upvote
It was an impasse. Chicago wants the development money and tourism, but it also holds pretty strongly to the idea that the lakefront belongs to everyone and shouldn't be developed with private money and closed off. Yes, it was a parking lot. But it was a public parking lot.

That means sometimes these kinds of developments don't happen and you can argue either way. Lucas got a little pushy about how he wanted the museum to be developed and also turned down alternate sites. So he took his ball and left and that's okay too.

reply
Chicagoans fought quite hard to preserve the parking lot it would have replaced. I hope they are happy with their choice.
reply
I hope you are happy with their choice, because it would have required overturning this [1] to build. The museum lost in federal court, BTW.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_Central_Railroad_Co._...

Note that the museum was planned to be built on the actual land that was the subject of that Supreme Court case ;)

reply
deleted
reply
> The museum lost in federal court, BTW.

Nope. None of the frivolous NIMBY lawsuits ever made it to trial, nor was the museum ever a defendant in any of them (it was the city being sued for approving it). I don't see what you gain from misrepresenting this years after the fact.

The city could've gone to trial for the one case you're referencing, and would've won given enough money and time, but by that point the museum had already started investigating other locations.

reply
Hey solider field south lot is very important 8 days a year.
reply
Not for much longer.
reply