CHICAGO | General Developments

[bnk]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

Honte has made the ONLY objection that makes any sense....that, arguably, the museum might be disorienting architecturally.

However, the Trib editorial is very revealing "...this land grab isn't really about children. This land grab is about clout." What does that mean? Are we really supposed to believe that the non-profit Children's Museum's only interest is sticking it to the people of Chicago? That the board of the museum is so obssessed with their potential political power that they have lost all sight of their mission?

But since this forum isn't about politics, but rather buildings, I would have to reiterate that we focus on the actual design. Honte may have a valid point, but the CCM did select one of the best Chicago architects and there has been enough presentations of the design to evaluate it on its architectural merits or lack thereof.

Once again, I feel it is necessary to ask again, how can this possibly not be an improvement to what exists today?

Would the children be happier on the west side, downtown, or somewhere in the Museum Campus? Maybe, but it would be a difficult argument to make that whatever benefits of another location would outweigh the increased visitor traffic due to Millenium Park along with the access to existing public transportation.

Excellent post. I am with you on this one. The CCM really needs to be looked at and concidered in this location.

[honte]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

However, the Trib editorial is very revealing "...this land grab isn't really about children. This land grab is about clout." What does that mean? Are we really supposed to believe that the non-profit Children's Museum's only interest is sticking it to the people of Chicago? That the board of the museum is so obssessed with their potential political power that they have lost all sight of their mission?

In a way, yes, I do believe this. One reason I am really happy this fight is occurring is that the deal to move them to Daley Bi was done in the dirty old way, behind closed doors, with the few players in the area lining up before anyone got notice. The announcement came and it was not a suggestion or an idea, but a backroom deal being foisted on the public. We're talking about the future of a public asset, and personally I think it's thrilling that Chicagoans and an alderman (like him or hate him) are standing up to this stupid way of planning their city. I've been sick of this for a long time... Daley should have been toast after Meigs Field and I don't understand why this kind of behavior is tolerated.

A lot of people tend to look past the process and instead at the results... "Well, I like children, so this must be for the better good." "Well, I'm not a rich pilot, so what do I care?" It's a dangerous position to take.

So, yes, I do feel that they are reacting selfishly and personally to this issue. Maybe it should be called the Big Baby Museum instead?

[pilsenarch]

Et tu, Honte?

So, indeed, this has nothing to do with the architectural and urban planning merits of the CCM Grant Park proposal?

Honte, how would you suggest they go about it differently? Originally, the mayor and CCM wanted to locate the museum at the northeast corner of Columbus and Monroe. They quickly backed down due to the opposition of the Grant Park Advisory Council and just about everyone else.

The current proposal was brought to the alderman's attention, just like any other proposal, and he, as we know, shot it down. So, do you think that a system that allows a proposal that affects the entire city and arguably has national and international implications (Grant Park, after all, does have a international reputation) to be subject to the whims of the alderman and a handful of condo owners in 400 E Randolph is the way to go?

Why don't we stop using the CCM as a populist weapon and judge the proposal on its merits. If you don't like the mayor, don't vote for him (another indication that the loudest voices don't speak for the majority of Chciagoans).

[honte]

^ No, I have tons of complaints about the project on a project basis too, which I have been voicing here for a long time. I would never support a position out of spite. But it also does interest me for the above-stated reasons, more or less as an afterthought.

That said, I don't judge proposals first on their microcosmic merits. Paramount is the NET gain to the city, not little gain here or there by taking a very nice plaza and potentially making it into a nicer museum (from 6 to 8 on a 1-10 scale). Chicago is constantly fixing problems that don't need to be fixed, and that amounts to wasted opportunity and wasted money. Meanwhile, there are serious problems all around us.

I think you have the Columbus / Monroe side of the story simplified a bit. There was more to it than that, of course.

Definitely, I have been an outspoken critic of the Aldermanic system. I think it stinks and that Chicago should go to a borough system (but my knowledge of these is admittedly limited).

What would I do differently? I think the City should pioneer some kind of referendum voting process on-line for issues that have city-wide importance. This kind of debate comes up far too often; it stagnates things and does not allow Chicago to move forward. Chicago rarely moves forward at the rapid pace of other cities because it is hindered by competing interests and a lack of trust engendered by issues like this one. With new computer technology, democracy should be increasing in this country. Obviously, this idea is riddled with difficulties, but I think someone needs to do it. Chicago has a bad image, and it would go a long way towards fixing it if we pioneered such a system.

[Abner]

Originally Posted by honte

In a way, yes, I do believe this. One reason I am really happy this fight is occurring is that the deal to move them to Daley Bi was done in the dirty old way, behind closed doors, with the few players in the area lining up before anyone got notice. The announcement came and it was not a suggestion or an idea, but a backroom deal being foisted on the public. We're talking about the future of a public asset, and personally I think it's thrilling that Chicagoans and an alderman (like him or hate him) are standing up to this stupid way of planning their city. I've been sick of this for a long time... Daley should have been toast after Meigs Field and I don't understand why this kind of behavior is tolerated.

I agree with you on this and think it's sad that you can be pilloried for saying it. I would love to see this issue become a victory for good government.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

So, do you think that a system that allows a proposal that affects the entire city and arguably has national and international implications (Grant Park, after all, does have a international reputation) to be subject to the whims of the alderman and a handful of condo owners in 400 E Randolph is the way to go?
.

Obviously he doesn't think that. That is not the issue here, the vast majority of the city is against building it in Grant Park and it would be much more beneficial (and probably more architecturally stunning) in a different location.

You do know that its against a Supreme Court ruling to build in any of Chicago's lakefront parks?

[pilsenarch]

^^How do you know he doesn't think this?

The way the system currently works is that the alderman has a 'perogative' to veto anything. Officially, it goes to the city council for approval, and that is indeed what the CCM is doing. If they approve it, then you can most likely blame your own alderman and vote him out the next chance you get.

Once again, it seems ridiculous to judge this proposal not on its own merits but on everyone's axes to grind against the system. Funny, it was the same system that created the Museum Park Campus but nobody seemed to complain about that one.

BTW, your knowledge of the law surrounding Grant Park and the other lakefront parks is wholly incorrect.

Honte, if their are details surrounding the Columbus/Monroe site that are pertinent to this discussion, then please explain....otherwise, what is your point?

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Because I know honte's opinion on this and doesn't like it when aldermen and a few NIMBYs do something stupid. He is against this because it violates the whole Montgomery Ward thing and most people in the city don't want it in the park...

[honte]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

Honte, if their are details surrounding the Columbus/Monroe site that are pertinent to this discussion, then please explain....otherwise, what is your point?

I am trying not to rehash a lot of things that were discussed before on this thread, because people tire of hearing me repeat my opinion. I also know that I am in the minority in my views on this subject, and bringing it up has resulted in enough lambasting.

In any case, there are a lot of players on this project. One of the key ones is Bob O'Neill, who is angling for the replacement of the fieldhouse at Daley Bi. You can put the details together there. I believe actually that the Monroe / Columbus location was not the first one proposed ... the details are not 100% clear in my memory. The point here is that there is more at work than simple placement of the Museum. This was intended to bolster my argument that this is a backroom deal and not something to be particularly proud of.

Nowhereman was essentially correct; I do not agree with the stipulations in your previous post. He doesn't know me personally, but he has had to sit through over 3000 of my posts over the last several years. However, my primary personal gripe is architectural in nature: I really appreciate the current space, especially in conjunction with Millennium Park, and I think Grant Park has enough theme park atmosphere as is. Then tack on the other issues we are discussing, and I cannot be in favor of this project.

Also, the misconstruing of architectural elements as "sculpture" is just a very base, IMO. I am surprised that K+S would play along with such tomfoolery. It damages their reputation in my opinion.

[jpIllInoIs]

I keep hearing that the CCM in GP will set a bad and dangerous precident! But that precident has already been set and the "forever free and clear and open..." principle has been broken by the "Harris Theatre & Dance Center" on Randolph. That project had no business being put in the park.. If this goes to court the CCM and their supporters will cite that building as their defense.

[pilsenarch]

Originally Posted by honte

In any case, there are a lot of players on this project. One of the key ones is Bob O'Neill, who is angling for the replacement of the fieldhouse at Daley Bi. You can put the details together there. I believe actually that the Monroe / Columbus location was not the first one proposed ... the details are not 100% clear in my memory. The point here is that there is more at work than simple placement of the Museum. This was intended to bolster my argument that this is a backroom deal and not something to be particularly proud of.

I really appreciate the current space, especially in conjunction with Millennium Park, and I think Grant Park has enough theme park atmosphere as is. Then tack on the other issues we are discussing, and I cannot be in favor of this project.

Also, the misconstruing of architectural elements as "sculpture" is just a very base, IMO. I am surprised that K+S would play along with such tomfoolery. It damages their reputation in my opinion.

Honte, just to let you know, I am very familiar with Bob and the details of the history of this project....I was hoping that you might know something I didn't....I guess not and the inference of backroom deals seems to be misplaced. You have had plenty of time to lobby your alderman to vote against the CCM….that does not appear to be a backroom deal as far as I can tell.

I'm surprised at your fondness for the current 'space' - I see little redeeming about it. As far as 'theme park' atmoshpere, I assume you are referring to Millennium Park, and, you know, of course, you are in the extreme minority arguing with the success of that project. How you can equate a museum with a theme park is beyond me, however. You must REALLY hate the Lincoln Park Zoo and the Notebart Nature Museum theme-parking-up the north side.

Now, architecturally, you earlier made a valid criticism regarding the nature of underground buildings in general. However, due to the existing terracing of the site combined with the skills of Ron Krueck, I have confidence that this project could overcome that ‘disorientating’ feeling. As far as the sculpture argument goes, one only needs to look at the Spertus to see that glass construction can indeed be sculpture. Certainly the proposal is more beautiful than the deteriorating Daley Bi.

[honte]

^ No, again, a missed point. I am perfectly aware of the potential of glass. But to pretend that a building is sculpture, to skirt around a law is deceptive, plain and simple. If they want to build a glass sculpture that houses no people and doesn't have HVAC and a lobby, go right ahead.

I stated earlier that I am aware my opinions are in the minority, hence my reluctance to start this conversation again. My concern however, remains unchanged. My opinion of Millennium Park and whether or not it is a "theme park" is irrelevant; what is relevant, however, is a concern of the scales being tipped in favor of the carnival and out of balance in terms of the needs a park needs to fulfill in an urban context. Lincoln Park does not suffer from this problem. The north end of Grant Park is a different animal.

Daley Bi is one of the few Modernist public park designs in Chicago, and yes, I will miss it. Virtually no one is giving this any consideration, but what else is new around here. Bob thinks it's trash and voilà. Last, leave the "deteriorating" part out of it - it has no relevance on evaluation of art and never has.

Anyway, it's time for this thread to return to its purpose, don't you think? We're not going to get anywhere on this topic.

[pilsenarch]

^Help me out here, Honte....(sorry, I know you wanted the last word but I would like to focus on the building and park rather than the alleged political wheeling and dealing)...

So your opinion of Millennium and the deteriorating nature of Daley Bi are both irrelevant...OK....

What is in question then is your 'opinion' that Grant Park has become a carnival....and, if it has, that that is not a good thing. Once again, based upon how that park has been used (Taste, Lollapalooza, Blues Fest, etc. etc. etc.) you would seem to be in the EXTREME minority. Just maybe one legitimate role of a urban park is to provide a carnival?

Regardless, despite all the fear mongering, I don't believe a children's museum is going to tilt the park into a permanent midway (anymore then all the festivals already have).

