CHICAGO: Old Prentice Hospital - a Goldberg masterpiece being shamefully demolished

[i_am_hydrogen]

I don't see the point in potentially extending a building protection if the party adverse to such a move can simply ask that the building be removed from the permit process and then demolish it at a later date. How can the process be so easily circumvented? Would a Joe Schmo-type without the clout of Northwestern University be permitted to engage in this maneuver?

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ yep. no doubt there's some nefarious backroom meeting taking place right now between NW and the city to have prentice sit vacant and unmaintained for some prescribed amount of time until an outside party engineer can come in and deem that it is "too far gone to save", thus paving the way for NW to destroy an unqualified landmark of 20th century genius while saving face in the PR game. we'll get some BS line about how "we made a good faith effort to try and save this important building, but it's just too old and unsafe to reuse".

"the city that works (underhandedly)"

Yes I have the same concerns, but I also think that every day that passes increases the chance Prentice will become more widely appreciated. Especially as the days count down until the Goldberg retrospective. I'd like to see the outrage if NW applied for a permit to demolish something that is currently the highlight exhibit and one of the great Art Museums of the world, just blocks away.

Also, I don't think Prentice is anywhere near having major structural or maintenance issues. My friend is working in the remaining operations there and tells me the place is actually in very good shape. I would bet Prentice could stand vacant for 5-10 years without suffering major damage. Also, its going to be pretty hard to argue that a structure so beefy and strong is unsavable. It take many many winters of raw exposure to cause significant damage to the bunker like shell of this building.

[Nowhereman1280]

PS All of you who were going to go to the meeting today should sign up to go to Bowling For Prentice at 10 Pin in the basement of Marina City this Monday. I am making plans to attend. It's $35 for two hours of unlimited bowling and the proceeds go to Landmark Illinois' "Save Prentice" campaign. Reserve tickets here:

http://www.brownpapertickets.com/event/175412

[harryc]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Yes I have the same concerns, but I also think that every day that passes increases the chance Prentice will become more widely appreciated. Especially as the days count down until the Goldberg retrospective. I'd like to see the outrage if NW applied for a permit to demolish something that is currently the highlight exhibit and one of the great Art Museums of the world, just blocks away.

Also, I don't think Prentice is anywhere near having major structural or maintenance issues. My friend is working in the remaining operations there and tells me the place is actually in very good shape. I would bet Prentice could stand vacant for 5-10 years without suffering major damage. Also, its going to be pretty hard to argue that a structure so beefy and strong is unsavable. It take many many winters of raw exposure to cause significant damage to the bunker like shell of this building.

I can attest to that - had to drill through the floors back in the 90s (installing Token Ring !) and they were very very solid. This was one of the big problems with Prentace, even more so with Passavant (gone) and Wesley (gone), back then every year brought more cables and more networks, the old dumbwaiters in Wesley were just big wiring runs. Now Fiber is coming to the rescue, as we increase the capacity we now drastically decrease the space required.

[ChicagoHiRiser]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ yep. no doubt there's some nefarious backroom meeting taking place right now between NW and the city to have prentice sit vacant and unmaintained for some prescribed amount of time until an outside party engineer can come in and deem that it is "too far gone to save", thus paving the way for NW to destroy an unqualified landmark of 20th century genius while saving face in the PR game. we'll get some BS line about how "we made a good faith effort to try and save this important building, but it's just too old and unsafe to reuse".

"the city that works (underhandedly)"

I think this kind or architecture is disgusting and don't like it. Whether it be this, Marina City, River City or those senior housing hive-looking places on the near S Side I think they all look repugnant and I'm not a fan of the movement. I think there is obviously historical significance in Marina City but that's IT.

Why should they be preserved if there is widespread divergence of opinion regarding their aesthetics? I'll be happy if they demolish that fugly prentice hospital and replace it with anything other than a parking lot.

[Alliance]

Originally Posted by ChicagoHiRiser

I think this kind or architecture is disgusting and don't like it. Whether it be this, Marina City, River City or those senior housing hive-looking places on the near S Side I think they all look repugnant and I'm not a fan of the movement. I think there is obviously historical significance in Marina City but that's IT.

