HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Highrise & Supertall Proposals

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 5:18 PM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Via Chicago View Post
^
so what does lazy design from a firm look like to you exactly.

as i said, if youre consistently producing A+ knockouts and are at the cutting edge of your craft (Mies, Wright, Sullivan) i dont think too many people are going to complain about having a surplus. the issue is when your output is mired in mediocrity.
Except for the fact that many greats aren't recognized in their day (Sullivan) and even popular greats lose their charm rapidly (see the rapid decline of International Style beginning with the eve of Mies' death). That's how styles work, people always eventually start complaining about a surplus. Then someone comes along with a new idea and they get their day in the sun. To quote Paul Simon: "Every generation throws a hero up the pop charts".

That's just the way it is, Mies was certainly wearing out his welcome by 1970 or so. So who knows what people will say about Goettsch in 100 years, but skyscraper design is certainly much more diverse now than it was 50 years ago, so I think there won't be "the one" big time designer in our era as there was in decades past.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 5:19 PM
Clarkkent2420 Clarkkent2420 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Notyrview View Post
Totally, i concur. They need to retire, pack up and head to Florida. The next generation should take the helm.
Yes, let's design buildings as sculptures to our own vanity. Ye gods. Jim Goettsch has more capability to balance form and function in his pinky finger than most architects have in their entire firm.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 5:27 PM
Notyrview's Avatar
Notyrview Notyrview is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 950
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clarkkent2420 View Post
Yes, let's design buildings as sculptures to our own vanity. Ye gods. Jim Goettsch has more capability to balance form and function in his pinky finger than most architects have in their entire firm.
Oh yes, absolutely, and let us never ever depart from the dogma of the 20th century. And when anyone seeks to challenge that dogma, let's smear them as vane and silly, or 'sensitive'. Who's omnipotent? Mmm hmmmmm. The future is feminine.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 5:28 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,984
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright View Post
That's just the way it is, Mies was certainly wearing out his welcome by 1970 or so. So who knows what people will say about Goettsch in 100 years, but skyscraper design is certainly much more diverse now than it was 50 years ago, so I think there won't be "the one" big time designer in our era as there was in decades past.
i seriously doubt these will be standing in 100 years. General Growth could barely make it 50 years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 5:32 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
Professional Midwesterner
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Edgewater, Chicago
Posts: 17,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Via Chicago View Post
i seriously doubt these will be standing in 100 years. General Growth could barely make it 50 years.
seriously?

you seriously doubt that these 600'-800' tall goettsch towers will be standing in 100 years?

i seriously doubt that you're being serious.

barring disaster (natural, man-made, or otherwise), they'll be there. i'd bet vast sums of money on it. 700' tall buildings don't come down easily or cheaply.

in fact, in chicago's entire infamous career of ripping down the old to erect the new, there's only one single lone example of a tower over 500' tall being taken down: morrison hotel (the building, not the doors' album) back in the '60s to make way for first national plaza.

5 story buildings like general growth? those get knocked with relative ease by comparison.
__________________
He has to go.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 5:35 PM
BrandonJXN's Avatar
BrandonJXN BrandonJXN is offline
Ascension
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 5,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Via Chicago View Post
i seriously doubt these will be standing in 100 years. General Growth could barely make it 50 years.
?

When was the last time a 700+ foot tall building was knocked down for whatever reason?
__________________
Washed Out
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 5:40 PM
Freefall Freefall is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Chicago
Posts: 47
General Growth Building replacement plans/renderings on Curbed. All office space, 800 feet. The pylons remind me of the old 1k S Michigan plans




http://chicago.curbed.com/2017/1/18/...rowth-building
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 5:47 PM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop View Post
Count me in as pretty underwhelmed with this one. Don't get me wrong - this is a fine design on its own. However, my unenthusiastic reaction upon learning that Goettsch got this job is definitely reinforced by the design. It's a Goettsch.
It's kinda what I expected. They do what they do, and they do it well. I'd have preferred to have seen someone else get this commission, which I think would have happened had Riverside/O'Donnell not gotten in on the deal. Developers who exclusively work with a single design architect really annoy me.....there's a certain laziness at play, whether they recognize it or not....

