CHICAGO | General Developments - Page 329

ardecila · #**6561** Posted **Apr 1, 2009, 4:19 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by honte

Anyone have a close-up of the original railing handy for a side-by-side?

I edited my original post with a photo from 1955.

Nowhereman1280 · #**6562** Posted **Apr 1, 2009, 4:57 AM**

Yeah Adrian, this is not the time to complain about historicism. If they build a new bridge say at the Spire site or a pedestrian bridge, or a new bridge for a street further south on the river and it is classical, then you can complain, but returning a bridge to its original design is not a crime. Yes its a shameful behavior in our past, but that is how Chicago is, it charges recklessly headlong into the future and then goes to far and retreats into the past for 40-50 years. We are about due for another reckless charge it seems...

Also, every new bridge that I can think of that has been built here lately has been of a nice modern design or a simple utilitarian overpass design, no new bridges seem to get the pomo treatment...

honte · #**6563** Posted **Apr 1, 2009, 6:30 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

I edited my original post with a photo from 1955.

Thanks. Doesn't seem too far off.

george · #**6564** Posted **Apr 1, 2009, 7:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by harryc

A well done, historically accurate restoration that compliments the bridge towers. This is what Chicago is all about, the old with the new.
Next, that Seagram's sign needs to be brought back from ardecila's post.

Nowhereman1280 · #**6565** Posted **Apr 1, 2009, 9:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by george

Next, that Seagram's sign needs to be brought back from ardecila's post.

Yes please! I also wish that those neon Coke signs by the corner of Randolf and Michigan overlooking what now is Millennium Park were still there, they would do a great job of obscuring Millennium Plaza or whatever that's called.

george · #**6566** Posted **Apr 1, 2009, 9:47 PM**

^

Steely Dan · #**6567** Posted **Apr 1, 2009, 9:51 PM**

as long as we're bringing back old neon, let's put those wonderful Magikist lips back up on the expressways.

george · #**6568** Posted **Apr 1, 2009, 11:13 PM**

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKC_azYUZK0

Photos courtesy of goggle images & trib photo file.

BWChicago · #**6569** Posted **Apr 2, 2009, 1:22 AM**

I wish I could see video of those things lit and animated. Those were so awesome.

Busy Bee · #**6570** Posted **Apr 2, 2009, 1:47 AM**

I think the one in Jeff Park was the last to go. Can anyone confirm this? I'm only 27 and I always remember the one off the Dan Ryan missing the lips and the rest of the bottom bulbs usually never on.

I wish they were all back. There's something wonderfully kinetic and amazing about large electric signs looming over heavily travelled areas. Love it.

Busy Bee · #**6571** Posted **Apr 2, 2009, 1:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Yes please! I also wish that those neon Coke signs by the corner of Randolf and Michigan overlooking what now is Millennium Park were still there, they would do a great job of obscuring Millennium Plaza or whatever that's called.

And while were at it, for the most 'ironic' impact, lets put back the enormous Pabst sign at Central Station—wait I think there's some towers there now.

BWChicago · #**6572** Posted **Apr 2, 2009, 3:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

I think the one in Jeff Park was the last to go. Can anyone confirm this? I'm only 27 and I always remember the one off the Dan Ryan missing the lips and the rest of the bottom bulbs usually never on.

I wish they were all back. There's something wonderfully kinetic and amazing about large electric signs looming over heavily travelled areas. Love it.

Yeah, in like 2004

denizen467 · #**6573** Posted **Apr 2, 2009, 4:26 AM**

I'd swear there was also a giant red neon Budweiser logo (y'know, the googie bowtie looking version) along the Kennedy, that had a kind of half-minute cycle where it filled in with red bit by bit. Most likely came down like 15 years ago when people figured out that alcohol advertising doesn't mix with high-speed driving.

ardecila · #**6574** Posted **Apr 2, 2009, 6:36 AM**

No, I'm pretty sure that sign was there until recently... I remember it, and I'm only 20.

benna_uk · #**6575** Posted **Apr 2, 2009, 10:28 AM**

Just been to Chicago for an architecture trip last week. Saw the spire building site & models etc, looks amazing. Also did the obvious tourist thing with hancock and sears etc.

I have a question for everyone, Iam doing a 5th year Architectural Essay titled 'Structural Case Studies in Tall buildings'

Now I want to begin by saying where I think the origins of skyscrapers began and Iam getting into a debate with my lecturer as to which city is started with. Chicago or New York? What are your thoughts?

Also for my essay I need to pick between 3 and 5 case studies so was thinking of 'Home Insurance Building' As a beginning then maybe the Burj Dubai as a snapshot in time as the tallest could also do the CCTV tower as a case for cantilevers and not just trying to be the tallest and its something completely new.

What do you guys think as for the one in between (Sears, Hancock or Empire State?) Iam sure iam missing some obvious ones!

Cheers for your help.

PS How do i start my own thread, stupid newbie question I know but i cant see the link

Via Chicago · #**6576** Posted **Apr 2, 2009, 2:20 PM**

Quote:

I wish they were all back. There's something wonderfully kinetic and amazing about large electric signs looming over heavily travelled areas. Love it

What we need is THIS back!

http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/h...ampoint109.jpg

Mr Downtown · #**6577** Posted **Apr 2, 2009, 2:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by benna_uk

Now I want to begin by saying where I think the origins of skyscrapers began

Make sure you look at the recent research by Gerald Larson of the University of Cincinnati on the matter:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...29/ai_4501450/

honte · #**6578** Posted **Apr 2, 2009, 2:38 PM**

^ Recent? That article is 23 years old. The author can't even spell "William LeBaron Jenney" right.

Condit's opinion means more than most here, but I disagree with him. While I am no expert, the true revolution that produced the skyscraper was the structural system. Everything else just enabled it to be practical.

Nowhereman1280 · #**6579** Posted **Apr 2, 2009, 2:42 PM**

^^^ I agree Honte, as the Monadnack building's north half clearly demonstrates, there is a clear limit to Masonry structural systems. Everything else is just a means of making people actually feel comfortable using such tall structures.

Though I have to note that I don't think Home Insurance was the first pure skyscraper either, it was definitely a proto-skyscraper, but it didn't have a pure skeletal steel frame, there was some masonry used to support weight in the building, primarily the walls, but it was definitely the most advanced use of that kind of construction at the time it was built.

Busy Bee · #**6580** Posted **Apr 2, 2009, 5:51 PM**

Found this blurb about that Turtle Wax building:

The Turtle Wax Turtle
Oct 11th, 2008 by Jeff Duntemann.

Somewhere in Chicago (Pete Albrecht and I are still trying to figure out precisely where) there was once a very Gothic-looking building with a giant turtle on top of it. It was the Turtle Wax turtle, of course, and it existed when I was quite young. Any time we'd be in the car passing by it, my folks would very carefully point it out. That would have been 1958-1962 or so. Pete thinks the building is the Wendell Bank Building at the intersection of Madison, Ashland, and Ogden, and it certainly looks right, though Pete remembers the sign being somewhere on Cicero and not Ashland. I confess that I have no idea, but that intersection would have been on the way to visit my grandfather and Uncle Louie, so it's a plausble hypothesis.

http://www.contrapositivediary.com/?p=152