HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture

About The Ads  This week the ad company used in the forum will be monitoring activity and doing some tests to identify any problems which users may be experiencing. If at any time this week you get pop-ups, redirects, etc. as a result of ads please let us know by sending an email to forum@skyscraperpage.com or post in the ads complaint thread. Thank you for your participation.


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2007, 10:22 PM
atl2phx's Avatar
atl2phx atl2phx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 1,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dac150 View Post
I 110% disagree with every word in your post. But to say "height was born in Chicago" just takes the cake as the most ridiculous comment ever made. Chicago did not recieve it's first supertall until the 1960's (John Hancock Center), while NYC already had the ESB, Chrsyler, Woolworth, 70 Pine, 40 Wall, 20 Exchange, 30 Rock, The Chanin Building, The Lincoln Building, must I go on..... You need to re-evaluate all your comments, especially your one about the birth of height with regards to skyscrapers, because it is false.

I don't care about your opinions, (because we all are allowed them) but some of your comments are just downright not true.
most ridiculous comment ever made? cleary you've missed nearly every GWB press conferences since january 2001.

before you bring out your big guns, relax. i'm not long for splitting hairs on where 'height was born' - it's clearly a subjective statement that can be turned upside down and inside out to meet the needs of any attention seeking mouthpiece.

sure, i could be 'techically' wrong, however, i'd place a decent wager that if you canvassed a scientifically releveant segment of the population as to the origin of the skyscraper or 'height', a majority of responsents would likely choose chicago.

for me, it's pretty simple. i'm basing my position on the fact that chicago gave birth to the first steel frame building - an innovation that paved the way for taller buildings and is still the basic formula for skyscrapers today.

game over.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2007, 10:32 PM
Alliance's Avatar
Alliance Alliance is offline
NEW YORK | CHICAGO
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 3,532
THIS THREAD IS ABOUT THE CURRENT STATE OF CHICAGO ARCHITECTURE. I WILL NOT LOSE A GOOD DISCUSSION TO POINTLESS BANTER.

I'f you're not going to discuss CHICAGO's CURRENT architecture, DON'T POST.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2007, 10:39 PM
Dac150's Avatar
Dac150 Dac150 is offline
World Machine
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NY/CT
Posts: 6,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by atl2phx View Post
[B]for me, it's pretty simple. i'm basing my position on the fact that chicago gave birth to the first steel frame building - an innovation that paved the way for taller buildings and is still the basic formula for skyscrapers today.
Now that you put it that way, I can understand better what you mean, but that still does not float by boat. To say the Reliance Building (1st steel building) was the birth of height in skyscrapers though is obtuse. It more so introduced a new concept to the table.

I would say that the birth of height in skyscrapers would go either to the Flatiron Building or Woolworth. Those two buildings were the first that utilized height to a new eternal trend through the concept of steel. That trend is of course; tall skyscrapers. The Reliance Building was nothing but a low-rise building, not a skyscraper. Therefore, the birthplace of height in skyscrapers was not in Chicago. Consider the Reliance Building a test dummy, or a lab mouse.
__________________
"I'm going there, but I like it here wherever it is.."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2007, 10:42 PM
Dac150's Avatar
Dac150 Dac150 is offline
World Machine
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NY/CT
Posts: 6,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alliance View Post
THIS THREAD IS ABOUT THE CURRENT STATE OF CHICAGO ARCHITECTURE. I WILL NOT LOSE A GOOD DISCUSSION TO POINTLESS BANTER.

I'f you're not going to discuss CHICAGO's CURRENT architecture, DON'T POST.
Are you serious? We are discussing architecture through the concept of steel structures and their influence on today's cities. Steel is a part of architecture in any city including Chicago. If anything this is a good discussion.

I am not fighting with alt2phx, but just simply having a friendly debate on our cross-roads of opinions. I fail to see an issue.
__________________
"I'm going there, but I like it here wherever it is.."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2007, 11:04 PM
atl2phx's Avatar
atl2phx atl2phx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 1,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dac150 View Post
Now that you put it that way, I can understand better what you mean, but that still does not float by boat. To say the Reliance Building (1st steel building) was the birth of height in skyscrapers though is obtuse. It more so introduced a new concept to the table.

