Robert A.M. Stern to design Bush Library Center at SMU

[Jasonik]

A rendering shows the main entrance of Robert A.M. Stern’s George W. Bush Presidential Center.


A muddled Bush Presidential Center is revealed in this model view.
Stern’s design calls for red brick and limestone facing.

This small image roughly shows the scale of the library. I can't make out the orientation of Stern's design, though I'd guess the 'portico' faces South.


LARA SOLT/DMN
This 4-year-old model shows the proposed location,
not the design, of the The George W. Bush Presidential
Center on the SMU Campus on each side of the corner
of Central Expressway and SMU Boulevard.

*****
University Park to conduct traffic analysis of George W. Bush library site, Chase Bank near Snider Plaza

09:27 PM CDT on Sunday, October 25, 2009
By LORI STAHL / The Dallas Morning News

A new traffic study commissioned by the Bush Foundation concluded that the "existing transportation system can adequately accommodate" the new presidential library – but University Park officials are withholding judgment for at least a couple of weeks.

The Bush Foundation analysis, which a Dallas consulting firm completed this month, recommended only two relatively minor improvements to help situate the planned presidential center on the eastern edge of Southern Methodist University.

But officials in University Park say they don't know yet whether that study looked at the full range of potential traffic problems associated with building the 225,000-square-foot presidential center at SMU.

To help evaluate that, University Park has just hired a traffic consultant to work with the city's small staff. The consultant will analyze the Bush Foundation's recently submitted zoning application, as well as an unrelated proposal to redevelop the Chase Bank building near Snider Plaza.

"We'll ask him to provide us his comments and what are the good things, what are the bad things, what other things should be added? That stuff," said Bud Smallwood, University Park's Public Works director.

The consultant, Jody Short, will meet with city staff this week. Smallwood said city officials hope to share the consultant's results with the Bush Foundation and the Snider Plaza developer by Nov. 10.

That's the date of the first public hearing on both proposals.

"We want them to know what we feel, if there are any deficiencies in their traffic impact analysis," Smallwood said.

The Bush Foundation's study assumes that the library will draw 250,000 visitors a year. During the week, about 55 percent of the visitors are expected to arrive by car, with 35 percent coming by bus.

The study apparently looked at several intersections near the library site to reach its conclusion.

The engineering firm that conducted the traffic analysis would not discuss the study, referring calls to the Bush Foundation. An immediate response was not available.

Meanwhile, some homeowners near the library site said they were somewhat skeptical of the Bush-funded study.

"This basically says there isn't going to be any impact," said Tom Bowen, whose home is just north of the site.

Bowen and some other residents – who are primarily worried about two planned library parking lots – say they hope University Park will conduct its own traffic study.

The Bush Foundation's study, which was conducted by DeShazo, Tang & Associates, made two "discretionary recommendations" to improve "traffic flow in the vicinity of the site – especially that of local residential traffic – and to improve overall safety."

One called for better access, primarily through signage, for the visitor parking lots so that drivers don't travel through the residential neighborhood. The other called for restriping the southern leg of the intersection of SMU Boulevard and Dublin Street to create two northbound approach lanes.

"This recommendation will reduce the average vehicle delay of northbound traffic," the report states.

*****

Judge rejects deal to settle dispute over land near Bush library

1:05 PM CT on Tuesday, November 3, 2009
By LORI STAHL / The Dallas Morning News

The deal to end a lawsuit over land at the Bush presidential library was tossed aside today by a judge who said Southern Methodist University and its legal foe never had a clear agreement on the terms.

After listening to arguments for more than an hour from SMU and Gary Vodicka, a former owner of condominiums near the library site, State District Judge John L. McCraw Jr. ruled that a July settlement agreement between the parties was unenforceable.

McCraw's ruling seemed to dim the prospect of an immediate resolution of the case.

Lawyers for SMU insist that they need full title to the disputed land in order for the George W. Bush presidential library to proceed.

The Bush Foundation recently asked the University Park City Council to rezone the library site, and details of the library’s design are expected to be released later this month.

“They need to know what land they’ve got title to and what land they don’t so they can make the best possible decisions,’’ Mark Lanier, a Houston lawyer representing SMU, said in oral arguments before the ruling.

SMU and Vodicka have been at odds over when and how title was to be transferred. SMU wants Vodicka to agree to a judgment saying that his four units were included in the SMU’s purchase of the University Gardens Condominiums several years ago.

