Chicago's Biggest eye sore

[bluto]

@i am hydrogen:

I was going to submit that POS myself. Unlike the apparel center, only demolition can hide this one. I'm no great fan of presidential towers either, especially because it was a mistake repeated four times.

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by Loopy

Bofill's R.R. Donnelley building is one that I have tried hard to like, but I just can't get there. It kind of drags down the somewhat better Leo Burnett building nearby, which I have learned to like.

Now, don't say anything bad about my beloved 55 W Wacker, or I'll start trolling again.

I agree. It just screams 1980's to me

[Chicagophotoshop]

fellas your killing me. I love that building. the building directly to the east of it is one of the ugliest buildings in the city. but RR??? come on

[cbotnyse]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Bullshit. Every building in the world has resulted from the calculated decisions of an architect of some kind, whether they be trained or not. Warehouses can be great examples of architecture, and in Chicago, they have been. The usage of warehousing goods can take place in a large range of shapes and styles of buildings. The only major requirement is lots of reasonably open floorspace. Warehouses can be tall (12 stories) or short (1 story). They don't need large windows or complex ventilation, electrical, or plumbing systems, so more money is available for exterior embellishment. The warehouse can easily be made into a good building. Even the vast interstate warehouses out in suburban industrial parks have a certain kind of grandeur based on their scale.

Architectural significance is hard to quantify. Is something significant just because it's beautiful? Not in my opinion - architectural significance is only defined by the use or creation of new techniques or ideas; in short, innovation. Very few buildings in Chicago incorporate completely original ideas. Several of Frank Lloyd Wright's buildings do, as do Sullivan's, Burnham's, Holabird/Roche's, Mies', and SOM's.

Lastly, the value of a building is not defined by its architectural significance alone. The value is defined by many things, including the building's appropriateness to its usage, its beauty, its context, its maintenance, its history/tradition, and the sheer physical aspects of its design (ie does it function properly?)

I think its incredibly short-sighted to call a building an eyesore, especially one that's part of an established, commonly-used style, just because it's old and poorly-maintained. Remember that the 50s and 60s saw the Rookery covered in soot, and the Reliance Building plastered with neon signs for discount hat and shoe stores. Those horrible conditions made it very easy for Chicagoans at that time to dismiss those buildings as old and outdated. Only today, after the tireless work of preservationists has kept them standing, do we realize their value. A similar process is happening to Chicago's set of Modernist buildings, many of which have not received the care and attention that they deserve. People now dismiss those buildings as ugly and outdated.

Chicagoans, don't make the same mistake that resulted in the demolition of the Garrick Theatre, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Grand Central Station, LaSalle Street Station, and so much more.

I disagree with just about everything you said. The General Growth building is worthless. Just about everything is wrong with it. The building is an eyesore because it is ugly, too short, and there is nothing aesthetically pleasing about it, it has nothing to do with how its maintained. It could be polished spotless and its still an eyesore.

I agree that warehouses can be a good examples of architecture, in rare cases, Reid Murdoch first comes to mind.

But this building is not one of them, just as Sun Times building wasnt. I would not miss either of them for a second.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Loopy

Bofill's R.R. Donnelley building is one that I have tried hard to like, but I just can't get there. It kind of drags down the somewhat better Leo Burnett building nearby, which I have learned to like.

i don't hate R.R. Donnelley as much as i used to, but it is still an extremely silly work of architecture. over the years i've learned to at least mildly respect that silliness, as opposed to the outright shittiness of say 200 N. dearborn. at least with R.R donnelley, the architect was trying to do something, Bofill simply tried too hard. i used to hate that fact, but now i think that might have been his intention all along; perhaps he just has a wild sense of humor.

Originally Posted by Loopy

Now, don't say anything bad about my beloved 55 W Wacker, or I'll start trolling again.

ahhhhh yes...... 55 West wacker, now there's a modern masterpiece. what a wonderful building.





as far as the thread title, i think my most hated downtown building has to be the east bank club. what a pile of garbage that train-wreck is, made all the worse by its riverfront setting (which it completely and disrespectfully ignores).

[cbotnyse]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i don't hate R.R. Donnelley as much as i used to, but it is still an extremely silly work of architecture. over the years i've learned to at least mildly respect that silliness, as opposed to the outright shittiness of say 200 N. dearborn. at least with R.R donnelley, the architect was trying to do something, Bofill simply tried too hard. i used to hate that fact, but now i think that might have been his intention all along; perhaps he just has a wild sense of humor.






ahhhhh yes...... 55 West wacker, now there's a modern masterpiece. what a wonderful building.





as far as the thread title, i think my most hated downtown building has to be the east bank club. what a pile of garbage that train-wreck is, made all the worse by its riverfront setting (which it completely and disrespectfully ignores).

I agree about RR, he did try to do something, maybe a bit overdone, but I dont mind it.

55 doesnt do it for me. Its OK, but I'm indifferent towards it.

Eastbank is also a miserable building, given its location on the river. Would that be considered warehouse architecture too?

[Unionstation13]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Bullshit. Every building in the world has resulted from the calculated decisions of an architect of some kind, whether they be trained or not. Warehouses can be great examples of architecture, and in Chicago, they have been. The usage of warehousing goods can take place in a large range of shapes and styles of buildings. The only major requirement is lots of reasonably open floorspace. Warehouses can be tall (12 stories) or short (1 story). They don't need large windows or complex ventilation, electrical, or plumbing systems, so more money is available for exterior embellishment. The warehouse can easily be made into a good building. Even the vast interstate warehouses out in suburban industrial parks have a certain kind of grandeur based on their scale.

Architectural significance is hard to quantify. Is something significant just because it's beautiful? Not in my opinion - architectural significance is only defined by the use or creation of new techniques or ideas; in short, innovation. Very few buildings in Chicago incorporate completely original ideas. Several of Frank Lloyd Wright's buildings do, as do Sullivan's, Burnham's, Holabird/Roche's, Mies', and SOM's.

Lastly, the value of a building is not defined by its architectural significance alone. The value is defined by many things, including the building's appropriateness to its usage, its beauty, its context, its maintenance, its history/tradition, and the sheer physical aspects of its design (ie does it function properly?)

I think its incredibly short-sighted to call a building an eyesore, especially one that's part of an established, commonly-used style, just because it's old and poorly-maintained. Remember that the 50s and 60s saw the Rookery covered in soot, and the Reliance Building plastered with neon signs for discount hat and shoe stores. Those horrible conditions made it very easy for Chicagoans at that time to dismiss those buildings as old and outdated. Only today, after the tireless work of preservationists has kept them standing, do we realize their value. A similar process is happening to Chicago's set of Modernist buildings, many of which have not received the care and attention that they deserve. People now dismiss those buildings as ugly and outdated.

Chicagoans, don't make the same mistake that resulted in the demolition of the Garrick Theatre, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Grand Central Station, LaSalle Street Station, and so much more.

I agree about historic preservation, but these structures lack timeless designs like the buildings you have mentioned.

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen

I'd like to hear someone defend this POS:

Yea, that is pretty bad. It is not so much horrible as very mediocre and made worse in that it looks undignified to have such mediocrity on the river. To be sure though I think it will be the first to get knocked down along the river after all the river spots are taken for, heck some developer may not even wait that long. The Renaissance Hotel across the river is a close canidate in my book though I think likely the Westin will go long before.


I may have to say Nordstoms or the Marriot as their blank walls just absolutely kill more then most taking into account their surroundings. In fact other then the glass span over Grand the whole Northbridge complex pretty much disgust me in execution and lost opportunity. Can't say I am a big fan of the outside of WTP either.

As far as the General Growth building I can understand some peoples appreciation for what it is but I would still knock it down in a heartbeat for a nice tall forward looking building along the river.

[secondcity1]

R.R. Donnelley is a great building and I like it a lot. It looks gorgeous at night too. A few movies were filmed at this building..."The Negotiator" is one of them.

