tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6389181255786430083.post7446661065246269110..comments2023-10-11T05:46:26.432-05:00Comments on Where: The Chicago Spire In (Or Rather, Out Of) ContextBrendan Crainhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00528698033763911972noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6389181255786430083.post-27505132577056002002007-04-05T19:09:00.000-05:002007-04-05T19:09:00.000-05:00I certainly think that people allow some suspensio...I certainly think that people allow some suspension of disbelief in downtown areas in terms of context, because anything more than a few stories taller than the surrounding buildings is tough to make "contextual." Especially in the case of Chicago, height seems to be part of the context, actually.<BR/><BR/>I agree with what you're saying about the evolution of context, though...but Sears and Big John are both powerful, almost overwhelming buildings that fit well in such a powerful and (to many people) overwhelming city. They're also dark buildings in what has always been a sort of dark skyline. The Spire, in contrast, is a very bright, whimsical building. That's not to say that you can't do whimsy in Chicago (see: Prarie Style motif)...it's just that Calatrava is almost heavy-handed in his dispersal of whimsy. He pays no attention to the surroundings and has created a building that will damage the cohesiveness of an iconic skyline.<BR/><BR/>But public opinion is unpredictable, and perhaps you're right about the public falling in love with the completed structure; only time will tell. For the time being, at least, I can hope that the project falls through. ;-)Brendan Crainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00528698033763911972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6389181255786430083.post-17160526437986530562007-04-03T09:02:00.000-05:002007-04-03T09:02:00.000-05:00Thanks for the e-mail and head's up on your page; ...Thanks for the e-mail and head's up on your page; I'll be sure to add a link at some point.<BR/><BR/>Your criticism of Calatrava is pretty apt -- especially when he proposes variations on nature-inspired, gleaming white bridges or buildings for just about every city around the globe -- though I'm wondering how a building 2000' tall is contextual at all. Even while taking cues from its context, the height alone (1/3 as tall as the Sears Tower) and its somewhat strange location make that difficult, if not impossible. But I guess that gets into notions of what is context, how is it created, a "conversation" that makes sense in Chicago, where the Sears Tower and Hancock were out of context but are now major parts of the context that further shapes how architects build and how people experience the place. Those are things I surely don't have answers for.<BR/><BR/>When I think of Calatrava, I always think back to his Stadelhofen (sp?) train station in Zurich, what is now the direction he could have gone in, different from where he is now. For one, it's black, meaning that it blends with its context, or at least doesn't make a statement; it recedes. Also, it knits the two sides of the tracks together, two sides that vary in topography as well as built form. It's a great project that shows a sensitivity to site and context that he's abandoned in favor of creating icons that stand out in their locale? But who's to say that if it ever gets built it doesn't become beloved and reshape the context of Chicago in many ways (physically, economically, socially, internationally).John Hillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14842328320680692310noreply@blogger.com