CHICAGO | The Ritz-Carlton Residences | 495 FT / 151 M | 40 FLOORS | COM - Page 33

Kippis · #**641** Posted **Apr 19, 2012, 2:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by untitledreality

Jesus H Christ the Farwell looks beautiful cleaned up. How in the world did Ritz-Carlton drop the ball on this when they had the PERFECT example of what to do sitting right next door? What happened to corporate identity and pride?

The limestone patterning was there, the fenestration pattern was there, the vertical relief was there, the spandrel design and color was there, the railing detailing was there, the mullion work was there... what the fuck happened?

Lagrange happened.

But honestly, I agree with you 110%. Still, considering what we've ended up with here, I'm grateful that they at least kept the Farwell *mostly* intact, regardless of its new function(s).

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy

Saw the crown lit today. Very subtle so far.

Miracles! I was under the impression that it wasn't a lit crown...I wonder how impressive it'll be when it's all said and done.

george · #**642** Posted **Apr 19, 2012, 12:27 PM**

4-17

ChiPhi · #**643** Posted **Apr 19, 2012, 6:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by george

3-17

I didn't realize how close this was to city place. I'm surprised the NIMBY's let that one through...

the urban politician · #**644** Posted **Apr 19, 2012, 6:28 PM**

^ I imagine it's hard to argue against a highrise on the Magnificent Mile, Chicago's premierest of premiere avenues. Was a zoning change even needed? I know that they had to go through the Landmarks Commission, but not sure about zoning.

ChiPhi · #**645** Posted **Apr 19, 2012, 7:10 PM**

^^^People will often contest the existing zoning of lots... look at Ald. Brendan Reilly on the Tower of Jewel:

Quote:

it would be irresponsible of any bidder to think they could build the maximum air-rights there...

Andrew|W · #**646** Posted **Apr 22, 2012, 3:24 AM**

The lights and covers have been installed at the base if the building (all but one). Just the panel over the second floor windows and the exterior will be pretty much complete.

It's nice to see some consistency in the design of the spandrel panels and lights, but neither are particularly elegant. From the LaGrange buildings I have seen so far I would say that he doesn't excel much at designing ornamentation (among other things).

markh9 · #**647** Posted **Apr 23, 2012, 10:42 AM**

Took these from my car when it was still quite light out. Even so, it gives a rough idea of the lighting scheme.

-----

Love the clean sophisticated verticals of the Farwell here. What a contrast between the two buildings...

The illumination here is really faint in this 26x blowup, but if you squint, you can make out a bit of the setup they have up there. (If anyone can snap a picture of the crown in true darkness, please do.)

Just like an ugly girl you take home at last call, I think this building will look best in the dark!

Andrew|W · #**648** Posted **Apr 25, 2012, 10:59 PM**

The panels above the second floor windows were going in this morning (sorry, no picture while speeding by on bus). They are an Art Deco style scalloped/corrugated stainless steel (or aluminum), similar to that over the storefront of the current Burberry on Michigan.

Rizzo · #**649** Posted **Apr 28, 2012, 6:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew|W

The panels above the second floor windows were going in this morning (sorry, no picture while speeding by on bus). They are an Art Deco style scalloped/corrugated stainless steel (or aluminum), similar to that over the storefront of the current Burberry on Michigan.

I only got a quick glimpse, but they look good. What I don't care for is the storefront window system they utilized on the ground level. It could be nicer. It's basically similar to what you would see in any old commercial building or strip mall.

george · #**650** Posted **Apr 29, 2012, 11:45 PM**

4-29

ardecila · #**651** Posted **Apr 30, 2012, 2:09 AM**

Yeah, those mullions are awful. They should have used a more complex profile... even a channel profile would have been lightyears better.

Rizzo · #**652** Posted **Apr 30, 2012, 2:21 AM**

Look at that odd transition between granite pilaster and that aluminum "lightbox" Kind of strange, as if not well thought out. Is there some sort of drip edge on that thing? Or does water just run down into that cavity? I don't see any sort of sealed joint between the two. I'm assuming the detail performs, but aesthetically it's a weird transition between materials.

ChiPhi · #**653** Posted **Apr 30, 2012, 7:00 PM**

^^^
Aesthetically, the granite alone is not only historically incorrect, but also already looks incredibly dated; it seems very eighties imo. I don't understand why they didn't go with something like limestone or I think I would have preferred they just carry the precast down to the street...

BraveNewWorld · #**654** Posted **Apr 30, 2012, 7:20 PM**

This building actually looks pretty nice from some angles, much better then the Elysian. Even the Elysian isn't too much of a monstrosity, it definitely doesn't detract from the skyline in any way. Still, Lucien Lagrange shouldn't be an architect.

ChiPhi · #**655** Posted **Apr 30, 2012, 8:03 PM**

^^^ I think that without the top, the Elysian would be fine. I contend that the Park tower is the best. The top may be a bit small from some angles, but it is a slender and elegant interpretation of deco themes. The fenestration, balconies and set back details on that building all look pretty good to me. It seems to have all been down hill from there imo. One of my friends who works for RAMSA thinks that this is LaGrange's best work, but would agree that LaGrange should not have been an architect.

BraveNewWorld · #**656** Posted **Apr 30, 2012, 8:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiPhi

^^^ I think that without the top, the Elysian would be fine. I contend that the Park tower is the best. The top may be a bit small from some angles, but it is a slender and elegant interpretation of deco themes. The fenestration, balconies and set back details on that building all look pretty good to me. It seems to have all been down hill from there imo. One of my friends who works for RAMSA thinks that this is LaGrange's best work, but would agree that LaGrange should not have been an architect.

I forgot about Park Tower, it's actually a great looking building. The Elysian would look ok if the roof looked more like a roof, and less like a cap, it's still an ok building, and it's always nice to have another 700 footer

ChiPhi · #**657** Posted **Apr 30, 2012, 8:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BraveNewWorld

I forgot about Park Tower, it's actually a great looking building. The Elysian would look ok if the roof looked more like a roof, and less like a cap, it's still an ok building, and it's always nice to have another 700 footer

I first read that as "the roof looked more like a roof and less like crap"

It made me laugh...

BraveNewWorld · #**658** Posted **Apr 30, 2012, 9:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiPhi

I first read that as "the roof looked more like a roof and less like crap"

It made me laugh...

Im cracking up right now

ardecila · #**659** Posted **Apr 30, 2012, 10:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hayward

Look at that odd transition between granite pilaster and that aluminum "lightbox" Kind of strange, as if not well thought out. Is there some sort of drip edge on that thing? Or does water just run down into that cavity? I don't see any sort of sealed joint between the two. I'm assuming the detail performs, but aesthetically it's a weird transition between materials.

I don't understand ANY of Lagrange's details. It's like he's taking the ethos of Postmodernism to a whole new level, using vaguely traditional massing and materials while rejecting any kind of visual order at the scale of an individual detail.

Most attempts at traditional design have a few things that are off, in terms of proportion, scale, or materials, but Lagrange's buildings are so consistently "off" that I'm starting to think it must be intentional.

ChiPhi · #**660** Posted **Apr 30, 2012, 11:10 PM**

^^^
I highly doubt it is intentional. LaGrange just knows that the types of people who buy in his buildings don't care. These places are vaguely reminiscent of some sort of elegance of yesterday, and that is enough for the philistine Midwestern consumer. It makes me wish buyers out here were as demanding as those in NY, maybe then we'd see some decent design in our high profile buildings. In New York, park ave gets starchitects to do modern yet contextual buildings in sought after neighborhoods. I don't mind LaGrange, next to RAMSA he's the best we've got for the large market segment that wants to live in a new yet classical looking building (compare his stuff to k-stuff or amli river north). I just wish we also saw the most pricey projects (save for the Spire which 1. wasn't marketed very heavily to locals and 2. didn't get built anyway) take some design risks. Unfortunately, Chicago does have a different kind of wealth than NY.