Height: 495 ft
Floor count: 40
Location: North Michigan and East Erie
Neighborhood: River North
Construction end:
Architect: Lucien Lagrange Architects
Developer: Prism Development Company LLC

Website (http://www.theresidenceschicago.com/)

(Posted by spyguy)
http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/3661/ritzresidenceschicagopo.jpg
http://img365.imageshack.us/img365/2606/6646lu.jpg
http://img365.imageshack.us/img365/4963/664base4rj.jpg
http://img479.imageshack.us/img479/2595/ritzcarltonjv5.jpg
http://wibiti.com/images/hpmain/510/237510.jpg
http://www.theresidenceschicago.com/


Luxurious new Ritz-Carlton Residential Tower to rise in the heart of Chicago's 'Magnificent Mile'
Tuesday, March 07, 2006



Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C., of Chevy Chase, Maryland, and Chicago-based Prism Development Company, announced Prism's plan to construct a 40-story, 360,000-square-foot, Ritz-Carlton-managed residential tower on a prime site at North Michigan Avenue and Erie Street in the heart of the 'Magnificent Mile'.

Formerly occupied by The Terra Museum of American Art which closed its doors in October 2004, the site has long been considered one of the premier development opportunities in downtown Chicago due to its prominent North Michigan Avenue address, proximity to world-class shopping, dining and entertainment; and convenience to Chicago's leading corporate headquarters.

Designed by the renowned Chicago architectural firm, Lucien Lagrange Architects, designer of many of Chicago's grandest residential buildings, The Ritz-Carlton Residences, Chicago, Magnificent Mile will feature 86 ultra-luxurious residences ranging in size from approximately 1,370-square-foot, one-bedroom homes to grand penthouses of more than 5,700 square feet. The building will also include parking for 177 cars, 21,769 square feet of retail space, and the offices of The Terra Foundation.

"The Ritz-Carlton Residences will be the architectural icon that will bring back the understated elegance of the 1930's," said Lucien Lagrange.

Just one of the special features offered by the project is a full-floor private club reserved exclusively for homeowners. Elegantly styled by celebrated architecture and interior design firm, Darcy Bonner and Associates, the club will feature a grand salon, private dining room/board room, a billiard room and wine cellar, a screening room, a state-of-the-art exercise facility and spa.

"The club represents a synthesis of modern luxury with the classically inspired proportions and styling of the 1930's," added Darcy Bonner.

Ritz-Carlton management, concierge and maintenance staff will provide an unprecedented level of personal service to residents and their guests. Consistently rated as America's highest quality luxury hotel operator, The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company opened its first residence project in 2000. Since that time, Ritz-Carlton has expanded its residential property offerings to include residences in Baltimore, Boston, Coconut Grove, Dallas, Jupiter, Molasses Reef, New York, Philadelphia, Sarasota, Toronto, Vail, Washington, DC, Grand Cayman and Berlin. Ritz-Carlton currently operates 59 hotels in the Americas, Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Africa.

"Since the introduction of The Ritz-Carlton Residences concept, it has proven to be a residential lifestyle choice that appeals to everyone from first time home owners looking for the convenience of an urban address to those leaving large homes in the suburbs and opting for a new experience, which includes being catered to by staff trained by The Ritz-Carlton in the fine art of service and hospitality. Many of our owners have several homes in cities around the world. We know a stylish, sophisticated address in the heart of Chicago will be another real estate success story," said Simon F. Cooper, president and chief operating officer of The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company.

Prism Development Company principals, Bruce Schultz and Jon Rodgers, said the building will exemplify the quality of architecture envisioned in Daniel Burnham's 1909 Plan of Chicago. The highest quality materials and finishes, combined with a distinctly Parisian styling, will usher in a new era of luxury living for those who "expect the extraordinary." Homeowners in The Ritz-Carlton Residences, Chicago, Magnificent Mile will enjoy concierge, dining, valet and butler services.

Sales of The Ritz-Carlton Residences, Chicago, Magnificent Mile are being coordinated by Rubloff Residential Properties. Home prices start at approximately $1.25 million. The project sales office is located at 625 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 500.

Construction of the new tower is scheduled to begin this fall with completion in 2008.

im very into this one!

Any word on height??

Enough with the "sophisticated" look... all of these artificial skyscrapers depicting some type of faux architecture is getting old... I wouldn't mind seeing this one bite the dust.

I don't care for the architecture very much--the old-timey look is boring--but isn't incredible when you can see a proposed 40-story building and say "I don't want to see this built"? We're so spoiled these days. Most cities would kill to have some of the buildings we would like to see tabled.

I kinda like the old time retro look .....it kinda looks like something out of a batman comic

Yeah I'm definitely into this one. :)

I don't care for the architecture very much--the old-timey look is boring--but isn't incredible when you can see a proposed 40-story building and say "I don't want to see this built"? We're so spoiled these days. Most cities would kill to have some of the buildings we would like to see tabled.

lol. so true.

I used to want more of these sophisticated buildings(perhaps to make up for years when Chicago wasn't building anything...).

But I've since come to want many more new and bold designs.

I don't care for the architecture very much--the old-timey look is boring--but isn't incredible when you can see a proposed 40-story building and say "I don't want to see this built"? We're so spoiled these days. Most cities would kill to have some of the buildings we would like to see tabled.

If you guys decide not to build this one send it my way. :wave:

Now that's classy! I'm guessing 350-400'?

If you guys decide not to build this one send it my way. :wave:

I don't think you want it either.

I don't mind the old world kind of look, but this is the wrong way to go about doing so and I don't really understand any of the benefits of having the tower except for the sake of having another tower.

Drawbacks to this tower:

1. Design isn't bold or innovative- not necessarily a bad thing, but still, they could cheap out on the building and it could easily turn into a horrible looking tower
2. Huge amount of parking on Michigan Avenue, especially considering the amount of units (more than 2 spots for each unit :runaway: )
3. Balconies on Michigan Avenue (not against this, but this added to the above sort of annoys me)
4. BVictor reported that they will be using pre-cast concrete :puke:
5. Historic Farwell building will basically be destroyed and then the facade will be attached to a new structure. This goes for 29-39 S. Lasalle as well- why should we get rid of some of our best buildings for such mediocre projects? To appease some greedy developers? No thank you.
6. With all of the above in mind, this tower will take sales away from more deserving projects that will have a bigger skyline impact and much better designs.

What are some examples of buildings that use precast concrete?

I believe the exposed balconies do this one in. But Im still kind of nuetral...I would love to have another high rise on Michigan but I don't believe in the term "filler" building as positive and I think in all liklihood this is all this building will ever be known as for the architecture and design is not there.

What is up with Ritz-Carlton interpeting "classy" and "prestigous" as being unimaginitive "old world" design? I dont understand. Some of the most bold and beautiful hotels in the world have modern architecture that still retains class without sacrificing or duplicating designs from the past.

Regarding the "old look" design. I have always believed an architect has an inherited responsiblity to design and think in a progressive manner,meaning- improve on the past not duplicate it. Just think if every high rise from the 60s or 70s duplicated buildings from their past there would never of been any advancements in architecture..A city of all Park Towers and Elysians...PUKE! :)

I don't think I would be upset if SOAR opposed Ritz-Carlton project or Planning Commission did not approved.

The building is ugly, i do not like seeing condos on michigan ave. The balconies have to go, no one should have to walk on the street and see people hanging out side. This is michigan avenue we need more class.

SOAR to the rescue? :dunno:

SOAR to the rescue? :dunno:

I hope so.

This would be a fine (and even fantastic tower) anywhere else. What is irksome about this tower is not only its LTA (less-than-amazing) design, but that it would involve tearing down a beloved 'landmark'.

I have a bad feeling that if built, we'll be lamenting about it on SSC for years to come ;)

^ agreed. i can't believe that forumers over here are actually "into this building". the opinions on this proposal over at SSP has been nearly all negative.

this one is a dud folks, let's hope it dies.

I like this one actually. It may appear to be regressive design but I see actually several unique qualities in its design. Say what you will but we don’t really have any thing here that remotely looks like this one. I don’t feel that everything needs to have a completely glass facade in order for me to like it. From the angle they presented this piece of art, it accentuates several components that I like. It appears to host flying buttresses. The upper portion of the building appears to be constructed with a brick like facade that I don’t recall seeing before on older buildings you claim this building is a replica off. , the various "steps" effect in the tope several floors is unique and adds a bold sharpness that def. seems very batman like , as formerly chicagoman said. I think the building blends into the older original building a lot better than 29-39 S. LaSalle which I think is a disaster. Contrary to your views, I do feel that this structure emanates an elegance of old time that is rarely seen built in today’s modernizing frenzy. The balconies, i agree, I could do without but overall I do like this one. Its one thing is the city was as a whole building structures that had no progressive design but that’s not the case, a large majority of the designs u see going up and proposed are very innovative. In which case I don’t feel threatened to see one or two buildings going up that display an older era feel. On the contrary, it’s a nice mix, I call it salt and pepper.

Well, before the construction of the Peninsula Hotel above the shops on the 700 block of North Michigan, I would have *thought* that an extremely high-end brand would only associate itself with buildings that were at least decent. Sure, probably old world, unimaginative design, but it could look great if it was like 65 East Goethe by Lagrange. That building is well-scaled, and well-articulated. OK, so you want faux French apartment house, then be prepared to really put the money in to make that happen, and it will look great. But, no, Peninsula Hotel manages to charge, what, $350 / night or more for a room with that unspired design. These rich clientele barely have a chance to see the place as they are quickly escorted out of their sleek livery vehicles under a veranda and into the lobby, about which the architect is typically far more concerned.

Oh, I have a dream. . . that it becomes normative for competent branding efforts to require good architecture..

Enough with the "sophisticated" look... all of these artificial skyscrapers depicting some type of faux architecture is getting old...

Yeah, seems somewhat dishonest, no?

Ariel View
https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2006/03/447032.jpg

^^ This rendering reinforces that my intial discontent with this building was correct

Yup. This current proposal needs to die.

I don't know I don't think it is too bad.....maybe if done w/ a stone exterior....it would have an almost gothic quality

I truly dont understand the hatred for this building. Its better than some of the crap thats going up or has been completed recently. Sky55 or Museum Tower, anyone? My only gripe is the pre-cast concrete and afraid it'll blend in with the other beige crap. Noone in Chicago seems to know how to do it tastefully. Outside of that, the balconies are flush against the tower. How about the balconies theyre adding to Intercontinental Plaza or whatever grey block that is that would really disturb the look of South Michigan Ave. I say pick your battles and to me this doesnt crack the top ten. If they dont cheap out, the details could be really nice as well as the top. It looks fine to me. Could turn out to be a pleasent surprise.

I really don't seem to mind this tower at all. I'm trying to figure out why everyone hates it so much.

To quote myself

1. Design isn't bold or innovative- not necessarily a bad thing, but still, they could cheap out on the building and it could easily turn into a horrible looking tower
2. Huge amount of parking on Michigan Avenue, especially considering the amount of units (more than 2 spots for each unit :runaway: )
3. Balconies on Michigan Avenue (not against this, but this added to the above sort of annoys me)
4. BVictor reported that they will be using pre-cast concrete :puke:
5. Historic Farwell building will basically be destroyed and then the facade will be attached to a new structure. This goes for 29-39 S. Lasalle as well- why should we get rid of some of our best buildings for such mediocre projects? To appease some greedy developers? No thank you.
6. With all of the above in mind, this tower will take sales away from more deserving projects that will have a bigger skyline impact and much better designs.

I really don't seem to mind this tower at all. I'm trying to figure out why everyone hates it so much.

the destruction of the historic Farwell building for one. it adds a lot of Parisian charm to Michigan Avenue. This tower can suck in its gut a little, and be more slender without harming the Farwell, then it might be acceptable. Maybe... prefab concrete still sucks though. Michigan Avenue deserves better.

I agree with spyguy. I just do not want to see another mistake on michigan ave like 700 n michigan the eddie bauer building. This one is a big mistake. What happened to high class on this street ? Why can they create another block like where tiffany is on.
I also think they need to redo michigan ave and make it more modern .

Spyguy, outside of number 5, I still dont see the big deal. Even then, whats the difference in altering an historical building for a "mediocre" project versus an innovative, bold design? If its not to be changed (except maybe to clean and restore), its not to be changed. Im not endorsing destruction of historical buildings but Im not gonna play favorites either when it means restoring the thing versus letting it sit and rot and complaining about it. If it was an absolutely horrible design I could understand the concerns but its not and I dont.

1. I dont understand how we can say everything doesnt have to be bold and innovative but the moment something "safe" is designed, its trashed. Someone help me understand.

2. If theyre going after the clientele Im thinking, how many of them are going to walk anywhere? Lets be realistic. So parking is a necessity.

3. What is it about the balconies that doesnt sit well with you? They are flush with the exterior and dont jut out like a sore thumb.

4. I'll give you that one. I wish developers would spend the damn money on quality material. Their names will be attached to these buildings 30 years from now and the condition of exteriors wont be too flattering. Think about the future instead of just the here and now, ya know?

5. See above.

6. Everything will not have an impact on the skyline, esp in a city where you have to be 70 stories to make a dent. And if potential buyers choose to purchase here, there's a reason they didnt in the others. You cannot blame this building if this were to suceed and another, albeit better designed, didnt.

Thats my take.

That building ought to be in South Loop, preferably on Michigan Ave, south of Roosevelt. That would make the southern part of downtown skyline more dramatic.

I truly dont understand the hatred for this building. Its better than some of the crap thats going up or has been completed recently. Sky55 or Museum Tower, anyone?

Are you saying Sky 55 is "crap"?!

Yes there has been some ugly buildings rising or have risen but when we have to compare this to "crap" buildings to make it look mediocre that means its bad!.

The other thing that really ticks me off about this is the continual trend of new buildings having old looking design...(Park tower, Columbian, Elysian...blah,blah,blah). We need to break the mold of this terrible concept and I think this is why everyone on this thread has or SHOULD have a "hatred" for this building. Chicago needs to maintain its reputation for progressive architecture and puking up crap like this doesn't help and only hurts.

I think the building looks nice but I agree that the 'old school' look needs to be ditched in favor of something more forward thinking. Honestly, it looks like something that would have gone up in Atlanta 15 years ago when they were going through that retro phase.

The building also looks out of sync with the energy that can be found in the new highrises that are currently planned. These projects promise to bring a new face to Chicago while this building simply serves as a poor refection of a bygone era.

This building should not go up. They can do better! This might be fine on the gold coast, but not on michigan ave.

Are you saying Sky 55 is "crap"?!

Yes there has been some ugly buildings rising or have risen but when we have to compare this to "crap" buildings to make it look mediocre that means its bad!.

The other thing that really ticks me off about this is the continual trend of new buildings having old looking design...(Park tower, Columbian, Elysian...blah,blah,blah). We need to break the mold of this terrible concept and I think this is why everyone on this thread has or SHOULD have a "hatred" for this building. Chicago needs to maintain its reputation for progressive architecture and puking up crap like this doesn't help and only hurts.

Am I saying Sky55 is crap? Yes. I thought I made it clear. I didnt have to do anything to make it look mediocre since I didnt deem it such. I didnt design the thing. And no, everyone should not share hatred, whether it be this building or another. The moment everyone agrees on a building is the moment Trump lets us see whats under his comb-front. Not everyone is in love with Fordham Spire or Trump and oddly enough Waterview. One building is not going to set Chicago back 50 years in the world of architecture and thats even with the brown structures that litter River North. This tower is by no means groundbreaking blah blah blah, nor does it HAVE to be. It is what it is. You dont like it, fine. Move on.

This building should not go up. They can do better! This might be fine on the gold coast, but not on michigan ave.

This is where Im getting lost. Everyone's saying move it. Is it all of a sudden going to look better because its in the Gold Coast or the South Loop instead of North Michigan? No. It'll still look the same, have the same features everyone seems to hate. Im not understanding at all. And I think they could do better also but this is far from garbage (not quoting you UrbanSophist). Look, when you try to be on the forefront of modern architecture you end up looking like Shanghai. When it comes naturally and is engrained in city culture you get Chicago. This ONE building is not going to change that.

Well since it involves Farwell and not an empty parking lot, I think it's alright to fight it. Maybe SOAR can get in on this action :D

Well since it involves Farwell and not an empty parking lot, I think it's alright to fight it. Maybe SOAR can get in on this action :D

Thats the only problem I have with it.

I agree with spyguy. I just do not want to see another mistake on michigan ave like 700 n michigan the eddie bauer building. This one is a big mistake. What happened to high class on this street ? Why can they create another block like where tiffany is on.

Right... because the Penninsula is the paragon of fucking forward-thinking architecture. Are you kidding me? This is one of the WORST buildings on the mile saved ONLY by excellence at street-level. They couldn't have possibly crammed a nicer hotel into a shittier building if they tried harder than they already did.

As far as the Ritz goes... it's fine. No, it's not forward thinking, no, it's not ground-breaking, but, yes, it is very Michigan Avenue. I think it will do a good job of fitting in with the general aura that people expect on Michigan while contrasting the post-modern and contemporary adjacencies of the Omni to the North and Crate and Barrel to the south, respectively.

Well come to think of it... North Michigan avenue really isn't known for its great architecture... Excluding Big John, 900, and the Park Hyatt Tower... the rest of the buildings on the mag mile are rather blah.

^ That's why its important to start a good trend and not let a crappy tower go up...

And I would feel better about the building if it didn't involve Farwell.

One building is not going to set Chicago back 50 years in the world of architecture and thats even with the brown structures that litter River North. This tower is by no means groundbreaking blah blah blah, nor does it HAVE to be. It is what it is. You dont like it, fine. Move on

Yes it is only "one building" but I thought the same thing when they built the Park Tower and now years later that "one building" has been knocked up and and guess what...shes having triplets! Now there are a bunch of Park Tower Jr.s in the works. How many more?!...Park Towers such a slut! :)



But see you missed my point completely. All I was trying to say was: We have a bad habit myself included on this forum of allowing ourselves when buildings such as The Ritz come along that do not have inspiring or creative architecture to compare it to less pleasing architectual buildings arleady built, proposed, or U/C. By doing this we are lowering our standard on future highrises for Chicago if we only look to subpar highrises of the past for justification of mediocre buildings in the present.
Fine...Now I will "Move on" :)

Well come to think of it... North Michigan avenue really isn't known for its great architecture... Excluding Big John, 900, and the Park Hyatt Tower... the rest of the buildings on the mag mile are rather blah.

What are you talking about! North Michigan Ave. has Big John, the Wrigley Building, the Tribune Tower, that other one close to BJ that used to have the beacon on top.....and many...many more jewels!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't forget Intercontinental, Palmolive like you said, Crowne Plaza, the Drake, Lewis.

In my opinion, the Allerton Hotel is another gem, especially since the renovation a number of years ago. Beautiful brick facade, and great "crown" of towers at the top -- fits its (relatively) new moniker/brand.

Just to show that we could get more out a "Residences at ___" Ritz-Carlton, here is their proposal for Toronto, I think designed by KPF

http://img453.imageshack.us/img453/2856/imagepreview2zy.jpg
http://img453.imageshack.us/img453/5007/torontohotelhome1nm.jpg
http://img453.imageshack.us/img453/9088/050413ritzcarlton2502st.jpg

Then look at what we are getting (include the fact about Farwell) and don't tell me that you don't feel shortchanged. Even by the music of each website, you can tell TO's is more vibrant while ours is all stuffy and taken from the soundtrack of Beauty and the Beast or something :)

Edit:
Philly

http://img454.imageshack.us/img454/2721/465643979ti.jpg

Here are a few more renderings for the Ritzy-Ritz

East Elevation
https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2006/03/447137.jpg

Southern Elevation
https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2006/03/447138.jpg

You can kind of guestimate the height of this building by comparing it to the Omni (City Place) next door which is 470'

I still don't see all the stink about the so-called "destruction" of Farwell. We won't lose the facade, and that's all that matters.

What are you talking about! North Michigan Ave. has Big John, the Wrigley Building, the Tribune Tower, that other one close to BJ that used to have the beacon on top.....and many...many more jewels!!!!!!!!!!!

Yea, I missed a few gems... I still consider most of the structures to be sub par... AOA building, 777, Marriot, 980, Peninsula, Omni Hotel, Water Tower, Olympia Center... and the rest are squat retail buildings.

I still don't see all the stink about the so-called "destruction" of Farwell. We won't lose the facade, and that's all that matters.

