Quote:
Originally Posted by hackunion
I watched a documentary about the Chicago library competition in my 20th century architecture class last year. When the winner was revealed at the end of the film, the entire class was completely shocked. When you consider the other project entries, some of which had the chance of truly becoming one of the city's architectural icons, and compare it to the winner - it's a shame. The 1980s were full of backwards thinking though, so it is a good example of this I guess.
|
I would argue that it IS one of the city's icons, though.
Most "architectural icons" are buildings that average joes don't give a crap about, because they have no relation to that building. Consider the Inland Steel Building in Chicago: it's an architectural landmark, it's beautiful, but it's a modernist box and it has been buried amidst many taller buildings. Nobody except architects even knows (or cares) that it is there.
The buildings that become true icons, for all the people instead of just the architectural elite, are the buildings that combine a distinctive design with a public purpose. Sears Tower and John Hancock are icons not just because of their groundbreaking modernist design and engineering, but because of their observation decks and restaurants. All Chicagoans know that the Sears is the tallest, but most are surprised to learn that John Hancock is not the second-tallest (it's now fourth). Yet these two buildings host the only two public observation decks in Chicago, so it makes sense for them to be the two tallest buildings.
The Harold Washington Library serves as a downtown nexus. The library draws in children, families, people looking for a book, researchers, and students of all ages. The Winter Garden at the top hosts many weddings, banquets, and high-school dances. A great deal of Chicagoans have been inside those red stone walls. All this could be accommodated in an undistinguished building, but the distinguished design makes the building into something memorable and valuable to the city as a whole.
The public library here in New Orleans is just the opposite. It's a decent Modernist design but it's rather undistinguished and fairly boring. Poor lighting levels and poor maintenance just make it into an unpleasant affair. DC has the same problem. Their central library was designed by Mies himself, but the library's location, size, and limited scope ensure that the building is just one more glassy box along G Street.