Lakefront facility update
- Thread starter zanycat
- Start date
"Northwestern will hold an informal information session on the complex from 7 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. on March 18, 2015 in Studio 2 on the first floor of the Henry Crown Sports Pavilion, 2311 Campus Dr. on Northwestern's Evanston campus. The information session is open to the public and free parking is available in the North Campus Parking Garage immediately adjacent to the Crown Sports Pavilion."
See you all there. I'm sure there will be plenty of opportunity to voice your displeasure.
See you all there. I'm sure there will be plenty of opportunity to voice your displeasure.
I don't have any displeasure to voice with NU, but the number of entities that can derail this project or delay it into oblivion is daunting. I'd like to think the fact that NU announced the Fieldhouse and accepted donations for its construction so far in advance of "filing for permit" is an indicator that they don't see any true barriers for this becoming a reality,
Sorry to be a downer, but ...
1. The university "plans to file a permit request." This is like when lawyers say they're "planning to file" a lawsuit. It isn't a real lawsuit until it's really filed.
2. How long does a federal permitting process take? Does NU go through this process every time it builds on the lakefront?
1. The university "plans to file a permit request." This is like when lawyers say they're "planning to file" a lawsuit. It isn't a real lawsuit until it's really filed.
2. How long does a federal permitting process take? Does NU go through this process every time it builds on the lakefront?
Sorry to be a downer, but ...
1. The university "plans to file a permit request." This is like when lawyers say they're "planning to file" a lawsuit. It isn't a real lawsuit until it's really filed.
2. How long does a federal permitting process take? Does NU go through this process every time it builds on the lakefront?
When a lawyer issues a press release saying they're "planning to file," that seems like a PR move intended to scare their targets into settling out of court and early, and it's an easy story to feed to the press. There aren't really any consequences to not filing-- not many journalists are going to write a feature on a lawsuit that was threatened but never happened.
When a big organization says they're going to file for building permits, there are presumably more consequences if there's no follow-through. Embarrassing press, angry donors, etc. People will notice when it doesn't happen.
As someone who works inside a sprawling public bureaucracy, there's a lot of talk that happens "unofficially" (but any documents still subject to FOIA) to get everything lined up properly. The actual paperwork isn't filed until it's basically guaranteed to go through with no trouble.
That doesn't mean it necessarily goes through quickly, but I wouldn't announce my intention to file for a building permit after a long period of silence unless I was pretty sure I was going to get approval.
So my gut feeling is that NU has probably been informally approved by the Army Corps of Engineers and other relevant bodies and has everything but the official stamp. Still lots of ways for this to not happen as advertised, but I'd be surprised if it was because they don't get their permit.
I don't actually know anything or have any inside information... but that doesn't stop anyone else from proclaiming their half-assed guesses as gospel.
1. The university "plans to file a permit request." This is like when lawyers say they're "planning to file" a lawsuit. It isn't a real lawsuit until it's really filed.
2. How long does a federal permitting process take? Does NU go through this process every time it builds on the lakefront?
When a lawyer issues a press release saying they're "planning to file," that seems like a PR move intended to scare their targets into settling out of court and early, and it's an easy story to feed to the press. There aren't really any consequences to not filing-- not many journalists are going to write a feature on a lawsuit that was threatened but never happened.
When a big organization says they're going to file for building permits, there are presumably more consequences if there's no follow-through. Embarrassing press, angry donors, etc. People will notice when it doesn't happen.
As someone who works inside a sprawling public bureaucracy, there's a lot of talk that happens "unofficially" (but any documents still subject to FOIA) to get everything lined up properly. The actual paperwork isn't filed until it's basically guaranteed to go through with no trouble.
That doesn't mean it necessarily goes through quickly, but I wouldn't announce my intention to file for a building permit after a long period of silence unless I was pretty sure I was going to get approval.
So my gut feeling is that NU has probably been informally approved by the Army Corps of Engineers and other relevant bodies and has everything but the official stamp. Still lots of ways for this to not happen as advertised, but I'd be surprised if it was because they don't get their permit.
I don't actually know anything or have any inside information... but that doesn't stop anyone else from proclaiming their half-assed guesses as gospel.
