The Fordham Spire

I would have to respectfully disagree. As a building with a very different visual weight than the other top dogs of the Chicago skyline, the new tower would be a welcome addition in both style and size. It would also focus more attention on the point where the river and the lake meet, historically an important part of the city that, until recent years, has been a wasteland. And finally it would be a great attraction to see while driving through Lake Shore.

or really, where would it look in context.

it’s kinda cool and curvy though. :-P

http://images.suntimes.com/popups/spire/images/spire_only.jpg

I think it looks amazing and would be a great addition to Chicago’s incredible skyline.

Dude

A building my Calatrava, one of the greatest architects of our time would be a fantastic addition to the chicago skyline. Or we could get some banal city-hall designed piece of crap from a low-life toupe-wearing schlep of a weenie a la Trump.

Please change the building.
It’s turning the wrong way.
It has to turn the natural way…right-hand.
Just like trees and drill bits.
Please.
I am begging.

Since I arrived in this city (4 years ago), everytime I drive along Lake Shore Drive, I cannot help it but be in awe at the beauty of the Chicago skyline next to the lake, as well as the city’s audacious openness to mixing old with new architecture, old nd contemporary art. Simply magnificent.
Chicago is getting more beautiful every day. And now…. Calatrava’s Fordham Spire! I would SUPPORT THIS PROJECT strongly. Don’t give me the ‘conservative, no-risk-taking’ speech. This is it!! This is the new Chicago, the pearl of the Midwest! Bring more projects like this… and I’ll never leave this city.
I have driven many guest visitors to Milwaukee just to see Calatrava’s Modern Art Museum. Now I won’t have to drive that far. The Fordham Spire will attract thousands of tourists.
Congrats!

I think it looks fantastic, but it will probably be largely unsuccessful and unlikely built. Chicago has no need for new luxury condos with all the ones currently unsold. I agree that the location needs something desperately. It looks hideous right now.

This building (if built) will be the best addition to the Chicago skyline. Calatrava has a way of making things fit into their surroundings while standing out at the same time. This tower belongs here in Chicago.

I really hope this tower is a go. I love the images of gentle lapping waves and a refined kinda sexiness to it. This would be defined as the new chicago of the 21st century in terms of architecture, and what better palce than chicago to have this happen.

does anybody know where could i get high resolution images of fordham spire tower??
i desperately need it…..=P
thanks..i really like that building =)

Photos may be hard to come by since the building doesn’t exist. So far, it’s just a concept.

Awesome! I can’t wait for it to be built so I can own one of the condos in such a great area. I love Chicago!

Out of context ???…..interesting!

Don’t you think Mount Rushmore is “out of context” also? What do faces have to do with mountains?

The Statue of Liberty was also considered “out of context” when first placed. History repeats itself.

I wonder if the Great Wall in China is also “out of context”.

What is your definition of “in context”?

PROGRESS means CHANGING for BETTER! … not keeping the status quo.

The Fordham Spire is beautiful, and it will improve the “context” of beautiful Chicago.

I’ve actually come around a little bit since I wrote this post. Not completely, but a little. It still sticks out a bit too much.

As an x Chicagoan I have long been a fan of the City’s Architecture. Although I see no problem with geometric designs (moving away from the boxy verticle restangle can be a good thing) the concept of the Spire looks out of place. It seems to conceived for Adu Dhabi.

Context is overrated. The John Hancock was considered out of context within the gracious, low-rise N. Michigan Ave of the late sixties. I’m sure the same could be said for revolutionary buildings like Mies’ 860-880 Lake Shore Drive.

But two things immediately come to my mind with the John Hancock example.

First, while the pre-Hancock N. Michigan Ave could claim a certain graciousness and elegance, I don’t think there’s any character to preserve at the Spire’s proposed site. The only context in the immediate vicinity is mostly mediocre crap. In which case, I guess you could say that yes, the Calatrava’s Spire is out of context.

Second, great buildings define their own new context. The Hancock anchors the Mag Mile, and without its monumental, iconic presence at one end of the Mile, N. Michigan Ave could easily just be Any Urban Shopping District. But the bold building that originally was criticized as a sore thumb is now an emphatic exclamation point, reminding visitors that they are in Chicago, and no place else.

It remains to be seen that with the Spire, Calatrava will actually realize all that iconic potential. But more than any other building — and especially supertall — proposal we’ve seen, this tower has the kind of forward-thinking structural adventurism (i.e., where the excitement is with a simple, novel structural concept, rather than compensating ornamentation) that used to be synonymous with Chicago.

And since Trump Tower is part of the discussion, I think it’s interesting to note that its design is pretty much driven by contextuality. While it’s nice that Trump Tower’s design pays some respectful deference to its distinguished neighbors on the river — with setbacks mirroring the surrounding rooftops of the Wrigley Building, the IBM Building, and Marina City — you can’t help but think that contextuality was a just a cop-out. It just feels like an excuse (or desparate compensation) for a lack of true inspiration.

Calatrava’s tower on the other hand is pure inspiration. In that sense, even if you still have reservations about how it fits in to the skyline, the Spire totally fits into the bigger historical context of Chicago’s long legacy of fantastic architecture. Chicago may have a somewhat Midwestern, conservative flavor (style, not politics), but it’s always been revolutionary and risk-taking as far as architecture. In that sense, Calatrava and the Spire are perfectly at home here.

[...] sold on it. But it’s growing on me. 4/1/2006 8:14 AM | Tags: Chicago, Architecture | Trackback NoComments [...]

This building will be a great addition to Chicago. Its spectaculary tall and slender. With a uniqueness that fits perfectly.