The State of Chicago Architecture.

[Dac150]

[QUOTE=honte;3141169^^ Uh no, not Rome, I mean from a design sense. The East Coast cities were largely in European mode, and Chicago was where most of the design started that created truly American styles. Most every critic and historian who ever studied American architecture history (except for a few who, surprise, are usually in New York) agrees with this.[/QUOTE]

What examples of American architecture do you mean? Would you consider the ESB, Chrysler, Lever House, Seagram, etc.. un-American architecture. The Lever House and the Seagram building (which hail from New York) set the tone for an architectural style that has spread all over the world, and immensly in the United States.

Now if you mean lowrise buildings, I see what you are saying. Many costal city's early buildings were influenced by European architecture, while mid-western cities (as the were founded) established their own style of building (American if you will architecture). As time went on though highrises and project housing (very American) grew much in New York and the concept spread throughout the nation.

Sidebar question: Is it true that Chicago got rid of its project housing?

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Dac150

What examples of American architecture do you mean? Would you consider the ESB, Chrysler, Lever House, Seagram, etc.. un-American architecture. The Lever House and the Seagram building (which hail from New York) set the tone for an architectural style that has spread all over the world, and immensly in the United States.

Now if you mean lowrise buildings, I see what you are saying. Many costal city's early buildings were influenced by European architecture, while mid-western cities (as the were founded) established their own style of building (American if you will architecture). As time went on though highrises and project housing (very American) grew much in New York and the concept spread throughout the nation.

Sidebar question: Is it true that Chicago got rid of its project housing?

^ This thread could be interesting, but it seems like you've established your presence here simply to counter everything with New York's architectural contributions, when this thread is actually supposed to be about "The state of Chicago's architecture". Are you ready to move on yet, or is there still some proving left to do?

[honte]

^ Thanks TUP.

^^ Yes, I meant the whole thing, not just high-rises. The buildings you mention are wonderful; of course they are American. They share the credit for distributing certain important design ideas. But they are by no means singular in this - just the ones in most textbooks. It's also worth noting that the Flatiron, Lever, and Seagram were all due to Chicago firms.

Now, can we get back to the future? If we're not careful, soon we're going to need yet another new thread.

[spyguy]

Originally Posted by Alliance

But, we do have the Pelli tower comming, although frankly, I think his supertall designs are incredibly uninspired and boring.

His designs can be repetitious but I don't think Pelli is that bad.

Based on the trends of his work, I assume Wolf Point will be tall and sleek, probably have some kind of crown, green design, and have excellent night lighting.

If we get something as nice as 2IFC or Petronas, which have become icons for KL even though Chicagoans hate them (), I'll be happy.

[spyguy]

Anyway, my complaint with "the state of Chicago architecture" would be that commissions are concentrated in a few firms.

I think I once tried to count the number of buildings designed by SCB, P/H, and a few others out of the total number of buildings proposed or UC and the proportion of work they get is staggering.

It's a shame that Chicago has tons of young talent that could certainly handle smaller 10-30 story projects but never get the chance. And when the cost of a project justifies an international starchitect, like Mandarin Oriental, we get another SCB or Lagrange building.

[Alliance]

Originally Posted by Dac150

Primarily, every major costal city.

This whole thing is so off topic..

No.

And the only thing consitantly off topic is you.

Originally Posted by spyguy

It's a shame that Chicago has tons of young talent that could certainly handle smaller 10-30 story projects but never get the chance. And when the cost of a project justifies an international starchitect, like Mandarin Oriental, we get another SCB or Lagrange building.

Yes, local firms like LaGrange (whos has the largest identiy crisis of any architect I've ever seen) get way too many contracts when there are more decent local talent pools.

[honte]

^ Yes, hence my excitement about the CS project (beyond the project itself). You can't blame the developers for wanting safe design (financially and aesthetically), but it does start with them. I hope CS will be a smashing success - thus proving that tame design isn't the only thing that's "safe." If the public demonstrates that there is a really pent-up demand for superior design, then that's going to change a lot of things here. It's what the Richard Meier buildings did for NYC. But CS is on such a larger scale - it could revolutionize things here. The effect is already starting to happen, with W=A being the primary indication. Carley obviously saw first-hand the "architecture effect" when he pre-marketed the old Fordham Spire.

