Chicago took a pass on John Lucas $1 billion narrative arts museum (Montgomery: sales, 2014)

[ChiGuy2.5]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

My opinion is that Chicago lost out on not trying for this. I understand there may be disagreements here on many fronts and I'm happy to argue them if anyone wants to. My feeling is that the city could have pushed for more inclusionary work that benefits non museum goers in several ways or pushed acceptable alternate sites, but the campaign of ridicule partially precluded a reasonable conversation about that.

Actually we DID push other sites within and around Chicago. It was Lucas who demanded it be next to the lake.

Originally Posted by WRnative

The majority of posters in this thread seem to believe that Chicago made a mistake. All of your pitifully poor sarcasm and insulting posts doesn't camouflage this reality to an outsider who still hasn't heard a logical explanation for why Chicago took a pass on this museum.

Do you really believe that a parking lot is better for Chicago than a $1 billion tourist attraction built within a new park with underground parking replacing surface parking?

Nobody believes the parking lot provides more value to Chicago than the museum. The key piece to this puzzle is that the Friends of the Park are dead set on protection any FUTURE development along what SHOULD BE public land. The original Burnham plan calls for a "vast and open lakefront, free from development and available for public use".

That Parking Lot you speak of was built the good 'ole Chicago way without the approval of it's citizens and during a time when Friends of the Park was not nearly as powerful. Today, they are backed by many powerful figures.

So no, we aren't saying the parking lot is better. But we are saying that future developments along the lakeshore are not welcome and cannot be purchased. If Lucas really wanted his museum in the city then he had plenty of other potential sites to choose from. His loss, not ours.

I think an open and public lakefront is an asset that is infinitely more valuable than any stadium, museum, or parking lot. So I was happy when they used the Lucas museum as a statement to anyone considering future developments.

[Gemini1963]

I'm sorry to disagree with you, Vlajos, because I usually don't. But I was really glad the Lucas Museum moved on. I thought the design was incredibly ugly - like, offensively so - and I do think preservation of the lakefront is one of the things (possibly the most important thing) that makes Chicago so special. (Thank you, A. Montgomery Ward. A. Montgomery Ward Is Honored For Lakefront Preservation Efforts - tribunedigital-chicagotribune )

I understand that it would have been replacing asphalt ON THAT SITE. But I think the FOTP had it right - the lakefront needs defending, and there were other sites that they would not even consider for the museum.

[Frank the Tank]

It still amazes me that so many people look a gift horse in the mouth.

The fact that this museum wasn't built in Chicago was a complete travesty. Period. A billion dollar one-of-a-kind museum that would have attracted tourists from around the world is an asset that pretty much every other city would have killed for. While I agree with the overall purpose of the Friends of the Parks mission in preserving green space along the lake, they turned into complete obstructionist zealots here.

Maybe not everyone liked the design of the museum, which is fair, but that's a personal opinion. The overall point is that there was a billion dollar asset being *gifted* to the city that would have generated a ton of revenue and tourism on a lot of fronts. When I see people criticize the Lucas Museum on personal aesthetic critiques or actually not want Amazon to move here, it drives me absolutely insane. People need to look at how Chicago is presenting itself at an international economic and cultural level - we need as many high profile institutions as possible as opposed to having backwards-looking NIMBYs pushing them away.

[WRnative]

Originally Posted by chet everett

This fills in the details on the most important issues pretty well:
https://chicago.suntimes.com/chicago...-lucas-museum/

Thanks.

Interesting information.

<<The final straw appeared to be Friends of the Parks’ 11th-hour demand for 5 percent of revenue from the one museum that was not going to receive a taxpayer subsidy.

Days earlier, Emanuel’s handpicked Chicago Park District Board President Jesse Ruiz had labeled that demand “nothing short of extortion” and warned that it would be the “final nail in the coffin” of efforts to keep the coveted project in Chicago.

“No one benefits from continuing their seemingly unending litigation to protect a parking lot,” Lucas was quoted as saying in a statement issued Friday. “The actions initiated by Friends of Parks and their recent attempts to extract concessions from the city have effectively overridden approvals received from numerous democratically elected bodies of government.”

Irizarry categorically denied the extortion claim.

