The State of Chicago Architecture.

[Alliance]

"Chicago" is everything, hence its incomparable architectural legacy.

I tire of all this what is "Chicago" stuff. JHC wasn't Chicago, nor was 333 N Wacker, Marina City, Wrigley, 860-880 LSD, Smurfit Stone, CNA, Daley, IBM, Inland Steel, The Spire, or Aqua.

Get the picture?
Chicago is Innovation. Chicago is Quality. Chicago is Legacy.

[Alliance]

Originally Posted by Dac150

Do you work for a travel agency?

Originally Posted by honte

I guess the point of my first post wasn't clear. To rephrase: The Spire is very radical in design, but in conception and appearance, I think it is more in the direct lineage of Chicago. The W=A does not appear to be. This could be good or bad. But it is interesting, because it sticks out a lot, and yet, the design is rather direct (in Chicago fashion) and the actual methods are not much of a departure from typical practice here.

But don't forget, if we actually want to bring this Third Scholl to the forefront, we need more buildings in the lineage of Aqua. The brutal organicism of Aqua and the Spire is most definately a new face of Chicago architecture. W=A is more formal, albeit more radical.

W=A is challenging, but honestly, I think its better than the Spire *runs for cover*

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by Alliance

"Chicago" is everything, hence its incomparable architectural legacy.

I tire of all this what is "Chicago" stuff. JHC wasn't Chicago, nor was 333 N Wacker, Marina City, Wrigley, 670-680 LSD, Smurfit Stone, CNA, Daley, IBM, Inland Steel, The Spire, or Aqua.

Get the picture?
Chicago is Innovation. Chicago is Quality. Chicago is Legacy.

what is 670-680 LSD????? ...did you maybe mean, 860-880 LSD?
..........um.......are you SERIOUS??? chicago hasn't been innovation in some 30 something years... and quality? yeah... 333 Wacker... boy, that's one grand slam by KPF if i've ever seen one *YAWN*

Chicago is legacy? are you trying to sell the city? Mies left a legacy, SOM did, Wright did, and the rest of the Chicago School too. but what STRETCH to say this city is LEGACY... what does that even mean? Chicago has been an architectural WASTELAND in recent years, enough so to tarnish the great legacy left by the great Chicago architects.

this city hasn't had an architectural identity in a very long time, so all this talk about what is or isn't 'Chicago' is a JOKE. all there is now in Chicago is good or bad architecture. W=A is part of a recent trend to built buildings with, finally, some amount of architectural value... there is no THIRD SCHOOL; all it is is a movement away from BAD design... a weak movement at that. and if i'm wrong and all the BS about a Third School is so real, then tell me, what are the defining characteristics of a Third School building? "brutal organicism"? ummmm maybe, but how is that something unique to this city again?

anyway... the main aspect that defines Chicago's architectural style is the expression and articulation of the building's structural system. It is the foundation of both the Chicago School and the 'Second School' architectural movements in this city. That said, JHC, IBM, Inland Steel, Daley Center, and 860-880 COULD NOT BE MORE DISTINCTLY 'Chicago'...
the secondary aspect that defines Chicago's architectural style is innovation. Historically this city prides itself on its innovative-ness, be it infrastructure, products, buildings, or whatever. It was an emphasis on innovation that made the Prairie School ( the Middle School ) and FLWright so refreshing. That said, Marina City, LPT, The Spire, and Aqua are too attached to a sort of 'Chicago' fashion... very much so.

with that said, Chicago hasn't been any sort of architectural giant in a... very long time. buildings like Tribune Tower, 333 Wacker, and Smurfit Stone set this city back if you ask me. and if you take any of the boat tours, you'll hear a lot of HOT AIR about the state of architcture in this city... and that's the point. NOTHING sets Chicago Architecture apart anymore, and hasn't, for the 1000th time, in a VERY LONG time. simply: there is no CHICAGO style anymore. there are only good buildings and bad buildings. the legacy that is Chicago architecture has already been left. it is somthing to be read about. it is not something current. this city doesn't have the zeitgeist it once had. Chicago is just a city with tall buildings. Until we start distinguishing ourselves, setting ourselves apart, and redefining ourselves a new and unique architectural identity, I wouldn't worry about what is and isn't inline with Chicago's architectual tradition. it's too late for that. just accept that the architectural greatness that once was a staple of this city is, for now, dead.

