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

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by Lecom

I'd like some of the naysayers to back up their claims as to why this tower is "trash".

there is no coherrent philosophy behind the elements of this design... Its not like structural expressionism or modernism where there is a strict code of what you are doing and why you are doing it. There is no uniting factor like "this building should have giant metal X's on it because it expresses the structural members supporting the building thus leaving the building to be what it is, a structural masterpiece" or anything like that. Its just, "people like old looking things because they all want to be little aristocrats, therefore we'll make it look like a gigantic stretched version of an old aristocratic residence from France."

Tell me,. which one is cheesy and which one beautiful...

[erbsenzaehler]

^ Dude, you sound like a daft, narcissistic modernist architect. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

There's nothing wrong with some modern glass phalusses. But you gotta admit that our cities would look friggin boring if they'd only consist of modern glass phalusses. The human eye's searchin for classic, organic or even 'subnatural' elements and ornaments in architecture - not just cold, plain or vacant concrete, glass and steel; those are vexing to the eye, almost repugnant.

Modern architects know about that human aesthetic sensibility. Their architectural style was introduced in order to unsettle the people, to break with this sensibility. They were successful. And that's why people crave for classic architecture - because they feel the lack of harmony and natural shapes in most of our modern cities.

So many people have to travel some thousands of miles to fulfill their longings - and see some greatly maintained old towns in good ol' Europe.

Anyway, what are the most iconic skyscrapers in NYC? Metlife Building? UN Headquarters? The Solow Building?
No. It's the Empire State, the Chrysler, the Woolworth and the Flatiron Building.

Why? Human sensibility.

[LucasS6]

They sound the same to me, to be quite honest. I know architecture students get all up in arms about it, but as a guy who's not and has no interest in being one, there's not too much of a difference.

Buildings aren't beautiful because of the story behind them, to me.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by erbsenzaehler

^ Dude, you sound like a daft, narcissistic modernist architect. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

There's nothing wrong with some modern glass phalusses. But you gotta admit that our cities would look friggin boring if they'd only consist of modern glass phalusses. The human eye's searchin for classic, organic or even 'subnatural' elements and ornaments in architecture - not just cold, plain or vacant concrete, glass and steel; those are vexing to the eye, almost repugnant.

Modern architects know about that human aesthetic sensibility. Their architectural style was introduced in order to unsettle the people, to break with this sensibility. They were successful. And that's why people crave for classic architecture - because they feel the lack of harmony and natural shapes in most of our modern cities.

So many people have to travel some thousands of miles to fulfill their longings - and see some greatly maintained old towns in good ol' Europe.

Anyway, what are the most iconic skyscrapers in NYC? Metlife Building? UN Headquarters? The Solow Building?
No. It's the Empire State, the Chrysler, the Woolworth and the Flatiron Building.

Why? Human sensibility.

^ While I am definitely a fan of modern architecture, I think you make some great points.

Elysian will end up looking "pretty", and I think people need a bit of that

[WonderlandPark]

Originally Posted by erbsenzaehler

Anyway, what are the most iconic skyscrapers in NYC? Metlife Building? UN Headquarters? The Solow Building?
No. It's the Empire State, the Chrysler, the Woolworth and the Flatiron Building.

Why? Human sensibility.

And what are the most iconic in Chicago? Wrigley, sure, but also Sears & Hancock.

Most iconic in San Francisco? Transamerica

Minneapolis has the IDS building from Mary Tyler Moore fame

Atlanta has the Portman-designed peachtree hotel


Most skylines, in fact, are defined by more modern towers



you're giving "classic" style too much credit.

[Eventually...Chicago]

^^^ okay let's be fair here. I've been trying to avoid entering into discussion regarding modernism, post-modernism and classicism but it is ridiculous to so that hancock & sears are the only iconic structures in the city.

And, duh!!! of course skylines are going to be dominated by modern buildings, it was a little tough to build tall when you weren't using steel. But cities are hardly more defined by modern buildings than their classical/pre-modern counterparts:

Tribune building
Wrigley building
Water tower
Buckingham fountain
All the museums
cbot building
rookery
reliance

do i need to keep going?

