Thank all you guys for your explanations. I'm glad to get some background on what they are going for here. I don't know about any of the academic side of this, but maybe for those who study architecture the blending of styles is problematic or somehow less than pure, and I can understand that. But as for my personal likes and dislikes, it looks to me like they have taken a chateau or an old english building and made it into a beautiful towering building. And I like the "faux" stone look (albeit, I am sure it would be better if it were real stone work), I am slightly bored of every building going up looking like the Louvre or some other glassy structure. They are just not homey to me.
Ok, again, thanks for the info, good to hear the background and why people like/dislike the building.
__________________
"Chicago doesn't need Bryant to feel like a big-time player, just as it doesn't need Donald Trump to build a tower downtown to feel adequate. Nice that Trump's doing it, but when you have the Sears Tower and the Hancock building, you're pretty secure with who you are. And when somebody named Michael Jordan has graced your presence, somebody named Kobe Bryant isn't going to shake your world." Rick Morrissey, 2007
|