Am I the only one who can't wait for this building to be imploded? (Naperville: real estate, apartment)

[rparz]

Originally Posted by Drover

That FRIGGING EMPTY LOT makes it impossible to interconnect the new building with the rest of the interconnected buildings in the complex. Right now you can walk (and transfer patients) from building to building without having to wheel the patients outside and down the block.

If they wanted to make a tunnel that interconnects all the buildings, they could.
They have PLENTY of funds, and it's only a block away, not miles.

Besides, how often do they REALLY need to transfer bedridden patients from building to building? Especially new buildings, which will probably be outfitted with newer technology than any of the surrounding buildings.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by rparz

If they wanted to make a tunnel that interconnects all the buildings, they could.
They have PLENTY of funds, and it's only a block away, not miles.

Or, they could just knock down the eyesore so they can integrate the new building into the existing integrated complex.

Originally Posted by rparz

Besides, how often do they REALLY need to transfer bedridden patients from building to building? Especially new buildings, which will probably be outfitted with newer technology than any of the surrounding buildings.

They transfer patients from department to department all the time. Each building has a separate department/function. They don't divvy up all the departments/functions among all the buildings. That's why they want an integrated complex.

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by eevee

Wow, just when I thought that no building could be uglier than Boston City Hall...

What a horrible style of architecture..

I have a love/hate with the Boston City Hall, I hate the amount of old architecture that was torn down to build it, but I love the building, but I hate the public plaza around it that seems to be completely useless and ugly....and I have been told it is quite the icy wind tunnel in the winter.

[urbanlife78]

By biggest issue with this is that it seems when a building is roughly 50yrs old or so, people want to tear it down, but the moment that building hits the 100yr marker people fight to save it. Back when we were building these buildings, people were more than happy to tear down a 50yr old building to replace it with this new architecture.

I just wish we would be more kind with our mid century architecture because there is only so many of them left and eventually they will become a rare thing when they begin to reach 100yrs.

[rparz]

Originally Posted by Drover

Or, they could just knock down the eyesore so they can integrate the new building into the existing integrated complex.



They transfer patients from department to department all the time. Each building has a separate department/function. They don't divvy up all the departments/functions among all the buildings. That's why they want an integrated complex.

It's almost like a larger suburban campus would be an even more ideal location.

[ChiNaan]

Originally Posted by Drover

Or, they could just knock down the eyesore so they can integrate the new building into the existing integrated complex.

I'd be curious to see what they plan to replace the "eyesore" with. My guess is that it would be something horribly generic and cookie-cutter, that if not already an eyesore will certainly be seen as such in 20-30 years. Then what? Tear it down again to build whatever is in style that month? Eff that.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by ChiNaan

I'd be curious to see what they plan to replace the "eyesore" with. My guess is that it would be something horribly generic and cookie-cutter, that if not already an eyesore will certainly be seen as such in 20-30 years. Then what? Tear it down again to build whatever is in style that month? Eff that.

Not every building needs to be a glorification of the human spirit. Some just need to function as a building. I'd say tearing it down every 20 to 30 years is entirely appropriate when the technology of the building itself is integral to its purpose, the technology rapidly advances, and teardown/replacement is the most practical way to keep up with those advances.

[ChiNaan]

Originally Posted by Drover

I'd say tearing it down every 20 to 30 years is entirely appropriate

You'd fit in quite well on a physical plant planning committee for a university, then. That's pretty much the strategy used these days: Build it as cheaply as possible in the current style, with plans to tear it down as soon as it's out of style. It's a damned shame if you ask me. Nobody likes every style of architecture (or of any art form, for that matter), but it's generally understood that having a variety* of styles and eras represented in a city is a good thing. Nearly every building in the city represents a style that was fashionable at some point and out-of-style at some other point, often to become fashionable again at some other point.

*Synonym used in place of the word "diversity" so as to not distract Chet.

[Drover]

Yeah, I like how you completely stripped the critical context out of my statement when responding to it.

[rparz]

And it's not as if that plot of land is some super critical spot without any reasonable alternative.
There's prime land a block away to save an architecturally significant building.

Part of it is that if you choose to locate your campus in an area of an established city with icons and significant landmarks, you have to expect some input from the community.

This isn't like debating over to raze a farm to build a strip mall in Naperville.

Hell, I'd like to change the configuration of my property, but I have zoning to deal with, Alderman to approve the plans and all types of red tape. I'm sure if I went to Joliet I could build almost anything my heart desired.