SkyscraperCity banner
1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,500 Posts
I know I live out of town but I think Daley is right to put this building in center city. It will be a nice addidtion to the cultural center, the Art Institute and the Museum Campus.

Don't make the mistake we have made here in LA. We bowed to political pressure to move our Children's museum from downtown to the northern edge of the San Fernando Valley, which has been historically underserved by cultural institutions. As a result donors needed to fund the exhibits have been spending their money elsewhere and we have a lovely building that sits empty and no one knows when and if the Children's Museum will ever open its doors. The drawings look great though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,066 Posts
The Children's Museum of Indianapolis, the most visited in the country, is at 30th and Meridian, far from downtown, yet it still draws huge crowds.

This is an outrage. We'll see what the courts say, but the state of America's judiciary being what it is, it's certainly no slam dunk that the precedents in this matter will be upheld.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
179 Posts
^^A lot of people said the same thing about Millennium Park, yet now everyone loves it
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
502 Posts
^^^A lot of people said the same thing about Millennium Park, yet now everyone loves it
WRONG. A lot of people did NOT say the same thing about Millenium Park.
That is another myth propagated by the Children's museum. Just like all of the lying about wide support, the busing in of "supporters," and the outright lying about cultural institutions and universities that support the museum. That lie-filled ad in the Tribune was the icing on the cake.

But then, once they've told a stack of lies, what's a few more?

I am going to give some more money to the lawsuit effort at savegrantpark.org
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
WRONG. A lot of people did NOT say the same thing about Millenium Park.
That is another myth propagated by the Children's museum. Just like all of the lying about wide support, the busing in of "supporters," and the outright lying about cultural institutions and universities that support the museum. That lie-filled ad in the Tribune was the icing on the cake.

But then, once they've told a stack of lies, what's a few more?

I am going to give some more money to the lawsuit effort at savegrantpark.org
Grant Park and other lakeside parks are meant to be open for the people, not development. That's what sets Chicago apart from other cities.

I hope the lawsuit stops them. Navy Pier is a fine place to have the Children's Museum.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
130 Posts
The Children's Museum of Indianapolis, the most visited in the country, is at 30th and Meridian, far from downtown, yet it still draws huge crowds.

This is an outrage. We'll see what the courts say, but the state of America's judiciary being what it is, it's certainly no slam dunk that the precedents in this matter will be upheld.
I grew up in Indinapolis going to and volunteering at that museum, and it is three miles from downtown. Three miles from Indy's equivalent of State/Madison is a helluva lot different than three miles in Chicago. Mass transit does not exist in Indy, so everyone drives cars. You can make the trip from monument circle to the Children's Museum in 6 minutes. In spread out Indianapolis terms, this is very close to downtown. If you talked to someone living 10 miles from downtown, they might even consider the Museum to be downtown.

I have tried to avoid this topic, because I work right around the corner from where the thing is going up and I've had conversations with nearby residents that tell me all I need to know.

I can respect the development purist argument of forever free and clear, but the fact is we just reclaimed a ton of green space w/ MP. I don't see how a decent plan that integrates into the existing landscape and takes up only marginally more space than the ugly fieldhouse and ice rink currently occupy can be considered bad. Unless you don't like the aesthetic of the proposed building.

The condos across Randolph, while not technically in the park, occupy the same railyard used to develop MP. If these residents were so interested in a beautiful, uninterrupted lakeshore, why would they purchase condos in buildings that interrupt the lakeshore?

In my conversations with the residents opposed to the development, one thing becomes very clear: they like their nice slice of quiet life, with beautiful views of downtown or the lake, and the close proximity to downtown. The problem is, you can only reasonably expect to get two out of three.

The saddest part of the entire thing to me is that people are actually willing to waste $$ in court to try to prevent an underutilized ice rink and fieldhouse from becoming a Children's Museum. From all of the outrage, you'd think someone tried to open a brothel in the park.
 

·
Loyola University
Joined
·
907 Posts
Most of it will be underground, right? Except for those Glass shards or whatever they are, so it doesn't really matter to me.
 

·
Chicago Enthusiast
Joined
·
2,560 Posts
The saddest part of the entire thing to me is that people are actually willing to waste $$ in court to try to prevent an underutilized ice rink and fieldhouse from becoming a Children's Museum. From all of the outrage, you'd think someone tried to open a brothel in the park.
I agree. I walked by there the other day and was thinking to myself, where is the outrage for this field house and huge slab of concrete (ice rink) that currently covers the site? It is a complete waste of space. The park is already "lost" at this location, so why not improve it?

I agree that there are other locations in the city where this museum could have gone, but it will be a enormous improvement to the existing structure and from what I've seen, it is being built in a very sensitive way.
 

