Quote:
Originally Posted by pilsenarch
Having said that, let me make sure I understand your position: The proposed CCM will either be so invisible that no one is going to attend, or, it will indeed destroy the park? and, no architect, no matter how talented, could possibly acheive anything but one or the other outcome?
|
Well, it comes down to POV concerning what "destroy the park" means. To me, that means violate the legal precedents, so yes, I would generally agree with your summary.
Of course, there is a counterexample to every situation. You would have to get very, very lucky.
From my perspective, let me just summarize what I've been trying to say all along, and that will hopefully be the end of my comments on this topic for a while:
1. The proposal violates laws governing the use of Grant Park.
2. The proposal seeks to rebuild something that is already quite nice, in one the most improved areas of the city. By locating it here, its impact is weakened and an opportunity is lost. Even if Daley Bicentennial Plaza were a tar pit, with the presence of other recent improvements nearby such as Millennium Park, you cannot argue that this is an especially useful improvement from an urban planning perspective.
3. The surrounding community was not aware of this proposal initially until the wheels were set in motion, and overwhelmingly objects to its insertion in the park.
4. All of the City's leading preservation groups have come out against this proposal. Other community groups citywide have also spoken against this. Newspapers have written editorials against it.
5. The Children's Museum has existed quite prosperously at Navy Pier for many years and there is no indication that without this very site, they will fail. In fact, they might very well be served equally well if not better in another location.
6. The setting of Grant Park is imperiled by continued taxation of its resources (meaning that uses being placed in the park are not park-like in nature and adequate provisions for such have not been made), which in turn sets at risk the very intention of this park and the function it is supposed to serve for all residents. Current developments have ignored the initial master plan of Grant Park and have actually counteracted any effort to bring the park to a fully executed state.
Given the above conditions, from my point of view, this is a situation far larger than any practice, and I believe that no architecture firm could surmount these obstacles to create a winning design. What is winning design? I believe you and I have different opinions of that.
Also, I forgot to mention earlier in response to your question about locations for the museum: I believe an air rights development over the IC tracks next to the Museum Campus would be possibly the ultimate location for the museum. I've been arguing that since day one. This would give them visibility, a direct relationship to one of the world's premier museum collections, and would offer tangible benefits for all of Chicago (by extending the park system southward). It also would help energize the South Loop by giving it a cultural institution. Transit is currently lacking, but proposals active now directly to the south of this area could change that very quickly. Besides, transit doesn't seem high on their priority list. Parking in the area is abundant, especially when Soldier Field is not in use. Visiblity is huge. And, K+S could do what they do best - eg build a building, not a bunker.
Prev
Linear Mode
