Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Madigan on the hot seat
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* This fight over whether to move the Children’s Museum to Grant Park is just downright bizarre. Earlier this week, Mayor Daley exploded at Ald. Brendan Reilly’s refusal to allow the museum to move from Navy Pier to Grant Park, which is supposed to be free of development…
Mayor Richard Daley strongly endorsed a proposal Monday to build a new Chicago Children’s Museum in Grant Park, and he questioned whether race is playing a role among the project’s critics.
Despite opposition by residents of high rises near the proposed museum site, Daley insisted that “we have a lot of support” to go forward.
“You mean you don’t want children from the city in Grant Park?” Daley said. “Why? Are they black? Are they white? Are they Hispanic? Are they poor? You don’t want children? We have children in Grant Park all the time. This is a park for the entire city. What do you mean no one wants children down there? Why not? Wouldn’t you want children down there?”
* The mayor wants to go over Reilly’s head…
Daley is so determined to place the museum at Daley Bicentennial Plaza near Millennium Park that he will push for the matter to be decided by all 50 aldermen, violating the long-standing City Council tradition of abiding by the wishes of the local alderman on zoning and development issues.
Daley has also been pressed recently by Jean “GiGi” Pritzker, the chair of the museum board whose family donated millions for the construction of Millennium Park. The park’s Pritzker Pavilion would be linked to the grounds of the new children’s museum by the snake-like BP Bridge.
* Apparently, things got a little tense at a recent neighborhood meeting…
Rev. Michael Pfleger, pastor of the predominantly black St. Sabina Catholic Church… said he recently discussed with the mayor an incident he says occurred last week at a New East Side neighborhood meeting over the museum project.
According to Pfleger, one woman asked him why the museum wasn’t being built in a black neighborhood and another suggested it be moved to Foster Park at 83rd and Loomis.
* Anyway, things deteriorated further yesterday…
“I hope all 49 [other] aldermen, I hope everyone in the city, understands what this fight is about,” the mayor said. “It’s a fight for the future of this city. That is why I am very strong on this. If you lose this one, you lose the strength of our city. I have never seen anything like it in the city of Chicago in my term of office. This is worth fighting for. If we don’t fight for our children, who are we going to fight for?” […]
Misstating his name, Daley declared, “Ald. Brendan O’Reilly—and I quote—said ‘Grant Park is not a kids’ park.’… Parks are not for kids? He says [Grant Park] is a people’s park, and kids are not invited. I think everybody should be outraged that the people think the children can’t go to a museum to be educated.” […]
Informed of Daley’s heated comments, [Reilly] said that “obviously somebody misquoted me”—a point ultimately confirmed by Daley’s office—and gave no hint of caving in to the powerful mayor, though Reilly has been in office only since May after winning the first election of his young political career.
* The mayor may face an uphill fight in his battle to take away Reilly’s aldermanic privilege on this issue…
Of 17 aldermen surveyed by the Sun-Times on Tuesday, only one — Patrick Levar (45th) — declared his intention to side with Daley. The other 16 were either undecided or chose to uphold the long-standing City Council tradition of abiding by the wishes of the local alderman on zoning and development issues.
“I believe strongly in aldermanic privilege — even though it happened to me,” said Ald. Howard Brookins (21st), who is still trying to persuade his colleagues to approve the Chatham Wal-Mart they rejected three years ago.
“Today, it’s him. The next day, it could be me,” said Ald. Freddrenna Lyle (6th).
* And not only is Daley pimping for a rich donor (again), there is (as always) another connection to the project…
[Daley’s nephew] Patrick Thompson, is the attorney who represented the museum at community meetings.
* Today’s Tribune editorial put it about as bluntly as possible…
This debate is not about people who’ve chosen to live near a park that welcomes people of all races and incomes suddenly wanting to exclude poor minority kids. This is about rich people certain that they have enough influence over you to claim a part of Grant Park for their project. […]
The issue here, Reilly correctly wrote, is “the future of Grant Park” — whether uncounted generations of Chicagoans will enjoy the same open space that’s under the stewardship of this generation. What will we bequeath to them? […]
Chicago offers several good locales for sizable public facilities. There are several locales that wouldn’t present the traffic hazards and headaches of the proposed Grant Park site along three-tier Randolph Street.
* And added…
What’s not reasonable is a suddenly livid mayor characterizing people who’ve accepted Chicago’s invitation to live in a rapidly expanding part of downtown as child-loathing racists.
Why the hysteria, Mr. Mayor? Why set out to divide Chicagoans by race and class?
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 9:45 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Madigan on the hot seat
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Daley: “It’s a fight for the future of this city. That is why I am very strong on this. If you lose this one, you lose the strength of our city.”
Exaggeration, perhaps? I don’t see the future of Chicago hinging on the location of the Children’s Museum. His race-baiting rhetoric is bizarre.
How much of Daley’s fire is on behalf of the children, and how much for his nephew and the Pritzkers?
Comment by Independent Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 9:54 am
I happen to think Alderbeast “Brendan O’Reilly”(as da mare said” is wrong on this issue. As for the Tribune editorial board those are the same idiots who endorsed Natarus.
I also happen to think Daley is wrong in suggesting it is racism animating the opposition.
Ultimately, Daley is a control freak and he doesn’t like being told “no”. I saw his rant last night on video and he acts and looks more like his dad every day. Calling it bizarre is being generous. He was over the top.
As for all the brave alderman who claim they will uphold aldermanic prerogative I will believe it when I see it. From the way he acted yesterday Daley is taking this personally. Alderbeasts who vote against him will start finding their “exempt hire” relatives out of a job.
It ain’t gonna be pretty to watch, but this should be fun to watch.
Comment by irishpirate Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 10:04 am
Kudos ro Reilly for standing up for his ward by standing up to the Mayor. This is a great opportunity for Reilly to define his character to his residents. By putting them first like he is on this issue, he is doing just that.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 10:14 am
“There are several locales that wouldn’t present the traffic hazards and headaches of the proposed Grant Park site along three-tier Randolph Street.”
I think the argument that this would clog up randolph street is ridiculous. The third-tier is a dead-end strip with virtually no cars on it.
Stick to the idea that the park shouldn’t be developed. That one is a winner.
Comment by s Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 10:18 am
For this, Da Mare gets hot under the collar.
For transit, which is far more critical to the health of Chicago and northeastern Illinois than the Children’s Museum — no matter what Mrs. Pritzker may think — Da Mare gives a shrug of the shoulders.
Oh, for a serious challenger…
Comment by Nort'sider Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 10:20 am
I agree about the traffic to a point. Randolph’s three tiers are extremely confusing, however, and probably not the best place to put a high-traffic museum.
The Trib said this week something about how Millenium Park was the camel’s nose under the tent in Grant Park and the Children’s Museum was the camel itself. Good point.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 10:21 am
Nort’sider, that is an excellent point.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 10:22 am
Isn’t this move just to bail out the Millennium Park parking garage? You know, to get some people to actually park down there?
Comment by Leroy Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 10:23 am
I see this as deja vu. Joe Moore and his 49th ward political party are using this same tactic as a distraction to many of our ward issues. It’s totally sickening.
Comment by The 'Broken Heart' of Rogers Park Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 10:35 am
Even for Daley this whole thing is bizarre. Following a 170 year tradition, Reilly believes Grant Park shouldn’t be developed. You’d think Mr. “Bulldoze Meigs in the middle of the night so we can put a park there” would appreciate that. But I guess Maggie doesn’t care about Grant Park as much as she did Northerly Island.
In the meantime, Reilly is basically called a child-hating racist. Gee, why didn’t the Mayor throw in that Reilly hates puppies too. Reilly should stick to his guns. I think I just found an Alderman to like for a change.
Oh, and don’t lump all the Pritzkers together. This is Gigi’s baby, not everyone elses.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 10:38 am
I would say bizarre is the best word to describe this issue. I can only imagine how the Mayor will react when the council really starts showing independence. I think his head might pop.
Reilly has his hands full. The Mayor card trumps the Alderman card, especially in this ward, and big bucks trumps all. I would recommend that the new Alderman back off on this one and live to fight another day.
The Mayor playing the black race card and siting a white Catholic priest as justification for his statements is so over the top and inappropriate that it reminds me why the Irish are so good at politics.
Comment by Garp Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 10:40 am
It bears remembering that the mayor is in no way a normal Chicagoan and never has been. He’s the son of a mayor, attended private schools, has probably never ridden the train or bus as his chief way of getting around, and nowadays hobnobs with some of the richest people in the world when not riding bikes on his foreign junkets (accompanied by said rich people). It’s no wonder he cares nothing for the CTA–except that one has to believe the International Olympic Committee would be concerned if a candidate city’s transit system was disintegrating. Ditto the mayor’s big business friends, whose employees need to get to work somehow.
That the mayor is practically listless in pushing for a CTA fix yet explodes yet starts race-baiting about a children’s museum shows how disconnected from reality–and the needs of the Chicagoans he serves–the man really is. Undone? Try unhinged.
Comment by triplecynic Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 10:41 am
I regret hearing that race is being dragged into this issue, which should be a simple issue of whether ANY more buildings should go in Grant Park regardless of what they would be used for.
The Mayor is so adamant about this location for this building because it is what the Pritzkers want.
I’m certainly saddened if Father Pfleger truly did hear the comments he claims he heard, but while he does some admirable work in a very tough area it seems that everything is about race to him. I wish that were not the case.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 10:51 am
It’s too late;
He wants the park;
He’s lost the fun.
He’s come undone
He wanted land but Reilly had the truth.
Then Da Mayor tried to be a brute,
But it was too late.
Comment by Fan of the Game Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 10:54 am
The interesting quotes were from Carole Brown, the Chairperson of the CTA. Apparently, she’s on the museum’s board. Interesting. I thought her hands would be full trying to find all those missing records. Looks like she and the Mayor have other priorities.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 10:57 am
Generally, I am against community NIMBY opposition. However, in this particular case, I believe Alderman Reilly has a legitimate argument - preserving the “open-space legacy established by Montgomery Ward.
The Mayor’s multiple tirades refelect the Mayor’s autocratic/dictatorial governing style. This is the real Mayor Daley that the public seldom gets to see. His remarks that community opposition was predicated upon the community’s desire to exclude minority children are not plausible. His effort to encourage the City Council to override Reilly’s Aldermanic prerogatives by “playing the race card” is pure demagoguery.
I think the Children’s Museum is correct in seeking a location that will be able to capitalize on the synergies of the downtown lakefront location. However, it would appear to me that there should be other reasonable alternative locations - on Northerly Island or elsewhere in the Museum campus area.
Comment by Captain America Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 10:58 am
Some excellent points by those posting against Daley’s unhinged tirade. But I must say, I don’t get the racism of providing for a world class children’s museum in a minority community. Too often downtown has gotten all of the best amenities with neighborhoods - especially downtrodeen ones - left with barely a crumb. A $100 million investment that would also bring people and dollars to poorer communities should be seriously explored. But by demanding that this museum must only go in an affluent, predominantly white area makes it appear that it is Mayor Daley and those he’s shilling for that are the true racists here.
Comment by phocion Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 11:09 am
For this action I wonder if the mayor could hurt himself on this issue. He’s trampling on a common practice. I would say he might lose on this issue, but I don’t know. Much haven’t touched him. This he may lose, but it may not hurt him.
Comment by Levois Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 11:11 am
Lots of people want to have museum’s downtown in Grant Park including an organization I’m on the board of. It doesn’t make it a good idea or consistent with Chicago’s unique tradition. Daley can steam and stomp his feet all he wants — I don’t think it’s going to work.
Maybe not getting what he wants for a change will give the Mayor a smidge of humility? Naahhhhhh.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 11:15 am
It is perfect! Little attention directed to things that matter like: transit, choosing a police superintendent, inspector general issues, court oversight of hiring, mob connections, etc., etc., etc.
Brilliant.
Comment by doggydoc Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 11:16 am
This is a classic case of diverting the publics attention away from the real issue of the CTA. “O’Reilly” is right and if the Mayor is race baiting bait him right back and put it on 88th and Loomis where they need some cultural development.
