daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Development News Forums > General Urban Developments > DN Archives



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old May 25th, 2007, 05:49 AM   #1481
graham
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 121
Likes (Received): 34

Quote:
Originally Posted by harvesterofsorrows View Post
You a medium who can contact the dead or something?


Everyone just stop before we all get modded in one way or another.
Just look at Franks work.
Frank used thick walls.
He used earth tone colours with black for contrast.
His buildings exuded strength of structure. Solidity and permanence.
They inspired confidence and a sense of security.
The proportions were beautiful and meaningful.
The materials, textures and colors pay homage to the local environment.
The strong lines lead and please the eye.
Any architect will know what I'm talking about.

All these things are missing in Calatravas drill bit.
I wonder if Calatrava even went to architect school.

I dont need to contact the dead.
Just look for yourself to see Frank would be annoyed.

Look at all the triangles at the base area. What is this?
How does this relate to the rest of the building?? It doesn't.
What? did he just pull the idea of triangles from thin air??

Look at the horizontal lines along the bottom and top edges of the white areas. ( White with baby blue? geez.)
what is this?? how do these lines relate to all the other curved and angled lines?? it does not.
It's a cacaphony of unrelated lines and shapes. A disaster.

Where is the tone contrast? Colorwise it's bland and boring.
The Buckminster Fuller thing with the glass in triangular frames theme from the 1967 Montreal, Canada World's Fair - the USA pavillion.

http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildi...t_Expo_67.html

It's so unbelievably outdated and un-unique.

There is no way anybody who has an appreciation of good design is going to buy there.
__________________

Zefire liked this post

Last edited by graham; May 25th, 2007 at 09:46 PM.
graham no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old May 25th, 2007, 06:07 AM   #1482
xrl
Registered User
 
xrl's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 172
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by graham View Post
I wonder if Calatrava even went to architect school.
Man, you are something
xrl no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2007, 06:16 AM   #1483
graham
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 121
Likes (Received): 34

It's only my opinion.
I'm sure there are many with differing opinions and I would not speak poorly of them. Everyone has a right to their opinion.
__________________

Zefire liked this post
graham no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2007, 06:50 AM   #1484
Gaeus
500-Internal Server Error
 
Gaeus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 1,498
Likes (Received): 87

Wow! I thought Chicago lost its essence of constructing skyscrapers after Asia beat them with 4 taller skyscrapers (Petronas Twin Towers, Taipei 101, Beijing World Financial Center and Burj Dubai). Now, they are back again with this incredible project. Too bad it can't beat Burj Dubai or the future Al Burj as the tallest. Anyone knows the projected cost of this project?

Last edited by Gaeus; May 25th, 2007 at 05:05 PM.
Gaeus no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2007, 07:41 AM   #1485
SNT1
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 314
Likes (Received): 12

The number that's surfacing right now is at LEAST $2 billion; probably around $2.4 billion or higher.

Damn, I thought that was the Donald blasting the ChiSpire in the last few posts
SNT1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2007, 08:38 AM   #1486
Chi649
Registered User
 
Chi649's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,156
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by graham View Post
If you had a vote among lifelong Chicagoans who have nothing to gain from this project and who are knowledgable about architecture I'm pretty sure they will say this is not suitable for this city. And they would be right.
I have read every post on this forum about the Chicago Spire in the local Chicago section and here and I can confidently tell you that you are wrong about this. I also happen to live here, see the news storys on tv, read all the news storys on the internet including architecture critics, and also read every post on skyscraperpage about CS. There are many others that do this as well and I'm sure every one would say the same thing, that most people in Chicago have a favorable opinion of CS. I have no problem with your opinion about the building but you need to realize that you are in the MINORITY OPINION and accept it.
Chi649 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2007, 05:20 PM   #1487
graham
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 121
Likes (Received): 34

