HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Never Built & Visionary Projects


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2007, 5:28 PM
pico44 pico44 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by mthd View Post
just extraordinary. it makes the current chicago spire proposal look like a child's toy.
Child's toy?!? You kidding? I agree with you that version B blows all the others out of the water but the newer version will never be confused with a child's toy. An adult's toy, yes, very much so.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2007, 5:45 PM
pico44 pico44 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by honte View Post
You seem to forget that good architecture is designed for a particular place and time. This proposal was designed for Chicago's lakefront, and nowhere else. To just erect it out of context would be an insult to Calatrava and Chicago.

I doubt Calatrava would let it happen anyway...
You would rather see this die completely than see it built somewhere? A bit selfish don't you think? In regards to context, I disagree. This tower would be completely non-contextual in absolutely any city in the world, most of all Chicago. Thats what would make it an instant landmark in whatever city it was built. I have a sneaking suspicion that Calatrava might tinker a bit with this design for another client. I can't imagine he isn't disappointed that his true masterpiece was disregarded. If I were a politician, I would have encouraged the government to help with construction costs, along with public fundraising. We're spending at least 1.5-2 billion dollars for the landmark train station and memorial at ground zero, why can't we help out a developer with the construction of what would be one of the two or three greatest skyscrapers in the world.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2007, 6:03 PM
EtherealMist's Avatar
EtherealMist EtherealMist is offline
Cold Bottles of Becks
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Boston / Northern NJ
Posts: 356
Im confused

So there is a proposal still alive for another building called the Chicago Spire that looks similar to this?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2007, 6:14 PM
spyguy's Avatar
spyguy spyguy is offline
THAT Guy
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,859
Quote:
Originally Posted by pico44 View Post
If I were a politician
I'm glad you're not
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2007, 6:35 PM
pico44 pico44 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by EtherealMist View Post
Im confused

So there is a proposal still alive for another building called the Chicago Spire that looks similar to this?

no.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2007, 7:07 PM
DePaul Bunyan DePaul Bunyan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by pico44 View Post
You would rather see this die completely than see it built somewhere? A bit selfish don't you think? In regards to context, I disagree. This tower would be completely non-contextual in absolutely any city in the world, most of all Chicago. Thats what would make it an instant landmark in whatever city it was built. I have a sneaking suspicion that Calatrava might tinker a bit with this design for another client. I can't imagine he isn't disappointed that his true masterpiece was disregarded. If I were a politician, I would have encouraged the government to help with construction costs, along with public fundraising. We're spending at least 1.5-2 billion dollars for the landmark train station and memorial at ground zero, why can't we help out a developer with the construction of what would be one of the two or three greatest skyscrapers in the world.
You call someone selfish for not wanting B to be built if the current version goes forward, and then you talk about how you want to use public tax dollars to get it built somewhere? It's a condo building, not an essential piece of infrastructure like the WTC Transportation Hub. If you were a politician, you would lose your next election.
__________________
"Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads?"

-Hunter S. Thompson (click for full quote)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2007, 8:08 PM
bnk's Avatar
bnk bnk is offline
પટેલ. કે ન
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: chicagoland
Posts: 10,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by DePaul Bunyan View Post
You call someone selfish for not wanting B to be built if the current version goes forward, and then you talk about how you want to use public tax dollars to get it built somewhere? It's a condo building, not an essential piece of infrastructure like the WTC Transportation Hub. If you were a politician, you would lose your next election.
Well at least he has my vote.
__________________
facebook
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2007, 8:10 PM
Latoso's Avatar
Latoso Latoso is offline
Eamus Catuli!!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by EtherealMist View Post
Im confused

So there is a proposal still alive for another building called the Chicago Spire that looks similar to this?
Yes. At least it's a take-off from this design. It's in the proposed buildings section. I don't know what pico was smoking when he said no.
__________________
LATOSO

Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood and probably will themselves not be realized. Make big plans; aim high in hope and work, remembering that a noble, logical diagram once recorded will not die. - Daniel Burnham
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2007, 8:14 PM
bnk's Avatar
bnk bnk is offline
પટેલ. કે ન
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: chicagoland
Posts: 10,256
Just a few more pics of 'B' to remind us of....






