I remember being able to go into the tower as well. But that was then, and this is now. Today, it's part of the North Michigan Avenue neighborhood, which is a neighborhood of skyscrapers, big hotels, and big money. I'm pleased that the Water Tower is still there, and I can't shed too many tears for what used to be. Chicago is so much more than it was forty or fifty years ago, and that's a good thing. Some of the old has been preserved. The rest has perished. But I'm thankful for what remains, and I enjoy photographing it in its new environment.
Paul
On Nov 13, 2004, at 2:45 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
Paul Stenquist wrote:
Here's another shot from my Chicago walkaround of a couple of weeks ago. After the Wrigley building, it's probably the most over-photographed structure in Chicago. I tried to get a fresh perspective by juxtaposing it against another structure. My main subject is in shade, the backdrop in full sun. Shot with the *istD and the DA 16-45 at 18mm, f8, ISO 200, 1/250. (Don't you just love metadata?:-) It's here: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2849112
Oooh, that makes me very sad, Paul.
I spent my very early childhood in that neigborhood and at that time you
could still
go into the tower. And there was no skyscraper behind it to ruin the view
from the
outside. The building behind it is hideous, and there is quite a bit of
wonderful
architecture in my home town.
Hard for me to block out my opinion of the subject matter - but that being
said,
I think this doesn't quite work photographically - a bit too busy, unlike
your
recent gorgeous car shot (you know the one I like, the old car profile.)
But I have to scroll on my 'puter to see the whole thing too.
annsan
