Quote:
Originally Posted by pico44
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
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.