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

[America 117]

I love it when chicago builds towers like The Elysian or Park Tower.
They look like a french tower.

[Alliance]

I'm sayign LaGrange wouldn't have to "cut corners" if he just designed his building right. Part of an architects job is doing things within a budget. Good architects can do so without sacrificing the concept of the building. LaGrange has done that countless times, not just by using precast, but by watering down the level of detail and supplanting traditional designs he is "emulating"/destroying.

"Perfect" designs are rare to come by and I'm generally satisfied if buildings are "good/excellent/above average." Elysian is assuredly NOT in that category, as its name so immediately betrays by its overcompensation. I'd rather fight for perfect design though, and maybe get two perfect buildings a decade instead of one, or get that one instead of getting none at all.

[the urban politician]

^ I don't get it. If you're going to reject this tower then you might as well reject some of the art deco or gothic towers of the 1910's-1930's. What's the difference? You don't like the idea of materials being used "dishonestly", but in what way is using stone as a facade any more "honest" than using a precast facade? As I was saying in my last post, in both cases they are just examples of dressing up a tower, it's just a matter of whether you like the way they are dressed or not.

I believe if you are going to hate this building, you might as well hate all classically inspired, ornamented buildings like AdrianXSands does. As obnoxious as he can be, he's the only one here whose argument against this style seems most consistent to me.

[honte]

^ The difference, TUP, is that the philosophical roots of Alliance's argument weren't really in place in the 1920s. They were only starting to catch on in the most avant-garde areas. Now, most architects have considered this aspect of design and many have taken it to heart.

Art Deco really wouldn't count either because it was its own style, appropriate for the times. I don't have any issue with the thin limestone cladding on those towers... they were made to look thin and streamlined, bas relief and the rest of it, and the use of the material fit that purpose much better.

So, you might ask, would Precast be more appropriate on a Deco revival tower? Probably, but it would still have to be detailed beautifully and do justice to the style. And then you still have to ask, Why build in the Art Deco style in the 21st century?

LaGrange's towers fail on many levels. To name a few, based on the above: 1) They are fake, and very unabashedly so, as you can read in the article. To paraphrase, "We were afraid the buyers wouldn't accept this as real stone, but they went for it and now we use it at every chance we can get." 2) They don't do justice to the styles they imitate, just looking like poorly-conceived knock-offs.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ One could argue that using limestone to clad a building itself is cutting corners. After all, those old limestone towers are actually held up by steel & concrete, not by the limestone facades which are often made to appear load-bearing. If you want real quality then look at the old castles of Europe or the Great Pyramids of Egypt, which are about as honest as one can be with the use of stone materials.

i think you're misconstruing this idea of keeping a building, honest. there is nothing dishonest in cladding a building in any material, plastic even. the point at which a building becomes strictly dishonest, is when it attempts to achieve the look of something that it is not or does not present itself for exactly what it is. for me personally, i think a buildings exterior should reflect exactly what it is: an exterior facade. and it is a choice whether or not to exaggerate the structure behind it. but if a steel frame building is clad in a way to suggest it is load bearing masonry, then that is something i see as dishonest... it has nothing to do with the material applied

...i think you're taking a fundamental aspect of modernism and extrapolating a different meaning of what it is to keep a building honest.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by Alliance

If LaGrange was actually a decent architect, and still into all this neo-Victorian ripoff crap, he'd figure out a way to use massings inspired by such architecture, but clad them in a modern and functional way.

you're describing postmodernism.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ I don't get it. If you're going to reject this tower then you might as well reject some of the art deco or gothic towers of the 1910's-1930's. What's the difference?

i see what you're saying... and i tend to agree, what is the difference?
i completely reject any gothic architecture outside of the gothic movement... because i can't bring myself to agree with anything revivalist. but the art deco, i can't reject. it was entirely different... it wasn't about bringing back something, it was focused on creating things in an image of the future, and you have to respect any architectural movement that is original as focused on creating something different. EDIT* honte's post is a lot better

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I believe if you are going to hate this building, you might as well hate all classically inspired, ornamented buildings like AdrianXSands does. As obnoxious as he can be, he's the only one here whose argument against this style seems most consistent to me.

hahaha, thanks... but i can't help my views on architecture... i've been brainwashed and molded into a modernist soldier!!! oooooh the horror!

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by jet cm

You're referring to the Fordham Tower at 25 E. Superior and it's the CIP that's having trouble. That building has precast from L1-L4 only (except the garage is clad from L1-L11).

You sure about that? Because I was looking at it from the roof of a 25 story building about a block away and they were patching it the whole way up. Does it become poured in place concrete in the tower section or something? Either way, that building looks like shit now, like I suspect all these concrete towers we are building now will eventually do...

[Breezyfingers]

[Busy Bee]

^Is that Epcot?

[pherek]

Yes, they're finally opening up Lichtenstein.

[wrab]

Originally Posted by honte

.....LaGrange's towers fail on many levels. To name a few, based on the above: 1) They are fake, and very unabashedly so, as you can read in the article. To paraphrase, "We were afraid the buyers wouldn't accept this as real stone, but they went for it and now we use it at every chance we can get." 2) They don't do justice to the styles they imitate, just looking like poorly-conceived knock-offs.

Yeah - the issue for some of us, TUP, isn't that LaGrange is using precast, it's
that he is using precast badly, in way that cheapens the endeavor. The surfaces are too uniform and too cartoonish for the historicism - maybe one notch below what you'd find at Disneyland.

In the end, this the architectural equivalent of muzak - processed, homogenized, effete.

At least he's passed on the fake cracks.

[wrab]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

^Is that Epcot?

LOL- I saw your Disney comment after I made my last post - but it sums up my sentiments on this effort.

[Dr. Taco]

from sunday from michigan avenue

[photoLith]

Not that great of a photo but oh well. Took it about 10 days ago. Sort of old for this forum but oh well, deal with it!

[honte]

^ Ah Paris, city of light.

[shaberko]

Originally Posted by honte

^ Ah Paris, city of light.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

hahaha, thanks... but i can't help my views on architecture... i've been brainwashed and molded into a modernist soldier!!! oooooh the horror!

But you don't even like many well-executed examples of modernism, e.g. you're on record wanting 1300 LSD and 3600 LSD torn down, which is incomprehensible to me as a fan of modernism. Your tastes are much more idiosyncratic than tup gives credit for, in my friendly opinion

[trvlr70]

Originally Posted by photolitherland

Not that great of a photo but oh well. Took it about 10 days ago. Sort of old for this forum but oh well, deal with it!

Reminiscent of Park Tower. It looks majestic looking up because of the tapering effect.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Breezyfingers

God, this looks pathetic.

Does Lagrange have no concept of appropriate scale at all?