__________________
facebook
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2007, 11:33 PM
pico44 pico44 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by DePaul Bunyan View Post
You call someone selfish for not wanting B to be built if the current version goes forward, and then you talk about how you want to use public tax dollars to get it built somewhere? It's a condo building, not an essential piece of infrastructure like the WTC Transportation Hub. If you were a politician, you would lose your next election.
Give me one good reason why. Rarely is our government involved in monument building anymore. And when they are, the results are usually too timid and safe (see wwii memorial). If I had been mayor Daley, I would have stepped in and done something when version B was dying. And what does it matter that it is a condo tower? If anything that's a positive. What other memorials out there helped pay for themselves with intramemorial residences? As far as I know; the StL Arch, Eiffel Tower, Washington Monument and Statue of Liberty did not have the advantage of being paid for by eager condo owners. One of the government's primary responsibities is to step in when the free market won't accomplish what should be done.

Chicago is one of the few cities out there that doesn't have a singular symbol that everyone associates with the city. JHC is a great skyscraper but it doesn't have a recognizable enough sillouette to be an iconic symbol. Version B could have been that symbol, and it would have been worth public investment.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2007, 12:20 AM
honte honte is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago - every nook and cranny
Posts: 4,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by pico44 View Post
You would rather see this die completely than see it built somewhere? A bit selfish don't you think?
Not at all. It will never die, like all good but unbuilt or demolished buildings. Many of Chicago's most remembered works are either not built (FLW's Mile-High Tower, for example) or sadly demolished (the list is too numerous and depressing to even begin).

I think it's selfish to just take Calatrava's work as an architect and transport it in your mind to wherever you see fit. Unless his design intent was to create something generic, which it clearly was not, you are bastardizing his intention and insulting his ability as an artist, although obviously you mean no harm.

The man is capable - highly capable - and he can produce other masterpieces for other cities when they choose to hire him. He will be inspired by the site and context in which he is working. Simple as that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by pico44 View Post
In regards to context, I disagree. This tower would be completely non-contextual in absolutely any city in the world, most of all Chicago.
It's also very rude to Chicago as a place and a built environment to insist that the site and buildings surrounding the Fordham / Chicago Spire had absolutely no impact on Calatrava's methods or final design. He himself said "I am learning from Chicago" (although granted, before anyone jumps down my throat, this quote came at a later time than version B).

A design need not be overtly Contextual (eg Trump Tower) to fit in to its locale. This building provided counterpoint, but it was not detached from its surroundings. You can't pretend the first base didn't have echoes of Frank Lloyd Wright - just one of numerous examples.

So, yes, this is a piece of Chicago architecture. It will be copied, like many of the designs that came from here, but I hope never built elsewhere.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2007, 12:29 AM
DePaul Bunyan DePaul Bunyan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by pico44 View Post
Give me one good reason why. Rarely is our government involved in monument building anymore. And when they are, the results are usually too timid and safe (see wwii memorial). If I had been mayor Daley, I would have stepped in and done something when version B was dying. And what does it matter that it is a condo tower? If anything that's a positive. What other memorials out there helped pay for themselves with intramemorial residences? As far as I know; the StL Arch, Eiffel Tower, Washington Monument and Statue of Liberty did not have the advantage of being paid for by eager condo owners. One of the government's primary responsibities is to step in when the free market won't accomplish what should be done.
The CTA needs $6 billion right now to maintain a state of good repair. The St. Louis Arch is part of the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial and commemorates westward expansion. It was paid for with a combination of state and federal dollars and is maintained by the National Park Service. The Eifel Tower was built for the Exposition Universelle in 1889 to commemorate the centennial anniversary of the French Revolution. The Statue of Liberty was a gift to commemorate the American Revolution. It was given to us partly because of political turmoil in France; the Third Republic was full of monarchists who wanted to return to having a king. The French gave it to us partly so that they could point to an inspiring symbol of republican values in a fellow republic. The Washington Monument stopped construction for 30 years partly because the Washington National Monument Society ran out of money midway through.

The thing with all of those examples is that they all commemorate something of significant national importance. I understand this is a beautiful building, but it's just that. I think it's insulting and irresponsible to suggest that our tax dollars go towards a condo building that is economically unfeasible without the aid of the government. Chicago has a problem with poverty and their public schools. Has anyone fixed New Orleans yet? There are a million more important things the government should be spending money on. Chicago is the city that works, not the city that needs to get bailed out by the feds to build a 2,000-foot tall condo tower for overseas millionaires. If the only way to get it built is to use public funds, I would rather have it not built at all.

