CHICAGO | Lucas Museum of Narrative Art

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by alex1

Not only that, but Chicago was THE leader in architecture for decades.

But that's the nature of architecture, Chicago was never the undisputed radical of the architecture world for 100 years straight. It came and went in fits and spurts and continues to do so to this day. We were in a lull during the 90's and early 2000's, but, as with all arts, tastes change and Chicago is beginning to see a noticeable uptick in the quality of local architecture firms and in the quality of the designs we are seeing built here. As much as I loathe designs like the RAMSA Related mess, it's sure a hell of a lot better than another LaGrange atrocity.

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by Baronvonellis

How is the Roman plus spaceship stadium in tune with the prairie landscape?
How is the Roman field museum in tune with the prairie landscape?
How is the Sears Tower in tune with the prairie landscape?
How is the John Hancock in tune with the prairie landscape?

None of the architects behind those buildings stated that their concept was to blur the line between the natural landscape and urbanity.

[SamInTheLoop]

[QUOTE=SamInTheLoop;6796399]The more I hear and read (couple pieces in Crain's for example already on the design) initial reactions to the design concept, the more I believe that it is very much on the right track......


Uncouth? Perhaps. Do I care? Not a chance.


Read Greg Hinz's reaction to the concept renderings in Crains to find out what I'm talking about here. When I read this (my take is that this would be a fairly typical reaction from the average Chicawgaw schlub from out in da wards), for some reason it really reinforced just to what degree Ma really is on the right track here.....the comparisons with 'alien spaceship' stadium siliness folks make makes me chuckle, but again, he's struck the right chord with the populace for a work of actual architectural significance. Again, this is all with the expectation that the design will be rightly refined, but that it will not lose any of its boldness and strong reaction provocation.....

[wrab]

Some outsider perspectives on Ma Yansong's design for the Lucas Museum:

Architectural Record
Ma Yansong Unveils Design for George Lucas Museum
By Fred A. Bernstein
November 3, 2014

Ma Yansong, the 39-year-old founder of MAD Architects, is best known for his Absolute Towers, a pair of curvy condo buildings near Toronto. But his design for the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art, commissioned by Star Wars creator George Lucas for a prominent lakefront site in Chicago, could take him to another level of fame and perhaps notoriety.....

Article continues here

-----

ArchNewsNow
Spaceship Lucas Lands in Chicago
By Martin C. Pedersen
November 6, 2014

George Lucas landed in Chicago with a thud earlier this week, unveiling the new scheme for his Museum of Narrative Art. Designed by Ma Yansong of MAD Architects, the huge, seven-level, 400,000-square-foot building, shaped like an alien land mass, ringed with a rather tacky Space Mountain-inspired top, looks like something cooked up by Bruce McCall (or maybe The Onion). It is, in other words, a parody structure. If it weren’t so absurd, it might be insulting. Given the civic importance of the site, 17 acres of lakefront land, it’s difficult to imagine how this vision for “Chicago 2020,” as it was touted in a press release, won’t stir up a lot of very vocal opposition to it. And rightly so.....

Article continues here

[wrab]

And here's Blair Kamin's initial takeaway:

Chicago Tribune
Lucas Museum Design an Architectural Mountain on City's Lakefront
by Blair Kamin
November 3, 2014

If you expected filmmaker George Lucas to give Chicago a low-slung museum that would slip quietly into the fiercely contested ground of the city's lakefront, I have news for you: You expected wrong.....

Article continues here

[Steely Dan]

this project is likely going to garner a tremendous amount of civic discussion over the coming years, so now that preliminary rendering are out, it's time it had its own thread.

[the urban politician]

^ Glad you did this!

[the urban politician]

Steely, you should plop a few renderings onto the first page

I recommend these:

http://gizmodo.com

[F1 Tommy]

Those higher res photos really make this project look nice. Maybe a few changes could be made but I hope they build it close to as shown. We do need a few buildings from this artchitect in Chicago.

[chiphile]

I'd like to see some renderings during winter, it may look even better in a field of snow. If anyone's obsessed with the Chicago prairie landscape, 5 months out of the year it is snow white. In that instance, a snow mound is perfectly within context.

We have very few buildings that serve as expressive art themselves.. Aqua is an obvious, but everything else in Chicago is form, function, box and steel. This should be considered art/sculpture more than building, then maybe more people would be open to it.

We are just conditioned to think museums have to look like the unapproachable roman column style. Nothing about the Field Museum draws me towards it. It looks like a government fortress. This has gravity to it.