Good post.
I accept I'm in the minority here on this forum.
I think that's because most of the people who are disgusted with the project don't visit here.
Those that are enthused about the project tend to frequent here more.
Probably you would need an independent polling company to do research on the regular Chicagoan's opinion.
I don't know for sure - but if you polled in the neighbourhoods of regular hard working people who are a part of that city as much as anybody else, not architecture critics, owners, politicians or financiers, then the results would be that they agree with me. The building is out of place there. It's out of character with the city. It's just Calatravas pipe dream and he will not care where it's built or if it fits there. This attitude breaks a mainstay tenant of modern architecture practices.
Since I'm in the minority at this forum, and I've said all that I have to say, I'll leave now so as not to foster any arguments. Thanks for listening.
Cheers, and good luck on a redesign at the base!
__________________

Zefire liked this post

Last edited by graham; May 25th, 2007 at 05:46 PM.
graham no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2007, 05:21 PM   #1488
Gaeus
500-Internal Server Error
 
Gaeus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 1,498
Likes (Received): 87

Quote:
Originally Posted by graham View Post
Of course.



It promises to make money for the developer, the city, other investors and financial participants, etc.
These are the people who determine if it goes forward. Banks basicaly.
They think the condos will sell regardless of the aesthetics. That's enough for them. The "people" or " Chicagoans" don't really enter into it, sadly.



Basically the same question. I refer to the answer above.
If you had a vote among lifelong Chicagoans who have nothing to gain from this project and who are knowledgable about architecture I'm pretty sure they will say this is not suitable for this city. And they would be right. Those who stand to gain in pocket don't really give a darn about aesthetics, only about the bottom line. So what else is new?



Can you provide any reference or proof this is true. I find it a tad hard to believe.
But seriously, don't you think that Chicago deserves something a little less frilly. I dunno. Maybe only women will buy there. Whatever.

I believe I heard this kind of problem before the Sears Tower was constructed. But look, people realized how the tower benefited their city. Now, we have the same issue again. I respect your criticism / skepticism but do you think Chicago will just do nothing to enlighten the city again. Last time I heard, the city's population has been growing slowly. I think the city needs something to attract more tourists and boost the morale of Chicagoans who are taking their pride for their skyscrapers. This is also another boost for American Innovation and Civil Engineering.
Gaeus no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2007, 05:31 PM   #1489
Green Jello
Registered User
 
Green Jello's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, IL U.S.A.
Posts: 356
Likes (Received): 23

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chi649 View Post
I have read every post on this forum about the Chicago Spire in the local Chicago section and here and I can confidently tell you that you are wrong about this. I also happen to live here, see the news storys on tv, read all the news storys on the internet including architecture critics, and also read every post on skyscraperpage about CS. There are many others that do this as well and I'm sure every one would say the same thing, that most people in Chicago have a favorable opinion of CS. I have no problem with your opinion about the building but you need to realize that you are in the MINORITY OPINION and accept it.
I have to completely agree here. I would say only 1 out of 10 people I talk to (in the Chicagoland area) don't like the design.
Green Jello no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2007, 06:42 PM   #1490
Chi649
Registered User
 
Chi649's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,156
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by graham View Post
Good post.
I accept I'm in the minority here on this forum.
I think that's because most of the people who are disgusted with the project don't visit here.
Those that are enthused about the project tend to frequent here more.
Probably you would need an independent polling company to do research on the regular Chicagoan's opinion.
I don't know for sure - but if you polled in the neighbourhoods of regular hard working people who are a part of that city as much as anybody else, not architecture critics, owners, politicians or financiers, then the results would be that they agree with me. The building is out of place there. It's out of character with the city. It's just Calatravas pipe dream and he will not care where it's built or if it fits there. This attitude breaks a mainstay tenant of modern architecture practices.
Since I'm in the minority at this forum, and I've said all that I have to say, I'll leave now so as not to foster any arguments. Thanks for listening.
Cheers, and good luck on a redesign at the base!
I totally agree with you that to really know what the opinions are we need an independent poll. It is also true that the people here feel more free to make positive posts rather than negative ones, because generally they don't want to ruffle too many feathers or draw too much criticism. It seems to me like the average Chicagoan doesn't really have a strong opinion about the spire though. They think its cool that the tower is 2000ft but they don't think too much about the architecture or location. So from talking to people, it seems like they like it but I don't think I ever really asked the question of how do they like the architecture or the placement. So maybe I will ask some of them these questions and provide the feedback here.