I would say that the birth of height in skyscrapers would go either to the Flatiron Building or Woolworth. Those two buildings were the first that utilized height to a new eternal trend through the concept of steel. That trend is of course; tall skyscrapers. The Reliance Building was nothing but a low-rise building, not a skyscraper. Therefore, the birthplace of height in skyscrapers was not in Chicago. Consider the Reliance Building a test dummy, or a lab mouse.
ok.

so, back on topic. take spire for example. would you not agree that the organic references and form factor are unique and moreso, innovative?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2007, 1:55 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 13,868
All this hand-wringing about whether Chicago is still on top - to all the doubters, name a single city in the world that is doing its own thing with building design, developing a unique new style.

Architectural movements will not take place in a localized fashion anymore, and we need to recognize that. The Chicago School was born out of a very small group of architects who collectively received hundreds of commissions for the booming early Chicago. When such a small group is asked to produce so much design, a style is bound to emerge. A similar thing happened with Mies, who came to Chicago and inculcated his disciples at IIT with his own brand of modernism. These students went out and formed their own firms, receiving commissions from around the world.

We now see the opposite, where many top-name firms compete for relatively few high-profile projects, and the other 99% of development receives poor-quality pastiches of modernism and traditional styles.

In a world where developers look around the world for the design of their projects, and large architectural firms operate out of multiple cities, movements and ideas in architecture will not form on a local basis. It's ridiculous to expect the buildings in any one city to be extraordinarily innovative when thousands of other cities are also being innovative at the same time.

I think what matters for the future of Chicago architecture is that we retain the amazing volume of talent and ideas that flow out of Chicago firms. We have an incredibly strong architectural community here that rivals any in the world, including top firms, schools, conferences, and organizations. We even have a strong public interest in architecture.

Let's stop all this insane comparing of cities and take a look back. Notice, for god's sake, the sheer amount of good buildings and architects we have in this city. What more is required?
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2007, 2:06 AM
Dac150's Avatar
Dac150 Dac150 is offline
World Machine
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NY/CT
Posts: 6,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
All this hand-wringing about whether Chicago is still on top - to all the doubters, name a single city in the world that is doing its own thing with building design, developing a unique new style.

Architectural movements will not take place in a localized fashion anymore, and we need to recognize that. The Chicago School was born out of a very small group of architects who collectively received hundreds of commissions for the booming early Chicago. When such a small group is asked to produce so much design, a style is bound to emerge. A similar thing happened with Mies, who came to Chicago and inculcated his disciples at IIT with his own brand of modernism. These students went out and formed their own firms, receiving commissions from around the world.

We now see the opposite, where many top-name firms compete for relatively few high-profile projects, and the other 99% of development receives poor-quality pastiches of modernism and traditional styles.

In a world where developers look around the world for the design of their projects, and large architectural firms operate out of multiple cities, movements and ideas in architecture will not form on a local basis. It's ridiculous to expect the buildings in any one city to be extraordinarily innovative when thousands of other cities are also being innovative at the same time.

I think what matters for the future of Chicago architecture is that we retain the amazing volume of talent and ideas that flow out of Chicago firms. We have an incredibly strong architectural community here that rivals any in the world, including top firms, schools, conferences, and organizations. We even have a strong public interest in architecture.

Let's stop all this insane comparing of cities and take a look back. Notice, for god's sake, the sheer amount of good buildings and architects we have in this city. What more is required?
I will most certainly not deny that. Chicago has given birth to some of the most famous and well known architects of modern (possibly of all) time.

But to circle back with what you said in the first paragraph, I can indeed name many cities that are "doing their own thing" and "developing unique styles." New York, Dubai, Hong Kong, Taipei, Shanghi, London, Las Vegas. Those are just a few names. What Chicago is doing to the skyscraper is without a doubt amazing, but it is indeed not alone. All of those cites I listed are producing or recently have produced, amazing structures that are quite unique. Different from what the eye has ever seen in a skyscraper.

Chicago is taking skyscrapers and architecture to new levels, but so are many other cities. That's the bottom line.
__________________
"I'm going there, but I like it here wherever it is.."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2007, 2:23 AM
Alliance's Avatar
Alliance Alliance is offline
NEW YORK | CHICAGO
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 3,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dac150 View Post
All of those cites I listed are producing or recently have produced, amazing structures that are quite unique.
"I don't want to be different. I want to be good."