Comment by Kid Vegas Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 11:17 am
phocion, while I wouldn’t call Daley a racist, I do agree entirely with your point that suggesting an under-developed minority neighborhood for the project is not possibly racist.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 11:31 am
Rich, you asked “Why the hysteria?” The answer is simple; Richard M. Daley is a petty tyrant and a bully, who whines like a baby if he can’t get his way.
Comment by fedup dem Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 11:34 am
I’m disappointed, but not surprised by the comments so far.
Daley is right. Chicago hates children.
You stand around the Loop and work there, or live there, or play there and you will not see real life. There are no children. Instead you see people living a child-free lifestyle in skyscrapers, walking pooches, and living a family-free lifestyle. It is a dead end culture.
Folks, this isn’t living. Any city that thinks it can exist without children is devoid of common scientific sense. If you take a look at statistics during Chicago’s boom, or look at any old photos you see LIFE. You don’t like sprawl? Focus on families. You don’t like suburbs? Then make the City a great place to have kids.
Cities are supposed to be messy. They are supposed to be fecund. They are supposed to be full of kids. That is your tax base and your future. You can’t have all these socialist government programs without a tax base.
We have become so comfortable with the idea that families are supposed to live in suburbs, we are no longer recognizing how many of our city problems are due to the lack of families. Chicago’s schools have problems because Molly and Jack live in the suburbs, so education has become a problem for a smaller proportion of Chicagoans. It has gotten to be so bad we are seeing a real cultural split between Chicago and Chicagoans. Like moths to flames, young people are falling for a dead-end childless lifestyle in the City.
Daley knows this. He was raised here. He remembers when children were everywhere in the City. He has seen San Francisco, Seattle and other trendy cities go sterile. You cannot keep a city functioning like it is a huge single’s resort or retirement home. You can’t keep a city functioning if the majority of your residents are sterile kuckoos.
So Daley is angry because he is fighting a trend that will kill the City if left unchecked.
What Daley recognizes is the need for families to be seen and to thrive in Chicago’s open public spaces. Daley recognizes this problem and wants this children’s museum to bring familes to be see in Chicago.
As to the “open spaces” comments. Yes, Grant Park is nice as an open space, but we are living in 2007, not 1907. Chicago needs families right now more than it needs space. I also just would like to comment on how we are saving this open space for future generations - HA! What future generations? If you are unwilling to build a city and remove what stands in it’s way for future generations, what future generations will there be?
What I see here is a mayor with a concern over Chicago’s future against a bunch of mules with cash and a desire to pretend they can live in a sterile mall.
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 11:47 am
It’s time to train one of the Mayor’s new anti-crime cameras on the existing fieldhouse at the proposed museum site. That way all will be able to enjoy the next edition of “Late Night Bulldozing with Mayor Daley” as the fieldhouse goes down without warning.
Roll ‘em!!!
Comment by Anon Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 11:59 am
It’s sweet that Mayor Daley cares so much about black children getting to go to the museum.
I wish he cared so much about their folks getting to and from work.
– SCAM
Comment by so-called "Austin Mayor" Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 12:02 pm
Excuse me, VM, but that’s just a ridiculous argument. What does an $8 per kid children’s museum in Grant Park have anything to do with enticing families to move downtown?
Right now, the children’s museum is at Navy Pier, which is a brief walk from the proposed site. Has it brought more families into surrounding buildings? Nope. But that’s never been the intent.
You can barely find a three bedroom condo downtown, and when you do it’ll cost you a cool million bucks. Two bedrooms are the norm, which aren’t great for raising a family of any significant size.
If you think the museum would entice more families to move into a neighborhood, then you need to locate it where families can live. The East Loop is simply not that place.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 12:04 pm
Sure got the CTA off the front page!
Comment by Up North Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 12:11 pm
To LEROY: In the beginning it sure looked like the CCM location was meant to consume parking garage space because cars were not. But last October the park district leased the garages to get rid of the problem. By the time that happened, a battle of wills had developed.
There are people in the East Randolph area who sincerely think that Chicago city parks are quiet spots offering pastoral repose – and they just want their share. These are people who have never lived next to a neighborhood park, which, during warm weather, more resembles a carnival. But it is their viewpoint and they are firm in their commitment to it.
Add to this all of the people who are now outraged at being called racist. Most didn’t even care that much about the controversy; now they do.
There are people all over the city who are concerned that CCM in Grant Park is the last straw in protecting the parks. What is not being covered in the press right now is the Chicago Park District saying they received a donation from the Latin School when, instead, it is the pre-payment on a decade of near-exclusive use of a soccer field in Lincoln Park. (All legal contracts were signed before the public knew a thing.)
The Parks Superintendent has basically put a For Lease sign on all park facilities. And he doesn’t do anything the Mayor has not Okayed.
Comment by Redbright Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 12:13 pm
Vanilla,
You haven’t spent much time in 42 have you?
If you did, you would see a lot of families like my own (married couple, two kids and a dog). Our kids will have plenty of other kids in the area.
Walk around the area sometimes. It is a great place to live.
With regard to Miller’s post: You could get a decent 3 bedroom for about $750,000, but the newer stuff is all over $1,000,000. Two bedrooms actually works pretty well while the kids are young.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 12:15 pm
The point of having Museums SOMEwhere downtown or close is transportation. All the Metra lines end up nearby. All the CTA lines end up nearby.
The idea of putting any significant Museum outside the downtown area is wrong. Yes, I do realize that the Museum of Science and Industry is outside the downtown area. As a kid I used to take the train downtown and hit the museums with friends. It would have been difficult to do that with MSI. In fact I never recall going there as a kid outside a field trip or with family. I did visit the others back in the dinosaur days of pre “Museum Campus”.
There is something to be said for “synergy” in having some cultural attractions centrally located. Locating the museum in Grant Park makes sense to me as a way to get more people downtown. The HORROR. That means they park downtown. Eat downtown. Spend their money downtown. Take the train downtown. Maybe they catch a play downtown.
