Quote:
Originally Posted by joeg1985
Well this is a much better explanation for what you don't like. And I agree with you that the loss of individual building fronts is a shame. That doesn't mean however that all that signage can't be returned to the new development. The architect could definitely do better breaking up the frontage to make it appear as if it were multiple buildings.
|
I think the problem though (and I agree with Tom) is that when you're trying to mimic multiple facades, its easy to see through that for what it is: something dishonest and fake. Chicago is great because it is a collection of designs from different periods and each reflects a certain history from its time. You enter one shop or restaurant and its a completely different experience from the one next door to it; not just in appearance but even the little things like how hard you have to pull on the door to enter, the feel of the hardware, the scent of the room, the way the floor creaks. When you slap up a bland massive development like this, those experiences are lost. Everything becomes uniform, and uniform is boring and bland. Im much more in favor of thoughtfully done small projects than these "all or nothing" blocklong demolitions.
And yea, if the design were better it might be easier to swallow, but its not.