Enjoy!!!

This blog is excellent. Check out its latest post. This guy seriously needs to come to SSC:

Monday, September 17, 2007
Parking, New Housing, and a few NIMBY Myths

Show me a new residential development in Hyde Park, and I'll show you a clutch of NIMBYs with a petition against it.

What are the usual NIMBY objections? Well, once you get beyond the rhetorically powerful but empirically dubious claim that new development poses a "danger to our children," somehow putting new housing on the same threat level as Osama Bin Laden, NIMBY opposition to new development typically boils down to the matter-of-fact issues of parking and density.
(Read the rest at link below):
http://hydeparkprogress.blogspot.com/

[honte]

Originally Posted by Marcu

We’ve won the battle but lost the war. Sure Grant Park was not the best place for the museum but this is just part of a larger trend of nimby-fication of Chicago and an Alderman that is nothing more than a puppet of community interest groups interested in keeping their property values up and outsiders (as Daley smartly pointed out) out. So for all those celebrating the Alderman’s stance, congratulations you let the nimbys take over Chicago.

If NIMBYism means having a brain and not jumping up and down every time someone wants to spend a dollar in downtown Chicago, then count me in.

Give him time. He's a very reasonable guy, and I think you'll find that his decisions are not based on NIMBY, but on logic.

Now, on the other hand, Fioretti scares the hell out of me.

[VivaLFuego]

Reilly is awful, and I agree with Marcu's assessment. As I keep reminding people, his campaign literature was a picture of him standing in front of Lakeshore East looking angry (and he wasn't pissed about architecture).

[Bucky]

To think that an alderman has the final say on what is allowed in the city's principal park is appalling. Besides that Alderman Reilly's ward only encompasses the north half of the park. The south part is in Ald. Fioretti's ward. Which means different parts would be controlled by different aldermen with presumably different ideas about what is acceptable. Where are projects that benefit ALL of residents of Chicago supposed to go. Will Nimby's in Lincoln Park now want to get rid of the smelly animals at the Zoo and Hyde Parker's what to eliminate the traffic generating Museum of Science & Industry with all its out-of-neighborhood children? It is time to take some of the power over developpment out of the hands of aldermen.

[budman]

Originally Posted by Bucky

To think that an alderman has the final say on what is allowed in the city's principal park is appalling. Besides that Alderman Reilly's ward only encompasses the north half of the park. The south part is in Ald. Fioretti's ward. Which means different parts would be controlled by different aldermen with presumably different ideas about what is acceptable. Where are projects that benefit ALL of residents of Chicago supposed to go. Will Nimby's in Lincoln Park now want to get rid of the smelly animals at the Zoo and Hyde Parker's what to eliminate the traffic generating Museum of Science & Industry with all its out-of-neighborhood children? It is time to take some of the power over developpment out of the hands of aldermen.

^The aldermen only have "final say" because the tradition in the City Council is for the other aldermen to defer to the alderman in whose ward a particular development is going to be built. They do not have to succumb to tradition, and very likely wont in this case because Mayor Daley is making this a cause de celebre, and will exert whatever (considerable) influence he has when it comes time for a vote by the entire city council. So we have not lost the war, nor have we lost the battle (for those of us that want the museum at Daley Bi).

So far, I am not a fan of Reilly's. The "forever free and open" language upon which he relies is subject to interpretation (and obviously has several exceptions, most notably Gehry's bandshell, which is more than just a piece of art, Harris Theater and the fieldhouse at Daley Bi itself, not to mention the Art Institute, which was excepted out of the language at around the time it was adopted), and it is disingenuous for him to say that he has the interests of Grant Park in mind when deciding against the museum in this location. In fact, that is an obvious lie. He is bowing to the pressure exerted by residents of Lakeshore East, and I find that offensive. To be honest, I probably wouldnt care as much about it if the Lakeshore East residents hadnt put up such a self-centered defense of their position.

[SamInTheLoop]

I agree with the majority so far. Honte: although I always respect your opinions and expertise, in this case you're off-base. Reilly was persuaded by the extremely vocal group of high-rise dwelling, ultra-selfish NIMBYs who mainly fear the congestion that the museum would bring to "their neighborhood park", plain and simple (which of course is a ridiculous reason to oppose a development in downtown Chicago by a 3-level road system!). Of couse he's not going to cite this as his reason for formal opposition. The positives outweigh the negatives of this development in this location - as Bob O'Neil wisely keeps emphasizing, this is a building for building replacement, Daley Bi (please don't engage in any misplaced faux-romanticism of it) is an insignificant, decrepit structure and the proposal is actually a net gain of green space with very minimal sq ft above grade...
The Open, Free and Clear line that Reilly cites as his reasoning is a joke - there's nothing illegal about the proposal and if it were - than large parts of Millennium Park would also be illegal (which they're of course not)

I think Reilly is in a race with Fioretti to see who can be the most consistent and outspoken professional NIMBY-panderer.

Folks, Aldermanic prerogative has got to go! It is a silly tradition that will soon really begin to hurt this city with the disturbing explosion of NIMBYism we are witnessing.....

And also, although Burt Natarus had major shortcomings, Reilly so far has made him look like a model alderman....

[SamInTheLoop]

[QUOTE=budman;3061217it is disingenuous for him to say that he has the interests of Grant Park in mind when deciding against the museum in this location. In fact, that is an obvious lie. He is bowing to the pressure exerted by residents of Lakeshore East, and I find that offensive. To be honest, I probably wouldnt care as much about it if the Lakeshore East residents hadnt put up such a self-centered defense of their position.[/QUOTE]


Precisely!! I was extremely offended when I read this quote from Reilly in Crains online today - “I will not bow to political pressure,” - when that is preceisely how he arrived at his decision in the first place!! Do not be so misguided as to think that Reilly was being principaled in his 'free and clear' decision. Reilly showed he as no spine by buckling under preposterous self-centered NIMBY opposition and pandering away to them!!

I attended the final meeting last week, and I'd estimate that at least 80% of the NIMBY opposing sentiments could be summed up as "this is our little uncongested (poorly-used) park and we don't want it to change, nor do we want more cars and people in our neighborhood" The "open, free and clear" stuff was brought up occassionally as an obvious and poorly-contrived front-argument to lend credence to their unfortunate views...

[hoju]

I don't have a strong stance about the museum. The architecture looks good, we get a new field house out of the deal, private money to finance public improvements is nothing new, and I especially hate the entitlement of the people who want to claim the city's front yard as their own park. For that reason alone, I hope their streets become overrun with snot-nosed kids and bus traffic. Regardless of the museum, what I do think is very important is to see how the balance of power plays itself out in this case. If there is a chance here to end or weaken aldermanic prerogative over zoning, it could be a landmark victory against NIMBYs. Daley's rhetoric so far has been very strong, so he must believe he can win a resounding victory. Maybe he could send a bulldozer over to Reilly's place in the middle of the night. Man I love Chicago politics! Anyways, here is a quote of his from crains that you guys are sure to like:

To those residents worried about traffic and congestion, Mr. Daley has a simple reply: “This is a city.”

[2PRUROCKS!]

Reilly lost me with his argument when he suggested putting this museum over in Northerly Island as a possibility. If you want to protect open space than that is one of the worst locations. I don't really agree with Daley's methods in closing Meig's but I do rather like the results. I feel Northerly Island should be an open and natural park as much as possible. I would also be fine with it being used for the Olympics if most of the structure are temporary and what isn't leaves a small footprint. However, I still feel the Children’s museum would be better off being built over the tracks where Krueck + Sexton's brilliant work didn't have to be mostly hidden below ground but could really shine. I don't like the racism charges by Daley or the NIMBY pandering by Reilly who I fear may just be the type to stick his finger in the air and go the direction he feels the wind (NIMBY'S, his constituents) blow.

[schwerve]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

...actually a net gain of green space....

Is this true? from my quick look at the drawings it looks like a small net loss but again I don't really have anything concrete to back that up.

On a different note this entire argument is so silly and overblown, it has basically turned into a proxy war for a number of different factions looking for a fight.

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by 2PRUROCKS!

I don't like the racism charges by Daley or the NIMBY pandering by Reilly who I fear may just be the type to stick his finger in the air and go the direction he feels the wind (NIMBY'S, his constituents) blow.

Definitely - although I'm clearly on Daley's side here, the racism charge is unsubstantiated speculation and should not be introduced into this debate. The debate should be fought and won on the proposal's merits (which are all that is needed anyway). Yes on Reilly - it looks as though my ward has elected itself a very high-profile, highly-paid professional poll-taker. Somebody needs to sit him down and give him some serious lectures on the difference between direct and indirect democracies, leadership, and making informed, well-reasoned decisions based on what is good for all your constituents, not just a very vocal 5% of the residents of 5 buildings!! (estimated figures - but trust me, they're not far off )

[spyguy]

Originally Posted by hoju

To those residents worried about traffic and congestion, Mr. Daley has a simple reply: “This is a city.”

Yes, that was my favorite quote from the article. The people who moved to that area knew exactly what they were getting into.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

Somebody needs to sit him down and give him some serious lectures on the difference between direct and indirect democracies, leadership, and making informed, well-reasoned decisions based on what is good for all your constituents, not just a very vocal 5% of the residents of 5 buildings!! (estimated figures - but trust me, they're not far off )

^ I'd plop Fioretti in a chair right next to him for that "serious lecture"

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by spyguy

Yes, that was my favorite quote from the article. The people who moved to that area knew exactly what they were getting into.

Except apparently they didn't. They seem to have moved in under the impression that it was their ticket to have all the amenities of the city in immediate proximity and under the beck-and-call of their fleeting whims. While I disapprove of Daley's insinuation that it is racially biased (quick way to lose an argument, Rich), he has the right idea in that these residents have no right to treat the city's backyard as their own.

...and my disdain for Reilly's consistent anti-development, pro-pandering mania is already on record in previous posts. Hopefully his reign of terror on Chicago's downtown area is short.