Keep in mind perhaps the greatest building ever built, St. Peter's cathedral is both a classicist building and a huge definition in the roman skyline.

There are a lot of nice buildings everywhere in every style. No style is inherently better than any other. They each have pros and cons, but a building does not achieve greatness because it is of a certain style, it's because it is built as a great building.

So if you don't like a building simply because it is of a certain style, you're being both ignorant and unfair. If you don't like a building because of how it was designed and built, then fine.

To use a greatly exaggerated analogy... It is unacceptable to not like someone because of their race, it is absolutely acceptable to not like someone because they are a jerk.

[NLiveris]

[WonderlandPark]

And St. Peters is "honest" for its day. They weren't trying, say, to build a oversize Parthenon-as-Catholic-Cathedral there. To me, this building is "dishonest," as dishonest as the Excalibur in Vegas tries to be a Medieval fortress. There is no truth in taking a 19th century typical Parisian French mansard-roofed building and blowing it up to 700 feet. Sorry, that is why I hate this building. It is kitch and dishonest.

[ashlandave]

Your statement implies that all the buildings in England and the US that use Greek columns for decoration are somehow dishonest.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by WonderlandPark

And St. Peters is "honest" for its day. They weren't trying, say, to build a oversize Parthenon-as-Catholic-Cathedral there. To me, this building is "dishonest," as dishonest as the Excalibur in Vegas tries to be a Medieval fortress. There is no truth in taking a 19th century typical Parisian French mansard-roofed building and blowing it up to 700 feet. Sorry, that is why I hate this building. It is kitch and dishonest.

So I suppose you hate Gothic skyscrapers as well?

[Eventually...Chicago]

Originally Posted by WonderlandPark

And St. Peters is "honest" for its day. They weren't trying, say, to build a oversize Parthenon-as-Catholic-Cathedral there. To me, this building is "dishonest," as dishonest as the Excalibur in Vegas tries to be a Medieval fortress. There is no truth in taking a 19th century typical Parisian French mansard-roofed building and blowing it up to 700 feet. Sorry, that is why I hate this building. It is kitch and dishonest.

Okay Mr. Ruskin. If you're going to make that argument then you have to discredit pretty much every style of architecture except for maybe the gothic, which consequently, is what Ruskin did.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by erbsenzaehler

^ Dude, you sound like a daft, narcissistic modernist architect. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

First of all, learn the definitions of words before you use them. How does thinking that there is no philosophy behind the design of the Elysian make me narcissistic? That is simply a pathetic personal attack...

Anyhow, this is the most pathetic attitude ever and is a complete devolution of human thought. No, beauty is not in the eye the beholder, opinion's are. Guess what? Opinions can be wrong! Some things are inherently ugly, for example, which would you rather stand next two, the base of the Hancock Building or the base of 900 N. Michigan? I think 99% of people in a psychological study would rather be by Hancock. Do you know why? People instinctually don't like to be closed in against a solid stone wall, they like to have windows and doors to look inside of. Solid blank walls along streets are inherently ugly, there is no ifs, ands, or buts about it...

Guess what else is inherrently ugly? Poorly used materials, like the precast on Elysian. Again, which one will people find more attractive, the CBOT building or Elysian? CBOT will always win because its made of proper materials that don't leave gigantic seams running up and down the building...

The philosophy of this design is much more akin to that of Medieval Times than it is to that of the "classical" buildings you reference. This is simply a bunch of people longing to own a "Ye Olde Condo Unit" that somehow signifies their success in life and its downright tacky, just like Medieval Times...

Also, Deco can hardly be considered "classical" its clearly a precursor to modernism a sort of bridge between beaux arts and modernism...

The reason those buildings you listed are considered beautiful is that they were in line with the structural and aesthetic principals of their day. What you propose by saying "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is that we get rid of all aesthetic principles and leave it all up to the individual, which destroys all beauty.

Oh and one last thing, scolding me with the statement "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is hypocritical on your part since you criticized my opinion (using words you apparently don't understand), suggesting it to be wrong, and then went on to tell me that people should not be allowed to criticize others opinions... Think about that for a moment...

[Eventually...Chicago]

Doesn't the fact that people want to live in "ye olde condo unit" justify this building as being "of this time"? If not, what determines if a building is subscribing to the "principles of their day"? Who gets to decide what are the principles of the era? Should every building conform to whatever these principles may be? How does change happen then if every building needs to conform to a given set of principles? What if this building foreshadow an reemergence of a classical era in the world? I doubt it, but wouldn't this building then be the most cutting edge if we are heading to a classicizing era?

And doesn't the fact that people still do associate this aesthetic with success, establishment and tradition demonstrate that the forms used still speak very clearly in this day? I don't think aqua or any other "contemporary" design communicate these ideas as clearly as this building. Old symbols die hard.

Doesn't the fact that the building has seams all over the place give it "truthfulness" in the sense that it is expressing the fact that it is constructed of many different pieces?

The precast used had to be ingeniously detailed to attach it to a building of such a height. Steel, glass and concrete are far easier to design for a tall building. I think it is unfair to say that the precast has been poorly used. The precast has been used precisely as it is intended.

And the notion that "beauty lies with the beholder" does not destroy beauty. If history has shown one thing is that beauty can come from anywhere regardless of the principles subscribed to, even conflicting principles. Buildings aren't beautiful because of the theory behind their creation. Theory motivated buildings have produced some seriously bad architecture. At least classical buildings generally ensure that the building won't be an eyesore.

I swear this building has invoked some of the most ridiculous arguments against it. I love it when people argue that we need big, complicated and diverse cities and then argue against all the things that make a city diverse. I feel like it is 1920 all over again. People need to go back and read up on the many reasons modernism failed so miserably. So-called "styled" architecture has an enormous amount of validity to it and it has been proven again and again over the past 1000 years.

[honte]

^ I would love to see these "ingenious" details. Have you looked at them closely? Do you have copies you can share?

Client: "Oh no, Mr. Architect, we can't afford steel. Let's replace it with wood of the same size." Is that ethical?
Client: "Oh no, Mr. Architect, let's not pull permits because the city is corrupt anyway." Is that ethical?
Client: "Oh no, Mr. Architect, let's not insulate our building because the price of materials has risen too much." Is that ethical?
Client: "Let's copy that design down the street."
Client: "Here's some plans someone else started drawing, but I want you to finish the job for 1/2 their fee."

Client: "You must design like it's 1920 because that's what people think is classy." Is that ethical? It's much harder to say, but I strongly believe there is an ethics to design. The last statement violates my code of ethics. Perhaps less so for structures that are not so prominent. If you have a farm in the middle of nowhere, I suppose you can design whatever you please.

Equating the fact that people dislike throwback architecture with a desire for total uniformity is completely wrong. I've never heard anyone on this forum argue for anything but better design and more variety. But that is not a license to inflict whatever frivolity or fetish upon the city.

[Northwest]

Originally Posted by NLiveris

Fantastic photo NLiveris!
Love the strong lighting, colors, and storm clouds with the rainbow!

[Atomic Glee]

Originally Posted by WonderlandPark

There is no truth in taking a 19th century typical Parisian French mansard-roofed building and blowing it up to 700 feet. Sorry, that is why I hate this building. It is kitch and dishonest.

Then most of the modernist stuff beloved by so many on this forum is equally kitsch and dishonest, because frankly most of it is comprised of warmed-over '60s/'70s ideas (which we know to be a failure from an urban design perspective, yet the modernists keep trotting it back out) and given a pretty sheen with some titanium, wavy parts, or shiny splintered metal. Just because you slap wavy balconies on an modernist box doesn't mean you have anything other than a modernist box (that could just as easily have been built in the '60s) with some wiggly decoration on it.