Word. Now lets say we got one of those designs in the likes of Toronto and Philly (which does look better), would the gutting of the Farwell still be an issue? Or would some of you let it slide because the design isnt mediocre? And for some reason if something like that was proposed for North Michigan in that area, I think I'd still be hearing things like "its nice but it doesnt fit the area" or "lets move it to the South Loop". Damned if you do, damned if you dont.

And btw, thanks Bvictor for the renderings. Whether we like this building or not, I think its safe to say we appreciate them.

This tower appears to be in the same ilk as the Pinnacle & Fordham in River North - squat beige concrete towers with singular PoMo crowns to serve as branding. Enough of the beige concrete, with or without a bit of color at the top.

The gutting of the Farwell is still an issue. My issue is less with the architecture than the massing scheme: towers should not rise sheer from Michigan Avenue. None of the world's premier retail streets sit in a dark canyon of skyscrapers -- not even Fifth Avenue. Retail needs light, and more importantly sunlight. Retail architects know this and fill their buildings with skylights, clerestories, uplights, and spotlights to get people in a bright, spending mood. Almost all postwar towers along Michigan have been set back from the street; the prewar buildings, like the Farwell, are of lower scale.
.pc

truth is that a flashy new glass building wouldnt mix welll with the older building at its bace. it would remind me of the abomination at soldier field, old mixed with new.

I like this tower....I guess it gives the city than blend of old and new.....I think it gives the skyline some character....as opposed to some of those tacky "all new money" glassy boxes in asian skylines.

I think this kind of towers offer a nice contrast to some of the more contemporary towers.....just imagine a perspective of a tower like this one with the profile of...say....the Sofitel....angled facade nearby.....gotta luv it!

This tower appears to be in the same ilk as the Pinnacle & Fordham in River North - squat beige concrete towers with singular PoMo crowns to serve as branding.

Okay, I'm not defending Pinnacle or Fordham... they're both VERY average towers... but, one thing they're not is 'squat'!!!

My issue is less with the architecture than the massing scheme: towers should not rise sheer from Michigan Avenue. None of the world's premier retail streets sit in a dark canyon of skyscrapers -- not even Fifth Avenue.

Point well taken. But... I feel like Michigan is already well protected from canyoning by the structures that already exist. Sure, oldies like Farwell are in danger of facadectomies and towers rising without setback; but, there are pleanty of structures along the Mile that are new enough that they're not in danger of having anything put in their place any time soon. Thus, I think buildings like this will provide a nice texture as you progress down Michigan and see the towers dotting, not crowding, the street. There's nothing wrong with towers and low-rise alternating and it would take a lot of demo to even get to the point where there was an even mix of low and high.

Okay, I'm not defending Pinnacle or Fordham... they're both VERY average towers... but, one thing they're not is 'squat'!!!


Yeah, okay - what I meant to say was that these aren't pencil towers.

And enough with the beige concrete already - jeeez!

And enough with the beige concrete already - jeeez!
I will certainly agree with you on that sentiment. I would like to see more white. As bad as 55 East Erie turned out, its saving grace is certainly the color scheme: the white with dark tinted windows is very subdued and blends in well. If we must have buildings that aren't masterpieces (and sadly, we must) then the least they can do is blend in to the background.

The height of the Ritz Carlton Residences is....

Roof: 476'-4"

Top of Structure: 494'-11"

i just saw an ad on the chicago social magazine talking about units. Is this building approved?

The height of the Ritz Carlton Residences is....

Roof: 476'-4"

Top of Structure: 494'-11"

^ Alright! It makes it into the World Almanac

Hate to bring this post back from page 5, but the building isn't dead so...

This article deals with the Ritz-Carlton Residences (http://lynnbecker.com/repeat/farwell/farwell.htm)

Is landmarks preservation in Chicago going the way of the dinosaur?

We may only be starting to get a handle on 2007, but already the Commission on Chicago Landmarks is scheduled to take a Thursday vote that stands to reverse the results of decades of struggle, and leave all but a handful of Chicago's finest buildings open to demolition.

Do I exaggerate? I wish that I were. Please read on.

The proposal is so simply stated as to be almost innocuous:

"Proposed dismantlement, demolition and facade reconstruction of the
Farwell Building as part of a new 40-story, 86-unit residential
condominium tower"

Yet that sentence carries the seed of the mass destruction of much of Chicago's most historic architecture.

The Farwell Building is a designated landmark. Designed by architect Philip Maher, it is a Farwell Building in Chicagobeautiful, classically-styled, 1920's high-rise, clad in Indiana limestone, and engagingly ornamented in a mixture of French Revival and Art Deco styles. It's one of the last survivors of the time when Michigan Avenue earned the nickname "Boul Mich" by being lined by restrained, neoclassical buildings of posh elegance and the highest standards of design.

For those that don't want to read more, they want to demolish a landmarked building to put up a parking garage

There is more in the article (including preceded differences between this and the Legacy project, but the important part is : The Farwell proposal is on the agenda fo the Commission on Chicago Landmarks meeting for this Thursday, January 4th. It will take place beginning at 12:45 P.M. in the Cook County Commission Board Room, 118 N. Clark.

This is still a terrible project all around, so I hope they are not allowed to demolish the building and either have to revise their plans or scrap the entire project.

^Agreed. I never liked this project to begin with. Now I have even more reason not to.

Not like I have the money..but I'm sure I wouldn't drop $3m condo so I can sit on my balcony and wave to a different hotel guest every night. Yes, high rise living isn't exactly private, but this thing isn't more than 10 feet away from the Omni. Waaay too close, dude!

Lynn Becker wrote a column mentioning this issue back in October.

Will Chicago's Landmark Farwell Building be Peeled Like A Grape?

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5831/865/320/terrafarwell.jpg
The 600 block of North Michigan Avenue is in for some big changes, some temporary, some grand, and one a potential time bomb that could decimate Chicago's rich architectural legacy.

First the temporary. Just as the leaves turn crimson just before they fall, the building formerly housing the entrance to the Terra Museum of American Art on went red over the last week to house a "pop-up" store for Project Red, the initiative launched by rocker Bono to help bankroll the Global Fund to Fight Aids. The store, which sold merchandise tied in with the campaign, is the subject of an interesting article on this archenewsnow webpage.

The Museum, founded by industrialist Daniel Terra to showcase his extensive collection of American Art, closed in 2004, eight years after Terra's death, following an acrimonious and ultimately unsuccessful battle to move the museum to Washington, D.C. The property was put on the block, and ultimately acquired by Prism Development, which plans to erect The Ritz-Carlton Residences, a 40 story tower designed by architect Lucien Lagrange containing just 86 high-end residences. The building site includes two other parcels. To north, there's a small structure that is best known for being the long-time home of the city's legendary Stuart Brent booksellers. (A Starbucks now claims the space.)

More crucially, another parcel to the south contains the Farwell Building, an officially designated Chicago landmark, a graceful classical 1920's high-rise in Indiana limestone, designed by architect Philip Maher, that is one of the few suriving examples of the kind of elegance that dominated Michigan Avenue before it was overrun by often ghastly new construction such as 600 North Michigan and the Marriott Hotel.

The Farwell is the center of a truly astounding proposal - one that somehow actually made it onto the Commission on Chicago Landmarks' October agenda - calling for the "Proposed dismantlement, demolition and facade reconstruction of the Farwell Building." In plain English, this means that Prism Development is seeking to remove the facades from the Farwell, demolish the building, erect a new structure and face it with the old Farwell facades, which would then have blind windows fronting a parking garage.

It's hard to decide which is more outrageous - that any developer would even attempt such a proposal, or that a Chicago architect of the caliber of Lucien Lagrange, who makes his home in one of the city's few surviving Louis Sullivan buildings, would allow himself to be aligned with such a project. The proposal was yanked from the October Landmarks Commission agenda at the last minute, and is not on the November agenda as currently published. Still, it's inevitable Prism will be back, and this much is certain: if the Commission gives Prism its way, it means the effective end of landmark protection in the city of Chicago.

posted by Lynn Becker at 12:11 AM

Judging from the renderings on the previous page, I don't believe there are balconies on the north facade of the building (closest to the Omni).

I think this project is very mediocre, but, my only real beef with it as currently proposed is that there's no setback on the east. It's going to stick further out on the streetwall than most of what's on North Michigan.

From Lynn Becker's blog
http://arcchicago.blogspot.com/

Proposal to Demolish Farwell Fails

In a major upset, at this afternoon's session of the Chicago Landmarks Commission, a proposal to strip the landmark Farwell building of its facade, demolish the building, and reinstall the facade on another structure appears to have failed. Chairman David Mosena announced the final vote as 4 in favor of the proposal, 3 against, and 1 abstention. He announced that the motion failed, and called on a representative from the city's Corporate Counsel office, who reaffirmed that the majority of all commissioners was required. Including the abstaining commissioner, eight were present. There was no majority, and so the motion failed. We will keep you on top of how this plays out.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/newsroom/chi-070104landmarks,1,7941689.story?coll=chi-news-hed

Landmarks panel rejects Mag Mile project

By Johnathon E. Briggs
Tribune staff reporter
Published January 4, 2007, 5:28 PM CST

In a decision that shocked yet pleased preservationists, the Commission on Chicago Landmarks today rejected a plan to dismantle a historic building on the Magnificent Mile and convert it to luxury condominiums.

"What a fabulous outcome," said Ward Miller, vice president of Logan Square Preservation and one of about 10 people who spoke against the proposal at the commission's meeting.

"I'm shocked," said Jonathan Fine, president of the advocacy group Preservation Chicago.

With four commissioners in favor, three opposed and one abstention, the proposal by Chicago-based Prism Development Co. failed to garner enough votes to move forward to the City Council

The vote was particularly surprising because it had the backing of city officials from the Landmarks Division of the Department of Planning and Development.

City officials and Prism had argued that the 1920s Farwell Building at 664 N. Michigan Ave. was so badly deteriorated that only a radical rehabilitation could save the aging landmark.

Under the proposal, Prism would have removed the limestone façade, demolished the 11-story building, erected a new structure and reapplied the facade. A mixed-use, 40-story development would have been constructed adjacent.

Commsioner Lisa Willis said she could not support the plan because not enough of the building's original façade would be saved. According to the proposal, only up to 65 percent of the façade would remain.

"The integrity of this landmark would be sorely compromised by this proposal," Willis said.

Commission Chairman David Mosena voted in favor of the proposal. He said it was necessary to provide an economic engine that would cover the cost of repairs. The planned development would feature office and retail space, parking and 86 luxury condos to be managed by Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co.

