apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

nooooooooooooooo

leave it alone!

No. Just No.

I can see it from my apartment. Keep it black.

No. No. No.

Upgrade, I guess, but it's not really that amazing looking.

Painting the Sears Tower means that the terrorists have won. The Trump Tower blinded me the other day while I was driving!

It's a landmark. Be respectful and leave it alone.

keep it as is! a white building? that'll look terrible in a few years. not to mention how much of a waste of money that would be.

I've seen pictures of the Standard Oil (Amoco Bldg or Aon Center to you newcomers) redone in bright red-orange aluminum, which was proposed when they reclad it about 12-15 years ago. It was really cool, much nicer than the white marble (which wiped out the entire deposit - a mountain, in Italy and has ended up at the bottom in a college lake-lagoon south of Chicago).

Go for it. I can see it from work. Progress.

I think the Trump Tower looks amazing.

Why bother? What will it accomplish?

Sounds expensive and unnecessary!

adding to the pile of nooooooooooooooooooos!

Would they actually paint it silver, or would they clad it in some type of silvery material? Paint would seem to require a ridiculous amount of maintenance.

I don't mind the idea of changing the color. It should just be done in a practical way.

I think they need to worry about getting tenants in that building before they worry about what it looks like on the outside. Why would you mess with the original?

ONE NEW TENANT SINCE 911 - go figure....

Why bother? What will it accomplish?
I blogged about this on Chicagoist earlier today... they think it'll cut energy costs by reducing the cost of cooling it, and that the new image will help boost occupancy that's down due to older infrastructure, terrorism fears and downsizing by tenants.

They should not change the color.
Oddly, the entire concept reminds me of something the crowd used to yell during the scenes in The Rocky Horror Picture Show where Dr. Frankenfurter beds Brad and Janet in their separate rooms: "SAME ROOM, DIFFERENT COLOR."

Not the time or the place.

If it really does lower energy costs to a significant degree, go for it. If we're talking about doing this for aesthetic reasons - total waste. Building color preference is so subjective depending on the decade - silver is just trendy right now. In 20 years, people will miss the original black.

totally agree with ChristopherB on this - it will be missed if they change it.

On the other hand I have always wondered why it was black. It seems a bit dour.

The tapering structure of the Hancock building would lend itself to such a remodeling, but I don't think the Sears Tower can swing it. The massive, blocky nature of the architecture simply doesn't work with a shiny facade.

That said, I rather like the idea of breathing new life into established buildings. While the Aon tower (I remember the marble, Standard Oil days too) has a timeless quality, the Skidmore, Owings and Merrill architecture of the 70's is starting to feel a bit dated. Especially when it's standing beside the Trump tower and (potentially) the Chicago spire.

Silver is an improvement but I say if you are going to go through all that trouble, choose a GLITTERY PINK color instead. Make it an ULTRA GLAM Sears Tower.

I think the energy savings will be great, and a step in at least one right direction. Plus, doing it will create jobs, right? For people to actually do the work. Yes. Also, I think it will be pretty. Things change. Maybe in twenty years they'll paint it black again. They paint the Golden Gate Bridge every year (although they do that the same color), so I hear.

NO

Thumbs down! It's an icon and looks great in black.

Personally, I'm sort of torn. It's such an icon, but on the other hand it might freshen the skyline and the eco benefits can't be minimized. But will it really look that different with so much glass? Or will will hey change the tint/add film to them, too? I do have a concern with the glare, though, since I've had times where Trump has been blinding when driving on the Kennedy.

There's a great quote about Architecture that's relevant here......
"It is again evident that every Great Building leads a double life. It is a valuable commodity (Art) that occupies the physical space of another (Real Estate)-
true of no other category of art."

Michael Lewis, NYTimes.

So yes - it is an ICON.
And, YES the Sears Tower (or whoever owns it these days..) is a beautiful, Functional Structure-
as relevant to Chicago today, as it was when built in 1973!


