Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280
.....I don't get why they would want an entire children's museum underground, with no regular windows.....
|
They are attempting to address the GP charter (prohibiting buildings) by locating the museum (mostly) underground - the skylights protrude above-ground, but K&S has designed these, and the museum is promoting them, as sculptural elements; sculpture is not prohibited by the charter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pilsenarch
.....
But since this forum isn't about politics, but rather buildings, I would have to reiterate that we focus on the actual design.......
|
This program is a response to the restrictive GP covenant. That is why the museum is subterranean. I don't see how in this instance one can consider the design apart from the GP controversy.
I wouldn't be devastated if the museum locates at GP, especially given the talent at K&S, and the renovations to DBP. But it ought to be difficult, very difficult, for any private group to build in the city's front yard. Make 'em fight for the privilege. And extract as many park-friendly concessions from them as possible in the process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcu
^ "forever free, open, and clear" is not absolute and I'm not sure why opponents of this plan are treated it as such. Sure some lakefront events/structures violate the notion on its face (eg Soldier Field), but it's absurd to treat the concept with complete disregard for the circumstances and other factors at play.....
|
I don't believe that the SF site falls within the GP covenant. Nor museum campus, which was created after Field's failed attempt to locate his museum in GP. The Art Institute got in before Montgomery Ward filed his lawsuit to enforce the GP charter. And the Gehry was allowed in only after it was classified as "sculpture".
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivaLFuego
I'd also like to hear an explanation as to how the "forever free open and clear" claptrap isn't completely meaningless in this context, given that Grant Park is an interactive, formal park with plenty of fee-entry activities already; this is not a nature/serene park, it's an activity park. honte's concern is the most legitimate, but the BS being put forth by "the neighbors" and Hack Reilly is disingenuous.
EDIT: what, did the Trib let the cranky smog-belching anti-change progressive NIMBYs in 400 E. Randolph write that editorial? It's a nightmare of logical reasoning.
|
It is meaningless until someone sues to enforce it, as Ward did when Field attempted to build his museum in GP.
There are so many competing interests at play here - one can be wary of a GP site on preservation grounds alone, without being a NIMBY in any way (meaning...ahem...
me, among others). Personally, I'd love to see it at the LSE park