CHICAGO | Highrise Projects & Construction, v7

[Ned.B]

^I would guess that they were considered unworthy of landmarking for lack of integrity and because these weren't quite architecturally unique enough for an individual landmark. If they had been included in a landmark district, they would have been considered contributing and therefore protected.

But the windows have been replaced with an inappropriate design, much of the original storefront is gone, and it looks to me that the tower and cornice are not original, but a fairly contemporary addition...there just doesn't seem to be enough detail to be authentic.

It certainly defines the corner, and the sense of place at this intersection, and it will be missed for that, but there just isn't enough of an argument for protection by historic standards.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

paint it however you want...

^ I'm not "painting" anything.

It's just how the world works.

It's like the Feds busting a landlord for his tenants having a marijuana farm in the basement. The landlord's only recourse is eviction. A landlord can't go in and handcuff their own tenants (okay, it's obvious I've been in this situation before).

Same with this. The city either landmarks this, or the owner has the legal right to demo it.

So the question is: should these structures have been landmarked?

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ I'm not "painting" anything.

It's just how the world works.

It's like the Feds busting a landlord for his tenants having a marijuana farm in the basement. The landlord's only recourse is eviction. A landlord can't go in and handcuff their own tenants (okay, it's obvious I've been in this situation before).

Same with this. The city either landmarks this, or the owner has the legal right to demo it.

So the question is: should these structures have been landmarked?

Under the current landmark criteria, no probably not. I don't blame the owners/developers, it is their property, and the law says they can tear these buildings down. I also understand developers can only build on lots they own, but I'll be damned if it doesn't seem like many of the lots "owned" by developers are ones with historical / turn of the century buildings.
I wish there was some sort of conversation that took place between the city and developer like..."hey don't tear that corner building down, save it and build your shitty highrise on the still large enough parcel next door, we'll give you some extra height/units in exchange for the preservation".
Do those conversations take place? I'm not close to the pulse of these transactions, but damn it sucks to loose many of these great buildings, landmark worthy or not.

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Same with this. The city either landmarks this, or the owner has the legal right to demo it.

So the question is: should these structures have been landmarked?

Not commenting on the merit of these particular buildings, but generally when a zoning change is required, it should provide an opportunity to influence the preservation of a building or facade as part of a development. It isn't a guarantee of preservation when a project does not go forward, but it does make it less profitable to eventually demolish a building if it cannot be replaced with something larger.

More broadly, I think it has been mentioned on this site that tax policy could influence preservation. In that case, it is on the city/county/state to make preservation an overall priority, without considering whether each individual building is deserving of landmark status.

[marothisu]

^ I think too which needs to be taken into consideration is the condition of the building. People really wanted to save St. Dominic's church for example, but it was in terrible condition it turned out and would cost a lot of money to fix it up. In this case, I doubt the developer wanted to save it - not because they didn't care about the building, but because they stand to earn millions from this new building. They are concerned with making a building that will probably earn them over $125M (revenue wise) for the condos when all said and done if all units sell. They couldn't make close to that in the existing buildings no matter what they did to them. There could have been conversation before they were sold, but still. Money-wise - I don't think the developer really gives a shit. They'll probably spend like what? $30-$50M off this thing and probably make at least $50M - $70M profit if they sell out the entire thing which will just fund another building for them if the market demands it.

[the urban politician]

^ I think these are great ideas, but I also think that Aldermanic prerogative makes these kinds of policies more difficult to implement.

It should be written into zoning that preserving a prewar structure allows for greater density bonuses (I'm not aware that it is, does anybody else know?). Instead it seems to be done on a case by case basis, which gets Aldermen and NIMBY's involved. And we all know that with Aldermanic pandering, it's harder to get taller and denser structures built.

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by prelude91

I don't blame the owners/developers, it is their property, and the law says they can tear these buildings down.

In lieu of a better process, I think there are cases where preservation can be hung on developers. We see examples where developers have made preservation a priority and incorporate buildings/facades into developments. For example, contrast the preservation of the Cedar Hotel facade as part of the Viceroy Hotel with the planned teardown of the Hunter / Cacciatore building in the South Loop to be replaced with a gaudy parking podium (which happens to have a hotel above it). Of course, it will typically be more challenging and costly to preserve. The question then becomes how to encourage activity by people who have the inclination and wherewithal to consider preservation first.

[Mr Downtown]

Chicago does offer a zoning bonus for adopting (restoring) a landmark. And if a developer is seeking to do such a deal, it appears that landmarks staff will be fairly flexible about what qualifies as a landmark, with a lower threshold than would need to be met to designate the building without owner consent. The problem is that Chicago's underlying zoning is already so generous that developers rarely need the additional FAR—or choose cheaper ways of getting it.

What we cannot have, under the Anglo-American legal system, is the kind of balancing test often proposed by BVic, where we compare the proposed building to what's there now and decide which one we like better. Either a building is worth saving—in which case it should already be landmarked—or it's fair game.

[Via Chicago]

i think expecting these sorts of buildings to receive landmark status with the current process is unrealistic. but thats not the point. if we as a society dont place value on our heritage than we will have it taken from us, its that simple. ive ranted about this topic enough, and i realize this is a development forum. but i think a lot of people like to imagine we've moved past the poor/short sighted decisions we made in the first/second go rounds of urban renewal and its very clear that couldnt be further from the truth. this IS urban renewal and while perhaps a bit more piecemeal than the last go-rounds, its every bit as destructive. i get very worried whenever we hit an economic expansion because it transates to "its open season on historic housing stock". this isnt true in all cities, but it is here. our children will open their version of "lost chicago" and pore through the pages and ask "how could you guys tear this sort of shit down for crappy condos?" and there wont be a very good answer other than no one bothered to stand up to it.

im not a NIMBY but it blows me away what people are willing to simply throw into the trash heap of history. if the pyramids were here we'd tear those down for condos too if there was a buck to be made. but the US is a young country in relative terms and the past is not as highly prized as whats around the corner. it ultimately our loss.

[Mr Downtown]

^Not everyone would agree that those Toronto façadomies count as preservation.

They're more like putting your dog down and then having the body stuffed. Not only do the old buildings lose whatever integrity and life they might have had, but the new buildings are condemned to wear the pelts of the old ones.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Yeah I was gonna say those Toronto examples are heinous. Legacy and heritage both do a massively better job of it.

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

i think expecting these sorts of buildings to receive landmark status with the current process is unrealistic. but thats not the point. if we as a society dont place value on our heritage than we will have it taken from us, its that simple. ive ranted about this topic enough, and i realize this is a development forum. but i think a lot of people like to imagine we've moved past the poor/short sighted decisions we made in the first/second go rounds of urban renewal and its very clear that couldnt be further from the truth. this IS urban renewal and while perhaps a bit more piecemeal than the last go-rounds, its every bit as destructive. i get very worried whenever we hit an economic expansion because it transates to "its open season on historic housing stock". this isnt true in all cities, but it is here. our children will open their version of "lost chicago" and pore through the pages and ask "how could you guys tear this sort of shit down for crappy condos?" and there wont be a very good answer other than no one bothered to stand up to it.

im not a NIMBY but it blows me away what people are willing to simply throw into the trash heap of history. if the pyramids were here we'd tear those down for condos too if there was a buck to be made. but the US is a young country in relative terms and the past is not as highly prized as whats around the corner. it ultimately our loss.

Even in countries with more luxurious histories, money can do horrible things. London and Paris have removed too much (in my opinion) to put up taller real estate.

[the urban politician]

^ You guys are starting to sound like old cranks

[Notyrview]

At first I was turned off about the railing against facadectomies as empty shells because they at least make the streetscape - excuse the trumpism - tremendously more interesting. But it's true that gutting the interiors of buildings is an affront to curiosity and the texture of space in general. At least if I were living/working in those buildings, the experience of entering into an art deco lobby and arriving at a desk in a glassy fishbowl would be far richer than just a fossil slab at the front door. Yes, these spaces should be preserved, at least as much as engineering will allow. I think the Hearst tower is a pretty good shot at that, thought it too is totally gutted, and I'm sure it's original ceiling was fascinating.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ You guys are starting to sound like old cranks

My love of Chicago has always been rooted in the pre-war buildings. Glass and steel is nice but it is in no way unique to chicago...most of the new buildings we've received could be in any modern city in the world just as easily. They're anonymous. Our well preserved, well built vintage stock is what has always set us apart.

Seeing the types of losses that we've had recently is literally emotionally draining. It's like a death. And it's the charm of the city that were losing, a word that seems to have no place in the modern world of architecture.

[harryc]

Dec 14


Dec 16




Dec 10

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by bcp

Toronto does it well...really well (note, I have no clue how toronto does this from a policy perspective):

No, no they don't. None of those examples count as preservation, none of those examples are saving prewar urban fabric... they are simply bastardizations of the past that hold the future hostage.

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Legacy and heritage both do a massively better job of it.

They still miss the point however.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by untitledreality

They still miss the point however.

Strongly disagree, Legacy I think does it nearly perfectly. You really have absolutely no idea that building is there when you are standing right next to it. The interiors that were demoed had little historical value as they'd gone through years of alterations as commercial spaces. The facades were the only significant historical value. They still create the same human scale as they did before and are totally indisgunishable to the untrained eye from any of the un-facadectomy's buildings down the street. I think Legacy is just about as good of a triumph of preservation as the CAC renovation across the alley.

The Heritage is OK, but not particularly well done. It's not as well hidden as the Legacy. Honestly, the average person probably has no idea where that building actually fronts the street if you pointed it out to them from the park and asked them to go find the entrance.

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

The facades were the only significant historical value

Historic preservation is not simply about what we see. It is as much about how we interact with the fabric of the city, and the varying scales of which that takes place, as anything. The Heritage gutted and combined five prewar buildings taking up three quarters of a city block frontage, Legacy took three buildings making up half a block. Those smaller, cheaper spaces were just as beneficial to the human scale of Wabash as the hand laid facades. Now they are just stage sets masking big box retailers and parking garages.

[harryc]

Dec 7






Dec 1

Dec 17