For his part, Vodicka insisted that the agreement struck in July didn’t call for the title to be conveyed that way. After he filed the lawsuit in 2005, Vodicka gave fractional ownerships to three different people, some of whom later declared bankruptcy.

It has been unclear whether those people can assert their own claim on tiny portions of the disputed land, even if Vodicka resolves his dispute now.

By agreeing to accept the judgment SMU seeks, Vodicka would essentially be saying that he didn’t own the property at the time when he gave away those fractional ownerships.

That, in turn, would enable SMU to get the clear title its lawyers say it needs to develop the property as landscaped grounds for the Bush library.

Another condo owner who was a party to the case, Dr. Robert Tafel, settled with SMU last month for an undisclosed sum.

[spyguy999]

http://www.star-telegram.com/photos/...y/1772379.html

Robert A.M. Stern Architects


This architect's rendering of the design of the Bush presidential library at SMU shows Freedom Plaza, the entrance to the museum and archives. It was formally unveiled Wednesday.

This architect's rendering of the design of the Bush presidential library at SMU shows the institute entrance. The 225,000-foot building will house George W. Bush's presidential papers in a library, and will also include a museum and a policy institute.


The Texas Rose Garden, as depicted in the architect's rendering of the design of the Bush presidential library. It was formally unveiled Wednesday.


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/cult...-unveiled.html

[kz1000ps]

That last pic makes it look like the combination of a 1960s high school and something Hitler would've commissioned.

[lofter1]

Speer would have put together something much better.

[Jasonik]

[lofter1]

Now it's perfect!

[kz1000ps]

Bravo!

[Codex]

The George W. Bush Center For Kids Who Can't Read Good

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmb...orgewzoolander



It's going to have to be at least three times this size George

[lofter1]

New Bush Exhibit Opens Rift at S.M.U.

NY TIMES
By MICHAEL BRICK
October 21, 2010

DALLAS — For the first two years, George W. Bush managed his return to private work in Texas as a quiet transition.

While anonymous donors put his photograph on highway billboards that say “Miss Me Yet?” Mr. Bush all but shuttered his ranch near Crawford, scene of some of the more spectacular protests against his administration, moving instead to a quiet cul-de-sac in the upscale Preston Hollow enclave of Dallas. He even waited until his beloved Texas Rangers began their current baseball playoff run to openly attend games.

But now Mr. Bush is bringing out the bullhorn.

"Breaking New Ground: Presenting the George W. Bush Presidential Center,” an exhibit set to open this weekend on the campus of Southern Methodist University, prominently features the handgun taken from Saddam Hussein and the loudspeaker used to address rescue workers at the World Trade Center in September 2001.

The choice of mementos, emphasizing some of the more controversial foreign policy aspects of the Bush presidency, has reinvigorated opposition to the center’s presence at the university.

“It’s the approach they’ve taken all along; it fits their worldview,” said the Rev. William K. McElvaney, a professor emeritus of preaching and worship at the university. “It’s a tragedy for S.M.U. to hitch its star to this.”

The exhibit, open through February at the Meadows Museum, roughly coincides with both the release of Mr. Bush’s memoir, “Decision Points,” and the Nov. 16 groundbreaking for the 225,000-square-foot center, which will include a presidential library and a policy foundation, the George W. Bush Institute.

Antiwar groups have announced plans to protest the groundbreaking, and Mr. McElvaney said other demonstrations were in the planning stages. Campus police are aware of the plans, said Kent Best, a spokesman for the university.

Brad Cheves, vice president for external affairs at Southern Methodist, said the university was working with the Bush foundation, police and protest groups.

“We’re preparing across the university for the groundbreaking day, which will be a historic event on our campus,” Mr. Cheves said.

“It’s going to, we hope, reflect well of S.M.U., Dallas and the Bush Center.”

While Mr. Bush maintains considerable support in Texas, his effort to build a presidential center at the university has raised opposition from the start. For nearly two years, a group of Methodist ministers, historians and teachers sought to prevent the university from leasing land for the center to the National Archives and Records Administration. Of particular concern was the institute, which would operate on university grounds but outside its academic controls.

In 2008, the South Central Jurisdiction of the United Methodist Church agreed to support the lease, on the condition that university officials monitor the institute’s effect on scholarship.

