Skyscraper City Forum banner
1 - 20 of 251 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,859 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
Okay, I think this would be a good place to combine discussion on all the various projects going on around town regarding the MSO, MPM, Zoo, MAM, Ballet, etc. It should include the Rep, opera companies, Domes, Boerner gardens, Schlitz Audobon Center, theaters, concert halls, maybe include events such as the marathons, rowing regatta, the Mile, whatever might appeal. Summerfest grounds?

A lot of threads cross over at the fringes anyway. There sure is a lot going on with the legacy groups right now.

Milwaukee Rep event brings in $700,000 for Stackner Cabaret renovation
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,859 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 · (Edited)
Duhn duhn duhn duuuuuuuhn!

The Mitchell Park Domes continue to deteriorate — old window glazings leak water in storms while concrete support pillars crumble — and the popular horticultural conservatory will close within a few years unless $30 million is found to do just basic repairs, a citizen task force says.

Or Milwaukee County could upgrade the domes at an estimated cost of $95 million with canopy walks, zip lines, butterfly exhibits, an outdoor children's garden, and other adventure or ecological science features to pull in more visitors and more revenue.


Decision time is quickly approaching for the future of the leaking, aging Mitchell Park Domes
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
951 Posts
Du du du duuuuuuu!

The Mitchell Park Domes continue to deteriorate — old window glazings leak water in storms while concrete support pillars crumble — and the popular horticultural conservatory will close within a few years unless $30 million is found to do just basic repairs, a citizen task force says.

Or Milwaukee County could upgrade the domes at an estimated cost of $95 million with canopy walks, zip lines, butterfly exhibits, an outdoor children's garden, and other adventure or ecological science features to pull in more visitors and more revenue.


Decision time is quickly approaching for the future of the leaking, aging Mitchell Park Domes
Huh, we were just talking about the domes in a different thread. I hadn't seen this article yet. By the sounds of it, the domes are in much worse condition than previously thought. Major leaking in all three domes during last week's storms and they're not sure that the concrete pillars can actually be repaired. When the Executive Director of Friends of the Domes says "We don't know for sure that preservation is an option and it might be more expensive than building new", we might have to consider the fact that it's just not possible to save these things.

I love the Domes as much as the next person. I really do. And I'm a big proponent of historic preservation. But often times with historic preservation the main fear is that something gets torn down and nothing replaces it (old Cathedral Square courthouse, the Lakefront Depot, Sydney Hih, Randolph Hotel) or something gets torn down and a lesser development goes up (Pabst Tower/100 East, Everett Street Depot/We Energies offices, vibrant Bronzeville-German Market district/low income housing & freeway). The teardown and do nothing/build something totally new method is due to the fact that most of these historic structures can't be replicated. The Soldier's Home and City Hall are just two examples of structures that can't be replicated.

Well, the domes can be replicated. The technology and materials we now possess could allow us to actually build much better domes. Probably could do it for cheaper too. But that brings up another question - are "domes" the best possible way construct a conservatory? If we had to build a unique, state of the art conservatory today, would we build domes? I really doubt it. They're inefficient uses of space and are not the best way to showcase a collection. Has anyone ever asked why no one else has domes? At this point, I'm all for tearing them down and building a new state of the art facility. I'm sure there is a way to incorporate new domes into a new layout if people are dead set on having domes. For example, we could have one bigger, better central show dome with several branches coming off of it. But I just don't see how what we have now is worth the cost it's going to take to save them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
911 Posts
Huh, we were just talking about the domes in a different thread. I hadn't seen this article yet. By the sounds of it, the domes are in much worse condition than previously thought. Major leaking in all three domes during last week's storms and they're not sure that the concrete pillars can actually be repaired. When the Executive Director of Friends of the Domes says "We don't know for sure that preservation is an option and it might be more expensive than building new", we might have to consider the fact that it's just not possible to save these things.

I love the Domes as much as the next person. I really do. And I'm a big proponent of historic preservation. But often times with historic preservation the main fear is that something gets torn down and nothing replaces it (old Cathedral Square courthouse, the Lakefront Depot, Sydney Hih, Randolph Hotel) or something gets torn down and a lesser development goes up (Pabst Tower/100 East, Everett Street Depot/We Energies offices, vibrant Bronzeville-German Market district/low income housing & freeway). The teardown and do nothing/build something totally new method is due to the fact that most of these historic structures can't be replicated. The Soldier's Home and City Hall are just two examples of structures that can't be replicated.

Well, the domes can be replicated. The technology and materials we now possess could allow us to actually build much better domes. Probably could do it for cheaper too. But that brings up another question - are "domes" the best possible way construct a conservatory? If we had to build a unique, state of the art conservatory today, would we build domes? I really doubt it. They're inefficient uses of space and are not the best way to showcase a collection. Has anyone ever asked why no one else has domes? At this point, I'm all for tearing them down and building a new state of the art facility. I'm sure there is a way to incorporate new domes into a new layout if people are dead set on having domes. For example, we could have one bigger, better central show dome with several branches coming off of it. But I just don't see how what we have now is worth the cost it's going to take to save them.
Remember the the pro dome folks are making emotional arguments.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
951 Posts
There's nothing wrong with emotional arguments. Some things deserve to be preserved in order to preserve cultural and historical assets. City Hall is one of those. Does it make fiscal sense to restore City Hall? No. It doesn't. We could easily throw all of the functions of City Hall in a bland office building and demolish the current one. But we lose a bit of our history and culture along the way. And an irreplaceable architectural masterpiece. And that's not worth it. A city devoid of buildings worthy of emotional attachment is a city I don't want to live in, for that will be a terribly depressing city. When it comes to the domes, I'm pro-demolition. But I'm not going to discount the opinions of others simply because they're making an emotional argument. It shows they care. If the time comes to build new, I want them in the room to help decide what our future conservatory looks like.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
570 Posts
Huh, we were just talking about the domes in a different thread. I hadn't seen this article yet. By the sounds of it, the domes are in much worse condition than previously thought. Major leaking in all three domes during last week's storms and they're not sure that the concrete pillars can actually be repaired. When the Executive Director of Friends of the Domes says "We don't know for sure that preservation is an option and it might be more expensive than building new", we might have to consider the fact that it's just not possible to save these things.

I love the Domes as much as the next person. I really do. And I'm a big proponent of historic preservation. But often times with historic preservation the main fear is that something gets torn down and nothing replaces it (old Cathedral Square courthouse, the Lakefront Depot, Sydney Hih, Randolph Hotel) or something gets torn down and a lesser development goes up (Pabst Tower/100 East, Everett Street Depot/We Energies offices, vibrant Bronzeville-German Market district/low income housing & freeway). The teardown and do nothing/build something totally new method is due to the fact that most of these historic structures can't be replicated. The Soldier's Home and City Hall are just two examples of structures that can't be replicated.

Well, the domes can be replicated. The technology and materials we now possess could allow us to actually build much better domes. Probably could do it for cheaper too. But that brings up another question - are "domes" the best possible way construct a conservatory? If we had to build a unique, state of the art conservatory today, would we build domes? I really doubt it. They're inefficient uses of space and are not the best way to showcase a collection. Has anyone ever asked why no one else has domes? At this point, I'm all for tearing them down and building a new state of the art facility. I'm sure there is a way to incorporate new domes into a new layout if people are dead set on having domes. For example, we could have one bigger, better central show dome with several branches coming off of it. But I just don't see how what we have now is worth the cost it's going to take to save them.
I realize this is a bit off topic, but...

Do you actually think that the 100 E Wisconsin building is worse than the prior Pabst Tower? Don't get me wrong, the Pabst Tower was a beautiful tower, but 100 E Wisconsin is the 3rd biggest building in the city... sure, it's not the prettiest building (I'll give that the Pabst Tower was definitely better looking), but I don't think 100 E is a waste of space.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,177 Posts
I realize this is a bit off topic, but...

Do you actually think that the 100 E Wisconsin building is worse than the prior Pabst Tower? Don't get me wrong, the Pabst Tower was a beautiful tower, but 100 E Wisconsin is the 3rd biggest building in the city... sure, it's not the prettiest building (I'll give that the Pabst Tower was definitely better looking), but I don't think 100 E is a waste of space.
100 E. Needs a complete facade replacement or painting. I have brought this up before. It is in very bad shape when you look at how the individual stone tiles have faded or fully lost their original tan coating.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
671 Posts
I realize this is a bit off topic, but...

Do you actually think that the 100 E Wisconsin building is worse than the prior Pabst Tower? Don't get me wrong, the Pabst Tower was a beautiful tower, but 100 E Wisconsin is the 3rd biggest building in the city... sure, it's not the prettiest building (I'll give that the Pabst Tower was definitely better looking), but I don't think 100 E is a waste of space.


Pabst was in bad, bad shape and most of its original charm and beauty had long since been removed, butchered or otherwise ruined. It wasn't completely devoid of character but it was pretty awful.

As for the Domes I agree completely that if they aren't going to be preserved (or partially preserved) then something should replace them. Not simply boarded up or demolished. What would a designed-from-scratch facility include in terms of mission, amenities, activities, target audience?

In a way this is a great opportunity to reimagine what this cultural amenity is. The existing buildings are an iconic landmark and that's worth something. And in a perfect world that's not lost. But in a more realistic world maybe some or all of it goes but is replaced by something with a mission of being even more relevant, more used and more meaningful to the lives people live today. That's not to say the Domes has done nothing over the decades to adjust and modernize their offerings. But if we're going to scrape together tens of millions of dollars to make this right I don't think the target of making it 1970 at the Domes is the best goal.
 
1 - 20 of 251 Posts
Top