The question is, where is CHICAGO going with its architecture.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2007, 2:28 AM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
Where did all those people with the POMO philosophies of building repeats of what we already have go? I want to argue with them!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2007, 2:34 AM
Alliance's Avatar
Alliance Alliance is offline
NEW YORK | CHICAGO
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 3,532
where did xsans go?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2007, 2:34 AM
Dac150's Avatar
Dac150 Dac150 is offline
World Machine
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NY/CT
Posts: 6,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alliance View Post
"I don't want to be different. I want to be good."

The question is, where is CHICAGO going with its architecture.
Then explain that to the multiple forumers dis-regarding the essence of this thread by making their own philosophies and saying how Chicago is this and that, and how other cities are inferior, when that is indeed not the case. I am simply proving that what they are saying is in-accurate, as well as trying to salvage this thread by putting those cooments to rest. Stop always pointing the finger at me when things are not going as intended, because this is not the case.
__________________
"I'm going there, but I like it here wherever it is.."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2007, 2:35 AM
Dac150's Avatar
Dac150 Dac150 is offline
World Machine
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NY/CT
Posts: 6,749
Let's just start over with this thread, because it does make for some good conversation. I don't want it to be closed.
__________________
"I'm going there, but I like it here wherever it is.."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2007, 2:52 AM
honte honte is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago - every nook and cranny
Posts: 4,628
Wow, I've missed a lot. In a nutshell, I agree with what ardecila said above. Architecture has gone global. Will Chicago ever reign again? No one knows. Is it even important?

I really hate to admit this, but Post 9-11, New York has pretty much destroyed Chicago in terms of progressive design. No one hates saying this more than me. We have some nice developments indeed, and I have never been happier to be a Chicagoan, but the sheer volume of money that flowed into NYC after the attacks (some of it unjustified public funds IMO - let's not go there) and well-deserved citizen support have produced a huge crop of buildings by the best designers. For example, I get very angry when I see Hines hires Pickard-Chilton in Chicago, but for less-profitable buildings hires Norman Foster and Jean Nouvel in NYC.

I am not sure what causes this trend. Is it partly local pride by Chicagoans makes us look inward? Partly an ugly "name-brand" living phenomenon that makes people wear Ghery condos like ugly designer suits and flashy cars? Whatever cause, for some reason with the exception of the Calatrava and the Piano, private parties here are not seeking out the best in design talent regularly. This puts Chicago at a disadvantage, because ideally we would be a place that is being looked up to for native work, but also a highly desired place that brings examples of the best work here. This was the case in the 1960s, and I think we are much better for it.

However, there are some caveats to the above. First, name-brand architects don't really always produce great work. I am very annoyed by Foster's newest NYC proposals (all three of them). And many other recent works in the starchitect category would definitely fit the same bill. Second, we should be proud to have home-grown talent producing most of the good work here. Most of the most impressive stuff in NYC has been imported talent, in my opinion - not stirring up dirt, and that's been a trend for a while now. Third, with insane amounts of money, you'd better be damn able to produce something decent. Chicago has always been about producing beautiful architecture without lavish budgets - it's an entirely different production.

Dac, no offense, but many of your comments concerning the early skyscrapers were equally off-base. Foremost, the Reliance building was not the first skyscraper; perhaps you'd better go revisit the history. I don't mean to get into a pissing contest with NYC, but give Chicago a little respect - many of the comments in the prior post you attacked were absolutely true. Someone was here simply voicing their support for the city, which is nice to hear, because we are on the inside always criticizing what is going on and don't always have a clear perspective.

Most Important: Chicago saw some very dark days in the 1960s-1990s. Where we are now is nothing short of incredible, given the "Rust Belt" image and the fact that many people simply left this place to die on the vine post WWII. Everyone involved in building this city - designers, engineers, construction workers, politicians, critics, forumers, whatever - should be very proud that Chicago is thriving and blossoming. What is happening here right now is undeniably disproportionate to our population and census-style statistics: It is a rebirth, and the good news is there is a lot of excitement left to happen.

