(Tree Vents, Grant Park, very near where the proposed Children's Museum would go)
Even though we feel ignored by Alderman Reilly (after meeting him several months ago, and after several phone calls, we are no further along muddling through the city bureaucracy to build our pocket park than we were after meeting Alderman Natarus. You'd think our project was too small or something, or that Reilly doesn't care about increasing green space for his constituents), we still agree with him in regards to this dustup with Daley. Is this really the only location possible for the Children's Museum (which costs $8 a head to enter, even adults, as Eric Zorn laments)? Why not place it near the Museum Campus? or Hyde Park? or on that huge patch of land south of the Roosevelt Whole Foods?
Daley is wrong here, and Reilly should stand his ground.
Grant Park fireworks over kids museum -- chicagotribune.com:
An angry Mayor Richard Daley, his chin jutting out, squared off Tuesday against freshman Ald. Brendan Reilly (42nd), calling on leaders citywide to “fight for the future of this city” by supporting plans for a new Chicago Children's Museum in Grant Park.
In opposing the location, Reilly has cited a long-standing Chicago tradition that gives local aldermen virtually absolute say on projects in their wards that require city approval. But Daley said that so-called “aldermanic prerogative” should not apply on the museum issue because it goes far beyond the interests of the residents of the 42nd Ward.
“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?”
But Daley, used to getting his way with the City Council, may have a difficult time persuading aldermen to vote against a colleague's wishes. Overriding a fellow alderman, even a freshman, could erode their own ability to call the shots on local developments, including any that may be planned if Chicago wins the 2016 Olympic Games.
Several aldermen on Tuesday said they either were backing Reilly in the fracas or studying the merits of both sides of the debate before making up their minds.
Reilly said he attended nine community meetings on the issue and did not hear, nor would have tolerated, race-based comments. Burton Natarus, who preceded Reilly as alderman and was opposed to building the museum on the proposed site because of traffic concerns, also discounted racial motives.
The area has an array of colors and ethnicities among its residents, Natarus said.
Reilly emailed the night before this story was published:
Grant Park belongs to all residents of Chicago and, thanks to Montgomery Ward's vigilance, Grant Park has remained protected open-space for 171 years and is now one of our city's most precious public assets. There is only one Grant Park and it should remain forever open, clear and free for future generations, from every corner of Chicago, to enjoy for many years to come.“”Grant Park has been one of Chicago's most precious resources for 171 years. The Chicago Children's Museum is not the first private tourist attraction to try to build on Grant Park. Over the past 150 years, dozens of private buildings have been proposed for Grant Park. If exceptions had been allowed for those private developments, there would be no open space left on Grant Park today and we wouldn't even be having this debate.“
”This debate is about the future of Grant Park and whether we should abandon our 171 year commitment to preserving this park as an open space for
all residents of the city of Chicago to enjoy. Allowing the Children's Museum to build on Grant Park would set a dangerous precedent and open the flood-gates for other private developers to lobby for their own locations on Grant Park. I agreed with the Chicago Tribune's recent editorial against new building
in Grant Park when they opined 'saying no to a Children's Museum today empowers Chicago to keep saying no for eons of tomorrows.'“
and
Back in his day, Montgomery Ward incurred the wrath of an angry Chicago City Council that claimed his fight to preserve public open space and to protect Grant Park was impeding 'economic progress' for the city of Chicago. In fact, one alderman went so far as to say the 'downtown lakefront is no place for a park - it should be used to bring revenue to the city.' Thankfully, the Illinois Supreme Court disagreed and now more than a century later, the people of Chicago are still able to enjoy the beautiful open space that is our beloved Grant Park.”
Daniel Burnham allegedly said;
The lakefront by right belongs to the people. It affords their one great unobstructed view, stretching away to the horizon, where water and clouds seem to meet Not a foot of its shores should be appropriated by individuals to the exclusion of the people. On the contrary, everything possible should be done to enhance its natural beauties, thus fitting it for the part it has to play in the life of the whole city. It should be made so alluring that it will become the fixed habit of the people to seek its restful presence at every opportunity.“
