City Architecture

[RockHarbor]

I'm still totally worn out from this thread, and I feel disinterested, and I don't blame others for being so, too, but I just noticed Fort Worth has a couple of sharp new exciting buildings today on Google Earth. So, it reminded me of this thread. Maybe I can post them eventually... Yes, that anchoring "sister city" to Dallas in the Metroplex is getting a more and more likable & striking skyline. And, its also all accented by a new exciting bridge design w/ multiple curving waves. It really spruces up the town. I love that name "Fort Worth." Perfect name for a Texas metropolis.

[Cermak]

Yes Google earth is showing more updates lately . Still waiting for Omaha to get theirs. Kansas City has One and Two Light recently added and now these in Ft Worth . Ft Worth has a really good representation of 1920’s buildings probably some of the best you’ll see in a southern city. The city is definitely a little more approachable and calmer than Dallas. Dallas at times can be a little intimidating to me.

[RockHarbor]

Yes Google earth is showing more updates lately . Still waiting for Omaha to get theirs. Kansas City has One and Two Light recently added and now these in Ft Worth . Ft Worth has a really good representation of 1920’s buildings probably some of the best you’ll see in a southern city. The city is definitely a little more approachable and calmer than Dallas. Dallas at times can be a little intimidating to me.

I saw you mentioned that, and I did go to Google Earth later and look at that closer. I think those are great, wonderful additions to Kansas City. They are so clean & crisp, light, bright, and airy. (I was going to respond one day, but had to run, or something... That was quite awhile ago.)

Anyways, here are the Fort Worth updates I noticed on Google Earth:






The one new tower is blue, is obviously residential with all the balconies, and it is off to the far right (in the first pic). The other new building is squarish and black/grey, and medium-tall, and it is over towards the left (in the first pic). The new bridge, with the architectural feature running down both sides really adds a lot to the city, I think. Architectural bridge features added like that always help with creating more satisfying views & pictures of a city, too, imo. Just these three new things makes me look at Fort Worth a bit differently. It really makes a difference. (I already liked Downtown Fort Worth before. But, it is just getting better & better.)

I was looking at Dallas, too, and I noticed a new building showing in their Uptown area. It has those angled/leaning sides, and zig-zaggin' rooflines that are popular right now. I like it. Sharp.

[RockHarbor]

I just noticed two new beautiful skyscrapers in Chicago recently, and was almost astonished, so I finally looked them up. I then discovered other ones...

Here's the one I first noticed, with the elliptical lines at the apex (I find it was built in 2017): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... _29_16.jpg

Another (2017): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... _26_16.jpg

Another (2018): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... ttPark.jpg

Another (2014): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... y_2016.jpg

Another (2019): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... hePark.jpg

It must be nice living in such a major city (like Chicago or NYC) that a new high rise constantly goes up downtown, like a new subdivision constantly goes up in West Omaha.

Funny, when you see a picture of Chicago or New York and you spot a new skyscraper, then look it up, it has already been there a year or two already... That happens to me all the time.

If there's ANY architectural mistake in Chicago, in my view, it is the city's decision to allow a building in Miami-style "Aquatecture": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... hicago.jpg I just hate that building in Chicago. If it had brighter blue glass, I might like it better. But, the glass is even kinda dark... That particular style works best in "fun & sun" oceanside places like Miami, with bright blue & aqua water. Not Chicago, imo. I always feel like Chicago is "greedy" to gain at least one example of every architectural style out there on its skyline. And, this is one time it possibly backfired...

[GetUrban]

If there's ANY architectural mistake in Chicago, in my view, it is the city's decision to allow a building in Miami-style "Aquatecture": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... hicago.jpg I just hate that building in Chicago. If it had brighter blue glass, I might like it better. But, the glass is even kinda dark... That particular style works best in "fun & sun" oceanside places like Miami, with bright blue & aqua water. Not Chicago, imo. I always feel like Chicago is "greedy" to gain at least one example of every architectural style out there on its skyline. And, this is one time it possibly backfired...

I actually really like that building. Chicago architecture varies enough to just absorb it without looking too out of place, but still it draws attention to itself. The undulating balconies and facade make it seem like the invisible ripples of wind rushing up and over the building have been somehow captured in time and the 3rd dimension. It is the "windy city" after all. But that moniker is based more on the bluster of the residents rather than the actual wind.

[RockHarbor]

If there's ANY architectural mistake in Chicago, in my view, it is the city's decision to allow a building in Miami-style "Aquatecture": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... hicago.jpg I just hate that building in Chicago. If it had brighter blue glass, I might like it better. But, the glass is even kinda dark... That particular style works best in "fun & sun" oceanside places like Miami, with bright blue & aqua water. Not Chicago, imo. I always feel like Chicago is "greedy" to gain at least one example of every architectural style out there on its skyline. And, this is one time it possibly backfired...

I actually really like that building. Chicago architecture varies enough to just absorb it without looking too out of place, but still it draws attention to itself. The undulating balconies and facade make it seem like the invisible ripples of wind rushing up and over the building have been somehow captured in time and the 3rd dimension. It is the "windy city" after all. But that moniker is based more on the bluster of the residents rather than the actual wind.

Are you referring to the "Windy City" nickname, which is actually related to the city's politics, more then the winds from Lake Michigan? I almost have a hard time believing that, even though Ive read it.

Im glad you like the building, but I don't. I like the architrctural concept (using balconies to create an unpredictable, chaotic rippling effect w/ no rhyme & reason). However, I just feel it has this "It looked good on paper, but not in person..." look to it, and ultimate final result. Miami and NYC have similiar buildings, and I like theirs. I know a succesful woman architect is the creator of the building, and she normally is spot-on. If I were the architect of it, I would retreat into the studio, close the door, and not come out for a couple days...

[TitosBuritoBarn]

It must be nice living in such a major city (like Chicago or NYC) that a new high rise constantly goes up downtown, like a new subdivision constantly goes up in West Omaha.

I frankly never really noticed or took much interest. Once you have so many, so many of which are architectural gems, whats one more?

If there's ANY architectural mistake in Chicago, in my view, it is the city's decision to allow a building in Miami-style "Aquatecture": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... hicago.jpg I just hate that building in Chicago. If it had brighter blue glass, I might like it better. But, the glass is even kinda dark... That particular style works best in "fun & sun" oceanside places like Miami, with bright blue & aqua water. Not Chicago, imo. I always feel like Chicago is "greedy" to gain at least one example of every architectural style out there on its skyline. And, this is one time it possibly backfired...

I think most of Chicago, as well as myself would disagree with you. It's a well regarded building locally. And although I know what you're getting at, Chicago's position on the lake allow it to rival a lot of "fun and sun" places in the summer. They even import palm trees to place around the various beaches. I've never been to more crowded beaches than those in Chicago.

[RockHarbor]

That's so weird to see palm trees with a Chicago backdrop. I don't know if I like that or not..

I agree with you that most of Chicago would definitely disagree with me. After reading your remark, I set out to find any criticism of Chicago's AQUA skyscraper, and I can find almost NOTHING but constant praise and applause for it. That's fine -- I still don't like it. I want to like it, but I just DON'T. (A lot of remarks are probably from average people that "ooh!" and "aaah!" at the unique wave patterns in the balconies, though. They've probably not seen anything like it before, or dreamed of such a design. And, once enough praise and applause is given for a building, even by just the public, I think the opposing critics mainly keep their mouths shut. That's only human nature. I, on the other hand, am not swayed to like a building, just because a lot of people do. I like it if I like it. I don't if I don't.)

I found ONE remark I agree with. It appears Houston was maybe inspired by Chicago's AQUA. And, I like Houston's design just fine. And, a Houston critic said something like: "I'm so glad ours doesn't look like theirs." I agree -- the Houston one is better, imo.

https://www.chicagoarchitecture.org/201 ... -in-texas/

(However, if you look at the comments below the article, there are people that like the AQUA better. I don't. I like Houston's better. That AQUA is way too much, imo. The balconies also look kinda rigid and almost kinda cheapy & sterile to me -- like one of those simple, thin plastic, retro chairs.)

I also don't have an issue with ANY of Miami's Aquatecture. And, New York's skyscraper with the rippling facade is pretty cool, imo.