I do however value the opinions of the people on this forum and the architecture critics more than the general public though, becase we care a lot more. And the overwhelming majority of these people have a favorable opinion of the spire.

My first reaction was that the spire was in the wrong spot because it won't have the impact on the skyline that I would have liked. But now I have come to realize that this is the perfect spot for a supertower. The spire is an architectural gem IMO and this location will allow it to been seen in all its glory without any chance of impedement.

Who knows though. If this gets built, maybe 20 years from now most people will think that it is in the wrong spot or it doesn't fit well in Chicago. As others have mentioned, other buildings in Chicago have faced similar criticism but now most everyone agrees that John Hancock and Sears could not have been in a better location. Anyway, I respect your opinion and I hope you still post here every once in a while. Healthy criticism is good.
Chi649 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2007, 07:15 PM   #1491
taboe
taboe
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: antwerp
Posts: 1,895
Likes (Received): 380

Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagogeorge View Post
The Spire is a beautiful piece of art, and will be one of the greatest modern architectural marvels of our time.
hmm, a little biased, are we?
taboe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2007, 08:20 PM   #1492
Indica
Top of the World
 
Indica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA (Marina del Rey)
Posts: 368
Likes (Received): 156

??

What the **** is wrong with the base of this tower??

I see that it has a "fragile" looking design to it, but there is no way that this is fragile!! I'm willing to bet that the concrete walls in this building will be remaniscent of the thick ass walls that we are seeing by watching the construction of the Burj Dubai. It has a unique base, and I love how the twist starts low at the base, and continues to flow up and around the building to the top!

Everybody has their opinions, which I deeply respect.. Thats why we are here spending plenty of time in our lives on this website to exchange these ideas. Not to sit here and bicker and ******* flame each other. Sometimes I think that if we ever figure out a common meeting spot for all of us skyscraper lovers to have a meeting, there will be some fightin words flyin in person too!

This is a great design, and thats given that we only see the unofficial render!
Imagine how this beast will look good in the final renders, as well as the finished product..

One record that the Spire can take away from the Burj easily, is the longest elevator shaft in the world if they decide to build an express lift that travels all the way to the top. I would expect the lift to travel at around the same speed as these new ones in the Burj will travel. Currently the tallest elevator shaft in the world is in the Sears Tower which before Taipei 101, had the fastest elevators. They had to slow down the elevators in the Sears tower because people were getting sick I wonder if the elevators running at full speed in the Sears tower were ever faster than the ones in Taipei 101. My brother got back from NY last week and he went in the ESB, and he mentioned that the elevators were no faster than the 36 story building he frequents in downtown LA; kind funny isnt it??
__________________
Just call me "Mr. Helpdesk"
Indica no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2007, 09:34 PM   #1493
downtownVital.org
You can call me Dan
 
downtownVital.org's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Green Bay
Posts: 421
Likes (Received): 4

Graham,

First, if you don't like the tower, fair enough. Nothing is going to be liked by everyone.

Beyond that, it seems worth noting that if building were only built if they met the approval if X percent of the general population, progress in design would be very slow indeed. Even so, I'm not sure that's even relevant here, as I've seen no reason to believe that a majority of people are against this design.

Finally, I'm glad you brought up Frank Lloyd Wright, as his name came straight to mind when the discussion of how "fragile" the base looks began. When FLW designed the SC Johnson Wax building, he had to jump though all sorts of hoops becuase people didn't believe that the "fragile" columns he was using could support the necessary weight (see photo below). Of course, they can and they have.

To say that FLW "would have hated this thing with a passion," is unknowable, but my guess is that he'd like it. To say "Frank used thick walls," well, he did sometimes, but not always. The Johnson Wax example shows that he could design lighter, open spaces when the project called for it. And to say "He used earth tone colours with black for contrast" is no more true: I give you the Guggenheim in New York, an urban FLW design, and I'm looking for the earth tones.

FLW designed using materials and sturctures that he felt best fit their contexts. While we can't know that he would have liked the Spire, there's certainly nothing about it to make me think he wouldn't have.

SC Johnson Wax Building:



Guggenheim New York:

__________________
- Dan

http://www.downtownvital.org
downtownVital.org no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2007, 11:13 PM   #1494
graham
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 121
Likes (Received): 34

Quote:
Originally Posted by downtownVital.org View Post
Graham,

First, if you don't like the tower, fair enough. Nothing is going to be liked by everyone.

