Quote:
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.
