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

[10023]

Originally Posted by ungerdog

George, that 2nd picture you posted seems to show a nice sized balcony. Does anyone know if that is a hotel room or residential unit attached to that balcony?

I don't see why Chicago doesn't have more of these. In New York you rarely see "balconies", which are largely a waste of space (I lived in a building in Chicago with one, and aside from a place to step out for a cigarette, it didn't serve much purpose). What you do you have is a lot of large (100's of square feet or more) terraces, which only a limited number of units in a building have but which provide some really nice outdoor space where there are setbacks or penthouses.

[truedaniel]

It's just very tough to building a building in this part of town due to the mega giants on North Michigan Ave. I mean the Elysian simply looks like a little dweed among jocks!

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by truedaniel

It's just very tough to building a building in this part of town due to the mega giants on North Michigan Ave. I mean the Elysian simply looks like a little dweed among jocks!

^ The only real jock in that part of town is the Hancock. Lets not kid ourselves..

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Thanks for the update, George, especially considering the, uh, delicate nature of the subject.

Originally Posted by george

What are these? Grills? Faux balconies?

Originally Posted by george

This glass awning looks ridiculous.

[jchase79]

[QUOTE= This glass awning looks ridiculous.[/QUOTE]


I thought that also... I'm not quite as critical of this building as some on here are... but the glass awning looks out of place on this style of building... it belongs on more of a modern/ glassy highrise imo

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by 10023

I don't see why Chicago doesn't have more of these. In New York you rarely see "balconies", which are largely a waste of space (I lived in a building in Chicago with one, and aside from a place to step out for a cigarette, it didn't serve much purpose). What you do you have is a lot of large (100's of square feet or more) terraces, which only a limited number of units in a building have but which provide some really nice outdoor space where there are setbacks or penthouses.

Its got a lot to do with Zoning laws. New York had a ton of strict setback laws back in its highrise heyday (I know we just saw a boom, but I'm talking about the 1900-1930 years when New York added most of its medium highrise stock). All the buildings then were required to draw a line from the highest point to the lot lines across the street, anything outside of those lines was off limits for construction. Therefore the most logical way to design a building was to make lots of setbacks. That's where all the terraces in NY come from, I believe similar setback laws may still be in effect to some extent in NY. Chicago had a very mild version of these laws (above a certain height (whatever the height of all those buildings along the michigan ave streetwall is) they had to reduce the floor plates to 1/4 the original size) which was eliminated shortly after WWII leading to our habit of building boxes with balconies cut out of them or stuck to the side of them instead.

[spyguy]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

I'm still irked that this is only like, 50 dwelling units. I mean it's still a step up from the 7-11 with parking lot, but...

+ ~150 condo-hotel units. Better than 50 E Chestnut, which only has one unit per floor.

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

This glass awning looks ridiculous.

Yeah, it's not great but should've been expected (see Park Tower entrance). I think even 15 CPW's motor court has a glass awning, though probably tasteful.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

Thanks for the update, George, especially considering the, uh, delicate nature of the subject.



What are these? Grills? Faux balconies?



This glass awning looks ridiculous.

He placed a glass awning above the entrance of Park Tower also.

[jc5680]

5.30

[vandelay]

Those grills/fake balconies are juliet balconies. You often see that type of balcony in some of the more high-profile pre-war apartments in New York. I think it's a nice touch, and not a bad amenity. It does help balance out the full balconies going up the side. I even see the glass canopy as something of a nod to pre-war buildings, which often had elaborate paneled glass canopies.

I agree with the comment about the full balconies, to my eye, they don't suit this building. Setbacks and terraces would look more appropriate even if they were born more out of necessity than aesthetics or functionality. With such a building the devil is in the details and the hybridization of pre-war and post-war makes that very hard.

Or it could be that I'm using the Pierre Hotel as a reference point for the Elysian and 820 Fifth Avenue for 10 E. Delaware. It could be that Chicago is a different town with different demands and expectations.

I think Lagrange did a great job adapting the pre-war look in NYC:

[the urban politician]

^ That's a LaGrange? I saw that u/c just last week

[avngingandbright]

I've never seen criticism as harsh as this.

God forbid someone builds something that attempts to work in an American historicizing vernacular, instead of building a soulless, insipid, globalist, International style glass box.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by avngingandbright

God forbid someone builds something that attempts to work in an American historicizing vernacular, instead of building a soulless, insipid, globalist, International style glass box.

Hahaha, that's the funny part, its not American at all or supposed to be American in any capacity. LaGrange himself markets this as some sort of adaptation of "classic European design" to the modern highrise... Its supposed to look like a 6 floor Parisian apartment building in the second empire style stretched to 60 floors. That building style is not even remotely American unlike high modernism (which, in addition to the Chicago School, is what Chicago is known for) which had its glory days as the American Corporate style of choice.