As for the idea of Grant Park being “free and open” I suggest people read Blair Kamin’s piece in today Tribune.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/servi
ces/newspaper/printedition/wednes
day/chi-0919grantparksep19,0,5405155.story
Comment by irishpirate Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 12:17 pm
Fan of the Game….very funny bit!
Vanilla Man, yeah, Chicago hates kids, ….that is
why EVERY museum has a kids program. kinda makes
you wonder why there is a need for a whole museum
devoted to kids. maybe we just need to support
kids in their own community…and that includes
the downtown high rise community. playlots not programming! and give some money to neighborhoods
AWAY from the lakefront!
can someone please give the Pritzker analysis on this…I can never figure out which of the sibs and cousins is which.
Comment by amy Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 12:17 pm
Daley has always been testy responding to difficult questions from media, but since Hired Truck and the Hiring scandals he has gone completely bonkers. Any tough question is met with a Daley response of “Oh yeah, well {insert questioner’s media outlet here} had an employee who was crooked. How ’bout that”. As if that has the slightest bit of relevance.
I thought Daley was a solid mayor from ‘89 until the mid to late 90s. At that point the scandals piled up too high and now his administration seems like a giant game of spin and CYA. I think he’s vulnerable in 2011 if a serious challenger emerges.
Comment by Independent Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 12:18 pm
One aspect of this discussion worth pointing out. Museums that are located in a park get to share in a city fund that has been extremely beneficial to the Art Institute, Field Museum, etc. It’s one of the reasons the Nature Museum squeezed its way into Lincoln Park…and it’s surely another of the reasons the Children’s Museum wants to get off Navy Pier and into Grant Park to share in the booty.
Comment by Bean Bagger Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 12:20 pm
What’s Pfleger doing at a New East Side community meeting when he lives in Englewood? This guy will do anything to get in the media. He is trying to make a career out of being black. There is just one small problem…
Little Dick has got a lot of nerve playing the race card when it has been played so many times against him and he is not even good at it.
Little Dick and Pfleger….talk about the odd couple!
“O’Reilly” has his work cut out for him but this is a good issue for the Council to use to show Little Dick that they will no longer just rubber stamp every infantile idea he and Maggie can come up with.
They should concentrate on putting wrought iron fencing around “O’Hara” Airport.
Comment by Bill Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 12:24 pm
Bill, could you e-mail me please?
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 12:25 pm
Vanilla,
Sorry, but as someone who works 1/2 block from Millenium Park and is constantly dodging strollers, you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. Kids are downtown everyday at all times of the day and night.
Compared to how downtown was 20 years ago, it’s amazing. While I would never want to raise my kid in a high rise, there are lots of condos down here with lots of kids of all races in them.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 12:28 pm
Rich,
OK
Comment by Bill Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 12:30 pm
I agree with Alderman Reilly on this one — In his statements, he hasn’t taken the side of the NIMBYs (and I know those in 400 E. Randolph are a rabid bunch of them) — but he’s taken the CORRECT position of Montgomery Ward, the “forever free and clear”.
Which still makes me wonder just HOW the Harris theater and Art Institute annex got built…
There’s a small, but vocal NIMBY minority that think Grant Park is their private back yard — The “New East Side Neighbors” and “Dearborn Park Homeowners” complain about everything in Grant Park, ie, the festivals, Grant Park Bark, Lollapalooza, parades, etc. Go up Lake Shore Drive, and there’s whining about the Air & Water Show, volleyball players, etc. And don’t get me started about the NIMBYs who CHOOSE to live near Wrigley Field, then complain about the congestion. Next thing you know, they’ll be in Bensenville complaining about the airport noise
I think those people are more like BANNANAs - Build Absolutely Nothing Near Anyone, Never, Anytime.
I moved downtown years ago BECAUSE OF THE ACTIVITY. Yes, the big events bring traffic, noise, congestion, etc., but it’s a small price to pay. And there’s nothing like drinking a cup of coffee while watching the sun come up over Lake Michigan.
Comment by 312 Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 12:31 pm
Amy,
Gigi is one of the 11 cousins who are children of Bob, Jay and Don. Bob is the only of the three patriarchs still alive (Bob is Liesel’s father). Six of the 11 live here and to one extent or the other are philanthropically active. But while there interests sometimes overlap, they are often in opposition to one another (such as Penny who is Obama’s National Finance Chair and her brother JB who is Clinton’s Campaign Co-Chair). Hope that helps.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 12:35 pm
Harris Theater isn’t in Grant Park. Remember, Millenium Park is reclaimed land over railroads. Not sure about Art Institute Annex.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 12:38 pm
The statehouse is in meltdown mode due to infighting among the dems. The CTA is facing “Doomsday.” The subprime mortage debacle is slamming inner city neighborhoods. Homelessness among single woman is on the rise. The police department has major scandles and still no new superintendent. The statehouse is playing on bailing out the state by putting a new casino in Chicago. But Mayor Daley doesn’t display much concern about these issues.
But now he goes ballastic because people oppose building a museum in Grant park despite a long standing priniciple of aldermanic perogative and a long standing legal prohibition on building in the the park.
There is a lot more going on with this issue. I think the Mayor doesn’t like the new alderman opposing him. I think he wants to take away the aldermanic perogative to control development in their wards. I think he wants to show his nephew, the lobbyist for the museum, can deliver the goods. I think he wants to deliver the goods for the Pritzkers. I think he wants to make the park named for his father a great active family place. I think his advisors think fighting for the musuem helps him look good with Chicago families. And I think some of the people around him (maybe the nephew) are egging him on by attributing race to the opponents.
Comment by Objective Dem Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 12:40 pm
Chicago Cynic,
The millenium park land is considered part of Grant Park for at least legal purposes. In fact it is the property directly across the street from Montgomery Wards office.
Harris Theater was built on the premise that only the entrance was above ground and that was considered permissible legally. The art institute was somehow given a waiver that allows it to build in grant park.
Comment by Objective Dem Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 12:45 pm
I want to echo something Rich stated earlier. Randolph street is not a great street for traffic. It is confusing due to all the multiple levels. The area at Randolph and Michigan is particularly confusing and requires people to cross over multiple lanes to turn onto Michigan. It is not ideal for bus drivers or parents not familiar with the area carting around a bunch of distracting kids.
