Mail-order and retail pioneer Montgomery Ward fought a long battle 100 years ago to enforce an 1836 mandate of Chicago's Lakefront, that it should be "a common to remain forever open, clear and free of any buildings, or other obstruction whatever."
But someone very rich, Gigi Pritzker Pucker, whose father founded the Hyatt Hotels chain, and some of her friends, think that the Children's Museum needs to be moved. Why? Their egos need further elevation, I guess. Mayor Richard M. Daley favors the move too. But people who live next to Grant Park don't want the museum there. Nor does Alderman Brendan Reilly, Grant Park is in his ward.
Don't forget that mandate: "Clear and free of any buildings, or other obstruction whatever." Yes, there have been exceptions built in Grant Park, such as the Petrillo Band Shell, but free concerts are performed there. The Children's Museum charges $9.00 for kids and adults, seniors only have to pay $8.00 for admission. There are other museums, that yes, charge admission, but arguably there are more things for kids to do at the Field Museum, the Adler Planetarium, and the Shedd Aquarium. A few miles south of Grant Park is the Museum of Science and Industry, kids (and adults) love that place.
If built, much of the museum will be underground. Much, not all.
This afternoon Chicago City Council's Zoning Committee, which voted 6-3 this afternoon to allow the Children's Museum move to go forward.
Victory for the Children's Museum? No.
Shortly after the committee vote, an "administrative review" lawsuit was filed in Cook County Circuit Court, Fiegel vs. Chicago Plan et. al.
Patrick Ruberry, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, spoke to me this evening on the telephone, telling me, "They didn't give notice (about the museum move) to an entire building"
"Which building" I asked?
"340 E. Randolph."
The proposed museum site is slated for the north end of Grant Park, right across the street from 340 E. Randolph.
Disclosure: Patrick Ruberry is my brother.
Technorati tags:
Chicago 
illinois 
Politics 
Illinois Politics 
Richard Daley 
Chicago Children's Museum 
culture 
museums
Surely someone is rationalizing that if there are museums and aquariums in lakefront parks. Then why not a children's museum. Surely the museums already sitting on park land charge some form of admission. The Art Institute would have a free day and on any other day you have to pay something for admission. You don't even have to pay the full cost of admissions.
ReplyDeleteI don't know about MSI, Shedd Aquarium, Adler Planetarium, or the Field Museum. I don't know what they charge for admission but surely it's not as high as this children's museum.
I hope also that they don't rationalize Soldier Field. They seem to charge a high price in order to admit football fans. Is it right for them to exist on park district property.
I agree that children's museum doesn't belong on park district property but it looks like they're closer to getting what they want. There is surely somewhere else they can go other than Chicago's front yard.
Each of the museums, I believe, have occasional free evenings, free days, or even free weeks. Special exhibits are usually things you have to pay for. The current Soldier Field would have been better off on near the United Center...at least the first one at least was a "low rise" of sorts.
ReplyDeleteHaving Soldier Field away from the lake would have made sense, it gives drivers four exit directions instead of three...who can drive directly east from Soldier Field to their home?
Ah ... this is why I love bloggers! No fact checking, no journalistic integrity, and no writing ability whatsoever! If your brother is as good a lawyer as you are a writer, the law suit will be a walk in the park for the museum. Bravo on the most inane piece of crap I have read in a while!
ReplyDeletePlease enlighten me on what isn't correct in my post.
ReplyDeleteWhere is YOUR fact checking?
Or did you not like what I wrote?
Ah ... this is why I love random commenters.
ReplyDeleteSniping tone; no knowledge of where the return key is; insults which manifest from nowhere ...
And no support for their arguments.
Where's Rube lacking in journalistic integrity, Jane?
How do you judge a person's writing ability?
Granted, John fat fingers some of his posts, but ... who doesn't?
And, if this is the most inane piece of crap you've ever read, you obviously haven't read the CCM and the Mayor's "justifications" towards using Grant Park, and/or their "study" which eliminated 90 some odd other locations.
And you definitely haven't been to Obama's website.
So, what more can you offer this discussion by way of fact and less by way of "someone pissed in my corn flakes" attitude?
Are you one of those folks who just likes to bitch for the sake of filling that void in your soul which had previously been occupied with something worthwhile and now nothing; or are you simply some flunky with a vested interest in seeing Daley gleefully shit on 150 years of Chicago tradition in order to build his legacy of graft, greed and waning impotence?
Thanks yo...
ReplyDeleteLevois & John -
ReplyDeleteA few facts for the debate:
The 1836 covenant protections that prohibit buildings in Grant Park, turning over control of park lands to private hands, and charging admission to events and exhibitions ONLY apply to the land bounded by Randolph Street on the North, Michigan Avenue on the West, Lake Michigan on the East, and 11th Street/Park Row on the South.
The Adler Planetarium, Shedd Aquarium, Field Museum and Soldier Field are ALL outside of that zone.
In fact, the land that they sit on was created by landfill into Lake Michigan in the early 1920's.
The ONLY exception to the prohibition is the Art Institute, and ONLY because Montgomery Ward chose not to include them in his lawsuit. Instead, he negotiated an agreement, spelled out in the Supreme Court's first Ward Decision, that allowed for the Art Institute to go forward on a specific footprint provided that they provide free admission to the public on certain days and free admission to school children ALL of the time.
I emphasize that fact because, to the degree that the Art Institute has exceeded their original allowable footprint (and they have expanded seven times), they too might now be in violation of the law.
YDD...Now that's more like it! Thanks for your input....You are right, too on a number of fronts. The Art Institute has grown and grown...
ReplyDelete