This building is far more soulless than a tastefully detailed, proportioned, and well constructed Mies building. The problem with this building is that it is sterile, ill-proportioned (better than Park Tower though), and a cartoonish knock off of the style it tries (and fails) to imitate.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by avngingandbright

I've never seen criticism as harsh as this.

God forbid someone builds something that attempts to work in an American historicizing vernacular, instead of building a soulless, insipid, globalist, International style glass box.

Trying and succeeding though are at 2 different ends of the spectrum. As posted, this isn't American. Modenrinism was basically born in America, here in this city.

People wouldn't be complaining if certain things were a bit more true to form, like real stone, more convincing juliet balconies. LaGranges obsession with faux french tends to be a hinderence to himself and our skyline.

It's an okay building, but nothing special for the amount of money people are paying.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by avngingandbright

I've never seen criticism as harsh as this.

God forbid someone builds something that attempts to work in an American historicizing vernacular, instead of building a soulless, insipid, globalist, International style glass box.

Soulless?! You have a great deal to learn about architecture.

God is in the details my friend.

[Jaroslaw]

Modernism was a European intellectual and design movement, in architecture and elsewhere. One of its practical manifestations was the American glass box skyscraper...

The o.p.'s emphasis was on America's historicizing force, it seems to me, not on the American design of this building per se.

The near-hysterical suspicion with which many here view this building seems totally unwarranted.

[Taft]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

It's an okay building, but nothing special for the amount of money people are paying.

Looking at pricing in the real estate market, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that people frequently pay for everything _except_ architectural greatness. It just seems really low on the priority list for the average buyer, even at the luxury end of the market.

Maybe it is because people more often enjoy views _from_ their home rather than views _of_ their home...dunno.

[vandelay]

The mods should discourage this sort of modernism vs. traditionalism debate or move it to a proper forum.

America aspires to be a free and open country that should not be subservient to any orthodoxy whether modern or historical. To me buildings should be judged on two criteria: is it beautiful and does it function well.

A lot of people happen to be of the opinion that traditional buildings are more pleasant to live in, including some extremely high profile modern architects (ahem Norman Foster). That people belittle new buildings for trying to appeal to more traditional styles strikes me as a form of snobbery and closed-mindedness. Feel free to critique the details, but take the building as it is and not project moral or intellectual values onto it.



These pictures might help people understand the compulsion towards traditionalism.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by Jaroslaw

Modernism was a European intellectual and design movement, in architecture and elsewhere. One of its practical manifestations was the American glass box skyscraper...

The o.p.'s emphasis was on America's historicizing force, it seems to me, not on the American design of this building per se.

The near-hysterical suspicion with which many here view this building seems totally unwarranted.

Oh God, Jaroslaw, you're as predictable as you are bad with facts. Chicago's tradition of Modernism predated its European successor by three decades.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "near-hysterical suspicion" unless it's just an overblown off-point attempt to discredit the Elysian's critics. Much of the criticism has been carefully laid out multiple times; those of us who regularly follow this thread are very familiar with those arguments.

To the newer contributors, they mostly focus on the building's materials, proportions and details. Certainly, there's a philosophical argument, but, were those three elements up to snuff, I'm pretty sure there would be a lot less complaining.

Originally Posted by vandelay

These pictures might help people understand the compulsion towards traditionalism.

How? Most of the people who post on the Chicago forums are ardent about preservation. Only one that I can think of would advocate supplanting historically significant structures with Modern ones.

The affinity for Modernism arises from a belief that architecture should reflect its time rather than (crudely) ape an era long past. Anyway, you're right: It's not a discussion to be had here and I do hope Steely Dan or someone scrubs this thread clean of all its traces.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

...they mostly focus on the building's materials, proportions and details. Certainly, there's a philosophical argument, but, were those three elements up to snuff, I'm pretty sure there would be a lot less complaining.

Yes, that is the heart of it. As an outsider who has not yet seen this project in person, I've refrained from commenting in this thread. With that having been said, every time I saw a pic showing those cheesy, spindly black light fixtures mounted around the building it made my skin crawl. They look so incredibly cheap in comparison to beautiful heavy ones that I've seen on other Post Modern structures. We all can focus on little things I guess, but the often discussed white window frames and the "tool shed roof" are really bad too. To me it's an ugly adaptation of a mansard roof, something accomplished much better on the nearby Park Tower. Whether of not one is a fan of Post Modernism, this is a poor example of it.

The affinity for Modernism arises from a belief that architecture should reflect its time rather than (crudely) ape an era long past. Anyway, you're right: It's not a discussion to be had here and I do hope Steely Dan or someone scrubs this thread clean of all its traces.

The discussion has been a good one and is probably coming to an end on its own. I don't feel that it has always been inappropriate in this thread though; in a way, it has clarified this project.