Will the New Navy Pier Be Good for Chicago?

While some suggest that the paint is still drying on renovations made only a decade ago, city officials still believe Navy Pier needs another makeover. The 79 year-old lakefront landmark has seen many incarnations in its history. Despite big ideas, many take issue with this newest proposal.

Earlier this month, the Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority presented an outline detailing a multi-year master plan aimed at making Navy Pier a more year-round destination. The new plan envisions the Pier as a Disneyland-style amusement park, with a rollercoaster and water park, an even bigger Ferris wheel and a monorail system that will move throughout the site, even in some buildings. The entire concept builds on an already successful tourist attraction and aims at making Navy Pier more four-season friendly. While the buzz-word has often been "family-entertainment," not everyone is sold on the idea of what has been likened to another Wisconsin Dells. In respect to Navy Pier's cultural relevance, consider that its role as a prime Chicago tourist attraction goes back further than the recent proposal.

When commercial development began to boom in the early 1900's, the city required lakeside ports for its rapidly-expanding industry. Respecting Daniel Burnham's wish to restrict property development in an effort to preserve Chicago's lakeside, city officials took a page from the Burnham plan for harbor development employing a series of piers. Although Burnham's concept envisioned a five pier plan, turn-of-the-last-century designer Charles Sumner Frost worked out an all-in-one freight, recreational and passenger facility known as Municipal Pier 2 (the first one never made it off the drawing board).

As water transportation gave way to the automobile, public interest in Pier waned. In 1927, the city council voted in favor of changing the name to Navy Pier to both honor WWI veterans and attract tourists back to the site. Other than short stints as an annexed U of I site as well as training facility and barracks for soldiers in both World Wars, the Pier struggled through the decades to keep afloat as a popular public destination. In 1995, the 1914-built pier went through a $200 million renovation to become a top attraction in the city with over 8 million annual visitors. Drawing from the park's nautical past, plans for the modern Navy Pier facelift foresee floating hotels and parking lots resembling an aircraft carrier and steamship. Some find designer Forrec Ltd.'s idea linking early 20th century sea-faring industry and battle with a 21st century tourist trap a distasteful step backwards.

A resident responding to this issue on Chicagoist.com writes, "The plan they hoped to float for Navy Pier is a DISGRACE for Chicago. I mean come on a waterpark?...this is not Wisconsin. Navy pier needs to address the issues at hand that make it such an eyesore. The pier desperately needs Architecture, architecture,...architecture...Can I say it enough? Chicago is a world class city that was born from the likes of Daniel Burnham and Mies so the last thing we need is a Canadian company coming in and inflicting more damage upon the lakefront with this new plan. Just the mere fact that Navy Pier Executives went out of country for design help has local architects fuming. Navy Pier does not need more corny additions. What it does need is beautiful architecture and design integrated into it that does not disgrace the city's skyline or the proud residents who live here."

The original design of Navy Pier was an elegant layout. Built in a neo-classical style, the Pier housed a building consisting of three sections relying on whimsical ornamentation inspired by the sea itself. Lakefront motifs that included frogs, seahorses, turtles, lilies and cattails helped connect the new structure to its natural surroundings. Another ornate design featuring a Native American and sheaf of wheat connected the Pier to Chicago's origin.

Dorothy, a northside resident asks, "I'm thinking, does Navy Pier need to become more of an amusement park than it already is? Aren't there better things we could be spending city tax money on? What about the homeless or fixing up poor neighborhoods?"

Figures for the ambitious project have yet to be presented. However, if the Pier's last ten years has been any indication, the project is sure to produce a gravy train. Despite almost certain financial gain, is the city spending wisely? In a world-class city does the Pier have an obligation to uphold aesthetics? As tourism becomes the industry keeping many modern cities successful, it becomes a struggle to preserve the glory of the past while balancing an economically viable attraction of the future.