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

[chicubs111]

There is nothing more than i hate than a height decrease on a project that is under construction and that was 700ft.!! I knew in reality it probaly not noticable but it still pisses me off

[jcchii]

leave it for amusement purposes as four guys try to build it

[Alliance]

Or to mock POMO crap.

[Chi649]

Nah, this is exactly what this area needs, a beige concrete Park Tower look alike. It's very refreshing.

NOT!

[Alliance]

Lucien LaGrange. Cutting edge architecture until 1836.

Lets look at towers like Nouvel's Moma tower and then point and laugh at Chicago claiming it has architecture being built.

[Rocket1]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

nah, we'll leave it be, it's close enough to 700' at 686'.

While we're at it, how about a thread for 155 N Wacker?


It's a much better building than the Elysian, and 638' is pretty close to 700' too.

[Ecker]

Hmm... I went to Lagrange's lecture on his recent work a couple of weeks ago at the CAF and when talking about this project he referred to it as being 670'. I wondered if there had been a height reduction, but figured he was probably just being imprecise. My optimism was misplaced, I guess.

[Nowhereman1280]

I don't know why everyone wants to get rid of all the POMO crap anymore, someone made a good point to me the other day, Modern architecture is cold and inhuman when there is too much of it in one spot. Modern buildings don't look good when they are all clumped together, they look good in contrast to other styles, so really, I think we need some pomo crap or else the city will just become what looks like a bunch of appliances stacked next to each other.

However, that doesn't stop me from dreaming of the day that they actually start cladding POMO crap in quality materials so they won't look like shit in 20 years.

In fact, I think POMO can be very well done, look at the Columbian, it has a quality shape and is cladded in brick instead of shitty precast concrete.

[aaron38]

^^^I agree. Cities look best when they are a propper mix of glass and steel and brick and stone.
The only problem with this building is that it isn't clad in limestone.

[Chi649]

I agree as well. The problem with Elysian is that this area needs some architectural diversification, not another beige concrete tower. I wouldn't have a problem with Elysian if it were, let's say, on south Michigan Ave. near Roosevelt.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by Chi649

I agree as well. The problem with Elysian is that this area needs some architectural diversification, not another beige concrete tower. I wouldn't have a problem with Elysian if it were, let's say, on south Michigan Ave. near Roosevelt.

Umm, its being built a block away from Sofitel, which is probably the sweetest modern building built in this city since Hancock. Also, Walton on the Park will have significant quantities of glass. Then there is 1 mag, mile, a bruce graham building, and the Hacock just east of there, plus the Claire, while no masterpiece, will be quite glassy. Plus there are all sorts of retro modern 60's and 70's towers east rush but west of LSD in the area as well. 50 Chestnut is also very modern and glassy. I think this is a pretty diverse area architecturally, its not the Gold Coast that is full of concrete boxes, it is river north, trust me, I live virtually right in between them.

[honte]

^ Agreed about Sofitel. I love that building. But everything should be that diverse and cutting-edge. When we have so many Sofitels that we start getting sick of buildings like that, then go ahead and bring back something classical. But for now, since we have only that one, there is no room in my mind for crappy LaGrange PoMo.

You're talking about an architect who literally talks developers out of producing modern buildings, even when they ask him to do it. And, the people in his firm are actually not bad at doing Modern! Personally, I think he is an egomaniac, and is afraid of other talented people in his firm upstaging him (he did not design Erie on the Park, for instance). LaGrange needs to go.

The new modernism is far more diverse than the old (that is, the real stuff - not Walton on the Park pseudo-architecture), and really, there is no reason why we should be trying to justify "crap."

[Chi649]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Umm, its being built a block away from Sofitel, which is probably the sweetest modern building built in this city since Hancock. Also, Walton on the Park will have significant quantities of glass. Then there is 1 mag, mile, a bruce graham building, and the Hacock just east of there, plus the Claire, while no masterpiece, will be quite glassy. Plus there are all sorts of retro modern 60's and 70's towers east rush but west of LSD in the area as well. 50 Chestnut is also very modern and glassy. I think this is a pretty diverse area architecturally, its not the Gold Coast that is full of concrete boxes, it is river north, trust me, I live virtually right in between them.

Well consider this picture and tell me that Elysian won't basically blend in to the point of irrelevance.

From spyguy

[i_am_hydrogen]

Originally Posted by honte

You're talking about an architect who literally talks developers out of producing modern buildings, even when they ask him to do it.

True. This was the case for Lincoln Park 2520.

[kenratboy]

Remember guys, its the 400-800' infill that makes the big still really fit in.

This is a huge criticism of cities that are building MASSIVE towers...with nothing around them. Chicago has so many buildings to fill on, Sears, Hancock, CS, etc. look so good.

[CHAPINM1]

As an individual who is very open minded and sees the glass half full, especially on highrises, I can honostly say that I truely despise this piece of shit. I am truely dissapointed in this one by a long shot. I'm just thankful that this project will not rank among the tallest structures of this great city. This is a one time post for this project...

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by Dan in Chicago

Victor and I looked at the blueprints today, and this building will be only 685'-8" tall to the tips of the spires (673'-11.5" to the roof). Sorry for the bad news. What happens now, will the thread be deleted?

Has the developer reduced the height, or was the original 700'-5" info merely an approximation / mistaken ?
(Put another way, is the rendering still correct or have they chopped out a floor?)

[LaSalle.St.Station]

people, there are enough parking lots to build your cutting edge edifices, but lay off a nice classical piece that will blend in nicely, like it was there for 60 years.

[Alliance]

Originally Posted by kenratboy

Remember guys, its the 400-800' infill that makes the big still really fit in.

This is a huge criticism of cities that are building MASSIVE towers...with nothing around them. Chicago has so many buildings to fill on, Sears, Hancock, CS, etc. look so good.

Not one's compaling about depth, just quality. Besides, if we we're actually worried about JHC blending in, we'd build something other than a concrete WALL behind it.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by LaSalle.St.Station

people, there are enough parking lots to build your cutting edge edifices, but lay off a nice classical piece that will blend in nicely, like it was there for 60 years.

But you see, this is the problem. Anyone with eyes will know that it hasn't been there for 60 years. Lagrange is scared of modern, because he himself doesn't know how to do it. Classical my ass. If limestone was the facade material, people here would be singing a different tune, but we all know it's not a true piece of classical architecture.