Red-Light Cameras Not So Special?
Cubs Combat Casino
PHOTOS: Peaches And Amanda Blank At Metro
The Return of The Chicagoist Reader Meet-Up
County Sales Tax Rollback Vetoed - Here We Go Again
The debate over the Chicago Children's Museum plan to relocate to Grant Park has escalated since Monday’s neighborhood meeting at Daley Bicentennial Plaza. There, museum officials introduced plans for a more sunken, environmentally friendly design adjacent to the Plaza. The Museum’s growth has been remarkable. Founded in 1982 in two Chicago Public Library hallways, it’s since moved three times, most recently to Navy Pier in 1995. Twelve years later, they’ve apparently outgrown that tourist magnet.
Championing the move are, as expected, the Museum’s President and Board Chairman, museum supporters, the Grant Park Advisory Council, and Lois Wille, author of Forever Open, Clear, and Free, who’d like to see the BP Bridge connect Millennium Park with something more exciting than a leaky field house.
Against the move are the Tribune editorial board, citing considerable legal precedent protecting Grant Park, Tribune architecture critic Blair Kamin, fretting that the vision of city founders to maintain vast, open space on the lakefront would be crushed by the Museum and a subsequent building boom, Reader architecture writer Lynn Becker, who asks whether Chicagoans are still committed to open land, citizen groups including Save the Parks and Friends of Daley Bi, and neighborhood residents concerned about the park and fearing traffic nightmares. Some of those residents held a public protest in July, where they asked us to consider what Grant Park means to their children.
We like Grant Park, open space, and children, so we’re siding with the opposition. This project reeks of vanity, a scheme for adults on the GPAC and CCM institutional boards to claim a prime, and likely subsidized, piece of real estate they can show off to their friends. Unlike Millennium Park, a largely free resource offering something for everyone, the Museum is an attraction aimed squarely at youth and families able and inclined to pay the $8 admission. The Museum's plan is contrary to the cause for which A. Montgomery Ward so tirelessly fought and to the State Supreme Court rulings which upheld that vision. In 1836, civic officials protected Grant Park from land sale, robustly declaring it a "Public Ground — A Common to Remain Forever Open, Clear and Free of any Buildings, or other Obstruction Whatever." Build a museum in the park and you might as well put an ellipsis before the proclamation’s final word and pronounce it apathetically (“… Whatever”).
At this point in the Internet discussion, the question “So what's your plan?” typically surfaces. Thanks for asking. Chicagoist's answer is after the jump.
We believe the Museum should integrate itself into a more urban community, specifically, the South Loop. We’ve spent enough time in the well-scrubbed, gentrified “new” South Loop to see the fit. The neighborhood's tourist friendly, with South Michigan Avenue hotels serving budget-minded travelers and fashionable, but not too fashionable, sushi, Thai, faux-Irish, and fast food joints serving their palates. Nearby is the Roosevelt CTA rail hub, connecting the red, orange, and green lines, conveniently shuttling north siders, south siders and southwest siders into the area (they have children too!). Between the uncertain fate of old buildings and the uncertain fate of those new condos in a shaky real estate market, we see a few opportunities.
The HotHouse recently closed, so 31 E. Balbo is vacant. The site’s only a couple blocks from Michigan Avenue museums (MOCP, Spertus) and Grant Park’s giant playground. The National Vietnam Veterans Art Museum is struggling to find donors, and the City is inclined to help them. Why not expand the property to accommodate both institutions? And a quick survey of the Department of Buildings’ list of vacant properties turns up 1005 and 1007 S. State St., both City-owned.
The Museum is running radio ads and urging people to sign an online petition, pushing the “Won’t Somebody Think of the Children” angle. Reminds us of the email appeal to save the adorable puppies that’s actually a scam. We shouldn’t send money to that “Nigerian prince,” and we shouldn’t support the Museum’s plan.
BP Bridge photo via wallyg.
South Loop photo via Bridgeport Seasoning.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I have not researched this argument fully but would say that there's already an awful lot going on in and around Grant Park. It would be nice to see this museum in a different area.
First the children take our bars, and now Millennium Park? What's next?
Parents, take back your strip clubs!!!
Agreed, there's plenty of places in and around downtown/Grant Park for the Children's Museum. Keep the park open.
I could -kinda- see not allowing a private corp in the park, but Daley Bi Park BADLY, BADLY needs to makeover.
The sculpture aspect to the skylights could be a cool thing depending on how it's done, and if the CM wants to foot a major part of the remodeling of the mark in general, it might not be a bad idea.
I haven't researched fully either, but find myself in complete agreement with justin's conclusions about open space and the prospects of the South Loop. and, maybe i'm wrong, but did developers in the south loop really do much to contribute to parkland/quasi-public spaces like a kids museum? or just make room for starbux and condos?
I haven't researched this fully either (I'll leave that to the full-time experts), but I don't see developers going along with this unless they're pushed. The City will have to nudge people together to get this done, as is often the case.
#4, you raise a good point. The Daley Bi field house and grounds will need major work in the next 4-5 years. In his Trib article (I link to it in my post), Blair Kamin notes this and how tempting it is to kill two birds with one stone. But he then notes the plan's bad for the park in the long-term and, in light of the Supreme Court precedent, might be illegal.
OK - here it goes.
#1 The Museum is getting kicked out by McPier. They were promised space to expand and then the Pier decided they wanted to rent the place to another Bubba Gump or something.
#2 They wanted to be close to the Museum Campus. The city suggested Daley Bi.
#3 They provided plans to redo the fieldhouse and have the museum *underground* so it wouldn't hurt the footprint of the park.
#4 The museum is a leader in community based diversity programming. They need a central location that everyone in the city feels safe in.
#5 The museum has partnered with the Field Museum, Art Institute and the CSO to introduce children's and community programming to their current programs (i.e. Silk Road Chicago). It makes sense to be included on the Museum Campus.
I do not think the museum is trying to do anything underhanded in this move. They are trying to find a central location to place a world class children's museum. The city and state have jacked them around enough and it would bring a diverse group of people to the park.
Not to mention, the groups against this seem to be very white, very old and very rich....
It seems that they actually give a crap about underserved populations in this town. Rather than shoving them in a back corner of the loop (and partnering w/ a Veteran's Museum?!) maybe it's good to put a safe place for kids on the lake.
That "...old, rich, and white..." comment shows the shameful "haves vs. the have-nots" posturing of the pro-museum crowd. By the way, I do not live near Grant Park but visit it frequently.
I am against the museum at this location. We should be increasing, not decreasing the amount of green space in Grant Park.
By the way, putting landscaping on the roof of the museum is NOT the same as increasing the green space in Grant Park.
No more buildings on the lakefront means no more buildings on the lakefront. This should not be seen as "free land" on which to build. It is park space.
Build the museum elsewhere.
Sounds like the rich people in those buildings on Randolph street feel that Daley Bi is their own private park and the Museum will bring in too many of the unwashed masses to their hidden-away little playground.
Build the Museum.
"I do not think the museum is trying to do anything underhanded in this move"
nor do i. but it does set a bad precedent allowing private interests in public parks. its a slipperly slope.
That's right, #10. Rich people like parks, so why don't we let private business build in ALL our parks. Only rich people like green space.
it does set a bad precedent allowing private interests in public parks. its a slipperly slope.
Like all the corporate sponsors in Millennium Park?
#8- Actually, according to one of the articles, the museum was offered space on the museum campus and refused it.
The difference between the corporate sponsorship in Millennium Park and this is that Millennium Park is free and open to the public (for the most part, aside from special events) while the museum would be charging an admission fee. I don't really have a problem with the redevelopment of the Daley Bi, but let's keep whatever goes in there free and open to all.
From Lynn Becker's article:
"Wouldn’t the new CCM be a better fit for the museum campus, by the Field, the Shedd, and the Adler? “We had suggested that area to them,” said O’Neill, “to see what their reaction would be, and they weren’t even considering it.” Of course not. Millennium Park is a smash hit, and CCM is looking for a way to tap into the three million people who visit it each year."
The old and pigmentally challenged aren't the only ones using Bi Daley Plaza. The ice skating crowd's been pretty diverse and the runners and walkers going down the paths look young.
The "old, rich and white" folks might be screaming the loudest, but that could be a function of extra time, easier access to the media and meetings held in walking distance to home, and more cash to spend on "Friends Of" interest groups. I don't have reliable data on hand, but I'm willing to bet plenty of younger, non-rich and non-white folks care about Grant Park and the future of free, public recreational spaces.
It's also a bad precedent to let the people living on Randolph treat Grant Park as their own backyard instead of the city's.
I don't say this based soley on their opposition to the Children's museum.
Past meetings about things such as the Art Institute expansion have shown how entitled some feel in this area. For example, one man complained of how the bridge connecting the museum to Millennium Park might look from his boat in Lake Michigan.
This kind of idiocy must also be stopped.
I'm hoping for the museum for the sole reason that the museum opponents cite increased traffic congestion as a reason for their opposition.
If you choose to live in this area, where 15 new hi-rise condominium buildings are scheduled to be built in the next few years, and you focus so much energy on the congestion a Children's Museum will create, you deserve to have the snot of 1,000 screaming kids land on your shoes everytime you walk out the door.
Besides, the loss of park space is minimal, and yeah there's a fee, but its 8 bucks. Just let them build the damn thing. No one's life will be made any worse, and we'll have a much nicer children's museum for the city.
These are the same people with a self of entitlement that complain about the concerts at the Petrillo Band Shell being too loud and disturbing their peace.
They chose to live next to an outdoor amphitheater and now bitch about the concert noise.
To hell with these old farts.
The problem is not one Children's Museum being built in the park, the problem is (and was for Montgomery Ward when he fought Marshall Field and Daniel Burnham) is the precedent.
If you let the Children's Museum build, well suddenly, you have precedent to let others build, and suddenly, our public space, free and clear, is filled with all kinds of bullshit just like it was in 1900.
Boo. No buildings in the park. Boo.
Using public policy as a tool to carry out your personal vendettas never works out well, #17-19. Examples: every Shakespearean tragedy and this year's state budget battle.
The point remains, Grant Park is for everyone (not just the old farts) and the Museum has plenty of other options.
Maybe Montgomery Ward would have better spent his time trying to build a catalog/department store empire that would have lasted through the ages instead of worrying about park land.
As it is Daley Park is a non-destination - wasted space unless the museum goes there. Most of the structure will be underground.
I agree with 18. The main opposition is from those who live down there and don't want 'congestion'. What? You chose to live 'downtown'. They might as well be opposed to shopping, taxis, doormen, boats, the river, and people.
Oh, I must have lost my mind. Suddenly every museum in the city has gotten hundreds of millions of dollars richer and can afford the cost of building a world-class facility downtown, and thus every square inch of Grant Park will be filled.
I don't want the CCM in Grant Park. Better to put it in the South Loop along Roosevelt Road (a main feeder route to other museums). The area is safe (fyi, in case you haven't been south of Congress Pkwy since the '70s), populated all day/night with college students and residents, and has the space for streams of schoolbuses (especially west of State). It's also got great public transportation, which I'd say Navy Pier and the north end of Grant Park really don't, in comparison. Face it, the expansion of the "city center" is headed south --- go with it.