Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Silver Sears Tower

The Sun-Times reported that the owners of the Sears Tower are thinking about recovering it with reflective stainless steal in this mornings paper. The article made it seem like this was a fairly sure bet. but the Chicago Triune wrote up an article online calling the Sun-Times out.

"The Sun-Times story puts the bill for the silver makeover at $50 million and (deep down in the story) quotes an anonymous source familiar with the tower as saying: 'Right now there's not enough money in the universe for that.'"

The idea behind the new Sears Tower skin is to save money and be more green. The Tribune doesn't seem to think so. They even go as far as to link back to the original Sun-Times article in, what I think looks like, an attempt to show the Sun-Times Spotty reporting.

The article is a bit misleading. It does sound like the owners are considering the change, but I don't think that means the Tribune should so blatantly call the Sun-Times out. Or maybe it does. As I write this I'm beginning to wain. Misleading articles and half-truths should be outed so people think twice about doing it themselves. Shotty journalism does hurt everyone. I don't know. Discuss.

Here are the two articles in question:
Sun-Times
Tribune

1 comment:

Dustin said...

yeah, i saw that article. although I think it'd be wicked cool if Sears was repainted silver, I thought it seemed a bit ambitious in these tough economic times. I don't know much about construction costs, but I do know that generally everything costs more and takes longer than anyone ever predicted. And the whole energy saving aspect of it sounds intriguing, though I'd like to actually see the math behind it. For example, if it saves on cooling by reflecting light in the summer, then would it increase the cost of heating due to reflecting light in the winter? I sure don't know..but I'd like to know.