The State of Chicago Architecture.

[Alliance]

"Chicago" is everything, hence its incomparable architectural legacy.

I tire of all this what is "Chicago" stuff. JHC wasn't Chicago, nor was 333 N Wacker, Marina City, Wrigley, 860-880 LSD, Smurfit Stone, CNA, Daley, IBM, Inland Steel, The Spire, or Aqua.

Get the picture?
Chicago is Innovation. Chicago is Quality. Chicago is Legacy.

[Alliance]

anthing in particular come to mind when you make that statement?

[atl2phx]

Originally Posted by Alliance

anthing in particular come to mind when you make that statement?

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.

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.

2 - height. chicago dominates the list of skyscraper projects under construction exceeding 600ft. height was born in chicago. as long as the city keep going higher, she’s gonna be on top.

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.

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

[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.

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.

2 - height. chicago dominates the list of skyscraper projects under construction exceeding 600ft. height was born in chicago. as long as the city keep going higher, she’s gonna be on top.

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.

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

...oh wow, um, i'm gonna respond to this when i get home from school tonight. but in the mean time... height was born in chicago? um... no.

[Dac150]

Originally Posted by atl2phx

2 - height. chicago dominates the list of skyscraper projects under construction exceeding 600ft. height was born in chicago. as long as the city keep going higher, she’s gonna be on top.

I 110% disagree with every word in your post. But to say "height was born in Chicago" just takes the cake as the most ridiculous comment ever made. Chicago did not recieve it's first supertall until the 1960's (John Hancock Center), while NYC already had the ESB, Chrsyler, Woolworth, 70 Pine, 40 Wall, 20 Exchange, 30 Rock, The Chanin Building, The Lincoln Building, must I go on..... You need to re-evaluate all your comments, especially your one about the birth of height with regards to skyscrapers, because it is false.

I don't care about your opinions, (because we all are allowed them) but some of your comments are just downright not true.

[atl2phx]

Originally Posted by Dac150

I 110% disagree with every word in your post. But to say "height was born in Chicago" just takes the cake as the most ridiculous comment ever made. Chicago did not recieve it's first supertall until the 1960's (John Hancock Center), while NYC already had the ESB, Chrsyler, Woolworth, 70 Pine, 40 Wall, 20 Exchange, 30 Rock, The Chanin Building, The Lincoln Building, must I go on..... You need to re-evaluate all your comments, especially your one about the birth of height with regards to skyscrapers, because it is false.

I don't care about your opinions, (because we all are allowed them) but some of your comments are just downright not true.

most ridiculous comment ever made? cleary you've missed nearly every GWB press conferences since january 2001.

before you bring out your big guns, relax. i'm not long for splitting hairs on where 'height was born' - it's clearly a subjective statement that can be turned upside down and inside out to meet the needs of any attention seeking mouthpiece.

sure, i could be 'techically' wrong, however, i'd place a decent wager that if you canvassed a scientifically releveant segment of the population as to the origin of the skyscraper or 'height', a majority of responsents would likely choose chicago.

for me, it's pretty simple. i'm basing my position on the fact that chicago gave birth to the first steel frame building - an innovation that paved the way for taller buildings and is still the basic formula for skyscrapers today.

game over.

[Dac150]

Originally Posted by atl2phx

[B]for me, it's pretty simple. i'm basing my position on the fact that chicago gave birth to the first steel frame building - an innovation that paved the way for taller buildings and is still the basic formula for skyscrapers today.

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.

[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.

[Alliance]

THIS THREAD IS ABOUT THE CURRENT STATE OF CHICAGO ARCHITECTURE. I WILL NOT LOSE A GOOD DISCUSSION TO POINTLESS BANTER.

I'f you're not going to discuss CHICAGO's CURRENT architecture, DON'T POST.

[Dac150]

Originally Posted by Alliance

THIS THREAD IS ABOUT THE CURRENT STATE OF CHICAGO ARCHITECTURE. I WILL NOT LOSE A GOOD DISCUSSION TO POINTLESS BANTER.

I'f you're not going to discuss CHICAGO's CURRENT architecture, DON'T POST.

Are you serious? We are discussing architecture through the concept of steel structures and their influence on today's cities. Steel is a part of architecture in any city including Chicago. If anything this is a good discussion.

I am not fighting with alt2phx, but just simply having a friendly debate on our cross-roads of opinions. I fail to see an issue.

[ardecila]

All this hand-wringing about whether Chicago is still on top - to all the doubters, name a single city in the world that is doing its own thing with building design, developing a unique new style.

Architectural movements will not take place in a localized fashion anymore, and we need to recognize that. The Chicago School was born out of a very small group of architects who collectively received hundreds of commissions for the booming early Chicago. When such a small group is asked to produce so much design, a style is bound to emerge. A similar thing happened with Mies, who came to Chicago and inculcated his disciples at IIT with his own brand of modernism. These students went out and formed their own firms, receiving commissions from around the world.

We now see the opposite, where many top-name firms compete for relatively few high-profile projects, and the other 99% of development receives poor-quality pastiches of modernism and traditional styles.

In a world where developers look around the world for the design of their projects, and large architectural firms operate out of multiple cities, movements and ideas in architecture will not form on a local basis. It's ridiculous to expect the buildings in any one city to be extraordinarily innovative when thousands of other cities are also being innovative at the same time.

I think what matters for the future of Chicago architecture is that we retain the amazing volume of talent and ideas that flow out of Chicago firms. We have an incredibly strong architectural community here that rivals any in the world, including top firms, schools, conferences, and organizations. We even have a strong public interest in architecture.

Let's stop all this insane comparing of cities and take a look back. Notice, for god's sake, the sheer amount of good buildings and architects we have in this city. What more is required?

[Dac150]

Originally Posted by ardecila

All this hand-wringing about whether Chicago is still on top - to all the doubters, name a single city in the world that is doing its own thing with building design, developing a unique new style.

Architectural movements will not take place in a localized fashion anymore, and we need to recognize that. The Chicago School was born out of a very small group of architects who collectively received hundreds of commissions for the booming early Chicago. When such a small group is asked to produce so much design, a style is bound to emerge. A similar thing happened with Mies, who came to Chicago and inculcated his disciples at IIT with his own brand of modernism. These students went out and formed their own firms, receiving commissions from around the world.

We now see the opposite, where many top-name firms compete for relatively few high-profile projects, and the other 99% of development receives poor-quality pastiches of modernism and traditional styles.

In a world where developers look around the world for the design of their projects, and large architectural firms operate out of multiple cities, movements and ideas in architecture will not form on a local basis. It's ridiculous to expect the buildings in any one city to be extraordinarily innovative when thousands of other cities are also being innovative at the same time.

I think what matters for the future of Chicago architecture is that we retain the amazing volume of talent and ideas that flow out of Chicago firms. We have an incredibly strong architectural community here that rivals any in the world, including top firms, schools, conferences, and organizations. We even have a strong public interest in architecture.

Let's stop all this insane comparing of cities and take a look back. Notice, for god's sake, the sheer amount of good buildings and architects we have in this city. What more is required?

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.

But to circle back with what you said in the first paragraph, I can indeed name many cities that are "doing their own thing" and "developing unique styles." New York, Dubai, Hong Kong, Taipei, Shanghi, London, Las Vegas. Those are just a few names. What Chicago is doing to the skyscraper is without a doubt amazing, but it is indeed not alone. All of those cites I listed are producing or recently have produced, amazing structures that are quite unique. Different from what the eye has ever seen in a skyscraper.

Chicago is taking skyscrapers and architecture to new levels, but so are many other cities. That's the bottom line.

[Alliance]

Originally Posted by Dac150

All of those cites I listed are producing or recently have produced, amazing structures that are quite unique.

"I don't want to be different. I want to be good."

The question is, where is CHICAGO going with its architecture.

[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!

[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?

[Dac150]

Originally Posted by Alliance

"I don't want to be different. I want to be good."

The question is, where is CHICAGO going with its architecture.

Then explain that to the multiple forumers dis-regarding the essence of this thread by making their own philosophies and saying how Chicago is this and that, and how other cities are inferior, when that is indeed not the case. I am simply proving that what they are saying is in-accurate, as well as trying to salvage this thread by putting those cooments to rest. Stop always pointing the finger at me when things are not going as intended, because this is not the case.

[edluva]

Originally Posted by ardecila

All this hand-wringing about whether Chicago is still on top - to all the doubters, name a single city in the world that is doing its own thing with building design, developing a unique new style.

Architectural movements will not take place in a localized fashion anymore, and we need to recognize that. The Chicago School was born out of a very small group of architects who collectively received hundreds of commissions for the booming early Chicago. When such a small group is asked to produce so much design, a style is bound to emerge. A similar thing happened with Mies, who came to Chicago and inculcated his disciples at IIT with his own brand of modernism. These students went out and formed their own firms, receiving commissions from around the world.

We now see the opposite, where many top-name firms compete for relatively few high-profile projects, and the other 99% of development receives poor-quality pastiches of modernism and traditional styles.

In a world where developers look around the world for the design of their projects, and large architectural firms operate out of multiple cities, movements and ideas in architecture will not form on a local basis. It's ridiculous to expect the buildings in any one city to be extraordinarily innovative when thousands of other cities are also being innovative at the same time.

I think what matters for the future of Chicago architecture is that we retain the amazing volume of talent and ideas that flow out of Chicago firms. We have an incredibly strong architectural community here that rivals any in the world, including top firms, schools, conferences, and organizations. We even have a strong public interest in architecture.

Let's stop all this insane comparing of cities and take a look back. Notice, for god's sake, the sheer amount of good buildings and architects we have in this city. What more is required?

^yes. you speak for the chicago that is actually "with it". the world has changed a lot since when chicago's modernist contributions were chiefly relevant.

[Alliance]

where did xsans go?

[Dac150]

Let's just start over with this thread, because it does make for some good conversation. I don't want it to be closed.

[honte]

Wow, I've missed a lot. In a nutshell, I agree with what ardecila said above. Architecture has gone global. Will Chicago ever reign again? No one knows. Is it even important?

I really hate to admit this, but Post 9-11, New York has pretty much destroyed Chicago in terms of progressive design. No one hates saying this more than me. We have some nice developments indeed, and I have never been happier to be a Chicagoan, but the sheer volume of money that flowed into NYC after the attacks (some of it unjustified public funds IMO - let's not go there) and well-deserved citizen support have produced a huge crop of buildings by the best designers. For example, I get very angry when I see Hines hires Pickard-Chilton in Chicago, but for less-profitable buildings hires Norman Foster and Jean Nouvel in NYC.

I am not sure what causes this trend. Is it partly local pride by Chicagoans makes us look inward? Partly an ugly "name-brand" living phenomenon that makes people wear Ghery condos like ugly designer suits and flashy cars? Whatever cause, for some reason with the exception of the Calatrava and the Piano, private parties here are not seeking out the best in design talent regularly. This puts Chicago at a disadvantage, because ideally we would be a place that is being looked up to for native work, but also a highly desired place that brings examples of the best work here. This was the case in the 1960s, and I think we are much better for it.

However, there are some caveats to the above. First, name-brand architects don't really always produce great work. I am very annoyed by Foster's newest NYC proposals (all three of them). And many other recent works in the starchitect category would definitely fit the same bill. Second, we should be proud to have home-grown talent producing most of the good work here. Most of the most impressive stuff in NYC has been imported talent, in my opinion - not stirring up dirt, and that's been a trend for a while now. Third, with insane amounts of money, you'd better be damn able to produce something decent. Chicago has always been about producing beautiful architecture without lavish budgets - it's an entirely different production.

Dac, no offense, but many of your comments concerning the early skyscrapers were equally off-base. Foremost, the Reliance building was not the first skyscraper; perhaps you'd better go revisit the history. I don't mean to get into a pissing contest with NYC, but give Chicago a little respect - many of the comments in the prior post you attacked were absolutely true. Someone was here simply voicing their support for the city, which is nice to hear, because we are on the inside always criticizing what is going on and don't always have a clear perspective.

Most Important: Chicago saw some very dark days in the 1960s-1990s. Where we are now is nothing short of incredible, given the "Rust Belt" image and the fact that many people simply left this place to die on the vine post WWII. Everyone involved in building this city - designers, engineers, construction workers, politicians, critics, forumers, whatever - should be very proud that Chicago is thriving and blossoming. What is happening here right now is undeniably disproportionate to our population and census-style statistics: It is a rebirth, and the good news is there is a lot of excitement left to happen.