Chicago - A Clear View

As I child growing up in a suburb of Chicago, I did not spend a lot of time in the city.  There were special occasions like baseball games @ Wrigley Field, a field trip from school or a family outing that brought us downtown.  One of my earliest recollections of the city was in about 1971 when the Sears Tower (now Willis Tower) was under construction and my dad took the three “older kids” downtown to see the building under construction.  It was awe-inspiring to look up at that incredible structure and realize it was going to be the tallest building in the world (at that time).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willis_Tower

During high school, my friends and I were fanatical about going downtown.  We learned the bus routes and elevated train/subway routes to get to Water Tower Place (of course, shopping) and Oak Street Beach.  I don’t think we were forthcoming with our parents about what we were up to most of the time – they probably would not have allowed it.  Although, times were definitely different then! 

We would sit on the beach sunbathing, play Frisbee and volleyball.  My friends would look at downtown as if it was unremarkable – “the city”.  I looked at the buildings and knew I wanted to somehow be part of the field of architecture. 

During my undergrad years, whenever I came home from college for a weekend or for the summer (University of Illinois is about 140 miles away) I always felt drawn to the city.  Driving into Chicago from the western suburbs, there is a clear view of the skyline visible from several miles out.  The city developed along the lakefront, so it is long and linear from north to south, and radiates out to the north, west and south.  Chicago is the 3^rd largest city in the United States after New York and Los Angeles (Boston is 20^th and Minneapolis is 48^th), so even the close-in suburbs feel dense and urban.  

My brother (now an urban planner, but at that time a history major) and I would often head downtown and walk into every building that was open.  We would explore the lobbies, the elevators (always ornately designed), the courtyards.  My favorite accidental discovery was the Rookery Building (Burnham and Root, 1888).  I could not believe no one ever mentioned this building to me – it was incredible.  (Photos below from http://www.therookerybuilding.com/building-timeline.html )

After college, my husband, our son and I moved to Minneapolis and trips into Chicago occurred less frequently.  My husband’s grandmothers both lived on the north side near the lake, so we would typically at least drive past the city and see the skyline if we did not have time for a stop in the Loop.  Our son (now a meteorologist) was interested in science, so we would occasionally head to the Museum of Science and Industry or the Planetarium when we were in Chicago.  These museums are situated along the lakefront, so I was able to get my favorite lake view of the city from the museum sites.   

One of our favorite stops was Buckingham Fountain, where there was a light show most summer evenings (as a kid, there was a human being who controlled it; when my son was little they had a computerized program that changed the lights while music was playing!). 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckingham_Fountain

For many years, that was my interaction with Chicago.  Every once in a while I would get into town for something work related (Neocon at the Merchandise Mart, the National AIA Convention in 1993) and that was when I started to look at Chicago from a different perspective.   We have lived in Minneapolis since I was in my mid-twenties.  Now that I am older and have much more architecture and planning experience, I am able to take a more informed view of cities. 

My earlier Chicago experience was very emotional and personal.  Since I travel quite a bit (for my job and personally), I have had opportunities to visit many US cities numerous times in recent years.  I can now look at Chicago through an objective lens  in comparison to New York, Boston, Portland (OR), Seattle, Denver and of course Minneapolis.  There is a definite hustle and bustle to Chicago – energy and personality that feel both businesslike and friendly.  People in Chicago will actually look at you and say hello on the sidewalk.  That doesn’t typically happen on the coasts, but it does happen in Minneapolis. 

Mayor Daley the second (Richard M.) has been a force in getting the city to think differently about development – he vowed to make Chicago “the greenest city in America”.  (http://www.greenroofs.com/projects/pview.php?id=21 )  He is a supporter and advocate for sustainable growth and on his watch many new programs have been established – including a “green permit” program, which allows applicants to have an expedited review if they commit to certain sustainable strategies for their project. 

Since 2004, the view of Buckingham Fountain as you look north towards Grant Park has changed by the addition of Millennium Park’s Pritzker Pavilion (Frank Gehry) and the Bean Sculpture (“Cloud Gate” by Anish Kapoor) that draws people in to interact with its shiny surfaces and unique twisted views of the city and the people.    The addition of Millennium Park has revitalized the loop and brought it into the 21^st century.  It got people talking about and visiting downtown again – even Chicago natives who rarely get into the Loop took a special trip to see the new fountains, sculpture and pavilion. 

It’s amazing what a spin that addition to the city has caused.  I’m not sure how many skyscrapers and convention center additions it would take to capture people’s attention so strongly.  And there have definitely been several of those projects in the past 25 years!

The city has strength in its built environment, most likely caused by how it formed along the edge of the lake.  The lake helps to give a clarity and identity to Chicago that would not be there otherwise – an edge with a clear view of the skyline.   And if city planners can continue to draw more people to the Loop – the center of the city – by creative planning and vision, that will only strengthen Chicago’s image in my mind. 

Minneapolis and Lost Space

In my last post, I talked about what I love about living in Minneapolis.  However, there are some things that I would change if I could, in order to define the essence of this city. 

