Quote:
Originally Posted by honte
Aqua seems to me a building truly in the spirit of Chicago architecture, but only because it can't decide how much of our tradition to carry forth vs. how much to follow larger, global trends. That's been a perplexing problem here since at least the 1980s.
|
seeing that Jeanne worked in Rotterdam and that Chicago has long stalled as an architectural powerhouse, this does not come as a surprise to me. Nor do I think it's a huge problem considering the current state of Chicago architecture. For one, the work outside of a few very talented designers and architects is weak. A gap exists, for sure.
It took me all but 15 minutes in Holland to realize how strong their design sense is and how the locality dictates the forms and decision making processes. There is a level of discovery that is embedded in their history, landscape and regional evolution that doesn't seem forced. It's all very natural. For some reason, Chicago's history of innovation in design and architecture has been spotty despite many years of ingenious work.
What I do find very interesting is when I see the Dutch export that process elsewhere. It seems out of place, no matter the architects sensitivity to a region, culture or landscape. Student center at IIT (rem) has that problem. I like certain components of it, but it would be a much better building in Holland then it is in Chicago.
Likewise, Aqua works and fits into Chicago quite well. It might fit into Rotterdam's sometimes frilly and fanciful financial district but beneath those curving balconies lies a box. And that language is Chicagoan, not Dutch. (although Jeanne was getting closer to a Dutch language with her original colored glass-paned balconies).
Anyhow, I think you nailed this tower in your post Honte.