The State of Chicago Architecture. - Page 12

Nowhereman1280 · #**221** Posted **Dec 12, 2007, 3:55 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

Are you serious? Man, the developer and architect (Kohn Pedersen Fox, no less) must be spinning in their grave if people think that building is clad in painted concrete...

That's all limestone, am I correct? Not exactly el cheapo... maybe all these developers are right to just use concrete if people can't even tell the difference...

No, I wasn't clear, I didn't mean that the whole thing was precast, I meant that it uses it in some way. I am aware the main building is clad with stone, but I thought parts of it did have precast. I could have sworn they used precast in some areas, like the garage. I will go take a closer look at it tomorrow, but I thought I saw that the garage and area above the garage has precast, maybe because salt would degrade the limestone and it wouldn't be worth having to replace it eventually. I thought it was just the tower part that is limestone...

Anyhow, you are right, most people can't tell the difference between precast and concrete when it is 10 stories above them. Notice how 900 and Park tower look the same after a certain point, but you know Park tower is precast above the first few floors...

ardecila · #**222** Posted **Dec 12, 2007, 4:20 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Also, I can't tell you how much it gets on my nerves that people keep saying this area is full of precast crap, it simply is not. There are only 3 buildings within a two block radius of this one that even use Precast, 900 N. Michigan (which is actually a somewhat decent building, despite is pomo attitude), that shitty one you said you liked in the background, and that bank building at Oak and Rush which is a total POS.

What about the Bristol? I did misspeak a bit - I was referring to any tan concrete building, precast or otherwise.

Nowhereman1280 · #**223** Posted **Dec 12, 2007, 4:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

What about the Bristol? I did misspeak a bit - I was referring to any tan concrete building, precast or otherwise.

Which one is the Bristol? the one next to 50 E?

Ch.G, Ch.G · #**224** Posted **Dec 12, 2007, 4:47 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

how 900 and Park tower look the same after a certain point, but you know Park tower is precast above the first few floors...

You've gotta be kidding. Park Tower is disgusting. You'd have to be blind not to see that it's pre-cast concrete. Just look at that picture I posted! BLECH.

VivaLFuego · #**225** Posted **Dec 12, 2007, 4:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

No, I wasn't clear, I didn't mean that the whole thing was precast, I meant that it uses it in some way. I am aware the main building is clad with stone, but I thought parts of it did have precast. I could have sworn they used precast in some areas, like the garage. I will go take a closer look at it tomorrow, but I thought I saw that the garage and area above the garage has precast, maybe because salt would degrade the limestone and it wouldn't be worth having to replace it eventually. I thought it was just the tower part that is limestone...

Anyhow, you are right, most people can't tell the difference between precast and concrete when it is 10 stories above them. Notice how 900 and Park tower look the same after a certain point, but you know Park tower is precast above the first few floors...

Yeah I believe the garage is concrete, not sure if it was poured in place or precast though. I thought you meant the tower was concrete.

But I don't think 900N and Park Tower look the same. Perhaps from a distance when you can't see any detail, but within a few block radius there is a huge difference. The limestone has begun to take on a very interesting texture as it ages and discolors.

honte · #**226** Posted **Dec 12, 2007, 5:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Anyhow, you are right, most people can't tell the difference between precast and concrete when it is 10 stories above them.

Yeah - to prove the point (and not trying to be a jerk), the white Loewenberg building you mention in the photo is not precast, but cast in place and painted.

Just for the sake of argument, the two brick buildings in the background of the shot on the prior page are by Weese, and they are not throwaway buildings in any sense of the word. The one on the left (Fewkes tower, I believe it was) is a really wonderful building, actually. They are not flashy, but they were sensitive and intended to be a benefit to the area.

Anyway, this argument doesn't seem to be leading anywhere. Tastes vary. LaGrange is a guy who is 100% content to cater to the marketplace, and he does it on every project - the problem is, he has a misguided understanding of that market, in my opinion. I don't think 1/3 of the buyers even care if it's fake French or tasteful modern - they are buying for price, prestige, views, location, all that good stuff. Sure, some people don't like steel and glass, but that's not all there is in the realm of decency.

Park Tower - you have to admit, it's one of the better PoMo condo towers built in the boom. I still hate it, and I hate that it replaced a nice Macsai design, but to put it in the same league as that Antunovich trash is really unfair. It does have decent proportions, some attempt at cladding, some attempt to address the city in a positive manner with the bay window and the nicely designed storefronts. That counts for something. In fact, I would say it's his best PoMo work (which doesn't count for much!).

Now, the Pinnacle? That is utter trash.

Nowhereman1280 · #**227** Posted **Dec 12, 2007, 5:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

You've gotta be kidding. Park Tower is disgusting. You'd have to be blind not to see that it's pre-cast concrete. Just look at that picture I posted! BLECH.

Maybe to us it is obvious, but if you asked some random person on the street A. How old is that building and B. What is the outside of it made of, they would probably guess the exact same as they would for 900 N.

Quote:

Originally Posted by honte

Yeah - to prove the point (and not trying to be a jerk), the white Loewenberg building you mention in the photo is not precast, but cast in place and painted.

Just for the sake of argument, the two brick buildings in the background of the shot on the prior page are by Weese, and they are not throwaway buildings in any sense of the word. The one on the left (Fewkes tower, I believe it was) is a really wonderful building, actually. They are not flashy, but they were sensitive and intended to be a benefit to the area.

Now, the Pinnacle? That is utter trash.

Why am I not surprised that is a Lowenberg? Also, now that I look closer, it is indeed poured in place, but with that weird rough texturing effect that was so popular in the 80's.

I had no idea those were Weese designs! Which two are Weese? Is the one that stands at the end of Chestnut a Weese? I've really been admiring that building for some time and want to know who did it, it really interacts with the street nicely.

And which building is the Pinnicale? That nasty one next the 50 E.? Please answer! I am completely blanking on names tonight guys, help me out, its finals week and I can remember anything but what Carlos Fuentes wanted to portray through his stories about Mexican-American relations!

Ch.G, Ch.G · #**228** Posted **Dec 12, 2007, 6:15 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by honte

Park Tower - you have to admit, it's one of the better PoMo condo towers built in the boom. I still hate it, and I hate that it replaced a nice Macsai design, but to put it in the same league as that Antunovich trash is really unfair. It does have decent proportions, some attempt at cladding, some attempt to address the city in a positive manner with the bay window and the nicely designed storefronts. That counts for something. In fact, I would say it's his best PoMo work (which doesn't count for much!).

How do the proportions differ from Elysian? In the Park Tower you have an an anemic mansard capping a turret. The curved balconies on the corners look forced--completely out of place--and the lanterns adorning the roof look just as cartoonish as those in the renderings of Elysian. I'm only familiar with this building from afar, so there may be merit in its street-level design, but the rest, in my opinion, is as (im?)pure postmodern schlock as it gets. Again, I defer to Philip Johnson as an example of this style done correctly:

Above, a French-inspired design in Dallas; below, in Atlanta, a Romanesque skyscraper.

(both photos from bluffton.edu)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Maybe to us it is obvious, but if you asked some random person on the street A. How old is that building and B. What is the outside of it made of, they would probably guess the exact same as they would for 900 N.

I really don't think you are giving "random persons" enough credit. Changes in texture and coloration are not so imperceptible as to be seen by only the well-trained few: a block of finished concrete looks very different from a block of granite no matter who you are. Ditto a wide swathe of concrete versus a wide swathe of granite 300 feet in the sky.

Tom Servo · #**229** Posted **Dec 12, 2007, 6:24 AM**

stuff like this, the park tower, elysian, 50 e chestnut, etc... are pretty and have great materials... yada yada whatever... they aren't chicago, and they don't belong in chicago. sorry.

Nowhereman1280 · #**230** Posted **Dec 12, 2007, 7:19 AM**

^Here we go with the "but its not 'Chicago'" crap again. There is no such thing as "Chicago" because that would be self terminating. The whole point of Chicago Architecture is that it is supposed to be progressive and ingenious as it has always been in the past leading to our architectural fame. If we start determining that things are or arn't "Chicago" then we may as well just accept the fact that we are going to just build boring, repetative, schlock for all eternity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

I really don't think you are giving "random persons" enough credit. Changes in texture and coloration are not so imperceptible as to be seen by only the well-trained few: a block of finished concrete looks very different from a block of granite no matter who you are. Ditto a wide swathe of concrete versus a wide swathe of granite 300 feet in the sky.

Well of course there is a huge difference between Granite and concrete, thats obvious, but that's not the material we are talking about here. We are talking about limestone which is literally the exact same thing as concrete, just less pure, giving it more texture and color. They literally are both calcium carbonate, so its very easy to mix them up if its well done.

My family and friends can't tell the difference and always talk about how "good" the Park Tower looks, so I don't think I am giving them too little credit.

I really don't like how similar Elysian is to Park tower, thats the only real beef I have with this tower. I fear its going to create some sort of weird chemistry between the two that will just create some sort of precedent giving an excuse to build an assload of similar buildings.

honte · #**231** Posted **Dec 12, 2007, 11:34 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

How do the proportions differ from Elysian? In the Park Tower you have an an anemic mansard capping a turret. The curved balconies on the corners look forced--completely out of place--and the lanterns adorning the roof look just as cartoonish as those in the renderings of Elysian. I'm only familiar with this building from afar, so there may be merit in its street-level design, but the rest, in my opinion, is as (im?)pure postmodern schlock as it gets. Again, I defer to Philip Johnson as an example of this style done correctly:

Don't get me wrong... I think I said I hate Park Tower. Let me clarify by saying that I hate it to death. Does that jive better?

I usually hate the Philip Johnson type of PoMo just as much though. I don't think the proportions are any more sophisticated, the detailing is half-baked, etc (especially the first one you posted, which looks like the Tristate Tollway Special in my humble opinion). Most of his projects were same style of building, just with triple the budget (which makes boring schlock 3x more of a disappointment). My favs by him are the ones that are just so bizarre, like the insane "Gothic" thing in Houston. But we've been through the PoMo argument so many times...