Beyond that, it seems worth noting that if building were only built if they met the approval if X percent of the general population, progress in design would be very slow indeed. Even so, I'm not sure that's even relevant here, as I've seen no reason to believe that a majority of people are against this design.

Finally, I'm glad you brought up Frank Lloyd Wright, as his name came straight to mind when the discussion of how "fragile" the base looks began. When FLW designed the SC Johnson Wax building, he had to jump though all sorts of hoops becuase people didn't believe that the "fragile" columns he was using could support the necessary weight (see photo below). Of course, they can and they have.

To say that FLW "would have hated this thing with a passion," is unknowable, but my guess is that he'd like it. To say "Frank used thick walls," well, he did sometimes, but not always. The Johnson Wax example shows that he could design lighter, open spaces when the project called for it. And to say "He used earth tone colours with black for contrast" is no more true: I give you the Guggenheim in New York, an urban FLW design, and I'm looking for the earth tones.

FLW designed using materials and sturctures that he felt best fit their contexts. While we can't know that he would have liked the Spire, there's certainly nothing about it to make me think he wouldn't have.
Hello downtownVital,

I had intended to stay away from this thread, as I said, but your thought provoking post made me want to respond.
First, The ChiSpire is not that bad overall, except for the colours chosen and the design at the base.
It would not take all that much redesign to bring it around to a worthy project for Chicago.

You speak of "progress in design" by not acknowledging the general populace. OK but...new materials and new ideas still should meet one of the basic tenets of architectural practice such as it should be somewhat homogenous with and maybe even paying homage to the environment they occupy. This is even more important for gigantic buildings which overpower most anything else on the skyline. A small, unique, say theatre or museum or the like, does not have such a large obligation to meet these tenets. A huge icon for the city should. Or a house on a street with many other previous built houses also should. There are even by-laws to enforce this concept in many urban neighbourhoods. You can't just build whatever you want anywhere, and this for good reason. Politicians are concerned about what the "general population" think. At least they used to be.

If you show just that base design of "the bit" to random people in public, and at least 50% are men, I'm positive that way more than 50% will say it's terrible.
This has not been done because the results are of no use to anybody.
The seller of the condos know that the buyers are concerned about the "investment" , not how the lobby is designed or what colour it is.
I don't think most people have seen the render of the base, just the longshot overall. I have every reason to believe that most are against this design if they see that render of the base and take the time to understand that it has no redeeming design qualities whatsoever.

With reference to FLW....
Those colums do look a little thinner than traditional but that's just one area of the interior. It is not a major element one see's from the outside that creates a first impression and says " I'm frilly and airy and fragile, plus I'm so tall , are you scared?
This is not amusing stuff for people in USA after 911. The architect for the Freedom tower knows this all too well.

That Frank would not like this ChiSpire is just my assumption from looking at what he valued in his work and then not seeing any of it in Calatravas work.
It's subjective and other people will think differently.

About the earth tones... First, that museum is a beautiful creamy light grey.
The colour of many fantastic buildings in Washington, DC. It's the colour of many a common stone or rock and therefore is a traditional earth colour.
Earth colours.... beiges, browns, creams, greys, ochres, blacks, subdued reds, etc. The colours of the actual earth and rocks that gives us our building materials.
The two designs you show by Frank, interior browns and the Museum cream grey. Both earth colours. Calatravas blue?? well, not too earthy or respectful of anything ever gone before in that city.
Black for contrast at the Museum?? Shadows in the horizontal cutouts provide this. Genious.
Plus at the left upper part of the photo, beige/brown and black stripe along the curved roof line.

Speaking of tasteful colour choices in arch design. Check out the Taj Mahal.
Easily the most fantastic most beautiful building that has ever been designed ever. ( in the 1600's ). Here we see everything that is good in arch design from colour to texture to materials to proportion, to symmetry, to sense of solidity and permanence, to use of light, to distibution of space, to homage to tradition, to respect for local environment. You name it, it's done to perfection. After 400 years it's never been surpassed.
It seem that for some odd reason Calatrava never had any appreciation for the design of this masterpiece, and his work on the ChiSpire bears this out.