W=A is just a building that is being built in Chicago. and that's it. at least it's the shit going up across the river.

[Wild Onion Mike]

^^^Gotta tell you AdrianXSands, I heard almost word for word the same testament concerning today's Chicago at a lecture in Prague two weeks ago.

[Alliance]

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

anyway... the main aspect that defines Chicago's architectural style is the expression and articulation of the building's structural system.

ummm...isn't that the foundation of modernism?

By your arguments, there's nothing distinct about any kind of architecture and all architecture has always been mediocre.

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

Until we start distinguishing ourselves, setting ourselves apart, and redefining ourselves a new and unique architectural identity, I wouldn't worry about what is and isn't inline with Chicago's architectual tradition. it's too late for that. just accept that the architectural greatness that once was a staple of this city is, for now, dead.

Then perhaps when you start design skyscrapers you can "salvage" the cities' architecture. And honestly, sometime I'd like to see some of your work and see what you consider to be "good architecture."

Honestly, you complain alot, but there is not, imo, another city in the world that is building such quality. I find it hard not to look at certain other cities that are building enormous amount of structures and thank God that that isn't happening in Chicago. Therefore, I don't see any reason to be upset or throw around doomsday scenarios. Even if you think its crap, I still think its the best crap in the world right now.

It seems to me you simply hate modern (as in current) architecture and therefore your opinion wouldn't be very helpful in helping us judge the current state of architecture.

Originally Posted by Wild Onion Mike

^^^Gotta tell you AdrianXSands, I heard almost word for word the same testament concerning today's Chicago at a lecture in Prague two weeks ago.

From who?

[emoney2]

Wow!! great opinions today. Lets argue about them!! Back to the building. Which I think is nice.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by Alliance

Honestly, you complain alot, but there is not, imo, another city in the world that is building such quality. I find it hard not to look at certain other cities that are building enormous amount of structures and thank God that that isn't happening in Chicago. Therefore, I don't see any reason to be upset or throw around doomsday scenarios. Even if you think its crap, I still think its the best crap in the world right now.

It's statments like this that lead to mediocrity. By saying that, you're settling for what is being given to us. And second, good architecture is out there... in abundance too. Have you been to London, Sweden, or Berlin lately? Also, believe it or not... architecture is more than just tall buildings... wow! now there's a concept!

Originally Posted by Alliance

It seems to me you simply hate modern (as in current) architecture and therefore your opinion wouldn't be very helpful in helping us judge the current state of architecture.

I hate bad design.

[honte]

Truly great movements in architecture happen only, what, every 1000 years? We were lucky to have such a thing in Chicago between First and Second Chicago Schools and the Prairie School. Many would say we are the only American city that has had such an event.

I agree that these days are pretty much over. There is no particular architectural motivating force behind what is happening now, nor any school of thought. But it's not reason to cry either - you just can't create these things; they are larger than design or talent.

Today we have plenty to be happy about. We are getting a sample of the great world talent (which, no matter where you look, is not a part of any real given "School" or any given city - that's just a part of globalization). And we are also generating buildings like W=A by local talent, which would be considered top-notch buildings (perhaps not the very greatest) in most any city in the world.

[CHAPINM1]

Originally Posted by emoney2

Wow!! great opinions today. Lets argue about them!! Back to the building. Which I think is nice.

I guess poeple, myself included, are tired of the piss poor attitude of an individual postor consistantly bitching about every single project in this great city... I come on here to read about the progress of a project, not get a stomach ache by reading post after post of bs about how uninspired almost single project is, unless it's over the top.

