[samoen313]

Man. That tool-shed roofing and (as Busy Bee said) plexi-like windows sure make this thing look cheap. Woof.

[george]

5-14-09

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/7342/ely6.jpg

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/8772/ely5.jpg

[BorisMolotov]

That last pic of the courtyard does look like it will be a pretty cool urban place, looking up at layers of highrises...

[Steely Dan]

any more posts about chicago and new york will be deleted from this thread.

now back to our regularly scheduled topic.

[Brian.]

Love it or hate it, I gotta say I am impressed with the execution of the precast here. From the pictures it is difficult to tell where the panel joints are. Even though I’ve been looking at this building for many months I still find the detail and craftsmanship to be excellent.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ I have to agree with you. As much as a philosophically despise this design, the pre-cast has been executed well, granted I still don't like the material used in this way. My only complaint on the execution of the precast is the corners where there is just a vertical line on some corners where they didn't interlock the pieces at all. Maybe that was a technical issue, maybe it was cost saving, but I don't like the way it looks.

My main complaint about the building now continues to lie in the heinous choice of white window frames and black balconies/lower window frames...

[Brian.]

Some where back in the pages we did talk about those corners and how higher up on the building they have "returned" the corners to avoid that joint. Seems like it should have been more improtant to apply that detail at street level rather then a couple hundred feet in the air. At any rate it I'm sure that was all about money in the end.

Those white windows couldn't have been a cost issue compaired to the black. That choice is questionable to say the least.

[VivaLFuego]

Love it or hate it, I gotta say I am impressed with the execution of the precast here. From the pictures it is difficult to tell where the panel joints are. Even though I’ve been looking at this building for many months I still find the detail and craftsmanship to be excellent.

It does appear to be an impressive job, but I can't help but think that at these price points, the architect/developer might as well have moved the slider a little closer to "revivalist" and a little farther from "post-modern reinterpretation" and actually added some stylistically-relevant ornament to some of the precast, e.g. the cornices - as it is now, while the workmanship/craftsmanship of the precast may indeed be top-notch (I'll defer to you on that one!) it's just so jarringly stark, visually. I suppose it just gets back to the overall architectural critique of this one being lost in an unpleasant nether-region between being a true revivalist (even the same architect's recent 65 E. Goethe, while suffering some similar issues, did a little better on this front) and being post-modern, which while often used as a slur on these forums can actually produce some very attractive and iconic buildings (e.g. the nearby 900 N. Michigan).

[wrab]

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/wjcordier/ely6jpg.jpg



The devil is in the details, right? I'm gonna start calling this one the Pottery Barn building.

[the urban politician]

^ For those of you who hate this building, I advise you to take a good look at Grand Plaza's massive parking podium.

I'll take this "pottery barn" auto court over that any day of the week.

[Busy Bee]

It does appear to be an impressive job, but I can't help but think that at these price points, the architect/developer might as well have moved the slider a little closer to "revivalist" and a little farther from "post-modern reinterpretation" and actually added some stylistically-relevant ornament to some of the precast, e.g. the cornices - as it is now, while the workmanship/craftsmanship of the precast may indeed be top-notch (I'll defer to you on that one!) it's just so jarringly stark, visually. I suppose it just gets back to the overall architectural critique of this one being lost in an unpleasant nether-region between being a true revivalist (even the same architect's recent 65 E. Goethe, while suffering some similar issues, did a little better on this front) and being post-modern, which while often used as a slur on these forums can actually produce some very attractive and iconic buildings (e.g. the nearby 900 N. Michigan).

Couldn;t agree more. If your going to do it, do it all the way. It's an underwhelming gray area as it it stands.

[wrab]

^ For those of you who hate this building, I advise you to take a good look at Grand Plaza's massive parking podium.

I'll take this "pottery barn" auto court over that any day of the week.

Right - but that isn't the "choice" at play here. There is a continuum. And Chicago has some pretty impressive yardsticks to measure/compare.

[jc5680]

5.20
http://www.j-carlson.com/ancilary/elysian520.jpg

[Chicago Shawn]

From the Hancock Observatory 05-04-09

http://community.emporis.com/nwimages/6/2009/05/704867.jpg

http://community.emporis.com/nwimages/6/2009/05/704869.jpg

10 East Delaware
http://community.emporis.com/nwimages/6/2009/05/704870.jpg

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

I suppose it just gets back to the overall architectural critique of this one being lost in an unpleasant nether-region between being a true revivalist (even the same architect's recent 65 E. Goethe, while suffering some similar issues, did a little better on this front) and being post-modern, which while often used as a slur on these forums can actually produce some very attractive and iconic buildings (e.g. the nearby 900 N. Michigan).

This is a good point. There are buildings that try to "trick" you and ones that simply attempt to reinterpret historical references using a modern vocabulary. All of Lagrange's faux French nonsense falls into the first category, while the latter includes buildings like R.R. Donnelley, 190 S. LaSalle, AT&T in New York, PPG Place, etc.

Here's the way I see it:

Phillip Johnson : abstraction :: Lucien Lagrange : caricature

It's like Lagrange tries to trick you, but doesn't have the discipline to pull it off-- an exaggerated French accent rather than a true francophone.

[Fabb]

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/942/dscn8312b.jpg

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/7900/dscn8294.jpg

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/3412/dscn8223k.jpg

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/1278/dscn8241.jpg

http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/1746/dscn8248.jpg

http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/1536/dscn8251.jpg

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/466/dscn8309.jpg

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/5275/dscn8270.jpg

[dropdeaded209]

perhaps the best thing about the elysian is that looking from west to east is it disappears into 900 N. Michigan.

[george]

5-28-09

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/1719/ely1e.jpg

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/8772/ely5.jpg

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/6925/ely4.jpg

http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/6448/ely2.jpg

[VivaLFuego]

I'm still irked that this is only like, 50 dwelling units. I mean it's still a step up from the 7-11 with parking lot, but...

[ungerdog]

George, that 2nd picture you posted seems to show a nice sized balcony. Does anyone know if that is a hotel room or residential unit attached to that balcony?

[10023]

George, that 2nd picture you posted seems to show a nice sized balcony. Does anyone know if that is a hotel room or residential unit attached to that balcony?

I don't see why Chicago doesn't have more of these. In New York you rarely see "balconies", which are largely a waste of space (I lived in a building in Chicago with one, and aside from a place to step out for a cigarette, it didn't serve much purpose). What you do you have is a lot of large (100's of square feet or more) terraces, which only a limited number of units in a building have but which provide some really nice outdoor space where there are setbacks or penthouses.

[truedaniel]

It's just very tough to building a building in this part of town due to the mega giants on North Michigan Ave. I mean the Elysian simply looks like a little dweed among jocks!

[the urban politician]

It's just very tough to building a building in this part of town due to the mega giants on North Michigan Ave. I mean the Elysian simply looks like a little dweed among jocks!

^ The only real jock in that part of town is the Hancock. Lets not kid ourselves..

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Thanks for the update, George, especially considering the, uh, delicate nature of the subject.

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/1719/ely1e.jpg

What are these? Grills? Faux balconies?

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/6925/ely4.jpg

This glass awning looks ridiculous.

[jchase79]

[QUOTE= This glass awning looks ridiculous.[/QUOTE]


I thought that also... I'm not quite as critical of this building as some on here are... but the glass awning looks out of place on this style of building... it belongs on more of a modern/ glassy highrise imo

[Nowhereman1280]

I don't see why Chicago doesn't have more of these. In New York you rarely see "balconies", which are largely a waste of space (I lived in a building in Chicago with one, and aside from a place to step out for a cigarette, it didn't serve much purpose). What you do you have is a lot of large (100's of square feet or more) terraces, which only a limited number of units in a building have but which provide some really nice outdoor space where there are setbacks or penthouses.

Its got a lot to do with Zoning laws. New York had a ton of strict setback laws back in its highrise heyday (I know we just saw a boom, but I'm talking about the 1900-1930 years when New York added most of its medium highrise stock). All the buildings then were required to draw a line from the highest point to the lot lines across the street, anything outside of those lines was off limits for construction. Therefore the most logical way to design a building was to make lots of setbacks. That's where all the terraces in NY come from, I believe similar setback laws may still be in effect to some extent in NY. Chicago had a very mild version of these laws (above a certain height (whatever the height of all those buildings along the michigan ave streetwall is) they had to reduce the floor plates to 1/4 the original size) which was eliminated shortly after WWII leading to our habit of building boxes with balconies cut out of them or stuck to the side of them instead.

[spyguy]

I'm still irked that this is only like, 50 dwelling units. I mean it's still a step up from the 7-11 with parking lot, but...

+ ~150 condo-hotel units. Better than 50 E Chestnut, which only has one unit per floor.

This glass awning looks ridiculous.

Yeah, it's not great but should've been expected (see Park Tower entrance). I think even 15 CPW's motor court has a glass awning, though probably tasteful.

[BVictor1]

Thanks for the update, George, especially considering the, uh, delicate nature of the subject.



What are these? Grills? Faux balconies?



This glass awning looks ridiculous.

He placed a glass awning above the entrance of Park Tower also.

[jc5680]

5.30

http://www.j-carlson.com/ancilary/elysian530.jpg

[vandelay]

Those grills/fake balconies are juliet balconies. You often see that type of balcony in some of the more high-profile pre-war apartments in New York. I think it's a nice touch, and not a bad amenity. It does help balance out the full balconies going up the side. I even see the glass canopy as something of a nod to pre-war buildings, which often had elaborate paneled glass canopies.

I agree with the comment about the full balconies, to my eye, they don't suit this building. Setbacks and terraces would look more appropriate even if they were born more out of necessity than aesthetics or functionality. With such a building the devil is in the details and the hybridization of pre-war and post-war makes that very hard.

Or it could be that I'm using the Pierre Hotel as a reference point for the Elysian and 820 Fifth Avenue for 10 E. Delaware. It could be that Chicago is a different town with different demands and expectations.

I think Lagrange did a great job adapting the pre-war look in NYC:
http://www.lucienlagrange.com/images/uploads/dbox_WEA_Hero_exteriorWIDE_.jpg

[the urban politician]

^ That's a LaGrange? I saw that u/c just last week

[avngingandbright]

I've never seen criticism as harsh as this.

God forbid someone builds something that attempts to work in an American historicizing vernacular, instead of building a soulless, insipid, globalist, International style glass box.

[Nowhereman1280]

God forbid someone builds something that attempts to work in an American historicizing vernacular, instead of building a soulless, insipid, globalist, International style glass box.

Hahaha, that's the funny part, its not American at all or supposed to be American in any capacity. LaGrange himself markets this as some sort of adaptation of "classic European design" to the modern highrise... Its supposed to look like a 6 floor Parisian apartment building in the second empire style stretched to 60 floors. That building style is not even remotely American unlike high modernism (which, in addition to the Chicago School, is what Chicago is known for) which had its glory days as the American Corporate style of choice.

This building is far more soulless than a tastefully detailed, proportioned, and well constructed Mies building. The problem with this building is that it is sterile, ill-proportioned (better than Park Tower though), and a cartoonish knock off of the style it tries (and fails) to imitate.

[BVictor1]

I've never seen criticism as harsh as this.

God forbid someone builds something that attempts to work in an American historicizing vernacular, instead of building a soulless, insipid, globalist, International style glass box.

Trying and succeeding though are at 2 different ends of the spectrum. As posted, this isn't American. Modenrinism was basically born in America, here in this city.

People wouldn't be complaining if certain things were a bit more true to form, like real stone, more convincing juliet balconies. LaGranges obsession with faux french tends to be a hinderence to himself and our skyline.

It's an okay building, but nothing special for the amount of money people are paying.

[BVictor1]

I've never seen criticism as harsh as this.

God forbid someone builds something that attempts to work in an American historicizing vernacular, instead of building a soulless, insipid, globalist, International style glass box.

Soulless?! You have a great deal to learn about architecture.

God is in the details my friend.

[Jaroslaw]

Modernism was a European intellectual and design movement, in architecture and elsewhere. One of its practical manifestations was the American glass box skyscraper...

The o.p.'s emphasis was on America's historicizing force, it seems to me, not on the American design of this building per se.

The near-hysterical suspicion with which many here view this building seems totally unwarranted.

[Taft]

It's an okay building, but nothing special for the amount of money people are paying.

Looking at pricing in the real estate market, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that people frequently pay for everything _except_ architectural greatness. It just seems really low on the priority list for the average buyer, even at the luxury end of the market.

Maybe it is because people more often enjoy views _from_ their home rather than views _of_ their home...dunno.

[vandelay]

The mods should discourage this sort of modernism vs. traditionalism debate or move it to a proper forum.

America aspires to be a free and open country that should not be subservient to any orthodoxy whether modern or historical. To me buildings should be judged on two criteria: is it beautiful and does it function well.

A lot of people happen to be of the opinion that traditional buildings are more pleasant to live in, including some extremely high profile modern architects (ahem Norman Foster). That people belittle new buildings for trying to appeal to more traditional styles strikes me as a form of snobbery and closed-mindedness. Feel free to critique the details, but take the building as it is and not project moral or intellectual values onto it.

http://www.nyc-architecture.com/GON/GON024-A01.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/47/Sherry_Netherland_Hotel_jeh.JPG/250px-Sherry_Netherland_Hotel_jeh.JPG

These pictures might help people understand the compulsion towards traditionalism.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Modernism was a European intellectual and design movement, in architecture and elsewhere. One of its practical manifestations was the American glass box skyscraper...

The o.p.'s emphasis was on America's historicizing force, it seems to me, not on the American design of this building per se.

The near-hysterical suspicion with which many here view this building seems totally unwarranted.

Oh God, Jaroslaw, you're as predictable as you are bad with facts. Chicago's tradition of Modernism predated its European successor by three decades.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "near-hysterical suspicion" unless it's just an overblown off-point attempt to discredit the Elysian's critics. Much of the criticism has been carefully laid out multiple times; those of us who regularly follow this thread are very familiar with those arguments.

To the newer contributors, they mostly focus on the building's materials, proportions and details. Certainly, there's a philosophical argument, but, were those three elements up to snuff, I'm pretty sure there would be a lot less complaining.

These pictures might help people understand the compulsion towards traditionalism.

How? Most of the people who post on the Chicago forums are ardent about preservation. Only one that I can think of would advocate supplanting historically significant structures with Modern ones.

The affinity for Modernism arises from a belief that architecture should reflect its time rather than (crudely) ape an era long past. Anyway, you're right: It's not a discussion to be had here and I do hope Steely Dan or someone scrubs this thread clean of all its traces.

[viewguysf]

...they mostly focus on the building's materials, proportions and details. Certainly, there's a philosophical argument, but, were those three elements up to snuff, I'm pretty sure there would be a lot less complaining.
Yes, that is the heart of it. As an outsider who has not yet seen this project in person, I've refrained from commenting in this thread. With that having been said, every time I saw a pic showing those cheesy, spindly black light fixtures mounted around the building it made my skin crawl. They look so incredibly cheap in comparison to beautiful heavy ones that I've seen on other Post Modern structures. We all can focus on little things I guess, but the often discussed white window frames and the "tool shed roof" are really bad too. To me it's an ugly adaptation of a mansard roof, something accomplished much better on the nearby Park Tower. Whether of not one is a fan of Post Modernism, this is a poor example of it.

The affinity for Modernism arises from a belief that architecture should reflect its time rather than (crudely) ape an era long past. Anyway, you're right: It's not a discussion to be had here and I do hope Steely Dan or someone scrubs this thread clean of all its traces.

The discussion has been a good one and is probably coming to an end on its own. I don't feel that it has always been inappropriate in this thread though; in a way, it has clarified this project.

[wrab]

.....Whether of not one is a fan of Post Modernism, this is a poor example of it.....

That, I think, is the gist of the criticism. The temptation is to frame the debate as a referendum between historicist PoMo versus Modernism, or as between traditional & modern towers. And this might be a fine debate to have were the Elysian a worthy example of either PoMo or historicist vernacular architecture. But it isn't, IMHO. It sure as heck isn't the Sherry-Netherland.

Many of us - myself, certainly - can't quite get beyond the fact that the precast has been handled so mawkishly, etc., ad nauseum. As though there weren't enough bad precast in River North already.

[viewguysf]

As a total aside from the previous dialog, I don't see this building on the Emporis list of Chicago highrises. Are you being cheated by the competition?

[headcase]

Chicago's tradition of Modernism predated its European successor by three decades.


This is way off topic, but I would love to see your rational for this statement. The first exhibition, of what was to be know as the "International Style", in the United States was in 1932 was of works of European architects. The Europeans started the Modernist movement in the early 20th century while architects in Chicago were experimenting with the 1st Chicago school and Art Deco.

It's true that the Miesian boxes most people associate with Modernism were perfected in Chicago in the 50s and 60s, those ideas had been around for a while, the technology just was not at a point were it would be implemented in an affordable manner.

SSDD

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

while architects in Chicago were experimenting with the 1st Chicago school

You answered your own question, though the experimenting began well before the start of the 20th Century.

[Nowhereman1280]

http://patsabin.com/illinois/reliance.jpg
pastabin.com


The above building basically fulfills all of Le Corbusier's five points of Modernism (except #1 since it would have been stupid to raise such a building off the street and waste all of that retail space). The Chicago School was very much modern architecture it just wasn't International Style Modernism or High Modernism. Sullivan is to Mies as Monet is to Picasso. Monet was impressionist while Picasso was (primarily) a Cubist, but both those styles are considered Modern Art. Sullivan was Chicago School and Mies was International Style, but they are both modern architecture.

[VivaLFuego]

Looking at pricing in the real estate market, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that people frequently pay for everything _except_ architectural greatness.

I'm not sure that's true. Aqua had incredibly brisk sales at fairly high price points. 600 N. Fairbanks sold quickly as well. It's certainly only a partial subset amongst the upper-middle and upper-bracket buyer pools, but there are a substantial number of people who do care about design.

[denizen467]

This glass awning looks ridiculous.

And I'm sure everyone is gonna love the new entry to the motor court. It is flanked by two decorative (non-supporting) columns/balusters that have exaggerated-sized acorn-looking capitals/crowns (I'm sure there is a classical word for the design feature, but I'm not going to dignify them). Sorry I went by quickly and don't have a photo, but anyone going by with a camera this weekend will surely notice it.

[Zerton]

http://patsabin.com/illinois/reliance.jpg
pastabin.com


The above building basically fulfills all of Le Corbusier's five points of Modernism (except #1 since it would have been stupid to raise such a building off the street and waste all of that retail space). The Chicago School was very much modern architecture it just wasn't International Style Modernism or High Modernism. Sullivan is to Mies as Monet is to Picasso. Monet was impressionist while Picasso was (primarily) a Cubist, but both those styles are considered Modern Art. Sullivan was Chicago School and Mies was International Style, but they are both modern architecture.

you beat me too it.

[SolarWind]

June 4, 2009

http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/1225/dsc0268x.jpg

[a chicago bearcat]

I've never seen criticism as harsh as this.

God forbid someone builds something that attempts to work in an American historicizing vernacular, instead of building a soulless, insipid, globalist, International style glass box.

you can't have full glass sliding doors without a french door detailing on a building that is attempting to use pre war detailing

"limestone" with white window frames is another fail

and just because we're against clumsy historicism doesn't mean we're for poorly detailed uninspired generic glass boxes that rely on just as bad of a stylistic brand to sell "class" to vain condo buyers

my .02

[Dr. Taco]

"limestone" with white window frames is another fail

biggest fail of the building, imo. but at least it can be rather easily painted black, hopefully

[viewguysf]

biggest fail of the building, imo. but at least it can be rather easily painted black, hopefully

It wouldn't be easy and it won't happen because it would be a maintenance nightmare.

[denizen467]

biggest fail of the building, imo. but at least it can be rather easily painted black, hopefully
I wonder if it was something that Elysian/Pisor (sp?) wanted, and that LaGrange opposed but could not persuade his client otherwise.

More generally, it would be interesting to know of any notorious examples around the city of design "FAIL"s that were really an insistent client's idea despite the best efforts of the architect to urge otherwise. Probably architects keep quiet about struggles like that, but maybe over time some stories become widely known. After all, a designer needs to protect his/her reputation from glaring blunders.

[wrab]

^ Water Tower Place comes to mind - the project team really wanted to go with a black anodized finish, but the developer insisted on the white marble.

[vandelay]

I'm pretty sure the white window frames were a cost-cutting measure by the developer. Two color window frames (white on the inside, black on the outside) are significantly more expensive than single color window frames. If they just installed black window frames and wanted to paint them white on the inside, that would also be a costly amount of labor.

Another pitfall of adapting old-style buildings to modern construction is that upfront costs are higher, but the building's meant to last. The contrast of modern cost-cutting and supposed historic durability is a particularly odious one. They could have really done themselves some favors with a few good materials though.

But at least they tried. If people want it that's fine, and I'm not going to look down on them because they can't afford "authenticity" or were born and live in the wrong place for the kind they want.

[Mojava]

I wonder if it was something that Elysian/Pisor (sp?) wanted, and that LaGrange opposed but could not persuade his client otherwise.

I believe the white window frames are also on the Elysian's neighbor 10 E. Delaware which is also designed by LaGrange but different owner. That building just doesn't look good at all.

[the urban politician]

Ever heard of "beggars can't be choosers"? River North is on aesthetic life-support right now. All this complaining yet none of you guys recognize that River North's architectural standards are so damn low that this building is actually a boon to the neighborhood because it doesn't present 8 levels of blank concrete or opaque windows to the street.

Seriously, you guys act surprised. Thanks to an army of horrible developers, River North has become so damn ugly that instead of nit-picking window frame colors you should really just be happy that this building didn't absolutely brutalize the urban environment around it like the other 90% of towers built in River North for the past decade.

[wrab]

I don't buy into this whole "It's not as bad as Grand Plaza, therefore it's good" argument. You've got Sofitel and The Clare right around the corner.

[the urban politician]

^ And?....

I can only give you my opinion, but walking around I can tell you first hand that a good deal of what has happened to River North in the past decade can only be considered barely an improvement over parking lots.

I think much of what has gone up is so damn ugly that anything that is not horrifically ugly is considered an improvement--hence Elysian is an improvement.

I do still think there is hope, but if the next boom presents the same kind of god-awful garbage that we got this time, River North will be in permanent aesthetic hell.

[VivaLFuego]

I think much of what has gone up is so damn ugly that anything that is not horrifically ugly is considered an improvement--hence Elysian is an improvement.


Well yes, it's an improvement over the one-story 7-11 with parking in front that it replaced. And yes, you're right about the overall schlockification of the Near North Side. Just to make you cry a bit, here's what the east side of Rush, now occupied by 50 E Chestnut, The Bristol, and 900NM's parking garage used to look like:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2434/3576440818_d91a9fdac4_o.jpg

But part of the issue with this building is that it wouldn't have been that hard or expensive to make it suck less stylistically. It's really more an indictment of Lagrange than anyone else. This could have been more post-modern and less odious for a comparable budget. For me, it's more a complaint of bad taste rather than blaming the big bad developer for cheaping out, or something. I know developments have to occur within the bounds of economics, as dictated by construction costs, consumer tastes, and so on. But all of the above would still allow for a much more thoughtfully attractive development of otherwise comparable proportions, density, and so forth.

[wrab]

.....I think much of what has gone up is so damn ugly that anything that is not horrifically ugly is considered an improvement--hence Elysian is an improvement.....

There is a Wall Of Beige from the last two booms centered around Chicago Ave. Pretty awful & embarrassing for a city that prides itself on its built environment. The Loewenberg & Lagrange firms were responsible for the bulk of it. And now Lagrange's Elysian extends The Wall into friendlier design territory. Not an improvement, an encroachment.

[wrab]

.....For me, it's more a complaint of bad taste rather than blaming the big bad developer for cheaping out, or something.....

To quote the late Herbert Muschamp, "piss elegant."

[the urban politician]

^ I'll go ahead and profess that it's the podiums that are far more visually offensive to me than the beige. Since there is another thread devoted to parking podiums, I'll stop there.

Regarding your pic of "the old days of River North", Viva, that's a nice & fun picture to look at, but I'm not sure I would consider that any better architecturally.

Until I can be convinced that River North has turned the corner and that we will see quality development filling up its remaining vacant lots, I'll have to go ahead and be happy that Elysian was built instead of another Grand Plaza or Walton on the Park

[wrab]

^ Fair enough.

[george]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2434/3576440818_d91a9fdac4_o.jpg


Love this shot, nice find VivaLFuego. To travel back to this strip for one night would be an adventure.

[UrbanSchmurban]

I should start by saying how much I enjoy and have learned from the critiques in this forum (both sides).

Today I came across this photo from 1989 posted on Flickr by emb111. Not nearly as romantic as the above image. It certainly makes me feel less uneasy about the new construction.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2451/3605581499_a620fa611c_o.jpg

[denizen467]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2434/3576440818_d91a9fdac4_o.jpg
So that's what old-timers mean when they say "Chicago? Love that Rush Street!" It never made that much sense to me until now...

[Busy Bee]

I love how there's a sign in front of the 711 saying 'Sign of the times.'

[ethereal_reality]

Rush street was considered a tourist destination in the 1960s and 70s.
I remember my parents driving me through the area when I was a little boy (to see the Chicago bohemians).
It all seemed very exotic/erotic.

http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/7650/chgo0609rush1963.jpg

[Jibba]

I love how there's a sign in front of the 711 saying 'Sign of the times.'

Ha, that is most excellent. In an unfortunately ironic kind of way. So not really excellent, per se; just entertaining to realize an inherent stupidity and contradiction that 80% of tasteless Elysian buyers don't realize. Or something.

------------------------------------

So, I really didn't want to admit this to myself yet, but is anyone else suspicious that the roofing on the low-rise/motor court portion is going on the top as well? I've seen pictures of that material applied to the roof, but is that really it? Nothing going on top of that? I really hope something else is going to be installed because, well, it's really pathetic looking.

[jcchii]

I remember my parents getting a sitter for me and hearing they were going out to "Rush Street" in about 1976

[VivaLFuego]

Basically the entire stretch from Chicago to Division was nightclubs, strip clubs, restaurants, porn shops, etc. Some of the last few vestiges of the old strip were only recently demolished, like the 4-story red brick building where the one-story crapbox Lulemon is going across the street from Elysian, and the buildings taken down at the north end of that block to build the new Barney's. The Elysian site would be in the background here (looking south from the other end of the block as the top photo in the postcard above):

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2480/3575724077_98557fbe17_o.jpg

I guess neighbors considered it all a blight, and bit by bit the vice district was more or less eliminated through regulation and/or development, or otherwise truncated to the high-end/high-price stuff that remains between Oak and Elm.

While I agree with tup that in certain regards the changes have been positive, I do wish I had been of a mind to take in my surroundings a bit more carefully the few times I was in the area before it was irrevocably changed from the late 80s through today, rather than having to rely only on photographs

[george]

OT here, but in the not to distant past this old dive made way for the current CVS.


http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/2241/hotsietot.jpg

photo from Google Image Search

[denizen467]

^ Is that State & Division? Once gentrification from the Elysian area hits Division and heads west, I wonder what streets will grow into the next quasi-vice district.

[the urban politician]

I should start by saying how much I enjoy and have learned from the critiques in this forum (both sides).

Today I came across this photo from 1989 posted on Flickr by emb111.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2451/3605581499_a620fa611c_o.jpg

^ All in all, I think what we are getting is a huge improvement:

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/8772/ely5.jpg

[LucasS6]

I spent a lot of time at that 7-11 back in the day. The little mini pizzas you warm up in the microwave were my lunch for literally every other day of my entire 7th-8th grade experience.

I never knew Rush was like that, though it makes sense. There was a creepy adult bookstore/porn arcade place on the north side of Walton, between State and Rush when I was going to school at Ogden that always tempted us kids, but also had us wondering how they could get away with a porn shop right there and, more importantly, why they'd want to put it there anyway. Now I know.

[ethereal_reality]

This is a very famous album recorded on Rush Street at Mister Kelly's.

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/3075/chgo0609rushmrkelleys.jpg
Rush Street in Chicago

[trvlr70]

Basically the entire stretch from Chicago to Division was nightclubs, strip clubs, restaurants, porn shops, etc. Some of the last few vestiges of the old strip were only recently demolished, like the 4-story red brick building where the one-story crapbox Lulemon is going across the street from Elysian, and the buildings taken down at the north end of that block to build the new Barney's. The Elysian site would be in the background here (looking south from the other end of the block as the top photo in the postcard above):

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2480/3575724077_98557fbe17_o.jpg

I guess neighbors considered it all a blight, and bit by bit the vice district was more or less eliminated through regulation and/or development, or otherwise truncated to the high-end/high-price stuff that remains between Oak and Elm.

While I agree with tup that in certain regards the changes have been positive, I do wish I had been of a mind to take in my surroundings a bit more carefully the few times I was in the area before it was irrevocably changed from the late 80s through today, rather than having to rely only on photographsFACES! OMG...I remember hearing about that place. Faces was Chicago's version of Studio 54.

[VivaLFuego]

OT here, but in the not to distant past this old dive made way for the current CVS.


http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/2241/hotsietot.jpg

photo google

How sad is it that I long for that active Caribou Coffee instead of the street-killing Sprint Wireless store on the corner now?

[viewguysf]

FACES! OMG...I remember hearing about that place. Faces was Chicago's version of Studio 54.

I moved to San Francisco at the end of 1975 and was away from Chicago for years. I remember coming back for a visit in the mid-90's and being blown away by what had happened to Rush Street. I visit Chicago fairly frequently now and still miss what the street had to offer in the height of its wild and crazy days. [OT, but I felt the same way about what came to be known as River North. A neighborhood with so much personality was demolished into oblivion and much good architecture was lost.]

[the urban politician]

^ All due respect for you old timers (and I mean that), is this really going to turn into a "nostalgia for the gritty old River North" thread?

There is nothing wrong with a neighborhood's "manhattanization", insofar as I am concerned, which is exactly what has been going on in River North for decades. What's more concerning is the poor quality of many these developments.

Elysian is a breath of fresh air, all things considered. EnV, Contemporaine, Trump, Hotel Palomar, Sofitel Hotel (and perhaps some others I forgot) are some recent additions that I would like to see more of in the neighborhood, as they actually grace the neighborhood without insulting it.

[lawfin]

^ All due respect for you old timers (and I mean that), is this really going to turn into a "nostalgia for the gritty old River North" thread?

There is nothing wrong with a neighborhood's "manhattanization", insofar as I am concerned, which is exactly what has been going on in River North for decades. What's more concerning is the poor quality of many these developments.

Elysian is a breath of fresh air, all things considered. EnV, Contemporaine, Trump, Hotel Palomar, Sofitel Hotel (and perhaps some others I forgot) are some recent additions that I would like to see more of in the neighborhood, as they actually grace the neighborhood without insulting it.
I think the issue is less the "Manhattanization"...at least as it understood as being a prevalence of tall building.....but more of the "conformitization" of the street level experience.......chain shops, blank concrete podia....do not make a enthralling experience at the street level.

The height is impressive in the area....indeed the River North / Streetorville area / Gold COast area are in many ways more impressively tall that just about any where outside of NYC and the Loop itself

[viewguysf]

What's more concerning is the poor quality of many these developments.

That was exactly my initial sentiment when I saw the neighborhood after many years. Some of what replaced the old was not good; even more troubling was how many parking lots and empty lots there were. What was the point of tearing down some of the great old brick buildings for that?

Don't get me wrong, I love Trump Tower and many of the new structures. To me though, the fun street life and feeling of vibrancy and livability along the back streets was also gone.

[trvlr70]

^ All due respect for you old timers (and I mean that), .

I was born in the 70s. Does that make me an old timer?

[VivaLFuego]

is this really going to turn into a "nostalgia for the gritty old River North" thread?


Yes, gritty old Caribou Coffee :D

[BorisMolotov]

What was the point of tearing down some of the great old brick buildings for that?

Well when I'm walking down the street, brick buildings with shuttered doors and broken windows doesn't make me feel very safe. I would rather have (cringe) a concrete wall and chain retail than urban decay, which is just creepy.

[wrab]

^ Well, ya know, older buildings can be cleaned up.

[george]

Beaver's on Rush St. Before my time, but probably was not too far from the now, Elysian.

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/3249/beaversonrushst.jpg

photo from Google Image Search linked to www.freddietieken.com

[Tom In Chicago]

I'm debating starting a thread in City Issues and moving all these posts. . . unless someone else does it first. . .

[i_am_hydrogen]

^Yes, this is getting waaay off topic.

George - Do you have any citation info for the photos you're posting other than Google? As Mark said in the forum-wide announcement (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/announcement.php?f=87&a=313): "Merely citing Google, Flickr, Wikipedia or some other host or search engine is *not* sufficient for your photo post to qualify. If you don't have the required information about a photograph, then don't post it."

If you cannot provide a website and/or photographer, I'm afraid your posts will have to be deleted.

[photoLith]

I like getting off topic like this, makes the threads much more entertaining and I learn more about the city when it goes like this.

[george]

^Hydrogen, understood. Above photo corrected. I'm tracking down the Hotsie Totsie image, to be corrected. I'm fascinated by this old Rush St. discussion. Maybe a new thread is in order. Good job keeping order.^

[the urban politician]

^ There's already an 'Old Chicago' thread in existence--perhaps that would be more suitable?

[george]

^Yes, that would work.^

[i_am_hydrogen]

I like getting off topic like this, makes the threads much more entertaining and I learn more about the city when it goes like this.

Don't get me wrong, I'm enjoying the pictures and commentary. I've always been extremely fascinated by the old River North. I just don't think this thread is the proper place for that discussion.

[wrab]

6/12

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3587/3619879301_8331baa9da_b.jpg

[the urban politician]

^ Finally, at least some sort of ornamentation.

Thanks for the shot, wrabbit

[wrab]

^ You're welcome. More on the way.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3538/3620801626_40bd7190cc_b.jpg

[Jibba]

I can't get over how cheap this tower looks; it's almost like a set piece for a movie. It belongs in Hinsdale.

[Abner]

So what's going in at the base of this? Will it be one or two huge retail spaces? The problem I have with a lot of these buildings is that it absolutely kills retail variety at the street level when there's one retail space where there used to be eight (although I know in this case that would have been way in the past).