Can 80% of respondents be wrong?

About a week ago I briefly commented on Blair Kamin's infatuation with Soldier Field, in particular his (successful) push to remove landmark status after its recent renovation.

Well, according to the Tribune today, "80 percent of respondents said that Soldier Field deserved to lose its landmark status," in an unscientific Trib online poll. The paper took the opportunity to publish letters from readers for and against the landmark status removal. Here's a sampling.
HOMEWOOD -- Good architecture is in the eye of the beholder, not the eyes of a nattering nabob of negativism.

-- Thomas Bauer

CROWN POINT, Ind. -- As a writer and sometimes visitor to Chicago, I have always wondered why a city so famed for architecture always steps in the merde when it comes to sports. I mean, the ballpark for the White Sox could have been so retro and so cool, yet is just another spaceship on the plains. Then this Soldier Field debacle. How come the leaders couldn't just throw open a competition of architects to come up with real designs?

-- Mike Siroky

WEST DUNDEE -- I have been waiting for this day, but please do not mistake my satisfaction. Chicago needs an architectural review committee, without the influence of "Da Mayor," and to regain its crown as a world leader in metropolitan design.

-- Lew Nuzzie
(via Archinect)


  1. What is in the eyes of the nattering nabobs of negativism?

  2. I read an article recently that talked about how Soldier Field didn't deserve to be on the list in the first place. It was on the list primarily for events that had take place there, not because it was a special example of an architectural style. The article even suggested the argument that the events were significant was kinda weak.

    I keep thinking people are more upset with how the project was covertly presented to them instead of what was done to the old stadium. It was a pretty poor place to see a game and was otherwise a white elephant.

  3. It should have landmark status. So should most of the new buildings in Chicago. The problem with the protection afforded by historical-landmark designations is that it comes far too late for many buildings. If we can get that protection for them now, then they will still be around in 100 years once they are truly historical.

    Just kidding, of course.

  4. I am happy to see it lose its status and am very happy with the new stadium. the renovation created a much better place to see a football game which is its purpose, not to be on some list. Plus the new building is interesting rather than being a fake, "retro" stadium like all the other bad stadiums of recent years. There was nothing significan enough about the old stadium for it to deserve landmark status to begin with.


Post a Comment

Comments are moderated for spam.