Supporting a Grant Park Children's Museum from another angle

Pretty slick twisting of viewpoints and ideas.

But you cannot change the laws already passed.

Still cant get the thought that it is ilegal to build a fee based building in Grant Park.

Annie, you may want to look at the zoning document before some of your comments.

What part of "forever open, clear and free" don't you get?

And besides, think of all the extra traffic congestion it will bring to an already overcrowded area. Why not put the museum in one of the city neighborhoods badly in need of a boost...say, Marquette Park, or Belmont-Cragin, or Rogers Park?

Oh, wait, those "supporters" only want favors in "their" backyard. And Daley just wants a constant flow of tax revenue and campaign cash to bolster his "City That Works" myth. Riiight. You're all hypocrites.

Anne,

I don't think you get it. The government is supposed to work for the people. This has more to do with the people taking back their area from elected officials. The people have spoken, yet Daley seems not to listen. Then when he does not get his way he crys like a baby and throws insults to boot. Remember his "They just don't want black kids" in their neighborhood comments?

They fight over this, yet Chicago is the highest taxed, and soon to be highest murder rate city in the country. No means no unless you say it to the Mayor of Chicago. How about "they just don't want crooked officials" playing in their neighboorhood!

Anne, I am a resident of the 42 Ward and attended meetings in which only CCM was allowed to present there proposal. It became evident in discussion that this was purely a land grab attempt and was a done deal before CCM even chose to bring it forward to the Alderman. It was in fact the Alderman that suggested bringing in locals to discuss, CCM was just hoping to convince Reilly without all that silly public discussion.

Reilly treated CCM fairly, honorably and with dignity allowing them to share their position at several meetings. It became clear after these meetings that this was not a popular proposition not because of the silly reasons you mention, it appears a desparate measure to run down that road again because CCM has no other reasonable grounds on which to stand.

The park is enjoyed by citizens throughout Illinois as well as tourists. Go take a look on a sunny day and tell me who you find in the park.

We are trying to preserve a park for the sake of simply PRESERVING a PARK! Why is CCM a more worthy institution that should be the privileged one to be there? Why are they not forthcoming with their plans. Why have they done at least 5 revisions, each one sinking lower into the ground? The behavior is indicitive of an illegal land grab attempt and nothing more. The egos of CCM board and Pritzkers are what the issue is about and we're not fooled by your rhetoric.

We will be there tomorrow to express our support to save a park. If this is all about the children, why don't you save a park for them? There's so little green space as it is, and so many wonderful alternatives have been and continue to be provided that CCM ignores.

What is the real agenda here? Your covert operation is sneaky and therefore untrustworthy.

SAVE GRANT PARK!

The writer of this opinion conveniently left out some important "details" about her objectivity...
Anne Neri Kostiner, owner of Annie Properties and her husband Lewis Kostiner, founded Gallery 312, which gets LOTS of support from the Mayor and his wife. She is also a member of the Community Development Commission, appointed by the Mayor Daley.
Why am I not surprised??

Annie you're wrong on many counts:

"Under the plan, the outdated Daley Bicentennial facility and concrete plaza would be replaced by the museum and a new state-of-the-art park district field house."

The field house is to be updated from the sale of the parking. The money is already there. This is a red herring argument.

"Since the opposition has changed track from its initial elitist and unpopular defense of "not in my backyard" notion, to A. Montgomery Ward's court battles to keep the lakefront clear from commercial development"

Wrong again, Annie. Check Richard Ward's site at neweastside.org , from day one people were concerned about a PRIVATE company obtaining public land. In addition, residents asked about traffic studies (there were none). They asked about other locations and CCM stated NO other location was evaluated, because this is where they decided to build. They asked what would happen to the skating rink - there was no answer. They asked what would happen to the playground - again, no answers. The CCM just said they hear the concerns, they're building it anyway. It stunk to high heaven from the first day, including the fact that the Mayor's nephew Patrick Thompson was the CCM attorney.

"Protecting his investment may have been his motivation for the fight, interestingly similar to the initial stance taken by the opposition in today's battle."

How can you presume to guess at AMW's motivation?

In AMW's own words:

"""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."""

If Gigi Pritzker owned 6 Flags, we'd be fighting the installation of roller coasters and giant tea cups right now. And the Mayor would be just fine with that proposal too.