"I support it because there are not economic opportunities in place to do what is necessary to salvage a building like this," Mosena said.

Prism officials were not immediately available to comment on the vote or if they would seek to contest it.

Under the city's landmarks ordinance, they could seek a re-hearing before the commission and make a case for "economic hardship," arguing that the existing building was in such poor shape, there was no way they could make the project work other that what they had proposed.

Commissioners voted after about two hours of debate and discussion. One member abstained.

Designed by architect Philip Maher, the Farwell is a legally protected city landmark ornamented in a mixture of French revival and art deco styles. The building is the former site of the Terra Museum of American Art.

Preservationists had contended that if Prism got the go-ahead to do its project, the decision would mark the effective end of landmark protection in Chicago.

Fine warned commissioners before the vote that approval of the plan would set a "terrible, terrible precedent."

"What's next for the Carson Pirie Scott building?" he asked, referring to the historic Loop department store designed by Louis Sullivan. "Will it too become a parking garage?"

Earlier this year, Carson's owner, Bon-Ton Stores Inc., announced it would shutter its State Street flagship next spring, saying it was too expensive to operate. The building is to be redeveloped as a combined retail-office property.

This is fabulous news!

The idea that a building on the Mag Mile can't be profitably restored just doesn't pass the smell test.

One word... Yay!

It is good that this project was rejected. It is good to have some truly vintage buildings on North Michigan Avenue....and not simply limestone panels of a vintage building glued to the exterior of a parking podium.

These scattered older buildings on Michigan Avenue help to give it some character and variety, differentiating it from downtown Houston, Phoenix, or anyplace else.

Furthermore, if the Ritz-Carleton project does not get built, that frees up some purchasers of high-end units. Those persons will take their deposit money elsewhere, thus helping to get other projects built that are more worthy, including the Calatrava project, the Mandarin Oriental, and others.

..

Well, with 12-14 million $ worth of facade work required, and no TIF, I would be interested to see that business plan.

what percentage of the building's worth is that?
also is that old building owned by the developer?
they could use the profits from the ritz or other project to take care of that,
i dont see the problem, the building will pay for itself,
imagine the rent that sucker generates and GENERATED since it was built, to let it languish after taking all the profit from it is criminal,
i think this building has earned restoration.
you have to reinvest your money from real estate, its stupid to just leach off all the money and then let it languish and demolish it,
well atleast in my opinion,
some federal and state funds should be available to restore it as well,

This is fabulous news!

The idea that a building on the Mag Mile can't be profitably restored just doesn't pass the smell test.

Exactly. Just consider the Blackstone Hotel, and it's on South Michigan Avenue.

..

The Blackstone was purchased at auction for the ridiculous price of 22 million with an 18 million TIF commitment from the City.

If a future purchaser of the Farwell Building gets as good a deal, then perhaps a renovation project could be viable.

But, the way it stands now, the building is a hopeless wreck (from what I can gather from the available information), and a realistic renovation scheme is not at all evident.

The problem with the Farwell is not so much that the fastening system for the limestone cladding is failing, it is that the masonry back-up is a poor quality structural clay tile that is an entirely unsuitable base to rehang the stone panels with a new fastening system.

So, remove the facade and replace the tile with concrete block, right?

The problem here is that all of the interior finishes (much loved by preservationists) are also attached to the structural clay tile on the other side. In order to gut out and replace the tile block, the interior finishes would have to be removed and replaced in most areas. This one of many contigencies that will bedevil this building's redevelopment.


How good is the interior? Is it something worth restoring? I wonder if it would be possible to grout the clay block to strengthen it. Does this have a steel frame too? Maybe the façade should be removed. I think the parking garage idea is just the poison pill in this plan.


I've seen some houses in Gary, Indiana that were built out of this hollow clay block and then stuccoed over. The stucco has fallen off of these unoccupied places, and they look awful. I guess this clay was cheaper to lay, maybe because it was lighter than concrete block. I've wondered about this stuff. It seems like it was a fad material that was used for a while, but no more.

Lynn Becker had some interesting quotes from Lucien Lagrange that I'm surprised no other website mentioned. This seems like the real reason for the demolition of the Farwell.

Full post: http://lynnbecker.com/repeat/farwell/farwell.htm#20070222

2. At no time, however, has anyone claimed that the structure of the Farwell Building, itself, is unsound - only the facades.

5. Lucien Lagrange, the project architect, explained the situation very honestly at the January Landmarks Commission hearing:

"The issue we are dealing with," he said, "is a very small site. . . The Terra Museum, itself, not the building, is 4,500 square feet, so we're dealing with a very, very small floor plate. . . . The Ritz-Carlton Residences requires 30 large residences, so we had to go over the Terra site to accomplish that, because what was left [after setbacks along Michigan and Erie] was 3,500 square feet, was too small."

Lagrange said that without the Farwell, only 15 cars could be squeezed onto each parking floor, "so we would have twelve floors of parking, very, very inefficent . . The cost would be twice, well more than twice" what it would be if Prism can demolish the Farwell, which would then allow for a total of 28 cars per floor.

..

If ultimately the Ritz-Carlton Residences cannot make it work at this location, will the entire project be scrapped or will the developer just find an alternate location?

I would expect the whole thing to go away if the Ritz doesn't happen. In an urban setting (Chicago), projects are typically taylor-made for their site - you can't just pack up an idea and move it somewhere else and expect it to work.

That's a shame. This is way better than any of Lucien's faux-Parisian stuff. If they use limestone (unlikely), it could be an instant classic.

That's a shame. This is way better than any of Lucien's faux-Parisian stuff. If they use limestone (unlikely), it could be an instant classic.


:bash: :ohno: :bash: :nuts: :nuts: :bash: :ohno: :bash:

I'd be perfectly happy if this project completely died. The architecture is a step up from the junk that has polluted much of the skyline, the 86 units are meaningless on Michigan Avenue, and the 2-3 spaces per unit don't do much for me. And this is all without mentioning Farwell.

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/1927/ritz5lt9.jpg
http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/5716/ritz6zn2.jpg
http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/6422/ritz2vq5.jpg
http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/8871/ritz4ip7.jpg

Most importantly
http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/7840/ritz1ef6.jpg
:puke:

Ignoring the Farwell situation for a moment, yes, I do like this tower actually. The massing is nice when it includes a Farwell-sized block at the base, and I love the crown. I have not seen a better example of Art Deco proportions in the last 60 years. Lagrange is refining his craft here.

That said, I do not support the gutting of the Farwell block to reskin a new parking podium.

Well is it a requirement to have 2-3 parking spaces per unit, because then they could easily make a parking podium and not include the Farwell in it.

..

Well is it a requirement to have 2-3 parking spaces per unit, because then they could easily make a parking podium and not include the Farwell in it.

No, there's no requirement at all. AFAIK, the developers could go completely car-free. However, the idea of a garage adds appeal for some buyers, and the 2-3 parking spaces/unit adds value to the units regardless of whether you own a car or not.

I think that's what the developers will end up doing. They will vastly reduce the scope of the modifications to Farwell, settling for a restoration/re-use as lesser-value units or rentals. The # of parking spaces will be reduced and the parking will be confined to a podium at the base of the new building. This is basically Preservation Chicago's recommendation.

Either that, or Farwell will be sold to somebody else.

BTW - if the Farwell Building is renovated, they absolutely NEED to install some fricking central air. I'm tired of window units defacing beautiful old buildings.

Actually, ardecila, that's incorrect. According to the CZO, DX-16 districts (of which this project is) require 1.1 spaces per unit when those units are less than 1,600 square feet and 1.5 spaces per unit when greater than 1,600 square feet.

The only exception is if the total number of spaces required were to total less than fifty, then the parking could be eliminated altogether in favor of available street-parking.

..

^^ Prism owns the Farwell currently, therein lies the problem.

A. Special Meeting of the Commission:

FARWELL BUILDING WARD 42
664 N. Michigan Avenue

Review of Revised Pre-Permit Submission and Recommendation to
City Council to Approve the Dismantlement, Demolition, Repair
and Reconstruction Pursuant to Sec. 2-120-770 of the Municipal Code

Date: Thursday, March 8, 2007
Location: Cook County Commission Board Room, 118 N. Clark St., 5th Floor
Time: 9:00 a.m.

-----

Anyone know if Brendan Reilly has any clear opinion on matters like Farwell? Maybe by next week Natarus will be gone...

..

http://chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=24086

Hanig's on Michigan Ave. to close if project OKd

March 02, 2007
By Lorene Yue

A longtime Michigan Avenue tenant may learn as soon as Thursday whether his store’s days are numbered.

Peter Hanig, who owns the Hanig’s Footwear chain started by his father in 1944, will close up shop at 660 N. Michigan Ave. if the Ritz-Carlton condo tower gets green-lighted.

...

A spokeswoman for the Ritz-Carlton project said “significant changes” have been made and a different proposal will be presented at Thursday’s meeting. She declined to provide details and said the plans were still evolving.

..

http://lynnbecker.com/repeat/farwell/farwellfix.htm
In some cases, such as the Farwell, the actual value of the property was profoundly reduced, once the costs of facade restoration were compared to the market value of the structure+land.


You are forgetting some important facts of building ownership, building sales, and development. Specifically, the landmarking and protection of the Farwell Building has not reduced "the value of the property." That's because any presumed "value of the property" should take into account the historic building on the site.

When a party purchases a site with an historic building, that party does not own a vacant lot. That party owns the historic building. Land use law, as reaffirmed by the Supreme Court, makes its very clear that municipalities have every right to protect buildings to serve the well-being of the citizenry.

Any "reduced value" in the minds of the owners presumes that there was a "future value," and their minds would base this future value on the ability to demolish. Well, as we all know the futures market is anything but a sure thing.

If the property owners and potential purchasers of any historic site, the Farwell included, make a bad business decision and ignore the realities of development, then the rest of the citizens should not pay the price for the mistake.

The Farwell site can be developed with preservation of the building. Sure, there would be no "demolition windfall" for the Terra Foundation or for Prism Development, but those two parties are absolutely NOT entitled to such a windfall.

..

Why don't you address the issues I raise instead of just knocking down some imaginary anti-preservationist strawman?

I don't consider you to be anti-preservationist. I was just trying to give a thoughtful answer to your thoughtful question. Sorry if I seemed sanctimonious.

Here is another comment that is a response to some (not you, Loopy) who have said, "Well, the panels will be put back. The Farwell will look the same, won't it? So why is this a bad project?"

Here's why. North Michigan Avenue can still, though just barely, give you the feeling that you are walking through an historic city with a mix of old and new. That sort of feeling can't be gotten in Anycity, USA. The limestone buildings on North Michigan Avenue give it some of its character.

When you tear down a three-dimensional building and then glue its exterior panels onto the exterior of a parking garage, you are creating a fake front. It is a visual phoniness that cheapens the experience of the street.

Do they have parking garages on the Champs-Elysee? On Fifth Avenue? Of course not. And we should not have parking garages on North Michigan Avenue.

We should treat this North Michigan Avenue with great care. We should be able to look at the Farwell Building and be able to say "..this is a real building." That will pay off in the long run. A different project can be created for the Farwell site.

Adding to the above points is that the approval sets a bad precedent for doing this sort of demolition-then-panel-pasting-onto-new-construction to other historic buildings around the city. It also sets a bad precedent for double-dipping on votes by the Landmarks Commission.

^ I completely agree.

..

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-0703060071mar06,1,1476209.story?coll=chi-newslocalchicago-hed
New plan for site of landmark
City officials back bid to raze building, then restore facade
By Johnathon E. Briggs
Tribune staff reporter

March 6, 2007

Chicago planning officials are throwing their support behind a new proposal to dismantle a landmark building on the Magnificent Mile and rebuild it as part of a luxury condo development.

Prism Development Co. is expected to present a revised plan at a special meeting Thursday of the Commission on Chicago Landmarks for removing the limestone facade of the 1920s Farwell Building at 664 N. Michigan Ave., former site of the Terra Museum of American Art.

Prism would then demolish the 11-story building, erect a new structure and reapply the facade.

Unlike its first proposal, which the commission rejected in January by a narrow margin, Prism now proposes using four floors of the Farwell Building for parking, rather than six.

There would be retail space on the first and second floors, office space on floors three to five and residential parking on floors six through nine.

By raising parking from the third floor to the sixth floor, parked or moving vehicles would not be visible from the public way, said Maureen Mullady, spokeswoman for the development project.

But the changes have done little to appease critics of the plan, who have said it would turn the beaux-arts/art deco building into a multilevel parking garage for the condo tower.

Preservationists are also miffed that Prism is getting a second review and contend that the substance of the new plan is the same as the old one.

"It's phrased as a `revised proposal,' but that so-called revision is simply a pretext," Chicago architecture writer Lynn Becker wrote on his blog. "The substance of the proposal remains identical: the dismantlement, demolition, repair and reconstruction of the Farwell."

Preservationists contend that allowing the rebuilding would make a mockery of Chicago's landmarks ordinance, which calls for historic buildings to be preserved in their entirety. They fear approval of the plan would set a terrible precedent.

City officials argue that it is an economically viable way-- maybe the only one--to save the aging Farwell, designed by architect Philip Maher.

"I think the proposal is definitely improved," said Brian Goeken, deputy commissioner of the Planning Department's landmarks division. "We honestly don't see what is the other solution here."

The reuse is part of a project that includes an adjacent 40-story development designed by Chicago architect Lucien Lagrange that would encroach onto 33 percent of Farwell's original footprint. The development would have office and retail space, parking and 86 luxury condos dubbed the Ritz-Carlton Residences.

In January, the original proposal failed to garner the necessary majority of votes from the Landmarks Commission to move forward to the City Council, which would ultimately approve the project.

Of the eight commissioners in attendance, four were in favor, three opposed and one abstained. A ninth commissioner, John Baird, was absent.

This time around, some preservationists view Baird and the commissioner who abstained, Ernest Wong, as potential swing votes.

Commissioner Lisa Willis said at the time that she could not support the plan because not enough of the building's facade would be saved.

Developers still propose to take down the building's facade and reassemble it on an entirely new frame, but Mullady said the new proposal aims to save the maximum amount of facade as well as the mansard roof.

Still, Michael Moran, vice president of Preservation Chicago, said he is angered the proposal is being considered at all.

hey, better than nothing,
i think in newyorkcity they would just raze the building.

i think its not super terrible,
its worse to destroy a buliding wholecloth,
this way they are atleast saving the skin,

But they could save the whole thing.

No, in New York they would not try to provide this much parking for the residents. What is it, 2 spaces per unit?

I still hate this project.

I just hate how this unworthy project is going to steal customers from other projects in the same price range nearby (680 N RUSH especially), plus the architecture SUCKS.

No, in New York they would not try to provide this much parking for the residents. What is it, 2 spaces per unit?

How much parking would they provide in NYC?
Most new projects have no parking right?
Imagine how much a parking spot in Manhatten would cost?
A nonstacked parking spot.

I hope Chicago or atleast parts of it reach the point
where owning a car is not realistic or just illogical.
These parking spots WILL be converted to living spaces eventually,
imagine how much money you could make selling off your parking spots
to developers in the future who make them into condos, or just doing it yourself
when the market is right, you would make alot of money on that.

I just hate how this unworthy project is going to steal customers from other projects in the same price range nearby (680 N RUSH especially), plus the architecture SUCKS.

That is an excellent point. Approving bad projects like this one not only gives us a bad project. It drains potential purchasers away from better projects elsewhere in the neighborhood.

By the way, any of you who wish to say a few words against this project, please go to the special meeting tomorrow, Thursday, March 8th at 9:00 AM. The location is in the Cook County Board chambers, located on the 5th floor of the County Building at 118 N. Clark.

It is very easy for a private citizen to speak at the meeting. All you need to do is sign in on a slip of paper at the entrance to the chambers and give the slip to the Landmarks Commission staffer who will be at the entrance. You'll have to wait for a while, of course, but your comments will be welcome and respected.

See you at the meeting!

..

I can't believe how magnificent that place is. Now I know what all the fuss is about opposing this project since I've never seen that before. Great pictures, and hopefully this beautiful place can be restored and used properly instead of this ritz crap project.

^umm. I think your confused that's not the Farwell that's just an old theater in Detroit they now use for parking. He was just using it as an example of what will become the Farwell, trust me if the interior of the Farwell looked like that there would be no way it would be made into a parking garage:)

..

haha, I'm stupid as hell then. Maybe next time I'll have something not so worthless to contribute.

Skyline

Farwell focus of special landmarks meeting
March 8, 2007
By FELICIA DECHTER Staff Writer

As they did in January, preservationists were planning to protest the planned razing of the Mag Mile's historic Farwell building at a special meeting March 8 of the Commission on Chicago Landmarks.

At the meeting, Prism Development will unveil a tweaked plan for the building at 660-664 N. Michigan Ave., they say varies from the proposal the commission narrowly voted against two months ago.

Yet Michael Moran, vice president of Preservation Chicago, said the "supposedly new proposal" is not really new at all.

"It's a Farwell Fraud," said Moran. "Sadly, Preservation Chicago has learned that there actually is no new proposal, but rather a rehashing of the earlier bad plan."

Prism Development, located on Michigan Avenue, seeks to build a 40-story condominium tower, The Ritz-Carlton Residences at 664 N. Michigan Ave., with retail on the first and second floors.

According to Maureen Mullady, spokesperson for the developer, most concerns raised during the Landmarks Commission meeting in January and afterward were about parking. The new proposal suggests retail uses on the first and second floors; office uses on floors three through five; and residential parking on floors six through nine.

This, Mullady said, reduces parking from six floors to four, as parking uses would now occupy only four of the 11 floors. And the lowest level containing parking has been raised from the previous third floor to the sixth floor, so no parked or moving vehicles will be visible from the public way.

The proposal will also save the maximum amount of exterior facade (which is limestone) as well as the mansard roof, Mullady said. "While this is a small portion of the new proposal, I think this is what most people will be interested in," Mullady said earlier this week.

On Monday, Prism met with Preservation Chicago and the Streeterville Organization of Active Residents (SOAR) to show the plan.

"The developer has made some slight changes to the earlier plans that appear to be positive. SOAR will be stating our position within the next few days," Gail Spreen, the group's president, said Monday.

According to Preservation Chicago's Web site, the project needs to be "drastically scaled back," so the new tower no longer encroaches onto the Farwell building. A smaller, more slender building should be considered, with only one or two units per floor, rather than the four units originally proposed. The tower should incorporate all parking in its base or underground, the group says.

Preservation Chicago also wants the Farwell building to be preserved in its entirety, incorporated into the project as additional full-floor living units, or sold as a separate office building once the tower project is completed. The group also suggests that the developers restore the façade, do minimal repairs to the interior, and then donate the building to a nonprofit or other civic institution for a large tax deduction.

The Farwell--designed by architect Philip Maher--is one of the few remaining buildings from the 1920s, and features both Art Deco and Classical Revival details. Clad in limestone, the building has ornamental cast stone panels and a slate mansard roof.

The Farwell building was purchased in 1987 by the Terra Foundation to house its art museum, and was granted city landmark status in early 2004, the same year the museum closed its doors.

Although the plan had the support of Alderman Burt Natarus, 42nd, and the Greater North Michigan Avenue Association (with an upper level setback), the commission recently voted against the plan to raze the 11-story building.

David Bahlman, president of Landmarks Illinois, called the whole thing "a mess," and said although there's no doubt the building is in "terrible, terrible condition because of 30 years of deferred maintenance," his group will be at the landmarks meeting to, "speak strongly not in support of the project."

The Commission on Chicago Landmarks meeting will be held at 9 a.m. March 8 in the Cook County Commission Board Room, 118 N. Clark St., 5th floor.

2007 Skyline

Landmark commission OKs radical Farwell preservation

Chicago Sun-Times
March 9, 2007
BY KEVIN NANCE Architecture Critic

For the developer of a new high-rise condo tower on the site of the historic Farwell Building at 664 N. Michigan, the second bite of the apple was considerably sweeter than the first.

After losing a close vote at the Commission on Chicago Landmarks in January, Prism Development Co. presented a slightly revised plan to dismantle, repair and reconstruct the deteriorating 1920s office building at a special commission meeting on Thursday, coming away with an 8-1 win.

"It's not a perfect solution by any means," commission Chairman David Mosena said of the plan, which includes demolishing the Farwell, repairing its crumbling limestone facade off site and reinstalling it on a new steel frame. "It's a radical approach, but the condition of the building calls for a radical solution."

