The State of Chicago Architecture.

[honte]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

No amount of IMOs can justify the existence of this building or the need for a near exact replica. I know, I know: the horse has been reduced to a bloody pulp. But there it stands, pale taupe and a soupçon of sea green, stark against an empty backdrop, INVITING scorn. It just can't be helped.

You can't help but like the fact that there is a Cyclops looming over the Water Tower.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by honte

You can't help but like the fact that there is a Cyclops looming over the Water Tower.

Is the MCA directly across the street? I can't picture the location in my head. If so, it's too bad; I would LOVE a hulking monolith to set up shop out front to block their views.

What do you think is the single worst feature? I'm going with the balconies.

[honte]

Oh, the stubby spires (which are about 35' shorter than they were drawn in the renders, and doubled in number), and the way the mansard is just plopped down on there with zero integration into the form or materiality of the structure.

[honte]

This is from a conversation that was beginning in the General Developments Thread. Its concerns Linda Searl's "No" vote on the Childrens' Memorial Hospital based on design considerations.

__________________

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

My reaction at first also. This will be one of those projects with a totally "design by committee" look to it - usually nothing ever good comes out of this approach - almost always nothing with lasting vision. However, upon thinking about Searl's vote further, would we really want Plan Commission members to vote 'no' on projects because they do not care for the design? I'm not sure that would be such a good thing. I'd venture to say the majority of the commission (and this will probably always be the case) don't know jack about architecture and design, and if such voting were to become routine (I actually doubt it will), it could come back to bite us in the butt, as you could get a collection of rubes who would vote no because they find certain designs are not conservative or traditional enough or do not "blend in enough with the building next door" or whatever...remember, the mob is fickle....

Yes, agreed of course. But the question then, is there any way possible to have some kind of design review that manages to have an objective opinion? Can some kind of standard be established? Is it possible to insist on a better quality of design without the process running amok and truly progressive design being the victim? These are everyone's questions and fears, and I agree with them. Yet, by the same token, nearly zero oversight, which we have now, also clearly has its consequences.

Thoughts? Is there such a thing as a non-biased review body? Should this all just be handled through zoning, as it is being "handled" now? Should there be a non-binding design review committee, comprised of leading architects, that gives purely advisory information to the commission on each and every major project? I favor the last idea.

[the urban politician]

^ "Objective" and "design review" just don't seem to belong in the same sentence.

If such a committee were to provide nothing more than advisory information, as you mentioned, I guess that would be fine. But without any voting power, what would their role really be? Plus, is it worth tax dollars to create such a committee, especially if they can easily be ignored by developers (being that they have no 'real' power)?

[aaron38]

Originally Posted by honte

But the question then, is there any way possible to have some kind of design review that manages to have an objective opinion?

I don't know about a design review, per say, because tastes are so different. I don't think you'll ever get everyone to agree on a design, and I don't think you want everyone to agree on a design - you'll get stagnation.
The one thing I think I would do is to get early feedback on the initial renders. You can see on this site how a new building gets a pretty quick yea/nay vote from the people. There should be a mechanism to go back to the develper and say "80% of the people hate this, you have to come up with something else".

But what I think we truly need is a Quality Review. Per Systems Engineering philosophy, when writing up requirements you only tell someone What do do, not How to do it.

A Quality Review ensures that the requirements set by the city are met by the design. And there I think we can come to a much larger degree of agreement:
- Things such as quality materials (no painted concrete or cheap glass), respect for the streetwall, first floor retail, well integrated parking, no blank walls, tall&thin, pedestrian friendly, etc...

If the quality is high, the design will take care of itself.

[honte]

^ Yeah, that sounds like a great idea. It wouldn't be a committee that gave design direction, but a "this is total crap and you know it" committee. And it would check to see if basic design principles for a given area / condition are being met, such as, "why is this signage going on Michigan Avenue?"

TUP, I am envisioning that it would be staffed by volunteers, much like the landmarks commission. It would be a prestigious position. The problem is, archtiects are all friends and generally hate to criticize each other, which means that people would probably want to remain anonymous, which of course isn't going to work either.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by honte

The problem is, archtiects are all friends and generally hate to criticize each other,

just clone a bunch of stanley tigerman's and have them fill all the positions on the board. he's never met an architect he didn't want to criticize

j/k of course, stanley is a good guy, but he certainly doesn't pull his punches, he'll call it as he sees it.

[aaron38]

Or use this site, it's semi-anonymous. We can be the "This is total crap and you know it" committee. Can that be the official name??

[honte]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

just clone a bunch of stanley tigerman's and have them fill all the positions on the board. he's never met an architect he didn't want to criticize

j/k of course, stanley is a good guy, but he certainly doesn't pull his punches, he'll call it as he sees it.

Steely, this is hilarious. I had his name in my first post, noting something very similar. I took it out because my comments weren't exactly very kind...

[aaron38]

In the Aqua thread I've seen mentioned several times that "Aqua is just a big box with waves". In other words, they feel it's too simple.
But I think the Mumbai proposal shows that Aqua strikes a good balance, and it's simplicity makes for a much better design. Waves is just too overdone, too cartoonish, and we're really lucky that Aqua is just a big box at heart.

[CGII]

Falls somewhere between


isec.com

and


guiaonde.uol.com.br

Not as good as either, but I still quite like it.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by aaron38

In the Aqua thread I've seen mentioned several times that "Aqua is just a big box with waves". In other words, they feel it's too simple.
But I think the Mumbai proposal shows that Aqua strikes a good balance, and it's simplicity makes for a much better design. Waves is just too overdone, too cartoonish, and we're really lucky that Aqua is just a big box at heart.

Their criticism is completely unwarranted. I defended Aqua at greater length in one of its threads on here or SSC but I think this picture helps to emphasize its restrained, understated beauty. That tower from Mumbai is definitely cartoonish: exaggerated and kind of a joke.

[CGII]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

Their criticism is completely unwarranted. I defended Aqua at greater length in one of its threads on here or SSC but I think this picture helps to emphasize its restrained, understated beauty. That tower from Mumbai is definitely cartoonish: exaggerated and kind of a joke.

I don't think it's within credibililty for any respectable Chicagoan architecture critic to call that Mumbai tower 'A joke' when it's clearly following the footsteps of Mr. Goldberg.


justingbraem.com

[honte]

^ No, they are entirely different, from what I can gather from a photo. Goldberg's designs were highly rational and steeped in a Bauhaus-infused rigor. The Mumbai building looks much more like a design exercise, although to be fair, I can't comment with authority since I don't know anything about its goals or origins.

But this kind of criticism is what Goldberg fought all his life - getting grouped into the "free and fancy" or kitsch type of architecture without much concern for his philosophy or methods.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by CGII

I don't think it's within credibililty for any respectable Chicagoan architecture critic to call that Mumbai tower 'A joke' when it's clearly following the footsteps of Mr. Goldberg.

Uh, it's clear that they're entirely different beasts. Even if they were similar, imitation is not the same thing as substance or quality.

One other thing: you could do without the veiled ad hominem attack next time.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ He said he thought your statement was not credible, how is that ad hominid? Keep that crap out of this thread.

I don't really think you can say that building follows in the footsteps of Goldberg when its clearly not a modernist design. It has no respect for rationality and practicality in the design. Goldberg's designs were stepped in philosophy and reason, not just built to look exciting, though they are quite exciting.

And how about that picture of Marina city, its pretty freaky to see a depressed parking lot where IBM stands now!

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

^^^ He said he thought your statement was not credible, how is that ad hominid? Keep that crap out of this thread.

"I don't think it's within credibililty for any respectable Chicagoan architecture critic." Nowhere is there mention of a specific statement or argument. He is referring to my, i.e., not my statement's, "credibility"; and, through his rejection of my claim he is by inference saying that I am not "respectable." If that is the kind of "crap" you are referring to, then I wholeheartedly agree.

[Alliance]

Gang and Goldberg demonstrated restraint and rationality in their designs, a good quality of ALL architecture.

[CGII]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

"I don't think it's within credibililty for any respectable Chicagoan architecture critic." Nowhere is there mention of a specific statement or argument. He is referring to my, i.e., not my statement's, "credibility"; and, through his rejection of my claim he is by inference saying that I am not "respectable." If that is the kind of "crap" you are referring to, then I wholeheartedly agree.

Holy Jesus. 'I don't know what he's talking about so I'll assume he is attacking me.' Occam's razor.