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

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by Crazy Ivan

[consider] ,the setting,

Exactly! Consider the freaking setting!!! Boul Mich, dead center on Chicago's premier avenue for crying out loud!

[vandelay]

This building looks like something Frank Williams would have come up with 20 years ago. Lagrange doesn't seem to have the skill to pull off a traditional style in a modern way. But it beats a glass box any day. At least it has some personality and some sense of history. Some people seem to think the only worthy buildings are the ones that look like they came out of Dr. Seuss.

[Vertigo]

I'm not defending LaGrange on this one. However, my biggest gripe with his designs is not that they 'suck', like so many people on here seem to gripe about. It's that many of them don't really add another dimension to the skyline. To me, they're more like decent filler but nothing inspiring.

That being said, I honestly don't think this is THAT bad. How soon we forget what was standing there before. The only 'loss' here will be a view of the Omni from the South. As if that's a loss to begin with.

And yes, there is a lot of precast in the area. I too would like some more variety. However, at the end of the day, the extra beige just makes John Hancock look even more badass.

I'm just thrilled SOMETHING is going up in such a high profile location. Especially during this economic downturn.

[spyguy]

Originally Posted by denizen467

Luxury in the 21st century is just whoring brands...to people with money

As they say, read the fine print:

The Ritz-Carlton Residences, Chicago, Magnificent Mile are not owned, developed or sold by The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C.
NM Project Company LLC uses The Ritz-Carlton marks under license from The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C.

Originally Posted by Vertigo

How soon we forget what was standing there before. The only 'loss' here will be a view of the Omni from the South. As if that's a loss to begin with.

The Farwell Building wasn't a loss? In my opinion, Booth Hansen's Terra Museum building was a pretty dignified structure as well.

After a string of failures (Elysian, Delaware), I can't believe anyone would give Lagrange the benefit of the doubt.

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by Crazy Ivan

Maybe I'm crazy but,

Who knew?

Originally Posted by spyguy

As they say, read the fine print:

Nice find. It's like a smoking gun...

[Yankee]

I REALLY dig the Deco overtones. Beautiful.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by spyguy

After a string of failures (Elysian, Delaware), I can't believe anyone would give Lagrange the benefit of the doubt.

The proportions of this building aren't terrible. We have elevations, so it's not like we're relying on skewed-perspective renderings.

The crown looks dignified, unlike the mansard-roof fez of Elysian. The building materials should be precast, so they'll turn out much nicer than 10 E Delaware. As long as Lagrange doesn't pull some embarrassing mistake like specifying WHITE windowframes instead of black ones, this should be the best tower Lagrange has done yet, excepting the small handful of modern ones.

[Tex17]

Actually looks pretty attractive.

[Vertigo]

Originally Posted by spyguy

The Farwell Building wasn't a loss? In my opinion, Booth Hansen's Terra Museum building was a pretty dignified structure as well.

From an aesthetic standpoint, the Farwell building isn't a loss. It will return, and this time there won't be a need for scaffolding to protect people on the sidewalk from falling debris.

Originally Posted by spyguy

After a string of failures (Elysian, Delaware), I can't believe anyone would give Lagrange the benefit of the doubt.

Define failure....

So far, the reviews I've seen of Elysian(by those that have actually stayed there) have been positive. In terms of the hotel service and the design and decor. I know this is hard for people on this site to believe but there are many that actually like touches such as the pompous circular drive. The interior finishes and rooms are expertly appointed. It's easy for all of us to point out things such as the ridiculous top and call the whole building a failure. It was obviously a case of cutting corners and that's where they chose to do it.

To be fair though, I could easily apply the same approach to Aqua. Did the base on that one live up to everyone's expectations? What about the interior finishes or quality of interior spaces? Very underwhelming to say the least.

I still love Aqua though and understand why they chose to spend the money the way they did.

At the end of the day, it comes down to putting out a product that will return the investment and make a profit. Sacrifices have to be made somewhere along the way.

[Lucky 24]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

question 1: what map?

question 2: when did chicago fall off of this map?

question 3: how in the hell is this rehashed lagrange po-mo trainwreck gonna put chicago back on to said map?

Well said Steely. This project is a waste of space.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by Crazy Ivan

Maybe I'm crazy but, for a residence, I love the design. I'd live there any day of the week. There's thousands of buildings in Chicago that look worse. I don't buy into the notion that only natural stones like marble and limestone look good. I see the building as a whole, consider the design, the setting, and aesthetically, how well it wears over time. Some materials, including the "good looking" natural materials, look like crap after 20 years. I don't see the Ritz allowing the façade to deteriorate like that.

Depends on your weather considerations. I've taken notice to some of the 1990's and early 2000's precast towers that have gone up Chicago. They are starting to look a bit drab. I suppose with a scrubbing they can look better, but that's really an architect's dream. The reality is residential power-washings are rare. I saw another tower in Toronto that has practically the same identical exterior as the Elysian. It was all streaky from weathering, when it should have been a more even stain. It's something I'm a bit concerned about.

