CHICAGO | 108 North State (Block 37)

[honte]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

You anti-screen guys should listen to yourselves. You sound like you're about 85 years old

You pro-screen guys should listen to yourselves. You sound like a bunch of 8-year-olds who are just getting their first Nintendo.

Originally Posted by Taft

I wonder though, if this thing could be salvaged. Let's say the screen looked much closer to the original screen. Same dimensions, etc. Extremely high quality screens. Then, ABC gives time to local video artists to display public art. Were it well executed, I think such a concept could really work. Not my first choice, but acceptable.

Yes, I think that would be the only acceptable solution.

[ChiPsy]

Unless ABC wants to put money into its *own* place, rather than donating to the CBS site

I like that idea, though -- but I'd also be 30% happier if CBS just moved the damned thing off to one side; as Kamin's piece pointed out, the asymmetry was an essential part of the design.

[SkokieSwift]

The Mistake on State.

[intrepidDesign]

i don' t thing there is anything wrong with screens as long as its done right. All an LED screen is, is the modern day equivalent to say, the Chicago theater sign. electric based promotion of the company/building. With that said, they really should finish off the LED screen like they originally planned.

[honte]

Passing the building today, it differs from the renders in the top as well. It does not appear that the graphic CBS logo pattern will be a part of the building (good or bad?).

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by intrepidDesign

i don' t thing there is anything wrong with screens as long as its done right. All an LED screen is, is the modern day equivalent to say, the Chicago theater sign. electric based promotion of the company/building. With that said, they really should finish off the LED screen like they originally planned.

Exactly. I don't see anything wrong with using different mediums to enhance the cityscape if done tastefully, and lights/videos are just one of those mediums. To imply that one particular medium doesn't "belong" in the city because it somehow "taints" the area's architectural integrity doesn't make any sense to me at all. To me, it's like saying that a modern, glassy building doesn't belong next to an ornamented, classic structure because it somehow destroys the "character" of the area.

[honte]

^ Good architecture is respectful of its surroundings. That's only one criterion, but it's a big one.

I'm not against digital media, or integration of such into architecture, in a philosophical sense. But I've never seen any buildings that are successful in this approach that are respectful of their surroundings, unless those surroundings are already bright-lights types of areas.

[wrab]

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by honte

^ Good architecture is respectful of its surroundings. That's only one criterion, but it's a big one.

I'd be careful with that statement. Some of the best architecture has just said "fuck you" to every other building around it... JHC???

[Norsider]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

I'd be careful with that statement. Some of the best architecture has just said "fuck you" to every other building around it... JHC???

Completely agree. Chicago isn't Paris. In the french capital, every last building (well, about 98%) is exactly the same. has a certain completeness and charm to it, but that's not how we do it here.

By the way, the way to get this fixed is to stand outside the glass studio holding a sign saying [ Your "jumbo" tron sucks ]. Just do that for a few weeks and maybe someone will get the message that their sorry excuse for a monitor needs buddies on either side.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by wrabbit

i don't know honte. i might sound like i just got a nintendo, but i wanna see a japanese geisha on a big screen along our downtown streets, don't you? or maybe some mcdonalds ads? mmmmm, mcdonalds... see, the advertises is working already.

[Minato Ku]

Originally Posted by Norsider

Completely agree. Chicago isn't Paris. In the french capital, every last building (well, about 98%) is exactly the same.

Wrong.

[honte]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

I'd be careful with that statement. Some of the best architecture has just said "fuck you" to every other building around it... JHC???

No, I entirely disagree with your assessment. There is a massive difference between what is architecturally "respectful" and what a NIMBY thinks is respectful. Respectful does not mean copying something in style or in any other attribute. Believe me, good architects spend a lot of time thinking about this.

JHC or the Seagram building were far more respectful to their surroundings than many other additions to their respective boulevards since then. Both of the architects were extremely careful about what they were doing. This is not the thread to discuss this, but I stand behind what I wrote. Unfortunately, those not trained in architecture think the success of these buildings is carte-blanche evidence that you can do absolutely anything anywhere and people will just "learn to live with it," but to think this misses the entire essence and greatness of those buildings.

Last, even if there was anything perceived as disrespectful about my two examples, they won with fabulous architecture. If you are going to try to insert something confrontational in any regard, your building had better be top-notch.

Tell me, when considering Daley Plaza as a whole, how does this succession make any sense to you: Picasso, Miro ... Television. Or, how about this one: Holarbird and Roche, D.H. Burnham, CF Murphy ... Television. The television is the loudest, most distracting element in the whole scene, and yet it is the least refined and the least elegant. It lowers the IQ of the whole plaza and interferes with one's appreciation of the rest of the space.

Some people like to smoke while they eat, some people like to smoke in bed... but when you smoke around me, I have no choice but to breathe it. Did you notice how much harder it is to focus on the words I wrote with those dancing icons? The television is exactly the same.

[cbotnyse]

Originally Posted by honte

Tell me, when considering Daley Plaza as a whole, how does this succession make any sense to you: Picasso, Miro ... Television. Or, how about this one: Holarbird and Roche, D.H. Burnham, CF Murphy ... Television. The television is the loudest, most distracting element in the whole scene, and yet it is the least refined and the least elegant. It lowers the IQ of the whole plaza and interferes with one's appreciation of the rest of the space.

