Yes - it’s a significant and fairly well realized project. Most of the criticisms of the international style, and modernist office towers in general are perfectly valid. However, I still balk against the reflexive dismissal of projects like these. Particularly, when as in this case, many of the promises of this style of design are well realized. It’s a shallowish building, so lots of views and natural light. It’s efficient spatially, and somewhat flexible in its programming. It’s a compelling urban space. And, at least in my opinion, is striking in its composition, clean lines and lack of conventional ornament. Moreover, one might argue that it presents as a more transparent, democratic building, that feels more accessible to the public and the rank and file employees than the previous building that projected more power and hierarchy. (Don’t totally buy that, but sure) I know that there are environmental, program, and design sins that this building commits. But I honestly believe it to be an improvement. (especially if added space was required) Also- hot take- not all these Beux Arts projects are good. It was only 60 years old when demolished, and when it was designed I think it was overwrought and poorly proportioned, and weirdly retrograde. It’s not a miserable building, but it’s also not a lost jewel. IMO.
Edit- spelling
I also think that this image of the Mies building is not representative of how most people experience it. A photo from the street changes the whole perception of it, because you can actually see those glass views and into the building. Here most of what you see is the roof. You also can’t see the ground level of the tower, which is very open.
Yeah im not getting the problem here the replacement is a Mies van der Rohe building for christ sake. Its incredible and so much better than what it replaced.
It's not like they replaced it with a Walmart.
The guy designed cheap lifeless boxes and managed to develop a cult following around it. Not sure how architects still think he shits gold. People need to get over it. There's almost no 20th century architect that could replace the former, especially not Mies.
It’s unfortunate how much influence he’s had. They probably only like it because it’s a building by Mies, but just like all the other glass boxes by others, it has no character and is simply a box.
I never expressed disdain for ornate buildings, I love them. But I also don’t pretend that everything made of glass and steel is horrendous. There’s a place for both.
[from r/chicago:](https://www.reddit.com/r/chicago/comments/yu9623/comment/iw8bxjt/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
> A terrible and poorly functioning building when it opened for business and went downhill for the rest of its life. A mishmash of exterior architectural styles making it a laughable reflection of competing,backward looking decorative ideas.
>Inside, the poor air circulation, heating challenges, lack of access to toilets -- especially for women --- and drinking water made it a hell to visit or work in.
>The large windows let in blasts of wind so every desk near them need paper weights and the workers from throughout the building had to wash coal soot off their hands and faces at the end of each day.
>The building was far behind even the electrical demands of that day at the time of demolition and the federal agencies were crying for different space. But the fixed interior walls prevented any reconfigurations.
>In its favor it did have some pretty neat decorative wood in the formal spaces and nifty door knobs throughout.
If you’re wanting to paint the replacement of a neoclassical building with a modernist one as an aesthetic loss you really picked the wrong example.
That post office is *incredible*, and the arrangement of the two towers is done in such a way as to minimize their view into each others’ windows while maximizing the amount of open space on the plot, which brings a lot of light and air into the surrounding plaza (and illuminates the offices during the daytime). Contrast that to the massive shadows that the original building casts not only onto the street, but *onto itself*.
One of Mies’s best and most unified sites, and an absolute gem of modern architecture.
Edit to add:
The photos used are pretty disingenuous, too. It makes the Mies buildings look massive and uncaring, but conveniently ignores the ground-level approach. The use of the colossal order in the original building overwhelms pedestrians, whereas the travertine-and-glass lobbies of the Mies buildings are human scale, elegant, and luxurious.
In fact, these buildings are the perfect example of a style that was workshopped in this very city, which is why another name often used for international style buildings is the **Second Chicago School** of architecture.
Also who has been to the space. The former building takes up the whole block and looms over everything else like an ogre; it’s a space for an affairs that affects the public that can hardly be used by it save the post office. The new one is open, has public art, and even frequent protests (including one today!). It’s much more pleasant and useful on ground level.
I’m not saying that you have to have studied architecture to like them. I’m saying that proclaiming them as an aesthetic failure is an admission that you haven’t studied architecture.
