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
     
     
  #561  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2012, 8:27 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
^^^ LaGrange is a pathetic hack of an architect. The buildings you list do nothing but ape the truly beautiful buildings of the past using half-assed modern materials, awkward massing, and strange color choices.

That's not to mentioned the philosophically corrupt notion of trying to apply an 18th century French architectural style for 5 and 6 story buildings to 21st century 70 story building.

Just look at Park Tower and Elysian, WTF is going on with the massing on these towers? The tops are both wildly out of proportion with the rest of the buildings and the shafts are either too fat or two extruded in relation to the detailing.

Then we have strange color choices like using white window frames with black railings on Elysian or using teal precast as an accent on Ritz. Ugh, makes me want to vommit. Don't even get me started on the chode like massing of the Ritz. It's like LaGrange applied the overly short, overly wide, massing of his own penis to a highrise. Let's just hope his dick isn't as disgustingly jagged as the Ritz.

And that's not even the worst part about this abomination. The evisceration in order to act as a parking garage for this tumor is horrible. As if that weren't enough LaGrange then proceeded to mock the style of the Farwell building but instead slathering it in balconies and deciding that teal was an appropriate accent color. Finally the cherry on the cake was the seemingly random pattern of fenestration on the lower levels of this building that visibly doesn't even line up with the actual floors behind it. Blah
     
     
  #562  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2012, 8:32 PM
shaberko shaberko is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swicago Swi Sox View Post
^Why so much hate for LaGrange? In my opinion, many of his best buildings are some of my favorite in Chicago. I really like the Elysian/W-A, the Park Hyatt, and Lincoln Park 2520...also Ritz has turned out to be better than expected, save some of the design elements at the top. What am I missing?
     
     
  #563  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2012, 9:09 PM
lawfin lawfin is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 View Post
^^^ LaGrange is a pathetic hack of an architect. The buildings you list do nothing but ape the truly beautiful buildings of the past using half-assed modern materials, awkward massing, and strange color choices.

That's not to mentioned the philosophically corrupt notion of trying to apply an 18th century French architectural style for 5 and 6 story buildings to 21st century 70 story building.

Just look at Park Tower and Elysian, WTF is going on with the massing on these towers? The tops are both wildly out of proportion with the rest of the buildings and the shafts are either too fat or two extruded in relation to the detailing.

Then we have strange color choices like using white window frames with black railings on Elysian or using teal precast as an accent on Ritz. Ugh, makes me want to vommit. Don't even get me started on the chode like massing of the Ritz. It's like LaGrange applied the overly short, overly wide, massing of his own penis to a highrise. Let's just hope his dick isn't as disgustingly jagged as the Ritz.

And that's not even the worst part about this abomination. The evisceration in order to act as a parking garage for this tumor is horrible. As if that weren't enough LaGrange then proceeded to mock the style of the Farwell building but instead slathering it in balconies and deciding that teal was an appropriate accent color. Finally the cherry on the cake was the seemingly random pattern of fenestration on the lower levels of this building that visibly doesn't even line up with the actual floors behind it. Blah
On this point you and I are in absolute concert.
     
     
  #564  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2012, 9:48 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
^^^ Good. The most frustrating thing about LaGrange is that he shows glimmers of understanding how to compose something attractive, but then just finds some way to take a bunch of not-so-bad pieces and assemble them in the worst possible combination to make them horrendous.

For example, the base of Elysian isn't so bad on its own, nor is the shaft, even the pinnacle isn't so bad if you take into account that the VE of the crown wasn't entirely his fault. The problem is he just found a way to mash them together in the most unappealing way and managed to fuck up the most obvious details like the window frames. If the frames were black or even brown or grey, the building would have been so much better, but he managed to mess it up. And that's the Elysian which is probably his best building outside of that lowrise a ways north of there.
     
     
  #565  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2012, 10:11 PM
Swicago Swi Sox's Avatar
Swicago Swi Sox Swicago Swi Sox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Chicago
Posts: 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 View Post
...Ugh, makes me want to vommit. Don't even get me started on the chode like massing of the Ritz. It's like LaGrange applied the overly short, overly wide, massing of his own penis to a highrise. Let's just hope his dick isn't as disgustingly jagged as the Ritz...
Thanks for the specific (if overly graphic) explanation! Obviously his designs are enjoyed enough by the masses, as evidenced by the fact that he has so much work in Chicago, but I get your point about cramming old world styles onto a 70 story building and some of the details of the buildings. Maybe that is what makes them appealing to the masses? Because they evoke designs people have seen before and actually like if they don’t think about it for too long?

I also agree that there are always some details on every project that make me mad. At the risk of being yelled at again, I will say that I don't particularly love the balcony railings at Aqua (I wish they were glassier somehow), however those small things don't make me hate a building or architect.

I guess my overall point is that, despite the things you mention, I still find them pleasing enough to not make me fly into fits of anger, which I guess is where we differ. I will take one of these over a cookie cutter streeterville building these days...

Also, I did forget my favorite Chicago LaGrange building, Erie on the Park (once again, hope there is no yelling). I forgot about it because it is very different from his others that I don’t associate it with him….
     
     
  #566  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2012, 10:14 PM
SoaringSkylines SoaringSkylines is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: 900 Biscayne Bay; Miami
Posts: 182
ROFL... I'm sorry, but this building reminds me of something built in the 1980s.. Haha!
     
     
  #567  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2012, 6:24 AM
untitledreality untitledreality is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,043
Many of his projects have used precast
concrete façades, a modern material
that helps invoke the richness
of history often incorporated into his
projects. “Precast concrete allows us
to bring the complexity of detail to
these projects that would not be possible
in stone,”
he explains. “It often is
the best material to use. It provides a
richness of color and texture and creates
any detail we want. And it’s not
too expensive to work with.”

Can someone, anyone point out a single instance in any of this hack's designs where this holds true? I understand that he is primarily meaning 'cant get complex with stone because it would be wildly more expensive', but even so, none of his designs have any intricate detailing or even fine joinery.
     
     
  #568  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2012, 6:27 AM
untitledreality untitledreality is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 View Post
...It's like LaGrange applied the overly short, overly wide, massing of his own penis to a highrise. Let's just hope his dick isn't as disgustingly jagged as the Ritz.


To cheer you up (or further enrage depending on how you take it), take a moment to enjoy some of Robert Stern's work as a reminder that not everyone in the classical genre is a complete hack.
     
     
  #569  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2012, 6:43 AM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by untitledreality View Post


To cheer you up (or further enrage depending on how you take it), take a moment to enjoy some of Robert Stern's work as a reminder that not everyone in the classical genre is a complete hack.
^ To me looks like the only difference is the use of limestone
     
     
  #570  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2012, 6:56 AM
Rizzo Rizzo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by untitledreality View Post


To cheer you up (or further enrage depending on how you take it), take a moment to enjoy some of Robert Stern's work as a reminder that not everyone in the classical genre is a complete hack.
Stern did two large buildings on the university of Michigan campus during my time there. Both were done well. Though a few odd proportions, the ornamental details were great. There's another building (law quad addition) that looks like its been there century, only it's been there a year. Going from a small college town to the big city, you'd expect more out if Chicago. Instead I see something no more convincing than Disney stage sets. Btw, front entry is up on 2520. Not good.
     
     
  #571  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2012, 2:08 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
Thanks for the specific (if overly graphic) explanation! Obviously his designs are enjoyed enough by the masses, as evidenced by the fact that he has so much work in Chicago, but I get your point about cramming old world styles onto a 70 story building and some of the details of the buildings. Maybe that is what makes them appealing to the masses? Because they evoke designs people have seen before and actually like if they don’t think about it for too long?
The vast majority of buildings constructed in the 2000's were banal concrete boxes, does that mean "the masses" found banal concrete boxes (e.g. Grand Plaza) appealing? Almost all buildings under construction in Chicago right now are glassy and modern, does that mean people find glassy and modern buildings appealing right now? The number of buildings being constructed in any particular style says nothing about the tastes of the public. The occupants of these buildings only care about the interiors and amenities while the exterior design is almost completely up to the whim of the architect and developers.

Quote:
I also agree that there are always some details on every project that make me mad. At the risk of being yelled at again, I will say that I don't particularly love the balcony railings at Aqua (I wish they were glassier somehow), however those small things don't make me hate a building or architect.
The railings on Aqua probably are my least favorite part of the building, but I've grown to understand that they are pretty good at fading in against the facade of the building and allowing the slabs to shine. Gang originally intended for them to be more glassy I believe but it was VE'd out. However, the devil is in the details and Gang uses a scalpel while LaGrange uses a shotgun and blasts disorderly chaos everywhere.

Quote:
Also, I did forget my favorite Chicago LaGrange building, Erie on the Park (once again, hope there is no yelling). I forgot about it because it is very different from his others that I don’t associate it with him….
Erie wasn't actually designed by LaGrange, but rather one of the associates in his firm who left shortly thereafter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by untitledreality View Post


To cheer you up (or further enrage depending on how you take it), take a moment to enjoy some of Robert Stern's work as a reminder that not everyone in the classical genre is a complete hack.
I actually think Stern is a hack too. I like a lot of his smaller buildings, but don't get what everyone is on about with 15 CPW. The building is boring at best, maybe somewhat interesting in that they slathered money all over it. To be honest everyone praises its "pre war massing" and I think it just looks like an awkward blob that is average at best.

The problem with neo-classicists is that they ignore one important point about the Modern era; the way we live and expect to live has fundamentally changed. No longer do people want a highly divided floor plan with windows that look into a light port. People want views and lots of them. They want light. They want an open floor plan. They want a modern lifestyle. The massing of prewar building was largely based on the prewar lifestyle where people were OK with a window looking into their neighbors kitchen. This is why they all abut each other and feature numerous light ports.

The reason Modernist buildings tend to ignore the shape of their site is simple: they are designed to be stand alone entities that offer the best views and living conditions to all of their inhabitants. They are designed to capture views and light, not act as filing cabinets for humans. Simply put, a true prewar building can't be built because it simply won't sell. So what do you think happens when you try to take a prewar style and paste it on a Modern massing? You get disasters like this building.

The Ritz is no different on the inside from say Legacy. They are both designed to stand alone and capture maximum light and views for their occupants. However the Legacy embraces this purpose and assumes a soaring, gleaming, composition while Ritz attempts to cloak this purpose and pass off as a ye olde preware skyescrapere. However, no amount of teal precast can hide the fact that it's programmatic massing is simply not prewar inside. Therefore we end up with an awkward blob that has no cohesion.
     
     
  #572  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2012, 5:24 PM
headcase's Avatar
headcase headcase is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: East Village, Chicago
Posts: 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 View Post
The problem with neo-classicists is that they ignore one important point about the Modern era; the way we live and expect to live has fundamentally changed. No longer do people want a highly divided floor plan with windows that look into a light port. People want views and lots of them. They want light. They want an open floor plan. They want a modern lifestyle. The massing of prewar building was largely based on the prewar lifestyle where people were OK with a window looking into their neighbors kitchen. This is why they all abut each other and feature numerous light ports.

The reason Modernist buildings tend to ignore the shape of their site is simple: they are designed to be stand alone entities that offer the best views and living conditions to all of their inhabitants. They are designed to capture views and light, not act as filing cabinets for humans. Simply put, a true prewar building can't be built because it simply won't sell. So what do you think happens when you try to take a prewar style and paste it on a Modern massing? You get disasters like this building.

The Ritz is no different on the inside from say Legacy. They are both designed to stand alone and capture maximum light and views for their occupants. However the Legacy embraces this purpose and assumes a soaring, gleaming, composition while Ritz attempts to cloak this purpose and pass off as a ye olde preware skyescrapere. However, no amount of teal precast can hide the fact that it's programmatic massing is simply not prewar inside. Therefore we end up with an awkward blob that has no cohesion.


SSDD
__________________
He was constantly reminded of how startlingly different a place the world was when viewed from a point only three feet to the left.
     
     
  #573  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2012, 7:31 PM
Rizzo Rizzo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 View Post
The vast majority of buildings constructed in the 2000's were banal concrete boxes, does that mean "the masses" found banal concrete boxes (e.g. Grand Plaza) appealing? Almost all buildings under construction in Chicago right now are glassy and modern, does that mean people find glassy and modern buildings appealing right now? The number of buildings being constructed in any particular style says nothing about the tastes of the public. The occupants of these buildings only care about the interiors and amenities while the exterior design is almost completely up to the whim of the architect and developers.



The railings on Aqua probably are my least favorite part of the building, but I've grown to understand that they are pretty good at fading in against the facade of the building and allowing the slabs to shine. Gang originally intended for them to be more glassy I believe but it was VE'd out. However, the devil is in the details and Gang uses a scalpel while LaGrange uses a shotgun and blasts disorderly chaos everywhere.



Erie wasn't actually designed by LaGrange, but rather one of the associates in his firm who left shortly thereafter.



I actually think Stern is a hack too. I like a lot of his smaller buildings, but don't get what everyone is on about with 15 CPW. The building is boring at best, maybe somewhat interesting in that they slathered money all over it. To be honest everyone praises its "pre war massing" and I think it just looks like an awkward blob that is average at best.

The problem with neo-classicists is that they ignore one important point about the Modern era; the way we live and expect to live has fundamentally changed. No longer do people want a highly divided floor plan with windows that look into a light port. People want views and lots of them. They want light. They want an open floor plan. They want a modern lifestyle. The massing of prewar building was largely based on the prewar lifestyle where people were OK with a window looking into their neighbors kitchen. This is why they all abut each other and feature numerous light ports.

The reason Modernist buildings tend to ignore the shape of their site is simple: they are designed to be stand alone entities that offer the best views and living conditions to all of their inhabitants. They are designed to capture views and light, not act as filing cabinets for humans. Simply put, a true prewar building can't be built because it simply won't sell. So what do you think happens when you try to take a prewar style and paste it on a Modern massing? You get disasters like this building.

The Ritz is no different on the inside from say Legacy. They are both designed to stand alone and capture maximum light and views for their occupants. However the Legacy embraces this purpose and assumes a soaring, gleaming, composition while Ritz attempts to cloak this purpose and pass off as a ye olde preware skyescrapere. However, no amount of teal precast can hide the fact that it's programmatic massing is simply not prewar inside. Therefore we end up with an awkward blob that has no cohesion.
What I highlighted is precisely correct. Though I think there will always be a market and for neoclassicism and personally I don't have a problem with that. I think what's important is how well a design is executed. I think there's plenty of talented architects out there that could design and detail like we did over a century ago, but everything is so cost prohibitive. But as you mentioned, they try to adapt a classic facade to modern floorplate sizes and the desire for large windows. You end up getting strange proportions of fenestration and massing. And because mass production and modernism are closely related, you end up getting those "details" that look cheap and tacky.

It is in my opinion if the costs outweigh classic design, don't go that route. Honestly, the same could be said for elements of design in contemporary architecture as well where a perfectly rounded corner ends up being horribly segmented or clean parapet ends up with a ton of flashing, scuppers, and gutters extending from it.

If we want classic design, we really should be preserving it instead of emulating. I wish the Farwell could have been saved in entirety, with a narrower elevator garage, and slightly taller glass building attached.

Here's the examples at U of M I mentioned. I'm okay with the Stern buildings. The last building made of stone was done by a different architect, but I think it's a perfect of example of neo-gothic done very well.

North Quad:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jhoweaa...n/photostream/

Public Policy (A little chunky at the front, but the rest of the building is great)


Law Quad Addition:


Original 1920's Law Quad


Not all buildings are of classic architecture on U of M's campus such as the new business school, constructed from a single $100 Million donation
The building is entirely made of terra cotta, stone, and glass. Each individual stone hand lay in place.
     
     
  #574  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2012, 8:28 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
^^^ Exactly. Those are perfect examples you posted. Small buildings work much better with classical design simple because classical design was developed to be used for small buildings, not skyscrapers. That's why I still dislike 15 CPW. No matter how much limestone you put on it, it is still a building with a modern program with classical design pasted on the outside of it.

Also, that last building your posted is gorgeous. Who designed it?
     
     
  #575  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2012, 9:10 PM
Rizzo Rizzo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 View Post
^^^ Exactly. Those are perfect examples you posted. Small buildings work much better with classical design simple because classical design was developed to be used for small buildings, not skyscrapers. That's why I still dislike 15 CPW. No matter how much limestone you put on it, it is still a building with a modern program with classical design pasted on the outside of it.

Also, that last building your posted is gorgeous. Who designed it?
KPF, New York office
     
     
  #576  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2012, 10:04 PM
untitledreality untitledreality is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 View Post
The problem with neo-classicists is that they ignore one important point about the Modern era; the way we live and expect to live has fundamentally changed. No longer do people want a highly divided floor plan with windows that look into a light port. People want views and lots of them. They want light. They want an open floor plan. They want a modern lifestyle.
I have got to disagree with that. A huge portion of the market still prefers traditional living arrangements, the only things that has changed are that they want a kitchen that can double as a living space and contemporary baths. Which by themselves do not refute classical designs. There is a reason buildings like CPW15 are so wildly successful and prewar conversions are so popular.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 View Post
They are designed to capture views and light, not act as filing cabinets for humans.
They are ALL filing cabinets for humans. 'Here is your box, enjoy it'. So many contemporary buildings that boast open plan and modern living are really just compressed VE'd shoeboxes. Deep floor plates with the only light source being on the perimeter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 View Post
Simply put, a true prewar building can't be built because it simply won't sell.
Except for all the existing prewar buildings that have sold for decades and continue to do so the world over. 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.
     
     
  #577  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2012, 10:13 PM
untitledreality untitledreality is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,043
The large window argument cracks me up by the way. Outside of modern buildings with full height glazing, the windows many late 1800s, early 1900s buildings dwarfs their contemporary counterparts.
     
     
  #578  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2012, 11:28 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
^^^ That's a load of crock. Post examples. Also, we are basically only talking about modern buildings with full height glazing. There are pretty much only two highrise styles right now; half assed faux historicism and glassy modern.


Quote:
Originally Posted by untitledreality View Post
I have got to disagree with that. A huge portion of the market still prefers traditional living arrangements, the only things that has changed are that they want a kitchen that can double as a living space and contemporary baths. Which by themselves do not refute classical designs. There is a reason buildings like CPW15 are so wildly successful and prewar conversions are so popular.
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.


Quote:
They are ALL filing cabinets for humans. 'Here is your box, enjoy it'. So many contemporary buildings that boast open plan and modern living are really just compressed VE'd shoeboxes. Deep floor plates with the only light source being on the perimeter.
No, no they aren't. Pre-war buildings put an emphasis on maximizing density at the expense of their residents. 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.

Also, the only modern buildings with deep floorpates are office buildings where deep floor pates are far more efficient. 99.9% of Modern residential buildings have floor plates that are dwarfed by the labyrinthine plates of prewar apartment blocks. 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.

Quote:
Except for all the existing prewar buildings that have sold for decades and continue to do so the world over. 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.
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.
     
     
  #579  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2012, 11:56 PM
vandelay vandelay is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 871
This got off topic. Any mods here? As with all of the modern vs. traditional debates, what strikes me is how it becomes an ideological issue. Instead of trying to make an economic/cultural/historical argument, people should just admit that it boils down to taste, and then work backwards from there.

Rejecting a building on ideological grounds is narrow-minded. Ideology results in feats of cognitive dissonance. For example: one common rejection of 'pre-war' style buildings is that they are adapted too much to modern requirements and construction; as a result people who champion modern buildings become the strictest traditionalists.

Then there is the argument that architecture should reflect our time, as if every single time period is a unique and separate phenomenon from what comes before and after, and not a moment in an ongoing continuum. Whether you like it or not, even this Lagrange is a part of contemporary architecture, and reflects the times and tastes.

Let's cut the silliness get out of the modern vs. traditional argument.
     
     
  #580  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2012, 12:09 AM
Alliance's Avatar
Alliance Alliance is offline
NEW YORK | CHICAGO
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 3,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by spyguy View Post
I'll choose a few of the better ones. The bad news is that he apparently loves precast (not surprising given the publication) and is designing two new rental buildings in Chicago.

http://www.pci.org/pdf/publications/.../AS-12WI-5.pdf

Updating the Past for Today
Craig A. Shutt


...Deciding on the style for each project creates aesthetic and functional
challenges, he notes, but the ultimate
designs are driven by the building’s
need. But make no mistake: he is not
designing “historic” buildings. “All are
very modern designs, with historic
appearances. They have large windows and use modern materials.”

At the Ritz Carlton Residences, for
instance, owners wanted balconies
in each corner. “You don’t do a classical building and put balconies in each
corner, so we chose a concept that
was inspired by an Art Deco style,” he
explains. “But no matter the look, all
of the projects are designed for living.
That is the ultimate purpose and their
need.

....Whatever projects are coming, they
will invoke the richness of the past in a
current vocabulary. “I have been pretty
disappointed by the design work I see
today that tries to produce modern images,”
he says. “Compared to the 1900
to 1930 period, today’s work is very
confusing.
I don’t really know what is
happening with it. I much prefer to go
back to the older times and move the
designs forward.”


That doesn’t mean the new designs
are old-fashioned, he stresses. “There
is a lot to learn from past designers in
Chicago especially, and there is a lot of
value there. We should not lose that.
We need to take the quality of the experience that is available to us and reinterpret it for the twenty-first century.
I’m not sure that is happening to the
best of its ability right now.”
My hypocrisy meter just exploded.
__________________
My: Skyscraper Art - Diagrams - Diagram Thread
     
     
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


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:23 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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