CHICAGO | 300 North LaSalle | 785 FT / 239 M | 60 FLOORS - Page 111

Jibba · #**2201** Posted **Jan 10, 2009, 4:08 AM**

^Beard trimmer fo sho.

harryc · #**2202** Posted **Jan 10, 2009, 7:05 PM**

Jan 6

Jan 7
Lighting on the N side.

Jan 9
River slide

LaSalle st entrance

Cladding for the columns (is that the correct term ?)

Ilan · #**2203** Posted **Jan 10, 2009, 10:23 PM**

This is beautiful building. Quite elegant.

george · #**2204** Posted **Jan 12, 2009, 4:38 AM**

I agree... a very striking tower, stunning. This pic by solarwind validates the point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolarWind

December 30, 2008

i_am_hydrogen · #**2205** Posted **Jan 12, 2009, 5:08 PM**

My opinions are mixed. In addition to the lack of verticality for a building of this height (the fins didn't save the day), the sunlit portions of the facade often acquire a washed-out, hyper-reflective, rusty cast that obfuscates the detailing of the curtain wall.

Taft · #**2206** Posted **Jan 12, 2009, 6:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen

My opinions are mixed. In addition to the lack of verticality for a building of this height (the fins didn't save the day), the sunlit portions of the facade often acquire a washed-out, hyper-reflective, rusty cast that obfuscates the detailing of the curtain wall.

I think most of us are at least somewhat disappointed with the facade. The renders gave the impression of more definition and visual cues which made the rather stout building look more vertical. The implementation never lives up to the render and only rarely, IMO, do you get a glimpse of the effect that was intended.

That said, there are certain shots (like SolarWind's just above this post) that make me really like the final product. It could be better, but I do like what we got.

Taft

honte · #**2207** Posted **Jan 12, 2009, 6:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen

My opinions are mixed. In addition to the lack of verticality for a building of this height (the fins didn't save the day), the sunlit portions of the facade often acquire a washed-out, hyper-reflective, rusty cast that obfuscates the detailing of the curtain wall.

Yep. You just summed up a fair number of my complaints right there.

I will say that the final moments of the building give it some finality and definition, which it otherwise completely lacks. It has that "buzz cut" quality, but at least it's something.

Jibba · #**2208** Posted **Jan 12, 2009, 8:45 PM**

Yes, well said, i_am_hydrogen and honte. The shape is prominent and powerful enough, and the color is nice enough (matches the river--heh), but it just lacks some...personality. I am very glad that it is where it is, and it makes a nice enough high-rise compliment to the grandeur of the Merchandise Mart, but I feel that even a subtle tweaking of some of the details or the ascension of the shape could have pushed this into a higher level. It also doesn't help that from most angles there is nothing else near its height around--it screams "look at me!" (voluntarily or not), and there is nothing to really look at.

BVictor1 · #**2209** Posted **Jan 12, 2009, 8:47 PM**

Unedited

01/11/09

Jibba · #**2210** Posted **Jan 12, 2009, 8:54 PM**

^Thanks for the pictures. Not to say that I don't appreciate your images, but I think I will go have a look-see tonight for myself, in person, before I make any judgments. I guess this building is deserving of some fairness on my part (I hope I'm right).

george · #**2211** Posted **Jan 12, 2009, 11:47 PM**

Of course in all things aesthetic, beauty is relative or in the eye of the beholder. I agree, the curtain wall materials could have been more opulent, but I'm sure budget dictated that outcome. I choose to define the towers skin as translucent. There's a fine line between less is more and ostentatious. Overall, I wouldn't kick this one out of bed.

Jibba · #**2212** Posted **Jan 13, 2009, 2:18 AM**

An additional shot of the crown lighting:

the urban politician · #**2213** Posted **Jan 13, 2009, 2:43 AM**

It attracts office tenants.

Therefore, it is successful. Form = function

Ch.G, Ch.G · #**2214** Posted **Jan 13, 2009, 3:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician

It attracts office tenants.

Therefore, it is successful. Form = function

Are you being sarcastic? Because, by that definition, the Elysian is an unqualified success.

ChicagoChicago · #**2215** Posted **Jan 13, 2009, 5:01 AM**

I'm not going to continually post in this thread about how disappointed I am, but I'd like a decent explanation from someone as to how this thing could be so drastically different from the renderings. I'm sure they still need to tweak the lighting, so I'm not even going to comment on that yet, I'm more so talking about the facade. Completely NOT what we saw in the renders.

Perhaps I'm just comparing it to Trump as a benchmark, which literally came out exactly as the early renderings.

Ch.G, Ch.G · #**2216** Posted **Jan 13, 2009, 5:20 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by george

Of course in all things aesthetic, beauty is relative or in the eye of the beholder. I agree, the curtain wall materials could have been more opulent, but I'm sure budget dictated that outcome. I choose to define the towers skin as translucent. There's a fine line between less is more and ostentatious. Overall, I wouldn't kick this one out of bed.

I don't think anyone takes issue with the quality of the materials but rather how they were used.

denizen467 · #**2217** Posted **Jan 13, 2009, 8:20 AM**

What the hell kind of illumination is that. What is the point of fins with illumination if you're not going to actually illuminate the fins.

Feeble blotches.

Jibba · #**2218** Posted **Jan 13, 2009, 8:27 AM**

After seeing it in person tonight, I am really disappointed with the lighting. Sure, the current setup might not be final, and they might still do a little bit of tweaking, but the fact that it is lit from the outside will not change. From the render I presumed that the crown would be lit from within. The current look produced by lighting the crown from the exterior belies the elegance of the form. The top should have an elegant and warm glow to match the coloring and subdued transparency of the whole tower, not the glaring and harsh streaks of intense illumination that currently exist.

Lecom · #**2219** Posted **Jan 13, 2009, 8:55 AM**

A decent background building that adds bulk to the skyline and has a nice riverfront feature. Nothing more, nothing less.

Taft · #**2220** Posted **Jan 13, 2009, 2:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jibba

After seeing it in person tonight, I am really disappointed with the lighting. Sure, the current setup might not be final, and they might still do a little bit of tweaking, but the fact that it is lit from the outside will not change. From the render I presumed that the crown would be lit from within. The current look produced by lighting the crown from the exterior belies the elegance of the form. The top should have an elegant and warm glow to match the coloring and subdued transparency of the whole tower, not the glaring and harsh streaks of intense illumination that currently exist.

To be sure, the surface facing lights on the upper portions of the structure aren't doing it for me. However, I don't think I've seen any lighting whatsoever on the actual top portion or the fins. I hope the lighting gets a lot better before the are done...

Taft