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

[Alliance]

Originally Posted by Vertigo

It's funny how so many people blast Asian cities for erecting residential complexes that look the same and reflect a repetiitive style. Yet when something like this is proposed everyone moans 'Oh, there's not enough glass' or 'It's not modern enough'.

Well if you think having two glass structure next to eachother is the same as building rows of the same building in Hong Kong, then you got issues.

Originally Posted by Vertigo

I don't think this building will look as cheap and tacky as many are making it out to be.

From what we've seen of tinted precast concrete...the record does not look good.

Originally Posted by Vertigo

And that's OK too. Simply the sheer variety of residential towers going up in Chicago will ensure that a wide range of tastes and styles will be available to the discriminating buyer.

yes, the aforementioned issue being the segregation of styles of towers.

Originally Posted by Vertigo

EVERYTHING now pales in comparison to the craftmanship found in those historic buildings. But rather than bow or heads and realize 'we can never build them like that again..' I believe in celebrating those designs and updating them for a new generation.

Typical architectural apocalypse. When some of those buildings were built, they were just "decent" architecure for the time. In 80 years, your new version will complain that were not "updating" buildings like Aqua and the Spire for a new generation and that we've lost our architectural heritage.

Originally Posted by Vertigo

Buildings such as the Elysian remind me of the people that 100 years ago worked so hard to build this city into one of the greatest in the world. Revisiting these classic styles is like paying tribute to those individuals. Unlike, many places in the world that view skyscrapers as a way to modernize their city, I applaud Chicago for not forgetting where it came from and respecting that legacy as well as forging ahead with a modern outlook as well.

Again...is this revisiting or cheap imitation? idolization or lack of vision? I applaud Chicago for taking new directions and remebering that the reason it HAS the greatest skyscraper legacy in the world is that it was willing to build out of the box and move beyond what was in its past. Thats not saying we should disregard the past, but that we should be able to build something thats different now and again.

And, as i've previously said, if you're going to neglect the progressive nature of architecture and build to reference the past...actually do it. Don't skimp on things like siding for awkwardly orange tinted concrete, actually build using the materials that traditional buildings were built with. Using imitation materials and vertically stretching the style to make this a modern scraper makes this building...guess what...an imitation for people who want a facade of historical nostalgia and cheap nuveau riche class.

If this was being build in the South Loop, I probably wouldn't care. But its a combination of all its design factors plus its location in the glass purgatory that is the Northside that makes this building wrong imo. With the spire going up and a sharp departures in architecture in the Loop, there may be a visual divide in the skyline that could be catostrophic. I fear that, and since the Northside is far less developed than the Loop, I think its the side that needs to play catch-up.

[honte]

Originally Posted by 10023

Why can't Chicago get a single new building in an older style that's actually decent? It's possible at higher price points, like the Elysian. Lucien Lagrange has a lot to learn from Robert Stern. I walk past 15 Central Park West almost every day and it's shaping up to be a nice looking building. Why? Because they clad the thing in limestone.

Because the good architects in Chicago are not interested in playing "Historic Mix-n-match" any longer. Stern is a better author, sorry to say it. That building is going to have decent retro materials, but honestly, I prefer this LaGrange thing because the overall form of Stern's is such a bore.

We have plenty of buildings from the actual PoMo heyday that are fine or excellent at what they are. NBC tower comes to mind. But the days of this are long gone; we have better things to do.

Sorry, I'm done bashing the PoMosity of this thing for the time being.

[10023]

This building isn't really PoMo. Postmodern buildings, i.e. the NBC Tower, reference the themes used in prewar architecture. They don't attempt to look like they were built between the World Wars. Lagrange attempts this, and fails miserably, largely because he won't use the proper materials.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by 10023

This building isn't really PoMo. Postmodern buildings, i.e. the NBC Tower, reference the themes used in prewar architecture. They don't attempt to look like they were built between the World Wars.

well, your NBC tower example is a bad one to use, because as it is earning its patina with time, it's getting harder to tell with that one. it's perhaps the most faithful pomo highrise in chicago.

Originally Posted by 10023

Lagrange attempts this, and fails miserably, largely because he won't use the proper materials.

i'm sure lagrange would do backflips if the budget allowed for real limestone, but unfortunately that's not the case. the decision for precast was surely driven by the developers, not the architect.

[Alliance]

^^^ I thought architects were supposed to design buildings that could be built, not ideals to be corruputed by economics. If LaGrange can't get a decent building built, then he's a sh*tty architect to keep designing them.

[honte]

Originally Posted by 10023

This building isn't really PoMo. Postmodern buildings, i.e. the NBC Tower, reference the themes used in prewar architecture. They don't attempt to look like they were built between the World Wars. Lagrange attempts this, and fails miserably, largely because he won't use the proper materials.

Not exactly. There are different breeds of PoMo. Some, such as Jahn's work in the 1980s are closer to modernism than to historical styles, with an intellectualized referencing and allegory.

There were others which were trying more or less to be classical revival, but with obvious departures or idiosyncrasies.

The SOM PoMo stuff like NBC tower fits somewhere in between. They weren't especially clever like Jahn or Venturi or ( Tigerman), but they were something more original than LaGrange, yes.

PS: If true limestone facade PoMo is what floats your boat, you can try your luck at 65 E. Goethe in Chicago, also by LaGrange.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Alliance

^^^ I thought architects were supposed to design buildings that could be built, not ideals to be corruputed by economics. If LaGrange can't get a decent building built, then he's a sh*tty architect to keep designing them.

Ding ding ding.

If:

(1) A beaux arts or art deco skyscraper requires a stone facade to look good;

and

(2) One's development budget does not permit the use of stone as the facade material

then

(3) One should not design a beaux arts or art deco structure for that development


Still Lagrange's fault at the end of the day...

[Alliance]

Originally Posted by 10023

This building isn't really PoMo. Postmodern buildings, i.e. the NBC Tower, reference the themes used in prewar architecture. They don't attempt to look like they were built between the World Wars. Lagrange attempts this, and fails miserably, largely because he won't use the proper materials.

So what is it then, if not postmodernism? I think you definiton is wrong. Modernism was certianly a movement that was around pre-war.

Originally Posted by 10023

Still Lagrange's fault at the end of the day...

Certianly, especially because we KNOW he is capable of designing things like X/O with would be a significant contribution to Chicago.

[10023]

Originally Posted by honte

Not exactly. There are different breeds of PoMo. Some, such as Jahn's work in the 1980s are closer to modernism than to historical styles, with an intellectualized referencing and allegory.

There were others which were trying more or less to be classical revival, but with obvious departures or idiosyncrasies.

The SOM PoMo stuff like NBC tower fits somewhere in between. They weren't especially clever like Jahn or Venturi or ( Tigerman), but they were something more original than LaGrange, yes.

PS: If true limestone facade PoMo is what floats your boat, you can try your luck at 65 E. Goethe in Chicago, also by LaGrange.

I understand that PoMo just represented a return to ornamentation that had been abandoned by modernist / international style architects.

I wouldn't call 65 E. Goethe a "PoMo" building either, unless you consider every architectural style built today that isn't a box to be PoMo.

And while I'm not a huge fan of that building, it is vastly better than his other attempts due to the materials used.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Alliance

So what the hell is it?

And, i think you definiton is wrong. Modernism was certianly a movement that was around pre-war.

Right, but not very widespread just because very little was being built from the late 1930s to the late 1940s.

It's neo-Second Empire or some such BS. But there's a definite difference between Jahn's buildings from the '80s or something like the NBC Tower, which use ornamentation but don't try to pretend to have been built in the early 20th century (or late 19th, as is the case with 65 E. Goethe), and a building that doesn't just follow the creed of "more is more", and borrow elements from these older styles, but is designed as if it's still 1928.

[Norsider]

Originally Posted by 10023

Ding ding ding.

If:

(1) A beaux arts or art deco skyscraper requires a stone facade to look good;

and

(2) One's development budget does not permit the use of stone as the facade material

then

(3) One should not design a beaux arts or art deco structure for that development


Still Lagrange's fault at the end of the day...

Good points, but another possibility is the developer might have told LL that he wanted an art deco styled building and he was not overly concerned with authenticity (using period materials, etc.). LL might hold his nose and design something half-ass, but I doubt he'd turn down the entire commission just on principle.

I've said this before, but the reason that modern buildings don't have ornate exteriors is because the "guts" of modern buildings are just vastly more expensive and complicated those of their predecessors. More of the total pie gets spent on building systems and not as much is left over for the frills.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Alliance

^^^ I thought architects were supposed to design buildings that could be built, not ideals to be corruputed by economics.

have you ever spent a single day in the real world? are you unfamiliar with the concept of value engineering?

