Adding on top of the old Prentice is intended as a thought exercise in what might be called a third way that may not always get its due in preservation battles...And this is where Ms. Gang comes in, compellingly. After our conversation she rapidly crafted a concept for a 31-story skyscraper atop the cloverleaf. — NYT
Jeanne Gang and Michael Kimmelman team-up and offer a proposal which could save the concrete, cloverleaf structure from 1975 by Bertrand Goldberg. While Northwestern University argues, it needs new biomedical research facilities, saving Prentice would be too costly and/or difficult, preservationists have been trying to save the building from demolition. However, Gang and Kimmelman have a simple solution "Build a research tower on top of Prentice".
25 Comments
I'm going to take a guess here and say that if this gets built, the tower will shrink in size.
the massing is cool, but the facade needs help.
Wow, they did that rendering fast. Nice idea, but I don't see how that would be structurally stable, but maybe they could add a space frame in between.
are they extending the core of the old building up? not sure i get it..
After more thought:
The Koolhaas anti-preservation argument totally makes sense now! Ha.
Building a new building on top of an old one just doesn't make sense. I'm all for preservation of what people agree is worth preserving, but this building new things on top of old just seems stupid. Either agree on saving it, or build something new.
A better solution would be to use the idea of the building, rebuilt higher. Kind of like the MAD in New York. That's true preservation of an idea.
I like it - it's a nice formal response to the existing building.
It looks awfully unsettling to me, but then again that's a goal of many popular architects now a days, so good job.
Gangs 1/2 day rendering aside, the concept itself is REALLY interesting to me. Its like sedimentary rock. Additions on additions on additions, some day in the future the prentice could read like a history lesson in architectural technology and taste. I think its a really interesting idea, and a fantastic precedent to set...
but does creating a giant structure on top violate the original building anyway? it will live in a shadow... kind of the architectural equivalent of preservation by taking a dump on it.
thayer-d - what's "unsettling" about this project? Is it the juxtaposition of "styles" (which you will get totally destroyed on, btw - way too many precedents) or is it the cantilever (which I think we all might be a little more sympathetic toward)?
@darkman - building is already in shadow.
I think the answer is to rebuild using the clover idea... the building as it exists looks too short anyway. Just extrude up.
@darkman - I think just replicating the existing clover shape would ironically end up being more difficult - how would it meet the existing building? I think that joint would end up looking really shitty unless perfect. and you couldn't do it out of concrete (color would be different & too heavy)... plus you'd lose that new open space...
anyway - I think the conversation between the old/new is really interesting - it's like musical improv call and response between two different voices - spanning several decades. gang "listened" to the existing building and responded with her own take. you're proposing that she just repeat or parrot - no conversation- more like architectural echolalia.
tosteroven,
I think mixing styles is one of the ways new and original work is produced, my self being a fine cocktail of races. (I hope I escaped total destruction with that answer!) Infact, my favorite period of architecture is the melting pot of late 19th to early 20th century when so much new stuff was happening, much like is happening culturally in America today. Sadly, I don't see any mixture of styles here, as they're both sculptural modernism with platonic forms. One bulges out, the otherone curves in. Wow, what a juxstaposition! Unfortunatley, it takes my brain all of two seconds to process the design and I'm on to the next thing. Infact, there's more "design" in a Greene and Greene porch than this whole mess.
It's the cantilever upon a cantilever that looks so unstable. (Just like our society, I get it) In my humble opinion, the original building is stupid, but taste being subjective and all periods of history deserving some preservation, I might advocate a similar form above but in glass and steel. There's no reason you couldn't cantilever that if you can cantilever this. These two forms are just smashed together with a one liner about juxtaposition. It's just a bore.
I mean, tear down the entire structure (which they are going to have to take apart anyway to restructure the core for a tower on top) and build completely new using the clover shape.
The plan just looks unstable. I don't have a problem with mashing up styles (block to block is an array of different styles anyway) but building such a large building on top of a small old building is completely irrational.
See: How Building Fall Down
With a reinforced core it can be done.
The only thing that is unstable is architects who don't keep up to date on structural design. How old are cantilevers now?
other than that, it is kind of ugly compared to some of Gang's other projects. I concur that the facade needs help.
I actually love this. and I totally agree with lletdownl, whether it's built or is just a concept it's an interesting take on preservation and growth.
I also agree that the facade is less interesting than the form.
But what I really love about this quick rendering is spotting the typical tricks renderers use that we are all sort of coming to expect. That romantic, atmospheric glow spreading across the expansive plaza….when the truth is it's a narrowish sidewalk and street out there, but we love the image and want our world to look like that!
I happened to see a competition held by AIA chicago for trying to brainstorm the ideas for this old but unique structure two weeks ago. One of the demolition reasons is the owner want to have at least 500,000 sqft, the current structure could only provide 340,000 sqft.
Based on my experience, the no.1 goal of architect's task is to build as much as the owner need, like Rem emphasis all the time. If there is no zoning FAR and height limitation, I guess Gang's idea could work. To make the massing more striking, she put far more stories on top of Mr. Goldberg's design. But does the zoning allow GFA being increased so much?
Very cool. But I'd like to see that new curtain come down and stop about 4 feet from the sidewalk. That would preserve it.
I don't believe Bert's southern facade or any of the other buildings on that block are in shadow at the moment. Also, the primary function of the added space is for labs. Does anyone know of other lab buildings that are towers? The site across the street is open and owned by Northwestern. Why not leave ol' Prentice alone and do our business over there?
This would get an A in art class, but a D in architecture class.
Also it looks like a c*** and balls.
Great quick concept. I'm big on preservation myself, but in the case of a hospital, FUNCTION and program heavily outweighs form. No matter what. It's easy to get caught up in aesthetics, but if it doesn't work for the user what good is it really?
If it works well with what the hospital needs, go for it. Especially if you can make it float above the old building like that. If you need the overpass, fine, make them part of the structural system/tie in to adjacent buildings. There's always a way.
@british_gent, i belive there are plenty of labs in academic/teaching hospitals across the US that have labs in towers. Perhaps, ones not typically this high, though....
Didn't Louis Kahn do some kind of vertical labratory building for the University of Pennsylvania?
Yes - does anyone know for what they plan on using the giant empty lot they own just near this site? (Sorry, tricky sentence construction there.) One wonders why they don't just build the lab building on that site, which is sitting empty... but I am guessing there is more to the story that I don't know.
My guess is that this won't be solved until Emanuel weighs in. Personally I feel like he can afford to go against Northwestern... it's not like they're going to move, or build somewhere else. But for some reason he's choosing to stay mum. I think it will require a lot of public outcry, and hopefully he will see that he has a chance to craft a preservation legacy with this single building, rather than taking the easy way out. The project could end up with a beautiful resolution - if the parties are willing to put many options on the table.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.