As of January 1, 2016, Gapers Block has ceased publication. The site will remain up in archive form. Please visit Third Coast Review, a new site by several GB alumni.
 Thank you for your readership and contributions over the past 12-plus years. 

TODAY

Thursday, November 23

Gapers Block
Search

Gapers Block on Facebook Gapers Block on Flickr Gapers Block on Twitter The Gapers Block Tumblr


Fuel

jen / June 11, 2008 2:19 PM

really disappointed, but unfortunately not surprised. da mere gets what da mere wants.

i am considering sending my alderman (rey colon) a thank you email for voting against it, despite also voting against supportive housing in the neighborhood.

r / June 11, 2008 2:38 PM

Unbelievable. So, when does the Navy Pier Casino open?

David / June 11, 2008 2:43 PM

Unsurprising but ridiculous. There's no legitimate reason to move any permanent structure into Grant Park, and there are far better sites elsewhere in the city for the museum ... and for the city's residents.

Gaigen / June 11, 2008 2:44 PM

Just for the heck of it, Daley's gonna bulldoze a big "X" in the middle of Grant Park (a la Meigs Field)... Sort of like a dog marking his territory.

While I'll probaby never have a reason to use the facility (that's another story). There were PLENTY of places in this city where a new museum would have spurred development beneficial for all. Now, we get an underground bunker for the kiddies. Yay.

Tom / June 11, 2008 2:57 PM

This is a real shame. Not only do I love Grant Park as it is, but also I really enjoyed the synergy between "avoiding Navy Pier because of all the loud, ill-behaved children" and "avoiding the Children's Museum because of all the loud, ill-behaved children."

I also wonder how this will affect Grant Park as a concert venue, and which construction-industry pal of Daley's will get the contract.

Haley / June 11, 2008 3:10 PM

I think it's a wonderful move by the City Council. The museum will add more green space and finally get rid of the ugly building that is there currently. The design is hardly a "bunker" or "tomb" like they have been saying in the papers - it's full of light. I think it should be in the center of the city, not in some neighborhood that is less accessible to the whole city. I'm personally for it and I think in years to come, those who are against it now will come to appreciate it too.

Haley / June 11, 2008 3:12 PM

I think it's a wonderful move by the City Council. The museum will add more green space and finally get rid of the ugly building that is there currently. The design is hardly a "bunker" or "tomb" like they have been saying in the papers - it's full of light. I think it should be in the center of the city, not in some neighborhood that is less accessible to the whole city. I'm personally for it and I think in years to come, those who are against it now will come to appreciate it too.

Haley / June 11, 2008 3:12 PM

I think it's a wonderful move by the City Council. The museum will add more green space and finally get rid of the ugly building that is there currently. The design is hardly a "bunker" or "tomb" like they have been saying in the papers - it's full of light. I think it should be in the center of the city, not in some neighborhood that is less accessible to the whole city. I'm personally for it and I think in years to come, those who are against it now will come to appreciate it too.

pratfall / June 11, 2008 3:15 PM

I got $250 for the legal fund. Let the state Supreme Court bitch-slap this boondoggle.

Cheryl / June 11, 2008 3:21 PM

I took my (then) 4 year old niece to the 'museum' a couple of years ago. It's basically a playground that costs $9 to get into, and you have to enter through the gift shop. Moving it to Grant Park won't make it any more accessible to parents with limited incomes, nor should anyone be wasting their money there. My niece was bored after about half an hour and we left.

A. Lewellen / June 11, 2008 3:33 PM

To be honest I am neutral on the matter and I have kids. As a museum it really was not that great and really not much of a museum. I went there once at Navy Pier (which I hate) and decided to never go back. What interests and concerns me more is Daley's motive for wanting it there in the first place.

zoenotcool / June 11, 2008 3:37 PM

I'm getting tired of Daley.

Did he really just leap over "172 years of legal protections" in a single bound, as the Sun-Times said? Unbelievable!

I'm not sure if Millennium Park already violated those protections or not.

