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

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by Chicagoguy

I hope this guy designs more buildings like this in the city. I love his style and I wish there were more buildings going up similar to this. To me it reminds me of what Chicago used to build. Love it and Park Tower!

That's the problem.

It's not what it used to be.

It's 2008 not 1908...

[Eventually...Chicago]

Originally Posted by honte

You're kidding me, right? You seem to have as little appreciation for this type of construction as you accuse others of lacking for precast.

All types of construction can be as complicated or as stupid (eg poor) as the designer makes them. Thermally broken steel buildings can be quite complex. Beautifully done steel buildings can be quite complex. In general, the more advanced the design, the more complex the construction. Simple as that.

I agree that wasn't my most thought out argument

But, steel and glass buildings are generally much easier to work with. In the case of a building like a trump, once you've designed the windows, you've designed the skin. Moisture is not a huge problem because steel and glass are impervious. There are no axial loads to worry about as the floor slab supports everything. With precast you have to design in lintels and bond breaks, expansion joints are more complicated add in the fact that you have a material that doesn't work in tension and we are talking about a serious effort. Also, glazing tends to be a much more contained system. The manufacturer invents most of the details and the architect just inserts them in.

I think your argument asking why are you using precast if it is a material probably not meant for 700' buildings is a valid question. I've only worked with it on 2 story buildings, I wonder what efficiencies are built in for a taller building. Precast lintels perhaps?

So perhaps "ingenious" was not the correct word, but the skills needed to work with this material should not be sloughed off. I guess the main point of my argument is that the developers are not cheaping out on the design or the construction. Both the design and the construction are on par with any other high quality building except a select few. The actual aesthetic just happens to appeal to people with a different sensibility. So what is wrong with that? Just because it is designed with classical elements doesn't mean it is any less designed than any other building, it's just different.

If people can't appreciate, respect or even cherish design ideas different than their tastes, well, then I'm sorry.

Originally Posted by honte

In general, the more advanced the design, the more complex the construction. Simple as that.

Oh and this is not even remotely true.

[Brian.]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

ColoPrecaster,

What is your take on how the concrete being used on the Elysian facade will age with time? Will it gradually discolor, acquire texture, etc.? How will it be cared for or maintained 25 years from now?

Depends if they will be using any type of sealer on the concrete. If they do then you will virtually see no change in the concrete other then the dirt it might collect from the environment. If no sealer is use then you could see some changes. One issue that precasters deal with is trace amounts of iron that naturally occurs in quarries. The end result is some rusting streaks that may become visible. Maybe some would like to see that to prematurely age the building but most of the time it's not in the architects vision and is looked upon as unsightly.

The beauty of precast is the nearly zero maintenance. The only issue long term would be the joint caulking. If done right, that would also be minimal.

Also, what would precast look like were it left undyed? Is it not possible for the right aggregate and sand mixture to get a limestone hue without any dye/pigment?

Generally speaking you can look at any under construction thread on this website and see what untreated concrete looks like. There are different types of cement available around the country that many have it look lighter or darker, but grey is grey if you ask me. You can sand blast, use a reatarder for exposing the aggregates or acid etch the surface to change the tone of grey you get but most of the time it still looks rather ragged.

The building pictured above actually looks too good to have those results just happen naturally. It’s not just the color, it’s the overall look that makes me think that the finishes have a man made influence.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by ColoPrecaster

I don't care how many blueprints or layouts you've seen. A set of plans aren't making you look any more intelligent.

I'm making a judgment call on 15 years worth of looking at concrete 5 days a week. I’d love for you to prove me wrong and I'll owe you at least 20 internets if you are successful.

I'm not trying to prove you wrong, from what I've read what you've said is correct, its just that you think that building above is something other than it is. There is nothing that I can do other than tell you what I've been told to prove what that building is, but what I've been told was from an architect who helped design it...

I guess I'll just have to leave it up to you whether I know about Loyola Buildings or not, but in the past almost everything I've said on here about what is in the Loyola pipeline is later released in publications. I guess you'll just have to trust whatever reputation I have...

[honte]

Originally Posted by Eventually...Chicago

Oh and this is not even remotely true.

I don't know how you can disagree with what I said. Perhaps I should have said "the more technically advanced the design, the more complex the construction"... Buildings that try to do a lot tend to ask a lot of the designers and the contractors.

Concerning curtain walls vs. precast cladding, you are correct that if an architect just pulls something from a curtain wall mfr. you might have a prepackaged, easy solution (300 LaSalle comes to mind). For more custom stuff, however, most of the considerations you mention are similar in steel and glass, with the exception of the inherent weaknesses in concrete such as poor tensile strength. You always need to seal your penetrations. You always need to get water out of any kind of cavity wall or permeable membrane. A good designer always accounts for movement.