I like Park Tower best in proportion because of the soaring quality, depth of the facade, "proper" use of spandrel panels on the front, etc. It just works best for me... more of a point to say that it does indeed get worse. I am guessing the Elysian project will be more along the lines of Park Tower than his other work,

Nowhereman, I will send you a PM later today about the Weese stuff.

One additional thought: If anyone things the PoMo stuff in Chicago is bad, I'll try to find images of the stuff they've built in Denver since I was there last time. Whoa. It's in a whole new league of tackiness.

Alliance · #**232** Posted **Dec 12, 2007, 4:57 PM**

I dislike the idea of accepting crap simply because its better than crap elsewhere.

Vertigo · #**233** Posted **Dec 13, 2007, 6:31 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

stuff like this, the park tower, elysian, 50 e chestnut, etc... are pretty and have great materials... yada yada whatever... they aren't chicago, and they don't belong in chicago. sorry.

So if these buildings don't belong in Chicago then how on Earth does this building belong in Atlanta?

aaron38 · #**234** Posted **Dec 13, 2007, 6:57 PM**

The new 535 St. Clair

Well I'm just going to come out and say it. I'll take a hundred Elysians, and a hundred Park Towers, over one of these pieces of shit. This is god awful.
Seriously, what is this, but cheap glass, painted concrete, a giant podium and no style. PoMo style is better than nothing.

honte · #**235** Posted **Dec 13, 2007, 10:36 PM**

^ How can you say that from a render that is little more than a sketch? Glass comes in many more varieties, colors, textures and qualities than precast concrete (although some modern uses of precast can be quite nice!).

aaron38 · #**236** Posted **Dec 13, 2007, 11:26 PM**

I'm just going by experience. If they won't pay for a real architect, why would they pay for good glass? This is the same firm that did the Grand on Grand.

And it's clear this isn't a real architect, because look at how the building reflects it's surroundings. We're looking at the front that faces St. Clair. And so what is it literally turning it's back to?
At 500', this is going to be visible up and down Michigan Ave, and I shudder to think what the back side of that tower looks like.

Actually, I am willing to give this project one bennefit of the doubt, and that is the hope that we're actually looking at this project backwards. If the 'front' is the side that faces Mich Ave, the bulk of the podium would be hidden on the interior of the block, St. Clair would get a nice vertical edge, and then we just have to pray that the 'back' isn't a giant blank wall.

I'm going to hope that's true and ask Santa for a new render.

Alliance · #**237** Posted **Dec 13, 2007, 11:36 PM**

I'd take a modern-wannabe POS anyday over another Park Tower/Elysian POS>

honte · #**238** Posted **Dec 14, 2007, 12:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaron38

I'm just going by experience. If they won't pay for a real architect, why would they pay for good glass? This is the same firm that did the Grand on Grand.

And it's clear this isn't a real architect, because look at how the building reflects it's surroundings. We're looking at the front that faces St. Clair. And so what is it literally turning it's back to?
At 500', this is going to be visible up and down Michigan Ave, and I shudder to think what the back side of that tower looks like.

Actually, I am willing to give this project one bennefit of the doubt, and that is the hope that we're actually looking at this project backwards. If the 'front' is the side that faces Mich Ave, the bulk of the podium would be hidden on the interior of the block, St. Clair would get a nice vertical edge, and then we just have to pray that the 'back' isn't a giant blank wall.

I'm going to hope that's true and ask Santa for a new render.

Hmm... If I'm not mistaken, this building is replacing a parking lot at the NE corner of St Clair and Grand. So, it is across the street from the St. Clair. You are looking from the SW to the NE corner of the building. I don't think it will be very visible from Michigan Ave. either.

I agree the back side of the building is scary. It looks like a similar structural layout to the Dana Hotel, which could result in massive, blank shear walls on the back side of the building.

You are correct about the developer - the only one I have ever seen who is stupid enough to actually hire Loewenberg as the architect for a tower. But the original was a Brininstool+Lynch design, not Loewenberg. Their work can cheap out sometimes, but it's always well designed.

This new version looks like B+L / SCB, with the columns that pierce the top of the podium and support the canopy, much like MO.

Tom Servo · #**239** Posted **Dec 14, 2007, 6:21 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaron38

The new 535 St. Clair

Well I'm just going to come out and say it. I'll take a hundred Elysians, and a hundred Park Towers, over one of these pieces of shit. This is god awful.
Seriously, what is this, but cheap glass, painted concrete, a giant podium and no style. PoMo style is better than nothing.

what the fuck???

Nowhereman1280 · #**240** Posted **Dec 14, 2007, 6:56 AM**

I agree with Alliance, I prefer this over Pomo crap.

Is this really going to be 500 feet?

Also, it looks incredibly skinny.

And I don't think its quite as bad as everyone seems to believe, some of that is probably due to the shitty render.

Personally I don't mind buildings that have a blank backside as long as that side isn't facing a street. I think its good to return to the old-school practice of leaving blank walls where future buildings will be. Especially with an all glass facade, its hard to be a view NIMBY when you have no windows facing the future construction site...