CHICAGO | General Developments

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Rizzo

I rarely see the stewardship of firms turning down jobs to defend protections of the historic building. Even if it happened a Developer or property owner would ultimately level a building anyway, and leave it a blank site until it’s forgotten. At least a high profile architect may try to make up for the loss with a better replacement. It’s rare but hopefully that happens

I had heard that RAMSA specifically advised against re-using the 720 N Wells building. Which is odd, because it was built as a social club and it could certainly be turned back into a private social club. The new proposed building is quite similar to the demolished one, in terms of the the size, scale, and the types of interior spaces.

Certainly if the owner is intent on demolishing and building new, I don't expect them to turn down the work. But if they are asked to evaluate the old building and they recommend against re-use, it's fair to hold them accountable for that - especially when Bob Stern himself is a distinguished architectural historian.

But no, they have made it their mission to impose vintage New York architecture - or a kind of Disneyfied version of it - onto the world. Local traditions and history be damned. Look at the chain of copy-paste Art Deco towers they have put up across the US, in NYC, DC, Philly, Chicago, Minneapolis, LA, Atlanta, Palm Beach, Hangzhou, Moscow, etc. (One Bennett Park is our local example.) They are perfectly happy to be a status symbol for a cosmopolitan global elite, selling a fake version of the Park Avenue lifestyle.

[Jibba]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I had heard that RAMSA specifically advised against re-using the 720 N Wells building. Which is odd, because it was built as a social club and it could certainly be turned back into a private social club. The new proposed building is quite similar to the demolished one, in terms of the the size, scale, and the types of interior spaces.

Certainly if the owner is intent on demolishing and building new, I don't expect them to turn down the work. But if they are asked to evaluate the old building and they recommend against re-use, it's fair to hold them accountable for that - especially when Bob Stern himself is a distinguished architectural historian.

But no, they have made it their mission to impose vintage New York architecture - or a kind of Disneyfied version of it - onto the world. Local traditions and history be damned. Look at the chain of copy-paste Art Deco towers they have put up across the US, in NYC, DC, Philly, Chicago, Minneapolis, LA, Atlanta, Palm Beach, Hangzhou, Moscow, etc. (One Bennett Park is our local example.) They are perfectly happy to be a status symbol for a cosmopolitan global elite, selling a fake version of the Park Avenue lifestyle.

That's infuriating if true. I mean, they can't add something marketable to their portfolio of work if it's mostly a reuse/rehab. But why solicit Stern to do the work if that's what they really wanted? Any number of firms in Chicago (that the LEY folks surely know) could have done a great job with a reuse here.

Also, scaffolding and netting was already up when I went by this building last week. Seems like they are being quick to demolish before a PR firestorm.