Downtown and just outside of downtown, there are some wonderful architectural examples – The MPLS Public Library, the Walker Art Center, the Guthrie Theatre, the Weisman Museum, the MPLS Institute of Arts – with “lost space” (a la Roger Trancik, 1986) in between them.  Starchitecture (Gehry, Pelli, Johnson, Herzog + DeMeuron, Nouvel) is scattered all around, with no synergy to the venues.  They are too far apart to logically connect them.  It is not necessarily a problem, but an opportunity.  We have all of these great places - what if they WERE connected?  Would that make the city stronger?

With regard to the lost spaces, here is a story:  I once went to an AIA meeting at International Market Square (MPLS’ Merchandise Mart) and had to walk to work downtown after the meeting.  In between the two spaces, which are about a mile apart, I walked under a highway viaduct, over a railroad bridge, past a homeless shelter, a seedy bar and a municipal complex.  Then, another highway bridge and I was finally on the edge of downtown, next to a parking lot.  As it sits currently, it is not a pleasant pedestrian experience, not a “walkable” part of town. 

The alternative to walking - bus or rail transit - is not readily available there.  A bus line goes past downtown but not into the city, so it could get you partway there.  We do not have a comprehensive transit system in Minneapolis.  There are glimmers of transit – we have busses, and light rail and BRT (bus rapid transit) lanes on one of our major highways, but it is somewhat disjointed and people cannot easily transfer from one mode to another.  We have bike trails, but they are not continuous throughout parts of the city.  There are some areas that are fully connected – you could ride your bicycle for hours along the Grand Rounds trail which connects the lakes and the Mississippi River and never crosses the same spot twice.  And other areas where the trail abruptly ends, and unless you know you need to cross the street to get back on it, you are confused about what to do next. 

The Park Board randomly upgrades and neglects parks, trails, roads, paths.  There is disparity in attention paid to older parks if another hot new project is on the table.  Granted, there are a LOT of parks in MPLS – it’s pretty incredible the amount of green space in the city.  But if every park received the same amount of care and attention, there would be a consistency that is not there today. 

There are some strange and uncomfortable spaces downtown including a dining courtyard at Panera Bread (see photos), the atrium at City Center and Block E (a less than successful restaurant and entertainment venue).  These are interspersed with some wonderful, vibrant downtown spaces like IDS Crystal Court (see photos), Peavey Plaza, Gold Medal Park along the riverfront and Target Plaza next to the new Twins Stadium. 



Panera courtyard as viewed from the skyway across the street (FEB 2011)




Panera as viewed from the atrium across the street




Panera as viewed from the street (Nicollet Mall - downtown Minneapolis)




Panera Courtyard - strangely multi-leveled; transitional outdoor space with enclosure on 4 sides; uncomfortable dining space in summer because people are always walking past on their way into or out of the restaurant. 





IDS Crystal court (Philip Johnson, 1974) - exterior plaza space




IDS Tower - Philip Johnson, 1974



There is inconsistency in how the city has developed, giving the impression of “design by committee” - not a comprehensive vision, but a series of individual visions with no underlying theme.  I believe that accurately describes what actually happened in the development of Minneapolis.  As I look at the city today, I see a fracturing of the urban fabric that can be mended.  As I develop the ideas within my thesis, I will explore the idea of connection. 

Emerald City - Minneapolis

When we moved to Minneapolis in April of 1989, the terrain was smothered in snow – about 24 inches everywhere.  As the spring thaw came, so did the most brilliant emerald greens and chartreuses you ever saw.  (Is it really almost March?  This is coming up quickly – so be ready!)  Growing up in Chicagoland, I did not see many weeping willow trees, but here they are abundant.  If you never noticed, pay special attention this year – they are always the first to show color and start the spring kaleidoscope going.  I’m convinced that the more extreme our winters are, the more dazzling the spring colors. 

One of the spectacular images (one that I get to see several times a week all year round) is the sun rising behind the downtown skyline as I drive in from the west.  The silhouette of the city.  Minneapolis is a beautiful city to view from this distance, given the essential flatness of the prairie terrain and the way the city bursts up from the land.

Once downtown, the size of the city is manageable and walkable.  A person can walk almost anywhere downtown in less than an hour.  Since I’m in the heart of downtown at work, I can get anywhere in 30 minutes or less.  The skyways are great in the winter – or on super-hot or super rainy days.  The skyway system has been described as a giant mall (or human gerbil trails).  It’s a little of both. 

Despite the economy, the city is still vibrant – in the past couple of years we opened a new Twins Ballpark (Target Field) and a new stadium at the University of Minnesota (known fondly as “The U”).  Sustainability is a major influencer here, and both were built following LEED principles.  And they are beautiful, well-functioning facilities.  There is a renewed excitement to the city that was not there a few years ago. 

Minneapolis is currently holding the honor of the number 1 bicycle city.  We have been neck and neck with Portland, Oregon, and finally surpassed them.  There is a public bicycle rental program called “Nice Ride” where anyone can rent a bicycle for any length of time from special bike racks located all around.  The entire city is amply supplied with bicycle trails. 

So… walking, skyways, biking – all ways to connect to and within the city.  As I have been researching the city I live and work in, it struck me that there is no clarity or synthesis to the Minneapolis culture.  The city is a bunch of different things to different people.  So  – why do I like it?  What should be celebrated?  Can a building bring that clarity? Can an intervention placed at the confluence of the major walkways and paths add what seems to be missing today? 

The Way Things Could Be

“Design is about looking at the future, thinking about the way things could be. Planning is about figuring out the steps we need to take to achieve where we want to go.   …

…a lot of people don't realize the way designers work. You do a lot of research, develop some ideas, and then you put them up for critique and people try to shoot them down, saying: "This won't work. You've got to change that." You do it again and again. It's an iterative process, and by the time you've gone through many phases of it you've got a solution that basically nobody can find many flaws with.” 

Tom Fisher, Dean of the College of Design, University of Minnesota

The_Line_Media_MSP@mail.vresp.com  

What Tom Fisher says is relevant to the thesis process – "thinking about the way things could be".  Thesis is about the idea and the steps to get there.  I am going to spend time this week thinking about my vision for connection in Minneapolis.  How can we connect the relevant pieces of downtown?  Why should they be connected? And what criteria will be used to determine which sites are relevant to this project? 

I am thinking in terms of destinations – museums, theatres, music venues, sporting venues, parks, plazas and gardens. 

Why should they be connected?  What will the benefit of connection be?  There is a certain energy inherent in each of these places today.  If they were considered an essential piece of the whole that is Minneapolis, rather than just one destination, it could make them stronger draws for tourism and entertainment, and create a synergy that is not present today. 

I’m working on the research piece this week.  My first draft of a plan is attached – the attractions/destinations from the Walker Art Center (south end) to the Mill City Museum (river) and University of Minnesota Campus.

[Note:  I will also post to VT for your viewing convenience.]

3 SITES IN MINNEAPOLIS

It’s the connection that matters.

There will always be many insides and one very big outside, but it’s the connection that makes an architectural experience memorable. 

And, okay, there are also some in-betweens and there is also outer space.  But I would like to focus on the connections.

Connections between inside and outside, connections to community, connections to history, connections to landscape, connections to the city.

 

In Minneapolis, there are three locations I will be exploring - 2 near the riverfront and one on the southern edge of the central business district in downtown Minneapolis. 

The Mississippi River is a strong geographical element in the Twin Cities - sometimes considered a connector and sometimes a barrier.  There is a rich history surrounding the river and  great opportunity in redeveloping some of the land near the river. 

My 2 river-based sites are:

1) a parking lot 3 blocks from the west bank, at the intersection of Hennepin and Washington Avenues.

2) Boom Island Park, a public park that has great potential to serve as a connector to the central city from the east bank.

My third site is Peavey Plaza, at the intersection of Nicollet Mall and 11th Street.  I became intrigued with this site during my Urban Design class in Semester 1.  This is a neighborhood and community connector, and with a new addition planned at
adjacent Orchestra Hall there is an opportunity to bring something uniquely “Minneapolis” to this site.  

inside| outside

If you were inside and your friend was outside, and the wall between you was solid, you would not know they were there.  Presumably, depending on how you got into the space in the first place, you might not even know if you were above or below grade when inside the building.

One tiny window could give you the perspective you need to understand your place in the world.  A large glass door even more so.  

I believe that in order to define a successful inside|outside connection, a designer must understand what activities will take place on each side of the wall/connection.   Horizontal connections can be exclusive if they are set too high for some or too low for others.  Vertical connections can serve anyone at any height. 

Daylight, views + direct connections

Even in a completely enclosed space the tiniest pinhole of light seeping into the room can give the space depth and give the occupant comfort.  In thinking about connections from inside to outside, is it enough to have daylight entering in, even if you cannot see where it comes from?  Is Solatube the right answer to getting people their essential daylight? 

glass blocks - obscure but bright; bring daylight into a workshop

I believe given a choice between no light and Solatube, most people would pick the Solatube.  But if an architect wants to give people a sense of comfort and a sense of place, then a visual connection is essential.  And if you want to give people a space that they can have the ultimate control of their environment, then they should have a physical as well as a visual connection to the space outside. 

Can the front door be the only connection to the outside?  In some instances, it might be the best choice.   Certainly some places are better suited to views of the landscape than others.  But even a small deck or balcony that is built for only one person to sit or stand and catch some fresh air is much better than a dark enclosed room with no connection to the exterior.  Fresh air in the central business district or a dense urban environment is still fresh air.  Even though the landscape is paved in urban areas, it is still the landscape – just a little less grassy. 

I believe that people need shelter, too.  I’m not advocating we all live outside, which would obviously be the extreme connection to the earth.  Nor am I advocating that we should all live on farms or communes or vast open countryside.  I just think we need to connect to our surroundings, and that buildings should be built to complement, connect to and strengthen the existing context.