i dont recall suggesting you spend 1000 on el croquis.. you could spend very little on 306090, or the internet. but its funny that the dismissal of "blobs" is by people caught up in "trends" instead of architecture. enjoy "all the new good stuff."
EP. i made the jump from the very first post in the thread by Make where he lays out his distaste of the selection of Ben and Zaha because they are "stars" and not unknown or lesser known chicago people.
one point i wanted to contest Make on in his lead post is:
"Rosa should bring something to Chicago rather than see it as a place to easily add to his resume before moving on to someplace else."
Joe brought Zaha and Ben to chicago. For such a huge building boom chicago doesnt have a lot of notable buildings to show for it. Joe obviously wanted to bring architecture that a lot of people are interested in to chicago. so he did.
"Joe brought Zaha and Ben to chicago. For such a huge building boom chicago doesnt have a lot of notable buildings to show for it. Joe obviously wanted to bring architecture that a lot of people are interested in to chicago. so he did."
Actually there are some interesting buildings built by Chicago Architects in Chicago. Get your head out of your El Croquis and look around.
And the Burnham event is a celebration of the 100the anniversary of the Burnham Plan and Chicago.
Bigbear, most of what i do is surfing sites like archinect looking for ideas to steal, and I'm sorry man, but the blob is pretty damn dead.
As for Zaha and Ben hating, I don't hate on either which is why it pisses me off when i see offices with their talent just reheat stuff because a)they're lazy or more likely b)their brain-dead no-clue client wants the same reheated crap for his city that some other city got without any regard to the greater context.
while there is something to be said for promoting local architects, there is also something to be said for bringing outside architects into cities as well
its not all or nothing either way
maybe Joe wanted an outside or different perspective brought to the city
hey make.. why dont, for once, you give me and example..
you talk about all the talent in chicago, but still refuse to put up a list of talent, even though i was able to help you out from afar, just from what i know about chicago, recent exhibitions, etc..
then you talk about the good work in the city (i dont live there and cant go walk around like you) but forget to give me some examples...and please..i didnt say there is NO good work, but there is surprisingly few examples given the recent massive bldg expansion in your city over the past 15 years..
i can help you out with another list if you want..but please feel free to help me out.
aqua, iit student center, soldier field rennovation, that john ronan community building in the bad neighborhood, trump tower, the helmut jahn condo. well. im tapped out. what else?
The Spertus is by far the best facade in a while. Faceted but not a blob. The Serta HQ in the prarriestone business prarie ( its an actual restored prarie about 45 miles out) is good
Although not internationaly spectacular, a lot of the neighborhoods have nice contemporary condo architecture by such architects as Studio Dwell, Zola and Bryninstool Lynch.
Chicago I dont think ever really has what most students of architecture would call capital A architecture. Its more an amazing assemblage of what practitioners of architecture actualy do, and do it well in large numbers of regular buildings forming a pleasant whole.
The Spertus is by far the best facade in a while. Faceted but not a blob. The Serta HQ in the prarriestone business prarie ( its an actual restored prarie about 45 miles out) is good
Although not internationaly spectacular, a lot of the neighborhoods have nice contemporary condo architecture by such architects as Studio Dwell, Zola and Bryninstool Lynch.
Chicago I dont think ever really has what most students of architecture would call capital A architecture. Its more an amazing assemblage of what practitioners of architecture actualy do, and do it well in large numbers of regular buildings forming a pleasant whole.
imsleepy
the problem with that is that not all "owners" or "developers" or those who foot the bill care about discussion among architects or anyone else
there needs to be more of a reason than that unfortunately
imsleepy.. the other problem is that that competition works against makes arguement for "meritocracy" given that the reason you studied in in class is because its a great example of all the cutting edge and innovative work of architecture that was passed up to give Howells and Hood the top prize.
How about this one, you often get a better building than anticipated?
Better can be whatever you want it to be, economically, design, function, aesthetics or hopefully all of the above. I believe everyone benefits and if "owners" and "developers" don't understand it is part of our role to educate them. I also believe all civic projects should be competitions.
What would the Vietnam Memorial in Washington DC have looked like if a young Maya Lin had not been allowed to enter. What would it have been like if the designer had been handpicked. No doubt it would have been beautiful and moving but an opportunity would have been missed.
sigh..if were going to play the "what if" game about past competitions.. ill say that if maya lin had not been allowed to enter the competition and the project was hand picked, we also could have had a much better project than exists. stupid to play the what if game if you're going to be disingenuous about the possible outcomes.
Maybe the Tribune Company believed the Howells and Hood building was "the most beautiful tower". I rather like the building, especially in the context it was built because classical design is "classic" not because it is old but for its beauty.
Being cutting edge and innovative does not mean you are the best or that you should automatically win. You can do that when you are stamping your trademarked building across the globe.
Of course we could have had a better project, I didn't say that wasn't possible. My assumption is that anyone who would have been handpicked, entered the competition and lost to the better proposal.
"its a great example of all the cutting edge and innovative work of architecture that was passed up to give Howells and Hood the top prize"
Hood and Howell's building while not as foreward thinking as Saranin's is superbly more beautiful by any measure; Be it articulation via set backs, intracate lacey carving, Massive buttresses or heavy limestone presence. The glass box would have been such a failure on that site. Sometimes whats new or whats possible is just not needed.
Im glad you brought up Hood and Howell. If Sarenin had been choosen the winner, the steel production and erection would have been the same technologies. In that sense the Trib tower has to carry a lot more weight at the exterior and has some interesting relief to it. The steel has to be more complicated in the Gothic building. I dont think Hood and Howell's design is at all concidered a failure of the best architecture to win or is somehow a meritocracy victory.
Having participated in administration of design selection committee process for institutional and governmental clients, I think current focus on "star architect" objective as primary criteria for award of significant building commissions is a distinct shortfall of process. This narrowly-constrained approach views selection process as solely an art acquisition, without consideration of site context, budget realities (initial construction and long-term maintenance) or institution's operational program.
Commissioning "star architecture" doesn't neatly translate into purchase of contemporary museum-quality gallery art. Trend-driven "star architecture" is a misdirected capital investment purchase which becomes obsolete and unfashionable often within a decade. Some older "star architect" buildings become visibly decaying eyesores, no longer fashionable but too expensive to replace. If building doesn't function or fit it's program, if it requires expensive maintenance, continual renovation and rehabilitation, and if it looks like yesterday's design fad, then "star architect" allure is long gone at expensive of community, and institution and its patrons and staff.
Too many "star architect" buildings are minimally functional and unnecessarily expensive one-note design projects which will be noticeably dated (in a noncharming way) and weathering poorly in ten years. The ill-prepared design commission committee is steered to the usual out-of-town (and often foreign) "star architects" because advisors to the committee believe participation of a world-reknown heavily-published "name" architect will indicate that institution is acquiring serious "art" (rather considering this a long-term capital investment) and that star-architect's presence and "name" will help with fund-raising.
There's plenty of talent in Chicago, and there's no reason to limit this commission to "young architect" criteria. What Chicago architects need is OPPORTUNITY. In the past twenty years, too many important commissions have been awarded to out-of-town architects, while styming the true talent here. This is an important issue that the local chapter of AIA, Chicago AIA, should have championed long ago, and demonstrates the lack of true leadership there.
Rosa sounds like he's being provocative to promote his own career and burnishing his credentials while spending a shortwhile in "fly over" Midwest.
not trying to restart an argument here, but while you compiled a nice list, there is one thing that all of those people have in common: they are all in academia. are you able to compile a list that is at least 50% non-teaching? i will be honest and admit i probably could not. but, when i looked at your list, it got me thinking about that. even some people who easily could have been on the list (ronan, gang, etc.) teach, although really only one studio a year.