·
4th Level of Hades
Joined
·
709 Posts
I don't mind this project, but ONLY because something new and vibrant will be replacing something old and crappy. (does that fieldhouse even get used, by anyone?) But I AM concerned this is a first step by private entities to grab chunks of the park for themselves. What if next year, ClearChannel proposes a fancy new bandshell to replace Patrillo? Will there be more or less of a public outcry? Will we have a new legal precedent that's less effective in stopping them?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
865 Posts
Two Saturdays ago I spent about 40 minutes outside during the afternoon where the proposed Children's Museum is suppose to go. It was such a pleasant day. That area of the park is relatively quiet & peaceful, save for nearby Lake Shore Drive. The thought of not being able to enjoy that quiet space in the future doesn't make me particularly happy. Regardless of the fact the museum will be underground, with little kids running around you can say goodbye to the little amount of peace & quiet Grant Park has left. I hope Reilly is able to use the Courts to stop this from happening.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
502 Posts
A stupid project that will put a museum undergound, while STILL eating up green space on top. Yes, that's right. It is the worst of both worlds.

This is a blown chance to have a great piece of architecture elsewhere. Instead we get kids in cave.

Those 33 political hacks are proof that we should either disband the City Council or at least reduce the number of aldermen to about 15. After all, when you buy rubber stamps at OfficeMax, you don't need to buy 50 of them.
 

·
Urbane observer
Joined
·
1,549 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
This is not a question of balance, between Daley Bi and a new museum, between green space and hardscape. It's a question of principle. Grant Park has a particular and utterly unique legal protection as "Public ground forever to remain vacant of buildings."

Perhaps the reason Mayor Daley failed his bar exam was that he didn't understand the difference between a balancing test and a settled matter of law.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
130 Posts
This is not a question of balance, between Daley Bi and a new museum, between green space and hardscape. It's a question of principle. Grant Park has a particular and utterly unique legal protection as "Public ground forever to remain vacant of buildings."

Perhaps the reason Mayor Daley failed his bar exam was that he didn't understand the difference between a balancing test and a settled matter of law.
DT, I have some questions that in all honesty I don't know the answers to from a legal standpoint, but I'm not sure it's entirely straightforward either. Let me start by saying I'm not trying to score points or win an argument here. I figure that if anyone knows the answers to my questions on this board, it is probably you.

I understand the plat and proclamation. The plat clearly defines a specified area to be protected. The question I have is what if the proposed building site was underwater at the time of the proclamation? Looking at contemporaneous urban plans and real estate maps at the time of the proclamation, the site was underwater. Just eyeballing it from this link, The distance between Columbus and Michigan is twice that of Mich and Wabash, so present day Columbus Dr. was underwater.
http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/10636.html


Legal question 1: Does a new shoreline define a boundary or does the original land area define the boundary? If originally designated boundary defines the site, then there is no legal protection for the site.

Legal question 2: If the shoreline defines the boundary, what is the precedent and why? Rivers change course on state and municipal borders all of the time. There are several cases where state boundaries have leapt over the shoreline. For example, Kaskaskia, Illinois lies west of the Mississippi River.

Legal Question 3: Could the current boundary of the park and the area designated free and clear not be mutually inclusive? Looking at the current zoning map, the parcel of the proposed building and the rest of Grant Park are one and the same. However, there are different boundaries of designated usage within the park (PD, POS, etc). Does this mean it can be subdivided?

Realistically, if this went to court, could the city have better legs to stand on than what many believe?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
650 Posts
1. There is nothing to do in Indianapolis besides go to the Childrens Musuem. Everyone drives everywhere so location is irrelevant.

2. Think of the History Musuem of Chicago - not very many people go there (compared to other museums). Perhaps if it were downtown more people would visit.

3. Areas are re-platted all the time. As a civil engineer, I frequently re-plat areas, vacate easements, consolidate lots, resubdivide, change restrictions from original plats, etc. Platted restrictions are only as good as the latest recorded documents for that lot. I am sure the City attorneys are making sure that this project is going through the correct legal process.
 

·
Chicago Enthusiast
Joined
·
2,560 Posts
2. Think of the History Musuem of Chicago - not very many people go there (compared to other museums). Perhaps if it were downtown more people would visit.
thats true. I wish more people would visit there. The renovations they've done are amazing. I recommend it every chance I get.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
179 Posts
thats true. I wish more people would visit there. The renovations they've done are amazing. I recommend it every chance I get.
Of course one has to realize that a local history museum is going to have limited appeal. I'd imagine tourists (which I assume make up a decent percentage of visitors to the other museums) aren't generally going to be interested in Chicago history.

As for the children's museum having it be located in Grant Park isn't the end of the world. Lake Shore Drive does alot more to spoil the atmosphere than a museum ever would. Of course one would think they could find another location I mean there are plenty of surface parking lots begging to be developed.
 

·
muted
Joined
·
7,080 Posts
My feelings are mixed. On the one hand, I agree with cbotnyse that Bicentennial Plaza is an uninspired section of the park that could use some rejuvenation. On the other hand, I would prefer to see the museum built on one of the many surface lots in the downtown area. Having said that, I don't think this issue is worth the time and money of protracted litigation.
 
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
Top