CHICAGO | Roosevelt University Dorm | 469 FT / 143M | 32 FLOORS | T/O

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

Definitely some concern about the north facade. The tower to the north may not be built for a long time, and besides, what about the view from the NE e.g. from around Petrillo bandshell? Seems like that enormous gray wall would still be visible from the park.

It actually won't be a huge sheer wall (although it may be a shear wall... yuk yuk). Check out Roosevelt's model of the new dorm, sitting in their Michigan Avenue lobby. In addition to some absolutely ridiculous laser-etching on the Chicago Club, it shows a regular grid of smallish windows covering the north side.

Also, the demolition of Herman Crown has exposed a beautiful bit of detailing on the Auditorium Building's north wall that was concealed for years. The new dorm won't cover it up because it has a setback on the south side above the fourth floor. Hopefully, Roosevelt can find the money to restore this beautiful bit of stonework.

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by aic4ever

I can't help but furiously dislike this building. I don't understand how this even got approval.

Approval by whom? Chicago doesn't have design review, as you must know.

I have great misgivings about the random fenestration pattern, and some unease about the bellows form. I think in 50 years it will seem dated and affected.

[Busy Bee]

Wait wait wait wait. Do I see a R.U. sign at the top? I don't remember seeing that before.

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by J_M_Tungsten

^^^Agreed, this building is definitely a well known and iconic structure for Chicago. Many people I know outside of this area know it simply as "The Red Building".

Actually it was "The Red Buildings" for decades, since it was a 2-tower complex. Then, several (or more) years ago CNA must have found itself downsized enough to de-couple from the north tower, which reverted to a non-red color. Now it is used by DePaul (among others).
So, other people complaining about the red color, count your blessings. Me, I liked them both red.

[orulz]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Approval by whom? Chicago doesn't have design review, as you must know.

I have great misgivings about the random fenestration pattern, and some unease about the bellows form. I think in 50 years it will seem dated and affected.

I agree that it will probably look dated, but I disagree about that being a bad thing.

Actually, I think it will look dated in 30 years. It wouldn't surprise me if, sometime over the next 20 years or so, we have a backlash against early 21st century modernism, and a swing back towards postmodernism and ornamentation of some form. And once that cycle has run its course, maybe 50 years from now, this building will look cool again in 50 years. If it looks cool now, it will look cool again once architectural sensibilities have come full circle (and if the past is any guide, they will.)

[Ordo_]

I think most buildings look dated. No one looks at JHC and is confused about when it was built. Architecture carries with it the connotation of its time...and thats hardly a bad thing. More often I think it makes the really great builings great. Marina City, Inland Steel are all great contextually, but if they were built as is today they would likely be not was well regarded.

If the building is good architecture, we'll see it when its built It'll be good or it wont be. Whether or not its "dated" seems irrelevant to me.

Regardless its a nice design and will bring a whole lot of new things to this part of the skyline. That alone makes it worth watching!

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by Ordo_

I think most buildings look dated. No one looks at JHC and is confused about when it was built. . . . .

You're misunderstanding what it means to be "dated".
A rough definition of "dated" could be based on a litmus test like this: When built, the building looks appropriate for its current era or at least seems like a reasonable attempt at creating a design paradigm for the next era -- and then after XX years, you look at it and wish the damn thing was never built.

[Ordo_]

Originally Posted by denizen467

You're misunderstanding what it means to be "dated".
A rough definition of "dated" could be based on a litmus test like this: When built, the building looks appropriate for its current era or at least seems like a reasonable attempt at creating a design paradigm for the next era -- and then after XX years, you look at it and wish the damn thing was never built.

Maybe you could give me an example?

[Chicago3rd]

Originally Posted by denizen467

Actually it was "The Red Buildings" for decades, since it was a 2-tower complex. Then, several (or more) years ago CNA must have found itself downsized enough to de-couple from the north tower, which reverted to a non-red color. Now it is used by DePaul (among others).
So, other people complaining about the red color, count your blessings. Me, I liked them both red.

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by Ordo_

Maybe you could give me an example?

How about this?


( )

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by denizen467

You're misunderstanding what it means to be "dated".
A rough definition of "dated" could be based on a litmus test like this: When built, the building looks appropriate for its current era or at least seems like a reasonable attempt at creating a design paradigm for the next era -- and then after XX years, you look at it and wish the damn thing was never built.

