T E A R _ I T _ D O W N ! ! ! - Page 3

sixo1 · #41 Posted **May 23, 2008, 2:39 AM**

I found some info at Emporis.com on the Mid-Continental Plaza (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=...hicago-il-usa). It explained that it would have been two 40 story towers with black glass. I wonder if that would have looked any better? Does anyone know what was there before it was built???

Aleks · #42 Posted **May 23, 2008, 3:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

actually, i vote we tear down everything in this picture except jhc and that brown SOM building

I like most of those buildings. They make up Chicago.

There aren't that many building I would tear down in Seattle. Specially this and this. I like them.

Tom Servo · #43 Posted **May 23, 2008, 4:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMO_0121

Adrian, I think the best Idea is to TARE all of chicago down and rebuild it? Man i dont think you should speak like that, apperently you hate every building in chicago. I do have your idea that buildings look better when they are modern, and all those 1920's 30's etc buildings really DONT LOOK GOOD AT ALL, but i dont think we should tare them down, they do a great job at just being there and filling the skyline. Eventually in the future, those buildings are going to be torn down, but lets just enjoy architecture, and not every building has to be awesome or stand out, the city needs "filler" buildings, because some parts of the skyline look bare.

i don't hate every building in chicago. i don't think every building in chicago should be torn down. i hate A LOT of buildings in chicago. i think A LOT of buildings in chicago should be torn down.

i also don't hate all those '1920's 30's etc' buildings. what made you think that? the only building from that era that i really is the tribune tower. and that is for very specific reasons. what i can't stand is architecture that revives old styles. like the CAA building, for example, i don't like for this reason. i don't think venetian gothic has ANYPLACE in this city, but i wouldn't vote to tear it down because i actually think it's really pretty. and that is how i feel about a lot of buildings from the 20s and 30s or whatever you're talking about.

and fyi, i love a lot of buildings from the 20s and 30s. merchandise mart, the wrigley building, 333 n michigan, 35 e wacker, and so on... i love all of our great 20s and 30s building, probably for aesthetic reasons only, but i do nonetheless. i'm just not SUPER AMPED on it like i am modernism or the chicago school or the prairie school and so on. please don't pigeonhole as someone who hates everything old or not 'modern'. there are very specific reasons why i like and dislike what i do.

Nowhereman1280 · #44 Posted **May 23, 2008, 5:12 AM**

Adrian, sometimes what you say disgusts me.

"there are very specific reasons why i like and dislike what i do.

"

I have yet to hear a single one of these reasons. All you argue is things like "they are not being progressive enough" or "this building is trying to be a style that it is out of proportion to be" or "its too tall". Honestly thinking that all those buildings should be torn down is just out right stupid. You have no other rational other than "I don't like them" I bet you couldn't even argue why they are so unacceptable from an aestetic stand point.

Also, 3600 LSD is sweet:

Alliance · #45 Posted **May 23, 2008, 5:45 AM**

can I request that GP3 is torn down before it is built?

Minato Ku · #46 Posted **May 23, 2008, 6:10 AM**

Prefecture de Paris
One of most ugly building in Paris
A new modern glassy building of the same size would be prefect.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image

aris-prefecture.jpg

The whole Eastern of the Ile de La Cite (excepted Notre Dame)
Sorry but these building build in the 19th century are so ugly and cold, Ilde de la Cite has no life due at this building it only attract tourist.

A new modern district with restaurants, shops (execpted tourity shop) would be perfect and would attract Parisian.

http://www.pbase.com/atraspe/image/15463491

Montparnasse Commercial center
Like 80% of Parisian a don't want to tear down the Montparnasse tower but the commercial center near wich destroy th integration of the tower.
Why not to continue the Rue de Rennes with new skyscrapers.

Ducov · #47 Posted **May 24, 2008, 3:24 AM**

Portland House, London

wikipedia

make it go away! please make it go away!!!

Scruffy · #48 Posted **May 24, 2008, 7:59 PM**

its not that bad i guess, but i wouldn't be sad if this tower in manhattan got torn down. it bothers me for some reason

Scruffy · #49 Posted **May 24, 2008, 8:00 PM**

while you are at it, this ugly fucker

TransitEngr · #50 Posted **May 26, 2008, 3:37 AM**

That AT&T highrise in the west loop (Chicago).... the one with no windows because it obviously doesn't need any. It must be a huge switching facility of some sort. UNTHINKABLY hideous.... makes me twitch.

Nowhereman1280 · #51 Posted **May 26, 2008, 5:21 AM**

^^^ I disagree, form follows function my friend!

Honestly I don't think there are any buildings I would tear down with the exception of a few low rise buildings or low rise sections of highrise bases. There are many things I would like to see renovated so they have a better street interaction. I think that cities are made up of all types of buildings, the good, the bad, and the ugly, and they would be sterile and disgusting without the bad and the ugly...

For example, the post office in river north needs to go, it destroys the street scape and serves very little function to society and those that it does could easily be relocated elsewhere.

Tom Servo · #52 Posted **May 26, 2008, 5:29 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

the post office in river north needs to go, it destroys the street scape and serves very little function to society and those that it does could easily be relocated elsewhere.

Steely Dan · #53 Posted **May 27, 2008, 4:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

For example, the post office in river north needs to go, it destroys the street scape and serves very little function to society and those that it does could easily be relocated elsewhere.

agreed, times a billion. having lived in river north for over a year now, that stupid little neighborhood killing post office has become my least favorite building in the entire city, possibly in the entire world.

it. must. go.

cbotnyse · #54 Posted **May 27, 2008, 4:37 PM**

^^ I believe plans are in the works for that post office to go. But I dont think they want to leave. The plans will probably incorporate a post office and some park space, ideally.

But it cant get much worse than a huge 2 story brick, windowless building.

Nowhereman1280 · #55 Posted **May 27, 2008, 5:48 PM**

^^^ What they should do is raze the whole thing, dig down two stories, make a garage for the trucks underground and put all of the sorting equipment and mail rooms down there, then build a small, traditionally sized, post office structure on one corner of the site for people to come in and send packages and pick up their mail. Then the rest of the site should be a park. It would be kinda a post-office in the park concept, but all the big stuff that doesn't need windows would be underground leaving everything else a park.

MolsonExport · #56 Posted **May 29, 2008, 4:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkDaMan

oh God, in Portland it has to be the Michael Graves, Portland Building...the first postmodern office tower.

http://data.greatbuildings.com/gbc/i...lding_noid.jpg

YUCK!

Barf!

RIM!

urbanlife · #57 Posted **May 29, 2008, 5:39 PM**

I do actually like alot of international style buildings, if nothing else they make for good fillers and visually link a city to the international level because it is something everyone has. Granted I dont think that period of architecture should of gone on as long as it did or there should of been some better advancements with it in the way of theory which would of been nice.

As for Chicago, I love everything about that city in the way of architecture. That city came off as a city that really didnt care what the rest of the world thought about it, it was doing its own thing. Plus the people there had that mentality as well.

As for postmodernism, everything from that area should be torn down and all the architects that designed that crap should be shot or forced to live in disney world and never allowed to leave....it would be a win win for everyone.

As for the Portland building, I so wish Richard Meier would of been the one to design it, we would of at least got an awesome white box or something. I still want to kick Graves in the nuts if I ever see him, and probably shout out something like "bad architect, bad!" and then maybe rub his noise in something.

Grumpy · #58 Posted **May 29, 2008, 6:23 PM**

I would tear down cities instead of buildings , a lot of places comes to mind....

Tom Servo · #59 Posted **May 29, 2008, 7:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grumpy

I would tear down cities instead of buildings , a lot of places comes to mind....

like what? green bay?

i think we should tear down lambeau!!!

go bears!

Nowhereman1280 · #60 Posted **May 29, 2008, 11:25 PM**

^^^ Hell No! I'll kick your ass if you try that Adrian...

Green Bay is a pretty cool city considering its ridiculously low population and relative density. Also, I was born there so it would be like tearing down a historical building like Lincoln's home or something!

Also, that retarded bear is licking its hand, not talking to you...