I deal with plenty of negative energy and individuals at the hospital where I work, I try to steer clear of it here if possible. Anyway, any NEW or useful info or specutations? I've been patient, but honostly, enough is enough.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by honte

Truly great movements in architecture happen only, what, every 1000 years?

i can't agree with this. movements happen back to back in big waves with intermediate areas in between like Deconstructivism, the Werkbund, the HighTech, De Stijl, etc.. that is, as long as we have architecture, we have something that defines it. also, great... well, that's an opinion that differs with each person.

[Alliance]

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

It's statments like this that lead to mediocrity. By saying that, you're settling for what is being given to us. And second, good architecture is out there... in abundance too. Have you been to London, Sweden, or Berlin lately? Also, believe it or not... architecture is more than just tall buildings... wow! now there's a concept!.

No, I haven't been to Europe lately. Personally, I care about highrise architecture, which, I'm sure you'd agree, isn't exactly subject to the same standards as 4-story buildings. (In addition, this confuses me more, as there has been a lot of buzz about Chicago's smaller buildings, like the Drill Team practice center etc.)

My statement does not lead to mediocrity, its simply an accurate judgement of the time. I never said "this is the best building ever constucted" so lets not be sensationalist.

A piece of the puzzle you're missing is that highrise architecture has gone global. Whenever there is a big advancement like this, people go nuts and make some pretty wierd sh*t. Influence is not pouring in from around the globe, not just from Chicago and New York. It'll calm down in time and people will refocus into a movement, (i actually think there will be a modernist revival/neo-modernist movement as a reaction to some cities creating buildings that are more apt for cartoons). However, times change and the WAY highrise architecture spreads and develops is now exceptionally different from what is was even 30 years ago. Sorry bro. You don't have to accept crap, but you do have to adapt to the times. I doubt we'll ever see such focused movements in high-rise architecture again. There are now too many players in the game.

And thanks for not answering my other comments

[Alliance]

Still on top? Lost its place? Faltering? Still innovative?

Whats the state of Chicago's architecture and highrise architecture?

*cues discussion from last night*

[Nowhereman1280]

Good, thanks for doing this Alliance, now Steely can stop deleting all of our posts about this in other threads...

I think arcitecture worldwide suffered durring the 80's and 90's and is just now recovering from a lot of the crappy philosophies that ruled that period. Though I do think Honte brought up a good point the other day by saying that truely revolutionary and great architectural movements only show up every couple of hundred years.

I think Chicago Modernism was one of them. I think truely great architecture needs to have a philosophy behind it, a statement that it is trying to make not just about aestetics, but about broader society as a whole. It becomes quite clear that this occurred with modernism when you read things like that PDF interview with Bruce Grahm and he talks about the philosophy behind his designs.

I'm interested to see if this new "Natural" flair we've been seeing in buildings like the Spire, Aqua, even W=A develops into its own movement.

I know this is a stretch, but I find it interesting that W=A starts as a typical modern box, but slowly transforms into the beginnings of a double helix. Perhaps its symbolic of modernism transitioning into a new, organic or nature inspired movement...

[Alliance]

I think organicism is a valid movement that could come to really define what modern architecture is. Why? Because its an easily accessible archtype that has a strong resonance in modern design. I don't expect it to be a "great movement," but I really see strong signs of resurgence in Chicago, stronger than anwhere else, where there is a stong foundation in good architecture, but a willingness to be progressive.

I also see a real strong resurgence in a sort of neo-modenism as an attack on (the worst architecutre in the history of man) 80's POMO and cartoon buildings that are buing built, especially in the Middle East and asia that lack any real sort of concept or ideal.

