CHICAGO | The Ritz-Carlton Residences | 495 FT / 151 M | 40 FLOORS | COM - Page 31

george · #**601** Posted **Mar 3, 2012, 12:08 AM**

nomarandlee · #**602** Posted **Mar 3, 2012, 12:59 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hayward

Well at least the exterior of the Farwell looks outstanding (of course)

It really does. The absolute only saving grace of this project.

george · #**603** Posted **Mar 14, 2012, 1:21 PM**

3-13

george · #**604** Posted **Mar 14, 2012, 9:25 PM**

More vent panels

Busy Bee · #**605** Posted **Mar 15, 2012, 9:00 PM**

Good heavens what a cartoon.

spyguy · #**606** Posted **Mar 15, 2012, 10:40 PM**

Chicago Skyline by Steve Schar, on Flickr

sentinel · #**607** Posted **Mar 15, 2012, 11:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by george

3-13

Thanks for the pictures George.

This one in particular says it all: taking an existing building (a very nice one at that), deconstructing it, rebuilding it as a GARAGE, and worst of all not learning anything from it is the biggest insult. 'God is in the details' which is something that was apparently never understood @ Lucien & friends because if it had been, then the end product of the Ritz-Carlton residences would have been very different, IMO and this building wouldn't have so much (probably legitimate) vitriolage thrown at it. Comparing the difference between something as simple as the precast panel joints speaks volumes to me. It's not architecture, it's just a building.

intrepidDesign · #**608** Posted **Mar 16, 2012, 12:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy

Chicago Skyline by Steve Schar, on Flickr

That western wall is just absurd. The eastern wall as least has some interest with the multiple corners. The southern wall, whatever happened to the rounded balconies, but then you get to the west and it's like they sheered off part of the building. And then you go north and you have that abrupt jutting out of the building...ugh.. this thing is just graceless. Even the crown is asymmetrically weird because of the layout. Too bad our Ritz isn't more like LA's

ardecila · #**609** Posted **Mar 16, 2012, 12:09 AM**

Hell, even the color strategy of Farwell makes the Ritz-Carlton look awful. Whereas Farwell uses dark spandrels that blend with the windows to create soaring vertical emphasis, Ritz-Carlton uses the same flat shade of beige for everything, except for a few lucky spandrels done in a shade of green that is way, way too bright.

Fortunately, there's both the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District and the Canyon Ranch site. I assume one or the other will be developed with a tower sometime in the next decade. Hopefully it's the MWRDC; I like the little Miesian building and plaza behind St. James Cathedral.

Rizzo · #**610** Posted **Mar 19, 2012, 3:09 AM**

ardecila · #**611** Posted **Mar 19, 2012, 5:20 AM**

RobertWalpole · #**612** Posted **Mar 19, 2012, 6:37 AM**

I gues that I'm the only person that likes this. Granted, the location warrated higher-end materials, but I look non-glass, retro buildings.

ChiPhi · #**613** Posted **Mar 19, 2012, 8:10 PM**

^^^ I don't mind this either. To the average viewer it will melt into the cityscape and be another deco building (most people I talk to who see Lagrange architecture can't even see the difference between his and the real thing). Ramsa does a MUCH better job of constructing appropriate buildings, but most people won't see the difference anyway. That being said, some of the choices on this building (the green trim where the original building used black, the changes in "stone" shape) are rather flummoxing. I don't hate Lagrange or this building, just think it could have been a lot better. But I would say that I am much more timid than most people on this site in that respect.

Also the angle by ardecila is really bland.

Rizzo · #**614** Posted **Mar 22, 2012, 5:58 PM**

Farwell base

ardecila · #**615** Posted **Mar 22, 2012, 6:20 PM**

What a beaut. I'm very glad the city forced the developers to preserve this.

yaletown_fella · #**616** Posted **Mar 22, 2012, 6:39 PM**

The facadectomized portion looks great. The main building, on the other hand, dosent.

The crown had the potential to be a lot more elegant had the developer sought to incorporate real metalwork and ditched the cheapo pre-fab pillasters. I don't know what the architect was smokin when he ordered pillasters with 3 indentations.

Are the window mullions going to remain white? Look straight out of Home Depot or Canadian Tire.

Rizzo · #**617** Posted **Mar 22, 2012, 8:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by yaletown_fella

The facadectomized portion looks great. The main building, on the other hand, dosent.

The crown had the potential to be a lot more elegant had the developer sought to incorporate real metalwork and ditched the cheapo pre-fab pillasters. I don't know what the architect was smokin when he ordered pillasters with 3 indentations.

Are the window mullions going to remain white? Look straight out of Home Depot or Canadian Tire.

They will remain white. It's beating a dead horse, but most of us think they should have been darker. I guessed awhile back that LaGrange uses white framing so that the window mullions are legible. It seems like he's all about clarity of joints and lines with deliberate emphasis...whether it's with larger reveals or color. At ground level, joints become less pronounced and texture and detail are more prevalent. It's been this way on most of his buildings.

Tom Servo · #**618** Posted **Mar 23, 2012, 4:15 PM**

You know... regarding bad buildings in this city, this isn't that bad. There, I said it on SSP, Hayward.

Ch.G, Ch.G · #**619** Posted **Mar 23, 2012, 7:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hayward

I guessed awhile back that LaGrange uses white framing so that the window mullions are legible. It seems like he's all about clarity of joints and lines with deliberate emphasis...whether it's with larger reveals or color. At ground level, joints become less pronounced and texture and detail are more prevalent. It's been this way on most of his buildings.

This especially bugs me. Is there really a historical precedent for bright white mullions/muntins? In Second Empire or Art Deco or whatever style LaGrange claims to derive his 'designs'? If not, it really shows you how undisciplined he is (compared to Stern of Beeby). And even if it is like you say—an artistic 'interpretation'—then it just shows how awful his original ideas are; they absolutely look like they're a bulk bargain buy from Home Depot.

I do agree with Mr. Servo, though, but only in comparison with his other skyscrapers. IMO, Elysian, Park Tower and Lincoln Park 2520 are much worse.

Alliance · #**620** Posted **Mar 23, 2012, 7:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

This especially bugs me. Is there really a historical precedent for bright white mullions/muntins? In Second Empire or Art Deco or whatever style LaGrange claims to derive his 'designs'? If not, it really shows you how undisciplined he is (compared to Stern of Beeby). And even if it is like you say—an artistic 'interpretation'—then it just shows how awful his original ideas are; they absolutely look like they're a bulk bargain buy from Home Depot.

I do agree with Mr. Servo, though, but only in comparison with his other skyscrapers. IMO, Elysian, Park Tower and Lincoln Park 2520 are much worse.

Really? At least the massing on Elysian and Park tower makes sense to me.