What's the most shameful monstrosity ever built in your city?

[elysium]

Originally Posted by America 117

i dont think every building is good.
but the ones that you and him posted as ugly were not even in a sense of ugly at all. there for making you the one who does not know great architecture when you see it.

I agree that not all those buildings are ugly (although none are particularly beautiful either), but you should explain how you're using the term so that people don't just dismiss your comments.

[America 117]

^^^
well yes.
about 2 i did not like .

[Alliance]

Originally Posted by Alliance

if someone just agrees that every building is good, I tend to doubt they have discerning standards. Perhaps then, you can tell us which buildings in Chicago are shameful then?

You have been unable to provide examples. Please, tell us which buildings in Chicago are "shameful."

[MNMike]

Of those chicago buildings, the only ones I don't like are cityplace (#5), and that fugly chicago place building(#6)...never liked that one. I'm not crazy about #3 either, especially the base. Some of the others you posted are among my favorites of the more modern buildings in Chicago...and no, I don't like all tall buildings. I have always loved the prudential building.

That said, there are plenty of ugly buildings in Chicago...just off the top of my head there is that condo complex on State st and Ohio...very ugly concrete boxes with little metal poles on top. The Marriott right by there is horrible as well, it even has cracks all over its giant blank facade. Personally, I have always hated that big red building too. Also, how is Aon center any better than the ones posted? I have never really cared for that one either...A giant white box with tiny windows. Water tower place? ugly. There are soo many buildings that are way uglier than the ones in that post, but I digress.

[America 117]

01 311 s wacker/1990/kpf
-a great building fine architecture

02 RR donnelley building/1992/destefano
-looks great on the river

03 900 n michigan/1989/kpf
-its ok but nothing great

04 2 prudential plaza/1990/loebl, schlossman, and hackl
-amayzing looks great in chicago

05 city place/1990/loebl, schlossman, and hackl
-its ok

06 chicago place/1991/scb
-this i agree very ugly

07 harold washington library/1991/hammond, beeby, and babka
-its good
remindes me of grand central in NYC

08 river view apartments/2000-2004/destefano
-the most ugly exuse for a building

09 park tower/1999/lucien lagrange
-one of my favorites
nice facade

10 190 s lasalle/1987/johnson burgee architects
-nice but nothing speacial



thats what i think.
most of those buildings should not be in this thread at all.

[texcolo]

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

if i had a magical ability to raze hideous buildings around this city, i'd wipe this city CLEAN of nearly half its buildings. that is, i'm APPALLED by most of what is considered architecture in chicago. it was hard to make a list of the most hideous buildings in this city because there are just so many. but i decided that what makes certain buildings in this city SO bad, is there prominence. so of all the monstrosities that riddle this streets of chicago, these are the most offensive, the most embarrassingly gauche, the worst of the worst. this is a list of the top ten monstrosities ever built in chicago:
all pics from chicagoarchitecture.info

01 311 s wacker/1990/kpf





02 RR donnelley building/1992/destefano





03 900 n michigan/1989/kpf





04 2 prudential plaza/1990/loebl, schlossman, and hackl




05 city place/1990/loebl, schlossman, and hackl



06 chicago place/1991/scb




07 harold washington library/1991/hammond, beeby, and babka





08 river view apartments/2000-2004/destefano





09 park tower/1999/lucien lagrange





10 190 s lasalle/1987/johnson burgee architects

This is one of the worst posts I've ever seen. I would say 'read' but AdrianXsands simply posted ten buildings he hated without an explanation of why he hated them. If you post pictures buildings you hate, with no explanation of why, then you are making a weak post.

1. 311 S. Wacker Drive - This was meant to be one of a set of three. So, if the massing bothers you, just imagine it with two more buildings of equal height. IMO I like it. It is a variation of a 'column' type high rise with an interesting capital that echoes water towers on top of early 20th century high rises. The curtain walls are interesting without being overpowering.

2. RR Donnelley Building - I don't like it and here's why! One, the mirrored glass looks cheap. The temple motif looks tacked on. They should have gone all out with a frieze at the top and columns and capitals running up and down the curtains of the building, or nothing at all. It would be a great looking 'glass box'. It doesn't fit contextually with anything on the river.

3. 900 N. Michigan - Contextualism at it's finest. It follows the traditional Chicago style of art deco. NYC has 'wedding cake' setbacks, Chicago has 'chair' setbacks. So, obviously this building has a chair setback. The vertically of the building is accentuated with the vertical 'column' of windows, which is a hallmark of art deco.

4. 2 Prudential Plaza - A brilliant example of contextualism. The curtain walls echo both 1 Prudential Plaza and the AON. The spire at the top makes this one of the most iconic buildings in Chicago. The spire also echoes the building on the other side of Michigan Ave down the street. (Can't remember the name.)

5. Cityplace - I don't care for this one. It features an 80's / Postmodern cliche of a Paladian arch, and not much else.

6. Chicago Place - It features Chicago bay windows, so it contextually fits in with tenements in Chicago's past. Not exactly the most exiting building, but worthy of being torn down? Defiantly not.

7. Harold Washington Library - I love it. Post modernism at it's finest. The out sized gargoyles at the top are humorous. What's wrong with humor in architecture? It's a caricature of 'civic building.'