Combine these two, and its no wonder we're seeing buildings like Aqua, Spertus, and W=A. I think this is where Chicago should be heading. I think that this is the most architectuallry significant period in the city's history since the modernist movement, but its unlikely that we'll see such defined movements on a global scale. In highrise architecture, there are now too many players in the game. Even though a lot of these players are just building really tall crap, its created a supertall race where people build anything and everything as long as its tall. This creates a lot of different imputs which muddle such direct movements when Chicago and New York were the only two cities where highrise architecture was relevant. I don't think that thats anything to be ashamed of and that the overall quality of our current crop is not earth-shattering architecture, but really good, strong developments. I'd still love to see a "signature tower" for the boom though, one that actually is earth-shattering architecture. I'm still waiting for that one though.

[atl2phx]

still on top and still innovative.

[Alliance]

anthing in particular come to mind when you make that statement?

[atl2phx]

Originally Posted by Alliance

anthing in particular come to mind when you make that statement?

first, let me frame my perspective as a non-chicagoan, non-architech, non engineer and non-urban planner. i'm a marketer by trade who has always had a passion for the built/physical elements of working cities, and in particular, cities, like chicago, that pull it off remarkably well. chicago and her towers fit that bill better than any other city.

1 – quality. no city comes close. when you look at the collective mass of tower projects including spire, aqua, waterview, trump, etc….the diversity and uniqueness of all the projects is astounding. often you're going to see something first in chicago, then replicated in derivatives across the country and world. additionally, if you look at the quality of work in planning and executing greenspace, i.e. millennium park, it’s unmatched.

2 - height. chicago dominates the list of skyscraper projects under construction exceeding 600ft. height was born in chicago. as long as the city keep going higher, she’s gonna be on top.

3 - breadth and depth of active projects. though not an indicator of innovation, just the volume of activity in chicago today is impressive. if there was a measure of projects, total floors, sq ft, height, etc i'm pretty sure chicago would likely come out on top.

4 – output. with firms like SOM, chicago feeds the trends that feed the world of architecture. therefore, innovation is organic to chicago.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by Alliance

Still on top? Lost its place? Faltering? Still innovative?

Whats the state of Chicago's architecture and highrise architecture?

*cues discussion from last night*

steely, can you move this post to the top of this thread?

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by atl2phx

first, let me frame my perspective as a non-chicagoan, non-architech, non engineer and non-urban planner. i'm a marketer by trade who has always had a passion for the built/physical elements of working cities, and in particular, cities, like chicago, that pull it off remarkably well. chicago and her towers fit that bill better than any other city.

1 – quality. no city comes close. when you look at the collective mass of tower projects including spire, aqua, waterview, trump, etc….the diversity and uniqueness of all the projects is astounding. often you're going to see something first in chicago, then replicated in derivatives across the country and world. additionally, if you look at the quality of work in planning and executing greenspace, i.e. millennium park, it’s unmatched.

2 - height. chicago dominates the list of skyscraper projects under construction exceeding 600ft. height was born in chicago. as long as the city keep going higher, she’s gonna be on top.

3 - breadth and depth of active projects. though not an indicator of innovation, just the volume of activity in chicago today is impressive. if there was a measure of projects, total floors, sq ft, height, etc i'm pretty sure chicago would likely come out on top.

4 – output. with firms like SOM, chicago feeds the trends that feed the world of architecture. therefore, innovation is organic to chicago.

...oh wow, um, i'm gonna respond to this when i get home from school tonight. but in the mean time... height was born in chicago? um... no.

[Dac150]

Originally Posted by atl2phx

2 - height. chicago dominates the list of skyscraper projects under construction exceeding 600ft. height was born in chicago. as long as the city keep going higher, she’s gonna be on top.

I 110% disagree with every word in your post. But to say "height was born in Chicago" just takes the cake as the most ridiculous comment ever made. Chicago did not recieve it's first supertall until the 1960's (John Hancock Center), while NYC already had the ESB, Chrsyler, Woolworth, 70 Pine, 40 Wall, 20 Exchange, 30 Rock, The Chanin Building, The Lincoln Building, must I go on..... You need to re-evaluate all your comments, especially your one about the birth of height with regards to skyscrapers, because it is false.

I don't care about your opinions, (because we all are allowed them) but some of your comments are just downright not true.