CHICAGO | Lucas Museum of Narrative Art

[thewaterman11]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

It's hard to polish a turd—or to find God in the details of one.

I'm assuming your on the Buzz Kilman committee on the Lucas Museum design?

[alex1]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

What's an example of a high-concept piece of "landscape urbanism" that got better in the design refinement stage? For works like this, the first rough sketch is the purest expression of the idea, whatever it was. It's hard to polish a turd—or to find God in the details of one.

If you're saying the current design is a "turd" then I agree with you.

Looking forward to the next round of renderings.

[alex1]

Originally Posted by rlw777

I wouldn't call this unchallenging and/or typical. The design ambitiously blurs the imaginary and/or physical boundaries between building, art, and landscape. The approach is interesting to me in that it seems to avoid prescriptive design by minimizing or removing expected visual and physical queues. I think the intention is to intrique and disorient thus encouraging nonlinear exploration. It's ambitious and it's subtle and it's certainly a progressive exploration of how we use and think about interaction with buildings. Whether or not it's a successful exploration is other question but typical and unchallenging it is not.

In the right hands a lemon can also blur the imaginary and/or physical boundaries between fruit, art and landscape. Okay, no.

There is no blurring here. Prescriptive design? If by that you mean this isn't some generic apartment complex designed to maximize profits then you have a point. I don't see how this structure "disorients us" nor do I see how this building introduces anything new in terms of how we "interact with a building".

And while the design does nothing for me, I'm most disappointed by explanation of his concept. Anyone else find it completely lacking?

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by munchymunch

Weird....

I like it, it's grown on me, especially this image of the new building juxtaposed against McCormick East and Soldier Field. In the time-honored tradition of many beloved, fellow posters, I figured I'd just ask rhetorical questions and nothing else to reinforce my opinion.

- Why can't it be stark-white, organic and bloblike? How can we tell in the present that this isn't revolutionary architecture?

- Who dictates what should be considered 'museum-appropriate' design/architecture?

- Why does it have to be a 'low-profile' design, especially on such a high-profile location?

- Why should it emulate/be influenced by flat plains instead of sand-dunes? Where is this coming from and why the opinion that it needs to emulate anything at all?

- How can people judge the overall design without seeing anything regarding the programmatic layout of the actual museum spaces on the inside?

- Why is organic/blob architecture considered shocking or tasteless, considering that the same amount of thought and design effort went into the conceptualization for this?

- How is it that a very wealthy, very engaged artist, who has entertained tens of millions of people for decades can be denigrated when all he wants to build a museum of his own art collection, and wants to do it in your own front yard all on his own dime? How do you convince a simple-minded, parochial and relatively conservative local population that they should look beyond the initially jarring/unfamiliar and understand how this is an evolution of place-making that has the potential to be considered sublime once all is said and done?

[alex1]

Originally Posted by sentinel

- How is it that a very wealthy, very engaged artist, who has entertained tens of millions of people for decades can be denigrated when all he wants to build a museum of his own art collection, and wants to do it in your own front yard all on his own dime? How do you convince a simple-minded, parochial and relatively conservative local population that they should look beyond the initially jarring/unfamiliar and understand how this is an evolution of place-making that has the potential to be considered sublime once all is said and done?

—Who gets to judge whether the local population is simple-minded, parochial and relatively conservative on this issue?

—Who thinks this museum will be fully funded by the "artist"? (it's not, unless you think "public" land is free). Granted, the current state of the gifted land is a sad tale.

—Who thinks that a different design—one that could better balance concept and execution—couldn't also entertain tens of millions? I mean, this is a museum about story telling and the architect's explanation/concept regarding the structure is neither compelling, believable or in-tune with the environment he contends it's a part of (not that it needs to be but don't go the full Gehry on us, please).

[Baronvonellis]

How is the Roman plus spaceship stadium in tune with the prairie landscape?
How is the Roman field museum in tune with the prairie landscape?
How is the Sears Tower in tune with the prairie landscape?
How is the John Hancock in tune with the prairie landscape?

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by alex1

—Who gets to judge whether the local population is simple-minded, parochial and relatively conservative on this issue?

—Who thinks this museum will be fully funded by the "artist"? (it's not, unless you think "public" land is free). Granted, the current state of the gifted land is a sad tale.

—Who thinks that a different design—one that could better balance concept and execution—couldn't also entertain tens of millions? I mean, this is a museum about story telling and the architect's explanation/concept regarding the structure is neither compelling, believable or in-tune with the environment he contends it's a part of (not that it needs to be but don't go the full Gehry on us, please).

- So you believe that the local population isn't what you're just quoting me on? Evidence please?

- Has there been any commentary from Lucas to think otherwise? Hasn't he been quoted through various media outlets that he would be paying for the project himself? Why doubt him when in all likelihood that was part of the deal for this location?

-Aren't you just projecting your own sense of what constitutes good architecture (and in essence, just cherry-picking my previous comments in order to regurgitate a statement that kinda sorta works for you), when there is no objective schema for how a building should look relative to what is contained inside? Do you believe that architecture and design should be viewed subjectively?

[alex1]

Originally Posted by sentinel

- So you believe that the local population isn't what you're just quoting me on? Evidence please?

What are you wanting evidence on? You claimed that the local population was relatively conservative, simple-minded and parochial. Proof, please.

Originally Posted by sentinel

- Has there been any commentary from Lucas to think otherwise? Hasn't he been quoted through various media outlets that he would be paying for the project himself? Why doubt him when in all likelihood that was part of the deal for this location?

So he's paying for the land? No? It's not fully self-funded if that's the case (the land is the subsidy). Perhaps you missed that part in my original posting.

Originally Posted by sentinel

-Aren't you just projecting your own sense of what constitutes good architecture (and in essence, just cherry-picking my previous comments in order to regurgitate a statement that kinda sorta works for you)?

No. And no. I'm challenging an entire bullet point you made. I'm not projecting. I'm challenging your assertion that says a parochial and conservative city is the reason why this project may be unpopular/not liked. Do you see the irony now?

Originally Posted by sentinel

when there is no objective schema for how a building should look relative to what is contained inside? Do you believe that architecture and design should be viewed subjectively?

Architecture, like all art is a subjective thing. Which is why some art can be hated by most people and still find its way into MOMA's collection and why other stuff museums would not touch ends up on peoples' mantles.

But to your question—most artists/architects coming from Yale will use program and other details as a foundation to the conceptual underpinnings of a project. Not all, but most. Perhaps Ma did incorporate the idea of story into the project and chose not to touch upon it to the media, but his explanation of the project was Gehryesque. (that's not necessarily a compliment).

[alex1]

Originally Posted by Baronvonellis

How is the Roman plus spaceship stadium in tune with the prairie landscape?
How is the Roman field museum in tune with the prairie landscape?
How is the Sears Tower in tune with the prairie landscape?
How is the John Hancock in tune with the prairie landscape?

And yet it's Ma himself who's saying this project is in tune (paraphrasing) to the local landscape.

Chicago's landscape is an anthill, apparently.

[rlw777]

Originally Posted by alex1

There is no blurring here.

Anyone can see simply in the way the building meets the ground that it's blurring the lines between building and landscape. I don't know where you come from but most of the buildings I encounter meet the ground at right angles and if the roof is at all meant to be used on those buildings you have to go through the building to get to some platform that doesn't reflect the organic form of the earth in anyway.

Prescriptive design?

What's not to get? We use all sorts of visual and physical queues to prescribe how something is to be used, where to go, etc. For example a sidewalk is a prescribed path.

I'm most disappointed by explanation of his concept. Anyone else find it completely lacking?

catty

[SamInTheLoop]

[QUOTE=alex1;6796205]—Who gets to judge whether the local population is simple-minded, parochial and relatively conservative on this issue?[QUOTE]


C'mon - it's Chicago: when don't the masses here generally fit this description?

[alex1]

Originally Posted by rlw777

Anyone can see simply in the way the building meets the ground that it's blurring the lines between building and landscape. I don't know where you come from but most of the buildings I encounter meet the ground at right angles and if the roof is at all meant to be used on those buildings you have to go through the building to get to some platform that doesn't reflect the organic form of the earth in anyway.

This isn't a new thing, though. Not at all. I wouldn't call it "blurring", but whatever. Semantics.

I should say that this is perhaps one of the few things I actually like about the renderings/project from a conceptual POV. For one, it expands the plaza and returns some of the lost space back as a true public space. Having said that, I don't think this design element alone makes up for the rest of the structure.

Originally Posted by rlw777

What's not to get? We use all sorts of visual and physical queues to prescribe how something is to be used, where to go, etc. For example a sidewalk is a prescribed path.

What's not to get? Well, I don't know what your definition of what a "prescriptive design" is. Is Robie House prescriptive? How about the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art? Crown Hall? A custom-designed home in Elgin?

Originally Posted by rlw777

catty

Meow.

[SamInTheLoop]

The more I hear and read (couple pieces in Crain's for example already on the design) initial reactions to the design concept, the more I believe that it is very much on the right track......

[alex1]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

C'mon - it's Chicago: when don't the masses here generally fit this description?

Do you think New Yorkers are much different as a whole? (I don't). How about South Americans? Central Americans? Canadians?

Besides, what kind of argument is that to imply a building's strengths aren't understood because of some perceived parochialism in the population?

[the urban politician]

^ Agreed. I never bought the whole "we're in the midwest, thus we're more provincial" BS.

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Agreed. I never bought the whole "we're in the midwest, thus we're more provincial" BS.

Well what about the vast majority of NIMBYs currently on display throughout the City? To me, that's a pretty good example of entitled provincialism because they SCREAM the loudest, even though what they say is oftentimes total Bullshit. Just because one lives in a big city doesn't always mean that they can appreciate how elements of a massive urban environment grow and evolve over time, or how diversity of character all over a City (whether it's building typologies, height, design and materials, etc) enhances the overall quality of life in said urban environment, among many many other things...

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Agreed. I never bought the whole "we're in the midwest, thus we're more provincial" BS.

Has nothing to do with Chicago being in the Midwest......there is just somewhat more of a parochial streak on a relative basis, that's all.....not sure of its origin story, but something tells me there's some sort of connection to the city's political culture and history....(why 50 aldermen? why shouldn't I send you anybody that nobody sent?, etc, etc, etc.....)

[alex1]

Originally Posted by sentinel

Well what about the vast majority of NIMBYs currently on display throughout the City? To me, that's a pretty good example of entitled provincialism because they SCREAM the loudest, even though what they say is oftentimes total Bullshit. Just because one lives in a big city doesn't always mean that they can appreciate how elements of a massive urban environment grow and evolve over time, or how diversity of character all over a City (whether it's building typologies, height, design and materials, etc) enhances the overall quality of life in said urban environment, among many many other things...

But you do agree that they (NIMBYs) deserve a right to advocate how their neighborhood grows, right? Even if you disagree with them or you have a strong pro-development mentality (in a sense that a land owner can build whatever they want) they should have a voice and that voice isn't necessarily wrong all the time.

In any regard, NIMBYism isn't a Chicago thing. It's not a provincial trait. NYMBism was strongest in NYC and San Fran for decades while Chicago developed with relative ease. Things have evened out in recent years.

[alex1]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Agreed. I never bought the whole "we're in the midwest, thus we're more provincial" BS.

Not only that, but Chicago was THE leader in architecture for decades.

One could make an extremely strong case that the current Netherlands is parochial and self-insulated but it too kicked mighty ass in design and architecture throughout the last 30+ years—still does. Obviously the reasons for Dutch design being so insanely good is government involvement/commissions in pushing great urban spaces, architecture and design.

[LouisVanDerWright]

^^^Honestly I don't think Nimbyism is that out of control in Chicago right now. There are bad patches, like Lincoln Park or the West Loop, but there are also parts of town where residents have DEMANDED better design and urban planning like 1611 W Division or SOAR.

Originally Posted by sentinel

- Why does it have to be a 'low-profile' design, especially on such a high-profile location?

- Why should it emulate/be influenced by flat plains instead of sand-dunes?

My criticism of the verticality of this design is simply an aesthetic one. I think that, in this location surrounded by several low slung museum buildings that form excellent low profile foils to the massive skyline in the distance, it looks best to have another excellent low profile design that pushes boundaries, but still complements the general massing of the surrounding urban planning. This does not mean a small building, obviously it is flanked by monster buildings, it just means keeping the general dimensions and flow of the building in check with the neighbors.

Debating the merits of this design is silly at this point since they've made much of the fact that this project is going to continue to evolve and that the public will even have a webcam directly into his studio as it does so. I'm certain this design will see significant fine tuning and hopefully will grow into a more refined and equally adventurous piece.