Quote:
If the economics line up, there's no reason why they should have to think small or be gimmicky. |
not trying to defend related, but they weren't the original developer of the three buildings on the right.
|
* moderator edit *
the off topic city vs. city crap has been deleted. off topic city vs. city crap will always be deleted. |
Quote:
The two tower proposal looks ok because there is nothing it can really mess up on, its way too safe. this lot is the perfect opportunity to create a landmark tower, or even THE landmark tower of Chicago. |
|
Clearly the writers of those articles neglected to mention that the design is not a concrete proposal......
The more I see the crutches the more I hate the idea, too gimmicky and doesn't deserve to be included on an otherwise potentially iconic structure. |
Quote:
it's not a proposal at all. it's an in-house design exercise. |
Quote:
SSDD |
Quote:
|
|
yeah that's pretty insanely cool in that spot
hopefully that kind of pie-in-the-sky exercise helps reinforce to Related that the section of the populace that is knowing and caring on such matters expects a signature structure there. at least they have said they wish to do something architecturally significant, whatever it is that means to them... |
Quote:
Yes...plus they seem to have forgotten to use blue glass. Insanity. |
6/10
Not just a hole - the site has a 70-80' deep wall around the perimeter - here a bit of the Northern secant wall pokes up. |
|
Quote:
|
Seems Gensler wasn't invited to the big boy table for real proposals then. Good on them for trying to get their foot in the door though. :cheers:
|
Quote:
|
^ Yes, but I also think it was a concerted effort to get Related's attention and perhaps a commission.
Gensler's far too corporate for my tastes, however that is not to say they don't also put out some nice work..... |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 8:19 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.