The State of Chicago Architecture.

[Alliance]

Originally Posted by aaron38

And you agree with me on the need for rules.

We just disagree on "rules."

Originally Posted by aaron38

So I turn the question back to you. Why does a supertall need vertical lines? Why can't it drunkenly wobble to the top? Is Trump a bad design, or does it seriously challenge the nature of a supertall?

I think a strong vertical component is essential to a good design. I forget who said it, but Gang quoted it: "A skyscraper should be every inch a proud and soaring thing." If you're building UP, not having a strong vertical component is contradictory to your method. Buildings that lack that send a contradictory message, its almost as if they are ashamed of their height. Thats one of the main reasons Trump fails imo. Its composed of horizontal wrapping forms. They might be great as a stand alone, but if you don't want to admit you're building tall and relish in it, why are you designing skyscrapers?

Originally Posted by aaron38

See, there are rules, and just because you can break them doesn't mean you should. I can go to a wedding dressed as a clown and say I'm "Seriously challenging the nature of what a wedding guest could be." How well do you think that will go over? Should I simply tell the bride she's a dying breed when she comes to kill me?

Challenging the nature isn't a goal in itself. Deconstructivist architecture has to has some hight purpose to it, jsut as ALL good architecture should. Look at Solstice on the Park, 72deg slanted windows? but it actually relates to the structure of the building. The Noveul tower (wich looks awesome) in NYC is antohre example. Any two-bit architect can build a box. The question (imo) of modern architecture is can we break with the box, designing new and innovative building forms with the vast array of new materials and computer technology while retaining the brute functionalism of modernism?

Originally Posted by aaron38

Look at the Spire. The blue twizzler design was almost universally hated, and for good reason. The pushback got us a much better design in the end.

It was always intended to be redesigned. That day, when the spire was dropped and we got 2000 to roof was a great day in the history of Chicago architecture.

Originally Posted by 2PRUROCKS!

That is a great looking tower for NY but I fail to see how Hines is giving Chicago the shaft.

But thats the issue, all their towers are just ok. They lack effort.

And to everyone I totally agree on Wolf point. My take on NYC? Its competition. If you get one starchitect to build in the city, a competing developer also has one. In Chicago, when we have people supporting the Lucien LaGrange UNINSPIRED CRAP, any college student could throw out a more intriguing design for a building. I'm hoping the Spire changes that, but we don't need to be dependant on international talent either. There are plent of great Chicago firms, they're just not doing their great work in Chicago anymore. If that doesn't change, we have a major architectural crisis.

Thus where Hienz comes in. Pelli? Pelli's supertalls are the ultimate snores. They're going to cram 3 towers into that tiny site, and they're all going to be 700' single-use segmented aphrodesiacs. WHY THE HELL DIDN'T WE HAVE A COMPETITION? Honestly, if WP isn't the second tallest building in Chicago (ie taller than Sears @ 1450') I will be disappointed on that front...another missed opportunity.

[wrab]

Originally Posted by Alliance

.....I forget who said it, but Gang quoted it: "A skyscraper should be every inch a proud and soaring thing.".....

That'd be Sullivan.

[Alliance]

Thanks. Basically, he was right.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by Alliance

Honestly, if WP isn't the second tallest building in Chicago (ie taller than Sears @ 1450') I will be disappointed on that front...another missed opportunity.

the wolf point tower will be in the 1100' range. don't expect something taller than sears.

[honte]

^ Not by out standards, but Pelli has been known to tack plenty of doo-dads on top of his buildings. (I'm still annoyed he got the commission. Grrr.)

Now, here's another question: The Moma Nouvel building, are you guys sticking to your rules about roof height on that one? He did something I've been toying with for years - the disintegration of the tower as it rises. So on that one, yes, you have a roof far below, but the real building continues far above, and it wouldn't be the same building at all without.

[Alliance]

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

the wolf point tower will be in the 1100' range. don't expect something taller than sears.

I know and its got me all pissed. I keep hoping Hienz will show some backbone.

[Alliance]

Originally Posted by honte

^ Not by out standards, but Pelli has been known to tack plenty of doo-dads on top of his buildings. (I'm still annoyed he got the commission. Grrr.)

