[whyhuhwhy]

Shoreline revetment reconstruction.

Here's a city link that mostly deals in generalities: http://www.ci.chi.il.us/city/webportal/portalContentItemAction.do?blockName=Environment%2fChicago+Shoreline+Protection+Project%2fI+Want+To&deptMainCategoryOID=-536887205&channelId=0&programId=0&entityName=Environment&topChannelName=Dept&contentOID=536903374&Failed_Reason=Invalid+timestamp,+engine+has+been+restarted&contenTypeName=COC_EDITORIAL&com.broadvision.session.new=Yes&Failed_Page=%2fwebportal%2fportalContentItemAction.do&context=dept

Obviously, this shoreline reconstruction has been a big bucks multi-year program. When all is said and done and the shoreline totally rebuilt, I'm thinking it will have been about a 20 year project with total burdened cost pushing $1 bn in year-of-expenditure dollars.

Of course, efforts on the south side graced the city with the idiotic "Save the Point" campaign, which briefly was in one Sen. Obama's to-do list before he moved on to slightly more important crap.

http://www.hydepark.org/parks/point.html

Buried in those links, and rarely reported, was how much improvement this project has brought to south lakefront, particularly between McCormick Place and 47th Street. End result was a major expansion of usable, landscaped lakefront parkland.

Thank you so much Viva.

[Nowhereman1280]

There's a fence up around Ogden School and the playground is being torn out. Junk chutes also up on the back side of the school. Looks like they are going to start demolition soon. Last chance to get pictures of this handsome moderne building.

What are they replacing it with again?

[VivaLFuego]

There's a fence up around Ogden School and the playground is being torn out. Junk chutes also up on the back side of the school. Looks like they are going to start demolition soon. Last chance to get pictures of this handsome moderne building.

What are they replacing it with again?

The new Ogden School. spyguy posted a rendering sometime back, I think. The only redeeming qualities of the new building will be that it fills most of the lot with parking underground (no surface parking) and that a few (but not enough) of the Moderne features of the old building will be reused, like some of the engraved marble.

[VivaLFuego]

It appears that they are building a CVS on the southwest corner of Racine and Roosevelt. No idea when it will start but I hope this is leading to a trend in building on the seemingly endless vacant lots in this area.

http://i592.photobucket.com/albums/tt1/JMTUNGSTEN/b1f9260a.jpg

Where were the preservationists on this? :jester:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=roosevelt+and+racine,+chicago+il&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=47.569986,76.640625&ie=UTF8&ll=41.8669,-87.657192&spn=0.002748,0.004678&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=41.866901,-87.657073&panoid=HEMRwZEKvL5M1yO3o05LaA&cbp=12,165.48,,0,-6.35

[the urban politician]

^ Yeah, that was quite a loss. Damn!

I've seen renderings of the CVS and it doesn't look like the typical anti-urban crap that these pharmacy chains loathfully build all over the place. Of course, I have yet to see if they stick to the plan or if they end up doing what most big American corporations do--deceive the public.

[Chicago3rd]

Where were the preservationists on this? :jester:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=roosevelt+and+racine,+chicago+il&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=47.569986,76.640625&ie=UTF8&ll=41.8669,-87.657192&spn=0.002748,0.004678&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=41.866901,-87.657073&panoid=HEMRwZEKvL5M1yO3o05LaA&cbp=12,165.48,,0,-6.35

Too bad they aren't being zoned to create a store like the one at Damen and Lawrence. Not a beautiful building...but apartments above it.

[the urban politician]

Too bad they aren't being zoned to create a store like the one at Damen and Lawrence. Not a beautiful building...but apartments above it.

^ Clearly there is a difference between the Damen & Lawrence and the Roosevelt & Racine real estate markets.

I'm just saying that with the Roosevelt Square development being designed the way it is (new urbanist), it would be nice of the CVS actually was designed to hold the corner and be a bit more pedestrian conscious than the other blunders that company and Walgreens have defaced the cityscape with over the decades.

[J_M_Tungsten]

Tup do you have that rendering? I was really hoping it was going to be more pedestrian friendly, at least a nice sidewalk and landscaping to make the area appeal to more people and maybe, just maybe, making people want to move to this area, creating a need for more housing. Does anyone know if there is a height restriction in this area for condos or other buildings?

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ You have to admit CVS, Walgreens, and the major grocers have come a long ways in how they design their stores in the past few years. Its shocking to see a CVS built as the first floor of a small parking garage instead of being built on the other side of a parking lot. Its also strange to see a Dominicks built all the way to a corner with windows on all walls with parking on top.

[Mr Downtown]

^They only reluctantly agree to do that when there's no other way for them to get into a neighborhood where they desperately want to be. Unless someone at the city did some extremely aggressive negotiating with CVS, they will build their standard one-level store with drive-thru prescription window, parking lot entry, and blacked-out windows.

[ardecila]

^They only reluctantly agree to do that when there's no other way for them to get into a neighborhood where they desperately want to be. Unless someone at the city did some extremely aggressive negotiating with CVS, they will build their standard one-level store with drive-thru prescription window, parking lot entry, and blacked-out windows.

It's actually a decent compromise, with a sidewalk entrance near a bus stop, a building that holds the corner, and even a green roof. Plans specify clear glass for a set of windows that begin at 5' off the ground. (A quick Google search actually turned up a full set of construction documents. Go figure.)

See for yourself...

Site Plan:
http://js-solution.com/ftp/CVS_Roosevelt/4-10-09_Bid_docs/Drawings_PDF/A-1.0.pdf

Elevations
http://js-solution.com/ftp/CVS_Roosevelt/4-10-09_Bid_docs/Drawings_PDF/A-4.1.pdf

[J_M_Tungsten]

I agree ardecila, not bad at all. With the right landscaping this project can turn out quite nice. It kind of has that new suburban Walgreens feel to me, but overall not bad.

[Chicago3rd]

^ Clearly there is a difference between the Damen & Lawrence and the Roosevelt & Racine real estate markets.

I'm just saying that with the Roosevelt Square development being designed the way it is (new urbanist), it would be nice of the CVS actually was designed to hold the corner and be a bit more pedestrian conscious than the other blunders that company and Walgreens have defaced the cityscape with over the decades.

Clearly...no...just zone all construction east of western as multi-use and no ground level parking. Note the newer construction across the street from the vacant lot. Clearly it is just suburban laziness at play here...the worshipping of the cars and hatred towards pedestrians. I am very happy that they didn't put the parking lot on Racine/Roosevelt. But it could have been way better and with 10% of the rental units in this city disappearing this past 10 years the city should be encouraging more projects like the building on Damen and Lawrence.

[the urban politician]

It's actually a decent compromise, with a sidewalk entrance near a bus stop, a building that holds the corner, and even a green roof. Plans specify clear glass for a set of windows that begin at 5' off the ground. (A quick Google search actually turned up a full set of construction documents. Go figure.)

See for yourself...