Quote:
Chicago is one of the few cities out there that doesn't have a singular symbol that everyone associates with the city. JHC is a great skyscraper but it doesn't have a recognizable enough sillouette to be an iconic symbol. Version B could have been that symbol, and it would have been worth public investment.
Have you ever heard of the Sears Tower?
__________________
"Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads?"

-Hunter S. Thompson (click for full quote)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2007, 2:55 PM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by EtherealMist View Post
Im confused

So there is a proposal still alive for another building called the Chicago Spire that looks similar to this?

What happened was that the original developer couldn't obtain the financing and the "original" proposal which is what you see above, died. Another developer came in and hired the same architect and using those original concepts and ideas "redesigned" the building. The current project is called the Chicago Spire. It will be built in the same location as the original proposal, and of course it's designed by Calatrava, but there is a different developer.
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2007, 2:56 PM
pico44 pico44 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Latoso View Post
Yes. At least it's a take-off from this design. It's in the proposed buildings section. I don't know what pico was smoking when he said no.
Sorry, I guess I didn't process the question correctly.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2007, 3:33 PM
M II A II R II K's Avatar
M II A II R II K M II A II R II K is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 47,473
I didn't see anyone post that it was dead in it's official thread.

Unless it's that particular design, but then the project wouldn't be dead.
__________________
ASDFGHJK
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2007, 3:47 PM
pico44 pico44 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by honte View Post
Not at all. It will never die, like all good but unbuilt or demolished buildings. Many of Chicago's most remembered works are either not built (FLW's Mile-High Tower, for example) or sadly demolished (the list is too numerous and depressing to even begin)..
depressing is a good word to use when thinking this building will never be built.



Quote:
I think it's selfish to just take Calatrava's work as an architect and transport it in your mind to wherever you see fit. Unless his design intent was to create something generic, which it clearly was not, you are bastardizing his intention and insulting his ability as an artist, although obviously you mean no harm.
Some forms are so beautiful, they could work anywhere. They shed context as easily and gracefully as a woman sheds a slip. Perhaps it's just me, but I could imagine the Sydney Opera House where the planetarium sits in Chicago. I could imagine the Pont du Gard spanning the east river in New York. I could imagine Grand Central Terminal in the place of the Gare du Nord in Paris. Would I actually like to see them move? Of course not, that would be akin to ripping a part of someones soul away, as each of these landmarks have grown to be intimately linked with the cities in which they reside. But this design has no such grip on Chicago, nor vice versa for that matter.

Quote:
The man is capable - highly capable - and he can produce other masterpieces for other cities when they choose to hire him. He will be inspired by the site and context in which he is working. Simple as that.
He has produced some great stuff, no doubt. The stacked boxes in New York was an amazing design that also seems to be pulseless. But as great as that design was, it was no version B. Not even close. In short, I'm not having this conversation for 80 South St. Furthermore, I contend he has not done a single thing that comes remotely close to version B. We have to realize that almost every artist has a seminal work that epitomizes their brilliance and stands alone in terms of quality of execution. It is our duty to make it happen.

Quote:
It's also very rude to Chicago as a place and a built environment to insist that the site and buildings surrounding the Fordham / Chicago Spire had absolutely no impact on Calatrava's methods or final design. He himself said "I am learning from Chicago" (although granted, before anyone jumps down my throat, this quote came at a later time than version B). A design need not be overtly Contextual (eg Trump Tower) to fit in to its locale. This building provided counterpoint, but it was not detached from its surroundings. You can't pretend the first base didn't have echoes of Frank Lloyd Wright - just one of numerous examples.
Exactly. I imagine the idea for the Fordham Spire came from the same place where most of his designs come from. His studio. This thing most likely started as a sculpture before Chicago was ever mentioned as a place to put it. I believe you are overstating its context greatly.


Quote:
So, yes, this is a piece of Chicago architecture. It will be copied, like many of the designs that came from here, but I hope never built elsewhere
It may be a piece of Chicago architecture for a few skyscraper enthusiasts, but for the world, this is a dream come true for their respective cities. I really wouldn't care where it was built, just as long as it was built. Of course I realize the Fordham Spire is most likely dead forever, but I guess I want to create a glimmer hope for myself, misguided as it may be.

