|Millennium Park is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.|
|Millennium Park is the main article in the Millennium Park series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.|
|This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 1, 2011.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on July 16, 2009 and July 16, 2014.|
- 1 Financial Information
- 2 dissent...
- 3 Commercial photography ban
- 4 Featured Topic Drive
- 5 Budget Reference?
- 6 Pages needed for rewrite
- 7 Movies and TV shows
- 8 Not part of Grant Park
- 9 Green roof
- 10 Pictures
- 11 Truncation
- 12 Orphaned references in Millennium Park
- 13 Hundreds Visit Crown Fountain
- 14 Images in the Background section
- 15 Caption
- 16 Robert Israel
I moved the budget overrun section here to the talk page temporarily to work on piecing together a more comprehensive article as the project has now been officially completed. The budget overrun section, written by Toytoy, will be reintroduced into the article. --Gerald Farinas 14:57, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The project was known for its notorious delays (it was originally intended to open in 2000 instead of 2004) and tripled costs. This park, in John Bryan, a fundraiser's words, would "be a monument to the very essence of the city of Chicago." It contains notable structures and gardens built by some of the best architects and designers available, and has a Frank Gehry-designed bandshell.
Many structures in the park were added, redesigned or modified. This resulted in budget increase. For example, the band shell's proposed budget was $10.8 million. It becomes $60.3 million in the end.
|Project||Proposed Cost||Final Cost||%|
|Garage||$87.5 million||$105.6 million||121%|
|Metra superstructure||$43.0 million||$60.6 million||141%|
|Band shell||$10.8 million||$60.3 million||558%|
|Music and Dance Theater||$20.0 million||$60.0 million||300%|
|Park finishes/landscaping||N/A||$42.9 million||-|
|Design and management costs||N/A||$39.5 million||-|
|Endowment||$10.0 million||$25.0 million||250%|
|Crown Fountain||$15.0 million||$17.0 million||113%|
|BP Pedestrian Bridge||$8.0 million||$14.5 million||181%|
|Lurie Garden||$4.0-8.0 million||$13.2 million||330%-165%|
|SBC sculpture||$6.0 million||$11.5 million||192%|
|Exelon Pavilions||N/A||$7.0 million||-|
|Peristyle/Wrigley Square||$5.0 million||$5.0 million||100%|
|Bank One Promenade||$6.0 million||$4.0 million||67%|
|McCormick Tribune ice rink||$5.0 million||$3.2 million||64%|
|Misc. (fencing, terraces, graphics)||N/A||$1.6 million||-|
I don't see anything postmodern about Millennium Park. If anything we could consider it "ultra-modern" or "wow-factor" modern. I don't know what this type of Gehry architecture is called, but it is certainly not postmodern. Postmodern architecture draws on historical themes and style, and adds a modern "twist" to them. There isn't any historical reference in the band shell, just references to Gehry's other work.
I think in this sense "postmodern" serves as an ambiguous term referring to all contemporary architecture -- novel (i.e., not derivative) structures designed after the modern period. -- Downward spiral of death 23:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Commercial photography ban
Does the ban on commercial photography have ramifications for GFDL licensing? Based on the article's source , it would appear that there are. Any thoughts? NatusRoma | Talk 06:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- There is currently no ban on commercial photography in Millennium Park, rather the copyrights for the artworks in the park are still held by the artists. Under US copyright law there is no freedom of panorama for sculptures (although there is for buildings), so photographs of the artworks in Millennium Park are considered derivative works and only the artist can give permission for the publication of such works. ASAIK, the City of Chicago started trying to enforce a commercial photography ban, in part at least, because the city paid the artists for an exclusive licence to sell such derivative works. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, photographs of the artworks in the park should only appear here under claims of fair use. --JeremyA 18:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Featured Topic Drive
I feel that the attractions at Millennium Park deserve some editorial attention. I think it may be possible to improve them to WP:FT status. I have created the template below to help us understand how the related articles are progressing. Right now we have Crown Fountain, Jay Pritzker Pavilion, BP Pedestrian Bridge, and Lurie Garden. There is a long way to go. Crown Fountain will be renominated after it ends its current WP:PR. There is a lot of work to do. Next up for me will be McCormick Tribune Plaza/Ice rink. I am not sure how much is out there beyond Chicago press on this one. The impetus for the drive came after discussions with User:Torsodog about our common interests in Lakeshore East and Millenium Park. He is doing a good job of cleaning up Cloud Gate. It will be on its way to WP:GAC soon, I imagine.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be a reference for the budget table. There is some important information there, and I went to source the Cloud Gate portion for its article, but I couldn't seem to find any reliable source stating that the original budget was $6 million. Anyone know where this info was originally found? Torsodog (talk) 05:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Pages needed for rewrite
