Alright, we did favorite, but not least favorite. your top 10 least favorite buildings the city has!

10.) Presidential Towers - decent designs, but too many goddamned towers! 5 of bland towers. one is enough

9.) City Place - looks like something out of the suburbs, yeesh.

8.) Gateway Center III - bland, just a cookie cutter box

7.) Unitrin Building - not a bad design, but when you walk down the river, you see Wrigley, Tribune, Mather Tower, Jewelers Building, IBM Building, Marina Cities, and then you see the Unitrin Building. how the hell did that get there?

6.) McClurg Court Center A and B, throw in the Holiday Inn Chicago City Centre - ugly. McClurg Court is the ugliest complex we have. ugh.

5.) Hyatt Regency Chicago - I love the Illinois Center to death. A great mix of modern, internationalist, and postmodern. then you get to the hyatt which is like hair in a soup. its an eyesore.

4.) Hyatt Regency McCormick Place - one word, 1998. terrible. this thing was built in the 90s?!?

3.) Grand Plaza - god, i hate these. theyre so cheesy, like the park tower, but worse. the colors, the shape, and the SPIRE!

2.) AT&T 10 South Canal - embarassing, one of the worst designs I've seen :bash:

1.) Apparel Center - no explanation.

thats all i can think of now, ill try to provide a more in dept list in the future.

The Presidential Towers is comprised of 4 towers. They arent bad however, IMO. I dont like thier base, and how they take up so much space however.

City Place is awesome! It fits in quite well with the other buildings in N Michigan Ave.

Atleast Gateway Center was built over tracks... so it covers a worse blemish. Although yes, quite bland. Gateway IV makes up for it atleast, heh.

I completely agree with Grand Plaza. Worst. Design. Ever.

I agree City Place isn't that bad, certainly doesn't deserve to be in the top ten ugliest. The Presidentials are nice, I'm not sure what the base looks like.

Most of the other picks fit, most of the Hyatts are just ugly.

Are the presidential towers the same place where the Merc Exchange is? Oh my God, I HATE the base of those four buildings! It is not just a shame, it is a nightmare! Horrible 1980's or 70's or whatever style urban planning ! An ugly, useless parking garage. A developer needs to either demolish that stupid garage or build some sort of street-front retail presence on it, only then will I be able to tolerate such a stupid piece of shit

In no particular order:

One Pru
Renaissance Hotel (on Wacker)
Hyatt Regency (again, Wacker)
Apparel Center (aka Mart Plaza)
The Time Life Disaster (Streeterville)
Gateway Center (ALL OF THEM)
Walgreens (State and Randolph)
AT&T (Canal)
Citicorp (or is it Citibank?... on Canal)

Apparel Center
Sun Times Building
Gateway Center

hmm, there's really no other ones that I can't stand. Just these three.

If we're allowed to include ANY structure (not just highrises)


All the suburbanism of North/Clybourne, Division/Clybourne, and Canal/Roosevelt. No offense to anybody, but I would personally pay Osama bin Laden to destroy those GODDAMN things!

Hrmmm... I'd rather just have us demolish them instead of Usama bin Fuckface. At any rate, I can't belive I forgot about Sun Times!!! I also forgot 55 W. Wacker!

That's just it, geoff..

Osama's more likely to demolish those things than us... you know why? Because we're STUPID :)

The Presidential Towers is comprised of 4 towers. They arent bad however, IMO. I dont like thier base, and how they take up so much space however.

City Place is awesome! It fits in quite well with the other buildings in N Michigan Ave.

Atleast Gateway Center was built over tracks... so it covers a worse blemish. Although yes, quite bland. Gateway IV makes up for it atleast, heh.

I completely agree with Grand Plaza. Worst. Design. Ever.
meh, excuse my late reply

my fault on the presidentials

city place, i just dont like it, the facade and shape just have a suburban feeling and it looks too much like charlottes third tallest building.

i agree tho that it fits good on michigan ave, and it would be worse if it were anywhere else in the city

finally someone agrees with my grand plaza opinion, my friend was saying how unique of a design and how it looked great from every angle. yeash, that thing looks like it was an experiment from the 1970s.