Last edited by honte; Nov 2, 2007 at 3:05 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2007, 3:05 AM
Dac150's Avatar
Dac150 Dac150 is offline
World Machine
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NY/CT
Posts: 6,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by honte View Post
Dac, no offense, but many of your comments concerning the early skyscrapers were equally off-base. Foremost, the Reliance building was not the first skyscraper; perhaps you'd better go revisit the history. I don't mean to get into a pissing contest with NYC, but give Chicago a little respect - many of the comments in the prior post you attacked were absolutely true. Someone was here simply voicing their support for the city, which is nice to hear, because we are on the inside always criticizing what is going on here.
You have mis-understood my points big time:

1. I never said the Reliance building was the first skyscraper. I said it was the first building to use the concept of steel construction (notice I say building, NOT skyscraper). I then went on to say that the Flatiron or the Woolworth buildings were the first sksycrapers.
2. I have given Chicago much respect in this thread. How you could have missed that I don't know. Maybe you need to revist my posts. But I'll recap the resepectful commentary I made regarding Chicago:
-"I will most certainly not deny that. Chicago has given birth to some of the most famous and well known architects of modern (possibly of all) time."
-"Chicago is taking skyscrapers and architecture to new levels"
-"What Chicago is doing to the skyscraper is without a doubt amazing"

I said a lot of what I did due to other forumers stating that "Chicago is the only city with unique current architecture", when in fact is not the case. If you go back, the forumer who stated that worded it in a factual form, not an opinionative one.
__________________
"I'm going there, but I like it here wherever it is.."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2007, 3:12 AM
honte honte is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago - every nook and cranny
Posts: 4,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianXSands View Post
i can't agree with this. movements happen back to back in big waves with intermediate areas in between like Deconstructivism, the Werkbund, the HighTech, De Stijl, etc.. that is, as long as we have architecture, we have something that defines it. also, great... well, that's an opinion that differs with each person.
Since I think the chance of my ideas being wiped clean is gone now, I'll briefly answer your point.

I think many of the things you've listed above are "styles," not movements. Most of them, I would group simply into the later parts of modernism.

Movement implies a major upheaval in the field - usually involving technology, construction practice, trades, and design. In Chicago we had all of that, in addition to entirely new ways of using buildings, and new archetypes that had not been conceived before. And, what happened in Chicago rippled all the way across America en masse. We're not talking about someone doing a Ghery rip-off in Spokane - what happened here changed the construction methods, design practices, etc. It changed (and largely defined) what would become the typical American way of life (for better and for worse).

So, that's my justification in saying that a Chicago only happens once every 1000 years. I respect your opinion otherwise, of course.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2007, 3:15 AM
honte honte is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago - every nook and cranny
Posts: 4,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dac150 View Post
You have mis-understood my points big time:

1. I never said the Reliance building was the first skyscraper. I said it was the first building to use the concept of steel construction (notice I say building, NOT skyscraper). I then went on to say that the Flatiron or the Woolworth buildings were the first sksycrapers.
Well OK, whatever way you want to massage it. The Reliance was not the first building to use the "concept" of steel - whatever that was. In most greatly simplified versions of the story, it was the first building to exploit the steel frame as a design device to the point of bothering the public.

Woolworth and Flatiron were two of the first buildings to exploit the steel frame's potential to gain incredible height. Perhaps that's your definition of a skyscraper. But this is not the generally accepted version of what a skyscraper is.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2007, 3:21 AM
Alliance's Avatar
Alliance Alliance is offline
NEW YORK | CHICAGO
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 3,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by honte View Post
First, name-brand architects don't really always produce great work.
I agree. But, we do have the Pelli tower comming, although frankly, I think his supertall designs are incredibly uninspired and boring.

I'd much rather see local talent like Gang getting a flood of contracts, but the starchitect craze is a self-perpetuating spiral of out-selling anther. If someone has Ghery, somone else who wants to sell has to have Foster, and someone else needs to have another Foster...etc. I'd very much regret to enter a state of architecture where local talen't cant come to the forefront, but we ARE getting a Calatrava tower. I think that will inspire more developers to pay for the often mediocre work of starchitects.

But still, is the current lack of a title style and movement tied to the lack of a home-based architect? Without a Root, Burnham, Mies, or Wright, can Chicago really have a headlining architectural revolution? Is a third schol dependant on a homegrown leader?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2007, 3:21 AM
Dac150's Avatar
Dac150 Dac150 is offline
World Machine
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NY/CT
Posts: 6,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by honte View Post
Since I think the chance of my ideas being wiped clean is gone now, I'll briefly answer your point.

I think many of the things you've listed above are "styles," not movements. Most of them, I would group simply into the later parts of modernism.