On the other side, I've seen how bad materials like granite and limestone fare in this city. Could just be the type of quality or specific stone they used, I'm not sure.

I just hope this building doesn't come out cheap looking. Like the Elysian, it looks so good in the renderings but in the end I feel they have a Disney-like appearance when done....almost a plastic appearance.

[Kippis]

Originally Posted by Hayward

Depends on your weather considerations. I've taken notice to some of the 1990's and early 2000's precast towers that have gone up Chicago. They are starting to look a bit drab. I suppose with a scrubbing they can look better, but that's really an architect's dream. The reality is residential power-washings are rare. I saw another tower in Toronto that has practically the same identical exterior as the Elysian. It was all streaky from weathering, when it should have been a more even stain. It's something I'm a bit concerned about.

A big development that stands out to me in terms of deteriorating building quality has to be Skybridge in the West Loop. I'm not saying that it isn't a gorgeous building (because I think it is), the problem is that you can notice pretty large cracks forming on the facade of the building, especially at the base. I think some of these developers are making a big mistake on the materials they chose to clad these buildings with -- take a cue from University Hall down at UIC, and spend a little extra on better building materials.

I'll be down there in the next couple of weeks; if anyone cares enough to make me elaborate on what I mean, I'd be more than happy to snap a few photos to prove my point.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by ardecila

The proportions of this building aren't terrible. We have elevations, so it's not like we're relying on skewed-perspective renderings.

The crown looks dignified, unlike the mansard-roof fez of Elysian. The building materials should be precast, so they'll turn out much nicer than 10 E Delaware. As long as Lagrange doesn't pull some embarrassing mistake like specifying WHITE windowframes instead of black ones, this should be the best tower Lagrange has done yet, excepting the small handful of modern ones.

Elysian's elevation renderings looked a lot better than the finished product. It wasn't just the precast cladding materials --- the rendered roof was far more attractive and thoughtful than the as-built, malproportioned Bolingbrook-distribution-facility's-lovechild-with-a-shriner's hat joke we get to actually look at. Given that history of bait-and-switch, why should we expect anything better with this one?

Originally Posted by Vertigo

Define failure....

Have you seen 10 East Delaware?

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Hayward

I just hope this building doesn't come out cheap looking. Like the Elysian, it looks so good in the renderings but in the end I feel they have a Disney-like appearance when done....almost a plastic appearance.

^ New masonry buildings always look like that. We have to remember that the old, art-deco towers from the 20's and 30's have had 80+ years to age. I'm sure they looked very, perhaps too, new when they were first built

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ New masonry buildings always look like that. We have to remember that the old, art-deco towers from the 20's and 30's have had 80+ years to age. I'm sure they looked very, perhaps too, new when they were first built

Yes, but please PLEASE read what I posted first before I said that and you'll see my point

Anyways.... 7/3. View from C&B

Me

[harryc]

Full set



April 27

Looking down the wall.

April 27

A few electrical runs

May 6

Finished wall.


May 11

put load here

May 21

assembling the Crane to put up the crane.

May 28





June 16

CONTROLLED ACCESS ZONE GOEBEL EMPLOYEES ONLY


the base of one of the lifting jacks/supports


Post Tension


June 20

Well Grouneded (lightning protection)


June 20

[spyguy]

Originally Posted by Vertigo

Define failure....

It should be obvious that we're talking about the exterior. The interior is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned because that's not the building's public face (and the fact that a different firm, Simeone Deary in that case, was responsible).

At the end of the day, it comes down to putting out a product that will return the investment and make a profit. Sacrifices have to be made somewhere along the way.

Yes, that rationale for destroying historic buildings or poor design could be ascribed to many visionless developers.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

Elysian's elevation renderings looked a lot better than the finished product. It wasn't just the precast cladding materials --- the rendered roof was far more attractive and thoughtful than the as-built, malproportioned Bolingbrook-distribution-facility's-lovechild-with-a-shriner's hat joke we get to actually look at. Given that history of bait-and-switch, why should we expect anything better with this one?

You're absolutely right. HOWEVER - I'm hoping that the crown on Ritz-Carlton is less vulnerable to the type of horrid value-engineering that ruined Elysian. It's mostly precast, not relying on a separate component like the standing-seam roofing.

[Vertigo]

Originally Posted by spyguy

It should be obvious that we're talking about the exterior. The interior is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned because that's not the building's public face (and the fact that a different firm, Simeone Deary in that case, was responsible).



Yes, that rationale for destroying historic buildings or poor design could be ascribed to many visionless developers.

So we're only dealing with the 'public face' here? OK, fine....Then you should have no problem with what is happening to the Farwell. After all, it will return and be in much better shape than it was before. Using your logic, the fact that a parking garage will be housed inside shouldn't be an issue.

As far as the Terra Museum goes, it was a nice building but honestly it wasn't that historically significant. Especially given the high profile location.

Again, this entire discussion is relative to the proposal at hand. I'm sure if a glassy, modern tower was proposed there instead, most of these arguments would cease to exist.

[spyguy]