Quote:
Originally Posted by honte
^ Well, I have to say, I disagree 100% with the direction of your statement. Radical architecture is great and I think it would be welcomed here if it were built more often. I'm surprised to hear you repeat that sad story that has been foisted on us mostly by the condescending coastal critics.
I do agree that pragmatic architecture is a virtue, and that this virtue is respected, even worshiped (less so today) in Chicago. Do radicalism and pragmatism have to be polar opposites? Of course not.
|
When I say radical, I mean sculptural crap that passes as "architecture" today. I don't mean buildings that have new ideas behind them. Chicago is plenty accepting "radical architecture" if it means new ideas, but not when it means new ideas with absolutely no reasonable use. For example, the CCTV building is really only radical in the fact that it is a ridiculous shape that requires wayyyy to much expense to build for virtually no practical benefit. So I guess when I was saying radical before I meant exhibitionist. People just putting on a show because it looks cool and not because there is any intent or plan behind it. That has been decried through a lot of our history (even bouts of revivalism have been panned by many in the city even when they were popular a la burnham's white city).