Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Amazingly, I completely agree. I'll never understand the fascination about Star Wars, and I have grave doubts that future generations will have such great interest in it, either. Even the so-called "geeks" eventually grow up and will stop being astounded by stuff like this. To build an expensive museum, on prime commercial property, intended to last for generations, about a movie that has a limited shelf-life..????
The museum is going to have a lot more than Star Wars memorabilia - Lucas is has an art collection that would be an attraction in and of itself even without the Star Wars hook.
However, I'll need to push back heavily on the "limited shelf-life" argument against Star Wars. It might not be everyone's cup of tea, but I would hardly call a movie that originally came out almost 40 years at this point and is STILL at the top of the public's consciousness with many more follow-up movies to come as something with a "limited shelf life". I've got 1st grade twins and Star Wars is the single most popular movie for their generation already, so think about the long-tail popularity of the Star Wars franchise when you consider that today's kids are just as into it (or more) as those that grew up 3 or 4 decades ago and then today's kids will expose it to their own kids. We're not talking about Star Trek here - Star Wars has already proven to be on par with The Wizard of Oz or the best of the classic Disney films in terms of multi-generational appeal. Look at how its contemporary of E.T., a fantastic film that actually grossed more at the box office than the original Star Wars, is completely off the pop culture radar today. You're radically underestimating what the Star Wars has been able to achieve over a very long period of time (especially in the dog year calculations of our rapidly changing pop culture).
Originally Posted by Frank the Tank;43804463 The Lake Michigan location is really the only thing that Chicago has to offer that [B
can compare to being on the bay in San Francisco[/b], so my feeling is that a river location isn't going to suffice (although the only opinion that ultimately matters is the opinion of Lucas).
unless I'm mistaken, the proposed Presidio site was not directly on the bay. Indeed it was virtually adjacent to the Palace of Fine Arts which nobody would call a bayfront site. Lucas did seek a plot of line virtually on the shores of the golden gate, but that spot was never in question.
I think it has a higher chance of succeeding than the punditry is giving it credit for. The funding is based upon money that had been going toward US Cellular Field payments and existing hotel/entertainment taxes, so there isn't a tax increase per se or "taking away money that would have gone to the schools", even though a lot of public perceives it to be that way.
We can spin it that way, but the entire reason why Lucas awarded the museum to Chicago in the first place was that he didn't get the *exact* location in San Francisco that he wanted after a long period of fighting with different local interests. (Looks like history has repeated itself.) It's his money that he's spending and he's made it abundantly clear that merely a "good location" isn't the point - he wants it to be, in his words, in an "iconic" location or else he'll go elsewhere. The Lake Michigan location is really the only thing that Chicago has to offer that can compare to being on the bay in San Francisco, so my feeling is that a river location isn't going to suffice (although the only opinion that ultimately matters is the opinion of Lucas).
I think it's a pretty huge deal. Most of the complaints that I've heard against the Lucas Museum reek of NIMBYism and make us look like the world's largest cow town. I love our museums, skyscrapers, shopping, restaurants and parks, but when you're competing in the tourism marketplace, there are a lot of other cities in the world that can claim similar assets. In contrast, the Lucas Museum as proposed would be truly one-of-a-kind in the world and connected to the worldwide phenomenon of Star Wars that has an unmatched following. That's the type of attraction that potentially could spur people worldwide would go out of their way to make a pilgrimage to Chicago to see... and once they actually see the rest of Chicago, visitors usually love it. Chicago is one of those places (especially with international visitors) where the media and public image lags waaaay behind the image once people actually visit here - the city generally blows away expectations. By the same token, we (as Chicagoans) should recognize this as an issue. We have a massive amount to offer, but, for whatever reason, our reputation lags behind what it ought to be considering our assets and we still need something to really put us over the top to get us into the elite tier of international travel destinations. (In contrast, places like Los Angeles and Miami have positive reputations with international visitors that exceed the actual assets that they have beyond weather.) The Lucas Museum has the *potential* to do that as well as any single thing that we could add to the city.
