CHICAGO | The Ritz-Carlton Residences | 495 FT / 151 M | 40 FLOORS | COM - Page 26

J_M_Tungsten · #**501** Posted **Nov 12, 2011, 11:38 PM**

I'm so disappointed that this thing turned out so beige. In the earlier renders it was definitely a lighter color. It didn't help the design being lighter but overall it helped IMO. Are they going to put those grey precast design elements on the crown or just leave it as black voids?

george · #**502** Posted **Nov 17, 2011, 2:51 AM**

11-16

george · #**503** Posted **Nov 24, 2011, 1:43 AM**

11-23

wrab · #**504** Posted **Nov 24, 2011, 4:17 PM**

Love that Apple shot, George.

jcchii · #**505** Posted **Nov 26, 2011, 3:38 AM**

not a favorite by any means but not a full disaster. The top could have been a horror and is OK

harryc · #**506** Posted **Nov 27, 2011, 4:04 AM**

Great work George on this and the other threads.

yaletown_fella · #**507** Posted **Nov 27, 2011, 5:12 PM**

The facadectomy portion looks much better than the actual building.

Although I have a soft spot for the cerulean/silver accents on the crown.

Ch.G, Ch.G · #**508** Posted **Nov 27, 2011, 11:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by yaletown_fella

The facadectomy portion looks much better than the actual building.

Although I have a soft spot for the cerulean/silver accents on the crown.

Really? I think that's the worst part.

george · #**509** Posted **Nov 29, 2011, 6:28 PM**

11-29

Chicagoguy · #**510** Posted **Nov 30, 2011, 10:15 PM**

Maybe I totally missed it, but have there been any announcements for retailers who will be moving into the base? I have looked and tried to find some information on it but I was unsuccessful.

george · #**511** Posted **Dec 13, 2011, 6:22 PM**

12-12

colemonkee · #**512** Posted **Dec 13, 2011, 6:28 PM**

I have to admit, it doesn't look that bad in that last shot.

Chicago_Forever · #**513** Posted **Dec 13, 2011, 9:58 PM**

I think the reconstruction of the smaller farwell building only emphasizes how nasty the Ritz really is. A nice, tall , glassy tower would have been much better. Or the use of real limestone.

Buckman821 · #**514** Posted **Dec 13, 2011, 10:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicago_Forever

I think the reconstruction of the smaller farwell building only emphasizes how nasty the Ritz really is. A nice, tall , glassy tower would have been much better. Or the use of real limestone.

Its frustrating because that cleaned up limestone on the Farwell building looks so nice. Just imagine how it would've popped with a contrasting building behind it.

Kippis · #**515** Posted **Dec 14, 2011, 3:13 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by george

12-12

God, that clean limestone looks fantastic. I'm not liking the fugly shit attached to it on the left there, though. I really had high hopes for this building at the beginning, that maybe it wouldn't turn out so bad. But Lagrange's reputation for crapping out shit-tastic "designs" really exceeded my expectations on this one . . .

untitledreality · #**516** Posted **Dec 14, 2011, 3:29 AM**

Note to all developers and architects, concrete is an amazing material, it can do lots of things extremely well and with the appropriate mixes, additives and construction it can look phenomenal. But one thing that it cannot do, is be Limestone. If you want the look of a building clad in limestone I have some news for you, concrete is not limestone, never will be.

Affixing this beige precast monstrosity next to even a simple, clean lined prewar limestone building exposes this truth. So everyone, please knock it off.

Rizzo · #**517** Posted **Dec 14, 2011, 3:36 AM**

The Farwell building is/was a great piece of architecture
The Farwell was torn down
It was argued that the Farwell could be replaced by a bigger and better building. More units, more height, faux historical facade. Better right?
Ritz goes goes up
Farwell facade makes a return.

Farwell stands with side by side proof, you simply can't replace our architectural treasures and we need to be more conscious of what we destroy.

Buckman821 · #**518** Posted **Dec 14, 2011, 4:28 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hayward

Farwell stands with side by side proof, you simply can't replace our architectural treasures and we need to be more conscious of what we destroy.

Gospel.

I think it should be added that the best way to showcase said treasures is NOT to try to blend in with them/make it all look like its part of the same development. The Farwell facade looks great but the fact that it is adjacent to the precast junk just somehow cheapens it. It makes me sick.

I know 215 W. Washington got mixed reviews on this site but they knew a hell of a lot more about working among historic property. If a similar approach had been taken here, a cleaned up Farwell would have REALLY shined.

untitledreality · #**519** Posted **Dec 14, 2011, 5:37 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hayward

Farwell stands with side by side proof, you simply can't replace our architectural treasures and we need to be more conscious of what we destroy.

1000 times yes. And in this respect I am a thoroughly jealous Chicagoan when I look at New York.

chicubs111 · #**520** Posted **Dec 14, 2011, 2:06 PM**

How much more expensive is it to build a building wiht granite than precast?..how come buildings arent built with granite material anymore?. i mean they built alot during the 20's through 40's