Letters

Robert Cassidy's editorial in the December issue makes me as sick as he purports to be when looking at the Soldier Field project under construction. From one of our industry's foremost publications, we should get more responsible journalism.

Since when do buildings get judged that are only partially constructed? What purpose is served to ask the reader to make up his/her mind on the basis of a construction picture that has been severely cropped?

The published picture cut off the existing stone facade below the Colonnade, which is an integral part of the whole exterior. In order to allow the reader to form an opinion on correct information, I am requesting that you publish a rendering of the full facade from the same point of view (see at right).

Of course, Mr. Cassidy has the right to dislike any project. The question must be asked, however, whether the magazine is serving our industry by lashing out in such emotional manner instead of providing us with a well-researched and reasoned analysis of such an important building project.

Responsible journalism requires that both sides of a controversial issue be presented. Instead, the editorial only attacks the project and misses the fact that the decision to build this project is the result of many years of negotiations between the City of Chicago and the Bears. Presently, many thousands of people, construction workers, contractors, fabricators, engineers, architects, government officials, etc., are enthusiastically working together to erect in record time, and on budget, a project that has been approved by all required review boards and agencies.

Building Design & Construction should have written a detailed article about the innovative aspects of the design (i.e., the structural system, the enclosure systems, the asymmetrical bowl layout, and the tuned mass dampers on the long cantilevers). Such an article would have informed the readership and provided an understanding, and perhaps even an appreciation, of the complexity of this unusual but progressive project.

The stadium design is based on the conviction that successful integration of old and new, classical and modern, is best achieved if each is allowed to be good architecture in its own right. The old architecture of the facade not to be altered, but preserved and restored. The new to be contemporary and striking, and not stifled by historic limitations — both to coexist in a sensitive juxtaposition as an expression of today's needs and the spirit of the past.

It appears that some people, including your chief editor, view the new addition, especially the grandstand on the west, to be out of scale, too large, overpowering, and not in character with the classical facade.

To that criticism, I would say that history teaches us that the new is seldom understood and appreciated; it will take some time until the public can appreciate what the designers have been thinking about.

When the Hancock Building was first erected, many people were horrified to learn that apartments and offices would be contained inside an oil derrick. Today, the building is an icon of our city. There are many such examples and I am convinced this will be true for this design. The "flying saucer" will become an attraction and another example of bold architecture in Chicago.

Dirk Lohan, FAIA, Principal, CEO, Chairman Lohan Caprile Goettsch Architects, Chicago

Your editorial in the December issue was a strong condemnation! I can understand your frustration about the new Soldier Field, but at this point, there is nothing that can be done about it. It would have been better if you had expressed those feelings before construction started.

Melvin S. Markson, AIA, Mt. Prospect, Ill.

Your magazine is always good, but the December issue was particularly thought-provoking.

If the news of the desecration being done at Soldier Field happened anywhere but Chicago, I would not be so surprised. But for this to happen in the center of American architecture indicates that the forces of sloth (too lazy to do it right), ignorance (they don't know that they don't know), and greed are active even there.

If we could only teach developers and other clients that it is possible to work on older existing buildings on time, on budget, and sensitive to the original design and fabric. If practitioners knew what they are doing, it could be profitable and also suited to current occupants' needs. Improved education for everyone involved in construction and real estate is one of the answers.

On another topic, in regards to the museum report in the December issue, many times there is a lack of sufficient attention to proper lighting, especially for museums. Sometimes conservators are at war with curators over light levels. Factors pertaining to museum illumination include protecting collections in care from heat and ultraviolet rays, offering acceptable visibility for displays and conservation labs, saving energy, and staying within a budget. Light is needed to see or do anything, but often it is the last item thought of and the first to be eliminated for lower costs. In fact, none of the beautiful museums featured listed lighting designers. That is like being your own brain surgeon. Perhaps that is why our foreign colleagues consider the U.S. 10 years behind in lighting.

Good lighting increases productivity, sales, attendance, and personal comfort. Bad lighting requires expensive maintenance, heavy energy costs, and hot, glaring, or too-dim illumination.

Gersil N. Kay, Conservation Lighting International Philadelphia

Regarding the January editorial ("Now comes the hard part," page 5) on World Trade Center design proposals:

I was quite shocked that you would suggested that "Mothers everywhere were surely inspired to advise their daughters to forget about doctors and lawyers, and marry an architect instead"!

Is there any reason that you would not suggest that mothers suggest that their daughters become architects, as opposed to marrying them? I am a female in the construction business, I work for a female Director of Construction (who, by the way, has a degree in architecture as well as a master's in construction), our Director of Operations is a female, as is our Field Superintendent.

There is no reason that a "daughter" cannot become anything she wants to be!

Name withheld at writer's request