I say go for it!

Don't hate me for saying this, but the tower is not something you remember.

I love the tower for its size! It’s huge any way you look at it, but in general it’s kind of ugly. It reminds me of Legos that were connected together, and the outcome was the Sears Tower.

what you don't understand is that the black is a big part of the sears tower's hugeness. if they reclad it to some pussy silver color it's gonna look a lot smaller and much less imposing. the sears tower isn't supposed to be pretty; pretty is for house wives and little girls. the sears tower is supposed to intimidate and oppress. silver towers simply can't do that. you need the pure raw menacing evil that only black can provide.

how much will the sears tower suck as some wimpy effeminate dainty piece of silver crap? to reclad the sears tower with some soft and "pretty" silver color would in effect be to neuter chicago's skyline. the sears tower is our "tall bold slugger, set vivid against the little soft cities"

again, i say HELL NO!

The Sears Tower is not Michael Jackson - leave it black.

Really, the tower is iconic. How cannot somebody realize that? I don't think this will come to pass though. Figures it was a couple of New Yorkers that recommended this.

Couple of points - someday in the future, odds are the skyline will look very different with lots of supertalls and the like. In that future, when Sears has lost its place to some extent, something like this may very well be acceptable. In the present it is just silly. I know it is private property and all, but there is (beyond landmarking) some vague element of civic responsibility and respect for original design intent. I don't think we would paint the pyramids purple.... Silly analogy, but you get the drift.

You know, what is flying under the radar is the issue being raised, again, of building on the plaza surrounding Sears. I am not in favor. I am not a huge fan of plazas, but some are appropriate. And some are part of the urban fabric and should remain. Examples - I think building on the AMA plaza is just horrible. AMA, like Sears, is an outstanding building and the plaza there helps to show the building off (plus it was somewhat well utilized). On the other hand, the proposed plaza for 155 N Wacker is just silly. Leave the existing businesses alone and/or let them get developed privately into another building.

Regardless, Silver Sears - not in favor here. Building on Sears Plaza, also not in favor.

Nowhereman, I'm glad to hear you say that. As I said before, one disrespectful action usually leads to the next. Here you have it.

I agree - landmark Sears now and forget these buffoons who can't respect our city and architecture.

I'd call the reclad proposal an extreme makeover. Apparently, the goal isn't just (or isn't even) to reduce the tower's carbon footprint, but rather to "rebrand" the product? Desperate. Given all of the vacant office space in this town, the reclad scheme seems misguided, at best.

I'm trying to visualize Sears in silver reflective glass, and all I can think of is Vegas.

@ Honte. Yes, but I don't see this as a result of letting them build a little box on top of the tower. I see this as a result of the already underlying intent of these owners to squeeze whatever they can get out of this tower. Luckily it will be near impossible to scrape up the 100 million or so dollars it would take to completely renovate the facade and maybe we'll have time to landmark it or otherwise override these idiots before they do anything too stupid.

We can't landmark without owner consent can we? Is there any way we can just simply say "Umm, no. Not happening in our city." to these people? Stupid New Yorkers...

I voted no. . . I don't know how you could make it look good for $50million. . . regardless this is all moot. . . they're not going to find the money to do it anyways. . .

I'd like to see the hotel built on the Wacker/Jackson corner though. . .

^^^ Yeah, they have walled or roped off the entire plaza anyhow...

Can they really "paint" Sears? Isn't it Anodized Aluminum? Will paint even stick to that?

^ Maybe because of falling ice?

They should landmark it.
And while they're at it, tear off the 'lunchbox'-shaped atrium
that was tacked onto the Wacker entrance in 1985.

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/3...earswacker.jpg

...Silver...that would be horrifying...

Yep, time to landmark. Is there an age requirement for that, and if so, does Sears get in? And what is the status of the Landmark Ordinance now? I should be following developments there but haven't - my bad.

Expect to see more of this kind of ill-considered nonsense as the great Chicago modernist gems of the 60s & 70s fall into a generational funk.

That's a horrible idea, plus the black gives it a more dominant look, especially with the contrast of colour with the background.

Hell no. Not a fan of the big black towers...but this one they can't touch! I never liked it until I moved here. It is like a big huge obelisk.....seen for miles and miles watching over Chicago. It sucks in light...it is our black hole. It is an amazing building...that black against the blue of the sky or seeing it appear momentarily when the low clouds break.

Good God…NO.

Perhaps the problem that Sears is having with attracting tenants is the plaza and interior space of the building. The plaza is boring. The interior is dated.

Honestly painting or cladding it Silver? For Real? Are they Nuts? What would come next? Paint IBM Green?

Like for Britney Spears I say for this awesome Building: LEAVE THE SEARS TOWER ALONE!

Sears Tower in silver? The idea isn't exactly as good as gold

by Blair Kamin
February 25, 2009

Might Sears Tower, the brooding black mountain of the Chicago skyline, turn a shiny silver? Don't count on it, even if such an outlandish move might cut energy costs at the nation's tallest building.

Following this morning's Chicago Sun-Times story that the skyscrapers' owners are looking at re-covering the tower in silver, a Sears Tower spokesman confirms that the owners want to improve the energy performance of the 110-story office building, but adds that "any details at this point would be speculative."

It's been known for months that the owners have asked Chicago architects Adrian Smith and Gordon Gill to devise ways to drop the tower's energy consumption. Among the ideas floated: Putting wind turbines and solar panels on the roof. Now comes the Sun-Times with a fanciful illustration (above) that imagines the tower with a new skin of silvery mirror glass instead of its current cladding of black anodyzed aluminum and bronze-tinted windows.

Experts in energy-saving architecture say such a plan could cut two ways. "Changing the facade color of the Sears Tower from black to a lighter color that absorbed less heat would reduce its air-conditioning costs," said Doug Farr, a Chicago architect who has made green design a hallmark of his practice.

Read the rest here:
http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune....emight-cu.html

I say no to the idea, but from a theoretical standpoint, it might be interesting to see a picture of the Sears Tower with only the aluminum painted silver, leaving the original windows. The gridwork might be interesting.

Not that anyone has free time on this site, but can someone do a quick mock-up of what that might look like?

why not gold?

I don't even buy that they'll see that much energy savings if its silver. Remember Chicago is below room temperature for about 8 months (66%) of the year. That means the Black would have a net positive effect on the buildings heating costs for those times of the year...