The Capitol Fax Blog » Trib blasts “museum” idea

Friday, Apr 11, 2008

* I have my issues with the Chicago Tribune, but I agree with every word of today’s editorial lambasting the goofy idea to put that corporate children’s “museum” in Grant Park…

The outpouring of opposition bent on protecting Grant Park—its special designation dates to 1836 and has been reinforced four times by the Illinois Supreme Court—only grows louder. On Wednesday, opponents of the land grab booed Chicago Park District commissioners who—instead of protecting Grant Park—rolled over for the mayor. Commissioners empowered their staff to negotiate with the museum on deeds, contracts and operating rules.

Don’t forget: The Children’s Museum wouldn’t just get a long-term, low-cost berth in Grant Park. This private museum also would be eligible for a subsidy from the Chicago Park District under a program that pays millions of dollars to other museums. Maybe you like the idea of taxpayers subsidizing the Children’s Museum. Or maybe you think you suddenly understand why the museum has so assiduously pursued a location in Grant Park: It’s following the money.

* The editorial also referenced yesterday’s Trib story about the land grab, which reported that the “museum” was sticking to its plan to sell naming rights to Allstate Insurance Co. for $15 million…

“A commitment was made,” said Jim Law, the museum’s vice president of planning and external affairs. “This is what the Chicago Children’s Museum wanted to do to honor their gift.”

Parks Supt. Tim Mitchell said he saw no problem with a corporate donor getting naming rights to a museum on Park District land.

* Back to today’s editorial…

A commitment was made? What the museum wanted to do? By what right does a private institution peddle naming rights—for millions of dollars—in Grant Park? Note that this isn’t like, say, Nike’s donation of soccer fields and basketball courts to the Park District. This is a donation to the museum—which then awards naming rights. Does this outfit’s sense of entitlement bother you?

* There was a spot of good news this week for those of us who think this idea is crazy…

Rebel rookie Ald. Brendan Reilly (42nd) claimed Wednesday that half a dozen aldermen have changed sides in recent days and now oppose Mayor Daley’s plan to build a $100 million Children’s Museum in Grant Park.

Reilly credited editorials by the Chicago Sun-Times and Tribune against the Grant Park “land grab” and the mobilization by advocacy groups — Friends of the Parks, Friends of Downtown and Preservation Chicago — for changing the minds of aldermen who were either uncommitted or in Daley’s camp.

* The reason I usually try to put quotation marks around “museum” is that it’s more like a giant McDonald’s Playland than a real museum. From its description of the “permanent exhibits”….

In My Museum… you can take a self-portrait in the Picture Me photo booth and add it to the Neighborhood Mural… Travel through a mirrored Kaleidoscope tunnel to see reflections of yourself and others from every angle. […]

“Treehouse Trails” - Camp out, climb a tree and explore a cave in this enchanted forest setting.

Discuss.

- posted by Rich Miller

66 Comments

- HV in HP - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 9:18 am:
I think many Chicagoans were put off by the “not in my neighborhood” attitude given off by those who lie across the street from the proposed new site. It was only after they began to see negative reaction that they switched tacs and adopted the “we just want to protect Grant Park” attitude. I appreciate you wanting to support Brendan, that’s what friends do, but that segment of his constituency turned the rest of the city against him.

- Rich Miller - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 9:25 am:
HV, this ain’t about Brendan at all. Not one bit. This is about that goofy “museum” and Grant Park. Take a breath.

- GoBearsss - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 9:30 am:
Put the children’s museum in the Congress Hotel.

So when the parents go to gamble, the kids can go crazy in the waterworks exhibit.

- GoBearsss - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 9:35 am:
I would argue with you about one thing Rich - I do have appreciation for the activities in the Children’s museum.

The hands-on experience is beneficial for cognitive development and simple understandings of otherwise complex topics.

Waterworks exhibit might be a big sink, but it also allows the kids to develop a basic understanding of waterflow.

The foam airplane exhibit might be a fun place to throw things around, but it allows the kids to manipulate objects to create floating and flight.

It develops creativity, problem solving, and more.

What would a children museum be anyhow? Exhibits of kids in different outfits throughout the years?

I much more prefer the Children’s learning center approach.

