CHICAGO | Lucas Museum of Narrative Art

[Tom Servo]

Whatever, Blair...

An affront to the lakefront? Needlessly massive?? Mount Lucas???



Give me a break. You're not going to get a low-slung building with proportions similar to Navy Pier on this site. There's just too much square footage. And more importantly, how is this museum in any way comparable or relatable to Navy Pier? It's not.



The only point of comparison should be its surroundings. The Field, Soldier Field, and Lakeside Center. Compared to these, Lucas's museum is comparable in size and shorter than two. So let's stop with the NIMBY language about height and size, please. God Kamin sounds like an idiot.


chicagotribune.com

[Via Chicago]

I think his points are valid. Also, it sounds like Rahm is being guarded in his comments as well so I wouldnt become too attached to the current iteration as I imagine its likely to get tweaked.

I still dont understand why if youre going to build so far above ground you'd include so few windows. Yes, theres an observation deck but the museum trend is away from this bunker mentality and towards natural light/views, which makes the interior easier to navigate and less claustrophobic.

Also, its a little unfair looking at this strictly from a height perspective...if nothing else Lakeside Center and the Field emphasize their width rather than height. And SF used to, before it was bastardized. Take away the spaceship, and all three of those speak pretty nicely to each other.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

chicagotribune.com

I'm glad you posted this. I haven't come close to making up my mind about the design, but I think Kamin does a huge disservice to himself, to this debate, and to dialogue about architecture in general when he insists on referring to Ma's design as a mountain. Look at those elevations. If it's a mountain, what does that make Soldier Field, the Field Museum? ...planets? Both are far more visually massive. He's arguing in bad faith, and it diminishes the legitimacy of (what I at least think are) his more valid points. After all, wasn't he opposed to the idea of museum from the get-go? Now he just sounds like he's peddling an agenda. I expect more from him.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

I still dont understand why if youre going to build so far above ground you'd include so few windows. Yes, theres an observation deck but the museum trend is away from this bunker mentality and towards natural light/views, which makes the interior easier to navigate and less claustrophobic.

Also, its a little unfair looking at this strictly from a height perspective...if nothing else Lakeside Center and the Field emphasize their width rather than height. And SF used to, before it was bastardized. Take away the spaceship, and all three of those speak pretty nicely to each other.

So far above ground? You mean shorter than Soldier Field and the Field Museum? "Unfair looking at this strictly from a height perspective." Why? Because the facts don't jive with your perception?

If you (and not you specifically but anyone who objects to the design because of its size) want to argue that this thing seems big, then you're going to have to do so while acknowledging that, objectively speaking, it's actually smaller than its neighbors. I don't think anyone has persuasively made that case. You yourself seem more against conical or tapered designs than anything, and anyway you also can't just "take away" the addition to Soldier Field. It's there. It's the reality of the site.

Furthermore, I was under the impression that the observation deck hovers over an oculus which would be the source of diffused, natural light. Maybe I missed something?

[wrab]

Almost all of the renderings that we've seen so far use perspective to emphasize the museum's prominence - you'd want to do that if you were pitching to a big-egoed benefactor like Lucas. Make it look big. Make it look important. Minimize the scale of any competing structure.

But they're the wrong set of renderings to use at this juncture, when you're pitching to Chicago, to city residents, to community groups, etc.

[SamInTheLoop]

^^^ ^^ ^ Affirmative.

I see you guys really have things under control here......

[alex1]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

I'm glad you posted this. I haven't come close to making up my mind about the design, but I think Kamin does a huge disservice to himself, to this debate, and to dialogue about architecture in general when he insists on referring to Ma's design as a mountain. Look at those elevations. If it's a mountain, what does that make Soldier Field, the Field Museum?

You fail to take proportions into account. I thought Kamin was extremely clear on that point.

[Tom Servo]

Proportions my ass. The Field is a hulking, 100 foot tall box. It is an unforgivingly massive building. His argument falls flat and is rather foolish... though such is the nature of his regularly NIMBY minded criticisms.

Kamin is opposed to modern architecture and the avant-garde aesthetic. Simple as that.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by alex1

You fail to take proportions into account. I thought Kamin was extremely clear on that point.

What an arrogant thing to say. I didn't "fail" to take it into account; I'm unpersuaded by it. It's not bolstered by evidence. IMO, it's a perception influenced by an agenda.

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Kamin is opposed to modern architecture and the avant-garde aesthetic. Simple as that.

This would be news to me...

[alex1]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Proportions my ass. The Field is a hulking, 100 foot tall box. It is an unforgivingly massive building. His argument falls flat and is rather foolish... though such is the nature of his regularly NIMBY minded criticisms.

Kamin is opposed to modern architecture and the avant-garde aesthetic. Simple as that.

And the Field isn't "mountain like". Proportions. They matter.

Your last point is false.

[alex1]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

What an arrogant thing to say. I didn't "fail" to take it into account; I'm unpersuaded by it. It's not bolstered by evidence. IMO, it's a perception influenced by an agenda.

I'm fine if you think it's an "arrogant thing to say". You'll live. Humanity will continue...until it no longer does for reasons unassociated with my comment to you.

Still, the proportions are "mountain like". He's not wrong about that.

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by alex1

And the Field isn't "mountain like". Proportions. They matter.

Thank you for driving this home. Length, Width, Height. They all matter, and perceptions of each lies within their relationship to one another.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

What an arrogant thing to say. I didn't "fail" to take it into account; I'm unpersuaded by it. It's not bolstered by evidence. IMO, it's a perception influenced by an agenda.

[OhioGuy]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

I still dont understand why if youre going to build so far above ground you'd include so few windows. Yes, theres an observation deck but the museum trend is away from this bunker mentality and towards natural light/views, which makes the interior easier to navigate and less claustrophobic.

That was my first reaction when I saw the renderings. While I didn't immediately hate the design, the lack of windows confused me. Granted the point of the museum is to show off whatever contents are inside rather than having people distracted by the outside views. Having noted that, I don't understand the need for this lakefront location if the building isn't going to embrace the water views to the east and the skyline views to the north-northwest?

[Mr Downtown]

The Tribune finally notices that this site is on the lakefront:

The Lucas Museum should not be on Chicago's lakefront
Last week's unveiling of plans for a Lucas Museum of Narrative Art crystallized what until now had been a disagreement about a controversial location and a structure of unknown size. The first concern will fester until the museum is sited somewhere else. The second, though, has awakened Chicagoans to the stakes for Chicago's lakefront. Mayor Rahm Emanuel should tell the people of his city that he won't give these 17 acres to this or any other construction project.

Read more . . .

[sentinel]

Thankfully, no one reads the Tribune anymore. Can't wait for this to be built! Yay!!

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

The Tribune finally notices that this site is on the lakefront:

The Lucas Museum should not be on Chicago's lakefront
Last week's unveiling of plans for a Lucas Museum of Narrative Art crystallized what until now had been a disagreement about a controversial location and a structure of unknown size. The first concern will fester until the museum is sited somewhere else. The second, though, has awakened Chicagoans to the stakes for Chicago's lakefront. Mayor Rahm Emanuel should tell the people of his city that he won't give these 17 acres to this or any other construction project.

Read more . . .

^ I think the Tribune is being retarded here.

The museum campus is better then grass. It's better than Lake Michigan. Yes, Lake Michigan is nice but lets stop with the drama. This is not going to lead down a slippery slope of development on the lakefront.

Chicago could only be so lucky to have a billionaire propose to build a musuem on its lakefront once every century, if ever again. Get a grip, Tribune morons...

Finally, I'm tired of this "there was no public debate" bitching. For nearly everything proposed, ever, at any time, somebody is always complaining about the lack of a public debate. Well the public debate is happening, NOW. That's what this all is. But in the end, in a representative Republic we elect people to make these decisions for us. I don't want all of the citizens to vote on these decisions, which is why I'm not a big fan of referendums.

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

the public debate is happening, NOW.

After the Park District has signed a memorandum of understanding.

You don't think that shows utter contempt for the idea of public participation and civic debate of important issues? The aldermen won't be debating this. The Plan Commission—whose responsibility it is to protect the lakefront—will in the Trib's words, be instructed: "No barking. Roll over. Play dead."

The Park District had a big meeting Oct. 21 at the Spertus Institute to kick off a new Museum Campus "framework plan" to "establish a vision for the future." Speakers announced the park district wanted to engage the public in the process. Except, they explained, a memorandum of understanding had already been signed with Lucas, so that topic wouldn't even be discussed. Isn't that like waking Titanic passengers at midnight . . . to announce a change in the seating arrangements for dinner the next day?

[HowardL]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

The aldermen won't be debating this.

Good.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

You don't think that shows utter contempt for the idea of public participation and civic debate of important issues? The aldermen won't be debating this. The Plan Commission—whose responsibility it is to protect the lakefront—will in the Trib's words, be instructed: "No barking. Roll over. Play dead."

^ But our elected officials decided, and they decided that a museum on this portion of the lakefront is not a violation of the Lakefront Protection Ordiance.

I still don't get the concern here. Here is my brief summation of what the lakefront people are saying:

"Now that we are opening up a tiny sliver of the lakefront that is already surrounded by museums to a new musuem that is being paid for by a billionaire and available to the public, OH NO billionaires from around the world are going to swarm into Chicago and propose their own musuems along the lakefront! Oh the horror! Chicago's entire lakefront will be blocked off by a chain of museums by billionaire benefactors!"

People just need to complain. That's all. Some people just have absolutely nothing else to do.