+1

im really not. i scoured google and honestly none of them are remotely flattering. its a big, hulking, bureaucratic looking building. hell, i even have a bit of a fondness for old big hulking bureaucratic buildings from that particular era. if you think Tsien's designs are "oppressive" and what you posted isnt, i think we're talking two completely different languages because i honestly have zero clue where your head is at and you appear to be simply applying random descriptions to random buildings that youre pulling out of a hat. you seem to gravitate towards outward symbology...coats of arms, statues, big ass giant seals, taperstries and murals. those things are fine in certain situations, but they do not somehow equal good architecture, nor are they in any way necessary for it.

who said the shapes are random? how are they any more or less random than a "classic", formally structured building? in fact, their designs are in no way some Gehry mess of shredded steel and twisted canopies. in most cases theyre simply rectangles, which you claim to profess some love for.

what does a "Chicago" building look like compared to a Cleveland building vs a Minneapolis building vs a NY building? woodrow already summed this up.

what that building says is that it respects its surrounding, is conscious of them, and that its intended purpose is not to stand out screaming "look at me!". it says, the important thing is the landscape and how that building fits into it without being rude or intruding. and if you take the time to actually think about it, that says a lot about the architect's view of culture and the way they choose to approach design.

what does a Rothko painting say? well, thats up for you to decide. but that doesnt mean it isnt saying something. the answer is simply coming from within.

if you dont like minimalism, hey thats fine. but i do find it endlessly hilarious youre singling out whats very clearly a maximalist building as your example of what would be appropriate for a contemplative park setting.

is this "dehumanizing" too?

https://minimalplan.files.wordpress....r-1k.jpg?w=584
https://minimalplan.files.wordpress....r-1k.jpg?w=584

yeah i dont think so.

basically Williams/Tsien buildings are like an Ozu or a Tarkovsky and you seem to want a George Lucas

Yes, I think statues, big ass giant seals, tapestries and murals are art and represent the culture and art of the people who created them. The Oslo town hall at the entrance has walls of wood carvings showing Norse mythology which is awesome. They bring humanity and culture to the building. When you strip out the art you have nothing.

When I say classical proportions its the mathematical proportions and symmetry of a building. It could be in any culture, I didn't say it has to be only greek. But there are rules of symmetry that you can follow with different styles.

Rothko says nothing to me, I don't recognize it as art. It's 2 colors, an art palette perhaps. The start of another painting.

Japanese buildings are nice, but it's not my favorite style personally. I don't know who Ozu or Tarkovsky are. I love George Lucas movies.

If your worried about a building fitting into the landscape, all the Obama library does is scream look at me, I'm a giant stone monolith. It's the opposite of fitting in with the landscape.

neither of these things are surprising.

I've now had the pleasure of seeing 3 Williams/Tsien buildings in the past year (LeFrak Center in Brooklyn, Logan Center in Chicago, Asia Society in Hong Kong) and I will say they are among the most sensitive modernist architects working today. There are certainly recurring themes and strategies in their work, but it's always sensitive to context and the careful use and detailing of materials sets them apart from generic public buildings.

The LeFrak Center in particular is a good example for the Obama building, since it's also set in an Olmsted park.

Oslo city hall you need to experience in person. That classic view in all the shots posted here isn't her best face and once inside you have a jaw dropping experience. My jaw doesn't drop easily, but when I entered the great hall I just stopped dead and gaped.

fair enough, i never disputed the interior might indeed be beautiful. i love old buildings. the point here seems to be that Baron rejects modern (or even traditional) minimalist design outright, so we're more or less going in circles.

The Obama Center was supposed to break ground in 2018. What happened?
https://chicago.curbed.com/2020/1/2/...timeline-delay

Yep.

Yep. It’s an absurd decision to locate it in JP. Not to mention at a $500 million dollar price tag.

For $40 million, he could build a brand new, 50,000 sq ft facility with a gym, kitchen, activity rooms etc. Hell, throw in another $40 million for lavish aesthetics and you don’t even come close to $500 mil. If only this was really about the community...

Washington Park made the most sense, particularly if you actually care about improving a blighted community. It made so much sense that everyone assumed that it was going there.

Yep I drove down MLK recently and noticed that area and was like, duh that's exactly where it should go. I didn't even know that it was seriously considered until this recent update. Washington Park needs the help way more than the easter part of Woodlawn.

I think concentrating the investment in Jackson Park will do more to improve the blighted community of Washington Park than spreading investments around.

Case study: Look at how Lincoln Park the neighborhood developed over the last 50 years - radiating bands of investment extending out from the park itself vs. an equal spreading of investments over the broader neighborhood.

Same for the Loop - concentrating investments in the Core over the last 50 years instead of trying to prop up the neighborhoods surrounding the Loop. Now look at those areas around the Loop...

Just leased an apartment to someone who is moving to Chicago to work for the Obama Foundation. Apparently they will either permentantly locate in Hyde Park at the Library or downtown. Sounds like they are planning on being here permenantly which is good.

From the looks of things, I think a major factor why they didn't go for Washington Park is simply because of the fact that U of C has other major plans for what they plan to do to the Park.

https://www.bisnow.com/chicago/news/...-library-63345


In any case, I think people also need to accept that Obama himself chose Jackson Park; and that it's going to be built one way or the other.

I think UofC's plans are for the ares "adjacent to the park" not "to the park".

I spoke to someone involved with this project today. Apparently, there is an 11% "LGBTQX+..." participation quota on this project, but so far they've found no one to do the work. This frustration has actually has driven one of the top tier Chicago-area trade contractors away from the job and with them, their Minority subcontractor who was lined up to get millions worth of work. I am told this is one of the major factors in the delay of groundbreaking. What an ass-backwards way of doing business.

So, any gay or lesbian SSP-ers who'd like to start a construction group; you'll be automatically handed $55 million worth of work, if interested! :runaway:

What a load of nonsense. It really feels like society is on a path of self destruction with crap like this.

This is bullcrap :uhh:

Any other contractors there looking into?

DBE participation or no, that's not the reason they haven't broken ground.

The Federal reviews (Historic, Highways, etc) are still underway. Also, Lightfoot has promised she won't allow the project to go forward without community support - maybe not the Community Benefits Agreement some neighborhood groups were demanding, but some kind of deal at least.

That is absolutely ridiculous and so is the whole M/WBE Program.