CHICAGO | Lucas Museum of Narrative Art

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

I think you're fooling yourself. With a building like this, the basic concept—a shan-shui hill—is the design. It's not like changing the vision glass or the masonry joints, adding a few balconies or planters, will make a substantial difference in how the form is perceived. Obviously it was approved by the client before it was released. It might get tweaked, but not rethought unless someone with the power to—either the client or Mayor Emanuel—tells Ma to reëxamine the basic premise.

I disagree 100% - I still feel very strongly that a complete redesign will be released in order to placate many people, not least of all potentially Lucas himself. Maybe I'm wrong, but he's pretty consistent when it comes to massaging a lot of his works, filmed or otherwise. This project is no different, especially considering the personal legacy he hopes to expound via his collection. Nothing is as finite as you paint it to be, especially considering how high-profile this endeavor is AND how sensitive Lucas is to criticism (anyone know the Pauline Kael => 'General Kael' story?)

[UPChicago]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

I think you're fooling yourself. With a building like this, the basic concept—a shan-shui hill—is the design. It's not like changing the vision glass or the masonry joints, adding a few balconies or planters, will make a substantial difference in how the form is perceived. Obviously it was approved by the client before it was released. It might get tweaked, but not rethought unless someone with the power to—either the client or Mayor Emanuel—tells Ma to reëxamine the basic premise.

I'm with you on this, if it was about pleasing the public they wouldn't have even proposed that design. I don't think the design changes much maybe a little refinement but nothing major.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by UPChicago

I'm with you on this, if it was about pleasing the public they wouldn't have even proposed that design. I don't think the design changes much maybe a little refinement but nothing major.

Lol, except for the fact that LMNA has said like a million times already that this is the CONCEPTUAL design. Have you ever seen a concept car at an autoshow? Does it look anything like the car you actually see on the street a few years later? Please explain to me why they would be setting up a webcam and live streaming changes to the design if those changes are going to be minutiae? I'm sure they are doing it so we can all hold our breath as Ma tweeks the location of a planter...

Honestly, anyone who thinks this design isn't going to change significantly is deluded because they've been saying, since before these renderings were even released, that it is going to be a drawn out process of refining the design. Maybe they are lying, but I highly doubt that it is physically possible to have designed ANY of the actual meat on the bones of a $400 million museum in a few months time. We will just have to watch the webcam and see who is right won't we?

[UPChicago]

^ I haven't followed those discussions only the news reports so I may be making my opinion out of ignorance. I would love to read more if you have a link.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by UPChicago

^ I haven't followed those discussions only the news reports so I may be making my opinion out of ignorance. I would love to read more if you have a link.

It's all on their website like I said in my previous post. Most of the articles from the initial release repeated it as well. On a phone or I would google them for you.

[UPChicago]

^Thanks, I see it on their site now either way in my personal opinion the final design will be in the vain of the conceptual design. I think it'll be subdued, how subdued? I don't know, but I don't think they'd radically change the form. Even production cars are usually much subdued versions of the concept car before it. Of course this is my opinion and I can be completely wrong and the public outcry could force them to abandon the design concept all together.

[sentinel]

There's a commentary by someone named Dr. Cory Franklin in the Tribune today, about a hypothetical private conversation between Rahm and Lucas, turning Soldier Field into the 'Star Wars' museum (I swear, people are so fucking dumb)...it's kinda amazing how extreme snark is supposed to be taken for serious journalism, or even as a compelling editorial - unreal. To paraphrase someone's earlier comment on a different topic, this guy sure ain't Mike Royko.

[Mr Downtown]

Dr. Franklin's pieces are neither "journalism" nor Tribune editorials. Such op-ed pieces are published simply to entertain or be thought-provoking.

There was a time when newspaper readers were thought to be intelligent enough to make such distinctions.

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Dr. Franklin's pieces are neither "journalism" nor Tribune editorials. Such op-ed pieces are published simply to entertain or be thought-provoking.

There was a time when newspaper readers were thought to be intelligent enough to make such distinctions.

Sadly, neither goal was achieved.

It's a shame you missed my point (which seems to be happening a lot); There was also a time when people didn't feel the need to act like pedantic, entitled misanthropes, constantly belittling the opinions of others because it wasn't convenient with their xenophobic worldview. But here we are.

[Mr Downtown]

So what exactly was your point?

[r18tdi]

http://politics.suntimes.com/article...1252014-1039am

A federal judge on Tuesday ordered the city not to physicallly[sic] alter the proposed site of the George Lucas Museum until further order of the court during the opening legal battle between the city and opponents of the museum.

[sentinel]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...125-story.html

[Onn]

I'm kind of glad someone is taking this to court, the design isn't that good. Way too organic for Chicago. I might expect it in San Francisco though.

[r18tdi]

Originally Posted by Onn

I'm kind of glad someone is taking this to court, the design isn't that good. Way too organic for Chicago. I might expect it in San Francisco though.

You do realize that the court challenge has nothing to do with the design of the building, correct?

[UPChicago]

Originally Posted by Onn

I'm kind of glad someone is taking this to court, the design isn't that good. Way too organic for Chicago. I might expect it in San Francisco though.

No one is suing over the design, they could built the same design across LSD without a court challenge from Friends of the Park, its about the location. It seems Chicago's selection was predicated on a lakefront location and if that is true, Chicago's chances of securing the mesum may fade if the lawsuit is successful.

[brian_b]

So, what happens if the city were to rename Burnham Harbor Dr to Lake Shore Dr?

[UPChicago]

Originally Posted by brian_b

So, what happens if the city were to rename Burnham Harbor Dr to Lake Shore Dr?

That could be a clever maneuver, I guess as long as the ordinances doesn't state US. Route 41.

[Mr Downtown]

^Wouldn't puzzle a court for one minute: the legislative intent when the ordinance was passed is what matters. Of course, McCaffery has the opposite problem at Lakeside, where he's proposing thousands of units of private development east of what is now—at his insistence—called Lake Shore Drive.

But Friends of the Parks didn't sue based on the Lakefront Protection Ordinance. As we remember from Soldier Field, all that requires is for the Plan Commission to use their blue rubber stamp as well as the big red one. The FotP suit is based on the Public Trust Doctrine: that the state holds the bed of Lake Michigan in trust for the people of Illinois, and when the parkland was reclaimed from Lake Michigan, the state gave control of the land to the park district so long as it was used for park purposes only.

I haven't seen the FotP pleadings, but I'm not optimistic about their chances for success, having read the 1958 decision in a similar lawsuit over McCormick Place.

[LouisVanDerWright]

^^^ Again, a total load of crap, the building itself is going to be owned by the Park District IIRC. This is exactly the same situation as Soldier Field which is also owned by the city and leased to a private organization. How anyone can think any argument along these lines is going to work is beyond me. If they rule against the Lucas Museum, then there will be precedent for someone else to sue to push the Bears out of Soldier Field or the Field Museum out of the Museum Campus.

[Mr Downtown]

The lawsuit pleadings are here. I haven't found the Memorandum of Understanding with the Park District, however.