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

[the urban politician]

^ But isn't that higher price simply the higher price of real estate, labor, and construction being passed along to the consumer? How does the extra cost of adding a limestone facade become justified?

[Busy Bee]

^ Higher priced units. In the end, didn't the Zeckendorfs make something close to 2 BILLION dollars from the units at 15 CPW? The same building in Chicago probably wouldn't have gotten a third of that. And you know what?... that's fine with me. I'd LOVE to have limestone condo tower facades too, but I'd rather not Chicago real estate become as expensive as NYC to support such niceties.

[trvlr70]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

^ Higher priced units. In the end, didn't the Zeckendorfs make something close to 2 BILLION dollars from the units at 15 CPW? The same building in Chicago probably wouldn't have gotten a third of that. And you know what?... that's fine with me. I'd LOVE to have limestone condo tower facades too, but I'd rather not Chicago real estate become as expensive as NYC to support such niceties.

You're correct here.

[SolarWind]

August 17, 2007

[APPRAISER]

Thanks Solar for that photo, i have not been over in that area for a while. I was starting to wonder how far along they are.
This question was already probably asked before, but what's up with the basement to the north of the site? Is it part of the garage for the Elysian or another building?

thanks

[rbowk]

sweet

[10023]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

^ Higher priced units. In the end, didn't the Zeckendorfs make something close to 2 BILLION dollars from the units at 15 CPW? The same building in Chicago probably wouldn't have gotten a third of that. And you know what?... that's fine with me. I'd LOVE to have limestone condo tower facades too, but I'd rather not Chicago real estate become as expensive as NYC to support such niceties.

It wouldn't have to be. The incremental cost of using limestone isn't only justified when you can sell apartments for $15 million. Using limestone on 15 CPW probably added $10 million to the cost of the entire building, versus precast concrete. It would certainly be justified by Chicago's prices if Chicago buyers had the aesthetic sense to demand it. And part of it is the city as well - New York has concrete towers but they sure as hell weren't going to allow one to be built at that location. The city could certainly twist some arms in that regard.

[honte]

Originally Posted by 10023

...if Chicago buyers had the aesthetic sense to demand it.

I think that's rather harsh and unfair, wouldn't you say?

The sad fact is that Americans, not Chicagoans, are today generally more interested in what's inside their residences than how they look from the street. You will see this trend anywhere you look in the states.

Limestone, cast stone, precast, whatever, this building is about 10x more architectural than most of what's being built anywhere in the US (and as you know, I am not a fan).

Also, you must realize that we are critiquing the aesthetics of a facade that isn't installed yet, nor likely even being fabricated.

One last point: Chicago does use its muscle a lot (although we all could wish for more), but quite wisely they are using that muscle to produce taller, more elegant, more environmentally-friendly towers, and to push people AWAY from PoMo crap. I don't think limestone vs. precast is really what they're worried about.

[Knightwing]

Originally Posted by honte

Also, you must realize that we are critiquing the aesthetics of a facade that isn't installed yet, nor likely even being fabricated.

Yea, I think that it is certainly too early to vote one way or the other

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by honte

I think that's rather harsh and unfair, wouldn't you say?

The sad fact is that Americans, not Chicagoans, are today generally more interested in what's inside their residences than how they look from the street. You will see this trend anywhere you look in the states.

Limestone, cast stone, precast, whatever, this building is about 10x more architectural than most of what's being built anywhere in the US (and as you know, I am not a fan).

Also, you must realize that we are critiquing the aesthetics of a facade that isn't installed yet, nor likely even being fabricated.

One last point: Chicago does use its muscle a lot (although we all could wish for more), but quite wisely they are using that muscle to produce taller, more elegant, more environmentally-friendly towers, and to push people AWAY from PoMo crap. I don't think limestone vs. precast is really what they're worried about.

Yes, yes and yes. There's far too much focus here on this limestone vs. concrete talk. The main point here should be moving away from PoMo buildings like this in general and moving toward real architecture.... And what's with this obsession with the way-overhyped building on Central Park West in NY?? Nothing to write home about in the least....

[kalmia]

Originally Posted by 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.

I think they did think that stone was the best façade material - granite being better than limestone. Those that wanted to save money on the façades would often use terra cotta or brick.

Another thing to consider when discussing real estate prices in New York and Chicago is that construction itself is more expensive in New York.