Comment by Objective Dem Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 12:51 pm
About the Art Institute initially — to get anything built in Grant Park, all the surrounding property owners needed to agree on it. Well, everyone except ONE property owner, a woman, agreed — but her husband decided to sign her name to allow it.
In the ensuing court battle, it was ruled that the husband could do that because wives were ‘chattel’, ie, their husband’s property.
We’ve come a long way, baby???
Comment by 312 Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 1:05 pm
The Art Institute building being constructed right now is simply sitting on the spot previously held by the Goodman Theater. There’s even a slight increase in grassy areas as a result.
Comment by Redbright Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 1:10 pm
Vanilla Man may have a point but I don’t think it is Daley’s point. He appears to be defending the Mayor on a position the Mayor has never espoused.
And besides, Chicago has lots of children; they are just not white children. Daley and his socialite backers don’t want to bring lily white yuppie families to live downtown or in Lincoln Park, they want them to come in from Oswego, pay to park and pay for the museum. Better yet, have them drive downtown, park semi-legally and hit them up for the tow and the ticket.
Comment by Garp Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 1:18 pm
I think this does a nice job of cutting through the BS on this issue. Thanks Cate!
http://www.beachwoodreporter.com/people_places_things/open_letter_11.php
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 1:28 pm
My political advise to Reilly is to say the issue has become too heated and there is too much bad information out there, so lets hold off on a vote. Show the Mayor respect and allow the issue to deescalate. Then understand the Mayor’s and the CCM issues and push for a compromise location such as Northerly Island. Ultimately the two best arguments are 1. a better location for the children and the museum exists and 2. we need to respect the idea and law that keeps Grant Park free and clear of buildings. While I agree that traffic is an issue, I agree with an earlier point that it is not a selling point.
Comment by Objective Dem Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 1:28 pm
I think that Mayor Daley is being an idiot. However, the idea that one Alderman out of 50 can decide an issue as big as this is ludicrous. The future of Grant Park and the free space down there is an issue that will effect all 50 wards, as well as most of the suburbs. Ald. Reilly’s decision should not be allowed to stand unchallenged.
I will say that I happen to disagree with Ald. O’Reilly, but it is not the point I’m making. This isn’t an issue of putting up an office building in Bronzeville or a homeless shelter in Lincoln Park. This is an issue involving a place where everyone in Chicago goes.
As a side note, I find the current location of the Museum to be very annoying and I think the idea of a building for building switch should take care of the concerns of those who think that Grant Park should be covered in greenery.
Comment by Chicago Law Student Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 1:34 pm
Maybe your chumminess with Reilly should be noted as you clearly are taking his side.
Comment by Jay Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 1:42 pm
O.J. in prison for life
Little Dick plays the race card
Vi Daley (43rd) (no relation to Little Dick) immediately sides with O’Reilly after Little Dick and the Pritzkers pulled a land grab with Latin school in Lincoln Park for a new private astro field
Cardinal George still refuses to move Pfleger even after 18 years in the same parish
Jesse Jackson…did anyone tell him that black kids are being shut out of Grant Park?
Al Sharpton…did I see him protesting?
Maggie…and the Pritkers…having lunch with Sneed and Ed Burke?
Just trying to keep up..
Comment by trying to keep up Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 1:45 pm
Northerly Island is already slotted for the Olympics. Even if it was a good location for CCM, it won’t be available for two+ years. CCM wants to move now.
What is available now and a great location is the parking lot on the street by the planetarium. That’s mainstream Museum Campus and would give CCM great access to all of the kids going to the aquarium. That it has not been suggested by the Mayor as a better site makes me wonder what he sees going in there. (And no, it is not a good spot for a casino.)
Comment by RBD Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 1:52 pm
Kudos to Alderman Reilly! He sees the longer term issues that the Mayor and his rich friends do not.
First, our parks cannot be viewed as the “Acreage of Last Resort” for projects that don’t (or don’t want to) fit elsewhere. If we go down this path, eventually we will have no Grant “Park” to speak of, as the exceptions will overwhelm the rule.
The Children’s Museum appears to serve only a small percentage of the community, and and does not even advance traditional park usage through outdoor activity. Let’s face one key fact - this thing is a “museum” in name only. It is really just a sort of a “discovery zone”/playground, with its chief upcoming exhibit being “Curious George”, the monkey cartoon.
While Mayor Daley crassly attempts to blame the local Randolph community, opposition to this project runs far beyond a few neighbors. For example, “Friends of the Parks”, a large, long-standing, knowledgable and proactive private foundation supporting parks across the City (both for convservation and development, as called for by the circumstances) has been on record as vocally opposing this project from Day One. Of course, they were utterly ignored by the Mayor and Mr. O’Neill. Should we now all regard the Friends as “racists”?
The next fight on this battlefield will be Northerly Island. I for one strongly endorse making it as much of a nature conservatory and sanctuary as possible. But since the Mayor obviously sees that land as his domain, look for development (and fat development contracts!) to be proposed. (Sigh).
Comment by Bubs Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 2:03 pm
The new selfishness is the modern trend that says that Americans think they own everything they can see from their window to the horizon. I encounter it all the time in the wind farm projects I work on. Opponents says: “You mean I can’t control everything that happens from within eyesight of my property? I thought I bought the view and the landscape would never change.” Back in Chicago, a big battle is brewing between the Mayor and the Alderman and some residents of the 42nd Ward about where best to locate a proposed new Chicago Children’s Museum. City Hall has settled (smartly) on a grim section of Grant Park at its northeast corner. There stands an underutilized and decrepit fieldhouse. The Children’s Museum would be built underground and would tap into the exisiting underground parking lot. But some neighbors there — who bought condos in a crowded neighborhood off the corner of Michigan and Randolph — are complaining the neighborhood will get more crowded and kids will visit from all over the city (and Midwest). Hey folks >> welcome to downtown Chicago. How selfish can people be? Isn’t anyone embarrassed to be selfish anymore? I guess not.
