[Dac150]

Originally Posted by honte

Since I think the chance of my ideas being wiped clean is gone now, I'll briefly answer your point.

I think many of the things you've listed above are "styles," not movements. Most of them, I would group simply into the later parts of modernism.

Movement implies a major upheaval in the field - usually involving technology, construction practice, trades, and design. In Chicago we had all of that, in addition to entirely new ways of using buildings, and new archetypes that had not been conceived before. And, what happened in Chicago rippled all the way across America en masse. We're not talking about someone doing a Ghery rip-off in Spokane - what happened here changed the construction methods, design practices, etc. It changed (and largely defined) what would become the typical American way of life (for better and for worse).

So, that's my justification in saying that a Chicago only happens once every 1000 years. I respect your opinion otherwise, of course.

So would you say Chicago is a modern example of what the Roman Empire was? If that's the case than I disagree with you. Other cities in the United States fit that description in you post more so than Chicago. Primarily, every major costal city.

This whole thing is so off topic..