The other option would be for government to step in, but how can you encourage great design? The LAST thing I want is Daley sticking any more of his fat fingers in aesthetic decisions.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by Dac150

You have mis-understood my points big time:

1. I never said the Reliance building was the first skyscraper. I said it was the first building to use the concept of steel construction (notice I say building, NOT skyscraper). I then went on to say that the Flatiron or the Woolworth buildings were the first sksycrapers.
2. I have given Chicago much respect in this thread. How you could have missed that I don't know. Maybe you need to revist my posts. But I'll recap the resepectful commentary I made regarding Chicago:
-"I will most certainly not deny that. Chicago has given birth to some of the most famous and well known architects of modern (possibly of all) time."
-"Chicago is taking skyscrapers and architecture to new levels"
-"What Chicago is doing to the skyscraper is without a doubt amazing"

I said a lot of what I did due to other forumers stating that "Chicago is the only city with unique current architecture", when in fact is not the case. If you go back, the forumer who stated that worded it in a factual form, not an opinionative one.

Originally Posted by Dac150

Now that you put it that way, I can understand better what you mean, but that still does not float by boat. To say the Reliance Building (1st steel building) was the birth of height in skyscrapers though is obtuse. It more so introduced a new concept to the table.

I would say that the birth of height in skyscrapers would go either to the Flatiron Building or Woolworth. Those two buildings were the first that utilized height to a new eternal trend through the concept of steel. That trend is of course; tall skyscrapers. The Reliance Building was nothing but a low-rise building, not a skyscraper. Therefore, the birthplace of height in skyscrapers was not in Chicago. Consider the Reliance Building a test dummy, or a lab mouse.

are you serious? dac, how old are you? because you need to go back to school, or take an architectural history course.
1. this is about a 10 page paper's worth of info on the history and development of the modern building and skyscraper that i'm going to try and compact into a single post, but here goes:

the home insurance building was the first building to use a load-bearing structural frame; the frame was steel; it was the first 'steel' building; and it is what established the standard by which skyscrapers were based.
second, the birth of height? wtf? people have been wanting to build taller and taller since the dawn of architecture. also, greater heights than the early skyscrapers were achieved centuries ago; ever been to france or germany? ulmer münster? load-bearing masonry buildings were built to great heights too... anyway, this is the point, in an effort to built tall and narrow (you know... that whole space thing), jenny, modifying a concept developed in england by william strutt (who designed the iron framed flax mill building in 1797), designed his steel frame structural system.
your comments about the reliance building are RIDICULOUS and make yourself sound really uniformed. the same goes for your comments about the flatiron and the woolworth buildings. first: if you wanna talk about height, well guess what? philadelphia city hall was built in 1901 and get this... 548ft. WOW! second, the first building in new york city to use a load-bearing structural steel frame, the american surety company building, built in 1895, was 338ft. and the park row building, built 1899, was 391ft! the flatiron built, which didn't come around till 1902, was 285ft. and that lab rat of a building, reliance, built in 1895, was 202ft... a full 85ft shorter than the soaring FLATIRON building. third, to further illustrate the absurdity of your comments: the masonic temple building was built in 1892 at 302ft... a full 10 years prior to the great heights of FLATIRON.

some more history: at the end of the 19th century, both chicago and nyc built like crazy, and pushed tall, taller and taller. but here's a CRAZY fact, after the masonic temple was built, chicago, in late 1892, enacted a height restriction of 400ft. the, then, 394ft tall montgomery ward building, built in 1899, would remain the city's tallest building until the restriction was lifted in 1920, when wrigley petitioned the city to allow the construction of the 438ft tall headquarters.

now, at the turn of the century, chicago and nyc went back and forth with the building race, but nothing made it past the elusive 400ft mark because of height limitations in both cities. then in the early 1900's, architect ernest flagg reinvented the concept of a skyscraper. his solution, adopted from the concepts seen in sullivan's essays on architecture, to the over-powering effect of tall buildings was to add set-backs as the building rose and a narrow tower that would be set on a short, human-scaled base. his singer building, which was finished in 1908, rose to a huge 612ft. from then on in new york, buildings could scrape the sky so long as they were designed according to a few restrictive zoning codes. from then on, new york city surpassed chicago in the height race... and big time. new york city would remain the tallest city in the world until the 70's... and the rest is history.