Goettsch and Pickard - I'm definitely looking for other architects to jump into the downtown office design scene. And - this is why I've been so excited for the Ronan and Kreuck and Sexton towers.....which, by the way - I think Ronan's will turn out to be a gem, and have fingers crossed that K+S's will land its anchor deal in the next few months and kick-off - because I think that will be a gem too (although, I hesitate to even type this, but 110 will have some obstruction on 130's w view from upper floors).....
Not much difference from choosing Mies to be your architect 50 years ago. If you put Mies buildings side-by-side without their names or addresses, you'd not be able to tell one from the next, here is a bit different. Yes, the firms and architects you listed have a 'signature'.
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 5:48 PM
Clarkkent2420 Clarkkent2420 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Notyrview View Post
Oh yes, absolutely, and let us never ever depart from the dogma of the 20th century. And when anyone seeks to challenge that dogma, let's smear them as vane and silly, or 'sensitive'. Who's omnipotent? Mmm hmmmmm. The future is feminine.
Listen, you've demonstrated a lack of understanding of the economic concepts that allow office building construction to occur, particularly in chicago, so debating further is pointless. Office construction is the most sensitive to efficiency considerations, and the most efficient, highest performance shape to lay out is a rectangle. Until and unless you grasp that concept, you won't understand the fundamentals for why these buildings are designed the way they are, or what goes into balancing the creative aspect of "solving" a site with the pragmatic reality of getting a building financed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 5:50 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
Professional Midwesterner
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Edgewater, Chicago
Posts: 17,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clarkkent2420 View Post
the pragmatic reality of getting a building financed.
wait...... what? buildings have to get financed?

i'm almost positive that money grows on trees.

__________________
He has to go.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 6:00 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,984
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
seriously?

you seriously doubt that these 600'-800' tall goettsch towers will be standing in 100 years?

i seriously doubt that you're being serious.

barring disaster (natural, man-made, or otherwise), they'll be there. i'd bet vast sums of money on it. 700' tall buildings don't come down easily or cheaply.

in fact, in chicago's entire infamous career of ripping down the old to erect the new, there's only one single lone example of a tower over 500' tall being taken down: morrison hotel (the building, not the doors' album) back in the '60s to make way for first national plaza.

5 story buildings like general growth? those get knocked with relative ease by comparison.
honestly, no. the pace of change is accelerating ever faster. technological growth is exponential. look at the needs companies demand now vs what was top of the line even 20 years ago. its impossible to forsee what types of infrastructure future generations will demand vs what we consider high end today, but theres a good chance the buildings we have today wont accommodate it. im sure the people who built the first loop skyscrapers, or ornate churches, thought theyd last hundreds or thousands of years, the way greek temples did. while some have been spared due to architectural value, many more have been lost or are threatened.

i think its entirely conceivable the cost of demolition will come way down, as will the overall cost of construction (3d printing buildings or some variation on that probably isnt far off). i fully expect skyscraper teardowns to become a thing, just as much as its become a thing to tear down well constructed smaller buildings (by our modern standards) today.

frankly though, i think the entire notion of people commuting from miles away to come to an office to work at a desk is already outdated.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 6:02 PM
Clarkkent2420 Clarkkent2420 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
wait...... what? buildings have to get financed?

i'm almost positive that money grows on trees.

Exactly. The developer stipulates the efficiency parameters to the architect, and the architect has to conform accordingly. Most people believe it is the reverse.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 6:03 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,718
Quote:
Originally Posted by Via Chicago View Post
^
so what does lazy design from a firm look like to you exactly.

as i said, if youre consistently producing A+ knockouts and are at the cutting edge of your craft (Mies, Wright, Sullivan, Ando) i dont think too many people are going to complain about having a surplus. the issue is when your output is mired in mediocrity.

I wasn't speaking of lazy design, just fyi. I was speaking of a laziness of developers that have a go-to designer for literally every single project they do, which describes O'Donnell. He's found a formula that he finds works for him, but he could use more creativity and ambition when it comes to the initial design step of commissioning an architecture firm for a brand new project......I think developers should at least have a small group of firms that they typically work (and periodically seek to expand and/or change that short list) with and have them compete a bit against each other before awarding a commission for a new project....that would encourage creativity and at least air different design approaches......that was the point I was getting at....


Also, to be clear and to distinguish my point, I am not coming from an anti-box perspective at all. I am quite pro-box. (I also like boxed-shaped buildings when handled well and elegantly, and with a sophisticated eye for detail - thus my high hopes for what Ronan's completed tower will turn out to be....I find much of the unenthusiastic reaction to that tower's design on these pages very misplaced)
__________________
Post-Modern is Post-Mortem - Deal with it
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 6:06 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,718
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1 View Post
Not much difference from choosing Mies to be your architect 50 years ago. If you put Mies buildings side-by-side without their names or addresses, you'd not be able to tell one from the next, here is a bit different. Yes, the firms and architects you listed have a 'signature'.

I'm not arguing this point. See my post above......

Also, you shouldn't be comparing Goettsch and Mies. You know better....that's embarrassing.


One additional note - name an example 50 years ago, where a single private developer put up several large Mies-designed office towers in succession in one city, one after the next after the next after the next after the next....? I'm struggling to think of one.....because it didn't happen to my knowledge.....
__________________
Post-Modern is Post-Mortem - Deal with it
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 6:08 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
Professional Midwesterner
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Edgewater, Chicago
Posts: 17,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Via Chicago View Post
i think its entirely conceivable the cost of demolition will come way down
conceivable? perhaps.

likely? i seriously doubt it.

is there a way for us to make a bet that our great-grandchildren will honor? because i'll totally take that bet.
__________________
He has to go.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 6:13 PM
Clarkkent2420 Clarkkent2420 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop View Post
I wasn't speaking of lazy design, just fyi. I was speaking of a laziness of developers that have a go-to designer for literally every single project they do, which describes O'Donnell. He's found a formula that he finds works for him, but he could use more creativity and ambition when it comes to the initial design step of commissioning an architecture firm for a brand new project......I think developers should at least have a small group of firms that they typically work with and have them compete a bit against each other before awarding a commission for a new project....that would encourage creativity and at least air different design approaches......that was the point I was getting at....
That is a much fairer debate than impugning the architect. BUT owners will NEVER change the spread they earn over the prevailing cap rates. Asking a developer to change what allows them to develop is wishful thinking. And all you need to do is walk into a Goettsch lobby (or 4 or 5) and understand that the "formula" has much more design than is being credited here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 6:14 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,718
^ Yep, and that's where I'm coming from. As I said, the design here appears nice on its own. It works.....actually, I take it back - only your first sentence is on point, if the remainder is in response to anything I've stated - IF you're implying that it is but for the grace of Goettsch that O'Donnell is able to enjoy the returns that he has...that would just be silly....any number of competent design shops in Chicago and elsewhere could help produce that level of return alongside compelling aesthetic results....and if he mixed it up a bit more, I'd certainly be happy with the cityscape results, and I think he'd end up happy financially....
__________________
Post-Modern is Post-Mortem - Deal with it

Last edited by SamInTheLoop; Jan 18, 2017 at 7:57 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 6:16 PM
rlw777 rlw777 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,271
Goettsch doesn't need to retire as someone suggested and I don't think they are a lazy firm. Working within a theme doesn't mean the architect is lazy in fact it often means they are going to get the nuances and details right where a architect that changes styles for every project like Gang won't.
Goettsch does fantastic work. I would just rather see office designs by other Chicago firms like BKL, Krueck and Sexton, Ronan etc. before more Goettsch
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 6:32 PM
FlashingLights FlashingLights is offline
Chicago Kid
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Chicago, IL, St. Charles, IL
Posts: 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop View Post
Count me in as pretty underwhelmed with this one. Don't get me wrong - this is a fine design on its own. However, my unenthusiastic reaction upon learning that Goettsch got this job is definitely reinforced by the design. It's a Goettsch.
It's kinda what I expected. They do what they do, and they do it well. I'd have preferred to have seen someone else get this commission, which I think would have happened had Riverside/O'Donnell not gotten in on the deal. Developers who exclusively work with a single design architect really annoy me.....there's a certain laziness at play, whether they recognize it or not....

Goettsch and Pickard - I'm definitely looking for other architects to jump into the downtown office design scene. And - this is why I've been so excited for the Ronan and Kreuck and Sexton towers.....which, by the way - I think Ronan's will turn out to be a gem, and have fingers crossed that K+S's will land its anchor deal in the next few months and kick-off - because I think that will be a gem too (although, I hesitate to even type this, but 110 will have some obstruction on 130's w view from upper floors).....
I kind of agree w/ this.


I want some differentiation at some point. This isn't a horrible design but it also doesn't stand out at all.

Steely can go on blindly defending it all he wants but at the end of the day enough of us felt this way as our initial reaction.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 6:41 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
Professional Midwesterner
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Edgewater, Chicago
Posts: 17,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashingLights View Post
Steely can go on blindly defending it all he wants
huh?

i think you need to bone up on your reading comprehension skills.

i didn't blindly attack or blindly defend anything.

what i did do was address notyourview's confounding lament about chicago building something other than boxes when 3 of the most recent 4 major office tower designs aren't boxes (including this one).
__________________
He has to go.
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 > Global Projects & Construction > Highrise & Supertall Proposals
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:05 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.