Why should they be preserved if there is widespread divergence of opinion regarding their aesthetics? I'll be happy if they demolish that fugly prentice hospital and replace it with anything other than a parking lot.

Because there ISN'T much divergence of opinion amongst architects and historicists.

[gttx]

Originally Posted by ChicagoHiRiser

I think this kind or architecture is disgusting and don't like it. Whether it be this, Marina City, River City or those senior housing hive-looking places on the near S Side I think they all look repugnant and I'm not a fan of the movement. I think there is obviously historical significance in Marina City but that's IT.

Why should they be preserved if there is widespread divergence of opinion regarding their aesthetics? I'll be happy if they demolish that fugly prentice hospital and replace it with anything other than a parking lot.

Because the way something looks isn't the only thing that determines its historical value.

[denizen467]

^ While we're back on this Prentice discussion, how crucial do people think the black international style (-ish) base to the building is? In other words, if NW agrees to spare/use the building only on the condition that it can rebuild/refurbish the bottom several floors, how less unpalatable would that be?

Incidentally, Lynn Becker's blog has something that faintly looks like it might be a recladding (or is this just how that render came out)?



http://arcchicago.blogspot.com/2011/...goldbergs.html

[Mr Downtown]

^That's from the Landmarks Illinois reuse plan. One of the things that makes SOAR so lukewarm about preservation is that they hate the dark glass base. It isn't integral to the design, and probably needs to be replaced for energy savings anyway.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by ChicagoHiRiser

Why should they be preserved if there is widespread divergence of opinion regarding their aesthetics?

that's precisely WHY it should be saved. any work of art that can produce such profound and deep division of opinion between love and hate, leaving very little middle ground, is absolutely worth saving. if we only saved the safe "pretty" buildings that everyone agrees on, then we wouldn't be saving much of anything at all.

it's posible to hate a work of art yet realize that it's important to save. case in point for me, the R.R. Donnelley building. i hate it. to me, it's a pastiche monstrosity that looks like a greek temple that was pumped full of steroids and then vomited all over itself. YET, even i realize that it is a very important work of architecture, perhaps the pinnacle of 80s po-mo caricature architecture at its most garish excess. i may disagree with the aesthetic results that particular line of design philosophy ended up with when pushed to its extreme, but i would never wish to see such a building demolished merely because i find it "repugnant". it has significance beyond what i, one lone single peon of a human being, thinks is beautiful or ugly.

historical preservation is about so much more than just saving what you or me or joe six pack thinks is "pretty". the fact that you don't even know that doesn't encourage me to place much stock in your opinion. yes, you are entitled to your opinion, as is every individual, but not all opinions are created equal. i'll place for more faith in the profoundly more informed opinions of scores and scores of architects and historical preservationists who study these works of art for a living, than i will in the opinion of some random dude who points at building and says "hey, that thing is fugly, let's blow that shit up".

Originally Posted by denizen467

^ While we're back on this Prentice discussion, how crucial do people think the black international style (-ish) base to the building is? In other words, if NW agrees to spare/use the building only on the condition that it can rebuild/refurbish the bottom several floors, how less unpalatable would that be?

it wouldn't be my first choice, but i could certainly live with a recladding of the base if that's the compromise that has to be made to save that glorious floating tower.

concrete that floats, how magical! bertrand was a serious wizard.

[Chicago Shawn]

While I cannot reveal my sources, I have been told that a demolition permit was in fact already applied for. The only thing holding this up is (was) landmarks, and now that landmarking is off the table, this building is in serious danger of being lost very, very soon. I would not hold Northwestern to their word.

NW's long term plan for the site to expand the research labs farther east. These research labs are very lucrative assets when leveraging federal funding for the University's hospital system.

[J_M_Tungsten]

^^^I don't understand. I'm not a huge fan of prentice, but doesn't northwestern own VACANT land? Wouldn't it be cheaper to build on that, rather than demolish a building, and THEN build something else?

[ChicagoHiRiser]

Originally Posted by Alliance

Because there ISN'T much divergence of opinion amongst architects and historicists.

Yeah and they were also opposed to the demolition of a Mies van der Rohe test cell near the UIC campus, which was basically a concrete building of bricks that looked like a transformer/phone switch/fallout shelter.

http://www.planetizen.com/node/38929

[ChicagoHiRiser]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

historical preservation is about so much more than just saving what you or me or joe six pack thinks is "pretty". the fact that you don't even know that doesn't encourage me to place much stock in your opinion. yes, you are entitled to your opinion, as is every individual, but not all opinions are created equal. i'll place for more faith in the profoundly more informed opinions of scores and scores of architects and historical preservationists who study these works of art for a living, than i will in the opinion of some random dude who points at building and says "hey, that thing is fugly, let's blow that shit up".

For similar reasons see my above post why I don't hold the esteem of "historicists" and "artists" in very high regard.

Yeah, I think that thing looks fugly alright. And can't wait for that shit to get blown up!!

And fortunately, those who share my opinion tend to be the decision makers regarding blowing that shit up!

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i'll place for more faith in the profoundly more informed opinions of scores and scores of architects and historical preservationists who study these works of art for a living

"profoundly more informed" is entirely subjective. Sure, objectively, they may study these works of art (abomination to me) for a living--that doesn't equate to "profoundly more informed" than me or "joe sixpack" to me.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by ChicagoHiRiser

For similar reasons see my above post why I don't hold the esteem of "historicists" and "artists" in very high regard.

Yeah, I think that thing looks fugly alright. And can't wait for that shit to get blown up!!

And fortunately, those who share my opinion tend to be the decision makers regarding blowing that shit up!

And the decision makers regarding blowing shit up also agreed with the uninformed asshats like you of their time regarding the blowing up of this:


thestranger.com


theatrehistoricalsociety.files.wordpress.com

Just to give you a good look at how stupid your line of thought is, this is a piece that was saved:


wikipedia.com

If Prentice is torn down history will not view its destructor favorably it is an act of barbarism on the behalf of the most disgusting "organization" in the city. Fuck you Northwestern, if you can't respect our history, then get the hell out of our city...

[10023]

I was in Chicago with my girlfriend last weekend, and knowing absolutely nothing about architecture she pointed the Prentice building out and asked me if it was something significant.

I don't see how they can justify tearing it down to build another glass and painted concrete box.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by ChicagoHiRiser

"profoundly more informed" is entirely subjective. Sure, objectively, they may study these works of art (abomination to me) for a living--that doesn't equate to "profoundly more informed" than me or "joe sixpack" to me.

as i said before, not all opinions are created equal. the opinions of experts hold far more sway than some dude on the internet. historic preservation is not about what's pretty or ugly, it's about what is important.

shawn, i'm disheartened to hear your news, but I suspected as much anyway. NW simply doesn't care about chicago's history. it's a shame. and the same old myopia that has destroyed countless wonders of chicago's past repeats itself yet again. the powers that be never learn a damn thing.

[10023]

Originally Posted by ChicagoHiRiser

"profoundly more informed" is entirely subjective. Sure, objectively, they may study these works of art (abomination to me) for a living--that doesn't equate to "profoundly more informed" than me or "joe sixpack" to me.

I find that this idea that everyone's opinion is equal, and that of "Joe Sixpack" is just as important as those of experts (be they policy wonks, scientists, etc), to be one of the most unfortunate themes in American discourse today.

But I guess that's what happens when people take an obviously false notion like "all men are created equal" literally. Equal under the law, perhaps (and this is what the founders meant), but certainly not equal.

[Nowhereman1280]

Everyone it is time to start sending outraged letters to the alderman and mayor demanding it immediately be put on the landmarks agenda and be shoved down NW's slimy throat.

[Rizzo]

Even if I hated the building, I'd still advocate it being saved. It's an integral piece of Chicago's architectural continuum. Without it, it's a missing piece of history. If Chicago was full of these buildings, then sacrificing a few wouldn't be so much of a mistake, but that's not the case.

Think of it like music or art. Just because you may not like a certain genre doesn't mean it should be kept out of music stores or concert halls.