HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2011, 5:56 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
Yeah, for example, I hate the Tribune Tower, but would never allow it to be torn down. If you stop and look at it for a minute, the Tribune Tower really is one ugly piece of shit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2011, 7:21 PM
HomrQT's Avatar
HomrQT HomrQT is offline
All-American City Boy
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Hinsdale / Uptown, Chicago
Posts: 1,939
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 View Post
Yeah, for example, I hate the Tribune Tower, but would never allow it to be torn down. If you stop and look at it for a minute, the Tribune Tower really is one ugly piece of shit.
I've been with you up until this point. I think the Tribune Tower is gorgeous. An absolute piece of art and our city is very lucky to have such a wonderful building beautifying it. And everyone I've ever shown it to or talked about it with has had the same viewpoint of it being a very beautiful building.
__________________
1. 9 DeKalb Ave - Brooklyn, NYC - SHoP Architects - Photo
2. American Radiator Building - New York City - Hood, Godley, and Fouilhoux - Photo
3. One Chicago Square - Chicago - HPA and Goettsch Partners - Photo
4. Chicago Board of Trade - Chicago - Holabird & Root - Photo
5. Cathedral of Learning - Pittsburgh - Charles Klauder - Photo
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2011, 7:33 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by HomrQT View Post
I've been with you up until this point. I think the Tribune Tower is gorgeous. An absolute piece of art and our city is very lucky to have such a wonderful building beautifying it. And everyone I've ever shown it to or talked about it with has had the same viewpoint of it being a very beautiful building.
And that is exactly the point of preservation, finding in value in things even if your opinion tells you that it's worthless.

My problem with the Tribune is its horrible massing and fugly crown. Seriously, what are those flying buttresses buttressing? It's just a bunch of gothic garbage taked together with no regard for where each architectural device would be used by a gothic architect.

That would be tantamount to an architect in the future when we've figured out how to build buildings with no curtain wall at all and instead use a forcefield to keep the inside and outside of buildings separate and when we levitate floors instead of using steel to hold them up building a building of levitating steel and forcefields and then taking huge chunks of glass and steel to the outside of it and then plopping a giant cube of glass and steel on top. It would look absolute absurd to us just as how the Tribune Tower would probably leave medieval architects completely aghast.

Like I said before, this is only my opinion and I know I'm in the minority, but at one time my opinion was the majority and people took it upon themselves to level many buildings of similar stature to the Tribune Tower just because they didn't like them and thought they looked old and grimy. In fact we still raze dozens of perfectly good classical lowrises each year because people think they look old or just don't care. Hell we almost lost the Cook County Hospital not long ago until preservationists saved it. Again, I'm not a big fan of CCH on its own, but when I look at its historical value, the wonderful diversity of styles it adds to the cityscape, and the irreplaceable handiwork it represents, I see that it must be protected just as how ChicagoHiRiser should see that Prentice has historical value (one of the first designs to use a computer, one of few designs by Goldberg in Chicago, a mainstay Chicago hospital for 30 years), adds to the diversity of styles in the city (nothing looks even remotely like it except Marina City, rare example of flamboyant futuristic design in a buttoned down city like Chicago), and contains irreplaceable handiwork (no one will ever be able to build arched cantaleavers like that again, it is just too expensive to do today). Point is Prentice is something we can't and won't get back if we destroy it. Therefore the individual's opinion is irrelevant compared to the other important things it adds to our city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2011, 7:41 PM
ChicagoHiRiser ChicagoHiRiser is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayward View Post
Even if I hated the building, I'd still advocate it being saved. It's an integral piece of Chicago's architectural continuum. Without it, it's a missing piece of history. If Chicago was full of these buildings, then sacrificing a few wouldn't be so much of a mistake, but that's not the case.

Think of it like music or art. Just because you may not like a certain genre doesn't mean it should be kept out of music stores or concert halls.
It's 36 years old. That hardly qualifies as bearing any sort of "historical significance".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2011, 7:48 PM
ChicagoHiRiser ChicagoHiRiser is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
I find that this idea that everyone's opinion is equal, and that of "Joe Sixpack" is just as important as those of experts (be they policy wonks, scientists, etc), to be one of the most unfortunate themes in American discourse today.

But I guess that's what happens when people take an obviously false notion like "all men are created equal" literally. Equal under the law, perhaps (and this is what the founders meant), but certainly not equal.
I don't think so. As it pertains to architecture, just as in art work, the opinion is in the eye of the beholder. It was called the democratization of art and it was a movement in recent history--coincidentally enough in full swing when this monstrosity was built.

And luckily, the powers that be have a similar opinion. That this 1970s abomination bears no historical significance and should be replaced with something more functional and aesthetically pleasing.

Think about it: if this building didn't look like shit there wouldn't be a lot of people happy to see it demolished at 36 years of age.

