[LouisVanDerWright]

Jeeze guys relax, I'm not saying other opinions can't exist or that other styles are bad, I'm saying that dissing Mies for being what he is is objectively wrong in exactly the same way you are saying claiming he is god is objectively wrong. Mies is what he is and his rational lens of architecture is the purest expression of our era of civilization, you nor I nor Stern can seriously object to that.

Originally Posted by vandelay

Claiming absolute truth and objective opinion is not helping your Modernist arguments.

The world has moved on from such notions. Best to keep up.

There is such a thing as absolute truth when you are looking at things from a rational perspective, the question is actually over the inputs. In other words you can't argue that 1+1=3, but you can change your inputs and get =3 by changing one of the 1's to a 2. In other words, if your inputs are and aesthetic defined by pure expression of modern building techniques (particularly the steel frame) and maximum efficiency then your output is Mies, period.

If you change your inputs to "maximum artistic license and no budget" your output might be Calatrava whereas if you change your input to "as close to traditional design and construct as you can get in order to sell as many condos to the nouveau riche as possible" your output is Stern.

That doesn't mean the inputs you are advocating are actually rooted in any sort of sound aesthetic philosophy or design theory. That means you think ye olde buildinges are purdy and you want more of them. That's a fine opinion to have, but it's not rooted in the reality of how buildings are designed and built in 2018. Period. That is fact and what I'm referring to when I say it's objectively wrong for the likes of Stern to rib Mies.

Originally Posted by sentinel

This is nonsense. Criticism, in any form for any architect should always be listened to; no one architect or their design philosophy is sacrosanct. One could even argue how Mies' philosophy of 'less is more' is fundamentally flawed because it completely ignores site conditions, especially in a city like Chicago, which is geographically boring, flat, uninviting and unwelcoming for 5-6 months out of the year; 20th century Modernist architecture as designed by 'giants' such as Mies and Corbusier completely turned its back on the natural world by pushing what they believed was a better lifestyle. "Machines for Living" may be simple by design, but they are too reductive, bland, and ignore the reality of the constant evolution of cities - Espousing a philosophy of design that attempts to once and for all create an architecture for the masses is fascist and doomed to failure, because the masses are not a uniform, homogeneous entity that function as a hive mind. What's good in California, is not what's good in Chicago/Illinois, which is not what's good in Tunis, which is not what's good in Brisbane, which is not what's good in Harbin, which is not what's good in Prague....

I'm not sure how you can claim Mies "completely turned his back on the natural world" when some of his most beloved output is stuff like Farnsworth House. Perhaps what you mean is that Mies was the ultimate realization of the idea started by FLW that buildings are actually about the space created inside and not about making a fancy shell with godawful interiors as was in vogue in the Victorian era. Farnsworth is far more "in touch with the natural world" (whatever that means) than every single building of the Victorian era combined. The biggest flaw of designs like Farnsworth was actually that they put their occupants so in touch with their surroundings that it actually impinged on the machine's efficiency for the "living" of its occupants by eliminating any and all privacy.

I would also dispute that Mies rational boxes are somehow improper for Chicago because we have a "flat boring geography with a flat boring grid". How is extruding that grid in all directions anything but appropriate given those side conditions? I could see you saying that yeah, maybe you shouldn't have a Mies Federal Center like building plopped down in the middle of Boston because it doesn't match, but in Chicago that's the ultimate match.

In fact, that's what's most disturbing about Stern's attitude and design here. He seems to be under the impression, as if often the case with outsiders coming to Chicago, that he's bringing civilization to the barbarians. My response to that kind of attitude is always going to be "no, you are objectively wrong, the entire contemporary era of construction, urban planning, and architecture originates from Chicago, we don't need your 'civilization' thank you very much".

Originally Posted by HomrQT

Right on cue... you can have a visual and artistic appreciation for one more than the other. No one is arguing that modern styles are not more cost effective, energy efficient, prevalent in new builds, whatever. I prefer traditional styles and I'm not "wrong" for thinking so. Chastizing and frowning upon others for their personal preference is just nonsense and I can see where Stern probably got his demeanor from.

What I am arguing is wrong is trying to gussy up modern structures to be what they ain't. I love pre-war architecture as much or more than anyone on this board. I literally save these buildings from certain destruction for a living. What I do not appreciate is half assed attempts at replicating something that we can never get back once it's lost.

And, despite my love for these old styles, I am not willing to accept excuses that "it's not cost effective to do it right". No, f-that, if you want to justify your behavior by saying "it's not economically feasible", then I most certainly can argue that you are doing something objectively wrong by choosing a style that doesn't work with your construction techniques or budget. I'm not willing to give Related a free pass to build a half assed faux deco tower that does a disservice to our entire architectural history as a city designed by some asshole who thinks his philosophy is inherently superior to the multitude of innovative styles that DO define Chicago. No, if you want to come and tell me how much better "traditional styles" (as if Deco is anything but the run up to Modernism) are than our own heritage, then you new to build those traditional styles 100% the right way, that means stone, that means real copper or bronze, that means authentic massing and detailing, etc. If you skimp on any of those elements it's glaring and unacceptable.

And no, it's not impossible to do, as I just mentioned the other day, the Lowrise on LSD, despite all griping about height, is using a glorious combination of modern windowwall elements and real carved limestone and is turning out phenomenally. The complaints about this building are not that Art Deco is objectively wrong and should be razed wherever it is found, it's that this is objectively not Art Deco and therefore philosophically void. This building contributes nothing to the advancement of architecture as a whole and very little to our heritage and skyline and Stern's aire of superiority should be a trigger to anyone who cares about such things.