Uh, that is definitely not what dated means.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

Uh, that is definitely not what dated means.

Yeah, I generally associate those feelings with the word "ugly" or "extremely bad design"...

[denizen467]

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...

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

^

[ardecila]

Yea, I really don't agree with you at all. I love AT&T (both the Johnson/NYC one and the KPF/Chicago one) and NBC Tower, 311 Wacker, and 1 South Wacker. You can't just dismiss all of Postmodernism.

The only building I would agree with you on is the CBOT addition, but I can't judge that fully since I've never seen the interior space. From the outside, though, it looks rather unimaginative and dull, just a glass cube with a pyramidal roof. The details don't even redeem it.

[CGII]

Originally Posted by ardecila

You can't just dismiss all of Postmodernism.

Why not? Postmodernism was literally the greatest joke played on architecture.

[ardecila]

Because:
A) Postmodernism isn't confined to architecture, it's a valid artistic movement across all disciplines
B) Robert Venturi, Leon Krier, et al. were all completely serious about the revival of classical forms
C) Even an architecture based in complete irony (Michael Graves, Philip Johnson, Charles Moore) is still a valid architectural statement

Current architects that we all label as "Postmodern" such as Lucien Lagrange and Robert AM Stern are all making completely honest attempts to produce a historicist architecture (with mixed success) so either those architects aren't Postmodern, or there is more to Postmodernism than is dreamt of in your philosophy.

By your logic, I should be able to dismiss the whole of Modernism as well, since it callously and inconsiderately threw out 4000 years of building tradition.

[wrab]

Originally Posted by Ordo_

I think most buildings look dated. No one looks at JHC and is confused about when it was built. Architecture carries with it the connotation of its time...and thats hardly a bad thing. More often I think it makes the really great builings great. Marina City, Inland Steel are all great contextually, but if they were built as is today they would likely be not was well regarded.

If the building is good architecture, we'll see it when its built It'll be good or it wont be. Whether or not its "dated" seems irrelevant to me.

Regardless its a nice design and will bring a whole lot of new things to this part of the skyline. That alone makes it worth watching!

In a sense, you are correct - but "dated" has several meanings, and when used as an adjective and applied to things like buildings, music or fashion, it usually indicates that something hasn't aged well and looks bad or silly.

------

But, denizen467, most of the examples you give as "dated" I rather like. There's too much going on in those towers. Now this looks "dated" to me:


http://www.granneman.com/images/oral..._death_sta.jpg

Dated buildings are usually imitative & pretty much bereft of substance, but these shortcomings are masked by novelty; once the novelty wears off, they're just Cheese.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

^ Well said, ardecila and wrabbit. I do think, though, that even "dated" buildings may have some enduring appeal. What was once considered novel seems to gain respect-- if only for its value as kitsch-- after a certain period of time has passed.

[denizen467]

Wrabbit's reference to a building that "hasn't aged well and looks bad or silly" is just what I was saying in my definition of "dated". I just added to that the notion that in some situations you end up much worse than that, and in other situations you end up not going that far.

Some people are equating this to a Like vs. Dislike question. I don't see it exactly like that - there are a lot more factors (conscious and subconscious) that go into a like/dislike opinion. I actually do kind of like AT&T NYC and many of the other buildings I referred to. (FYI I never said I was dismissing all of postmodernism.) But I cannot look at AT&T or 191 Peachtree and not see parts that are silly or novelties - the crown flourishes evoke a short-lived mindset during the 1980s exuberance - so to me they are dated. Not necessarily bad buildings (since there can be other overwhelmingly good aspects to buildings like these), but nevertheless dated.

Originally Posted by wrabbit

Dated buildings are usually imitative & pretty much bereft of substance, but these shortcomings are masked by novelty; once the novelty wears off, they're just Cheese.

Seeing this I understand you are using a narrower definition for "dated" - e.g. good substance can save a building from being considered dated, even if one if its prominent features is short-lived novelty. So, dated buildings are basically lame or tacky designs with a fig leaf. In short, being dated is kind of the same as being bad. I guess your definition is probably more commonly used.

I've thought of it in a broader way - even a building with good substance can end up being called dated, because the determining factor is short-lived novelty. So, more buildings would end up being called dated. On the other hand, that would not necessarily equate to being bad. I think I've seen this less-pejorative usage of "dated" in some places, but it's probably less common.