Two renderings the Chicago Children's Museum has been working overtime to keep hidden from the public reveal the scarring intrusiveness of the structures it wants to build on the current site on Daley Bicentennial Plaza, plus a critique of architect Krueck and Sexton's design. See it all here.
7 Comments
while i can understand the criticisms of scale and the intrusiveness of this project, i don't really like the way the author characterizes brutalism:
"Brutalism...drew its power from rawness rather than elegant finish, by poking you in the eye with the naked strength of its spare jagged forms"
i thought that brutalism came from béton brut, "raw concrete", that referred to the rawness of the material and not the forms themselves.
but i guess i'm just a fan of brutalism.
i agree...the brutalism analogy is flawed...
the article, more of an opinion, fails to acknowledge that the structures are "sunk" from the street level, therefore not being too visually intrusive...
having said that, i've always been a fan of the "forever open clean and free" mandate
Does the writer realize that she's contradicting herself, decrying both the towering structure (ie, architecture) and the sunken courtyard. Really, I can appreciate "open clean and free" but the site plan shows how little this project impacts the existing condition (a formalist garden?). Finally, this is written in such a partisan tone, blatant propaganda that should never be confused for useful criticism.
It's poorly written but belies the writer's ignorance of architecture and critical discourse. I'd give it an F but she did manage to do a bit of research and included "screenshots" (ha!) so I'll be nice and give her a D.
more images. (right click and select "view image" to see in better detail)
The law is the law. Any chipping away at it further erodes its intention for future projects. Montgomery Ward spent the better part of his life defending this covenant that the lakefront shall remain forever open fre and clear and took it to the supreme court. Although I like the proposal, it must be voted on by the taxpayer citezens in referendumapproved. The park is the citizen's, not some wealthy socialite's pet projects, not a place for spoiled suburban brats to come screw around in a plastic ball pit. Maybe the city should instead woory about the critical missing pedestrian connection from this corner of the park to Navy Pier instead.
vincentVan, I'm pretty sure Lynn becker is a man.
I respect Krueck and Sexton's work immensely - but I hope the building is better than those renderings seem to show. I don't envy them this commission, frankly - they can't win. Or if they do, it won't be until 40 years from now that people will finally call it the "controversial but much-beloved CCM". If it happens, I hope it is loved from day one.
a few responses:
1. I, too, am a fan of brutalism, done well, of course, and although the béton brut description is historically much more accurate than my own, I would submit that an aggressiveness of form wound up being, as much as the material of concrete, primary characteristics of buildings in this style.
2. The article was written as part of a long series covering the effort by Chicago's mayor to force construction of the museum into a public park in as a way of decimating century-old protections of open park land. Proponents of the museum and their public relations firm, Hill and Knowlton, have systematically withheld from public view all renderings of the building that would show its actual impact on the park, releasing only misleading bird's-eye views, abstracted cutaways and floor plans. To date, while local critics are covering the political battle, no one was attempting to evaluate the project from a design perspective. When the two renderings became available, I thought it was time to begin doing this. Hopefully, it will engender additional and more capable evaluation and debate.
3. Krueck and Sexton are among the best architects in Chicago, but the basic program for the museum - building it several levels underground while requiring natural light - is so basically flawed that it cannot be accomplished without severely compromising the park above it.
Lastly, I must give vincentVan an "F" for:
a. apparently not being able to keep two parallel ideas in his (or her) head at the same time in failing to see that when writing about a park that, except for the berm holding the fieldhouse, is an attractive, sweeping expanse of landscaping all on level, to say that additions up to thirty feet higher, and open elements up to twenty feet lower, are all clumsy intrusions, is not a contradiction.
B. The patronizing condescension that anyone whose name is Lynn must be a female, and therefore undoubtedly compromised in cognitive ability.
However, for the writer's mastery of the high pompous style, I'm raising it to a "D".
Nevertheless, I'll work to do better next time.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.