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

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Ironically, I would argue that the local design community's seemingly intense disdain for buildings like Elysian and Ritz Carlton are exactly why we are getting buildings like this.

Chicago's design community is obviously at odds with the wealthy Chicago consumer, who actually wants to live in buildings such as this one. So what we get is poorly executed neo-historicism instead of well-executed neo-historicism. If more members of Chicago's design community actually embraced neo-historicism and accepted its role in MODERN day society, we would perhaps be seeing much more well executed developments.

But NOOOO... it's the tired (and increasingly annoying) "OH MY GOD THAT'S SUCH AN ATROCIOUS POMO PIECE OF SHIT, MY FELLOW ARCHITECTURAL SCHOOL BUDDIES WOULD TOTALLY HATE THAT, CHICAGO IS LIKE SO FAR BEHIND WE SHOULD BE ON THE CUTTING EDGE AND BE BUILDING REALLY NEAT MODERNIST & ABSTRACT STUFF LIKE THEY DO IN BERLIN" attitude (yes, a bit of hyperbole but many really do come across like this) that is just as damaging as LaGrange himself.

+1. Very good post.

[kemachs]

I sometimes wonder what would happen if Lucien LaGrange himself came across these forums and started flipping through this thread.

A revelation perhaps?

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Ironically, I would argue that the local design community's seemingly intense disdain for buildings like Elysian and Ritz Carlton are exactly why we are getting buildings like this.

Chicago's design community is obviously at odds with the wealthy Chicago consumer, who actually wants to live in buildings such as this one. So what we get is poorly executed neo-historicism instead of well-executed neo-historicism. If more members of Chicago's design community actually embraced neo-historicism and accepted its role in MODERN day society, we would perhaps be seeing much more well executed developments.

But NOOOO... it's the tired (and increasingly annoying) "OH MY GOD THAT'S SUCH AN ATROCIOUS POMO PIECE OF SHIT, MY FELLOW ARCHITECTURAL SCHOOL BUDDIES WOULD TOTALLY HATE THAT, CHICAGO IS LIKE SO FAR BEHIND WE SHOULD BE ON THE CUTTING EDGE AND BE BUILDING REALLY NEAT MODERNIST & ABSTRACT STUFF LIKE THEY DO IN BERLIN" attitude (yes, a bit of hyperbole but many really do come across like this) that is just as damaging as LaGrange himself.

Sorry UP, but this is, just simply, for the most part nonsense. Quality critics and sophisticates of good design everywhere snub their noses at historicist design everywhere (again, I'm only talking about ground-up new development - certainly not applicable to high-integrity historic renovation, adaptive re-use, preservation efforts of high-quality historic design - as I'm a huge fan generally of such efforts). There's really notihng even provincial about this, when you get down to it. The vast majority of architecture critics, architects themselves, the AIA, other industry groups, etc, (in other words, the people who have real expertise in this area!!) ignore or laugh at attemps at traditional, historicist design for brand new construction across the country - and the world - for very good reason, as it doesn't have a place in the contemporary world - just doesn't, and that's ok frankly.

I'll often reference Top Critics' average approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes for a quick take and to influence a go/no go decision on whether I'll check out a movie (I also base my viewpoints on environmental issues, such as global warming, on what a very robust consensus of environmental, and climate scientists assert; Also, I base my view that - when it comes to fiscal consolidation's effect on the economy and treasury yields in the face of an economy with a stubborn macro-demand shortfall, the positive impacts through investor and business confidence do not outweigh the directly negative economic output impact of lower government spending, ie that near-term contractionary expansion through confidence boost in the face of a depressed economy is pretty much a myth - on the findings from the wealth of research economists have done on the subject in the 4 years since the great financial crisis, etc, but clearly now I digress!). This is an assessment aggregation of some of the best, most prominent, most qualified film critics. By the logic that Lagrange designed-projects manage to somehow sell richly-priced condo units to an unsophisticated clientele proves that there is somehow a place in the cityscape for his horrific 'sense' of aesthetic is like saying that there was some sort of lasting social/cultural/artistic/even entertainment utility in, let's say the second transformers movie, which registered 15% approval on Rotten Tomatoes top critics, but managed to sell $400 million+ worth of tickets in the US+Canada. I should think not. As architecture impacts everyone daily, and the city's inherent, enduring cultural identity (something much more important than a blockbuster movie, indeed), financial success for a building alone does not equate to justification for its design, and resulting impacts.

Finally, the suggestion that Chicago industry professionals and quality-design enthusiasts' high standards and refined aesthetic sense and level of sophistication actually contributes to some sort of backlash by those developers/architects who suffer from wildly-misplaced nostalgia and sentimentalism by designing/building sloppy, and poorly-conceptualized/detailed traditionalist or 'traditionalishy' structures just doesn't seem to hold water. It would take a pretty susbstantial leap of illogic to get from here to there, as far as I can tell....

[nomarandlee]

I think high quality neo-historical design definitely has its place in this city. Not every project need to be pushing the envelope or be avant garde.

That said I think the idea that criticism of such design is the reason why we are getting more of it is a real reach. Frankly the primary reasons I can think of that the the architects are putting forth that design is because there seemingly is a a large market of customers who will gravitate to it (even when not done well). Next is that too many politicians and critics aren't loud enough (as opposed to too loud) about shoddy design be it of the modernist or historical variety.

It is because the Lagrange's of the design world think they can get away with schlock work and not face real public scrutiny other then from a few blogs or chatter in academic classrooms that they keep with their work unimpeded as they count the cash.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

Sorry UP, but this is, just simply, for the most part nonsense. Quality critics and sophisticates of good design everywhere snub their noses at historicist design everywhere (again, I'm only talking about ground-up new development - certainly not applicable to high-integrity historic renovation, adaptive re-use, preservation efforts of high-quality historic design - as I'm a huge fan generally of such efforts). There's really notihng even provincial about this, when you get down to it. The vast majority of architecture critics, architects themselves, the AIA, other industry groups, etc, (in other words, the people who have real expertise in this area!!) ignore or laugh at attemps at traditional, historicist design for brand new construction across the country - and the world - for very good reason, as it doesn't have a place in the contemporary world - just doesn't, and that's ok frankly.

^ None of this matters.

What matters is the client. If the client wants a historic looking building, then you've got to build it. What Blair Kamin or some magazine critic thinks is completely irrevelant. Whether anyone thinks any of these buildings have 'artistic integrity' is irrelevant. Architects don't get to have the luxury of always being artists. They are a servant to their consumer, first and foremost.

[headcase]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ None of this matters.

What matters is the client. If the client wants a historic looking building, then you've got to build it. What Blair Kamin or some magazine critic thinks is completely irrevelant. Whether anyone thinks any of these buildings have 'artistic integrity' is irrelevant. Architects don't get to have the luxury of always being artists. They are a servant to their consumer, first and foremost.

But who says that the client's WANT a historic looking building? Anyone taken a poll?

Or is it a self-fulfilling prophesy? Developer A builds a "historic" building, it sells out. Developer B sees this, and decides that must be what the market wants so they build another one, so on and so on.

There have been a number of modern buildings that have sold quite well over the years in this city, and I think the market would support them just as well as they do the "historical" ones.

SSDD

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by headcase

There have been a number of modern buildings that have sold quite well over the years in this city, and I think the market would support them just as well as they do the "historical" ones.

SSDD

^ Sure, people like modern buildings. People like neo-historic buildings. There is a market for both. Seems simple to me. The only people bitching are the dogmatic modernists, who insist that only Miesian boxes should be built for the rest of eternity.

[ChiPhi]

Originally Posted by headcase

But who says that the client's WANT a historic looking building? Anyone taken a poll?

Or is it a self-fulfilling prophesy? Developer A builds a "historic" building, it sells out. Developer B sees this, and decides that must be what the market wants so they build another one, so on and so on.

There have been a number of modern buildings that have sold quite well over the years in this city, and I think the market would support them just as well as they do the "historical" ones.

SSDD

Much of the success of the luxury real estate market in the central area over the past 15 or so years is empty nesters moving to the city. Most of those people came from the suburbs where they lived in a colonial, tudor or cape cod. They are comfortable with that. When my parents mentioned they might move into the city, I ran a quick test on them (they fall into an upper middle class category and would look at a place for around 1 million). They currently live in a 1920's colonial on the North Shore. They wouldn't be renting, but I including some rental towers. Here are their responses (essentially):

Optima: "its like the architect didn't even try. It's just a box"
AMLI River North: "Its not great, but it seems like the architect tried to fit it into the neighborhood and it seems like a pretty nice building. I like all the detailing but the shape is still just a box."
Elysian: "That is really nice. It's like an old co op building with modern amenities."
Park Tower: "This one is a little plain, but its almost as good as the last one [Elysian]."
Contemporaine: "Its really pretty, but I wouldn't want to live there. It is too modern for my taste."
Aqua: "I've seen that one before. It's really cool, but still too modern."

My parents are middle class average folks and this is what they think. Obviously they don't speak for the whole sample, but it seemed a fun thing to do when I did it a few weeks back. I would love to see some real market research.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by headcase

But who says that the client's WANT a historic looking building? Anyone taken a poll?

Or is it a self-fulfilling prophesy? Developer A builds a "historic" building, it sells out. Developer B sees this, and decides that must be what the market wants so they build another one, so on and so on.

There have been a number of modern buildings that have sold quite well over the years in this city, and I think the market would support them just as well as they do the "historical" ones.

SSDD

Client went to the architect.

When you shop, you go to the stores you like.

There's no need for this discussion, people are looking to deep into it.

[caltrane74]

Do not understand the hate this building is receiving...

Yeah, yeah, yeah... it's the details that set this one back. But to the layman, this building looks pretty good.

[ChiPhi]

Originally Posted by Hayward

Client went to the architect.

When you shop, you go to the stores you like.

There's no need for this discussion, people are looking to deep into it.

I actually disagree. People shopping for a luxury new-build don't really have much choice beyond Lagrange (especially if you don't want to buy something from The Donald). With such limited choice, it is obvious that Lagrange would sell well. But if there are luxury shoppers out there who want the prestige of a gold coast address, but may prefer a modern design (or don't care), there would be little market driven evidence of this until someone takes the risk to build something modern. Of course Trump sold really well but 1) isn't all that modern of a design (it's merely not neohistorical) 2) and has the Trump name attached which may have attracted (or repelled) buyers more than design. And of course there was the Spire and some highly luxurious boutique buildings. Add to that the luxury penthouses that many modern buildings have and we may start to put a complete picture together. Overall, unlike sfh, the middleman builder is the one who shops the architect, not the buyers.

[headcase]

Originally Posted by Hayward

Client went to the architect.

When you shop, you go to the stores you like.

There's no need for this discussion, people are looking to deep into it.

I meant the client as the final end user (owner of a unit), not the developer.

SSDD

[J_M_Tungsten]

I'm kind of liking the base now.

Today

[ChiPhi]

Those black stripes running up the farwell are amazing - I love that verticality and contrast. It makes a rather low and approachable building (or parking structure) feel very tall even amongst recent canyonization... If I just look at that, I can be happy.

[Tex17]

Originally Posted by Chief Blackhawk

It's a most unfortunate thing called post-modernism; Mies would die from a heart-attack upon looking at this rubbish if he were still alive today. I'm SO GLAD that twat went bankrupt.....NIMBY!!!!

The only unfortunate thing is your inability to appreciate postmoderism.

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by Tex17

The only unfortunate thing is your inability to appreciate postmoderism.

Nice try but sorry, this Frankenstein isn't representative of postmodernism in any way, shape or form.

[Chief Blackhawk]

Originally Posted by Tex17

The only unfortunate thing is your inability to appreciate postmoderism.

The idea of a progressing civilization is not to suckle the teet of traditionalism for all eternity. Just because you may be born a certain creed or color does not mean that it's any good to cling on to "heritage" of your ancestors.

To clear up anyone's misconception of my architectural views, I'm not advocating that you can't take hints and cues from your surroundings; the POINT of architecture is to synergize people to their environment. But FIRST AND FOREMOST, form follows function. Take a look at Renzo Piano...he manages to take cultural cues and evoke it without frivolous details that are a product of outdated structural engineering.

The idea? POMO is a stage 5 clinger..... DON'T BE A STAGE 5 CLINGER; switch to DirecTV

[Andrew|W]

I think I've gotten to the point were I think that style is mostly irrelevant. The building can "be" whatever the architect/client/developer wants as long as it is of quality design/construction and interfaces well with the community and occupants. That's mostly what really matters.

I think the architectural community is losing sight of what people actually want to live/work in by completely writing off anything but whatever is the accepted contemporary style (I've talked to enough non-architects and read enough boards to know that there really is a sector of the population that want new traditional buildings; they aren't just some misinformed, uneducated minority). Maybe its because I am someone who started studying architecture long before I had professors or read critics who told me what I was and wasn't supposed to like.

So I have no problem with being this building being neo-historic (it really isn't postmodern as defined by people like Michael Graves, early Frank Gehry, and VSB). My biggest beef is that it is a 2-dimensional cartoon that only looks decent from two sides viewed mostly from the south on Michigan. And maybe that isn't a big deal either since it's fairly short and can't be seen from very far in any other direction. As a professional I can't stand much of the detailing either, but I'm aware that the general populous won't even notice.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by Andrew|W

I think I've gotten to the point were I think that style is mostly irrelevant. The building can "be" whatever the architect/client/developer wants as long as it is of quality design/construction and interfaces well with the community and occupants. That's mostly what really matters.

I think the architectural community is losing sight of what people actually want to live/work in by completely writing off anything but whatever is the accepted contemporary style (I've talked to enough non-architects and read enough boards to know that there really is a sector of the population that want new traditional buildings; they aren't just some misinformed, uneducated minority). Maybe its because I am someone who started studying architecture long before I had professors or read critics who told me what I was and wasn't supposed to like.

So I have no problem with being this building being neo-historic (it really isn't postmodern as defined by people like Michael Graves, early Frank Gehry, and VSB). My biggest beef is that it is a 2-dimensional cartoon that only looks decent from two sides viewed mostly from the south on Michigan. And maybe that isn't a big deal either since it's fairly short and can't be seen from very far in any other direction. As a professional I can't stand much of the detailing either, but I'm aware that the general populous won't even notice.

The occupants don't care about the exterior so as long as it's nice. What they care about is the craftsmanship and finishes inside. They'll spend a fortune to have their whitebox condos redone by talented interior designers. Along with a great views, location, and amenities the building exterior is of little concern. Sucks it has to be that way. I really don't think the public is that ignorant about the quality of architecture. They can tell good from bad. It's really that they just don't care.

[spyguy]

Lagrange's Sunday morning will be ruined when he picks up the print edition of the Tribune.

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune....-marketab.html

Flawed Ritz-Carlton Residences, the Mag Mile's first high-rise in more than a decade, delivers marketable but middling po-mo
By Blair Kamin

Battered by the recession and the downturn in the housing market, Chicago architect Lucien Lagrange liquidated his namesake firm in 2010. Yet Lagrange and his tradition-tinged buildings are still with us. The latest, the 40-story Ritz-Carlton Residences at the northwest corner of North Michigan Avenue and Erie Street, is too competent to be bad but not inspired enough to be good.