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

[honte]

^ They're both ugly. One just cost a fortune...

In fact, as much as I hate LaGrange, I think his facade looks better, based on your photos. It has more relief and texture.

[CGII]

15 CPW is uninteresting and making the architectural statement of a potatoe but I'd hardly call it ugly, especially considering the quality of the materials used. Elysian is likely to be much worse than 15 CPW, especially considering the precast.

[spyguy]

Originally Posted by CGII

Elysian is likely to be much worse than 15 CPW, especially considering the precast.

Also considering the fact that 15 CPW has something like ~$2 billion in sales.

[the urban politician]

I'm sure this thing will turn out decent, but I have to admit I'm pretty disappointed that limestone won't be a part of the base, as had been mentioned before.

[honte]

^ There probably will be limestone "accents" somewhere.

[Michi]

Originally Posted by Alliance

Ohhh...I hope to god you're joking.

Why would I be joking? It's not Tribune Tower, but this is 2008. It's going to come out much nicer than perceived once it is complete.

[Northwest]

Im not 100% sure this isnt real limestone yet, but in any case the texture does appear much more flat and uniform on Elysian than it is on 15 CPW.
This tower still gets my appreciation though... its a good thing for our fine city!
Please keep the photos coming, and thank you HighRiser for the interesting information!

[Ecker]

I guarantee you it isn't real limestone. I've seen it in person. It's obviously pre-cast concrete.

[Brian.]

Can someone explain the general negativity towards precast on this project or for that matter on this site as a whole? It seems like if it’s not done is shiny, sparkly or reflective surfaces, it somehow is a bust architecturally.

[Chitown]

Originally Posted by ColoPrecaster

Can someone explain the general negativity towards precast on this project or for that matter on this site as a whole? It seems like if it’s not done is shiny, sparkly or reflective surfaces, it somehow is a bust architecturally.

People don't generally like precast. It's sort of a cheapy material.

[wrab]

^ For me, the precast surface is often just too uniform & flat for a large historicist building like this. The effect can be cartoonish. The precedents would be the limestone surfaces of Chicago's great Deco towers, eg Palmolive, CBOT, etc., which are neither shiny nor reflective, but have just enough surface variation to spread out the light and engage the eye IMHO

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by ColoPrecaster

Can someone explain the general negativity towards precast on this project or for that matter on this site as a whole? It seems like if it’s not done is shiny, sparkly or reflective surfaces, it somehow is a bust architecturally.

this whole project is not just a bust, it is a discrace architecturally. i don't care what materials are used; it is awful. the precast panels come as no surprise, and i really don't care. they could use italian marble and i still wouldn't hesitate to dismiss this thing. my negativity isn't because the materials; it's from a hatred for bad design.

[Brian.]

Originally Posted by Chitown

People don't generally like precast. It's sort of a cheapy material.

Really...In our world we generally are considered the premium product compared to brick or sitecast concrete. I can't comment on the price of a glass clad building.

Originally Posted by wrabbit

^ For me, the precast surface is often just too uniform & flat for a large historicist building like this. The effect can be cartoonish. The precedents would be the limestone surfaces of Chicago's great Deco towers, eg Palmolive, CBOT, etc., which are neither shiny nor reflective, but have just enough surface variation to spread out the light and engage the eye IMHO

Ah...that again comes down to price. If an architect repeats a pattern it makes the building much more cost effecient. If each panel were one of a kind the building may never get built do to cost.

I do understand what you are saying. It's not like saying they don't build them like they used to, but more like they don't PAY for them like they used to.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Yep, I'm generally not a fan of pre-cast cladding for those very issues, but that's not to say it can't be done right, I've seen several buildings that use Precast and use it well.

[Brian.]

Well...It's paid the bills for the last 14 years so I can't say that I am unbiased. For this project I will focus on the craftsmanship of the precast to judge its beauty. It's not like the architect really cares what I think of his design anyway.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by ColoPrecaster

Can someone explain the general negativity towards precast on this project or for that matter on this site as a whole? It seems like if it’s not done is shiny, sparkly or reflective surfaces, it somehow is a bust architecturally.

Nay, it's a bust if the glass isn't of utmost PERFECTION in smoothness and reflectivity.

I also wonder; I mean pre-cast gives alot more flexibility aesthetically than poured-in-place, the latter of which takes serious skill (think Bertrand Goldberg) to make attractive. Pre-cast can be ugly but it's also a relatively affordable way to put an attractive facade on a concrete building.

In regards to the application of pre-cast on the Elysian, I'm still taking a wait-and-see approach, but I think it will be tolerable; certainly not as classy as the early renderings, but not as awful as some people seem to expect.

[above thoughts not from a construction expert by any means, just a forum junkie]

[Sir Isaac Newton]

Drove by the Elysian in a cab last night....it's definitely starting to get up there in height....had to have been at least 10 stories high if not 15 or so....

[honte]

Precast can be done well, I concur. But I have never seen a Chicago project that does this. There is a book out there of cutting-edge designs that use precast, and they all are quite stunning. The trick is (aside from having good design talent) not to impersonate other kinds of materials.

[koops65]

I'm not certain what the height is supposed to be for this tower, and I haven't read the entire thread, but 205m is not 686ft, in fact it is equal to 672.5ft, conversely, if the 686ft figure is more accurate, then it should be 209m, I dont mean to be critical here, but the title is inaccurate and should be changed...

Regardless of the math inconsistencies, this is a beautiful looking tower, and I hope the finished product looks as good...

[10023]

Originally Posted by CGII

15 CPW is uninteresting and making the architectural statement of a potatoe but I'd hardly call it ugly, especially considering the quality of the materials used. Elysian is likely to be much worse than 15 CPW, especially considering the precast.

I walk past 15 CPW most days. It's not a stunning piece of architecture by any means, but it is a perfectly good fill-in building. It has mass and presence, rather than looking like a Potemkin facade slapped onto a quickly constructed condo tower. The limestone will also age better. And the CPW side is much better than the Broadway side (retailers obviously want big glass windows, but it doesn't quite work with the architecture of the building).

A great cityscape consists of a lot of solid "background" buildings that set off the great buildings as the "stars" of the show.