Infrastructure should be designed to be the most functional, not the most beautiful. Ridiculously overpriced designs just mean less money for other drastically needed improvements.

It used to be believed that building entirely for function was beautiful in itself.

But Chicago and recent generations of Architecture grads who whine about buildings not being "cool and edgy like what they are doing in ***insert European City name***" seem to have parted with that way of thinking.

A place with buildings built entirely for function sounds miserable. What amazing buildings built entirely for function are you referring to? The expression is form follows function, not function only, fuck form. Seems like the architectural philosophy of barbarism.

I love how absolutely no one was dogging on Santiago when he was the genius behind The Spire. Since that never happened, the go-to worst possible example is of course his PATH Transportation Center and Mall. Aside from being absolutely gorgeous, it was yes a huge disaster financially. But responsibility didn't fall squarely on Calatrava. In some instances the engineering needed modification, in some instances the logistics of the MTA an/or the PA caused the budget to explode. One thing I do know for sure is though is that if the station was also the terminal for the city's premier airport express link to JFK, I doubt many would be hammering the issue of the budget quite as much. It's that the consensus seems to be that the utility of the structure is limited because in essence its a PATH stop, shopping center and pass through for the subway. That of course isn't SC fault, it's the city and PA's fault for not building a high speed JFK link to lower Manhattan.

I like this quote from "The Full Calatrava" https://thefullcalatrava.wordpress.com/ for the bridge in Venice:

"With the design that values the looks of the bridge over its quality, the bridge may turn out to be more of a short term pleaser than a lasting solution for Venetian transport. This is a common issue for Calatrava´s designs that win the admiration of many who regard his works as pure works of art without looking at their practical use."

Also, The Spire was designed before the realization of his notoriety for running way over budget became well known.

Again. His stuff often looks impressive but actually building what he puts down on paper is very difficult.

^^^ I dunno, the Milwaukee Art Museum seems to be holding up well and is now closing in on 20 years of exposure to brutal Milwaukee lakefront weather. The issue is that his designs are indeed expensive to actually build, but if constructed properly it seems his engineering holds up well. He isn't quite like Frank Lloyd Wright with a mantra of "if it doesn't leak, it's not great architecture"...

Actually, in retrospect, the MAM is a true masterpiece of a building. It's incredible how easy it is to take for granted, but there are very few buildings of that caliber anywhere on earth.

I’d like the new terminal to “feel” like you’re in Chicago. I don’t get that from Calatrava’s design. It just feels like you’re inside the skeleton of a giant whale that could be anywhere in the world. For me his design is 4th, maybe even 5th, among the final five. I’m mostly in agreement with Blair Kamin’s preference.

What does this even mean?? A city, any city, is not defined by one singular element or characteristic. With that argument, perhaps O'Hare should be in the shape of a Vienna beef hot dog?

i like where this is headed.

do have any sketches of your proposal?

Maybe a giant wall of Chicago common brick?... Actually I kind of like that idea...

A slice of pizza might make more sense. . .

. . .

How about the windows intentionally cloudy as an homage to continual winter salt brine.

Calatrava's had some reasonably successful projects, usually for private sector or nonprofit clients that embrace his vision but aren't circumscribed by labor and procurement rules, competing public agencies, corruption/graft, and plain old politics. His experience working with government agencies in the US is enough to disqualify him from the ORD project, and PATH is far from the only example.

These projects would likely go overbudget regardless of who was architect, but the complexity of Calatrava's designs and his famous unwillingness to compromise or value-engineer only compounds the problem. His buildings are also known for being wasteful with space. The Milwaukee Art Museum is an icon, but it pretty much failed at it's primary task of expanding the museum. Most of the new space is empty atriums and superwide hallways, with only one new gallery space IIRC. 90% of the art is still in the old building.

A rail link to JFK would have also provided a hefty revenue stream to help cover the cost of the ivory transit palace.

Most critics of the WTC Transportation Center are not reactionary conservatives who think any and all transit facilities should look and feel like a prison. But they are arguing that taxpayer money should be used wisely, and the WTC center fails that test in spectacular fashion, because of shitty management AND problematic design.

In the end it's just a fancy mall that you walk through to get to basically the same transit options that existed before. I actually hate the platform level design and vertical circulation to the PATH hall which has created numerous bottlenecks. That billions of PA money got spent on this under the auspices of transit should have been an even bigger scandal. Calatrava's design, while beautiful, isn't very functional. This is not a risk we can afford to run at ORD.

https://i.imgur.com/ONcnsOt.jpg

terminal 1 is a pickle

you just need a bunch of glass windows to look like onions on the street side!

:haha: :haha: :haha:

fantastic!

No ketchup allowed on the premises...

LOL! Oh yes, there is! They allowed to have a ketchup.

I'll allow it, but they have to put it on the hotdog themselves.

Every time we have hot dogs Mrs. Jim in Chicago slathers her's with ketchup. I've learned that the best thing to do is just talk politics.