MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus:         Newsletters 
Tuesday, October 21, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 48.0° F  Overcast
Collapse Photo Bar

The Landmarks Commission-Still a Joke

Please limit discussion in this area to local and state politics.

Re: The Landmarks Commission-Still a Joke

Postby swimmingupstream » Wed Aug 10, 2011 4:58 pm

lukpac wrote:
swimmingupstream wrote:No, read the article carefully. He said that the action Landmarks took Monday night would further jeopardize the project. The need to delay the project and defend it from this NIMBY attack will add to the cost to this project.


Why do they need to delay the project? As I indicated above, the Landmarks hearing doesn't push the schedule back at all. The council is already meeting *after* the Landmarks hearing.

Are you saying he is lying? It can delay lining up lenders and contractors and make those with intent to lease agreements get cold feet.

But, as you say this is just an academic exercise. The outcome is well known and it will not be designated a landmark.

Well...will the decision be further delayed at this meeting six weeks from now? If members of Landmarks are willing to blow off their own staff person's strong recommendation Monday night how do we know they won't change their mind and declare this shed a landmark? They have proven themselves already to be erratic.
swimmingupstream
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 379
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 4:55 pm

Re: The Landmarks Commission-Still a Joke

Postby lukpac » Wed Aug 10, 2011 5:02 pm

swimmingupstream wrote:Well...will the decision be further delayed at this meeting six weeks from now? If members of Landmarks are willing to blow off their own staff person's strong recommendation Monday night how do we know they won't change their mind and declare this shed a landmark? They have proven themselves already to be erratic.


If they decide there's reason to declare it a landmark, then they did the right thing by meeting.

If they decide there isn't reason to declare it a landmark, the council process continues as normal, on the same schedule, and there isn't an issue.

So having the meeting is a win-win.
lukpac
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3362
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 1:51 pm
Location: Madison

Re: The Landmarks Commission-Still a Joke

Postby HamsterArmageddon » Wed Aug 10, 2011 5:08 pm

Apparently, chain link fence is now considered a "historical landmark."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/whe ... story.html
HamsterArmageddon
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 7:33 pm
Location: Madison

Re: The Landmarks Commission-Still a Joke

Postby swimmingupstream » Wed Aug 10, 2011 5:14 pm

lukpac wrote:If they decide there's reason to declare it a landmark, then they did the right thing by meeting.

If they decide there isn't reason to declare it a landmark, the council process continues as normal, on the same schedule, and there isn't an issue.

So having the meeting is a win-win.

I take it you are not a business person.

There is a difference between six more weeks of uncertainty and six weeks knowing that your project is being given the green light with just a couple more formalities. Answer this-If you where a large building contractor approached by this developer, would you be more likely to commit yourself to starting this project in late September given the former scenario or the latter one? Would you give a higher bid or a lower bid if there was more uncertainty right before the start date?

If you care to read it Amy Scanlon wrote in her memo that it is highly unfair to create this uncertainty this late in the process, especially given that Landmarks had already signed off on the project.
swimmingupstream
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 379
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 4:55 pm

Re: The Landmarks Commission-Still a Joke

Postby snoqueen » Wed Aug 10, 2011 6:31 pm

And why would suggesting somebody had money on the line or was involved in a similar project be considered a personal insult? It's generally respectable to be involved in development -- otherwise how would things get built?

I am still trying to figure out why this person is making such a big deal out of the Landmark commission's totally neutral scheduling of a meeting. Sheesh, it's just a meeting.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11613
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: The Landmarks Commission-Still a Joke

Postby Maeve » Wed Aug 10, 2011 7:04 pm

Up the Creek Without a Paddle was the person who so strenuously objected to Goodman Community Center's Iron Cafe high school restaurant training program because it might harm local coffee houses (see "Cafe Zoma is Closing"), then deleted all the posts later. Still a joke.
Maeve
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:46 pm

Re: The Landmarks Commission-Still a Joke

Postby snoqueen » Sun Aug 14, 2011 5:07 pm

Image

OK, I got this photo of the place today. You can enlarge it quite a bit if you right click and go copy image location, then paste it into a new browser tab (instructions for Firefox).

The property is posted Keep Out so I took this from the end of the driveway. The front part of the building shown was the part in the picture on Madison Newspapers earlier this month -- you can see the rest of it here. The walls shown are concrete block and the whole thing is not much to look at. The little brick-edged walk crossing the foreground of the photo goes to the larger red brick Erdmann building on the lot adjacent to the left; it looks like an ordinary commercial structure, quite undistinguished from the street. Was it the home of the firm after they moved out of the building in the picture?

Unless there's something unexpected inside, I guess I'd go with the wishes of the family and let them both fall. I like midcentury buildings, but I'm not seeing anything here to save for posterity. The company probably wanted clients to be impressed with their work for others, not their own offices. And it's hard to imagine there's much of an urban "fabric" to damage out here on University Avenue between Taco Bell and Perkins.

(So tell me why this is a landmark and change my mind --- what do I know? And maybe there's a way to salvage those big wooden trusses visible through the front windows -- they look cool and I bet there's a matching set of four waiting for a new home in your lodge up by Rib Mountain.)

Instead, I'd landmark the lovely little white Anchor Bank building on Midvale as soon as possible. And I'd bring back Hartwig's Gobbler.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11613
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: The Landmarks Commission-Still a Joke

Postby Stu Levitan » Fri Oct 07, 2011 4:58 am

For the record, Landmarks Commission did not recommend to Common Council that it designate 5117 University Ave. as a city landmark. Our consideration of nomination did not delay or stall Council consideration of University Crossing in any way.

Just wanted to make that clear.
Stu Levitan
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3239
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2003 8:40 pm
Location: Studio B of the historic Abernathy Building

Re: The Landmarks Commission-Still a Joke

Postby bdog » Fri Aug 31, 2012 8:23 pm

swimmingupstream wrote:
massimo wrote: I think most people here actually agree with a lot of what you're saying, but nothing shady or illegal is happening here.

I never even implied that anything illegal or shady was happening here. I just criticized the Landmark members' poor decision. I guess that is not allowed around here.
massimo wrote: Trying to circumvent an established process, on the other hand, would be shady.

This was not an established process-Landmarks had already reviewed the case and passed it. Me saying that Landmark members should use their discretion wisely is not shady.
massimo wrote: So, you "do not have a financial stake in this project." Are you related to an employee of the developer? Do you babysit someone's kids?

"yawn"

Preserved for posterity.
bdog
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3269
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 5:26 am

Re: The Landmarks Commission-Still a Joke

Postby Native » Thu Sep 13, 2012 2:39 pm

So Mr. (or Ms) Swimmingupstream says:
"This is a foolish example for you to use. It was the LANDMARKS COMMISSION who forced internationally renowned arcitect Cesar Pelli to incorporate what even you call old building fronts with little historic value. His team also faced "design by committee" behavior in front of the Urban Design Commission. At some point Pelli said screw it and turned the project over to some of his junior associates telling them to give the yokels what they want."

And he/she is as wrong as a wrong thing on a wrong day. The Landmarks Commission had nothing to do with Pelli's decision to incorporate the Yost facade into the Overture Center. If you knew the first thing about Madisonians, you'd know that the Yosts and the Frautschis have been friends for longer than you've been around. The Yost facade was included from the beginning, and likely because Mr. Frautschi asked.

Get your facts straight first. Then you can distort them as you please. Just be sure you have the order correct.
Native
Member
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 6:48 pm
Location: near west side

Re: The Landmarks Commission-Still a Joke

Postby swimmingupstream » Thu Sep 13, 2012 4:26 pm

Native wrote:Get your facts straight first. Then you can distort them as you please. Just be sure you have the order correct.


No, you get your facts straight and stop rewriting history.

Here is what Marc Eisen, a long time contributor to Isthmus wrote
Mistake 1: Allowing politics to trump design. Overture is a case in point of how Madison’s much-celebrated (and often castigated) commitment to public comment sometimes destroys the city’s chance for great architecture.

Because of its savvy outreach effort and judicious compromises with potential opponents, the Overture project sailed through the city’s approval process relatively smoothly. Suddenly the town that couldn’t put two bricks together pulled off first Monona Terrace, then Overture.

But at what a cost to design? I understand the desire to keep the historic Capitol Theater with its Moorish movie palace swank in the mix of the new complex. (I’ve only seen one show in the thoroughly revamped theater and don’t have a settled opinion yet on how it functions as a performance space.) The exterior, however, is a joke.

It’s pure Disneyland, what architectural critics call “façadism.” In other words, the movie palace façade has absolutely no structural connection to the building behind it and doesn’t even serve as the entrance to the refashioned Capitol Theater. (The doors open to a humdrum Overture hallway, and are usually locked, at that.)

This isn’t preservation; it’s the illusion of preservation. Sure, it bought the acquiescence of Madison’s vocal preservationist community. But it also tied the hands of architect Cesar Pelli, perhaps preventing him from coming up with a truly landmark 21st-century building for Madison.

http://www.wisopinion.com/index.iml?mdl ... ticle=4906
swimmingupstream
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 379
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 4:55 pm

Re: The Landmarks Commission-Still a Joke

Postby Stu Levitan » Thu Sep 13, 2012 8:28 pm

I don't see a reference to the Landmarks Commission in Eisen's commentary.
Stu Levitan
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3239
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2003 8:40 pm
Location: Studio B of the historic Abernathy Building

Re: The Landmarks Commission-Still a Joke

Postby Native » Tue Nov 19, 2013 10:45 am

swimmingupstream wrote:
Native wrote:Get your facts straight first. Then you can distort them as you please. Just be sure you have the order correct.


No, you get your facts straight and stop rewriting history.

Here is what Marc Eisen, a long time contributor to Isthmus wrote
Mistake 1: Allowing politics to trump design. Overture is a case in point of how Madison’s much-celebrated (and often castigated) commitment to public comment sometimes destroys the city’s chance for great architecture.

Because of its savvy outreach effort and judicious compromises with potential opponents, the Overture project sailed through the city’s approval process relatively smoothly. Suddenly the town that couldn’t put two bricks together pulled off first Monona Terrace, then Overture.

But at what a cost to design? I understand the desire to keep the historic Capitol Theater with its Moorish movie palace swank in the mix of the new complex. (I’ve only seen one show in the thoroughly revamped theater and don’t have a settled opinion yet on how it functions as a performance space.) The exterior, however, is a joke.

It’s pure Disneyland, what architectural critics call “façadism.” In other words, the movie palace façade has absolutely no structural connection to the building behind it and doesn’t even serve as the entrance to the refashioned Capitol Theater. (The doors open to a humdrum Overture hallway, and are usually locked, at that.)

This isn’t preservation; it’s the illusion of preservation. Sure, it bought the acquiescence of Madison’s vocal preservationist community. But it also tied the hands of architect Cesar Pelli, perhaps preventing him from coming up with a truly landmark 21st-century building for Madison.

http://www.wisopinion.com/index.iml?mdl ... ticle=4906


Guess what? Eisen can be wrong. And, on this occasion, he was totally wrong. I was there. He wasn't. Neither were you. The Landmarks Commission did most certainly not tie Pelli's hands. He kept the Ypst facade and the Capitol facade all on his own.
Native
Member
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 6:48 pm
Location: near west side

Previous

Return to Local Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR
Created with flickr badge.

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar