Since museum officials are comparing their proposed museum to icons of other cities, such as the Gateway Arch in St. Louis and the Eiffel Tower in Paris, I thought I’d help out by offering some more information to help us compare:
The Eiffel Tower
The Eiffel Tower was built between 1887 and 1889 completely of iron at a cost of about 7.8 million gold francs (don’t know how to convert that 2007 dollars, but one site estimated $35 million in 2006 dollars), as the entrance to the Universal Exposition of 1889, which was held in Paris. According to discoverfrance.net:
Of the 700 proposals submitted in a design competition, one was unanimously chosen, a radical creation from the French structural engineer Alexandre Gustave Eiffel…who was assisted in the design by engineers Maurice Koechlin and Emile Nouguier, and architect Stephen Sauvestre.
However, the controversial tower elicited some strong reactions, and a petition of 300 names — including those of Maupassant, Emile Zola, Charles Garnier (architect of the Opéra Garnier), and Dumas the Younger — was presented to the city government, protesting its construction.
Eiffel also engineered the internal structure of the Statue of Liberty and the dome of the Nice Observatory in Nice, France.
The Gateway Arch
The Gateway Arch was built between 1963 and 1965 at a cost of $13 million (about $85 million in 2007 dollars) to commemorate the nation’s westward expansion. According to the National Park Service, “The $11 million cost of the Arch itself was made up of 75% Federal funds and 25% City of St. Louis funds. The $2 million Arch transportation system was financed by the Bi-State Development Agency.”
The Arch was designed by Finnish-American architect Eero Saarinen (after a nationwide search), who also designed the John Deere World Headquarters and John F. Kennedy International Airport. Historian Bob Moore says, “The arch’s design initially drew criticism, but before long the city of St. Louis embraced it.”
Peoria Regional Museum (PRM)
The PRM was designed by Zimmer Gunsul Frasca Architects, LLP, of Portland, Oregon, in partnership with local firms PSA Dewberry and STS Consultants. The project still carries a $65 million pricetag, but the size of the building has been reduced twice: once from 110,000 to 95,000 square feet, and recently from 95,000 to 81,000 square feet.
Obviously, the only comparison with the Eiffel Tower and the Gateway Arch is that the plan is facing opposition; that is, some people don’t like it. The implication is that this proposed building will presumably become iconic of Peoria, be a huge tourism draw, and eventually be embraced and beloved by Peoria residents as they realize what an architectural marvel it is.
I don’t think so. Maybe they could have said that with the original design, since the big sphere in a glass box could have at least become iconic of Peoria and was kind of a cool idea. But this new design? There’s nothing especially distinctive or memorable about it. They need to come up with a less-expensive design that still has a central architectural feature that impresses people. This building doesn’t have that — and furthermore, museum officials know it. They even said at the press conference that the so-called “wow factor” is on the inside now — the new planetarium and the programming of the museum. That was the whole idea behind Richerson’s plea to “focus on what we’re gaining.”
Now, if museum officials are willing to abandon the exterior “wow factor” and focus on the interior instead, then there’s really no reason to hold on to this building design or to fight for it. The interior can just as easily be housed in a more traditional urban building that fronts the street and only takes up a portion of the block, opening up a good portion of the block for other development. It would be cheaper to build, too, which would mean they wouldn’t have to raise as much money, something they’re having trouble doing anyway.
Eyebrows:
I am glad you are impressed with the Calatrava- when I first saw it I was awestruck. But remember they had a Mayor who is considered to be one of the finest Mayors ever-he really understood what a city needed to do to become vital. He served from 1988 to 2004 and he unfortunately left because he could not weather the embarrassment of an extra marital affair- really too bad. Below is some background on the Milwaukee Museum that I took from the web and the important sentence is 3/4 of the way through where they write:
“the Milwaukee Art Museum spokespeople have stated that the cost increases were brought on by a desire on their part to do more, not because of rampant “scope creep” or unexpected costs in construction of the building.”
The Milwaukee Art Museum addition, the Quadracci Pavilion, is Calatrava’s first U.S. built building project. Completed in 2001, this design has introduced many Americans to the beauty of his designs, and has opened the door for future U.S. projects, such as the recently announced Atlanta Symphony Center. The design was such a smashing success, in fact, that Time Magazine named it the #1 design of 2001, a list which included not only buildings, but furniture, cars, fashion, and even movies (Moulin Rouge).
The museum addition was conceived of as a work of art in which more works of art reside. Built right on the edge of Lake Michigan, the building’s form calls to mind images of boats and birds, and easily complements the natural setting in which it is placed.
One of the most striking features of the museum is the Brise Soleil, a sunscreen that is raised and lowered throughout the day to provide shade to the interior of the museum, but also to create a truly amazing urban sculpture.
There has been much made of the cost of the project, with many people indicating that Calatrava’s designs are prohibitively expensive to implement. Critics point to the fact that the Milwaukee Art Museum’s budget increased from $35 at the start of the project, to nearly $120 million by its completion; a nearly 345% increase! As a result, the museum has found themselves in financial trouble, and is struggling somewhat to recover the costs.
However, the Milwaukee Art Museum spokespeople have stated that the cost increases were brought on by a desire on their part to do more, not because of rampant “scope creep” or unexpected costs in construction of the building. If anything, the initial excitement of what Calatrava could bring to their project made them bite off potentially more than they could chew.
Similar troubles have besieged many other U.S. projects, such as the proposed five Trinity River bridges in Dallas, Texas. For cities and organizations that are aware of the extraordinary benefits to creating such masterpieces, the extra costs are a small price. But it is certainly clear that a Calatrava-designed building or bridge is not right for everyone, and people beginning a Calatrava project need to be aware of what they are doing when they get started.
A common error is being reported again here. In the initial agreement between the city and the Museum Group, the size of the facility was listed as 110,000 square feet. This was comprised of a 95,000 square foot museum and 15,000 square feet of retail/commercial space.
In the first amendment to the redevelopment agreement, the museum was listed specifically as “approximately 95,000 square feet” as well as 15,000 square feet of retail/commercial space. There was no change in the proposed size of the museum, just a change in the way the numbers were shown in the document.
Now there is a proposed reduction to a “minimum of 80,000 square feet.” So there’s only been one reduction in size not two as you’re reporting.
Kat — thank you for the correction. I’ve revised the post. I was looking at the 4/4/06 agenda which says plainly, “The size of the Museum has been reduced from 110,000 square feet to 95,000 square feet.” However, in reading the minutes from that meeting, it does indeed say, “In discussion with Council Member Sandberg regarding the reduction of the size of the project from 110,000 square feet to 95,000 square feet, Corporation Counsel Randy Ray explained in the original agreement, the 15,000 square feet for retail was a part of the 110,000 square feet.” So, point taken.
I agree that the design of the building, it’s layout, cost, location, etc is all important, but I feel that the main point continues to elude most of us. I am still concerned with what goes INSIDE the museum. All of this money spent, even to this point, and I do not feel comfortable putting Peoria’s past, present and future in the hands of these…”museum officials.” The keeping of Peoria’s material and documentary history has not been discussed at all, not as the building design or funding pertains to them. This is the crime. Richerson and his arts and sciences Bull can stay on their hill by the pool.
In other words…we are not gaining squat! What does Richerson and the Lakeview board hope to gain?
I still thought this was to be a “postcard” building that would represent Peoria.
Isn’t comparing the tower and arch to anything in Peoria like comparing anything wonderful to poop?
comparing the monuments to the museum is certainly like comparing the Mona Lisa to fingerpaints; however, when looking at the setting of each structure, the Tower sits near the Seine, with wonderful views of the city of lights, the arch has the Mississippi in the foreground and the city of St. Louis behind it, the museum structure has some potential, if designed properly. We have a beautiful river and a great skyline, blending those elements can create a structure that would draw folks in. Time to go back to the drawing board. This needs to be an area that will be highly utilized by all citizens not just tourists and not just those who “can afford it” How about attractions that the average joe can afford and would be interested in along with the wide spectrum of our populace and potential visitors. Isn’t that mixture what the spirit of New Urbanism is supposed to foster?
CJ – thanks for the correction. Just a couple additional comments, first, imagine if you will some time in the future, bringing your visiting guests downtown and they marvel at the Museum building as you drive around Museum Square. “Wow, this is such an interesting building,” they say, “lets stop and see what’s inside.” “It isn’t worth a visit,” you say, “they spent so much of their budget on the building, they didn’t have enough leftover to fund any interesting exhibits inside.” It’s what’s inside the box that really counts. Second, if the HOPC and the City Council is really, really in love with that initial design, and feels the city really, really must have that sphere inside the glass box, then perhaps they should consider contributing some funds to the Museum Group to get ‘er done. I suspect for a $ million a year over the next seven years (or the life of the expected New Market Tax Credit financing plan), the Museum Group would be willing to go back to the original plan. Nothing says all the HRA taxes have to go the the Civic Center for ever, isn’t salvaging a larger, more iconic museum just as deserving of the utilization of the HRA taxes as the Civic Center. Heck, for that size of a contribution, the City most likely would even get naming rights for the planetarium. Then just imagine what fun the Council could have, they could sponsor their own naming contest for the sphere in the glass box planetarium.
http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2007/03/26/news/local/doc46072ff6aad17501465047.txt
If the museum group hasn’t had overwhelming support to fund the building how are they going to get the endowment up and running? Davenport’s issues with their new Figge Museum should be considered. The projects have quite a few similarities. The article highlights the Figge’s need to try to establish a more robust endowment because the museum can’t cover operating costs with user fees. I don’t know why the Peoria museum would be any different. The Figge board is confident they can raise the money, “the regional nature of the Figge — as opposed to its predecessor, the Davenport Museum of Art — means it can reach out to a bigger area for funding, to communities up to 100 miles away.” Peoria is 98 miles from Davenport, heh.
I have a better scenario for you: Imagine walking your visiting guests around a vibrant block that has condominiums, apartments, shops, restaurants, a museum, and the CAT visitors center. There would be lots of people here because many of them would live right there on the block — it would be their home, so people would naturally be around instead of having to be drawn there through special programming on the block. You could grab a bite to eat, buy a magazine or newspaper at the Borders or Barnes & Noble on the corner, then walk by a building that has a unique front that stands out from the rest of the block. Maybe it’s even on a corner so that it faces two streets. Maybe it has a work by a famous sculptor in front that is incorporated into the design of the building’s face. This piques the interest of your guest. You feel it’s absolutely worth visiting because the money was spent mostly on the inside of the building, with an appropriate amount spent on the outside. After all, since the building is incorporated into a mixed-use block, they only had to spend money on making the face of the building spectacular, instead of spending money on all fifteen sides of a suburban-style campus, plus landscaping, plus outdoor programming to try to utilize the 2/3 of the block that would have been dead concrete open space.
If we want to revitalize downtown, we can’t be trying to make downtown look like the suburbs. We have plenty of suburban landscape from which to choose. What we lack is a vibrant urban setting. The buildings should be tall, the uses should be mixed, the building facades should be varied, etc.
I think we’re getting a couple of things confused here: there’s the siting of the building, and then there’s the design of the building. I’m concerned mostly about the siting — it is now proposed to have all the programming on one floor, and to accommodate that the building sprawls across the middle of the block, leaving open space on practically all sides. It’s set up so that the museum (and the visitors center, which is kind of like an extension of the museum) is the only use for the entire block. This is the most inefficient land use of that block that could ever have been devised. The museum is only going to be 81,000 square feet? Fine, but they don’t need 6.8 acres of urban real estate for 81,000 square feet. They can make it fit into a smaller footprint and open up the rest of the block to other uses — especially residential, but also retail. It could be a catalyst for lots of reinvestment on that block instead of the only reinvestment on that block.
It’s not about reinvestment. It’s about image.
I’m reversing my previous correction. Before the council meeting last night (7/10), Gary Sandberg took me to the City Manager’s desk and showed me a copy of the original agreement the city had with Lakeview, and it said that the museum was to be “110,000 gross square feet not-for-profit regional museum open to the public,” and as a sub-article that the museum site would also include “approximately 15,000 gross square feet of commercial space.” The City Manager and Councilman Sandberg agreed that this can only be interpreted to mean that it was originally a 110,000 square foot museum plus 15,000 square feet of commercial space, or 125,000 square feet total. Thus, the museum has been reduced in size twice, as I originally reported.
Well you, Councilman Sandberg and the City Manager must all feel alot better by claiming that the museum has now been downsized twice, although it must put the Corporation Counsel in a strange position, when his intrepretation of the language in the redevelopment agreement is ignored. I will quote from the minutes of the City Council meeting of April 4th, 2006 as follows: “In discussion with Council Member Sandberg regarding the reduction of the size of the project from 110,000 square feet to 95,000 square feet, Corporation Counsel Randy Ray explained in the original agreement, the 15,000 square feet for retail was a part of the 100,000 square feet.” Since Mr. Ray was a party to the development of the details of that agreement, I’d think his interpretation of the language would be a sufficient explanation, unless one wants to cast as much of a negative shadow on this project as can possibly be conceived.
The 110,000 square feet is specifically listed as “not-for-profit,” so it can’t include 15,000 square feet of commercial space. It is possible that corporation counsel made an honest mistake.
Katmandu,
Do you suppose that the minutes could be incorrect?, or that Randy made and error?? I would suggest you request a copy and read for yourself.
Kat — I e-mailed Randy Ray and asked him about the original agreement and cited the minutes in question. His response to me was, and I quote, “Either I was mistaken or the minutes are mistaken. The museum size does not include the commercial space.”