--photo: Carol M. Highsmith
« 41. Hearst Residence (Hearst Castle) (1947) - San Simeon, Calif., Julia Morgan, AIA | Main | 43. Crane Library (1882) - Quincy, MA; Henry Hobson Richardson, FAIA »
--photo: Carol M. Highsmith
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blog.aia.org/mt-tb.cgi/127
This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on February 5, 2007 8:34 PM.
The previous post in this blog was 41. Hearst Residence (Hearst Castle) (1947) - San Simeon, Calif., Julia Morgan, AIA.
The next post in this blog is 43. Crane Library (1882) - Quincy, MA; Henry Hobson Richardson, FAIA.
Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.
Comments (15)
This should be # 1.. The fact that this isnt even in the top ten means that this list is a joke.
Posted by sean | February 8, 2007 12:55 AM
Posted on February 8, 2007 00:55
This building is so unattractive, i don't think it belongs in the top 150. The Searas Tower is a giant blemish on the Chicago skyline. The Hancock building is a much better tower, and it belongs right about here on the list.
Posted by paul | February 9, 2007 6:36 PM
Posted on February 9, 2007 18:36
I agree with Sean. This list is a tribute to NYC and DC, nothing more. Chicago's architecture is among the best, if not THE BEST in the US or in the world. Sears Tower, Hancock Bldg, Wrigley Field..not to mention the Frank Lloyd Wright properties in the Chicagoland area. It's this constant dismisal of Chicago. This list IS a joke!
Posted by Rich | February 10, 2007 3:03 PM
Posted on February 10, 2007 15:03
i also agree this should have been in the top ten it's a great building
Posted by jackie | February 10, 2007 4:06 PM
Posted on February 10, 2007 16:06
I can't believe that The Sears Tower is so low on the list! Even if you think that it's ugly (which it is not), it is an innovation in architecture!
Posted by Meg | February 10, 2007 5:18 PM
Posted on February 10, 2007 17:18
The Sears Tower, number 42 out of 150! OMG!!! So if I built the tallest building by 500' today where would that land me, number 84 out of 150???
Posted by Richard | February 10, 2007 6:13 PM
Posted on February 10, 2007 18:13
This is my favorite building--perhaps maybe because I am a Chicago native. Nonetheless, it is a gorgeous black beauty, dominating the skyline and a reminder to everyone who sees it that Chicago is a modern, classy city.
Posted by Lisa | February 10, 2007 6:16 PM
Posted on February 10, 2007 18:16
Well I say it is amazingly tall .
Posted by user | February 10, 2007 6:43 PM
Posted on February 10, 2007 18:43
The height alone makes it unique and deserving of a top 5 rating. Old is not synonomous with best. Your list has a certain bias in it.
Posted by mike | February 10, 2007 7:04 PM
Posted on February 10, 2007 19:04
Ths Sears Tower may not be one of the most attractive buildings, but as the tallest in the USA it should have at least made the top ten. In Chicago, it is a favorite for the people who now reside in Chciage, abthough most are transplants, and not native Chicagoeans anymore. FYU, although the building appears black, it is mostly bronze colored, as the glass wall construction is mostly of bronze colored glass, The aluminum skin is black. Chicago is famous around the world for it's diffeerent styles of arictecture, and this site seens very bias towards NYC and DC. Most of the interesting building in NYC are designed by a Chicago company including the new Freedom Tower.
Posted by webguy | February 10, 2007 8:11 PM
Posted on February 10, 2007 20:11
If Americans truly felt this building were one of the top buildings in America, then I suspect it would have been in the top ten. You can't say the sample size was too small, as well over a thousand people were polled. So I can't quite imagine with whom you are upset.
As it is I think it is ranked too high. Height and beauty are not cause and effect, and I think too few people realize that. This is one ugly brute.
Posted by paul | February 10, 2007 9:04 PM
Posted on February 10, 2007 21:04
Remember that this is a poll of all Americans, not a survey of architecture enthusiasts. I too am shocked at how badly Chicago got treated in this poll, but it's probably more of a reflection of the vast number of tourists who visit NYC and Washington.
Posted by Frobozz | February 13, 2007 5:18 AM
Posted on February 13, 2007 05:18
It is an atrocity that the Sears Tower and other Chicago structures are ranked as low as they are. Chicago is one of the most architecturally unique cities in the world, let alone the United States, and was disparaged in this poll. I'm guessing the surveyors called upon 1800 people representative of the population dispersement of the country, meaning, that they likely called on more East Coast people than in any other region combined, which is why there is a bias. To gain an effective poll, they should only allow a select list of structures, and a sampling of people that know and have seen those structures, spread out evenly throughout the United States, regardless of population distribution.
Posted by Chad | March 15, 2007 12:02 PM
Posted on March 15, 2007 12:02
Yes it is ranked too low IMO.
Where was this poll conducted? I am guessing by the results it was no where near Chicago.
Posted by Chris | March 15, 2007 12:17 PM
Posted on March 15, 2007 12:17
I don't know why people are using this piece of ... as the emblem with which to argue that Chicago architecture was disrespected. It is a terrible building. If you want to complain about Chicago being underepresented complain about the low rankings/absences of the Rookery, Hancock Tower, Monadnock, Auditorium Building, Unity Temple etc., not this monstrosity.
Posted by d. | March 17, 2007 1:33 AM
Posted on March 17, 2007 01:33