5 ms·

The headline image (Harold Washington Library, Chicago, 1987) is a good example of how Post Modernism got things badly wrong - with its haphazard ornamentation

The headline image (Harold Washington Library, Chicago, 1987) is a good example of how Post Modernism got things badly wrong - with its haphazard ornamentation grabbing styles from all over the time/place and tastelessly agglomerating them together without coherent thesis. Sadly there are many more such examples, architecture was in a dark place in the 80s.

coldtea 3y ago
Still way better looking than 99% of "modernist" architecture... At least here it's just tastelessness at fault, as opposed to a concrete (pun intended) hatred of beauty...
_dark_matter_ 3y ago
I like the look of that building. I don't care at all that it may be haphazard in architecture history.
Kon-Peki 3y ago
The original downtown library in Chicago closed in the late 1970s and moved to temporary space; they spent a full decade arguing about a permanent replacement before finally agreeing to issue a bond and to hold a design competition. This design was a collaboration among many groups, and had a long list of "as a homage to XXXX, we've included this design element." It almost certainly wasn't a serious entry, but that list of design elements apparently kept getting it enough votes to stay in the competition as they did each round of elimination. At the end of the competition, they looked at the remaining entries and realized that this was the only one that could be built for the amount of money in the bond issue. So it won. It's pretty strange as the "cheap" option, because everything you touch is made of marble, brass or solid wood, the doors are huge and very heavy, every light fixture looks custom made, it's filled with artwork and sculptures, etc.
btbuildem 3y ago
I couldn't disagree more - it's a beautiful building with a strong presence. The only thing I can see being a "bit much" are the adornments on the roof.
kipchak 3y ago
I agree it's rather haphazard and incoherent, but given it's a library and the variety of material it contains I think the lack of coherency somewhat works.

coldtea 3y ago

Still way better looking than 99% of "modernist" architecture... At least here it's just tastelessness at fault, as opposed to a concrete (pun intended) hatred of beauty...

_dark_matter_ 3y ago

I like the look of that building. I don't care at all that it may be haphazard in architecture history.

Kon-Peki 3y ago

The original downtown library in Chicago closed in the late 1970s and moved to temporary space; they spent a full decade arguing about a permanent replacement before finally agreeing to issue a bond and to hold a design competition. This design was a collaboration among many groups, and had a long list of "as a homage to XXXX, we've included this design element." It almost certainly wasn't a serious entry, but that list of design elements apparently kept getting it enough votes to stay in the competition as they did each round of elimination. At the end of the competition, they looked at the remaining entries and realized that this was the only one that could be built for the amount of money in the bond issue. So it won. It's pretty strange as the "cheap" option, because everything you touch is made of marble, brass or solid wood, the doors are huge and very heavy, every light fixture looks custom made, it's filled with artwork and sculptures, etc.

btbuildem 3y ago

I couldn't disagree more - it's a beautiful building with a strong presence. The only thing I can see being a "bit much" are the adornments on the roof.

kipchak 3y ago

I agree it's rather haphazard and incoherent, but given it's a library and the variety of material it contains I think the lack of coherency somewhat works.