Movement implies a major upheaval in the field - usually involving technology, construction practice, trades, and design. In Chicago we had all of that, in addition to entirely new ways of using buildings, and new archetypes that had not been conceived before. And, what happened in Chicago rippled all the way across America en masse. We're not talking about someone doing a Ghery rip-off in Spokane - what happened here changed the construction methods, design practices, etc. It changed (and largely defined) what would become the typical American way of life (for better and for worse).

So, that's my justification in saying that a Chicago only happens once every 1000 years. I respect your opinion otherwise, of course.
So would you say Chicago is a modern example of what the Roman Empire was? If that's the case than I disagree with you. Other cities in the United States fit that description in you post more so than Chicago. Primarily, every major costal city.

This whole thing is so off topic..
__________________
"I'm going there, but I like it here wherever it is.."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2007, 3:26 AM
Dac150's Avatar
Dac150 Dac150 is offline
World Machine
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NY/CT
Posts: 6,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by honte View Post
Woolworth and Flatiron were two of the first buildings to exploit the steel frame's potential to gain incredible height. Perhaps that's your definition of a skyscraper. But this is not the generally accepted version of what a skyscraper is.
A skyscraper is defined by a certain height. A building the height of the Reliance (for an example) would not fall under today's definition of a skyscraper. Maybe it was considered one back in the late 1800's, but I do not agree to that. A skyscraper has to be of over a certain height, period. Otherwise, it defeats the whole purpose of a SKY-scraper.

That is my definition, so could you enlighten me on what a "general accepted version" of a skyscraper is? I am quite curious.
__________________
"I'm going there, but I like it here wherever it is.."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2007, 3:31 AM
honte honte is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago - every nook and cranny
Posts: 4,628
^ Oh boy, this is my last post veering off-topic. The skyscraper is defined in the scholarly circles as a building that has a fully structurally load-bearing frame, and does not rely on load-bearing exterior walls. That was the major shift that happened with Jenney's Home Insurance building (and obviously, this built on many other developments prior, so let's not get into that mess either). All the things that happened after that point were due to this development, and ancillary developments like the high-speed elevator that happened around the same time.

^^ Uh no, not Rome, I mean from a design sense. The East Coast cities were largely in European mode, and Chicago was where most of the design started that created truly American styles. Most every critic and historian who ever studied American architecture history (except for a few who, surprise, are usually in New York) agrees with this.

Yes, it is somewhat off-topic; I am writing it to respond to a question, and also because it sets the tone for the conversation at-hand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alliance View Post
I agree. But, we do have the Pelli tower comming, although frankly, I think his supertall designs are incredibly uninspired and boring.

I'd much rather see local talent like Gang getting a flood of contracts, but the starchitect craze is a self-perpetuating spiral of out-selling anther. If someone has Ghery, somone else who wants to sell has to have Foster, and someone else needs to have another Foster...etc. I'd very much regret to enter a state of architecture where local talen't cant come to the forefront, but we ARE getting a Calatrava tower. I think that will inspire more developers to pay for the often mediocre work of starchitects.

But still, is the current lack of a title style and movement tied to the lack of a home-based architect? Without a Root, Burnham, Mies, or Wright, can Chicago really have a headlining architectural revolution? Is a third schol dependant on a homegrown leader?
^ Yes, it is tied to lack of local leadership and direction. But it's more than one person. If we want to regain the old power (and I am not 100% sure it's necessary or healthy in today's world), we need a much tighter and broader network: Social reform, activism, critical journals that connect the design community, a real dialogue between designers, clubs/meeting places to share ideas, etc. These things existed during the Prairie / Chicago School days, and also existed during the Second Chicago School. Just having a great designer or two doesn't solve the problem. And don't forget, there was a real cause with some local urgency.

I agree that Pelli and star friends are not the answer (Pelli's not even good enough to be a starchitect in my book). But yes, I would rather have local people producing the great stuff, and be rid of trendy names and the characteristically bad architecture they produce. My only longing for name-brand stuff is to ensure we don't get left behind somehow or miss the work of a great artist in the "urban collection." W=A and other developments give me a lot of hope along this line - the development community has to give our people a chance to shine. No more Mansard Roofs!! No more repeat SCB buildings.

Nouvel is a new hero for me - he is producing really awesome work without buckling to the trend. He or Rodgers would be my first pick for Chicago Spire II.

OK guys, sorry for monopolizing this thread for a while. I had to air some thoughts that were either deleted or not posted earlier due to my lagging in the new thread. I'll be on the sidelines for a while if I can help it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:10 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.