CHICAGO | Lucas Museum of Narrative Art

[the urban politician]

^ More regular Chicagoans may be apathetic to this, or even against it, than you think.

The real question is what Lucas will do. He already moved from one city to here. Does he move to a whole new city and start over, facing the same potential issues all over again?

Does he drop the museum idea? Does he stay here and fight the lawsuit ? Does he choose the path of least resistance and just build the museum here, but on a less controversial site? How important is the lakefront?

The question is, can Chicago provide Lucas a non lakefront, nonpark site that still provides him with the kind of stunning location he is seeking? It's really all up to Lucas at this point.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ More regular Chicagoans may be apathetic to this, or even against it, than you think.

This more has to do with how lazy people are to get educated (i.e. read just a little bit) about what the museum actually is. A lot of people think it's just a "Star Wars Museum" which is such a shame considering he has a good amount of actual art work that's worth showing there.

Even the movie part - I've been to the Museum of the Moving Image in Astoria, Queens (NYC) and though small it was pretty great. Lucas' museum has the potential to blow that museum completely out of the water.

[Kumdogmillionaire]

The way I see this going is if Rahm can't secure the location on the lakefront for George then they walk and go back to San Fran to rework something there.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Stating what, exactly, as a cause of action? Those agreements with the Bears are not leases that exclude all other users. FOTP did sue to try to stop the new Soldier Field, but lost on the basis that the facility is owned by the Park District rather than a private entity.

So what is the difference in the legal structure of the Soldier Field, Adler, Field Museum, Shedd, leases and the Lucas lease? Is it only that everyone else is leasing a building owned by the Park District while Lucas intends to do a ground lease and build his own structure?

If that's the case, then there will be precedent to force every private organization off the Lakefront, period. There is no relevant difference between ground leases and any other lease so if they rule a ground lease is in violation of public trust, then leasing Soldier Field to the Bears is illegal. Then leasing the Field Museum to the Field Museum is also illegal.

What makes Lucas' proposed model of leasing the land and building the structure different? At the end of a ground lease, any improvements revert to the ownership of the lessor. It's not as if the Lucas Museum will just own this land in perpetuity with no expiration date to their lease. So, Mr. Lawyer, what exactly is the difference between the Field Museum's deal and the Lucas Museum's deal?

[Mr Downtown]

^That appears to be the difference: that LMNA will have a ground lease while the other museums don't.

And let's not get too far ahead of ourselves here. The judge didn't rule that the land can't be leased to LMNA; only that it wasn't such a slam-dunk case for the Park District that the lawsuit should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The order doesn't discuss or try to distinguish the other museums.

As I have previously said, before last Thursday I was not terribly optimistic that Friends of the Parks would ultimately prevail in this lawsuit, based on the decision that allowed McCormick Place. So this order was quite an unexpected shot across the bow for the Lucas Museum.

I know it must be frustrating to laymen that the common law isn't written down somewhere like a rulebook, so you'd always know in advance exactly what is and isn't allowed. Instead, it evolves as society confronts new challenges, and we have to decide which precedents offer the proper analogy.

The public-trust doctrine in Illinois doesn't have a lot of decisions to go on. We know that lakebed can be sold to adjacent landowners to finance and allow for the construction of Lake Shore Drive, but can't be sold to the Illinois Central Railroad for a mere locomotive shop. It can't be sold to U.S. Steel for expansion of South Works, and can’t be sold to Loyola University for a college campus, even one with a public park along the lakeshore. (A similar sale to Northwestern in 1961 was never challenged). It can be leased for McCormick Place, and can be used for Soldier Field. Is a lease to LMNA more like McCormick Place or more like the Loyola Campus?

[JK47]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

The question is, can Chicago provide Lucas a non lakefront, nonpark site that still provides him with the kind of stunning location he is seeking? It's really all up to Lucas at this point.

