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

[Drover]

Originally Posted by 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.

So I guess it's their fault for having commissioned an architect to design a building that was something more compelling than a box.

The takeaway then is this: if you want to retain control of your own building, build something bland and drab so that nobody will object if you want to knock it down to make way for future progress. That's bound to encourage design creativity. And it's not like they're knocking the thing down to put up a mall or an apartment block. There is a genuine public interest in what will ultimately become of demolishing the place.

If the preservationists want to preserve it so bad, let them come up with the funds to buy the place and do with it what they will. Or replicate it on the lot down the block.

[jonnynonos]

One thing not mentioned is 100 years ago an architecturally significant building went up at a far less frequency than these days. History has an editing process like everything else. You can't keep everything. You especially can't keep everything when it is a giant, ugly, impractical building taking up some of the most valuable real estate in the country. Take photos. Build models. Move on. If the hospital finds the building no longer suits its needs you can't force people to move in there; you cannot will it to be relevant.

[rparz]

Originally Posted by Drover

So I guess it's their fault for having commissioned an architect to design a building that was something more compelling than a box.

No, they did an fantastic job, so great in fact, we want to preserve their deed.

The takeaway then is this: if you want to retain control of your own building, build something bland and drab so that nobody will object if you want to knock it down to make way for future progress. That's bound to encourage design creativity. And it's not like they're knocking the thing down to put up a mall or an apartment block. There is a genuine public interest in what will ultimately become of demolishing the place.

Sounds like that's the way things are going anyway.

If the preservationists want to preserve it so bad, let them come up with the funds to buy the place and do with it what they will. Or replicate it on the lot down the block.

While we're at it, we should revoke all landmark status of buildings everywhere. Let the cash holding owners decide how the property should be run.
For that matter, throw out zoning as well, more bureaucratic red tape getting in the way of the true economic engine of the country.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by rparz

While we're at it, we should revoke all landmark status of buildings everywhere. Let the cash holding owners decide how the property should be run.
For that matter, throw out zoning as well, more bureaucratic red tape getting in the way of the true economic engine of the country.

Exactly, because the universe of options consists entirely of the following two scenarios: a) preserve this obsolete eyesore, or b) remove all zoning ordinances. There is absolutely no balance to be found in between.

[rparz]

I love Marina Towers and think the building that ushered in the design is worth saving for posterity.
60 years from now, it'll be the right move.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by rparz

I love Marina Towers and think the building that ushered in the design is worth saving for posterity.
60 years from now, it'll be the right move.

Uhm....

Seriously, just

[madpaddy]

Originally Posted by jonnynonos

You can't keep everything. You especially can't keep everything when it is a giant, ugly, impractical building taking up some of the most valuable real estate in the country. Take photos. Build models. Move on. If the hospital finds the building no longer suits its needs you can't force people to move in there; you cannot will it to be relevant.

Case closed.

[ChiNaan]

Originally Posted by Drover

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

The part I quoted looked pretty damned critical to me. If it wasn't, you probably shouldn't have included it.

[ChiNaan]

Originally Posted by Drover

Uhm....

Seriously, just

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.

[rparz]

It's not like I'm clamoring to revive Cook County hospital. (Which should be demolished--before it falls down) I'm also not getting in the way of an under served area that is in desperate need of services.

The building is in generally good repair, and NW has plenty of cash and a fantastic site 3x the size a block away. They could even put in a few floors of parking garage and do everyone a favor.

It wouldn't be the end of the world if they couldn't knock it down. Maybe a pain in the ass for them, but welcome to streeterville, thems the breaks.