Quote:
Originally Posted by PittsburghPA
Trump was designed around the shape and size of the plot of land. The setbacks are a crafty homage to historic Chicago landmarks. You're talking apples and oranges here to the original debate, bhawk.
|
The debate was that designers never take their surroundings into consideration I thought. Which is completely inane, to use a fellow colleagues term. You said it yourself, the designers considered their surroundings in the Trump building design. Okay, you said "crafty homage" like it was an afterthought, I said considered. East Wacker Drive/East River canyon has become historic in it's essence and aura. It in itself is a Chicago landmark, imo. The riverboat business has grown exponentially. It is a huge tourist draw. Huge. Isn't it a reasonable suggestion to consider that dynamic? Ever notice nothing gets built around the Eifel Tower? (I know that's a wild comparison, but it holds that decisions were made to prevent poor views) NY could give a rats ass, but have you ever noticed nothing large gets built around the Empire State building? By chance? London is another prime example of building code etiquette.
I stand by my feeling. It is a single minded plan, with no reverence to location. But I'll live.