do those people (and many other architects) teach because they have an innate desire to help a new generation learn, or do they do it to make ends meet? i would guess it was to help make ends meet and network with other architects and get their name out there. i had a few classes with eric ellingsen when i went to IIT, and he was one of the few professors i encountered who really put a lot of effort into teaching students and doing lots of things other professors wouldn't dream of doing. he was great. however, he really is more of a theorist than a practitioner. yeah, he has worked for field operations and laurie olin and ruy klein, but his main focus seems to be teaching, and of late, writing/publishing. many of the other people on your list, while they may push the envelope and be innovative thinkers, how much actual built work do they have out there? it is one thing to dream up fantastical ideas, it is another thing to get someone to buy the idea and then manage to physically build it. as make mentioned, joe rosa said "young and has a large amount of built work."
i don't discount your list because it has only academicians on it...who knows, maybe they are in academia because they are the best at what they do. but until they start building these fantastic images they are creating, i am a little skeptical about putting them on a pedestal. what about those who come up with great designs, but are too busy producing the actual physical product to go into teaching? can any of us name those people, whether they are in chicago or elsewhere?
as a side note, since people were talking about spertus: as great as it is, the faceted facade has been having water leak problems from its inception. i am not sure if it has been resolved yet. K+S is an example of a great firm that is now producing so much work, Ron Kreuk doesn't seem to have time to teach. but he can't really be considered "young" anymore. so, am i proposing something impossible? to be young is to have unbuilt work, and to have built work means you are too old? are there any exceptions to that (hasty) assumption?
Weren't Burnham and Root in their 20s when they started their firm? Shit - most people I know are barely out of school by 30 and still dont know what they are doing.
point taken. although I'm not from or living in Chicago, so my list came from what im able to know about the new Chicago scene from outside of the city.. which is why, for example, I'm familiar with Dunn and Preissner since they were both in the Young Chicago show at the Art Institute (which i have a catalogue of), and also Preissner's show at the MCA. Lai had a nice installation in Los Angeles, and so on.. so I'm certain there are people I've missed, but its due to my lack of local familiarity..
However, my point was that I'm not even in your city, and i was able to to come up with people who could be considered young talent. but Make, who was making all the fuss, couldn't himself put forth any names of young people who he wants considered.
Ron Kruek is definitely not young, though.
Finally, its a tough knock on architects who are young that they dont have built work. I dont find it a very good benchmark. Young people only tend to get clients when they pursue the most normal and conventional residential designs that clients have seen so many times they have no lack of confidence someone knows how to built. young architects who have more ambition and courage to pursue new designs suffer until their mid-40s it seems. Which is why a lot of them teach, i presume, so they can still eat while they explore architecture that others will copy at some point. Its a tough career choice. To be an young architect with projects but also just a service professional, or to be a young architect who pursues critical work but has difficulty obtaining clients for a long time, and perhaps ever. That's the risk they take. It's also, why i find it annoying when people then complain about the few risk takers who actually make it, as though things were just handed to them. They took huge risks that most people dont have the confidence or courage or interest to take. It shows a lot of jealousy to then belittle them. That doesnt mean you cant be critical of their work, but most of the time the "criticism" is just bitching.
More of the same bullshit. Two architect's from abroad to celebrate a historic moment in american architecture. Does that make any sense? The economy is collapsing we are looking for jobs in America and they give it to two foreigners!!!
"We wanted someone young but with a lot of built work" - Joseph Rosa, Curator at the Art Institute
apurimac..
i dont recall suggesting you spend 1000 on el croquis.. you could spend very little on 306090, or the internet. but its funny that the dismissal of "blobs" is by people caught up in "trends" instead of architecture. enjoy "all the new good stuff."
EP. i made the jump from the very first post in the thread by Make where he lays out his distaste of the selection of Ben and Zaha because they are "stars" and not unknown or lesser known chicago people.
one point i wanted to contest Make on in his lead post is:
"Rosa should bring something to Chicago rather than see it as a place to easily add to his resume before moving on to someplace else."
Joe brought Zaha and Ben to chicago. For such a huge building boom chicago doesnt have a lot of notable buildings to show for it. Joe obviously wanted to bring architecture that a lot of people are interested in to chicago. so he did.
BigBear you obviously haven't heard of S.C.A.B.S!
lol thats hilarious, VR.. i had not heard of it.. too funny..
"Joe brought Zaha and Ben to chicago. For such a huge building boom chicago doesnt have a lot of notable buildings to show for it. Joe obviously wanted to bring architecture that a lot of people are interested in to chicago. so he did."
Actually there are some interesting buildings built by Chicago Architects in Chicago. Get your head out of your El Croquis and look around.
And the Burnham event is a celebration of the 100the anniversary of the Burnham Plan and Chicago.
Bigbear, most of what i do is surfing sites like archinect looking for ideas to steal, and I'm sorry man, but the blob is pretty damn dead.
As for Zaha and Ben hating, I don't hate on either which is why it pisses me off when i see offices with their talent just reheat stuff because a)they're lazy or more likely b)their brain-dead no-clue client wants the same reheated crap for his city that some other city got without any regard to the greater context.
New York/Hong Kong:
Chicago:
haha.. you got busting for hotlinking..
well. if the blobs so dead, why are you all worked up about it?
while there is something to be said for promoting local architects, there is also something to be said for bringing outside architects into cities as well
its not all or nothing either way
maybe Joe wanted an outside or different perspective brought to the city
Someones going to burn that; If I were 12 again I totaly would try at least
hey make.. why dont, for once, you give me and example..
you talk about all the talent in chicago, but still refuse to put up a list of talent, even though i was able to help you out from afar, just from what i know about chicago, recent exhibitions, etc..
then you talk about the good work in the city (i dont live there and cant go walk around like you) but forget to give me some examples...and please..i didnt say there is NO good work, but there is surprisingly few examples given the recent massive bldg expansion in your city over the past 15 years..
i can help you out with another list if you want..but please feel free to help me out.
aqua, iit student center, soldier field rennovation, that john ronan community building in the bad neighborhood, trump tower, the helmut jahn condo. well. im tapped out. what else?
I don't know, why are you so worked up about defending two starchitects who obviously don't need defending because they're on top anyway?
i dont know either.
take it easy.
you too
Competitions foster a much better discussion than bringing in someone to stamp their trademark on the city.
The Tribune Tower competition is a good example, we just talked about its relevance in my history of architecture class.
Adding to the list off the top of my head, Hyde Park Arts Center, Millenium Park, Spertus Institute, Center on Halsted...
The Spertus is by far the best facade in a while. Faceted but not a blob. The Serta HQ in the prarriestone business prarie ( its an actual restored prarie about 45 miles out) is good
Although not internationaly spectacular, a lot of the neighborhoods have nice contemporary condo architecture by such architects as Studio Dwell, Zola and Bryninstool Lynch.
Chicago I dont think ever really has what most students of architecture would call capital A architecture. Its more an amazing assemblage of what practitioners of architecture actualy do, and do it well in large numbers of regular buildings forming a pleasant whole.
The Spertus is by far the best facade in a while. Faceted but not a blob. The Serta HQ in the prarriestone business prarie ( its an actual restored prarie about 45 miles out) is good
Although not internationaly spectacular, a lot of the neighborhoods have nice contemporary condo architecture by such architects as Studio Dwell, Zola and Bryninstool Lynch.
Chicago I dont think ever really has what most students of architecture would call capital A architecture. Its more an amazing assemblage of what practitioners of architecture actualy do, and do it well in large numbers of regular buildings forming a pleasant whole.
imsleepy
the problem with that is that not all "owners" or "developers" or those who foot the bill care about discussion among architects or anyone else
there needs to be more of a reason than that unfortunately
imsleepy.. the other problem is that that competition works against makes arguement for "meritocracy" given that the reason you studied in in class is because its a great example of all the cutting edge and innovative work of architecture that was passed up to give Howells and Hood the top prize.
How about this one, you often get a better building than anticipated?
Better can be whatever you want it to be, economically, design, function, aesthetics or hopefully all of the above. I believe everyone benefits and if "owners" and "developers" don't understand it is part of our role to educate them. I also believe all civic projects should be competitions.
What would the Vietnam Memorial in Washington DC have looked like if a young Maya Lin had not been allowed to enter. What would it have been like if the designer had been handpicked. No doubt it would have been beautiful and moving but an opportunity would have been missed.
sigh..if were going to play the "what if" game about past competitions.. ill say that if maya lin had not been allowed to enter the competition and the project was hand picked, we also could have had a much better project than exists. stupid to play the what if game if you're going to be disingenuous about the possible outcomes.
Maybe the Tribune Company believed the Howells and Hood building was "the most beautiful tower". I rather like the building, especially in the context it was built because classical design is "classic" not because it is old but for its beauty.
Being cutting edge and innovative does not mean you are the best or that you should automatically win. You can do that when you are stamping your trademarked building across the globe.
you dont need to convince me, imsleepy
i am playing devil's advocate and trying to think like someone who would be paying for the building
its sometimes a risk to take someone less "established" (take that for whatever it means) despite potentially getting a "better" building
and its hard to argue "better"
better how?
architecturally?
that isnt always a priority
i agree though
more projects should be awarded through open competition
especially any public projects
Of course we could have had a better project, I didn't say that wasn't possible. My assumption is that anyone who would have been handpicked, entered the competition and lost to the better proposal.
"its a great example of all the cutting edge and innovative work of architecture that was passed up to give Howells and Hood the top prize"
Hood and Howell's building while not as foreward thinking as Saranin's is superbly more beautiful by any measure; Be it articulation via set backs, intracate lacey carving, Massive buttresses or heavy limestone presence. The glass box would have been such a failure on that site. Sometimes whats new or whats possible is just not needed.
Im glad you brought up Hood and Howell. If Sarenin had been choosen the winner, the steel production and erection would have been the same technologies. In that sense the Trib tower has to carry a lot more weight at the exterior and has some interesting relief to it. The steel has to be more complicated in the Gothic building. I dont think Hood and Howell's design is at all concidered a failure of the best architecture to win or is somehow a meritocracy victory.
The Pompidou Center competition set the standard.
they're NOT buildings!
They are rent-a-tents
Having participated in administration of design selection committee process for institutional and governmental clients, I think current focus on "star architect" objective as primary criteria for award of significant building commissions is a distinct shortfall of process. This narrowly-constrained approach views selection process as solely an art acquisition, without consideration of site context, budget realities (initial construction and long-term maintenance) or institution's operational program.
Commissioning "star architecture" doesn't neatly translate into purchase of contemporary museum-quality gallery art. Trend-driven "star architecture" is a misdirected capital investment purchase which becomes obsolete and unfashionable often within a decade. Some older "star architect" buildings become visibly decaying eyesores, no longer fashionable but too expensive to replace. If building doesn't function or fit it's program, if it requires expensive maintenance, continual renovation and rehabilitation, and if it looks like yesterday's design fad, then "star architect" allure is long gone at expensive of community, and institution and its patrons and staff.
Too many "star architect" buildings are minimally functional and unnecessarily expensive one-note design projects which will be noticeably dated (in a noncharming way) and weathering poorly in ten years. The ill-prepared design commission committee is steered to the usual out-of-town (and often foreign) "star architects" because advisors to the committee believe participation of a world-reknown heavily-published "name" architect will indicate that institution is acquiring serious "art" (rather considering this a long-term capital investment) and that star-architect's presence and "name" will help with fund-raising.
There's plenty of talent in Chicago, and there's no reason to limit this commission to "young architect" criteria. What Chicago architects need is OPPORTUNITY. In the past twenty years, too many important commissions have been awarded to out-of-town architects, while styming the true talent here. This is an important issue that the local chapter of AIA, Chicago AIA, should have championed long ago, and demonstrates the lack of true leadership there.
Rosa sounds like he's being provocative to promote his own career and burnishing his credentials while spending a shortwhile in "fly over" Midwest.
No offense meant to anyone.
big bear,
not trying to restart an argument here, but while you compiled a nice list, there is one thing that all of those people have in common: they are all in academia. are you able to compile a list that is at least 50% non-teaching? i will be honest and admit i probably could not. but, when i looked at your list, it got me thinking about that. even some people who easily could have been on the list (ronan, gang, etc.) teach, although really only one studio a year.
do those people (and many other architects) teach because they have an innate desire to help a new generation learn, or do they do it to make ends meet? i would guess it was to help make ends meet and network with other architects and get their name out there. i had a few classes with eric ellingsen when i went to IIT, and he was one of the few professors i encountered who really put a lot of effort into teaching students and doing lots of things other professors wouldn't dream of doing. he was great. however, he really is more of a theorist than a practitioner. yeah, he has worked for field operations and laurie olin and ruy klein, but his main focus seems to be teaching, and of late, writing/publishing. many of the other people on your list, while they may push the envelope and be innovative thinkers, how much actual built work do they have out there? it is one thing to dream up fantastical ideas, it is another thing to get someone to buy the idea and then manage to physically build it. as make mentioned, joe rosa said "young and has a large amount of built work."
i don't discount your list because it has only academicians on it...who knows, maybe they are in academia because they are the best at what they do. but until they start building these fantastic images they are creating, i am a little skeptical about putting them on a pedestal. what about those who come up with great designs, but are too busy producing the actual physical product to go into teaching? can any of us name those people, whether they are in chicago or elsewhere?
as a side note, since people were talking about spertus: as great as it is, the faceted facade has been having water leak problems from its inception. i am not sure if it has been resolved yet. K+S is an example of a great firm that is now producing so much work, Ron Kreuk doesn't seem to have time to teach. but he can't really be considered "young" anymore. so, am i proposing something impossible? to be young is to have unbuilt work, and to have built work means you are too old? are there any exceptions to that (hasty) assumption?
Weren't Burnham and Root in their 20s when they started their firm? Shit - most people I know are barely out of school by 30 and still dont know what they are doing.
archited.
point taken. although I'm not from or living in Chicago, so my list came from what im able to know about the new Chicago scene from outside of the city.. which is why, for example, I'm familiar with Dunn and Preissner since they were both in the Young Chicago show at the Art Institute (which i have a catalogue of), and also Preissner's show at the MCA. Lai had a nice installation in Los Angeles, and so on.. so I'm certain there are people I've missed, but its due to my lack of local familiarity..
However, my point was that I'm not even in your city, and i was able to to come up with people who could be considered young talent. but Make, who was making all the fuss, couldn't himself put forth any names of young people who he wants considered.
Ron Kruek is definitely not young, though.
Finally, its a tough knock on architects who are young that they dont have built work. I dont find it a very good benchmark. Young people only tend to get clients when they pursue the most normal and conventional residential designs that clients have seen so many times they have no lack of confidence someone knows how to built. young architects who have more ambition and courage to pursue new designs suffer until their mid-40s it seems. Which is why a lot of them teach, i presume, so they can still eat while they explore architecture that others will copy at some point. Its a tough career choice. To be an young architect with projects but also just a service professional, or to be a young architect who pursues critical work but has difficulty obtaining clients for a long time, and perhaps ever. That's the risk they take. It's also, why i find it annoying when people then complain about the few risk takers who actually make it, as though things were just handed to them. They took huge risks that most people dont have the confidence or courage or interest to take. It shows a lot of jealousy to then belittle them. That doesnt mean you cant be critical of their work, but most of the time the "criticism" is just bitching.
Your reading comprehension skills need work.
this thread is getting borderline "almost need to click to stop getting updates on new posts"
More of the same bullshit. Two architect's from abroad to celebrate a historic moment in american architecture. Does that make any sense? The economy is collapsing we are looking for jobs in America and they give it to two foreigners!!!
Careful Albertina, the Dept. of Homeland security may view anti foreigner staement as far right wing ideology and put you in a re-education camp
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.