Last edited by pico44; Apr 1, 2007 at 4:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2007, 4:22 PM
pico44 pico44 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by DePaul Bunyan View Post
The St. Louis Arch is part of the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial and commemorates westward expansion. It was paid for with a combination of state and federal dollars and is maintained by the National Park Service. The Eifel Tower was built for the Exposition Universelle in 1889 to commemorate the centennial anniversary of the French Revolution. The Statue of Liberty was a gift to commemorate the American Revolution. It was given to us partly because of political turmoil in France; the Third Republic was full of monarchists who wanted to return to having a king. The French gave it to us partly so that they could point to an inspiring symbol of republican values in a fellow republic. The Washington Monument stopped construction for 30 years partly because the Washington National Monument Society ran out of money midway through.

The thing with all of those examples is that they all commemorate something of significant national importance.
Huh? You really couldn't think of one thing this tower could commemorate? Its so easy it's funny. You want a couple examples off the top of my head? Okay, sure: Native American Monument Tower and Observation Deck, Chicago Bicentenial Tower and Memorial, The Spire of the Great Lakes and Museum, The Chicago Monument to Industry and Labor. You really think the St Louis Arch was totally justifiable just because the National Park Service decided it was time to honor our forefather's westward expansion? That's ridiculous.


Quote:
I understand this is a beautiful building, but it's just that. I think it's insulting and irresponsible to suggest that our tax dollars go towards a condo building that is economically unfeasible without the aid of the government. Chicago has a problem with poverty and their public schools. Has anyone fixed New Orleans yet? There are a million more important things the government should be spending money on. Chicago is the city that works, not the city that needs to get bailed out by the feds to build a 2,000-foot tall condo tower for overseas millionaires. If the only way to get it built is to use public funds, I would rather have it not built at all.
And there weren't more important things to do with the money in 19th century Paris? Or New York or Washington or with any monument created in the history of the world? You know what? You are right, we should wait to build a great monument in Chicago until everything is perfect. Let's wait until the schools are all fantastic and the transportation system is brand new, and nobody is hungry. After all, thats what they did with the Pyramids, the Great Wall, and the Taj Mahal.

You are no visionary, and unfortunately, few of us are anymore. So the city of Chicago develops and builds this tower for two billion dollars, sells 1.75 billion in condos, and takes a 250 million dollar loss. If anyone thinks that wouldn't be worth it, then I feel sorry for you.



Quote:
Have you ever heard of the Sears Tower?
Meh. I am not much of a fan of the Sears Tower. Not only that, I could easily think of 50 iconic structures more widely recognizeable. For example, I don't know how many times Ive corrected someone who thought JHC was the Sears Tower. For a city as great as Chicago, that's just wrong.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2007, 5:31 PM
honte honte is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago - every nook and cranny
Posts: 4,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by pico44 View Post
So the city of Chicago develops and builds this tower for two billion dollars, sells 1.75 billion in condos, and takes a 250 million dollar loss.
This is a much more palatable situation than the city just throwing money at an investor / developer, especially if there were a significant public benefit such as a new theatre center or affordable housing in the mix.

But I think we all can agree that virtually no one wants the city or public agencies working like a developer any longer. Block 37 would have been the best place for them to do this. Indeed, in a roundabout fashion, they did toss in tons of money that would have benefited Mills Corp, in the name of the public good, similar to your earlier suggestions. I would have preferred that they just subdivide the parcel and resell, or spend that money to hire some folks and develop the damn thing in-house.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2007, 2:37 AM
M II A II R II K's Avatar
M II A II R II K M II A II R II K is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 47,473
Is this proposal really dead or is this thread horseshit....
__________________
ASDFGHJK
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2007, 2:45 AM
Kngkyle Kngkyle is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chicago/New York
Posts: 2,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by M II A II R II K View Post
Is this proposal really dead or is this thread horseshit....
This is FORDHAM SPIRE not CHICAGO SPIRE.
The FORDHAM SPIRE is and has been dead for some months now, CHICAGO SPIRE is very much alive.
If you would have read replies 2, 6, 19, 28, or most in depth 33 you would have found your answer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Never Built & Visionary Projects
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:10 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.