CHICAGO | One Bennett Park | 837 FT | 68 FLOORS - Page 54

ithakas · #**1061** Posted **Oct 1, 2016, 2:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomrQT

If the building comes out decent, hopefully One Bennet isn't the only new deco building we'll get from Stern.

Hopefully the next time a Chicago developer chooses to put this much money into a project they hire Herzog & de Meuron and not Robert AM Stern.

HomrQT · #**1062** Posted **Oct 1, 2016, 2:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

One is a enough. It's 2016, not 1920.

What does the year have to do with building neo art deco skyscrapers? You may not like the style, but plenty of people sure do.

HomrQT · #**1063** Posted **Oct 1, 2016, 2:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ithakas

Hopefully the next time a Chicago developer chooses to put this much money into a project they hire Herzog & de Meuron and not Robert AM Stern.

The lack of tolerance a lot of the people have on this board for more classical styles is crazy. It's like you're a cult - the design must be modern or it is garbage. Stern looks to be delivering a decent product here. There are plenty more lots around the city to also build neofuturistic buildings.

the urban politician · #**1064** Posted **Oct 1, 2016, 2:50 PM**

^ "Neofuturistic"?

What does that mean?

HomrQT · #**1065** Posted **Oct 1, 2016, 2:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ "Neofuturistic"?

What does that mean?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-futurism

BVictor1 · #**1066** Posted **Oct 1, 2016, 3:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomrQT

What does the year have to do with building neo art deco skyscrapers? You may not like the style, but plenty of people sure do.

Well, in a city where architecture, engineering, and innovation has been at the forefront for more than a century, that's quite sad.

Especially when inauthentic materials such as precast instead of actual limestone is being used.

That makes what you like only a half-assed ripoff.

HomrQT · #**1067** Posted **Oct 1, 2016, 3:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

Well, in a city where architecture, engineering, and innovation has been at the forefront for more than a century, that's quite sad.

Especially when inauthentic materials such as precast instead of actual limestone is being used.

That makes what you like only a half-assed ripoff.

If it's not cutting edge then it has no value? Every building is not going to be pushing the envelope. And revisiting a highly popular and beautiful style in art deco is nothing to be ashamed of. The quality of the project is yet to be seen. There's a lot of speculation that because it's pre cast it will be bad, but we've already seen examples of precast that look decent.

ithakas · #**1068** Posted **Oct 1, 2016, 3:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomrQT

The lack of tolerance a lot of the people have on this board for more classical styles is crazy. It's like you're a cult - the design must be modern or it is garbage. Stern looks to be delivering a decent product here. There are plenty more lots around the city to also build neofuturistic buildings.

I don't hate Robert AM Stern by any means but prefer that architecture be of its time. I'd rather have much stronger preservation protection for the classical buildings that were built in their time and keep contemporary architecture contemporary.

HomrQT · #**1069** Posted **Oct 1, 2016, 3:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ithakas

I don't hate Robert AM Stern by any means but prefer that architecture be of its time. I'd rather have much stronger preservation protection for the classical buildings that were built in their time and keep contemporary architecture contemporary.

I simply can't comprehend what you are saying. We have the ability to preserve our older architecture as well as build whatever we want now. Why would you put that arbitrary set of rules on what styles should be built and what shouldn't be built? In a thousand years from now, if any of these buildings are still standing, the 1930s will be much closer to the 2010s - than the 2010s to the 3010's. And by 3016, who would care that someone revisited those styles a thousand years ago decades apart? Again, if people like it, it should be built, and there are plenty of people pining for more art deco.

kolchak · #**1070** Posted **Oct 1, 2016, 4:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

Well, in a city where architecture, engineering, and innovation has been at the forefront for more than a century, that's quite sad.

Especially when inauthentic materials such as precast instead of actual limestone is being used.

That makes what you like only a half-assed ripoff.

The first part of this post sounds like a tourism commercial for any one of hundreds of cities and the middle part is just bad grammar It ends with profanity attacking (again on this board) someone's subjective taste in architecture because they like something that's not what you like.

Why?

This building is fine for what it is and if the materials and details are handled properly it will be a good contrast for the area.

LouisVanDerWright · #**1071** Posted **Oct 1, 2016, 4:38 PM**

But it's already been announced that the materials will be shit and I don't expect more from the details...

kolchak · #**1072** Posted **Oct 1, 2016, 4:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

But it's already been announced that the materials will be shit and I don't expect more from the details...