My feeling is that if an architect can't come up with something innovative that works well, he should do something that has been done before. There is nothing wrong with copying older styles. Many of the older buildings in US cities were copying older styles themselves, sometimes just going taller.

Surroundings should be taken into consideration when designing a building.

[10023]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

Yes, yes and yes. There's far too much focus here on this limestone vs. concrete talk. The main point here should be moving away from PoMo buildings like this in general and moving toward real architecture.... And what's with this obsession with the way-overhyped building on Central Park West in NY?? Nothing to write home about in the least....

Oh, I certainly don't consider 15 CPW to be a great building by any means. My point is that if you're going to do a building in that style, if the developer wants it or thinks the prospective buyers want it, etc, then things are dramatically improved by the use of appropriate materials.

It's not really that great of a building - but it's 10x better than the exact same thing built out of cast-in-place painted concrete. One hundred or 150 years from now, people will look at it and assume it was built in the early 20th century along with most of the other stuff along the park.

Here's a question - what will these new PoMo towers look like in 50 years when the paint starts to peel or fade, and the concrete crumbles like a sidewalk pavestone?

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^

Well I don't think that they use "paint" I believe it is actually a stain that soaks into the concrete... And about the concrete cracking, well the "paint" is supposed to prevent that...

With proper maintinence (if the Condo Assc. doesn't want to pay for proper maintenence, their loss, they are the one's whose property values go down) painted concrete should last nearly forever...

[DHamp]

Originally Posted by kalmia

I think they did think that stone was the best façade material - granite being better than limestone. Those that wanted to save money on the façades would often use terra cotta or brick.

I just wanted to point out that you're not actually disagreeing with what I said. I indicated that back then brick and limestone weren't necessarily considered the best materials in the world. Then you said basically the same thing, just in a different way.

You use what you have. I'm sure they will be using some different facade materials on buildings at some point in the future and skyscraper geeks will be saying "Why couldn't they use concrete instead of ____?" I don't think that's a bad thing.

[honte]

Park Tower (and presumably this tower) used a pigmented precast concrete, which has a slight variation in tone and changes color when it's wet, hence closer in appearance to natural stone. It should not discolor. Most of the other towers built lately are painted concrete, which comes in a number of grades and flavors; some of noticeably better appearance.

Originally Posted by 10023

One hundred or 150 years from now, people will look at it and assume it was built in the early 20th century along with most of the other stuff along the park.

Why is that a good thing? I find it rather deceptive.

[10023]

Originally Posted by honte

Park Tower (and presumably this tower) used a pigmented precast concrete, which has a slight variation in tone and changes color when it's wet, hence closer in appearance to natural stone. It should not discolor. Most of the other towers built lately are painted concrete, which comes in a number of grades and flavors; some of noticeably better appearance.



Why is that a good thing? I find it rather deceptive.

I find that using painted concrete and passing it off as stone is rather deceptive.

At least with real granite or limestone, it looks good.

[Steely Dan]

^ why are you continuing to talk about painted concrete in this thread? everything we've heard about the elysian is that it will be clad with pigmented precast concrete panels ala park tower, not painted cast in place concrete like so many of the other river north offenders.

if you've heard different info stating that the elysian is going to employ painted cast in place concrete for its facade finish, please share it with us.

[djvandrake]

Great pic solar! Thanks for giving this project a little love, I appreciate the effort it took you to get to the top of the parking garage across the street. Speaking of across the street, are they renovating the facade of those brick buildings? What's with the pedestrian cover?

[10023]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ why are you continuing to talk about painted concrete in this thread? everything we've heard about the elysian is that it will be clad with pigmented precast concrete panels ala park tower, not painted cast in place concrete like so many of the other river north offenders.

if you've heard different info stating that the elysian is going to employ painted cast in place concrete for its facade finish, please share it with us.

Sorry about the detour... I hadn't heard anything about what the building will be glad with.

Not that Park Tower looks to hot itself. Hopefully they go with a paler, much less yellow dye for this one.

[SolarWind]

Originally Posted by APPRAISER

Thanks Solar for that photo, i have not been over in that area for a while. I was starting to wonder how far along they are.
This question was already probably asked before, but what's up with the basement to the north of the site? Is it part of the garage for the Elysian or another building?

thanks

I don't know but it's pretty deep.