I hope the new museum is at least much better than the current one.

annie / June 11, 2008 3:42 PM

I think it sucks, but what can you do. What I find interesting is that no one mentions the Art Institute's new, very large addition...let's face it folks that's Grant Park too! I don't have kids yet, but I will never take them to this "museum".

flange / June 11, 2008 3:43 PM

haley has the right idea, although i think she's a little disoriented. the "center of the city," based on my admittedly quick reading, would be around roosevelt and kedzie. and there's a nice park there that could probably use some foot traffic.

and let's face it, it's not like any cta service or free trolleys can get you anywhere *near* navy pier. navy pier may as well be rangoon. finally we can stop airlifting in the kids who want to go there.

r / June 11, 2008 3:58 PM

Flange, take note:

http://www.navypier.com/visit_us/pub_trans.html

"The Illinois-Grand Corridor Transportation Management Association (TMA) offers daily free trolley service between Navy Pier and State Street along Grand Avenue and Illinois Street. From Memorial Day weekend through Labor Day downtown free trolleys operate daily, running every 20 to 30 minutes between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m., with extended service during the Taste of Chicago until 7 p.m. The Lincoln Park free trolley operates only on weekends and holidays from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. Pick-up points are indicated by "Navy Pier Trolley Stop" signs posted along the route."

r / June 11, 2008 3:59 PM

And don't forget the Grand 65 Bus line, that terminates a Navy Pier. Dude, there's a lot of transpo over to NP

Gaigen / June 11, 2008 4:07 PM

What I find interesting is that no one mentions the Art Institute's new, very large addition...let's face it folks that's Grant Park too!

But isn't that being built on land that was already occupied by the Art Institute? I mean the school was there, the loading dock. I don't remember any grand expanses of land being there before they started building. This is turning dirt from scratch.

As for this not being a "bunker", look at this draft and tell me it's not at least 80 percent submerged. Unless they change it drastically, the kids are going to need miner's helmets.

http://chicagoist.com/2008/06/11/city_council_overwhelmingly_approve.php

Gaigen / June 11, 2008 4:11 PM

Oh, and can they please stop calling this a children's "museum"? We've got the Museum of Science and Industry if they want to learn about science, the Field if they want to learn about history, the Art Institute for art, the Notebard for nature... what does this "museum" teach them anyway?

Museum n. : A building, place, or institution devoted to the acquisition, conservation, study, exhibition, and educational interpretation of objects having scientific, historical, or artistic value.

flange / June 11, 2008 4:12 PM

r, i look forward to your discovery of the new world of enjoyment that sarcasm can bring. haley was all blithering about how navy pier is "less accessible to the whole city" than grant park less than a mile away. i thus overstated the reverse case ("sarcasm") to point out the folly.

i'd also like to ask haley: why are you choosing your own convenience over both the law of the land and the public good?

thesecondsex / June 11, 2008 4:44 PM

The problem with the museum at the Pier is that they don't really have any room for cool exhibits. The only reason to go there is for the programming and they have limited space to do that.

And you can go to the museum for free with a museum pass, just like the Art Institute, MSI, Field, etc.

No other museum in Chicago gives more to poor kids either. Check out free family night on Thursdays when they do Passport to the World. And all of the programming they just did for Autistic kids. They're a leader in early childhood diversity programming.

I don't think it would be a bad thing to put CCM in an underutilized area of the park. It would be complementary to Field on the south and the Art Institute in the central. It's not like there are no structures in Grant Park (cough, Harris Theatre, Gehry Bandshell, cough).

The museum does a lot of cool stuff and has possibly the *worst* advocates possible. I believe in the museum and wish that Peggy Pritzker and Daley would just STFU.

This just sucks.

Now I'm going to see the Nelson Algren play and wallow in the insanity that is Chicago...

mike / June 11, 2008 4:53 PM

See how our career politicians whom we call "aldermen" voted:

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2008/06/how-council-vot.html

Michael / June 11, 2008 4:57 PM

boo

charlie / June 11, 2008 5:31 PM

I could care less.

mike / June 11, 2008 6:43 PM

I don't understand why the our city council and why the Children's Museum is so intent on bounding over 172 years of precedence to keep the parks "free and open."
I am an educator in Chicago and see this as a shame.
Continue the protest.

