Soldier Field Landmark Status
According to an article published in yesterday's Chicago Tribune (registration req'd),
The incompatibility of the new stadium design by Wood + Zapata and local architect Dirk Lohan is the main source of contention in the report, which will go the Advisory Board Landmarks Committee and then make a recommendation to the full board in September, eventually forwarding its recommendation to the U.S. secretary of the interior. This final decision will most likely remove the Landmark status, but the Mayor's spokesperson, Jacquelyn Heard is optimistic that Soldier Field may keep its designation, believing it was the preserved colonnades that were important for landmark status.
To me, this seems like a non issue. It's obvious that the current stadium design doesn't retain enough of the original character to keep landmark status, but because of that fact why should the City and the Park District care if it keeps landmark status? The design is a compromise that keeps a portion of the historic Soldier Field while (unfortunately) abolishing that element from the fans inside and overpowering the view of the same from the outside. The city gambled on an ambitious and unique, contemporary design so it should lose the landmark status.
But is it a punishment for "destroying the landmark", in the words of Preservation Chicago president Jonathan Fine? I don't think so, because landmark status isn't necessarily any greater or better than a different way of building with history, as was done at Soldier Field. Preservation, like architecture, needs to evolve over time and recognize that mummifying buildings and their uses isn't always the best solution. I'm all for continuity in our cities, something that happens through preservation efforts. But at least in this case, something different came from the proceedings, instead of a completely demolished old stadium or a preserved stadium, inadequate for its current use (though that opens a whole other can of worms in terms of the public nature of the lakefront and the presence of the Bears, that I won't go into here), we got something "alien" but also lively and unique.
Update 07.25: Blair Kamin argues (registration req'd) that Soldier Field should have its National Landmark status removed, citing the National Park Service's recommendation, "the stadium has fundamentally lost its association with the past."
Update 08.02:
Local stadium architect Dirk Lohan defends the Soldier Field addition on Chicago Public Radio(Real Audio link).
The National Park Service on Tuesday sent its recommendation to withdraw landmark status, the highest honor the government bestows on buildings and places, from the Chicago Park District, which owns the structure. Federal officials also recommended removing the venerable stadium from the National Register of Historic Places.
The incompatibility of the new stadium design by Wood + Zapata and local architect Dirk Lohan is the main source of contention in the report, which will go the Advisory Board Landmarks Committee and then make a recommendation to the full board in September, eventually forwarding its recommendation to the U.S. secretary of the interior. This final decision will most likely remove the Landmark status, but the Mayor's spokesperson, Jacquelyn Heard is optimistic that Soldier Field may keep its designation, believing it was the preserved colonnades that were important for landmark status.
To me, this seems like a non issue. It's obvious that the current stadium design doesn't retain enough of the original character to keep landmark status, but because of that fact why should the City and the Park District care if it keeps landmark status? The design is a compromise that keeps a portion of the historic Soldier Field while (unfortunately) abolishing that element from the fans inside and overpowering the view of the same from the outside. The city gambled on an ambitious and unique, contemporary design so it should lose the landmark status.
But is it a punishment for "destroying the landmark", in the words of Preservation Chicago president Jonathan Fine? I don't think so, because landmark status isn't necessarily any greater or better than a different way of building with history, as was done at Soldier Field. Preservation, like architecture, needs to evolve over time and recognize that mummifying buildings and their uses isn't always the best solution. I'm all for continuity in our cities, something that happens through preservation efforts. But at least in this case, something different came from the proceedings, instead of a completely demolished old stadium or a preserved stadium, inadequate for its current use (though that opens a whole other can of worms in terms of the public nature of the lakefront and the presence of the Bears, that I won't go into here), we got something "alien" but also lively and unique.
Update 07.25: Blair Kamin argues (registration req'd) that Soldier Field should have its National Landmark status removed, citing the National Park Service's recommendation, "the stadium has fundamentally lost its association with the past."
Update 08.02:
Local stadium architect Dirk Lohan defends the Soldier Field addition on Chicago Public Radio(Real Audio link).
Comments
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated for spam.