Why? Is it that they aren't using real stone or because you already know exactly what the precast pieces are going to look like?

vandelay · #**1073** Posted **Oct 1, 2016, 5:15 PM**

This debate reminds me of the lesser known Roman architect Chicagoanius who said, "Why are we building Greek temples from 500 B.C.? Our buildings should reflect our time, 100 A.D., especially since we're building with concrete, which will look like shit, not solid marble."

LouisVanDerWright · #**1074** Posted **Oct 1, 2016, 5:33 PM**

Roman architecture to this day is generally not regarded for advancing aesthetics, but mainly for engineering. They literally just copied the Greeks and incorporated new engineering like the arch. Meanwhile Chicago unleashed an entirely new aesthetic, engineering, and living revolution that threw the way we built for thousands of years out the window. Any reversion to that era, particularly in Chicago, is fundamentally backwards.

vandelay · #**1075** Posted **Oct 1, 2016, 5:41 PM**

Aesthetics are a matter of taste. One could easily argue that Chicago's greatest architectural treasures are its Art Deco masterpieces, and that a building like this one is a correction of a failed aesthetic.

In any case, a vibrant city is made up of many different aesthetics. To reject any that deviate from what you consider proper is to be like the architectural Taliban.

Tom Servo · #**1076** Posted **Oct 1, 2016, 9:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kolchak

Why? Is it that they aren't using real stone or because you already know exactly what the precast pieces are going to look like?

Precast systems that attempt to replicate a limestone look ALWAYS look horrible. Always.

This building will be total shit. Period. A big name pile of shit is still a pile of shit. Nothing more. Anyone who likes this building or buildings like it has zero design sense. That's about it...

Tom Servo · #**1077** Posted **Oct 1, 2016, 9:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by vandelay

Aesthetics are a matter of taste. One could easily argue that Chicago's greatest architectural treasures are its Art Deco masterpieces, and that a building like this one is a correction of a failed aesthetic.

In any case, a vibrant city is made up of many different aesthetics. To reject any that deviate from what you consider proper is to be like the architectural Taliban.

One COULD argue that... but to argue that is to argue a very foolish and dismissible position, an argument with likely zero understanding of architectural history. That is, one would be very wrong.

LouisVanDerWright · #**1078** Posted **Oct 1, 2016, 10:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

One COULD argue that... but to argue that is to argue a very foolish and dismissible position, an argument with likely zero understanding of architectural history. That is, one would be very wrong.

Yeah,dont get me wrong, Chicago has some beautiful art deco gems, but they are a minor footnote to Chicago architectural history and a style past totally imported from NYC. Deco looks silly when you look at true gems like the Fischer building which preceded deco by 30 years. People who think Deco, neoclassicism, etc are historically great styles have no understanding of true mastery like inventing entirely new styles like Sullivan, Wright, etc. No Deco building in Chicago is anywhere near as relevant as the rookery or Carsons.

HomrQT · #**1079** Posted **Oct 2, 2016, 12:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Yeah,dont get me wrong, Chicago has some beautiful art deco gems, but they are a minor footnote to Chicago architectural history and a style past totally imported from NYC. Deco looks silly when you look at true gems like the Fischer building which preceded deco by 30 years. People who think Deco, neoclassicism, etc are historically great styles have no understanding of true mastery like inventing entirely new styles like Sullivan, Wright, etc. No Deco building in Chicago is anywhere near as relevant as the rookery or Carsons.

It seems more like you simply don't have an appreciation for Deco like you do for other styles. You've made up reasons in your mind as to why, and for you they are valid reasons. The problem is you then regurgitate your thoughts as the gospel truth and not for what they really are... your preference. Art Deco is an amazing architectural style that swept the entire globe for a reason. We have nice examples of that style here in Chicago, and the style is being reproduced or interpreted still to this day because it has such mass appeal. The pompous bit about not understanding true mastery if you think deco is a historically great style is just pretentious garbage. Next you'll "educate" us on what wines to eat with what cheese I suppose. I'd say art deco buildings like the American Radiator Building, the Chrysler Building, and even our own Board of Trade building are absolute works of art. I don't think this building will be among the best examples of the style, but it does not appear we'll be getting the horrible building that some keep claiming. We'll be getting a decent art deco building.

HomrQT · #**1080** Posted **Oct 2, 2016, 12:12 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Precast systems that attempt to replicate a limestone look ALWAYS look horrible. Always.

This building will be total shit. Period. A big name pile of shit is still a pile of shit. Nothing more. Anyone who likes this building or buildings like it has zero design sense. That's about it...

Tell us what you REALLY think... your hatred for this building is astonishing.