Steven / June 11, 2008 7:49 PM

Guess what. That spot is not free and open. It is occupied by a run-down field house that is mostly underground. Go google it and hit the satellite button to see for yourself. It seems funny that everyone gets all irate over an underground building replacing an underground building, but no one minds the half dozen courts hogging up space. If it's supposed to be a park for everyone, why are there tennis courts that are used only by a few? I agree with the Mayor. This is all about wealthy residents wanting to keep this corner of Grant Park private for themselves. It's a perfect location for the childrens museum and I hope other museums are built above the railroad tracks between Jackson and Roosevelt. Then Grant Park will finally be a 24/7/365 destination. Oh and one more thing. That Bean. Guess what? It's sitting on top of a building, the Park Grill. No one's complaining about that either.

Gaigen / June 11, 2008 8:13 PM

If it's supposed to be a park for everyone, why are there tennis courts that are used only by a few?

If you want to use those courts there, go right ahead. Those aren't private courts. In fact, I used them myself when i was a kid.

I agree with the Mayor. This is all about wealthy residents wanting to keep this corner of Grant Park private for themselves.

No. this is about Daniel Burnham thinking it would be a good idea to keep as much of the city's "front yard" as unencumbered as possible.

It's a perfect location for the childrens museum
Yes, near busy Lake Shore Drive and Columbis Drive is the perfect place for a KIDS museum. maybe they can learn traffic management the hard way.

Then Grant Park will finally be a 24/7/365 destination.
Is this necessary for some reason I can't fathom?

Oh and one more thing. That Bean. Guess what? It's sitting on top of a building, the Park Grill. No one's complaining about that either.

All of Chicago is sitting on top of SOMETHING. What's your point? Besides, the restaurant is at ground level, not below it.

As someone else said, if it HAD to be Grant Park, why not the end next to the other museums. I mean, they did give it the name "Museum Campus" for a reason I thought.

Dutch101 / June 11, 2008 8:48 PM

Terrible idea. But hardly a surprise. Whole city is going to hell in a handbasket if you ask me.

C / June 11, 2008 9:17 PM

desperately ... need ... referendums

Spook / June 11, 2008 9:45 PM

I totally agree with Daley!
He is a modern day Malcolm X with the afro pick in his hair. Sticking up for those poor Black folks against those racist Alderman! I;m sure his racist daddy is rolling over in his grave in disgraced, traitor.

I hope he's careful, I mean you saw what they did to Lincoln!

maardvark / June 11, 2008 10:22 PM

desperately . . . need . . . RECALL.

thanks.

avant/Chi / June 12, 2008 1:17 AM

Time to put Daley in the museum of mayors!

Brian / June 12, 2008 4:04 AM

Here's what I foresee happening:

The plans for the Children's museum will change once this is approved, since it won't have to go back before the zoning board at all. It will become a 4-5 story structure of glass and steel. We will then need a hotel for the wealthy out-of-town parents to stay at with their children when they're coming to the city to visit the new Children's Museum, and that will be delivered to them, right next door, in Grant Park. And of course, we'll need restaurants, shops, and affordable housing for the workers for these shops and restaurants. End result? In 15 years, this will be the 'Grant Park' neighborhood, with no Grant Park in sight.

I'm disappointed in the city council, my alderman (Ed Burke) in particular for voting for this, and Daley for even proposing this.

flange / June 12, 2008 9:19 AM

steven, plenty of people have complained about the park grill, both its mere presence on the park and the insane sweetheart deal it received. i think joravsky gave it a few columns' worth of coverage in the reader, for one.

Gaigen / June 12, 2008 9:58 AM

I hope he's careful, I mean you saw what they did to Lincoln!

Maybe someone can catch Daley at a performance of "Wicked"...

how fitting.

