Supporting a Grant Park Children's Museum from another angle

May 14, 2008

I'm writing in support of the the initiative to relocate Chicago Children's Museum to the area of Grant Park currently occupied by Daley Bicentennial Plaza. Under the plan, the outdated Daley Bicentennial facility and concrete plaza would be replaced by the museum and a new state-of-the-art park district field house.

For background information, I currently live less than two blocks away from the location. I have rehabilitated, restored and re-cycled many of Chicago's old turn of the century warehouses and factories. I could have easily torn them down, but I am a strong supporter of the preservation of significant architecture in Chicago and I support the public funding of such preservation (although I personally never did use public funds).

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, I'd like to mention the following according to the Friend's of the Parks website, that Ward had just built his company headquarters across the street from Grant Park at the corner of Michigan and Madison. It was speculated at the time that the fight was really about Ward's views of the lake rather than any concern for the public's use of the park. 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. Subsequently, since the fight went on for 20 years and through four court battles, which he won, he managed to shift the attention off of himself and onto the benefits of the preserving Grant Park. Reilly's move to change the face of the debate by interjecting Ward's battle as the basis for the fight against the museum was a clever political move which helped him win the election with financial backing from the labor unions after the mayor angered the unions by supporting Wal-Mart, a non-union employer.

If anyone does carefully examine the plan, they will see how the claims the opposition are making are either politically or personally motivated or they have not had the opportunity to visit the park to see how it will fit in and replace a dilapidated building which exists there now. The latter have been talked into believing that the park will be over-run by buildings and the big bad rich museum board will take over and cover all the land and we'll lose our Grant Park. Who wouldn't be against that?

If one actually takes a look at the plan for himself he will see that it does not obstruct any views or take away any green space. It will enliven the East side of Grant Park because families with children visiting Millennium Park will have a reason to walk over the bridge and perhaps also become familiar with the Cancer Survivors Park. No one on either side has mentioned that very few people know it even exists.

So we should question who are the more elite, the condo-dwellers or the museum board. I wish someone on the opposition would come forward and admit how this fight really started, and that it wasn't about Ward's fight for keeping it open, clear and free, but about the affluent condo-dweller's personal use of the park, a powerful labor union mad at the mayor, an ambitious clever young man who wanted to be alderman and a dedicated but not so young man who wanted to remain alderman.

--Anne Neri Kostiner

Chicago