Site Plan:
http://js-solution.com/ftp/CVS_Roosevelt/4-10-09_Bid_docs/Drawings_PDF/A-1.0.pdf

Elevations
http://js-solution.com/ftp/CVS_Roosevelt/4-10-09_Bid_docs/Drawings_PDF/A-4.1.pdf

^ Yeah, that was the site layout that I had seen before. Of course, given the detailed schematics that you found, I"m more encouraged that this will be the actual structure built instead of the 'bait and switch' that I was worried about (think Aldi's at Wilson Yard :hell: )

[the urban politician]

Clearly...no...just zone all construction east of western as multi-use and no ground level parking. Note the newer construction across the street from the vacant lot. Clearly it is just suburban laziness at play here...the worshipping of the cars and hatred towards pedestrians. I am very happy that they didn't put the parking lot on Racine/Roosevelt. But it could have been way better and with 10% of the rental units in this city disappearing this past 10 years the city should be encouraging more projects like the building on Damen and Lawrence.

^ So you don't see a difference between the desirability of living at Roosevelt/Racine and Damen/Lawrence?

'Roosevelt Square' is a CHA replacement project. It's like Park Boulevard, Legends South, and all those other projects that the city and Feds are paying developers to build. So yeah, I think the city can have a lot more leverage over the design of such projects.

[the urban politician]

Envisioning the next UIC (http://www.chicagojournal.com/News/09-16-2009/Envisioning_the_next_UIC)
Master plan covers Near West campus from 10,000 feet and decades down the road
09/16/2009 10:00 PM

By MICAH MAIDENBERG
Editor

http://media.chicagojournal.com/photos/Publication/Article/543-1.jpg
http://media.chicagojournal.com/photos/Publication/Article/543-2.jpg

The Behavioral Sciences Building, 1007 W. Harrison, and University Hall, 601 S. Morgan, could be on the chopping block as UIC plans for the future of its campus.
MICAH MAIDENBERG/Staff


The University of Illinois-Chicago last updated its master plan in 1998 to prepare for development of what is now called the South Campus, a stretch of S. Halsted between Roosevelt and the 16th Street train viaduct.

Building South Campus sparked a raucous debate about the school’s vision for the land and protests about removal of what many saw as a unique urban meeting ground. The area was known by generations of Chicagoans as home of the freewheeling Maxwell Street Market and as the breeding ground for Chicago’s electric blues sound.

Today, South Campus is largely complete, home to a busy mixture of university students and townhome owners, new retail and UIC institutions, such the school’s convention center.

A new round of updating the campus master plan is now under way. While South Campus marked a major expansion across of Roosevelt, the traditional campus border, this time UIC is contemplating living within existing boundaries — for the most part.

In general, UIC envisions a greener campus, with a spate of new buildings replacing the current seas of surface parking and better connections between the school’s health and medical uses on the west and the traditional academic campus on the east.

“Campuses need a road map for understanding where they want to be in the future,” said David Mann, a planner consulting on the project for the school, at a meeting about the process last week.

Mann and representatives from UIC facilities and design departments have floated three different scenarios for both the East and West Campus. Planning started late last year; Phase I of the process is complete. After a preferred scenario is selected, a final report will be delivered by the end of May.

While Mann acknowledged that the current stage of the process examined the school from the “10,000-foot level, looking at this campus from a 25- to 35-year horizon into future,” a number of specific ideas and open questions about the campus and future developments did get broached.

On West Campus, for example, an area bound by Polk, Roosevelt, Ashland and Damen, the UIC Medical Center is expected to grow.

One scenario for the west side has the institution jumping across Roosevelt, expanding into land controlled owned by the Illinois Medical District. Another proposes a “vertical hospital” — a taller structure within current West Campus boundaries, with less new construction south of Roosevelt.

Marshfield will be closed in all three scenarios and landscaping would be added as connective spaces designed to improve the area’s visuals. A new teaching center, at least 1 million square feet, could be spread over several buildings or consolidated. Other structures would be demolished. Parking garages would be built. Taylor Street would be the primary connection east.

Perhaps the most substantial open question posed for East Campus — an area bound by the Eisenhower Expressway, the Dan Ryan Expressway, Roosevelt, and, on the west, Racine and Morgan — is the fate of two of campus designer Walter Netsch’s signature buildings.

Both University Hall, a towering rectangular skyscraper designed in the Brutalist style at 601 S. Morgan, and the Behavioral Sciences Building, 1007 W. Harrison, a squat building with oblique geometries, could be demolished down the road.

David Taeyaerts, director of UIC’s Office of Campus Learning Environments, said a separate study could resolve the future of University Hall and the Behavioral Sciences Building.

Whether the buildings are architectural icons or white elephants isn’t easy to determine, said Bob O’Neill, executive director of the Grant Park Conservancy and advisory council.

“It’s very interesting concept getting rid of those buildings … I think the jury’s going to be out on that one,” O’Neill said at the meeting last week.

Architects, he noted, sometimes see their status rise after their deaths (Netsch died in June 2008): “What if [Netsch] really hits it big in terms of his reputation 50 years from now, can you believe we destroyed two of his most iconic buildings? I don’t know.”

Bob O’Neill and brother Dennis — himself recently hired as executive director of the University Village Association — were the most vocal participants at the public meeting about the master plan last week. They peppered UIC staff and consultants from opposite sides of an auditorium in the school’s biological sciences building.

Both grew up near the university and share the belief that the school is ready to emerge from “the shadow of Urbana-Champaign,” home of the University of Illinois flagship, as Bob put it, and end UIC’s “second class status” to the downstate campus, as Dennis said.

Realizing the vision of the master plan depends, of course, on finding money for new construction and, thus, politics in Springfield.

But while the school imagines its future, Dennis O’Neill said it at least deserved credit for the planning process. That wasn’t the case during previous efforts, he said, including the South Campus expansion.

“Again, I love the project, I think the plan was good,” Dennis O’Neill said in a follow-up interview about South Campus. “But we had to really push to have a say as community members in what happened down there.”

The South Campus experience — and the displacement it meant — was on the minds of others in the crowd last week as well.

The principal of Walsh Elementary, 2015 S. Peoria, wondered what UIC’s future hope-for growth would mean for his school.

“When you start making these improvements, contractors are going to start coming in and buying up buildings and start displacing some of the students we’re serving right now,” he said.

[shaberko]

Envisioning the next UIC (http://www.chicagojournal.com/News/09-16-2009/Envisioning_the_next_UIC)
Master plan covers Near West campus from 10,000 feet and decades down the road
09/16/2009 10:00 PM

By MICAH MAIDENBERG
Editor

http://media.chicagojournal.com/photos/Publication/Article/543-1.jpg

The Behavioral Sciences Building, 1007 W. Harrison, and University Hall, 601 S. Morgan, could be on the chopping block as UIC plans for the future of its campus.
MICAH MAIDENBERG/Staff




Nooooooooooooooo. I love the BSB building. :(

[bnk]

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/theskyline/2009/09/-chicago-is-no-1-in-green.html


By Blair Kamin

September 17, 2009

Chicago ranks No. 1 in green buildings

Mayor Richard M. Daley famously wants to make Chicago the greenest city in America. By one measure, he's done it.

Chicago now has more certified green buildings than any other city in the country, according to figures I received yesterday from the U.S. Green Building Council.

The council reports that 88 projects in Chicago have earned Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification.

...

In late 2007, Chicago had 27 LEED-certified buildings, ranking behind Portland and Seattle.

The rankings are current through the end of August, according to Ashley Katz, a spokeswoman for the council. Through mid-September, Chicago has 92 LEED-certified buildings, she said.

Among Chicago's LEED-rated buildings are the McCormick Place West Building and the city's new FBI Building.

...

Chicago also ranked high in the category of projects registered for LEED certification. Registered projects are not completed but are either in a conceptual phase or under construction. Their developers register with the council with the intent of gaining certification upon completion, Katz explained.

...

Following are the top 10 U.S. cities, ranked by LEED certified buildings:

1. Chicago--88.

2. Portland, Or.--73.

3. Seattle--63.

4. Washington, D.C.--57.

5. Atlanta--53.

6. San Francisco--50.

7. New York City--46.

8. Grand Rapids, Mich.--44.

9. Los Angeles--40.

10. Boston--38.

[J_M_Tungsten]

I will be there with champagne in hand if they bring this ugly monster down!! This thing looks like a futuristic prison, Judge Dredd style :yuck:

http://media.chicagojournal.com/photos/Publication/Article/543-2.jpg

[aic4ever]

Hellenic Museum (http://www.centaurco.com/News)

[Dr. Taco]

UH is great on the outside. Very cool. I love walking by it on a beautiful day while looking up at its imposingness. In that regard, I loved looking down at BSB. very interesting building. However, both are wretched on the inside, and Netsch should have beeen embarrassed for the buildings' interiors

[sentinel]

^^^
http://centaurco.com/sites/default/files/Hellenic%20Museum%20day%20-%20NEWS.jpg
Much better than the original, faux-Grecian design.

[J_M_Tungsten]

Wow I literally just drove by that part of Greektown about 10 minutes ago and noticed it fenced off with the words "Centaur" written all over it! thanks for posting now I know what is going in there, not a bad proposal, better than a parking lot.

[Steely Dan]

http://media.chicagojournal.com/photos/Publication/Article/543-2.jpg

University Hall, 601 S. Morgan, could be on the chopping block as UIC plans for the future of its campus.




HELL NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! :hell: :hell: :hell: :hell: :hell: :hell: :hell: :hell: :hell:

i will be eternally pissed off at UIC if they ever have the gall to demolish university hall. it's one of the best brutalist style highrises ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. it's definitely my favorite non-downtown highrise in the city. it's just so freaking bad-ass, how dare they even dream of such stupid, wasteful, & narrow-minded destruction

why are people so backwardsly retarded to not understand that, while brutalist masterpieces like university hall and goldberg's prentice-stone pavilion might look dated right now, 50 years from now these edifices will be cherished treasures of one of the most unusual movements in the history of art.

we just don't seem to ever fucking learn a damn thing. :brickwall:

[J_M_Tungsten]

HELL NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! :hell: :hell: :hell: :hell: :hell: :hell: :hell: :hell: :hell:

i will be eternally pissed off at UIC if they ever have the gall to demolish university hall. it's one of the best brutalist style highrises ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. it's definitely my favorite non-downtown highrise in the city. it's just so freaking bad-ass, how dare they even dream of such stupid, wasteful, & narrow-minded destruction

why are people so backwardsly retarded to not understand that, while brutalist masterpieces like university hall and goldberg's prentice-stone pavilion might look dated right now, 50 years from now these edifices will be cherished treasures of one of the most unusual movements in the history of art. we just don't seem to ever fucking learn.

Maybe its because brutalist architecture sucks. If you want to make a bold statement with an "art piece" dont make it the form of an ugly building that we all have to see. I cringe everytime I see this flaw in our skyline.

[Steely Dan]

Maybe its because brutalist architecture sucks. If you want to make a bold statement with an "art piece" dont make it the form of an ugly building that we all have to see. I cringe everytime I see this flaw in our skyline.

the more things change, the more they stay the same. myopia is clearly thoroughly entrenched in the human species. your little piece above could have easily been written 50 years ago by some modernist decrying the folly of neo-classical architecture.

as i said before, we just don't seem to ever fucking learn a damn thing. :brickwall:

[J_M_Tungsten]

I guess your opinion is the only one that is right then, thanks for sharing. Moving on...

[Steely Dan]

^ i will not attest to the correctness of my own opinion, but i will say that i find your opinion to be shamefully myopic.

[J_M_Tungsten]

^Ignorance works both ways my friend. You have your opinion and I have mine, to each his own.

[VivaLFuego]

UH is great on the outside. Very cool. I love walking by it on a beautiful day while looking up at its imposingness. In that regard, I loved looking down at BSB. very interesting building. However, both are wretched on the inside, and Netsch should have beeen embarrassed for the buildings' interiors

Yes, but outdated, obsolete, and decaying interiors is one of the primary drivers behind demolition of potential landmarks before their time, and exactly why buildings are so vulnerable once they hit the age range of about 40-50 years old (which mid-century modernism is hitting right now).

Most of the charming Victorians people love to gush over were stinking hellholes in the 1950s when so many were torn down - the lucky ones had maybe one bathroom for a building jammed full of families to share, and the crappier ones (pardon the pun) didn't even have plumbing on site, to say nothing of other basics like adequate electrical wiring, insulation, and so forth. If it weren't for taxpayer subsidies via TIF or otherwise, many classic and treasured old commercial buildings in the Loop could never have been viable, and would have been demolished (of course, before the use of such preservation tax credits and TIF subsidy, many were demolished because their interiors were "wretched").
But if you invest every 40-50 years to modernize a building, it can pay dividends by what it adds to the cityscape.

To clarify, this is not a blanket statement that every old pile of bricks is worth saving (i.e. I thought the movement to save the Mies shack at 35th/RI was a joke), it's just that obsolete/decayed interiors are the case for every single 50 year old building that hasn't yet received substantial renovation, so it's often a a red herring when it comes to whether a structure is truly worthy of landmarking. Either it's worth saving despite the cost of bringing the interior up to snuff, or it's not worth saving, in which case the property owner can do as they see fit (renovate, tear down, whatever).

In the case of totally irreplaceable and groundbreaking mid-century modern architecture, "the interiors suck" isn't going to cut it in trying to justify tearing down even more of Netsch's buildings, just like it doesn't justify demolishing all of Lake Meadows.

[The Pimp]

Steely I truly respect your views... But this building is tremendously non functional and down right ugly. I had an office in the UH during my Ph.D days. Every day I would wish that some one within the The University of Illinois hierarchy would blow the thing up....Vegas stlye.

[VivaLFuego]

^^^
http://centaurco.com/sites/default/files/Hellenic%20Museum%20day%20-%20NEWS.jpg
Much better than the original, faux-Grecian design.

Programatically not as good as the original intent of a Museum with a ~30-story hotel/residential tower above it - but since realistically the ship sailed on any hope of the latter two when the economy tanked, this a huge step up from (1) a parking lot and (2) aesthetically, as sentinel points out, from the crapola design motif tossed around previously. It's large enough that it's within the existing scale of Halsted, across the street from a 1-story retail building and generally near buildings of around 4 stories in height, so it will definitely help "enclose" that stretch a bit.

let her rip, aic4ever! What does the project look like on the north side? There's a little stub alley there, would it lead to enclosed parking in the museum, a loading area, etc?

[spyguy]

http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=35510

In brief: | YMCA | GSA | Earth Friendly Products
By , Sep. 17, 2009

The YMCA of the USA has agreed to a long-term lease for 70,000 square feet at 101 N. Wacker Drive, after dropping plans earlier this year to build a new corporate campus in the South Loop. The lease, which hasn’t been finalized, is a 10-plus-year deal that has the Y-USA expanding in the building from its current occupancy of about 62,000 square feet, says Jim Mellor, the Y-USA’s chief financial officer. After dropping the construction plan, Y-USA looked at buying opportunities. Mr. Mellor says 101 N. Wacker’s landlord, Hines Interests L.P., and other landlords offered such aggressive rents and concessions that it made leasing more attractive than buying – even though non-profits don’t pay property taxes if they are owners. Y-USA’s broker, Martin Stern of U.S. Equities Realty, continues to market the South Loop site at the southeast corner of State and Harrison Streets, which Y-USA bought in 2005 for $10.7 million. Mr. Stern says he’s gotten interest from “vultures,” but notes that the parking lot there now generates a return and that the Y-USA isn’t in a rush to sell. “This is not a distressed property,” he says.

[whyhuhwhy]

HELL NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! :hell: :hell: :hell: :hell: :hell: :hell: :hell: :hell: :hell:

i will be eternally pissed off at UIC if they ever have the gall to demolish university hall. it's one of the best brutalist style highrises ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. it's definitely my favorite non-downtown highrise in the city. it's just so freaking bad-ass, how dare they even dream of such stupid, wasteful, & narrow-minded destruction

why are people so backwardsly retarded to not understand that, while brutalist masterpieces like university hall and goldberg's prentice-stone pavilion might look dated right now, 50 years from now these edifices will be cherished treasures of one of the most unusual movements in the history of art.

we just don't seem to ever fucking learn a damn thing. :brickwall:

That has to be one of the ugliest buildings in the whole city. It looks like a communist block and is totally out of place. Bell bottoms will become a classic before that building does.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Again though, as Steely said, a modernist in 1950 or 60 would say the exact same thing about anything designed before 1930 or so. For as much as JMTungsten keeps saying "too each his own" its surprising that he doesn't realize that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and that his argument that the tower is inherently ugly is flawed by the very logic of his own defense.

You can say "I have a right to my own opinion" all you want, but that doesn't prevent your opinion from closely mirroring the foolish opinions that led to the destruction of so many diverse and interesting buildings of dated styles in the past.

40 years ago people thought Brutalism was pretty sweet or it wouldn't have been so popular, my bet is that public opinion will swing around again in another 30 or 40 years to think "wow, that was a pretty interesting style that has its own aesthetic merits" and then regret the rape of our brutalist building stock.

Also, the tower rules, why would anyone tear it down? Wouldn't it just be cheaper to renovate the inside and let it stand? It certainly isn't green to tear down a 20 something story tower...

[Nowhereman1280]

It looks like a communist block

You must not be very familiar with communist architecture then because they almost never built in anything similar to the brutalist style...


http://z.about.com/d/architecture/1/0/Z/F/russia-skyscraper-at.jpg
about.com

=/=

http://media.chicagojournal.com/photos/Publication/Article/543-2.jpg
chicagojournal.com

[Kippis]

Hi all, I've been creeping around on this forum for a few months now, and I decided to finally get out there and make a comment, especially after this little 'debate' over the fate of UIC's UH and BSB.

As a former student, I've had my fair share of viewing this giant concrete monolith during my four years there. I've walked around it, I've been in it, eaten in it, and walked under its wonderful scaffolding (sarcasm), and I have to say that if UIC does in fact tear the tower down, it would be a HUGE loss to the core campus and its former image.

I know it looks dated and dirty, I know it's not very flattering from most angles (I don't blame Netch's design for its current condition - as a matter of fact, the blame falls on the pitfalls and shortcomings of maintenance over the years), but University Hall is UIC's icon; one could argue that it was, and is, the very essence of Brutalist architecture. That being said, I'd vote for not demolishing it.

Repair the tower. Don't tear it down. UIC's image as an urban campus has been sullied enough by the removal of the second story walkways - please, PLEASE don't make another huge mistake.

[Loopy]

Here are some earlier RTKL renders of the Hellenic Museum project when it included a massive parking garage and a hotel tower. I have more if anyone is interested.

http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/1387/41394634.jpg

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/2717/hmccmodel032408.jpg

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/3496/hmccmodel032408b.jpg

[ardecila]

Wow. I can't believe a museum designed to honor Greek culture wouldn't even so much as hint at Classical architecture. I have no Classicist dogma, but if ever there was an occasion for revivalism, this is it. (Not that the previous version was good...)

On the other hand, a classically-inspired modernist temple would also be a tremendous addition (think Modern Wing). Obviously, whoever is building the museum does not have the money to hire Renzo Piano, but he/she should at least stage a design competition to bring good design to the table. Proportion, rhythm, and symmetry should be key components of any design for this.

This most recent design looks like one of those Ranquist lofts in Wicker Park, only with less windows. They're great pieces of infill, but absolutely not suited to use as a museum - which is inherently a civic focal point - exhibiting Greek-American culture and its influence on Chicago as a whole. Even a building shaped like a gyros spit would have more relevance.

[Loopy]

Actually there is a "Greek Key" motif lurking in the design of this facade:

http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/9291/hellenicglass.jpg

Here are some more renders of the (now dead) hotel tower:

http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/9426/helleniceast.jpg

http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/2111/hellenicsouth.jpg

http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/1577/hellenicwest.jpg

[Loopy]

As a former student, I've had my fair share of viewing this giant concrete monolith during my four years there. I've walked around it, I've been in it, eaten in it, and walked under its wonderful scaffolding (sarcasm), and I have to say that if UIC does in fact tear the tower down, it would be a HUGE loss to the core campus and its former image.

...

Repair the tower. Don't tear it down. UIC's image as an urban campus has been sullied enough by the removal of the second story walkways - please, PLEASE don't make another huge mistake.

Welcome to the forum. I agree with you 100%. Sure, this architecture is challenging and makes marketing the campus difficult, but that is no excuse to tear it down.

IIT had to be shamed into landmarking their Mies Van der Rohe campus. The willingness of people to throw away our crown jewels of Modernism just astounds me.

[J_M_Tungsten]

^^^ Again though, as Steely said, a modernist in 1950 or 60 would say the exact same thing about anything designed before 1930 or so. For as much as JMTungsten keeps saying "too each his own" its surprising that he doesn't realize that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and that his argument that the tower is inherently ugly is flawed by the very logic of his own defense.

You can say "I have a right to my own opinion" all you want, but that doesn't prevent your opinion from closely mirroring the foolish opinions that led to the destruction of so many diverse and interesting buildings of dated styles in the past.

40 years ago people thought Brutalism was pretty sweet or it wouldn't have been so popular, my bet is that public opinion will swing around again in another 30 or 40 years to think "wow, that was a pretty interesting style that has its own aesthetic merits" and then regret the rape of our brutalist building stock.

Also, the tower rules, why would anyone tear it down? Wouldn't it just be cheaper to renovate the inside and let it stand? It certainly isn't green to tear down a 20 something story tower...

