CHICAGO | Lucas Museum of Narrative Art

[Mr Downtown]

Here's last Wednesday's BGA forum:

• Video Link

[sentinel]

^^Well, I most certainly don't agree, and think your bitterness over Chicago development issues over the past few decades is clouding your better judgement, I want to at least thank you Mr. D for providing a personal opinion, sincerely. Sometimes, it's just good to get that out, that's what discourses like these are about.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Because it's always the same false dichotomy. McCormick Place has to be right here walling off the lake or Chicago will lose all the big trade fairs. Greektown and Little Italy have to be wiped out or Chicago will never get a University of Illinois campus. Soldier Field has to be lobotomized and host an alien life form because the rest rooms are yucky. NMH has to be allowed to demolish Prentice or it will never build a cancer-curing research institute. One of the world's great Olmsted landscapes has to be obliterated or Chicago won't get the Olympics.

400,000 square feet would fill nearly 20 percent of the Old Post Office. It could give a new life to McCormick Place Lakeside Center. It could animate two whole blocks of Motor Row landmarks. It could deck over Metra Electric's Weldon Yard. It could be at Michael Reese, at the McCormick truck yards, or somewhere where transit already exists instead of having to be grafted on as an afterthought.

And if Chicago doesn't get this particular billionaire's vanity monument? Well, 75 years from now we won't have to explain what on earth we were thinking devoting precious lakefront and gobs of public money to an ugly windowless building housing a cineplex and some archives for long-forgotten calendar illustrations.

^ But Chicago is in the midwest, it has arctic cold winters, and despite a city its size way underperforms other large American cities in international appeal and tourism. It lags cities on the coast in performance in countless ways.

Chicago does not have the luxury of turning away extremely rare investments like this, the way other cities do.

The "lump by the lake" isn't going to set a precedent, and you and I both know this. This is a ridiculous exercise, this frivolous lawsuit, and the hype that's behind it.

[UPChicago]

I watched the whole video and while there were great points on both sides, I call bullshit on Friends of the Park. They oppose it because its in a park, its removing open space and its not "public". Public, meaning being free for 56 days a year to Illinois residence. I would respect there opposition more if she hadn't put so much effort into explaining why the current parking lot is a valued open space and try to make it seem like it would be a great tragedy to see it go. Overall I call bullshit and I hope this doesn't fly in court.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

The "lump by the lake" isn't going to set a precedent, and you and I both know this. This is a ridiculous exercise, this frivolous lawsuit, and the hype that's behind it.

Exactly the bolded part above: this is not setting any precedent. The precedent was set by the half dozen other permanent structures that literally surround this structure on equally or more prominent parts of the lakefront. Anyone who calls slippery slope on this issue is deluded. This "pristine lakefront" has had massive museums and a freaking stadium on it since shortly after this land was artificially raised from the lake by man. There is nothing natural about it current state. There is nothing new about building large structures on this stretch of lakefront. There is absolutely no argument against this. The end. Period. Full Stop.

[Mr Downtown]

Who is claiming that the issue is "setting a precedent?"

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Who is claiming that the issue is "setting a precedent?"

You did:

As a matter of principle, yes, I oppose the lakefront site.

^ What else could you possible mean by 'principle'? What 'principle' implies is that you don't have an issue with an individual project, but you have an issue with the can of worms that it opens up.

[woodrow]

The museum has hired Don Bacigalupi, currently the President of the Crystal Bridges Museum in Bentonville, Arkansas, as its Founding President.

This is a big deal. He was brought on to Crystal Bridges as its Exec. Director in 2009 and oversaw completion of that beautiful museum and has had a major hand in amassing its collection and developing its programming. Before that, he was the head of the Toledo Art Museum when that museum built its stunning addition. Tremendous experience.

Additionally, he helped Crystal Bridges, and its founder Alice Walton, in dealing with some of the snobbery in the museum world. He has solid art credentials. He also can work politicians and critics.

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

As a matter of principle, yes, I oppose the lakefront site. The Lump by the Lake design did nothing to make me feel better about such a devil's bargain.



Because it's always the same false dichotomy. McCormick Place has to be right here walling off the lake or Chicago will lose all the big trade fairs. Greektown and Little Italy have to be wiped out or Chicago will never get a University of Illinois campus. Soldier Field has to be lobotomized and host an alien life form because the rest rooms are yucky. NMH has to be allowed to demolish Prentice or it will never build a cancer-curing research institute. One of the world's great Olmsted landscapes has to be obliterated or Chicago won't get the Olympics.

400,000 square feet would fill nearly 20 percent of the Old Post Office. It could give a new life to McCormick Place Lakeside Center. It could animate two whole blocks of Motor Row landmarks. It could deck over Metra Electric's Weldon Yard. It could be at Michael Reese, at the McCormick truck yards, or somewhere where transit already exists instead of having to be grafted on as an afterthought.

And if Chicago doesn't get this particular billionaire's vanity monument? Well, 75 years from now we won't have to explain what on earth we were thinking devoting precious lakefront and gobs of public money to an ugly windowless building housing a cineplex and some archives for long-forgotten calendar illustrations.