Now, here's another question: The Moma Nouvel building, are you guys sticking to your rules about roof height on that one? He did something I've been toying with for years - the disintegration of the tower as it rises. So on that one, yes, you have a roof far below, but the real building continues far above, and it wouldn't be the same building at all without.

See, thats something I've been toying with too. I tried to create a spreadsheet of all built and U/C supertalls by roof height. There is a building in Dubai that has a rather large gap between top floor and roof (no idea why) but it was a 56 meter difference). I don't know whats up there, but I doubt its usable. Thus, I'm slowly accepting it makes more sense to gauge from highest floor. Its the lowest measurement and therefore the most discerning (then we get into isssues on whether floors in parapets count). Roof is certianly better than spires, but when it comes down to it, it probably shouldn't count.

[honte]

^ Sure, but then you get into issues of pure design. The stuff atop the Nouvel is purely decorative, and it's more akin to spires than to anything having to do with real roofs. But it will go into the books as a 1100' building (or more), and the impact it has on the skyline will probably be more along those lines, despite the fact that no one is occupying those areas.

[wrab]

Originally Posted by honte

.....The Moma Nouvel building, are you guys sticking to your rules about roof height on that one? He did something I've been toying with for years - the disintegration of the tower as it rises. So on that one, yes, you have a roof far below, but the real building continues far above, and it wouldn't be the same building at all without.

I'm getting off topic, but this puts me in mind of Mayne's Phare Tower proposal for La Defense:

[honte]

^ Is there any real topic for this thread? It seems like the garbage bin of Chicago architecture discussion... ? (Not in a bad way.) It could have been titled, "Everything that might have been deleted in another Chicago Discussion Thread."

I like Thom Mayne a lot, but this La Defense building is definitely one starchitect building I am not jealous of at all. The form just seems so clunky and rather pointless...? France might be wise to stick to their own superstars, like Nouvel, Portzamparc, etc.

[Alliance]

Originally Posted by honte

^ Sure, but then you get into issues of pure design. The stuff atop the Nouvel is purely decorative, and it's more akin to spires than to anything having to do with real roofs. But it will go into the books as a 1100' building (or more), and the impact it has on the skyline will probably be more along those lines, despite the fact that no one is occupying those areas.

I think you have an argument. It does make more of a presence than the spire, but it still really lacks the function and groundwork required to build another floor.

Its a blurry line indeed. I hope CTBUH makes a change soon. At least eliminate spires and antennas as a start.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by wrabbit

I'm getting off topic, but this puts me in mind of Mayne's Phare Tower proposal for La Defense:

i love this building. it's more in line with the direction in which i'd like to see architecture in chicago go.

[honte]

^ Tell me why. As I said, it seems random and pointless, and beyond that, I think the form is pretty darn ugly.

[vxt22]

I wholeheartedly disagree that that's the direction Chicago architecture should go in.

Please, no more Spertuses, MPs, etc. They just don't belong in a city of practical architecture, where buildings WORK! Louis Sullivan would be ashamed.

I blame the architecture schools for these architects who think they're sculptors. I, once again, go to IIT, and have to say that at least in their first two years I see the architecture students here do really pointless work. Sure colors and proportion are important, but practicality, economy, and materials should be emphasized. Oh, that and making buildings look like buildings, especially ones that reflect who commissioned them. An architect is an artistic businessman, and not a for profit artist. By making daring designs that MAKE SENSE, everyone wins, including the client with the more desirable building. Part of an architect's job is to push progressive design, and sell their progressive design to the client, defending it. When an architect cant do that he/she fails at one of an architect's jobs. When he is successful the public sees a progressive, functional design, which is hopefully coherent with it's surroundings and which satisfies the client's needs.

I agree that architecture is a 'me' art. In fact I think it always has been. Adler and Sullivan, Burnham and Root, etc competed for commissions, they didn't agree to share them. The difference was in the fact that the two mens' visions were similar and yet couldn't be more different. Now a developer can commission anyone in the world more easily. Even if they don't, the only Chicago school we have now is that of the cheapass parking podium tower, that fails miserably to imitate the quality of the previous schools. Thank you VERY much city council and their zoning code.

Oh and the lack of artisans and masons. Lets use prefab shapes as an alternative!!!!!! Cause you know that exudes quality...

[honte]

^ Sorry, I don't get the argument. The first two years at IIT are either random introduction with practical emphasis, or (allegedly) intensely practical Miesian studios. Things tend to get wild after that. Or, are you referring to the Grad program?

I agree that "radical" designs that still make sense are the way to go. This is why I am curious what Adrian is seeing in the Morphosis building, since I do not see any logic to it. And, if you are a sculptor but your work isn't beautiful, well, you're in trouble.

Spertus is more rational, and while I disagree that it is a radical building by any means (or the future of Chicago architecture), I think it is supremely well crafted and a worthy addition to the Michigan Avenue streetwall.

[vxt22]

I went to the national building museum the other day and looked at a book called "The Architecture of Absurdity."

It was all about architects who design to get on the front of architecture magazines, and not to create a sustainable, efficient building that satisfies the client and yet elegantly makes a statement. Fully half of the book was devoted to the nonsensical, ridiculous, and unimaginative designs of none other than Gehry and Libeskind.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by vxt22

I went to the national building museum the other day and looked at a book called "The Architecture of Absurdity."

It was all about architects who design to get on the front of architecture magazines, and not to create a sustainable, efficient building that satisfies the client and yet elegantly makes a statement. Fully half of the book was devoted to the nonsensical, ridiculous, and unimaginative designs of none other than Gehry and Libeskind.

well yeah, gehry sucks... he's a sculptor, not an architect, if you ask me.

[wrab]

(edit)

[Nowhereman1280]

Speaking of sculptural architecture Vs. form follows function modernism... I think that, in terms of pure form, the JHC was the pinnacle of classic modernism, you really can't do structural expressionism or classic modernism any better than that. So what do we do now? Do we keep trying to usurp our achievements of the past, attempting to outdo our Marina City's and John Hancock's, or do we strive for something new, a completely different direction?

I would argue that attempting to go down the same path as JHC and Marina City over and over again, trying to keep recycling our architectural philosophy, is really just another form of Post-Modernism. Its really just an attempt to recreate something that is a part of our past, but using more modern techniques and practices. I don't think we should build NO modernist or structurally expressive buildings, nor do I think we should build NO post modern buildings, but I think our Avant Guard needs to move in an entirely different direction if we want to continue to contribute to the world of architecture.

So I see two options:

A. Continue with the philosophy of form follows function, but adapt it to modern functions. This means develop the philosophy along the lines of Smith's Zero Energy tower and the DeStephano wedge design possibly for BP, where the function has changed to promoting an zero net effect on the environment. Therefore the form of Smith's tower is not derived of decoration, but rather the most efficient possible shape to generate and conserve energy. This could lead to some very sleek and interesting designs and fluid dynamics becomes the principal decider of the shape and design of the facade.

B. Go in a completely different philosophical direction. Structural expressionism says that the building's facade and design should reflect and expose how the building works, wouldn't it be interesting if we completely blew that off since we are rapidly gaining technology that allows us to build in completely radical shapes? For example, re-concrete, if we mix carbon fibre in, it becomes ridiculously strong, we can now build buildings in just about whatever shape we want, why not go with that?

If structural expressionism holds that the structure is expressed, then it says nothing about whether or not the form of the structure follows its function. This would mean we can still build in the structurally expressive style while building absolutely absurd buildings. Heck, if we can build a building that has a massive kink/cantilevered shift halfway up with a twist in it as well, why not do that? Why not take the advanced structures we would need to build that and expose them, make that the defining feature of the design, even if there is no practical point in putting gigantic 30 foot shift and twist in the middle of a building


Those are the directions I see Chicago architecture possibly taking, maybe they will both evolve, maybe I'll be completely wrong, but I think our architecture would be in good shape for a long time to come if we took a direction and ran with it instead of going every which way at once...

[Alliance]

Option B leads us to Dubai's philosophy of anti-architecture. But Option A leads us nowhere either. If we could effectively answer this question, we'd truly have a thrid school. Either way, Dubai has clearly shown me that B is NOT a good option.

So where do we go? Look at Gang. Structural expressionism WITH abstract form. I think currently, people think too much along the lines of modernism (as in structuralism has to be a box). With all the advancements in computer modelings/etc, we should be working along the lines of advanced structural forms that allow for increasingly functional buildings.

That being said, I like expressionist buildings too (Spire, etc). It just needs to have a clear sense of direction.