The new opening exhibit, some Methodist leaders said, provides a disturbing first glimpse into the presidential center’s priorities.

“I hope that a bullhorn will not become the symbol for the entry of the United States into an unjustified war and that a pistol of Saddam Hussein’s is not seen as some strange symbol of victory in that horrendous misjudgment,” said Tex Sample, an elder in the Methodist Church who helped lead the opposition to the Bush Institute’s placement at S.M.U. “That these should be the symbols of the values and commitments of the Bush administration and should now become the face of Southern Methodist University is cause for alarm.”

On campus, where nearly 5,000 supporters are expected to attend the groundbreaking, others seemed less concerned.

Austin Prentice, vice president of the student body, described Mr. Bush’s choice of the university as “an incredible honor.”

Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company

[gillianreynolds]

I've been fascinated by the discussion since architects rarely connect their views on national politics to design so specifically. By my count, of responses posted before the end of the year, 40 were critical of Bush's presidential policies; 35 were critical of the design (of these, 20 were critical of both); 15 appreciated the design or presidential policies; and 18 were critical of other posters who commented on the Bush policies (only 2 of these overlapped). Adjusting for double-counting, 64% of posters were critical and 36% were supportive.

Is there some substance to the claim that architects are overwhelmingly liberal? On the one hand, anti-Bush comments were twice as numerous as pro-; on the other hand, most posters of the pro-Bush camp were more upset at the negative posters than actively defending Bush's presidential record, suggesting that pro-Bush viewpoints are more motivated by resentment than anything else. To me, the anti-liberal voices pretend they are outnumbered far worse than 2-to-1 -- they seem to be unfairly claiming the role of underdog or persecuted minority, especially given the prominence of conservative voices and policies in American media and governance. Or at least that's my take on it.

And is it fair to critique the building through the lens of Bush's presidential policies? In this discussion, more posts were spent on politics than design (58 to 50). I think that the more highly charged the political atmosphere of a project, whether positive or negative, the less objective one can be in assessing the quality of the design. For people who are deeply hurt by the Bush policies, even an excellent design can not transcend their ire -- nor should it (in my opinion). For Bush supporters, it is very hard to be critical of a disappointing design in the face of significant opposition that one does not want to be associated with. I think the profession has to accept that political assessments are inseparable from politically-charged projects.

It will be interesting to see how history treats the Bush legacy and how this building project will participate in that. I think the resentment the project caused during its siting, not to mention the 2-1 vote against the project here, indicate that history will not be kind. Just today, economic assessments indicated that the 2000's were the first decade ever in which average U.S. household income decreased and the worst decade since 1900 for total stock market performance. While the President does not direct the U.S. economy, I think that U.S. government trade policies, R&D, taxes, and subsidies set the stage for this dismal performance. To share a bit of my own political views, I consider Guantanamo, the Iraq war, and inaction on global warming to be crimes against humanity; we'll see how history treats those.

[lofter1]

Architecture sends a message.

One thing we now know: There won't be much of an exhibit in the Bush II Library regarding Osama Bin Laden.

Wonder if that will require a re-design of certain interior spaces?

[ZippyTheChimp]

George W. Bush Presidential Library Set To Open May 1

The Huffington Post | By Gabrielle Dunkley Posted: 03/25/2013 1:10 pm EDT

The George W. Bush Presidential Library will open to the public on May 1, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported Monday.

The library honoring the 43rd president of the United States is located at Southern Methodist University, former first lady Laura Bush's alma-mater, in Dallas. An invitation-only audience will get a first look at the 226,560 square-foot center on April 25.

The library is the third presidential library built in Texas, following the libraries honoring George H. W. Bush and Lyndon B. Johnson. The Star-Telegram reports that many of Bush's personal items will be displayed at the library's museum, including cowboy hats, boots, 4 million photos and close to 70 million documents. The center, which took two and a half years to build, will also house a pubic policy institute, a 15-acre park and the George W. Bush Foundation's offices.

President Barack Obama is still weighing options for the location of his presidential library.

"It is a tough choice, but it's not one that I've made yet," Obama said in February.

The 44th president calls both Hawaii and Illinois home. Universities and community groups in both states have already started campaigning in an effort to sway Obama to choose their location for the library's site.

Copyright © 2013 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc


Exactly ten years later.

Was it picked intentionally?