Some people like to smoke while they eat, some people like to smoke in bed... but when you smoke around me, I have no choice but to breathe it. Did you notice how much harder it is to focus on the words I wrote with those dancing icons? The television is exactly the same.

I respect your opinion but this is just too over the top. An LCD screen does not take away from the beauty of its surroundings. I think its adds life and character to the area.

Now one thing I greatly agree with you on is it is the least refined and least elegant, its simply hard to make an LCD screen do that. However, the renders look like a good effort to make it so. The screen that is currently there looks half-assed, cheap, out of place, and not what I want for a "world class" development.

[wrab]

Originally Posted by honte

.....Tell me, when considering Daley Plaza as a whole, how does this succession make any sense to you: Picasso, Miro ... Television. Or, how about this one: Holarbird and Roche, D.H. Burnham, CF Murphy ... Television. The television is the loudest, most distracting element in the whole scene, and yet it is the least refined and the least elegant. It lowers the IQ of the whole plaza and interferes with one's appreciation of the rest of the space.....

I more or less agree with your dislike of this particular TV screen at this location, as executed to date, but...it isn't the medium, it's the message. Lots of interesting video installations out there.

Originally Posted by honte

.....(H)ow does this succession make any sense to you: Picasso, Miro ... Television.....

Maybe they could post some live feed of the Miro on the jumbotron, so that people could, like, actually see it LOL. I hate how Miss Chicago just sits there in the shadows, overlooked & unloved. Picasso gets all of the attention.

[sammyg]

Originally Posted by honte

Tell me, when considering Daley Plaza as a whole, how does this succession make any sense to you: Picasso, Miro ... Television.

It's actually - Picasso (cubist), Daley Center (modernist), City Hall (neoclassical), 1st United Methodist (neo-gothic), Miro, 69 W. Washington (ugly ass yellow concrete block), television. How is the TV any more dissonant from the other buildings than a Picasso being plopped in the plaza was? Or the "rusty" modernist Daley Center next to the columns of City Hall and the spire of 1st United Methodist?

BTW, I agree with wrabbit - I know people who've lived in Chicago for years that are surprised when I point out the Miro - they'd never noticed it before.

[honte]

^ I wasn't talking about things being similar, which is almost never of any importance. It's a question of quality of the space, degree of formality of the space, harmony of the space, amount of effort and attention to detail in the space. The works I listed are all very serious, very masterful works of art. A television screen in its current form is not, I'm sorry. And the television screen actually reduces the visual power of the other objects - hence, I consider it a detriment.

What is the point of Daley Plaza? What function does it serve in the cityscape? How do you build something across the street that makes that experience more powerful and completes the space? I see the television studio as being in opposition to what is there.

Like I've said many times before, having the station on either State or Randloph would have been much less objectionable and probably would have reinforced the character of those districts.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by honte

^ I wasn't talking about things being similar, which is almost never of any importance. It's a question of quality of the space, degree of formality of the space, harmony of the space, amount of effort and attention to detail in the space. The works I listed are all very serious, very masterful works of art. A television screen in its current form is not, I'm sorry. And the television screen actually reduces the visual power of the other objects - hence, I consider it a detriment.

What is the point of Daley Plaza? What function does it serve in the cityscape? How do you build something across the street that makes that experience more powerful and completes the space? I see the television studio as being in opposition to what is there.

Like I've said many times before, having the station on either State or Randloph would have been much less objectionable and probably would have reinforced the character of those districts.

^ Now that's an argument that makes a lot of sense to me, and I can see your point here

[wrab]

Originally Posted by honte

.....What is the point of Daley Plaza? What function does it serve in the cityscape? How do you build something across the street that makes that experience more powerful and completes the space? I see the television studio as being in opposition to what is there.

Like I've said many times before, having the station on either State or Randloph would have been much less objectionable and probably would have reinforced the character of those districts.

The TV station is the Fourth Estate, sitting adjacent to and looking out at two of the seats of government on which it reports - not a total disconnect. There is an historic and symbolic dialogue between these entities - that is why I don't mind the plain-view studio. But I agree that Daley Plaza is a very special space - the continent's greatest modern plaza? - and should be treated with a sure hand, especially when it comes to the jumbotron.

[honte]

^ Wow, that's a viewpoint I've never heard before. I'll think about that one for a while. But couldn't they have figured out a way to put the screen elsewhere and still serve this purpose? Furthermore, I highly doubt anyone considered it in this light, but it's a fair enough theory.

...thinking...

If they had put the station at Randolph and Dearborn, with the "loudscreen" facing Randolph, the station could have interacted with City, County, and State. That would achieve this lofty (highly theoretical) concept while keeping the signage away from the plaza. Sure, people couldn't gather in Daley Plaza and watch TV, but the designers could have come up with something to address this. Heck, you could cantilever the studio out over Randolph and put screens facing the DuBuffet plaza to the west and down Randolph Street to the east. They could have worked out a deal with the City to broadcast valuable information periodically in exchange for this unique privilege.

...

One final thought: If you believe (as I do) that Daley plaza is going to be messed up with this screen, isn't it curious that Daley II is tinkering with virtually everything that bears his father's name? Daley Bicentennial Plaza is going to be obliterated; Daley Plaza reworked... what's next, a casino in place of Daley College?