Chicago - Sears Tower

[ddny]

Architect: Skidmore, Owings & Merrill

Year: 1973

Style: International

Description: Built for the the Sears Roebuck & Co.

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/DDNY%20%20Y2K/sears/sears1.jpg

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/DDNY%20%20Y2K/sears/sears2.jpg

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/DDNY%20%20Y2K/sears/sears3.jpg

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/DDNY%20%20Y2K/sears/sears4.jpg

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/DDNY%20%20Y2K/sears/sears5.jpg

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/DDNY%20%20Y2K/sears/sears6.jpg

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/DDNY%20%20Y2K/sears/sears7.jpg

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/DDNY%20%20Y2K/sears/sears8.jpg

[Gulcrapek]

I'd absolutely hate to work there. But the building itself is ok. Over time, I've grown to like it.

Black is powerful.

[Stern]

Working there is in fact the only place in the city saved from its beastly view.

[Fabb]

That's what was said about the Eiffel Tower over a century ago. Well, not exacly working but eating... which is more typically French.

The Sears Tower is a pure wonder. The masses might be lured by the apparent simplicity of its form, but its geometry is a masterpiece of asymmetry.

[Kris]

It's a clunky assemblage. There's worse, but Chicago deserves a more graceful and central skyline peak.

The Hancock is a much more powerful black building to me, and that has to do with simplicity and logic of form. The Sears, although taller, was a feeble symbol next to the twin towers and still is.

[Chicagoan]

Let me weigh in on this. Since the destruction of the WTC towers, I look at Sears everytime it comes into view and I have a chance to see it.

When I first came to Chitown, I did not like Sears all that much. To an extent I still do not. Unlike the WTC, is is bear bones simplicity. Except for the window washing machine grooves and the accentuation where the bundled tubes meet, it is essentially flat. ( Is it not ironic the the WTC towers, spec buildings, were more detailed and Sears, built as a corporate headquarters, was not. Considering the respective architects, one can get an explanation why this is.)

But Sears is a powerful element on the skyline. The pictures here do it no justice. Compared to any WTB holder, it is dynamic, depending on which angle it is viewed. At times is seems tall and slick, others, a bit bottom heavy. Because the glass is not very reflective, it does not have the same dynamic in respect to color, but it is nonetheless an extradinary building. It would be nice if they could do something to the area at ground level. It is not fitting of such a tower.

(By the way, I would hold off on the praise for John Hancock. The building observatory and antannae were renovated/replaced, and the graceful symmetry the tower once had is lost. It now has two different antanna and another "catwalk-like/mezzanine/roof-tent thingy" has been added. I mean it is really really [expletive deleted] up!)

[Fabb]

At times is seems tall and slick, others, a bit bottom heavy.

That's right.
The diversity of its aspects is one reason why I like it. But, because it doesn't have one simple, recognizable image, it can't function as an icon.

Never mind, one day, Chicago will have a symmetrical, super-tall building that will capture the attention of the population.

[Kris]

I don't buy the idea that regularity is a condition for iconic status and popularity. Visual coherence, perhaps.

[Eugenius]

In fact, one of the reasons the ESB is so famous is its duality: broad when viewed from 5th Avenue, slender when viewed from New Jersey or Queens.

[dbhstockton]

Does anybody have photos of the adulterations to the Hancock tower that Chicagoan mentioned?

[Chicagoan]

Quote: from dbhstockton on 3:16 pm on Aug. 6, 2003
Does anybody have photos of the adulterations to the Hancock tower that Chicagoan mentioned?

I have a few, but I have to find a server to post them in order to get them to show up here.

But skyscrapers.com has some recent pics that show the added "thingy" up top. It was added neas the west side, off center. None of the skyscrapers.com photos show the extension to the west antannae.

(Edited by Chicagoan at 9:51 pm on Aug. 7, 2003)

[Twista]

Sears Tower never gets old

[BVictor1]

Some construction pictures of the Sears Tower

http://www.searstower.org/topped.jpg (http://www.searstower.org/articles.html)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/buildingbig/wonder/structure/images/searstower1_skyscraper_1.jpg


http://www.columbia.edu/cu/gsapp/BT/BSI/MOMENT_F/sears-2.jpg


As for the Sears Tower be a gians series of boxes, well that might be the case, but what were the World Trade Cener towers? Nothing but big boxes clad in stainless steel. Not to many New Yorkers originally cared for those buildings when they were built, and they weren't giben their due respect until it was too late and they were gone. Then the buildings became a big deal as being the pride of New York. They'd always taken backseat to buildings like the Empire State and Chrysler Buildings. Chicagoans know what the Sears Tower is; a big black monolithic and sometimes overbearing box, but we've always shown it respect.

[homeandaway]

i think the tower itself is very unattractive - who agrees?
~AleX~

[Gregory Tenenbaum]

I like it. From a distance I think that it looks good.

It is what it is. Without Sears Tower, skyscraper architectects would have tried a similar design somewhere else, with less appealling consequences.

I think that at the time they were sick of designing perfectly symmetrical buildings.

[alonzo-ny]

I like perpendicular to facades
I dont like on diagonal, stumpy and fat.

[TREPYE]

i think the tower itself is very unattractive - who agrees?
~AleX~

I resoundingly agree. Lets count our blessings that this was not proposed for NYC. Almost in the same level as the Metlife Tower for egregious disregard of aesthetics. Boxy, bulky, monolithic all black, all glass; the double antenna's are unique but thats all the quality I can extrapolate from this thing. The JHC is a much better tower. The Chi-Spire should adequately off set this monstrocity's gracelessness. This is IMO, of course.

