Quote:
Originally Posted by bhawk66
Why is it crap? Because it's not tall? And today we have more money? Huh?
There will always be different sides/opinions and I respect that. But to say because it's a "prominent" location and therefore needs to be tall is, well, not the same opinion as everyone here. I will agree that it IS a prominent location and whatever is built there deserves to have good design, materials and execution. And I think this has that chance.
Has to be tall?? Silliness.
|
I think my point is that Chicago is only getting wealthier (and yes, poorer) than it was decades ago. That may surprise people, but we are seeing even more investment in the core of the city than we were when the Hancock, Standard Oil, and Sears Tower were built.
So the notion that a supertall can’t be financed when places on earth with much lower GDPs and per capita incomes are able to build them just speaks to lack of will, not lack of money.
Related may have a lot of vested interest in Chicago, but I don’t think their “heart” is in it. I think they have an obligation to build something really special here, and fine they decided to not go with a supertall—but does anyone here honestly think they will go with a high quality design and follow through with good materials?
If we don’t get height, then it’s very likely that we won’t get anything, because they probably aren’t going to build something that hasn’t been VE’d to death.
This is Reilly’s fault. Blair Kamin called him out correctly. Reilly didn’t oppose the height, but whatever he did made Related have to shake up their previous plans and now we are getting something much less inspiring, IMO.
Threaded Mode