HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2014, 11:10 PM
migueltorres's Avatar
migueltorres migueltorres is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 278
Cool CHICAGO | Lucas Museum of Narrative Art

And the images are out!


Quote:
Lucas Museum design an architectural mountain on city's lakefront

If you expected filmmaker George Lucas to give Chicago a low-slung museum that would slip quietly into the fiercely contested ground of the city's lakefront, I have news for you: You expected wrong.

A conceptual plan for the proposed Lucas Museum of Narrative Art, revealed Monday, sketches a far more ambitious vision from the "Star Wars" creator: A curvaceous, nearly windowless mountain of a building, topped by a glassy observation deck that would resemble a flying saucer.





http://gizmodo.com



http://www.trbimg.com/img-1415055702...-20141103/1280

Last edited by Steely Dan; Nov 6, 2014 at 6:04 PM.
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2014, 11:19 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The Miami of Canada
Posts: 19,086
^ wow, that sure is out there!

expect a shitstorm of pushback from the lakefront protection people.
__________________
He has to go.
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2014, 11:22 PM
UrbanLibertine UrbanLibertine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 289
It's different. That building legitimately looks like something from a Star Wars movie...

Quote:
Originally Posted by migueltorres View Post
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2014, 11:59 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,703
gonna be honest, i was expecting a lower profile design. not really feeling this....
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Nov 4, 2014, 2:01 AM
CHI -21c CHI -21c is offline
Chicago 21st Century
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 30
Didn't Lucas tell Rahm Emanuel, "I have to warn you, I want something bold, something avant-garde"

....well?

As a layman, I see today's attempts to try and be novel and abstract as very conventional. White freeform has been done over and over, and the freeform isn't that free; it's just imitations of what everyone's been doing.

Far from iconic.
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2014, 6:00 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is online now
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Libertyville, IL
Posts: 14,883
Steely, you should plop a few renderings onto the first page

I recommend these:

Quote:


http://gizmodo.com
__________________
Victim rights > Criminal rights
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2014, 6:29 PM
F1 Tommy's Avatar
F1 Tommy F1 Tommy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 681
Those higher res photos really make this project look nice. Maybe a few changes could be made but I hope they build it close to as shown. We do need a few buildings from this artchitect in Chicago.
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2014, 7:28 PM
chiphile's Avatar
chiphile chiphile is offline
yes
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: chicago
Posts: 476
I'd like to see some renderings during winter, it may look even better in a field of snow. If anyone's obsessed with the Chicago prairie landscape, 5 months out of the year it is snow white. In that instance, a snow mound is perfectly within context.

We have very few buildings that serve as expressive art themselves.. Aqua is an obvious, but everything else in Chicago is form, function, box and steel. This should be considered art/sculpture more than building, then maybe more people would be open to it.

We are just conditioned to think museums have to look like the unapproachable roman column style. Nothing about the Field Museum draws me towards it. It looks like a government fortress. This has gravity to it.

For the form follows function crowd, the theory is the shape and design of the building should reflect its use or purpose. OK... this IS form following function, the point of the building is to evoke imagination, storytelling, and curiosity. It does just that, and will house art that also does that.
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2014, 10:13 PM
Tom Servo's Avatar
Tom Servo Tom Servo is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by F1 Tommy View Post
Those higher res photos really make this project look nice. Maybe a few changes could be made but I hope they build it close to as shown. We do need a few buildings from this artchitect in Chicago.
I couldn't agree more. I would love to see them do a high profile skyscraper in LSE or some other prominent location where it'd have big visual impact on the skyline. If only Trump tower could be magically erased and replaced with a MAD design.

Maybe Related... wait, never mind, that's just stupid to even consider...
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2014, 7:45 PM
Onn Onn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: The United States
Posts: 1,937
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.
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2014, 8:00 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is online now
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Libertyville, IL
Posts: 14,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onn View Post
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.
__________________
Victim rights > Criminal rights
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2014, 8:02 PM
chiphile's Avatar
chiphile chiphile is offline
yes
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: chicago
Posts: 476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onn View Post
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.
I think for an out-of-towner (I am assuming you are), the renderings make for a skewed perception.

The skyline in the back, for example the Sears Tower, is still about two and a half miles away (three and half miles in case of the Hancock). The Sears Tower's two white antennae are around 280 feet tall, this museum is about HALF their size.

So the classical architecture you refer to is not "in the area," this is a large park space that is away from most of the skyline. Furthermore, this would only be visible for maybe less than a half mile on lakeshore drive, and won't be visible from the vast majority of downtown, let alone the city. If the museum was in the middle of a downtown block on Michigan ave, yes, totally out of place, but this is pure parkland with the lake to the east.
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2014, 8:24 PM
alex1's Avatar
alex1 alex1 is offline
~
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: www.priggish.com
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiphile View Post
I think for an out-of-towner (I am assuming you are), the renderings make for a skewed perception.

The skyline in the back, for example the Sears Tower, is still about two and a half miles away (three and half miles in case of the Hancock). The Sears Tower's two white antennae are around 280 feet tall, this museum is about HALF their size.

So the classical architecture you refer to is not "in the area," this is a large park space that is away from most of the skyline. Furthermore, this would only be visible for maybe less than a half mile on lakeshore drive, and won't be visible from the vast majority of downtown, let alone the city. If the museum was in the middle of a downtown block on Michigan ave, yes, totally out of place, but this is pure parkland with the lake to the east.
I assume that poster if talking about the neoclassical designs from the Field, Shedd, Adler and Soldier field. The counterargument is that there have been modern additions to all these structures minus the Field.
__________________
n+y+c = nyc
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2014, 10:48 PM
Tom Servo's Avatar
Tom Servo Tom Servo is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onn View Post
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.
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2014, 7:54 PM
sentinel's Avatar
sentinel sentinel is offline
Plenary pleasures.
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,790
^^

Oh Lord.
__________________
Don't be shy. Step into the light.
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2014, 4:05 AM
ChickeNES's Avatar
ChickeNES ChickeNES is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 404
A bit of unintentional humor from CNN in their article on the Lucas Museum:

http://imgur.com/X7Ws3YM
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2014, 12:10 PM
denizen467 denizen467 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChickeNES View Post
A bit of unintentional humor from CNN in their article on the Lucas Museum:

http://imgur.com/X7Ws3YM
Presumably you are talking about the "Architects Ludwig Mies van der Rohe have released the designs for the Lucas Museum..." caption!

Last edited by Steely Dan; Nov 7, 2014 at 2:55 PM.
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2014, 6:13 PM
wrab's Avatar
wrab wrab is offline
Deerhoof Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,665
Kamin, Take Two

More from Blair Kamin:
Chicago Tribune
George Lucas' Museum Proposal is Needlessly Massive
By Blair Kamin
November 6, 2014

I think I can explain the widespread public revulsion toward the just-released design for the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art. This isn't the typical shock of the new. People are mad because they instinctively get that this cartoonish mountain of a building would be glaringly out of place amid the horizontal sweep of Chicago's lakefront.....

Article continues here

Last edited by wrab; Nov 7, 2014 at 6:35 PM.
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2014, 6:31 PM
Tom Servo's Avatar
Tom Servo Tom Servo is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,649
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
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2014, 6:50 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,703
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.

Last edited by Via Chicago; Nov 7, 2014 at 7:06 PM.
     
     
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 4:46 PM.

     

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