8. River View Apartments - It's a typical apartment tenement. The colors that make up the curtain walls, red and green, are strong and will probably not age well. Worthy of being torn down? No. One small step for mankind? No.

9. Park Tower - The massing of this thing is all wrong. It's just a banal box with a mansard roof on top. I'm just not a fan of 60 story French chateaus. Tear it down? No. Surround it with taller better designed buildings? Yes.

10. 190 S. LaSalle St. - I put this in the same category as the Washington Library. It has the post modern sense of irony to it. It should have been Wayne HQ in the Dark Knight as well. Tear it down no. Like it? I'm afraid I do.

None of these buildings are ground breaking. But, remember what's ground breaking today, can wind up looking like Oral Roberts University down the road.

[America 117]

Originally Posted by MNMike

Of those chicago buildings, the only ones I don't like are cityplace (#5), and that fugly chicago place building(#6)...never liked that one. I'm not crazy about #3 either, especially the base. Some of the others you posted are among my favorites of the more modern buildings in Chicago...and no, I don't like all tall buildings. I have always loved the prudential building.

That said, there are plenty of ugly buildings in Chicago...just off the top of my head there is that condo complex on State st and Ohio...very ugly concrete boxes with little metal poles on top. The Marriott right by there is horrible as well, it even has cracks all over its giant blank facade. Personally, I have alwatys hated that big red building too.

i agree with you TOTALLY.

[America 117]

i agree with you texcolo.
but not about park tower i like that one.

[malec]

The prudential plaza building is one of the best.

[ch1le]

i think the pattern (of hate) is quite clear with those buildings. And if you dont understand it, well, thats your problem. Theres no reason to explain every single building. The only saving grace is that theres a bunch of buildings like that in chicago, which kinda smudges it out.

[America 117]

everyone is just going to have to deal with it because those buildings are going to be here for a long time and if you dont like them then its more like your problem.

[texcolo]

Originally Posted by ch1le

i think the pattern (of hate) is quite clear with those buildings. And if you dont understand it, well, thats your problem. Theres no reason to explain every single building. The only saving grace is that theres a bunch of buildings like that in chicago, which kinda smudges it out.

My problem eh? Why not raise the level of discourse in this forum by backing up one's opinions with some substance. You do the forum a disservice with shallow blanket statements.

I think it's obvious that AdrianXsands doesn't care for post modernism in general, I just wished he would back up his blanket statement with some substance.

[rickdm]

This is my first post, so please forgive my lack of familiarity with the community. However I ran across this post and found that a building I designed 22 years ago while at KPF, 311 South Wacker, is listed by a poster as the ugliest monstrosity in the city of Chicago I guess I should be insulted, but as I read the other posts and saw the buildings listed I realized that I had seldom been included on such a distinguished group; Mies, Niemeyer, Harrison, Rudolph, Safdie, and the list goes on and on.

As a bit of perspective, I was 30 years old when I designed that building. It was a master plan by HKS and the developer came to the conclusion that the first phase as designed would not lease in Chicago. I had just finished another tower for the same developer and they came to KPF to redo the design without changing the footprint, or the original budget. The budget was not a generous one, and I probably lost a couple of years of my life fighting to keep the design intact. It has been 22 years, and there are probably a few things I might do differently today, but I am still proud of the building, particularly the wintergarden. It still is quite a technical achievement to have built it out of concrete, and the structural engineer did a fantastic job. Standing on top of a 967' tall building when it was completed and seeing the Chicago grid going off into infinity is about the biggest ego rush I have had in this profession.

Regards,
rick

[America 117]

^^^
wow
you designed that building!
i think its one of the best skyscrapers in chicago and is great architecture!

[rickdm]

^^^
wow
you designed that building!
i think its one of the best skyscrapers in chicago and is great architecture!

Thanks. There are some great buildings in Chicago.

rick

[elysium]

Originally Posted by rickdm

Thanks. There are some great buildings in Chicago.

rick

I wouldn't be dismayed by the criticism. Anyone attracted to these forums is bound to have their own uncompromising ideas about what is good or bad architecture, whereas the general public probably has great admiration for your work (and rightly so). Some here notoriously lack the maturity or brainpower to defend their judgments. They confuse being adamant, elitist, and severe in their sentiments for being authoritative, critical, and discriminating. I think most of us here see through the facade.

[America 117]

^^^
just what exactly are you trying to say

[mhays]

There's also an opposite problem. Some people think that opinions don't matter if they're from people who don't think or speak architecturese. In other words, 99% of the population.

Of course our opinions matter. We live in these cities.

I like a lot of PoMo including that building.

[texcolo]

Originally Posted by mhays

There's also an opposite problem. Some people think that opinions don't matter if they're from people who don't think or speak architecturese. In other words, 99% of the population.

Of course our opinions matter. We live in these cities.

I like a lot of PoMo including that building.

Agreed. But, AdrianXsands knows a thing or two about architecture. In fact, I value his opinion. So, it's even more frustrating seeing him post pictures of ten buildings and calling them shiite, with out any explanation at all. It's lazy.

[elysium]

Originally Posted by texcolo

Agreed. But, AdrianXsands knows a thing or two about architecture. In fact, I value his opinion. So, it's even more frustrating seeing him post pictures of ten buildings and calling them shiite, with out any explanation at all. It's lazy.

AdrianXsands: "...and i'm not a big fan of art; i think it's highfalutin and obnoxiously pointless, sorry."