CHICAGO | Lucas Museum of Narrative Art

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

...

This isn't a project in Indiana; this is Illinois.

When MAD designs a world class project in Indianapolis, he can draw inspiration from the Dunes all he wants, but for a project here in Illinois, inspiration should be drawn locally. You don't fucking go out of state for inspiration on a project like this.

What's more, Ma explains his inspiration in the video posted on the project's website, rather in-depth too. He wants this building to be specific to Chicago and references the city at every level. So what the hell does something 50 miles away from our state's border have to do with the City of Chicago???

Stop being daft. What do arbitrary State boundaries have to do with anything? The Indiana dunes are way, way, way, way, way more tied into Chicagoland than Indianapolis. That's not even a close one.

[the urban politician]

I agree with LVDW's idea that a horizontal theme would be better here. This is the prairie, after all. Also, it would piss off the lakefront protection people a lot less. How about a semi-sunken museum?

[UPChicago]

Originally Posted by aaron38

For the Lucas museum, I'm not sure how much the flanks of the building will ever be used as "public space". The roof of the Krannert Center at U of I is a giant public plaza, but hardly anyone ever went up there.

Never even knew that, would have been up there otherwise.

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by denizen467

In case of emergency, break glass and call Bjarke Ingels.

Hopefully George can be convinced it's time for a B.I.G. change in direction.

Oh sweet jesus no.

Does anyone appreciate real architects anymore? Chipperfield? Williams + Tsien? Pawson? Arets? Phifer? Kundig? Predock? Or does everything have to be a gimmick?

[Tom Servo]

You guys are fucking hilarious. We get handed a world class project, designed by a world renowned STAR and you guys have nothing but criticism. And from the same guys who defended the Stern proposal or otherwise advocate equally destructive projects. And then ON TOP of that we get posts that essentially say:

This Ma Yansong guy with over a decade of experience, a Master’s Degree in Architecture from Yale University, five publications, countless awards, dozens of globally recognized projects completed, and the founder + principal partner of one of the world's top firms doesn't really know what he's doing. He needs to rethink he design inspiration and do better to evoke the look of the sands dunes along the northern Indiana shore... because I know better how to design world-class museum.

Hilarious. Go back to complaining about buildings not being tall enough.

Whatever this building turns into, design-wise, will undoubtably be one the most important building built here in a long, long time.

[BWChicago]

I wonder how the building would interface to an inevitable future addition

[OrdoSeclorum]

After 24-hours, the Lucas Museum design has grown on my quite a bit. I'm luke-warm now with a dash of excited.

[aaron38]

Telling me that I have to like a design because the architect is a STAR isn't a very convincing argument.
If it was at Disney World, in Epcot, it'd be cool. But it just feels wrong for Chicago.

[chiphile]

This is an absolute WIN. This is how you push the envelope without ripping it. It's "out there" enough to make us uncomfortable, but its scale is sized so that the discomfort isn't overwhelming.

This isn't Milwaukee or Indianapolis--it won't be visible for miles and miles or dominate the skyline or the major postcard views, we're talking 10 stories people. At this scale, being a little adventurous is warranted.

The responses I'm seeing here are typical of something different and challenging.. over time however, I think this can become an icon on its own.

As others have stated, the materials are going to be key. But just from the renderings, my eyes are drawn to it. I want to move closer, touch it, hell climb it even, and I definitely want to go inside. It has a "pull" to it like the bean but times ten.

For a building whose sole purpose is to pay tribute to imagination, the last thing I want to see is more straight lines. This is great and perfectly fitting.

Build it, refine it, but build it with this concept.

If I could add anything, I'd like to see some grass or vines or plants growing on the structure itself so that it appears more integrated into the landscape.

[alex1]

Originally Posted by aaron38

Telling me that I have to like a design because the architect is a STAR isn't a very convincing argument.

Nope. Not at all.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

...

This isn't a project in Indiana; this is Illinois.

When MAD designs a world class project in Indianapolis, he can draw inspiration from the Dunes all he wants, but for a project here in Illinois, inspiration should be drawn locally. You don't fucking go out of state for inspiration on a project like this.

What's more, Ma explains his inspiration in the video posted on the project's website, rather in-depth too. He wants this building to be specific to Chicago and references the city at every level. So what the hell does something 50 miles away from our state's border have to do with the City of Chicago???

You must not have ever crossedthe state line then considering Indiana has angrand total of 45 miles of lakeshore making your 50 miles statement completely absurd especially considering the indiana dunes are closer to IL state line than Michigan. They are like 15 min across the border.

Who gives a shit about political boundaries anyhow. The dunes are the natural condition of the entire Southern quarter of the lake. Have you never been on the lakeshore path and seen the baby dunes that try to grow only to be continually mowed down by park district lawnmowers? Sounds like you might not be a real Chicagoan.

Originally Posted by ardecila

Likewise, Studio Gang's grass-paved tailgate plaza is a neat idea, but tailgating for a fall/winter sport necessarily involves snow removal. I don't know how you make grasspave work with salt and plows.

Heating systems under the grass like they have at under the streets in Vail Colorado or in the field in the Packers stadium.

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

I'm not a fan of Aqua beyond its superficial cool-ness. Any the comparison is not really congruent. You're comparing a low-end apartment and hotel development designed by a local architecture firm with a world class, extremely high profile museum designed by a world-renowned starchitect.

What's more, the conceptual form of Aqua was supposedly inspired by striation patterns in limestone, found all along the shores of the Great Lakes. NOT a landscape in Wisconsin. Beyond that, the design of the building itself was derived according to very specific site conditions. Period.

Again, the two projects are vastly dissimilar and share nothing in common.

My point was simple. Ma already described his design inspiration: the city, it's parks, and the connection between the two.

Man you are absurd tonight. Since when is Gang some kind ofnsmall town yokel architect? Last I checked she is pretty "world renowned" herself. Also who gives a shit how famous an architect is? If that's your measuring stick then Frank Ghery must be your god... Finally Aqua and this project have absolutely nothing in common except the fact that Gang is designing a huge chunk of this project....

[alex1]

Originally Posted by chiphile

This isn't Milwaukee or Indianapolis--it won't be visible for miles and miles or dominate the skyline or the major postcard views, we're talking 10 stories people. At this scale, being a little adventurous is warranted.

I think we could all agree with you that being adventurous with this design is warranted. At this scale and surrounded by buildings of a much grander scale and style this design becomes an anthill.

Originally Posted by chiphile

The responses I'm seeing here are typical of something different and challenging.. over time however, I think this can become an icon on its own.

Or the responses are disappointed because this design is something that's typical and unchallenging.

Originally Posted by chiphile

For a building whose sole purpose is to pay tribute to imagination, the last thing I want to see is more straight lines. This is great and perfectly fitting.

Straight lines are beautiful when done well but I don't think many of those who aren't thrilled with this proposal think clean lines would be right for this particular project. I for one love buildings that disrupt the environment and truly transform architecture. This is a speed bump, err anthill amongst architectural giants (and a sweeping lakefront).

I'll be looking forward to the next round of renderings.

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by untitledreality

Does anyone appreciate real architects anymore? Chipperfield? Williams + Tsien? Pawson? Arets? Phifer? Kundig? Predock? Or does everything have to be a gimmick?

Amen to those. I just felt Bjarke Ingels might be the shortest leap of thinking for Lucas from what he has already chosen. But it's all kind of moot at this point.

[Kenmore]

liked it yesterday, love it today

[tintinex]

Originally Posted by Kenmore

liked it yesterday, love it today

Same thing happened to me. I didn't like it when the news broke, but now I love it

[tjp]

I'm having a hard time telling from the aerial shot -- is that a parking lot between Solider Field and the Lucas museum?

[Mr Downtown]

^It's a parking deck (three levels in all, I think). Apparently that will be the primary parking for the museum.

Originally Posted by alex1

I'll be looking forward to the next round of renderings.

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.

[Swicago Swi Sox]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

It's hard to polish a turd...

Myth Busted!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiJ9fy1qSFI

[rlw777]

Originally Posted by alex1

Or the responses are disappointed because this design is something that's typical and unchallenging.

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.

[SamInTheLoop]

^ Very much agree.


^^^ I'm just shocked you don't dig this one (I suppose the 'irregular fenestration patterns' did it in!).....