Do you think the Sears Tower should be painted silver? (Chicago: appointed, condo)

[via chicago]

Originally Posted by CarolinaBredChicagoan

It strikes me as nothing more than a rebranding attempt, and rebranding an icon would be an exercise in gilding (or silvering?) the lily.

No, thats exactly what it is, and an asinine one at that.

[Costa Rica Chica]

Originally Posted by CarolinaBredChicagoan

I don't really follow the logic. I mean, they mention energy efficiency, but don't mention how silver would actually do anything to achieve that. While I'd imagine a lighter building is a cooler building, I can't imagine that there aren't better ways to improve its energy efficiency for $50m.

And then there's the environmental impact of paint, paint thinner, paint cans. I mean, it must take a gazillion gallons of paint to paint the Sears Tower.

[UnderTheLiveOaks]

Originally Posted by Costa Rica Chica

And then there's the environmental impact of paint, paint thinner, paint cans. I mean, it must take a gazillion gallons of paint to paint the Sears Tower.

Well, like Lookout Kid said, you wouldn't just paint that building. It would probably involve, essentially, refacing the building. (Right, LK?) Hence the cost.

But yes. Your point is taken.

[hamiltonra25]

That is just absurd. We are in a depression and they want to drop 50 million on some paint. That is what got us into the economic crisis, stupid spending. None of that can be a tax write off and id hang on to every penny that i could, because some companies will question the Sears Tower rent when they can go to a less iconic building and pay less

[grapico]

What??? no way... the sears and hancock to me always seemed like twin black evil towers... along with the other black Lake shore drive apartment building by navy pier those are my favorite 3 modern buildings in Chicago. (love black)

If anything they should put some better restaurants in there instead of that tacky mexican joint.

[long101]

Im sure this is just a publicity thing to get some attention onto it.

[soulful]

On the 6pm Chicago news, I just saw one of IIT's architecture professors interviewed. He was identified as a world expert on tall buildings. He strongly feels the color should be changed to silver as it will ultimately save so much money in energy costs and for the example it will set globally. While the initial outlay is substantial, the longterm savings more than make up for it apparently.

[Drover]

Improved energy costs? Isn't this a two-edged sword? I mean, you'd think the energy absorption factor in the winter would be a offset to the higher cooling costs in the summer. Or is the thing so heat-absorbent that they have to cool it year-round? What am I missing here?

And while there are a handful in Chicago, one thing I really like about classic city skylines like NYC, San Fran, Boston and Chicago is the lack of reflective glass skyscrapers. They just look so 80s-tacky to me, like the architectural equivalent to Don Johnson's Miami Vice wardrobe, and they just about ruin any chance most sun belt cities would otherwise have at showcasing a tasteful skyline.

[Drover]

Oh, and let's not forget, changing it from black to any color risks a boycott and demonstrations from Rainbow-PUSH.

[Costa Rica Chica]

^Man, if people were so upset about Marshall Fields becoming Macy's, I can't imagine the protests this would cause. (And not by civil rights activists.)