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

[Buckman821]

^ Well I strongly disagree with Kamin that this is an improvement over the Peninsula.

[ChiPhi]

I thought it was almost funny that Kamin responded to LaGrange's antipathy towards "Chicago's modernist Critics" (ostensibly Kamin and his lesser posse) by saying that he doesn't dismiss all historicist interpretations of architecture as plenty of people actually want to live in that sort of building. I happen to know that BK lives in a home that was probably built between 1920-50 that is meant to look like it was built a hundred years earlier. It's a perfectly nice suburban colonial, just not what you might expect reading his stuff.

He declined to be interviewed for this story, but in a recent interview with Crain's Chicago Business, he portrayed himself a traditionalist who operates outside the norms of Chicago's modernist establishment. "The fact that people want to live in my buildings doesn't seem to matter" to those who criticize them, he said.

His assessment confuses popularity with quality. There is clearly a market — and a significant place — for traditional architecture in today's world. The issue is how intelligently and artfully it's done. Other architects, such as New York's Robert A.M. Stern and the Chicago firm of HBRA Architects (formerly Hammond Beeby Rupert Ainge), are far better qualified to carry the banner of traditionalism.

Or, in other words, stfu and go away...

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by Buckman821

^ Well I strongly disagree with Kamin that this is an improvement over the Peninsula.

Your senses get dulled in this area by all th surrounding precast which is why the Peninsula has the illusion of being a better building...It's not.

[DrNest]

Having just walked past this building I have to say I like it. It's good looking and works perfectly with the surrounding buildings on this part of Michigan Ave.
I can see why it might not be to some tastes, but to me it is a welcome addition to Chicago's skyline.

[bnk]

Originally Posted by 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.

Great work again by BK.

Planned by Lagrange and designed by Chicago's Darcy Bonner Associates, the apartments ...


After shuttering his once-thriving firm, the architect joined the Chicago firm VOA Associates last year.

In May, he moved again, this time to the Chicago office of the Dallas-based design firm HKS.

He declined to be interviewed for this story, but in a recent interview with Crain's Chicago Business, he portrayed himself a traditionalist who operates outside the norms of Chicago's modernist establishment.

"The fact that people want to live in my buildings doesn't seem to matter" to those who criticize them, he said.

His assessment confuses popularity with quality.

There is clearly a market — and a significant place — for traditional architecture in today's world. The issue is how intelligently and artfully it's done. Other architects, such as New York's Robert A.M. Stern and the Chicago firm of HBRA Architects (formerly Hammond Beeby Rupert Ainge), are far better qualified to carry the banner of traditionalism.

Their best works rise to standards that the Ritz-Carlton Residences does not.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by DrNest

Having just walked past this building I have to say I like it. It's good looking and works perfectly with the surrounding buildings on this part of Michigan Ave.
I can see why it might not be to some tastes, but to me it is a welcome addition to Chicago's skyline.

I guess what I don't understand is why people continue to mention taste or style when it has absolutely nothing to do with that.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Hayward

Your senses get dulled in this area by all th surrounding precast which is why the Peninsula has the illusion of being a better building...It's not.

Maybe not, but Shanghai Terrace is spectacular.

[SamInTheLoop]

^^^ ^^ ^

Decent write-up by Kamin (his point about LaGrange confusing popularity with quality had particular resonance), but still he’s too deferential to those that confuse commerce with art, by insisting that traditional design does indeed earn a place in the contemporary architecture dialogue. Rather, it does not. Just become there’s economic demand for a ‘traditionalish’ new building in no way justifies its quality or for that matter even existence from its other function – art. And, art in the public domain – on our cityscape. I don’t understand this attitude of almost ‘some people will always demand this ‘throw-back’ (throw-up?, throw-away?) nonsense, therefore there’s no point in even discussing its design merit……it’s just supply-and-demand, etc, style has nothing to do with this’. Huh? Hardly compelling rationale, and to be frank, more than a little anti-intellectual at that.

Also, I’m in no way convinced that the Ritz is a better design than the Peninsula. Clearly, neither are good – and the Farwell (the Farwell’s façade that is) is the lone bright spot in the mix…

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

^^^ ^^ ^

Decent write-up by Kamin (his point about LaGrange confusing popularity with quality had particular resonance), but still he’s too deferential to those that confuse commerce with art, by insisting that traditional design does indeed earn a place in the contemporary architecture dialogue. Rather, it does not. Just become there’s economic demand for a ‘traditionalish’ new building in no way justifies its quality or for that matter even existence from its other function – art. And, art in the public domain – on our cityscape. I don’t understand this attitude of almost ‘some people will always demand this ‘throw-back’ (throw-up?, throw-away?) nonsense, therefore there’s no point in even discussing its design merit……it’s just supply-and-demand, etc, style has nothing to do with this’. Huh? Hardly compelling rationale, and to be frank, more than a little anti-intellectual at that.

Also, I’m in no way convinced that the Ritz is a better design than the Peninsula. Clearly, neither are good – and the Farwell (the Farwell’s façade that is) is the lone bright spot in the mix…

^

An architect cannot have the luxury of being solely an artist.

You have to satisfy your client.

I don't know why I have to keep repeating this point.

A town or city is not just some giant art gallery. Unlike paintings in a museum, buildings MUST serve a function for their society. They must provide the functions of living. In addition, they must appeal to the individuals who have invested in them, not necessarily the critics that pass through town.

[SamInTheLoop]

^ With a lot of due respect, I fear you may be missing the point. Clearly, I'm not saying the only function is art. What I am saying is that you can't ignore that critical component.....far from it, that's the part of the project that impacts everybody, day-to-day. It's not just "people bought this building, end of story....since there's a market for it, don't question or criticize or debate the design details, or even the very style or design genre itself".......I mean, what kind of an attitude is that? Defeatist cityscape design?

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

^ With a lot of due respect, I fear you may be missing the point. Clearly, I'm not saying the only function is art. What I am saying is that you can't ignore that critical component.....far from it, that's the part of the project that impacts everybody, day-to-day. It's not just "people bought this building, end of story....since there's a market for it, don't question or criticize or debate the design details, or even the very style or design genre itself".......I mean, what kind of an attitude is that? Defeatist cityscape design?

^ Take a look at your post, and the word that I bolded.

'Everybody'. Architectural critics who hate this tower do not constitute 'everybody'. I would venture to say that most people would find this tower an attractive addition to the cityscape.

[SamInTheLoop]

^ Again, as Kamin alluded to, popularity does not equal quality. I'm trying to determine if we're simply talking past each other or in true disagreement......although it might be a little of the former, I have to say I'm leaning toward it being mostly the latter. Would you try to argue on behalf of the merits of a Tyler Perry 'film' because crowds of people go to see the critic consensus travesty on its first couple weekends? C'mon. Yes, strong consensuses of experts in the realm of architecture and design do know what is better for the cityscape and indeed the rube masses than others - and the rube masses themselves. Shouldn't be a challenging, nor controversial statement to be honest....

[denizen467]

There's one interesting part of the building I haven't seen photographed here yet, as it was finished so recently. The driveway off Erie leading to the vehicle elevators is kind of a rare sight; the shiny pair of elevator doors far down the driveway are virtually one of a kind among downtown highrises, and the driveway itself has some kind of inlaid stone along the middle. (Sorry, closer inspection directly from the sidewalk would have provided a better description.) I wonder why there isn't an awning covering most of it.

[george]

Shot from 4-27. It looks a little more finished off & cleaned up now.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

^ Again, as Kamin alluded to, popularity does not equal quality. I'm trying to determine if we're simply talking past each other or in true disagreement......although it might be a little of the former, I have to say I'm leaning toward it being mostly the latter. Would you try to argue on behalf of the merits of a Tyler Perry 'film' because crowds of people go to see the critic consensus travesty on its first couple weekends? C'mon. Yes, strong consensuses of experts in the realm of architecture and design do know what is better for the cityscape and indeed the rube masses than others - and the rube masses themselves. Shouldn't be a challenging, nor controversial statement to be honest....

^ Films serve little other purpose than to entertain.

Buildings take on a much, much, much greater role for society than movies. We live in them. We work in them. We conduct business in them.

You can't compare them both.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^

An architect cannot have the luxury of being solely an artist.

You have to satisfy your client.

I don't know why I have to keep repeating this point.

A town or city is not just some giant art gallery. Unlike paintings in a museum, buildings MUST serve a function for their society. They must provide the functions of living. In addition, they must appeal to the individuals who have invested in them, not necessarily the critics that pass through town.

If you're a smart architect, you design to the strengths of the material. It can be art and not break the budget.

Looks like the former Ritz of Hong Kong. I don't really like it. But I'm glad Ritz is going up in Chicago!

[ardecila]

That back is interesting although the blank windows merit a facepalm.

It's nice to see attention paid to this service area - seems to be a Lagrange trademark that I actually like. Elysian's car court is actually pretty tasteful if you get past the building facades - it has the high-quality materials of a genuine European courtyard.. It could have been so much more suburban. Now if only they found tenants to occupy those sliver buildings on the sides.

[mousquet]

After all, never mind if they say I have a shitty taste lol, I would confess I've always liked this thing in spite of all the harsh comments you see along the thread. The materials look fine. When the stone panels get a little dirt or whatever that will make them look like they've been living for a longer while, it will look more genuine.

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by george

Shot from 4-27. It looks a little more finished off & cleaned up now.

Yes, less trash-chute-hatch-ish (the dumpster is gone too). Now it kind of looks like two driveway lanes leading up to two shiny, mysterious portals, which could also be an interesting little sight to tourists exploring the city off Boul Mich.