Am I the only one who can't wait for this building to be imploded? (Chicago: houses, construction)

[Drover]

Originally Posted by ChiNaan

Which part are you self-harming over? The part where he said he liked the Marina City towers or the part where he said we generally don't regret keeping old unique buildings after enough time passes? Neither are exactly controversial or even unusual statements.

The part where he says we should save the building that "ushered in" the Marina City design when Marina City predates Prentice by a decade.

[rparz]

As of yesterday, it's still safe -- for now.


Old Prentice gets reprieve from wrecking ball
Judge's decision temporarily stays execution of Goldberg building slated for demolition
November 16, 2012|By Ron Grossman, Chicago Tribune reporter


13

Bertrand Goldberg, the architect of the building once home to Prentice Women's Hospital, left, is probably best known for designing the iconic Marina City development in downtown Chicago. (Nancy Stone, Tribune photo)
A judge Thursday gave at least a temporary reprieve to old Prentice Women's Hospital by stopping the city from issuing a demolition permit to Northwestern University until it can be determined whether the process by which the building was denied landmark status was properly carried out.

Circuit Judge Neil Cohen said the public's interest would be harmed if the building came down before the merits of a lawsuit filed by preservationists were considered. The lawsuit says the Commission on Chicago Landmarks violated the city's landmarks ordinance when it rescinded its own vote on landmark status for old Prentice.



That unusual maneuver took place Nov. 1, when the commission first voted to give the Streeterville building preliminary landmark status, then revoked that status on the basis of an economic impact study by the city's Department of Housing and Economic Development.

The judge's order put a hold on the second vote, returning the building to its status "just before that second resolution." For the moment, that gives old Prentice, designed by Chicago architect Bertrand Goldberg, immunity from the wrecking ball.

"This is a decision to be happy about," said Michael Rachlis, a lawyer for a coalition of preservation groups. "It's a first step in protecting the building."

The lawsuit, filed Thursday by the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois, called the commission's action "an unprecedented process with a predetermined outcome."

On the eve of the landmarks commission's vote, the Tribune published an opinion piece by Mayor Rahm Emanuel backing Northwestern's argument that the economic benefits of a new medical research building outweighed the architectural merit of Goldberg's structure.

Cohen, who set the next court date for Dec. 7, emphasized that he was not rendering judgment on the larger issue of whether proper procedure was followed but simply giving the court time to hear arguments from both sides.

At times, however, he seemed sympathetic to the preservationists' position, wondering out loud if the commission's voting the building up and down in the same session violated a governmental body's obligation to "transparency."

The judge also asked attorneys for the city if the public had an adequate opportunity to weigh in on the issue — given the commission's hurry-up meeting.

Emanuel dismissed that notion.

"This was an 18-month discussion as a city, and I understood when we made the decision that there would still be people not happy," said the mayor, who again cited the jobs and cutting-edge research that a new building could bring.

A spokesman for the city's Law Department expressed disappointment at Cohen's decision and said a motion to dismiss the complaint will be filed.

Also on Thursday, the Chicago Architectural Club and the Chicago Architecture Foundation unveiled winning designs in a contest to adapt old Prentice to a new purpose — a solution advocated by preservationists.

rgrossman@tribune.com

[Dport7674]

I like it. I'm ok with ugly if it's an interesting type of ugly. Ugly is better than boring.

Otoh, if it's got to go, it's got to go...Function should always beat out form.

[urbanlife78]

Good to hear there is a delay in tearing it down now. I see nothing wrong with making sure it could possibly be saved before tearing it down and missing any possible chances that might have been.

[aragx6]

Originally Posted by facebookdigg123

Northwestern owns the building. They can do whatever they want with it. I guess doing groundbreaking research and saving lives is less important than an ugly building

Well that's the single stupidest thing I've read in this thread yet. Phoenix seems much more your style.

[Irishtom29]

Originally Posted by aragx6

Well that's the single stupidest thing I've read in this thread yet. Phoenix seems much more your style.

Or Kansas City.

Several of the people so concerned about this building don't live in Chicago, odd that they want to impose their tastes on a city they don't live in and at no cost to themselves. Of course by championing the ugly they get to display their refined tastes and imply that others are to dense to understand what they understand. The old "you don't get it" argument. But people often get it and in getting it decide they don't like it.

I'm put in mind of historical preservationists who say not a word when the sites of real but unsavory history are destroyed, such as the site of the St. Valentines Day Massacre, one of the most famous events in Chicago history. And why is there no historical marker at 63rd and Western, the site of a very significant event involving Frank McErlane and Spike O'Donnel? Or at the site of the Pony Inn? But I digress.

[j_cat]

Originally Posted by Irishtom29

Of course by championing the ugly they get to display their refined tastes and imply that others are to dense to understand what they understand. The old "you don't get it" argument.

If you all can lay aside the Midwestern paranoia that a "snob" lurks around every corner, and must be humbled at once, perhaps you will see that preservation is not really snooty at all. It's about caution, and tolerance. For the sake of the future, and for the sake of diversity of taste, we should not obliterate whatever a pitchfork mob deems offensive at any given moment. Fahrenheit 451 anyone?

[jonnynonos]

Originally Posted by j_cat

If you all can lay aside the Midwestern paranoia that a "snob" lurks around every corner, and must be humbled at once, perhaps you will see that preservation is not really snooty at all. It's about caution, and tolerance. For the sake of the future, and for the sake of diversity of taste, we should not obliterate whatever a pitchfork mob deems offensive at any given moment. Fahrenheit 451 anyone?

Did you get your talking points from 1956?

It is rather arrogant to assume that because someone, or a lot of people, don't give a s##t about a particular building being preserved, that they are less sophisticated than oneself.

Newsflash: We have all the information and we have all the context; we still don't give a s##t.

[j_cat]

Originally Posted by jonnynonos

Did you get your talking points from 1956?

It is rather arrogant to assume that because someone, or a lot of people, don't give a s##t about a particular building being preserved, that they are less sophisticated than oneself.

Newsflash: We have all the information and we have all the context; we still don't give a s##t.

I get that you have all the information and all the context, but I'm not so sure about reading comprehension, since you merely repeated the very point that I refuted. As I already said, it's not about trying to be "sophisticated"! That's a red herring.

[j_cat]

What I'm concerned about is avoiding the frightening intolerance of demanding that something be DESTROYED just because you don't like it. I mean what could be more "arrogant" than that?