CHICAGO | The Row (900 W Randolph) | 495 FT | 43 FLOORS

[twister244]

We have glass!!!! Looks good!

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Rizzo

That high rise at Fairbanks and grand is a lie. I was told this and I’m not sure if it’s true but the budget commanded a concrete frame office building but the architect wished the expression to be steel. So it’s concrete waffle slabs clad with with a steel and glass exterior.

good call.

yes, the Time Life building is another "fake ass shit" chicago monstrosity.

a concrete frame office building clad with corten.

the lies....... THE LIES!!!!!!


source: https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/bui...building/10311



some architecture critics consider it a very fine modernist work from Harry Weese, but what do those clowns know?

[Jibba]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

good call.

yes, the Time Life building is another "fake ass shit" chicago monstrosity.

a concrete frame office building clad with corten.

the lies....... THE LIES!!!!!!

source: https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/bui...building/10311

some architecture critics consider it a very fine modernist work from Harry Weese, but what do those clowns know?

To me 900 Randolph goes beyond choice of material expression and enters into the realm of structural deception (with the fake gusset panels and ‘beam’ joints), which I do not like.

[r18tdi]

Originally Posted by Jibba

To me 900 Randolph goes beyond choice of material expression and enters into the realm of structural deception (with the fake gusset panels and ‘beam’ joints), which I do not like.

The angled gussets are a nod to the nearby L tracks and bascule bridges. I don't think anyone would mistake them for being anything other than decorative. Personally I like them.

[dewbs]

Originally Posted by Jibba

To me 900 Randolph goes beyond choice of material expression and enters into the realm of structural deception (with the fake gusset panels and ‘beam’ joints), which I do not like.

I'm on your side on this one, and probably would go farther than you. Even if there's a steel frame, I find the non-structural steel on the outside disappointing. There's nothing wrong with external decoration, but decoration that is just faux structural is lying. Both a glass box and terra cotta seem honest.

[left of center]

But terra cotta isn't structural though? Wouldn't having a limestone/terra cotta/brick exterior but a steel support frame also be "lying?" The external cladding is only decorative and nothing more, right?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by dewbs

I'm on your side on this one, and probably would go farther than you. Even if there's a steel frame, I find the non-structural steel on the outside disappointing. There's nothing wrong with external decoration, but decoration that is just faux structural is lying. Both a glass box and terra cotta seem honest.

I take it you're not fan of tribune tower then.

Few towers in town "lie" more than that one.

[dewbs]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

I take it you're not fan of tribune tower then.

Few towers in town "lie" more than that one.

I find it fairly silly, yes.

[left of center]

Originally Posted by dewbs

I find it fairly silly, yes.

The Parthenon is a pile of trash, too.

[Flaccer05]

Coming in from the cheap seats but I find this entire discussion amusing.

Where is the outrage around some of these towers with gross orange paneling...?? 160 N Elizabeth or 1044 Van Buren ring a bell. Can we get the same discussion going there?!?

900 W Randolph may not be true to form but its a damn fine looking building imo...particularly when compared to others going up nearby. I'd bet 9/10 find it superior from a purely aesthetic point of view.

[dewbs]

Originally Posted by left of center

The Parthenon is a pile of trash, too.

The obvious response would be that comparing the parthenon and the tribune center is verging on illiterate (or just pathetically provincial), but it's worse than that. Which side of this argument do you think the parthenon falls on? it's a literal pile of rocks. It couldn't be more honest.

[bhawk66]

Originally Posted by dewbs

The obvious response would be that comparing the parthenon and the tribune center is verging on illiterate (or just pathetically provincial), but it's worse than that. Which side of this argument do you think the parthenon falls on? it's a literal pile of rocks. It couldn't be more honest.

Some people get offended from a bar room expression like "fake ass shit". No one will die from this debate.

900 Randy does not look bad at all. A few are offended by the commentary. Not properly expressed. The facts remain.

[Klippenstein]

Originally Posted by bhawk66

Some people get offended from a bar room expression like "fake ass shit" and their butt feels hurt. No one will die from this debate.

900 Randy does not look bad at all. A few are offended by the commentary. Not properly expressed. The facts remain.

Just wanted to speak up because it seems you're highlighting the dramatic tension and not the "facts that remain" as you call them. For example, the fact that brick or stone cladding on a steel frame in some sense is just as disingenuous as steel cladding on concrete because it is also giving an illusion that it is made out of something that it's not and using those materials to specifically imply stability and structure in the facade materials where there is none.

Of course, form following function is a great Chicago ideal, but the fact is that as long as it functions nobody except a handful of people on this forum will ever care. Just like nobody cares that the Tribune Tower's grandness is a veneer. It's still one of the most beloved buildings in Chicago.

[bhawk66]

Originally Posted by Klippenstein

Just wanted to speak up because it seems you're highlighting the dramatic tension and not the "facts that remain" as you call them. For example, the fact that brick or stone cladding on a steel frame in some sense is just as disingenuous as steel cladding on concrete because it is also giving an illusion that it is made out of something that it's not and using those materials to specifically imply stability and structure in the facade materials where there is none.

Of course, form following function is a great Chicago ideal, but the fact is that as long as it functions nobody except a handful of people on this forum will ever care. Just like nobody cares that the Tribune Tower's grandness is a veneer. It's still one of the most beloved buildings in Chicago.

I think we're done here. We should move on.


You make valid points. And as celebrated as the Tribune Tower is, yes, if we are being honest, it is clad in a veneer. But man, did they do a nice job.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Flaccer05

Coming in from the cheap seats but I find this entire discussion amusing.

Where is the outrage around some of these towers with gross orange paneling...?? 160 N Elizabeth or 1044 Van Buren ring a bell. Can we get the same discussion going there?!?

We had that discussion a few weeks ago. 1044 W Van Buren is fine. The muted shade of orange and the texture (it's not a flat color) are a nice complement to all the historic brick in West Loop.

160 N Elizabeth takes it a little too far, there it's just a flat color and the orange is a little too bright. But it doesn't offend me like River North beige.

[BorisMolotov]

^ One building is fine but come to Madison where we have orange panels on every new building! It gets old really quick.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by ardecila

We had that discussion a few weeks ago. 1044 W Van Buren is fine. The muted shade of orange and the texture (it's not a flat color) are a nice complement to all the historic brick in West Loop.

160 N Elizabeth takes it a little too far, there it's just a flat color and the orange is a little too bright. But it doesn't offend me like River North beige.

I guess fulton market orange is the new rivernorth beige?

Every generation finds its whipping boy.






It's just that rivernorth beige was way, WAY, WAY worse.

The nightmares still haven't stopped.

[kolchak]

Originally Posted by Klippenstein

Of course, form following function is a great Chicago ideal, but the fact is that as long as it functions nobody except a handful of people on this forum will ever care. Just like nobody cares that the Tribune Tower's grandness is a veneer. It's still one of the most beloved buildings in Chicago.

I never though that form follows function was referencing the facade materials but rather had to do with things such as steel framed buildings allowing for more windows and light (Reliance.) That being said the fact is no one would ever confuse terracotta tiles as being the components of a buildings structural insides. They are inherently decorative. 900 Randolph's facade is the application of facade materials designed to obfuscate not just the visibility of but the the nature of the building's inner construction by visually implying its made of a different material. Its a trick. Is it always asthetically unpleasant to do so? Certainly not. There are many examples of fine looking, well executed buildings with "fake ass" facades. Does it work here? Ehh not so much imho. Its too obvious.

[gandalf612]

Originally Posted by kolchak

I never though that form follows function was referencing the facade materials but rather had to do with things such as steel framed buildings allowing for more windows and light (Reliance.) That being said the fact is no one would ever confuse terracotta tiles as being the components of a buildings structural insides. They are inherently decorative. 900 Randolph's facade is the application of facade materials designed to obfuscate not just the visibility of but the the nature of the building's inner construction by visually implying its made of a different material. Its a trick. Is it always asthetically unpleasant to do so? Certainly not. There are many examples of fine looking, well executed buildings with "fake ass" facades. Does it work here? Ehh not so much imho. Its too obvious.

Y'all are really tiresome with your inconsistent arguments. If you were actually logically consistent, the only real buildings would be all exposed concrete brutalist towers

[kolchak]

Originally Posted by gandalf612

Y'all are really tiresome with your inconsistent arguments. If you were actually logically consistent, the only real buildings would be all exposed concrete brutalist towers

Read the post:

. Is it always asthetically unpleasant to do so? Certainly not. There are many examples of fine looking, well executed buildings with "fake ass" facades. Does it work here? Ehh not so much imho. Its too obvious.