I'm not saying his skyscraper need to look anything like Taj Mahal of course.
Just that his sense of what is "good architectural design" obviously does not stem from any appreciation of the design elements in what is internationally considered a foremost, timeless masterpiece of design. Why not?

And Yes FLW had excellent and adequate tonal contrast in his works, which can't be said about the frill bit, I mean drill bit.

If you think Frank would like this ChiSpire, maybe he would, who can say?
But can you point to one single desgin element or theme of the ChiSpire that exemplifies any design element Frank ever used in his work. I can't.

Maybe, that render is simply a godawful job of portraying what Calatrava has in mind. Gosh, I hope so. Now that I mention it, what is with the really poor image quality in renders these days? Would you not think the architect would want to show his work with a quality image that leaves no room for misrepresentations or misconceptions. Apparently not. Food for thought.
__________________

Zefire liked this post

Last edited by graham; May 25th, 2007 at 11:32 PM.
graham no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 26th, 2007, 12:19 AM   #1495
downtownVital.org
You can call me Dan
 
downtownVital.org's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Green Bay
Posts: 421
Likes (Received): 4

First, I don't think I ever said you should ignore the general public, and certainly the general public has not been ignored in this design. Instead, the designs that we're seeing today are the result from, in no small part, input from the pubic, particularly the area residents. What I was trying to say was that you can't just subject every building (or part of a building) to an up or down vote where 51% or 60% (or whatever) of the population not liking something stops the whole project. We'd probably have neither the Sydney Opera House nor the Eiffel Tower (as they exist now, anyway) if that's how design decisions were made. There's a balance to be made there, work with the public on a project like this to help it suit their desires, yet at some point, especially with a more radical design, the architect must be given the freedom to make what he feels is the best decision for the building.

I think the base of this building will be the best part. I think it will be graceful and fantastic, and plenty sturcturally sound. By contrast, I have real concerns about the base of the Freedom Tower, and worry that it will seem fortress-lilke and uninviting (thought a lot of that depends on how the surface treatment works out). I was just in NYC and quite disliked the base of 7 WTC (which is different from FT), I think the Spire will be much more engaging.

As for the color, well, I can't for the life of me see what's wrong here, but again, a matter of taste. I don't think the renderings do this justice either, it's got to be hard to render well how the light will reflect off the curving floorplates. As for the Guggenheim, I guess again we'll have to disagree as to what constitutes an earth tone. I don't find the Guggenheim to be very earthy myself (nor do I find the Taj Mahal to be so), but fair enough, I'll concede the point.

In the end I see an extraordinarily elegant building on an elegant base, and you see a nice building that is betrayed by a few details you don't like. I don't think either of us can speak for what the majority of Chicagoans think, and certainly we can't speak for dead architects.
__________________
- Dan

http://www.downtownvital.org
downtownVital.org no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 26th, 2007, 12:35 AM   #1496
asauterChicago
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 194
Likes (Received): 1

Graham, the Sears Tower, the Hancock, the AON Bulding, none of those fit in with the "Chicago Architecture" of the time. Yet they're regarded as gems. If we only built buildings that fit in the previous architecture of the city you would have a flat city of log cabins.

Chicago has no One type of architecture. Developers can come here and build whatever they want, no matter how crazy or out of place it would seem and we'll love it, seriously. I live in Chicago and I can tell you that everyone I talk to is excited about this project.
asauterChicago no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 26th, 2007, 12:37 AM   #1497
graham
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 121
Likes (Received): 34

Good discussion! even if we have almost opposite viewpoints.

I am tempted to post a few images of the Taj Mahal just so we can get versed and based in the internationally accepted supreme example of good taste in arch design before venturing further into evaluations of the ChiSpire.
This may be a useful exercise. Or maybe not. Let's see.

