HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Never Built & Visionary Projects > Cancelled Project Threads Archive

 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #201  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2014, 6:32 AM
denizen467 denizen467 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn View Post
Fioretti already coming out against the Museum, as expected. Called it "A Palace for Java The Hut" while on camera with WGN. ...
I can't wait until this Asshat is out of our city's politics for good.
Did this genius actually call it "Java"? There's no sign of him disappearing from politics any time soon though, is there?


Anyway, as far as Lucas's proposal by MAD goes, I think the collective backlash is being overplayed, and there's danger of there being so much momentum that he will take all his toys and go to another city. Talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth. I think Mr Lucas needs to believe he can have his desired site so long as there's a spectacular building with appropriate treatment of parking (underground) and green space (lots of it). Otherwise, shoving him down the lakefront a half mile could feel like a bait and switch sleight. I do hope behind the scenes Rahm is being more delicate about the matter with him (as much as that sounds like an oxymoron).
     
     
  #202  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2014, 9:51 AM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,816
There is a zero percent chance of Rahm allowing himself to be forced to propose a new site. The reason Lucas came here was that this is Chicago and we get things done when we want to get things done. There should be no public debate about this, force it down their throats. You don't think the entire business community (who is really who has mattered in Chicago since day 1 of this city) doesn't support this coming here 100%? The business community already loves Rahm, you don't think they aren't willing to go to war to crush idiots like Fioretti and Friends of the Park and anyone else who gets in the way of this?
     
     
  #203  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2014, 12:54 PM
denizen467 denizen467 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,209
Zero percent isn't correct as long as there's a chance the huge design shortcomings won't be adequately rethought; Rahm won't want to be responsible for a Jabba, or other, eyesore dominating that location. That's why I hope he carefully deals with Lucas to get the design problems addressed - which probably will happen but isn't a no brainer if downsizing, or extra costs for increasing the subterranean component, are required. Once that's achieved then everything you said would kick in.
     
     
  #204  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2014, 6:25 PM
sentinel's Avatar
sentinel sentinel is offline
Plenary pleasures.
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by denizen467 View Post
Did this genius actually call it "Java"? There's no sign of him disappearing from politics any time soon though, is there?


Anyway, as far as Lucas's proposal by MAD goes, I think the collective backlash is being overplayed, and there's danger of there being so much momentum that he will take all his toys and go to another city. Talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth. I think Mr Lucas needs to believe he can have his desired site so long as there's a spectacular building with appropriate treatment of parking (underground) and green space (lots of it). Otherwise, shoving him down the lakefront a half mile could feel like a bait and switch sleight. I do hope behind the scenes Rahm is being more delicate about the matter with him (as much as that sounds like an oxymoron).
.

Oh God, if that happens, I'm leaving Chicago for good (which I NEVER thought I would say).

What kills me is the deafening hypocrisy of Friends of the Park and namely, it's head, Cassandra Francis. She was Director of the 2016 bid Olympic Village development, and obviously, in support of the Olympic venues taking over Northerly Island, in addition to the SAME PLOT OF LAND that is being proposed for the Lucas Museum. It's a little suspect to me that she is still gunning for the same area that was proposed for the Olympic Village (the Michael Reese plot) to be used by Lucas for his museum; I wouldn't be surprised if she has some sort of personal benefit to be gained, IMO.

If Chicago loses this and Lucas takes his museum away to LA or even back to San Francisco, I wouldn't mind Francis becoming a new civic pariah, ala Mrs. O'Leary's cow, Michael Bilandic, etc. How utterly stupid are people to listen to this insufferable pied-piper and her ilk, and in the process lose a massive new arts endeavor meant for public consumption, that would bring hundreds if not thousands of jobs, a lot of priceless art and hundreds of millions in visual arts funding? To those of you who think this is just Star Wars/Indiana Jones/blockbuster props, costumes and artwork, congrats of letting your xenophobic ignorance get the best of you. Hey, maybe it's time to revise or even ditch the Lakefront Protection Ordinance via referendum, because if it doesn't allow for the differentiation of what can and cannot constitute space that benefits the general public, even though there are already multiple precedents in the form of other museums along the lake, then what purpose does it actually serve? What happens when an ordinance becomes more of a hindrance than a benefit?? Maybe I should start a campaign or even file a federal lawsuit to try and have the ordinance rescinded. Hmmm..
__________________
Don't be shy. Step into the light.

Last edited by sentinel; Nov 17, 2014 at 6:37 PM.
     
     
  #205  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2014, 8:43 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by sentinel View Post
Oh God, if that happens, I'm leaving Chicago for good (which I NEVER thought I would say).
this museum will have virtually zero impact on the average person's life including your own (unless you stand to land the construction contract). if the prospect of a privately funded museum is the thin thread holding you here, id say your day to day priorities are more than a little out of whack and you should probably make the move sooner rather than later
     
     
  #206  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2014, 9:23 PM
sentinel's Avatar
sentinel sentinel is offline
Plenary pleasures.
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by Via Chicago View Post
this museum will have virtually zero impact on the average person's life including your own (unless you stand to land the construction contract). if the prospect of a privately funded museum is the thin thread holding you here, id say your day to day priorities are more than a little out of whack and you should probably make the move sooner rather than later
^^THIS is the type of provincial attitude I was trying to highlight many posts back; So you fall in the camp of people who are against this museum, or see little value to the people of Chicago for such an institution?

I take exception to your comment, because as a Chicagoan for almost my entire life, I value a LOT of what the City and region has to offer, and because I believe a project like this DOES have a wealth of things to offer and can impact an average person's life, which is why it would be a damn shame if it doesn't happen. Additionally, I don't need to be schooled about what may constitute an individual's best desire for wanting a certain quality of life, so get over yourself (I'm also sorry if hyperbole is lost on you; not my problem, though).

Naysayers, pundits, misanthropes really need not comment, if they cannot realize why this museum is a good thing - I'm sorry if your lack of vision prevents you from understanding this... but I also won't sit idly by and let bitter, caustic, arrogant attitudes drown out the opinions of those of us who want Chicago to grow and expand and thrive. As the world becomes more competitive and complex, NIMBY attitudes such as yours, based on flawed assumptions and a lack of understanding of the real world and Chicago's place in it are extremely unproductive.

Also, THAT'S the only statement of mine that you felt was worth commenting on?? Oh boy.
__________________
Don't be shy. Step into the light.
     
     
  #207  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2014, 10:12 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by sentinel View Post
Naysayers, pundits, misanthropes really need not comment, if they cannot realize why this museum is a good thing
you sound as narrow minded and hyperbolic as those you claim to criticize. not allowing much room for nuance there

certainly is a convenient argument to say "im right and everyone else need not apply" though, i will admit. if only we could all be as right as you

Last edited by Via Chicago; Nov 17, 2014 at 10:49 PM.
     
     
  #208  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2014, 11:32 PM
sentinel's Avatar
sentinel sentinel is offline
Plenary pleasures.
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by Via Chicago View Post
you sound as narrow minded and hyperbolic as those you claim to criticize. not allowing much room for nuance there

certainly is a convenient argument to say "im right and everyone else need not apply" though, i will admit. if only we could all be as right as you
Well admittedly, I am biased, so what? I admit that, mea maxima culpa. At least I'm providing an opinion that I'm passionate about. You're not doing anything remotely similar, just shitting on the opinions of others. Perhaps you should actually try arguing something, then we might be able to maintain a thoughtful discourse, no? Until then, what exactly are you arguing for/against?
__________________
Don't be shy. Step into the light.
     
     
  #209  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2014, 11:40 PM
r18tdi's Avatar
r18tdi r18tdi is offline
Team Alinghi
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 933
Quote:
Originally Posted by Via Chicago View Post
you sound as narrow minded and hyperbolic as those you claim to criticize. not allowing much room for nuance there
I agree.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
     
     
  #210  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2014, 11:40 PM
sentinel's Avatar
sentinel sentinel is offline
Plenary pleasures.
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,647
I'll get the ball rolling, so here's another thought: did Friends of the Park try to put up a fight when Millennium Park was first revealed, or even later when Gehry's design? Real question because I don't actually know, nor have I been able to find any information online about this either...

...and if not, why didn't they, considering that location within Grant a Park proper seems like a far more defensible position than a plot of paved land between two extant structures. I just don't get it.
__________________
Don't be shy. Step into the light.
     
     
  #211  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2014, 11:41 PM
sentinel's Avatar
sentinel sentinel is offline
Plenary pleasures.
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by r18tdi View Post
I agree.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
Well, you win.
__________________
Don't be shy. Step into the light.
     
     
  #212  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2014, 12:28 AM
Ryanrule Ryanrule is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by r18tdi View Post
I agree.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
the sith get shit done.
     
     
  #213  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2014, 5:45 AM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by sentinel View Post
.What kills me is the deafening hypocrisy of Friends of the Park and namely, it's head, Cassandra Francis. She was Director of the 2016 bid Olympic Village development, and obviously, in support of the Olympic venues taking over Northerly Island, in addition to the SAME PLOT OF LAND that is being proposed for the Lucas Museum. It's a little suspect to me that she is still gunning for the same area that was proposed for the Olympic Village (the Michael Reese plot) to be used by Lucas for his museum; I wouldn't be surprised if she has some sort of personal benefit to be gained, IMO.
There's no need for character assassination or dark suggestions of self-dealing. Cassandra Francis spent most of her career working on the development side of things, first for U.S. Equities doing things like figuring out how to get Millennium Park built on time and on budget, and then with her own small consulting firm, which was retained by the Olympics pushers to study the Michael Reese site. At the BGA event, she gave a rather nuanced reply to Lee Bey's suggestion that the Reese site had soil contamination problems. In February 2014, she took over as new executive director of Friends of the Parks, expecting to bring her development experience to negotiations with folks like McCaffery and to rejuvenate the Last Four Miles project. Instead, six months later she finds herself sandbagged by a mayor giving away parkland he doesn't even legally control.
     
     
  #214  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2014, 1:19 PM
sentinel's Avatar
sentinel sentinel is offline
Plenary pleasures.
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,647
With all due respect everyone has something to gain, as Francis is no saint; regardless of what side one believes, there is always a personal angle, whether you're the Mayor or Francis.

And for Chrissake, this is not a private, gated development on the lake, it's not a high rise, it's not a private university research lab, nor a convention center. It's a museum, and if the entire argument against it is because of beef against Emanuel and perceived overreach, ask yourself, where was all this fuss regarding protection of public lands when Daley was Mayor?
__________________
Don't be shy. Step into the light.
     
     
  #215  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2014, 1:28 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Libertyville, IL
Posts: 13,792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
There's no need for character assassination or dark suggestions of self-dealing. Cassandra Francis spent most of her career working on the development side of things, first for U.S. Equities doing things like figuring out how to get Millennium Park built on time and on budget, and then with her own small consulting firm, which was retained by the Olympics pushers to study the Michael Reese site. At the BGA event, she gave a rather nuanced reply to Lee Bey's suggestion that the Reese site had soil contamination problems. In February 2014, she took over as new executive director of Friends of the Parks, expecting to bring her development experience to negotiations with folks like McCaffery and to rejuvenate the Last Four Miles project. Instead, six months later she finds herself sandbagged by a mayor giving away parkland he doesn't even legally control.
So you have clearly come out against the Lucas Museum, then? Because essentially that has been your tone throughout this thread.

Tell me what your alternative is. Chicago just loses out on a billion dollar museum so that we get to keep what will certainly remain a perpetual parking lot? I'm trying to get my head around why that works out better in your mind.
__________________
Stop villainizing market-rate housing
     
     
  #216  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2014, 3:04 PM
UPChicago's Avatar
UPChicago UPChicago is offline
Vote for me for Mayor!
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 627
Quote:
Originally Posted by sentinel View Post
I'll get the ball rolling, so here's another thought: did Friends of the Park try to put up a fight when Millennium Park was first revealed, or even later when Gehry's design? Real question because I don't actually know, nor have I been able to find any information online about this either...

...and if not, why didn't they, considering that location within Grant a Park proper seems like a far more defensible position than a plot of paved land between two extant structures. I just don't get it.
I could understand if they never came out against Millennium Park and the Pritzker Pavilion being as it use to be a huge parking lot and the Pritzker Pavilion is just an amphitheater not a principal structure.

I don't think they made a fuss about the Art Museum's Modern Wing. I do think they had something to do with the Children's Museum's Grant Park proposal getting the axe if I remember correctly.
     
     
  #217  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2014, 3:23 PM
sentinel's Avatar
sentinel sentinel is offline
Plenary pleasures.
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by UPChicago View Post
I could understand if they never came out against Millennium Park and the Pritzker Pavilion being as it use to be a huge parking lot and the Pritzker Pavilion is just an amphitheater not a principal structure.

I don't think they made a fuss about the Art Museum's Modern Wing. I do think they had something to do with the Children's Museum's Grant Park proposal getting the axe if I remember correctly.
That's it: the Lucas site is also an open-air parking lot; the Pritzker Pavilion IS a fire-rated, occupiable, 'principle' structure. It has fully engineered interior spaces that have to conform to City building codes. To my knowledge, Friends of the Park never batted an eye when Millennium Park and everything contained within was announced, designed and constructed (unless I'm totally wrong) - why all the embarrassing fuss now? A question that neither Mr. D nor anyone else seems inclined to answer.

I think this has nothing to do with the (very flawed) LPO and has much more to do with xenophobic concerns about a perceived carpetbagger bringing his influence to our 'fair' City.
__________________
Don't be shy. Step into the light.
     
     
  #218  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2014, 5:13 PM
UPChicago's Avatar
UPChicago UPChicago is offline
Vote for me for Mayor!
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 627
Quote:
Originally Posted by sentinel View Post
That's it: the Lucas site is also an open-air parking lot; the Pritzker Pavilion IS a fire-rated, occupiable, 'principle' structure. It has fully engineered interior spaces that have to conform to City building codes. To my knowledge, Friends of the Park never batted an eye when Millennium Park and everything contained within was announced, designed and constructed (unless I'm totally wrong) - why all the embarrassing fuss now? A question that neither Mr. D nor anyone else seems inclined to answer.

I think this has nothing to do with the (very flawed) LPO and has much more to do with xenophobic concerns about a perceived carpetbagger bringing his influence to our 'fair' City.
I'm for the musuem myself, I do think that there should be limited number of structures on the lakefront but replacing a parking lot with a museum is only a win. I really don't think it has to do with xenophobia, I think more people just don't like the design if it weren't so daring I doubt there would be this much outrage, except from FOTP. I don't think there is any legitimate reason it shouldn't be on the lakefront in the museum campus.
     
     
  #219  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2014, 6:12 PM
sentinel's Avatar
sentinel sentinel is offline
Plenary pleasures.
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,647
I've been staring at the design for the past two weeks, and I realized something/a theory about the current state of the museum design: I think the current design as rendered by MAD was never intended to be the final museum design; perhaps it was an attempt to gauge public and media perception of such an avant-garde piece. With Jeannie Gang on board to design the park, the bridge to Northerly Island and act as lead designer of the Museum Campus grounds, I wonder if Lucas doesn't have a Studio Gang-designed museum in his pocket, in collaboration with MAD for something pretty different from the current work. Something that isn't necessarily more muted, but...different. Maybe it's a design that's not as tall, maybe something with more windows, more landscaped/park area, who knows? And there is precedence because Lucas presented three different designs when the museum was still planned for San Francisco.

He presents a modified design, placating the harshest critics of the previous museum design, with Gang as the new principle designer/MAD consulting. She's a hometown hero, he's a hero and FOTP have to seriously reconsider their lawsuit because more of the overall land is devoted specifically to open park-space and the museum devotes two days a week for free attendance. Pipe dream I'm sure, but whatever..
__________________
Don't be shy. Step into the light.
     
     
  #220  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2014, 7:15 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
So you have clearly come out against the Lucas Museum, then?
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.

Quote:
Tell me what your alternative is. Chicago just loses out on a billion dollar museum so that we get to keep what will certainly remain a perpetual parking lot? I'm trying to get my head around why that works out better in your mind.
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.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
 

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Never Built & Visionary Projects > Cancelled Project Threads Archive
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:23 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.