[brett7three]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

have you ever spent a single day in the real world? are you unfamiliar with the concept of value engineering?

I will never understand why many people seem to think that when something is driven by money, it's inherently bad. All jobs are created because businesses make money, all architectural developments happen because people have jobs (or own businesses) who can pay to purchase a home or an office inside such units.

This development is no different. The lack of money and the need for the developer to make a profit (not a new concept....) are just constraints under which the architect must be more creative in the use of materials. It's not a bad thing for the developer to make a profit. Heaven forbid, if they don't make a profit, they might start building smaller buildings... Or worse, they could go out of business... Who would build the buildings we see in Chicago today then? Where would all those unemployed construction workers, architects, engineers, etc. go?

The "Art for Art's Sake" argument is not practical... We have to be both pragmatic and visionary for a large scale construction project to happen in the real world. This doesn't mean you give up your architectural philosophy, you just have to work within the constraints of time, money and resources.

[Alliance]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

have you ever spent a single day in the real world? are you unfamiliar with the concept of value engineering?

What I clearly said is that if LaGrange KNOWS that developers will not pay for limestone, why design 700 ft buildings that should be limestone? have you ever spent a single day in the real world? are you unfamiliar with the concept of reading comprehension?

Heck, if the Standard Oil Building can be cald in marble, there are markets out there. What makes LaGrange a crappy architect is that he DOESN'T design around economics. He makes designs that would be more expensive than the average building, sells them to developers who he knows wont pay for it, and we end up getting precast crap. If he was a decent architect and knows that developers are going to use concrete, design buildings that are to be made of concrete instead of watered down immitations of buildings that should be built with something other facade than what they're built with.

I thought thats what architecture was about.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Alliance

What I clearly said is that if LaGrange KNOWS that developers will not pay for limestone, why design 700 ft buildings that should be limestone?

you did not clearly state that, because if you had, i would have been able to understand you. my point was that architect's are not always in control of their designs. 10023 said that Lagrange is a shitty architect because he won't use the proper materials, and that's not how it works. if Lagrange had his way, all of his projects would be clad in expensive limestone, but the economics just aren't there.

i agree that architects should design within their budgets, but at the same time, i don't find all pre-cast cladding to be as horrible as you seem to think it is. the pre-cast on lagrange's park tower is actually pretty good. precast can be done right, and lagrange has proven that he can do a decent job with it. will the elysian live up to that level? time will tell..........

[BorisMolotov]

Actually all a POMO building has to do is reference nearby buildings or a particular style. In River North's case, All the POMOs are referencing the Park Tower. I say, why not reference the Hancock?

[DHamp]

I think many of us on this forum are going to have to come to grips with the fact that concrete is a facade material in this day in age. You think guys in the 20s thought brick and limestone were the best materials in the world? I don't think so! It was cheap and labor was cheap. Now brick and stone are expensive and concrete is cheap and strong. We're going to have to live with that reality and make the best of it. Park Hyatt is a great tower and I think Elysian will be too. It's not so much about what is used as it is about how it is used.

[honte]

^ That's just it. As Alliance has been saying, architects need to come to grips with concrete. Stop pretending it's other stuff.

If we had high-rises that were as beautiful as Tadao Ando's work (Ok, or something in that mode - I realize his concrete is mega-bucks), I'd say, "Screw other materials, bring on the concrete." It's a plastic material and it can be many things - to its advantage or detriment. For instance, the concrete from the 1960s doesn't bug me one bit. I'm a big defender of those buildings (if you haven't noticed! ).

[Alliance]

Concrete is cheap and thats why its so widely used. Heck, I don't care if buildings are made out of plastic. Materials have ways they should be used in architecture and ways they shouldn't be used. But I think I've made my opinions clear.

Originally Posted by honte

For instance, the concrete from the 1960s doesn't bug me one bit. I'm a big defender of those buildings (if you haven't noticed! ).

I'm all for a neo brutalism. The style just needs more glass.

I fool around with it when I design buildings sometime.

[trvlr70]

Originally Posted by 10023

Why can't Chicago get a single new building in an older style that's actually decent? It's possible at higher price points, like the Elysian. Lucien Lagrange has a lot to learn from Robert Stern. I walk past 15 Central Park West almost every day and it's shaping up to be a nice looking building. Why? Because they clad the thing in limestone.

One word: economics

In NYC, you'll pay 4x what a Chicagoan would pay for the same product. Limestone facades are not cheap.