Chicagoist: About the Children, Won't Somebody Think?

Justin Sondak

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:02:24 -0600

It's nothing personal guest. You're anonymous, I have no way of knowing which comments are yours and which belong to another guest. Question me all you want, I'm wrong about plenty of things. But the comments section is a place for respectful debate (doesn't always work that way, but still...). I've stated my case, next week I'll have a post about the plan's defenders. If you support the CCM in Grant Park and would like to be heard, email me your talking points. (go to the staff page and click the email link by my bio) I'll publish the best stuff.

guest

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 13:59:45 -0600

Holy crap! I'm agreeing with Spook.

guest

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 13:53:27 -0600

And right on to you, too, Spookie.

guest

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 13:52:51 -0600

"This community has a very hard time balancing public needs to what they deem inconvienient." Right on, 47. Right on.

guest

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 13:48:09 -0600

Did you read Kamin's follow up today? He states that Friends of the Parks has approved the plan, the lady who wrote the book about 'Forever Free and Clear' supports the plan and that the designers have been more than accomodating about adjusting design to park/resident request. A couple of things: - CCM is a 501c3, not for profit institution. Not private. - Opposed to what Reilly was quoted, CCM can NOT stay at the Pier. They had plans to expand @ the Pier and McPier backed out of the new lease. - You can go to the museum for free. Every Thursday night is Free Family night. - CCM does really good work w/ early childhood development, especially regarding diversity. Go to Free Family night and check out Passport to the World. They pay community arts groups (dance, music, crafts) to teach kids about different cultures. Not to mention providing free school physicals, eye exams and reading with Dogs. The part that is really frustrating to me is that CCM coming to the park would let a good organization expand their programs that have great demand. They've been trying to do this for 3 years and keep on being told, 'we don't want your building - but you do good stuff'. I don't get it. Reilly is listening to his constituents - yes. But his constituents also don't want Children's Memorial to move to Streeterville because they don't want to hear helicopter noise. This community has a very hard time balancing public needs to what they deem inconvienient. Children's med school is Northwestern, they are the PICU for Prentice and babies in harms would would benefit. Maybe I'm a sucker. But I vote yes for the museum and hospital. It's a greater good. Really.

guest

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 13:36:30 -0600

Justin, you deleted all of my comments too. I guess directing people to the Sun-Times for first hand quotes from people who were at a meeting with Reilly in which attendees witnessed disparaging remarks against people of other races undermines your point. I guess also that calling into question the revolving viewpoint regarding "what's good for me on this day" (i.e.-Lollapalooza) and said residents of the East Side and surrounding environs complaining about Lollapalooza goes against your grain. Hey Justin, whatever floats your boat. I mean, you've been here what, couple of years? Yeah, you know the score.

guest

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 13:26:07 -0600

Never question the Chicagoist writers.

guest

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 12:47:10 -0600

I used to be a supporter of Daley but have living 8 years and following him pretty close he is or always was a hack. Grant Park should be left alone. And get tired of his stupid tantrums when he can't get his way. I don't live in Brendon Riley's ward but I am supporter now it's about time someone stands up to the bully.

guest

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 12:19:43 -0600

"That when Grant Park was declared "Forever Open, Clear and Free" in 1836, a declaration buttressed by four subsequent Illinois Supreme Court rulings, they just forgot to add "except the Chicago Children's Museum" .... hey that's funny!

guest

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:37:35 -0600

Stop complaining and start calling the mayor's office: 312-744-3300

guest

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:20:08 -0600

It seems like most of those opposed are under the false assumption that we are losing Grant Park's green space when that's simply not true. It's being build underground, occupying little more than where the field house and ice rink currently stand. This isn't a loss in green space, and for that reason these slippery slope arguments just don't work.

guest

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:03:02 -0600

My comment was 100% civil...I dont understand why it was deleted.

Justin Sondak

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 10:53:45 -0600

I can't speak for everyone on "my side" of this issue, but I oppose this plan on principle and because it's illegal. I have no vendetta against anyone and I believe the South Loop is actually more convenient to people of many races, backgrounds, and geographic orientations. The Beachwood article I cited addresses these points pretty directly and the tone of some of these comments reinforces those false choices some museum plan proponents (including Daley) seem to come back to again and again. And yes, I've been deleting comments. We have a comment policy and I choose to enforce it. Most of those commenters are unregistered and anonymous so there's no way of informing them they're being ridiculous. Keep it civil and stay on topic, no matter how you feel about this issue.

Ward Up

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 10:44:13 -0600

In contrast to the claims by Mayor Mumbles, most commenters who oppose this location are not New East Side residents. Most opponents are not remotely considering the wishes of New East Side residents in forming their respective opinions. There are simply many average citizens who feel that green space is better than a building at this location. Furthermore, many opponents, e.g., Blair Kamin, Lynn Becker, and countless other local blog commenters, also do NOT live in the New East Side. These parties never thought of race when deciding to oppose this site. Do you think that those parties oppose the Museum location on racial grounds? Of course not. Also, do you think that Blair Kamin, Lynn Becker, and other opponents from elsewhere in the city oppose the museum location on the basis of traffic or congestion? Of course not. They want what is best for our city. That means opting for green space, not the museum, in Grant Park.

guest

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 10:25:25 -0600

Those against this have given many reasons to oppose this other than Daley. Those in support have only said, "Why not here." They have yet to put forth a good reason for it.

guest

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 10:09:31 -0600

All of these people arguing about "open space" are you aware this is being built underground, and will not take up any more "open space" than that not already occupied by the fieldhouse and ice rink?

guest

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:39:02 -0600

And how much public space will be lost when Daley wants a piece of the park for his next pet project? Once you set the precedent, the flood gates will open.

guest

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:30:20 -0600

oh, don't make the mistake that this is about grant park. This is a political proxy war with neither side fighting for the best interests of grant park.

guest

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:21:31 -0600

I think the opposition is partly against the principal of starting to chip away at the park.

guest

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:13:39 -0600

just a couple of notes here: Area of Grant Park: 873,600 ft2 The total footprint of the building: 17,000 ft2 (only slightly larger than the current fieldhouse) most of which is terraced and accessible to the public (same as the current fieldhouse) The total loss of public space: 3,400 ft2

guest

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:13:39 -0600

By using the race card in the manner Daley did yesterday, Richard Daley is the only one being racist. Shame on any business or civic leader that stands with Daley after that bizarre rant.

guest

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:11:46 -0600

Daley's comments were irrational and using the race card is deeply offensive and should be condemned by everyone. If Daley is so concerned about "children" maybe Daley should spend more time explaining why the children must ride on the CTA that his regime has mismanaged for years or explain why children must suffer from the costs of corruption or why the Mayor must take credit for everything good that happens in this city and shift the blame to others for everything goes wrong. Alderman Reilly is a refreshing change. We need someone who will do what is right and not cave into the political whims of a lunatic mayor.

guest

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:03:23 -0600

Why NOT Grant Park? Because it appears to ILLEGAL. Any building that is attempted "for the children" or no, will be litigated for years. Not worth the battle, pick another spot.

guest

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 08:46:53 -0600

26, I'm not comparing Chicago to Boulder. Last June, though, Chicago Magazine compared Chicago's green space to the other top U.S. cities, and Chicago placed behind San Diego, Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, San Jose, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and New York. According to the article, Chicago had 4.2 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, for a total acreage of 11,916. The massive urban sprawl-mall of Houston, on the other hand, had 16.6 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, for a total acreage of 33,209. The article has the numbers for the other municipalities. You're good with Google. Look it up.

guest

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 08:33:31 -0600

(16) "Chicago is already far behind other major cities in green space. " Unsupported hogwash. In deference to the rank-size rule you can't compare Chicago to most other cities in the US. It's on a different functional plane. You do stumble into an apt comparison when you bring up Central Park, however. Just as I'm not going to travel downtown from Ravenswood when I want to chuck a frisbee, neither are most New Yorkers going to travel all the way to Central Park. If they do, that should give you some indication of the choices they have in their own neighborhood. You've got an entire green lakefront (for the most part) and a number of enormous parks along the lines of Humboldt, Garfield, Douglass, Marquette etc., and you fail to see the green? Wow. Let's remember that well-planned cities are meant to have a level of density and verticality to them. This doesn't mean you can't have parks as well, but it means you don't have parks at the expense of becoming the next Houston. Just for kicks I spent all of five seconds on Google for you. You'll be happy to see where Chicago falls in these supposedly meaningful rankings: http://www.thegreenguide.com/doc/107/cities Again, however, to compare this city to, say, Boulder, is an exercise in foolishness.

guest

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 08:19:41 -0600

Parents should take back their bars and turn them into childrens museums.

guest

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 08:17:40 -0600

You're right on one thing, 22, in that it's OUR park. I'm no NIMBY, because my back yard is far, far from Grant Park. I appreciate Grant Park for what it is, and park, not a museum parking lot. I don't care whether rich people downtown have views or not. I do care about my park. I just can't figure out what you think a park should be. And are you really calling out Chicagoist for complaining about Lollapalooza noise? For real? Didn't they do, like, 200 articles about how much they loved Lollapalooza? Way to bolster your argument, dude.

guest

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 08:16:15 -0600

Last time I checked Central Park was chock full of museums and public institutions like the zoo etc...

guest

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 07:33:09 -0600

The funny thing is, the people attacking the idea of the Children's Museum in that location are the ones who also attack things like Lollapalooza for noise. That means you, Chicagoist. I think these people are called NIMBY's, as in, "Not in my backyard." Brendan Reilly got into office for telling these condo-dwellers that he did not like a lot of the development that was going in on a handshake and a smile by the likes of Burton (for certain) Natarus. And old Beeps is trying to hold to that campaign promise - keep the rich folk who bought into expensive high-rises happy. Daley's race-baiting is a little off-base. But what the hell, why not do it when you can? Everyone knows that the next time a cop has a complaint filed against them by someone from the "inner-city," he will have to fend off charges that he is a racist pig and Spookie will point out that the Hamburgs started the riots of 1919 and blah blah blah. It's all so ridiculous. Whether or not Cermak and Halsted is the center, or there's plenty of other land in the outh Loop, this is an area where people the world-over visit. And they usually bring their kids. Let them have their fun. And if those that don't like the development that somehow impedes their right to a clean view of the Lake (it doesn't, by the way), or a peaceful walk in their park (see, it's not their park, it's our park), then they can sell their over-priced condos as the market spins out of control.

guest

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 07:29:20 -0600

Of course we want poor minority children in Grant Park. We just want to charge them $8 for entry and jam them up for parking.

guest

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 05:46:58 -0600

Ward Up (yours): Typically when a poster attacks the spelling of another it means they have no real argument for what that person is saying. So lighten up DictionaryBreath.

guest

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 05:12:17 -0600

If Daley is so keen on putting a Children’s Museum on public park space, why not his precious northerly Island that he cleared years ago for just such an opportunity.

guest

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 02:39:03 -0600

Put the children's museum at the cheetah gym, make everyone happy.

guest

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 02:37:42 -0600

Daley is an a-hole and a thug. But he is a brilliant politician - who else could get the front page of one of the two dailies to parrot his rant?

guest

Tue, 18 Sep 2007 23:57:34 -0600

"Why NOT Grant Park?" Why must every inch of space in this city be utilized? Do you want everything paved over in concrete and piled high with architectural wonders? Do you want the broiling mass of people writhing through streets a few blocks over writhing there, too? Don't we have enough of that? Personally, I appreciate a bit of space to walk and enjoy the open air and let the din die down, and I like that I don't have to spend six hours on the Edens to find it. Chicago is already far behind other major cities in green space. Grant Park is as close as we come to New York's Central Park, and I don't want to give this up to a private museum that could just as easily locate a few blocks over. I think Daley's real issue is that he wants something with an "M" in it. All the buildings and plazas and everything have "Richard J. Daley" in the title. Little M would love to be the first guy to break a 171-year moratorium with a museum he could easily have called "The Richard M. Daley Childrens Museum" in the middle of the most pristine location in town.

Ward Up

Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:04:03 -0600

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. Mumbles clearly has no qualms about igniting 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.

guest

Tue, 18 Sep 2007 20:20:49 -0600

The mayor is a master at using race allegations to get his way. He isn't racist by any means, but he uses the claims as one of his many instruments of power. Witness the big box repeal, where he played it masterfully to get his way. This is a dumb debate, as the city is too large as to allow a museum like this to be accessible equally to everyone. 22nd and Halsted is the true geographical center of the city, so how about there. The kids can hit Chinatown, and then Little Italy or a Sox Game on their way out.

guest

Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:29:10 -0600

"Why NOT Grant Park?" Because the city, now, is broken down into what I would guess is something like 95% developed property and 5% undeveloped parks etc. (It's probably even worse.) Some of us love the open space...just because Grant Park isn't packed to the brim with people doesn't mean it's "underutilized." Part of its attrativeness is that it isn't packed to the brim with people. Duh.

guest

Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:22:20 -0600

The Children's Museum is a well funded private organization. They can certainly find a better area in need of economic development! As for the mayor, what's his beef with this silly issue??? Why isn't he this mad about the CTA which takes this city's children to SCHOOL!!! The CTA also helps children move about this city with their families. The CTA's poor travel times also keeps parents away from their children because they have a never ending commute on the slow blue line!!! Helping the CTA will help more children than the Children's Museum!

Ward Up

Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:18:36 -0600

"......My have the mighty have fallen. Cate Plys is schlepping around grubbing for pennies at the "BEACHWOOD REPORTER" ?....." "....She is part of the privledged group, like the Randolph street high rise people - she sends her kids to the toney U of Chicago Lab Schools, so she and they are birds of a feather...." (Comment by guest #2 above) To guest #2 above, aside from the fact that you cannot spell, you are engaging in the type of arguing that is especially dumb. Unfortunately, it is a type of arguing that is very common on Chicagoist. It involves attacking "..the haves." You go after someone whom you decide is "priviledged" (your spelling, not mine) and use that to try to deflate that person's position. Well, guess what? You make no more sense in criticizing Cate Plys than does Mayor Mumbles with his playing of the race card. You don't deserve to carry Cate Plys'laptop. By the way, she would probably get a kick out of being lumped in with wealthy folk. It's actually funny. And no, I am not a friend of hers, just someone who respects her writing and her opinions.

guest

Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:56:08 -0600

Why NOT Grant Park? As someone mentioned earlier, the park is vastly underutilized. When something like this happens, people tend to overreact and try and idealize the park. The only time Grant Park is fully utilized is during the many large festivals. Other than that, it is just formal gardens, railroad track, and large roads that cut through the park making it impossible to have a cohesive feeling. If people are complaining about lack of green space, why not fight to cover the tracks or close down the streets that run through the park? That alone would offset the CCM plans.

guest

Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:08:03 -0600

Yeah, I mean, a Childern's Museum, it could be anywhere...why Grant Park? It's not even that great of a museum, is it?

fed up

Tue, 18 Sep 2007 17:02:35 -0600

Grant park should be open space. Daley making this a racial issue is a joke. Daley doesnt care about kids or race or any color except green for the contracts he would get for his friends. I bet some hired trucks would be needed to dig out grant park. Im sure daleys friends would like the trash hauling contract. Maybe another friend for security. Whats next for grant park a vetrans museum or an elderly center maybe a homeless center how about a envirormental museum or an aviation muesum all good ideas but they dont belong in grant park. Open space is rare in this city.

guest

Tue, 18 Sep 2007 16:22:31 -0600

I think the South Loop is a better idea, too (although what is wrong with keeping the kiddie crowd corraled at Navy Pier?). Even if Grant Park is underutilized most of the year, it's nice to have that open park land available for festivals and softball leagues and whatnot.

guest

Tue, 18 Sep 2007 16:15:37 -0600

That the Children's Museum is and will be largely patronized by needy children, rather than the mainly middle-class and wealthy people one generally sees there Huh? I've been there twice and it's been a melting pot of stupud little kids running around - including a HUGE group from some inner city church.

guest

Tue, 18 Sep 2007 16:00:13 -0600

I agree Grant Park should just stay the way it is...the more open space the better. While I like him, generally, I disagree with da Mayor on this one, and don't really even understand his comments.

guest

Tue, 18 Sep 2007 15:38:22 -0600

The reason why leaders keep trying to "destory" Grant Park is because it is a terrible park. It is a vast underpopulated wasteland. The only way to use the park is to get 100,000 people into it for taste/jazz/blues/gospel/lolla fest, and turn it into an ordeal. Moving the CM in is a great idea a way to expand Chicago's network of lakefront parks and make Grant Park a destination instead of an obstacle.

guest

Tue, 18 Sep 2007 15:33:41 -0600

Mayor Daley is a disgrace to this city. I don't even think the Reverends Jackson and Sharpton are this irresponsible in throwing around unsupportable charges of racism. But I suppose Mayor Mumbles had to do SOMETHING, no matter how ridiculous, to take the spotlight off the CTA, which he has mismanaged for 18 years and counting now. Brendan Reilly for mayor!

guest

Tue, 18 Sep 2007 15:30:54 -0600

My have the mighty have fallen. Cate Plys is schlepping around grubbing for pennies at the "BEACHWOOD REPORTER" ? She is part of the privledged group, like the Randolph street high rise people - she sends her kids to the toney U of Chicago Lab Schools, so she and they are birds of a feather.

guest

Tue, 18 Sep 2007 15:26:50 -0600

Call me naive, but I don't understand why the leaders in this town--many, if not most, of them natives of Chicago--keep trying to destroy one of the best things about this city, the relatively open lakefront. I guess it's the same civic pride that allows these leaders to tear down historic buildings without shame.