[Gregory Tenenbaum]

I like the MetLife Building too. A lot.

Does every building have to be symmetrical and square or circular?

I think an oval building would be nice.

As it happens, the Sears Tower is much like a cubist painting. Look at it from one angle, and it can look like two or more skyscrapers silhouetted against each other. Look from another angle, and it looks like one building.

Up close to it, well thats another story. None of these big buildings seem to have enough tenants to make them look swish all the time. There are inevitably going to be some empty floors.

[alonzo-ny]

The tower actually is disappointing at its base looking up because the setbacks make it look much shorter than it is. heres a pic i took 2 years ago.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/203/467131491_f90806ba91_b.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/209/467131513_4c8914630e_b.jpg

[OmegaNYC]

I love the Sears Tower. It may look like a giant Lego block gone bad, but there is just something about the building.

[Viktorkrum77]

I have a friend who works there, floor 87, he says he loves the building's windows, but the floor space at the top is rather small and inconvenient.

As far as looks, I prefer the John Hancock Center. But agree with Omega.

I love the Sears Tower. It may look like a giant Lego block gone bad, but there is just something about the building.

BTW yea, I don't like how it feels so much shorter than the WTC's when seen from street level. But that's due to the lack of a very emphasized vertical façade, which the WTC's had plenty of.

[Luca]

i think the tower itself is very unattractive - who agrees?
~AleX~
Yes, it IS ugly. Because it set a record, it's somewhat more forgivable than similarly ugly but less ambitious buildings, but not by much.

I find that massive buildings in dark, opaque grey/brown colors look depressing. The air-con bill for that thing must be eye-watering.

I see the relief of mass through articulation away from a simple parallelepiped, as well as different heights creating a set-back effect. I still think a more symmetric approach would have achieved the same effect with more grace.

Greg asks is every building must be "symmetrical and square or circular?"

The way I see it, beauty in buildings follows very timeless rules, such as attractiveness in people. One era may like a bit more fat or a bit less, but who would want a woman with three breasts or who's ever found a disfigured face more attractive? I think symmetry (among other aspects of classical architecture) addresses something innate in us. After all, panel-attractive human faces are relatively more symmetric (though not perfectly so) than average faces.

Incidentally, elements of symmetry / balacne are present in Sears Tower and you can see that in the cosntruction picture taken from above.

Anybody have a picture of the ground floor / base?

[alonzo-ny]

parallelepiped

?

[Luca]

“A solid figure contained by six parallelograms, of which
every two opposite ones are parallel; a prism whose base is
a parallelogram.”

In other words: a rectangular ‘box’ shape.

:)

[alonzo-ny]

Thats what i thought ;)

[Zephyr]

This building is interesting to me for two reasons:

Aesthetic: Sears Tower is ideally situated for the Chicago skyline - one of the nation's most photogenic. Zoning placed it off the lakefront, and real-estate costs pushed it into the South "Loop," thus allowing it to serve the aestheic function of forming a South "bookend" to its counterpart to the North - John Hancock Building - both framed in black and appearing to be the same height, while framing the centrally located Chicago Harbor that transitions from Lake Michigan to Chicago's "green apron" - Grant Park.

One of several Chicago Habor/Lake Michigan Photos (Sears Tower left and Hancock Building right)
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/44/168865858_66c227de4d_b.jpg

A lesser known Aerial of the Chicago Skyline (Hancock Building left and Sears Tower right)
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/159/432746169_061b8ce474_b.jpg

Structural:The development within the Tubular Structural System of the revolutionary "Bundled Tube" by famed SOM Structural Engineer, Fazlur R. Kahn, specifically applied to the bulk of this building for increased lateral support. This system continues to be studied in Structural Engineering programs in High-Rise history, since it represented a milestone in supertall lateral design by the mid-1970s. Subsequently, another effectively took ascendancy over Tubular, including Bundled Tube - the Core and Outrigger System.


"(He was) ... arguable the greatest Structural Engineer of the 20th century..."
Fazlur R. Kahn with daughter Yasmin
http://www.coe.berkeley.edu/forefront/spring2006/images/khan1.jpg

Kahn's Revolutionary "Bundled Tube" System
first used on Sears Tower
http://www.burj-dubai-tower.org/gfx/bundled_tube_design.jpg

You'll note that aesthetic is applied to the skyline, not to Sears Tower itself - which had many issues. And the structural aspect is more historical than active, but it nevertheless provides a bridge for skyscraper development between the Framed Tube and Core/Outrigger to further manage the problems of height, sway, and dynamic load.
.

[stache]

Construction and remodeling -

Go to - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-XeKrAdSI8 ----------------------- (part 1)
------- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aswJTvUpGFY&mode=related&search= (part2)
------- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg3m78PvFVA&mode=related&search= (part 3)
------- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiqeJg8FBrM&mode=related&search= - (part 4)
------- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cd_Hq1yIeU ----------------------- (part 5)
------- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQ3se1-yOFU&feature=related ------- (part 6)

[Chiboy]

I recall hearing way back in the 70's that there was supposed to be a central tower on the Sears, rising from the middle core. I wonder if anyone will ever dust off those plans and make the Sears the world's tallest once again...

[Cytoskeleton]

I've really warmed up to this building, which only gets more impressive as you see it from around the city (and even from the distant suburbs).

Very '70s - sort of the midnight blue coupe de ville of supertalls. It's big, stark, and macho, and is a good anchor south of the mag mile. It's got a subtle side to it as well - when the light hits the setback on the southeast corner in the morning, the reflection creates the illusion of a gold-colored volume extending up to the next step.