HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Skyscraper & Highrise Construction

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2581  
Old Posted Nov 10, 2018, 4:33 PM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlw777 View Post
I've defended this building and Stern but if he's gonna come here and trash 860-880 LSD he can GTFO of Chicago.
It's not even about being offended and a Chicagoan or anything, dissing Mies is just objectively wrong. Pretty ignorant which is the issue and it shows in his work.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2582  
Old Posted Nov 10, 2018, 6:23 PM
sentinel's Avatar
sentinel sentinel is offline
Plenary pleasures.
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,864
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright View Post
It's not even about being offended and a Chicagoan or anything, dissing Mies is just objectively wrong. Pretty ignorant which is the issue and it shows in his work.
This is nonsense. Criticism, in any form for any architect should always be listened to; no one architect or their design philosophy is sacrosanct. One could even argue how Mies' philosophy of 'less is more' is fundamentally flawed because it completely ignores site conditions, especially in a city like Chicago, which is geographically boring, flat, uninviting and unwelcoming for 5-6 months out of the year; 20th century Modernist architecture as designed by 'giants' such as Mies and Corbusier completely turned its back on the natural world by pushing what they believed was a better lifestyle. "Machines for Living" may be simple by design, but they are too reductive, bland, and ignore the reality of the constant evolution of cities - Espousing a philosophy of design that attempts to once and for all create an architecture for the masses is fascist and doomed to failure, because the masses are not a uniform, homogeneous entity that function as a hive mind. What's good in California, is not what's good in Chicago/Illinois, which is not what's good in Tunis, which is not what's good in Brisbane, which is not what's good in Harbin, which is not what's good in Prague....

Keep in mind, I don't care for Stern as a person, and his architecture still leaves much to be desired, even though I think OBP is more successful that most 'traditionalist' buildings built in Chicago in the past 20 years. But no one is above criticism, and no one designer's style is objective..in fact it's just that, a STYLE, not an empirically derived formula for living.
__________________
Don't be shy. Step into the light.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2583  
Old Posted Nov 10, 2018, 7:07 PM
BonoboZill4's Avatar
BonoboZill4 BonoboZill4 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: PingPong
Posts: 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by MorganChi View Post
Where the lie ?
....



Anyway, did anyone notice they kept referring to the tower as a "supertall" in the article? What was up with that?
__________________
I'm here for a long time, not a good time
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2584  
Old Posted Nov 10, 2018, 7:11 PM
HomrQT's Avatar
HomrQT HomrQT is offline
All-American City Boy
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Brookfield / Uptown, Chicago
Posts: 1,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright View Post
Yeah well modernism is the predominant style of our era for a reason: the materials and building techniques dictate it. Trying to cover up the fundamental truth of our era of human civilization should be chastized and frowned upon...

Right on cue... you can have a visual and artistic appreciation for one more than the other. No one is arguing that modern styles are not more cost effective, energy efficient, prevalent in new builds, whatever. I prefer traditional styles and I'm not "wrong" for thinking so. Chastizing and frowning upon others for their personal preference is just nonsense and I can see where Stern probably got his demeanor from.
__________________
“Chicago ain't no sissy town.”
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2585  
Old Posted Nov 10, 2018, 7:26 PM
kolchak's Avatar
kolchak kolchak is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by sentinel View Post
Espousing a philosophy of design that attempts to once and for all create an architecture for the masses.
Miesien modernism is not alone in the long list of architectural styles that have been criticized for evolving towards an unfriendly "achitecture for the masses."

For example one only needs to go back to the late 19th century to find exactly the same opinions in regards to the (then) newly introduced Mietskaserne.

While OBP is a decent building and I think it adapts well to its surroundings, it also lives as an example of a style that, in an earlier historical period, evoked the exact same reactions that you expouse here towards glass modernism.