Prism principal Jon Rodgers, whose team had presented its plan as the best hope for saving the ailing Farwell, said he was pleased, adding that he was "committed to conserving and protecting the historic integrity of the building."

In response to concerns expressed at the January meeting, Prism's revised plan calls for four floors of the city landmark, rather than the six originally proposed, to be devoted to parking for the 40-story Ritz-Carlton Residences (which will encroach on one-third of the Farwell's original footprint).

The revision also places the parking floors higher, on levels six through nine, rather than starting on level three as in the original proposal. According to architect Lucien Lagrange, parked cars on those floors will be invisible to pedestrians on the street, thanks in part to lighted ceilings that will be identical to those on the office levels.

Prism's revisions -- along with its argument that about 90 percent of the Farwell's original stone cladding could be preserved by moving it off site, as opposed to only 52 percent if repaired in place -- swayed the commissioners.

They also were satisfied with Prism's assertion that all other potential developments on the site (including an office building and a boutique hotel) were economically unfeasible because of the relatively small floor plate and because, as Planning and Development Commissioner Lori Healey noted, city-sponsored tax increment funding would be unavailable on the Magnificent Mile.

"We were initially highly skeptical of the proposal," said Brian Goeken, Healey's deputy for landmarks. "But we feel this is the best option to preserve the building's historic features."

Preservationists vehemently disagreed, arguing that the commission's decision sets a dangerous precedent that could endanger other city landmarks in the future.

"We cannot sanction the wholesale demolition of a landmark building," said David Bahlman, president of Landmarks Illinois. "We also cannot support a high-rise addition on top of a designated Chicago landmark."

The most emotionally resonant speaker at the meeting was Peter Henig, proprietor of Henig's Footwear on the Farwell's ground floor for the last 30 years. Prism's plan would not only destroy his independent business, he said, but would leave an "ersatz landmark that is really a parking garage" on what amounts to "an urban strip mall with no uniqueness and no sense of community."

knance@suntimes.com

this is terrible news.

^-- And why is that?

The only thing that concerns me is that they think they're going to mask parking program by 'faking' the lighting conditions to match office lighting. The problem is, at night, when those offices go dark, we'll be left with the parking bands lit up like christmas trees - I doubt it will be very convincing.

I know I'm going against the grain on this one, but moving the parking up to the 6th-9th floors seems like a much better compromise.

Perhaps its not ideal, but must we get so worked up? Think how it would have been before, had the Landmarks Committee approved the original version.

Ground floor retail, followed by 2 levels of retail, followed again by 2 office levels. I think that's a reasonable buffer of activity for the street. The parking levels are going to be way up there and nobody will care

Yes, it's better than before. But it is still ridiculous that no one wants to spend the money to keep the building intact when it is on one of the world's great shopping streets where retail/hotel/office/residential are all viable and the unit prices are some of the most expensive in the city for a building that is nothing special, even subpar.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070307.COUNCIL07/TPStory/TPNational/Ontario/


Toronto backs closing loophole in Heritage Act

JENNIFER LEWINGTON
CITY HALL BUREAU CHIEF

In a victory for heritage advocates, Toronto city council has voted to close a loophole that prevents owners of historic buildings from practising "demolition by neglect."

By a vote of 32-2, councillors asked city staff yesterday to set out minimum standards to maintain the features of a heritage-designated building, with a requirement that owners carry out necessary repairs.

If not, the city could do the work and add the bill to the owner's property taxes.

Until now, it has been easy to buy land holding historic buildings, then delay repairs indefinitely until safety concerns become an excuse to raze the property, making way for new development.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/chi-0704130319apr15,1,5389733.story?coll=chi-leisure-utl

Why bad planning = bad preservation

By Blair Kamin
Tribune architecture critic
Published April 15, 2007

Chicago is about to reveal that bad urban planning leads to bad historic preservation -- and a botched cityscape where only the developers win. The case revolves around a plan to awkwardly tether the 11-story Farwell Building, a gracious Beaux-Arts dowager at 664 N. Michigan Ave., to a 40-story condominium tower that will be crammed onto a tiny site. But it has national implications because it is the latest instance of the controversial practice called the "facade-ectomy."

So named because it surgically preserves only the facade of a historic building and attaches it to a new structure, the facade-ectomy has surfaced with rising frequency in recent years, stripping structures across the nation -- cast-iron buildings in Baltimore, red-brick warehouses in San Diego and post-Chicago Fire Victorians -- of everything but their skin.

Often portrayed as historic preservation, the facade-ectomy tends to be something else altogether, merely smoothing the way to building permits for developers who covet the flexibility that comes from clearing historic sites. This is the sort of preservation masquerade about to be visited on the Farwell. Given Chicago's stature as an architectural capital, it will set a terrible example for cities around the nation.

Designs on refinement

Designed by Philip Maher, the Farwell was completed in 1927, an office building with shops that buttressed the quality of the Wrigley Building and other members of North Michigan's architectural A-list. With its street-level swags and mansard roof, the Farwell followed the spirit of Daniel Burnham's plan to transform raucous, turn-of-the-century Chicago into a refined version of "Paris on the Prairie." After 1987, some of its floors provided gallery space for the now-shuttered Terra Museum of American Art, next door at 666 N. Michigan.

But the outside beauty masked an inside problem: the severely corroded underpinning of the building's weathered limestone facade. City officials, who apparently didn't notice the problem before the City Council declared the Farwell an official Chicago landmark in 2004, now cite it as a reason to support a redevelopment plan backed by Prism Development Co. of Chicago and designed by Chicago architect Lucien Lagrange.

The plan draws inspiration from Chicago's biggest facade-ectomy, the rebuilding of the 17-story "Greco-Deco" McGraw-Hill Building at 520 N. Michigan, which made way for the North Bridge shopping mall that opened in 2000. The two-year effort, carried out by North Bridge developer John Buck, peeled thousands of limestone panels off the McGraw-Hill, put them on wood pallets, stored them in an off-site warehouse, repaired and restored them, then put them back on new superstructure at the same site.

It sounds crazy, but it works. Because the city forced Buck to preserve all or part of three of the McGraw-Hill's facades as well as the beguiling Zodiac panels by husband-and-wife sculptors Gwen and Eugene Lux, the McGraw-Hill holds on to its integrity, albeit tenuously. It still looks like a real, stand-alone building, not a structure that has been swallowed into a larger whole. That's the fate's that awaits the Farwell as Chicago slithers down the slippery slope of the facade-ectomy.

As at McGraw-Hill, the Farwell plan calls for dismantling the building's facade, demolishing the underlying structure, restoring and repairing the facade off-site and reapplying it on a new steel frame. The renovated Farwell would be joined to a condo tower that is to rise on land now occupied by the Terra Museum building and the nondescript low-rise that houses Garrett Popcorn.

City officials describe the tower as the economic engine that will revive the Farwell, an argument that has found favor with the Commission on Chicago Landmarks (which approved an altered version of the plan in March after a stunning "no" vote in January) and the City Council's Committee on Historical Landmark Preservation. All that's needed is the inevitable City Council rubber stamp.

A close examination of the plan, however, reveals a far less appealing picture: While the renovated Farwell will indeed look far spiffier than it does today, the developers want to jam it alongside the base of the condo tower and the tower will loom above a third of the Farwell's rooftop. Talk about killing a building with kindness. Lagrange's own elevation drawings make the redeveloped Farwell look like a pathetic footstool.

4 floors of garage

With four floors of the Farwell set to become a parking garage for the tower, more than a third of what originally was a building for people would be turned into a warehouse for cars -- a radical shift in use that would seriously undermine the building's original identity.

Lagrange's tower design is no prize-winner, either: A weak echo of art deco that represents a variation on his theme of mansard roof-topped exercises in architectural nostalgia. With only a nominal setback from North Michigan, his design departs from the civilized custom of placing towers far back the street to preserve its boulevard character. Can you say "canyonization"? This is what you get when you try to cram 10 pounds of building into a 5-pound bag.

Prism and its representatives have repeated with mantralike consistency that theirs is the only plan to save the Farwell, but it ain't necessarily so. Not if you look at a study prepared by Chicago architects Skidmore, Owings & Merrill for Urban Retail Properties, a privately held, Chicago-based developer and manager of major mixed-use developments.

The study proposes combining the Michigan Avenue properties in the Prism deal with land just west at 100 E. Erie St. It's now occupied by the five-story headquarters of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago. Creating this bigger site carves out enough elbow room for a mixed-use complex of parking, shops, a hotel and condominiums but keeps the Farwell in place. That creates numerous benefits for the building -- and the cityscape.

With a low-rise section along Michigan Avenue, the new complex would retain the Farwell's scale rather than overwhelming it. A tower for the condos would be set well back from Michigan Avenue rather than canyonizing the street or overhanging the Farwell. A parking garage would be on Rush Street, where garages for large-scale mixed-use projects typically go. That would allow the development to handle traffic more easily than the narrow alley between the Farwell and the water district building. No parking garage floors would be crammed into the Farwell.

What's more, the proposal would harness the underlying economic value of the water district property, which produces no sales or hotel tax dollars for Chicago even though it is in one of the nation's leading retail and tourism districts. Perhaps it made sense for the water district to build its headquarters near Michigan Avenue 52 years ago. It doesn't now.

The city "is losing money on that site," said Mike Egan, the Chicago development consultant who advised Urban Retail.

Even the water district isn't slamming the door on relocating. "If the right offer were made to us, we probably would look at it very carefully," said district lawyer Frederick Feldman. Ultimately, Egan said, Urban Retail Properties did not try to buy the Farwell from the foundation that controls the Terra Museum because "we thought they were asking too much money."

Superficial

City officials will no doubt dismiss the Skidmore study, citing engineering reports that show that a facade-ectomy will save far more of the Farwell's exterior than fixing the building in place. But no one should confuse this superficial skin job with genuine preservation or even a palatable facade-ectomy like the one that saved McGraw-Hill from Buck's plan to demolish it.

This design reveals that a building can lose its integrity not only by having an inappropriate use crammed inside its ripped-out guts but also by being attached to a larger structure will visually overwhelm it. It also sets a bad precedent, encouraging owners of other landmarks to cite the expense of fixing inevitable maintenance problems as an excuse for making insensitive changes.

The ill-considered compromise begs the question of whether Chicago would be better off letting some of its history go -- provided it could trade up to better buildings, as it did in 1934 when the graceful Art Deco Field Building at 135 S. LaSalle St. replaced the Home Insurance Building of 1884-85, often called the first skyscraper.

"Are we entering into deals that serve neither progressive architecture nor historic preservation?" asked Jonathan Fine, president of Preservation Chicago, a non-profit advocacy group.

Indeed we are. Trouble is, today's buildings are by no means a sure bet to be better than yesterday's. So we slog through the netherworld of facade-ectomies rather than creating a bracing cityscape that vividly juxtaposes what is wholly old with what is wholly new.

http://img370.imageshack.us/img370/7017/28867236xu5.jpg

It's very rare that I disagree with something that Kamin says. But, he's completely off-base on this one. Facadectomies breathe new life into a building that is, for whatever reason, typically failing. If the existing structure was financially feasible and providing benefit to its stakeholders, it's unlikely that it would ever even be considered for redevelopment.

As has been argued in this forum many times, nobody really cares about the interiors of these buildings (save for a few examples where the interior is as memorable as the exterior). If it's the history that we want to preserve, I don't see a problem in realizing that by saving the "image" of that history. Not a reproduced image in the fashion of a faux-classical edifice, but, rather the preservation of the actual materials, the actual bricks and mortar - the actual facade.

http://img370.imageshack.us/img370/7017/28867236xu5.jpg
I can live with the facade-ectomy, but those two [?] structures to the right could go to be replaced by a building of some significance, IMO.

^^ Which they will be, Frumie.

Prism addressed the blank-windows concern by adding active use up to the 5th? floor, about as high as people will actually look. I really don't care about the setback issue, since it's already been shot to hell by Chicago Place and 900 North.

Anybody know when this goes before the City Council?

^You're saying the building Lucien Lagrange designed is significant? It's a variation of the same theme that's destroyed much of the skyline.

Actually, I'm a big fan of the Terra Museum building.

There's an advertisement on the south wall of the Farwell Building for the Ritz-Carlton Residences. It claims 40% sold.

http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/5567/dsc0101nm4.jpg

http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/8636/dsc0103ij8.jpg

THURSDAY, June 7, 2007
33 N. LaSalle, Suite 1600
DRAFT AGENDA:

2:45 p.m.
664 N. Michigan 42nd Ward
(Farwell Building)
Comprehensive plan for the dismantlement, repair and reconstruction of the historic facades of the
Farwell Building

^^nice tower!!:okay:

^^nice tower!!:okay:

Please, don't encourage him to design more buildings like this.
:)

^ I actually don't think it's that bad either. It would be great to see a tower like this pop up in the south loop or far north side- it's just that it doesn't work when it's a parasite on the side of the Farwell on Mich Ave. Still, it's certainly better than the other crap Lagrange regurgitates.

I love it

As far as the facadectomy or whatever of the Farwell building, it is a bit disgraceful, but its some kind of preservation I guess. People can look at a hollowed out version of an old school building and say "so this is what stuff looked like back then". If they do it for the legacy, than why not here. To honor old school architecture while still making money on a development, is a tough thing to do.

The building on its own, is ok. The crown is nice at least. I guess im for this development, but I hope it just turns out like the rendering.

I'm very excited for this to get started. home prices START at 1.25 mil?

who buys these and how ca I do what they do?

any word on this one?

any word on this one?

Yes there is, for better or worse....

Yesterday's Tribune....

INSIDE COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE
Construction set for Ritz-Carlton Residences

BY SUSAN DIESENHOUSE
Published July 11, 2007

With buyers lined up to purchase 33 of the 86 luxury condominiums to be developed as the Ritz-Carlton Residences at 664 N. Michigan Ave., construction is scheduled to start in September, Bruce Schultz, a principal at Prism Development Co., said Tuesday.

The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co. of Chevy Chase, Md., will provide services to
residents and manage the $235 million, 40-story property. Rubloff Residential Properties of Chicago is selling the units.

^^ very cool, thanks.

The devil is in the details when it comes to this sort of thing. In DC they've done a lot of this where the lower portion of a building will have 5 floors with the facade and then there will be 7 more on top with modern glass and steel, sometimes set back a bit. The blending of the old and modern usually looks pretty bad. However, a total facade-ectomy might work.

http://www.suntimes.com/business/roeder/585018,CST-FIN-roeder03.article

Downtown office space on the rise
Highest prices in years bode well for new construction

October 3, 2007
David Roeder

RITZY ALLEY: Prism Development Co., which wants to build the posh Ritz-Carlton condos at 664 N. Michigan, has had plenty of headaches with the project, from battles with preservationists to headwinds from the marketplace. Now along comes another problem that could affect its construction plans that involve gutting the landmark Farwell Building

Yes there is, for better or worse....

Yesterday's Tribune....

INSIDE COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE
Construction set for Ritz-Carlton Residences

BY SUSAN DIESENHOUSE
Published July 11, 2007

With buyers lined up to purchase 33 of the 86 luxury condominiums to be developed as the Ritz-Carlton Residences at 664 N. Michigan Ave., construction is scheduled to start in September, Bruce Schultz, a principal at Prism Development Co., said Tuesday.

The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co. of Chevy Chase, Md., will provide services to
residents and manage the $235 million, 40-story property. Rubloff Residential Properties of Chicago is selling the units.

well its now October and we dont seem any closer on starting this.....:gaah: :gaah: :gaah:

Let's hope it never starts.

I like classic architecture on new buildings, at least a few, not on a lot of buildings, but first, make it tall, and second please don't go cheap on it because it could end up looking really good or really bad.

WTF? Come on' seriously........

Let's hope it never starts.

why?

First, destruction of the Farwell for a glorified parking garage (177 spaces?!).
Second, the design of the actual tower sucks.
Third, the building only has ~80 units, so there is little density gained. And since each unit is so expensive, it takes away potential buyers from better proposals like the Intercontinental.

And specifically, it does not observe the 10th floor setback found along the Avenue.

^^ Um what 10th floor set back are you talking about? There are a lot of buildings that have no setbacks on Michigan.

^^ Um what 10th floor set back are you talking about? There are a lot of buildings that have no setbacks on Michigan.

I was kinda wondering the same thing :dunno:

Construction to start as financing secured. See link:

http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=29278

great....we need another faux-deco tower in this city.

Yup, another [i]Lagrange-designed faux-historicist concrete tower[i]!

Garrett Popcorn location closes after 25 years
Monday, June 16, 2008 | 9:00 AM

A favorite stop for many Chicagoans and visitors to the Magnificent Mile has sold its last tin of popcorn.

The Garrett Popcorn Shop at 670 North Michigan closed over the weekend after 25 years at that location.

The building will be torn down to make way for a new high rise condo complex.

The company is trying to find a new location near Michigan Avenue, but in the mean time, there are four other locations in the city of Chicago.

(Copyright ©2008 WLS-TV/DT. All Rights Reserved.)

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=6207474

Great news, been waiting for that

great....we need another faux-deco tower in this city.

I think its time you move to Nebraska

86 units and 177 parking spots???? This place is awful.

Im not sure if I like the idea of balconies on Michigan Ave.

I think it's great they still build skyscrapers of this style. I wouldn't mind seeing more art deco skyscrapers like Chrysler Building and American International Building in NY getting built today. It's not that I have anything against modern architecture, but hey, you guys also have your new Trump Tower, the Chicago Spire and the Waldorf=Astoria.
After all, no matter how much Dubai, China and other countries build, America is and will always be the only place in the world where you can find skyscrapers with a classic style like this one, so you should be proud of them. =) Then again, I'm not even American so I guess I should shut up about this :D

Also, I love their home page, it's like stepping in to a what-would-be the internet of the 30's!

edit:
Of course, I agree with you they should use stone and not some crappy concrete for this.

If you've seen any other Lagrange buildings, you can only conclude that inferior materials will be used. Architecture ought to reflect the present, not be some cheesy imitation of the past. As one critic put it: "Why copy the past when you can create the future?"

Virtual tour (http://www.theresidenceschicago.com/vqtlarge.html) of The Ritz-Carlton Residences of Chicago.

This is a very good tower!!!
Very goodlooking!!!
And you guys say it looks bad???
You have to see what they build in my country, that is BAD!

I noticed they are tearing down the old building at the corner or Michigan and Erie. Bit of shame if you ask me because a couple of months ago I thought they were renovating it. The impressions suggests something like that too. As no one has posted in here for months, is this project still on?

..

I honestly would rather have the facade in storage permanently instead of having the building endure the utter shame and disrespect of getting plastered to a shit-ass parking garage. What a shame.

@ loopy: thanks for clearing out. Just to put it back up as a cover for a parking garage indeed seems like façadism, I wouldn't have okay'd that if I were the city. Also, isn't that tower going to be real close to the one next to it?

..

Photos from ClaySkyHigh on SSP (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=4192222&postcount=342)
http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o230/SKYSCRAPERKING/picsfebo417.jpghttp://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o230/SKYSCRAPERKING/picsfebo418.jpg


I think this is basically what we're going to end up with. Maybe a little bit nicer.

What the hell is that and where is it?

What the hell is that and where is it?

The Atlantic in Atlanta GA

http://www.theatlanticresidences.com/

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/7262/p1000950y.jpg

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/mag/article.pl?articleId=32044

Mag Mile facing a glitz gap
By: Eddie Baeb June 08, 2009

...Ralph Lauren Corp.'s Club Monaco and Rugby stores nixed tentative deals with Mr. Zucker's firm last year for spaces in the new Ritz-Carlton, he says.

This kind of consumer architecture can be found anywhere. It's kinda nice to look at a building and recognize it as a Chicago building. I can see one in Kansas City would be happy with something like this, but Magnificent Mile Chicago?

The timing just seems terribly, terribly bad for this project. I know they knew this when they wantonly destroyed the Farwell, too. These bastards better deliver.

It's the same deal with LP2520. Demo, demo, demo, and then nothing but the sound of birds chirping and an empty lot. Except that instead of Farwell, Cabrini Hall is gone.

June 12th 2009

http://www.izipik.com/images/200906/12/los2wcly18k4myslr1-4.jpg

http://www.izipik.com/images/200906/12/lxib9jjmqlh4mmcrp2-5.jpg

http://www.izipik.com/images/200906/12/m8ko0liwygarn65cfa-6.jpg

Ritz construction webcam (http://69.198.70.194/view/index.shtml)

http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/770/ritzresidenceschicagomi.jpg
http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/3061/ritzresidenceschicagolu.jpg
http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/2427/ritzresidenceschicagobo.jpg
http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/2381/ritzresidenceschicagomib.jpg
http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/8554/ritzresidenceschicagomiv.jpg

http://rublogg.com/?p=708

Ground Breaking News at The Ritz Carlton Residences, Chicago, Magnificent Mile
July 13th, 2009

The Ritz-Carlton Residences, Chicago prepares to ceremonially break ground on a spectacular project that will grace Michigan Avenue’s skyline. Demand for The Residences at the Ritz-Carlton has been strong. With construction financing in place for the development, The Ritz-Carlton Residences, Chicago is 45% sold with 49 units remaining for sale. Designed by architect, Lucien Lagrange, The Residences will feature 88 luxury residences within a 40 story tower building, located at 664 North Michigan Avenue. Lagrange incorporates the art moderne look of the 1930s in the building’s exterior which will be adorned with flying buttresses, carved panels, and a crown of lighted art glass. The Building’s tenth floor – will feature The Landmark Club, a private club designed by Darcy Bonner that will redefine standards of luxury and service. Staffed and managed by The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, the club level will allow residents to enjoy amenities such as a grand salon, dining room, screening room, billiards room, wine cellar, fitness center and spa along with numerous other amenities and services.

:applause: @ construction financing in place

I don't remember reading about the "crown of lighted art glass" at the top. Me thinks it's going to look less like Chagall, and more like brightly-lit finger painting. Could just be the rendering.

very beautiful building ! :)cheers for chicago...!

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/3661/ritzresidenceschicagopo.jpg

Update on the battle between the Ritz and the Water HQ:

For three years, the developers of the Ritz-Carlton Residences at Erie Street and Michigan Avenue have been locked in a costly legal battle with its backyard neighbor -- the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District headquarters -- over access to an 18-foot by 95-foot alley.

Yes, that's right: Thousands of pages of court filings, and at least $1.3 million in legal fees charged to the water district alone, and at least a month's worth of courtroom time, spent scrapping over an alley.

According to court filings, the water district, lead by Terrence O'Brien, a candidate for Cook County board president, didn't like the fact that developers of the 40-story tower, Prism Development, planned to use their alley -- "we're the owners" -- to stage construction. It's a question of property rights and easements dating back to the 1940s.

So the water district sued, seeking "relief." It lost. Prism got most of what it wanted. Ritz's valets, for instance, will be able to drive residents' cars through the alley to the parking garage. But some construction access was barred. Attorneys for both sides declined to comment.

In the aftermath, Cook County Circuit Judge Kathleen Pantle this week is presiding over a contempt hearing against the water district. A water district police officer stopped Prism principal Bruce Schultz as he walked through the alley and at one point pulled Schultz's arm behind his back; the confrontation was captured on videotape.

The legal wrangling seems far from over. In a counterclaim, Prism is seeking more than $50 million in damages from the water district, saying the litigation caused an 18-month construction delay. The project is now due to be completed in mid-2011.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-wed-confidential-1210dec09,0,2510090.column

Fantastic project. I love its postmodern, historicising look.

Seems like it would even come out better than The Elysian.


Anyway, would be great to see some photos of the now finished(?) Ritz Carlton Residences.
Could you offer some?

Fantastic project. I love its postmodern, historicising look.

Seems like it would even come out better than The Elysian.


Anyway, would be great to see some photos of the now finished(?) Ritz Carlton Residences.
Could you offer some?

Not even close to being done. Ran down there yesterday and I don't even think a crane is up yet. I believe foundation work is still going on though.

Ah well, I see... I've mistaken the tower posted here (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=35104380#post35104380) for the RC Residences.


It's a tower in Atlanta, not the one in Chicago. What's its name, any idea? Thanks in advance.

The Atlantic

I like this building but the elysian and the other buildings right there all resemble each other so putting this in a line almost right with them makes it look kinda played out. it would be better if they built it a couple blocks over to the west

5-13

Ritz Carlton Residences

http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/98/ritz3.jpg (http://img257.imageshack.us/i/ritz3.jpg/)

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/6362/rritz4.jpg (http://img96.imageshack.us/i/rritz4.jpg/)

http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/4103/ritz5.jpg (http://img22.imageshack.us/i/ritz5.jpg/)

http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/8947/ritz8.jpg (http://img249.imageshack.us/i/ritz8.jpg/)

Tower crane being assembled at the Ritz:

http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/9735/p1010691.jpg
http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/130/p1010689s.jpg
http://img686.imageshack.us/img686/9403/p1010690z.jpg

Tower crane being assembled at the Ritz:

Walked past there a couple days ago... the full crane is up and it looks like they are up to the third floor or so

http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/1251/8q4stgi8.jpg
http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/9849/p1010723r.jpg

High-res rendering:
http://wibiti.com/images/hpmain/510/237510.jpg

I haven't been in the city for a while(currently in Schaumburg). And I was wondering if City place would obstruct Ritz's views from the North ?

Btw here's the Construction Cam - http://www.theresidenceschicago.com/constructionCam.php

Great update by george:

11-8

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/4337/rc1t.jpg (http://img139.imageshack.us/i/rc1t.jpg/)

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/1811/rc2gt.jpg (http://img139.imageshack.us/i/rc2gt.jpg/)

this is a nice building, but are they going to repave the surrounding streets to look like the rendering ?

Can't wait to get back to the city and see the progress of this one. Looking good.

A good 10 floors since the last pics.

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/8182/ritzg.jpg

Nice, it will be interesting to see how this one progresses

Update from SSP:
http://www.j-carlson.com/ancilary/ritz211.jpg

Looking good.
If I had more money than I knew what to do with I would snatch up a place there. Also nice to see construction pics. Seems this place was heavy with fair weather fans during the boom. Once the dust cleared only the real skyscrapercity fans were left.

:goodnight:goodnight:goodnight

so its rising close to 10 floors a month? it should be topped out by May/June then. I'm liking the form, but that's more than I can say about the facade.....

Construction check-up updated on yochicago today. Must say -- I have to agree with the fellow "Chris." I, too, had hopes for this building -- but the precast facade doesn't do Michigan Ave. justice...

http://**************/construction-checkup-ritz-carlton-residences-4/19908/

Close-ups of the facade by george:

http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/98/ritz3.jpg

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/8251/ritz2.jpg

Street level will have "real" stone work, correct?

Well, that precast is horribly disappointing.

(Taken by me)
http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u291/kdickert/RitzCarl-1.jpg

^^ You read my mind, hydro. Was just hoping that someone would post an update on this project. Thanks. Nice angle, btw.

SSP Updates:

4-13

http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/9749/ritz0.jpg

http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/1346/ritz1.jpg

http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/8251/ritz2.jpg

http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/875/ritz3p.jpg

http://img862.imageshack.us/img862/8039/ritz4.jpg

SSP Updates:

4-23

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/4103/ritz5.jpg

http://img576.imageshack.us/img576/8039/ritz4.jpg

http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/98/ritz3.jpg

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/8251/ritz2.jpg

http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/1346/ritz1.jpg

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/1750/ritz6.jpg

It's sooo darn close to the Omni. That would annoy the heck out of me if I lived/stayed in either building on those sides.

Taken today:
http://img808.imageshack.us/img808/2258/ritz723brighter.jpg

Looks pretty cheap.

I don't know what's wrong with this. It looks fantastic. Sure its not modern but modern doesn't always mean beauty.

Looks pretty cheap.

I totally disagree. You are viewing a rendering. Although the architecture is not great or unique, it is not bad when walking by on North Michigan Avenue. There are worst buildings on the street.

Does anyone have pictures of the completed building?

Does anyone have pictures of the completed building?
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7004/6664459477_a74e3a9991_b.jpg
http://www.theresidenceschicago.com/images/Ritz_Residences_Chicago_home_4.jpg

People may think its "ugly" but its very gorgeous inside! Check the websit and Landmark club images.
http://www.theresidenceschicago.com/theLandmarkClub_ImageGallery.php

Heres a vídeo tour .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxmGq3utXdc&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Looks pretty cheap.

Thanks for trolling......:bash:

Thanks for trolling......:bash:

Hes right. The precast panels are terrible and there is little to no detailing on the building to warrant a faux classical design. The Farwell building clearly upstages it... even as it is relegated to parking garage duties.

Taken by me on 1/28:
http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/6206/ritzcarlcropped1.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/831/ritzcarlcropped1.jpg/)

Taken by me on 1/28:
http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/6206/ritzcarlcropped1.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/831/ritzcarlcropped1.jpg/)

disappointing for the ritz.

I don't know what's wrong with this. It looks fantastic. Sure its not modern but modern doesn't always mean beauty.

It's not the building's traditional elements, but rather the "cheap" way in which it tries to mimic traditional architecture that has disappointed some posters. Specifically, the facade...using prefab instead of actual stone, which would have been more expensive. (Will the prefab age nicely? Or look cheap 20 years from now?) It's the times we live in I guess....but if they're going to attempt traditional architecture (of which I'm a huge fan), I'd rather see shorter buildings built with true stone.

But I have to say, that I absolutely love the top:


http://www.theresidenceschicago.com/images/Ritz_Residences_Chicago_home_4.jpg

Gorgeous homage to art deco.

It's not bad overall. I think this building will grow on me. :)

Chicago's one of the few cities that's making a return to traditional architecture, and I'm very proud of that fact, because I love it. Of course, not all of it has been great (some of it looks cheap and fake), but we've been making progress.

It's not the building's traditional elements, but rather the "cheap" way in which it tries to mimic traditional architecture that has disappointed some posters. Specifically, the facade...using prefab instead of actual stone, which would have been more expensive. (Will the prefab age nicely? Or look cheap 20 years from now?) It's the times we live in I guess....but if they're going to attempt traditional architecture (of which I'm a huge fan), I'd rather see shorter buildings built with true stone.

But I have to say, that I absolutely love the top:



Gorgeous homage to art deco.

It's not bad overall. I think this building will grow on me. :)

Chicago's one of the few cities that's making a return to traditional architecture, and I'm very proud of that fact, because I love it. Of course, not all of it has been great (some of it looks cheap and fake), but we've been making progress.

Some what true :)
I love the building in my opinion, I think its pretty hot. Probably in the future it will fall off, but as of now I am a fan. Its not the most beautiful building in Chicago but its not the worst. There is some things about that if they changed i would love it even more.

And Yes the top is magnificent! :banana: