Quote:
Originally Posted by honte
^ Ok, I buy this to some degree. Sometimes everyone needs a reality check. But also, there is no denying that NY in particular likes (at least in attempt) to seize most opportunities and make the most of them. I wish Chicago could think like that. I feel like the Daley administration said, "Well, we did Millennium Park, we're done with that design thing."
And the developers in NY are obviously biting to produce good design - I've been asking why, since they are foremost businessmen and as a rule won't do more than they find necessary. Something's in the air - or in the government offices - that makes people want not just to make a decent product, but to produce a revolutionary product. How many developers in Chicago are actually trying to push the bar, rather than just make something decent so they can get paid? I count two, Shelbourne (Chicago Spire) and Antheus Capital (Solstice), and they are both from out of town.
At the Pritzker Pavilion when Thom Mayne accepted the Pritzker prize, Daley concluded his speech by saying something like "I hope some day soon we'll have a Thom Mayne building in our city." Mayne looked like he almost fell out of his chair with disbelief. And I wonder if Mayne's instinct was right? Where is Daley on this? He could have hired Mayne for any of the stupid police or fire stations going up, branch libraries, fieldhouse, what have you.
I would say that Chicago is more level-headed as a city and in our planning. We tend to think more realistically, but what gets built is therefore closer to what was proposed in the first place.
I don't have many complaints about the end result of many of our high-rises. Streeterville, for instance, I think is turning out to be a wonderful place, despite the fact that none of the buildings (aside from the Spire, of course) will be on the cover of any avant-garde design magazines.
As I keep saying, what I think is missing from the Chicago design puzzle is diversity and big name designers. As I said in the OMP thread, one design innovation or new technique introduced can have a profound impact, which can ripple through the entire design community. That's why it's important to bring in the big guns. NY has an easier time with this because most of the international architects like to set up shop there. I can't think of any that have Chicago offices, sadly. And I think that many architects want an NY building in their portfolio, so they probably go out of their way to market themselves there.
Perhaps the Chicago Spire will change a lot of these false perceptions.
|
I guess we'll arrive at different conclusions if we have different beliefs about what qualifies as innovative. You mention two projects, I mentioned more. Aqua, I think, is one such design, but both you and Alliance slight it. I'm not sure why. Yes, it's a simple solution but, like Solstice, it's an ingenious one: a standard rectangular prism transformed into one of the most organic structures in the city solely through the extension and reduction of its balconies corresponding to the views from each unit. No ungainly projections. Pragmatic and quintessentially Chicago. I've seen photos and renderings of other buildings that attempt something similar but they all pale in comparison to Gang's design. I said it before but I'll say it again: creating something innovative and functional when given tight parameters (in this case, a stodgy developer and, I'm sure, tight budget) is the true hallmark of good architecture. Architects like Gehry, Calatrava, Foster, Piano and Nouvel have achieved such dizzying levels of fame and success that they're given carte blanche; of course the MoMA, Spire, bandshell and modern wing are going to be beautiful -- function and context aside, there are no real constraints!
Look, for example, at Calatrava's gorgeous addition in Milwaukee. Cost overruns were great but the city LAVISHED money on the man, yes, because they believed in the project, but they believed in the project because of the name. Of course, this is real architecture; but it's operating in somewhat of a vacuum where money is of little concern.
You're looking for big, visionary developments, but, compared to New York, clout and capital are issues in Chicago. Millennium Park was an extraordinary project; the only other city in this country that could have handled it is New York. But it was still a strain on the city -- not necessarily financially, although finances factored prominently in its criticism. But logistically, coordinating. For a recently post-Industrial city, no less! New York, on the other hand, could handle half a dozen Millennium Parks without batting an eye. Something in the air? Aside from particle dust, no: it's a big city, a more developed city, with big name developers, big name investors and a powerful government. It's an older, more mature and, at this point in time, very different beast!
For the same reasons as Aqua, Solstice will be a success. (For the same reason, most of Gang's buildings are a success.) Ditto Waldorf=Astoria. Staybridge Suites, too -- another perfect example, albeit on a humbler scale, of a building on a strict budget with an impressive design. For similar reasons, Spertus was a success. (You really don't think it is?)
I know this is an argument you've heard before, but look at the buildings I listed. They're all local architects. Look at New York's: international starchitects paid for by organizations (WTC, NYT, BoA, MoMA, etc.) with the deepest pockets. Look at our buildings: excepting our crop from starchitects, the structures are innovative but subtle not flashy. Look at what goes up in New York: beautiful but often more flamboyant.
Our city's resources can't yet match those of New York's. Constraints exist in Chicago that don't exist there that have nothing to do with culture. This, I think, is what has historically made and what continues to make Chicago architecture so interesting. It's "real" in a way that New York isn't and, during Chicago's lifetime, really hasn't been.
(Side note, in NO WAY am I knocking New York. Hometown pride aside, I do think it's the best city in the world. But Chicago's developed and continued to develop under very, very different circumstances, and this, more than anything else, is what has contributed, IMO, to the different architectural cultures.)
Prev
Linear Mode