- Chicago Law Student - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 9:35 am:
I’ll admit that I’m a little closer to the Children’s Museum, since I am close to an employee there. I realize that it isn’t a museum like the Art Institute, but the people that work there are dedicated to the education of children.

Are there fun games that somewhat resemble McDonald’s? Sure there are, and a good thing to. Mixing up play and learning is crucial to actually have a successful children’s museum. So while you may not see a Monet there, take a walk around the museum and you’ll see exhibits about the natural world, archeology, engineering, art, and important lessons about Chicago and emergency situations.

Regardless of where it belongs, the Children’s Museum is not a place that was created as an amusement park, or as a way to make money. It is, as is not pointed out by the post, a not for profit, private corporation.

- Joe Schmoe - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 9:41 am:
Read Kass’ column in today’s paper….one of his better ones.

- J. Bacon - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 9:42 am:
The Grant Park proposal stinks in a number of ways: It benefits very few, sets a dangerous precedent and misses an opportunity to provide an economic/cultural boon to another Chicago neighborhood which would welcome the museum with open arms. In a word, its nonsensical.

- GoBearsss - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 9:51 am:
“One of his better ones” is quite the low bar for Kass.

Just ask Governor DeLeo.

- VivaLFuego - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 9:55 am:
Grant Park should be free open and clear?

I guess that means we should be demolishing the Art Institute and Pritzker Pavilion. Field Museum? Take a hike. Lollapalooza? Illegal!

Right? I mean for consistencies sake….

Grant Park is an INTERACTIVE PARK, not some serene preserved slice of nature. It is already a locus of family-friendly tourism activities. The proposed museum would be underground and not obstructing any vistas.

Frankly, Ald. Hack Reilly’s attitude of mob rule justified by legalese (i.e. absent any actual sound planning, urban design, etc. principals) is dangerous for the long-term vitality of this city, and for that reason alone I sincerely hope he ends up humiliated in this showdown.

I’m honestly quite indifferent to the Children’s Museum. But I’ve yet to hear a compelling argument of why it shouldn’t be -located- in the proposed location. By all means, the potential for large subsidy of a private operation smells fishy and should be scrutinized and criticized. But what’s wrong with this location?

- VivaLFuego - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 9:56 am:
^typo…. *principles*

- Rich Miller - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 9:58 am:
Thankyou, Mayor Daley.

- Bill - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 10:05 am:
Naw, that wasn’t Little Dick. Too many multi-syllable words.

- Rich Miller - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 10:06 am:
LOL

- Ghost - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 10:06 am:
I have a compelling argument, its a private buisness being subsidized by taxpayer money. There does nto appear to be any limit on executive compensation this little jewel can poay out etc.

Just placing children on the label should not give a private company access to prime real estate not to mention the subsidy! If they want a childrends mueseum in Grant Park, make it park owned and operated.

I would like to put a nice childrens clothing store in grant park, sign me up for a lot too…after all, its for the children…and of course I can maximize my profits and pay my self a few million in salary.

Anyone who supports this should be peronaly liable for the cost.

- VivaLFuego - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 10:11 am:
Ok, none of you addressed my arguments.

Ghost,
I’m talking about location. I ALREADY STATED THAT THE PUBLIC SUBSIDY OF A PRIVATE ORGANIZATION IS FISHY. That does NOT invalidate this LOCATION.

Rich,
I’m not trying to troll here (though I admit it’s hard for me to shield my disdain for Reilly and the anti-urban direction he’s taking my home ward), but your post wasn’t really an argument against anything I wrote.

I still find all arguments against this particular location for the museum to be, at best, weak, and at worst, incomprehensible.

- VivaLFuego - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 10:15 am:
In fact, by making weak arguments part of the pacakge, it weakens or otherwise de facto invalidates the important arguments in re: public/private shenanigans. Similar deal as the lead-up to the Iraq War, where thoughtful and important arguments were generally ignored by virtue of being associated with indefensible arguments (of course this is a much less important issue, I’m just giving a familiar example).

- Bill S. Preston, Esq. - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 10:21 am:
While I like the Mayor and am usually with him on just about everything he does, including what must be the obscene amount of money he spends on tulip bulbs each year, he’s wrong about this museum. It obviously goes against the special designation and sets a dangerous precedent that could easily lead the city down a slippery slope.