Originally Posted by Loopy

Bofill's R.R. Donnelley building is one that I have tried hard to like, but I just can't get there. It kind of drags down the somewhat better Leo Burnett building nearby, which I have learned to like.

Now, don't say anything bad about my beloved 55 W Wacker, or I'll start trolling again.

[cbotnyse]

Originally Posted by Unionstation13

I agree about historic preservation, but these structures lack timeless designs like the buildings you have mentioned.

Totally agree, I am all for historic preservation, but there is nothing timeless about that building.

[MRichR]

Originally Posted by Loopy

Bofill's R.R. Donnelley building is one that I have tried hard to like, but I just can't get there. It kind of drags down the somewhat better Leo Burnett building nearby, which I have learned to like.

Now, don't say anything bad about my beloved 55 W Wacker, or I'll start trolling again.

The only problem I have with R.R. Donnelley is the top. I love the way it's lit up at night.

Ok, I won't say anytying bad about 55 W Wacker. In fact, I'll say something positive about it: it's a beautiful building...compared to the concrete dump directly south of it, which I mentioned earlier, or the previously mentioned Westin across the river. Neither of those buildings belong near the river, or in the case of 200 in the Loop.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Unionstation13

I agree about historic preservation, but these structures lack timeless designs like the buildings you have mentioned.

Who made you the judge of what's timeless and what's not? Only time can tell what is timeless and what is not. The Colosseum? That's timeless. The Forbidden City? Also timeless. The buildings of Chicago (which didn't get its first skyscraper until 1887)? Not really, at least not yet.

I won't deny that the Rookery and Reliance are beautiful buildings, but I don't think they've endured long enough to be timeless. I really got turned off of this word when they used it in a Target commercial to describe blue jeans.

cbotnyse: General Growth is a horrible under-use of valuable space, and it doesn't fit into its surroundings anymore. That makes it a bad building, not its architecture per se.

[Unionstation13]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Who made you the judge of what's timeless and what's not? Only time can tell what is timeless and what is not. The Colosseum? That's timeless. The Forbidden City? Also timeless. The buildings of Chicago (which didn't get its first skyscraper until 1887)? Not really, at least not yet.

I won't deny that the Rookery and Reliance are beautiful buildings, but I don't think they've endured long enough to be timeless. I really got turned off of this word when they used it in a Target commercial to describe blue jeans.

cbotnyse: General Growth is a horrible under-use of valuable space, and it doesn't fit into its surroundings anymore. That makes it a bad building, not its architecture per se.

Most historic architecture is considered timeless, its lasted this long throughout many changes in style and has never been considered fugly.
Most houses from the turn of the century are considered much prettier than todays houses, or most 20th century homes(excluding the early 20th century).
I'm not the judge of what is timeless, but its a fact that our older architecture is considered timeless.
Buildings from the 1950s-70's aren't considered timeless, infact only years after they were built were they considered eyesores. Structures from the victorian era have been considered beautiful even when anyone who was alive during its construction was dead.

[spyguy]

200 North Dearborn certainly isn't pretty to look at.

[asauterChicago]

I think the biggest eye-sore, for me at least, is the where the old chicago mercantile exchange used to be. Such an awesome old building, and they just tore it down and left a parking lot, right smack in the middle of the financial district. I look at it everyday, and I hate it.

I had a client in that building before they made them all vacate, and it was awesome with all the old Art Deco architecture and the huge old trading floor. I wish I would have taken pictures when I had the chance .

[cbotnyse]

Originally Posted by ardecila

cbotnyse: General Growth is a horrible under-use of valuable space, and it doesn't fit into its surroundings anymore. That makes it a bad building, not its architecture per se.

that is your opinion, and I respect that, but architecturally speaking it is beyond bad, IMO.

[harvesterofsorrows]

The annoying red block always appearing in the middle of the skyline.

[ardecila]

That one's literally an eyesore.

[MRichR]

I like the CNA building

[cbotnyse]

Originally Posted by MRichR

I like the CNA building

me too.