14 Responses to “Chicago Spire, Calatrava”

1. elo janis Says:
   March 2nd, 2009 at 9:24 am

   This is a crushing blow to Chicago. So many were looking forward to having a world renowned architect ‘leave his mark’ on our city with this spectactular building. I don’t understand why it cannot be built as the amount of units sold was rather high…..even the $49mil penthouse were under contract. I was amazed when I first saw this building and still am by it’s unique and forward look, something that would have brought Chicago up to a ‘world class level’. Sad

2. Patriot Says:
   March 2nd, 2009 at 7:14 pm

   Well, looks like the US won’t be getting that B-nile enlargement surgery, it so sore and confidently needed.

3. Pomoek Says:
   March 12th, 2009 at 8:27 am

   I thought Mies van der Rohe and Frank Lloyd Wright allready put Chicago on the map? Still, it’s a pitty…

4. JasonM Says:
   March 14th, 2009 at 10:23 pm

   Chicago is the capital of modern architecture… I’m not sure what the first poster is talking about. There are dozens of world class structures that make any city envious. The Spire was beautiful and I do hope that it gets completed.

5. Derek Says:
   March 23rd, 2009 at 11:59 pm

   Makes zero sense to build such a huge building just for condos. I suspect it was just a big scam, like the ICE tower in Panama (another canned project), or the Trump Club in Baja. Put up a sign, put together some vague sketches to show the rooms then get approval from local government to build the project….. THEN collect deposits. Pay yourself and your friends a huge salary and when the project goes bust, say “so sorry, I can’t return the money because I spent it on construction…….. by which I mean paying the salaries to friends and family.

6. JM Says:
   March 28th, 2009 at 12:20 pm

   As elo says, the Spire did have a high number of units under contract before the financing dried up. They are in talks with the AFL/CIO now to work out a deal where the unions partially fund this through their large pension assets, allowing the construction to complete, and thousands of union jobs created during the 5 years of construction.

   Granted, its not my pension they’re risking here, but I’d love to see it happen.

7. J Says:
   April 6th, 2009 at 3:20 pm

   Looks like a dildo.

8. Dizzy Says:
   April 15th, 2009 at 12:44 pm

   It looks like a drillbit to me, but where it doesn’t shine from a distance/so-so arch viz rendering, it’s spectacular up close. I hope this will get built eventually.

9. Non-Chicagoan Says:
   April 16th, 2009 at 5:16 pm

   It’s a lovely building, but I wonder if it’s too tall. It looks to be at least twice the height of the surrounding structures, though maybe it’s comparable to buildings that are out of frame. Hopefully so, for to have such a massive singularity would ruin a downtown cityscape, in my humble opinion.

10. hpunkt Says:
    May 4th, 2009 at 5:19 am

    probably good that some of these buildings are not getting to be build. in that sense i pretty much appreciate the finacial crises with all its self cleaning effects.

11. Bob of Buda Says:
    May 28th, 2009 at 6:39 pm

    Perhaps Chicago didn’t want a giant symbolic, penile screw taunting them into the 21rst century. Hmm, d’ya think?

12. js Says:
    June 11th, 2009 at 1:39 pm

    It’s horrid and would greatly throw off the city’s skyline. I am glad the project is on hold and hope that it never comes to fruition.

13. Scott Says:
    July 19th, 2009 at 12:58 am

    I think the Spire is not a good structure for Chicago. The creation of a much larger and very original structure is not quite the reason for this distaste, because the Taipei 101 building is perhaps my favorite recent building and it has both these properties. The Taipei 101 seems like a center of gravity for Taipei and its color matches the green of the hills.

    I do not like the spire, especially not in Chicago, because it has no regard for the preexisting structures and the pattern or rhythm of the peaks of the buildings there. I have yet to see a picture (edited of course) of the city in which the building does not look awkward. It seems like the architect is showing off an abstract idea, rather than respecting the city and using his creativity to enhance what already exists.

    The Spire might look nicer in a less developed city with a more pastel or clay/white look.

    I think Chicago would benefit more from a darker shade building ( a la Hancock/ former Sears) that is angular/ squarish shaped, rather than white and curvy. Actually the Spire might look alright juxtaposed with the library tower in Los Angeles.

14. diana Says:
    September 21st, 2009 at 1:41 pm

    on the other hand, Chicago itself is already very dark, the spire will only bring out the light. Not to mention I’m sure that it will have a certain reflective ability (that you cannot see in an edited picture), which means all the darkness of the surrounding buildings will reflect in the white, making it slightly darker and thus letting it fit into the skyline. I
    wish they would finish the building…especially because now there’s just a looming hole in the middle of the city…oh yeah sure, that must be better than building an actual functioning building.

Have you an opinion, used or been to this object or place? Tell us what you like don't like about it, or post any specs/info about it:

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website