daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Development News Forums > General Urban Developments > DN Archives



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old September 18th, 2007, 04:22 PM   #381
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

The spectacle of Chicago's "wet mayor" playing the race card is priceless.
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old September 18th, 2007, 05:10 PM   #382
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
The spectacle of Chicago's "wet mayor" playing the race card is priceless.
^ Yup. Daley knows exactly what he's doing, and getting black Aldermen fired up is his exact intention.

Of course, Reilly saying that he "vows" to get all 49 aldermen to vote his way almost guarantees that he has already decided against the museum at this location.
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 18th, 2007, 05:26 PM   #383
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

This morning's Sun-Times invites readers to vote in an online poll about whether they think opposition to the museum is racially motivated. When I checked, 38% thought it was. Now, since only a tiny percentage of Sun-Times readers have attended any of the meetings, even posing such a poll is a nice bit of pandering and race-baiting, legitimizing the folks who manage to see racial implications in everything.
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 18th, 2007, 05:55 PM   #384
wrabbit
Registered User
 
wrabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,162
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
.....Now, since only a tiny percentage of Sun-Times readers have attended any of the meetings, even posing such a poll is a nice bit of pandering and race-baiting, legitimizing the folks who manage to see racial implications in everything.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your main thrust, but how do you know what percentage of the attendees at any given meeting reads the Sun-Times?
wrabbit no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 18th, 2007, 07:08 PM   #385
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

Sun-Times circulation is 350,000. Capacity of Daley Bicentennial meeting room is 200.

The poll is not what meeting attendees think of the Sun-Times . It's what Sun-Times readers think of meeting attendees.
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 18th, 2007, 07:11 PM   #386
cbotnyse
Chicago Enthusiast
 
cbotnyse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicago IL
Posts: 2,560
Likes (Received): 26

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
It's what Sun-Times readers think of meeting attendees.
no it isnt.
cbotnyse no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 18th, 2007, 07:24 PM   #387
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

News from Brendan Reilly
Alderman of Chicago's 42nd Ward


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, September 18, 2007


Alderman Reilly: Grant Park to Remain Forever Open, Clear and Free Allowing Children's Museum to Build in Grant Park Would Set Dangerous Precedent

Chicago - Alderman Brendan Reilly (42nd Ward) today announced his opposition to a proposal by the Chicago Children's Museum to build a new 100,000 square-foot facility in Grant Park. Reilly made his announcement following a three-month public process structured to allow the Children's Museum to present their plans and to facilitate public input. Recognizing that Grant Park belongs to the residents of the city of Chicago, Alderman Reilly acknowledged that his decision impacts the entire city of Chicago and not just neighborhood residents or his downtown constituents.

"Grant Park belongs to all residents of Chicago and, thanks to Montgomery Ward's vigilance, Grant Park has remained protected open-space for 171 years and is now one of our city's most precious public assets," Reilly said. "There is only one Grant Park and it should remain forever open, clear and free for future generations, from every corner of Chicago, to enjoy for many years to come."

Over the past three months, Alderman Reilly immersed himself in the history behind the long and tumultuous battle to protect Grant Park from buildings and obstructions. Reilly read books regarding the history of the park and spent time researching the four Illinois Supreme Court decisions that conferred special protections on Grant Park as public land. Those court decisions - commonly referred to as the "Montgomery Ward decisions" - affirmed the 1836 decree that designated Grant Park as "Public Ground - a Common to Remain Forever Open, Clear and Free of any Buildings, or other Obstruction Whatever."

"During this process, I dedicated a significant amount of time to studying the 171-year history behind Grant Park, because I know that it is one of Chicago's most precious resources. Many people may not be aware of the fact that the Chicago Children's Museum is not the first worthy organization to pursue a facility in Grant Park. Over the past 150 years, dozens of exciting projects have been proposed for Grant Park. If exceptions had been allowed for those worthy projects, we would not be having this debate today because there would be no open space left on Grant Park."

"My position on this issue has nothing to do with the merits of the Chicago Children's Museum or the designs for their proposed facility. This debate is really about the future of Grant Park and whether or not it would be prudent to abandon 171 years of history that has preserved this open space as a park for all residents of the city of Chicago," Reilly said. "I believe that supporting the Children's Museum proposal to build on Grant Park would set dangerous precedent that would open the flood-gates for other entities to lobby for their own locations on Grant Park. I agreed with the Chicago Tribune's recent editorial against new building in Grant Park when they opined 'saying no to a Children's Museum today empowers Chicago to keep saying no for eons of tomorrows.'"

Alderman Reilly made it clear that, although he cannot support efforts to build new structures in Grant Park, he is a strong supporter of the Chicago Children's Museum and that he is eager to work with museum officials to help the institution identify alternate locations that will allow the museum to expand. Reilly indicated that he is willing to host a meeting between the Children's Museum and their current landlord, Navy Pier, to facilitate an expansion at their current location.

