daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Development News Forums > General Urban Developments > DN Archives



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old September 3rd, 2007, 06:55 AM   #341
Loopy
Chicago, USA
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 777
Likes (Received): 0

..

Last edited by Loopy; May 18th, 2010 at 08:38 PM.
Loopy no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old September 3rd, 2007, 05:50 PM   #342
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loopy View Post
Do you really want "Public" participation, or "South Loop Neighbors" participation?
The broader the better. Grant Park is the entire city's front yard, and shouldn't be left to one self-appointed "caretaker" who's intent on filling it up with short buildings and shadowing it with tall ones.

There's something kind of curious about Central Station promoting a restaurant in the park itself while refusing to allow any retail in its residential buildings facing the park. Imagine the views a brasserie on the second floor of OMPW would have.
Quote:
Because, to me, a Tavern on the Green sounds a lot more appealing than another SLN asphalt and pea-gravel "Dog Friendly" area.
Then you can come and say that at the meeting. Oh, wait, there won't be any meeting.

And South Loop DogPAC was independent of HPRN long before they were forced to accept the Grant Park location (and the Park District requirements for no grass there).
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 3rd, 2007, 08:34 PM   #343
nomarandlee
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
nomarandlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: 1060 W. Addison, City by the Lake
Posts: 7,209
Likes (Received): 2761

Although a Tavern on the Green type restaurant could be a great setting and nice addition I would tend to want something a bit more interactive and open to the public.
__________________
Stephane Charbonnier, “I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.”
nomarandlee no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 4th, 2007, 05:46 AM   #344
Loopy
Chicago, USA
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 777
Likes (Received): 0

..

Last edited by Loopy; May 18th, 2010 at 09:38 PM.
Loopy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 11th, 2007, 03:36 AM   #345
spyguy
Expert
 
spyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,916
Likes (Received): 97

The new design integrates the museum with the landscape, preserving the character of Grant Park. Entirely submerged beneath the park, both the 100,000 square foot museum and 20,000 square foot field house are centered around an open courtyard. Two sculptural, transparent glass skylights draw light deep into the museum, and act as climbing structures that allow the children to embrace Grant Park.





spyguy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 11th, 2007, 04:31 AM   #346
BorisMolotov
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 376
Likes (Received): 9

Now im definitely ok with it. That looks awesome!
BorisMolotov no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 11th, 2007, 05:31 AM   #347
ardecila
Jack-Of-All-Trades
 
ardecila's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Orleans/Chicago
Posts: 1,391
Likes (Received): 2

I like the way they arranged the glass, as if there were shards of glass sticking up out of the park. It's a really novel idea, and I hope Krueck and Sexton utilize it to its full potential.
ardecila no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 11th, 2007, 09:36 PM   #348
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

Blair Kamin on the Children's Museum

"While it's easy to get lost in such to-and-fro, the issue, in the end, is all about balancing precedent and progress: To allow one more museum to enter the park (the Art Institute of Chicago was granted an exception before its construction began in 1891) means that others invariably will follow. Who knows whether their designers will be as skilled and sensitive as Krueck & Sexton? The risk is that more museums will clutter the park's magnificent clarity, chipping away at Ward's vision of serene open space. Is that where we want to go in the midst of a major buildup of residential high-rises around the park -- even more buildings around its edges?"

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entert...,7601341.story
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 12th, 2007, 12:58 AM   #349
spyguy
Expert
 
spyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,916
Likes (Received): 97

Precedent - what other institutions (presently not in GP) are there that could gather the support and funds to build a hundred million dollar facility in Grant Park?
spyguy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 12th, 2007, 01:32 AM   #350
wrabbit
Registered User
 
wrabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,162
Likes (Received): 5

I like that Kamin article (thanks, Mr Downtown, for posting it) - a good discussion of the issues at hand and a shrewd reading of some of the localized politics surrounding Daley Bi.
wrabbit no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 12th, 2007, 02:18 AM   #351
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by spyguy View Post
Precedent - what other institutions [could] build a hundred million dollar facility in Grant Park?
What if the Nature Museum had wanted to be there? What if the DuSable decides it wants to be there? Or whatever museum the Pritzkers decide to favor next?

And are we only to concern ourselves with the next decade? Some of us hope that Grant Park is still a special place a century from now.
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 12th, 2007, 02:27 AM   #352
Chitowner245
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Paradise
Posts: 278
Likes (Received): 0

It's already been said that this building isn't being added to the park, but it's rather replacing existing crap. This thing is awesome, and if you want to protect the integrity of open public space, then you have to create legislation that says, "No more! No compromises- this is it!" BTW, as I was walking from the NE end to the SW end of the park today from navy pier, I noticed how often I had to stop because of all the damn F'N streets that run through the park. I was thinking to myself: damn, it'd be nice if columbus were underground and a couple of the e-w streets were gone or buried underground as well. All the damn streets really interrupt the park feel, and I've always felt this way about it- it just echoed in me more than ever today since it was so pleasant outside.
Chitowner245 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 12th, 2007, 03:40 AM   #353
PrintersRowBoiler
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 650
Likes (Received): 1

I disagree that it is replacing existing crap. Part of the beauty of it is that it is open and free. There does not need to be function to each piece of the park to make it a great park. Also, Millenium Park 5 years ago was crap (train yards and parking). But the park continues to evolve, especially with the rise in population to downtown.

I agree about the streets. Hopefully the park evolves in a way that streets could be relocated underground. In the meantime, I believe that a landscaped median and islands at each corner the width of the parking rows (8') should be considered in the park. It looks like they are starting to do this in Printers Row based on the construction paint. It will mess up the races and Marathon, but pedestrian safety (or at least comfort level) should take precedence.
PrintersRowBoiler no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2007, 08:16 AM   #354
Chicagotom
Registered User
 
Chicagotom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 420
Likes (Received): 0

MR DT and PRB - Grant Park as a special place? Never was. Columbus underground? Never happen.

Grant Park has for as long as I can remember been a mass gathering place not a bucolic meadow. It's the City's Great Gathering Place. Ever since Jayne Byrne moved the Taste from Navy Pier to Columbus Drive its fate has been sealed. Da Mayor has moved most of the Parade routes - not all - but most, The Marathon "formally called LaSalle" and multiple other races, all of the Fests, Oh and the 4th and Lollapalooza. The City found a way to make a buck good for Da Mayor. It wasn't long ago that Grant Park was a disgrace. So you put in another Museum - I think the City has done a great job fixing it up on the North and South ends. It's likely that at the end of this Century - should He tarry - That Chicagoans will still have the Great Gathering Place we enjoy today
Chicagotom no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2007, 09:07 AM   #355
ardecila
Jack-Of-All-Trades
 
ardecila's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Orleans/Chicago
Posts: 1,391
Likes (Received): 2

Parades need to remain on State Street.
ardecila no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2007, 05:37 PM   #356
i_am_hydrogen
muted
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,080
Likes (Received): 203

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
[COLOR="Navy"]"While it's easy to get lost in such to-and-fro, the issue, in the end, is all about balancing precedent and progress: To allow one more museum to enter the park (the Art Institute of Chicago was granted an exception before its construction began in 1891) means that others invariably will follow.
You made the same argument about precedent with respect to Park Michigan, as if its approval will somehow lead to the rubber stamping of any future projects proposed in that area. If the Children's Museum is eventually built, that doesn't mean that every other institution that wants to build in Grant Park should be allowed to do so. Approval can obviously be granted on an ad-hoc basis.
i_am_hydrogen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2007, 06:11 PM   #357
dvidler
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 116
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
Parades need to remain on State Street.
Agreed
dvidler no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 14th, 2007, 03:22 AM   #358
ardecila
Jack-Of-All-Trades
 
ardecila's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Orleans/Chicago
Posts: 1,391
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
What if the Nature Museum had wanted to be there? What if the DuSable decides it wants to be there? Or whatever museum the Pritzkers decide to favor next?

And are we only to concern ourselves with the next decade? Some of us hope that Grant Park is still a special place a century from now.
My rationale for supporting the Children's Museum is that it doesn't really add a building into the park so much as blurring the line between city and park. (Hopefully this is accompanied by a corresponding green streetscape along Upper Randolph) Due to its edge location, it carries the built environment into Grant Park, but it also lets the park through at every opportunity possible.

This is in a similar fashion to how Millennium Park across the street blurred the line between buildings and park, except that the Childrens' Museum leans even more heavily towards the "park" end of the spectrum.
ardecila no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 14th, 2007, 04:05 AM   #359
PrintersRowBoiler
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 650
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen View Post
You made the same argument about precedent with respect to Park Michigan, as if its approval will somehow lead to the rubber stamping of any future projects proposed in that area. If the Children's Museum is eventually built, that doesn't mean that every other institution that wants to build in Grant Park should be allowed to do so. Approval can obviously be granted on an ad-hoc basis.
The difference between Park Michigan and Grant Park is that Park Michigan is part of a zoning that can easily be changed and permitted by using a variance. The issue with building in Grant Park is not that simple... it is a mandate that has been supported in court that Grant Park is “a common to remain forever open, clear and free of any buildings, or other obstruction whatever.” This was determined when they were first subdividing the area and was printed on the Plat in 1836, the year before the city was incorporated. This has been held up four times in the supreme court of the state of Illinois even for civil projects. It should not even be considered to be allowed on an ad-hoc basis. Lawyers that deal with real estate should know that language such as this on Plats are very hard, if not impossible, to get around. You pretty much have to rewrite the law.

This is our front yard. No other city has something has anything comparable. Why should we allow that to change? There are many other places to build a childrens museum than in Grant Park.

And Grant Park was crap... in the nineteenth century. It has evolved over the years to be a great treasure. You think Montgomery Ward was fighting for his view over garbage when he took the issue to court in 1909? So what if a main function of Grant Park is to congregrate mass groups of people. That is a good thing as far as I am concerned.

And Millenium Park did not just turn the park from barren land to glamorous. There are many parts of the park that are beautiful that I have enjoyed since I was born such as Buckingham Fountain, concerts at Petrillo, picnics in the lawn, running through the park in high school.

It will take one 21st century Montgomery Ward to bring this project to a screeching halt because I find it hard to believe that the courts will have a change of heart over a mandate and law that is so cut and dry.
PrintersRowBoiler no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 14th, 2007, 04:23 AM   #360
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

What concerns me is a laches argument: that because Daley Bi fieldhouse, Park Grill, Harris Theater, and Pritzker Pavilion were built and timely objection was not raised, property owners west of Michigan will be estopped from asserting the injunction and the underlying easement/covenant. Adding another "subsurface" building only furthers the laches problem.

It's interesting that the state Supreme Court's reasoning in the Ward decisions even prevented the General Assembly from condemning Ward's easement. I have to wonder if that would still be decided the same way today.

But we should also remember that Ward was not fighting the construction of slaughterhouses in the park; he was fighting the Field Museum of Natural History. He was scolded many times for obstructing progress and cultural betterment, and warned that no other place could possibly be found for the museum.
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 10:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu