CHICAGO | The Elysian | 686 FT / 209 M | 60 FLOORS | COM - Page 59

Jibba · #**1161** Posted **Nov 27, 2008, 6:11 PM**

I think they are just too...inelegant. I really do not care for them. They carry far too much visual weight, and their design is clunky with awkward details (which really wouldn't matter that much if they weren't so massive). Elegant railings could really have helped this one out, but, alas, they do more harm than good.

Busy Bee · #**1162** Posted **Nov 27, 2008, 6:42 PM**

Agreed.

Why couldn't something more feminine been used, something close to Art Nouveau or featuring some sort of organic/floral detail? I think tis would have contrasted quit nicely with the building.

wrab · #**1163** Posted **Nov 27, 2008, 7:10 PM**

^ And that in a nutshell expresses so much of what is wrong with these historically-derivative LaGrange towers - that they fudge the very details that LaGrange is emphasizing in his designs. Call it "FauxMo", or maybe "LowMo".

honte · #**1164** Posted **Nov 27, 2008, 10:53 PM**

^ I've always been fond of calling it "L'école des Faux Arts."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Agreed.

Why couldn't something more feminine been used, something close to Art Nouveau or featuring some sort of organic/floral detail? I think tis would have contrasted quit nicely with the building.

Fine French Silk?

honte · #**1165** Posted **Nov 27, 2008, 10:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Give me a break, guys. What's wrong with the railings?

The worst thing about the railings in my opinion is that the window frames aren't black. Seriously.

jvalente · #**1166** Posted **Nov 28, 2008, 12:21 AM**

Has anyone else noticed the decorative metalwork in the rendering on the first page? It starts at around floor 3 or so, and there's also some around the top of the tower before the mansard roof. When I look at the construction pictures, it seems like that has been done away with. Does anyone know if that is added afterward or is it not going on at all? I think it adds a nice touch to the building and hope they have plans of putting it on.

cityofblindinglights · #**1167** Posted **Nov 29, 2008, 3:27 PM**

from this morning...

Jibba · #**1168** Posted **Nov 30, 2008, 8:19 AM**

^Really bolsters the cluster around Hancock from the angle in that first photo. Glad it's filling in that area to make way for some westward expansion (hopefully) that is sorely needed.

CHI-TOWN FLAME · #**1169** Posted **Dec 1, 2008, 8:02 AM**

LOOK LIKE PARK TOWER

Nowhereman1280 · #**1170** Posted **Dec 1, 2008, 9:29 PM**

After looking at the two buildings side by side I have to complement Elysian, at least it doesn't have those stupid ass scones 1/4 the way up!

Jibba · #**1171** Posted **Dec 12, 2008, 6:15 AM**

Today (from Milwaukee Ave. viaduct):

[/shitty zoom quality]

It appears as though Elysian is poised to have more elegant roof proportions than its big brother.

simcityaustin · #**1172** Posted **Dec 12, 2008, 6:42 AM**

To me Elysian is quite superior to Park Tower. The roof is better, the balconies help, and it doesn't look so VEed.

chicubs111 · #**1173** Posted **Dec 12, 2008, 2:37 PM**

In my opinion chicago has far to few buildings with these type of ornamental roofs...I hope this starts a trend of roofs of this nature.

wrab · #**1174** Posted **Dec 12, 2008, 6:38 PM**

^ I'm not sure that River North can handle another mansard-topped beige tower - Elysian, Park, Fordham, just to mention the really tall ones...

ardecila · #**1175** Posted **Dec 12, 2008, 6:50 PM**

^^ We dodged a bullet on Flair Tower. The old design is on the left, the new design is on the right.

chicubs111 · #**1176** Posted **Dec 12, 2008, 9:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wrabbit

^ I'm not sure that River North can handle another mansard-topped beige tower - Elysian, Park, Fordham, just to mention the really tall ones...

Im not talking about the beigh tower part but that the city need more buildings with ornamental tops...think woolworth building in NY and such...i really think the city should encourgae it.

lawfin · #**1177** Posted **Dec 12, 2008, 9:12 PM**

^^^^Yeah maybe Walgreens could build a tower it would be a single story mansard roof schlock....with plenty of parking and a fancy drive through with a beautiful mansard roofed drive through

Jibba · #**1178** Posted **Dec 12, 2008, 10:10 PM**

If a mansard roof is an integral and cohesive addition to a design, and its presence makes a logical and aesthetically consistent culmination to the structure as a whole, then I am fine with that (with a few caveats not to be delved into right now). When they are simply tacked on, with cheapened quality to boot, simply to satisfy some fetishistic obsession with historical fanciness and end up being the sole aesthetic aspiration of the entire building, that's when I have a problem with them. Elysian, vis-a-vis some of the worst examples in that area and Park Tower to some extent, leans more toward the former description, IMO, but I still really don't care for it all that much.

Mansard roofs are not inherently unpleasant--they have a simple and symmetric geometry that is pretty basic. It is the way they are used (or rather, misused) in a design that is the problem.

photoLith · #**1179** Posted **Dec 12, 2008, 10:16 PM**

I personally love Park Tower. When I went back to Chicago over the summer I was very pleased with how it looked at street level and the top is really nice too. The Elysian roof looks quite nice also. IMO those roofs are better than just another flat topped boring apartment building. There are too many of those in the city, especially on that side of town and this tower is a welcome change.

ardecila · #**1180** Posted **Dec 13, 2008, 4:30 AM**

^^ Chicago made the flat-topped skyscraper fashionable, so you'll have to excuse us if we look down on buildings with decorative roofs, cupolas, or spires.

Seriously, though - even before Modernism, Chicago was building bulky box-shaped buildings while New York built slender towers that tapered to a pointy tip.