This whole thing about "honesty" seems like complete bunk to me. No style of architecture should be off-limits, and I'm certainly not going to limit my point of view of the world just because some misguided modernist hack architects have decided that the way we build today should be only inhuman techno-fantasy claptrap.

It's easy for modernists to write off modern-day traditional architecture as a pastiche, but they're not willing to accept that most of their stuff is pastiche as well. The fact that one draws from thousands of years of human habitation, while the other draws from the T-squares of Gropius and Corbu doesn't seem to register as a similarity.

[Chicago3rd]

What I love about this whole grudge against pre-cast is that people take their opinion and believe that opinion (subjuctive that it is) is factual when all it really is is preference....personal preference.

The building is going to make a wonderful fiber in our massive highrise weave (IMHO).

[Chicagoguy]

I have heard that the ground level and 3 story part of the building surrounding the courtyard will house retail. Does anyone know what retail might be in there?

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Anyhow, this is the most pathetic attitude ever and is a complete devolution of human thought. No, beauty is not in the eye the beholder, opinion's are.

^ Yet perceptions of beauty are an opinion. Many people will be of the opinion that Elysian is a beautiful building, no matter how much you grumble to the contrary

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by Eventually...Chicago

Doesn't the fact that people want to live in "ye olde condo unit" justify this building as being "of this time"? If not, what determines if a building is subscribing to the "principles of their day"? Who gets to decide what are the principles of the era? Should every building conform to whatever these principles may be?

And doesn't the fact that people still do associate this aesthetic with success, establishment and tradition demonstrate that the forms used still speak very clearly in this day? I don't think aqua or any other "contemporary" design communicate these ideas as clearly as this building. Old symbols die hard.

First of all, I never said that these buildings should not be built, I don't know why you people are trying to string a noose around my neck for defending my opinion of the design, I think cities need all different types of design, but that 90% of it is not "good" design... My comments merely reflect the fact that this is a symbol of backward movement in thinking, its a bunch of people who want to have their own little slice of empire, they want to be a little emperor and rule a kingdom, they are really imperialists in that sense...

Doesn't the fact that the building has seams all over the place give it "truthfulness" in the sense that it is expressing the fact that it is constructed of many different pieces?

No, because 50% of the seems are fake grooves pressed into the surface and reflect no function at all...

And the notion that "beauty lies with the beholder" does not destroy beauty. If history has shown one thing is that beauty can come from anywhere regardless of the principles subscribed to, even conflicting principles. Buildings aren't beautiful because of the theory behind their creation. Theory motivated buildings have produced some seriously bad architecture. At least classical buildings generally ensure that the building won't be an eyesore.

That's not even close to true, it becomes quite clear that when philosophy, not theory, is separated from design, it quickly becomes crude and loses all quality. Look at the second wave modernist buildings from the 70's where architects basically just began ripping off the LMVDR's and Bruce Grahms of the world instead of basing their designs off of an original thought or idea. Eventually this led to lots of buildings that were shoddy rip offs of the light and airy early modernism which is what led to the reaction that is PoMo...

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Yet perceptions of beauty are an opinion. Many people will be of the opinion that Elysian is a beautiful building, no matter how much you grumble to the contrary

No they aren't beauty is some that is much deeper than simple opinion, there are instincts, socialized behaviors, and other more primal things than just mere opinion that surface in beauty. There are concrete rules that, despite some exceptions, generally govern the population. Simplest example of this, what we find beautiful in a mate. Why the hell do straight men find the female figure beautiful? Why don't they find tree trunks beautiful instead? There are certain dimensions that, on average, men find more beautiful than others, why are they set at these? Who knows for sure, but its something far beyond simple opinion... I would compare these basic things psychologists glean from sex and other behaviors to other instinctual behaviors like disliking being enclosed in a small spaces with small windows, and liking being in an open space with large windows, one is simply more attractive to us than another...

It is not just "opinion"...

Just for reference, the M-W definition of beauty: " the quality or aggregate of qualities in a person or thing that gives pleasure to the senses or pleasurably exalts the mind or spirit"