CHICAGO | The Elysian | 686 FT / 209 M | 60 FLOORS | COM - Page 64

george · #**1261** Posted **Feb 12, 2009, 10:37 PM**

The material being installed on the lower roof isn't a shiny new or aged green cooper. It's probably a heavy gauge aluminium with a warm black/ brown, gun metal coloring.

denizen467 · #**1262** Posted **Feb 13, 2009, 9:29 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jstush04

some photos my dad took last week from a condo he was working in

Is your dad a 007 fan? This shot conjures up the first chase scene in Casino Royale...

All together now - if we chant loud enough, "NEXT BOND IN CHICAGO! NEXT BOND IN CHICAGO!", maybe it'll happen one day. Time to start a letter writing campaign to the Broccolis. Actually if we got the Olympics it might make it kind of a realistic possibility, given Obama and (maybe one day) the Spire...

i_am_hydrogen · #**1263** Posted **Feb 13, 2009, 3:45 PM**

One positive in regard to the roof is that, unlike Park Tower, it appears to be more proportional to the rest of the building. Don't get me wrong, plopping a mansard roof on top of a high-rise is an absurd principle, but the outcome in this case may not be as laughable as Park Tower's pointy, petite chapeau.

honte · #**1264** Posted **Feb 14, 2009, 2:38 AM**

^ Exactly. And it doesn't suffer from that 2-D, 'designed on an elevation' quality.

left of center · #**1265** Posted **Feb 14, 2009, 3:20 AM**

the whole design of the roof is really working for me... i like it quite a bit. any idea what it will be clad in? copper maybe? i saw someone earlier post something about aluminum... i hope thats not going to be the exterior material...

Jibba · #**1266** Posted **Feb 17, 2009, 4:11 AM**

Nowhereman1280 · #**1267** Posted **Feb 17, 2009, 4:46 AM**

^^^ I have high hopes for the lot in the foreground of that picture. Looks like a spot to build what we failed to bulid on B37. I'd say that lot has the most potential out of any lot in the city, if not for its sheer size alone. Not to mention its owned by us Catholics and, out of all the churches, we sure seem to like to develop the most!

denizen467 · #**1268** Posted **Feb 17, 2009, 7:12 AM**

^ Yes, great job - please be prosperous and multiply!

Now what do you know about the south side of Chicago from State to Wabash? Wasn't there talk about either some redevelopment or at least a relocation a couple years ago? (Boom Rundown / General Dev question)

Jibba · #**1269** Posted **Feb 17, 2009, 7:21 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

^^^ I have high hopes for the lot in the foreground of that picture. Looks like a spot to build what we failed to bulid on B37. I'd say that lot has the most potential out of any lot in the city, if not for its sheer size alone. Not to mention its owned by us Catholics and, out of all the churches, we sure seem to like to develop the most!

I have hopes for that lot too, but I'm afraid that I can't muster the optimism to consider them "high". Too much BS has been constructed in that whole area west of State; I just can't imagine anything with any shred of quality or architectural imagination ever coming to be on that site. It also bothers me that I'm willing to accept almost anything on that lot at this point because it is so bafflingly large that I can't stand the sight of it much longer.

I strolled up and down Clark over in that area for a while today and left the street utterly depressed and angry--the Walton on the Park/Ten East Delaware/Elysian trifecta felt like an urban oasis by comparison, as much as I loathe most of the designs.

That's at least one good thing to like about Elysian--everything that it isn't: no in-your-face parking garage, no adjoining parking lot, no blank fortress wall, and no drive-thr--oh, wait; it totally does have a drive-through. Oh well. And too bad the balcony railings are so visually overwhelming.

george · #**1270** Posted **Feb 18, 2009, 12:25 AM**

Here's some indication of the roof material & color. N.W. corner of the lower roof site.

Jibba · #**1271** Posted **Feb 23, 2009, 6:47 AM**

From Milwaukee Ave. over the Kennedy:

the urban politician · #**1272** Posted **Feb 23, 2009, 2:54 PM**

Would it have killed them to have at least used some limestone at the base?

I've seen malls in Long Island use better materials than this. Come on, how about a little bit of stone? Just a LITTLE!

Nowhereman1280 · #**1273** Posted **Feb 23, 2009, 2:59 PM**

HAHAHAHA. The roof material looks like a corrugated barn! Buahaha sooo trashy. I've seen storage facilities that look better than that!

VivaLFuego · #**1274** Posted **Feb 23, 2009, 3:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Would it have killed them to have at least used some limestone at the base?

I've seen malls in Long Island use better materials than this. Come on, how about a little bit of stone? Just a LITTLE!

Eh, I think I actually prefer uniform facade materials to cladding the base with stone and the upper floors with a vageuly stone-like facsimile. 50 E. Chestnut looks tackier than this (from a materials perspective), IMHO.

The precast concrete itself (the material, I mean) actually looks quite nice in person, but the lack of any detailing/ornamentation anywhere is jarring.

Beck4ABigChicago · #**1275** Posted **Feb 23, 2009, 5:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

...but the lack of any detailing/ornamentation anywhere is jarring.

It really is isn't it. So strange.

JustinL · #**1276** Posted **Feb 24, 2009, 6:10 AM**

The Elysian definitely looked a lot simpler (more boring even?) in person, but I'm still a fan. I may have no taste in architecture (I'm also a fan of park tower

), but I love the slender build. A week old by me:

VivaLFuego · #**1277** Posted **Feb 24, 2009, 5:51 PM**

Love that night pic, Justin

george · #**1278** Posted **Feb 26, 2009, 4:35 AM**

the urban politician · #**1279** Posted **Feb 26, 2009, 2:36 PM**

^ It would rock of that black turret had some Sullivan-esque ornamentation.

But alas, it won't. It will just be smooth and black..

emathias · #**1280** Posted **Feb 26, 2009, 4:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

^^^ I have high hopes for the lot in the foreground of that picture. Looks like a spot to build what we failed to bulid on B37. I'd say that lot has the most potential out of any lot in the city, if not for its sheer size alone. Not to mention its owned by us Catholics and, out of all the churches, we sure seem to like to develop the most!

I actually would love to see the alley on that block converted to a street, the existing vintage buildings converted to be two-faced, and some midrises put on the corners of the western half, then the large church-owned lot converted into something like Union Square in New York. I normally wouldn't advocate a park right next to a subway station, but if all the other potential areas for development within 1 block of there were developed well, the density would remain quite good and a public square there would probably turn out to be extremely popular and useful. Heck, even if the city had to offer to put underground parking there to get the church to let go of it, I'd even support that - especially if, in exchange for that, the city lightened up on parking requirements for other developments within a block of the site.