This is the part that I struggle with. The original plan to replace a parking lot with the Lucas Museum was a complete no-brainer to me with virtually no teardown costs and certainly no impact on convention business. As a result, the original plan was a complete addition to our city's assets without taking anything away. In contrast, tearing down the Lakeside Center is (a) much more expensive and (b) puts a lot existing convention business at risk. The only real potential benefit of this new plan compared to the original one is that if the Lakeside Center was already becoming obsolete and we were going to have to build a separate McCormick facility to remain competitive, anyway, then this swap is a way to kill off the Friends of the Park lawsuit and push along development of new McCormick Place space further to the west. I'd rather have the original Lucas Museum plan, but if we end up with a more vibrant and modern McCormick Place via this new plan, then it may be worth it.
I think it would certainly help. Moving the nexus of McCormick Place westward could possibly connect it more the South Loop and Chinatown areas to make it feel less like an island while the Lucas Museum could anchor it to the east. I just visited Nashville for a conference and it's ironic that such a sprawling car-centric city actually has a significantly more walkable area around its convention center compared to the highly urban Chicago (with Bridgestone Arena, the Country Music Hall of Fame and Nashville's primary street of bars and music venues all right next to the Music City Center). Also, I lived in Chinatown for a couple of years and it was pretty depressing how there were (and still are) several blocks of little-to-no development on Cermak between Chinatown and McCormick Place when that ought to be a natural connection point. (Granted, the new DePaul arena and hotel developments on that street should aid in that on paper.)
thoughtful, insightful responses to all; I'm impressed.
Lucas looking outside Chicago as parks group opposes any lakefront museum sites
Despite agreeing to a pause in the federal court case against the original Lucas Museum site, Friends of the Parks said Tuesday it continues to oppose any project on the Chicago lakeshore, including the newly proposed McCormick Place location.
"We do oppose the deal that's on the table," said Juanita Irizarry, the parks group's executive director. "We maintain there should not be development on the lakefront."
Financial executive Mellody Hobson, wife of "Star Wars" creator George Lucas, expressed frustration Tuesday at the developments, saying in a lengthy statement that "this process has been co-opted and hijacked by a small special interest group."
"In refusing to accept the extraordinary public benefits of the museum, the Friends of the Parks has proven itself to be no friend of Chicago," Hobson said. "We are now seriously pursuing locations outside of Chicago. If the museum is forced to leave, it will be because of the Friends of the Parks and that is no victory for anyone."
Hobson said the museum would bring more than $2 billion in economic benefit to the city, thousands of jobs and education opportunities for children.
"As an African-American who has spent my entire life in this city I love, it saddens me that young black and brown children will be denied the chance to benefit from what this museum will offer," she said.
More here:
[url=http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-lucas-museum-friends-of-the-parks-lawsuit-20160503-story.html]Lucas looking outside Chicago as parks group opposes any lakefront museum sites - Chicago Tribune[/url]
A good onion headline would be, "Friends of the Parks proposes eliminating all lakefront museums and turning them into parking lots."
A good onion headline would be, "Friends of the Parks proposes eliminating all lakefront museums and turning them into parking lots."
Except that has nothing at all to do with the situation.
The situation is that a wealthy director wants to put a Star Wars museum on Chicago parkland, on a site that is not as-of-right, and has refused to consider any alternatives.
If that director truly wishes to build such a museum in Chicago, he needs to follow the rules, and not take parkland for his Star Wars trinkets. There are PLENTY of sites all around Chicago, so Lucas can make this happen, if he so chooses.
Just go to the Lucas website. We are talking spaceship models, lithographs, movie posters, storyboards, etc. It's a space/movie museum. To call it an "art museum" is absurdity. Rahm should be trying to fix the city rather than wasting time on such nonsense, or if he wants to salvage this tourist attraction, put it somewhere as-of-right, i.e. not directly on city parkland on the lake.
Except that has nothing at all to do with the situation.
