Quote:
Originally Posted by pilsenarch
That's just it Honte, from an architectural and urban planning perspective, I see no problems whatsoever....rather just vast improvements.
The only legitimate problems I have heard re the CCM are from the political and legal perpectives, not the architectural or urban planning. As far as comparing Daley Bi to the work of Dan Kiley or thinking that it is or ever was a minimalist masterpiece, you must admit, you stand alone with that opinion.
Look, Grant Park IS our front yard, and you might not like how the relatives are using it (I personally avoid all those festivals like the plague), it has proven very successful at doing just that. This is almost wholly due to its specific and wondrous location.
And, this is exactly why the CCM wants to be RIGHT THERE and NO WHERE ELSE. It is a singularly unique site....no other site could possibly offer the CCM what this one does. Could they exist somewhere else? Of course, but no other site offers the promise that this one does. Again, as an architect, if you don't recognize this, then you are fooling yourself. I can't think of any other uses that would be appropriate but a museum for kids does seem right. (On the other hand, the existing neighborhood field house itself does not appear to be an appropriate use....maybe they should just comletely eliminate that when they rebuild.)
Honte, when did art and architecture stop being sculpture?,
|
You and I are looking at this entirely differently. Your argument that they "want to be right there and nowhere else" falls completely flat. Do you know how many private enterprises would like to be "right there," along the lakefront? Give me a break. Why is it so desirable after all these years? Why aren't they looking at Gary's lakefront, if they think that any old party should be able to make a claim? That was the whole point of protecting the lakefront parks.
Architecture and planning are NOT about what the client wants all the time. That is not how great cities are built.
My question was whether this is the
best place for the museum, not whether it meets their needs. Again, I think in terms of net gains. And I disagree with you that it is the ideal place for them anyway. It offers low-to-zero visibility (wait until the 'compromise' plan comes out that has a fraction of the advertising 'sculptures'). It is in a low-traffic corner of the park. It has little public transit, as Mr. Downtown pointed out. The neighbors already hate it. And so forth. The institution would be much better served by building a flashy new building in a high-visibility location adjacent to public transit, but that solution doesn't satisfy the other interests and makes the Emperor look like he's weak.
Many very intelligent people will argue that architecture never was sculpture, and that is for a different thread, not here. I'm not even going to go there. Again, I am discussing this from a legal standpoint. I'm not lawyer, but this is a technical and semantic issue and has nothing to do with how you appreciate or fancy your work. It's quite obvious that the law was intended to keep buildings out of Grant Park, and that the allowance for sculpture was not implemented to be a loophole for museums and other greedy parties that think they know what's best.
I agree that Grant Park is our Front Yard. All the more reason it needs extra attention, care, and protection, and should not be prone to all pressures put on it.
Is Daley Bi a Dan Kiley? No. Is every Modernist building a Mies or Corbu? No, but that doesn't make them unimportant. But as someone with a very rich knowledge of Chicago Modernism - its history, development, and its impacts - I feel confident in my appraisals. While you are incorrect that I am alone in this opinion, I will grant you that I might be in the minority... but given the lack of respect for architecture, the general ignorance of the public
and architects, and the rampant egomania in the profession, I'm used to it by now.
Prev
that's nice! 
Linear Mode
