Results for “lucas museum”

Citybug: Howard Hughes and the Seaport Museum are not affiliated. The Museum is a completely separate (independent) entity. Both the Museum and Howard Hughes lease seperate space from EDC.

The boathouse will be at what is now called Park No. 571, just east of Ashland Avenue and right across Bubbly Creek from Canal Origins Park, the place where Irish canal workers began digging the Illinois & Michigan Canal (they were also the first people to settle Bridgeport, which was originally called Canalport because of the canal; thus, the origin of the name of nearby Canalport Street). The boathouse is a great idea — much better than the notion of putting the Lucas Museum near Soldier Field (it should go on the old Michael Reese campus on the other side of McCormick Place, which would still be on the Metra, close to the 31st Street exit from Lake Shore Drive, and convenient for tourists; actually, the Children’s Museum at Navy Pier should move to Michael Reese, too, as it doesn’t have room to expand at the pier … and it would make sense to have those two museums next to each other on a separate new campus on empty land that’s just an eyesore and going to waste). Maybe Studio Gang should give Lucas a nudge; that way, it’ll have a chance to design a completely new park, too, on the Michael Reese campus. Just saying: it makes more sense.

There are so many things wrong with this proposal. Only a few follow.
1. No new construction EAST of Lake Shore Drive.
2. This is a vanity museum with a life of 30-40 years. Then a board "inherits" it from Lucas, his spouse and family. The board splits over how to keep it going. The city is left with a totally inflexible building in a too good to be true location.
3. There is a Norman Rockwell Museum in Stockbridge, Mass. They do a great job, including a current exhibition at the United Nations. I suppose Lucas would never think of donating his collection to an institution, which is best equipped to show it.
4. Has the American Association of Museums of Association or Art Museum Directors weighed in on this?

I’d be shocked if it gets built in less than 5-6 years, and without causing the museum to sell off some of its art.

I mean what art museum needs art anyway?

@CaptainVideo: You’re missing the point. The post was a response to "I don’t care how far below board any deal to get Chicago the library and museum is." It doesn’t matter who was mayor. When citizens forfeit their rights to participate in important long-term decision-making, then the special interests drive the bus. Poor decisions are made in terms of benefits to the city while someone gets rich. Rahm was still talking about privatizing Midway.
I didn’t argue against the Lucas museum at the proposed site. It has potential to fit within the museum campus if designed well. Regarding the library, one of the major goals was to help revitalize a neighborhood that needs it. With the library as an anchor at 55th & King, the city can work to build up the area and reduce crime. It would make the nearby el stop safer immediately. Dropping it in a park doesn’t accomplish that and just takes away needed recreational space. Just like roads and public transit, parks are necessary infrastructure to create and maintain a great city. Take a look at Paris, London, Berlin, etc.

I’m having a hard time seeing how Lucas’ museum has a place in any city. What is the cultural significance to Chicago or just general historic importance of his collection? At best his collection might be worthy of some exhibits, sure, but a permanent museum? Maybe in Hollywood, but anywhere else that just seems ridiculous. Will his collection be relevant 25, 50, 75 years from now? After initial construction work is done, it won’t be adding that many jobs. On top that, the plans look like a terrible eyesore. If the public is willing to compromise and go forward, he should be required to compromise on that terrible design. He isn’t entitled to any waterfront property anywhere just because he wants it. What kind of argument is that? He should not be able to just buy his way in over objections of many city of tax payers who will have to support any addition to the museum campus with increased services and infrastructure over time. One person’s ambitions should not override citizens who actually live in this city.

You can argue the economic cost/benefit analysis all day long … as you can with anything. The reality is, we never fully know about hypothetical developments like this until they become tangible assets. Hell, economists couldn’t even agree on what the overall economic benefit would be for AHQ2 – and they’re the largest company in the world.

Another reality is, Obama is/was one of the most popular presidents in modern history, so I think he still carries weight – and actually will/would attract additional resources and amenities into the area.

Don’t get me wrong, I think his Jackson Park decision was/is maddeningly short sighted and tone deaf (he should have chosen Washington Park for true economic revitalization). My only point is, love or hate Obama, Chicago will be better off with this development.

It’s the Lucas Museum all over again … thousands of haters who never bothered to learn what the hell the actual museum was – but were happy enough to ignorantly think (and proclaim) it was "just a Stars Wars museum" – and we all know how that turned out.

Again, hate Obama all you want, we lose this … it will be a stain on Chicago. Period.

The Friends of the Southwest Museum Coalition are not anti-Autry. They are pro-Southwest Museum. They advocate what Autry promised in the Merger Agreement, to restore the Southwest Museum as a fully functioning museum. If that effort has alienated the Autry, then it would seem that Autry signed the Agreement in bad faith.

@guest #5: I came across this after writing the post: http://www.change.org/petitions/museum-of-modern-art-moma-do-not-demolish-the-american-folk-art-museum-building.