Comment by The New Selfishness Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 2:22 pm
When the Rich and Powerful go to war…
On one side you’ve got DaMare, friends of the Parks and the Pritzkers.
On the other side, you’ve got Reilly and you’ve got all the Rich Snobs who live on Randolph street and think that that little Northeastern area of Grant Park is their personal little backyard/playground. My jaw nearly hit the ground when I saw some sniveling rich Randolph resident complaining that they weren’t really rich, that they were middle class urban pioneers moving into an abandoned area of the city. My rear end. Moving to the east side of Michigan avenue. Not exactly like moving into a burned out area of Detroit.
A couple of months ago, I inadvertently wandered down that part of Randolph, and was stunned. I had no idea that there was anything over there, let alone tennis courts and mini-golf (I think I saw a mini-golf course) and the like. Who woulda thunk it?
So, this, in my estimation, is really about rich people fighting. Both groups have good and bad points, but no one seems to really care about whether or not they are doing right by grant park and the kids. Right by grant park would be maximizing the utilization of the ENTIRE park by the public, and right by the kids would be making sure the museum has the space and the facilities for it to be of the greatest value to the city, be it at Navy Pier, underneath Grant Park, or elsewhere.
Comment by jerry 101 Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 2:24 pm
Jerry, somebody with a $450,000 two-bedroom condo (the norm over there) is not “rich” by any possible stretch of the imagination.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 2:28 pm
Anonymous at 12:35:
thanks for the Pritzkernalysis. wonder what side
of the Obama/Clinton fight Gigi is on? and does that mean the opposite side hates children?
go Reilly! maybe Daley has the Factor on the brain.
Comment by amy Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 2:41 pm
My understanding is Friends of the Park are not in favor or at the most have very weak support. Friends of Downtown oppose the museum’s proposal.
Comment by Objective Dem Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 2:43 pm
The condo owners around there may not be “rich”, but they are solidly middle income or better. Unless the well over 6 figure income needed to pay a $300,000 mortgage is considered “average”.
Essentially, I see this as neighbors trying to keep others out of “their” neighborhood. The arguments about keeping Grant Park free and clear have little validity as the proposed museum doesn’t take up more park space than the buildings on the site.
Many of the people who are opposing the proposed museum location also oppose tearing down the questionably significant Northwestern Lakefront Athletic building and allowing Children’s Memorial to build in the neighborhood. Something about not wanting helicopters carrying sick children flying around at all hours. The horror.
As we can see from the number of posts here this is a heated issue. It will be fun to watch. For me. Not for those who oppose it. To paraphrase the Greeks “We who are about to enjoy this, salute you.”
Comment by irishpirate Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 2:46 pm
Chicago Law Student -
How is the current location “annoying”? It’s at the foot of Navy Pier, which was designed to handle the parking and crowds, has several direct bus routes and is designated to be a stop on the circulator (if they ever build it.) It has a huge marquee facing the city, and children can walk straight in after being dropped off at the curb. This “Museum” was an anchor tenant of Navy Pier, but NOW the location is “oh-so-icky” to the rich folk being this plan. Grant Park is so much more glamourous, after all?
If it’s such an annoying location, how it is that attendance has risen so much that they now need a multiple of more space in Grant Park, easily accessible only by car and parking garage?
The New Selfishness-
There is also the selfishness of people who want so desperately to achieve credit for creating some great public good (in their eyes, anyway) that they won’t allow small items like the future of some dumb park to stand in the way.
Comment by Anon Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 2:56 pm
I knew when these new independent Alderman took office they were destined to fight with the Mayor but I really think that this is not the battle for Reilly. It is tough to fight against a very well loved Children’s Museum especially against a bunch of powerful politicians who may want to make an example out of him. I have a feeling Reilly may want to read the art of war and make a graceful retreat.
Comment by Garp Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 2:57 pm
I don’t think it was the desire of Montgomery Ward for a small group of people black, white, brown, or otherwise to determine, when the free and open intent is being violated. If Grant Park is Chicago’s front yard, then the decision should be made by all of Chicago or a representative body of Chicago.
Isn’t that what the Chicago Plan Commission is for. I could be wrong but I thought the Plan Commission was designed to hear these matters. Let the matter go to the Plan Commission and have them make a recommendation.
Ald. Reilly should not allow group of Chicagoans determine what is best for all Chicagoans.
Comment by A novice city planner Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 2:59 pm
I know a few people who live in one of the buildings along Randolph. They are not rich by any means.
400 E. Randolph is reportedly the world’s largest condo/residential building with 955 units in one building. It was built in 1963/4. If you bought there years ago, you wouldn’t have paid much. Even today you can buy units there for a lot less than $450 K.
Likewise if you know anything about Chicago, these buildings are not considered A list. (with the possible exception of the new highrise on Randolph) People may be well off, but this is not a rich person’s neighborhood by a long shot.
So the class issues are bogus.
Ironically, my impression is the area is considered one of the most kid-friendly high rise areas in the city, with a new neighborhood park in the center and an elemetary school in the works.
Comment by Objective Dem Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 3:01 pm
I think it is wise to quote Montgomery Ward himself from 1909:
“Had I known in 1890 how long it would take me to preserve a park for the people against their will, I doubt I would have undertaken it. I think there is not another man in Chicago who would have spent the money I have spent in this fight with certainty that gratitude would be denied as interest…I fought for the poor people of Chicago, not the millionaires…Here is park frontage on the lake, comparing favorably with the Bay of Naples, which city officials would crowd with buildings, transforming the breathing spot for the poor into a showground of the educated rich. I do not think it is right.”
I don’t think it could be said better.
Comment by Anon Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 3:05 pm
If you attended the September 10th “community meeting” you would realise that the Mayor is right to excoriate those that used carefully; and not so carefully crafted PC code language to signify their opposition to bussing people into the neightborhood.
The Alderman missed an opportunity to demonstrate some statesemanship by calling them out and admonishing them, and curtailing some of the rhetoric and behavior. He appeared complicit as a result and left himself open to attack on this front, when I suspect that this line of thinking is nothing that he would embrace. He should have known better.
