CHICAGO | Lucas Museum of Narrative Art

[rlw777]

I really like the Lucas Museum preliminary design. Much of Blobitecture that I've seen might as well be giving Mies Van Der Rohe and all of modernism the finger in that it strays quite far from form following function. MAD on the other hand seems to be the best out there at breaking with traditional building forms while maintaining stronger functional rational. I am really excited for this one.

[Mr Downtown]

^How does this Lump by the Lake follow function or program? Merely by eschewing windows? Galleries and theaters generally have—in fact, so long as Earth has gravity, require—vertical walls. It might be a nice parlor trick to fit the various useful spaces within an amorphous blob, but functional (meaning dictated by function) is the last thing it is.

[intrepidDesign]

I dunno. I was hoping for something a little more geodesic. I also worry about how that's going to look after a few Chicago winters. Looks very Tatooine, so I guess in that regard, it's contextually appropriate. There's this one scene in Battlestar where Gaeta is about to be executed for mutiny, and talks about how he wanted to be an architect and his big idea was restaurants shaped like the food served within. That scene reminds me of this in the sense that it screams "hey, there is Star Wars stuff inside me".

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by CHI -21c

Yes, it looks like the Guggenheim --it looks like a lot of museums. I think it looks like any dull 2000's WHITE, oozy-shaped "futuristic," "bold" designs. Zaha Hadid, Diller Scofidio + Renfro, MAD. It's all the same story.

Diller + Scofidio? Are you sure you're not referring to another firm? I'm racking my brain but can't think of anything they've produced that could be described as "oozy-shaped"; certainly the projects that won them praise and attention aren't (Blur Building, ICA Boston, High Line).

The work of Zaha Hadid and MAD display superficial similarities, but I get the sense that MAD is more concerned about context/place. In the renderings for the Lucas Museum, for example, you can see the way in which the structure melds with the topography; people are (kinda crudely) collaged all over it like it's a hill or some other natural landscape feature. That was a deliberate choice on Ma's part and, in my assessment, underscores a belief that architecture should be interactive and accessible. Zaha Hadid's stuff, on the other hand, looks like it was created in a vacuum then forcefully manipulated into its site where it's meant to be revered by the native population. Whatever local references she utilizes during the genesis of her designs are so obscure or oblique as to be imperceptible to the average person. I personally think her stuff is beautiful, but I also think it's often insensitive and, at its worst, arrogant.

[tm30]

Tom Servo's renderings are awesome. Much better with the roof detail and perspective. I agree, this thing has a chance to be a spectacular attraction. Can't wait to see how this gets refined along the way. Would be nice to see an overhead perspective of the "parklets" to see how they envision the layout...

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by Kenmore

I really like the early designs.

I'm with you, Servo and others.

I really think this has all kinds of potential. We shouldn't kid ourselves of course - to my mind, this is still firmly in the conceptual phase and we can expect likely all kinds of changes....

[tm30]

Originally Posted by tm30

Tom Servo's renderings are awesome. Much better with the roof detail and perspective. I agree, this thing has a chance to be a spectacular attraction. Can't wait to see how this gets refined along the way. Would be nice to see an overhead perspective of the "parklets" to see how they envision the layout...

Nevermind. Found the overhead diagram here.

http://www.lucasmuseum.org/museum-design.html

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by intrepidDesign

I dunno. I was hoping for something a little more geodesic. I also worry about how that's going to look after a few Chicago winters. Looks very Tatooine, so I guess in that regard, it's contextually appropriate. There's this one scene in Battlestar where Gaeta is about to be executed for mutiny, and talks about how he wanted to be an architect and his big idea was restaurants shaped like the food served within. That scene reminds me of this in the sense that it screams "hey, there is Star Wars stuff inside me".

Eh, the Star Wars universe is so rich and fleshed out that it'd probably be impossible not to find some building on some planet that happens to look like whatever the architect were to come up with. I mean, look at Lakeside Center. It's black as night, aggressively rectilinear, its structure is totally exposed, it's powerful, imposing--in short, it couldn't be more different than MAD's design. Yet when news broke that Lucas was considering Chicago, a lot of people pointed to it as a perfect candidate for reuse because of the way it evokes Darth Vader and the Death Star. People are going to read Star Wars into the design regardless of the architect's intent (and I really don't think that their intent is to pigeonhole it as a Star Wars museum).

On the other hand...

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

^How does this Lump by the Lake follow function or program? Merely by eschewing windows? Galleries and theaters generally have—in fact, so long as Earth has gravity, require—vertical walls. It might be a nice parlor trick to fit the various useful spaces within an amorphous blob, but functional (meaning dictated by function) is the last thing it is.

And it begins...

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

Diller + Scofidio? Are you sure you're not referring to another firm? I'm racking my brain but can't think of anything they've produced that could be described as "oozy-shaped"; certainly the projects that won them praise and attention aren't (Blur Building, ICA Boston, High Line).

The work of Zaha Hadid and MAD display superficial similarities, but I get the sense that MAD is more concerned about context/place. In the renderings for the Lucas Museum, for example, you can see the way in which the structure melds with the topography; people are (kinda crudely) collaged all over it like it's a hill or some other natural landscape feature. That was a deliberate choice on Ma's part and, in my assessment, underscores a belief that architecture should be interactive and accessible.

Video Link

We need him for a big, anchor tower in LSE!!! Maybe one of the lots along Lake Shore...



inhabitat.com

Because how sick would this be along side Aqua, 345, whatever gets built at 375, etc...

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

Zaha Hadid's stuff, on the other hand, looks like it was created in a vacuum then forcefully manipulated into its site where it's meant to be revered by the native population. Whatever local references she utilizes during the genesis of her designs are so obscure or oblique as to be imperceptible to the average person. I personally think her stuff is beautiful, but I also think it's often insensitive and, at its worst, arrogant.

[rlw777]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

^How does this Lump by the Lake follow function or program? Merely by eschewing windows? Galleries and theaters generally have—in fact, so long as Earth has gravity, require—vertical walls. It might be a nice parlor trick to fit the various useful spaces within an amorphous blob, but functional (meaning dictated by function) is the last thing it is.

Whoa slow down there turbo. I didn't say MAD summoned the spirit of Mies here. But I think it's pretty obvious that the form of the building is dictated by the functions of both being a museum and being landscape / public space.

[Mr Downtown]

Public space?????

I assume it will be every bit as successful in that regard as the terrace at McCormick Place.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Public space?????

I assume it will be every bit as successful in that regard as the terrace at McCormick Place.

Don't be daft.

I assume it will be every bit as successful in that regard as any other museum in the city. So if you want to now argue that the stairs in front of the Art Institute or on the south side of the Field or in front of the MCA or the bridge and deck atop the Modern Wing etc... are NOT public spaces, then that's a different issue. But come on, museums are inherently public spaces.

[wierdaaron]

What a perfect day for a divisive issue to deal with! Be lucky you're probably all out of the age bracket to have "gamergate" on your plate as well.

[alex1]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

This is the only image that's been released? Then Jesus Christ on a fucking crucifix, how can anyone sit here and pass judgment? This rendering hardly provides us enough information to form anything approaching an informed opinion.

ETA: I didn't realize there were additional renderings. Consider my backlash to the backlash reduced by 50%. I still think it's imprudent for people not to qualify their opinions at this point.

I think that one image you reference gives us a lot of DNA in terms of form and context within the surroundings.

But no. That's not the only image that has been released.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by alex1

But no. That's not the only image that has been released.

...hence the ETA.

[alex1]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

Whatever local references she utilizes during the genesis of her designs are so obscure or oblique as to be imperceptible to the average person. I personally think her stuff is beautiful, but I also think it's often insensitive and, at its worst, arrogant.

It's funny how I agree with what you're saying... but in regards to the Lucas museum (except I don't find MAD's work to be beautiful).

Contextually I don't think this museum does anything to tie into the environment (natural or built). I'm okay with buildings trying to redefine the landscape with unique features that are alien to the area but this building will have a difficult time doing so simply because the neighboring structures are so grand in scale/style. I'm fairly ambivalent to Hadid's work but I do think she does a fantastic job at redefining an area with her structures.

[alex1]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

But come on, museums are inherently public spaces.

That's not always true in the purest definition of what a public space is (open to all without having to purchase a ticket or incurring other fees to enter).

[rlw777]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

theres nothing about it that looks inviting. its just a big amorphous blob of concrete. brutalism for the 21st century.

The entire facade will be stone not concrete according to the Lucas Museum website. I imagine the stone base of their Ordos Museum thrusted upward several stories. With either subtly defined (like the stairway in the image below) or completely undefined pedestrian boundaries.

^Most of top of the building would fit "purest definition of what a public space is"

[wierdaaron]

I actually wish it was more like Ordos, but maybe that would seem too Beany to people.