Follow the money.

MORE MANUFACTURED SUPPORT wrote:

The writer of this opinion conveniently left out some important "details" about her objectivity...
Anne Neri Kostiner, owner of Annie Properties and her husband Lewis Kostiner, founded Gallery 312, which gets LOTS of support from the Mayor and his wife. She is also a member of the Community Development Commission, appointed by the Mayor Daley.
Why am I not surprised??

$$$$$$ Like I said, follow the money. LOL

“I fought for the poor people of Chicago, not the millionaires.

In the district bounded by 22nd Street, Chicago Avenue and Halsted live more than 250,000 persons, mostly poor….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.

Perhaps I may yet see the public appreciate my efforts. But I doubt it.”-- Montgomery Ward

"City leaders made appropriate statements of respect [upon Ward’s death], noting that if it hadn’t been for A. Montgomery Ward, Grant Park would be a long line of buildings.”- Lois Wille

“Plans for buildings in parks, wider roads in parks, more concrete in parks – they are as prevalent today as in 1890.”- Wille

Ms. Kostiner and her friends at the museum are as ignorant of current history as they are recent history.

The children's museum wasn't really an issue in Reilly's campaign, and it hardly explains his victory. Opposition to building the museum in Grant Park was one area where both Reilly and Natarus AGREED.

In fact, Natarus announced before the election that the Mayor had agreed not to build the museum in Grant Park.

But, after the election was over, Mayor Daley decided to break that promise.

Now, Daley says he's not the least bit bothered by the fact that this move is illegal on a number of grounds.

Mayor Daley is sounding more and more like Governor Blagojevich every day.

She actually makes some very interesting points, some I have never heard before. It is important to actually look at why such a big protest when no one said anything about Millennium park. Its costs money to see a show at the Harris and also at the Pritzker pavilion if you don't want to be on the grass. But even on the grass it costs money such as when the Dalai Lama was here. So being free of charge is not an issue. If the museum is all underground and there is no loss of greenspace, then I am starting to believe that it is about the elitist condo dwellers, that actually makes a lot more sense. Most people don't care about anything until its in their back yard. Also dissing the philanthopists is naive, we would not have nearly as much as we do have culturally if it weren't for the Crowns, Pritkers and in this case Kostiners.

Why Now wrote:

She actually makes some very interesting points, some I have never heard before. It is important to actually look at why such a big protest when no one said anything about Millennium park. Its costs money to see a show at the Harris and also at the Pritzker pavilion if you don't want to be on the grass. But even on the grass it costs money such as when the Dalai Lama was here. So being free of charge is not an issue. If the museum is all underground and there is no loss of greenspace, then I am starting to believe that it is about the elitist condo dwellers, that actually makes a lot more sense. Most people don't care about anything until its in their back yard. Also dissing the philanthopists is naive, we would not have nearly as much as we do have culturally if it weren't for the Crowns, Pritkers and in this case Kostiners.

People did object to Millenium Park and the building of the Harris Theater. And it is very possible that those building could be an issue in the future.

At least she had the guts to put her name on an unpopular opinion, that says alot more about her character than those who are afraid to own up to their comments. I am neutral about the issue because I see valid points on both sides, but I have to respect someone who is not afraid to stand alone on principal.

Tim Barnes wrote:

At least she had the guts to put her name on an unpopular opinion, that says alot more about her character than those who are afraid to own up to their comments. I am neutral about the issue because I see valid points on both sides, but I have to respect someone who is not afraid to stand alone on principal.

I she really had integrity or guts, she would have disclosed her conflict of interest and the fact that she is a Daley appointee!

I am not a rich condo-owner, nor do I have any downtown views to be concerned about. However, I think the museum should go somewhere else. There are so many other places that would be better alternatives (eg, the empty yard at State and Jackson as the Trib suggested [albeit jokingly] earlier), or even, if it's just so necessary to use public land, the athletic fields just south of Grant Park. Keeping some simply beautiful existing gardens that all can enjoy in tact would be far more beneficial than keeping some sporting fields that only a few people can enjoy.

That's my solution as a non-wealthy, non-land-owning Chicago resident!

