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

[photoLith]

Originally Posted by george

Way way way too much beige architecture in that photo

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

^^^ Chicago Place by a long shot, but that could change as Chicago Place is renovated and Ritz begins its long, slow, slide into disrepair.

I don't know man, the AllSaints facade is made of vinyl and plastic with a coat of black paint. That's pretty damn cheap. And the Zara looks like a jail on the 2nd floor. Despite the garish marble and window color selections the building was better as it was.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by Hayward

I don't know man, the AllSaints facade is made of vinyl and plastic with a coat of black paint. That's pretty damn cheap. And the Zara looks like a jail on the 2nd floor. Despite the garish marble and window color selections the building was better as it was.

I haven't gotten up close to any of the stores. I'm more referring to them getting rid of the useless, tacky, mall. Hopefully it will become a hotel and greatly improve the building.

[uaarkson]

This area gives me the creeps whenever I'm in Chicago. It feels like the urban version of mid-50s Midwestern middle-class suburbia. It's all so fake. A damn shame considering what it actually looked like in the 50s.

[intrepidDesign]

Originally Posted by uaarkson

This area gives me the creeps whenever I'm in Chicago. It feels like the urban version of mid-50s Midwestern middle-class suburbia. It's all so fake. A damn shame considering what it actually looked like in the 50s.

Michigan Avenue gives you the creeps?

[Brian.]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Sorry for the rant, but I'm fucking sick of this ugly shit going up all over the place and random people praising it as if its some work of art by Michelangelo. Hint: any real artist or architect would vomit if they saw this abomination, especially if it were associated with their name.

Yet again, one more example of the ignorance (maybe by choice) of the members of this forum. Why is it assumed that an architect gets to choose the material of his personal choice? Let’s all understand the real world shall we. Do we really need to remind some of you that an architect works for a client and that client has a budget? Yeah yeah yeah…”if the building cannot be made of real stone then it should not be built”…blah blah blah. Get over your utopian ideology and just accept the fact that clients do not have bottomless pockets and have no obligation to satisfy your personal requests.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by Brian.

Yet again, one more example of the ignorance (maybe by choice) of the members of this forum. Why is it assumed that an architect gets to choose the material of his personal choice? Let’s all understand the real world shall we. Do we really need to remind some of you that an architect works for a client and that client has a budget? Yeah yeah yeah…”if the building cannot be made of real stone then it should not be built”…blah blah blah. Get over your utopian ideology and just accept the fact that clients do not have bottomless pockets and have no obligation to satisfy your personal requests.

Ummm, ignorance? Excuse me? Do you even know who the villain that designed this building is? Lucien LaGrange is notorious for building absolute shit with the most horrible combinations of materials he can come up with. You think I don't know what I'm talking about, but this is no one-off, this is another in a long long line of atrocities against Chicago perpetrated by this blundering idiot. He has not once chosen to use real materials and has, without fail, used the cheapest materials he can get.

In addition to that, LaGrange uses the most insiptid color palates I have ever seen. Every building he's built (excluding the few modern designs which resulted from designers who have since left the firm) lies somewhere between beige and baby-shit yellow.

Finally, money is no excuse here. We are talking about the fucking Ritz-Carlton brand and multi-million dollar units on the PREMIER street in the City of Chicago. I'm willing to venture a guess that it would have been entirely possible for the developer to afford real stone here if he wanted to. Not that real stone would have made this mockery of a art-deco (or is it supposed to be "French"???) design any less horrendous. The worst part of the design isn't even the materials, but rather the stout-econobox proportions and grid lines that don't even line up with each other or even the floors they purport to represent. EVERYTHING about this building is a mess.

Don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.


PS: I don't want anything to be built out of stone anyways. It's not 200 AD anymore, we have better, lower maintenance, materials. What I don't want is design that apes 3000 year old styles with modern materials that can never replace the original materials. I want this to be an interesting, modern, design.

[george]

10-8

[Brian.]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Ummm, ignorance? Excuse me? Do you even know who the villain that designed this building is? Lucien LaGrange is notorious for building absolute shit with the most horrible combinations of materials he can come up with.

Yes, I am familiar with LaGrange and his style. Again, an architect is hired to provide what the owner is requesting.

You think I don't know what I'm talking about, but this is no one-off, this is another in a long long line of atrocities against Chicago perpetrated by this blundering idiot. He has not once chosen to use real materials and has, without fail, used the cheapest materials he can get.

Atrocities against Chicago...blundering idiot? Enough with the drama queen antics. They really do not present your argument in a mature manner.

Unless you were involved in the bidding process of this project, I am not sure how you are qualified to make a statement about the price of materials as it relates to 'cheap'.

In addition to that, LaGrange uses the most insiptid color palates I have ever seen. Every building he's built (excluding the few modern designs which resulted from designers who have since left the firm) lies somewhere between beige and baby-shit yellow.

And yet he still gets contracts worth millions and people happily call baby-shit yellow buildings home. Good thing your opinion is not the only one on the planet.

Finally, money is no excuse here. We are talking about the fucking Ritz-Carlton brand and multi-million dollar units on the PREMIER street in the City of Chicago. I'm willing to venture a guess that it would have been entirely possible for the developer to afford real stone here if he wanted to.

Money is always and I do mean always a factor in structures. How you come to think that a successful brand like Ritz-Carlton has lost site of the value of a dollar is beyond me. They merely need to be profitable and have no requirement/necessity to build iconic structures.

Don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.

The main consideration of my initial post was the relentless whining and crying coming out of the Chicago contingent. In my opinion, it does not make the forum a better place to read the Monday morning Architects do their thing here as if the world has unlimited funding.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by Brian.

Yet again, one more example of the ignorance (maybe by choice) of the members of this forum. Why is it assumed that an architect gets to choose the material of his personal choice? Let’s all understand the real world shall we. Do we really need to remind some of you that an architect works for a client and that client has a budget? Yeah yeah yeah…”if the building cannot be made of real stone then it should not be built”…blah blah blah. Get over your utopian ideology and just accept the fact that clients do not have bottomless pockets and have no obligation to satisfy your personal requests.

ColoPrecast, is that you? lol


I agree and disagree.

The architect does get to choose material of his choice (with approval of the client of course) so as long as it meets the budget and can be delivered and erected on job site on time.

If the client really wants a faux limestone building, great. There's ways to do it well. Precast has been used in some rather spectacular ways and with some decent finishes. I love the Barney's department store. Beautiful use of precast concrete panels.

Different patterns and reveal thicknesses can be cast into these panels, but I'm not a fan of the way the articulations were done. In fact I think the backside is the best part of the building. That's purely the architects choice, though finishes may cause a price fluctuation. Obviously there's limits to how fine you can make these articulations, but there must be 1000's of patterns of different reveals that may have been more effective than a limestone stack pattern.

[intrepidDesign]

Originally Posted by Brian.

And yet he still gets contracts worth millions and people happily call baby-shit yellow buildings home. Good thing your opinion is not the only one on the planet.

Money is always and I do mean always a factor in structures. How you come to think that a successful brand like Ritz-Carlton has lost site of the value of a dollar is beyond me. They merely need to be profitable and have no requirement/necessity to build iconic structures.

His firm recently went bankrupt. FYI.

Money is always a factor yet, that's no excuse to use bottom of the barrel materials. You basically just proved Nowhereman's point, "they merely needed to be profitable", which is the source of the criticism. Some of us are not satisfied with architecture that only meets the criteria of merely being profitable. Some of us expect a little more.

[Brian.]

Originally Posted by Hayward

ColoPrecast, is that you? lol

Busted! I can only take so much nonsense!

I agree and disagree.

The architect does get to choose material of his choice (with approval of the client of course) so as long as it meets the budget and can be delivered and erected on job site on time.

If the client really wants a faux limestone building, great. There's ways to do it well. Precast has been used in some rather spectacular ways and with some decent finishes. I love the Barney's department store. Beautiful use of precast concrete panels.

Different patterns and reveal thicknesses can be cast into these panels, but I'm not a fan of the way the articulations were done. In fact I think the backside is the best part of the building. That's purely the architects choice, though finishes may cause a price fluctuation. Obviously there's limits to how fine you can make these articulations, but there must be 1000's of patterns of different reveals that may have been more effective than a limestone stack pattern.

I can't argue with any of those comments.

Originally Posted by intrepidDesign

His firm recently went bankrupt. FYI.

That hasn't much to do with the budget of his clients, so whats your point?

Money is always a factor yet, that's no excuse to use bottom of the barrel materials. You basically just proved Nowhereman's point, "they merely needed to be profitable", which is the source of the criticism. Some of us are not satisfied with architecture that only meets the criteria of merely being profitable. Some of us expect a little more.

This project is far from the bottom of the barrel and I have 18 years in the construction industry to back that up.

Really, can someone just create a Chicago bitching thread and be done with it.

[i_am_hydrogen]

Originally Posted by intrepidDesign

His firm recently went bankrupt. FYI.

He joined VOA back in August. So he's still out there, lurking in the shadows and threatening to defile the Chicago skyline with yet another pomo monstrosity(ies).

[J_M_Tungsten]

Nooooooooooooo

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen

He joined VOA back in August. So he's still out there, lurking in the shadows and threatening to defile the Chicago skyline with yet another pomo monstrosity(ies).

He's like fucking Voldemort! We must find the horcruxes and destroy them before he comes back again! I'm willing to bet one of them is in the Fez atop the Elysian...

[george]

I don't know the physics and techniques of manufacturing precast, but it seems, with today's technologies they could create a lasting product with integrity. What about a precast panel with an imbedded surface veneer of real material; limestone, granite, marble, etc. Obviously it comes down to practicality and cost. If it could be done, it would be.

[harryc]

Oct 11


Oct 12

[Alliance]

OH SURPIRSE! The crown was VEed. I cant decide if it looks less like a Cheesecake factory now, or more like a suburban mall.

Originally Posted by Brian.

This project is far from the bottom of the barrel and I have 18 years in the construction industry to back that up.

Really, can someone just create a Chicago bitching thread and be done with it.

Have you seen the Ritz Carlton Residences in Bangkok? LA? Apparently not.

Your arguments are nonsense and your standards for architecture appear to be non-existent. You have this same old tired argument with every LaGrange POS that goes up. Building a cost effective building doesn't require making it UGLY. Its not cost effective to have a chandeliers in your lobby, a lit crown, or windows, but some how a lot of buildings manage that. However, just because it isn't clad in drywall doesn't make it "good." And no, just because it could have been done doesn't mean it was. Using precast doesn't excuse you from using it poorly, and that doesn't even cover the home depot windows, the awkward massing, putrid color scheme, and the generally flat and VEed features.

Almost every thread on this site is an endless love fest for even the most vile buildings. Its nice to see threads with people calling a building by what it really is. There are plenty of bland beige cities in the US in which to build this sort of uninspired, zero-effort, lets just throw something up structure. I wouldn't want it in any city I've ever lived in.

[george]

Nice crown shots, harry.^ Too bad about those ridiculous, silver/ grey finials on the columns everywhere. They look like tacked on, oversized, art deco Pez dispensers.

[Brian.]

Originally Posted by Alliance

Your arguments are nonsense and your standards for architecture appear to be non-existent. You have this same old tired argument with every LaGrange POS that goes up. Building a cost effective building doesn't require making it UGLY.

At least you have the ability to recognize when something is tired. How many times do we need to hear bitching about one thing or another? Just because you can doesn’t mean you should. It does not improve the site.