Movies and TV shows
I got a list of movies and TV shows that have obtained consent to shoot in Millennium Park. Many of these movies have not been released yet, but if WP:RS make any reference to them being shot there add them to the aritcle. Here is what I have so far for movies: Nothing Like the Holidays also filmed at McCormick Plaza. The 2008 Beau Jest, He's such a girl shot in Millennium Park.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Not part of Grant Park
- The park is indeed located in the area of Grant Park. From the Millennium Park official site: "What is now Millennium Park was first conceived in 1998 with the mission of creating new parkland in Grant Park to transform the unsightly railroad tracks and parking lots that had long dotted the lakefront." --TorsodogTalk 22:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, the reason why there are height restrictions and restrictions on buildings in MP (eg. why Harris theater is built underground and why the Pritzker Pavilion is labeled "not a structure") is because legally it is part of Grant Park and is governed by the Montgomery Ward cases. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- What green roof are you referring to? I can't really think of any green roof... --TorsodogTalk 02:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think the fact that there's a parking garage (and streets!?) underneath makes it a "rooftop garden," if I understood that correctly. It's kind of odd, but much of Chicago's Loop seems to be built on two levels... This should be made clear if that's indeed the case, but I really don't know the specifics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone have access to AON? I believe a newer picture, including the newly completed Modern Wing of the Art Institute of Chicago, along with its bridge that starts right across from the Pritzker lawn, would be nice.
Why has so much of the information on the park been removed by JVCDude? I don't see a reason listed, and some of the other information, such as amenities and the controversies, would seem quite relevant, especially as this article was featured.
Orphaned references in Millennium Park
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Millennium Park's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "PVA":
- From Jay Pritzker Pavilion: Deyer, Joshua (2005). "Chicago's New Class Act" (PDF). PN. Paralyzed Veterans of America. Retrieved 2007-12-21.
- From Crown Fountain: Deyer, Joshua (July 2005). "Chicago's New Class Act" (PDF). PN. Paralyzed Veterans of America. Retrieved 2007-12-21.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Hundreds Visit Crown Fountain
The article states that hundreds of Chicagoans visit Crown Fountain hoping to see themselves on one of the two screens, citing the Chicago Sun-Times (fn. 96). While the reference does describe how almost a thousand Chicagoans appear randomly on the screens, I don't see where it says that hundreds visit to see themselves. (The title of the Sun-Times article states that "many" have yet to see their own image, while the body of the article refers to "several" people who have not seem themselves.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinnochle (talk • contribs) 00:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Images in the Background section
The first four images in the gallery are ones that have been or currently are in the Background section of the article. I like the image of Lake Front Park (1) as it is discussed in the article and all of what is shown is now part of MP. I am not very fond of 2, as it is almost all the Art Institute and park south of MP - if you divided the image into 9 parts, MP would be less than 1/9th. 3 and 4 are of rail yards in Grant Park, but do not show much or any of what became MP - they are not in the article now.
I have been on top of Sears Tower several times in the past and looked for photos I had taken. I found one from Sears Tower taken in 1981 (6 in the gallery) that I like, and unexpectedly found I had also taken a photo of the rail lines in the part of Grant Park that later became Millennium Park (5 in the gallery).
What should be in this section of the article? I think 1 is good to include (see above for my reasons). I would leave out 2 as we already have one image from that era and it shows very little of what became MP. I would also not include 3 and 4 as they show very little or nothing of what became MP. I would have 1, then would have the image map, then one or perhaps two more images. I like 5 and 6 both. Should they be in a multiple image template? Also, could someone who knows Chicago better than I make sure I have identified 5 correctly? Please also weigh in on which images to include in this section. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- I endorse your selections 1, 5 and 6 in a T:MI.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- You ask: "What should be in this section of the article?"
- We are covering 150 plus years of the history of this corner of Grant Park (former Lake Front Park) in this section. So, if we wish to cover that history, we begin with Michigan Boulevard as the Lake Front. In 1852, the railroad came in on a causeway in the lake. (And Chicago, of course, owes much to that railroad.) The area between Michigan Avenue and the railroad tracks was filled in and the US gave the right of way for that land to the City for a Park ("forever free and clear") (see Ward lawsuits). The city raised its entire Loop grade, including the Park above the railroad tracks. The city built a ball park and then a museum. Eventually the ball park was removed and the Burnham plan was executed giving the 1/4 of what is today Millennium Park, that area closest to Michigan Avenue, a Beaux Arts, City Beautiful design, similar to what you find in today's south Grant Park. See the section on the todays new (replaced) Peristyle on Wrigley Square and the attached picture:
I like image 2 (above) because it tells much of that history. The image that does not belong in the history section is the map of today's MP (as well as pictures 3 and 4). The map should be given its own section entilted "Map." I have no issue with the other new pictures (I don't know if you need both) except that unfortunately we don't have pictures of what the park area was like closest to Michigan Avenue just before redevelopment to tell the full story, here (and it was quite beautiful).Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- You also asked about your description of new pictures
- 6 does not show all of the area of Millennium Park because the buildings block view of the area closest to Michigan Ave. (You may consider linking 6 in a gallery to the picture in the article's next section that shows almost exactly the same angle post development).
- For 5, you describe it this way in the uploaded attached picture summary:
- "Rail Yards in Grant Park, Chicago, Illinois, USA in 1981. View is from Monroe Street (just north of the Art Institute) looking north on the bridge over the rail lines in Grant Park (so Michigan Avenue is to the left). This later became Millennium Park and the foreground is what became Chase Promenade South and Boeing Gallery South, with what became Crown Fountain at left."
- This description is incorrect. Assuming you took this from Monroe, looking north, you would be looking into what became Chase Promenade but not Boeing Gallery. Boeing would be to the left in picture 6 but the Crown Fountain area (further to the left) cannot be seen, at all. Boeing is directly across from the Art Institute wing to the west of the railroad tracks. If you look at a Satellite picture, you can confirm this.Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback and sorry to be slow in responding. I have corrected the image 5 description on Commons to reflect what you said. I was not sure if the location of the tracks had changed somewhat since 1981.
- I am well aware that image 6 does not show all of what became Millennium Park, but it does show much more of what became the park than does the 1893 Art Institute sketch. It is also the best free view of much of that part of Grant Park (pre-MP) that has been found so far (I was on top of the Sears Tower with a camera on several occasions before the park was built and I may find a better image eventually). I had also noticed that it was similar to the view in File:Millennium Park from Sears Tower.jpg, but the two are different enough that I would not want to put them side by side.
- There is always a question of where to begin with history. I note that the section is called Background (and not History) and does start with the railroad in 1852. Since the article is about a park built on land controlled by the railroad for over a century, that seems a reasonable place to start. Much of what you mention above is already in the article in some form. I ma not sure that the Michigan Boulevard is the old lake shore, railroad on a causeway at first, park reclaimed by landfill and then raised up needs to be in the Background section (does it really help increase the reader's understanding?). If it is included it will need to have refs to relaible sources (thoug I know Gilfoyle covers much of this). I do see your point about the 1893 Art Institute image showing the lake much closer to shore etc.
- Finally, as for the map, the background section briefly describes some of the park's important features and also describes some of what has happened in the neighborhood since the park opened. I think that the image map is useful where it is now to help the reader understand where things are within the park in relation to each other - it helps coming before the descriptions of the features. I was bold and tried a new arrangement of images in the section. Let me know what you all think, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The videos displayed on Crown Fountain fade to black every 15 minutes.
This is a poorly expressed caption. Make the interesting information the topic of the sentence. The fact that videos are displayed is interesting. The fact that they fade out after 15 minutes is just possibly the most boring piece of information that could be stated, true though it may be. Amandajm (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks - I think the problem is that people who have seen the fountains are used to images showing the video faces displayed. Due to WP:NFCC and limited use of fair use images on Wikiepdia, the FAC image review did not think such a fair use image was allowed in the article (there is one in the article on Crown Fountain) but an image of the faded to black display with water cascading down it was felt to be OK. So the caption is trying to explain what is going on in the picture shown. Any specific suggestions for improvement are welcome. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Who is the "Robert Israel" mentioned in the template? I ask because right now the only Robert Israel on Wikipedia is a redirect, and it refers to a San Diego lighthouse keeper. Obviously not the person intended with this template. Either an article should be written about the Robert Israel who had something to do with Millennium Park, or else the name should be deleted from the template. --MelanieN (talk) 23:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)