The State of Chicago Architecture.

[X-fib]

I sincerely hope that with CS, and the thus far apparent quality of W=A, that any proposal for a supertall at Wolf Point will be equally impressive. For the most part I am satisified with what I am seeing in the pipeline (with the exception of aquiatonica -sic?). I just hope that as the present boom progresses, which given the state of recent ecomonic news it may very well not, that Chicago continues on a path that produces fine examples of modern architecture and doesn't slip into a direction of quantity vs. quality, and end up looking like another Dubai.

[Dac150]

I have noticed that in present time Chicago is paving a road for a new generation of architecture, as New York did with the glass box. Hopefully this new trend spreads quickly.

I have also noticed that since the 60's all the way up to now and for sure beyond, Chicago is fearless in building something different and innovative. I am not the biggest fan of the CS design, but come on, that building is the definition of orignality in sksycrapers.

When all said and done I can conclude that Chicago is today what New York was in the 20th Century. Sofar, the 21st Century belongs to Chicago.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by Dac150

I appears I am a 1 man army with my opinions regarding this thread.

I will say this though; I have respect for the amount of passion you Chicago forumers have for your city.

you can have your opinions, but please find some sources other than wikipedia to get your misinformation from. go to prairie ave bookshop, and venture into the history section before making absolutely WRONG statements about architectural history. i have books written on the chicago school (and its impact), the development of the skyscraper in chicago and nyc, and the battle of height in nyc. and before i post anything on here i check to make sure i'm not wrong.

so did many American cities. Philly, Detroit, NY too

honte, yeah, but in what style was all the stuff in detroit, philly, and nyc built? for the most part it was the same old second-empire, romanesque, or neoclassical crap that was on EVERY corner in ANY city in the us. detroit lost a few really great buildings, but philly and nyc? go to london if you want to see old european architecture.

^ Well Tom, make it better with your two cents.

yes, please tom.

so did Burhnam with the White City

fyi guys, it was sullivan who lamented about burnham's decision to hire architects outside the chicago school group. saying something along the lines of how the beaux-art concepts that would be brought in were an INSULT to the chicago school, and that it would set architecture back 40 years in chicago. in his words: "the damage wrought by the fair will last for half a century from its date if not longer" in all honesty, the fair was most depressing in that, rather than introducing the chicago school to the rest of the world, as was the original plan of burnham and root before roots death, the outsider architects help to introduce beaux-art concepts instead. the white plaster palaces and their axial arrangement was the complete opposite of the chicago school. rather than going with something that was distinctly chicago, the outside architects brought old europe in from nyc and boston, something that was a fundamental GOAL of the chicago school--destroy the old europe. why do you think this city's grand opera was called the auditorium? ...the fair turned out to be a look at the old rather than of the future. which is sad because if root didn't die, the fair would have been just that... a look at the future. the greatest thing built at the fair was sullivan's building (btw wright was his right hand student at the time)

but instead, the focus and attention was all centered around this:

if you ask me, this represents a lot about architecture in this city. eg, what gets all the attention nowadays in chicago? hmmm?

[Dac150]

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

you can have your opinions, but please find some sources other than wikipedia to get your misinformation from.

Wikipedia? I think you are using the "non-reputable sources" as a safety blanket, because you do not agree with my posts. Enough now with you're ranting, lets focus on the thread.

[Tom Servo]

i'm just gonna put this out there: how many of you are fans of blair kamin?

i am. in fact, i think it's SO refreshing that we have a voice of reason in this city.


any thoughts on kamin?

[Alliance]

He's ok.

[Dr. Taco]

what an interesting thread. I read every word. I don't really know what you mean, tom

[Dac150]

His articles are very insightful and read well. He writes as if he was having a conversation with you. I like what he wrote on Sept. 7th about historical preservation.

[honte]

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

honte, yeah, but in what style was all the stuff in detroit, philly, and nyc built?

My point exactly. As I said, we happened to have a lot to lose and were young and brazen.

I am more heavily involved in preservation than anyone I know... it's hard not to be depressed about the losses. But, what I am trying to say is, this was an American phenomenon, not something to be down on Chicago about. Let the past go and focus on what we have left - which, I will disagree with one of your earlier points, is still around in huge numbers (not what it was, but let's be fair).

DAC, thanks for the nice comments and for sticking around even though we all jumped on you. Hopefully your comments about Chicago architecture picking up steam will be verified in the coming years.

[honte]

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

i'm just gonna put this out there: how many of you are fans of blair kamin?

i am. in fact, i think it's SO refreshing that we have a voice of reason in this city.


any thoughts on kamin?

Well, here comes my negativity again!! Haha.

I think Kamin is a part of the problem. His articles are too often retroactive - they are reviews, not serious opinions or vision. He rarely takes a position that isn't going to be well-liked by the Tribune's republican readers and the political system. And he writes like your dog and 6th grader should really dig it, dude! I swear, if he uses "Drop Dead" as an adjective one more time in an article, I might have to demonstrate in person what that really means. (Note - entirely facetious comment of course, but I don't want anyone to take this the wrong way.)

Blair has done some fabulous things, such as writing the 3-part series on demolition of important buildings, which definitely helped convince the city that there was a problem. But again, the tone was, "Oh gee, 10000 amazing buildings have fallen in the last ten years!! Oh gosh, no one did anything about it."

Chicago needs regular, scholarly discourse on architecture, and from more than one regular source. The absence of Lee Bey, even if he was another "populist" critic, has been really hard on the city, IMO. Bey took on issues that Kamin let slide. Lo and behold, what happened to Bey - the City made him an offer he couldn't refuse.

Becker is great, but his voice is not heard widely enough.

[Dac150]

Originally Posted by honte

DAC, thanks for the nice comments and for sticking around even though we all jumped on you. Hopefully your comments about Chicago architecture picking up steam will be verified in the coming years.

As we say in New York; forgetaboutit. I have a lot of respect for Chicago, and enjoy every minute of what they are doing to their skyline.

[staff]

Originally Posted by Alliance

Honestly, you complain alot, but there is not, imo, another city in the world that is building such quality.

Have you ever left the Chicago metro area?

[Dr. Taco]

Originally Posted by honte

Becker is great, but his voice is not heard widely enough.

what about roeder? The general consensus I'm getting about him is he's kind of shallow (not in a "dude, check out those boobies" kind of way)

[Alliance]

Originally Posted by staff

Have you ever left the Chicago metro area?

No, I really can't even bring myself to walk out of my room.

Being smart would taking a look as what is listed under my "Location:"

[spyguy]

Originally Posted by jstush04

what about roeder? The general consensus I'm getting about him is he's kind of shallow (not in a "dude, check out those boobies" kind of way)

Roeder is primarily a business columnist, not a qualified architecture critic.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by spyguy

Roeder is primarily a business columnist, not a qualified architecture critic.

^ Has he ever really commented on architecture? I don't recall him doing so recently, at least.

[Tom In Chicago]

honte - Well Tom, make it better with your two cents.

I think it's naiive to assume that the current state of Chicago architecture is different than that of any other city at the moment. . . what's happening here is pretty much exactly what's happening everywhere else. . .

. . .

[Alliance]

So, there is no disctintion in Chicago architecture? Our days of innovation are dead then.

[Dac150]

There is distinction and innovation through architecture in every city.

[wrab]

Chicago may yet again take on a vanguard role - perhaps a synergy of organicism & cutting-edge green technology. Both are stepchildren of the Chicago School, of Sullivan's maxim that "form follows function" - or, at least, they fit comfortably within Chicago's funtionalist traditions.