Alright, we did favorite, but not least favorite. your top 10 least favorite buildings the city has!

10.) Presidential Towers - decent designs, but too many goddamned towers! 5 of bland towers. one is enough

9.) City Place - looks like something out of the suburbs, yeesh.

8.) Gateway Center III - bland, just a cookie cutter box

7.) Unitrin Building - not a bad design, but when you walk down the river, you see Wrigley, Tribune, Mather Tower, Jewelers Building, IBM Building, Marina Cities, and then you see the Unitrin Building. how the hell did that get there?

6.) McClurg Court Center A and B, throw in the Holiday Inn Chicago City Centre - ugly. McClurg Court is the ugliest complex we have. ugh.

5.) Hyatt Regency Chicago - I love the Illinois Center to death. A great mix of modern, internationalist, and postmodern. then you get to the hyatt which is like hair in a soup. its an eyesore.

4.) Hyatt Regency McCormick Place - one word, 1998. terrible. this thing was built in the 90s?!?

3.) Grand Plaza - god, i hate these. theyre so cheesy, like the park tower, but worse. the colors, the shape, and the SPIRE!

2.) AT&T 10 South Canal - embarassing, one of the worst designs I've seen :bash:

1.) Apparel Center - no explanation.

thats all i can think of now, ill try to provide a more in dept list in the future.
I agree with pretty much the entire list but instead of the Presidential Towers I would put the Daley Center as #10. Except for the nice lobby, this building just bothers me. Perhaps because I find the whole minimalist style very bland and unappealing in any building lower than 1000 ft. Chicago unfortunately has far too much of this style. It should have stopped with Hancock and Sears the two great monoliths.

ahhhhhhhhhhh!!!!! Mies must be spinning in his grave. The style was invented, and perfected, here in Chicago and that, in and of itself, makes it beautiful. Not to mention, the buildings are structural expressionism, not minimalist. These beauties (Daley, IBM, Federal Center, etc) do nothing to emphasize or de-emphasize what makes them stand - what you see is what you get.

Daley center is one of the best buildings in the style of Mies, that Chicago has. The engineering is astonishing when you consider the entire perimiter is held up by only eight columns, which are 87 feet apart. I used to hate the whole "Core Ten Steel" thing, but I have grown to appreciate it know, and feel it should be used more.
Daley Plaza is a great civic space which is heavily used, there is always some event going on (blocking the view of the Picasso)

I would add 55 E. Monroe, the 50-floor, block long, grey, monolithic box, that offends me mostly because of its prominence on the lakefront skyline.

Of the ones listed, the ones that bother me most are 1 Pru (again, it's prominence in the city's front yard is its biggest offense); and the Apparel Center.

Among downtown low-rises, I HATE the U of C Gleacher Center behind NBC Tower (butt-ugly, and a waste of a terrific site on the river); and the Museum of Contemporary Art (again, a complete waste of a prominent site, and for what: a concrete box!

Presidential Towers doesn't bother me that much. Admittedly, I'm rarely on the street in that area, so I'm not familiar with the base. But as a foursome, they make an unique contribution to the western view of the Loop.

55 W. Monroe is a travesty, of course, but those who agree can at least console yourselves with the knowledge that now that the river is "hot" for development, the clock is ticking on this squat pile of Lincoln Logs.

I would add 55 E. Monroe, the 50-floor, block long, grey, monolithic box, that offends me mostly because of its prominence on the lakefront skyline.

I work in that building. THIS MEANS WAR!!! :jk:

Yeah, the building itself is pretty bland but in today's skyline, I don't think its that bad. As far as a building is concerned, it is pretty nice. There is ground level (and basement and second level) retail, parking up to the 14th floor that is "hidden" into the facade and a two story open lobby that is pretty nice looking. You'd be suprised at how many SF of space is inside that thing.

I work in that building. THIS MEANS WAR!!! :jk:

Yeah, the building itself is pretty bland but in today's skyline, I don't think its that bad. As far as a building is concerned, it is pretty nice. There is ground level (and basement and second level) retail, parking up to the 14th floor that is "hidden" into the facade and a two story open lobby that is pretty nice looking. You'd be suprised at how many SF of space is inside that thing.

