The study argues that re-using Prentice and developing a new facility would generate more money and jobs than demolition and new construction.
The study claims the rehab would generate one-time taxes and temporary jobs, in fields ranging from construction to finance and insurance. And a re-designed, multi-purpose Prentice would mean 980 permanent jobs and just over $1 million a year in local tax revenues.
— wbez.org
The reuse alternatives for Prentice were unveiled at a press conference on January 3, 2013. You can view the presentation here (PDF file).
35 Comments
i love it when smart people go all in for solutions. this is how preservation should work, rather than just being an obstructionist effort like sometimes happens.
The problem I have with proposals like this is if it were really that beneficial to preserve Prentice, someone would be buying it and doing it.
It's not for sale. It's already owned, and has been owned, and the owner wants to use it for something for which it wasn't designed, but doesn't really want to deal with the challenge of renovation. Hence, "just tear it down and start from scratch." Renovations are often costlier than new buildings, as we all know... I don't blame them for wanting to tear it down. The sad part is that the city (and Landmarks) aren't fighting harder to preserve it by fiat, given its architectural value (something you'd think the city of Chicago, which trades on its architectural rep for lots of tourism dollars, would be sensitive to.)
yeah, aphorismal, the 'if you want it, buy it' line gets trotted out in MANY preservation battles and it's hardly ever relevant or helpful.
"The sad part is that the city (and Landmarks) aren't fighting harder to preserve it by fiat, given its architectural value (something you'd think the city of Chicago, which trades on its architectural rep for lots of tourism dollars, would be sensitive to.)"
Did you ever consider that the city isn't fighting hard to preserve it becasue most people think the building is ugly? In other words, it does nothing for them, least of all strive to be loved. Chicago certainly trades on it's architectural rep for lots of tourism dollars, but the majority of those come from the public at large, not a small coterie of architects, and thus why you don't see them manning the barricades. These kind of sculptural modernist buildings exist through out the country, thus it's "international" style quality. Why travel to see the same shlock you have in you're own town, why not go to see what makes Chicago unique?
Thayer, please go find and post here ten other buildings that look just like this one and were produced by an architect of Bertrand Goldberg's status, thus proving that this building is unremarkable shlock.
Jeepers you're a tiresome pedant. Also, FYI, "it's" means "it is".
That's idiotic. First of all, it isn't just architects calling for the preservation of this building; there are a LOT of "the public at large" calling for it also (and they HAVE been manning the barricades). This conversation has been going on for a long time in Chicago, and yes, there are some folks who think that the building has no merit at all; there are some who personally don't like it but believe it should be saved; and there are some who both like it and believe it should be saved. These opinions cross a wide segment of the public.
Regardless, there is nothing wrong with asking experts in a field - in this case, a "small coterie of architects" if you want to be so stupidly dismissive - what their opinion of a certain building is. If more cities had consulted experts on their historic preservation over the years, more of your precious historic buildings would have been preserved. If you're an advocate for preservation, you can't pick and choose only the buildings appeal to your personal style to save - a fact which the intelligent folks in the city of Chicago understand.
And finally, you're a fool if you think there are tons of buildings like this littering the American landscape. And you're a bigger fool if you think the people that come to Chicago for architectural tourism don't want to see modern design. Do you think it's only the Robie house that makes Chicago unique? I love the Robie House, but there are a lot more FLW houses "existing throughout the country" than there are Sears Towers, John Hancocks, Reliance Buildings, Monadnocks, Crown Halls, Koolhauses, Aons, IBM Buildings, Marina Cities, and more.
hmm. i used to live on the north side of chicago and i don't recall ever seeing this building. anyway, aside from preserving this building because of it's characteristic of a historic style, or because some particularly important person thinks it looks cool, there is a good argument for sustainability. filling landfills with the remnants of this building is not necessarily the best use of land in chicago.
one thing i saw in chicago was a building get torn down where they had to keep the facade for whatever reason. so there was this building face, built from wood studs and whatever substrate, and that's it. they kept about 5" or so of facade and supported it with wood stud kickers and built a new building behind it. my recollection of chicago is that preserving stuff is the norm, and tearing it down would be sacrilege. of course, that was before trump started building there.
While it might make you feel good to say "you're a tiresome pedant" or "you're a fool", they don't make for the most persuasive arguments. I actually don't object to preserving buildings that aren't beautiful, I was just intruducing the idea that it might have something to do with why landmark status was with held. You know, spitballing n' stuff.
"I love the Robie House, but there are a lot more FLW houses "existing throughout the country" than there are Sears Towers..." If you're actually comparing the Sears tower with the Monadnock building I think you are seriously delusional. Of course some people will visit Chicago for the Sears Tower and maybe even this concrete clover leaf, but they will be in the vast minority. On my next vacation, maybe I should visit one of FLW's usonian houses instead of the Robie house. You know, its still a Frank Lloyd Wright house!
But that's silly, it's not why the landmark status was withheld at all, which has been well documented. Firstly, the landmark status WAS granted, based on landmarks criteria:
To qualify for a landmark, a building in Chicago must meet two of seven criteria. Prentice actually meets four criteria, according to the commission (page 25): it was a part of Chicago heritage; it had exemplary architecture, which Whet Moser has covered; it was the work of an important architect, Bertrand Goldberg (also known for the Marina City complex); and it had a unique visual feature (that clover shape!).
The status was then (2 hours later!) rescinded, per rules allowing status change following presentation of an economic assessment report. Basically, after asserting that the building itself exceeds requirements for landmarking, the commission then caved to Northwestern's argument that it would cost too much to renovate for the use they want to put it to now. (Basically, they keep insisting that they want a lab building that directly (above-ground) connects to their existing facility across the street.)
And as you should know if you know anything at all about preservation: it doesn't (and shouldn't) have anything to do with who thinks which buildings are 'beautiful'. If it did, you'd have lost a lot more of your precious buildings - thankfully, not everyone thinks that old necessarily = beautiful and new-ish necessary = ugly. So you should be as happy as anyone that preservation status is dependent on a building's worth and not on arbitrary changing standards of 'beauty'.
Also, you should go visit one of the Usonian houses. There's a lot to learn from. Not least that FLW was not afraid of new forms and did not idealize the past.
Thanks mantaray, I stand corrected. And while I definatly don't think this is an exemplary building, it sounds like the usual politicing with the status being rescinded. It gives a bad name to preservation when it's used for purposes other than it was designed for, but nothing surprising there.
Of course I know preservation today has nothing to do with beauty, just like most archtiecture on this site has nothing to do with beauty, but it's worth remembering that the early preservation battles did, it's just that one can't appeal to a beaurocrat with that kind of reasoning, so we go through the library to build a "rational' case for what we feel. To that end, the "rational" for beauty and environments that sooth the soul, they are currently doing great research into the science of perception that illuminates many of these points, like The Origins of Architectural Pleasure, by architecture professor Grant Hildebrand or E.O. Wilson's studies into ecology.
Even if you aren't aware of modern science's advances in these fields, you hear it throughout popular culture, whether it be Joni Mitchell or Crissie Hines of the Pretenders, or if you just care to conduct your own survey about how people "feel" in their environments, although feelings wheren't the modernist's strong suit, something about them being weak, who knows.
I'll pass on the Usonian houses though, but thanks. I might recommend that you read up on the latest scientific advances of Human perception. After all, I wouldn't want to be accused of being superficial!
I'll rely on others to point out any spelling errors above as I always preferred prose to grammer.
it's GRAMMAR not GRAMMER.
*angry*
I know, it was just some low hanging fruit for Donna:)
architecture, not archtiecture (line 6)
bureaucrat, not beaurocrat (line 8)
consistent, not weak (line 18)
I need help! But on the last one, I did mean weak, as in lacking in rhetorical or creative force or effectiveness. Although I had to think about spelling it "week" for a second.
in general, you use too many commas, which results in one big run-on sentence, for example, paragraph 3 up above, starting with 'Even if you aren't aware of ..', is one sentence with lots of commas, that should be broken up, into 3, or so, sentences.
perhaps what you could use help with, rather than spell-checking, is empathizing with other people's design sensibilities.
Perhaps what you could use help with, rather than spell-checking, is empathizing with other people's design sensibilities.
This.
This building will live on in photographs and articles.
Donna,
You're one to talk about sympathy. Do you remember the perenial whole blogger The Perenial Whole, who wanted to share what he was learning about Christopher Alexander? He's the reason I started to read this blog, and then soon after, the knives came out. Let me refresh your memory...
http://archinect.com/blog/article/56177850/a-false-vision#CommentsAnchor
To quote your comment to him..."In other words, what you wanted, because it makes you feel proud of yourself to be a rebel. Fantastic, Enjoy it. Revel in it. But don't make up fake profiles (honestly, it's so transparent) to agree with yourself and pat yourself on the back."
His response was,
"Donna Sink:
First off, you misunderstand the word expected which, according to a simple Google search is defined as to "regard (something) as likely to happen". I did not want anything from anybody, I do not revel in anything, I do not "make up fake profiles... to agree with yourself and pat yourself on the back", I do not feel proud to be a rebel, and I certainly do not feel proud to have to respond to such cutting assertions. Do not confuse this with whatever it is you want to project onto me. Coming from somebody who is a campus architect for the Indianapolis Museum of Art, I would expect a little more class from you. I am human being with a purpose of my own, let's get that straight."
You want to talk about empathy?
http://archinect.com/blog/article/56177850/a-false-vision#CommentsAnchor
i see what you did there. turn the discussion away from architectural preservation and who is important enough to decide what stays and what goes, and you moved to an old flame war you were involved in. I did not follow that thread as far as the link you anchored, but did you and perennialwhole ever decide if you were the same person?
I'm not sure I was as crafty as you're implying. I was proven wrong on my assumption about why this building wasn't being given a landmark status, and admitted as much. As for your whole conspiritorial view that I'm Mr. Periwinkle, I can't help you there. I'm not much of an Christopher Alexander fan, but I liked some of the things that person was saying. But empathy towards other people's design sensibilities is exactly what was so lacking in people's reaction to his posts, like Donna, who came out swinging.
As I've said before, it's important to create the space for people with differing outlooks to be able to voice their opinion, and if we don't agree, well hopefully we learn something in the process. Do a quick scan of blog posts on this site and tell me there's a wide array of "design sensibilities". Anyone in architecture knows the deal, they just don't say it out loud for fear of being ostracized. That's a shame.
Look at the do-gooder neocon, out to pin his failed moralist perennial internet crusade on someone. Way to go thayer flintstone.
Gee-golly Mawly, the faux-old architecture clan is in a world of major butthurt since Mitt Romney lost...what a shame they think their opinions have any bearing on the future.
"Of course some people will visit Chicago for the Sears Tower and maybe even this concrete clover leaf, but they will be in the vast minority. "
Why 'vast minority' when that's clearly not true? Many more people will actually visit the Sears Tower and its observatory than will visit the Robie House..and it's not particularly close. It'd be like saying that more people will go to the Noguchi Museum than the Empire State Building.
Also I'm still not convinced you know what Modernism is and that you know that that style typically refers to buildings that were built almost 40 years ago. There are a few other styles that you could be railing against... It may be good to educate yourself about them so that you can make a better argument for your ideal of preservation and older architectural styles...maybe also learn about more about those styles as well so that you can flush out what you're actually arguing for so that the dialogue would be more interesting/educational/informed.
Or just continue to troll.
Lars,
It's not about style, it's about ideology. You can design in any style you like, I'm more interested in people and thier reaction to buildings as a way to make memorable places. If you don't think I know what modernism is, I would love to hear you explain it, not becasue I want to jump all over you, but becasue we all have differing takes, and one can learn from them. But if f you think modernism is a 40 year old style, then I think we are speaking of two distinct things, becasue the architectural media mill is littered with mid-century modern. You might be unaware becasue of the antipathy towards anything that smacks of revivalism, (see News and his constant harping about faux-old architecture) but "mid-century modernism" is a revival, unless you want to conceed that modernism never went out of style, at least in academia.
My understanding of modernism comes from people like Gidion, Mumford, and Scully and my main criciticm can be summarized by Joanna Salisbury in her fascinating book, Chicago, 1890 - "This way of thinking paved the way for the functionalist philosophy that dominated European archotecture in the 1920's. In this view, which we might call the modernist one, Chicago builidngs where dislocated from the time and place of their construction and sited within a linear history of building technology. In this new history certain structures become important touchstones, whileothers considered important at the time were built receded into obscurity. Despite its insistence on objectivity and its narrow focus on the material facts of a building, this modernist history was deeply ideological. In the early years of the 20th century, following the deep and traumatic woundsinflicted on Europe by the first world war, architects equated the development of building technology with social progress, believing that the discoveries of the noneteenth-century scientific and industria revolutions could be harnedded to raise the standard of living for everyone." Obviously this has evolved into a much more conceptual perspective as the older ideologies where worn bare through time and experience, but what seems to connect the early modernists with the neo-modernists of today is as Ms. Salisbury wrote, "For modern architecture to be indisputably objective, there could be no ambiguity; only a battle between those who saw the way forward and those still stuck in the past." While the purity of modernist ideology or the orders of Classicism might be useful guides, for me, ambiguity is where life actually takes place.
For sure there are many sub-sets of modernism as there are of classicism or any other style, but to me the more interesting question is how a building responds to it's context and the user/passerby. I have tried to elaborate my thoughts better, it's just I have an aversion to any one set of ideas, as I find it constricting and insincere. One of the problems is that without science, most of the ideas I have are both too broad and subjective to be described with any authority. But lest I be accused of ducking what is an honest question, I did come accross a way of expressing these ideas through a great blog series in the Metropolis magazine on what the author describes as a "New Humanism."
"http://www.metropolismag.com/pov/20121206/a-new-humanism-in-architecture-landscapes-and-urban-design-part-1-introduction
The idea isn't to make everyone see the world through this "New Humanist" perspective, but rather to allow for a broader view of what architecture can be about. To quote one of my favorite faux-oldies Montgomery Schuyler speaking about John Wellborn Root
"In America we are free of artistic traditions. Our freedom begets lcense, it is true. We do shocking things; we procude work of architecture irremediably bad; we try crude experiments that result in disaster. Yet somewhere in this mass of ungoverned energies lies the principle of life. A new spirit of beauty is being developed and perfected, and even now it's first achievements are begining to delight us. This is not the old thing made over; it is new. It springs out of the past, but it is not tied to it; it studies the traditions, but is not enslaved by them."
it ain't the sears tower. it is the willis tower.
Gee-golly Mawly, the faux-old architecture clan is in a world of major butthurt since Mitt Romney lost...what a shame they think their opinions have any bearing on the future.
hey News, being politically conservative does not mean you don't like new/cutting edge/'progressive' architecture, art, or music. so STFU with your discriminating tirade against conservatives you myopic simpleton.
I hope being liberal dosen't mean you can't like older/traditional archtiecture. To be honest, I'd probably be a modernist in 1900 Europe when the Beaux Arts academy had a strangle hold on what was deemed acceptable, much like today's academies that don't allow for any kind of exploration that produces something that looks traditional. In many ways this insistence on political or aesthetic correctness is what's stiffling about a lot of archtiectural debate today. I have a feeling that this kind of tribalism is simply innate to humans and therefore useless to wish it away, but one thing I'll always do is go in for the little guy.
Whoever that perrenial guy was, he had as much right to have his say as Rem Koolhaus, but the way some people jumped down his throat bothered me. It reminded me of my own education at Pratt when I became interested in studying the older fabric all around me only to be told I was a nostalgic schmuk. If one's aim is to create beauty for others to enjoy, nothing else matters much, not your education, not your class, not your politics.
Infact I'm listening to NPR right now where they are interviewing Jared Diamond, the author of the new book "The World Until Yesterday - What We Can Learn From Traditional Society". Now an political liberal might recoil at the idea that there's anything worth learning from traditional societies, but an actual liberal would be curious ie. liberal minded, much like a political conservative would care less about the environment while a conservationist would care about conserving ecological habitats for future life.
Unfortunatley, our survival instincts throw us into tribal thinking that feels we need to exclud some that we feel threatened by, thus New's attempts to ostracize me from this site. Even if Obama was this multi-racial and multi-cultural's wet dream, some will still call me a conservative becasue I have differing views on some things. I was taught that diversity strengthens debate and was a liberal value. Besides, I've heard a lot worse from the cool kids at archtiecture school, so if I can impart anything to younger archtiects, don't let go of your passion for what you do.
it ain't the sears tower. it is the willis tower.
...
it will always be the sears tower in my heart.
Thayer. thanks for putting together more of an answer/reasoning to some of what you're thinking. Appreciate it even if we disagree.
Thayer, as usual you're trying to build a fight where none exists. There isn't any sort of conspiracy on the part of "the academy" (?!) today to prohibit students from designing anything neo-classicist. I'm sure most of us knew a handful of peers in our student days who pursued that line of thinking. In the universities I've been involved with, style has always been criticised from a place of content and intellectual rigor: that is, if you can back up whatever your stylist choice is with solid, well-researched reasoning, and you have provided the rigorous design explorations to prove your point, then your project will be considered successful in that right. Style is often a quirk of personal taste combined with the zeitgest of the age, combined - in the real world - with the client's wishes, and if you open your eyes and look around you you will see a riot of many different styles being built today (including tons of traditionalist work). If anything, design schools are less restrictive of "style" choices nowadays than they ever have been in the past.
Also, your attempt to criticise modernism for supposedly not being concerned with the psychological impact of the built environment shows that you know next to nothing about the subject. I agree with Lars that you don't seem to know what you are talking about. The psychology of design is required study in many curriculums (it certainly was in mine); this is not some surprising, new science suddenly being done. You have found some psychologists who agree with your view of traditional building styles. Bravo.
I don't understand why you can't seem to bring yourself to celebrate the riot of design styles and ways of thinking that there are in the design world today. Isn't more better? Why are you on such a quest to restrict the rest of the world to your narrow view of one particular style, by fabricating reasons to condemn every other? Understand that human beings have differing tastes, and different designs will impact different people in different ways, and some styles will suit some people and others will suit others. Pursue your own personal style without condemning the rest of us for our choices. You are so narrow-minded and pedantic that you can't seem to appreciate any beauty other than that which you've pre-selected. Open yourself up, for heaven's sakes. It must be so sad to live in such a world of constant disapproval.
Ok, just got a chance to read your response to lars above, and am more confused than ever.
If you supposedly appreciate all styles, AND you supposedly are not concerned with style, then why do you spend all your time harping on any style that isn't, essentially, arts and crafts? Why do you - presumably never having been in some of these buildings - take one look at a photograph of something new and immediately assume it doesn't have a positive, pleasurable impact on the people who use it? Just because you respond happily to traditional buildings doesn't mean that is everyone's best psychological state. I felt deeply at peace visiting the Villa Savoye, and even looking at a picture of one of Neutra's houses gives me a physical sensation of calm. That's me - I don't presume to suggest everyone will feel that way.
Also, the passage you quoted regarding "modernism" is not completely incorrect (definitely was a strong architectural interest in harnessing technological progress to bring about better social progress and welfare of the people) but it is a fairly narrow description, in that there were also many other motivators shaping what we might call the stylistic development of the time. She also seems to condemn the technologically advanced buildings being built in Chicago at the time as not being anchored within their time and place, only concerned with technological development - something I completely disagree with. They were fundamentally expressions of the time and city in that they were structurally experimental, something I think the citizens of Chicago's reactions throughout the years have proved. These are treasured buildings to this day. And, for the record, lovely places for people to be in, as well.
Mantaray,
I don't know how to respond to you becasue so many of the things you accused me of can be clearly rebutted with things I've said. I think your double take on my posts proves that you're the one eager to start a fight. You shot your load only to be confused by my next post where I contradict your assumptions. My aim in architecture is to improve the lives of those who will live with and around my creations, whether that be through solutions, aesthetics, or both. And while you might agree with that goal, you might not agree with how we should get there. I don't think you need any justification or rationalization to create beauty, period. I can't imagine asking my 5 year old daughter why she drew a field of flowers becasue I already know why. Peace.
hey News, being politically conservative does not mean you don't like new/cutting edge/'progressive' architecture, art, or music.
Most of the time, as in the above case, it does. A spherical cow is still a cow.
Down with the flintstones.
And it's not really about liberalism, It's about the future. Something which conservatism in the philosophical-architectural terms here, cannot address at all. An example is when Krier and his entourage say that "man has not really advanced since the renaissance" and "we reached our full potential then." You can't deny, Thayer, that those beliefs are central your pedagogy. The faux-old is clueless about things to come and full of doubt about the present. That is why they depend on safely copying the past. It is cute that you admire that, but come on, is 2050 going to be all about 18th century wood mouldings bro?
To be honest, I'd probably be a modernist in 1900 Europe when the Beaux Arts academy had a strangle hold on what was deemed acceptable, much like today's academies that don't allow for any kind of exploration that produces something that looks traditional.
Absolute conservative logic. Full of excuses for going back. It is also completely untrue that schools don't allow for traditional design exploration.
My guess is postmodernists taught under the likes of people like Graves/Stern influenced you and many of your colleagues. So I don’t buy your claim that the academy was any tougher for you.
And now for a story:
"There will come a time when within a single generation we will develop one or possibly even two new ideas… Current advancements in the neolithic mudhouse suggest an advancement in the technology of our structures. We are also able to dig in a fraction of the time it took our ancestors because of shovels, thus freeing up valuable time to ’think’ of new ideas. We can even pack the mud into blocks and stack them. In the post-flintstone world, we may develop into a kind of people that are not only superior to our current state, but capable of feats beyond the comprehension of the contemporary caveman.”
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.