Archive for November, 2006

11/30/2006

This gorgeous photo of Bernini’s The Ecstasy of St. Theresa
transforms the sculpture into something I’ve never seen,
not even while standing in front of it.

Of course, maybe I need it more now, not being in Rome.

No, what it is is the complete and pensive and exciting quiet
of looking at it like this.

The quiet contrast against her position shocks.

The darkness is deathly.

Photo from this talented photographer.

11/30/2006

This gorgeous photo of Bernini’s The Ecstasy of St. Theresa
transforms the sculpture into something I’ve never seen,
not even while standing in front of it.

Of course, maybe I need it more now, not being in Rome.

No, what it is is the complete and pensive and exciting quiet
of looking at it like this.

The quiet contrast against her position shocks.

The darkness is deathly.

Photo from this talented photographer.

11/30/2006

This gorgeous photo of Bernini’s The Ecstasy of St. Theresa
transforms the sculpture into something I’ve never seen,
not even while standing in front of it.

Of course, maybe I need it more now, not being in Rome.

No, what it is is the complete and pensive and exciting quiet
of looking at it like this.

The quiet contrast against her position shocks.

The darkness is deathly.

Photo from this talented photographer.

11/30/2006


The lights of Paris at night

Salut Beaute’!
I hear Piaf singing….

If you love Paris,

put a little
on the stereo,

Pour yourself a and click on this.

Then slowly slowly and sweetly, doucement,doucement, scroll to the right.

Amusez-vous,
-Edouard

merci!

11/30/2006


The lights of Paris at night

Salut Beaute’!
I hear Piaf singing….

If you love Paris,

put a little
on the stereo,

Pour yourself a and click on this.

Then slowly slowly and sweetly, doucement,doucement, scroll to the right.

Amusez-vous,
-Edouard

merci!

11/30/2006


The lights of Paris at night

Salut Beaute’!
I hear Piaf singing….

If you love Paris,

put a little
on the stereo,

Pour yourself a and click on this.

Then slowly slowly and sweetly, doucement,doucement, scroll to the right.

Amusez-vous,
-Edouard

merci!

11/30/2006

The difference between Detroit and New York.

As each gets a new museum for contemporary art.

Where would you rather live?

And I thought ours was bad!

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

Of course one can’t compare.

The odds were stacked like the boxes in New York.

NY’s New Museum spent $50 million on their building on the Bowery. They had considered just renovating an old warehouse in Brooklyn. But they thought big and beautiful, which contemporary art deserves.

The building in Detroit is a much lower cost conversion, from an old car dealership.

But here’s what troubles me.

Nicolai says in the NYT that the Detroit building “accepts decay as fact.”

And the architect, Andrew Zago

“draws inspiration from the squatters’ houses, performance spaces, local bars and grass-roots art projects that have sprouted amid the disturbing stillness of the neighborhoods: a kind of forgotten underworld tucked into ruined houses and storefronts surrounded by lots that have been abandoned for so long that they have become overgrown fields.

The architect had no interest in smoothing over the scars, which are worn as badges of pride.

To save money, he placed the museum’s mechanical systems, typically hidden atop the roof, in a corner of a gallery, wrapped in a chain link fence. Warmth is provided by a series of heat lamps suspended from the ceiling, as they might be in a public parking garage.”

Is this how to revive a city?

I see that a lot of deep thought went into this creation – for example I like the big glass garage doors that roll up in the summer to open the museum to the community, and that its galleries run around a large community space with a bookstore and a cafe. The budget was small and they hope to raise $5.5 million more for a more elaborate renovation by Mr. Zago that could be completed by 2010. The cafe will be extended and a sculpture garden is planned. So judgement must wait.

But I think that our civic institutions ought not slide down to the level of hoodlums. We raise the neighborhood up by providing exaltation in an art museum, not by romanticizing decay.

-E

11/30/2006

The difference between Detroit and New York.

As each gets a new museum for contemporary art.

Where would you rather live?

And I thought ours was bad!

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

Of course one can’t compare.

The odds were stacked like the boxes in New York.

NY’s New Museum spent $50 million on their building on the Bowery. They had considered just renovating an old warehouse in Brooklyn. But they thought big and beautiful, which contemporary art deserves.

The building in Detroit is a much lower cost conversion, from an old car dealership.

But here’s what troubles me.

Nicolai says in the NYT that the Detroit building “accepts decay as fact.”

And the architect, Andrew Zago

“draws inspiration from the squatters’ houses, performance spaces, local bars and grass-roots art projects that have sprouted amid the disturbing stillness of the neighborhoods: a kind of forgotten underworld tucked into ruined houses and storefronts surrounded by lots that have been abandoned for so long that they have become overgrown fields.

The architect had no interest in smoothing over the scars, which are worn as badges of pride.

To save money, he placed the museum’s mechanical systems, typically hidden atop the roof, in a corner of a gallery, wrapped in a chain link fence. Warmth is provided by a series of heat lamps suspended from the ceiling, as they might be in a public parking garage.”

Is this how to revive a city?

I see that a lot of deep thought went into this creation – for example I like the big glass garage doors that roll up in the summer to open the museum to the community, and that its galleries run around a large community space with a bookstore and a cafe. The budget was small and they hope to raise $5.5 million more for a more elaborate renovation by Mr. Zago that could be completed by 2010. The cafe will be extended and a sculpture garden is planned. So judgement must wait.

But I think that our civic institutions ought not slide down to the level of hoodlums. We raise the neighborhood up by providing exaltation in an art museum, not by romanticizing decay.

-E

11/30/2006

The difference between Detroit and New York.

As each gets a new museum for contemporary art.

Where would you rather live?

And I thought ours was bad!

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

Of course one can’t compare.

The odds were stacked like the boxes in New York.

NY’s New Museum spent $50 million on their building on the Bowery. They had considered just renovating an old warehouse in Brooklyn. But they thought big and beautiful, which contemporary art deserves.

The building in Detroit is a much lower cost conversion, from an old car dealership.

But here’s what troubles me.

Nicolai says in the NYT that the Detroit building “accepts decay as fact.”

And the architect, Andrew Zago

“draws inspiration from the squatters’ houses, performance spaces, local bars and grass-roots art projects that have sprouted amid the disturbing stillness of the neighborhoods: a kind of forgotten underworld tucked into ruined houses and storefronts surrounded by lots that have been abandoned for so long that they have become overgrown fields.

The architect had no interest in smoothing over the scars, which are worn as badges of pride.

To save money, he placed the museum’s mechanical systems, typically hidden atop the roof, in a corner of a gallery, wrapped in a chain link fence. Warmth is provided by a series of heat lamps suspended from the ceiling, as they might be in a public parking garage.”

Is this how to revive a city?

I see that a lot of deep thought went into this creation – for example I like the big glass garage doors that roll up in the summer to open the museum to the community, and that its galleries run around a large community space with a bookstore and a cafe. The budget was small and they hope to raise $5.5 million more for a more elaborate renovation by Mr. Zago that could be completed by 2010. The cafe will be extended and a sculpture garden is planned. So judgement must wait.

But I think that our civic institutions ought not slide down to the level of hoodlums. We raise the neighborhood up by providing exaltation in an art museum, not by romanticizing decay.

-E

11/30/2006

Did you know that building a skyscraper is complicated?

I saw a headline today,
“Aqua Construction Complicated, Says McHugh.”

Does this not bode well for Jeanne Gang’s Aqua Tower?

———————————-
And that headline came on the heels of this big, bold headline in today’s Chicago Sun-Times


Thank you! That’s good to know. Is that an exclusive?

Oh, the small print says that’s former Illinois Governor George Ryan saying that.

———————————-

Anyway, GlobeSt.com commercial real estate news had this :

“Aqua Construction Complicated, Says McHugh.”

Yes, I suppose building an 82 story building would be complicated, especially one that is trying to do something different than the standard big box.

GlobeSt. quotes McHugh Construction Company senior vice president Dave Alexander as saying,

The perimeter of the building is different on every single floor. The framing of each floor will be difficult, as the balconies will be cantilevered off of the column line, and cannot hold support for upper floors.

The story then says that McHugh will use a high-flying form system that attaches to the column and core wall to complete each floor and that the tower is expected to be completed by 2009.

But before then will we wave bye-bye to Jeanne Gang and Studio/Gang/Architects design for a wavy exterior?

My favorite part of this story is that McHugh is the company that built

Wilco Towers, I mean Marina City.

I bet that was complicated too, don’t you think? And hey, Marina City on the river kind of undulates, doesn’t it? More on that, right here.

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+–+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+–+-+-+-+–+-+-

It can be done! From the homepage of James McHugh Construction Co:

I Am McHugh
Building Chicago

Since its founding in 1897, Chicago-based James McHugh Construction Co. has earned its reputation as a builder of landmark, one-of-a-kind structures. This success is attributed to the company’s long-standing commitment to creative construction solutions, innovation and a devotion to its staff.