The situation is that a wealthy director wants to put a Star Wars museum on Chicago parkland, on a site that is not as-of-right, and has refused to consider any alternatives.
If that director truly wishes to build such a museum in Chicago, he needs to follow the rules, and not take parkland for his Star Wars trinkets. There are PLENTY of sites all around Chicago, so Lucas can make this happen, if he so chooses.
Just go to the Lucas website. We are talking spaceship models, lithographs, movie posters, storyboards, etc. It's a space/movie museum. To call it an "art museum" is absurdity. Rahm should be trying to fix the city rather than wasting time on such nonsense, or if he wants to salvage this tourist attraction, put it somewhere as-of-right, i.e. not directly on city parkland on the lake.
His wealth is irrelevant. When he AWARDED the museum to Chicago and CHicago accepted, the deal was it would be on the lakefront. Lucas would have also allowed it to be built on McCormics place east, but friends of the park didn't want that either.
You say he needs to follow the rules. The city told him he could build there. Now they are back tracking. He will just simply build it in California and Chicago will lose out and get to keep a parking lot for these "rules." By your logic we should tear down every meuseum on city parkland. Your logic will help turn Chicago into the next Detroit.
Except that has nothing at all to do with the situation.
The situation is that a wealthy director wants to put a Star Wars museum on Chicago parkland, on a site that is not as-of-right, and has refused to consider any alternatives.
Calling it a "Star Wars museum" makes you come off like an ignorant bigot. It's hard to even take the anti-museum side seriously because they don't even seem to understand what we are losing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101
If that director truly wishes to build such a museum in Chicago, he needs to follow the rules, and not take parkland for his Star Wars trinkets. There are PLENTY of sites all around Chicago, so Lucas can make this happen, if he so chooses.
Just go to the Lucas website. We are talking spaceship models, lithographs, movie posters, storyboards, etc. It's a space/movie museum. To call it an "art museum" is absurdity. Rahm should be trying to fix the city rather than wasting time on such nonsense, or if he wants to salvage this tourist attraction, put it somewhere as-of-right, i.e. not directly on city parkland on the lake.
There are some Star Wars components to the collection, but it is hardly the only or even primary component. I don't know if you've ever heard Lucas speak about storytelling but dude does know what he's talking about, he's not some dumb-luck sort of guy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MSchemist80
Why don't they just give him some land on Northerly Island/Former Meigs Field. That area is being underutilized and won't be as intolerable.
This is a classic example of Rahm not being as "good at being bad" as Daley.
Imagine if Daley made a promise like this -- he would do something in Springfield to get the necessary agreement on the changes to either McPier or the Lakefront Protection Ordinance or have the "trial" set for a court that would have a near certain result of whatever else NEEDED to happen. He may have said some rather unintelligent things, and he rather recklessly ordered things like the middle of the night destruction of Meigs Field but he GOT STUFF DONE...
Just how stupid is Rahm that he did not anticipate the Friends of The Parks threatening to block anything that violated the Lakefront Protection Ordinance? If he knew that was likely to happen why not preemptively only offer something that was ALREADY NOT ON THE LAKEFRONT? Rahm was at the ground breaking for the DePaul stadium near McCormick Place a few months ago, City of Chicago breaks ground on DePaul arena , why not work a deal to make the Lucas Museum part of that?
And what kind of jerk is George Lucas being? If he truly wanted to do something NICE for Chicago, and I will leave that possibility open, why not be open to a site that DOES NOT VIOLATE THE LAW? As I said before, a skilled architect with actual experience doing things that ENHANCE a city would almost certainly PREFER the opportunity to work with a site that has more NEGATIVES. The "parking lot site" really has no challenges at all, it is a blank slate. Something that would involve decking over the railroad "trench" or being a bit further inland would mean MORE OPPORTUNITY for a talented architecture firm to REALLY do things that integrate this new structure with the otherwise bleak site, and if means more CASH from a billionaire to an urban is that completely inline with the sorts of proposals so dear to both the Hollywood and the politicians???
There are words for these guys, I don't which is which -- The Grammarist
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