For the form follows function crowd, the theory is the shape and design of the building should reflect its use or purpose. OK... this IS form following function, the point of the building is to evoke imagination, storytelling, and curiosity. It does just that, and will house art that also does that.

[Onn]

I don't know how I feel about this, doesn't seem to jive well with Chicago's classic architecture in the area. I feel like they should have built this in San Francisco.

[sentinel]

^^

Oh Lord.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Onn

I don't know how I feel about this, doesn't seem to jive well with Chicago's classic architecture in the area. I feel like they should have built this in San Francisco.

[chiphile]

Originally Posted by Onn

I don't know how I feel about this, doesn't seem to jive well with Chicago's classic architecture in the area. I feel like they should have built this in San Francisco.

I think for an out-of-towner (I am assuming you are), the renderings make for a skewed perception.

The skyline in the back, for example the Sears Tower, is still about two and a half miles away (three and half miles in case of the Hancock). The Sears Tower's two white antennae are around 280 feet tall, this museum is about HALF their size.

So the classical architecture you refer to is not "in the area," this is a large park space that is away from most of the skyline. Furthermore, this would only be visible for maybe less than a half mile on lakeshore drive, and won't be visible from the vast majority of downtown, let alone the city. If the museum was in the middle of a downtown block on Michigan ave, yes, totally out of place, but this is pure parkland with the lake to the east.

[alex1]

Originally Posted by chiphile

I think for an out-of-towner (I am assuming you are), the renderings make for a skewed perception.

The skyline in the back, for example the Sears Tower, is still about two and a half miles away (three and half miles in case of the Hancock). The Sears Tower's two white antennae are around 280 feet tall, this museum is about HALF their size.

So the classical architecture you refer to is not "in the area," this is a large park space that is away from most of the skyline. Furthermore, this would only be visible for maybe less than a half mile on lakeshore drive, and won't be visible from the vast majority of downtown, let alone the city. If the museum was in the middle of a downtown block on Michigan ave, yes, totally out of place, but this is pure parkland with the lake to the east.

I assume that poster if talking about the neoclassical designs from the Field, Shedd, Adler and Soldier field. The counterargument is that there have been modern additions to all these structures minus the Field.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by F1 Tommy

Those higher res photos really make this project look nice. Maybe a few changes could be made but I hope they build it close to as shown. We do need a few buildings from this artchitect in Chicago.

I couldn't agree more. I would love to see them do a high profile skyscraper in LSE or some other prominent location where it'd have big visual impact on the skyline. If only Trump tower could be magically erased and replaced with a MAD design.

Maybe Related... wait, never mind, that's just stupid to even consider...

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by Onn

I don't know how I feel about this, doesn't seem to jive well with Chicago's classic architecture in the area. I feel like they should have built this in San Francisco.

We were once a city of architectural innovation and the center of new thought in the architecture world. There's nothing classic about our architectural legacy. We have only a, rather unfortunately large, collection of neoclassical buildings and museums that mar our city and muddle our history. The Field museum is one of them, which I assume is the classic architecture you're referring to.

The architecture of Ma Yansong and his partners is more Chicago in spirit than anything I can think of since the Modern Wing. This museum, however the final design ends up, could not better capture the spirit of Sullivan, Van Der Rohe, Goldberg, Graham, Jahn... Say what you will about the look of the building, but our architectural legacy is defined by our ability to break away from antiquity and create new styles, to define our own norms, innovate, and never replicate. So tell me, please, how doesn't this museum "jive" with our city's ethos? Because I'll tell you this; it is the Field, Art Institute, Museum of S and I... it was Burnham and all his neoclassical piers that he brought over that does not "jive" with Chicago's architectural spirit.

[ChickeNES]

A bit of unintentional humor from CNN in their article on the Lucas Museum:

http://imgur.com/X7Ws3YM

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by ChickeNES

A bit of unintentional humor from CNN in their article on the Lucas Museum:

http://imgur.com/X7Ws3YM

Presumably you are talking about the "Architects Ludwig Mies van der Rohe have released the designs for the Lucas Museum..." caption!

[wrab]

More from Blair Kamin:

Chicago Tribune
George Lucas' Museum Proposal is Needlessly Massive
By Blair Kamin
November 6, 2014

I think I can explain the widespread public revulsion toward the just-released design for the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art. This isn't the typical shock of the new. People are mad because they instinctively get that this cartoonish mountain of a building would be glaringly out of place amid the horizontal sweep of Chicago's lakefront.....

Article continues here