CHICAGO | General Developments

[bnk]

Holey shite!!! Billion dollar museum.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...,6741871.story




Lucas museum coming to Chicago



By Melissa HarrisTribune reporter
4:21 p.m. CDT, June 24, 2014



“Star Wars” creator George Lucas has selected Chicago over Los Angeles and San Francisco as the future home of his collection of art and movie memorabilia, according to a spokeswoman for the museum.

A vote by the museum’s board, which would make the decision official, is expected Wednesday. The board also expected to change the name of the museum from the Lucas Cultural Arts Museum to the Lucas Museum of Narrative Arts.

Pending approval of the Chicago Plan Commission, Lucas' institution would be located on parking lots between Soldier Field and McCormick Place and would open in 2018.

It would house a collection that includes valuable Norman Rockwell paintings, examples of the Hollywood special effects he pioneered at Industrial Light & Magic, and memorabilia such as a scale model of the Millennium Falcon, the fictional spacecraft commanded by Han Solo.

The decision to select Chicago reflects both a bungling of the billionaire’s legacy project by national park officials in San Francisco as well as an aggressive lobbying effort by Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

...

[marothisu]

You guys beat me to it. I really hope that this is true - it would be big if so.

[i_am_hydrogen]

Very exciting! This museum will be a key element of Chicago's next generation of tourist destinations that includes Maggie Daley Park, Northerly Island, Chicago Riverwalk, a revamped Navy Pier, and the Obama Presidential Library.

[OhioGuy]

That's fantastic! Hopefully Emanuel can keep the NIMBYs from causing too many headaches. This museum is quite possibly the best use for that portion of the lakefront. Yes an open lakefront is generally preferable, but this is already a parking lot. And even if it weren't, a new park space sandwiched between Soldier Field and the Convention Center seems unlikely to draw in the masses the way the Lucas museum will. Plus Northerly Island is right next door, so the actual lakefront will still be open (and IIRC a pedestrian bridge crossing Burnham Harbor is part of the plan to enhance pedestrian access to the island).

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by OhioGuy

That's fantastic! Hopefully Emanuel can keep the NIMBYs from causing too many headaches. This museum is quite possibly the best use for that portion of the lakefront. Yes an open lakefront is generally preferable, but this is already a parking lot. And even if it weren't, a new park space sandwiched between Soldier Field and the Convention Center seems unlikely to draw in the masses the way the Lucas museum will. Plus Northerly Island is right next door, so the actual lakefront will still be open (and IIRC a pedestrian bridge crossing Burnham Harbor is part of the plan to enhance pedestrian access to the island).

This sounds like a slippery slope argument. The point of open space and parkland is not necessarily to draw in crowds of people, it is to provide an escape from crowds of people. Given the vast available land around Michael Reese and other areas near downtown, I still disagree the lakefront is somewhere this should go.

Arguing that because its parking lots now means that by default the protections that Ward/Burnham fought for dont apply is simply untrue. And its not a precedent I think we should allow to be set.

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

This sounds like a slippery slope argument. The point of open space and parkland is not necessarily to draw in crowds of people, it is to provide an escape from crowds of people. Given the vast available land around Michael Reese and other areas near downtown, I still disagree the lakefront is somewhere this should go.

Arguing that because its parking lots now means that by default the protections that Ward/Burnham fought for dont apply is simply untrue. And its not a precedent I think we should allow to be set.

Well, considering that I'm almost positive the original ordinance applied only to Grant Park (can anyone please confirm this?) AND that this building is being sandwiched between two extant structures that are used for commerce/recreation, AND that it's less than a block from an entire museum campus AND that of the approx. 15 acres available for development, the plan is to maintain 10 of those acres as a park...what's your argument again?

[OhioGuy]

A preview of what to expect from this new museum.
• Video Link

[r18tdi]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

And its not a precedent I think we should allow to be set.

This sounds like a slippery slope argument.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by r18tdi

This sounds like a slippery slope argument.

Say what now

FWIW Im not a lawyer and I dont know the exact law regarding the protections. I still think there are better places to put the building.

Originally Posted by sentinel

Well, considering that I'm almost positive the original ordinance applied only to Grant Park (can anyone please confirm this?) AND that this building is being sandwiched between two extant structures that are used for commerce/recreation, AND that it's less than a block from an entire museum campus AND that of the approx. 15 acres available for development, the plan is to maintain 10 of those acres as a park...what's your argument again?

Well, my point is...you made my point. I dont think McCormick Place East should have ever been allowed to be built either and I'd much prefer at the end of the buildings useful life it be returned to park. Two wrongs dont somehow make a right and yes, exceptions to rules tend to only encourage more exceptions as we're seeing.

I also happen to think the private beaches/condos up in Rogers Park shouldnt have been allowed either as an example.

[ardecila]

This is awesome. I'm a little bummed that this museum will not be integrated into the urban fabric, but Lucas was pretty clear that he wanted an open, leafy site.

Now I'm fantasizing about the choice of architect... he could go the way of the Empire and choose SOM (too bad Mies isn't around) or the way of the upstart Rebels and choose JGMA! Can we all agree that the worst outcome would be some Classical bantha fodder put out by Antunovich?

[bnk]

...

[streetline]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

This sounds like a slippery slope argument. The point of open space and parkland is not necessarily to draw in crowds of people, it is to provide an escape from crowds of people. Given the vast available land around Michael Reese and other areas near downtown, I still disagree the lakefront is somewhere this should go.

Arguing that because its parking lots now means that by default the protections that Ward/Burnham fought for dont apply is simply untrue. And its not a precedent I think we should allow to be set.

If this is a slippery slope, isn't the slope long since slipped by the Art Institute, Soldier Field, the McCormick Place Lakeside Center, and all of the museums on the Museum Campus?

As long as the new Lucas Museum gets more or less the same lease terms (with public interest concessions like free admission days and what not) as the existing museums I don't see any issue with this.

This is a really big deal for the city, and combined with the Northerly Island renovations should pull a lot more tourists and locals alike to that relatively disused part of the lakefront.

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Now I'm fantasizing about the choice of architect... he could go the way of the Empire and choose SOM (too bad Mies isn't around) or the way of the upstart Rebels and choose JGMA! Can we all agree that the worst outcome would be some Classical bantha fodder put out by Antunovich?

What do you mean - there are only so many ways to design a building in the shape of the Millennium Falcon.
(j/k !)
Nice post btw. I agree, but also kinda hope the museum restaurant will be up in the top of a giant-sized AT-AT or AT-ST Walker. Just cause that would rock during NFL broadcasts.

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

Say what now

FWIW Im not a lawyer and I dont know the exact law regarding the protections. I still think there are better places to put the building.



Well, my point is...you made my point. I dont think McCormick Place East should have ever been allowed to be built either and I'd much prefer at the end of the buildings useful life it be returned to park. Two wrongs dont somehow make a right and yes, exceptions to rules tend to only encourage more exceptions as we're seeing.

I also happen to think the private beaches/condos up in Rogers Park shouldnt have been allowed either as an example.

Sorry, but you lost me when bringing up woulda coulda shouldas from decades ago. Nice try though.

[bnk]

Its official




“We are honored to be partnering with the city of Chicago and the many cultural, educational and community groups that have come forward with ideas about how the LMNA [Lucas Museum of Narrative Arts] will add to their vibrant work,” Lucas said in an announcement Tuesday. “I am humbled to be joining such an extraordinary museum community and to be creating the museum in a city that has a long tradition of embracing the arts.”





http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...624-story.html

[brian_b]

Originally Posted by streetline

If this is a slippery slope, isn't the slope long since slipped by the Art Institute, Soldier Field, the McCormick Place Lakeside Center, and all of the museums on the Museum Campus?

The Museum Campus was created to satisfy Ward, who sued (and won) to prevent construction of the Field Museum in Grant Park. Putting a new museum south of the Field, Shedd, and Soldier Field fits with the "Forever Free and Clear" doctrine.

The new location has great access to the 18th Street Metra/South Shore station. Perhaps it will get appropriately upgraded and have normally scheduled service. Maybe this will give that Grey Line guy some new talking points

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by sentinel

Sorry, but you lost me when bringing up woulda coulda shouldas from decades ago. Nice try though.

In what way did I lose you. Virtually nothing further can be built east of LSD without a massive fight, and for good reason. Why is everyone suddenly fine with this going through?

I pointed out "woulda coulda shouldas" in order to illustrate the ways the city has erred in the past. If this was anyone other than Lucas would it have ever even had a snowballs chance in hell of being approved?

[wierdaaron]

Good time for the city to be spending money on Roosevelt Road on the way to Museum Campus. I'd really love to see that turn into a tourism and cultural corridor.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

In what way did I lose you. Virtually nothing further can be built east of LSD without a massive fight, and for good reason. Why is everyone suddenly fine with this going through?

It's south of Roosevelt and thus (to my understanding) not subject to the same restrictions as Grant Park, it will be joining an already in place constellation of similar institutions, replacing two hideous surface lots, won't cost the city anything, and will generate many millions of worth of economic activity for the city.

I'm not seeing the downside here.

[BWChicago]

Well, this parking lot used to have LSD running to both the East AND West of it (and through it), so...