The Joslyn Art Museum (2200 Dodge St)

ita · Post by **ita** » Thu Oct 18, 2018 3:34 pm

skinzfan23 wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 2:16 pm An underground parking garage or even one on ground level with the building above it is a great idea.

I have no guesses on how parking. But I looked at a couple projects Snohetta design from the ground up, the Oslo Opera House and International Centre for Cave Art, and it looks like those are served by big parking lots. The Calgary Main Library, is being built over a light rail line. I hope they incorporate a more creative solution to parking as the project imagines additional and/or improved landscaping as well.

GetUrban · Post by **GetUrban** » Thu Oct 18, 2018 3:42 pm

bigredmed1 wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 3:10 pm
GrandpaaSmucker wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 2:32 pm Common sense dictates that building your new million dollar building over a parking garage would be creating a big problem. Now you have the potential for one of those cars to catch on fire and burn the whole place down. Is there going to be a guard at the entrance to the garage checking all vehicles to make sure they are not going to blow up from either malfunction or terrorist or lunatic?
Of greater concern is that underground parking is batcrap crazy money expensive to build (last I heard estimated was >$22,000 per stall.). You could build a remote lot and hire people to run an “art shuttle” to and from parking for less.

Not sure I would worry about burning it all down, but one has to wonder what a constant flow of car exhaust would do to the air handling needs to protect the art inside.

By law, the greatest concern of any architect is keeping people safe and preventing loss of life. I'd be surprised if they built the addition and exhibit space right over a parking garage although it can be done. More likely it will be a multi-story garage under an expanded sculpture garden and will have its own completely separate ventilation and fire suppression systems. It's unlikely they would ever make it possible to damage the museum space from and explosion or fire in the garage. No building is 100% safe, but they can mitigate damage by directing any potential blast force away from the museum exhibit space. The land is much more valuable for higher uses than surface parking lots.

Anyway, this is a very exciting project for Omaha. I'm glad to see they have put together such a good international/local design team lead by the world-renowned architecture firm Snohetta. The new addition must be a work of art itself to be worthy, but not overpower the original early 1930s John and Alan McDonald Art Deco building and Norman Foster addition.

ita · Post by **ita** » Thu Oct 18, 2018 4:19 pm

GetUrban wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 3:42 pm Anyway, this is a very exciting project for Omaha. I'm glad to see they have put together such a good international/local design team lead by the world-renowned architecture firm Snohetta. The new addition must be a work of art itself to be worthy, but not overpower the original early 1930s John and Alan McDonald Art Deco building and Norman Foster addition.

Looking over Snohetta's portfolio, I have no doubt it will be a striking building. They have a diverse portfolio, but some design elements I would like to see is the steep/sharp angles they seem to utilize in many projects and proposals, rather than another square building. That's just me though.

I'm wondering, though, if the new building will have some height to it, if the site ends up being where the current parking lot is. I am thinking about the lot's elevation from Dodge, which is where most passer-by's would likely see the new building. Merely conjecture, but I hope that we will be able to see this thing from both 24th and Dodge. Some of their projects are absolutely massive, which I know wouldn't fit the Joselyn, but I could see them building up to give it real presence and reduce square footage to be utilized for landscaping and some parking elements.

GetUrban · Post by **GetUrban** » Thu Oct 18, 2018 7:18 pm

ita wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 4:19 pm
GetUrban wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 3:42 pm Anyway, this is a very exciting project for Omaha. I'm glad to see they have put together such a good international/local design team lead by the world-renowned architecture firm Snohetta. The new addition must be a work of art itself to be worthy, but not overpower the original early 1930s John and Alan McDonald Art Deco building and Norman Foster addition.
Looking over Snohetta's portfolio, I have no doubt it will be a striking building. They have a diverse portfolio, but some design elements I would like to see is the steep/sharp angles they seem to utilize in many projects and proposals, rather than another square building. That's just me though.

I'm wondering, though, if the new building will have some height to it, if the site ends up being where the current parking lot is. I am thinking about the lot's elevation from Dodge, which is where most passer-by's would likely see the new building. Merely conjecture, but I hope that we will be able to see this thing from both 24th and Dodge. Some of their projects are absolutely massive, which I know wouldn't fit the Joselyn, but I could see them building up to give it real presence and reduce square footage to be utilized for landscaping and some parking elements.

Those are interesting points to ponder. Looking at images of their work, they all appear to be very well integrated with their sites. Sometimes where the site starts and where the building starts are indistinguishable. The building could end up looking like another prominent sculpture within an expanded sculpture garden, not even having to butt into the original Joslyn buildings above ground. The connections could all be made underground, much like I.M. Pei's pyramid at the Louvre. That is not to say that the new "addition" cannot be highly visible from Dodge and elsewhere as a "sculpture".

nativeomahan · Post by **nativeomahan** » Mon Oct 22, 2018 3:28 am

This is such an exciting, and important, addition to the Omaha arts scene. A modern art museum has been sorely absent from the present mix of museums. This is the type of downtown project that will draw people. Not just from within the community, but from the region and beyond, if the mix of art displayed is of the same caliber as the museum building itself. Let’s hope that Joslyn goes for a signature structure that we can all be proud of.

OmahaJaysCU · Post by **OmahaJaysCU** » Tue Oct 23, 2018 1:06 am

I'm really dreading the typical Omaha public backlash if they go with a modern addition. I want them to do something bold so badly but the Forgotten Omaha's of the world will flip over city leaders ruining history if they do...

MadMartin8 · Post by **MadMartin8** » Tue Oct 23, 2018 2:02 pm

OmahaJaysCU wrote: Tue Oct 23, 2018 1:06 am I'm really dreading the typical Omaha public backlash if they go with a modern addition. I want them to do something bold so badly but the Forgotten Omaha's of the world will flip over city leaders ruining history if they do...

I was thinking that exact same thing.

GrandpaaSmucker · Post by **GrandpaaSmucker** » Tue Oct 23, 2018 2:34 pm

OmahaJaysCU wrote: Tue Oct 23, 2018 1:06 am I'm really dreading the typical Omaha public backlash if they go with a modern addition. I want them to do something bold so badly but the Forgotten Omaha's of the world will flip over city leaders ruining history if they do...

I don't think people care too much as long as we are not paying for it.

bigredmed1 · Post by **bigredmed1** » Tue Oct 23, 2018 8:10 pm

OmahaJaysCU wrote: Tue Oct 23, 2018 1:06 am I'm really dreading the typical Omaha public backlash if they go with a modern addition. I want them to do something bold so badly but the Forgotten Omaha's of the world will flip over city leaders ruining history if they do...

Context:

1. We are not paying for it.
2. Those of us who lived through the 1970's era New York-o-philes have earned lifetime permission to look askance at any "modern" proposal as these frequently were only deemed cool if the art crowd in NYC thought they were cool. They may have been grossly impractical wastes of space, but they were NYC cool and dammit they were going to get built!
3. We are not paying for it.
4. As long as they don't ruin the existing building, or build some funked up |expletive| shack that we will all be forced to say is cool or face the rath of the PC police and the art fascists, then by all means build away.
5. Afterall, we are not paying for it.

Louie · Post by **Louie** » Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:17 pm

bigredmed1 wrote: Tue Oct 23, 2018 8:10 pm
OmahaJaysCU wrote: Tue Oct 23, 2018 1:06 am I'm really dreading the typical Omaha public backlash if they go with a modern addition. I want them to do something bold so badly but the Forgotten Omaha's of the world will flip over city leaders ruining history if they do...
Context:

1. We are not paying for it.
2. Those of us who lived through the 1970's era New York-o-philes have earned lifetime permission to look askance at any "modern" proposal as these frequently were only deemed cool if the art crowd in NYC thought they were cool. They may have been grossly impractical wastes of space, but they were NYC cool and dammit they were going to get built!
3. We are not paying for it.
4. As long as they don't ruin the existing building, or build some funked up |expletive| shack that we will all be forced to say is cool or face the rath of the PC police and the art fascists, then by all means build away.
5. Afterall, we are not paying for it.

1970s New York-o-philes? What is this in reference to?

OmahaJaysCU · Post by **OmahaJaysCU** » Tue Oct 23, 2018 11:33 pm

I don't know why everyone is assuming I'm unaware of who is paying for it. My point is that if you read things like OWH comments, Forgotten Omaha, Facebook comments on news stories, etc. there is a significant portion of the population that is adamantly against blending of architectural styles. Anytime a new development springs up on, say south 13th street for example, people HATE that buildings don't "fit" or aren't designed to look old.

That was my point. Who cares who is paying for it. I would prefer it be a bold design as opposed to a large marble box that matches. That's all.

GetUrban · Post by **GetUrban** » Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:36 pm

Based on the selection of Snohetta as the architect, I think it's safe to assume it won't simply be a copy of the original or Foster's addition. I like his addition though. It's really well-detailed if you look closely.

Not to say people won't voice criticism if it boldly breaks some new ground for Omaha, design-wise. I hope it does.

bigredmed1 · Post by **bigredmed1** » Thu Oct 25, 2018 12:19 pm

OmahaJaysCU wrote: Tue Oct 23, 2018 11:33 pm I don't know why everyone is assuming I'm unaware of who is paying for it. My point is that if you read things like OWH comments, Forgotten Omaha, Facebook comments on news stories, etc. there is a significant portion of the population that is adamantly against blending of architectural styles. Anytime a new development springs up on, say south 13th street for example, people HATE that buildings don't "fit" or aren't designed to look old.

That was my point. Who cares who is paying for it. I would prefer it be a bold design as opposed to a large marble box that matches. That's all.

You misunderstand the nature of the criticism. There are people who want that part of Omaha to have a certain feel. I imagine that if they were going to plant a big nasty McDonalds in the middle of Benson, you would react negatively. The buildings are glaringly out of place relative to the existing area and this results in choppy neighborhoods that lose a certain organic flow.

The other criticism (and IMHO, a more persuasive one) is that these styles of building are the trendy hip and now kind of buildings that are going to go the way of Victorian gingerbread or the soulless visage of the Bauhaus. We will be stuck with these buildings long past their sell by dates and that offends.

iamjacobm · Post by **iamjacobm** » Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:56 pm

Nice read on a recently completed Snøhetta designed building. Calgary's stunning new central library, article gives an insight into their design process.

https://www.citylab.com/design/2018/11/ ... rs/575032/

Its architectural features are almost overwhelming. Outside, the geometric, jewel-like windows twinkle like a pile of falling leaves while the cladding dramatically captures sunlight. And the reclined arch of the building—which mirrors the curve of the light rail line the building hovers above—evokes, depending on your perspective, a boat, womb, or eye. To enter, one walks within a massive red-cedar soffit that feels like a “cave of wood,” Dykers says. “All of the wood is steamed, and each piece is unique. That level of craftsmanship with wood is something I think is unique to this region of Canada,” he adds.

But Snøhetta’s design is best contemplated as a public space and a bridge—between Calgary’s affluent downtown and the less prosperous space to the east, and between people with the privileges of tech-friendly private space and those without.

That wooden cave entrance is a gateway across a divide. “It’s designed to allow people to walk freely between these two districts without having to enter the building,” Dykers says. “So, you pass through this wooden archway, over the tracks, and into the different parts of town. We’ll see a lot of people walking through this very generous public space.”

Professor Woland · Post by **Professor Woland** » Wed Dec 05, 2018 5:41 am

Ed Ruscha is gifting 18 of his own works and a number of works by other major contemporary American artists to the Joslyn. Between the Schrager Collection gift and this, there is a really solid core of Modern and Contemporary works. This, together with the new building will raise the Joslyn's profile in the art world. It's a testament to the Joslyn's leadership that they have been aggressively and successfully strengthening their collection of art from the last 70 years. Modern and Contemporary art aren't really my thing, but an encyclopedic museum like the Joslyn needs to have a good collection of it in order to fulfill its purpose. This will appeal to a number of local, regional, and national art lovers and will better enable the museum to carry out its educational mission.

ita · Post by **ita** » Wed Dec 05, 2018 4:13 pm

Professor Woland wrote: Wed Dec 05, 2018 5:41 am Ed Ruscha is gifting 18 of his own works and a number of works by other major contemporary American artists to the Joslyn. Between the Schrager Collection gift and this, there is a really solid core of Modern and Contemporary works. This, together with the new building will raise the Joslyn's profile in the art world. It's a testament to the Joslyn's leadership that they have been aggressively and successfully strengthening their collection of art from the last 70 years. Modern and Contemporary art aren't really my thing, but an encyclopedic museum like the Joslyn needs to have a good collection of it in order to fulfill its purpose. This will appeal to a number of local, regional, and national art lovers and will better enable the museum to carry out its educational mission.

I too saw the OWH article on this gift to the Joslyn. I am grateful we have this museum in our fair city, and open to the public for free, at least for now. This collection along with the other collection of modern art they recently received should form a solid base for their planned addition.

ita · Post by **ita** » Mon Jan 14, 2019 5:50 pm

Saw this article about the planned modern art addition. Snohetta architects met with the public yesterday. Did anyone happen to attend? Did you make sure to tell them it needs to be at least 10 stories tall?

https://www.wowt.com/content/news/Archi ... 00841.html

Cermak · Post by **Cermak** » Thu Jan 17, 2019 4:17 am

I like Joslyn and look forward to this new addition. But I can’t figure out where it will be built.Their doesn’t seem to be a lot of undeveloped land left around the museum.

skinzfan23 · Post by **skinzfan23** » Mon Feb 04, 2019 10:10 pm

From the recent World Herald Article:

The museum saw nearly 200,000 people pass through its doors in 2018, a 62 percent increase since 2010. Attendance in 2018 was 182,711.

ItsAllAboutMe · Post by **ItsAllAboutMe** » Tue Jul 23, 2019 8:39 pm

Site sampling in progress on East side of newer addition

daveoma · Post by **daveoma** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 7:40 am

ItsAllAboutMe wrote: Tue Jul 23, 2019 8:39 pm Site sampling in progress on East side of newer addition

Is that in their outdoor sculpture garden or the parking lot?

ItsAllAboutMe · Post by **ItsAllAboutMe** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 12:04 pm

The drilling was happening just on the northern edge of the sculpture garden.

ita · Post by **ita** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 2:24 pm

ItsAllAboutMe wrote: Thu Jul 25, 2019 12:04 pm The drilling was happening just on the northern edge of the sculpture garden.

Thanks for the update. I am hoping to see a plan by the end of the year or early next year. This project is huge for the City, maybe moreso than any highrise that is currently in the works, if it comes to fruition.

Omahacritic · Post by **Omahacritic** » Fri Aug 02, 2019 1:28 pm

Still a shame the museum is kind of boxed in. A truly innovative and love/hate exterior would be wasted on the north and east sides because it would be hidden, not seen from a distance.

I’d expect to see exterior something like The Getty, still spectacular, but then the jaw dropping architecture is the interior.

ItsAllAboutMe · Post by **ItsAllAboutMe** » Fri Nov 08, 2019 12:30 pm

I'm surprised that we haven't seen the plans/renderings for the new addition by now.

omahahawk · Post by **omahahawk** » Sat Nov 09, 2019 4:40 pm

I've been wondering about this for a while too and am assuming they are probably waiting until the funding is in the green light before releasing specific renderings. Also, assuming all parking will then be moved across the street to the Physicians Mutual side with the exception of any ADA or priority patron spaces.

PotatoeEatsFish · Post by **PotatoeEatsFish** » Wed Jan 22, 2020 4:45 am

Sorry for bumping this thread without any new info.
I was just curious if anyone here has heard anything about the rendering/funding for this?

ricko · Post by **ricko** » Tue Jan 28, 2020 3:27 am

PotatoeEatsFish wrote: Wed Jan 22, 2020 4:45 am Sorry for bumping this thread without any new info.
I was just curious if anyone here has heard anything about the rendering/funding for this?

I checked the Snohetta (architects chosen for the project) website a few weeks ago, and didn't see anything in their "proposed works" for the Joslyn. I hope this doesn't suffer the same fate as the Zaha Hadid/Sheldon Museum collaboration. That would have thrust Lincoln's reputation into the big league.

Chungus · Post by **Chungus** » Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:56 pm

Construction RFQ response from Kiewit w/ renderings and construction schedule.
Just found this by digging through google long enough.

https://www.behance.net/gallery/9651718 ... Art-Museum

TitosBuritoBarn · Post by **TitosBuritoBarn** » Wed Sep 30, 2020 8:05 pm

Nice find. A little different than what I was imagining. I wonder if the design has changed since the time that doc was put together.

According to their timeline they're already at least 5 months behind schedule.

ItsAllAboutMe · Post by **ItsAllAboutMe** » Thu Oct 01, 2020 2:59 pm

Fantastic find, I've been looking forward to seeing the renderings for the addition and I think it looks great. Now, I want to see the renderings for the interior.

ita · Post by **ita** » Thu Oct 01, 2020 6:07 pm

It's an interesting design. It's not groundbreaking, but it's bolder than most anything else in downtown. I do like that it doesn't mimic the cuboid design of the existing buildings and has several sweeps and curves on the face and rooftop. I would be interested to see where they are in the process. If they were accepting RFP's in July 2019, I would imagine they would have been moving forward by 2020 with one of the proposals.

ita · Post by **ita** » Thu Oct 01, 2020 6:10 pm

Louie · Post by **Louie** » Thu Oct 01, 2020 6:34 pm

Definitely glad to see its not a conservative design and they took a bit of a chance with it.

Cermak · Post by **Cermak** » Fri Oct 02, 2020 3:37 am

Impressive, wonder if they are still tweaking the design, that would explain why the renderings haven’t been released on a larger scale.

Fort Calhoun · Post by **Fort Calhoun** » Fri Oct 09, 2020 6:18 pm

The link to the RFQ response from Kiewit no longer works. Did anyone save it before it was deleted. l would like to see it

Omahacritic · Post by **Omahacritic** » Sat Oct 10, 2020 4:04 pm

@ Ita .... kind of agree. A bit more bold and interesting. Too much flat surface but the curve is nice. Would be interesting to see the merge with existing cube structure.

It is a good start. Now just need to keep getting more bold.

omaproud · Post by **omaproud** » Sat Oct 10, 2020 11:24 pm

I really wanted to love it, but I just don't like the way it totally hides the newer, architecturally significant Scott Pavilion Addition that has become such a part of the Joslyn experience, at least in this view.

GetUrban · Post by **GetUrban** » Sun Oct 11, 2020 2:16 pm

I agree with omaproud. It’s hard to tell from the straight-on east elevation, but I wish they could have done a more transparent connection that doesn’t hide Norman Foster’s Scott Pavillon addition quite so much. You could argue the Foster design was boring and he took the easy way out doing a respectful addition using the same marble as the original Joslyn, but it was meticulously detailed without unnecessary ornament, without copying the original. The new design is almost disrespectful of Foster’s design, and draws attention back the the original Joslyn, at least on the east elevation view. I was hoping the new design for this Addition would be more bold and be more like a free-standing piece of sculpture with more subtle connections to the existing. The way it is now, it’s almost like an alien metal-clad weed growing out of the Scott Pavilion atrium. But maybe that was their intent.

ita · Post by **ita** » Mon Oct 12, 2020 9:18 pm

GetUrban wrote: Sun Oct 11, 2020 2:16 pm I agree with omaproud. It’s hard to tell from the straight-on east elevation, but I wish they could have done a more transparent connection that doesn’t hide Norman Foster’s Scott Pavillon addition quite so much. You could argue the Foster design was boring and he took the easy way out doing a respectful addition using the same marble as the original Joslyn, but it was meticulously detailed without unnecessary ornament, without copying the original. The new design is almost disrespectful of Foster’s design, and draws attention back the the original Joslyn, at least on the east elevation view. I was hoping the new design for this Addition would be more bold and be more like a free-standing piece of sculpture with more subtle connections to the existing. The way it is now, it’s almost like an alien metal-clad weed growing out of the Scott Pavilion atrium. But maybe that was their intent.

I only focused on the design and not how it fit in with the existing structures. I was also envisioning a separate structure, but it makes sense to connect it to the existing museum; utilizing the atrium is probably the cheapest way to do it, maybe? We don't even know if this is moving forward as depicted in this RFP response.