Friday, April 11, 2008

Jagged Icebergs and Open Pit - the Brutalist Design the Chicago Children's Museum seeks to force into Grant Park.


You can scarcely tell it's there, can you?

Renderings the Chicago Children's Museum have been desperately hiding from the public reveal the scarring intrusiveness of the structures it wants to build in Grant Park. See them, and read a critique of Krueck and Sexton's design here.

21 comments:

Warren F Leland said...

good find... I've always wanted to see some close up pictures. -

thanks

watch the tribune in the next few days as they explore alternative locations.

sideofwisdom said...

you say brutalist like its a bad thing...I think it is pretty and would look good in that part of the park...open pit...i mean really...you may not want anything in the park but seriously get a grip...its not a bad design...if they are going to build something it should at least look like something.

Anonymous said...

"Brutalist" isn't necessarily a bad thing, true, but "parody of (Kruek and Sexton's) Spertus Center" is right on target.
Regardless, why not build this at Northerly Island or the museum campus and avoid the issues altogether. (Or are the Field, Shedd, and Adler racist for having their museums over there?)

Anonymous said...

Yeah, that's just what we want in our downtown park...a bunch of buildings.

This whole project is disgusting. Grant Park needs all the green space it can get.

We should not throw away one square inch. Thanks, Lynn, for providing these images!

Anonymous said...

mostly underground???? finally the truth has been revealed (and it aint't pretty)

Anonymous said...

Reminds me of an ant farm like this one:

http://www.ecoshopper.net/wp-content/img/ecotoys/ages8_12/discovery_ant_farm.jpg

Anonymous said...

I don't understand the "pit." It looks like it'll create grade separations that make you feel trapped. There's nothing I hate more than being able to see where I want to go, knowing it's very close, but having to go way out of my way to get there. This is the feeling you get around the Illinois Center and new Lakeshore East development -- a helpless feeling of being trapped by poor access and infrastructure. Why not just have more human-scaled, intuitive access?

Anonymous said...

So I see Lincoln Park Zoo is updating the polar bear exhibit- about time.

designatedblogger said...

Northerly Island in my opinion would be such a great spot, unless some officials have other plans for that spot? hmm... any ideas anyone?

BillSell said...

Sorry to read about the destruction of a great park. For relief you might consider living in Milwaukee where parks are being defended effectively against the attacks of privatization even while the County is cash-strapped.

BeanBagger said...

Although I am not a supporter of the new museum site, I'm pretty sure the plans have changed since these drawings were prepared many months ago.

Robert Salm said...

It's like a combination of the ice cave set from the movie "Logan's Run" and a set from Krypton in "Superman: The Movie."

Or...the architects are simply cribbing an idea from the National September 11 Memorial & Museum.

Anonymous said...

There have been NO EXCEPTIONS in 172 years, that survived being challenged in court based on violating the dedication restrictive covenants. The Art Institute and the Harris were NOT challenged...However the Children's Museum will be challenged, and will not be the first and only exception in the history of Chicago.

jack said...

“Brutalism”, Mr. Becker? Are you kidding?
You are risking your credibility as a critic when you so obviously let your political biases so cloud your objectivity….
As far as the current percentage of ‘hardscape’ vs. ‘landscape’ compared to the proposal, I’m not so sure that it is all that different….regardless, such observations along with your ridiculous assertion that a 20’ clear glass pavilion will somehow ‘tower’ over pedestrians is not only incorrect (maybe we should cut down all the trees that are over 12’), but is quite arguably irrelevant (re: Crown Fountain, Pritzker Pavilion, etc., etc., etc.)

Ryan said...

To Jack:
Debating the design is distracting from the real issue- it shouldn't be built in the park.

Lynn Becker said...

You may be a giant among men, Jack, but for the rest of us mortals, something that rises three times our own height has a looming quality to it.

nature and towering trees: good. clout and towering glass icebergs: not so much.

Pritzker Pavilion and the Crown Fountain: good. The idea it logically follows that similar structures must therefore be replicated everywhere in the park: priceless.

jack said...

thanks again, Mr. Becker, for proving my point....

so, I guess a structure is 'looming' and 'towering' amd 'bad' when, and only when, Mr. Becker deems it so....

oh, and thanks to ryan who admits it is NOT about the architecture...

Lynn Becker said...

it is unless you're actually claiming - and I wouldn't put it past you - that there's no difference between nature and man-made structure. that's what this is about - protecting the nature that's there against those, like you, who want to destroy it for their pet building projects.

jack said...

I was referring to the 40' high Crown Fountain and the 120' high Pritzker Pavilion, of course...

so, exactly how many trees and shrubs are we losing, Mr. Becker?

(in regards to an earlier post, the CCM is not touching the existing ice-skating/roller-blading rink)

Meta Brown said...

beanbagger - this image was presented by the Chicago Children's Museum to the Park District Board on April 10 as part of their application process.

Michael R. Allen said...

One can't tell much from that rendering -- footprint, materials, connection to surrounding landscapeall are a mystery. Who could be excited about something this vague?