I'm sorry; I just don't like it. If there is any "thorn" on the Chicago skyline to me, it is that Aqua skyscraper. I just feel it doesn't work 100% for and in Chicago. It doesn't match the "spirit of Chicago" to me at all -- with the exception of the fact that Chicago is a center of art & innovation, and Chicago's motive is to be this constantly updated & expanding "showcase of world architecture", so they had to fit-in an example of "aquatecture." And, I feel their example of "aquatecture" fell short of perfection, imo. By all means, it's not hideous or anything, though -- imo.

I can fully appreciate how AQUA was meant to be chaotic & unpredictable in its rippling effect, but still, I don't like the chaotic pattern overall. If I threw rocks in a pond, and immediately started snapping many pictures of the surface of the water quickly, all the pictures would have some chaotic patterns in the water, but still, some pictures would have captured a more photogenic, delightful pattern of chaos. You would then end up picking that best photo out of the batch as your favorite one. It's a similar thing: I don't like the ultra-sloppy pattern of chaos used in that building. It could have been better. It's way too overdone, imo. It's almost exciting at first glance, yet borderline disturbing, and maybe borderline silly, imo. It feels fun, odd, a joke -- all at the same time. It never gives me that great of a feeling. That's one criticism, I have.

(One side also reminds me of that tri-clawed, long scratch on the movie cover of "Jurassic Park III." https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/jur ... 0630044215)

Another criticism I have is: The dull, gloomy, grey glass doesn't go well with the aquatic, fun ripples and curves of the balconies, like the bright blue/aqua glass in Miami does. The gloomy glass reminds me of the colors & feeling I have towards the rocky Washington or Oregon or Maine coastline, or maybe a "chilly & grey Alaska cruise", while the wavy pattern of balconies and the Miami-sounding name "Aqua" are trying to say "Fun in the hot sun!" all at the same time, or something. I dont get it. Even if it was called "The Wave", or "Waves" or "Surface", I would slightly accept it better in Chicago w/ that moody shade of glass.

"AQUA" That word really conjures up images of the hot, tropical, watery worlds of Miami/Bahamas/Cancun. I also think of those "Cool Water" cologne ads. (Yet, aqua water isn't typically "cool water.") The backyard aqua pool in Southern California, under the hot sun, at a home up in the hills, with a palm frond hanging over the pool, and a yellow raft, with Los Angeles in the backdrop, or maybe Palm Springs, also can fit into that category, I guess. Still, it is more a perfect word/term for the Florida/Caribbean region mostly, even more so than sunny Southern California. Therefore, it's not a word that appropriate for some major building in Chicago, imo. Because Chicago sits on that big lake, they probably justify using that "Aqua" name, due to all the water in close proximity. However, if Chicago dare even borrow one of Miami's main key themes, and dare pull it all off, I would think they would create a building with glass that was a brighter blue tone -- like the blue tones Lake Michigan have under a noonday sun. Instead, it is this darkish, pale grey building w/ sterile white, plastic-looking balconies that are constantly shifting in shape and form, bulbous off and on, bulging inward & outward here & there. Strange. The whole presentation doesn't quite work, imo. With that look, I would think they would call it "Surface" or "Ripple", ect. Something modern-sounding & simple, a good name for an abstract condo tower, and even tied to elements of the water -- yet not making you think of Miami or Cancun.

That Jeanne Gang's architecture is normally likable to me, though. I like her new skyscraper proposed for Chicago.

[nativeomahan]

I absolutely love Aqua. It is one of the most beautiful and harmonious skyscrapers I have ever seen. And it was designed by a woman, which might explain it.

[RockHarbor]

I absolutely love Aqua. It is one of the most beautiful and harmonious skyscrapers I have ever seen. And it was designed by a woman, which might explain it.

Well, I'm certainly NOT against a woman architect. That has nothing to do with this. Whether a man designed it, or a woman, doesn't constitute whether I like the building or not. In fact, I decided I didn't quite like it BEFORE I ever realized a woman designed it. I read Jeanne Gang designed it in some architecture/design magazine after it was built. Before that article, I had already taken pictures of it while in Chicago, not knowing who designed it. I was also relieved when the Blue Cross Blue Shield building added its final top floors years later, shrouding most of the building.

I'm actually surprised so many people say they love/like that building. It is so, so strangely different, and "pushes the envelope" enough, you would think there would be a bigger crowd on the side of not liking it, too. It's almost ODD that usual critical crowd is missing. I almost wonder if it comes down to the fact that a woman designed it?

Are you SURE you really think that about AQUA? Or, is this just the typical "fluff" women tell other women, to build each other up? I don't know if you are a woman, but I'm guessing you are. The way you said that sounds almost like "girl power" talk, rather than hardcore honest truth. Do you really think that about Chicago's AQUA? If you do, then great. Just checking.

............................................................................................................

In general, people are more careful & sensitive what they say to woman in society. It is kind of like how even plainer, non-model women can walk around and get called "beautiful" by their parents, boyfriend/husband and girlfriends, because people are sensitive to women, and worried about their feelings. (Woman are even said to "Go Ape" when a man rejects her -- her and her girlfriends thinking "How dare you!" On the other hand, women often like having the upper hand rejecting a man -- and hardly think anything of it when they do, laughing with their other girlfriends.) Typically, a truly drop-dead gorgeous (straight) male can walk around, and maybe gets an occasional compliment about his looks from an honest person -- but that's it. Unless he gets pulled into modeling which validates him, sometimes there is not a single compliment spoken by his parents, his girlfriend, and usually not even his friends, about his looks. People are often not sensitive to men, or worried about their feelings as much -- especially about their looks.

Notice female models often become very, very famous? But, male models often do not. There is a difference -- whether people want to acknowledge it or not.

So, I do think this lack of criticism for this building may come down to some of this type of psychology at play. Even "girl power" women seem to enjoy the natural, unspoken benefits of being viewed as the sensitive/emotional "weaker sex" by the majority of people, without even realizing they enjoy them. I'm not saying women officially are; I'm not even going to go there.

............................................................................................................

ANYWAYS....

Don't get me wrong. I love the idea of a glass, slender, tall box having a design of curvy balconies that form a rippling, pulsating surface, like we see at Chicago's AQUA. I just think the chaotic pattern could have been more a bit more pleasing and photogenic -- while still being chaotic. It looks a bit sloppy and unpleasing to me. And, for a building to be called "Aqua", she really should have chosen a brighter blue shade of glass to contrast against those white underbelly balconies. Instead, she has chosen a shade of glass that looks like the color of the water at the chilly Flemish Cap, on a stormy grey morning. This isn't some Massachusetts or Maine village, this isn't "The Perfect Storm." This is Chicago on bright blue Lake Michigan, and this building is called "Aqua", which sounds Miami-esque.

Like I pointed out, the term "Aqua" is perfect for a Miami condo tower, and not even 100% perfect for sunny, hot places like Los Angeles, Phoenix, and Palm Springs. So, if you're gonna use it in Chicago, I don't think you make it more odd & awkward by choosing a moody, pale shade of glass. As I pointed out, with the current look it has, I would prefer the name to be "Surface" or "Ripple" or "Curl" -- or something. If you're gonna use grey/pale glass, and make it a Chicago version of a Miami condo tower, just take the "Miami" out of it then.

I love Miami architecture. Miami has its own special style. Here's some examples of how the city has "Aquatecture" abounding:

https://www.thekleerteam.com/megatempla ... 165531.jpg

http://moderni.co/wp-content/uploads/20 ... 24x683.jpg

https://xheimmxl4gfvfghng2jjos4qhb.gcdn ... sizPZUb8dI

https://www.thekleerteam.com/megatempla ... %20(1).jpg

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/pDSbMsT ... lton.0.jpg


The rippling New York Gehry skyscraper:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... BB_jeh.jpg

https://static.dezeen.com/uploads/2011/ ... hry_01.jpg

https://cdn-img1.streeteasy.com/nyc/ima ... 173489.jpg

And, lo & behold, Gehry has PLENTY of criticism. And, funny, the building is not even as "out there" as Gang's crazy-busy AQUA building in Chicago. Probably because he is a MAN.

[GetUrban]

I love that Frank Gehry rippling facade design! He takes the ripples deeper into the skin of the building and inside the space of the rooms on the outer edge within, rather than Gang's exclusive rippling of just the balconies. Personally, I don't care if I know the sex of the designer. It's not a factor in whether I like a building or not. There may very well be some physiological differences in the way a female's (at birth) brain functions compared to a male's (at birth), but that gets into the realm of nature vs. nurture which is getting pretty far off-topic. I don't want to go there now. Also, I don't have a preconceived opinion of what "style" or attributes are acceptable for any given city, but context is important in some instances. Good discussion, yet somewhat exhausting.

[RockHarbor]

Perfectly said. I agree. I dont want to go there either. I dont care if a man, a woman, or even a space alien, designed a building. I like it if I like it. I dont of I dont. Thats what this discussion should be about here.

I like Gehry's skyscraper, too. Its fascinating. I like Gang's proposed Wanda Skyscraper for Chicago.

[Wrightfan]

If there's ANY architectural mistake in Chicago, in my view, it is the city's decision to allow a building in Miami-style "Aquatecture": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... hicago.jpg I just hate that building in Chicago.

I am somewhat on your side in that I am indifferent about the Aqua Tower - not a fan, but not a hater either. I understand the look, as it is a residential tower positioned near the confluence of the river and the lake, so very much part of the "water". I much prefer residential towers such as One Bennett Park:

http://www.relatedmidwest.com/ourcompan ... nett-park/

[RockHarbor]

If there's ANY architectural mistake in Chicago, in my view, it is the city's decision to allow a building in Miami-style "Aquatecture": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... hicago.jpg I just hate that building in Chicago.

I am somewhat on your side in that I am indifferent about the Aqua Tower - not a fan, but not a hater either. I understand the look, as it is a residential tower positioned near the confluence of the river and the lake, so very much part of the "water". I much prefer residential towers such as One Bennett Park:

http://www.relatedmidwest.com/ourcompan ... nett-park/

I do, too! That is one dramatic, handsome, gorgeous Chicago condo tower. That's so much more "!!CHICAGO!!" to me than Aqua is.

Another thing I was thinking about was the fact that AQUA is not even standing right adjacent to the lake. It is not far from the lake, but still, it is blocks inland, standing packed tightly together on the city grid w/ other office/residential blocks. I think that aquatic-inspired design would make more sense to me having that look featured right next to the lake. (After that came to mind, it hit me how Chicago's 3 leaf clover-shaped Lake Point Tower works perfect on the lakefront. The flowing glass skins' curves echo the wavy water, yet the dark glass stays true to urban Chicago. It just works. Who doesn't like that notable Chicago architectural landmark?)

I think AQUA was a great design idea, but several things about it fell a tiny bit short, imo.

1) The tower has uninspiring, pale, grey glass -- not even blue, the most basic color to represent water. 2) The chaotic, wavy pattern is kinda cool in itself, but kinda sloppy and unpleasing to the eye -- taking the patterns of chaos and disorder a little too far, imo. 3) "Aqua" is not a super appropriate name/theme for a Chicago condo tower. Using blue glass would have helped that. 4) The tower is not even on the water, so the design can't gain strength & energy by echoing that nearby water, making it all make even less sense. 5) With its present look, coloring, and design, standing blocks away from water, I would have prefered the focus being on the abstract & chaotic quality of it, rather then trying to tie the tower into a aqua/water-based theme. For example, if it were called "CHAOS: A Modern Luxury Chicago Condo Tower", I would feel much better about it. It would be more "Urban Chicago" to me.

Likewise: You can open a colorful Mexican restaurant on "Greek Street" within a vacant Pizza Hut restaurant shell (with the highly recognizable, trademark roof), and the business may thrive just fine, feeding hungry locals who love your menu & reasonable prices. But, the owner can't expect everybody out there around it (especially people sensative to creative design) to feel/think the business has a flawless & flowing theme and perfectly & nicely psychologically works, though.

[RockHarbor]

If there's ANY architectural mistake in Chicago, in my view, it is the city's decision to allow a building in Miami-style "Aquatecture": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... hicago.jpg I just hate that building in Chicago.

I am somewhat on your side in that I am indifferent about the Aqua Tower - not a fan, but not a hater either. I understand the look, as it is a residential tower positioned near the confluence of the river and the lake, so very much part of the "water". I much prefer residential towers such as One Bennett Park:

http://www.relatedmidwest.com/ourcompan ... nett-park/

I feel stupid. I read your comment, but mainly focused on your One Bennet Park remark & link. And, I mainly focused on that you understood me. I read, but overlooked and didnt soak in, your remarks on the tower being close to lake & river.

Ironically, this morning, I was thinking more about what else bothered me about AQUA. I was looking at it on Google Maps 3D. I concluded because it was called "Aqua", yet it was blocks away from the lake water, surrounded by other towers on the cement grid. I knew the river ran nearby, but didnt think that was ever part of the AQUA "equation." I was eager to share that point here today, so I went straight into it, the minute I could. You, on the other hand, made a move to point out that the tower is close to both lake & river, and that's why they call it "AQUA." (Now I see it looks like Im ignoring & arguing your point both, in almost a sneaky way, almost playing dumb to it. But, that's not me. I'm not the type to do that.)

THEN, the curvy Lake Point Tower came to mind this evening, and I edited that point in later.

Yes, I realize AQUA is not too far from the lake, and not too far from the river either, and thats maybe why they justified the name "Aqua." But, its not intimate enough with either water body, imo, to justify it. Plus, I dont feel "Aqua" is a name that ever works well within a Midwestern river setting. And, not perfectly well within a Midwestern lake setting, either. (Who thinks of the term "aqua" around a dirty city river?)

Yes, "aqua" is a word for H2O/water in general, I think of "Aqua Man", but it generally makes people think specifically of warm, sea green, crystal-clear, tropical, ocean water, or an island lagoon, mostly.

I mean, Anchorage, Alaska is by the water, on an inlet from the sea. Should that city sport an "Aqua" condo tower? It would be strange and unfitting. In a similar way, I think the same about Chicago. Yet, it works a bit better in Chicago than it would in Anchorage, imo.

The AQUA tower in Chicago could simply be a generic, unmeaningful move to insert a bit of "Miami" in Chicago, because there is a definite, real connection between snowy, cold Chicago & New York and warm, sunny Florida. That's kinda how it feels to me.

Anyways, I wasn't disregarding your point w/out addressing it, although it looks that way, diving straight into my opposing point without acknowleding yours. It was coincidental.

I was glad to get your comment today, learning another person finds understanding towards me regarding Chicago's AQUA tower.

I've been now looking into that Bennet Park more. Between the proud, handsome, tapering cap at the apex of the lofty, upright residential tower, and seeing pics of rich, solid, luxurious interior apartments and the beautiful indoor pool, I am just very impressed w/ that project. It almost reminds me of Minneapolis's proud, award-winning, striking, lofty, tapering, beige/tan Wells Fargo Center -- or even Minneapolis's gorgeous Carlyle Condo Tower (which echos the Wells Fargo Center). Chicago never borrows architecture from other cities in a blantant, obvious way, but they cant help themselves to input something into their "collection" when another city has something great, that it doesn't -- even if they resist the impulse to copy it for years. That's my view of Chicago, anyways. I dont know how that works, or if that is really true, though, when individual architects are the creators of buildings -- not the city.

P.S. Funny, I now realize today, relooking at the One Bennet Park picture you linked to (which was that project's main, circulated star image pre-construction), that the Lake Point Tower is actually seen in it. When the Lake Point Tower came to mind, I was scanning the Chicago lakefront for any buildings with a wavy design (because I concluded AQUA's wavy design would be more suitable adjacent to the lake). However, maybe your link made me think of it unaware (a subliminal image!). Also, Im reminded by poking around Google Maps 3D that the Lake Point Tower had a similar "sister knockoff" built years later, the Harbor Point Tower. Both look/seem very appropriate for Chicago's lakefront, imo.

[Cermak]

I’ve never gotten used to AQUA tower. Would look fantastic in Tampa or Orlando. In Chicago it just looks strange, almost like Chicago is trying to hard or something. I like Trump tower, probably my favorite new skyscraper in DT Chicago.

[RockHarbor]

I’ve never gotten used to AQUA tower. Would look fantastic in Tampa or Orlando. In Chicago it just looks strange, almost like Chicago is trying to hard or something. I like Trump tower, probably my favorite new skyscraper in DT Chicago.

Well, I'm glad to hear that from a Chicagoan himself. Im glad to know that Im not the only one who "raises a brow" at that AQUA tower.

That linked picture of One Bennet Park, however, is a current screensaver. That main rendering of One Bennet Park captures what I love about Chicago. It is such an exciting city of (mostly) perfect architecture on that lake. In fact, I just read it was voted to have the finest architecture in America. However, New York & Chicago are a tough contest in that category, so Im sure NYC is a close second.

I was recently in Dallas-FW, and funny, I found a used book "Chicago's Famous Buildings." So, I picked it up to read on my way back. I guess the Aon Center is the skyscraper Chicagoans love to hate. I have no idea why. I love coming into Chicago and seeing the towering black Sears/Willis Tower & John Hancock Center, and the white, simplistic, square towering Aon Center. And, love that Trump Tower, too -- just like you. It is so sleek & photogenic. It seems so perfectly designed and thoughtful for that tight, riverside lot it stands on. I do feel like the John Hancock Center is Chicago's truest iconic, signature skyscraper.

When in Dallas-FW, I was finally able to go up into the Reunion Tower. (You had mentioned you have visited that, right?) I didnt plan on it, but it happened, thankfully. Boy, what great views of glistening Dallas. I enjoyed every second up there, and took so many pictures, as it revolved. I could see all of Dallas's suburban skylines in the distance, and see Downtown Fort Worth even. There's a neat design theme & trend continuing in that Uptown area. It works great for Dallas. The city looked so sharp and sleek. It's making all the right architectural & urban moves -- it appears to me. However, as neat & big & dazzling & impressive as it looks from the Reunion Tower, I reminded myself it is still a true "Sunbelt City", as I gazed at it all. It pretty much has a look of a car-orientated Sunbelt City, almost like a "Los Angeles on the prairie." Sure, any big city is "urban", but it still doesnt have that solid, true urban feel like Chicago & New York have. (I dont think any of the big Texas cities really, truly do.) Thats OK, though: Im glad the US has different types of cities, and I like them all. They all dont have to be just like Chicago & New York.

I do think Portland, OR is a good model for an average city to be inspired by, if desiring to be more "urban." Trying to be Chicago & New York might feel too unattainable for so many cities.

Downtown Fort Worth is sure getting nicer & nicer. There's a new Sundance area of downtown that is so yuppy, and so nice. The two new office buildings added (talked about recently here) really make it look even nicer. It also has a considerable urban quality. Freeways seem new & redone with nice designer bridges and overpasses. I think Fort Worth is lovable, like St Paul, MN is lovable. As much as I love their more impressive counterparts (Dallas, Minneapolis), I find them impressive smaller cities in their own right.

Speaking of LA earlier: Los Angeles's skyline is really starting to stretch out long, almost like Miami's. A lot of new construction going on there, especially new condo towers. Check it out on Google Maps 3D!

[nativeomahan]

RH, you apparently know as much about me as you do about architecture.

[RockHarbor]

RH, you apparently know as much about me as you do about architecture.

Of course, I don't. Thats why I asked you questions for clarity. I am so tired of this unusual flattery that revolves around this AQUA tower, when the usual critical crowd is oddly missing. Way nicer-looking architecture, that's way more practical, gets criticized, often designed by a man architect. It sounds like "girl power" support, more than an honest critique. I'm trying to get to the bottom of this.

How is AQUA the most harmonious skyscraper you've ever seen, for example? It has a chaotic pattern, and a sloppy one at that. I respect your opinion, but I dont get it.

Ive been into architecture most of my life, but Im, by no means, some expert. An architecture professor, at a university, would put me to shame, for example. I just enjoy art, design, and architecture. Thats why I love Chicago -- it oozes all three things.

[RockHarbor]

Here are pics of Dallas and Fort Worth.

Dallas from the ground:













Dallas from the Reunion Tower:



























As you can see, the Uptown area continues to expand with new, medium-height high rises -- a bulk of buildings trailing off the main striking, towering skyline. There is a certain new design theme going on there. It is kind of a new signature design that defines today's Dallas, and it all compliments the original (mostly) 1970's & 1980's skyline. The new striking white bridges really add a lot to the Dallas scene, too. Looking at it all, comparing it to Chicago and New York, you can see the "car-orientated Sunbelt City" aspect to it all -- much like Los Angeles. However, there is light rail there now (as seen by the freeway).

Note: I think other cities are doing a similar thing to Dallas's Uptown District, creating a bulk of shorter new buildings off the main skyline. I believe Dallas started the trend. I notice Denver and Boston and Seattle kinda are, and there's no denying Los Angeles kinda maybe is: https://fineartamerica.com/featured/1-a ... leong.html

You can see the new Cowboys stadium, and Downtown Fort Worth here. Since Downtown Fort Worth is 30 miles from Downtown Dallas, the curvature of the earth shrouds the very bottom of the Fort Worth skyline.



In the lobby of the Hyatt Hotel, there is a large picture of the typical postcard shot of Dallas over a couch. That's my favorite view of the city (in high school, I had a large poster of Dallas from that vantage point.) It looks like such a proud, sharp, glassy, sculptural city standing tall on the prairie. The Reunion Tower is said to resemble a dandy lion -- an architectural statement pointing to the prairie location.



Fort Worth is lookin' great. Two new buildings really add to the skyline. One is very basic and square and sharp with dark glass, mixed with grey glass. I notice Uptown Dallas has a similar new building. (I think they both are inspired by the sharp, dark look of Amazon's new black/grey headquarters in Seattle.) The other is a nice-looking Omni Hotel covered with serene blue/green glass, with a sharp, jutting triangular angle. Funny, the building is sharp and triangular horizontally, and the serene color of the glass is almost identical to the sharp, triangular, yet vertical Fountain Place skyscraper in Dallas. (I originally labeled it a "condo tower", because I just assumed it was. Today on Google Maps 3D, I noticed it was the Omni Hotel attached to the convention center.) The skyline stands on a gently sloping taller hill, kind of like Downtown Kansas City, so it has a "castle on the hill" aspect to it, imo.

The 2018 Frost Bank Tower: https://live.staticflickr.com/786/27701 ... 1bdc_b.jpg
The 2009 Omni Hotel, Fort Worth: https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnew ... .image.jpg





















The Fort Worth Stockyards were something I have wanted to visit for years. It wasn't disappointing to me at all. It is a lot like an "Old Market" area with a rustic "Texas twist" to it. There are many Spanish mission architectural examples around. I saw a western rodeo-type show. I've always liked a city to have an area like this, celebrating the past, much like Omaha's Old Market, or Old Albuquerque.





Flew directly over Downtown Fort Worth:



Conclusion: Lookin' good Dallas-Fort Worth -- the biggest metro area of the Southwest, now the 4th largest in the United States! I think they are very inspirational to other cities, just like Minneapolis-St Paul.

On the topic, I go back-and-forth whether I like Dallas-Fort Worth or Minneapolis-St Paul better. Dallas-FW is more massive, spread out, very sprawling, somewhat sophisticated yet casual, a Sunbelt City feel, not super historic, taller skylines, bigger downtowns and suburban skylines, the colors more muted, the seasons not as defined, the trees shorter. Minneapolis-St Paul feels more tight, orderly, urban, new & historic, very lush and green, the colors more vibrant, the trees taller, very defined four seasons, sophisticated somewhat, more uptight & serious. I like both.

[RockHarbor]

Go Minneapolis!

Here, I saw Chicago finally gave in, and stole some of Minneapolis's beautiful signature design/architecture (as Chicago often does, I notice), with their addition of ONE BENNET PARK. (I don't blame Chicago, as it is kind of a "Architectural Showcase." Yet, that doesn't mean cities won't get annoyed when Chicago does grab and take their prized architecture. I even think Chicago slightly copied Omaha's FNC -- which is a compliment to the Leo A. Daly firm, if they did.)

Anyways, Minneapolis comes back and presents a condo tower to be built in their downtown almost just like Chicago's One Bennet Park. Here it is: https://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/ ... -west.html

I'm so glad to see Chicago shown by Minneapolis: "Two Can Play At This Game."