^^^ No one said that, he said that thinking outside of the box is a good thing. I think you will have a hard time convincing most people that it's not a good thing. And, you know what, if the budget allows, then yes, novelty is great for architecture assuming it doesn't sacrifice function. I am personally a big time less is more modernist, but I would never want a city of only Miesian boxes. Hell, what do you think all prior styles of architecture to Modernism were? They were all novelty whether it is second empire mansard roofs, the ridiculous crown and cladding on the Carbide and Carbon Building, the impractically ornate design of the Jewlers Building, etc. That was back when budgets allowed architectural novelty and, frankly, if the Chinese are willing to come to Chicago and pay for 21st century architectural novelty, I'll take it. Again, I think it follows all the same strains as brutalism did: A playful rejection of the trap of rigid modernism. As long as this building is clad in quality materials, it will turn out great and contribute another layer of architectural intrigue to our skyline.
Originally Posted by Kenmore
ok, now i get it
It should be black like that, preferably with no windows. Actually, it should just be clad in black precast panels like the Roosevelt Tower. The more oppressive and dystopian the better.