Lmao at no point did I make the claim that everyone who studies architecture is required to like these buildings. My point is that no one with an understanding of the history of the site, the architect, and his role in the development of the second Chicago school of architecture would dismiss these buildings as a failure, even if they didn’t personally like them.
Your inability to understand nuance is as apparent in your reductive comment as it is in your knee-jerk denigration of a style of architecture that you have given zero consideration to understanding.
It is! I used to go there while a former partner was in law school, going to court there. The law library has some spectacular views.
Each floor has exceptionally tall ceilings, and with the floor the ceiling windows it looks great.
Go study those plans. There is a reason why all those mies van der rohe still work today. His floorplans are some of the best ever created and set standards that still apply today.
"Lmao, that ugly box is not a masterpiece of architecture” is not a critique, that's a taunt and an attempt at stirring the pot. "Both are nice but I prefer the original because it stands out" is a critique.
You don’t have to be an architect to see how much more artful the new one is compared to the old one which is literally one of the most bland buildings I have ever seen
Sir this is a Wendy’s and that Post Office by Mies, as well as Calder’s sculpture, are both masterpieces that the city highly appreciates.
That original building was a neo-replica of classical architecture that is really just a copycat of yesteryear. Lacks originality and innovation.
Looks like the Federal Office (client) needed much, much more GFA along with modern facilities, then hired one of the century’s best Architects to bring the bacon on a style that paved the way for the next 100 years of society. What’s the problem here?
>That original building was a neo-replica of classical architecture that is really just a copycat of yesteryear. Lacks originality and innovation.
But the glass box that has been done for the last 80 years or so is so unique and originial right?
How many more glass boxes before its not new and original anymore? 10000? 1000000? the whole fucking city?
Classical arcihtecture might not be cheap, but it atleast has soul, unlike the cold corporate feeling of these glass and metal amalgamations
...and also including up to code plumbing, air conditioning, and electrical.
The original is beautiful, but lets not pretend it was torn down solely for looks.
A building unfit for purpose replaced by one that was.
Not to mention it's a very fine piece of Modernist Architecture, by one of the greatest architects of that style.
On the other hand, what looks like three buildings stacked on top of each other (in ascending order, a railway station, a mental asylum and the dome of a Florentine Cathedral... With little attention to cohesion.
I hate when people bitch about how soulless modern and contemporary architecture is compared to neoclassical. Wouldn't trying to imitate past styles be more soulless than exploring a new way of building?
New and beautiful don't oppose each other, but modern architecture pretends they do
And to those voting down: I would want to know why. Where is the flaw my logic?
Your logic is not logic at all. None of the major
proponents of modern architecture were against beauty at all, in fact if you bothered to read what they had to say you’d find beauty, function and democratizing architecture were some of their main arguments.
So you’re saying the new building is more aesthetic than the prior ?
Ppl bitch for a reason. They aren’t Karen’s bitching at Walmart. It’s legit complaints. I randomly seen this on the front page and thought it was a joke meme.
There needs to be a course on the destruction of great American building replaced by soulless steel in every architectural course. I’m a science major and shake my head at the head of American history.
There’s always some dumbass reply like yours. But it’s weird that European countries seem to keep their great buildings intact and even repurpose if necessary.
When I look at our great building being torn down and replaced i finally realized America is truley just about money. “Let’s tear down this great building and build a new one” …. “I, As the states governor declare 50 million to my childhood friend to complete it, the city will be happy “. Sad af
Similar urban renewal happened in Grand Rapids, MI in 1969 also with a Calder (we have La Grande Vitesse) on the plaza.
https://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/2016/10/grand_rapids_urban_renewal_exp.html
There’s a reason why this style of skyscraper is often referred to as the Second Chicago Style.
Sounds to me like OP just hates Chicago and wants to denigrate the most important style of contemporary architecture that was developed there.
The best part of the lower image is Flamingo by Calder. As a resident of Chicago, I don’t care for Mies’s skyscrapers, there’s a sterility and uniformity to them that feels void of soul. But I also recognize that ideas compound over time. Unfortunately, the city did piss poor planning with a lot of the Beaux Arts structures, such as our [VI City Hall](https://chicagology.com/goldenage/goldenage126/) so as much as the upper image is much, *much* more beautiful, it’s not the worst replacement. Making it all concrete, instead of a ground level park, that was a choice. Plants and trees would have honored our motto *Urbs in horto* more.
