[honte]

Wow, I've missed a lot. In a nutshell, I agree with what ardecila said above. Architecture has gone global. Will Chicago ever reign again? No one knows. Is it even important?

I really hate to admit this, but Post 9-11, New York has pretty much destroyed Chicago in terms of progressive design. No one hates saying this more than me. We have some nice developments indeed, and I have never been happier to be a Chicagoan, but the sheer volume of money that flowed into NYC after the attacks (some of it unjustified public funds IMO - let's not go there) and well-deserved citizen support have produced a huge crop of buildings by the best designers. For example, I get very angry when I see Hines hires Pickard-Chilton in Chicago, but for less-profitable buildings hires Norman Foster and Jean Nouvel in NYC.

I am not sure what causes this trend. Is it partly local pride by Chicagoans makes us look inward? Partly an ugly "name-brand" living phenomenon that makes people wear Ghery condos like ugly designer suits and flashy cars? Whatever cause, for some reason with the exception of the Calatrava and the Piano, private parties here are not seeking out the best in design talent regularly. This puts Chicago at a disadvantage, because ideally we would be a place that is being looked up to for native work, but also a highly desired place that brings examples of the best work here. This was the case in the 1960s, and I think we are much better for it.

However, there are some caveats to the above. First, name-brand architects don't really always produce great work. I am very annoyed by Foster's newest NYC proposals (all three of them). And many other recent works in the starchitect category would definitely fit the same bill. Second, we should be proud to have home-grown talent producing most of the good work here. Most of the most impressive stuff in NYC has been imported talent, in my opinion - not stirring up dirt, and that's been a trend for a while now. Third, with insane amounts of money, you'd better be damn able to produce something decent. Chicago has always been about producing beautiful architecture without lavish budgets - it's an entirely different production.

Dac, no offense, but many of your comments concerning the early skyscrapers were equally off-base. Foremost, the Reliance building was not the first skyscraper; perhaps you'd better go revisit the history. I don't mean to get into a pissing contest with NYC, but give Chicago a little respect - many of the comments in the prior post you attacked were absolutely true. Someone was here simply voicing their support for the city, which is nice to hear, because we are on the inside always criticizing what is going on and don't always have a clear perspective.

Most Important: Chicago saw some very dark days in the 1960s-1990s. Where we are now is nothing short of incredible, given the "Rust Belt" image and the fact that many people simply left this place to die on the vine post WWII. Everyone involved in building this city - designers, engineers, construction workers, politicians, critics, forumers, whatever - should be very proud that Chicago is thriving and blossoming. What is happening here right now is undeniably disproportionate to our population and census-style statistics: It is a rebirth, and the good news is there is a lot of excitement left to happen.