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

[george]

4-13

[i_am_hydrogen]

Nice shots, george. That's some pretty intricate formwork(?) around Farwell.

[george]

4-23

[eaguir3]

Its OK but I've seen some nicer housing projects lol

[harryc]

Topped out ?

[george]

5-11

[ardecila]

I believe I saw a piece of the precast on a truck on I-94 today coming down from Milwaukee.

[betawest]

Very handsome building. Even better that it conceals part of that nasty pomo behind it.

[Nowhereman1280]

This is nasty pomo. At least the Omni doesn't try to be something it's not.

[wrab]

^ I'd call the Omni PoMo & the Ritz-Carlton FauxMo.

[ChiPsy]

Or faux pas

[yaletown_fella]

Some of the detailing is quite nice. However, the equal lack of attention to detail ruins the building for me.

1. Oversized spandrel under some of the windows
2. Generic white windows..
3. Worst offender: Dumbed down pillasters around levels 10-15 with triple indentation and crappy square accents on top. #SMH

There is nothing wrong with historicism. If I had it my way a quarter of Toronto's projects would be historicist. It's just rarely done right.

[harryc]

[george]

Good set, harry... that 2nd shot is sweet.

[Rizzo]

Thanks for the updates. I'm getting impatient on the old Farwell facade going up. But it still seems like it's going to be awhile until the first piece of the old building goes back up.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by harryc

I'm experiencing cognitive dissonance. I know this building is shit, and the architect is shit, and the style is shit, but here it looks kind of cool?

[Rizzo]

The brackets are a little clunky looking. Maybe because they continue the faux limestone pattern up.

These might have worked. The new facade was put up in the mid 2000's
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=grand+...70.74,,0,-5.61

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

I'm experiencing cognitive dissonance. I know this building is shit, and the architect is shit, and the style is shit, but here it looks kind of cool?

I think there's a pill for that...

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

I'm experiencing cognitive dissonance. I know this building is shit, and the architect is shit, and the style is shit, but here it looks kind of cool?

It is kinda cool. There are parts of this building that are neat on their own, but then you look at the detailing or the way it jives with the rest of the structure and you go "wtf were they thinking?".

For example, this picture: I think "cool a cantilever with a rounded edge topped by a nicely detailed sash" then I look closer and go "OMG, did they even think about the detailing on the buttresses of the cantilever?". They didn't even line up the lines in the precast. And, on top of that, even if the lines matched up, there is now way that would actually hold weight if it were made of actual stone. Therefore they aren't even trying to make it look real. I mean look at it, if there were actual stones or stone panels making that up, the bottom block would just fall right out and the rest of the tower would collapse.

And then you look at the first balcony, why the hell does it set back like that? I mean they clearly just go to that point in the design and the lines from the base didn't continue into the tower, so they just left it instead of going back and figuring out how to get that little indent by the balcony to continue down the base and add continuity to the design.

I'm not even an architect and I notice these glaring errors and lazy designs.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

It is kinda cool. There are parts of this building that are neat on their own, but then you look at the detailing or the way it jives with the rest of the structure and you go "wtf were they thinking?".

For example, this picture: I think "cool a cantilever with a rounded edge topped by a nicely detailed sash" then I look closer and go "OMG, did they even think about the detailing on the buttresses of the cantilever?". They didn't even line up the lines in the precast. And, on top of that, even if the lines matched up, there is now way that would actually hold weight if it were made of actual stone. Therefore they aren't even trying to make it look real. I mean look at it, if there were actual stones or stone panels making that up, the bottom block would just fall right out and the rest of the tower would collapse.

And then you look at the first balcony, why the hell does it set back like that? I mean they clearly just go to that point in the design and the lines from the base didn't continue into the tower, so they just left it instead of going back and figuring out how to get that little indent by the balcony to continue down the base and add continuity to the design.

I'm not even an architect and I notice these glaring errors and lazy designs.

Agree 100% With the direction they were going with this design, the details are extremely important. This is why I'm surprised the design of the brackets look kind of like an after-thought. Standing back, it's a fairly modern looking gesture. You have pilaster that blurs itself as a bracket. A traditional design would have called for something different. The bracket would have been a distinctive piece of ornament. Just my own opinion. But I do like the way this section bumps out. I think it's pretty striking and well noticeable from far away.