Quote:
Originally Posted by TallMark
Empire State Building's Deco facade is a work of art, not a generic tinted glass windows stuck into equally generic, cheap black aluminum panes. If it were, it would be struggling for recognition AND tenants like Sears. How many people have heard or can recognize the Sears? Now, compare that to the Empire.
|
You see the problem you reach is your complete lack of understanding of the facade of this tower. Its no less a work of art than the ESB. The ESB's facade is very plain and is not really notable in any way. The Sears facade is very detailed and has a lot of thought put into it. Just because you are incapable of seeing the art in a series of simple lines, doesn't mean we should desecrate this for future generations. In case of haven't noticed, the facade on ESB is just as much a series of lines as the facade of Sears.
Also, you are completely wrong when you call the facade of Sears cheap, its a very nice, high quality, well constructed facade. Again, you are simply ignorant of the facts, just because we can get aluminum for cheap right now, does not mean the facade is cheap. We could get limestone for cheap in the 50's and 60's and we destroyed 1000's of those facades because people had idiot ideas like the ones you have.
Quote:
Ever since I first brought up this topic, more and more evidence is surfacing for, well, re-surfacing the Sears by its owners. The structure is grand and wonderfully innovative. It is the skin that disappoints, if not scare off, the on-looker (and potential tenants). Why else has this great structure remained such an unknown? Please explain that all ye who want to keep it the way it is. No one is arguing for another generic, cheap facade to replace the current one. 
|
You brought up this topic? What "evidence" is surfacing? And no, its not just the structure in this building that makes the building, the color of it is essential. Black was purposely chosen to contrast the sky and reflect the moody climate and lighting of Chicago. Again. in the 1920's popular opinion thought that Louis Sullivan's ornate facades looked "dirty" and non-streamlined, so they covered a bunch up. We now are horrified by that stupidity. In the 60's we decided that the terracotta and limestone facades of the early 1900's were grimy and dirty and we covered up or ripped a bunch of them down. Again, we are now horrified by this loss. What makes you think that your beloved mutilation of a great work of the 70's is going to be looked upon any differently by future preservationists?