I have to state that I do agree with your point about the presentation of that false dichotomy in general. That's a time-honored strategy on the part of politicians here that's very disengenous, to say the least.

However, I also have to state that you sound like someone - here.....and come to think of it quite often in your posts - who is very fearful of the future, and just fearful of, and resistant to change in general. I mean, your horizons in architecture and design are, uh, not very broad to say the least. The 'new' soldier field? Really, you're going with the 'alien invasion' trope? How pedestrian....how Chicawwga....come to think of it, how...Blair Kamin. Perhaps the 2nd version of the Lucas Museum design, after revisions, will have just a bit more regular fenestration rythyms for you to relate to....

[UPChicago]

Another thing that kills me is the gripe about it being windowless, its a museum a lot of there don't have windows or block the exhibits from sunlight to preserve them.

[sentinel]

One BIG critique I have about the museum presentation that was provided, is that they didn't provide enough information; plans, elevations, building sections, a clearer site plan, interior renderings, etc. - all of which could have helped in providing a better overall idea of what Lucas wants to build, and which also could have helped convince more people about the integrity of the design.....which goes back to my earlier post/belief that this was never intended to be the museum's final design.

[Avondale]

I was thinking that a good compromise between the idea of open parkland on the lakefront and the addition of the Lucas museum would be to make the whole museum have a green roof, something that the public could walk onto, essentially turning the current parking lot into both the museum and a park. Win win. Perhaps instead of just building a set of monumental dunes, more closely recreate the dunes as something with vegetation on them that people could climb and enjoy as parkland.

Could anyone let me know if this would be feasible cost wise or from an engineering perspective?

[Mr Downtown]

^I think such an arrangement of "landscape urbanism" is exactly what most of us expected when we were promised "a large net addition to green space" and a collaboration between MAD and Studio Gang. That's why we in the lumpenproletariat were so disappointed when we were presented a lumpenmuseum.

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

^I think such an arrangement of "landscape urbanism" is exactly what most of us expected when we were promised "a large net addition to green space" and a collaboration between MAD and Studio Gang. That's why we in the lumpenproletariat were so disappointed when we were presented a lumpenmuseum.

To be fair that's also what I was initially kinda hoping for, however I still like the proposal, even though I now firmly believe it's not the final FINAL design; call it 'Non-gender specific intuition', if you will. Time will tell..

[the urban politician]

^ Well, if Lucas wants to salvage this museum, he will have to redesign it. It is coming under too much heat for him not to.

[le_brew]

here are designs from the lucas museum.org page featuring architecture:

http://www.lucasmuseum.org/collectio...cture-147.html

if only the concept for lucas museum chicago were nearly as innovative as any one of these structures; especially the Museum of Middle Eastern Modern Art (MOMEMA) by UNStudio

so my objection is to that design we were presented and lack of creativity thereof, not the site.

also, thanks mr DT for the BGA forum video. enjoyed.

[The Pimp]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Well, if Lucas wants to salvage this museum, he will have to redesign it. It is coming under too much heat for him not to.

Salvage??? This museum is done deal. The design may change and I hope it does. But the Mayor wants the prestige of of having this building on the lake. Plus too many powerful names are supporting the project.

[Pilton]

Rahm Emanuel got his budget approved today 46-4.

The City Council did not have the guts to point out the new budget is more financial sleight of hand. It kicks the can further down the road. But, nobody is going to be able to raise sufficient campaign money to beat Rahm.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...ry.html#page=1

As long as Rahm remains Mayor, the City Council will approve a plan building the Lucas Museum on the Lakefront parking lot.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by sentinel

which goes back to my earlier post/belief that this was never intended to be the museum's final design.

Originally Posted by sentinel

even though I now firmly believe it's not the final FINAL design; call it 'Non-gender specific intuition', if you will. Time will tell..

Originally Posted by the urban politician

he will have to redesign it.

Originally Posted by The Pimp

The design may change and I hope it does.

Good god people, have none of you been actually reading anything about this? It's been reiterated over and over again in the press and on the LMNA website that this is just the initial conceptual study. They have been touting the fact that:

To keep the community up to date, The Lucas Museum website will feature a live web-cam as well as time-lapse photography to showcase the progression of the building's design.

They've been saying that since before we even saw any of the conceptual renderings at all. In fact, the website even has a big fat bold title saying "CONCEPTUAL DESIGN" right over the images we are all seeing. This is clearly not the final design and will obviously change radically if they are hyping the fact that the public will get to watch it progress LIVE. I think I've seen two dozen comments along the lines of the ones I quoted above in the last week alone. Let's get this straight, this is not final, this probably not even remotely close to final...

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

This is clearly not the final design and will obviously change radically

I think you're fooling yourself. With a building like this, the basic concept—a shan-shui hill—is the design. It's not like changing the vision glass or the masonry joints, adding a few balconies or planters, will make a substantial difference in how the form is perceived. Obviously it was approved by the client before it was released. It might get tweaked, but not rethought unless someone with the power to—either the client or Mayor Emanuel—tells Ma to reëxamine the basic premise.