Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G
Uh, that is definitely not what dated means.
Well that was some sarcasm in "wish the damn thing was never built" - the most severe example of dated-ness. I think of there being 3 levels of looking dated: so dated you want it torn down; dated enough that it's uncomfortably quaint, goofy, or otherwise out of place, but not horrid; and just dated enough that it kind of shouts out that it's from another era but isn't bad.
Originally Posted by Ordo_
Maybe you could give me an example?
Immediately coming to mind are various postmodern and various deco echo towers of the 1980s - I remember these being generally** lauded as cutting edge, but many are glaringly cartoonish now.
-AT&T/Sony Building NYC (okay, why was a "chippendale" tower supposed to be exciting??). You could almost add other Johnson/Burgee buildings from the 1980s South and elsewhere (Atlanta, etc.), but, in line with Nowhereman1280's comment, lots of towers in the West/South were already decidedly bad from the beginning, so they don't even enjoy "dated" status.
-Various Helmut Jahn projects before his decade of "exile" overseas (depending on one's opinion and the degree of datedness, 1 South Wacker, CBOT addition, Wilshire-Midvale, etc.)
-Various KPF projects (311 Wacker, etc.)
-Sometimes the dated-ness screams the most on the inside, like in lobbies/atriums (NBC Tower Chicago, AT&T Chicago, etc.)
** Referring to prevailing opinion (which invariably includes some irrational exuberance from an excited design community, and even big critics who can have more sober views as the years go by).
Obviously there's enough here that's subjective/opinion that either you write forever on it or just leave it at that.
To keep on topic .. I'll add that I feel the Roosevelt tower's massing could end up a little dated down the road, but its curtainwall will probably depend on how stark and colorful the window tints come out - the more subtle and muted, the less dated it'd get...