Quote:
Originally Posted by bhawk66
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.
|
I think you're conflating "views" with other variables, like style choice or landmark designation. I would be willing to bet "views" were not taken into consideration in any of your stated examples. The riverboat business would do that much better if more towering skyscrapers were built along their routes. If "views" were a contributing factor, how would one building of similar height or taller ever get built next to another?