It also depends on if the lack of a lakefront site makes Chicago less attractive than the last site San Francisco offered on the Embarcadero overlooking the harbor. I don't believe Chicago has an alternative site that would better that option.

[msu2001la]

Originally Posted by marothisu

This more has to do with how lazy people are to get educated (i.e. read just a little bit) about what the museum actually is. A lot of people think it's just a "Star Wars Museum" which is such a shame considering he has a good amount of actual art work that's worth showing there.

Even the movie part - I've been to the Museum of the Moving Image in Astoria, Queens (NYC) and though small it was pretty great. Lucas' museum has the potential to blow that museum completely out of the water.

Maybe I just see it differently, but it seems to me if Lucas wants to build a museum on public land in our city, he should be out there trying to sell the general public on the idea and benefits of such a museum, and why it should be built on public land as opposed to a privately owned parcel.

I would imagine there might be similar opposition if the Museum of the Moving Image in NYC was proposed on a publicly owned waterfront site (even if that land was currently being used as a parking lot).

[ithakas]

Though I still would prefer to see the Lucas Museum built on the Museum Campus, it would be fun to speculate where he might relocate in the city if necessary (assuming it doesn't go back to California).

I think he'd want to stay on the near South Side and close to nature, so I'd think the empty land just north of Ping Tom Park (not the whole tract, but the land between Ping Tom and the E-W railroad track) would be a great place. It could also kickstart whatever development plans Related has for the area, and give them a great selling point – much in the way their development in downtown LA coincided with the Broad opening.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by JK47

It also depends on if the lack of a lakefront site makes Chicago less attractive than the last site San Francisco offered on the Embarcadero overlooking the harbor. I don't believe Chicago has an alternative site that would better that option.

SF didn't offer anything except it's support for a pier 30-32 location. The same spot the Warriors were forced off and that spurred the (successful) waterfront height restriction ballot measure.

Nobody is going to sign up for that level of flagellation. You'd have to be completely deranged.

[the urban politician]

The question is how hung up Lucus is on a serene, waterfront location. I guess a highly urban context (like MCA) just doesn't suit his vision?

[ithakas]

Originally Posted by ithakas

I think he'd want to stay on the near South Side and close to nature, so I'd think the empty land just north of Ping Tom Park (not the whole tract, but the land between Ping Tom and the E-W railroad track) would be a great place. It could also kickstart whatever development plans Related has for the area, and give them a great selling point – much in the way their development in downtown LA coincided with the Broad opening.

In this fantasy scenario, Lucas might also co-sponsor a 16th Street green line station and get the naming rights (16th Street - Lucas Museum stop?) like UIC and HWLC are affiliated with their respective stops.

Could spur development along 16th from Wabash to Clark, where rumored current plans include tearing down a warehouse to put in a strip mall CVS.

Not sure how economically feasible connecting Clark to Ping Tom Park on 16th underneath the Metra rails would be, even just for pedestrians?

[a very long weekend]

Originally Posted by Kumdogmillionaire

The way I see this going is if Rahm can't secure the location on the lakefront for George then they walk and go back to San Fran to rework something there.

as a san franciscan, i really hope this happens. there are many locations in san francisco that lucas could buy and build out, it could definitely happen here. the problem last time around was his take-it-or-leave-it plan to stick a horrible "days inn" looking design in the presidio. if he dealt with the city of sf, rather than the presidio board, he'll have a much easier time, particularly with a great design like the chicago one.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by a very long weekend

as a san franciscan, i really hope this happens. there are many locations in san francisco that lucas could buy and build out, it could definitely happen here. the problem last time around was his take-it-or-leave-it plan to stick a horrible "days inn" looking design in the presidio. if he dealt with the city of sf, rather than the presidio board, he'll have a much easier time, particularly with a great design like the chicago one.

I am genuinely curious what those "many locations" would be. I can think of no location for this that would achieve his goals and be largely free of potential political or legal challenge. There is basically no end to the byzantine legal attempts of NIMBY's to avoid stuff getting built here and this project would have a huge target painted on it's back if it decided to return.

[chiphile]

Relax people, the latest ruling just means the lawsuit can't be thrown out at this stage. (This is where frivolous lawsuits are thrown out, the only "victory" for Friends of the Parking Lot is that their suit isn't deemed frivolous/useless to society--i.e. there is a "plausible" violation of the public trust doctrine). At this stage of lawsuits, plausibility is a loose term. These rulings are routine and because the media doesn't understand law, the story was blown out of proportion.

All the judge said was Friends of the Parking Lot's argument might not be complete, total bullshit, and that it deserves further inquiry all the way up to and maybe through trial. Had the suit been dismissed this early, FOP could have appealed and said there was no basis for the suit to be dismissed, adding even further delay. This ruling is only a "loss" in the sense there may be additional time as the lawsuit proceeds. By no means does it mean the museum is doomed.

If it goes to trial, it is still very likely that the trial judge interprets the public trust doctrine in a manner favorable to the museum. One of FOP's biggest arguments is that the land is being transferred to a "private" interest. A few pages of lawyer speak, including some of the logical arguments made here, can very easily turn the museum into "public"--including the fact that additional public parkland is being restored and that the museum will be free in certain areas.

[marothisu]

^ That's what I thought. Thank you. It's basically going through the normal motions of a trial and not being thrown out doesn't mean anything yet. It means that it's not a stupid enough suit for the judge to laugh it out of court, but it doesn't mean their case is super strong.

[XIII]

Interesting history lesson today:

Friends of the Parks was originally established by Lois Weisberg and Vicky Ranney claiming that:

"[t]oday, many of our parks are deserted, unsafe or inaccessible," they promised "to return the parks to the people" and to "press for better maintenance and safety, more land, and more programs with community participation."

If anything, the Lucas Museum seems to be directly in line with the original mission of FotP. It adds maintenance incentive, safety incentive, additional park land rather than parking lot and will add a number of programs with community participation.

It is unfortunate that Weisberg's legacy is being ignored by the group she started.

Source

[Mr Downtown]

Yes. It's hard to describe the joy they felt when Collins and Dyett High Schools were built, because of all the new users those brought to underappreciated parks. Since then, the joy has just been compounded at Arthur Ashe and Hanson Parks.

Vicky Ranney is still around. Call her up and ask her if she thinks parkland should be given away to LMNA. While she tried to put a good spin on it, she's been pretty emphatic that parkland should not be taken for an Obama Library.

[ithakas]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Vicky Ranney is still around. Call her up and ask her if she thinks parkland should be given away to LMNA. While she tried to put a good spin on it, she's been pretty emphatic that parkland should not be taken for an Obama Library.

Yet the new executive director of FOTP has made concessions to the Obama Library, for reasons that are vague considering their stance on Lucas: “We continue to contend that it's not appropriate for that museum to be built on public trust land.”

Maybe the 'that museum' needs to be italicized?

Irizarry, who previously worked for the state coordinating housing for people with disabilities, says Friends of the Parks will not challenge plans for the Obama presidential library.

“We think it's wonderful for the Obama library to come to Chicago and we wish it would be built somewhere other than a park. But we've accepted the community decision to receive the library. We aren't pursuing any legal issue regarding that,” she said.

Source: http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...n-lucas-museum

[Mr Downtown]

^Because, unfortunately, there's no promising legal basis on which to challenge the Obama Library. Cassandra Francis asked me to research whether there was any way either of the library sites could be considered public trust land. I had to report back that they'd always been "too thick to drink."

[ithakas]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

^Because, unfortunately, there's no promising legal basis on which to challenge the Obama Library. Cassandra Francis asked me to research whether there was any way either of the library sites could be considered public trust land. I had to report back that they'd always been "too thick to drink."

So you're not only contradicting the public statement of FOTP's executive director, but also admitting that the organization is searching for whatever tenuous legal basis they can to challenge these two museums?