For example, the base of 111 S. Wacker, which is a pretty heroic, custom solution, I would consider than a far more technical situation than LaGrange's. Another example would be Parkview east, which has a lot of the same issues you are talking about, and more: A new exterior cladding material and overall system that no one was 100% comfortable with, long-term weathering considerations, rain screen system, and on top of that, how to make this meet up with a more standard curtain wall.

In any case, I agree with you that the precast is 10x more complicated than punched openings in concrete frame or stock curtain wall systems. I just get annoyed when people criticize modern architecture as something "so simple, I could have drawn it in 10 minutes" - not accusing you of making this claim, but it's a touchy subject!

[Brian.]

Well...If the producer of the material tells you how it’s made then you should give it a lot of credit.

To this day I rarely meet an architect that really understands what it takes to get the job done. It's a miracle if any of our approvals come back with a legitimate review of the project. Just because the architect has a vision doesn't mean that it really can happen that way.

As you can see I’m a stickler for the details. If you ever run across some more info on that fine looking building BTW, send me a PM. It was fun riding the off topic train but I think you’ll agree that we get back to it before the MAN comes down on us.

[honte]

One more point: I find it saddening that the most controversial tower being built in Chicago is not something revolutionary or even challenging, but rather just a rather bland design that is neither here nor there. Oh well.

Or, maybe it's a good thing? Aqua and the Spire seem to have taken off without many dissenting voices.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ You know I think our better buildings are so good that they ellicit very little negative response. I actually prefer our city's designs to the exhibitionist ultra-modernism that is on display in certain other areas like Dubai and some of the "bug humping a box" designs that people with generally agreeable tastes sometimes push. I'm glad that our least controversial buildings are beautiful and that even our plainest and most fought over buildings are at least conservative and not trying to steal all the attention. I would take the Elysian, with all my misgivings about it, any day over some of the shit built in Dubai or the freaky crap like Tour Phare or pointless contorted modernism you see a lot of in the "great proposals and designs" thread...


@Precaster, I agree, going wayyy too far OT. I will try and get ahold of one of the pamphlets on that building so you can see all the cool ways they used your product, I was really quite impressed that they managed to used precast in a nearly structurally expressionist design at times.

[jet cm]

Originally Posted by ColoPrecaster

Well...If the producer of the material tells you how it’s made then you should give it a lot of credit.

To this day I rarely meet an architect that really understands what it takes to get the job done. It's a miracle if any of our approvals come back with a legitimate review of the project. Just because the architect has a vision doesn't mean that it really can happen that way.

As you can see I’m a stickler for the details. If you ever run across some more info on that fine looking building BTW, send me a PM. It was fun riding the off topic train but I think you’ll agree that we get back to it before the MAN comes down on us.

Couldn't help myself here. Many, if not most project architects pretend to know way more about means and methods than they actually do. The students out there really should keep that in mind.

[jet cm]

Originally Posted by ColoPrecaster

Well...If the producer of the material tells you how it’s made then you should give it a lot of credit.

To this day I rarely meet an architect that really understands what it takes to get the job done. It's a miracle if any of our approvals come back with a legitimate review of the project. Just because the architect has a vision doesn't mean that it really can happen that way.

As you can see I’m a stickler for the details. If you ever run across some more info on that fine looking building BTW, send me a PM. It was fun riding the off topic train but I think you’ll agree that we get back to it before the MAN comes down on us.

Couldn't help myself here. Many, if not most project architects pretend to know way more about means and methods than they actually do. The students out there really should keep that in mind.

[Eventually...Chicago]

Originally Posted by honte

I don't know how you can disagree with what I said. Perhaps I should have said "the more technically advanced the design, the more complex the construction"... Buildings that try to do a lot tend to ask a lot of the designers and the contractors.

I just get annoyed when people criticize modern architecture as something "so simple, I could have drawn it in 10 minutes" - not accusing you of making this claim, but it's a touchy subject!

Again not true. The Plano house utilizes steel and large plates of glass, certainly technically advance. Yet this house's construction doesn't even compare in complication to even a modest gothic building, built with primitive stone and wood. My point relating back to the elysian that it is as technically complicated as most any other building in the city even though it's aesthetic is of an earlier style.

And i could draw most Modernist buildings in 10 minutes. That's their point, that was their architect's intention. The were supposed to be simple, efficient, repetitious, mechanically produced buildings. Why do you think there are so many of them? They are pretty darn easy to design because they consist of so little. More often than not i subscribe to venturi's "Less is a bore"

[Eventually...Chicago]

Originally Posted by ColoPrecaster

To this day I rarely meet an architect that really understands what it takes to get the job done.

No offense dude, but the next time i'm in a project meeting and there is a problem that can't be figured out and someone exclaims "lets get a sub-contractor in here because they know what it takes to get the job done" i'll send you a million dollars. Beyond the owner, architect, and GC the only thing i think anyone else knows is their trade and how to file a lien, and often i'm not sure about the first thing.

why do you think the architect is the first involved and the last to finish?

[Eventually...Chicago]

Originally Posted by honte

One more point: I find it saddening that the most controversial tower being built in Chicago is not something revolutionary or even challenging, but rather just a rather bland design that is neither here nor there. Oh well.

Or, maybe it's a good thing? Aqua and the Spire seem to have taken off without many dissenting voices.

I think that is because a classicist building is much easier to criticize because we have a frame of reference to compare it with. For example, if the elysian had columns with no capitals or an arch without a keystone, we could easily spot it as a defect and discredit the design decision, just as people are criticizing it here.

For a project like aqua or the spire, the expression matters more than the exact nature of the form. For example, if the spire turned a half a revolution less or more, there is very little you can criticize because in the end, the shape of the spire is a slightly arbitrary decision made to appeal to the architect's sensibility. Essentially, there are no pre-established rules that say the Gang needs to have 10 waves for every 10 stories. Now we do have different design iterations that allow us to compare a design against itself, but this is why design "thought process" is taught much more than it was in previous schools of architecture. Contemporary design is much more self-referential, which is very difficult to talk about.

With a more classical building like elysian, we have a long established body of work to compare the building against. And as many people have correctly pointed out, this building does lack some of the richness and harmony that we associate with this style.

[Brian.]

Originally Posted by jet cm

Couldn't help myself here. Many, if not most project architects pretend to know way more about means and methods than they actually do. The students out there really should keep that in mind.

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one with a sense of reality.

Originally Posted by Eventually...Chicago

No offense dude, but the next time i'm in a project meeting and there is a problem that can't be figured out and someone exclaims "lets get a sub-contractor in here because they know what it takes to get the job done" i'll send you a million dollars. Beyond the owner, architect, and GC the only think anyone else knows is their trade and how to file a lien, and often i'm not sure about the first thing.

why do you think the architect is the first involved and the last to finish?

Well as sure as hell the first person to be called in a problem is NOT the architect. The structural engineer is the man that really makes the building perform the way the architect had envisioned. Forgive me for not knowing what you do for a living but here is how most projects we work on go in today’s market.

The architectural firm works basically on a metered clock. They've bid a certain number of hours to design a project. I get more half assed drawings now then ever before. Just last week I called a firm for some information and I was refused service because the GC had to approve the funding to send me a freaking email with a drawing attached to it. Who the hell is going to magically going to give me what I need? NOBODY, I (the subcontractor) am going to make the building fit and look right because the damn architect has had the meter expire. That my friend is the truth in construction today. Architects are worthless and penny pinching in my recent experience.

The day an Architect truly finishes the project the way he should is the day that I will kiss your…feet…yeah….feet!

[Eventually...Chicago]

I'm afraid you know very little about how owners, architects and GC's work.

[Brian.]

yeah...more then 600 projects under my belt and I must know nothing...er...wait...very little.

[VivaLFuego]

... as someone not involved in development (I'm in the Planning/Finance side of things), this back and forth argument demonstrating the dynamic between architects and contractors is pretty interesting we just need an engineer to chime in now...

[erbsenzaehler]

As already stated, I'm a civil engineer

Anyway, thanks for the written support to some of you guys! I'm feeling like there'll be a rennaissance of classic architecture. A recognizable one! (It's already rollin' btw)
Modernists failed in so many ways. Most people just don't like their 'art'. So let those 'artists' build their glass phalusses and leave our historic city centers!

In any age, people were building how they felt to. Why not continue to do so and build what people call for?

[Brian.]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

... as someone not involved in development (I'm in the Planning/Finance side of things), this back and forth argument demonstrating the dynamic between architects and contractors is pretty interesting we just need an engineer to chime in now...

I once had a comic hanging on my wall which in the first pane was an architect with an engineer in tow on a dog leash. The caption was "what architects think of engineers"

In the second pane the cartoonist drew an engineer smashing an architect with a giant hammer. The caption was "what engineers think of architects"

[Chicagoguy]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

That's the problem.

It's not what it used to be.

It's 2008 not 1908...

Thats not a problem at all...if all we build is glass and steel the skyline will not be very much to look at!