^ Oh boy, this is my last post veering off-topic. The skyscraper is defined in the scholarly circles as a building that has a fully structurally load-bearing frame, and does not rely on load-bearing exterior walls. That was the major shift that happened with Jenney's Home Insurance building (and obviously, this built on many other developments prior, so let's not get into that mess either). All the things that happened after that point were due to this development, and ancillary developments like the high-speed elevator that happened around the same time.
^^ 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.
Yes, it is somewhat off-topic; I am writing it to respond to a question, and also because it sets the tone for the conversation at-hand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alliance
I agree. But, we do have the Pelli tower comming, although frankly, I think his supertall designs are incredibly uninspired and boring.
I'd much rather see local talent like Gang getting a flood of contracts, but the starchitect craze is a self-perpetuating spiral of out-selling anther. If someone has Ghery, somone else who wants to sell has to have Foster, and someone else needs to have another Foster...etc. I'd very much regret to enter a state of architecture where local talen't cant come to the forefront, but we ARE getting a Calatrava tower. I think that will inspire more developers to pay for the often mediocre work of starchitects.
But still, is the current lack of a title style and movement tied to the lack of a home-based architect? Without a Root, Burnham, Mies, or Wright, can Chicago really have a headlining architectural revolution? Is a third schol dependant on a homegrown leader?
|
^ Yes, it is tied to lack of local leadership and direction. But it's more than one person. If we want to regain the old power (and I am not 100% sure it's necessary or healthy in today's world), we need a much tighter and broader network: Social reform, activism, critical journals that connect the design community, a real dialogue between designers, clubs/meeting places to share ideas, etc. These things existed during the Prairie / Chicago School days, and also existed during the Second Chicago School. Just having a great designer or two doesn't solve the problem. And don't forget, there was a
real cause with some local urgency.
I agree that Pelli and star friends are not the answer (Pelli's not even good enough to be a starchitect in my book). But yes, I would rather have local people producing the great stuff, and be rid of trendy names and the characteristically bad architecture they produce. My only longing for name-brand stuff is to ensure we don't get left behind somehow or miss the work of a great artist in the "urban collection." W=A and other developments give me a lot of hope along this line - the development community has to give our people a chance to shine. No more Mansard Roofs!! No more repeat SCB buildings.
Nouvel is a new hero for me - he is producing really awesome work without buckling to the trend. He or Rodgers would be my first pick for Chicago Spire II.
OK guys, sorry for monopolizing this thread for a while. I had to air some thoughts that were either deleted or not posted earlier due to my lagging in the new thread. I'll be on the sidelines for a while if I can help it.