[ZippyTheChimp]

On the occasion of the opening of the George W Bush library at SMU, revisionism is in full swing with lame attempts to convince everyone that he wasn't one of the worst presidents of all time.

At the top of the list is the blogger hired by the Washington Post a few years ago, Jennifer Rubin. I posted an article about her after the 2012 Presidential election. After a running commentary praising the Romney campaign, she wrote a piece after the election that tossed Romney and his staff under the bus, contradicting what she had written for months.

Now she claims Bush is Back, selectively leaving out key time periods - like the first and last year of his presidency.

Jennifer Rubin: "Bush Is Back"

Blog ››› April 23, 2013 12:30 PM EDT ››› SIMON MALOY

Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin is seizing on a recent poll showing that George W. Bush's approval numbers are up to declare "Bush is back," arguing that America is starting to appreciate Bush's policies in the light of what she calls the "rotten" Obama presidency. To make her case, Rubin neatly excises from Bush's record every single massive failure and disaster that resulted in Bush leaving office as one of the least popular presidents in history.

Rubin managed to cram so much misinformation and nonsense into seven short paragraphs that it's tough to pick a place to start, but this one is worthy of special attention:

Why the shift? Aside from the "memories fade" point, many of his supposed failures are mild compared to the current president (e.g. spending, debt). Unlike Obama's tenure, there was no successful attack on the homeland after 9/11. People do remember the big stuff -- rallying the country after the Twin Towers attack, 7 1/2 years of job growth and prosperity, millions of people saved from AIDS in Africa, a good faith try for immigration reform, education reform and a clear moral compass.

"Aside from the 'memories fade' point, many of his supposed failures are mild compared to the current president (e.g. spending, debt)." Funny thing about those "spending" and "debt" failures of Obama's that make Bush's supposedly seem so mild: Bush-era policies are responsible for the lion's share of the current public debt and will continue exacerbating the debt situation long after President Obama has left office.

"Unlike Obama's tenure, there was no successful attack on the homeland after 9/11." This is false. There were a number of successful terrorist attacks between 9-11 and the end of the Bush presidency, most prominently the DC-area sniper attacks of 2002. But I'm dodging the real problem, which is the phrase "after 9/11." Her argument -- an argument she's made before -- is that the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history, despite happening on Bush's watch, doesn't count against Bush. Why? She doesn't say. Rubin doesn't allow Obama any terrorism Mulligans, calling his record "spotty at best with Benghazi, Libya, Boston and Fort Hood."

"People do remember the big stuff." It's possible that Bush's failed (but "good faith") push for immigration reform features more prominently in the American consciousness than, say, Hurricane Katrina (which Rubin doesn't mention), but that seems unlikely. As for the "7 1/2 years of job growth and prosperity," that might not be as well remembered as the devastating global financial crisis that concluded Bush's time in office.

And what of the Iraq war, that generation-defining foreign policy disaster for which Bush will ultimately be remembered (the poll Rubin cites says 57 percent disapprove of the decision to invade)? It merits brief mention: "Unlike the current president, who's played politics with the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, President Bush took huge political risks to back the surge in Iraq, which worked." How about the fact that Bush was personally responsible for launching a war based on bad intelligence? "Other supposed sins are in retrospect less attributable to him personally. (Many Western governments believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.)"

So if you look back at Bush's legacy and leave out 9-11, the thousands of dead and wounded in Iraq, the tragic failures of pre-Iraq intelligence gathering, the massive and ongoing debt and deficits, and Hurricane Katrina, you're left with a pretty rosy picture. Bush is back!

© 2013 Media Matters for America

More unmitigated horseshit, from the delightful Jennifer Rubin

P M Carpenter

Jennifer Rubin's "Bush is back" is such a fetid conglomeration of squalid gibberish that it's impossible to decide which passage delights the most. Nonetheless I've given Ms. Rubin's scribbling the time it deserves--about 20 seconds--and have made this call:

Only when we see a robotic, cold president like Obama do we remember fondly the tender, tearful love of country Bush often conveyed and the steely anger directed at our enemies.

Of course most of those "enemies" were engaged in the wrong country, whose unprovoked invasion cost thousands of Americans lives, maimed and disfigured tens of thousands more, and essentially murdered more than 100,000 Iraqis. Throw in a couple of trillion dollars squandered from the public treasury, as well as America's permanent loss of national honor through W.'s criminal embrace of torture, and, well, at least Jennifer's "tearful" part is right.