Perhaps you don’t understand my logic then nowhereman1280. In my OPINION, the tower is as flawed and ugly as they come. Apparently in steelys and your OPINION it is not. So don’t call me out in being wrong based on my OPINION. I respect everyone’s OPINION on this site, and for you to question mine is just as immature and ignorant as they come. For you to say that “doesn't prevent your opinion from closely mirroring the foolish opinions that led to the destruction of so many diverse and interesting buildings of dated styles in the past” is your OPINION that you can go ahead and keep to yourself. Because nobody asked, or cares, what you think on that subject, in my OPINION.

Clearly, based on some of the other comments left so far, I am not alone on this subject. Also, my OPINION is that brutalism is, thankfully, DEAD. But hey, I guess my OPINION to you is about as narrow as the windows on these awful, AWFUL buildings.

Look forward to hearing from your, in steelys words, “myopic” response.

[the urban politician]

Re: The Hellenistic museum.

Yeah, it's not all that exciting.

But what can I say? I hate parking lots more than anything. You can replace a parking lot with a pile of cow dung and I'll still see it as an improvement.

[the urban politician]

Perhaps you don’t understand my logic then nowhereman1280. In my OPINION, the tower is as flawed and ugly as they come. Apparently in steelys and your OPINION it is not. So don’t call me out in being wrong based on my OPINION. I respect everyone’s OPINION on this site, and for you to question mine is just as immature and ignorant as they come. For you to say that “doesn't prevent your opinion from closely mirroring the foolish opinions that led to the destruction of so many diverse and interesting buildings of dated styles in the past” is your OPINION that you can go ahead and keep to yourself. Because nobody asked, or cares, what you think on that subject, in my OPINION.

Clearly, based on some of the other comments left so far, I am not alone on this subject. Also, my OPINION is that brutalism is, thankfully, DEAD. But hey, I guess my OPINION to you is about as narrow as the windows on these awful, AWFUL buildings.

Look forward to hearing from your, in steelys words, “myopic” response.

^ What you don't get is that your opinion doesn't matter.

It's irrelevant that you consider the building ugly, because you are a product of your time. The city is better off preserving a building that represents an architectural style that is increasingly in danger of being lost because of arbitrary decisions by people like you.

[J_M_Tungsten]

Good, so nobody’s opinion matters? That is the fastest way to go nowhere in reaching a common ground, a compromise, or trying to persuade somebody of a different view. TUP I always found your view points to be intriguing and non-judgmental; I am saddened to hear this from you.

[spyguy]

Yeah, I think tearing down UH would be a huge mistake. It (and maybe the two other UIC brutalist towers) are the only recognizable landmarks on campus. Do you think anyone is ever going to remember those cookie-cutter midrises on Halsted? I'm a little more ambivalent about BSB. There are parts that I like, but it's not user-friendly at all.

Anyway, I'm not worried simply because it will take UIC forever to have enough money to demolish either UH or BSB and replace all of those classrooms and offices.

Wow. I can't believe a museum designed to honor Greek culture wouldn't even so much as hint at Classical architecture. I have no Classicist dogma, but if ever there was an occasion for revivalism, this is it. (Not that the previous version was good...)

On the other hand, a classically-inspired modernist temple would also be a tremendous addition (think Modern Wing). Obviously, whoever is building the museum does not have the money to hire Renzo Piano, but he/she should at least stage a design competition to bring good design to the table. Proportion, rhythm, and symmetry should be key components of any design for this.


Are you advocating for more Bofill? :haha: Maybe we can transport the old Gansevoort Hotel proposal to the West Loop.

[Chicago3rd]

^ So you don't see a difference between the desirability of living at Roosevelt/Racine and Damen/Lawrence?

'Roosevelt Square' is a CHA replacement project. It's like Park Boulevard, Legends South, and all those other projects that the city and Feds are paying developers to build. So yeah, I think the city can have a lot more leverage over the design of such projects.

Thanks for supporting my point.:cheers:

[Chicago3rd]

HELL NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! :hell: :hell: :hell: :hell: :hell: :hell: :hell: :hell: :hell:

i will be eternally pissed off at UIC if they ever have the gall to demolish university hall. it's one of the best brutalist style highrises ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. it's definitely my favorite non-downtown highrise in the city. it's just so freaking bad-ass, how dare they even dream of such stupid, wasteful, & narrow-minded destruction

why are people so backwardsly retarded to not understand that, while brutalist masterpieces like university hall and goldberg's prentice-stone pavilion might look dated right now, 50 years from now these edifices will be cherished treasures of one of the most unusual movements in the history of art.

we just don't seem to ever fucking learn a damn thing. :brickwall:

BRAVO!!!!!

[Nowhereman1280]

Perhaps you don’t understand my logic then nowhereman1280. In my OPINION, the tower is as flawed and ugly as they come. Apparently in steelys and your OPINION it is not. So don’t call me out in being wrong based on my OPINION. I respect everyone’s OPINION on this site, and for you to question mine is just as immature and ignorant as they come. For you to say that “doesn't prevent your opinion from closely mirroring the foolish opinions that led to the destruction of so many diverse and interesting buildings of dated styles in the past” is your OPINION that you can go ahead and keep to yourself. Because nobody asked, or cares, what you think on that subject, in my OPINION.

Clearly, based on some of the other comments left so far, I am not alone on this subject. Also, my OPINION is that brutalism is, thankfully, DEAD. But hey, I guess my OPINION to you is about as narrow as the windows on these awful, AWFUL buildings.

Look forward to hearing from your, in steelys words, “myopic” response.

You are making me laugh. You clearly didn't read my post. Where did I say your opinion was wrong? I specifically made sure to say that opinions are neither wrong or right. What I did say is that your opinion closely resembles the opinions that led to the destruction of so many architecutural gems in the past. Thus, if history repeats itself, your opinion (regardless of its rightness or wrongness) and others like it will lead to the destruction of buildings we will someday wish we had preserved. Again, I'm not saying you are right or wrong, merely pointing out that your opinion resembles other, very destructive, opinions from the past.

And as for my points about "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" if you recognize that everyone's opinion is right to them, then you must believe that aesthetic tastes are also completely relative and therefore subject to change over time. If you recognize that, then you have to believe that some point in the future, opinions very well may change to recognize the interest and importance of this building. If you recognize that, then you should set your personal opinion aside and realize that, even if you think its ugly, this building should be preserved in case the relative opinions of our future descendants wish this building was still around for them to "enjoy"...

For example, I personally find most neo-classicist architecture and post-modern architecture completely revolting, but that doesn't mean I don't recognize their historical, philosophical, and cultural value. That doesn't mean that, if I see one in poor condition, I want it torn down. I think the Tribune Tower is hideous, but that doesn't mean that I want it gone, its very important as a part of our history, our fluctuating ways of thinking, a philosophy that existed for 20 or 30 years and then disappeared. A building like the UIC Tower is so unique, original, and historically important that, even if you find it revolting, it must be preserved...

[Nowhereman1280]

On a completely different note...

You know how they are going to tear down those buildings near Loyola in Rogers Park at the corner of Albion and Sheridan? Guess what the morons at Loyola are doing now? The developer blocked out and they are still tearing them down...