That’s my basic argument, but I would also argue, much to many people’s dismay, that distortion mirrors and faux-campsites aren’t exactly on the same level as a state of the art music pavillion and a landmark that holds priceless pieces of art…

- Madison County Watcher - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 10:22 am:
The descriptions posted above sound similar to the “exhibits” I’ve seen at the Edwardsville Children’s Museum. Then again, I just put quotes around the word “exhibit”, so I can see your point about “museum”. However, it would seem that what they’re talking about is similar to the only other childrens’ “museum” I’ve ever seen.

- Rich Miller - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 10:24 am:
===I still find all arguments against this particular location for the museum to be, at best, weak, and at worst, incomprehensible.===

Then perhaps you should read the multiple Supreme Court opinions.

- Napoleon has left the building - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 10:25 am:
This isn’t black and white. I’ve taken my kids to that museum and think it’s okay, but clearly it’s not worthy of the special status that its board claims. As you point out Rich, it’s a nice thing and it should be accessible to all the City’s kids, but it’s not a museum and it’s not some sort of national treasure. There are other Children’s Museums in Chicago, including one in Bronzeville and one on the North Side. They aren’t as big or as nice, but the Mayor is clearly out of line on this one. Find another place or stay at Navy Pier already.

- Bill - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 10:30 am:
Viva,
I guess if you think that Reilly is “anti-urban” you must have really liked super urban Burton. He was opposed to the kiddyland in the park also. Maybe your problem with the alderman is that he listens to all the citizens in his ward and not just the elitist, uber-rich that contribute to the mayor’s campaign fund.

- VivaLFuego - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 10:35 am:
^ Rich,
A legal ruling is just that. When considered in the context of what is actually at Grant Park, e.g. REALITY (built environment) vs. CONCEPT (a legal ruling), the argument that the Children’s Museum must not be built in Grant Park because Grant Park is to be “forever free open and clear” just doesn’t make sense, hence my use of “incomprehensible.”

Bill,
Natarus, while not ideal, still understood that a downtown ward should generally develop like a downtown, and that means high-density, high-intensity land uses, highrises, and parking ratios often substantially less than 1:1. Reilly’s policies will eventually turn downtown Chicago into a quasi-vertical Naperville.

- Way South of the Border - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 10:39 am:
Yesterday the Sun Times wrote that Daley wants to change the city motto from City in a Garden to City of Children. Hill & Knowlton’s PR plan for this project is so clever! “Hey, read the motto — not parks, kids.”

- ZC - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 10:43 am:
The Chicago Children’s Museum is not the Field Museum, the Art Institute or Millenium Park. That’s the distinction for me, in a nutshell. Lolapalooza is apples and oranges because it’s not a structure.

I think the CCM is a perfectly charming place to take the kids, but it’s nowhere in the same ballpark as the structures that have been exempted from the no-build rule. Sorry to any employees there reading this.

What I don’t get is the argument that the CCM is hell-bent on this particular site, because it wants the Park District money. It could locate at other places, closer to Field, and still get that. So it can’t just be the subsidy.

Two theories: a) This is all set in stone now because Daley committed to this location, and it’s mostly now an issue of his reputation and power; b) they really want to boost the parking revenues in those garages under Millenium.

- Rich Miller - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 10:43 am:
VivaLFuego, have you read the Supreme Court opinions? And do you know the difference between adding on to an existing world class museum that is already in the park and building a corporate sponsored (and corporate named) playland?

Also, the Field Museum is in the museum campus, not Grant Park, and the Pritzker Pavillion is in Millenium Park. I don’t get your crack about Lollapalooza being illegal whatsoever.

Your ignorance is simply astounding.

- Objective Dem - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 10:59 am:
I went to the museum once and agree that it is not much better than a McDonalds playground. Yes there may be some value, but its limited. I’m sure the funds, including 100m just for construction, could be of more benefit to Chicago’s children if it was spent in other ways.

I also strongly oppose the location and resent the bully tactics and arrogance of the museum.

- wordslinger - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 10:59 am:
So much on this topic, I’ll try to keep it short.

1. This is a raw power grab by Mayor Daley to please his society friends and big donors. They want it, so he wants it, and that’s it. His playing of the race card in this debate has been incredibly dishonest, irresponsible and just plain wrong.

2. The Art Institute was an exception — but it’s also the most exceptional museum in Chicago. The original building was actually east of railroad tracks that border the park. The Field, Shedd and Adler were built on 10 acres of new park fill that was created specifically for them. Millennium Park was built over railroad tracks and parking lots that really couldn’t be called a park.

3. The site is in a highly populated residential neighborhood. It’s their neighborhood park. If you lived there, you would oppose it, too.

4. The Children’s Museum concept is weak. Unlike the Art Institute, it’s not deserving of an exception.

We had a reciprocal membership when my kids were young. It’s dumbed-down and boring. For cognitive development and interactivity, the Museum of Science and Industry is vastly superior for kids. If you want to see imagination at work that engages kids for hours upon hours, check out the amazing City Museum in St. Louis (by the way, it’s been the spark for a revitalization of a derelict factory district just north of downtown).

- VivaLFuego - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 11:00 am:
One has to pay to get into Lollapalooza, which takes over a large chunk of public parkland. So that would seem to violate the vision of Grant Park, no? And what about ticketed concerts at Pritzker? And that’s not even getting into the Harris Dance Theatre! At least festivals like the Taste don’t have an admission fee, so that would seem to survive the jackboot of NIMBYism.

Millenium Park is part of Grant Park, so it should probably be subject to the same guidelines, no? Quoth the infallible Wikipedia,
“Millennium Park is a portion of the larger Grant Park…”

My ignorance is astounding, huh? Nice ad hominem. Seriously, does it sound like I don’t know what I’m talking about?

My point is on the meaningfulness of legal rulings that haven’t actually been followed; does that constitute an actual law? And if you do start to enforce it, wouldn’t it render the previous violations of that ruling to be illegal? Therefore, wouldn’t we be obligated to reverse them?

For other readers’ reference, the decisions can be found here:
http://www.neweastside.org/DECISIONS.html

They do seem clear, but my point is that the facts on the ground make them meaningless in this context, and to be applied here would be immoral on the grounds that they haven’t been similarly applied in other cases.

I’m NOT defending Daley’s tactics here, and I wish you guys would grasp that. I’m arguing solely on locational grounds. Daley being a thug says nothing of whether or not this location is defensible.

There are other decent locations for the museum. Or it could stay put. And if there was no propsect of any public subsidy, that would change their decision. But in that case the subsidy should be attacked, not the location of the museum.

- Rich Miller - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 11:03 am:
Supreme Court opinions mean nothing, reclaimed air rights over formerly exposed and terribly ugly railroad tracks are really part of Grant Park, etc. You make little sense.

Perhaps you should apply for a job with the Blagojevich administration. Using extreme illogic to get back at political enemies is Priority Number One over there. You’d fit right in.

- VivaLFuego - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 11:08 am:
Rich,
1. Way to not deal with a single one of my arguments.
2. Extreme illogic? Please.

- Rich Miller - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 11:09 am:
LOL.

- VivaLFuego - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 11:12 am:
Seriously, did you respond to my arguments? in re: Lollapalooza? in re: consistent enforcement of the Supreme Court ruling?

- Rich Miller - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 11:13 am:
Sorry to just chuckle and post, but I was laughing because you sound so much like the guv’s press contingent.

I did address most of your points, I think.

There’s a thing called the Supreme Court. If you believe it doesn’t matter, fine. We’ll see what it does when the case is filed.

- VivaLFuego - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 11:14 am:
“4. The Children’s Museum concept is weak. Unlike the Art Institute, it’s not deserving of an exception”

This is a real argument, at least it acknowledges that a Supreme Court ruling isn’t some sort of divine word. And in fact, I’d probably agree with the assessment.

- Rich Miller - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 11:15 am:
===a Supreme Court ruling isn’t some sort of divine word===

Actually, in a nation of laws, it kinda is.

Seriously, send me your resume. I’m pretty sure I can help get you a Rod job.

- VivaLFuego - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 11:20 am:
Rich,
Particularly in this discussion of Daley strong-arm tactics, readers of this blog (also familiar with Blago’s unilateral budget/admin moves) should know the difference between a law and reality. You don’t think if/when there is a court ruling on this case, there will be alot of politics loaded behind the debate, thand the majority/dissenting opinions?

- VivaLFuego - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 11:25 am:
We’re coming from such different premises and base assumptions that I suspect I’m having trouble wording my arguments the right way. But I think I’m debating in good spirit, arguing defensible positions. I resent being condescended to as “Mayor Daley” or some Blago PR hack.

- Rich Miller - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 11:27 am:
=== I resent being condescended to as “Mayor Daley” or some Blago PR hack.===

Resent it all you want, but if you’re gonna use their talking point schemes, then the shoe fits.

- Bill S. Preston, Esq. - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 11:32 am:
Rich & Viva- You guys should take this show on the road. Never have I been so amused on a Friday morning.

- Rich Miller - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 11:34 am:
:)

- VivaLFuego - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 11:37 am:
How am I using their “talking point schemes”?

Did I say this museum fight is about racial prejudice? Did I say Chicago should be the “city of children”? Did I imply that a private museum getting substantial public subsidy is inherently a good thing? Did I make an -irrational- argument?

Please, enlighten me as to these “talking point schemes” and my adherence thereto.

- GoBearsss - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 11:37 am:
“Perhaps you should apply for a job with the Blagojevich administration. Using extreme illogic to get back at political enemies is Priority Number One over there. You’d fit right in. “

I think you are thinking of House Dem leadership.

Its ok - innocent slip, I am sure.

- Rich Miller - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 11:51 am:
VivaLFuego, I’ve already pointed it out numerous times. Illogic, factual errors, political name-calling, hyper-sensitive overreactions, diminishing the importance of the law, etc.

I should know that sort of goofiness because I am exposed to it daily. Take my word for it, you’re the real deal.

Now, I must get back to work. Have a fine day.

- VivaLFuego - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 12:03 pm:
Sigh. Illogic? Factural errors? That’s not even debatable, please point those out.

Political name-calling?
“Hack” - Defined at dictionary.com as “a professional who renounces or surrenders individual independence, integrity, belief, etc., in return for money or other reward in the performance of a task normally thought of as involving a strong personal commitment”. How does this not describe Reilly and his Union-bankrolled smear election campaign?

Hyper-sensitive overreactions? I don’t like being condescended to.

Diminishing the importance of the law? How is applying that law selectively, as you and your cohorts advocate, not diminishing the importance of the law?

- Marty - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 12:03 pm:
I think Viva is trying to discuss whether the location makes functional sense for the Children’s Museum, not second-guess the outcome of a possible lawsuit, or debate the financial shenanigans that appear to be going on. Maybe some people view these as inseparable questions, and as a practical matter they may be, but on the chance they are not, it still seems a question deserving of a straight answer.

- Rich Miller - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 12:06 pm:
===How does this not describe Reilly and his Union-bankrolled smear election campaign?===

I rest my case.

- Rich Miller - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 12:08 pm:
=== Illogic? Factural errors? That’s not even debatable, please point those out.===

I’ve been doing that all morning. Enough, already.

- VivaLFuego - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 12:14 pm:
Rich,
It’s not “political name-calling” if I’m using the dictionary definition of the word. His campaign smeared Natarus with factual inaccuracies, and was bankrolled primarily by a single interest group with an obvious purpose in mind in unseating Natarus.

Am I being provocative? Yes. But that is not part-and-parcel with Illinois pol name-calling.

Please, bother to actually argue rather than dismissing this out of hand. You didn’t actually point out any illogic or factual errors this morning, I’m still waiting on those.

- Bill - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 12:25 pm:
Whoa,
Now Reilly shouldn’t accept contributions from the hard working men and women represented by organized labor? Because he pointed out during the campaign his opponent’s shortcomings, he ran a smear campaign? He is not “urban” because he doesn’t cater to the super rich real estate developers that salivate at the thought of forcing what’s left of the real people out of his ward? He’s a hack because he wants to make sure that the suckers that pay millions for a one bedroom condo have somewhere to park their cars?
Viva,with all of this back door politicking and slander against one of the most honest and independent aldermen to ever serve on the City Council, it is hard to bother with your arguments, specious as they may be.

- Bill - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 12:28 pm:
I have to respectfully disagree with our fearless blog leader. You are not good enough for the Governor’s staff.

- Reilly Supporter - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 12:37 pm:
Viva - you are entitled to your opinion and I think some folks are even being a little hard on you. But… If everything, including the City’s own ordinance and Supreme Court decisions, is simply a matter of politics and not law, then we are all in trouble. And contrary to your points: the Field Museum was DENIED permission to enter Grant Park and was relocated to its present position. Ward regretted not challenging the Art Institute. The Harris Theater and other structures are in Millenium Park, although lawsuits have been filed in the past on their validity, as well, and could be in the future. Bottom line: this is a admission charging institution that wants to move to protected parkspace and sell naming rights to the “museum.” And all of this to “escape” the state’s number 1 tourist destination which drives more children through their front door than any other possible location AND without consideration of any other site in Chicago. As for your comments on reilly’s campaign and his tactics, you are incorrect - and that is the most respectful thing I can say.

- Bill - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 12:51 pm:
Good post, but who said that you had to be respectful?

- VivaLFuego - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 12:58 pm:
I understand from a purely political perspective, this is a one-or-the-other question. I’m asking this more from a planning/hypothetical standpoint. I’m not convinced by the arguments put forth by opponents in regards to this location on the grounds of some legal precedent that is selectively followed anyway. I also abhor the dangerous precedent of allowing vicarious mob rule through an alderman, so I seek to challenge those notions when used in support of a cause that I may ultimately agree with (I really don’t feel so strongly about the Children’s Museum per se, and it is admittedly quite hokey).

Bill,
1. I wonder if the disclaimer at the bottom in regards to gratuitous insults will be enforced.
2. “He’s a hack because he wants to make sure that the suckers that pay millions for a one bedroom condo have somewhere to park their cars?”
Yes. If parking is so important to them, then they won’t by a condo without a parking space. Let the market sort it out; if a developer needs parking spaces to sell/lease his units, then work with him to come to a proper number. If a developer doesn’t feel he needs them, then its his loss if he has trouble with his product due to inadequate parking. Tight street parking is the sign of a desirable neighborhood; ample street-parking implies a place no one wants to be, which is not what the vision for downtown should be. Don’t force the whole city forgo opportunity cost in tax revenue from buildable space wasted on parking.

The unions wanted to unseat Naratus (among many others whose opponents campaigns they financed) because of the latter’s vote on the big box wage ordinance. Don’t chalk up Reilly’s union ties to some sort of angelic care for the working man, that’s even more naive than me.

Natarus indeed had shortcomings, plenty of them (his crank anti-civil-liberty stuff bothered me), which are fair game in a campaign. Further, Natarus ran a crappy campaign, and didn’t take Reilly seriously enough. I won’t argue that Natarus -deserved- to win. Reilly fought a hard, skillful campaign, but he stepped over the line (”smear”) in regards to implication of corruption in Natarus’s past. Buffoonery perhaps, but Natarus was not corrupt. Unfortunately I don’t have any of the various campaign mailings and adverts from the election, but I remember these pretty clearly.

Not good enough, Bill? Again, condescension doesn’t win arguments. See where it got Natarus, after all…

- VivaLFuego - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 1:03 pm:
To Reilly Supporter,

Thanks for a reasoned response; I think you raise good points about their desire to 1) not even discuss consideration of other potential sites and 2) desire to flee Navy Pier, which can’t be said to be a bad site.. I think there is room to disagree on the ultimate meaning/significance of how the aspects of Grant Park all fit together from a historical/legal standpoint.

I do still strongly feel that Reilly’s vision for my home ward is the wrong direction, but that’s only tangential to the issue of the Children’s Museum (this thread).

- Captain America - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 1:07 pm:
My prediction is that the Children’s Museum will never be constructed in Grant Park. Daley may eventually succeed in strong-arming the City Council. But legally, Daley doesn’t have a leg to stand on. Opponents to the museum will prevail when they contest Grant Park constuction of the museum in court - assuming someone is able and willing to fund the lawsuit.

Daley won’t be able to build the museum overnight - so “his will won’t be done” the same way he accomplished his Meigs field coup. It’s called the “rule of law” Mayor. Maybe Daley/Pritzker believe they can coopt/buy off the oppostion to the Museum if he gets it through the City Council.

I think it’s hard to make a compelling legal argument that supercedes the existing legal precedents since there are so many alternative venues for the museum.

- The Kids Are Allright - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 1:31 pm:
Rich,

{The reason I usually try to put quotation marks around “museum” is that it’s more like a giant McDonald’s Playland than a real museum. From its description of the “permanent exhibits”….}

Have you actually been to this museum with children, or are your comments based only on your review of the website?

I have been there with my kids on numerous occasions and they liked so much we bought a membership. The experience has always been very enriching for all of us. This museum is geared for younger kids from ages about 2-8 or 9 maybe and offers a different experience not available for them at the other museums that are geared toawrd older kids. These young kids learn through play, and the hands on inter-active exhibits are the way that kids learn at these ages (and well beyond).

Someone at the museum told me that they had an option (in their lease) on additional space at Navy Pier to expand the musuem, but the people at Navy Pier were using their space for expansion for something or someone else and wouldn’t let them have it (honor the lease), if I understood them correctly. I am not sure this is true or not but wouldn’t surprise me as I think they may have been one of the early tenants when the success of the building as an attraction was still in doubt, and they can probably get higher rents from a new tenant than they could by accepting the lease terms of an old one.

Navy Pier is a crappy location for this facility anyway. It is not at all accessible for easy public transportation, and the cost of the parking over there is outrageous. The Navy Pier atmosphere is okay for tourists, but the nature of the facility is such that for residents just wanting to go to the museum it is a real challenge. Will all of the other stuff over there, when you take your kids it is like walking through a candy store, or under the big top at the circus, where you have to walk past all the restaurants, shops, rides and attractions to get to the museum, all the while explaining to your young kids that your last name is not Rockefeller, which is why you can not buy everything, and participate in all the activities. Always a difficult task, and a concept that most young kids have a hard time understanding, and this can diminish the experience for locals as well.

Have you ever been to this specific location in Millenium Park?

I work in the area and have walked through on many occasions during all times of the year. There is a dillapidated old field house there in desperate need of repair or replacement, which I I think I read is contemplated and paid for in the museums plan to move there, but I am not completely sure. There is also a small ice rink that is little used in the winter, especially since they built a much larger new one in the park two blocks away that fronts on Michigan Avenue. There is a small playground there which does get used, mostly by people living in the neighborhood there now I think, since this little spot tucked away in the park has been greatly unknown, at least until the Bridge to nowhere was built over Columbus Dr.

I get the sense that this has brought more people wandering over into the area (many of whom look lost) and they seem a bit bewildered when the trek across the bridge expecting that there is more to Millenium Park there than there actually is, and often times I see people going right back across to the west.

My guess is that this probably has the neighbors upset aready, and the last thing they want is something to attract more people to the area and co-opt what has otherwise been their neighborhood park. I can understand this, as I live near a park and I wouldn;t want this either. The difference is that the one I live near is not located in the center of the third largest city in the nation and adjacent to one of the biggest tourist attractions in the entire state. I supect that proximity to Millenium Park is one of the biggest selling features for conds in the area and I am sure is an under-pinning to maintaining the (sky) high property values. Take a look at some of the prices there in the area!
People being concerned about congestion here seems kind of akin to people that move near O’Hare for value or convenience, but then complain about the noise.

I read the Supreme Court rulings on this after this whole thing blew up awhile ago and it was an interesting history lesson. Supreme Court opinions are often tested over time, and are subject to re-interpretation by a different set of justices examining facts and circumstances at a different point in time, so I have no idea how they would rule on this given the dramatically different circumstances in place there now. There has already been substantial development in the area with other attractions with the outdoor amphitheater, the indoor performing arts center, as well as the expansion of the Art Institute center. There is also an existing (rundown fieldhouse) at this location as well, so it is not as if they would be placing a building in a greenfield where one does not otherwise exist.

I think this would be a very good location and reresent significant improvement to the area, and the issue is probably being demogogued on all sides. No matter how this shakes out though, I think the museum is a great facility for young kids right now and will only get better with a significant expansion, so on this aspect of the matter I think you are letting your bias for the process impact your opinion of the museum itself and I think the two issues are separate, and worth re-evaluation on your part, especially if you have not been there with young kids.

- Rich Miller - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 1:34 pm:
I have been to the “museum.” I used to live across the street from Millenium Park, and have seen the Daley fieldhouse many times. That part of the park is about to be ripped up because the parking garage has to be redone, so the fieldhouse is gone.

- IrishPirate - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 2:25 pm:
First, can’t we all just get along.

Second, I don’t buy the racial argument “da Mare” is making.