Much like a 40-something model with too many botched plastic surgeries and tanning booth visits architecture from this era in this genre did not age gracefully.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2011, 7:50 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChicagoHiRiser View Post
It's 36 years old. That hardly qualifies as bearing any sort of "historical significance".
The Berlin Wall fell only ~20 years ago, I guess that wasn't a historically significant event. September 11th happened less than 10 years ago, I guess that wasn't important either...

It's very rare that something becomes historical 50 years after the fact. History happens in real time, not 50 years later.

Apparently you have a poor concept of what "historical significance" is... Anyone who has thought about the concept of history at all or taken a class in it would realize that the word does not mean "old", the word refers to events that are significant to a point that future generations will find that it changed the world they are now living in. Considering Prentice was one of the first, if not THE first, buildings to be designed with CAD and that all buildings are now designed using CAD, I have a feeling that it greatly affected the world we live in today. Considering Prentice's design changed how we lay out hospitals today so much so that we are literally still building designs (Rush Hospital) that mimic it's layout, I would say it influenced our present.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2011, 7:58 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChicagoHiRiser View Post
I don't think so. As it pertains to architecture, just as in art work, the opinion is in the eye of the beholder. It was called the democratization of art and it was a movement in recent history--coincidentally enough in full swing when this monstrosity was built.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but beholders die and opinions change. Odds are that this building will come back into popularity in 10-20 years just as the Chicago School, Classical, and Deco styles returned to popularity about 50 years after the heyday of each. Beauty is not static and there is no truth in it. Your ill-informed, close minded, and pathetic view of what beauty is and should be is not a universal truth.

Quote:
Think about it: if this building didn't look like shit there wouldn't be a lot of people happy to see it demolished at 36 years of age.
What are you talking about? Northwestern isn't tearing this down because it looks like shit, they are tearing it down because they want to get rid of it before it becomes popular again and they can't. They don't want a functional new building, they want a vacant lot they can sit on for 20 years until they are ready to build and then face no opposition to tear down.

Quote:
Much like a 40-something model with too many botched plastic surgeries and tanning booth visits architecture from this era in this genre did not age gracefully.
All buildings look like they are not aging gracefully when they are 30-50 years of age because that is when their first depreciation cycle ends. In other words most building components are only expected to last 30-50 years and therefore they all wear out all at once when the building gets to that age. Northwestern is intentionally not repairing any of the components to make the building look like shit so they can tear it down since they view buildings as disposable objects to be used and thrown out.

All of the old classical buildings I'm sure you love were in the same boat in the 1950's and were being razed left and right because "the style doesn't age well" and look how that turned out. That argument is mind-numbingly ignorant.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2011, 8:25 PM
rds989's Avatar
rds989 rds989 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Roswell, GA
Posts: 374
I went to law school at Northwestern 1998-2001, so I saw Prentice nearly every day for three years. I also was inside it several times when my wife had surgery. In my opinion, which was reinforced by continuous exposure for a long enough time that it became a highly considered opinion, Prentice is a horrible building aesthetically and functionally. I hated seeing it every day, and, on the inside, it was really bad -- not only because it was falling apart, but bad in terms of space and design. I understand that odd, quirky buildings can have charm, but Prentice's deep suckiness overwhelms that dynamic for me. I would hate for Northwestern to be shackled to this dog in perpetuity.
__________________
rds989
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2011, 8:34 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
^^^ Funny you say that about the layout considering this building is still emulated by modern designs. In other words I think someone who specializes in building hospitals might disagree. It wasn't perfect, but the fundamental concept was revolutionary and influential.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2011, 9:36 PM
SkyscrapersOfNewYork's Avatar
SkyscrapersOfNewYork SkyscrapersOfNewYork is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: New York City
Posts: 2,523
idk why everyone's so uptight, this thing is horrid.
__________________
New York City,The City That Never Sleeps,The Capitol Of The World,The Big Apple,The Empire City,The Melting Pot,The Metropolis,Gotham

Buildings Over 200 Meters 62 Completed 20 Under Construction 50 Proposed 0 On Hold
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2011, 9:40 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork View Post
idk why everyone's so uptight, this thing is horrid.
because it's one of the greatest works of architecture from one of the greatest modernists of the 20th century.

the future is going to shit all over our generation for allowing such genius to be be struck down so prematurely, precisely in the same fashion that we shit all over the idiots who ripped down all of the old art deco and beaux arts masterpieces shortly after their respective aesthetics had fallen out out fashion.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2011, 10:34 PM
plinko's Avatar
plinko plinko is online now
them bones
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Barbara adjacent
Posts: 7,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChicagoHiRiser View Post
It's 36 years old. That hardly qualifies as bearing any sort of "historical significance".
By that metric I guess the Sears Tower has outlived its usefulness as well? I mean yeah it has tenants, but it's an energy hog, has huge floor plates and not enough natural light, and isn't aging particularly well?

