Why did Chicago’s architecture become so terrible?

Those glass dildo buildings are cheaper, faster and easier to construct. Owners love them because they offer fantastic views. A few are well done. For nearly a century Chicago had the most commanding skyline and the most beautiful architecture. Then f*cking Trump ruined it with his monstrous tower on the river.

A good question. It’s not like real estate prices in Chicago have ever been hot, so why the need to build tall, ugly buildings like NYC?

I get your point but I'd take the clean lines of a glass box over these awful stacked box nightmares that are starting to go up. In ten years they'll look Soviet in their ugliness. Those and the awful pencil buildings.

Glass-coated skyscrapers are designed for tenants, not people looking at the buildings. It’s a dark age for architecture.

Become?

The Wrigley Building is an abomination.

I'm not sure I'd call it a dark age for architecture. For architecture the old DL slogan seems to apply. Everything is so much worse than last year, when it really might be personal perception that's unable to cope with the New. Cannot tell about ancient architecture, but people complain about their modern architecture for at least 150 years. People complained about Bauhaus, Mid-century modern and many more styles. And then, two generations later people find the style so interesting (if not even good looking) to deem these styles preservable forever.

And then also: Civilization always had unattractive architecture that wasn't meant to be for eternity. There is a need for modest, quickly-built, affordable housing everywhere. Considering that, the skyscraper in OP's picture could be a lot worse.

I'm not defending that building. At best, it's uninspiring. But I've seen worse. My goal is rather to preserve really nice old structures that are out there. It hurts me when they get neglected and taken down for something poorly designed.

Chicago's skyline is still more visually appealing than NYC's in my opinion.

I prefer the vintage look of Chicago's skyline and also prefer that older version of New York's too.

There's something off-putting to me when too many new towers get in the way of the aesthetics of the old. Fortunately, there is plenty of video and photographic material around to show us those older skyline views.

But neither city comes anywhere near to approaching the singular ugliness of various examples of London's new ugly monstrosities!

Major new buildings in Chicago were often the products of rather public competitions -- few so wide open as the 1922 Chicago Tribune Tower competition, but with a public aspect to the selection process among firms invited to submit proposals. The tradition and significance of Chicago's architectural history played into the process and architects vying for an important commission acknowledged that history and positioned their own submissions in that continuum, whether carrying on existing design threads or bucking trends in a designed portrayed as a foil to precedents. Either way, there was a sense of privilege at the prospect of contributing to the Chicago skyline.

I think much of that tradition of a nod (and sometimes a wink) to historic tradition has fallen aside significantly. Now competitions, if they exist, are infrequently public, architects tend to come with the development package, and the reverence to the city's architectural heritage mostly gone. Public dialogue is less s factor, making it easier to get away with buildings that don't even try.

That's a generalization, of course, but it's my perception as an outsider of the now un-newsworthiness of major new buildings where such projects were once heralded and distinguished architects competed for them.

Agree, R8. London has become an exercise in dick swinging. Less is more. The latest (and stupidest) was rejected a few years back. Hopefully balance will prevail.

[quote] the reverence to the city's architectural heritage mostly gone.

I noticed that, too. I think that's a major drawback. Buildings are usually very generic. There are some older styles that you could allocate to a certain region or even city. Think Craftsman or Spanish style etc. Modern halo-architecture is not region specific anymore. They could be in any city of the world, Chicago, Frankfurt or Singapore.

[quote] Public dialogue is less a factor

Was that ever a factor? I feel like public dialogue usually diminishes to NIMBYs voicing their loud opinions without any discussion being constructive. Or you have a city council that wants to be mindful with its guidance and its decried as being micromanaging (or called worse). And I am not sure that was ever different.

[quote] But neither city comes anywhere near to approaching the singular ugliness of various examples of London's new ugly monstrosities!

That huge ugly glass gherkin they built in London was the beginning of the end for me. It is so out of place.

I agree... the Gherkin in London was a warning sign of what was to come!

R11: Sorry, I wasn't very clear about "public dialogue" - I didn't mean in helping to shape the design but rather there having previously been a higher level of public interest in the progress of a building from idea to design to completion. It was more newsworthy than a couple paragraphs in the business section, more a matter of civic pride or interest at least.

[quote] Literally every new skyscraper looks like this.

You keep using that word... I think it does not mean what you think it means.

That Tulip Tower and The Gherkin in London would look right at home in Shanghai Pudong.

^^^ "It was just ghastly!"

I like the skylines combined with geography of Hong Kong and the more modest but very pretty Vancouver and San Francisco.