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

[spyguy]

From Elysian's flickr photostream:

Lobby

Elysian Chicago/ flickr

Elysian Chicago/ flickr
Courtyard and fountain

Elysian Chicago/ flickr

Elysian Chicago/ flickr

[jcchii]

kind of an odd lobby

[killaviews]

I looked at all the photos in the photostream, and say what you will about the outside, but it looks like they spared no expense on the inside.

[george]

A very opulent lobby. It looks like a set for a Stanely Kubrick film.

[vandelay]

The restaurants, lobby, banquet halls all look very well designed, detailed, and accessorized. No wonder they cut costs on the facade and crown.

But those busts in the lobby give me the creeps.

[Thymant]

The lobby looks kind of creepy.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by jcchii

kind of an odd lobby

I had already looked at all of the pics too; to me, it looks as tacky on the interior as it does on the exterior. Just because they spent big bucks inside doesn't mean that it's tasteful--IMO, it isn't.

The liquid tuned mass dampers are interesting. We've had one here for several years now. This building sits on top of a small 100' hill, so it appears to be 741' when viewed from almost anywhere.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=107919

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ I took one look at that tower and went "SCB design"... I guess they are getting kinda predictable....

[drdave88]

that top window washing crane needs to be hidden better.

[the urban politician]

Personally, I love the lobby.

What's wrong with some scary, neo-Greco-Roman statues glaring at you as you walk into your hotel? Indeed, somebody said it's Stanley Kubrick-esque, and I kind of agree with them.

Part of what makes great cities like Chicago interesting is that places like this exist/are being created. Anybody can stay at the Wyndham or Hilton in suburbia and get your stereotypical clean marble lobby with the usual accompaniments. It's good to see something a bit extraordinary.

[djvandrake]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Personally, I love the lobby.

What's wrong with some scary, neo-Greco-Roman statues glaring at you as you walk into your hotel? Indeed, somebody said it's Stanley Kubrick-esque, and I kind of agree with them.

Part of what makes great cities like Chicago interesting is that places like this exist/are being created. Anybody can stay at the Wyndham or Hilton in suburbia and get your stereotypical clean marble lobby with the usual accompaniments. It's good to see something a bit extraordinary.

Completely agree. I love the uniqueness of it. If it weren't for those &$#&@#$ white window frames I'd call this project an overall success.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Well I noticed today that the mechanical level decorative grates are up now and they seem to make the white window frames make a lot more sense. Someone should grab a picture of it.

[Yankee]

I'm not from Chicago (but I love it) and I just noticed this building and my initial reaction was - beautiful! My second reaction was - Finally a new building which actually looks aesthetically pleasing and has ornaments. And then I read your comments and was shocked!

Are you guys serious, those of you who said you hated it...? Out of all the post-modernist ugly skyscrapers of the 80s and 90s - some of them are interesting and pretty, like 2 Prudential, but most of them are pretty ugly, and all the modern glass and steel ones that have no style and no ornaments whatsoever, just plain blue glass and plain form - again, there are lots of exceptions here, I love Trump Tower, the Bank of America tower in NYC, and others which have style, but you know what I mean about most of them... they taper off in weird unnatural ways, it's just weird like modern art - everyone knows it looks stupid, but nobody wants to say it

And finally someone decides to honor beautiful historic skyscrapers with an ornamented stone building that has a stylized classical crown, and you all go after it, cmon. Yes, it's not the prettiest, but at least it's trying. I love the crown, it's a nice touch and i love the ornaments too, yes even the lanters - they could have been a bit less tacky and the building could have been more stylish, but at least it's trying. Nobody cares about ornaments anymore. Every time I see the Chrysler building or the Golden Gate Bridge I get inspired and reminded of the beauty of art deco and I ask myself - why on Earth don't we build things like that anymore? Yes, they don't exactly look modern and we should build futuristic and modern skyscrapers as well, but I think we should also honor our history. I think the reason is greed - people just don't care about ornamentation anymore and don't wanna spend any money on it + glass is cheaper, so aesthetics goes out the window...

I mean you couldn't possibly hate this building and like the Chicago Spire? With all due respect it looks like a giant glass dildo. I hope it never gets built, I was pleased to learn it was put on an indefinite hold. I think Chicago deserves a supertall to lead the world with which doesn't look like it was designed by a 5-year old, with respect.

This building certainly is not built in art deco or neogothic style, nor is it as beautiful as other older Chicago buildings, but at least it makes an effort, so I respect it for it!

There, wow that turned out way longer than I thought. Didn't mean to offend anyone, just voicing my opinion.

[wrab]

Originally Posted by Yankee

.....This building certainly is not built in art deco or neogothic style, nor is it as beautiful as other older Chicago buildings, but at least it makes an effort, so I respect it for it!.....

This is where I disagree - I don't see much of an effort here at all, just some very broad gestures.

[Mojava]

Originally Posted by Yankee

And finally someone decides to honor beautiful historic skyscrapers with an ornamented stone building that has a stylized classical crown, and you all go after it, cmon.

This is not a stone building...It's precast concrete.

[Ordo_]

Originally Posted by Yankee

I'm not from Chicago (but I love it) and I just noticed this building and my initial reaction was - beautiful! My second reaction was - Finally a new building which actually looks aesthetically pleasing and has ornaments. And then I read your comments and was shocked!

Are you guys serious, those of you who said you hated it...? Out of all the post-modernist ugly skyscrapers of the 80s and 90s - some of them are interesting and pretty, like 2 Prudential, but most of them are pretty ugly, and all the modern glass and steel ones that have no style and no ornaments whatsoever, just plain blue glass and plain form - again, there are lots of exceptions here, I love Trump Tower, the Bank of America tower in NYC, and others which have style, but you know what I mean about most of them... they taper off in weird unnatural ways, it's just weird like modern art - everyone knows it looks stupid, but nobody wants to say it

And finally someone decides to honor beautiful historic skyscrapers with an ornamented stone building that has a stylized classical crown, and you all go after it, cmon. Yes, it's not the prettiest, but at least it's trying. I love the crown, it's a nice touch and i love the ornaments too, yes even the lanters - they could have been a bit less tacky and the building could have been more stylish, but at least it's trying. Nobody cares about ornaments anymore. Every time I see the Chrysler building or the Golden Gate Bridge I get inspired and reminded of the beauty of art deco and I ask myself - why on Earth don't we build things like that anymore? Yes, they don't exactly look modern and we should build futuristic and modern skyscrapers as well, but I think we should also honor our history. I think the reason is greed - people just don't care about ornamentation anymore and don't wanna spend any money on it + glass is cheaper, so aesthetics goes out the window...

I mean you couldn't possibly hate this building and like the Chicago Spire? With all due respect it looks like a giant glass dildo. I hope it never gets built, I was pleased to learn it was put on an indefinite hold. I think Chicago deserves a supertall to lead the world with which doesn't look like it was designed by a 5-year old, with respect.

This building certainly is not built in art deco or neogothic style, nor is it as beautiful as other older Chicago buildings, but at least it makes an effort, so I respect it for it!

There, wow that turned out way longer than I thought. Didn't mean to offend anyone, just voicing my opinion.

Usually one does not equate calling something a dildo with respect.

Things like glass are NOT necessarily cheaper. Concrete is cheap...which is what this building is made out of. Having glass does not make a building good, but nor does being a caricature of an old architectural style. Foakleys don’t “pay respect” to Oakley by providing cheap knock-offs...and those even look the same. To anyone who knows architecture, this building is a joke. This discussion (determining the distinguishing features of deco/various French influences) has taken place over years. This building unsuccessfully imitates or reproduces those styles in sufficient detail. Most people don’t like this building because it looks like a 5-year-old tried to copy it, failing both architecturally and in terms of the cheap(est) materials used.

You will find little love for this building OR the ugly post-modernist buildings of the 80s-90s. However, Chicago has strong economic traditions against the use of ornamentation. Take Trump Tower for example. You don’t need to have gargoyles (or in this case a pleated tin-sheet roof) to have “ornament.” If all you are looking at are these features, you’re missing most of the building. Color, texture, depth, luminosity...all these are elements or a building too and are an ornament in itself. Trump’s skin captures these elements beautifully (regardless of your opinion on the building). There are people here who don’t like Trump and BofA (I dislike BofA and Trump is good but not great to me), but I would take a building that honors its own architectural style and tries to move forward anyway.

Art Deco is beautiful, but it had its time and its place. Making imitations merely dilutes the quality and power of the style. Good Architecture is reflective of the period it was built in. If you take away the context, it loses a lot of its value. Elysian is without context. On top of that, construction methods are different now, as are materials. LaGrange cut a LOT of corners on the style, giving us a bad approximation of deco, which I think is an affront to the style.

I am glad someone likes the building, but in my opinion (despite its good massing and intriguing lobby) its embarrassing.

[Yankee]

Originally Posted by Ordo_

Usually one does not equate calling something a dildo with respect.

Things like glass are NOT necessarily cheaper. Concrete is cheap...which is what this building is made out of. Having glass does not make a building good, but nor does being a caricature of an old architectural style. Foakleys don’t “pay respect” to Oakley by providing cheap knock-offs...and those even look the same. To anyone who knows architecture, this building is a joke. This discussion (determining the distinguishing features of deco/various French influences) has taken place over years. This building unsuccessfully imitates or reproduces those styles in sufficient detail. Most people don’t like this building because it looks like a 5-year-old tried to copy it, failing both architecturally and in terms of the cheap(est) materials used.

You will find little love for this building OR the ugly post-modernist buildings of the 80s-90s. However, Chicago has strong economic traditions against the use of ornamentation. Take Trump Tower for example. You don’t need to have gargoyles (or in this case a pleated tin-sheet roof) to have “ornament.” If all you are looking at are these features, you’re missing most of the building. Color, texture, depth, luminosity...all these are elements or a building too and are an ornament in itself. Trump’s skin captures these elements beautifully (regardless of your opinion on the building). There are people here who don’t like Trump and BofA (I dislike BofA and Trump is good but not great to me), but I would take a building that honors its own architectural style and tries to move forward anyway.

Art Deco is beautiful, but it had its time and its place. Making imitations merely dilutes the quality and power of the style. Good Architecture is reflective of the period it was built in. If you take away the context, it loses a lot of its value. Elysian is without context. On top of that, construction methods are different now, as are materials. LaGrange cut a LOT of corners on the style, giving us a bad approximation of deco, which I think is an affront to the style.

I am glad someone likes the building, but in my opinion (despite its good massing and intriguing lobby) its embarrassing.

That actually makes a lot of sense, and when I do compare the building to my favorite art deco, French Renaissance, or Neo-Gothic buildings in Chicago, NYC and SF, it doesn't even compare. You make an excellent point, I think I'm just nostalgic and when I saw a building trying to imitate an older style I immediately thought yey, because I'd really been disappointed with a lot of new projects (who hasn't...). But then again, I really don't know anything about architecture, I just like to admire buildings, so I couldn't really see why this one failed on so many levels at first sight... after having looked at more pics, however, it does seem pretty obvious indeed that the material is cheap, it looks like it was almost "painted on", rather than crafted, and the idea for the roof is good, but poorly implemented and the balconies aren't really supposed to be there at all, are they...

It does make a lot of sense what you're saying about a building honoring its style and good architecture being reflective of the period it was built in, and I think I finally figured out why art deco buildings aren't built anymore, even though the style is so beautiful, because the result is often a mockery like this one. I still think that they can be restored or former ones can be rebuilt if enough effort is put into it and it's done right.

Darn... well I shouldn't have posted that rant but your post did answer a lot of questions I'd been wondering lately, so thanks!!

Just curious, do you like the Chicago Spire design? I liked the early proposals, but the final design... not so much.

[Ordo_]

We can discuss that via PM.

[Zerton]

The crown is so weird and big.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by Yankee

Darn... well I shouldn't have posted that rant but your post did answer a lot of questions I'd been wondering lately, so thanks!!

Don't regret posting that, its discussing our opinions in a civil manner like this that makes us all learn about each other's opinions. I asked the exact same questions when I first started following this site and the people here have caused me to really think about architecture and learn a lot about my own opinions.