"It is my understanding that the Children's Museum is seeking to leave Navy Pier because they have outgrown their current facility and desperately need to expand," Reilly said. "I am happy to help the Museum negotiate an expansion with Navy Pier because I think the Pier and the Museum have a mutually beneficial relationship. Navy Pier is the number one tourist destination in Illinois and, I believe, that has a lot to do with the Chicago Children's Museum being located on the Pier. If a Navy Pier expansion does not work, I would support the Museum in considering other, unprotected downtown open-space - such as Northerly Island or the Museum Campus."

According to Reilly, he is prepared take whatever steps are necessary to preserve and protect Grant Park from the Children's Museum proposal and any future building proposals.

"Just as Montgomery Ward fought to protect Grant Park for our generation, I believe it is our generation's responsibility to honor that legacy by working to protect Grant Park for the benefit of future generations to come - for all Chicagoans from every corner of the city," Reilly said. "I will not bow to political pressure in this effort, because I refuse to ignore Grant Park's 171 years of history as a specially protected open space. Back in his day, Montgomery Ward incurred the wrath of an angry Chicago City Council that claimed his fight to preserve public open space and to protect Grant Park was impeding "economic progress" for the city of Chicago. In fact, one alderman - Alderman William Ballard - went so far as to say the "downtown lakefront is no place for a park - it should be used to bring revenue to the city." Thankfully, the Illinois Supreme Court disagreed with Alderman Ballard and now more than a century later, the people of Chicago are still able to enjoy the beautiful open space that is our beloved Grant Park - our most precious asset."

Alderman Reilly encouraged the public to read a brief passage written about Grant Park by world-renowned architect and Chicagoan, Daniel Burnham, the author of the "Plan for Chicago":

"The lakefront by right belongs to the people. It affords their one great unobstructed view, stretching away to the horizon, where water and clouds seem to meet. Not a foot of its shores should be appropriated by individuals to the exclusion of the people. On the contrary, everything possible should be done to enhance its natural beauties, thus fitting it for the part it has to play in the life of the whole city. It should be made so alluring that it will become the fixed habit of the people to seek its restful presence at every opportunity." - Daniel Burnham, 1909.
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 18th, 2007, 07:49 PM   #388
BVictor1
Chicago's #1 Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,186
Likes (Received): 882

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
[COLOR="Navy"]News from Brendan Reilly
Alderman of Chicago's 42nd Ward

He's such a prick.

http://chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/n...26403&seenIt=1

(Crain’s) — A key downtown alderman said Tuesday that he’s against the Chicago Children’s Museum’s proposal to build a new facility in Grant Park.

Last edited by i_am_hydrogen; September 18th, 2007 at 10:52 PM.
BVictor1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 18th, 2007, 08:17 PM   #389
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1 View Post
He's such a prick.
Because . . .
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 18th, 2007, 10:14 PM   #390
slooparch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 95
Likes (Received): 5

The Alderman

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Because . . .
Because:

As you have pointed out previously, the issue isn't Free, Clear and Open anymore...the building is underground. If the Alderman is worried about precendence, it has already been set with a much larger building that does indeed block views, The Harris Theater.

(And, as long as were on precedence, we should have some faith in our system to decide when it might be appropriate to replace a mistake in the park, Daley Bi, with an asset, and when it is not appropriate to build. For example, when the CCM proposed building on the northwest corner of Monroe and Columbus, EVERYONE objected: O'Neill, all the architectural enthusiasts I know. So, to conclude that the Park will be paved over due to more underground usage is absurd)

I think the comment by BVic is referencing the fact that he is bowing to NIMBY pressure and hiding behind the open, free, clear, whatever, when that clearly is not the issue. The issue is more people using the (their) park and the east side neighbors want it to themselves. Call it racism if you will (I would not) but THAT is clearly the issue here.

Last edited by slooparch; September 18th, 2007 at 10:15 PM. Reason: spelling
slooparch no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 18th, 2007, 10:43 PM   #391
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

Is it inconceivable to you that Reilly would actually make a decision based on principle?

And when CCM proposed Monroe/Columbus, everyone didn't object. The mayor, the one and only person involved in our imperialistic "system to decide," was crazy about the idea.

The Harris Theater, by the way, got permissions from the property owners, at least according to Timothy Guilfoyle's book on Millennium Park.
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 18th, 2007, 10:52 PM   #392
i_am_hydrogen
muted
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,080
Likes (Received): 203

Key alderman defies Daley over Children's Museum site
By Gary Washburn | Tribune staff reporter
12:17 PM CDT, September 18, 2007


Ald. Brendan Reilly (42nd) announced his opposition today to a new Chicago Children's Museum in Grant Park, putting the freshman alderman on a collision course with Mayor Richard Daley.

"My position on this issue has nothing to do with the merits of the Chicago Children's Museum or the designs for their proposed facility," Reilly said. "This debate is really about the future of Grant Park and whether or not it would be prudent to abandon 171 years of history that has preserved this open space as a park for all residents of the city of Chicago."

Read the rest here:http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...i_tab01_layout

Last edited by i_am_hydrogen; September 19th, 2007 at 12:58 AM.
i_am_hydrogen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 18th, 2007, 11:07 PM   #393
slooparch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 95
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Is it inconceivable to you that Reilly would actually make a decision based on principle?

And when CCM proposed Monroe/Columbus, everyone didn't object. The mayor, the one and only person involved in our imperialistic "system to decide," was crazy about the idea.
Well, the mayor, I believe, actually gave up on that site based upon the city-wide opposition. And, I would accept the Alderman's 'principle' if it made any sense. The propsed CCM would not block any more views, and as I pointed out previously, for numerous reasons, it would not change precedence. It wasn't until recently that all of the Alderman's consitituents jumped on the free and clear bandwagon. For the longest time, it was the congestion argument, which translates into the real objection which is we don't want millions of kids messing up OUR park.

[QUOTE=
The Harris Theater, by the way, got permissions from the property owners, at least according to Timothy Guilfoyle's book on Millennium Park.[/QUOTE]

Can you clarify? Does permission from property owner's trump the forever free, clear, open, etc.?
slooparch no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 18th, 2007, 11:33 PM   #394
asauterChicago
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 194
Likes (Received): 1

I don't know, on one hand I can see Mayor Daley's vision of putting it in the park. It's already a big destination for families, brings more people down there, etc. But I can't help thinking that there are so many open lots/parking lots that could use this building, rather than building in the middle of the park and dealing with all the controversy.

I say fill in an empty lot, we have plenty to spare.
asauterChicago no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2007, 04:30 AM   #395
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

Daley and Reilly are both playing cards:

Daley: Racism (pressured by big-money backers)

Reilly: Forever free and open (pressured by a community that simply doesn't want all this congestion next door).

They're both bullshitting, essentially.
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2007, 04:59 AM   #396
NearNorthGuy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 502
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
The spectacle of Chicago's "wet mayor" playing the race card is priceless.
For a moment, I thought you were overstating things. But come to think of it, you are right. This this gambit by Mayor Mumbles has risen to the level of "spectacle." It's like watching a sputtering Huey Long twist logic into a pretzel on the front pages. And ignite racial hostilities under false pretense.

This is not a racial issue. This is not a "New East Side" issue. It is an open space issue of citywide importance, seeing as how it deals with our city's front yard.

We should be increasing, not decreasing, the green space in Grant Park. And the building is NOT underground. "Ground level" is the ground of Grant Park, not of the Randolph deck.

Furthermore, landscaping on top of a building is NOT green space.
NearNorthGuy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2007, 05:06 AM   #397
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

At the Friends of Downtown forum back in June, Reilly seemed to speak from conviction about the issue, not from political calculation.
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2007, 04:20 PM   #398
slooparch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 95
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by NearNorthGuy View Post
This is not a racial issue. This is not a "New East Side" issue. It is an open space issue of citywide importance, seeing as how it deals with our city's front yard.

We should be increasing, not decreasing, the green space in Grant Park. And the building is NOT underground. "Ground level" is the ground of Grant Park, not of the Randolph deck.

Furthermore, landscaping on top of a building is NOT green space.
Do you and Reilly really expect us to believe that the East Side residents are up-in-arms about the park being 'free and clear'?

Of course not. The ONLY issue is the thought of all those kids using THEIR park. It's not racism, but it is elitism.

Landscaping on top of a building is not a park? Huh? By your definition of 'free and clear' being the 'ground' would mean that all of the Grant Park Garages (the park along Michigan Ave from Randolph to Congress), Millenium Park, and all of the park north of Monroe to Randolph is already totally built and no longer 'open'. Please, the issue is NOT 'free and clear'.
slooparch no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2007, 04:58 PM   #399
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by slooparch View Post
Do you and Reilly really expect us to believe that the East Side residents are up-in-arms about the park being 'free and clear'?

Of course not. The ONLY issue is the thought of all those kids using THEIR park. It's not racism, but it is elitism.

Landscaping on top of a building is not a park? Huh? By your definition of 'free and clear' being the 'ground' would mean that all of the Grant Park Garages (the park along Michigan Ave from Randolph to Congress), Millenium Park, and all of the park north of Monroe to Randolph is already totally built and no longer 'open'. Please, the issue is NOT 'free and clear'.
^ The over-represented LSE NIMBY's clearly don't give a flying **** about forever free and clear. Nevertheless, their argument is on much firmer ground than Daley's. Daley has a huge uphill battle on this one.

As I mentioned at SSP, Daley chose a bad battle to fight. He should fight more common-sense issues like X/O or the Children's Hospital, 2 issues in which NIMBY's are clearly full of their obnoxious selves and have much weaker legs to stand on.
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2007, 05:11 PM   #400
i_am_hydrogen
muted
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,080
Likes (Received): 203

Quote:
Originally Posted by slooparch View Post
Of course not. The ONLY issue is the thought of all those kids using THEIR park. It's not racism, but it is elitism.
Exactly. "Free and clear" is just a convenient pretext. A handful of people should not be allowed to dictate what's best for a park that belongs to everyone in this city.
i_am_hydrogen no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 08:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu