HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive


    The Ritz-Carlton Residences in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • Chicago Skyscraper Diagram

Map Location
Chicago Projects & Construction Forum

 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #581  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2012, 2:11 AM
untitledreality untitledreality is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,043
Quote:
15CPW doesn't have a prewar layout. The floorplans are all modernized. Of course people still live in prewar buildings, but not because they prefer the layouts. They live in them for the charm and the lower price. Not because they love claustrophobic rooms and long hallways... And of course, there will always be some people who like it, but fact is no one will buy it if you try to build it new.
Did I say that CPW15 had a prewar layout? No, I said it had a traditional arrangement. And where do you get the idea that prewar properties go for less than modern buildings? Even in Chicago prewar buildings fetch enormous sums. Look at any of the well maintained luxury prewars along NLSD. Or even the better maintained Hyde Park prewars.

Of course no one will ever build new with carbon copy floor plans, but the essence of traditional living arrangements still has tremendous value.

Quote:
Modern buildings put a premium on maximizing quality of life (and therefore value) over density. 860-880 is all you need to look at to realize this. Instead of building to the lot lines, Mies decided to set the buildings back and liberate them from the "pack em in" style of the the past. This opened up view corridors from every unit and created a much more pleasant living experience. This quite literally is the hallmark of Modernism.
BS. Minimal boxes that maximize the buildable volume while simply providing perimeter windows does not equal 'maximizing quality of life'. Densities over the site will be identical (because what developer wouldn't fully build out a site), you are just pushing the density vertical. Its still 'pack em in'. See a contemporary building like 235VB as an example... 700+ units and deep, dark floor plans... see also SONO

Quote:
I can't believe you are seriously suggesting that a building like 860-880 LSD has bigger floor plates than a building like its prewar counterpart on the other side of Chestnut.
Did I once mention 860-880? But since you brought it up... 850 NLSD is shallower exterior to exterior than 860-880 due to its interior light well. I was actually speaking of buildings like the previously mentioned 235 and SONO.


Quote:
Again, of course people will still live in them, they already exist. It would be stupid to tear them all down and start over. The problem is you are attempting to ignore the fact that no one is building those types of floor plans today because they know they won't sell for anywhere near what a modern plan will sell for. No one is doing it for a reason because it is obsolete.
...
Quote:
Originally Posted by untitledreality
Build ground up using the same materials, principles, massing, modernize the living arrangements and you're set... unless you get a hack like LaGrange... or the countless others.
You're right... no one is building carbon copies of 1920s residential towers anymore... and I didnt say they should... I said that for those who build faux classical should look to their prewar counterparts for design cues instead of trying to slap a traditional exterior on a modern tower.

Buildings like the Ritz, Elysian, LP2520, Park Tower, 840 NLSD, K Station, Michigan Ave Towers, Museum Park 1-4 and the Columbian will continue to be built... if these developers and architects continue with faux classicism they should at least do a better job at relating to their historic counterparts through materiality, addressing the streetscape, massing and updated traditional living arrangements.
     
     
  #582  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2012, 2:16 AM
untitledreality untitledreality is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by vandelay View Post
Let's cut the silliness get out of the modern vs. traditional argument.
But this is pertinent specifically because of buildings like the Ritz. What exactly are they trying to do? Its half assed traditional, half assed contemporary. Its obvious that LaGrange had issues in dealing with meeting the demands of these two fundamentally contradicting ideologies.

It really needs to go one way or the other.
     
     
  #583  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2012, 3:23 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by untitledreality View Post
Did I say that CPW15 had a prewar layout? No, I said it had a traditional arrangement. And where do you get the idea that prewar properties go for less than modern buildings? Even in Chicago prewar buildings fetch enormous sums. Look at any of the well maintained luxury prewars along NLSD. Or even the better maintained Hyde Park prewars.
You clearly haven't got the slightest knowledge of how real estate economics works. When you appraise a building a traditional layout is a knock, PERIOD. You cannot debate this. There are volumes of aggregate data out there that show traditional floor plans (minus adjustments for whatever inferior and superior qualities they have) sell and rent for less. Also, you are a moron if you really think the reason real estate in the Gold Coast or along LSD sells for gobs of money because it has a pre war layout.

And again, you just keep fucking ignoring the unavoidable fact that NO ONE builds pre-war floor plans anymore because they would sell for way less money if they did. If this is not the case, then tell my why it is that absolutely no one builds those layouts anymore.

Quote:
Of course no one will ever build new with carbon copy floor plans, but the essence of traditional living arrangements still has tremendous value.
No no no, we aren't just talking about the fact that no one builds "carbon copy" floor plans of old styles, we are talking about the fact that no one builds floor plans that are even remotely close to prewar layouts anymore.


Quote:
BS. Minimal boxes that maximize the buildable volume while simply providing perimeter windows does not equal 'maximizing quality of life'. Densities over the site will be identical (because what developer wouldn't fully build out a site), you are just pushing the density vertical. Its still 'pack em in'. See a contemporary building like 235VB as an example... 700+ units and deep, dark floor plans... see also SONO
So you are admitting I'm right? You are admitting that modern buildings tend to stretch that density out over greater heights. You are admitting that there is a fundamental difference in the way we mass buildings now versus in 1930. Therefore you are also admitting that I am correct in that a true pre war building can never be built today.

Also, 235 is a great example. That building had been in financial trouble because no one wants units where the bedrooms have almost no light. The prices in that building have been severely depressed as a result. That's because 235 is a piss poor example of a modern layout.


Quote:
Did I once mention 860-880? But since you brought it up... 850 NLSD is shallower exterior to exterior than 860-880 due to its interior light well. I was actually speaking of buildings like the previously mentioned 235 and SONO.
Doesn't matter if you mentioned it, it is the example that I'm using. And no, 850 does not have a shallower interior depth. It is almost exactly as wide as either 860-880 tower, yet a majority of the windows look into the dingy light well which is EXACTLY MY POINT. That is not acceptable anymore. People don't want a view of the fire escape. Therefore a building like 850 can never be built again.


Quote:
You're right... no one is building carbon copies of 1920s residential towers anymore... and I didnt say they should... I said that for those who build faux classical should look to their prewar counterparts for design cues instead of trying to slap a traditional exterior on a modern tower.

Buildings like the Ritz, Elysian, LP2520, Park Tower, 840 NLSD, K Station, Michigan Ave Towers, Museum Park 1-4 and the Columbian will continue to be built... if these developers and architects continue with faux classicism they should at least do a better job at relating to their historic counterparts through materiality, addressing the streetscape, massing and updated traditional living arrangements.
And herein lies the problem. You don't know what the hell you are talking about and are just saying "well I think developers and architects should do this" without taking into account the fact that they would go bankrupt if they listened to you. In order to create a pre-war massing they'd have to revert to pre-war style layouts and would go belly up just like 235 almost did. No one wants the drugs you are pushing, not this forum, not developers, not homebuyers, not realtors. The designs you want people to resort to don't exist because they can't exist. They are economic impossibilities.
     
     
  #584  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2012, 10:21 PM
untitledreality untitledreality is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,043
^ Im just wondering, can you possibly get into a discussion without name calling and personal attacks? Its quite unsightly.

Quote:
"well I think developers and architects should do this" without taking into account the fact that they would go bankrupt if they listened to you. In order to create a pre-war massing they'd have to revert to pre-war style layouts .... The designs you want people to resort to don't exist because they can't exist. They are economic impossibilities.
Good grief, I never said to copy prewar massing... and I never said to copy prewar layouts. I have no idea how you keep drawing these conclusions. I am not asking anyone to resort to a specific design, but to discover a balance between modern needs and traditional desires. You yourself CONSTANTLY bemoan the designs of LaGrange yet refute any attempt to uncover solutions for better design other than beating your chest for modernism.

I am not pushing for style over one another... they all have their merits and all fulfill certain segments of the market... and together they create a lively urban fabric. I am just pushing for higher quality design, regardless the architect or the style, part of which should be understanding the inherent differences of each style and that cross pollination is a difficult task that requires a lot of thought.
     
     
  #585  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2012, 4:33 AM
intrepidDesign's Avatar
intrepidDesign intrepidDesign is offline
Windy City Dan
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 494
Crown

Seems like the are covering up those awful louver panels with ornamentation. Lipstick on a pig at this point.


Last edited by intrepidDesign; Feb 19, 2012 at 4:43 AM.
     
     
  #586  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2012, 4:53 AM
J_M_Tungsten's Avatar
J_M_Tungsten J_M_Tungsten is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,379
O god, that looks awful
     
     
  #587  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2012, 6:35 AM
J_M_Tungsten's Avatar
J_M_Tungsten J_M_Tungsten is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,379
^O yea, you're right, it is stunning...what ever was I thinking...
     
     
  #588  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2012, 3:09 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by untitledreality View Post
Good grief, I never said to copy prewar massing... and I never said to copy prewar layouts. I have no idea how you keep drawing these conclusions. I am not asking anyone to resort to a specific design, but to discover a balance between modern needs and traditional desires. You yourself CONSTANTLY bemoan the designs of LaGrange yet refute any attempt to uncover solutions for better design other than beating your chest for modernism.
Then why do you keep saying this:

"Did I say that CPW15 had a prewar layout? No, I said it had a traditional arrangement."

and this:

"Buildings like the Ritz, Elysian, LP2520, Park Tower, 840 NLSD, K Station, Michigan Ave Towers, Museum Park 1-4 and the Columbian will continue to be built... if these developers and architects continue with faux classicism they should at least do a better job at relating to their historic counterparts through materiality, addressing the streetscape, massing and updated traditional living arrangements."

Your basically claiming that, because you said "traditional arrangement" instead of "prewar layout", that we aren't talking about the same thing. Except it's pretty obvious that pre-war and traditional are referring to the same thing in this instance. And no, say "updated" before it is a cop out. I assume by "updated" you mean open up the kitchen and meld it with the dining room at a minimum. The problem is the minute you make that change then you are talking about a contemporary floor plan and something that is not remotely traditional. I also assume you are talking about much much larger bathrooms which again is something that is not remotely traditional. The absence of these two features alone is enough to make a new construction building unprofitable as the two single most important features for buyers/renters today are the kitchen and the bathrooms.

At this point you are just trying to argue semantics because, after all, what is a modern floor plan but an extremely updated traditional floor plan?
     
     
  #589  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2012, 12:19 AM
george's Avatar
george george is offline
dream fast
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: east village, chicago
Posts: 3,290
Those panels, really?









__________________
To have ambition was my ambition - Gang of Four
     
     
  #590  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2012, 1:48 AM
J_M_Tungsten's Avatar
J_M_Tungsten J_M_Tungsten is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,379
I honestly think this is the worst building Lagrange has done to date, although, to be fair, Lincoln park 2520 isn't done yet.
     
     
  #591  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2012, 2:56 AM
Alliance's Avatar
Alliance Alliance is offline
NEW YORK | CHICAGO
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 3,532
Awful is an understatement.
__________________
My: Skyscraper Art - Diagrams - Diagram Thread
     
     
  #592  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2012, 3:26 AM
Rizzo Rizzo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,281
Well at least the exterior of the Farwell looks outstanding (of course)
     
     
  #593  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2012, 4:48 AM
Michi's Avatar
Michi Michi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Downtown Houston
Posts: 8,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by george View Post
Those panels, really?

They couldn't spend another $5.00 and put a panel on the back slot?
     
     
  #594  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2012, 5:14 AM
uaarkson's Avatar
uaarkson uaarkson is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Back in Flint
Posts: 2,084
Boy. This building sucks.

Carry on...
     
     
  #595  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2012, 5:34 AM
Alliance's Avatar
Alliance Alliance is offline
NEW YORK | CHICAGO
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 3,532
I didnt even see the cute foofy balcony railings!...that dont seem to fit on the balconies.
__________________
My: Skyscraper Art - Diagrams - Diagram Thread
     
     
  #596  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2012, 5:42 AM
Rizzo Rizzo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michi View Post
They couldn't spend another $5.00 and put a panel on the back slot?
Sold out! i heard they were a hot buy at Menards this week.
     
     
  #597  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2012, 6:17 AM
Michi's Avatar
Michi Michi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Downtown Houston
Posts: 8,520
Ha! And that's only because Winkleman's went out of business years ago!
     
     
  #598  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2012, 2:29 PM
george's Avatar
george george is offline
dream fast
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: east village, chicago
Posts: 3,290
3-1

__________________
To have ambition was my ambition - Gang of Four
     
     
  #599  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2012, 5:09 PM
Swicago Swi Sox's Avatar
Swicago Swi Sox Swicago Swi Sox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Chicago
Posts: 244
The snark level on this forum is up to 11.
     
     
  #600  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2012, 5:58 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swicago Swi Sox View Post
The snark level on this forum is up to 11.
The ugly level on this building is approaching a 12...
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
 

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:55 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.