One could argue in addition that Neutra style modernism used glass curtain walls and modernist asthetics not to "turn its back on the natural world" but to minimize the the seperation between outside and interior spaces to bring the inhabitants actually closer in sync with their surroundings.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2586  
Old Posted Nov 10, 2018, 11:13 PM
rlw777 rlw777 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,508
I was mostly just engaging in some over the top homerism with my comment above.
People can and should critique even the best architecture. If I have any real criticism of what Stern said it's the lack of acknowledgement that his solution also limits the choices of his buildings residents. While 860 and 880 LSD trade curtain choices for more choices in regards to ones view. OBP trades choices in view for decoration. All architecture makes trade offs like this that doesn't mean it's necessarily "flawed".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2587  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2018, 12:54 AM
MorganChi's Avatar
MorganChi MorganChi is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Chicago
Posts: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoboZill4 View Post
....



Anyway, did anyone notice they kept referring to the tower as a "supertall" in the article? What was up with that?
There a issue ?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2588  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2018, 3:05 AM
HomrQT's Avatar
HomrQT HomrQT is offline
All-American City Boy
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Brookfield / Uptown, Chicago
Posts: 1,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by MorganChi View Post
There a issue ?
Supertall starts at 300 meters, or ~984 feet. This tower is only 837 feet.
__________________
“Chicago ain't no sissy town.”
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2589  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2018, 4:30 AM
MorganChi's Avatar
MorganChi MorganChi is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Chicago
Posts: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by HomrQT View Post
Supertall starts at 300 meters, or ~984 feet. This tower is only 837 feet.
I was referring to the attack on 800 lsd by stern
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2590  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2018, 1:55 PM
Bombardier Bombardier is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 216
Anyone swing by there this week? Is the crane completely removed?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2591  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2018, 4:41 PM
r18tdi's Avatar
r18tdi r18tdi is offline
Team Alinghi
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,135
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlw777 View Post
I've defended this building and Stern but if he's gonna come here and trash 860-880 LSD he can GTFO of Chicago.
A friend of mine was at the CAC that night and said Stern also referred to Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill as "the three blind Mies."
Clever, yes, but also shut up Bob.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2592  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2018, 5:15 PM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,640
Jeeze guys relax, I'm not saying other opinions can't exist or that other styles are bad, I'm saying that dissing Mies for being what he is is objectively wrong in exactly the same way you are saying claiming he is god is objectively wrong. Mies is what he is and his rational lens of architecture is the purest expression of our era of civilization, you nor I nor Stern can seriously object to that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vandelay View Post
Claiming absolute truth and objective opinion is not helping your Modernist arguments.

The world has moved on from such notions. Best to keep up.
There is such a thing as absolute truth when you are looking at things from a rational perspective, the question is actually over the inputs. In other words you can't argue that 1+1=3, but you can change your inputs and get =3 by changing one of the 1's to a 2. In other words, if your inputs are and aesthetic defined by pure expression of modern building techniques (particularly the steel frame) and maximum efficiency then your output is Mies, period.

If you change your inputs to "maximum artistic license and no budget" your output might be Calatrava whereas if you change your input to "as close to traditional design and construct as you can get in order to sell as many condos to the nouveau riche as possible" your output is Stern.

That doesn't mean the inputs you are advocating are actually rooted in any sort of sound aesthetic philosophy or design theory. That means you think ye olde buildinges are purdy and you want more of them. That's a fine opinion to have, but it's not rooted in the reality of how buildings are designed and built in 2018. Period. That is fact and what I'm referring to when I say it's objectively wrong for the likes of Stern to rib Mies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sentinel View Post
This is nonsense. Criticism, in any form for any architect should always be listened to; no one architect or their design philosophy is sacrosanct. One could even argue how Mies' philosophy of 'less is more' is fundamentally flawed because it completely ignores site conditions, especially in a city like Chicago, which is geographically boring, flat, uninviting and unwelcoming for 5-6 months out of the year; 20th century Modernist architecture as designed by 'giants' such as Mies and Corbusier completely turned its back on the natural world by pushing what they believed was a better lifestyle. "Machines for Living" may be simple by design, but they are too reductive, bland, and ignore the reality of the constant evolution of cities - Espousing a philosophy of design that attempts to once and for all create an architecture for the masses is fascist and doomed to failure, because the masses are not a uniform, homogeneous entity that function as a hive mind. What's good in California, is not what's good in Chicago/Illinois, which is not what's good in Tunis, which is not what's good in Brisbane, which is not what's good in Harbin, which is not what's good in Prague....
I'm not sure how you can claim Mies "completely turned his back on the natural world" when some of his most beloved output is stuff like Farnsworth House. Perhaps what you mean is that Mies was the ultimate realization of the idea started by FLW that buildings are actually about the space created inside and not about making a fancy shell with godawful interiors as was in vogue in the Victorian era. Farnsworth is far more "in touch with the natural world" (whatever that means) than every single building of the Victorian era combined. The biggest flaw of designs like Farnsworth was actually that they put their occupants so in touch with their surroundings that it actually impinged on the machine's efficiency for the "living" of its occupants by eliminating any and all privacy.

I would also dispute that Mies rational boxes are somehow improper for Chicago because we have a "flat boring geography with a flat boring grid". How is extruding that grid in all directions anything but appropriate given those side conditions? I could see you saying that yeah, maybe you shouldn't have a Mies Federal Center like building plopped down in the middle of Boston because it doesn't match, but in Chicago that's the ultimate match.

In fact, that's what's most disturbing about Stern's attitude and design here. He seems to be under the impression, as if often the case with outsiders coming to Chicago, that he's bringing civilization to the barbarians. My response to that kind of attitude is always going to be "no, you are objectively wrong, the entire contemporary era of construction, urban planning, and architecture originates from Chicago, we don't need your 'civilization' thank you very much".

Quote:
Originally Posted by HomrQT View Post
Right on cue... you can have a visual and artistic appreciation for one more than the other. No one is arguing that modern styles are not more cost effective, energy efficient, prevalent in new builds, whatever. I prefer traditional styles and I'm not "wrong" for thinking so. Chastizing and frowning upon others for their personal preference is just nonsense and I can see where Stern probably got his demeanor from.
What I am arguing is wrong is trying to gussy up modern structures to be what they ain't. I love pre-war architecture as much or more than anyone on this board. I literally save these buildings from certain destruction for a living. What I do not appreciate is half assed attempts at replicating something that we can never get back once it's lost.

And, despite my love for these old styles, I am not willing to accept excuses that "it's not cost effective to do it right". No, f-that, if you want to justify your behavior by saying "it's not economically feasible", then I most certainly can argue that you are doing something objectively wrong by choosing a style that doesn't work with your construction techniques or budget. I'm not willing to give Related a free pass to build a half assed faux deco tower that does a disservice to our entire architectural history as a city designed by some asshole who thinks his philosophy is inherently superior to the multitude of innovative styles that DO define Chicago. No, if you want to come and tell me how much better "traditional styles" (as if Deco is anything but the run up to Modernism) are than our own heritage, then you new to build those traditional styles 100% the right way, that means stone, that means real copper or bronze, that means authentic massing and detailing, etc. If you skimp on any of those elements it's glaring and unacceptable.

And no, it's not impossible to do, as I just mentioned the other day, the Lowrise on LSD, despite all griping about height, is using a glorious combination of modern windowwall elements and real carved limestone and is turning out phenomenally. The complaints about this building are not that Art Deco is objectively wrong and should be razed wherever it is found, it's that this is objectively not Art Deco and therefore philosophically void. This building contributes nothing to the advancement of architecture as a whole and very little to our heritage and skyline and Stern's aire of superiority should be a trigger to anyone who cares about such things.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2593  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2018, 5:22 PM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,640
Also someone made a comment about how Chicago "doesn't have the Deco heritage of other cities" or something like that. That's a load of BS, in 1940 the top 25+ tallest buildings in this city were all Art Deco or some variant of it (i.e. the Temple Building and it's churchy stylings or Intercontinental and it's Egyptian/Orientalism theme).

http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=83179405

Chicago had plennnntttttyyyy of Deco buildings, just because they weren't as big as the ESB or Chrysler building doesn't mean Chicago didn't have a vast, deep, and varied wave of Deco in it's history. The city was dominated by the style for a good 20 years. It should be obvious that Modernism itself is very much derived from the fascination with the machine era and human progress that underwrote so much of Deco. It just took that obsession to the logical extreme.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2594  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2018, 6:28 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,871
Undoubtedly many of you will want to ask Santa for the new book Art Deco Chicago: Designing Modern America. Interestingly, Target seems to have the best price.



It's a beautiful book, and more than just the usual catalog of stunning buildings. Focusing on 101 key objects, it makes the case that the industrial and product design coordinated in Chicago for International Harvester, Zenith, Sears, Motorola, etc.—and the Century of Progress—was what brought Moderne design out of Parisian jewelry boxes and into American households and streetscapes. (I contributed three of the essays.)

Chicago History Museum has just opened an accompanying exhibit.


=======

"Three blind Mies" for SOM is not something Stern came up with. It goes back many decades, to the firm's origins. I've seen it attributed to Frank Lloyd Wright.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2595  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2018, 6:29 PM
patriotizzy's Avatar
patriotizzy patriotizzy is offline
Metal Up Your !
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 1,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by kolchak View Post
One could argue in addition that Neutra style modernism used glass curtain walls and modernist asthetics not to "turn its back on the natural world" but to minimize the the seperation between outside and interior spaces to bring the inhabitants actually closer in sync with their surroundings.
This makes no sense whatsoever. We're talking about cities here, not homes out in the middle of a forest. If the purpose of a glass curtain wall is to minimize the separation between the outside and the interior space, then you are talking about street lights, sidewalks, and other glass curtain walls, not nature. With this logic, we will end up with a bunch of glass curtain walled buildings, syncing with other glass curtain buildings... where is the nature in that? This is why stone masonry makes more sense. Detailing draws in the attention of a person, making for a more satisfying environment, similar to taking in a single plant or garden that has layers, details, colors, flowers, offshoots here and there, small little details you don't notice maybe until a month down the line. We don't get the sense of wonder with class curtain walls, as you do with classical ornamentation. I walk down a street with plain flat walls, and I literally feel the oppression, the lack of wonder, the lack of beauty, almost like an expanded prison cell, will nothing but blank walls to keep the mind company. It is very clear to me what is natural, and isn't. Why is it that the old classical ornate buildings are most desirable to restore? Humans were born in nature, and recreating nature is only natural.

I respect Stern immensely for his continued architectural work. Though his buildings aren't as ornate as the classic buildings, he brings draws attention to other details, bringing delight to the mind of those who wonder.
__________________
MAGA
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2596  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2018, 7:15 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 13,300
Buildings are about way more than the narrow architectural concerns that Bob Stern brought up. Mies designed in an era when steel was the material of the future, the material that won WW2, and was made just a few miles away in Gary and South Chicago. Likewise with glass. Mies’ aesthetic was for a civilization that had no limitations.

Today we realize that we absolutely DO still have limitations. Energy is expensive, increased carbon output is ruining our planet, and the macroeconomic shifts in construction wages and material prices vs. average wages are making space more and more unaffordable.


The zeitgeist building of today definitely isn’t a Miesian box, though. Maybe it’s a new timber high rise in Portland or London, or maybe it’s a Passive House in Germany. Maybe the ever-increasing costs of construction will lead to more co-living that will create whole new architectural forms.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2597  
Old Posted Yesterday, 5:12 PM
jjk113 jjk113 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 24
..I was over there yesterday (Wed) mid-morning and the crane was nearly down. I suspect that it will be down by the end of today.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2598  
Old Posted Yesterday, 6:47 PM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Undoubtedly many of you will want to ask Santa for the new book Art Deco Chicago: Designing Modern America. Interestingly, Target seems to have the best price.



It's a beautiful book, and more than just the usual catalog of stunning buildings. Focusing on 101 key objects, it makes the case that the industrial and product design coordinated in Chicago for International Harvester, Zenith, Sears, Motorola, etc.—and the Century of Progress—was what brought Moderne design out of Parisian jewelry boxes and into American households and streetscapes. (I contributed three of the essays.)

Chicago History Museum has just opened an accompanying exhibit.


=======

"Three blind Mies" for SOM is not something Stern came up with. It goes back many decades, to the firm's origins. I've seen it attributed to Frank Lloyd Wright.
Awesome, sending to wife.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2599  
Old Posted Yesterday, 6:57 PM
Elliphant's Avatar
Elliphant Elliphant is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
"Three blind Mies" for SOM is not something Stern came up with. It goes back many decades, to the firm's origins. I've seen it attributed to Frank Lloyd Wright.
I always prefered "Rohe Rohe Rohe your Boat"
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Skyscraper & Highrise Construction
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:26 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.