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

[Steely Dan]

it's been a while since i've discussed this tower (i loathe it so much that i've been trying to pretend that it doesn't exist), but what in high holy fuck happened to the top of this building? good god that mansard roof is atrocious! i've seen corrugated metal warehouse complexes out in bolingbrook that look more skillfully designed and built. say what you will about the po-mo banality of the rest of the tower, but the top is just a tragic complete & total epic fail. it's so bad it's almost good. no, not really, it's just plain old bad.

i like to think of all the wealthy idiots who plunked down mucho dinero to buy what they perceived as some "old world class" who now have to come home to this building and see that great tacky-ass tool shed in the sky plunked down upon the top their skyscraper home. in a way, people with such bad taste deserve crap like that. if only it didn't mar the cityscape around it.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

it's so bad it's almost good.

We should be so lucky.

I kind of like the "so bad, it's good" stuff, like
Catalapa Gardens: http://www.catalpagardens.com/
Granville Tower: http://www.emporis.com/application/?nav=building&id=117621

I take much solace in the fact that Elysian, roof and all, is much better than 10 E Delaware, the King of Turds, soaring to new heights of gag-inducing LaGrangery. I would take 8 Elysians over 1 10ED any day. Seriously, 10 East Delaware is the type of thing architects should lose their licenses over. At least with Elysian, we can chalk it up to different people having different tastes and different priorities. 10ED should be criminalized.

As has been discussed, at street level, as long as ones eyes look no further than 30 ft upwards, Elysian is quite decent. The fit and finish are very good - the precast concrete looks nice, in my opinion. The streetscaping is presentable.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

10 E Delaware, the King of Turds, soaring to new heights of gag-inducing LaGrangery.

and there it is folks, our quote of the week. "LaGrangery" is now my new favorite word.

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

At least with Elysian, we can chalk it up to different people having different tastes and different priorities. 10ED should be criminalized.

not exactly. the roof of the elysian is also criminally bad. maybe not for purely stylistic reasons, but because it was so obviously VE-ed to the point of absurdity. if you're only willing to spend a couple hundred bucks on the crown of 60 story skyscraper, then just don't add a crown at all. an empty void at the top would be infinitely superior to the cheap-ass stupidity they decided to cap this building with.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by ColoPrecaster

If I like the completed look I will comment on it and your opinion or the ones living in the hood are insignificant to what I think of the building.

Er, I think that was Hayward's point to begin with.

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

I kind of like the "so bad, it's good" stuff, like
Catalapa Gardens: http://www.catalpagardens.com/
Granville Tower: http://www.emporis.com/application/?nav=building&id=117621

Wha? I sincerely like Granville Tower. Catalpa Gardens, though, is definitely a kitschy pleasure.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

Wha? I sincerely like Granville Tower.

me too. it's one of my non-downtown favorites in the city.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ I too love Granville Tower. I just wish the color scheme were slightly different. It could be so much more excellent if the concrete was left exposed and sealed with a nice clear coat finish. Also, the brick could have been some awesome 70's color like glaze orange or powder blue which would have really made that baby pop. Also, did you all know that all of the units in Granville tower are duplexed? Every two floors functions as one effective floor with like four units on it, each with family room and kitchen on the first floor and two bedrooms and a bathroom on the second floor. Personally I think a lot of the Edgewater slabs are highly underrated.

That cluster of highrises is definitely a major center of experiments in what were, at the time, some of the very first "condo highrises" in the world. Correct me if I am wrong but some of those towers were among the first to be marketed as and built as "condominium apartment homes". I feel like the fact they were built as condominiums or were intended to be converted to condos also contributed to their fundamental "I'm vomiting balconies all over the place" aesthetic. Just look at my building (5415 n sheridan) and its siblings that were built as apartments and not converted for at least a decade, none of them have balconies, but those just a few blocks north built with the intention of condo sales bristle with them.

