If you’re one of the hardy citizens who stayed into the 10th hour, you learned new information Thursday before, as expected, the Chicago Plan Commission rubber-stamped the attempted Grant Park land grab. Of course, you’d have learned a lot more if the commissioners, who asked mostly patty-cake questions, had diligently scrutinized this Chicago Children’s Museum proposal to entomb visitors in a subterranean crypt. There were, though, new disclosures — along with evidence that the influential supporters of this proposal hope to take two of the most mysterious secrets to the grave:
– Museum President Jennifer Farrington couldn’t produce a list of the “upwards of 30” sites she said the museum had considered — even though, as one commissioner noted, “It’s hard to believe you don’t have that list handy” given the raging public outcry. Farrington’s solution: “We would be happy to get that list to the Plan Commission.” Great! That’s a public realm! On Friday we asked City Hall for the list. No list. We hope it arrives by Monday, with reasons for the 30-plus findings of unsuitability. Fairness demands the full transparency that this museum continues to duck.
– The museum’s architect says city fire officials approve of emergency exits to middle and lower levels of Randolph Drive — and also to Columbus Drive via a 30-foot-wide corridor. A “smoke evacuation system” would clear the air for that long indoor walk. Maybe so. But any below-ground explosion or fire poses unique risks. We hope those fire officials did their calculations very carefully. As we hope the museum’s directors avoid those risks by choosing a simpler, above-ground location for their museum. Because should the unthinkable happen …
– If aldermen allow this land grab, will more applicants follow? “If [future applicants] can comply with the rules and regulations,” museum attorney Ted Novak responded, “they should be allowed to do so.” We fear that he’s right. By this thinking, the multiple Illinois Supreme Court rulings that protect Grant Park aren’t really barriers to development — they’re handy how-to guides for attorneys whose institutional clients will want to jimmy more buildings into the park.
– The cost to this private, admission-charging museum for a claim in Grant Park? A buck a year. For 99 years. That deal almost certainly assures eligibility for taxpayer money from a program that gives millions of dollars to museums in Chicago parks.
– If you plot your own rapacious land grab, your flocks of PR people may coach you not to admit that you’re trying to invade sacrosanct “Grant Park.” Claim instead that you’re improving “Daley Bicentennial Plaza.” You’ll sound generous. Or just invoke “the site.” Often.
– Museum reps said they want to build the museum as now drawn — not get it approved now and later sneak in a bigger, more intrusive redesign. Ald. Brendan Reilly (42nd) said he knows from experience to distrust this “double-pinky swear.” Later, a citizen asked why planners intend to lengthen the distance that skaters have to walk on their blades between a warming area and an outdoor ice rink. Attorney Novak, exasperated by her persistence, eventually told the woman not to worry because, “This is all going to be redesigned.” The woman grinned in triumph. The crowd howled. Novak sat, and reached for his water.
And those two lingering secrets:
– Who, exactly, decided that this museum should — and could — move to Grant Park? That is, where’s the public planning process?
Novak asserted, time and again, that the museum and its consultants had made an extensive study of available sites. But that assertion answers an unasked question. Again: Who sought out whom? Who said yes?
– No one would answer Ald. Reilly’s query about who will pay the enormous costs to defend the inevitable killer lawsuit against City Hall if our public officials gut part of Grant Park for this clout-dripping museum.
So: Who will pay all that money?
The museum? Mayor Daley? This city’s Plan Commission members and aldermen?
