Groundbreaking of the Art Museum

[weill]

I can insure you I wont be crying even if a glass and steel Old Navy comes. Think about it, its different information when at the begining of the article it says 46, and later on it says its not sure. Im threw agruing over stupid stuff.

[StevenRocks]

I'm not getting in a pissing match over this. None of this is my money, RoanokeFound, and honestly, so little of your personal money is involved in this as a taxpayer, it's not worth the argument.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a person who believes this museum will be the saving grace of Roanoke. I think it's going to continue the revival of the center city, but no project can save a city all by itself.

That said, I think there is a legitimate chance that people will come here to see the museum (faclitated by the instant visibilty of the design from the interstate) and spend their shopping and entertainment dollars in the valley that wouldn't have otherwise. Obviously there's a few dozen people at least that agree with me, otherwise this plan wouldn't have gotten this far.

You certainly have a right to your opinion but there's a danger in settling for the status quo.

Consider this. If Roanoke hadn't have take a progressive view on reviving the Market area, it would still be a gritty hole with failing stores and

[RoanokeFound]

I am for anything but the status quo, however I am not so gung-ho that I am forgetting logic and reason. However, you have to have the reasons to justify the logic.

And one of these same dozens or so people who support the arts museum also supports the complete redesign of Mill Mountain. Repurposing, if you will - including moving the star, erecting a rotating restaurant, and adding a large chain-hotel at the top. And if this person gets a dozen or so supporters, is this a good thing?

This town is far greater than any art museum could make it, and if it were to properly market itself - would have no problem drawing people from hundreds of miles away, with the possibility of thousands of miles in sight. All it takes is a few truly forward thinking people who appreciate what is existing, and know how to work it. The rest comes naturally.

So yes, its a draw. Nothing more will be said on the museum. Im sure the other arts-aligned non-profits in Roanoke have said enough as it is.

[weill]

I agree with you both, I guess we all just want Roanoke to grow, just see it in a different view.

[StevenRocks]

And one of these same dozens or so people who support the arts museum also supports the complete redesign of Mill Mountain. Repurposing, if you will - including moving the star, erecting a rotating restaurant, and adding a large chain-hotel at the top. And if this person gets a dozen or so supporters, is this a good thing?

This town is far greater than any art museum could make it, and if it were to properly market itself - would have no problem drawing people from hundreds of miles away, with the possibility of thousands of miles in sight. All it takes is a few truly forward thinking people who appreciate what is existing, and know how to work it. The rest comes naturally.

So now you're putting a new art museum in the same light as a random brainstorming session?

Mill Mountain and Downtown are entirely different issues. For one thing, no one has come up with a buildable plan for Mill Mountain that has any financial support. You're attempting to stretch your argument to the level of ridiculousness just to "win," and it's honestly not that elastic.

We both know that the Mill Mountain Star is non-negotiable. You can't very well have The Star City without the Star. Also a restaurant and chain hotel would demand better access to their facilities than the narrow winding roads that are on Mill Mountain, which causes an infrastructure issue.

Even when you consider how hard it will be to pull all that off with a reliable funding source, you also have to consider demand. There is not a high demand for either of those types of facilities in the market. That kills anything like what you're saying they're proposing right in its tracks.

Marketing will only get you so far without visible growth in amenities. We've been constantly marketing the Star, the City Market and Center in the Square for years. Those will only get us so far by themselves.

Having a new art museum keeps the momentum going, along with the Link Museum, the proposed MLK Plaza, Ebony Club and Dumas Hotel renovation and the Rail Walk. None of this stuff is going to make much difference by itself but together it makes an impact.

[weill]

So now you're putting a new art museum in the same light as a random brainstorming session?

Mill Mountain and Downtown are entirely different issues. For one thing, no one has come up with a buildable plan for Mill Mountain that has any financial support. You're attempting to stretch your argument to the level of ridiculousness just to "win," and it's honestly not that elastic.

We both know that the Mill Mountain Star is non-negotiable. You can't very well have The Star City without the Star. Also a restaurant and chain hotel would demand better access to their facilities than the narrow winding roads that are on Mill Mountain, which causes an infrastructure issue.

Even when you consider how hard it will be to pull all that off with a reliable funding source, you also have to consider demand. There is not a high demand for either of those types of facilities in the market. That kills anything like what you're saying they're proposing right in its tracks.

Marketing will only get you so far without visible growth in amenities. We've been constantly marketing the Star, the City Market and Center in the Square for years. Those will only get us so far by themselves.

Having a new art museum keeps the momentum going, along with the Link Museum, the proposed MLK Plaza, Ebony Club and Dumas Hotel renovation and the Rail Walk. None of this stuff is going to make much difference by itself but together it makes an impact.

Stated perfectly.

[RoanokeFound]

then there is no point in discussing it any further, enjoy the changes as they come.

[mclawsdrive]

There is an artical in the Roanoke Times today about a proposal by some 'movers and shakers' to put the art museum atop mill mountain. roanoke.com provides a poll to vote on the matter. While I agree that mill mountain is underutilized, i'm not sure I agree with the museum idea.

[StevenRocks]

If they want to make sure they disfigure the mountain and that nobody will visit the museum, I guess that's an idea.

[bmedguy]

Yeah, this is a really stupid idea and I sure hope the folks behind this who are making it happen will agree. Putting it up there would be a sure way to kill the museum as it is way out of the path of other attractions. The geniuses who cracked up this idea haven't a clue about good urban planning. As it currently stands, downtown would have the makings of a museum campus of sorts as the Transportation Museum, Science Museum, O. Winston Link Museum, and Art Museum would all be within walking distance of each other. This would only continue the trend towards attracting people to live downtown and thus lead to further development of shops, cafes, restruants etc. to support the growing number of both visitors and residents. Sticking this on top of the mountain does none of that and leaves it isolated in an area meant to be enjoyed for it's natural beauty.

[mclawsdrive]

Some people, including my mom, are concerned that the unique architectural style will conflict with the surrounding buildings. She could be right. But while most buildings downtown were built from the 1900s to 1920s, Roanoke has buildings representing many architectural styles from the 1880s to the present. There is no uniform architectural style that stands to be marred by the new museum. I think we'll have to wait and see the finished product before we truly know how the building will fit in with its neighbors.

[StevenRocks]

I've heard a lot of comments about the architecture of the museum around town. Basically, it comes down to personal taste. Modern architecture is really beautiful only to the eye of the beholder. One man's masterpiece is another's pile of junk.

It's not an historic building, and it's not meant to be, so why should it have to follow the rules of convention? What offends my design sensibilities more are buildings that are ment to evoke history or homliness but are badly done. There are more than enough examples of that around town already.

[GoodNews]

I might be late, but I like the model of this art museum. I think it brings a great new feel for this area.

[mclawsdrive]

I might be late, but I like the model of this art museum. I think it brings a great new feel for this area.

I get the impression that the building will be very visible and attract a lot of attention from drivers on 581/Williamson Rd. While I think the view is already quite interesting, I certainly don't object to additional objects of interest being placed in strategic locations to add to the visual mass of the downtown skyline. Even if the building is weird, I certainly think it is likely to entice some travelers to take a detour off the highway and check out downtown Roanoke.

[bmedguy]

Some people, including my mom, are concerned that the unique architectural style will conflict with the surrounding buildings. She could be right. But while most buildings downtown were built from the 1900s to 1920s, Roanoke has buildings representing many architectural styles from the 1880s to the present. There is no uniform architectural style that stands to be marred by the new museum. I think we'll have to wait and see the finished product before we truly know how the building will fit in with its neighbors.

You may have seen this already as it is a response I posted regarding the concerns expressed by RoanokeFound on the first page of this thread (never did get a response). If you have, I apologize for reposting, but if you haven't it summarizes my opinion on this. I wrote:

Is your concern that the modern feel doesn't fit in with the period of the rest of the surrounding architecture? I have heard people express concern that this would deter from the historic feel of the downtown area. I would have to disagree with that and here is why.

There is no question that it would be a mistake if say the market building or some other significant building was scheduled to be torn down in order to put this up. That is not the case. It is going up in a parking lot. The only thing lost is the Lonesome Dove building. Have you taken a close look? This is NOT a loss. It's on the verge of falling down on it's own and there is nothing unique about it. It's onlt merit is that it is old and Roanokers seem to have a very hard time saying goodbye to anything old even if is beyond it's time (but that's a whole other thread). Surface lots in cities are nothing but dead space that deter from the walkability and interest af a place. They kill urban environments and the more we lose the better.

If the argument is that it simply doesn't fit in..... well I think that is the whole point isn't it? Something that looks the same as the rest of the artchitecture around here would do nothing to add interest. Look at comments you see from out of towners (people who live in other urban areas) on various forums and most of the comments are how they are both surprised and impressed that such a structure is being built in Roanoke. They should be both. This is a structure that is extremely uncharacteristic of this city and I for one think that is fantastic. I believe we should want want to break the cycle of thinking of ourselves (and other people thinking of us) as old and incapable of change. This building screams 21st century and drags Roanoke into it.

The new architecture will not make the old any less interesting or feel any less historic. As an example, Trump Tower Chicago is going up in the sightline of the Wrigley Building (a beautiful 20's era skyscrapper). The new building will do nothing to detract from the old. It will only make the city continue to evolve and become more interesting.

[mclawsdrive]

I tend to agree. It is possible that the museum will not be the best possible visual compliment to the surrounding buildings, but we don't live in a perfect world with unlimited budgets. Given the lack of other more desireable sites downtown, the chosen site seems like the best choice. Additionally, parking lots, from a visual standpoint are far uglier to me than any gaudy building could ever be. Especially in downtowns, they are, as you said bmedguy, dead space.

Finally, while there is plenty of renovation and activity downtown, there is no significant new construction at this time. The new museum will be a visual reminder that downtown is changing.. for the better.

[StevenRocks]

The building's not really gaudy though, just different.

[mclawsdrive]

The building's not really gaudy though, just different.

Kinda like my mug shot huh?

No, I agree. The design actually looks really cool.

[burt]

Are they still fighting over the downtown site? Is actual ground breaking scheduled any time soon?

[bmedguy]

Are they still fighting over the downtown site? Is actual ground breaking scheduled any time soon?

I don't think there is any real fight going on. It was an idea that was floated that somehow made it to the front page of the paper and caused a little stir. The director of the museum was quoted as saying they had no plans to move the site and they were still hopeful to actually break ground by the end of March. I would like to believe it but experience has taught me to wait and see.

[erdogs]

for those of you that dont remember or dont know what it is going to look like:

Looks too cluttered, as if someone took a number of art projects and threw them in a pile. Still I definitely think it will be an eye catcher. When this gets built I will go see it and checkout the rest of Roanoke. If I see it in person I might change my mind.

[mclawsdrive]

I remember when the Wachovia tower was being built 'then called dominion tower' and many people were stating how ugly it was. Now after almost 15 years, it is regarded as one of Roanokes nicest buildings. Many people were upset about the pedestrian bridge as well, but now it is regarded by most as a success, and a nice addition visually to downtown.

The new museum looks strange, very strange. But at least it is eye-catching, to say the least, and is more appealing than the boring cube office buildings typical of many downtowns. Roanoke's downtown has a diverse skyline and this certainly won't detract from the diversity.

[bmedguy]

Looks too cluttered, as if someone took a number of art projects and threw them in a pile. Still I definitely think it will be an eye catcher. When this gets built I will go see it and checkout the rest of Roanoke. If I see it in person I might change my mind.

Love to have you come see us. The fact that you would like to check it out once it is built, in my mind says it will serve the purpose for which it was designed.

[mclawsdrive]

Looks too cluttered, as if someone took a number of art projects and threw them in a pile.

I think Roanoke is on the forefront of an emerging apocalyptic, post 911/katrina architectural style. The new museum will remind visitors of a taller art museum building felled by a missile or hurricane

[electricmonk]

I remember when the Wachovia tower was being built 'then called dominion tower' and many people were stating how ugly it was. Now after almost 15 years, it is regarded as one of Roanokes nicest buildings. Many people were upset about the pedestrian bridge as well, but now it is regarded by most as a success, and a nice addition visually to downtown.

The new museum looks strange, very strange. But at least it is eye-catching, to say the least, and is more appealing than the boring cube office buildings typical of many downtowns. Roanoke's downtown has a diverse skyline and this certainly won't detract from the diversity.

I remember all those arguments. Add to the list the lawsuits to stop the Roanoke Times from building their addition to house their new printing press. Some people that refurbished some places on Campbell Ave for residences were upset that the Times was blocking their view. They based their whole argument on the fact that the Times' building was being used to "manufacture" the newspaper and there was something in the city code about manufacturing in the downtown district. I thought it would have been funny as hell if they had won then someone else had come along and built a 20 story office building on the lot.