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

[Rizzo]

^ Exactly. Very plastic-like. The corners don't have the razor sharp edges and thin reveals that are found in traditional stone cladding. Well...I figured this would happen. And the alignment of the windows.... At least if they were forcing themselves to maintain the window placement they could use black terra cotta infill instead of beige panel like they've done in some 1920's buildings in Detroit.

[ametz]

Originally Posted by Hayward

Can you imagine how a tower like that would energize Michigan Ave? It would be incredible.

It almost literally pains me to think that we don't have that Bangkok tower. My profession and education aren't remotely related to anything on these boards so I don't know the internal mechanations of these projects, but I'd love to know how we ended up with this and not something like the Bangkok tower. Obviously there are completely different sets of hands on both projects, but it's not like Chicago can't handle progressive architechture. And I'm sure the target market isn't the same: this building is surely geared toward older, wealthier, more 'traditional' buyers, and the Bangkok tower geared toward people who want to live in a kickass building. A real shame, because n Michigan ave has become a little to bland and could use a makeover. This building does little more than take up space.

[Nowhereman1280]

Simple reason we get the shitty design is that the baby boomers were traumatized by the WWII generations love of ridiculous quantities of modern design regardless of quality. This caused the boomers to have horrible taste and to love post modernism and to have the typical nouveau riche attitude complete with constant attempts to appear as if they have old money such as the construction of hokey mcmansions and a sick obsession with LaGrangian Ye Olde Condoe Toweres...

[denizen467]

^ By jove, I think you've got something there.

A simpler and more shallow answer would be that people in the US have a certain image of what Ritz Carlton is and Ritz doesn't want to stray from that image. It's not a cutting edge brand, it's in that "well might as well buy a Ralph Lauren or a Brooks Brothers", stay-in-the-comfort-zone kind of brand. When hotel brands want to get edgy or modern, they go and create sub-brands like Andaz or aloft or Blu.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by denizen467

^ By jove, I think you've got something there.

A simpler and more shallow answer would be that people in the US have a certain image of what Ritz Carlton is and Ritz doesn't want to stray from that image. It's not a cutting edge brand, it's in that "well might as well buy a Ralph Lauren or a Brooks Brothers", stay-in-the-comfort-zone kind of brand. When hotel brands want to get edgy or modern, they go and create sub-brands like Andaz or aloft or Blu.

Absolutely, and especially in old "traditional" American cities like NY, Boston, Philly and Chicago - Ritz Carlton is very much in line with the Waldorf and it's Establishment connotations. And if there is one thing that says Establishment it's traditional buildings with traditional materials - even if those materials are fake traditional and the company counts on folks not really knowing the difference or care even if they did.

[spyguy]

There are two other things to keep in mind:

One, that Bangkok tower is much more ambitious in terms of its program. Huge amount of retail space, more than double the amount of condos as our Ritz, plus an actual hotel. If that was proposed here it would have never found financing (see Intercontinental tower expansion).

Two, Ritz is just a name developers pay to use for marketing purposes. So there's really no point in comparing two "Ritz" projects.

[Phil McAvity]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ It's little more than infill because it's little more than a piece of shit.

Describing a building as "infill" doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the design though, it has everything to do with the building simply filling a vacant spot in the skyline without being particularly large or noticeable. I've seen beautiful examples of infill, while others have been disastrous. The good thing about this building being infill is that it won't draw a lot of attention to itself for it's size.

[denizen467]

^ Not around here; most here use "infill" in the loose sense of forgettable quality (that adds density or at least fills the streetwall). Using your narrow definition, something like Krueck & Sexton Spertus could practically have ended up being called infill, which no one would agree with. Your narrow definition might be used in the context of, say, urban planners concerned with land uses and not design quality. Btw, is "Phil McAvity" dentist humor?

[simcityaustin]

Originally Posted by denizen467

^ Not around here; most here use "infill" in the loose sense of forgettable quality (that adds density or at least fills the streetwall). Using your narrow definition, something like Krueck & Sexton Spertus could practically have ended up being called infill, which no one would agree with. Your narrow definition might be used in the context of, say, urban planners concerned with land uses and not design quality. Btw, is "Phil McAvity" dentist humor?

Sorry denizen, but I agree with Phil. When someone says 'infill' I think a building that isn't paticularly noticeable. If it meets one of the criteria, then I wouldn't call it infill.

[jcchii]

it would be infill somewhere lost in river north

unfortunately it's out on the main street chicago shows to the world

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Simple reason we get the shitty design is that the baby boomers were traumatized by the WWII generations love of ridiculous quantities of modern design regardless of quality. This caused the boomers to have horrible taste and to love post modernism and to have the typical nouveau riche attitude complete with constant attempts to appear as if they have old money such as the construction of hokey mcmansions and a sick obsession with LaGrangian Ye Olde Condoe Toweres...

Really it's always an issue of "Well this particular facade is going to be too expensive, BUT, we can use this system and it kind of looks like the real thing." A horrible reality in many offices. Instead of scrapping the design for something that works, they force a cheaper look-alike to work with what they got. There are people who find designing like this totally righteous.

[J_M_Tungsten]

11-26

It will be "infill" between the omni and the Fordham, but not by much

The crane is just becoming visible

[Chicagoguy]

Originally Posted by J_M_Tungsten

11-26

It will be "infill" between the omni and the Fordham, but not by much

The crane is just becoming visible

Ritz will be slightly taller than Omni correct? I think it will be decent "infill"...but better than that ugly ass 777 N Michigan building just a couple blocks north!

[J_M_Tungsten]

11-28

[ametz]

While it's nice to see active cranes, I just can't generate a modicum of excitement about this building. Even the renderings are uninspired.

[harryc]

(catching up here)

Sept 22 - at a turning point








Sept 28

[harryc]

Oct 7


Oct 14 (from JH)






Oct 21

[harryc]

Nov 3


Nov 17

[tommaso]

May we have a current shot of this development with the full development in the picture frame? Thank you in advance

[VivaLFuego]

Good grief, the lack of contextualism in the massing is insane --- and would be justifiable if it weren't done in a style that can only ever be defensibly applied on the grounds of contextualism.