Anne Neri Kostiner, owner of Annie Properties and her husband Lewis Kostiner, founded Gallery 312, which gets LOTS of support from the Mayor and his wife.

actually, the Gallery you are thinking of is Gallery 37, not Gallery 312. The mayor has not supported or endorsed Gallery 312 in any way. The mayor and his wife DO give a lot of support to a completely different Gallery called Gallery 37.

Anne, do you have significant direct knowledge of "affluent" neighbors really taking on this issue? In an insanely long nothing-new-here process designed to wear down public scrutiny and input, an observation is that the more affluent, the less likely the individual is engaged in actively keeping up with the proposal. Why? The affluent either have other places they are going off to and so can't attend the meetings or the affluent have high powered jobs and can't attend the meetings.

The neighborhood was dragged into this drama because the park district cut an undisclosed deal and said adding the children's museum to the park was a great idea because they would replace a field house, which supposedly needs replacing, not exactly sure that IS the case though (Hint to journalist: check public statements, there is an official answer that the field house does NOT need to be replaced, so no need to budget for it.)

Anne, perhaps you know an underground set of neighbors...genuine neighbors simply want the park to be used like an open space park--no commercialism, with room for the ESSENTIAL "nothing" instead of attraction. Open for IMAGINATIVE kid play. Anyone is welcome. Maybe people are self-selecting? Whereas you say people need a reason to walk over the bridge, MANY MANY people know there already is a reason. It's a nice free walk. The compelling view of the lake is an extra bonus.

Interesting twist on Montgomery Ward. Disagree.

Thank you Ms. Kostiner, for a reasoned and intelligent review of the situation at hand. My best history class in college taught me to recognize the context in the written word is printed.

Supporters of this calamity continues to mislead the public even yet today. The fact is that today, the Daley Bicentennial Plaza is indeed a portion of the current Grant Park. All groups have NOT been heard. The name Grant is still on this park and Mr. Grant nor those that served under him as soldiers or their families have been heard. If you and others intend to take public land and place it in private control then you do not have our consent. It would not matter what the proposed transfer of public land to private hands. The idea is simply wrong. Also those at the presentation incorrectly indicated that the "cultural center' was now atop the old Dearborn Park. The "cultural center' was built as a memorial to the Grand Army of the Republic in it's North wing and a memorial to higher thinking and learning in it's south wing. These facts are due to highly symbolic values in architecture and history. The site of this building was a trade-off and built on the old Dearborn park because of the land freed up by the new spaces created via land fill closer to the lake. The new space was to be made a memorial to the veterans and leaders of the Civil War and thus named for it's leader Ulysses S. Grant Park.

Grant did not earn his name because of a continuation of greatness from years prior to the Civil War. However, he was distinguished as a fighter when he was a young Lieutenant in the Mexican American War. Just prior to the Civil War he was more notably a drunk and squanderer of family fortune. Mr. Grant earned his name through tenacity, battlefield intelligence, and the lives and deaths of many men.

If the Museum, Park District officials, Daley, and others choose to move public land into private names, the descendants of Civil War Veterans would prefer the removal of Grants name from the park and the removal of it's memorial nature. Can any of us imagine a children's museum being built in a memorial to other difficult times in history? Let's name a few: memorial to holocaust survivors, memorial to Katrina victims, memorial to the civil rights movement. All very inappropriate locations.

Finally, if a student of architecture, urban planning, or landscape architecture were to propose to a professor to locate and build a children's museum below grade on the exact same North South axis as a museum for dead things (Field Museum) built above ground one mile to the South, that student would certainly receive a failing grade. Rosenburg's arguments are as mind boggling as his unethical ability to perpetuate the garbage being fed to the public on this project.

Finally, all supporters of the placement of this private entity project in the public park will face another creation of Grant in the future. Mr. Grant as President created the U.S. Department of Justice. I'm certain the museum placement will not pass this test.

The real solution is to elect a Mayor that will stop selling public spaced to private entities. The city is not his private wallet with which to play.

Anne Neri Kostiner hit it on the head, for some of the opponents its about preserving a tradition, BUT for a VAST majority of them it's POLITICALLY or PERSONALLY motivated.

Whoever does not see that is being naive. There are "museums" in other parks ie as the Peggy Notebart Museum in Lincoln Park, and another museum (forget name) in Central Park in New York City. This is not something new.