Why some in Chicago are unhappy with George Lucas museum

The Chicago City Council approved 'Star Wars' filmmaker George Lucas's plans to build a museum on the shores of Lake Michigan. However, not everyone is pleased with this. 

Lucas Museum of Narrative Art/AP/File
This file artist rendering released Sept. 17, 2015, by the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art shows the proposed museum in Chicago. On Wednesday, Oct. 28, 2015, the Chicago City Council voted on plans for filmmaker George Lucas' proposed museum.

To the dismay of many park enthusiasts in Chicago, both football and "Star Wars" will prevail with the building of filmmaker George Lucas’ Museum of Narrative Art, slated to open in 2019 on the shores of Lake Michigan.

The Chicago City Council voted Wednesday to approve the “Star Wars” creator’s zoning proposal to build a 30,000-square-foot museum near the Chicago Bears’ football stadium, Soldier Field.

After months of negotiation with the Bears over advertisement rules as well as parking and tailgating logistics, Chicago’s aldermen passed the proposal without debate. However, it was not unanimous. According to the Chicago Tribune, zoning committee chairman Alderman Daniel Solis of the 25th district named nine aldermen who wanted their rejection of the plan to be part of the record.  

While Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel has long been a strong supporter of the art and film memorabilia museum for Mr. Lucas, who is from California but married Chicago native Mellody Hobson, environmentalists and land conservation advocates oppose its construction on the basis of defending public land.

Friends of the Parks, a Chicago nonprofit organization that aims to protect public parks, sued to prevent the museum nearly two years ago, claiming that Lucas’ plans, along with the city’s park district, are violating the public trust doctrine because the museum will be built on the landfill of Lake Michigan.

In a September Facebook post, the nonprofit called the museum a “confiscation of public land.” Openlands, a conservation group that serves northeast Illinois, also denounced the shoreline construction.

“There are countless options for the Lucas Museum other than on the lakefront. Neighborhoods across Chicago, including just west of Lake Shore Drive, would welcome its whimsy, art, and economic engine,” Openlands CEO Jerry Adelmann wrote in an editorial for the Tribune.

“But there are no choices when it comes to our lakefront parks; we can't relocate the lake, and we should be resolute in our political will that we will not give away what we all value and what elected officials hold in the public trust.”

Chicago’s downtown lakefront is a beloved stretch of land, the center of which is Museum Campus, which houses the Adler Planetarium, the Shedd Aquarium, and the Field Museum of Natural History, as well as Soldier Field.

Critics say the Lucas Museum will disrupt plans of potential future park development, but Mr. Emmanuel has argued that it will improve the aesthetics of the area, as it’s a parking lot right now. He said it will also be a significant attraction for tourists, which will in turn lead to a boost for the museum nearby.

“The Lucas Museum of Narrative Art will be an incredible addition to Chicago’s Museum Campus,” Emanuel said in a statement, “the new parkland will add more open green space that will be enjoyed by residents across the city.”

The next court hearing for the Friends of the Parks lawsuit is scheduled for Nov. 10.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.