CHICAGO | The Elysian | 686 FT / 209 M | 60 FLOORS | COM

[chicagoguy1]

Those lanterns are HORRIBLE!

[Pandemonious]

^^Yeah, it just looks like a larger scale version of vinyl siding or something. Also, were the little spires at the top value engineered out I wonder?

[george]

7-30

[Tom Servo]

wow, that's awful.

[denizen467]

^ Don't worry. The bronze of a boy on his bicycle hauling a baguette will be installed there tout-de-suite, bien sur.

[george]

^Of all the Chicago highrise threads, the Elysian inspires some of the most hilarious comments and observations. Good one denizen. Also, museumparktom's fez comparison is killer. Funny stuff.^

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by george

7-30

I love this one: Fake French, Real French. Can you imagine something as ghastly, let alone this poorly executed going up in Paris? No of course not. Paris business, civic leaders and authorities push for exciting high quality modern architecture.

I'm sure its been said before, but as a rule of thumb I believe that if there is no budget to construct a TRUE revivalist building, with appropriate materials, ornamentation and attention to detail then it should not be attempted. What LaGrange gives us is cartoon architecture, better suited to Epcot than a city that supposedly prides itself on its dashing spirit of architecture.

[VivaLFuego]

On the plus side and as some consolation, we did get the Sofitel, which is much more architectural quality than most American cities can hope for.

I'll say it again, if one ignores the details (or lack thereof, that's the problem), this actually isn't that bad at street level, and is certainly a major improvement over the 7-11 with surface parking it replaced. The car court and streetscape are nice. There is no parking visible from the sidewalk, and for all intents and purposes the entire facade is "active space." The architectural/aesthetic details absolutely do 🞵🞵🞵🞵 for all the reasons that don't need to be rehashed. I still think the bigger lemon here is 10 East Delaware. It's such an awful turd, and is all the more pathetic because it was designed by the same architect at the same time as Elysian, so the extent to which it ignores Elysian's context (e.g. the blank wall parking podium rising behind the car court) is simply horrifying and inexplicable - and that's not even getting into the insult of the painted concrete with grooves to look like masonry. At least Elysian's facade of interlocked precast panels are actually interlocked precast panels, and can be appreciated as a modern cladding material in their own right with it's own characteristics (in theory, such precast could be a valuable contributing part of a clever post-modern design referencing beaux arts from a modern perspective, as opposed to just another VE step in a poorly-executed quasi-revivalist Epcot design).

[chicubs111]

I mean i dont know what you people expect...true there is better stuff out there but unless the building is gonna have an all limstone facade we will never be satisfied with art deco type buildings of this height.

[Busy Bee]

Its not an Art Deco building. I would call it pseudo-Chalet Gumbytecture.

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by george

7-30

I'm so torn about this building - hilarious comments aside (which are very dead-on to a degree), I like this building and I don't like it at the same time:
I look at the lower image of the courtyard and it doesn't appear half-bad; elegant but not overly gaudy but then I look at the upper image and it just doesn't make any sense to me; not representative of any real historical architectural precedent, but more about evoking a feeling of a bygone era. The problem (or the genius of this, depending on your perspective) is that a lot of wealthy people with potentially limited cerebral wealth LIKE this type of 'pastiche architecture' and I don' think it's gonna go away anytime soon (Ritz-Carlton Residences anyone?).
The funny thing is in any other city, outside of New York potentially (or maybe even there too), this tower would potentially be praised and 'ooohhhh & ahhhh' over, even in a grossly image-conscious obsessed place like LA; here, I think we're also guilty of being obsessed with Miesian simplicity and having buildings being more pragmatic than ornamental, and that's why a tower like this is so derided by those with more than a passing knowledge or even appreciation of the heritage of Chicago architecture. I really don't know about this one...sigh...

[tommaso]

Can someone with access to a camera and knowledge of this project provide us with photos and some accurate up to date information on this project? Thank you kindly!

[ChicagoChicago]

So let me get this straight...the base has black window frames, and the tower has white window frames?

Awful...

[Busy Bee]

Sentinel—I agree, but this building really can't be called ornamental either. Its lack of ornament is confusing, especially considering what their intending to convey. Like I said, for me its either go all the way with true revivalist architecture or build something in tune with the current age or even future age (more of that would be nice) thats not trying to evoke a bygone epoch, and doing so pretty unconvincingly.

I do like those glossy cobble pavers though.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Yeah at least they didn't go with the fake, poured in place, concrete cobblers...

[NYC2ATX]

Very well put, sentinel.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by sentinel

I'm so torn about this building - hilarious comments aside (which are very dead-on to a degree), I like this building and I don't like it at the same time:
I look at the lower image of the courtyard and it doesn't appear half-bad; elegant but not overly gaudy but then I look at the upper image and it just doesn't make any sense to me; not representative of any real historical architectural precedent, but more about evoking a feeling of a bygone era. The problem (or the genius of this, depending on your perspective) is that a lot of wealthy people with potentially limited cerebral wealth LIKE this type of 'pastiche architecture' and I don' think it's gonna go away anytime soon (Ritz-Carlton Residences anyone?).
The funny thing is in any other city, outside of New York potentially (or maybe even there too), this tower would potentially be praised and 'ooohhhh & ahhhh' over, even in a grossly image-conscious obsessed place like LA; here, I think we're also guilty of being obsessed with Miesian simplicity and having buildings being more pragmatic than ornamental, and that's why a tower like this is so derided by those with more than a passing knowledge or even appreciation of the heritage of Chicago architecture. I really don't know about this one...sigh...

yeah, good point. the fact that this would probably be praised as wonderful architecture in some podunk smaller city makes me feel a lot better. thanks for putting bad architecture into a better perspective.

[DCCliff]

"I love this one: Fake French, Real French. Can you imagine something as ghastly, let alone this poorly executed going up in Paris? No of course not. Paris business, civic leaders and authorities push for exciting high quality modern architecture"

Busy Bee, while your posts about this are right on, I do have to take issue regarding your opinion of what French business and Paris authorities "allow" there. Nearly all the large towers in La Defense are simply dreadful, hopelessly-grasping excuses for modern tower architecture. I'm totally not impressed with French business when it comes to building their nests. It's almost as if many of those buildings attempt modernism and relevance in the same way you point out the Elysian attempts historicism - and both fail big time.

OK, sorry, back to topic.

[CGII]

Originally Posted by sentinel

The funny thing is in any other city, outside of New York potentially (or maybe even there too), this tower would potentially be praised and 'ooohhhh & ahhhh' over, even in a grossly image-conscious obsessed place like LA; here, I think we're also guilty of being obsessed with Miesian simplicity and having buildings being more pragmatic than ornamental

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Dreck like this gets put up to the sound of applause on the Upper East and West Sides of Manhattan every day. The Elysian is an excremental tower and deserves nothing less than scrutiny and scorn. I see replies on here like 'well, I guess it's okay 'cuz it looks luxurious and stuff' and to that I say this kind of half-assed, half-taste econo-tecture is desensitizing us from appreciating what really good architecture can be. Looking at the photo of the base it's so easy to think it's comfortable and luxurious, but when you really consider alternatives, and think of buildings as totally unique opportunities to respond to site and user experience you realize that the 🞵🞵🞵🞵 the developers shoved on your plate is just well groomed dog poop, but you're too lazy to notice because it's well groomed. When we let this 🞵🞵🞵🞵 permeate our society, it grows at an exponential rate, as you are constantly surrounded with less and less inspiring gestures of building until you get to the point that you have lost all notion of taste and now engineers are designing fourth-rate buildings that resemble warp drive roach hotels.

It has already happened in New York. Don't let it happen in Chicago.




It is Chicago. It is 2009. Baron Haussmann batiments are not built with balconies 60 floors tall out of precast concrete, and never were. Let's start designing like it.

[simcityaustin]

^^^ I think that view is to snobby. I'm sure car enthusiasts don't think every car should be supercharged, or that fashionistas think everyone should wear designer, and I don't think architecture buffs should expect every building to be a masterpiece or junk. There are shades of gray. This building isn't the best but if the general population finds it pleasing to the eye then it's ok. Not saying we should strive for excellence and beauty, but sometimes you gotta give it a break a little. Just my .02, even though I KNOW most people here prolly disagree.