Um... are we not all looking at the same pictures? Under the central flat roof, I see huge "no pane" glass windows above and behind the lobby entry glass windows that have the words Ryan Fieldhouse. The underside of that roof looks to have struts that would be over the indoor practice field. You can't even see what the larger part of the building looks like to the left. While jumping to any conclusions on design is not warranted and the final product could be different than advertised, I'd say the image in the new press release could match the design from the 2012 fundraising page with very little added imagination needed.
This post was edited on 3/11 4:43 PM by zanycat
This post was edited on 3/11 4:43 PM by zanycat
Based on the new picture and the description in the press release that says the new building will require demolition of three basketball courts and a small parking lot, I'm wondering if the new fieldhouse will be located to the east of the Henry Crown Pavilion along the north side of the access road, ending sort of near where the observatory used to be. This would locate it across the street (north) of Lakeside Field.
The advantage from a permitting perspective would be that it could sit entirely on already-reclaimed land and not need to encroach on the beach at all.
This post was edited on 3/11 6:20 PM by CAS_1986
This post was edited on 3/11 6:35 PM by CAS_1986
The advantage from a permitting perspective would be that it could sit entirely on already-reclaimed land and not need to encroach on the beach at all.
This post was edited on 3/11 6:20 PM by CAS_1986
This post was edited on 3/11 6:35 PM by CAS_1986
I am TOTAL ADVOCATE of this athletic facility, and it's being built AS SOON AS PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE. However, as an architect with significant background in architectural history and evolution, I have to say that architecturally this facility is an embarrassment to a university of the stature of NU, or any American community college for that matter. On so many levels it fails, that it is breathtaking. This follows a trend, which mainly makes me sad that in a city of great architects with such an innovative and leadership role in the history of architecture in the US that NU has reached such a low level of architectural competence. I only hope the football team does not play to the level of this building.
While the building illustration does seem uninspiring, I can't help opining that it still beats those 1970s era concrete pill-boxes flanking much of the south part of campus.
Yes. That's what environmental consulting is all about. Former ACE and US and state EPA officials go into consulting to provide such services. My guess is the removal of the various renderings of the Lakeside facility might be because of comments and advice by environmental consultants NU has hired over the past year or so.
This post was edited on 3/12 6:06 AM by Gladeskat
I ask this completely out of curiosity, St. Paulie, as I don't know the first thing about the X's and O's of architecture. From what little we can see in these renderings, what do your eyes see that makes this so strikingly subpar? What are some of the things that specifically catch your eye, if you'd care to share? Again, I have no idea about these things; all I know is whether something looks appealing to me - even if I can't technically articulate the reasons. I'll admit, the drawing they show us here didn't strike me as being all that inspiring, but I'm wondering, from an architectural point of view, what makes it the disaster you describe it as. Again, not disagreeing here; just trying to understand. Thanks.
Same ole bs. They are excited that the building is going to b built but then they finally fess up and say the plans have NOT even been reviewed by 4 federal agencies. Who wants to guess how long that will take?
OK, I'll bite. If this is like anything else (e.g. Export Control reviews, CFIUS reviews, etc...) engagement with federal agencies happens behind the scenes prior to any formal review and approval. If they have any brains whatsoever, they will have done this work prior to submitting for review. The fact that they are announcing suggests that they have done this and are confident they will secure the approvals, and it's just a rubber stamp from here on out.
So, my guess is that we'll see the approvals come through relatively quickly.
Some architectural history....
In the 1920's-1930's in Europe, an architectural movement eventually to be called the International Style was created by a number of architects, as a part of the modern movement in architecture, who believed that the ills of European society (particularly reflected by WWI) could be cured by an architecture without the iconography of the past. Here's what Wikipedia says about that, and I think it is a good, accurate, brief summary:
The International Style[/B] is the name of a major [1]
Thus, International Style buildings often looked like giant radios, or suit cases. The new Ryan facility is a direct descendant of this style. Grandiose, monumental, and not meant to necessarily to fit into context.
To take a step back, I lived for nearly all four years at NU with that view out my window (minus the building of course). The lake view was a nice thing to wake up to, so I might be biased. To me, buildings take their cues from their context, that is they are not independent, isolated sculptural icons totally unto themselves. To put it straightforwardly, this is a beach, soft and sandy, which is both a nice place to be on and to look at. Why crap it up with a building? Well, NU is short of land, as exemplified by the enormous expense of the original lake fill project, which is likely one of the factors which has helped propel the University to it's current stature. So, if you are going to build a building in a location which is constrained and which has an already established character, why ignore that?