She said the demand for 5 percent of museum revenue was a starting point for negotiations, only after Emanuel offered to demolish the above-ground portion of McCormick Place East to make way for the Lucas museum.>>

https://chicago.suntimes.com/chicago...-lucas-museum/

If I were Lucas, I would have bailed as well. I wonder if a different, worthwhile site was ever offered with no strings attached (such as 5 percent of revenues).

[WRnative]

Originally Posted by Gemini1963

I understand that it would have been replacing asphalt ON THAT SITE. But I think the FOTP had it right - the lakefront needs defending, and there were other sites that they would not even consider for the museum.

What other sites were offered? Do you have any discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of these sites? Is it possible that Lucas didn't pick the Soldier Field parking lot site, but that the city wanted the museum built there for some reason?

[WRnative]

Originally Posted by ChiGuy2.5

His loss, not ours.

Now that's delusional.

The Lucas museum would have offered something to Chicago that it likely will never otherwise obtain, and the museum likely would have become a dominant institution in its field in future decades.

It does appear likely that the Lucas museum will be nurtured to a much greater extent by the LA entertainment industry. Again, I suspect that Lucas only offered the museum to Chicago because his wife, a Chicago native, wanted it there. Lucas is likely more than pleased with the LA location.

I'm not sufficiently familiar with Chicago's lakefront to understand whether it needs even more lakefront parks, but that thought should have been considered, even though the desired park under consideration may never be built until Soldier Field is demolished decades from now. The Lucas project may have made the lakefront even more enjoyable in the intervening period, especially if park-like grounds were part of the project.

How much are existing lakefront parks used during winter months, or even from Oct. 1 through April 30, or over half of the year?

Candidly, it appears that the opponents of the Lucas museum viewed it more as a Trojan horse than an actual gift, but when they even introduced the idea of a 5 percent revenue tax on a non-profit entity, unless they are incredibly ignorant, they must have known that there was a strong possibility that such a proposal would scuttle the project in Chicago.

How much in the way of annual revenues, especially considering the economic multiplier effect, did the loss of this project cost Chicago, which is under great financial duress that certainly will impact public services, including parks, in coming years?

[prhill]

Originally Posted by ChiGuy2.5

Actually we DID push other sites within and around Chicago. It was Lucas who demanded it be next to the lake.



Nobody believes the parking lot provides more value to Chicago than the museum. The key piece to this puzzle is that the Friends of the Park are dead set on protection any FUTURE development along what SHOULD BE public land. The original Burnham plan calls for a "vast and open lakefront, free from development and available for public use".

That Parking Lot you speak of was built the good 'ole Chicago way without the approval of it's citizens and during a time when Friends of the Park was not nearly as powerful. Today, they are backed by many powerful figures.

So no, we aren't saying the parking lot is better. But we are saying that future developments along the lakeshore are not welcome and cannot be purchased. If Lucas really wanted his museum in the city then he had plenty of other potential sites to choose from. His loss, not ours.

I think an open and public lakefront is an asset that is infinitely more valuable than any stadium, museum, or parking lot. So I was happy when they used the Lucas museum as a statement to anyone considering future developments.

True his loss and more importantly our gain. We have a reputation for being a city with great architecture. That ugly thing would have destroyed that reputation and made us a joke!

[SkylarkPhotoBooth]

Originally Posted by WRnative

The majority of posters in this thread seem to believe that Chicago made a mistake.

You "seem" to have difficulty with math, and you're definitely not seeing the number of likes that my posts are getting. Create a poll or **** with claims like that.

[SkylarkPhotoBooth]

Originally Posted by WRnative

Now that's delusional.

How is that delusional? He was clearly going to get something from Chicago that he wasn't getting from LA, or he would have picked them first. He literally lost SOMEthing he wanted here, and we gained having more lakefront and fewer ugly monuments to Hollywood egos. It is, quite literally, his loss and our gain. The poster was correct.

[prhill]

Originally Posted by SkylarkPhotoBooth

You "seem" to have difficulty with math, and you're definitely not seeing the number of likes that my posts are getting. Create a poll or **** with claims like that.

You are right. Clearly the majority here are glad we do not have that museum.