Third, the “museum” as “Rich Miller” calls it is actually quite good for munchkins. They enjoy it and they may learn a little.

Fourth, even a broken clock is correct twice a day and if I have to pick between “his elective majesty’s view” and those of the neighboring NIMBY’s I will go with “da mare”. It reminds me of a prayer: “Lord save our city from those who claim to love it.”

As much as “his righteous angerness Daley” annoys me I will take him any day over just about any of the alderbeasties. At least he has a “vision” for the city. Sure it is often wrong, but it beats the hell outta most of the aldersaints who just want to get reelected and hand out a few jobs.

Now anyone who thinks Reilly is going to prevail in the city council may have eaten some bad mushrooms. Richard the Lesser is gonna have him for breakfast, lunch and dinner and will mock him and his sidekick “you’re a great lawyer Fioretti” publicly and incessantly. I suggest you look at a list of the alderheroes and come up with 26 names that will defy HizzsputteringHonor.

As for court rulings last time I checked the Illinois Supreme Court was largely a wholly owned subsidiary of the democratic party.

- BannedForLife - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 2:27 pm:
“How am I using their “talking point schemes”? Did I say this museum fight is about racial prejudice? Did I say Chicago should be the “city of children”?”

those are sooo LAST WEEK’S talking point schemes

- Way South of the Border - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 2:37 pm:
Amazing how The Kids Are Allright has become informed — randomly, accidentally and through avocational legal research — on such a breadth of topics, and every one of them related to the Chicago Children’s Museum!

And shares them with us such vivid detail! From reading the faces of meandering pedestrians to an almost novelistic recall of the Navy Pier experience.

I especially like the part about the fortuitous encounter with a staffer who happens to disclose lease term troubles. That part’s a bit fuzzier, but I can’t complain, heck I can’t get anything more than directions to the food court from those guys! I tip my hat to you, citizen commentator! Now I can see what a tough spot the CCM is in!

- Rich Miller - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 2:44 pm:
===the cost of the parking over there is outrageous. ===

Stay tuned for more on that one.

- Bubs - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 3:52 pm:
I just can’t understand what the Mayor and CCM people have against simple parkland. The concept seems to offend them.

I’ve been over by the fieldhouse, and if anything, I’d tear everything down and establish plain old parkland, with a few benches and plantings here and there. It is peaceful there, removed from the busier areas of the park. From the higher areas, there is a nice view down the park and out over the lake.

Not for long, if the CCM types have their way.

- Objective Dem - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 5:18 pm:
I have to wonder how much of this is being driven by the idea of generating a steady stream of revenue for Millenium and Grant park parking garages.

I agree with Bubs. A quiet park area in the middle of the City isn’t a bad thing.

One other issue I haven’t seen addressed is Randolph just east of Michigan is horribly laid out. All the people coming off Lake Shore Drive have to merge with people on Upper Randolph. It is a disaster most mornings. The additional traffic won’t help. Distracted parents with excited kids will make it even worse.

- Bubs - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 5:38 pm:
Don’t worry, when the Randolph traffic disaster gets bad enough, they will go to Plan B - driveways through the park to get to a brand new entrance.

Besides, the future new roadways and entrance will better accomodate handicapped kids - and by all that is holy, who dares to vote AGAINST HANDICAPPED KIDS???

You can bet a connected Machine donor will make a great buck off of building those new roadways.

- fed up - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 10:54 pm:
Daley doesnt care about kids he cares about contracts. construction contracts garbage contracts refreshment contracts that why he wants the CCm to be on park district property.

- some former legislative intern - Saturday, Apr 12, 08 @ 2:58 pm:
VivaLFuego, take a deep breath. Lolla and taste of chicago are not above ground structures.

This is an above ground structure.

You sound like one of those high priced hacks that the CCM hired to make up public support.

This project has no support, save for some rich people like the Pritzkers who want their name everywhere. I love how people like you always cry “NIMBYism” when people take an interest in matters effecting their home, neighborhood, property. Yet, when something is proposed for YOUR neighborhood that you have objections to, it is “reasoned public discourse”. Right?

Reilly is doing an AWESOME job on this. No one in north loop neighborhood supports this. Many of those condos were bought by people 30, 40 years ago. Their positions shold be respected.

TrackBack URI

Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.