So why create some mess - with a finish that will need to be maintained and repainted forever? just because some "Brain Trust" in New York City (what do "they" know anyway - its still a HUGE HOLE where the World Trade Towers were - and that was 8 years ago!!!) decided they need to "spiff-up" their poorly performing ...asset/investment

They should do like they do with the Eiffel tower and change the night lighting every such years.

They should improve their internal security; the guards saw people making off (as in just walking out with) pcs and monitors and did NOTHING to stop them (let alone stopping them from getting upstairs in the first place).

although this idea is interesting, I have mixed feelings... and right now is not the right economic time to do this project

YES YES YES.

My boyfriend works at AS GG, so I've known about this for a while.

I think the Sears Tower definitely needs some revamping and the re cladding will be better for the environment and a nice face lift. I can't wait until it's all finished. It'll make me even prouder to be a Chicagoan.

Considering that the majority of the exterior is glass, and will therefore not be altered by the color change, I find it hard to believe this will have a major impact on the heating and cooling costs. Plus when you look at the negative environmental impact of either extracting some sort of metal to clad it in, or of painting it every few years, this project looks more likely to be a negative as environmental impact is concerned.

The tower is fine as it is.

And as far as this creating jobs... there are plenty of things that would actually benefit this country which need doing. Once those are done then we can consider creating useless jobs like painting skyscrapers.

Yikes. That'll look quite hideous.

I vote for cumulus camouflage to make it disappear.

If they make it silver, nobody will be able to see it from 10 miles away, say Oak Park. Part of its appeal is that it can be seen from far, far away, and it creates a distinct outline on the horizon. Besides, if the Spire is ever built, the Sears Tower will no longer look unique - from a distance, they will be close in color. The Spire will dominate with its size, and the Sears Tower will look like, well, just another building.

HIDEOUS!

I don't get all the people saying that it's not the time due to the economic problems... this would be a renovation of a privately owned structure by its owners. It's not like the public is being asked to pay for this. If the company that owns and manages the building thinks the project would raise occupancy and cut energy costs by more than the expected project cost, then the investment is worthwhile from a business standpoint. And it would create construction jobs at a time of dwindling construction employment...

ew ew ew ew ew. no thank you. i love the chicago skyline the way it is.

Even if they painted the structure silver, the windows would remain... so from a distance one would "see" these perpendicular "floating" retangles... awkward!!!

The obvious reason is because the Tower is definitely lacking in tenants. No one wants to be there. They are loosing money. They have even tried to get a restaurant at the top floor alike the Hancock. Thing is, I don't really care about how the sears tower looks, because honestly, it does not even look that good. If this was the Hancock, then yes, I'd be standing in a picket line.

As for the comment on the Trump building...are you serious? It looks like an ugly monster that even Adrian Smith isn't proud of.

Lighting comment on the tower: They change the lighting colors shooting at the antennas practically everyday.

Window comment: I'm sure they would film over the windows to match the new redo look.

No. The glare of reflecting sun into adjacent buildings would be obnoxious. Just ask the people who had the Frank Gehry Disney Concert Hall dulled to keep office workers from being blinded.

They had to dull the United Terminal too; it blinded pilots. No wonder Helmut loses clients like FLW did.

This looks like more than a paint job to me. It's hard to tell from a tiny render, but if it actually ends up being THAT silver, I'm going to suggest that the glazing is being replaced, mainly because that would have a far greater aesthetic affect than just painting the mullions. So if the proposed glazing is more efficient than the existing glazing, go for it. A largely glazed building like the Sears Tower could benefit massively from the latest in thermally efficient glazing.

The glare factor however should definitely be considered, but there are plenty of lighter glazing options that don't reflect, especially when compared to older bronze glazing that currently clads the Sears Tower.

YES! The Hancock Tower (the one in Boston, not Chicago) is a mirrored blue and it looks amazing. During the day it blends into the sky and doesnt loom like a prop from a Star Trek landscape.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/204/519794571_ed126c6e7b.jpg?v=1180442002

Not to mention the energy benefits: Black absorbs heat/sun and requires cooling. Silver will reflect the energy and cut costs in the long run.

And - for all those people out there who don't seem to get exactly what is proposed: They will be replacing or filming the glass. Not painting around the windows.