Letters: No, the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art is not a loss for Chicago

Chicago Tribune

2 days ago

The editorial 'Lucas museum amps up. The LA excitement could have been happening in Chicago.' (July 29) is a disappointing opinion from the editorial board of this fine paper. Nowhere in the editorial is it mentioned that George Lucas and his Chicago-native wife, as if that should make a difference, wanted the museum — 300,000 square feet on 11 acres in Los Angeles — to be built on the lakefront. I would hazard to guess that most Chicagoans will not miss a spaceship-designed cultural attraction housing paintings, comic book art, comic strips, comic book covers and a life-sized Naboo starfighter that takes up open lakefront space and blocks the view of the lake.
And is the fact that we don't 'routinely' see Lucas, Guillermo del Toro, Doug Chiang and Queen Latifah strolling down Michigan Avenue supposed to be a negative? If the editorial board is suffering from a lack of star power, go work for the Los Angeles Times. Lucas calling his decadeslong endeavor 'a temple to the people's art' is laughable. It is a temple to his outsize ego. Drop the 'Lucas' moniker, and I will stand corrected.
I also doubt that A. Montgomery Ward or Daniel Burnham would consider this a 'colossal missed opportunity.' Lastly, Chicago did not fail to understand what Lucas meant by 'narrative art.' Lucas failed to understand that Chicago's lakefront is not a theme park like Disneyland, which is more aptly suited for his namesake museum.Yes, as the Tribune editorial indicates, the loss of the Lucas Museum is incalculable in terms of revenue, philanthropy, tourism, culture and prestige for the city. Thanks to the intransigence of the Friends of the Parks group, George Lucas threw up his hands and left. No matter what compromises Lucas and our farsighted mayor at the time, Rahm Emanuel, offered, there was no compromise from this group. Instead, there were costly, time-consuming lawsuits and roadblock after roadblock.. No understanding of the incredible value to our city and the joy it would bring to its residents.
Lucas understood and respected the importance of our parks as a setting for the museum and also that visitors would be in that setting and free to enjoy it before and after museum visits.
Clearly, this group is not a friend of the city, and we will never recoup the loss it caused.I couldn't disagree more with the editorial lamenting the loss of the Lucas Museum.
The arrogant billionaire wasn't interested in other proposed sites. George Lucas wanted what he wanted — the most prized parcel. The editorial fails to mention that the lakefront was declared 'forever open, clear and free' more than 100 years ago for the benefit of citizens. Had businesses been allowed to build on the lakefront, it would resemble the dismal waterfronts of Boston and New York City, and by now, there wouldn't even have been space for the museum.
Good riddance. Chicago dodged a bullet.I could not disagree more with the editorial on losing the Lucas Museum, and I commend those who opposed the monstrosity. Do we really want that on Chicago's beautiful lakefront?
I'll take an open parking lot with a view any day.Steve Weinshel's argument against reducing parking requirements along transit corridors misses the mark and clings to a 20th century urban planning mindset ('Cutting parking requirements while upzoning Broadway will create a crisis,' July 20). It is not utopian to imagine a Chicago where most people do not own cars. Many of us already live that reality. My spouse and I moved to Edgewater because we can live here without a car. We walk, bike and take transit because that is what a city should offer: the freedom to get around without being forced into car ownership.
Cars are deceptively expensive. In 2024, AAA estimated the average cost to own and operate a car is $12,297 per year. That figure is likely even higher in Chicago. The cost to build off-street parking is also prohibitively high. According to Elevated Chicago, an underground spot costs $42,000 to build. That cost gets passed on to renters and buyers, whether they own a car. This city cannot be affordable if every household needs to own a car and every car needs its own house.
Removing parking mandates is not 'urban planning malpractice' — it is smart policy. Requiring parking increases car ownership and traffic. Each car needs multiple parking spots throughout the day, fueling demand for wasteful surface lots that contribute to flooding and the heat island effect and make neighborhoods less walkable and bikeable.
But eliminating parking minimums is just one step. We must invest in walking, biking and public transit to support both future and current residents. The $2.1 billion Red-Purple Line modernization is a great start. We also need protected bike lanes, camera-enforced bus-only lanes and fully funded transit. That is why Springfield must pass the transit reform and funding package already approved by the state Senate as soon as possible.
Let's build a more affordable, healthier and sustainable city. More housing, more transit, more bikes and less parking are the future Chicago deserves. Cities all over the world from Paris to Tokyo have done this. Why can't Chicago?The opposition to sensible housing policy along Broadway reveals an uncomfortable truth about how some view community membership. Opponents tout their credentials as longtime residents and neighborhood saviors. But I must ask: Does living here longer grant them veto power over decisions affecting thousands of current and future residents?
