Chicagoan quirks

Yes, that's right, that word exists.  It means belonging to Chicago.  It has been 10 days since I flew into The Windy City for a 2.5 week working visit at the mothership office of SOM.  Before I forget, "windy" has nothing to do with the weather condition (otherwise why would the Chicagoans have invented the skyscraper?); in reality, there are stronger political currents than actual wind gusts, but no need to go into it here, but it had to be said!

Back to my trip.  It came about after 2 weeks of continued travel: first Malta for "election weekend", then Poland for a conference, followed by a day trip to Madrid for a workshop and finally Chicago!  It is not my first time, for I came for a few days back in December, but this was going to be a longer stay!

Besides all the logistics (bringing sufficient clothing, lodging in a Marriot Residence Inn and such), there are some things I am noticing in this wonderful city which are different from London, or any other city for that matter.  There is no specific order or logic to these; they are just thoughts that come to mind as I write.

First things first: the Chicagoans.  They are really nice people.  Warm, friendly and way more talkative than, say, Londoners.  People actually speak on trains and on the street.  For instance, I was walking down Adams Street to the office when a bloke stopped me, "Excuse me, sir, your bag is open."  It indeed was (albeit by 5cm, or shall I say 2"!) but it was a nice gesture, right?

What I still struggle with in the US is the concept of tax.  You read off a price on the shelf or on the menu and then you are charged tax.  You never really know how much the final cost of an item is!  I give up now and do not have any money ready but wait until I actually am told what to pay.

The language: I still find it strange that such a big country as the US never bothered to get a language of its own; they speak English.  Well, American English.  And it is very different!  Lift is elevator.  Ground floor is first floor.  Roof is said "ruf" and most people say "no problem" instead of "you're welcome" after a "thank you".  However in most cases there are no difficulties there, so cannot complain.

Food is generally more pricey than in the UK, at least for me as a visitor here.  $15 for a Pret a Manger lunch is a bit too much for my taste.  Talking about taste: I think food is way too salty for my taste and expats from Europe in the office have confirmed this.  I am not a fan of salt in food, so it is probably twice as noticeable for me!

One thing was rather confusing for me.  I found out on my first day here that the underground (or, subway in American-speak) is organised by colour.  So you have the red line, brown, blue, pink and so on.  Then I started to hear and read about the "L" line.  Strange, I thought, for I did not see any letters.  I checked on the map.  Only colours.  Curiouser and curiouser.  Then, whilst visiting an exhibition at the Chicago Architecture Centre, I learned that "L" stands for "El" i.e. "Elevated", after the raised train lines that run through Downtown.  How was I supposed to make that connection on my own, I do not know!

The city itself is beautiful: of course, there are all the classic SOM buildings and other tall buildings, about which I have been reading since the early noughties.  Going atop the John Hancock Tower (I was up the Sears - sorry, Willis - Tower in December) was a great experience.  But besides the skyscrapers: the river, the lake, the parks, the clean streets and pavements (or sidewalks - I missed that one earlier).  And the beautiful summer weather is much more appealing; the last time I was here, it was 27 degrees Fahrenheit and now it is 27 degrees Celcius! Maybe not today, though; it is rather foggy and drizzly but this was a perfect excuse to visit the Chicago Art Institute (the equivalent of the Met in NYC or the National Gallery combined with Tate Modern in London).

Another week to go and then I fly back to London but one thing is sure: I will definitely visit this wonderful city once more!  Maybe not alone next time round...

Roma Eterna

I do tend to have a fairly good memory of my childhood, even early parts of it; this includes the time in August 1990 when my parents took me to a trip to Italy from grand Rome to the Tuscan beauty that is Florence and the one-of-a-kind Venice, with some other stops in between.  It may well have been the trip which sealed my fate in the architectural profession.  In my naïvety, I believed that, thanks to that trip of almost a full 3 decades ago, I "knew" Rome and indeed I had vivid visions of it, not least getting lost in the Vatican, in a remake of sorts, of Luke Chapter 2, albeit just for a good number of hours rather than 3 days.  We decided some weeks ago to revisit Rome (Marianna had been thrice to the city and, although more recent than me, her last trip was in 2001).  