Students are young people, not automatrons. They'll have the rest of their lives to live in the corporate world, if they choose, where architecture is often a sales pitch for whatever the corporation is selling, and thus it is often bold, monumental, calling attention to itself and often anonymous (so not to offend anyone). The Ryan building is a corporate building, it is a sales pitch, it does not fit in with any of it's context, the beach, the residential dorms to the west, except for maybe the current older student athletic center, which is in some ways an equally bad building although it doesn't attempt to call attention to itself in the way that the new athletic facility will. I have not seen the parking facility yet, but I do know that it is difficult, although not impossible to design a nice looking parking garage. Parking can be more than just parking.
Environmentally, I have no idea how energy efficient this building will be, although it may well be since Perkins and Will does have expertise in energy efficient building. There is a lot of glass, however facing east and south.
The iconography of this building is strange. I would wager (a lot) that it has been designed primarily if not exclusively by men. But it also has the look of a freshman architecture student's first attempt at making his mark on the world. So, it is designed for 17-21 year olds, is this then a bad thing--you know, give it a little pizazzz? Give it a pointy cantilever at the entrance, a feature many would likely describe as overtly aggressive in a hostile way. All buildings have entrances, you intuitively know there will be one, and if you look at the best architecture on NU's campus, you will note that entrances are marked, sometimes subtly, but sometimes not, and sometimes not at all. What then is with this GIANT slab that is like being hit over the head with a sledge hammer while entering the building. The designer must have been suffering a bad hangover.
Seemingly ignorant of the best campus architecture around the country and the world, this building should embarrass those that created it. But, given all the other considerations here, just get this thing built now. Unfortunately it reminds one of that terrible expression, "just lay back and enjoy it."
This post was edited on 3/12 7:22 PM by stpaulcat
In the 1920's-1930's in Europe, an architectural movement eventually to be called the International Style was created by a number of architects, as a part of the modern movement in architecture, who believed that the ills of European society (particularly reflected by WWI) could be cured by an architecture without the iconography of the past. Here's what Wikipedia says about that, and I think it is a good, accurate, brief summary:
The International Style[/B] is the name of a major [1]
Thus, International Style buildings often looked like giant radios, or suit cases. The new Ryan facility is a direct descendant of this style. Grandiose, monumental, and not meant to necessarily to fit into context.
To take a step back, I lived for nearly all four years at NU with that view out my window (minus the building of course). The lake view was a nice thing to wake up to, so I might be biased. To me, buildings take their cues from their context, that is they are not independent, isolated sculptural icons totally unto themselves. To put it straightforwardly, this is a beach, soft and sandy, which is both a nice place to be on and to look at. Why crap it up with a building? Well, NU is short of land, as exemplified by the enormous expense of the original lake fill project, which is likely one of the factors which has helped propel the University to it's current stature. So, if you are going to build a building in a location which is constrained and which has an already established character, why ignore that?
Students are young people, not automatrons. They'll have the rest of their lives to live in the corporate world, if they choose, where architecture is often a sales pitch for whatever the corporation is selling, and thus it is often bold, monumental, calling attention to itself and often anonymous (so not to offend anyone). The Ryan building is a corporate building, it is a sales pitch, it does not fit in with any of it's context, the beach, the residential dorms to the west, except for maybe the current older student athletic center, which is in some ways an equally bad building although it doesn't attempt to call attention to itself in the way that the new athletic facility will. I have not seen the parking facility yet, but I do know that it is difficult, although not impossible to design a nice looking parking garage. Parking can be more than just parking.
Environmentally, I have no idea how energy efficient this building will be, although it may well be since Perkins and Will does have expertise in energy efficient building. There is a lot of glass, however facing east and south.
The iconography of this building is strange. I would wager (a lot) that it has been designed primarily if not exclusively by men. But it also has the look of a freshman architecture student's first attempt at making his mark on the world. So, it is designed for 17-21 year olds, is this then a bad thing--you know, give it a little pizazzz? Give it a pointy cantilever at the entrance, a feature many would likely describe as overtly aggressive in a hostile way. All buildings have entrances, you intuitively know there will be one, and if you look at the best architecture on NU's campus, you will note that entrances are marked, sometimes subtly, but sometimes not, and sometimes not at all. What then is with this GIANT slab that is like being hit over the head with a sledge hammer while entering the building. The designer must have been suffering a bad hangover.
