New Dallas Museum of Nature & Science original, but not natural

by Patrick Kennedy of Walkable Dallas-Fort Worth

It's coming along, but I don't think "nicely" would describe it.

Photo by Patrick Kennedy

The future Perot Museum of Nature & Science

Got a glimpse of the under-construction and relocating Dallas Museum of Nature & Science, which ironically (and surely as intended) looks completely unnatural and not of science, and it's, um, coming along I suppose.

I don't think "nicely" would describe it, but my opinion was set before the first spade hit the dirt for a building emblematic of our predicament as a Sun Belt city, a young city, with early onset of Alzheimer's. It's been so long since we knew how to build cities, when it was intuitive, a part of tradition, when it was just "in the air" and everyone knew how to do it, because that is the way it was always done.

It's also indicative of a fundamental problem within the architecture and design professions, where standing out is all that is necessary for something to be outstanding. Where the individual is valued and strove for more than the sum of the parts. But you can't escape that sum of parts. It is innate. It is what produces that increment that is the reason for cities in the first place.

Sure, there is a place for the outstanding, things to be celebrated, barriers bested (i.e. triumphs of human achievement politically, scientifically, structurally, culturally) and in order to stand out, it ought to be a centerpiece, on a platform of the normal, not amongst a cacophony of similarly screaming children. Baroque city layouts work well in doing this (see: DC and Paris). Nor is it a mere billboard. Something to be admired or questions ("the F is that?") whilst zipping by on the way to Costco. A cherry on top of a vanilla ice cream. But that cherry ideally is natural as well, not produced in a Frankensteinian laboratory for the pursuit of the original.

Pegasus News Content partner - Walkable Dallas-Fort Worth

justinwbitner, anonymous:

I really admire Kennedy's attempt to throw a negative light on the new Nature and Science Museum, but how isn't this everything that he is lobbying for?

The building doesn't look scientific enough? Last I checked, we are flying through the supertech age, and I can't think of anything more fitting than a geometric, imposing structure to demonstrate this.

The building doesn't have enough "nature"? If you can wait until they actually finish, you'll find that the roof will have "An acre of rolling roofscape comprised of native drought-resistant grasses which reflect Texas’ indigenous landscape" (museum website).

And to your point on the "cacophony of similarly screaming children," who else do you think is going to go to a science museum? You are railing so hard for a walkable city yet the only people you want walking in it are high-minded 25-and-ups with no kids or cars.

While I understand this is probably just your "semi-serious slant" at play, I find this argument entirely too weak. If you want to criticize the building, maybe talk about how it looks almost exactly like the Wyly Theatre less than a mile away. The build-out (roof, escalator, etc) will soften this striking similarity, but it's still very noticeable.

Since you offer no suggestion as to how better to utilize the space, here's one that you might love: a nice, big parking garage.