Actually, I'm very familiar with the building: I worked there for 2 years. The building's public amenities are indeed just fine.

Even if I hadn't worked there, I'd expect a 50-story building one block long and half a block wide to have a lot of space in it. And the fact that it's so wide and parallel to the shoreline is the biggest part of the problem. If you're gonna take up so much space, please do it with something more than a chunky grey box! In a town full of boxes, at least the others at least have more pleasing proportions than this hulking thing.

We're talking about Mid-Continental Plaza, right? If so, sure, I don't think it's one of the City's gems, but, it really doesn't bother me all that much. It sort of works well to balance out CNA in that portion of the skyline.

ahhhhhhhhhhh!!!!! Mies must be spinning in his grave. The style was invented, and perfected, here in Chicago and that, in and of itself, makes it beautiful. Not to mention, the buildings are structural expressionism, not minimalist. These beauties (Daley, IBM, Federal Center, etc) do nothing to emphasize or de-emphasize what makes them stand - what you see is what you get.

Please forgive my misnaming structural expressionism. I must have gotten it mixed up with the minimalist style of interior decorating. :doh: Anyway, at the risk of being unpopular in this forum, I really find structural expressionism to be quite ugly in any building less than 1000 ft tall. It works with Hancock because of its great height but in shorter buildings like the Daley Center it comes off as too bland and stark. I much prefer the Art-Deco style in buildings less than 1000 ft if you want a simple style, like the Chicago Board of Trade building. But then, Art-Deco goes with just about any height building IMO. :)

the Daley Center is, without question, the single greatest accomplishment of the human species to date. It is pefect in every way.

it is the best building in chicago by at least a million miles. not even mies' shit can come anywhere close to touching the absolute brilliance of the Daley Center.

55 W. Monroe is a travesty, of course, but those who agree can at least console yourselves with the knowledge that now that the river is "hot" for development, the clock is ticking on this squat pile of Lincoln Logs.

um, the adress of 55 w. monroe is not located on the river. however, i take it from the context of your post that you're probably speaking of 55 w. wacker. if so, i couldn't possibly disagree with you more. 55 w. wacker is one of the best buildings in all of chicago, easily.

Ugly is the W Hotel. Sure it's cool and hip (and I"ve hung out there before--I love the scene), but architecturally, the building is a D+

Speaking of ugly, whats the scoop with the Sun Times building demolition? Is it still supposed to happen in a few days?

Lets not forget the plaza around the daley center which complements the tower perfectly. i too, love the interior.

i read on S.com that you can go on the 28th floor or something for a view.

the Daley Center is, without question, the single greatest accomplishment of the human species to date. It is pefect in every way.

it is the best building in chicago by at least a million miles. not even mies' shit can come anywhere close to touching the absolute brilliance of the Daley Center.

Ha Ha! Well said. Despite the fact that I disagree, particularly about the Daley Center being the greatest accomplishment of the human species, I respect your passion on the subject. IMO the best building in Chicago is without question the Tribune Tower. For me, nothing can come close to its ornate perfection.

^yes, i'm quite passionate when it comes to modern architecture.

the starker the better. i hate all that useless decorative crap that they enveloped old buildings in. tribune tower is a PERFECT example of an overdone buiilding. who needs a building with that much crap stuck all over it?

^i can't tell anymore if you're being facetious or not...

anyhoo... I'm a big fan of 333 W Wacker, John Hancock Tower, Lake Point Tower, Marina City, Aon Center, and Skybridge. On a lower level, the Tribune Tower gets a vote, but in general I don't have terrible much use for beaux arts/new york style buildings.

I personally love modern architecture, when it's executed correctly. It's too bad that it became less of an articulation of euclidean simplicity into cheap, easy to craft buildings. It's like a piece of Piet Mondrian art. It looks like anyone could make one... but few can execute it correctly. And I suppose therein was the inherent flaw in Modernism. Such deceptive simplicity to the point where every unskilled architect decided to latch onto the fad.

But that doesn't mean I believe we should continue in Modernism... nor that there is such merit in the beautification of older buildings that we should revisit those again. No, rather than just sticking to self-imposed labels, everything and anything should be explored... which is I suppose sort of Pomodern, which however is beginning to seem more like wierdness-for-wierdness sake than anything of merit.