I also do find it interesting you are so willing to dismiss Bob and all his work. Some might find him annoying, but no single person deserves more credit for looking after and restoring Grant Park then Bob.

As far as your opinion that the Daley Bi is a modern masterpiece maybe worthy of landmarking, well, the only part of the Daley Bi that the CCM is proposing replacing is all underground....is it the ribbon of concrete above the storefront that you are so enamored with?

Finally, I find it disappointing that an architect of all people would argue that if a piece of art contains people or HVAC then it can’t possibly be art.

[honte]

^ Not trying to have the last word, just trying to keep this thread from being a constant back and forth between the two of us that likely will be simply skipped by everyone else around here (note lack of input from other forumers).

However, you keep making points that require clarification. Briefly:

1) Of course buildings are art. How did I possibly infer that they weren't? But a building is not a sculpture, especially as it would be understood by the law. The Gehry bandsheel is obviously borderline, perhaps even crossing the line.

2) Carnivals. I think Chicago needs a fairground or some kind of public square for this. I like the geographic location of the festivals (proximity to the Lakefront and downtown and transit), but I dislike what they do to Grant Park (dead grass, trash, potable toilets everywhere). One or two is ok, but I think they hold Grant Park back from its potential by being held all summer in the same place. I was hoping Meigs would become a fairground after the Midnight Massacre, but it's too far away to transplant the big ones.

3) Daley Bi will be destroyed by this project. It's kind of like saying, "Well, what if we just put some fun little concession stands in Daley Plaza?" Or, "That boring Dan Kiley over there really would look better with a petting zoo." Minimalism does not take well to alterations; that's one of its downfalls. And they are tweaking / replacing much more than you allow. I'm not seeing any of the elements I appreciate about it in the new renders.

4) O'Neill has done some good things, sure. I never dismissed him as a person. I think his intentions are generally good. Can't agree with more than 1/4 of the things he says or does though.

So, I have a question for you: Why are you so gung-ho, 100% convinced that this is the best place for this building? As an architect, I'd expect you to seek out all possible ideas and configurations before being set on one scheme. You can disagree with everything else I've said, but the one unavoidable fact is that there are plenty of great places for this institution, and this one is chock-full of problems.

[cbotnyse]

cool new restaurant on Superior and Wells.

[Pandemonious]

You definitely aren't alone on #2 Honte.. I have struggled with this for some time. Im not sure how exactly much the city benefits from an event like Lollapalooza, but the fact that they can close down half of a large public park and charge people hundreds of dollars to go somewhere that on a normal day they could go out and lounge in the grass seems like complete bullshit to me. I know grant park isn't like central park, and it is more of a formal area for festivals and activities, but lollapalooza to me is the worst offender by far imo, and I think doesn't really benefit the park itself at all.

Like you said, the proximity is attractive, but I am not sure it really belongs there.... especially if people will pull out "forever free and clear" about other projects which in my opinion have a tiny fraction of impact in comparison.

Originally Posted by honte

^ Not trying to have the last word, just trying to keep this thread from being a constant back and forth between the two of us that likely will be simply skipped by everyone else around here (note lack of input from other forumers).

However, you keep making points that require clarification. Briefly:

1) Of course buildings are art. How did I possibly infer that they weren't? But a building is not a sculpture, especially as it would be understood by the law. The Gehry bandsheel is obviously borderline, perhaps even crossing the line.

2) Carnivals. I think Chicago needs a fairground or some kind of public square for this. I like the geographic location of the festivals (proximity to the Lakefront and downtown and transit), but I dislike what they do to Grant Park (dead grass, trash, potable toilets everywhere). One or two is ok, but I think they hold Grant Park back from its potential by being held all summer in the same place. I was hoping Meigs would become a fairground after the Midnight Massacre, but it's too far away to transplant the big ones.

3) Daley Bi will be destroyed by this project. It's kind of like saying, "Well, what if we just put some fun little concession stands in Daley Plaza?" Or, "That boring Dan Kiley over there really would look better with a petting zoo." Minimalism does not take well to alterations; that's one of its downfalls. And they are tweaking / replacing much more than you allow. I'm not seeing any of the elements I appreciate about it in the new renders.

4) O'Neill has done some good things, sure. I never dismissed him as a person. I think his intentions are generally good. Can't agree with more than 1/4 of the things he says or does though.

So, I have a question for you: Why are you so gung-ho, 100% convinced that this is the best place for this building? As an architect, I'd expect you to seek out all possible ideas and configurations before being set on one scheme. You can disagree with everything else I've said, but the one unavoidable fact is that there are plenty of great places for this institution, and this one is chock-full of problems.

[cbotnyse]

Originally Posted by Pandemonious

You definitely aren't alone on #2 Honte.. I have struggled with this for some time. Im not sure how exactly much the city benefits from an event like Lollapalooza, but the fact that they can close down half of a large public park and charge people hundreds of dollars to go somewhere that on a normal day they could go out and lounge in the grass seems like complete bullshit to me. I know grant park isn't like central park, and it is more of a formal area for festivals and activities, but lollapalooza to me is the worst offender by far imo, and I think doesn't really benefit the park itself at all.

Like you said, the proximity is attractive, but I am not sure it really belongs there.... especially if people will pull out "forever free and clear" about other projects which in my opinion have a tiny fraction of impact in comparison.

Lollapalooza is awesome for the city. its a three day festival where 1000s and 1000s of people come and stay in the city's hotels, eat at restaurants and drink at the bars, among many other things. We are lucky to have one of the best music festivals in the country and you're complaining about it?

[Mr Downtown]

A little additional on Chicago Children's Museum: They first proposed to move to the Daley Bi site a couple of years ago, then later suggested Columbus/Monroe. Nearly all the downtown civics (Friends of Downtown, Friends of the Parks, Metropolitan Planning Council) made clear their displeasure with that, so the mayor told them to wait until after the election. Then the Daley Bi idea reappeared.

I'm sorry to hear Reilly pilloried for an actual principled decision. To me, it's noteworthy that he didn't say "my constituents oppose it." He publicly said, "I've read the four Ward decisions, and they make clear that this is forbidden."

The four Ward decisions, and various decisions following it from the 1920s through the 1950s, make it clear that no building can be placed in Grant Park between Randolph and 11th Place. The museum campus is exempt because it's south of 11th Place. The yacht club is allowed because it's beyond the bulkhead line of the harbor. The underground garages are allowed because they have only ventilation and emergency stairs in the park, and those are considered de minimis. Petrillo Bandshell is supposedly a temporary structure, which can be removed every winter. The Buckingham Fountain pavilions technically violate the injunction (the original restrooms at the fountain were underground for this very reason), but no one legally challenged them. Millennium Park decided to seek abutter permission for the Harris Theater, even from Randolph Street abutters. Once the courts ruled that Randolph abutter permission was unnecessary, I'm not clear whether they followed through on getting permission from Michigan Avenue abutters.

I think there are three factors motivating the Children's Museum to butt its head against the wall here: First, getting tax money as a result of being in the park (though initially they claimed to have no interest in that). Second, Allstate gets a late chance to get its name into Millennium Park, alongside Chase, Wrigley, BP, Pritzker, and Boeing. Third, and perhaps most important, the recently privatized East Monroe garage has lots of unused parking spaces. The Childrens Museum would help fill those with minivans. Except for the Metra Electric and #4 and #60 buses, this site actually has lousy access to public transit, and it's not particularly important to the museum.

Are we really reduced to debating whether rooftops qualify as "sculpture" and whether a bunker is sufficiently subterranean to squeeze through a loophole in the court decisions? Just how difficult is it to comprehend the 1839 plat notation "for ever to remain vacant of buildings?"

[Chicago2020]

R. Collection


LibraryShade/FLICKR

[honte]

Here is the image of the 5640 Sheridan development, which VivaLFuego mentioned here a while back. It would replace a rather nondescript foursquare.

Kitschy enough to be kool?