Soldier Field Landmark Status: So What?
The Tribune media have hated the Soldier Field renovation since before it was built, a hate that seems wrapped up in their hate for Mayor Daley, and they're making hay now that the National Park Service has repealed the field's landmark status. But all the Tribune and WGN stories on this topic have failed to answer one key question: so what? What happens to a landmark that loses landmark status? As far as we can tell, nothing.
On WGN's story Saturday night, the Tribune-owned television station quoted Tribune architecture critic Blair Kamin's negative review of the stadium, as if to say, "I told you so." They showed a few awkward shots of Mayor Daley, as if the sky is falling and it's Daley's fault, and interviewed two Cubs fans and a token Sox fan who, like most people picked off the street for an interview, had no background on the story and no insight to offer.
Why didn't WGN also quote an architecture critic who many believe has a sharper eye for architecture, Herb Muschamp of the New York Times? Unlike Kamin, Muschamp noticed that Soldier Field captures the dual condition of the modern city: dynamic energy springing from a classical foundation. Here's some of what Muschamp wrote about the new Soldier Field:
A Cubune-Watch Nod to Charles Sheehan
We had to rub our eyes and slap ourselves, twice, to make sure we were awake. Charles Sheehan's Sunday story about the Cubs "garage sale" included this ethical disclosure:
We do have a couple questions for Sheehan. People who shopped at the garage sale, paying $25 and up for old bricks and pieces of wood left over from the bleacher renovation, were told "a portion" of the proceeds goes to Cubs Care charities. How big of a portion? And where does the rest go?
On WGN's story Saturday night, the Tribune-owned television station quoted Tribune architecture critic Blair Kamin's negative review of the stadium, as if to say, "I told you so." They showed a few awkward shots of Mayor Daley, as if the sky is falling and it's Daley's fault, and interviewed two Cubs fans and a token Sox fan who, like most people picked off the street for an interview, had no background on the story and no insight to offer.
Why didn't WGN also quote an architecture critic who many believe has a sharper eye for architecture, Herb Muschamp of the New York Times? Unlike Kamin, Muschamp noticed that Soldier Field captures the dual condition of the modern city: dynamic energy springing from a classical foundation. Here's some of what Muschamp wrote about the new Soldier Field:
I suspect that it won't be long before the city embraces the new field. The design's urban and architectural merits are considerable. Its conceptual qualities are better still. If you set out to write something bad about the design, you ultimately end up with a critique of the society that produced it. But the design is much more than a symptom of our time. It is a creative response to it.I suspect Muschamp is right, and Kamin is either a myopic critic or a Tribune lapdog. Kamin hates the Soldier Field renovation but adores the Wrigley Field renovation. Surprise, surprise.
A Cubune-Watch Nod to Charles Sheehan
We had to rub our eyes and slap ourselves, twice, to make sure we were awake. Charles Sheehan's Sunday story about the Cubs "garage sale" included this ethical disclosure:
Wrigley Field and the Cubs are owned by Tribune Co., which also owns the Chicago Tribune.It's standard practice among reputable newspapers to print such disclosures, but we've never seen it in the Tribune before. We criticize them for leaving it out, and we'll praise them for putting it in: kudos to Charles Sheehan for taking the high road.
We do have a couple questions for Sheehan. People who shopped at the garage sale, paying $25 and up for old bricks and pieces of wood left over from the bleacher renovation, were told "a portion" of the proceeds goes to Cubs Care charities. How big of a portion? And where does the rest go?
posted by Chicago Cubune Watch permalink
