Cramer Leaving
According to the Chicago Tribune,
(Thanks to Sally for the head's up!)
On a side note, it's annoying to see Blair Kamin ending his all-too-brief report linked above with the sentence, "He also was a vocal supporter of the Soldier Field renovation." Back in 2004, Kamin anticipated Soldier Field's loss of landmark status, a position he's been pushing for quite a while. As Lynn Becker points out, "Kamin...made the new Soldier Field his own Baby Richard, filling up column after column of derisive critiques even after all doubt that the project would be built had been removed."
So even after landmark status has been dropped, the issue isn't apparently dead for Kamin. It's almost like he must mention Soldier Field in every damn column that he writes, be it appropriate or not, in this case not.
Ned Cramer, the first full-time curator at the Chicago Architecture Foundation, is leaving the non-profit group known for its tours and other programs to become editor of a planned architecture magazine in Washington, the foundation says.In his nearly four-year tenure as curator, Cramer has brought many interesting exhibitions to the CAF, including the Big & Green show on sustainable architecture and the current one on public space.
(Thanks to Sally for the head's up!)
On a side note, it's annoying to see Blair Kamin ending his all-too-brief report linked above with the sentence, "He also was a vocal supporter of the Soldier Field renovation." Back in 2004, Kamin anticipated Soldier Field's loss of landmark status, a position he's been pushing for quite a while. As Lynn Becker points out, "Kamin...made the new Soldier Field his own Baby Richard, filling up column after column of derisive critiques even after all doubt that the project would be built had been removed."
So even after landmark status has been dropped, the issue isn't apparently dead for Kamin. It's almost like he must mention Soldier Field in every damn column that he writes, be it appropriate or not, in this case not.
I don't know why they don't just replace him. He seems to like certain architects' work, no matter what. But for others it's just the opposite. He criticized Teng's Shangri-la because they don't have enough high rise experience, but he loves Studio Gang who has a wopping two buildings to her name and commends Loewenberg, who he hates no matter what is built, for his philanthropy in hiring Gang. Being who he is and writing for the paper he writes he needs to be a lot more responsible for his comments since the average lay person is going to read this stuff and take it for granted. A good building is a good building and a bad building is a bad building. I wonder how his opinions would look if the work he criticized remained anonymous.
ReplyDelete