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

[wrab]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

.....Whether of not one is a fan of Post Modernism, this is a poor example of it.....

That, I think, is the gist of the criticism. The temptation is to frame the debate as a referendum between historicist PoMo versus Modernism, or as between traditional & modern towers. And this might be a fine debate to have were the Elysian a worthy example of either PoMo or historicist vernacular architecture. But it isn't, IMHO. It sure as heck isn't the Sherry-Netherland.

Many of us - myself, certainly - can't quite get beyond the fact that the precast has been handled so mawkishly, etc., ad nauseum. As though there weren't enough bad precast in River North already.

[viewguysf]

As a total aside from the previous dialog, I don't see this building on the Emporis list of Chicago highrises. Are you being cheated by the competition?

[headcase]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

Chicago's tradition of Modernism predated its European successor by three decades.

This is way off topic, but I would love to see your rational for this statement. The first exhibition, of what was to be know as the "International Style", in the United States was in 1932 was of works of European architects. The Europeans started the Modernist movement in the early 20th century while architects in Chicago were experimenting with the 1st Chicago school and Art Deco.

It's true that the Miesian boxes most people associate with Modernism were perfected in Chicago in the 50s and 60s, those ideas had been around for a while, the technology just was not at a point were it would be implemented in an affordable manner.

SSDD

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by headcase

while architects in Chicago were experimenting with the 1st Chicago school

You answered your own question, though the experimenting began well before the start of the 20th Century.

[Nowhereman1280]

pastabin.com


The above building basically fulfills all of Le Corbusier's five points of Modernism (except #1 since it would have been stupid to raise such a building off the street and waste all of that retail space). The Chicago School was very much modern architecture it just wasn't International Style Modernism or High Modernism. Sullivan is to Mies as Monet is to Picasso. Monet was impressionist while Picasso was (primarily) a Cubist, but both those styles are considered Modern Art. Sullivan was Chicago School and Mies was International Style, but they are both modern architecture.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by Taft

Looking at pricing in the real estate market, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that people frequently pay for everything _except_ architectural greatness.

I'm not sure that's true. Aqua had incredibly brisk sales at fairly high price points. 600 N. Fairbanks sold quickly as well. It's certainly only a partial subset amongst the upper-middle and upper-bracket buyer pools, but there are a substantial number of people who do care about design.

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

This glass awning looks ridiculous.

And I'm sure everyone is gonna love the new entry to the motor court. It is flanked by two decorative (non-supporting) columns/balusters that have exaggerated-sized acorn-looking capitals/crowns (I'm sure there is a classical word for the design feature, but I'm not going to dignify them). Sorry I went by quickly and don't have a photo, but anyone going by with a camera this weekend will surely notice it.

[Zerton]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

pastabin.com


The above building basically fulfills all of Le Corbusier's five points of Modernism (except #1 since it would have been stupid to raise such a building off the street and waste all of that retail space). The Chicago School was very much modern architecture it just wasn't International Style Modernism or High Modernism. Sullivan is to Mies as Monet is to Picasso. Monet was impressionist while Picasso was (primarily) a Cubist, but both those styles are considered Modern Art. Sullivan was Chicago School and Mies was International Style, but they are both modern architecture.

you beat me too it.

[SolarWind]

June 4, 2009

[a chicago bearcat]

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.

you can't have full glass sliding doors without a french door detailing on a building that is attempting to use pre war detailing

"limestone" with white window frames is another fail

and just because we're against clumsy historicism doesn't mean we're for poorly detailed uninspired generic glass boxes that rely on just as bad of a stylistic brand to sell "class" to vain condo buyers

my .02

[Dr. Taco]

Originally Posted by a chicago bearcat

"limestone" with white window frames is another fail

biggest fail of the building, imo. but at least it can be rather easily painted black, hopefully

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by jstush04

biggest fail of the building, imo. but at least it can be rather easily painted black, hopefully

It wouldn't be easy and it won't happen because it would be a maintenance nightmare.

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by jstush04

biggest fail of the building, imo. but at least it can be rather easily painted black, hopefully

I wonder if it was something that Elysian/Pisor (sp?) wanted, and that LaGrange opposed but could not persuade his client otherwise.

More generally, it would be interesting to know of any notorious examples around the city of design "FAIL"s that were really an insistent client's idea despite the best efforts of the architect to urge otherwise. Probably architects keep quiet about struggles like that, but maybe over time some stories become widely known. After all, a designer needs to protect his/her reputation from glaring blunders.

[wrab]

^ Water Tower Place comes to mind - the project team really wanted to go with a black anodized finish, but the developer insisted on the white marble.

[vandelay]

I'm pretty sure the white window frames were a cost-cutting measure by the developer. Two color window frames (white on the inside, black on the outside) are significantly more expensive than single color window frames. If they just installed black window frames and wanted to paint them white on the inside, that would also be a costly amount of labor.

Another pitfall of adapting old-style buildings to modern construction is that upfront costs are higher, but the building's meant to last. The contrast of modern cost-cutting and supposed historic durability is a particularly odious one. They could have really done themselves some favors with a few good materials though.

But at least they tried. If people want it that's fine, and I'm not going to look down on them because they can't afford "authenticity" or were born and live in the wrong place for the kind they want.

[Mojava]

Originally Posted by denizen467

I wonder if it was something that Elysian/Pisor (sp?) wanted, and that LaGrange opposed but could not persuade his client otherwise.

I believe the white window frames are also on the Elysian's neighbor 10 E. Delaware which is also designed by LaGrange but different owner. That building just doesn't look good at all.

[the urban politician]

Ever heard of "beggars can't be choosers"? River North is on aesthetic life-support right now. All this complaining yet none of you guys recognize that River North's architectural standards are so damn low that this building is actually a boon to the neighborhood because it doesn't present 8 levels of blank concrete or opaque windows to the street.

Seriously, you guys act surprised. Thanks to an army of horrible developers, River North has become so damn ugly that instead of nit-picking window frame colors you should really just be happy that this building didn't absolutely brutalize the urban environment around it like the other 90% of towers built in River North for the past decade.

[wrab]

I don't buy into this whole "It's not as bad as Grand Plaza, therefore it's good" argument. You've got Sofitel and The Clare right around the corner.

[the urban politician]

^ And?....

I can only give you my opinion, but walking around I can tell you first hand that a good deal of what has happened to River North in the past decade can only be considered barely an improvement over parking lots.

I think much of what has gone up is so damn ugly that anything that is not horrifically ugly is considered an improvement--hence Elysian is an improvement.

I do still think there is hope, but if the next boom presents the same kind of god-awful garbage that we got this time, River North will be in permanent aesthetic hell.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I think much of what has gone up is so damn ugly that anything that is not horrifically ugly is considered an improvement--hence Elysian is an improvement.

Well yes, it's an improvement over the one-story 7-11 with parking in front that it replaced. And yes, you're right about the overall schlockification of the Near North Side. Just to make you cry a bit, here's what the east side of Rush, now occupied by 50 E Chestnut, The Bristol, and 900NM's parking garage used to look like:


But part of the issue with this building is that it wouldn't have been that hard or expensive to make it suck less stylistically. It's really more an indictment of Lagrange than anyone else. This could have been more post-modern and less odious for a comparable budget. For me, it's more a complaint of bad taste rather than blaming the big bad developer for cheaping out, or something. I know developments have to occur within the bounds of economics, as dictated by construction costs, consumer tastes, and so on. But all of the above would still allow for a much more thoughtfully attractive development of otherwise comparable proportions, density, and so forth.