...just a thought...

Growing up in a city with one of Goldberg's later hospitals that emulated this design (Good Samaritan in Phoenix), I think it would be a total tragedy to lose this building. Give it some new life as some other entity (condos, office, whatever). If the ceilings are so low, couldn't you cut out every other floor and create really interesting double-height volumes? (just throwing out random ideas)

__________________
Even if you are 1 in a million, there are still 8,000 people just like you...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2011, 12:21 AM
CGII's Avatar
CGII CGII is offline
illwaukee/crooklyn
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: rome
Posts: 8,518
Oh man, really hope this doesn't happen. I was born in Bertrand's St Mary's Hospital addition in Milwaukee:


MSPdude on flickr.com
__________________
disregard women. acquire finances.

Last edited by CGII; Jun 10, 2011 at 4:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2011, 3:52 PM
rds989's Avatar
rds989 rds989 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Roswell, GA
Posts: 374
Prentice

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 View Post
^^^ Funny you say that about the layout considering this building is still emulated by modern designs. In other words I think someone who specializes in building hospitals might disagree. It wasn't perfect, but the fundamental concept was revolutionary and influential.


Well, maybe it was influential in concept and later buildings were able to make the concept work, but I just don't get the love for this building. Like many of you, I had a list of buildings I hoped to live long enough to see demolished, and Prentice was right up there for me with the Apparel Mart (pre-Sun Times), the W on Lake Shore Drive with the exposed parking ramp and flying-saucer rotating restaurant on top, etc.
__________________
rds989
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2011, 11:04 PM
the pope's Avatar
the pope the pope is offline
not cleavefied
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: A City Without Nelson
Posts: 4,021
I don't know if anyone cares, but apparently Lynn Becker reads SSP; quick, everyone look intelligent.

http://arcchicago.blogspot.com/2011/...w-at-1100.html
__________________
--SSP's 10th Kewlest Forumer of 2004
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2011, 12:30 AM
Troubadour's Avatar
Troubadour Troubadour is offline
Seek The Upward Horizon
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 544
Couldn't they at least paint it? It could really use some color. I would be very disturbed being taken to a building that looked like that for medical care.
__________________
Build until the sky is black, and then build some more.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2011, 4:49 AM
sentinel's Avatar
sentinel sentinel is offline
Plenary pleasures.
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Monterey CA
Posts: 4,204
The plot thicken...(since I'm potentially too drunk to find the Prentice Hospital thread, if it exists at all, I'm just going to leave this here):

National Trust for Historic Preservation names old Prentice Women's Hospital to 11 'most endangered' list
Share


Drawing national attention to the local campaign to stop Northwestern University from tearing down old Prentice Women's Hospital, the National Trust for Historic Preservation on Wednesday will name the concrete, clover-leaf shaped Chicago high-rise to its list of America's 11 Most Endangered Historic Places.

The trust, a non-profit based in Washington, D.C., issues the list each year to help save buildings and other sites it deems significant. While the list carries no legal authority, it has proved to be a potent device for galvanizing public support. Since its debut in 1988, only eight of the 233 featured sites have been destroyed, Stephanie Meeks, the trust's president, said in an interview Tuesday.

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune....t-for-his.html
__________________
Don't be shy. Step into the light.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2011, 5:08 AM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
I don't understand how so many people still have a problem with exposed concrete buildings. It's not like it's still the 70's when every other building that went up was a concrete monolith. Exposed concrete is actually a somewhat rare building material these days and should be treasured for the diversity it adds to the cityscape.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2011, 5:31 AM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
I am a typical
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 41,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troubadour View Post
Couldn't they at least paint it? It could really use some color.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2011, 5:34 AM
Rizzo Rizzo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troubadour View Post
Couldn't they at least paint it? It could really use some color. I would be very disturbed being taken to a building that looked like that for medical care.
The part I've highlighted is a fair argument. Like the technology within, hospitals update and expand and change their face with the times. But that doesn't mean it cant serve for other purposes and perform well.

And it shouldn't be painted. We frown on painting brick as destroying the original historic character, so painting concrete eliminates the intended aesthetic for this building as well. It certainly is an imposing building. In fact when I first saw it as a kid, I was frightened by it. I remember my family pulling up in our car near our hotel and it was storming late a night. Lighting strikes and this building was suddenly illuminated. That's whats cool about it though. It doesn't fade away into Chicago's fabric. It stands out. And even if you can blame modernist architecture for some of its harms, this one keeps to itself on a side street.

I think you could make some improvements at the base, and uplighting those voids would be a spectacular sight at street level.
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 9:33 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.