another great one

Is this Toronto? Unrecognizable Chicago here.

Look, I worked on this project (a little) when I worked for Vinoly. But I can't understand why its "hearkening" to the Sears tower makes it great. Sears is great because its bundled tubes were innovative at that time, and using them as it does creates nice architecture.
Copying it doesn't make OGP great, it's just a copy. And not even an authentic copy, as it doesn't use the same structural system, which is what dictates Sears' architectural form. It just tries to copy the look of the form, just on a smaller scale, and in white instead of black.

^ It's obviously Vinoly's take on a Chicago icon. Sears is great, and OGP is inspired by greatness. Its verticality, smoke glass, white lines and black louvers are a perfect fit for this town and hardly a copy of Sears. What's there not to like?

Let's thank Vinoly for channeling Sears Tower energy and not some tower in Miami!

It's invoking the Sears tower, but isn't a copy. You seem to have a very strong negative opinion of the tower for whatever reason, but I don't understand why. The tower's design wraps around itself like a spiral staircase going 900 feet into the sky. That is unique in its own right and very different from the Sears tower. I'm not gonna try and argue over something subjective, since you have your mind set that the tower is awful, but for most people, this tower will be iconic.

Tallest all residential in the city as well might I add ;)

Wow, this one is really looking great too. This and Vista are the top two new towers by far.

I like the building, I just don't understand how people think that "invoking" another building, or whatever you want to call it, makes a building great. That is postmodern poison.
Just being tall doesn't make it great either. NY WTC pre 9-11 comes to mind.

I think one could argue that great buildings are in a dialogue their site and surroundings. And one of the most important surroundings is other buildings. "Dialogue" doesn't mean "mindlessly replicate", but it does mean responding to or building off of it in an interesting way. That could be putting your own spin on similar ideas, or it might mean doing something totally different and complementary.

In this case, one of the surroundings is another building, which is incredibly important and iconic. NEMA borrows some ideas from Sears, puts its own spin on it, and marries it with the particular needs of its own site and program. The end result enhances both NEMA and the broader skyline, IMO.

I wasn't implying that, it was just a fun side note I wanted to add

Well virtually all the buildings in that shot are from the 90s or more recent so that's maybe why it looks a little Toronto-ish.

I hope you guys like LEGOs.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7823/...fa0125b7_h.jpg

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4887/...0332cef5_b.jpg

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7880/...bbb63153_h.jpg

So if a building is great because it is "in dialogue" with its surroundings, then those surroundings are demolished or drastically altered for some reason, is the building no longer great?
No, a great building has to be able to stand alone as well.
What buildings is the Empire State Building "in dialogue" with? I would argue none. Not the Chrysler, that's not even in the same neighborhood. Nor does it really care about its surroundings. It's the Empire State Building, its surroundings can kiss its ass as far as it's concerned.

I very much love LEGO (not to be that guy, but there is no plural btw).

Great little build though!

No one implied that the only thing that makes a building great is it being in perfect dialogue with everything around it. The Sears tower and ESB are buildings that make an impact on their surroundings, and everything else adapts around them. I'd argue the incoming tower, One Vanderbilt is a perfect example of a tower being in dialogue and invoking the ESB with a modern look.

You are taking people very literally, and again, not everything has to be in concert with one another, but when it is done well, it's obviously a plus. NEMA is an example of this. I take it you aren't very poetic with your overtly literal interpretations of buildings and how people describe their impact/influence on the urban environment/fabric.

wut?

YAY! :cheers:

You should make its twin, too.

Exactly

Are you an architect? Whether you are or not, having worked in Vinoly’s office I would think you would be familiar with the words architects use to talk about their design work. It is VERY common for architects to use words such as “having a dialogue with”, “referencing”, “creating a vernacular vocabulary”, etc., etc. IIRC, Vinoly himself used such rhetoric to explain the design of this building...

So, it appears to me that criticizing a fellow former for utilizing this language would be misguided.

I am an architect, I did work for Vinoly, I am very familiar with the language you describe. I also disagree with a lot of it. It's not misguided, it's called thinking for yourself.
I do agree that buildings designed with their environments and surroundings make for the best buildings. But I don't agree that they have to have a dialogue with surrounding buildings in order to be great. Buildings have to be able to stand on their own and considered independent of other buildings. As I said earlier, if the surrounding buildings are demolished, that should not detract from the building's greatness.

I don't think anyone ever said this? I think Bonobo put it well: