[Alliance]

^^^ That was the first reason I mentioned. ;)

[the urban politician]

The Elysian is a total piece of excrement not because it is applying a style to a place where it 'shouldn't be' but because it is a skimpy cop out replication of that style. The materials are bad,

^ What is so bad about the materials?

the proportions are bad,

^ Everybody keeps saying that, but without elaborating. Maybe its proportions are bad because, oh I don't know, it's almost 700 feet tall and it's in a style that existed long before 700 foot buildings were built?

Is that what makes the proportions so "bad"?


the details are bad (the thing has friggin balconies)...nothing matches up with the style it is supposed to follow.

^ Well, people do like balconies, do they not? So are we in a make-believe world or are we actually trying to sell units here? Is the style that this building follows so rigid that it cannot accommodate newer forms that serve the needs of a newer generation? If not, who says so?


If it were done in the right materials, with the right massing and the right details, it could be a beautiful building (architecturally regressive, but beautiful nonetheless).

^ Okay, so you basically disagreed with Alliance's reasoning, only to end up saying pretty much the same thing he did.

I don't get you people with your "classic style X isn't 'supposed' to have such and such feature because style X was not meant to be expressed in such a manner" argument because it's silly.

One guy I knew used to criticize classicly designed houses that had neat little adornments over a garage door, saying "that garage door is a medium that style X wasn't designed for, it's a cop-out and an insult...yada yada"......Yeah, okay--I guess not having CARS in the late 19th century has nothing to do with why we don't associate garage doors with such a style

[Tom Servo]

Mind you every building (save Sullivan's Transportation Building) at the Columbian Exposition was revivalist, but nobody flipped shit because it was done right.

first, WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT???? that's not even CLOSE to the truth!!! :koko: who told you that?

second, the exposition was a COMPLETE and UTTER architectural FAILURE. and it made a lot of people and architects HATE burnham.

[xraymikek]

Hello all.

Sorry to interrupt the discussion on style, but I have a quick question for anyone who is familiar with skyscraper construction and the specifics of this building.

Long story short, I have a purchase agreement from Nov 2005 for a unit in the building. The contract says that I can walk away if construction is not finished in 3 years from the date it was signed. I would like to walk away. I just got notice that they just finished floor 28, the halfway point.

QUESTION: What are the chances that they finish construction by the end of the year and start closing on units? 100%? 80%? 50%?

Any insight would be helpful as I need to decide on a course of action regarding the purchase agreement.

[VivaLFuego]

It's conceivable they could begin closings on only the lowest floors by the end of the year. The building will probably be topped out by year's end, but interior finishes will take some time thereafter. I'd put money on the top half not closing until mid 2009.

[Tom Servo]

The Elysian is a total piece of excrement not because it is applying a style to a place where it 'shouldn't be' but because it is a skimpy cop out replication of that style. The materials are bad, the proportions are bad, the details are bad (the thing has friggin balconies)...nothing matches up with the style it is supposed to follow. If it were done in the right materials, with the right massing and the right details, it could be a beautiful building (architecturally regressive, but beautiful nonetheless).


the elysian could be clad in italian marble and gold and it'd still be a piece of trash. it could be a historically accurate to ugly french architecture and it's still be a piece of trash. the only thing that could ever make this building look nice is if it were stripped of its design entirely and redesigned in the spirt of modern architecture in chicago today.

it's not a question of the materials or the proportions or the street interaction or anything like that... the problem here and so often with architecture lately is the fact that it's a form of delineative architecture! architectural design should reflect what is happening right now, and should be relevant only to right here. this isn't greece, france, england, italy, or wherever. it should derive NOTHING, especially not from fucking europe; we shouldn't adopt there ugly 'styles'. god, it seems like everyone on this forum is either crazy or missing the point... :koko: jesus

[Tom Servo]

...

[CenIL_LA]

I am getting tired of the bashing. Chicago may be a modern mecca but it has never been even 10 percent done in only one style historically. There isnt even a historical precident to show that this should actually exist in Chicago. There is nothing beyond a unrealistic dream ignoring economics or desires of what the buying public actually want. One cant even ignore that boxes arent necessarily now, but generally harder to design "outside the box" because it is a static unchanging form. Since its hard to change a box, if they are your eye candy, its even harder to say it is done horribly. Boxes were the thing 40 years ago but just like pomo, they still hold a good place in current design for a reason.

There is no reason why there cant be a mixture of styles, things always change and should change. Elysian may not be historically accurate but in the history of early skyscrapers, when were they ever? Architecture can be whatever it wants to be, it just depends on personal preference, not definable terms. We arent an autocracy, architecture reflects people, and no two people are even alike. So even if someone hates this building, it is their right to do so, but forumers dont need to feel ignorant for thier opinions when they are far from it. They are just people, to which many, are trained in architecture and design related fields. Thier opinions dont come from a rube living in a rusted ford truck. If one doesnt like the styles here I would imagine he or she would be hard pressed to find enough in any other city globally that could significantly meet thier desires. Earth is not heaven, its reality. Wouldnt we all love it if the average Chicagoan could afford the best architecture? I think we all do, and Chicago is no different from any other global city. It is only a front runner in certain styles because of a select small group of individuals that studied them here by chance, often not a guided principal of an overall community. We are gifted in that respect but every city has an environment built for all social levels and economic needs.

Globally Chicago is far from replicating the old world. Other cities such as Buenos Aires and even Mexico City copied these designs to a T and in many ways have trouble distinguishing themselves from thier old world counterparts. Chicago is recognizable as unique and is no danger of going down the lemming pathway. Elysian isnt trying to be Paris, its only taking an idea. Everyone knows its different from the original styles. I guess if this is an issue we have many years of completely horrible architecture going back several hundred years all over our country. Even modernism is reflected in Europe though. Bauhaus started in Europe before it ever started another revolution here. Art Nouveau helped inspire much of our early Prairie Style architecture as well. The end result is nothing is ever truly that unique in the culture of mankind, something always precedes and inspires ideas to another stage. We are also all the same world, in the same place, trying to change for the future. We base our future on our past so similarities are hardly coincidence.

[honte]

(as do the many mansions in Gold Coast, Lincoln Park etc that have been clad in the same stone-like material)

You keep mentioning these... I'd love to see photos or get addresses, in another thread, of course.

[pip]

Now, I agree with you that the Elysian is entirely ugly and innapropriate, but your reasoning is wrong.

The Elysian is a total piece of excrement not because it is applying a style to a place where it 'shouldn't be' but because it is a skimpy cop out replication of that style. The materials are bad, the proportions are bad, the details are bad e thing has friggin balconies)othing matches up with the style it is supposed to follow. If it were done in the right materials, with the right massing and the right details, it could be a beautiful building (architecturally regressive, but beautiful nonetheless).

This is the Ansonia, in New York. It is a spectacular high rise done up like a French Chateau that suceeds brilliantly because the architects paid attention to detail and the developers paid pretty penny.




Mind you every building (save Sullivan's Transportation Building) at the Columbian Exposition was revivalist, but nobody flipped shit because it was done right. It's ironic that architectural styles seen today as being unique to a time period and taboo to replicate were actually replicas themselves. If you're going to building something revivalist, DO IT RIGHT. Because if you don't, you get 60 storey towers of precast concrete with little carved in lines to give the impression of limestone the developers didn't want to spend money on.

The horror, the building has balconies. Hmmmm..... if I were buying a condo I know I would want a balcony and guess what so do most people. Condo development is not a charity it is market driven. You gotta build what the public wants.

The Ansonia in NY the developers paid a pretty penny. And there in lies the problem. Not everyone has millions for a condo.

Your people are so into you your stuff its like you think everyone has millions for a condo. As you post from not these buildings but much cheaper places. If you don't like these buildings go pay for some highrise without balconies, clad in super expensive materials and inverterted at 55 degree angles yourself. Then try to sell them and see people run to pay. Just build more expensive, people will be lined up for miles. Maybe one or two buildings can be like that but do you honestly think that hundreds of highrises, 150+ in downtown since 2000, can be ultra expensive? They gotta sell and part of selling is making them WHAT people want and part of that is making them so the market can afford them.

[Jibba]

Aesthetics and economics are not inextricably linked. They certainly do have influence over each other in the grand scheme of development, but just because balconies help sell a building does not mean that aesthetic judgments about them are somehow irrelevant or unwarranted.

However, as far as balconies go, the ones on the Elysian aren't that bad, and they at least take into consideration the form of the building. Their design will at least look like a logical extension or continuation (depending on how one chooses to perceive them) of the building's shape. The same can't be said for the Park Tower, which is still a design I enjoy anyway in spite of all of its faux representations of classical architectural elements.

[pip]

Aesthetics and economics are not inextricably linked

So I've got to hear. Explain to me how you can build a 60 story building on the cheap but be built with the best materials and design. Also explain to me how you can sell super expensive condos in a building that does not have what the public wants. Not everyone has tons of money for what you want let alone buy what they don't want.

[Atomic Glee]

the problem here and so often with architecture lately is the fact that it's a form of delineative architecture! architectural design should reflect what is happening right now, and should be relevant only to right here.


That statement absolutely terrifies me. I would not want to live in a world where architecture was forced to relate "only to right here." Sorry, but I don't want to wipe hundreds or thousands of years of styles and history off the table just because they're not "right here." History should not be verboten. Anything should be up for use and reinterpretation.

These are the buildings people have to interact with daily as passersby, and live within as condo owners. They shouldn't be forced to live in acute-angled glass & titanium dodecahedrons or glass boxes with wavy balconies just because you think architecture is a form of high art and should never reflect human history. Architecture is something else entirely - thinking of it as some sort of art that must never look back to the dead, useless past and always forge new oddly-shaped paths to the future just seems like a waste.

So a developer wants to build a 70-story French Second Empire-inspired condo tower. So what? Why not? Gothic cathedral designers weren't applying their trade to 57-story office towers, but I'm damn sure glad that the Woolworth Building exists in New York.

(I'd also like to point out that a lot of the much-vaunted ahistorical modernism espoused by people on this forum is, itself, not much more than a pastiche of early modernist forms in many cases.)

[Jibba]

^I decided to take this discussion into the "State of Chicago Architecture" thread in order to not flood this thread any further with my probably too-lengthy dialogue. I think it could be interesting to see where it goes outside of the confines of being off topic.

[honte]

Aesthetics and economics are not inextricably linked

So I've got to hear. Explain to me how you can build a 60 story building on the cheap but be built with the best materials and design. Also explain to me how you can sell super expensive condos in a building that does not have what the public wants. Not everyone has tons of money for what you want let alone buy what they don't want.
The point here is that, if you don't have the money to achieve the look you want, don't attempt it! Those are hallmarks of class and taste.

There are plenty of wonderful things that can be done on a budget. But if LaGrange wants to do La Grande France Romantique then it had better be done right. Part of what is so trashy about his design is the fact that these people - led on by their architect - are buying into this false mentality of grandeur that simply does not exist.

As I have pointed out before, go look at the lobby of the "Pinnacle" as an example of LaGrange's fantasy worlds. Nothing could be more pathetic. This one is supposed to be Gothic, by some stretch of the imagination. From the exterior, check out the fake library that no one ever enters, and look at the "Great old texts" they have on the shelves. These literally are sappy romance novels that someone bought from a thrift store, collecting dust. They are expecting that no one will ever even take the time to look closely at what is on display, instead just taking comfort in knowing that they live in a "grand" building with a "big grand library" downstairs. This is a microcosmic view of the way people approach this whole type of retro architecture – they think they get the idea, never take the time to really learn what it is or what it stands for, and are simply content to use the Cliff’s Notes. Personally, I would expect far, far more from the high-end of our marketplace. On the other hand, these people are also relying on their architect to deliver something wonderful, to serve as the expert on such matters, and they are being misled.

Jaroslaw might consider this to be a fascinating snapshot of Chicago's cultural sensibility at the moment, but I counter that the artist/architect should never sit idly by. That is not the role of the architect. The job is to please the client and erect a safe structure, while meeting the professional and ethical demands of one’s profession, just as with any highly skilled form of employment. The architect has to put his foot down at some point; otherwise, we'd all be living soulless hovels.

Last, I really don't buy the bit about the buying public really favoring these buildings. People want buildings with character, soul, distinction. But ultimately, it is always, location, location, location. I have talked to many affluent people who live in buildings like this one, and they usually are hardly proud of the architecture. In fact, they often are somewhat embarrassed of it. "But the prices were right, the floor plan was nice, the views were nice, the bay window thingy was nice, I trusted the developer, etc etc." Exterior appearance literally is one of the very last things people consider when making such a purchase; if not exterior appearance, then certainly what historic style is being emulated is not a concern. Consider, they really are just buying off plans anyway, maybe some water-colored "rendition" of the facade.

Unfortunately, too many of the modern buildings that were delivered were undistinguished. Glass curtain walls done without care and attention to detail - like anything else - come off looking cheap and unsophisticated, or sterile, or bland, or soulless. But there are other varieties of modernism all around the world, quite successful, that would meet all of the demands / interests of today's buyer without being anachronistic throwbacks.

All of the objections people lob at the derivative, uninspired PoMo stuff like LaGrange's could be applied to the bad Modernism too. If LaGrange tried his own hand (not a hired hand) at Modernism, I don't have much confidence it would be much better – probably worse, really. But the difference is that Modernism is still "of the epoch," to quote Mies.

The overall points I am trying to make: 1) There is no substitute for reality, and the buying public should not be misguided by their architect into a false sense of their possessions (this is analogous to a watch dealer pawning off a plated piece as solid gold). 2) The argument (LaGrange's own) that the public simply doesn't want modernism holds far less weight than one would think.

[aaron38]

From the exterior, check out the fake library that no one ever enters, and look at the "Great old texts" they have on the shelves. These literally are sappy romance novels that someone bought from a thrift store, collecting dust. They are expecting that no one will ever even take the time to look closely at what is on display, instead just taking comfort in knowing that they live in a "grand" building with a "big grand library" downstairs.

This is hardly new though. Fitzgerald wrote about this in 1925 in The Great Gatsby, referencing Gatsby's library of uncut books - books that have never been read and never will be - that look good on a shelf.
It's a nuevo rich phenomenon - newly rich who aren't going to wait 80 years for a family library to develop or for their building to become an exclusive historic landmark. They want it now. So they buy manufactured history.

People have been chasing history for a long time, and I doubt it will stop any time soon.
But I have to mildly disagree, I do think people care about exterior appearance and there's a market for new buildings that look old.

In Palatine a developer put in a street of rowhomes, and the big selling point was "They'll look like they were built 80 years ago", and the buyers snapped them up.

[Mr Roboto]

Im actually glad this style exists, I just wish it wasnt so damn prevalent in one part of downtown. But, variety is needed, and if not for so much other post modern stuff in this area, I see nothing wrong with this building given the styles of today (which is apparently dictated by the current economic state and lack of skilled labor).

[Dr. Taco]

^ not trying to toot your horn or anything, honte, but that whole entire post was simply amazing. So completely unbiasedly analytical, and I have to agree with it all

But on the subjective side of things, even though I am far from excited about this building, I've still adopted a "good enough" feeling about the building. I mean, plain and simple, its too late for this building, so I might as well convince myself that things aren't so bad. and you know what, in the world of pick-and-choose comparisons, things just aren't so bad. There are buildings in downtown spread around that I'm just embarrassed to look at, and so far Elysian is not one of those buildings

[CenIL_LA]

The only issues that lie with an architect standing up for thier work to the levels of high quality is that, in the end, the architect rarely calls all those shots. Its the architect that is sometimes making the rendering but they are also on the payroll of a developer not vice-versa. Renderings may even be done by a subcontracted source. Renderings taken may not always be the most up to date because budgets are not always set up to show all changes that occur or how the tiny details are being carried out necessarily. As a business expense (architect) of a developer do you want to spend more money than you are getting paid? Developers are the ones ruining good portions of the designs, not the designers.

The only thing an architect can really do is stick up for their designs the best they can. Generally the only thing they can honestly ask for is that legally thier designs are meeting the safety and welfare of the occupants or walk away forfitting costs assumed. A developer will listen to a designer but in the end they are most concerned with thier wallet. They are also concerned that they wont get sued while somewhat meeting the architects vision to thier own standards. If a developer wants to skimp on materials/better details they will certainly do it, and they do. I would agree I would love to see this POMO done with the greatest care but we would need a different class of developer in Chicago to do that. An architect selling thier soul, does it because they need the job/market to keep thier companies or employees afloat. If someone is always willing to completely bend over to get a job, you better be at least willing to put up with a few things you dont like. Few architects honestly want to design crap.

[DCCliff]

This all needs to go to the state-of-architecture thread. But it's a great discussion.

And just a quick note that I'm surprised nobody flashed on 1550 N State. Less ornate than the Ansonia, but less roccoco as well. Actually not a bad adaptation over all for its time, even though there is a generaous use of terra cotta - a material not ever used in the same fashion on the buildings of the era that 1550 emulates.

[Jibba]

^Yes, let's please move it there. I spent too much of my precious 2am hour last night typing out a long-winded response there and it's not getting any love!

[trvlr70]

My favorite aspect of this tower is actually the sweet European courtyard that will ultimately be a romantic, big city space, IMHO.

[dagobert]

I think Elysian is an ok building and would give it a 5-6, meaning that it doesn't do anything offensive nor extrodinary. It will help breathe more life into the area which is probably the best aspect of this development.

Moving on, I'm curious what Adrian and other architecture people have to say about the way Hotel Pierre in NYC incorporates historical architecture motif into its facade? It is about 150 ft shorter but still a skyscraper that attempts to masquerade as a european mansion or palace.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/12/03/nyregion/03pier.xlarge1.jpg

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/DDNY%20%20Y2K/pierre/pierre_main1.jpg

http://www.wirednewyork.com/hotels/pierre/pierre_hotel_christo_gates.jpg

[honte]

^ not trying to toot your horn or anything, honte, but that whole entire post was simply amazing. So completely unbiasedly analytical, and I have to agree with it all

But on the subjective side of things, even though I am far from excited about this building, I've still adopted a "good enough" feeling about the building. I mean, plain and simple, its too late for this building, so I might as well convince myself that things aren't so bad. and you know what, in the world of pick-and-choose comparisons, things just aren't so bad. There are buildings in downtown spread around that I'm just embarrassed to look at, and so far Elysian is not one of those buildings

Thanks, Jstush. In the scheme of things, I agree with you: There are far worse buildings than the Elysian to gripe about. I mean, we have stuff going on that borders on incompetence. Philosophically, however, LaGrange's stuff takes the cake for me, partly because of the market segment they are targeting, and also partly because it is a competent firm.

The only thing an architect can really do is stick up for their designs the best they can. Generally the only thing they can honestly ask for is that legally thier designs are meeting the safety and welfare of the occupants or walk away forfitting costs assumed. A developer will listen to a designer but in the end they are most concerned with thier wallet. They are also concerned that they wont get sued while somewhat meeting the architects vision to thier own standards. If a developer wants to skimp on materials/better details they will certainly do it, and they do. I would agree I would love to see this POMO done with the greatest care but we would need a different class of developer in Chicago to do that. An architect selling thier soul, does it because they need the job/market to keep thier companies or employees afloat. If someone is always willing to completely bend over to get a job, you better be at least willing to put up with a few things you dont like. Few architects honestly want to design crap.

Of course, you are correct. Nothing is so cut-and-dry and it is unfair to blame it all on the architect. Generally speaking, I try to critique the design rather than the designer for this exact reason.

But LaGrange set himself up for this, IMO. First, he's the only Chicago architect audacious enough to willfully promote himself as a "Starchitect." This has, unbelievably, been in the press several times. Now, what kind of Starchitect is submissive to the cheap developer? I can just hear Frank Gehry now, "OK, fine, do it in shake shingles if you must..." ;) Second, LaGrange has on many occasions willfully talked clients out of more modern or progressive design agendas.

He brought this upon himself, and I have no reason to believe that he is not 100% comfortable with the product he is producing. He tends to be very defensive of it, actually.

[CenIL_LA]

^^ that is a sad fact I never knew.

[Tom Servo]

My favorite aspect of this tower is actually the sweet European courtyard that will ultimately be a romantic, big city space, IMHO.

...huh? are you serious? that BIG CITY space will be a private area for cars to pull into. :koko:
http://www.mlsni.com/photos/property/460/05181460.jpg

[VivaLFuego]

...huh? are you serious? that BIG CITY space will be a private area for cars to pull into. :koko:
http://www.mlsni.com/photos/property/460/05181460.jpg

...unlike similar/comparable courtyards? :koko:

Actually, to me the most terrifying part of that render is the apparently blank dead wall along State Street. Hopefully this is just in the rendering and those will actually be retail spaces?

[Hayward]

Nvm, guess the great debate will never be resolved.

[i_am_hydrogen]

Taken today:
http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/6744/elysian5171wh2.jpg

[VivaLFuego]

It's starting to get up there in height.

Will the adjacent 10 E Delaware have underground parking? I'm trying to visualize what will be behind the low-rise portion of Elysian. Will it just be a dead wall of a parking garage?

[Hayward]

Nice angle!

[the urban politician]

It's starting to get up there in height.

Will the adjacent 10 E Delaware have underground parking? I'm trying to visualize what will be behind the low-rise portion of Elysian. Will it just be a dead wall of a parking garage?

^ Renderings seem to suggest that 10 E D will have a parking podium, but not your typical blank wall. It will be a "LaGrange-ified" garage :rolleyes:

In regards to the Elysian motor court, I actually really like it. If designed well, it can be a cool space, IMO. "Good evening, Mr. Bond" says the tuxedo-clad parking valet...

[ChiPsy]

I just noticed today (I'm slow about these things sometimes) that the Rush Street face of this building follows a straight North/South line and not the NW diagonal of Rush Street. That means that it doesn't meet the street at the point it abuts the building to its south, leaving space for landscaping maybe (?) and creating a sawtooth effect as you look SE along Rush Street.

I'm wondering if that will be good or bad...

[Jibba]

Great shot, i_am_hydrogen. I'm surprised this one has progressed this far already: from your shot, you can see that the construction has reached the "setback" where the second notch of balconies start.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

first, WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT???? that's not even CLOSE to the truth!!! :koko: who told you that?

second, the exposition was a COMPLETE and UTTER architectural FAILURE. and it made a lot of people and architects HATE burnham.

:yuck: :yuck: :yuck: :yuck: OMFG STOP THE HYPERBOLE :yuck: :yuck: :yuck: :yuck:

it's not a question of the materials or the proportions or the street interaction or anything like that...

Srsly, any architectural critic who begins his analysis with a statement like that should be barred from the profession/amateur discussion forum.

the problem here and so often with architecture lately is the fact that it's a form of delineative architecture! architectural design should reflect what is happening right now, and should be relevant only to right here. this isn't greece, france, england, italy, or wherever. it should derive NOTHING, especially not from fucking europe; we shouldn't adopt there ugly 'styles'.

How are 300 N. LaSalle, 353 N. Clark or the Quaker Oats Building any less derivative of Miesian-era Modernism than LaGrange style construction is of Second Empire style? Those three buildings -- which both me and you love -- are hardly in the spirit of current design innovation (aside from some environmentally responsible features). The difference is a question of "materials or the proportions or the street interaction" and how they pertain to the emulated style. In those three buildings, these things are done well. In LaGrange's building, they are not.

god, it seems like everyone on this forum is either crazy or missing the point... :koko: jesus

Spoken like a true schizophrenic.

On the other hand, Honte, your post (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=3556736&postcount=715) was 100% spot on. Superbly articulated. :tup:

[trvlr70]

...huh? are you serious? that BIG CITY space will be a private area for cars to pull into. :koko:
http://www.mlsni.com/photos/property/460/05181460.jpg

My feelings concerning the charming courtyard remain.

[ardecila]

I think it's interesting that that sketch-rendering has some cool-looking little low-level setbacks around the 9th/10th floors, but it has no balconies. These two changes completely change the character of the building, IMO....

[Alliance]

^^^ Yeah. LaGrange? Dumbing something down? NO WAY.

My feelings concerning the charming courtyard remain.

"Charming" is the first word I think of when I think of Chicago.

[10023]

Moving on, I'm curious what Adrian and other architecture people have to say about the way Hotel Pierre in NYC incorporates historical architecture motif into its facade? It is about 150 ft shorter but still a skyscraper that attempts to masquerade as a european mansion or palace.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/12/03/nyregion/03pier.xlarge1.jpg
Right, but this is actually made of appropriate materials and looks elegant, because it wasn't designed by some hack like Lucien Lagrange.

The Pierre is amazing. I would kill to own that penthouse (like, literally, I would be willing to end the life of another human being if someone made the offer).

[Chicagoguy]

I think the courtyard area/private pull up drive is amazing. It is something that you dont have very often and in a high class building like this, it is something that is going to draw people to it. I would love to have this is my building and if in fact the courtyard ends up looking like the picture, I might have to look into a place here. It is nice, private, and gives and much more elegant entrance!

[aaron38]

I just noticed today (I'm slow about these things sometimes) that the Rush Street face of this building follows a straight North/South line and not the NW diagonal of Rush Street. That means that it doesn't meet the street at the point it abuts the building to its south, leaving space for landscaping maybe (?) and creating a sawtooth effect as you look SE along Rush Street.
I'm wondering if that will be good or bad...

I saw that too and I think it's bad, or not ideal anyway. Not because of the Elysian itself, but because the sidewall of that building and the fire escape should have been covered up. I wish it was aligned to Rush, or did a better job of covering up that wall, but oh well. It's not a big deal.

[Jita]

Here are two new photos that I took from my apartment house this evening. If you want to see them full size, I guess you would have to click on the thumbnails.

http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/7966/p1010039ts9.th.jpg (http://img255.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1010039ts9.jpg)

http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/7074/p1010040xc9.th.jpg (http://img255.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1010040xc9.jpg)

[honte]

^ Perfect exposure.

[Chicagoguy]

Truly one of my favorite buildings coming up in the city right now. I love the old-style feel of the building. It is perfect for the neighborhood and will be a great addition to this amazing city!

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

I love the old-style feel of the building.

Trying to legitimize this building as "old-style" would be like calling a trip to Medieval Times an authentic Fourteenth Century experience; Alfred B. Mullet is and Barbara Tuchman would be rolling in their graves.

[Dr. Taco]

Trying to legitimize this building as "old-style" would be like calling a trip to Medieval Times an authentic Fourteenth Century experience; Alfred B. Mullet is and Barbara Tuchman would be rolling in their graves.

If someone thinks the building has an old-style feel, you can't tell him he's wrong. just let people have their opinions

however, your analogy is a great one :cool:

i've enjoyed medieval times, though, and I will go ahead and enjoy this building. (its not painted concrete. its not painted concrete. its not painted concrete)

[Chicagoguy]

If someone thinks the building has an old-style feel, you can't tell him he's wrong. just let people have their opinions

however, your analogy is a great one :cool:

i've enjoyed medieval times, though, and I will go ahead and enjoy this building. (its not painted concrete. its not painted concrete. its not painted concrete)

Even though it is painted concrete it is still going to look nice once it is done!

[Brian.]

Even though it is painted concrete it is still going to look nice once it is done!

That's not painted concrete. The mix is colored with a pigment so that no paint will ever be required.

[Chicagoguy]

That's not painted concrete. The mix is colored with a pigment so that no paint will ever be required.

Therefore its better than painted concrete. Sorry I was just going off of what someone else had said about being painted concrete

[T-Mac]

That's not painted concrete. The mix is colored with a pigment so that no paint will ever be required.

ColoPrecaster, I really enjoy your posts on here and your input regarding this building style since you are obviously very knowledgable about the topic. I really like this building and think that it will look great when it is finished.

[Brian.]

ColoPrecaster, I really enjoy your posts on here and your input regarding this building style since you are obviously very knowledgable about the topic. I really like this building and think that it will look great when it is finished.

Thanks, I also like the style even if it doesn't fit into a historically accurate category. I'll take this building for what it is, taking into account the current state of the economy and how one might afford to build a structure like this. I don't think every building should try to be ground breaking and attempt to outshine every other building in the neighborhood.

I think most people that will see it for the first time as a finish product will look favorably on it and hopefully enjoy the addition to the skyline.

[HighRiser]

The piece on rush street will go out to the angle of the street approx. 4 floors, with a rounded entrance at the corner of rush and walton. Clad in
precast. It has not been built yet. Also for someone that asked the courtyard wall in the state street alley will not be visual except for approx 14 feet. 10 east Delaware has a structual overhang from 2 to the transfer floor cantalevering over the alley, terminating with a small expansion joint to the wall.

[Hayward]

I agree with some of the posts above. Go back a few pages and the debate got a bit out of control.

I think criticism is great for the purpose of discussion, but when everyone is trying to 1 up each other it becomes ridiculous, especially for a building that has long been under construction.

Architecture doesn't always make me happy either and I've had my share of heated rants on other websites, but after working in the architecture industry for a few years now, I've come to discover that there are a variety of tastes among CLIENTS and architects. If someone wants to build an 80 story ye-olde-villa-place, then design it to be damn good if your budget allows. I think overall the Elysian will come out pretty good. It's not my favorite, but not every building should be.

[a chicago bearcat]

As much as I dislike throw back skyscrapers, this is at least more on target than the bernadin in it's attempt at early 1900's chicago.

[Dr. Taco]

is this the building they are trying to copy(-ish)?

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y6/jstush04/trump02.jpg

[honte]

^ It's a good question. I said earlier that LaGrange's work is frequently striving for Second Empire, but seeing the Park Tower in the background of your pic reminds me that there isn't really anything that jumps out in that style on Park Tower. Some of LaGrange's other works, such as the Goethe project (decidedly Second Empire) or the Pinnacle (trying to be Gothic Revival, like the Pittsfield building in your shot) are much more overt.

So, perhaps it's best to classify the Elysian as simply "Eclectic," since it's really a reprise of Park Tower in many respects. When I see the actual building and its details, it might be clearer to know what they were really going for. I guess I assumed it would be, given the name of the project and the goals of the ownership.

But yes, I agree: In terms of form, the Pittsfield was probably the antecedent for Park Tower and the Elysian.

[a chicago bearcat]

I'd agree for the most part, except that 2nd empire was never taller that 10 stories that I know of. Most buildings mislabeled 2nd empire are just eclectically confused classical revival with a mansard roof.

Which don't get me wrong, can be done right, just the only one I've seen in modern context is 840 N. Which I wanted to hate, and I feel many people who helped shape my aesthetic taste still want me to hate, yet it really gives me a warm fuzzy feeling as I bike up the lakefront bike trail.

[Brian.]

I'm glad the concrete is pigmented and not painted because it will at least retain some texture, I think, but concrete, as used in many LaGrange buildings, lacks the rich texture and variation of real masonry.

This looks like a great opportunity for me to jump in again with some edjamacation. I've been scouring the net for the best way to describe this and haven't come up with a great example but here goes with what I could find.

Precast concrete could be produced with many textures.

First we have your standard poured concrete against a smooth form which would be the finish that most think of.

http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/2340/textpaintgradesmoothky2.jpg

Second we have a treatment called sand blasting. After the panel is removed from the forms it literally gets blasted with sand to remove to thin layer of paste created when the mix was vibrated. The longer you blast it the deeper the texture you will receive. If deep enough you may actually expose the rock in the mix.

Light
http://img355.imageshack.us/img355/8519/textlightsandblastqk5.jpg

Medium
http://img352.imageshack.us/img352/7829/textmediumsandblastsw5.jpg

Heavy
http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/1113/textheavysandblastfi8.jpg

Last but the best looking is what we call acid etching. Yes that’s right, we really use acid to take that paste off the panel. With a well designed mix you can create some beautiful texture to the touch. I believe the Elysian is produced with this method and will have a rich texture to it.

http://img397.imageshack.us/img397/4046/textacidetchjz2.jpg

It is possible to combine all three of these methods on precast buildings to create a unique look.

[Alliance]

A rich texture....for precast.

[Brian.]

A rich texture....for precast.

I know...I know, but I haven't given up on you yet. I'll work you down slowly. ;)

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ I think a lot of the texture they are talking about is not just from the surface of the material, but from the varience in textures from one brick of material to the next, which, when stacked on each other, makes for a very rich texture. Also, the lines and abnormalities between the different pieces of brick, stone, or terracotta add a lot of different textures. You can't really do that with Precast. However, I would argue that Precast is the Terra Cotta of today, its much cheaper and more durable than other other options, thus people pan it, but at some point in the future, once we don't use it anymore, people will probably appreciate it more.

[VivaLFuego]

A rich texture....for precast.

What's your point? I don't see how precast as a facade cladding is inherently different than any other, be it a glass curtain wall, deco Limestone a Romaneque Revival brownstone, vinyl siding, or anything in between. Of course the devil is in the detail of execution, but what can you possibly find so reflexively offensive about precast concrete as a facade material? If anything, precast, by definition of the flexibility of its materials and treatments, opens up a world of interesting possibilities for building facades from an architect's perspective. That is, unless you've got some crusade for ideological purity.

[Jita]

Here are three photos that I took from the street this afternoon. The second two are of the low, "courtyard" wing.

(I now realize that since I generally take my pictures in the "high quality" mode, that the images are huge, thus creating challenges for this site. If the images are too large, I will show them as thumbnails, then you can enlarge them if you want. )

http://img378.imageshack.us/img378/7852/p1010081qe2.th.jpg (http://img378.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1010081qe2.jpg)

http://img378.imageshack.us/img378/2433/p1010082tw0.th.jpg (http://img378.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1010082tw0.jpg)

http://img363.imageshack.us/img363/3852/p1010083in2.jpg

[Chicagoguy]

I love this building! So does anyone know if they are going to be using that wall along the street as retail?

[aaron38]

05-23-08

Rush St. streetwall. Not being flush to Rush looks good from this angle, creates a nice stagger.
http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r86/aaron38/Chicago%205-23-08/IMG_1161.jpg

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r86/aaron38/Chicago%205-23-08/IMG_1166.jpg

From Washington Square Park
http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r86/aaron38/Chicago%205-23-08/IMG_1168.jpg

[Brian.]

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r86/aaron38/Chicago%205-23-08/IMG_1166.jpg

I love action shots. Thank you very much!

[Brian.]

^^^ I think a lot of the texture they are talking about is not just from the surface of the material, but from the varience in textures from one brick of material to the next, which, when stacked on each other, makes for a very rich texture. Also, the lines and abnormalities between the different pieces of brick, stone, or terracotta add a lot of different textures. You can't really do that with Precast. However, I would argue that Precast is the Terra Cotta of today, its much cheaper and more durable than other other options, thus people pan it, but at some point in the future, once we don't use it anymore, people will probably appreciate it more.

I finally found a picture of one of our own projects that shows what type of texture can be obtained with a given amount of money spent. This one piece of precast BTW.

http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/5336/img0989ck9.jpg

[colemonkee]

^ That looks pretty damn close to brick and stone.

[Brian.]

Well...that is real brick cast into the panel and those are real stones in the upper exposed aggregate part.;)

[Nowhereman1280]

I agree that texture can be achieved, but it still comes nowhere near the texture of terracotta or its expensive counterpart, carved stone. For example, this is probably one of the most textured buildings in the city of Chicago:

http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=lewistowers-chicago-il-usa

As much as I accept precast as a viable building material, I don't think it can ever achieve the kind of texture of these building materials on its own. I think that used in conjunction with other materials like Glass and metal, it can be very rich in texture. However, I don't think that precast has even come close to reaching its potential as a building material, I don't think anyone has really figured out how to use it just right yet. Hopefully that will happen someday soon.

[Brian.]

Agreed on many points you've made there. It's nice to use the Elysian as a educational tool for this website about a method that is widely misunderstood. I hope the moderators don't mind that in between updates we talk about precast. You know how some posts just....

[SolarWind]

June 2, 2008

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/7214/dsc0157ld7.jpg

http://img357.imageshack.us/img357/7945/dsc0174il6.jpg

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/7079/dsc0179kk5.jpg

http://img357.imageshack.us/img357/6403/dsc0148mr4.jpg

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/9649/dsc0135lm4.jpg

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/2452/dsc0159mg7.jpg

[honte]

^ If they could cast real pieces of stone into the panels for the lintels and other large decorative elements, as ColoPrecaster has shown with the brickwork, I think it would help the appearance a lot. Or, they could just handle these as separate pieces.

The flat sections with the deep reveals in Solarwind's photos look pretty acceptable to me. It's the decorative elements that protrude, which as so obviously monolithic, that make it look cheap to me (or, that's one reason, I think).

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

I don't know, Honte, I actually think it might actually be the other way around. Owing to their forms, the protrusions and other applique have inherent depth, casting shadows that are large relative to their size. The panels, on the other hand, lack this quality -- check out SolarWind's close-up where there's no hue or textural variation whatsoever -- so the "ruse" is a lot easier to call out.

It just all looks so plastic. That's the diametrical opposite impression stone is supposed to give in a building like this. Wrigley, Tribune: they look carved. Elysian looks... poured.

[sammysonny1]

Even if it is precast its not that awful faux stucco (EFIS)! Also i like Lagrange's work very 1920's-30's combined with beaux arts.

[Eventually...Chicago]

It just all looks so plastic. That's the diametrical opposite impression stone is supposed to give in a building like this. Wrigley, Tribune: they look carved. Elysian looks... poured.

I think that is actually a very elegant description of the building. Elysian appears more of a canvas waiting for ornament to be applied. I actually think a very similar condition occurs with the colombian. The proportions are okay and their isn't anything wrong with the use of a masonry/precast material, it just needs more applied ornament to help link together some of the elements and not appear plain. Modern buildings can have understated ornament (the mesian corner) classical buildings need to boast detail.

You know for all the criticisms of the H. Washington library, at least it has some detail that really makes you believe the building is a complete design, regardless of what you think of it (although the interior feels very incomplete). And i think that is the exact feeling i have with the elsyian. It's proportions i think actually work quite well, its materials fit the form, it just wasn't finished to the level i hoped. Even "plainer" renaissance buildings, such as the palazzo medici were able to rusticate their bases to give some interest and depth.

One area i think the use of precast does hurt it is with the large pilasters. This could have really helped set the table for a nice complete element at the base, instead the joinery makes the gigantic order column seem quite horizontal. So most of my criticism of this building is "if you're going to do classical, DO IT!"

[VivaLFuego]

The flat sections with the deep reveals in Solarwind's photos look pretty acceptable to me. It's the decorative elements that protrude, which as so obviously monolithic, that make it look cheap to me (or, that's one reason, I think).

I agree with this sentiment. While there's nothing inherently ugly about the materials and design (if anything, I think they're, fundamentally, elegant and clever), the overall aesthetic demands some level of ornamentation that is conspicuously lacking; hence the 'monolithic', unfinished look.

[Hayward]

Thanks for the info Coloprecaster.

I work for a firm that deals with different manufacturers of precast products from time to time, but I'd say our particular criticisms have less to do with texture and more to do with the types of reveals and joints at corners. Solar wind's photos show a superb example.

We'd actually prefer thinner reveals between "blocks" and that corner joints not have a mitered appearance. It's been difficult requesting that type of look, especially when our clients pressure us for something that has the real appearance of lay up block.

I'd be interested if you are aware of any products that are similar to what I am describing.

[Brian.]

Thanks for the info Coloprecaster.

I work for a firm that deals with different manufacturers of precast products from time to time, but I'd say our particular criticisms have less to do with texture and more to do with the types of reveals and joints at corners. Solar wind's photos show a superb example.

We'd actually prefer thinner reveals between "blocks" and that corner joints not have a mitered appearance. It's been difficult requesting that type of look, especially when our clients pressure us for something that has the real appearance of lay up block.

I'd be interested if you are aware of any products that are similar to what I am describing.


Ah...not an issue that I haven't had to deal with before. Pencil thin reveals are difficult to produce. The part of the problem is the reveal material itself. Wood, rubber, plastic or Styrofoam tends to warp when combined with heat, vibration and mass of the concrete over the top of it. Steel is the only option to have such thin reveals but that just isn't cost effective and can be difficult to work with.

A possible solution to your joint location is pouring a 'return' on the panel. Think of it as the piece poured in an L-shape. This picture posted earlier shows a piece with the L return cast into it. You'll still have a joint but it could be a foot or two from the corner instead of right at the corner. On the right edge of the piece attached to the crane you will see the L shape.

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r86/aaron38/Chicago%205-23-08/IMG_1166.jpg

[VivaLFuego]

Can anyone confirm whether the State street frontage will have ground-floor retail?

[10023]

The scale on this one is off. The little rowhouse bit should be 6 stories tall, like standard roofline in European cities, not 3. Of course it would look absurd still given how narrow that part of the building is, but at least it would look right from the west or southwest.

[johnandahalf]

I think the facade looks plain because it hasn't weathered yet. Finish the building, puff some powdered graphite into the cracks, and let the rain create dark streaks running dow the sides. It'll look like it's been there 100 years. :D

ô¿ô

[[SP]Neo]

The scale on this one is off. The little rowhouse bit should be 6 stories tall, like standard roofline in European cities, not 3. Of course it would look absurd still given how narrow that part of the building is, but at least it would look right from the west or southwest.

most apartment buildings here in europe are more like 4-5 stories...;)

[10023]

Neo;3607420']most apartment buildings here in europe are more like 4-5 stories...;)

Central parts of major cities like Paris, Vienna, etc typically 6, though... I'm not talking about the rowhouses along the Amsterdam grachten.

[andydie]

Hiya fans and friends,

after 300NL here comes a new update for the nice looking Elysian. Enjoy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRweyaZIRVU

Music: Randy Katana - One Solid Wave

[i_am_hydrogen]

Taken today:
http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/7469/elysian621nw9.jpg

http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/6415/elysian6211ni6.jpg

[WonderlandPark]

Sorry, those townhouses are gawd awful. :yuck: The tower *may* fit in contextually with other stuff of the neighborhood, but the low rise looks like Vegas shit. Perdon my French.

[hi123]

I think the whole tower looks absolutely awful !One of the worst projects u/c in chicago by far!

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

I think the whole tower looks absolutely awful !One of the worst projects u/c in chicago by far!

:yes:

[Fabb]

It's not so bad.
I had lower expectations.

[Alliance]

Well, I think its perfectly contextual with all the other trash surrounding it.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Not to start this again, but you clearly have NO knowlege of the neighborhood or you wouldn't be saying that. Its in the gold coast which has some the most lavish older buildings and some of the edgiest and most modern new buildings. I guess you think that 30 W. Oak, Astor Tower, and Sofitel are garbage. I dunno, I think those are three of the best buildings in the city. If you are thinking that the stuff in the background is junk, then you must think JHC, Olympia Center, and 860-880 LSD are trash as well... So unless you agree with one of those two statements stop saying that because you are simply wrong...

[simcityaustin]

Sorry, those townhouses are gawd awful. :yuck: The tower *may* fit in contextually with other stuff of the neighborhood, but the low rise looks like Vegas shit. Perdon my French.

First of all those aren't townhouses. Second, I think everyone is jumping the gun. I think it has a pleasant shape, and the facade is passable. The height is nice too.

[erbsenzaehler]

I wouldn't judge that early. This tower can still turn out great. Let's wait for all the classy details to be mounted, as we can see them in the plans/renderings.

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/3875/theelysian3qf.jpg


The lower side buildings don't look that out of place in that concept, they could have been some floors higher thou.
I'm pretty confident regarding the Elysian as a whole. It just suits Chicago and compliments its skyscraper tradition.

By the by, of what material is the roof goin to be made? Copper, slate, bronze, tiles, or something else? Anyone? :)

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ The cheapest grey-black material they can find, probably grey-black precast...

I would forgive everything else that this building falls short on if they wowed us and made the roof out of slate or copper...

[honte]

LaGrange usually does metal roofs, like Goethe (zinc) or Park Tower (copper).

[photoLith]

I think this tower is one of the nicer ones, Ill wait till I see the final producto though

[Lecom]

I'd like some of the naysayers to back up their claims as to why this tower is "trash". Make some specific points. You don't like the detail execution? Anti-modern, historicist style? Something else? I think this tower works great, and, though of course it's no landmark, is quite tastefully executed. Even the precast concrete panels look rather convincing, and the "townhouses" in front are nicely scaled with relation to neighboring buildings and maintain the street wall.

[wrab]

^ The height-to-width ratio is elegant, and the crown is better anticipated than in some of Lagrange's other recent towers. But I'm always wary of evaluating the fit & finish on a project before it has been fitted & finished. ;)

[honte]

I'd like some of the naysayers to back up their claims as to why this tower is "trash".

It's all back there... just glance back in the thread. Let's save everyone the agony of remembering all the facts, and also the endless debate that follows.

It is what it is.