Blair Kamin, the Tribune Architecture critic wrote an article for yesterday's issue of the paper...

From the Chicago Tribune - "...the issue, in the end, is all about balancing precedent and progress: To allow one more museum to enter the park (the Art Institute of Chicago was granted an exception before its construction began in 1891) means that others invariably will follow. Who knows whether their designers will be as skilled and sensitive as Krueck & Sexton? The risk is that more museums will clutter the park's magnificent clarity, chipping away at Ward's vision of serene open space. Is that where we want to go in the midst of a major buildup of residential high-rises around the park -- even more buildings around its edges?"

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entert...,7601341.story

I think the comments about the residents is a bit harsh and untrue.

• It is not only residents who oppose it, the author himself seems to oppose the plan, in fact the Tribune recently wrote an editorial against the proposed location.
• "their real concern is keeping the hordes of Millennium Park from inundating their little-used sanctum." It is hardly true that it is a little used area - as shown by the photo that accompanies the article. Also the caption of the photo suggest the ice skating rink is not being used - well of course not, it's summer!

Well anyway, a lot of people, both residents and from around Chicago oppose the location for a lot of reasons, but the way the author characterizes the opposition to the proposed relocation is not accurate.

In fact you can see Mehta Brown's quote in the recent Crain's article -

“The only issue anyone has is not wanting to locate (the museum) in the park,” Ms. Brown said. “No one objects to having it in the neighborhood, but not to take up part of (Grant Park).”

Mehta Brown hosts the Friends of Daley Bi blog at Save Daley Bicentennial

Eric