Quote:
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...
Quote:
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...
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.