While there was certainly some segregationist sentiment expressed, my observation is that this is much more a NIMBY issue, for those that want to protect their private enjoyment of the otherwise public playground, tennis courts and field house (run down as it is). They much prefer this rather than allow the space to be enhanced creating an attraction to this part of the park for the greater enjoyment of others.
Most “open spacers” have never, ever, visited this location, and most could not find it even with a map, and most that do stumble upon it arrive on the “bridge to nowhere” and do not often; if ever, come back.
The Mayor and the City of Chicago could have easily sat back and done nothing with this space, and property values would have remained stagnant, or showed negligible growth forever.
Instead the area has been greatly enhanced by the development of Millenium Park, and the property values have appreciated considerably as a result. The adjacent 42nd ward residents both old and new should be greatly appreciative of the improvements, rather than obstructionist to efforts to enhance it even more.
The over used argument of the musuem as a “private institution”, turns a blind eye to the fact that it is a not for profit corporation with a mission to educate and enhance the lives of children, not matter where they are from.
The $8 admission also appears to be a red herring, because as I understand it the admission charge is regularly discounted or waived entirely for groups, in order to allow greater access to its programs and facilities and promote all forms of socio-economic diversity.
Internationally acclaimed Northwestern Memorial Hospital is another non profit in the ward which charges fees for its services but its accessibility to senior residents is perceived as a valued benefit to the neighborhood.
Ironically though, the nationally renowned Children’s Memorial hospital is poised to move into the ward as well, although interestingly enough the “neighbors” are fighting that as well.
I think the Alderman would have been better off working towards a compromise that preserved the location fo the Children’s Musuem while at the same time being sensitive to the concerns of the residents (except those based on racial intolerance).
Unfortunately for him now, any other effort on his part can be perceived otherwise, and a few bad neigborhood apples have spoiled the whole bunch.
The “forever free, open, and clear” argument seems like hot air here as well. The proposed plan seems to represent a substantial improvement, while absorbing about the same amount of surface level green space as the existing dilapidated and under-used facilities.
Those that held tightly to the historic vision of A. Montgomery Ward ended up overseeing what became one of the the largest retail bankruptcy liquidation cases of all time.
Ironically enough the Montgomery Ward brand was revived as an online and catalog-based retailer headquartered in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, when a direct marketing company purchased much of the intellectual property assets of the former Wards.
Currently, the company has no retail stores, but
since June of last year the newly invigoated Montgomery Ward’s branched out to run a children-oriented online retailer, called Wards Kids.
Perhaps there is a message here, and a lesson to be learned for all.
Comment by The Kids are Allright Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 3:46 pm
Anon 2:56
As I said, I wasn’t really making an argument for why the park should be there, but rather why Ald. Reilly shouldn’t be allowed to make the decision by himself.
That being said: You are correct that attendance has risen at the Museum, but they are not being allowed to expand into Navy Pier. Nor are they allowed to have anything but about a 25 foot area outside. Navy Pier does not have a large amount of green space and is accessible only by foot, car, or bus .. oh, and water taxi. And the buses and cars have two roads that they can come in on.
Grant Park on the other hand is accessible by car, bus, foot, and most importantly, by CTA or METRA. Grant Park is also a really nice place for a family to walk around and it is closer and more central to lots of downtown highlights.
Furthermore, I don’t quite understand the arguments being raised by the Randolph residents. When they moved onto Randolph, did they not realize that Grant Park is extraordinarily crowded? Where do they think people bring their children after the Children’s Museum? I don’t agree that there aren’t children downtown already (as some have suggested), I think they are already there. I don’t think that the move from Navy Pier would greatly affect the lives of the people living on Randolph or other nearby neighborhoods. I think a better argument would be to say that the people who work in that area will now have an immeasurably increased amount of bulky strollers on the Red Line.
But, as I said, I really just wanted to state that 1 Alderman shouldn’t make this decision on his own, right or wrong.
Comment by Chicago Law Student Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 3:46 pm
Isn’t that what the Chicago Plan Commission is for.
novice city planner, your naivete is rather sweet. Every member of the Chicago Plan Commission was appointed by Mayor Daley–you don’t seriously believe they would be at all objective, do you?
As for “Kids” at 3:46–what the HELL does the demise of the Montgomery Ward company have to do with its namesake’s battle 100 years earlier to keep the lakefront open? You should submit that non sequitur to the mayor–it’s exactly the sort of bizarre off-the-wall comment he’d make.
Comment by triplecynic Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 4:07 pm
Agree with Phocion and Rich…why not relocate somewhere (if they have to relocate at all–another story) where the museum might make more of a difference to an individual community?
City Hall has gone out of their way to get people to get out to Garfield Park Conservatory to see a bunch of abstract, uninformative glass objects, why should this be any different? (More people probably go to Superdawg on the NW Side.)
The Children’s Museum will be a destination wherever it is eventually placed. (Let’s not forget, this is more of an ego trip for its supporters than the children themselves…that has a lot to do with it. Those supporters do not want to travel further south of, oh, let’s make up a latitude, Polk, unless it is a skybox at Soldier Field.)
Daley is wrong on this. His diatribe accusing taxpayers of being racist will not be forgotten. Does he think they do not have anywhere else to go?. I’ll bet you a half-dozen yellow blazers (thank you to a certain award-winning columnist for inspiring this frightening visual) from The Mister Shop they will not forget this.
Why was the Mayor sweating (really sweating)on this yesterday? What is the big deal? Who is making out on this?
Is the fact that his nephew is lobbying for the museum a conflict?
And why does anybody on Planet Earth listen to anything the ultimate hypocrite, “Father” Pfleger says about anything?
Profanity is not acceptable in any form so I will stop.
Comment by Ripley's Believe It Or Not Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 4:15 pm
I disagree that the “forever, open free and clear” argument is hot air.
For years the city took the concept seriously. Then Millenium Park was built and the city came very close to violating this concept. I think it went over the edge with the Harris theater and the two small buildings next to it. And while I like it, the restaurant run via a sweetheart/lover’s deal also violates the concept for me.
And for those who haven’t been downtown recently, we now have a HUGE new addition being built onto the Art Institute.