Yes, the most recent PoMo stuff is starting to just seem like "wierdness for wierdness' sake" now that you mention it. But, some of the original stuff is pretty good (see Philip Johnson's AT&T building (now Sony) in NY.

At any rate, unfortunately, I have to inform you all that IBM Tower, not the Daley Center, happens to be the greatest acheivment of man. Perfect proportionality, fantastic height and stunning coloring - it is the ultimate building.

um, the adress of 55 w. monroe is not located on the river. however, i take it from the context of your post that you're probably speaking of 55 w. wacker. if so, i couldn't possibly disagree with you more. 55 w. wacker is one of the best buildings in all of chicago, easily.

Yes, I did mean 55 w. wacker. Pardon my error. And I guess we agree to disagree on the aesthetics of this building.

Lets not forget the plaza around the daley center which complements the tower perfectly. i too, love the interior.

i read on S.com that you can go on the 28th floor or something for a view.

This is true, because the Daley Center is a public building. The best floor for a view is 29, which houses the Cook County law library, and has a view on at least 3 sides (I've never gone to the west end of the floor).

2 things to keep in mind:

(1) Everyone has to pass through a metal detector on the first floor of the building before entering.

(2) There are signs on the 29th floor specifically prohibiting sightseers. Don't be dissuaded by this. Just try to look inconspicuous, e.g. don't go in a large group, be quiet (it's a library, after all), be discreet about picture taking, etc. You don't have to be dressed up like a lawyer or anything like that. It's intended to be a place where anyone can go for legal information.

^i can't tell anymore if you're being facetious or not...


of course i'm not being entirely serious, but i am serious about my passion for modernism. the daley center and the tribune tower actually set up a pretty good comparison, one is "pretty", the other is "structure". i'm just more of a "structure" person. "pretty" is for housewives and little girls, i'm more into stength and power, the kind displayed by the muscular, oversized spandrel beams of the daley center.

it just boggles my mind that some people, at the very least, can't even appreciate the daley center for its ridiculously powerful and muscular structural framing, but then again, i'm much more of a "structure" person, and other folks are more into "pretty".

to each their own.

it just boggles my mind that some people, at the very least, can't even appreciate the daley center for its ridiculously powerful and muscular structural framing, but then again, i'm much more of a "structure" person, and other folks are more into "pretty".

to each their own.

I didn't say I cant appreciate it, I just said I thought it was ugly. Plus, I didn't say structural expressionism was always bad, just for buildings under 1000 ft. The Hancock Building for instance is quite beautiful, but that is because it is better to accent the structure in extreamly tall buildings where ornamentation wouldn't even be seen. Though I like the Tribune Tower the best among Chicago's buildings, I think Art-Deco is the best overall style but unfortunately New York has all the best Art-Deco buildings.

^ this notion of yours that structural expression is only appropriate for buildings over 1,000 ft. tall seems very arbitrary and silly to me. what is so magical about 1,000 ft.? what would be so drastically different between a 950 ft. structurally expressive building and one that stood 1,001 ft.?

arguably the single most significant and innovative architectural work in all of chicago is Crown Hall on the IIT campus. it is a masterpiece of Miesian structural expression, published in countless architecture texts the world over since its creation decades ago, perhaps more published than any other single chicago building of the last 50 years, yet it only stands 1 story tall.

structural expression can be appropriate for a building of any height, as long as the design is well detailed and executed.

1000 ft is an arbitrary value. My only point in giving that specific height was to suggest that in my opinion the style best befits supertall buildings. That is all.

Another fine example of low-rise structural expression is the Union Station Multiplex at Jackson and Canal. Save for the hideous greenish triangular window panels, the building is flawless.

""pretty" is for housewives and little girls, i'm more into stength and power, the kind displayed by the muscular, oversized spandrel beams of the daley center."

But there are buildings, and Chicago has many, that are both adorned and physically powerful. The Fisher Building, for example, or any one of a dozen twenty-story turn-of-the-century South Loop midrises. I think the Jeweler's Building comes across as both elegant and somewhat foreboding--a big square building with a cupola. I think the Tribune Tower fits in this category; I've never thought of it as girlish in the slightest.

Modernism is striking, and can be beautiful, but should be used sparingly, in my opinion. Too much of it gives a sterilized atmosphere.

^ none of those buildings that you mentioned come anywhere remotely close to exudeing the raw strength, power and bad-assedness of the daley center. the daley center would kick the living fucking shit out of those pansy ass buildings.

the daley center is T-O-U-G-H, and it don't take no shit.

This is true, because the Daley Center is a public building. The best floor for a view is 29, which houses the Cook County law library, and has a view on at least 3 sides (I've never gone to the west end of the floor).

2 things to keep in mind:

(1) Everyone has to pass through a metal detector on the first floor of the building before entering.

(2) There are signs on the 29th floor specifically prohibiting sightseers. Don't be dissuaded by this. Just try to look inconspicuous, e.g. don't go in a large group, be quiet (it's a library, after all), be discreet about picture taking, etc. You don't have to be dressed up like a lawyer or anything like that. It's intended to be a place where anyone can go for legal information.
alright, thanks for the info next time im at the daley center, ill check that out.

Jeez..... not ONE pic in this entire thread? Chicago happens to be my favorite city but even I don't have any idea what half of these bldgs are! Plz include some pics for those of us who don't live there and aren't familiar w/everything. Thx ;)

here's the pics

10.) Presidential Towers
http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/sa/template/program/pcattach/gallery/wherewelive.jpg

9.) City Place
http://www.powerconstruction.net/experience/images/57title.jpg

8.) Gateway Center III
http://img14.exs.cx/img14/8998/210792.jpg

7.) Unitrin Building
http://www.chicagoarchitecture.info/Images/TheLoop/UnitrinBuilding-001.jpg

6.) McClurg Court Center A and B, throw in the Holiday Inn Chicago City Centre

5.) Hyatt Regency Chicago
http://img58.exs.cx/img58/7093/113844.jpg

4.) Hyatt Regency McCormick Place
http://img66.exs.cx/img66/7184/146930.jpg

3.) Grand Plaza
http://www.chicagoarchitecture.info/Images/NearNorthSide/GrandPlazaApartmentsEast-001.jpg

2.) AT&T 10 South Canal - embarassing, one of the worst designs I've seen
http://img57.exs.cx/img57/2491/122972.jpg

1.) Apparel Center
http://img58.exs.cx/img58/6461/splash_01.jpg
http://img54.exs.cx/img54/152/splash_03.jpg

http://img96.exs.cx/img96/4992/httpwwwmerchandisemartcomapparelcenterimagessplash_03.jpg

City Place isn't really all that bad. I mean, it isn't great, but there are many other much uglier buildings you could put at #9. What about the Olympia Center? Now that is ugly.

lol... why is everyone always shitting on Olympia!?!?!? If you want a nasty son of a bitch to shove in the number 9 slot, try out the Time Life building in Streeterville. Just look at that base and the hideously gaudy gold-tinted glass!!!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v240/geoff_diamond/Chicago%20-%20Photographs/TimeLife01.jpg

None of these buildings are that bad. Chicago is remarkable for its lack of huge mistakes. Sure the Apparel Center is barren and boxy, but we don't have anything that compares to masssive hulking pile of ugly that is the PanAm Building in NYC, or Harbourside in Hong Kong.

And anything hideous we have built is small enough to be demolished.

That's actually a pretty good observation :)

The worst large-scale project I can think of in the City is UIC's campus.

i really like both olympia center and the time life building.

as for the ugliest BIG mistake in the skyline, ie. a building over 500 ft., that honor definitely goes to Bofill's train wreck of a design for the R.R. Donnelly building on wacker. jesus christ, what is that mish-mash supposed to fucking be anyway? i just don't get it.

OMFG!!! Are you kidding me??? RR is a beautiful building! "what is that mish-mash supposed to fucking be anyway?" It's called ecclecticism!!!

It's called ecclecticism!!!

ok, you call it "ecclecticism", i call it "a greek temple on steroids that looks like it vomitted all over itself". it's a terriblely horrendous crime against all good design sensibilty, but i can at least appreciate it for its raw, unceasing ugliness. ;)

Thx for postin those pics! I agree that for the quantity of bldgs in Chicago, there aren't many huge disappointments.