Gimme a few minutes to gather some images. And don't forget this was central India in the 1600's. Talk later.
__________________

Zefire liked this post

Last edited by graham; May 26th, 2007 at 12:44 AM.
graham no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 26th, 2007, 12:40 AM   #1498
graham
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 121
Likes (Received): 34

Quote:
Originally Posted by asauterChicago View Post
Graham, the Sears Tower, the Hancock, the AON Bulding, none of those fit in with the "Chicago Architecture" of the time. Yet they're regarded as gems. If we only built buildings that fit in the previous architecture of the city you would have a flat city of log cabins.

Chicago has no One type of architecture. Developers can come here and build whatever they want, no matter how crazy or out of place it would seem and we'll love it, seriously. I live in Chicago and I can tell you that everyone I talk to is excited about this project.

homage and homogeniality with the environment does not mean exact copy, lol. log cabins , hehe, good one
And environment does not mean the pre existing buildings only.
There's the traditions, the people, the history, the geographic location, the local building materials, and the sensibilities of the local inhabitants.
The "gems" you mention succeed on theses levels.
__________________

Zefire liked this post

Last edited by graham; May 26th, 2007 at 05:13 AM.
graham no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 26th, 2007, 01:55 AM   #1499
taboe
taboe
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: antwerp
Posts: 1,895
Likes (Received): 380

Quote:
Originally Posted by graham View Post
Speaking of tasteful colour choices in arch design. Check out the Taj Mahal.
Easily the most fantastic most beautiful building that has ever been designed ever. ( in the 1600's ). Here we see everything that is good in arch design from colour to texture to materials to proportion, to symmetry, to sense of solidity and permanence, to use of light, to distibution of space, to homage to tradition, to respect for local environment. You name it, it's done to perfection. After 400 years it's never been surpassed.
That's a bit exaggerated, the Taj Mahal is wonderfull of course, but isn't that unique. There are plenty of similar buildings, that can compete with TH in every sense, for example Badshadi mosque in Lahore or Jama Masjid in Delhi. I get that you consider it a good example of what an architectural masterpiece looks like, but surely 'never been surpassed' is a clear overstatement and a neglect of dozens of other buildings.

Quote:
It seem that for some odd reason Calatrava never had any appreciation for the design of this masterpiece, and his work on the ChiSpire bears this out.
That's just not fair, I don't like the Chicago Spire either, but Calatrava has proven with many other designs that he knows what he's doing. As a matter of fact, there's a trainstation under construction in Belgium that was designed by him, and I can assure you it bears all the elements of great architecture, which you mentioned (play of light, balance, fits in the surroundings and enriches it,...). Maybe he's no FLW, but he deserves a little more credit, I would say...
taboe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 26th, 2007, 05:32 AM   #1500
graham
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 121
Likes (Received): 34

Quote:
Originally Posted by taboe View Post
That's a bit exaggerated, the Taj Mahal is wonderfull of course, but isn't that unique. There are plenty of similar buildings, that can compete with TH in every sense, for example Badshadi mosque in Lahore or Jama Masjid in Delhi. I get that you consider it a good example of what an architectural masterpiece looks like, but surely 'never been surpassed' is a clear overstatement and a neglect of dozens of other buildings.



That's just not fair, I don't like the Chicago Spire either, but Calatrava has proven with many other designs that he knows what he's doing. As a matter of fact, there's a trainstation under construction in Belgium that was designed by him, and I can assure you it bears all the elements of great architecture, which you mentioned (play of light, balance, fits in the surroundings and enriches it,...). Maybe he's no FLW, but he deserves a little more credit, I would say...
Sure, he deserves all sorts of credit. But just not for the ChiSpire.
I want to show these shots of the Taj Mahal so we are all on the same page as to what magnificent architecture looks like AND feels like. Feel it when you look. I think you will.
If you think there is an equal building, as you say, I'd like to see the pics.
Were are talking translucent marble, 20+ years to build and it has lasted 400+ years so far. Do you think ChiSpire will last even 100 years??
Taj is one of the 7 man made wonders of the world!
After enjoying the splendor in these pics, maybe take a look again at the base of the ChiSpire and tell us what you feel. Be honest.
Anyways, here it is... Enjoy...



__________________

Zefire liked this post

Last edited by graham; May 27th, 2007 at 06:57 PM. Reason: Too many pictures posted at once. Fair enough
graham no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
chicago, santiago calatrava, spire, tallest, tower

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 11:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu