The sticking point in the commission revolved around a stipulation in the historic preservation ordinance for the neighborhood that requires new construction be “visually compatible” with the surrounding buildings and environment.
(Disclosure: the offending ordinance might have been adopted while I was mayor. Ugh.)
Disclosure: You are a paid consultant for developers who desire to violate Madison's historic district ordinances.
Posted by: Nick | December 04, 2009 at 07:31 AM
Add the Guggenheim to your gallery.
Posted by: Tim | December 04, 2009 at 08:00 AM
Every so often, the realization hits that committees/commissions are merely advisory to the Council. I seem to recall that only one commission is required by the state's constitution: a planning commission -- well, maybe also a police and/or PFC. Point is, it's always difficult for citizen appointees to hear that their deliberations and angst-ridden (and publicly reviewed) decision making might come before another body for still more deliberation and public decision making. The Council's perspective is sometimes more broad. It's not exactly being "overturned" when new and different information comes forth. It's not a vendetta and not a personal attack on anyone. (Easy for me to say -- I wasn't sitting on the LC on Monday)
Posted by: Judy Karofsky | December 04, 2009 at 08:04 AM
Maybe it's state law -- not constitution. Just a citizen, here.
Posted by: Judy Karofsky | December 04, 2009 at 09:06 AM
The Overture Center is not visually compatible with itself. Not there's anything wrong with that.
Posted by: Art Hackett | December 04, 2009 at 12:04 PM
The Eiffel Tower would have been a better example. The I.M. Pei pyramid is ugly and out-of-place and should have been stopped by some commission in Paris. They dropped the ball there.
Incidentally, Eiffel originally designed the tower for Barcelona, but Barcelona's city government thought it wasn't a good fit with existing city design - so he took it elsewhere. And it's iconic prominence in Paris is helped by the fact that Parisian restrictive zoning laws forbid taller buildings (Tour Montparnasse and the La Défense district excepting).
Posted by: Michael Basford | December 04, 2009 at 01:13 PM
Also, Judy, the Zoning Board of Appeals is required by the State (Wisconsin Statutes 62.23(7)(e)).
Posted by: Michael Basford | December 04, 2009 at 01:25 PM
Back to the Eiffel Tower, it was also heavily protested when it was proposed. From http://www.discoverfrance.net/France/Paris/Monuments-Paris/Eiffel.shtml .
"However, the controversial tower elicited some strong reactions, and a petition of 300 names — including those of Guy de Maupassant, Émile Zola, Charles Garnier (architect of the Opéra Garnier), and Alexandre Dumas fils — was presented to the city government, protesting its construction. The petition read, "We, the writers, painters, sculptors, architects and lovers of the beauty of Paris, do protest with all our vigour and all our indignation, in the name of French taste and endangered French art and history, against the useless and monstrous Eiffel Tower.""
Posted by: Michael Basford | December 04, 2009 at 02:06 PM
Thanks, Michael . . . that figures: PC and ZBA. Gotta have them both! Still -- not all those boards and commissions we have come to love.
Closer to home: Chicago is a world-class architectural mecca -- where styles are juxtaposed all over the place.
Posted by: Judy Karofsky | December 04, 2009 at 04:13 PM
interesting lines of reasoning and rational used here...to define it as you're presenting it... ALL proposed projects should be seen as appropriate? wow, how pollyanish of all of you...great "associative principal" at work...
pay no attention to the Man behind the Curtain who has paid some of you on this one....
Posted by: Troy Thiel | December 06, 2009 at 07:20 AM
I believe size and bulk are the key sticking points and your example may meet the standards for these.
Posted by: Thomas J. Mertz | December 06, 2009 at 12:45 PM