These longtime residents deserve credit for their community investments, but I fail to see how seven-story buildings along a busy commercial corridor next to the city's highest-ridership 'L' line will ruin anything. The increasing demand to live in Edgewater and Uptown is testament to the success of these investments. Denying potential residents the ability to benefit from these successes hurts everyone — we're depriving ourselves of economic growth while denying housing to thousands who want to live in these amazing neighborhoods.
These opponents are going against broad community support for more housing. Hiring lawyers to block development through technicalities isn't democracy — it's using procedural tricks to override community will.
This is provincialism: putting narrow interests over the well-being of not just current residents, but also the entire city. Change is difficult, and protecting one's community from perceived threats feels natural. But upzoning Broadway isn't a threat — it's an opportunity and a long-overdue investment needed to keep our communities affordable and accessible.
Who are we to deny others the right to live here simply because you got here first?'Has there ever been a matter of such consequence so hastily rushed through the Chicago City Council than the recent exemption of off-street parking requirements for new housing development? While Jake Sheridan's July 29 story noted that there was broad ideological support for the plan from bike activists and libertarians, conspicuously absent was the lived reality of those countless thousands of us living in Chicago's densest neighborhoods where street parking is already as scarce as hen's teeth.
I ride the CTA, bike and walk far more than I drive, but I still own a car for those situations in which I have to transport people or things or go to places otherwise not readily accessible. This is also the situation of many of my neighbors.
For the bike advocates who like to point to empty parking spaces in new housing developments, please note that this is not an indicator of how many cars are actually owned by the people living in those buildings. Rather, it shows that many of those tenants are avoiding the $150 or more rental fee for parking and instead competing for the increasingly limited number of street spaces. I have a slew of neighbors who can testify on this matter.
As a block club leader, I am now in the midst of trying to negotiate a developer's plan to turn a large church-school complex into as many as 40 units of housing with only four off-street parking spaces. When the developer was asked if he would only rent to people without cars, he chuckled as if I must be joking. I wasn't.
Worst are the bike/housing advocates who are pushing for the elimination of parking requirements. When I have asked a number of them at community forums whether they also own cars, they sheepishly acknowledge they do. Talk about the ultimate in 'do as I say and not as I do.'
If this City Council is going to push these ever more drastic 'solutions' to Chicago's affordable housing woes, perhaps aldermen should be the first to sign the 'I'm giving up my car' pledge.I applaud the Tribune Editorial Board for its editorial asking Gov. JB Pritzker to veto the unnecessary Tier 2 pension bill ('Pritzker needs to veto this pension bill. Chicago can't afford it.,' July 29). The editorial leaves the impression that the compliance with the Internal Revenue Service Code still needs to be addressed. This matter was definitively addressed for the big state retirement systems in the most recent big budget bill that the governor did sign. Here is what the bill said:
'If, after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 104th General Assembly, any enforceable determination concludes that the benefits for a Tier 2 member or participant under Section 1-160 or 15-111 of the Illinois Pension Code do not provide the minimum retirement benefits required under Internal Revenue Service regulations or other provisions of federal law such that the wages of such member or participant would be subject to tax under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act, then moneys in the Tier 2 SSWB Reserve Fund may be used by the State Employees' Retirement System of Illinois, the Teachers' Retirement System of the State of Illinois, or the State Universities Retirement System to pay the difference between benefits otherwise available and benefits that would constitute minimum retirement benefits under applicable federal law or regulation. This subsection shall constitute a continuing appropriation of all amounts necessary for such purposes.'
What is needed is identical wording for the Chicago systems. Much less expensive than the current proposed legislation.When you have a state congressional map as gerrymandered as ours is in Illinois, it takes a certain amount of audacity for Gov. JB Pritzker to then criticize Texas for gerrymandering. Talk about those in glass houses not throwing stones. What hypocrisy.
Our map was drawn by now-convicted felon Michael Madigan as House speaker to benefit the Democrats.