Let me get straight to the point: I did not know Rome and now that I went and came back, I daresay it is the most beautiful city in the world.  It is really and truly the eternal city; to partially quote Venerable Bede (a quote which, incidentally, I remember from the 1990 guidebook my father had, and still has, of the city): when Rome falls, the world shall fall.

I now believe that Rome is the most beautiful city in the world.  It breathes history, culture, beauty.  If the Italian phrase ciao bella was coined for a purpose, it was to describe the Italian capital.  Every corner is a photo opportunity, every street is adorned with palazzi, every corner and angle is Baroque, par excellence.  

It was magical to walk, quite literally, in the shadow of Bernini, Borromini, Michelangelo and see their works in the flesh as it were, after 3 good years of architectural history of many years ago and having seen and read only sketches and drawings and essays in Bannister and Pevsner and Vasari describing the masterpieces that made and defined the beauty of the Renaissance, Mannerism and Baroque.  

Every visitor to Rome must have a crash course in architecture prior to landing.  How can you visit the churches, basilicas, piazze and ruins of Imperial Rome without knowing what the architectural orders are, how a dome works, what a pendentive is, why those at the Vatican are trapezoidal in form and not the usual pointed triangular ones?
  
I always found fascination in how a race as sophisticated, intelligent and refined as the Romans, who dined and drank well, built impeccable structures lasting 2000 years and counting, could then be as savage and barbaric as what they were: feeding men to lions for entertainment, nailing supposed criminals to trees and murdering inhabitants of whichever land they deemed to belong to them.  I now extend fascination at how contradictory it was for them to establish new cities in new lands on strict linear grids - with a decumanus maximus and cardo maximus to define it - but then their own capital laid out in a rather haphazard way?  How ironic is it that all their settlements were centered on a river, but the Tiber is now only a sidelined attraction?  Having said that, the ample fountains make up for this apparent loss of water in the urban fabric.

These last few days, I ticked off an endless list of masterpieces that I have longed to visit for a good 20 years since the first classes of history.  Not just the Sistine and the Gesù and the Bramantes but lesser knowns like hidden Berninis, the Accademia di San Luca, San Carlino alle Quattro Fontane and the Sant'Ivo and even 1 or 2 Melchiore Gafas.

Which brings me to Malta: it crossed my mind whilst walking around the cobbled and wobbly deserted streets leading from Hadrian's Temple to the Pantheon after a rainy day that Rome is the only place as beautiful or more beautiful than Valletta, where every building, simply, is architecture and not construction.  But then I had another epiphany when strolling past Castel Sant'Angelo of Laparelli who himself masterminded Valletta: it is the latter that emulates Rome.  The best Italian artists formed and defined Valletta from the original war machine that Laparelli built to the Baroque stage that Buonamici, Carapecchia and others transformed to what it largely remains today.  The original Roman grid, lacking in Rome, is perfected in Valletta and the latter has the added bonus that all its streets lead to the sea.  And Valletta has no outskirts.  No Greater Rome, as it were, where graffiti and utilitarian buildings dominate the streeyscape.  Valletta has a clear start and end, inside and outside.  Beautiful and not, with apologies to Il-Furjana, of course.  Perhaps it is truly the case that Rome is a reflection of Valletta's perfection in this sense?

The food?  Many pizze romane later (and carciofi alla giudia and trippe and coda alla vaccinara and spaghetti cacio e pepe and so on...did I mention carbonara?), I can safely state that during our 4 day visit, we were very well fed.

Back to the future now. 
 
Since 1990, I have re-visited Venice 4 times and have not changed my view that it is the most unique city in the world.  

I have now been to Rome again and, well, you get the point.  

Florence, anyone?