Seemingly ignorant of the best campus architecture around the country and the world, this building should embarrass those that created it. But, given all the other considerations here, just get this thing built now. Unfortunately it reminds one of that terrible expression, "just lay back and enjoy it."
This post was edited on 3/12 7:22 PM by stpaulcat
Re: Some architectural history....
Very interesting perspective. Thanks for the education, stpaul.
I would say that the entire lakefill at NU looks haphazard at best right now. There have been a lot of buildings added to that area since I was at NU (mid to late 80s), and I think many of them have that corporate feel you are describing. I don't know much about architecture and have an untrained eye, but it seems to me like a lot of buildings were built without much of a cohesive vision. Agree? Disagree?
Very interesting perspective. Thanks for the education, stpaul.
I would say that the entire lakefill at NU looks haphazard at best right now. There have been a lot of buildings added to that area since I was at NU (mid to late 80s), and I think many of them have that corporate feel you are describing. I don't know much about architecture and have an untrained eye, but it seems to me like a lot of buildings were built without much of a cohesive vision. Agree? Disagree?
Re: Some architectural history....
Thanks for the explanation St. Paul, really interesting.
I'm going to risk detouring this thread into an architecture lecture, but I have a related question.
I live close enough to Frank Lloyd Wright's Fallingwater (I think if you asked Wright, he would have said that Pittsburgh translated to "city lucky enough to be close to Fallingwater;" he was supposed to be an incredible egomaniac.) to have been there quite a few times. The place is full of cantilevers and glass, but Wright was big on fitting into the landscape rather than standing out against it. Although cantilevers are characteristic of the international style, I'm guessing he didn't follow the tendencies of the International Style; in fact, I suspect he would have abhorred both it and the proposed new facility.
Am I right or wrong?
Thanks for the explanation St. Paul, really interesting.
I'm going to risk detouring this thread into an architecture lecture, but I have a related question.
I live close enough to Frank Lloyd Wright's Fallingwater (I think if you asked Wright, he would have said that Pittsburgh translated to "city lucky enough to be close to Fallingwater;" he was supposed to be an incredible egomaniac.) to have been there quite a few times. The place is full of cantilevers and glass, but Wright was big on fitting into the landscape rather than standing out against it. Although cantilevers are characteristic of the international style, I'm guessing he didn't follow the tendencies of the International Style; in fact, I suspect he would have abhorred both it and the proposed new facility.
Am I right or wrong?
Re: Some architectural history....
Thanks and very interesting. As an engineer, I always like to read about stuff like this. To be fair I think it's probably hard to design a building to house a full practice field that they want to have as many windows as possible to feel outdoors open and provide natural light. There can't be that many roof options for that size, and you have to make the best use of space as possible which means no frivolous structures. I have seen big warehouse style buildings with buttresses and roof support on the outside that seem pretty cool. Building materials are also probably a variable as the structural form and shape seem like a constraint. A barn is a barn after all. You'd think they could do more with the rest of the building that's not part of the actual field though. With all these new "functional" facilities, I have a feeling they'd cost a lot more if they were prettier. I used to live on the west side of Manhattan, and some of the crazy new buildings put up along the river by famous architects are quite the sight. Some jarring, and some that seem to fit in more. It's not like they would ever dream of bringing refined south campus architecture up to the uncivilized north...
Thanks and very interesting. As an engineer, I always like to read about stuff like this. To be fair I think it's probably hard to design a building to house a full practice field that they want to have as many windows as possible to feel outdoors open and provide natural light. There can't be that many roof options for that size, and you have to make the best use of space as possible which means no frivolous structures. I have seen big warehouse style buildings with buttresses and roof support on the outside that seem pretty cool. Building materials are also probably a variable as the structural form and shape seem like a constraint. A barn is a barn after all. You'd think they could do more with the rest of the building that's not part of the actual field though. With all these new "functional" facilities, I have a feeling they'd cost a lot more if they were prettier. I used to live on the west side of Manhattan, and some of the crazy new buildings put up along the river by famous architects are quite the sight. Some jarring, and some that seem to fit in more. It's not like they would ever dream of bringing refined south campus architecture up to the uncivilized north...
Re: Some architectural history....
pittcat90 wrote: "Wright...was supposed to be an incredible egomaniac.... The place is full of cantilevers and glass, but Wright was big on fitting into the landscape rather than standing out against it.
Wrght was an egomaniac, yes, and he was also a very serious, good and influential architect. While he was a "modern" architect, he wasn't a modern architect in the sense of Mies Van der Rohe (another Chicago architect--IIT), and his work was not (ever) of the International Style (even with the cantilevers). His early work was fairly traditional, in the mode of his mentor, Louis Sullivan. His later works were often flights of fancy, like the Marin County Government Center. Wright (and his disciples) designed many houses near the Northwestern Campus, and one would think some of that would have rubbed off. He often made bold moves in his architecture, but not frivolous or flippant ones. His architecture had sensitive human scale (unfortunately in some cases too much so as he was a short person), and he was a master of texture in materials.
This post was edited on 3/12 7:58 PM by stpaulcat
pittcat90 wrote: "Wright...was supposed to be an incredible egomaniac.... The place is full of cantilevers and glass, but Wright was big on fitting into the landscape rather than standing out against it.
Wrght was an egomaniac, yes, and he was also a very serious, good and influential architect. While he was a "modern" architect, he wasn't a modern architect in the sense of Mies Van der Rohe (another Chicago architect--IIT), and his work was not (ever) of the International Style (even with the cantilevers). His early work was fairly traditional, in the mode of his mentor, Louis Sullivan. His later works were often flights of fancy, like the Marin County Government Center. Wright (and his disciples) designed many houses near the Northwestern Campus, and one would think some of that would have rubbed off. He often made bold moves in his architecture, but not frivolous or flippant ones. His architecture had sensitive human scale (unfortunately in some cases too much so as he was a short person), and he was a master of texture in materials.
This post was edited on 3/12 7:58 PM by stpaulcat
Re: Some architectural history....
zanycat wrote: "To be fair I think it's probably hard to design a building to house a full practice field that they want to have as many windows as possible to feel outdoors open and provide natural light. There can't be that many roof options for that size, and you have to make the best use of space as possible which means no frivolous structures."
This is a problem, the program is almost overwhelming for that site. But still one has to design a building. i don't have so much of a problem with the practice field building, so it's a glass box--detail it as nicely as you can, and maybe they have. An important issue is where it is placed in on the site or in relation to the rest of the building, and I'm not clear exactly where that is since there have been a couple of iterations of this presented. Part of the rest of the building could wrap the field--it doesn't need to be glass on all sides, and may in fact be better if it is not.
My main issue is with the expression of the complex as an entirety, as i discussed.
zanycat also wrote: " I used to live on the west side of Manhattan, and some of the crazy new buildings put up along the river by famous architects are quite the sight. Some jarring, and some that seem to fit in more."
I don't have anything against "crazy new buildings" as long as they are well designed and their site is appropriate for that. The one in question is not well designed. And, it is not crazy. Context is very important, always--there is a context for every building and sometimes you want to follow that and sometimes you need to break with that because it is not a good context, or the context isn't necessarily visual, but rather social or spiritual or even metaphysical. Or you want to bend the context (but, please, not avoid it). I think the problem on the NU campus, or at least on the newer parts of it is that there is no established architectural fabric, nothing to hold on to to guide one as to what to do next. So every building becomes different, unrelated to the ones that came before, and some of the ones that came before are pretty bad, making the problem even harder. Another part of the problem is that programs are larger, as in this case. So, just make a nice building for cripes sake and forget trying to make something so bold that overshadows everything else around it, because you just continue the problem of each building needing to outdo the last. For example, there is that giant new building at the south end of the Lakefill which from certain angles suggests a ship, and given that it on the end of the Lakefill, juxtaposed with the Lake, I think that makes sense, assuming that was their intention (if it was not, it should have been). Especially when it's foggy, it's kind of cool. I haven't been up close to the building so I don't know what that does for one's experience of walking around campus. But then the question is, what do you do next, near that building? A bigger ship? Well, there's not much room, so knowing NU they will squeeze in a couple dorms (that hopefully will look like tug boats--to demonstrate that NU does in fact have a sense of humor). Not suggesting at all that all buildings should be uniform and regimented, but rather you hire the best architect you can find who understands urban fabric and context, and if he or she believes that his or her buildings are the next best thing to Swiss cheese at least you won't get Colby (oops, wrong metaphor).
Finally, zanycat wrote: "It's not like they would ever dream of bringing refined south campus architecture up to the uncivilized north...
Amen.
This post was edited on 3/12 8:02 PM by stpaulcat
This post was edited on 3/12 9:55 PM by stpaulcat
zanycat wrote: "To be fair I think it's probably hard to design a building to house a full practice field that they want to have as many windows as possible to feel outdoors open and provide natural light. There can't be that many roof options for that size, and you have to make the best use of space as possible which means no frivolous structures."
This is a problem, the program is almost overwhelming for that site. But still one has to design a building. i don't have so much of a problem with the practice field building, so it's a glass box--detail it as nicely as you can, and maybe they have. An important issue is where it is placed in on the site or in relation to the rest of the building, and I'm not clear exactly where that is since there have been a couple of iterations of this presented. Part of the rest of the building could wrap the field--it doesn't need to be glass on all sides, and may in fact be better if it is not.
My main issue is with the expression of the complex as an entirety, as i discussed.
zanycat also wrote: " I used to live on the west side of Manhattan, and some of the crazy new buildings put up along the river by famous architects are quite the sight. Some jarring, and some that seem to fit in more."
I don't have anything against "crazy new buildings" as long as they are well designed and their site is appropriate for that. The one in question is not well designed. And, it is not crazy. Context is very important, always--there is a context for every building and sometimes you want to follow that and sometimes you need to break with that because it is not a good context, or the context isn't necessarily visual, but rather social or spiritual or even metaphysical. Or you want to bend the context (but, please, not avoid it). I think the problem on the NU campus, or at least on the newer parts of it is that there is no established architectural fabric, nothing to hold on to to guide one as to what to do next. So every building becomes different, unrelated to the ones that came before, and some of the ones that came before are pretty bad, making the problem even harder. Another part of the problem is that programs are larger, as in this case. So, just make a nice building for cripes sake and forget trying to make something so bold that overshadows everything else around it, because you just continue the problem of each building needing to outdo the last. For example, there is that giant new building at the south end of the Lakefill which from certain angles suggests a ship, and given that it on the end of the Lakefill, juxtaposed with the Lake, I think that makes sense, assuming that was their intention (if it was not, it should have been). Especially when it's foggy, it's kind of cool. I haven't been up close to the building so I don't know what that does for one's experience of walking around campus. But then the question is, what do you do next, near that building? A bigger ship? Well, there's not much room, so knowing NU they will squeeze in a couple dorms (that hopefully will look like tug boats--to demonstrate that NU does in fact have a sense of humor). Not suggesting at all that all buildings should be uniform and regimented, but rather you hire the best architect you can find who understands urban fabric and context, and if he or she believes that his or her buildings are the next best thing to Swiss cheese at least you won't get Colby (oops, wrong metaphor).
Finally, zanycat wrote: "It's not like they would ever dream of bringing refined south campus architecture up to the uncivilized north...
Amen.
This post was edited on 3/12 8:02 PM by stpaulcat
This post was edited on 3/12 9:55 PM by stpaulcat
Re: Some architectural history....
Very thought-provoking.
I often think of charmless and sterile New Comiskey Park / U.S. Celluar Field as the ball park most analogous to the "international style" and sadly lament the fate of the edifice it replaced.
This post was edited on 3/13 5:21 AM by Cat In The Cradle
Very thought-provoking.
I often think of charmless and sterile New Comiskey Park / U.S. Celluar Field as the ball park most analogous to the "international style" and sadly lament the fate of the edifice it replaced.
This post was edited on 3/13 5:21 AM by Cat In The Cradle
Re: Some architectural history....
Does it really matter how it looks from the outside? There will be very little view of it from the North or the west because of the proximity of other buildings and unless you are in a helicopter your not going to see it from the point of view of the drawings. Six months of the year it will be too cold to be on the North or East side and there will be no roads there.
It is really an inside out building where what should be breathtaking is the view of the lake and as many opportunities to take in that view as possible. People touring the building will do it from the inside 98% of the time.
Does it really matter how it looks from the outside? There will be very little view of it from the North or the west because of the proximity of other buildings and unless you are in a helicopter your not going to see it from the point of view of the drawings. Six months of the year it will be too cold to be on the North or East side and there will be no roads there.
It is really an inside out building where what should be breathtaking is the view of the lake and as many opportunities to take in that view as possible. People touring the building will do it from the inside 98% of the time.
Re: Some architectural history....
Deeringfish: "Does it really matter how it looks from the outside?"
Does it really matter how you look from the outside? No, if no one wants to look at you. "Inside he's really a beautiful person" means, he is really ugly on the outside.
I remember a quote from Michael Eisner who at the time was the head of Disney Design, who said to the effect, you don't have to do great architecture, but it is offensive to do bad architecture. The way we make our buildings look reflects who we are as people (or at least who the designers are). If you are a pretentious creep, you are probably going to design pretentious, creepy buildings. It's like, who do you want to spend your life around--people you like or people you don't like. Same with buildings.
This post was edited on 3/13 9:44 AM by stpaulcat
Deeringfish: "Does it really matter how it looks from the outside?"
Does it really matter how you look from the outside? No, if no one wants to look at you. "Inside he's really a beautiful person" means, he is really ugly on the outside.
I remember a quote from Michael Eisner who at the time was the head of Disney Design, who said to the effect, you don't have to do great architecture, but it is offensive to do bad architecture. The way we make our buildings look reflects who we are as people (or at least who the designers are). If you are a pretentious creep, you are probably going to design pretentious, creepy buildings. It's like, who do you want to spend your life around--people you like or people you don't like. Same with buildings.
This post was edited on 3/13 9:44 AM by stpaulcat
what a joke? you know how many major athletic programs i have seen announce
filing a permit?
ZERO!
this is what makes being a NU fan frustrating. This is not a big achievement - permits get filed every day. Please please please get the rest of the money and get shovels in the ground!!!
filing a permit?
ZERO!
this is what makes being a NU fan frustrating. This is not a big achievement - permits get filed every day. Please please please get the rest of the money and get shovels in the ground!!!
Re: what a joke? you know how many major athletic programs i have seen announce
What were they supposed to do, announce something that wasn't true? People complain when there is no information and then when they do release something they complain about what the information is!
You don't announce you are going to take the girl out unless you are pretty sure she is going to go.
What were they supposed to do, announce something that wasn't true? People complain when there is no information and then when they do release something they complain about what the information is!
You don't announce you are going to take the girl out unless you are pretty sure she is going to go.
Re: what a joke? you know how many major athletic programs i have seen announce
I'm not sure if you'd announce you're planning" to take a girl out either unless you're already involved in a long term relationship with her and everyone expects you follow through on what would otherwise be a mere formality. I suspect that is the case here: why would the University disadvantage itself with unequal leverage vis a vis multiple government entities unless it has already accomplished many of the requirements and expectations of the formal permit process?
I'm not sure if you'd announce you're planning" to take a girl out either unless you're already involved in a long term relationship with her and everyone expects you follow through on what would otherwise be a mere formality. I suspect that is the case here: why would the University disadvantage itself with unequal leverage vis a vis multiple government entities unless it has already accomplished many of the requirements and expectations of the formal permit process?
The approvals and permitting process are long and involved. There has to be a lot of time and work behind the scenes to get something like this through. And each step along the process is meant to not blow up in peoples faces. They are trying to be thorough to make sure things go through. From the one rendering, it almost looks like it would built on stilts perhaps to give enough shoreline clearance. So do you just file for the permit and get it shot down or do you do the preliminary work to get rid of all the first cut objections. Like a lawyer in court. First rule. Do not ask a question that you don't know what the answer will be. Too much riding on this to be haphazard about the process. Making changes on paper might take time but it is cheap and far better (and cheaper) than to have to make changes farther down the line in the project.
Re: Some architectural history....
What might be nice to have seen is something similar to the museum up in Milwaukee. This building might me in a pretty interesting place to do various types of energy conservation projects. Lake right there for cooling and southern solar exposure for passive solar. .
What might be nice to have seen is something similar to the museum up in Milwaukee. This building might me in a pretty interesting place to do various types of energy conservation projects. Lake right there for cooling and southern solar exposure for passive solar. .
