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

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ I think a lot of the texture they are talking about is not just from the surface of the material, but from the varience in textures from one brick of material to the next, which, when stacked on each other, makes for a very rich texture. Also, the lines and abnormalities between the different pieces of brick, stone, or terracotta add a lot of different textures. You can't really do that with Precast. However, I would argue that Precast is the Terra Cotta of today, its much cheaper and more durable than other other options, thus people pan it, but at some point in the future, once we don't use it anymore, people will probably appreciate it more.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by Alliance

A rich texture....for precast.

What's your point? I don't see how precast as a facade cladding is inherently different than any other, be it a glass curtain wall, deco Limestone a Romaneque Revival brownstone, vinyl siding, or anything in between. Of course the devil is in the detail of execution, but what can you possibly find so reflexively offensive about precast concrete as a facade material? If anything, precast, by definition of the flexibility of its materials and treatments, opens up a world of interesting possibilities for building facades from an architect's perspective. That is, unless you've got some crusade for ideological purity.

[Jita]

Here are three photos that I took from the street this afternoon. The second two are of the low, "courtyard" wing.

(I now realize that since I generally take my pictures in the "high quality" mode, that the images are huge, thus creating challenges for this site. If the images are too large, I will show them as thumbnails, then you can enlarge them if you want. )

[Chicagoguy]

I love this building! So does anyone know if they are going to be using that wall along the street as retail?

[aaron38]

05-23-08

Rush St. streetwall. Not being flush to Rush looks good from this angle, creates a nice stagger.




From Washington Square Park

[Brian.]

Originally Posted by aaron38

I love action shots. Thank you very much!

[Brian.]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

^^^ I think a lot of the texture they are talking about is not just from the surface of the material, but from the varience in textures from one brick of material to the next, which, when stacked on each other, makes for a very rich texture. Also, the lines and abnormalities between the different pieces of brick, stone, or terracotta add a lot of different textures. You can't really do that with Precast. However, I would argue that Precast is the Terra Cotta of today, its much cheaper and more durable than other other options, thus people pan it, but at some point in the future, once we don't use it anymore, people will probably appreciate it more.

I finally found a picture of one of our own projects that shows what type of texture can be obtained with a given amount of money spent. This one piece of precast BTW.

[colemonkee]

^ That looks pretty damn close to brick and stone.

[Brian.]

Well...that is real brick cast into the panel and those are real stones in the upper exposed aggregate part.

[Nowhereman1280]

I agree that texture can be achieved, but it still comes nowhere near the texture of terracotta or its expensive counterpart, carved stone. For example, this is probably one of the most textured buildings in the city of Chicago:

http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=lewistowers-chicago-il-usa

As much as I accept precast as a viable building material, I don't think it can ever achieve the kind of texture of these building materials on its own. I think that used in conjunction with other materials like Glass and metal, it can be very rich in texture. However, I don't think that precast has even come close to reaching its potential as a building material, I don't think anyone has really figured out how to use it just right yet. Hopefully that will happen someday soon.

[Brian.]

Agreed on many points you've made there. It's nice to use the Elysian as a educational tool for this website about a method that is widely misunderstood. I hope the moderators don't mind that in between updates we talk about precast. You know how some posts just....

[SolarWind]

June 2, 2008

[honte]

^ If they could cast real pieces of stone into the panels for the lintels and other large decorative elements, as ColoPrecaster has shown with the brickwork, I think it would help the appearance a lot. Or, they could just handle these as separate pieces.

The flat sections with the deep reveals in Solarwind's photos look pretty acceptable to me. It's the decorative elements that protrude, which as so obviously monolithic, that make it look cheap to me (or, that's one reason, I think).

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

I don't know, Honte, I actually think it might actually be the other way around. Owing to their forms, the protrusions and other applique have inherent depth, casting shadows that are large relative to their size. The panels, on the other hand, lack this quality -- check out SolarWind's close-up where there's no hue or textural variation whatsoever -- so the "ruse" is a lot easier to call out.

It just all looks so plastic. That's the diametrical opposite impression stone is supposed to give in a building like this. Wrigley, Tribune: they look carved. Elysian looks... poured.

[sammysonny1]

Even if it is precast its not that awful faux stucco (EFIS)! Also i like Lagrange's work very 1920's-30's combined with beaux arts.

[Eventually...Chicago]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

It just all looks so plastic. That's the diametrical opposite impression stone is supposed to give in a building like this. Wrigley, Tribune: they look carved. Elysian looks... poured.

I think that is actually a very elegant description of the building. Elysian appears more of a canvas waiting for ornament to be applied. I actually think a very similar condition occurs with the colombian. The proportions are okay and their isn't anything wrong with the use of a masonry/precast material, it just needs more applied ornament to help link together some of the elements and not appear plain. Modern buildings can have understated ornament (the mesian corner) classical buildings need to boast detail.

You know for all the criticisms of the H. Washington library, at least it has some detail that really makes you believe the building is a complete design, regardless of what you think of it (although the interior feels very incomplete). And i think that is the exact feeling i have with the elsyian. It's proportions i think actually work quite well, its materials fit the form, it just wasn't finished to the level i hoped. Even "plainer" renaissance buildings, such as the palazzo medici were able to rusticate their bases to give some interest and depth.

One area i think the use of precast does hurt it is with the large pilasters. This could have really helped set the table for a nice complete element at the base, instead the joinery makes the gigantic order column seem quite horizontal. So most of my criticism of this building is "if you're going to do classical, DO IT!"

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by honte

The flat sections with the deep reveals in Solarwind's photos look pretty acceptable to me. It's the decorative elements that protrude, which as so obviously monolithic, that make it look cheap to me (or, that's one reason, I think).

I agree with this sentiment. While there's nothing inherently ugly about the materials and design (if anything, I think they're, fundamentally, elegant and clever), the overall aesthetic demands some level of ornamentation that is conspicuously lacking; hence the 'monolithic', unfinished look.

[Rizzo]

Thanks for the info Coloprecaster.

I work for a firm that deals with different manufacturers of precast products from time to time, but I'd say our particular criticisms have less to do with texture and more to do with the types of reveals and joints at corners. Solar wind's photos show a superb example.

We'd actually prefer thinner reveals between "blocks" and that corner joints not have a mitered appearance. It's been difficult requesting that type of look, especially when our clients pressure us for something that has the real appearance of lay up block.

I'd be interested if you are aware of any products that are similar to what I am describing.

[Brian.]

Originally Posted by Hayward

Thanks for the info Coloprecaster.

I work for a firm that deals with different manufacturers of precast products from time to time, but I'd say our particular criticisms have less to do with texture and more to do with the types of reveals and joints at corners. Solar wind's photos show a superb example.

We'd actually prefer thinner reveals between "blocks" and that corner joints not have a mitered appearance. It's been difficult requesting that type of look, especially when our clients pressure us for something that has the real appearance of lay up block.

I'd be interested if you are aware of any products that are similar to what I am describing.

Ah...not an issue that I haven't had to deal with before. Pencil thin reveals are difficult to produce. The part of the problem is the reveal material itself. Wood, rubber, plastic or Styrofoam tends to warp when combined with heat, vibration and mass of the concrete over the top of it. Steel is the only option to have such thin reveals but that just isn't cost effective and can be difficult to work with.

A possible solution to your joint location is pouring a 'return' on the panel. Think of it as the piece poured in an L-shape. This picture posted earlier shows a piece with the L return cast into it. You'll still have a joint but it could be a foot or two from the corner instead of right at the corner. On the right edge of the piece attached to the crane you will see the L shape.

[VivaLFuego]

Can anyone confirm whether the State street frontage will have ground-floor retail?