[Tom In Chicago]

Yeah. . . the roof looks kind of clumsy doesn't it. . . I'm not a fan of this building either. . . the only saving grace for those who live there is that they won't have to see it from the inside. . .

. . .

[intrepidDesign]

How an architect can go from designing the Elysian to Catalyst over on Washington is beyond me. Not that Catalyst is the next landmark building, but everything above the base isn't too bad, glassy, modern. Sacrificing good design for being homogeneous is a poor trade off. Maybe the top will look better with some finishing details

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by ColoPrecaster

Are you another one of those on this forum that seems to think opinions of visual interest are wrong because things aren’t done by the book?

If I like the completed look I will comment on it and your opinion or the ones living in the hood are insignificant to what I think of the building.

If you like it, that's your own opinion and it's respected, though I disagree this was the best choice for the exterior. "Opinions of visual interest?" In what way? The Design or the actual materials used? I feel differently on each. I could have actually liked this tower.

What you think of the building, and what I've heard from people regarding the building are very different. I personally don't like materials that try to imitate. I'd expect better for my neighborhood and I'm only pointing that out. 3 floors of limestone and the other 57 in a cheap blond/buff/beige colored brick would have kept me happy. Historically in this thread you pushed this idea we will all get used it, it will look fine in the end. I hope so. I look at it everyday I eat breakfast.

Eventually we will get used to it or just stop caring, though it doesn't mean it's acceptable design.

[Brian.]

Originally Posted by Hayward

If you like it, that's your own opinion and it's respected, though I disagree this was the best choice for the exterior.

Says the guy not footing the bill. Of course with deeper pockets it could have been better, but in the world you live in this is what you get. Many in this forum live in a fantasy world not based on budgets and deadlines.

"Opinions of visual interest?" In what way? The Design or the actual materials used? I feel differently on each. I could have actually liked this tower.

Why do people get chastised for loving the look of a building even if the architect missed some important details in the period that he was trying to replicate? As it were mentioned before, if this build were true to itself it would have never made it passed 5 stories.

I would advise you to accept modern materials as substitutes. Nobody can afford to chisel stone like the good old Roman days. You can turn your back all you want but the future doesn’t look bright if you think any building like this every will be built with limestone. Again this is my opinion which may differ from actual fact.

What you think of the building, and what I've heard from people regarding the building are very different.

Then you are just not listening to all of the people talking. There are many in this thread alone that like the building. Why do you not hear those people?

I personally don't like materials that try to imitate. I'd expect better for my neighborhood and I'm only pointing that out. 3 floors of limestone and the other 57 in a cheap blond/buff/beige colored brick would have kept me happy.

I will not attempt to hide my bias because I work with precast everyday, but what should precast look like to you then? As a material what is the thing that it should be? If it’s not imitating something what is its natural place as a material? Should it be left to airport parking garages for example?

Historically in this thread you pushed this idea we will all get used it, it will look fine in the end. I hope so. I look at it everyday I eat breakfast.

I don’t think so. Historically in this thread I have tried to debunk many myths about precast to the uninformed. I have and never will tell you or anyone they should like this building. I will say again that as precast goes this project has excellent quality and detail work. The rest of the blame should be left to the architect and not the material because they defiantly got there monies worth.

Eventually we will get used to it or just stop caring, though it doesn't mean it's acceptable design.

What can I say…I’m a precast fanboy because it’s what I do. I loved to see it get a chance to shine on a skyscraper of this caliber. Sure I would have even been more wowed if they would have used real stone but I guess my realism doesn’t get in the way of a fantasy.

[VivaLFuego]

I actually rather like the material for what it is - but I'd agree with the architect-types (Hayward et al) that I'd rather the precast be presented for what it is rather than as a faux or replacement limestone.

However, even in its attempts to replicate another material, it still results in a unique and acceptable look and feel by virtue of it's "quality." At street-level, the fit and finish of this building looks "expensive" and "solid" and well-crafted, and that does count for something. Not everything has to be stone, or brick, or whatever. A high-quality precast is a material "of this era", economical and feasible for application given the current construction materials market, just like steel/glass, limestone, or brick were standard-issue facade materials in their days. The feeling of quality and solidity, to the Elysian's credit, stands in depressing contrast to the chintzy painted concrete bullshit right next door at 10 East Delaware, a building built at the exact same time by the very same architect. In 10 years, 10 E D will have chipped and scuffed paint, and the faux brick outlines of the poured concrete will look absurd. We know how painted poured-in-place concrete ages - it ain't pretty. The precast concrete, while not aging exactly like quarried stone, will nonetheless age in its own unique way that can be evaluated and appreciated/criticized in its own right.

My gripes are more of the site planning, contextual, and overall aesthetic variety (and yes, that "mansard" roof should be criminalized too). I like the precast material and I'll gladly defer to ColoP's expertise on this being a well-done application from a technical perspective - but I don't like how the material has been applied from the perspective of the entire 680-ft tall project, and that's the architect's fault for being a tasteless hack.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

me too. it's one of my non-downtown favorites in the city.

You have an usual love of brutalism, though.

At least with Granville Tower you can say it's form following function, because the crazy interior duplex layouts dictate the facade.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

I actually rather like the material for what it is - but I'd agree with the architect-types (Hayward et al) that I'd rather the precast be presented for what it is rather than as a faux or replacement limestone.

Exactly. And that dishonesty of materials is the crux of the problem, I think. There's nothing inherently wrong with precast concrete-- just its attempt to ape stone. It would be a different story if the Elysian (or any of Lagrange's work) read as an abstraction of historical forms and motifs rather than a very literal reinterpretation.

[the urban politician]

I like this building because it's pretty, and I sincerely believe that if Chicago weren't building towers like this it wouldn't be the kind of city that it is--it would instead be a Cleveland or Detroit.

Keep up or die.

Having said that, sure I'd love to see more modernism. You guys have had a huge influence on this amateur architecture enthusiast, and I'm sure you guys are right that this tower is an architectural turd-ball. Oh well, maybe when the market comes back some better stuff will get built..

[CGII]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I like this building because it's pretty, and I sincerely believe that if Chicago weren't building towers like this it wouldn't be the kind of city that it is--it would instead be a Cleveland or Detroit.

And with this tower it is more in the realm of Las Vegas...

[J_M_Tungsten]

To quote myself...

[QUOTE=J_M_Tungsten;4388155]I think this building belongs as part of the Paris Hotel in Las Vegas. An attempt at an original work, but a huge American influence on it./QUOTE]

[nergie]

[QUOTE=J_M_Tungsten;4545381]To quote myself...

Originally Posted by J_M_Tungsten

I think this building belongs as part of the Paris Hotel in Las Vegas. An attempt at an original work, but a huge American influence on it./QUOTE]

Just go home from T.O. and while the glass box is the ubiqitous choice of condo architecture it sure beats the shit Lagrange puts up. Why is it we get crap concrete boxes a faux pomo crap. The TO RC is such a sleek design and we get the pos design. :hel

[Chicagoguy]

I like it for its diversity but that is about as far as it goes. I think it would fit in better in Lincoln Park though? Hopefully the retail that opens in it will be nice!

[Ordo_]

Its not really "diverse" in the neighborhood....but thats because its there only because its the closest it can get to downtown and survive. If this was built in the loop (where it would have been "diverse"), LaGrange would be pelted out of the city

[Chicago Shawn]

As bad as The Elysian is, 10 East Delaware really puts things into perspective. 10 E Delaware is the worst building LaGrange has ever applied his name to, its bad even by Lowenberg standards. What is really irritating, is that both of these buildings have some of the highest price points of the last boom. We could have gotten great architecture here, but we didn't even get average. The Elysain at Least adds nice density and a new 5 star hotel brand, meets the street well, the motor court is pretty well done and all the parking is underground; but the praise will end there.


Also, ditto on the Granville.