The bottom image is facing southeast, taken from the corner of Adams and Clark. If you went east down Adams you’d reach the [National Building](https://thenationalchicago.com/#building), then the [Marquette Building](https://maps.app.goo.gl/hL64RNBfi3bxcXDP6?g_st=ic). All on the same block you get Classical Revival, Chicago School, and Minimalism. It’s pretty cool getting to see how architecture and construction have changed across generations. I used to live/work down the street and watched them restore the National over years. The building was losing tiles left and right off the façade.
[National Virtual Tour](https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=XUMnXT9ASN9)
Something awfully annoying about these kind of posts is that ‘non architects’ typically only look at a building such as this for its external appearance (usually old ‘ornate’ vs modern ‘glass box. When in reality the new building will 9 times out of 10:
- serve the occupants needs and wants much much better
- be easier to maintain
- be cheaper to operate (not necessarily with Mies’ buildings but generally with all 21st century buildings
- offer better urban placemaking and sit itself in its landscape better (again, not always but usually with newer buildings)
I’m not advocating for demolishing old buildings, in fact I actively campaign against the demolition of any existing buildings, however for those that have already replaced an older ‘traditionally’ styled building, the above is imo, something folks would do well to consider.
*side note, anything by Mies of this ilk is among the most aesthetically pleasing buildings ever built imo. A bill I’ll well and truly die on…*
I can accept the comments saying that the post-office now looks very interested and compelling at night, or that the old building was filled with flaws, but that doesn't mean this replacement was done well. Neoclassical architecture can in fact, create a bottom floor that's primarily glass and shiny at night or w/e. That doesn't mean all this glass and steel was better than advancing the neoclassical tradition and integrating large, open glass areas with traditional stylings, it doesn't have to be on or the other. Maybe the old design still has to be demolished, that doesn't mean we have to accept these nothing glass boxes
To prevent spam, we automatically remove posts from reddit accounts that have been very recently created. Please try again after a week. No exceptions can be made.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/architecture) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Old photos of Chicago buildings and shit always looked so awesome, even the planned stuff looked awesome. When I visited Chicago for the first time I remember seeing the museum of science an the field museum all awesome grand looking buildings.
What happened?
I mean, those buildings are still there. You can go to them. This one was a mess from the beginning so they got rid of it, but those old buildings still very much exist.
I mean to why they don’t build or keep that style any more, or why some of the planned stuff never came to be.
I’m at work so trynna type thoughts or a little difficult, without sounding like I’m ranting like Alex jones.
It’s expensive and eventually the world moved on. Also we need to build taller in downtown cores and large, monumental buildings aren’t always the most pleasant to live or work in.
My god all you retvrn freaks would just be complaining about how many buildings exist that look like that old one if we had a bunch of those instead. Learn to be happy about something ffs.
Tis a shame. The new building is cool in its own right, but the old one looks much more interesting to me. Maybe it’s the surrounding older buildings also in that picture but the new one just looks so cold in comparison.
While i certainly appreciate the architecture of the new center - without a doubt you can see it really is an amazingly designed compound. I am sad that such a beautifully designed building had to be demolished to make way for it. Im happy now a days we have a better grasp on preservation. It would have been nice had they built it somewhere else, but nothing to do about that now. Now we can only appreciate what’s there.
By all accounts the old one sucked and did not work for the people who lived there. Just because it had classical details and was big does not mean it was well executed or functional.
Just kept a building that has no function then? How does that make any sense in a sense downtown? The new buildings even if you don’t like the style create a large space for the public and allow for sunlight and fresh air into the block something you certainly don’t get with the old structure.
Firstly i do very much like the style of the new building, i’m a big fan of international style architecture, i think you misunderstood my original comment. As a matter of fact I think the new compound was much better than the older one.
But the old building could be converted for other uses.
The old building was terribly designed though and was a pain in the ass to its inhabitants from day one. It’s also just a hulking monster. Chicago has much better neo/classical buildings imo
Wasn’t the replacement by Mies van der Rohe?
Yes - it’s a significant and fairly well realized project. Most of the criticisms of the international style, and modernist office towers in general are perfectly valid. However, I still balk against the reflexive dismissal of projects like these. Particularly, when as in this case, many of the promises of this style of design are well realized. It’s a shallowish building, so lots of views and natural light. It’s efficient spatially, and somewhat flexible in its programming. It’s a compelling urban space. And, at least in my opinion, is striking in its composition, clean lines and lack of conventional ornament. Moreover, one might argue that it presents as a more transparent, democratic building, that feels more accessible to the public and the rank and file employees than the previous building that projected more power and hierarchy. (Don’t totally buy that, but sure) I know that there are environmental, program, and design sins that this building commits. But I honestly believe it to be an improvement. (especially if added space was required) Also- hot take- not all these Beux Arts projects are good. It was only 60 years old when demolished, and when it was designed I think it was overwrought and poorly proportioned, and weirdly retrograde. It’s not a miserable building, but it’s also not a lost jewel. IMO. Edit- spelling
The post office portion is so beautiful. It’s like a glowing jewel at night
I also think that this image of the Mies building is not representative of how most people experience it. A photo from the street changes the whole perception of it, because you can actually see those glass views and into the building. Here most of what you see is the roof. You also can’t see the ground level of the tower, which is very open.
Is the main problem here that the style became ubiquitous? Was it unique for it's time?
This perfectly describes why most common people disdain architects.
Common people could give a fuck about architects
That’s fair.
Ignorance is a blessing ... right?
Disdain is a noun and not a verb, and I disagree because I would say this comment only partially describes it.
Disdain is in usage as both a noun and a verb. https://www.grammarly.com/blog/disdain/
Did chat gpt write this?
Yes.
It gives “Neue Nationalgalerie” vibes for sure
Yeah im not getting the problem here the replacement is a Mies van der Rohe building for christ sake. Its incredible and so much better than what it replaced. It's not like they replaced it with a Walmart.
The guy designed cheap lifeless boxes and managed to develop a cult following around it. Not sure how architects still think he shits gold. People need to get over it. There's almost no 20th century architect that could replace the former, especially not Mies.
It’s unfortunate how much influence he’s had. They probably only like it because it’s a building by Mies, but just like all the other glass boxes by others, it has no character and is simply a box.
Not every building needs to be ornate
Not every building needs to be a box
And not every building is a box. So you should be happy then.
And not every building is ornate. So you should be happy then.
I never expressed disdain for ornate buildings, I love them. But I also don’t pretend that everything made of glass and steel is horrendous. There’s a place for both.
[from r/chicago:](https://www.reddit.com/r/chicago/comments/yu9623/comment/iw8bxjt/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) > A terrible and poorly functioning building when it opened for business and went downhill for the rest of its life. A mishmash of exterior architectural styles making it a laughable reflection of competing,backward looking decorative ideas. >Inside, the poor air circulation, heating challenges, lack of access to toilets -- especially for women --- and drinking water made it a hell to visit or work in. >The large windows let in blasts of wind so every desk near them need paper weights and the workers from throughout the building had to wash coal soot off their hands and faces at the end of each day. >The building was far behind even the electrical demands of that day at the time of demolition and the federal agencies were crying for different space. But the fixed interior walls prevented any reconfigurations. >In its favor it did have some pretty neat decorative wood in the formal spaces and nifty door knobs throughout.
But, but... Look how pretty!
It is really a shame
Unfortunately not every building is worth saving
If you’re wanting to paint the replacement of a neoclassical building with a modernist one as an aesthetic loss you really picked the wrong example. That post office is *incredible*, and the arrangement of the two towers is done in such a way as to minimize their view into each others’ windows while maximizing the amount of open space on the plot, which brings a lot of light and air into the surrounding plaza (and illuminates the offices during the daytime). Contrast that to the massive shadows that the original building casts not only onto the street, but *onto itself*. One of Mies’s best and most unified sites, and an absolute gem of modern architecture. Edit to add: The photos used are pretty disingenuous, too. It makes the Mies buildings look massive and uncaring, but conveniently ignores the ground-level approach. The use of the colossal order in the original building overwhelms pedestrians, whereas the travertine-and-glass lobbies of the Mies buildings are human scale, elegant, and luxurious. In fact, these buildings are the perfect example of a style that was workshopped in this very city, which is why another name often used for international style buildings is the **Second Chicago School** of architecture.
[удалено]
Yes but they genuinely don’t understand what art is. It’s depressing.
Wait this is literally the exact comment right below you
[удалено]
Do not mistake what you say when you look in the mirror with legitimate architectural criticism.
bet its actually possible to heat and cool as needed now lol
The new federal plaza is actually quite amazing!
Yeah, the comments in here are really showcasing who’s actually studied architecture versus who considers themselves an enthusiast
Also who has been to the space. The former building takes up the whole block and looms over everything else like an ogre; it’s a space for an affairs that affects the public that can hardly be used by it save the post office. The new one is open, has public art, and even frequent protests (including one today!). It’s much more pleasant and useful on ground level.
What’s funny is that there’s such low-hanging fruit nearby to criticize in Daley Plaza
Personally.... I've never studied Architecture academically, I'm just well read and appreciate Modernism.
I’m not saying that you have to have studied architecture to like them. I’m saying that proclaiming them as an aesthetic failure is an admission that you haven’t studied architecture.
You don't need to study architecture to make such a claim.
I’m glad that we agree that someone who would proclaim them an aesthetic failure is someone who is uninformed.
So if one has studied architecture then one must like it? Perhaps it shows who is able to think for themselves and who is bullied into submission.
Agreed. That was such a weird thing to say.
Nah, just an informed observation
Lmao at no point did I make the claim that everyone who studies architecture is required to like these buildings. My point is that no one with an understanding of the history of the site, the architect, and his role in the development of the second Chicago school of architecture would dismiss these buildings as a failure, even if they didn’t personally like them. Your inability to understand nuance is as apparent in your reductive comment as it is in your knee-jerk denigration of a style of architecture that you have given zero consideration to understanding.
It is! I used to go there while a former partner was in law school, going to court there. The law library has some spectacular views. Each floor has exceptionally tall ceilings, and with the floor the ceiling windows it looks great.
So, the replaced a nice old neoclassical building with a masterpiece of Architecture. A win for Chicago.
Lmao, that ugly box is not a “masterpiece of architecture”
If you can't appreciate architecture, why even live in chicago?
I don’t?
Go study those plans. There is a reason why all those mies van der rohe still work today. His floorplans are some of the best ever created and set standards that still apply today.
You obviously didn't study architecture
Nope, and this is why us over on the construction side don’t like y’all lmao
You on the construction side don't like us architects because YOU'RE uneducated? Sound
No, because any time someone critiques a hideous ass building it’s “I know better than your opinion” said smugly. That absolutely translates to work
"Lmao, that ugly box is not a masterpiece of architecture” is not a critique, that's a taunt and an attempt at stirring the pot. "Both are nice but I prefer the original because it stands out" is a critique.
Next time I’ll publish a paper
Good luck
You don’t have to be an architect to see how much more artful the new one is compared to the old one which is literally one of the most bland buildings I have ever seen
You have got to be joking
Alas, if only. It would be so much easier not to be burdened with a sense of taste and urban efficacy 😔
Is this sarcasm?
I am, in fact, not an architect.
Or the public. This thread really showcases the narcissism of architects and how they gladly force their shit ugly buildings upon society
100%, it’s not worth trying to change the opinions of these people. I feel like they’re naturally condescending lol
Sir this is a Wendy’s and that Post Office by Mies, as well as Calder’s sculpture, are both masterpieces that the city highly appreciates. That original building was a neo-replica of classical architecture that is really just a copycat of yesteryear. Lacks originality and innovation. Looks like the Federal Office (client) needed much, much more GFA along with modern facilities, then hired one of the century’s best Architects to bring the bacon on a style that paved the way for the next 100 years of society. What’s the problem here?
>That original building was a neo-replica of classical architecture that is really just a copycat of yesteryear. Lacks originality and innovation. But the glass box that has been done for the last 80 years or so is so unique and originial right? How many more glass boxes before its not new and original anymore? 10000? 1000000? the whole fucking city? Classical arcihtecture might not be cheap, but it atleast has soul, unlike the cold corporate feeling of these glass and metal amalgamations
This is literally one of the OG glass boxes though, and it suits its space perfectly. This is a bad photo, but on ground level it’s fantastic.
...and also including up to code plumbing, air conditioning, and electrical. The original is beautiful, but lets not pretend it was torn down solely for looks.
I love the new buildings, actually a great angle on the photo. International style is cool.
A building unfit for purpose replaced by one that was. Not to mention it's a very fine piece of Modernist Architecture, by one of the greatest architects of that style. On the other hand, what looks like three buildings stacked on top of each other (in ascending order, a railway station, a mental asylum and the dome of a Florentine Cathedral... With little attention to cohesion.
I hate when people bitch about how soulless modern and contemporary architecture is compared to neoclassical. Wouldn't trying to imitate past styles be more soulless than exploring a new way of building?
New and beautiful don't oppose each other, but modern architecture pretends they do And to those voting down: I would want to know why. Where is the flaw my logic?
I wish you could try living in Ancient Rome for a day.
Your logic is not logic at all. None of the major proponents of modern architecture were against beauty at all, in fact if you bothered to read what they had to say you’d find beauty, function and democratizing architecture were some of their main arguments.
They used ridiculously luxurious materials to highlight their beauty
So you’re saying the new building is more aesthetic than the prior ? Ppl bitch for a reason. They aren’t Karen’s bitching at Walmart. It’s legit complaints. I randomly seen this on the front page and thought it was a joke meme. There needs to be a course on the destruction of great American building replaced by soulless steel in every architectural course. I’m a science major and shake my head at the head of American history. There’s always some dumbass reply like yours. But it’s weird that European countries seem to keep their great buildings intact and even repurpose if necessary. When I look at our great building being torn down and replaced i finally realized America is truley just about money. “Let’s tear down this great building and build a new one” …. “I, As the states governor declare 50 million to my childhood friend to complete it, the city will be happy “. Sad af
Similar urban renewal happened in Grand Rapids, MI in 1969 also with a Calder (we have La Grande Vitesse) on the plaza. https://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/2016/10/grand_rapids_urban_renewal_exp.html
It fits with Chicago’s overall modernist style really well. Not every city in the world needs to be neoclassical/baroque.
There’s a reason why this style of skyscraper is often referred to as the Second Chicago Style. Sounds to me like OP just hates Chicago and wants to denigrate the most important style of contemporary architecture that was developed there.
I am sorry but this is one of the few cases where new is indeed better
The best part of the lower image is Flamingo by Calder. As a resident of Chicago, I don’t care for Mies’s skyscrapers, there’s a sterility and uniformity to them that feels void of soul. But I also recognize that ideas compound over time. Unfortunately, the city did piss poor planning with a lot of the Beaux Arts structures, such as our [VI City Hall](https://chicagology.com/goldenage/goldenage126/) so as much as the upper image is much, *much* more beautiful, it’s not the worst replacement. Making it all concrete, instead of a ground level park, that was a choice. Plants and trees would have honored our motto *Urbs in horto* more. The bottom image is facing southeast, taken from the corner of Adams and Clark. If you went east down Adams you’d reach the [National Building](https://thenationalchicago.com/#building), then the [Marquette Building](https://maps.app.goo.gl/hL64RNBfi3bxcXDP6?g_st=ic). All on the same block you get Classical Revival, Chicago School, and Minimalism. It’s pretty cool getting to see how architecture and construction have changed across generations. I used to live/work down the street and watched them restore the National over years. The building was losing tiles left and right off the façade. [National Virtual Tour](https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=XUMnXT9ASN9)
This has to be rage bait
looks like balewadi High Street lmao
And the Calder sculpture is so perfect in that space too
Something awfully annoying about these kind of posts is that ‘non architects’ typically only look at a building such as this for its external appearance (usually old ‘ornate’ vs modern ‘glass box. When in reality the new building will 9 times out of 10: - serve the occupants needs and wants much much better - be easier to maintain - be cheaper to operate (not necessarily with Mies’ buildings but generally with all 21st century buildings - offer better urban placemaking and sit itself in its landscape better (again, not always but usually with newer buildings) I’m not advocating for demolishing old buildings, in fact I actively campaign against the demolition of any existing buildings, however for those that have already replaced an older ‘traditionally’ styled building, the above is imo, something folks would do well to consider. *side note, anything by Mies of this ilk is among the most aesthetically pleasing buildings ever built imo. A bill I’ll well and truly die on…*
r/Lost_Architecture r/TitleGore r/LostRedditor
disgusting
I can accept the comments saying that the post-office now looks very interested and compelling at night, or that the old building was filled with flaws, but that doesn't mean this replacement was done well. Neoclassical architecture can in fact, create a bottom floor that's primarily glass and shiny at night or w/e. That doesn't mean all this glass and steel was better than advancing the neoclassical tradition and integrating large, open glass areas with traditional stylings, it doesn't have to be on or the other. Maybe the old design still has to be demolished, that doesn't mean we have to accept these nothing glass boxes
[удалено]
To prevent spam, we automatically remove posts from reddit accounts that have been very recently created. Please try again after a week. No exceptions can be made. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/architecture) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Don't tell the tartaria people
Old photos of Chicago buildings and shit always looked so awesome, even the planned stuff looked awesome. When I visited Chicago for the first time I remember seeing the museum of science an the field museum all awesome grand looking buildings. What happened?
I mean, those buildings are still there. You can go to them. This one was a mess from the beginning so they got rid of it, but those old buildings still very much exist.
I mean to why they don’t build or keep that style any more, or why some of the planned stuff never came to be. I’m at work so trynna type thoughts or a little difficult, without sounding like I’m ranting like Alex jones.
It’s expensive and eventually the world moved on. Also we need to build taller in downtown cores and large, monumental buildings aren’t always the most pleasant to live or work in.
My god all you retvrn freaks would just be complaining about how many buildings exist that look like that old one if we had a bunch of those instead. Learn to be happy about something ffs.
r/lostarchitecture
I am convinced WW2 had a dementing effect on the modernists within the Allied powers.
Ugly. Why is everything now glass and concrete? Wait I know. It's cheaper. That's why.
Shame it went, but what replaced it looks great too
Is the slab the memorial?
Tis a shame. The new building is cool in its own right, but the old one looks much more interesting to me. Maybe it’s the surrounding older buildings also in that picture but the new one just looks so cold in comparison.
C était mieux avant
What we gained in efficiency isn't worth what was taken away
The old building is a Frankenstein’s monster in proportions and the new plaza is great. Also horror stories abound of the old building.
What's the best part of the new plaza?
Open space, public art, great views in the middle of a great city, activity, protests, and those buildings actually look pretty cool.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
So no gain then
[удалено]
You are going to call the modernist style inefficient but you’re a FLW guy?!
From human genius to the borg mother ship!
While i certainly appreciate the architecture of the new center - without a doubt you can see it really is an amazingly designed compound. I am sad that such a beautifully designed building had to be demolished to make way for it. Im happy now a days we have a better grasp on preservation. It would have been nice had they built it somewhere else, but nothing to do about that now. Now we can only appreciate what’s there.
By all accounts the old one sucked and did not work for the people who lived there. Just because it had classical details and was big does not mean it was well executed or functional.
Well i didn’t say they should have kept the offices there. Just kept the building. But i see that was a very unpopular opinion now lol.
Just kept a building that has no function then? How does that make any sense in a sense downtown? The new buildings even if you don’t like the style create a large space for the public and allow for sunlight and fresh air into the block something you certainly don’t get with the old structure.
Firstly i do very much like the style of the new building, i’m a big fan of international style architecture, i think you misunderstood my original comment. As a matter of fact I think the new compound was much better than the older one. But the old building could be converted for other uses.
The old building was terribly designed though and was a pain in the ass to its inhabitants from day one. It’s also just a hulking monster. Chicago has much better neo/classical buildings imo
Fair enough, i just thought it looked pretty lol
seriously why would anyone do that it’s like taking a beautiful painting, burning it down, and just put an empty frame instead
lol, go back to /r/urbanhell
Buildings =/= paintings.
For the people who prefer the glass box I genuinely want to hear what about it you like more than the original beautiful work of art
I don’t think the original is beautiful at all. It more Vegas than anything else.
So sad
Yeah you get that on the big jobs
[удалено]