tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10887668.post7601736198641229928..comments2024-01-15T05:16:04.605-06:00Comments on JackeHammer: Will McGowan Carry the City's Heer's Deal Baton?Jackie Meltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10554151805461400754noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10887668.post-4953788454438106012008-04-18T21:52:00.000-05:002008-04-18T21:52:00.000-05:00Oops, Jim. I used "their" when I should have used...Oops, Jim. I used "their" when I should have used "there." How'd that happin??? ;)Jackie Meltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10554151805461400754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10887668.post-30666133913083697932008-04-18T21:48:00.000-05:002008-04-18T21:48:00.000-05:00Crazy Curmudgeon, it was just my opinion that it w...Crazy Curmudgeon, it was just my opinion that it was a stretch, you're welcome to your opinion, which I think is a valid one, by the way. The thing is, it's going to be up to SHPO to decide whether Park Central Square is historical or not and they'll do it under the watchful eye of the National Historical Society, so we'll have to wait and see what is their verdict. Unfortunately, in the meantime, the city may not be able to meet the timeline under their contract with McGowan for breaking ground on square renovations.<BR/><BR/>I particularly think it's sort of silly to try to place blame at the feet of people who oppose the destruction of the square because of concerns about the historical significance of the design when, with a little foresight, this whole situation could have been avoided. Those concerns should have been recognized and a bit of troubleshooting should have occurred before that time line was set with McGowan. I just think people should be realistic about that and not look to scapegoats to take the blame for it.<BR/><BR/>Don't get me wrong, I'm not looking for an opportunity to bash the city, here, what I AM doing is defending people who have what should be considered as legitimate concerns about the historic value of that design. There is nothing wrong with questioning that, and had their been foresight about it to start with these concerns might not have been addressed at the last minute when they might be a deal breaker and end up costing the tax payer even more money on the Heer's building than they're already out. <BR/><BR/>So, we'll wait and while we wait to see how it pans out we'll hope and pray that Kevin McGowan doesn't exercise his put option. What choice do we have? Not anymore than the Council had when they approved the agreement between McGowan and the city to begin with. <BR/><BR/>Thanks for stopping by and sharing your thoughts. :)Jackie Meltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10554151805461400754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10887668.post-12512717317463145232008-04-18T20:51:00.000-05:002008-04-18T20:51:00.000-05:00"In Back to square one? Johnson puts forth the cha..."In Back to square one? Johnson puts forth the challenge of whether Lawrence Halprin can be considered the designer of the square when another architect working in Halprin's firm was responsible for the majority of the architectural drawings. Well, that would be akin to saying that an architect hired by Butler Rosenbury to do work for Butler Rosenbury under the Butler Rosenbury stamp and seal isn't really Butler Rosenbury. It's quite a stretch but I appreciate the sentiment."<BR/><BR/>I wouldn't call it a stretch. The center of the whole contoversy is the Square's historical significance: is this the work of a "master". To further your analogy: Say Joe Smith works for Butler Rosenbury and designs a building. The plans for that building are products and property of the company (and client) no doubt. Now say that Joe Smith later in his career, becomes an accomplished and world-known architect. When it comes to historical significance, can that building that Mr. Smith designed as an employee for Butler Rosenbury early in his career be recognized as an early work of a master? Or is the design considered a Geoff Butler design? To use another analogy, if Picasso had a artist under his employ that painted under his direct and close supervision and approval, using his style and influence, would the art world consider that artist's work a Picasso?<BR/><BR/>There are numerous works that have been well documented that were done by the hand of Halprin directly (the FDR memorial for example) for which he has received his fame. This outdated design we've been stuck with, it seems, is the work of another architect under Halprin's letterhead.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10887668.post-26548117520543940372008-04-18T13:12:00.000-05:002008-04-18T13:12:00.000-05:00The city should have never made the redesign of th...The city should have never made the redesign of the square as part of the deal, so the blame still resides with the city, elected and those hired to represent the best interest of the city.tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17156943875749350309noreply@blogger.com