Pedro / June 12, 2008 10:01 AM

Yeah, I'm sure you'll be expressing your outrage at the next election. Daley has been a boar for years, and he gets the nod again and again from the public. How exactly do you criticize the city council for kowtowing to Daley when they just take your cue.

jj / June 12, 2008 10:31 AM

I really don't care. If we're going to build something in Grant Park, I think a Children's Museum is probably the best thing we could build. I'm not a huge fan of children personally, but I mean, come on, it's for the kids.

From a practical perspective, I have not in the last decade taken any of my nieces or nephew to Navy Pier due to the hassle of getting to (have you ever tried to transfer buses with multiple children and a stroller plus the fare cards?) and dealing with all that is Navy Pier (too narrow walkways for all the tourists, no good/cheap places to eat), but I have taken them downtown to Grant Park many times... so maybe they'll actually get to see it when it moves.

I guess I just don't feel the anti-museum people have made enough of a coherant and compelling argument for avoiding it. Just because there is a law that says "no building in Grant Park" doesn't mean much to me - laws change all the time, for good and bad reasons. Maybe there is more to it, but they're just not reaching me, and I'm normally on the side of the preservationists.

p / June 12, 2008 11:02 AM

hey gaigen keep your comments less offensive and st00pid. this is not chicagoist. or change your signature to "youtube commenter."

Brandy / June 12, 2008 11:05 AM

finally we can stop airlifting in the kids who want to go there.
Fantastic, flange!

I don't have kids, don't want kids, avoid NP like the plague and barely touch that area of Grant Park. Ergo, no biggie to me.

The only thing I'm worried about is if adding this building is the first in many to creep into the parks against Burnham's plan. That would be a big deal.

Gaigen / June 12, 2008 11:33 AM

p

go to... Wicked.

annie / June 12, 2008 12:40 PM

Brian

you couldn't be more right about the changes to the plans! this museum won't be underground!

Gaigen / June 12, 2008 12:56 PM

you couldn't be more right about the changes to the plans! this museum won't be underground!

From the new museum website: "Myth: The kids are being buried in a dark underground space.
Fact: The new museum will in fact be brighter than the current museum location. The design incorporates creative use of windows built into the park slope to illuminate the various below-ground floors and galleries."

The VARIOUS BELOW-GROUND floors and galleries...

Gaigen / June 12, 2008 12:57 PM

Sorry, forgot the web site address.

http://www.chicagochildrensmuseum.org/new_ccm_facts.html#4

Gaigen / June 12, 2008 1:01 PM

Sorry, one more...

http://www.chicagochildrensmuseum.org/images/slide5.jpg

fluffy / June 12, 2008 2:56 PM

I think Brian can look into the future.

Spook / June 12, 2008 4:20 PM

Yes Gaigen, how dare you!

This is Gapers Block! Hi Brow and exclusive like a cyber old folks home in Iowa. Its where the cotton docker set opine for days about twitter vs text msgs.

mike / June 12, 2008 5:06 PM

And where sad people with five-years-and-running internet personas anonymously bark for attention.

Spook / June 12, 2008 5:40 PM

mike,

If yer referring to Ye Olde Spook,I haven’t been( cyberly) barking thaaaat long! I know they say time flies when you’re having a ball but lets not exaggerate, suga!

p.s aint noth'n but the Dawg in me roof roof.

p.p.s

are you and P gonna see Wicked together in yer dockers?

Chris / June 13, 2008 9:10 PM

It will be years before this gets through the courts - this isn't like Meigs Field where The Mayor can sneak in during the middle of the night and make it happen.

ChicagoHotBlog.com

GB store

Recently on Fuel

Urban Ethos [26]
What is Chicago's "urban ethos"?

Cool Glass of... [16]
What're you drinking?

Supreme Decision [22]
What's your reaction to the Supreme Court's decision on the Affordable Care Act?

Taking it to the Streets [20]
Chicago Street Fairs: Revolting or Awesome?

I Can Be Cruel [9]
Be real: what is the meanest thing you've ever done?

View the complete archive

GB Store

GB Buttons $1.50

GB T-Shirt $12

I ✶ Chi T-Shirts $15