I've never liked the CNA Plaza..... color is awful and doesn't fit its surroundings well at all.

Harbourside in HK? Plz, there are hundreds of bldgs in HK alone that are less attractive.

as for the ugliest BIG mistake in the skyline, ie. a building over 500 ft., that honor definitely goes to Bofill's train wreck of a design for the R.R. Donnelly building on wacker

RR Donnelly is definitly not my favorite by I think that it is not the worst major building. The worst is Bank One Plaza. Not that it is a bad design per se, but except for the outward flair at the bottom it is really a boring building. It lends very little to the skyline other than bulk.

^ i completely disagree. bank one plaza is magnificent in every way. as was stateted in "the sky's the limit", it's like a gigantic curving ribbed sail caught in the chicago wind. i love it.

if i have to pic my least favorite building that really stands out in the skyline, i'd go with 311 s. wacker. that thing just screams tacky with it's big old illuminated drum at the top trying, in vain, to distract attention from the mighty and sleek sears. as i've said before, 311 s. wacker is the jan brady of the skyscraper world. it's just not a very good tower, and yet it tries so hard to get anyone's attention.

^ 311 s. wacker is the jan brady of the skyscraper world. it's just not a very good tower, and yet it tries so hard to get anyone's attention.

:hahaha: I totally agree with you on that one. I have never heard anyone put it quite that eloquently before. :)

Well... while you're still wrong about RR sharp... you've hit the nail on the head with 311. If the building looked, from all four sides, like it does from the north and the south, I'd give it thumbs up for unique coloring and simple geometry... but, those god-aweful setbacks are so horribly out of proportion from the west (and especially the east) the building just really stinks it up.

ok, you call it "ecclecticism", i call it "a greek temple on steroids that looks like it vomitted all over itself". it's a terriblely horrendous crime against all good design sensibilty, but i can at least appreciate it for its raw, unceasing ugliness.

i. can't. believe. you're. saying. that.

R.R. Donnelley is BEAUTIFUL!!! A postmodern reinterpretation of a greek column, glistening solemnlly into the sky, a bridge to teh past and to the future!

When put into the context of when it was built, I don't dislike RR Donnelly.

One must remember that one must take into consideration when a buidling is constructed. I am not a big fan of POMO, but I respect that there are good examples and bad examples. I feel that RR Donnelly is a good example of POMO whereas (sorry Geoff) 200 N Dearborn is a not so good example.

^ i agree that one must keep the temporal context in mind when assessing the merits (or lack thereof) of a particluar work of architecture, and yes, there is good POMO and bad POMO, it's just my opinion that RR donnelly is one of the worst POMO buildings in the city, if not the world.

god, what the hell was Bofill thinking?


as for good POMO that i greatly admire, i'd list buildings such as AT&T, 2 pru, chicago title & trust, nbc tower, etc.

lol... don't worry about offending me when you dis' 200 N. I am well aware that I happen to live in one of the ugliest buildings in the City. But hey, better to live in it than to have to look at it all day :)

^Geoff, Tis true, tis true.....

Sharp, I don't feel that Chicago Title and Trust is POMO, I tend to think if it as an early example of what has followed POMO (So I guess that would that make it POPOMO?)
I see it along with buildings such as 181 W Madison and the Boeing Building (formerly Morton Intnl.) These buildings show very little in the way of referencing historical ornamenation. The way I see it, is that these are clearly designs beyond POMO, but not quite into the new modernism of today. (Both 181 W Madison and the Boeing Bldg are among my faves in the city, very forward for their time.)

^ yeah, i see what you're saying about chicago title & trust being more in that ambiguous 'tweener style than straight up POMO. either way, it's a very nice tower in my opinion.

and the boeing buiilding (aka morton international) is a spectacular tower, one of the best in the city.

I think that RR Donnelly is one of those skyscrapers that wows you at first glance, but when you get down to it, it's a standard postmodern tower. I think that the Bank One Corperate Center is much better than RR Donnelly. Also, if RR Donnelly wasn't on the Chicago River, it wouldn't get as nearly as much attention, especially from tourists.