The volleyball match between Mayor Richard M. Daley and some downtown residents over his plan to move the Chicago Children’s Museum has been going on for months. Thankfully, though, we no longer hear the race card being played. No one believes that the mu
The big question is: where should it be relocated, and, why should it be located there? Daley has been adamant about putting the new museum in Grant Park. He wants to make downtown a destination point for both city residents and tourists. He also thinks that downtown should be a destination point for the city’s children.
No doubt, he is also looking to make the downtown area more amenable to the International Olympic Committee for the city’s 2016 Summer Olympics bid. There is spirited opposition to the mayor’s plan. A group of dissenters, including a group that calls itself Save Grant Park, want to keep the museum out of Grant Park.
The reason for the opposition, I’m told, is that Grant Park, from Randolph Street on the north to accross Roosevelt Road on the south, was set aside by the city’s founders 150 years ago as “Public ground%uFFFDa common to remain forever open, free and clear of any buildings or other obstructions whatever.” It was Daley himself who suggested that race was a factor in the opposition. He took the position that those downtown latte-drinking, sushi-eating, condominium dwellers didn’t want “those” children to come downtown.
We know who “those” children are. They feel much more comfortable setting aside parts of the park for their dogs to leave excrement (doggie-doo bag dispensers are provided), than setting aside parts of the park for children.
I recognize that there are not a lot of Black people living downtown, and not a lot of children. Still, it should not be a child-free zone. I’m going to give the opponents the benefit of the doubt and say race is not a part of their opposition (though I’m convinced class is). I walk daily past the bust of Aaron Montgomery Ward (yes, that Montgomery Ward), who fought several court battles at the turn of the century to keep buildings out of Grant Park.
Opponents seem to be channeling his spirit as they fight off any encroachment of development of the land. It is certainly a laudable position, to want to keep stretches of downtown green and accessible to people in perpetuity.
This city is unique in having such undeveloped land along a wonderful lakefront. But there are already exceptions to the rule. Aaron Montgomery Ward himself relented and allowed the Art Institute of Chicago to fill a large section of the park in 1892. Even more of the park was compromised in 2004, when Millennium Park was built next door to the Art Institute. Obviously, the ban on building in the park has been ignored for the northern boundary. To the south, the museum campus, which includes the Adler Planetarium, the Shedd Aquarium and the Field Museum, are also part of the park’s landscape.
Given those exceptions, the Children’s Museum seems like a perfect compliment. Daley’s plan was to put most of the museum underground, so as not to disturb sight lines too much. He has made other modifications to try to appease opponents. The Children’s Museum should be drawing ALL children, and it should be situated in a place that will be accessible to them.
Grant Park seems to be a perfect place for it. Instead of falling back on a parochial “agreement” to keep the park free of buildings, an agreement that was amended almost as soon as it was made, the mayor and the opponents ought to come up with a compromise design that protects the park, but also serves ALL of the citizens, not just the downtown residents.
______ Copyright 2008 Chicago Defender. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.