but to get back to the point. when you said, brought a new concept to the table, talking about reliance, which i suspect you meant the home insurance building... you're again, wrong. the concept of frame construction has been around since before chicago and nyc were even cities. the concept of metal frame construction existed in england in the 1700's. what jenny UTILIZED in developing the structural steel was new advances in steel technology. and the simple fact is, chicago at the turn of the century was exploding with innovative and revolutionary architecture and engineering. even before the development of the steel frame, chicago architects were literary pushing the limits of masonry construction... and even heavy timber frame buildings. but when steel frame technology came along, it allowed a lot more than just taller buildings. it gave those chicago architects opportunities to exploit the load free walls and open the building up with more glass, bigger windows, and free and open bases. the technology of a skyscraper, and also the design concepts of a skyscraper were given to us by a collection of BRILLIANT chicago architects. the height would come later, and not necessarily in chicago either. but the fact is, the framework (sotospeak) of what a skyscraper is, conceptually and practically, was formed, here, in chicago, the birthplace of the skyscraper.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by atl2phx

first, let me frame my perspective as a non-chicagoan, non-architech, non engineer and non-urban planner. i'm a marketer by trade who has always had a passion for the built/physical elements of working cities, and in particular, cities, like chicago, that pull it off remarkably well. chicago and her towers fit that bill better than any other city.

after reading through your posts and the preface to this post, you don't seem like an arrogant guy. also, i appreciate your honesty.
but based on this :: non-chicagoan, non-architech, non engineer and non-urban planner :: it would probably be wise to just stick to your opinions. no offense. that said...

1 – quality. no city comes close. when you look at the collective mass of tower projects including spire, aqua, waterview, trump, etc….the diversity and uniqueness of all the projects is astounding. often you're going to see something first in chicago, then replicated in derivatives across the country and world. additionally, if you look at the quality of work in planning and executing greenspace, i.e. millennium park, it’s unmatched.

granted 'quality' is a subjective matter, i can't agree with you. the quality of archictecture in this city is, collectively, and largly, nothing to write home about. equally, the quality of planning in this city is sickening. moreso due to chicago's history. need i say more about the amazing planners this city has seen... mies, burnham...? and while a large part of the shitty planning in this city is due to our wonderful politicians *SCOFF*, in my opinion, it doesn't matter who is to blame; this city has a lot HORRIBLE planning. but back to the 'quality' of architecture here... where is it? i see glimmers of BRILLIANCE here and there... but that's about it. and don't give me that BORING, 'well compared to any other city in the US' cause i don't buy it. for one, that's not saying much. two, what about nyc? or boston? anyway... the bigger point, that's a cop-out, let's talk about and focus on OUR city. the level of architecture in this city sucks. and by what standard? the standard that our architectural forefathers set for us. we aren't meeting that standard. hell, it's gotten so bad in this city that the standard has been lowered to the point of trump tower being considered good design *COME ON* just because it's shinny and tall, doesn't mean it's good design, i hate to break to y'all. furthermore, look at our great history: the chicago school... AMAZING. it revolutionized architecture and laid the foundation for modern architecture to build upon. and when you walk down the GREAT mag mile, how many chicago school buildings do you count? what ever happend to the masonic temple, mcvicker's theatre, hotel metropole, old palmer house, montauk block, custom house, pulman building, schiller building and garrick theatre, columbus memorial, stock exchange, tacoma building, virginia hotel, old tribune, woman's temple, ashland block... what happend to all the chicago school?? i got torn down. and for what? parking lots, post-modern CRAP, or tall, oversize, shinny monoliths. MASTERPIECES like the marshall field wholesale store, 90% of our sullivan, burnham and root's great northern hotel, cobb and frost's chicago opera house... these weren't just some 'old' buildings like any other city had, the chicago school buildings weren't your run of the mill second empire same-old-shit, these were buildings that were, except for a few exceptions, unique to chicago, a style that was specific to the great second city, these were GROUND breaking, innovative, and genius displays of exceptional design. and if i was able to walk around town and experience that which gave us our own chapter in the history of architecture, i would be a lot less cynical. now... back to this idea of 'quality', if i may, for a moment, digress a little. where is the quality in all the SHIT three, four, whatever flats going up ALL over the north side? hmmm... don't get me started on the neighborhoods, but let me ask this: why are areas like alta vista, astor street district, the burling row houses, the mccormick row houses, the fullerton row houses, mid-north, arlington and roslyn place, prairie avenue, calumet/giles prairie district, etc... so FEW and FAR between in this city? rather than being the majority of chicago, places like our landmark districts are become but little facets of greatness that is slowing being destroyed city-wide. preservation, if i might ad, is an area in which we should look to places like brooklyn or boston for advice, though, unless we take a page out of london's book, i fear is too late. and then again, if you're a fan of all the irish-mafia cookie-cutter four flats popping up like weeds... well then i'll respectfully concede to a violently strange opinion. now before i get too far from my response...

no city comes close. when you look at the collective mass of tower projects including spire, aqua, waterview, trump, etc…

no city comes close? what about the projects in london? what about the piano tower in boston? hell, what about SOM's sanfran prop? what about 7wtc? the nytimes tower? boa tower? new york city is KICKING our ass in terms of quality. i challange you this: just look at their current trump project, trump soho. now look at ours. *yawn* wake me when he hires richard rogers for his next chicago project. TTC is BIG, CLUNKY, AWKWARD, UGLY, SHINNY, TALL, AND BORING. i mean, COME ON, the only time that building would have been groundbreaking was 20 years ago. it's 2007 and adrian smith gave us a half-ass, un-original, un-inspiring, non-threatening, glass mega-tower that looks more like an 1980's icon of downtown dallas, tx. it is an INSULT to the greatness that once was chicago architecture. it's tall: SO WHAT. *SCOFF* and adrian smith has the balls to call b37 a wasted opportunity? ARE YOU F**CKING SERIOUS? b37 is more of a success than CHUMP tower ever will be. talk about a site with SO much WASTED potential... what's worse, is smith's wonderfully designed, 21st century appropriate, clean technology tower, sits in his firm's portfolio as if to mock us and the concrete giant we have gracing our riverfront. TTC is a JOKE.

now, the spire... what can i say? calatrava is a genius, and i think that he should relocate to chicago and grace us with his talent over and over again... if anyone has the ability to single-handedly raise the standard of quality in this city, it certainly is him.
about aqua: uniqueness is a word i would attach to jeanne gang and her team of very talented architects... the only problem? how many projects is she getting in chicago? aqua and the hyde park tower and definately a start. is it a start down a path that leads to, dare i say, great design???? i hope so. but i doubt it. crapy design is just that cheap, which is sad.

waterview? yeeeeah, okay... but still, it doesn't impress me like 7wtc and other beautiful, modern, 21st century glass buildings that i mentioned before do. however, i reserve this opinion for revision upon waterview's completion.

the diversity and uniqueness of all the projects is astounding

that's a huge over statement. granted chicago has a LOT of GREAT firms, like goettsch, jahn, gang, brininstool + lynch, vdt, p+w, boothhansen, garofalo... but my point again is where're all the projects going?? dull, safe, boring, and at times AWFUL, SCB... the client slave, no pride, do anything to get the commission, lucien lagrange... wow, thanks for destroying chicago, parkmichigan one hit wonders, p/h... YAWN, though the lesser of the evils, destefano... please stop, just stop, fitzgerald... the WORST firms in the city get the MOST work. there is a lot of really awesome talent in this city, they're just not getting hired. and that's not there fault. but the longer we go on accepting CRAPPY design, the deeper we will be in this hole. and then the day will come when developers will be able to pay $100 for designs done by a high school drop-out and people will welcome it as the greatest thing since american idol, saying things like: OOOHHH WOW, IT'S TALL! COOOOOL!!!
sorry, but i refuse to accept the DISMAL state of architecture in this city. 90% of the projects in this city are just that bad. the best projects out of this whole boom are all those generic 10-20 story glass mid-rises that actually... ready?... integrate INTO the neighborhood.

2 - height. chicago dominates the list of skyscraper projects under construction exceeding 600ft.

who cares for one? second, just because a building is tall doesn't mean it's good. dubai has some of the tallest CRAP around. third, tall buildings are SO over-rated.

3 - breadth and depth of active projects. though not an indicator of innovation, just the volume of activity in chicago today is impressive. if there was a measure of projects, total floors, sq ft, height, etc i'm pretty sure chicago would likely come out on top.

...the amount of building in this city is depressing. because it's all so cheap... and in 30 years, we will all look back on this building boom as, wow, what were they thinking? trust me, this building boom is doing more harm than good.

4 – output. with firms like SOM, chicago feeds the trends that feed the world of architecture. therefore, innovation is organic to chicago.

SOM needs to stop doing its best work outside chicago. period. this city gets the shit left overs of SOM. and it's a shame too. if SOM put as much work into chicago as it does into its other projects i'd be happy. instead we get lse and ttc... compare that to the jinao tower, the jinling tower, 7wtc, 201 bishopsgate, 101 warren street, pearl river... come on...

pickard chilton is another great firm that saves its safest work for chicago... i'd like to see some more pickard chilton in chicago.
i'd say the same about jahn... even though 600 and the IIT dorms are a grand slam. i'd still like to see some more prominate jahn projects.

finally, to go back to the greatness that once was chicago architecture... mies. period. let's not forget the GREAT architects that was chicago's defining style. let's not accept 333 wacker, 900 n michigan, 311 wacker... as good design.


...that's all i got for now.

[Tom Servo]

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.

...okay... i can accept that those as styles of a wider movement in architecture. and i would too define a 'movement' in the same way. but still, every 1000 years? the chicago school was, no doubt, a movement, right? prairie too? modern too? postmodern too? or are those some sort of submovements? and the styles are sub-submovements? i just have a hard time accepting that 'movements' are so infrequent.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Where did all those people with the POMO philosophies of building repeats of what we already have go? I want to argue with them!

i'll argue with you!

i HATE all the POMO CRAP in this city. i wish i was a 4000 foot tall giant so i could crush them. ahhhhhhhh

no but seriously. i do. i think POMO (for the most part) set architecture (in general) back 40 years. but hey, who am i, right?

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by spyguy

Anyway, my complaint with "the state of Chicago architecture" would be that commissions are concentrated in a few firms.

I think I once tried to count the number of buildings designed by SCB, P/H, and a few others out of the total number of buildings proposed or UC and the proportion of work they get is staggering.

It's a shame that Chicago has tons of young talent that could certainly handle smaller 10-30 story projects but never get the chance. And when the cost of a project justifies an international starchitect, like Mandarin Oriental, we get another SCB or Lagrange building.

thank you.

[honte]

Well Adrian, that was depressing. In general, I can't argue, but I think you are being too harsh. Yes, we lost a terrible amount of old architecture - so did many American cities. Philly, Detroit, NY too. It just happened that Chicago's quality was extremely high and the youth of the city led it to have little reverence for its own past.

In terms of the new, growth of cities moves at a very slow pace. A lot of what happens in 10 years is trend-based and is being decided now. Give it a little time. As I said, if the Pols get in gear and the public demonstrates the understanding and demand, these things could shift quickly.

I am not sure, but I am really curious if NYC government is somehow highly encouraging developers to hire the best architects. Someone should do a little investigation into this.

The real shame is, here we have people like the Pritzkers in Chicago (eg Pritzker prize), and they seem perfectly content to have grade-B design. After all, they were the ones who fired Norman Foster - huge blown opportunity; money trumped their civic-mindedness. They are more interested in destroying Daley Bi for their own uses than promoting sensible and good design. Why haven't these people had a meeting with the mayor, if they are so enlightened?

We can argue about Trump until the cows come home, but it's a good building. Is it going to give people shivers like the Calatrava? No, but I am still not convinced that its location would have been the right place for something radical. I applaud Smith for toning it down - he certainly has the goods to do something much more wild there if he so chose.

[atl2phx]

see, this is what i love about chicago. this thread, in and of itself, is a reflection of the passion that the city evokes regarding architecture, skyscrapers and good design.

adrianx - i appreciate your comments and take away a more detailed understanding of the topic at hand. i will, however, voice my opinions - you can take it or leave it - i certainly will not take offense if you choose to disagree or ignore.

two observations:

one - with advances in communications, travel and engineering over the past 50 years, the resulting 'global village' seems to have consumed the nuances of regional design and delivered a more 'homogonized' architectural product. for example, pickard chilton's 1180 peachtree in atlanta (a building i admire) does not evoke 'atlanta' design any more than it would reflect a 'chicago' design if it were located in chicago, right? people see 1180 as a great building that adds a new dimension to the midtown skyline - but not 'uniquely' atlanta.

two - if there's a desire for the smaller chicago architectural talent to get a larger piece of the pie, maybe there's an opportunity to build a local coalition of firms that collectively participate in a wide reaching PR/marketing campaign designed to engage new projects as they consider design. surely, if the talent exists in chicago, is scalable and willing to work together - it's not unthinkable that collectively they can inspire builders/developers to continue chicago's rich tradition of innovation in design.

[Alliance]

Originally Posted by honte

The other option would be for government to step in, but how can you encourage great design?

Competition, the beginnings of a movement which I hope I'm seeing now. That can be jumpstarted by people with vision, like Kelleher (currently unlike the Pritzkers who seem content to sit ontheir fat arses, as Adrian pointed out).

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

no city comes close? what about the projects in london? what about the piano tower in boston? hell, what about SOM's sanfran prop? what about 7wtc? the nytimes tower? boa tower? new york city is KICKING our ass in terms of quality.

I definately agree with London and SOM's SF proposal, but I disagree about NYC. The trade center buildings might be interesting, but BofA and NTT are two towers I'm glad are nowhere near Chicago. But SOM's Transbay tower, Piano's Shard, St. Mary's Axe, Bisphosgate tower...all spectacular.

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

TTC is a JOKE.

And Amen to all that. Smith has potential. I'm still waiting to see it.

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

i think that he should relocate to chicago and grace us with his talent over and over again... if anyone has the ability to single-handedly raise the standard of quality in this city, it certainly is him.

Well, if the Spire and W=A are built, Pelli and Smith are going to have to raise the standards of their supertall WIPs. I honestly hope this chain reaction starts and starts now.

But that being said...with buildings like the Spire, Aqua, Waterview in progress (legacy is one for me too), 600 N. Fairbanks just off the press, I think the state of Chicago's architecture is drastically improving from the initial days of the boom where it was ALL pomo.

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

but the longer we go on accepting CRAPPY design, the deeper we will be in this hole.

I agree, but then agian cities like New York have double the amount of skyscrapers that we have, most of which are were just your standard cheap stuff at the time...just infill. Yet, we can still see good proposals there.

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

...the amount of building in this city is depressing. because it's all so cheap... and in 30 years, we will all look back on this building boom as, wow, what were they thinking? trust me, this building boom is doing more harm than good.

Still, looking back, when the boom started, we got crap! Park Tower? Come on. Thank Millennium Park for striking at least a vague sense of thinking into architects. If we're going ot have crap, I'd rather have glassy crap than pomo crap.

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

SOM needs to stop doing its best work outside chicago.

Yes.

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

let's not accept 333 s wacker, 900 n michigan, 311 wacker... as good design.

Because they're NOT!

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

i'll argue with you!

i HATE all the POMO CRAP in this city. i wish i was a 4000 foot tall giant so i could crush them. ahhhhhhhh

no but seriously. i do. i think POMO (for the most part) set architecture (in general) back 40 years. but hey, who am i, right?

Then you could be our tallest scraper!

However, so did Burhnam with the White City. Honestly, I love classical influences, even if its Classical pomo. Victorian pomo...*vomits*

Though honestly, 150 E Ontario interests me...just because it looks liek the greeny color of Carbon and Carbide...i always liked that color.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

i'll argue with you!

i HATE all the POMO CRAP in this city. i wish i was a 4000 foot tall giant so i could crush them. ahhhhhhhh

no but seriously. i do. i think POMO (for the most part) set architecture (in general) back 40 years. but hey, who am i, right?

You aren't arguing with me, you are agreeing! I agree that these retarded ideas that we somehow have to emulate the past lead nowhere.

I was just going to say the same thing Alliance said, its just like the criticisms of what Burnham did in the White City. Assuming history repeats itself, if we are at the point of the White City right now, we should just be gearing up for massive growth and a whole new style of architecture right about now!

I really think Architecture and society are inherently linked and move in cycles. You get some really really radical stuff at first and society loves it, but then a counterreaction comes and everyone starts hating it (I can't tell you how many people used to tell me how much they hate glass boxes and would point to buildings like the IBM, they still do quite often, but I think there is starting to be a greater understanding and appreciation of modernism) so a massive correction occurs where people attempt to go back to something familiar leading to Postmodernism style philosophy and architecture. Then people realize how counter productive repeating the past is and they forge ahead with new ideas again. Just like the Jeneane Gangs and Calatravas of the world are doing right now...

[Nowhereman1280]

I have a feeling this is going to end up being one of the most popular, largest, and longest running threads on this forum before too long. It seems to be a topic we constantly end up coming back to.

[Tom In Chicago]

Wow. . . this is quite possibly the dumbest thread I've ever had the displeasure of stumbling across. . .

[honte]

^ Well Tom, make it better with your two cents.

[Dac150]

I appears I am a 1 man army with my opinions regarding this thread.

I will say this though; I have respect for the amount of passion you Chicago forumers have for your city.