Quote:
Originally Posted by joeg1985
Would someone mind educating me and tell me how this rendering in contextually not right? I'm honestly curious because I don't think I understand that exactly. It does appear to me that the Gems high school appears a bit too tall next to the western most part of the proposed tower. Is that what you mean?
|
Sure, I'll explain a little further my thinking: Your suggestion that Phase II of Gems "appears a bit too tall" is right on the money. Jeanne came up with this frustum idea but apparently does not have the skill and/or desire to refine it to address the existing condition of the neighboring building or the ground plane. Why does the form of the building need to be SO relentless? Can't the form deviate just a little to respect the context? Couldn't additional volumes at the base or some kind of overlapping volumetric logic help with the varying uses and context?
Frankly, I was shocked that after a year of working on this building that these issues had not been addressed. I was also surprised that the programming of the project also didn't at least massage the form somewhat.
Regardless, with any project that is to be built, a final verdict must wait. I guess I belong in the camp of most of the existing great towers of Chicago that ultimately were based upon Form Follows Function (Sears, Hancock, First National, Marina City). As some of these examples attest to, this doesn't have to mean a boring orthogonal internationalist box. The challenge with creating an unique form isn't to arbitrarily select it and force the program and structure into it, but create an unique form that is inherently tied to the function of the building and it's context. IMHO.