Quote:
Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G
I think most people here would agree that "bulky and boxy" are complimentary qualities for Chicago architecture. And how many buildings can truly be characterized as "ground-breaking"? Like, made a noticeable impact on all architecture to follow? Among everything ever built-- even among only the buildings we praise? Not many. Much more often than not, in any field, progress occurs incrementally, and the contribution of a single actor is minimal. I don't think that's a bad thing. Not that we shouldn't all, you know, shoot for the stars (or whatever hackneyed metaphor you want to use), but I think too often, and especially in architecture, saying that something is "ground-breaking" is really just another way of saying that it's novel, which is itself often just shorthand for "look at all those zany shapes!"
So that doesn't bother me much.
I'm with you on twins, though. I hate twin towers. The only exceptions I can think of are Mies' LSD apartments. But like others have said I doubt that one will get built anytime soon, and, when it does, I'm sure the design will have changed.
|
I get that many may like boxy, brawny buildings. They aren't my preferred style. I prefer tall and thin and I tend to like skyscrapers with tapering forms like JHC and pointy decorative tops (I believe skyscrapers area usually better when they make a final forceful statement at their apex hence my fondness for 2 Prudential, Smurfit-Stone Container, and the Chrysler Building). I also tend to gravitate towards buildings with curves like Marina City (an exception to my twin dislike) and Lake Point tower. All of these buildings were truly ground braking when they were built or have at least become icons of their skylines. Overall I like variety however, and I wouldn't want an entire skyline full of buildings like I just described nor of boxy bulks which I feel Chicago is tending towards. People say this is very Chicago, but Chicago skyscrapers haven't always been that way (look at photos from the 1920's) or the examples I mentioned above which are all very Chicago (Chrysler excepted). To me Chicago architecture especially when it is high profile (which this is) should be innovative, unique, high quality and functional.
I am ok with phase 1 but I really hope phase 2 isn't built as currently designed. My negative reaction was largely fueled by many of the early overly effervescent, hyperbolic posts after the reveal saying these would be instant icons and all other architects should put down their pencils and redesign their buildings after this. These designs are not ground breaking and I highly doubt they will be considered icons of Chicago architecture. The trellis structures on the tops look like a cheep lazy after thought. Something that could be purchased at a big box home improvement store in the same section the Elysian's mansard roof was acquired at. The façade could turn out well if good materials are used. This means very transparent glass with little to no reflectivity and the white portions either need to be real limestone or high quality precast that doesn't try to mimic real stone like that on the Museum of Contemporary Art or the Roosevelt University tower. However, the sunset rendering gives the glass a brownish gold reflective hue that I hope is just an inaccuracy in the rendering. It reminds me too much of an unfortunate direction late 70's and early 80's modernism took or some twisted combination of Trump World Tower in NY and Trump's hideous gold monstrosity in Vegas.
Prev
Linear Mode