So we have all these MAJOR intrusions, some of questionable legality, in the past few years.
Then along comes the Children’s Museum saying they want to add just a small building or two to the area. Initially, they asked for a location at Monroe and Columbus and from what I remember largely ignored the free and clear idea. They got push back, moved the location and came up with the idea of having large glass skylights. But as far as I know they still haven’t presented good renderings or a scale model of the proposal to aleve any fears. And I’ve heard what they have shown are slick artist renderings of the skylights that don’t show the structural supports.
This is not a simple case of “not in my backyard.” Clearly if someone owns land and has the proper zoning they should be able to build on it. However, if someone buys land next to an area that is deeded to be “free and clear” of buildings and then someone tries to build there, I think they have a right to complain. And they shouldn’t be called racist for complaining.
Comment by Objective Dem Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 4:16 pm
I just took a poll at Crains. The feed back was 34% support the Grant park location, 66% oppose it. But they don’t provide the number of people voting.
Comment by Objective Dem Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 4:27 pm
It’s dangerous beyond belief for the mayor of Chicago to play the race card like this. You never know what’s going to set people off.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 4:37 pm
Good for Brendan! His action is a welcome contrast to Alderman Bob Fioretti, who recently broke a campaign pledge regarding a fence around a park by saying the issue was “above him” (meaning the Mayor wanted it so he caved).
Can the 42nd Ward be remapped next time to include the South Loop? Here’s hoping it does…
Comment by some former legislative intern Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 4:48 pm
Online polls mean little. I’m sure the neighbors are all voting. Early and often perhaps.
Just sit back and watch the unfolding drama.
Comment by irishpirate Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 4:49 pm
Objective Dan:
The Art Institute structure is sitting on the footprint (or less) of the old Goodman Theater (which even preservationists could not figure out how to make into anything useable).
Comment by RBD Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 5:52 pm
I’ve got a great site for the museum - Northerly Island!
Think of the instant prestige of being grouped with such notable Chicago institutions such as the Field, Adler, Shedd + Soldier Field.
Unless there’s plans for the casino there…
Comment by 312 Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 5:53 pm
312 — Northerly Island is going to hold Olympics events, which delays any action for a minimum of two years. CCM wants to act now.
Plus there is a constituency for that island who expect it to become the Maggie Daley nature preserve. And it is too long a walk for parents tugging kids from there to the Shedd.
The place for CCM is by the Adler. It’s already a sea of cement but there is plenty of parking at Soldier Field so the only people who “lose” are the Bears tailgaters currently getting drunk there.
Comment by RBD Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 6:07 pm
Museum Campus works for me. That surface lot by 12th Street Beach could be a great site, and if they put a decent parking deck it would help the traffic / parking issue!
Comment by 312 Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 6:16 pm
Novice City Planner: you’re not from around here, are you? Plan Commission to determine it? May as well let the Mayor make the decision. Plan Commission is controlled by the 5th Floor. They have no independance in any matter whatsoever.
Comment by some former legislative intern Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 7:19 pm
Triplecynic said….
(As for “Kids” at 3:46–what the HELL does the demise of the Montgomery Ward company have to do with its namesake’s battle 100 years earlier to keep the lakefront open?)
Despite his professed atruistic motives, not unlike today, Montgomery Ward was first and foremost making sure he could preserve a view for himself, and his future downtown retail empire, and its ready access to the lakefront.
One hundred years ago also the first Model T automobiles began to roll down what were once primarily dirt paths used exclusively for farm wagons. Many resisted the automobile as an unwelcome intrusion and disruptive to street cars first pulled by horses, and then operated by electric powered cables. Where would Chicago be had the civic leaders prohibited widespread use of the automobile on public streets?
Segregated society was also the norm; and drinking fountains, restaurants, and a wide array of public places; including parks were considered for white’s only. Many did not want to break from this tradition either, and held this out as something the future should embrace as well.
Following the beleagured historic traditions of its founder Montgomery Ward & Co. was too slow to respond to general movement of the American middle class outside the central cities.
While its competitors built stores in suburban shopping centers, following A. Montgomery’s lead, Ward’s stuck to their strategy of mail order catalogs and downtown and main street stores until one day they woke up and discovered that their market share eroded so much that their business model was no longer sustainable.
Blindly embracing historical tradition while denying progress an opportunity to unfold and flourish; even in a controlled and measured fashion, can result in stagnation and obsolescence, which is what was taking hold previously in what is now Millenium Park.
The rejuvenation and renaisance that has taken place along Michigan Avenue is yet to take hold at Daley Bi-Centennial Plaza, and the Children’s Museum represents a unique; and perhaps the best and only opportunity for that vision to continue to unfold.
Absent this re-development Daley Bi-Centennial will be left to rot away; tucked back in the corner where the residents can oversee its demise in solitude.
As an alternative to a Children’s Musuem, in an effort to liven up the neighborhood some more, the Mayor could exercise his Irish Alzheimers instead, and look to place the 4,000 land based casino gaming positions in the cavernous exhibition space inside the Hyatt, Fairmount, and Swissotel’s.
In this new frontier the high priced hookers can work the upstairs while the low rent models can walk the nearby streets looking for some easy marks with overloaded pockets stuffed with fast easy money, and full of cheap watered down gin that might need help getting to their cars.
The residents could then personally thank the Alderman who may be standing on the corner circulating his peitions for re-election, while they push their strollers down the street in a zig-zag fashion trying to avoid the discarded condoms.
Standing in the way of progress in this town can have a strange way of causing you to be careful what you wish for, because the law of unintended consequences could easily take hold.
Comment by The Kids are Allright Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 9:26 pm
Me thinks Da Mare is making a BIG mistake by playing the “race” card with Reilly and the other Alderman (”Think Big Box”)…it may open up other glass doors of Da Mare’s and his cronies.
He hath live by the racial card shall be defeated by the racial card.
Comment by The Original Rainbow "Cone" Coalition Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 10:53 pm
maybe the mayor will just conduct another midnight raid and just put it there.
Comment by anon Wednesday, Sep 19, 07 @ 11:26 pm