Chicagoist: Is Silver The New Black For Sears Tower?

Tower18

Sat, 28 Feb 2009 20:11:35 -0600

I couldn't disagree more with Angel Priest's comments. Look around the country at all the beautiful turn of the century (and older) architecture that was hobbled, castrated by mid-century modern tastes. Cornices were chopped off, decoration was removed, aluminum siding covering everything. Landmarks are just that, landmarks. They should not be continually changed to match what is "in" during a particular 10-year period.

BlueFairlane

Fri, 27 Feb 2009 21:15:19 -0600

Would you say the same for Westminster Abbey? Notre Dame? A Frank Lloyd Wright house? The Wrigley Building or Tribune Tower? Why are things no longer useful simply because they are old and don't follow the current fad? The tower embodies a classic style. It shouldn't be overhauled simply so it will look like all the other buildings. Another concern ... while a silver fascade may make the tower's climate easier to control, what will it do for the buildings around it, especially 311 S. Wacker. Sunlight will always reflect off the south side, and all the energy that doesn't go into the tower will bounce into 311. You'd wind up with a situation like what happened with the Gehry-designed Guggenheim Museum in Los Angeles, multiplied a thousand-fold. They had to buff the thing out to reduce the reflection on neighboring buildings. Personally, if I had an office on the north side of 311, I'd be praying this wouldn't happen.

Angel Priest

Fri, 27 Feb 2009 20:45:15 -0600

This is a very interesting topic, because before this was even a concern, I have always invisioned a new look for the Sears tower. It was this very look that I've invisioned. This is the 21st century and change and new things must come. Onehundred years from now, will the tower still stand as it is now, being left out and overlooked because of the techno looks of newer more futuristic buildings that will capture the eyes of those to come, leaving the Sears tower as simply a boring and out dated structure? The Sears tower is the king building of Chicago, and it's glory must be supreme if it's such an "icon." Therefore it should be either rebuilt into a more beautiful and futuristic look, holding still a resemblance of the old look, or just simply...made over. Either way, it should be changed. Let's not hold on to antiqish things because of it's former admirations; but put on the new in redesigning, that our city receive admiration for imagination.

Brian Raymond Callahan

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 19:27:52 -0600

It seems to me that if there is a need for a makeover of the facade of the Sears Tower then they should take a long term approach to the investment and literally change the facade. If it is a silver color that is desired - why don't they change the facade to a durable metal like aluminum, where the color/paint is permanent rather set themselves up for another painting in 5 years? Brian R. Callahan Chicago, IL

Ingrid

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 18:16:29 -0600

How long would a paint job like this last? Would they have to repaint every few years like you do your house?

hascat

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:39:51 -0600

Yes! We should coat all downtown buildings in silver to create a massive urban hall of mirrors. The terrorists would be so disoriented, they wouldn't have any idea where to strike.

clark9201

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:36:08 -0600

Sorry for the length of this comment -- I first emailed it to Benjy and he felt there was some value in sharing it with the entire Chicagoist readership ... I hope you agree! Original Email/Comment: I find this whole concept very interesting. And since you asked for the opinion of an engineer, I'm going to try to give a little technical insight (though in the interest of full-disclosure, this is not my area of expertise). Firstly, to deal with the sticker-shock of the $50 million price tag for this "paint job." A quick look at Wikipedia indicates the the cost to build the Tower (in 2005 dollars) was $950 million. Assuming this is accurate, this means that the new exterior would represent approximately 5% of the total original construction cost. Not necessarily a steal, but certainly not exorbitant. Also, if a single large company were to move in to the building based on the "increased exposure" or if the Silver LEED certification carries with it tax incentives, $50 million could quickly look like a bargain. Secondly, a couple commentors seem concerned that the new look would result in a troubling amount of light reflection. Certainly the new look would increase light reflection -- that's the whole point -- but think of all the glass boxes around town (Trump's new one being an excellent example), there's very little chance the new exterior of the Sear's Tower would reflect light as efficiently as them, so I think this is not of great concern. Thirdly, to get at your original question of "wouldn't it be cheaper to simply sandblast or polish the exterior instead?" I am inclined to think not. Sandblasting a massive structure like the Sear's Tower would have logistical implications that I can't even begin to fathom (the amount of sand necessary, the fact that all that sand would end up on Adams, Jackson, Wacker and Franklin, etc). It would also expose the surface underneath, which is likely steel (i.e. prone to rust). Polishing it would have similar logistical hurdles to overcome, and would still expose the underlying surface to the elements. In the end, even if these methods were possible, they may be more expensive and necessitate another coating of the surface with a different color paint. Finally, will it work or be beneficial? That is a question that would take significant time and expertise to answer, so I won't even try; other than to say that I'm intrigued and feel that it could be a worthwhile project. I guess time will tell. I hope you've found this response useful!

jimbo

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:51:15 -0600

I think it'd look great. The underlying issue is that none of us have any business telling the owners of the Sears Tower that they can't paint their building a different color.

JAWilson

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:43:31 -0600

I heard that it will cost $50 million to paint that old dog. How much did it cost to build in the first place? And can you just imagine the reflections from that thing? They'll go on forever blinding people, birds and planes. Bad idea.

jmagic

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:25:51 -0600

it'll bring recognition all right ... in that if you look at it on a sunny day, it'll be the last thing you see for several days.

DaleyGrind

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:12:14 -0600

dustindeed - Oh relax. BlueFairlane - I'm with you.

Fish

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 13:57:33 -0600

No. No, no, no, no, no.

Dig

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 13:05:14 -0600

All of us who work here will feel like we are wielding the blinding light of Gandalf the Grey.

dustindeed

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 13:02:41 -0600

assuming you didn't make this comment in gest, people like you who expend all of their energy protesting things like painting the sears tower, marshall fields being sold to macys, one too many concerts at wrigley and any other number meaningless, aesthetic things yet sit on your hands while we get run roughshod over by daley and posse are the exact reason chicago will always be a cesspool of corruption.

JD84

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 12:45:14 -0600

painting it silver would definitely deter the terrorists!

BlueFairlane

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 12:35:00 -0600

I won't protest government corruption. I won't protest school shootings or gun violence. I won't protest foreign wars or government torture, but I will tell you this. So help me God, if they paint the Sears Tower silver I will stand at the tower's base with the biggest homemade poster in the world flapping in the downdrafts.