Except for the fact that many greats aren't recognized in their day (Sullivan) and even popular greats lose their charm rapidly (see the rapid decline of International Style beginning with the eve of Mies' death). That's how styles work, people always eventually start complaining about a surplus. Then someone comes along with a new idea and they get their day in the sun. To quote Paul Simon: "Every generation throws a hero up the pop charts".

That's just the way it is, Mies was certainly wearing out his welcome by 1970 or so. So who knows what people will say about Goettsch in 100 years, but skyscraper design is certainly much more diverse now than it was 50 years ago, so I think there won't be "the one" big time designer in our era as there was in decades past.

#

Oh yes, absolutely, and let us never ever depart from the dogma of the 20th century. And when anyone seeks to challenge that dogma, let's smear them as vane and silly, or 'sensitive'. Who's omnipotent? Mmm hmmmmm. The future is feminine.

i seriously doubt these will be standing in 100 years. General Growth could barely make it 50 years.

seriously?

you seriously doubt that these 600'-800' tall goettsch towers will be standing in 100 years?

i seriously doubt that you're being serious.

barring disaster (natural, man-made, or otherwise), they'll be there. i'd bet vast sums of money on it. 700' tall buildings don't come down easily or cheaply.

in fact, in chicago's entire infamous career of ripping down the old to erect the new, there's only one single lone example of a tower over 500' tall being taken down: morrison hotel (the building, not the doors' album) back in the '60s to make way for first national plaza.

5 story buildings like general growth? those get knocked with relative ease by comparison.

?

When was the last time a 700+ foot tall building was knocked down for whatever reason?

General Growth Building replacement plans/renderings on Curbed. All office space, 800 feet. The pylons remind me of the old 1k S Michigan plans
https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/eXL...3/IMG_1735.jpg

https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/8V6...1/IMG_1731.jpg

http://chicago.curbed.com/2017/1/18/...rowth-building

Not much difference from choosing Mies to be your architect 50 years ago. If you put Mies buildings side-by-side without their names or addresses, you'd not be able to tell one from the next, here is a bit different. Yes, the firms and architects you listed have a 'signature'.

#

wait...... what? buildings have to get financed?

i'm almost positive that money grows on trees.

;)

honestly, no. the pace of change is accelerating ever faster. technological growth is exponential. look at the needs companies demand now vs what was top of the line even 20 years ago. its impossible to forsee what types of infrastructure future generations will demand vs what we consider high end today, but theres a good chance the buildings we have today wont accommodate it. im sure the people who built the first loop skyscrapers, or ornate churches, thought theyd last hundreds or thousands of years, the way greek temples did. while some have been spared due to architectural value, many more have been lost or are threatened.

i think its entirely conceivable the cost of demolition will come way down, as will the overall cost of construction (3d printing buildings or some variation on that probably isnt far off). i fully expect skyscraper teardowns to become a thing, just as much as its become a thing to tear down well constructed smaller buildings (by our modern standards) today.

frankly though, i think the entire notion of people commuting from miles away to come to an office to work at a desk is already outdated.

#

I wasn't speaking of lazy design, just fyi. I was speaking of a laziness of developers that have a go-to designer for literally every single project they do, which describes O'Donnell. He's found a formula that he finds works for him, but he could use more creativity and ambition when it comes to the initial design step of commissioning an architecture firm for a brand new project......I think developers should at least have a small group of firms that they typically work (and periodically seek to expand and/or change that short list) with and have them compete a bit against each other before awarding a commission for a new project....that would encourage creativity and at least air different design approaches......that was the point I was getting at....


Also, to be clear and to distinguish my point, I am not coming from an anti-box perspective at all. I am quite pro-box. (I also like boxed-shaped buildings when handled well and elegantly, and with a sophisticated eye for detail - thus my high hopes for what Ronan's completed tower will turn out to be....I find much of the unenthusiastic reaction to that tower's design on these pages very misplaced)

I'm not arguing this point. See my post above......

Also, you shouldn't be comparing Goettsch and Mies. You know better....that's embarrassing.


One additional note - name an example 50 years ago, where a single private developer put up several large Mies-designed office towers in succession in one city, one after the next after the next after the next after the next....? I'm struggling to think of one.....because it didn't happen to my knowledge.....

conceivable? perhaps.

likely? i seriously doubt it.

is there a way for us to make a bet that our great-grandchildren will honor? because i'll totally take that bet.

#

^ Yep, and that's where I'm coming from. As I said, the design here appears nice on its own. It works.....actually, I take it back - only your first sentence is on point, if the remainder is in response to anything I've stated - IF you're implying that it is but for the grace of Goettsch that O'Donnell is able to enjoy the returns that he has...that would just be silly....any number of competent design shops in Chicago and elsewhere could help produce that level of return alongside compelling aesthetic results....and if he mixed it up a bit more, I'd certainly be happy with the cityscape results, and I think he'd end up happy financially....

Goettsch doesn't need to retire as someone suggested and I don't think they are a lazy firm. Working within a theme doesn't mean the architect is lazy in fact it often means they are going to get the nuances and details right where a architect that changes styles for every project like Gang won't.
Goettsch does fantastic work. I would just rather see office designs by other Chicago firms like BKL, Krueck and Sexton, Ronan etc. before more Goettsch

I kind of agree w/ this.


I want some differentiation at some point. This isn't a horrible design but it also doesn't stand out at all.

Steely can go on blindly defending it all he wants but at the end of the day enough of us felt this way as our initial reaction.

huh?

i think you need to bone up on your reading comprehension skills.

i didn't blindly attack or blindly defend anything.

what i did do was address notyourview's confounding lament about chicago building something other than boxes when 3 of the most recent 4 major office tower designs aren't boxes (including this one).