Guess what they are replacing them with? They are replacing them with a "volunteer run garden"... Oh yes Loyola what a wonderful place for a garden, RIGHT ON FREAKING SHERIDAN ROAD... Idiots... They really improved the area with the Morgan development and now they are messing it all up. Why don't they understand that open lots = ghetto neighborhood?

Sooooo angry... Can any of you preservation guys raise some hell Loyola's way about this?

[J_M_Tungsten]

You are making me laugh. You clearly didn't read my post. Where did I say your opinion was wrong? I specifically made sure to say that opinions are neither wrong or right. What I did say is that your opinion closely resembles the opinions that led to the destruction of so many architecutural gems in the past. Thus, if history repeats itself, your opinion (regardless of its rightness or wrongness) and others like it will lead to the destruction of buildings we will someday wish we had preserved. Again, I'm not saying you are right or wrong, merely pointing out that your opinion resembles other, very destructive, opinions from the past.

And as for my points about "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" if you recognize that everyone's opinion is right to them, then you must believe that aesthetic tastes are also completely relative and therefore subject to change over time. If you recognize that, then you have to believe that some point in the future, opinions very well may change to recognize the interest and importance of this building. If you recognize that, then you should set your personal opinion aside and realize that, even if you think its ugly, this building should be preserved in case the relative opinions of our future descendants wish this building was still around for them to "enjoy"...

For example, I personally find most neo-classicist architecture and post-modern architecture completely revolting, but that doesn't mean I don't recognize their historical, philosophical, and cultural value. That doesn't mean that, if I see one in poor condition, I want it torn down. I think the Tribune Tower is hideous, but that doesn't mean that I want it gone, its very important as a part of our history, our fluctuating ways of thinking, a philosophy that existed for 20 or 30 years and then disappeared. A building like the UIC Tower is so unique, original, and historically important that, even if you find it revolting, it must be preserved...

Hmmm ok you do make a good point. If it does get torn down there is no getting it back, and who knows, maybe one day I may even regret its loss! I appreciate your feedback, I just felt like I was being told "No, you're wrong". Thanks for clarifying the situation. This is how reasoning, I think, can be achieved.

[VivaLFuego]

Hey at least it's slightly better than the taxpayer-subsidized farmland at Division/Clybourn :jester:

That's great I mean, thousands of gardeners a day can make use of the adjacent high-capacity rail transit system, so it won't be necessary to acquire any more properties to build parking for the garden. Sure, the land will be off the tax rolls (and we all know how easy it is to take away public open space once it's built, er, unbuilt) but I'm sure the neighbors will be happy to work a little extra hard to make up for having such a great asset right next to their transportation hub along their main traffic artery.

Gotta find an upside, right? You need a sense of humor regarding land use in the town, what with the NE corner of 35th & Halsted about to be downzoned to an RS-1 large lot single family home district, and other such merriment.

[the urban politician]

^ Once again stupidity wins and and Chicago loses.

The answer to giving Chicago an economic "jolt" is right under Daley's nose. You don't need the Olympics, you just need to discourage this kind of idiotic behavior.

[ardecila]

Are you advocating for more Bofill? :haha: Maybe we can transport the old Gansevoort Hotel proposal to the West Loop.

Yes, because Bofill and Piano are totally interchangeable... :koko:

Although, to be completely honest, I really like Citadel Center.

[whyhuhwhy]

You must not be very familiar with communist architecture then because they almost never built in anything similar to the brutalist style...

Like 99.9% of the population, I have not studied modern architecture. It won't make the 1970's style condos along the Lake look any better and it won't make that "Brutalist" UIC fiasco look any better too. It's very elitist that some forumers are saying if you don't like the way the building looks its just because you are not educated or you are just myopic and a product of your time. I have lived all over the world, I have two eyes, and a brain that can form opinions on aesthetics. This isn't medicine or science we are arguing about here. Hopefully in 100 years we won't have people on forums arguing to preserve big box retail architecture too. Anyways moving on... clearly some people are very passionate about that ugly building.

[harryc]

HELL NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! :hell: :hell: :hell: :hell: :hell: :hell: :hell: :hell: :hell:

i will be eternally pissed off at UIC if they ever have the gall to demolish university hall. it's one of the best brutalist style highrises ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. it's definitely my favorite non-downtown highrise in the city. it's just so freaking bad-ass, how dare they even dream of such stupid, wasteful, & narrow-minded destruction

why are people so backwardsly retarded to not understand that, while brutalist masterpieces like university hall and goldberg's prentice-stone pavilion might look dated right now, 50 years from now these edifices will be cherished treasures of one of the most unusual movements in the history of art.

we just don't seem to ever fucking learn a damn thing. :brickwall:

Well put - I worked in UH for a year nothing wrong it at all. If Circle wants to be a respected university with a history they should stop trying to remove all traces of their history.

[Steely Dan]

It's very elitist that some forumers are saying if you don't like the way the building looks its just because you are not educated or you are just myopic and a product of your time. I have lived all over the world, I have two eyes, and a brain that can form opinions on aesthetics. This isn't medicine or science we are arguing about here.

everyone is entitled to an opinion, but not all opinions are equivalent in value. if i want an opinion of the works of Tolstoy, i'm gonna value the opinion of a literature professor who's been studying and researching his works for many years a whole hell of a lot more than the opinion of some guy who read an abridged version of war and peace in some high school literature survey class. yes, both of those people are fully entitled to have any opinion about tolstoy that they so choose, but because one opinion is vastly more informed from years of study, it's simply worth a lot more to me.

call me an elitist all you want; i'll wear that badge with honor.


and nowhereman has already hit the ball out of the park on this one. this issue isn't about whether or not any given individual finds the building aesthetically pleasing, it's about saving a very important and significant piece of art that's representative of a very particular moment in time and thought of architectural theory. we do our culture, and indeed our entire human civilization, great damage by callously tossing aside important artifacts of our past merely because we don't find them pretty anymore. as a counter example, you all know that i am not a fan of 77 west wacker at all. i find it to be a po-mo bofill trainwreck, ugly, ugly, ugly. and yet i would never in a million years support it's demolition because it is such an important and significant work of post-modern architecture that it deserves a space in the mulit-era tapestry that is chicago's skyline. chicago's skyline, as one of the best living museums of skyscraper architecture on the planet, needs representative examples of all the various skyscraper styles that have been built, and even pioneered, here.

[pilsenarch]

At the risk of taking a few more swacks at the dead horse, UH is arguably one of, if not the best of Netsch's work.

That is not an opinion, it is a fact of architectural history.

Yes, anyone can compare it to anything else that they hate (sixties-era highrises along the lake) but as a work of architecture, history (and, yes the 'over-educated elitists' who write it) will never regard the two as the same.

Steely Dan already said it, but it deserves repeating: the true architectural historian will insist on saving this structure even if they personally consider it 'ugly' (a word, by the way, whose use is generally scorned by design schools and critics due to it's inherent arbitrary nature).

[Nowhereman1280]

Like 99.9% of the population, I have not studied modern architecture. It won't make the 1970's style condos along the Lake look any better and it won't make that "Brutalist" UIC fiasco look any better too. It's very elitist that some forumers are saying if you don't like the way the building looks its just because you are not educated or you are just myopic and a product of your time. I have lived all over the world, I have two eyes, and a brain that can form opinions on aesthetics. This isn't medicine or science we are arguing about here. Hopefully in 100 years we won't have people on forums arguing to preserve big box retail architecture too. Anyways moving on... clearly some people are very passionate about that ugly building.

Again though, I never said anyone's opinion was wrong, I only said that similar opinions about Chicago School, Neo-classical, and now modern architecture have lead to waves of destruction some of our most important architectural gems. Like Steely just said, why destroy something that is important just because you think it is ugly? Would you destroy a Cubist Picasso painting just because its ugly to you? Would you burn a Jackson Pollack just because you think its ugly and stupid? No, I hate Pollack, but he still contributed something important to modern thought. This isn't an argument about aesthetics, this is an argument about preservation of history and examples of important philosophies.

And by the way, I haven't a moment of formal education on architecture. What I know about it comes from diligently researching and studying it as a hobby (though I do work in Real Estate) over the past four years since I joined this forum. I'll admit that my aesthetic tastes have changed somewhat since I started learning about it, but only because I have a deeper understanding of the philosophy behind modern designs. In fact the more I learn about it, the more I understand what my tastes have always been.

Oh and for those of you who care, I am pretty certain that, after I graduate early this fall from Loyola, I will probably be attending IIT for the Masters in Architecture Program 3 (the one that allows people with no Bachelors in Architecture to get a masters and become fully licensed) in Fall 2010.

[spyguy]

http://fiftythird.uchicago.edu/ + Hyde Park Urbanist (http://alwaysintransit.typepad.com/hyde_park_urbanist/2009/09/university-gives-harper-court-update.html)

Three finalists:

McCaffery/Interests/Taxman Corp Partnership
Mesa/Walsh Partnership
Vermilion Development/JFJ Development Partnership


The NW corner of 53rd and Lake Park Ave (Hollywood Video) will be replaced with a building comparable in size to the Hyde Park Bank Building across the street
Buildings to the north along Lake Park could reach a max height of 25 floors
90000 to 150000 sf of retail (fitness centers, movie theaters, restaurants and live entertainment venues)
150000 sf of office for the University
Boutique hotel with 150+ rooms
200 unit condo/ apartment building
Undetermined amount of parking
New gathering space

[VivaLFuego]

http://fiftythird.uchicago.edu/

Three finalists:

McCaffery/Interests/Taxman Corp Partnership
Mesa/Walsh Partnership
Vermilion Development/JFJ Development Partnership


The NW corner of 53rd and Lake Park Ave (Hollywood Video) will be replaced with a building comparable in size to the Hyde Park Bank Building across the street
Buildings to the north along Lake Park could reach a max height of 25 floors
90000 to 150000 sf of retail (fitness centers, movie theaters, restaurants and live entertainment venues)
150000 sf of office for the University
Boutique hotel with 150+ rooms
200 unit condo/ apartment building

Undetermined amount of parking
New gathering space


Bring it on!!

Great quote from the link:
Susan Campbell, associate vice president of Civic Engagement at the University, explained that the office space and hotel ensures that these new businesses can thrive during both daytime and evening hours.
Precisely, and this is why the Lincoln Park NIMBYs are so foolish in their desire to replace their various departing hospitals (Columbus and Lincoln Park already gone, Children's Memorial on it's way) with gated townhome crap. The vitality and variety of retail in those areas is strongly bolstered by the employment density and traffic generated by office uses in addition to the high density residential.

[Tom In Chicago]

I'm gonna take a whack at the dead horse as well. . . although I don't like "brutalist" architecture as much as Steely does. . . I'm too in the camp that would find it a tremendous architectural loss if they were to demolish it. . .

Sadly. . . no one seems to care about the Harold Ickes CHA buildings being demolished right now on south State Street. . . but then again. . . no one on these forums seemed too concerned with the 173 high rise buildings that have been demolished here in Chicago. . . most of which were CHA buildings. . .

. . .

[VivaLFuego]

I'm gonna take a whack at the dead horse as well. . . although I don't like "brutalist" architecture as much as Steely does. . . I'm too in the camp that would find it a tremendous architectural loss if they were to demolish it. . .

Sadly. . . no one seems to care about the Harold Ickes CHA buildings being demolished right now on south State Street. . . but then again. . . no one on these forums seemed too concerned with the 173 high rise buildings that have been demolished here in Chicago. . . most of which were CHA buildings. . .

. . .

Me and honte (where'd he go, by the way?) have both expressed some guarded remorse about this, particularly the Ickes homes but also some of the others (the Horners and Rockwells weren't too bad architecturally, ABLA were junk, the Cabrini Extension not bad, Greens, Lakeside and Robert Taylor decent, State Gardens were meh) but it's probably far too nuanced an argument in favor of rehabilitation to have any hope of pursuing, so it's entirely academic remorse. The concrete projects in Chinatown received an excellent rehabilitation showing that it indeed would have been possible to bring these up to snuff if there were the will.

At least University Hall doesn't have the stigma of failed social engineering surrounding it, so a movement to preserve and rehabilitate stands a fighting chance.

[X-fib2]

chicago's skyline, as one of the best living museums of skyscraper architecture on the planet, needs representative examples of all the various skyscraper styles that have been built, and even pioneered, here.

Well said and right on target! I grew up dispising modernist designs of 1920s/1930s but I now know they were an important historic phase of cultural expression through architecture. Chicago's buildings represent the most visible display of its diverse history.

[the urban politician]

Precisely, and this is why the Lincoln Park NIMBYs are so foolish in their desire to replace their various departing hospitals (Columbus and Lincoln Park already gone, Children's Memorial on it's way) with gated townhome crap. The vitality and variety of retail in those areas is strongly bolstered by the employment density and traffic generated by office uses in addition to the high density residential.

^ I think this points to a greater trend going on in Chicago--namely that the neighborhoods are becoming increasingly residential with downtown increasingly becoming the employment node for the entire city. While NIMBY's don't help, I don't think they're really the driving force behind this trend.

With the exception of Universities, community hospitals and some retailers/offices in the commercial districts, that ultimately is where things are headed, and numbers that I've looked at (provided by the Chicago Fed a few months ago) seem to support that.

[the urban politician]

^ Here's the info. As you can see, employment downtown has remained steady in the past few decades while citywide employment continues to decline:

http://midwest.chicagofedblogs.org/private%20employ-thumb.jpg
Source (http://midwest.chicagofedblogs.org/archives/chicago/)

[lawfin]

^ Here's the info. As you can see, employment downtown has remained steady in the past few decades while citywide employment continues to decline:

http://midwest.chicagofedblogs.org/private%20employ-thumb.jpg
Source (http://midwest.chicagofedblogs.org/archives/chicago/)


I think if you drill down into these numbers you will find the almost the entire loss of jobs in Chicago is attributable to the flight of manufacturing jobs which by 1980 were not in the central area anyhow....they were in the neighborhoods.

The neighborhoods have bled manufacturing jobs....I would not be surpirsed if there was actually an increase in service sector jobs in the neighborhoods


In some sense this bodes well for the city.....it will not continue to bleed manufactuirng jobs because that blood is bled for the most part..

absent that loss chicago gained jobs over the interval...


forgive typos i have a broken hand

[Dr. Taco]

just to clarify, I don't want UH torn down. I just think the reason the idea is even being thrown around has nothing to do with UH's exterior (maybe a little), but with it's interior. But UH is badass. And the 27th and 28th floors are nice. It's possible for it to be nice inside, so I think they should go that route with the money they don't have, rather than building a new building

besides, UIC has such vast surface parking lots. start there!

I don't care what they do to BSB at all. I had a class in there almost every semester, and it was always miserable. Not a good learning environment

[the urban politician]

^ Yeah, I generally agree that there's no point in tearing anything down at all by UIC considering the large swaths of parking lots that the University owns.

[harryc]

just to clarify, I don't want UH torn down. I just think the reason the idea is even being thrown around has nothing to do with UH's exterior (maybe a little), but with it's interior. But UH is badass. And the 27th and 28th floors are nice. It's possible for it to be nice inside, so I think they should go that route with the money they don't have, rather than building a new building

besides, UIC has such vast surface parking lots. start there!

I don't care what they do to BSB at all. I had a class in there almost every semester, and it was always miserable. Not a good learning environment

What is wrong with the interior ? - aside from the asinine windows.

BSB rocks - what better place to study Behavioral Sciences than in a maze of hexagonal additions to an octagonal core ?

[VivaLFuego]

^ Here's the info. As you can see, employment downtown has remained steady in the past few decades while citywide employment continues to decline:

http://midwest.chicagofedblogs.org/private%20employ-thumb.jpg
Source (http://midwest.chicagofedblogs.org/archives/chicago/)

Ah, thanks. Here's some more ways to look at the data:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3502/3932761638_c16ae2a14f_o.gif

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3522/3931979803_0672589d19_o.gif

As recently as 1981, the city still had nearly half of metro area jobs. The 1980s and 1990s were high times for the suburbs, except even their manufacturing took a hit post 2000. Before 2000, non-manufacturing job growth outside downtown actually made up for relentless manufacturing job losses, but the number of community hospitals that have closed since 2000 alone (most going out of business, Children's is luckily just moving) suggests to me that such a trend is history. As far as the whole area is concerned, the past decade has been the worst in terms of the manufacturing sector. I suppose the only "plus side" of the 2000-2008 period was that the shifting share of city vs. suburban employment finally leveled off.

Interesting that the share of non-manufacturing jobs within the city has stayed almost precisely constant.

[The North One]

I will be there with champagne in hand if they bring this ugly monster down!! This thing looks like a futuristic prison, Judge Dredd style :yuck:

http://media.chicagojournal.com/photos/Publication/Article/543-2.jpg

Agreed

get rid of the ugly thing!

[sentinel]

Agreed

get rid of the ugly thing!

I third that motion - I spent 4 years as an undergrad, staring up at that monstrosity and will be there with Tungsten and a bottle of Korbel (so what, I'm cheap) if/when it's torn down.

I can respect peoples opinions and to some degree, can sympathize about how occassionally, sentimentality plays a major role on how we feel about buildings, but at the same time, logic and pragmatism win out sometimes, and I hope that eventually, opinions will shift as well.

I like Walter Netsch's work a lot, I studied his work at UIC, and was fortunate enough to meet both he and his wife a few years before his passing. Truth be told, I really like the BSB building, and even the dreaded Art+Architecture building on campus that he also designed. But I think in order to evaluate the relevance of a hotly contested (at least in this forum) for this building, I think it's necessary to recognize the context and time when this was built.

One thing I remember from studio crits in the A+A building was professors recalling the construction period of the then-new UIC campus in the 60s. One professor (who had worked at SOM at the time) indicated how a BIG factor for the overall look of buildings such as University Hall, with the very thin vertical glazing, in between very heavy, re-inforced pre-cast aggregate cladding, was safety. It was a very volatile period, especially in Chicago (think convention rioting in '68) and the University didn't want a 'brutalist' aura for the campus because it was in vogue, they wanted it to mask the fact that classrooms, office, and lecture halls (have you ever seen any windows looking out from the BSB building??) were essentially fortresses because the University was expecting full-blown rioting at any time on campus. I remember hearing that University admin. were scared about students potentially jumping out of buildings in protest suicides and that is why the glazing was to be very thin in order to prevent that - not sure if any of those stories were true, or even if the fear was warranted, but these are first-hand accounts of someone involved with the campus design so I tend to believe it.

Fast forward 35+ years and these buildings, such as University Hall are starting to show their age, might not be sufficient enough space-wise for a college that is growing and needs more Admin. space, and design-wise there is something to be desired, especially for a building like UH, even among other, more iconic Butalist buildings.

I think sometimes it's easy to get attached to a building because of sentimentality, I very much like some buildings at UIC that I hope never get torn down (I love the monolithic Physical Sciences labs, south of the quad, THOSE are brutalist). But for something like University Hall, it's not worth the battle - but that's just my opinion :D

[ardecila]

My opinion comes not as a student, but as a Chicagoan. I've grown up driving along the Eisenhower with University Hall as the emblem of UIC. It is a vital part of the campus' character and identity just like the belltowers and "Old Main" buildings are at older institutions, and it would be a shame to trash the building just as UIC has begun to develop a reputation and rise to a status where campus landmarks are something that people actually care about.

I believe that sensitive renovations are probably necessary to bring these building in line with modern standards for comfortable space, natural light, and ventilation, but a demolition would be incredibly costly and honestly just wasteful. A renovation, for example, could re-clad one or more sides of the tower with a more transparent skin while retaining the iconic Brutalist facade on the remaining sides. Or the zigzag slot windows could be rebuilt with larger slots, to maintain the pattern and increase the amount of light flowing into the space.

As at the Montgomery Ward building on Chicago, perhaps a liner building at the base might be desirable to create a more urban feel and increase the amount of office space.

[sentinel]

My opinion comes not as a student, but as a Chicagoan. I've grown up driving along the Eisenhower with University Hall as the emblem of UIC. It is a vital part of the campus' character and identity just like the belltowers and "Old Main" buildings are at older institutions, and it would be a shame to trash the building just as UIC has begun to develop a reputation and rise to a status where campus landmarks are something that people actually care about...


But the thing is those 'belltowers and "Old Main" buildings" are attractive, UH is not attractive - I'm not for altering the character of the campus, I'm rather for enhancing it, with a new, bigger, better building. If UIC wants to develop and enhance its' reputation, why not do it with a new, iconic symbol? University Hall is not that symbol.

[i_am_hydrogen]

Agreed

get rid of the ugly thing!

Disagreed. Save this beauty. It is one of the best examples of high-rise brutalism in the country. We cannot lose this treasure.

[VivaLFuego]

But the thing is those 'belltowers and "Old Main" buildings" are attractive, UH is not attractive - I'm not for altering the character of the campus, I'm rather for enhancing it, with a new, bigger, better building. If UIC wants to develop and enhance its' reputation, why not do it with a new, iconic symbol? University Hall is not that symbol.

But what is "attractive" is clearly in the eye of the beholder - I would place money on my personal tastes finding University Hall much more attractive than any potential schlock that might replace it (yes, I find Brutalism attractive and visually pleasing). Given UIC's past horrendous design decisions (let's see, the new dorms at Harrison/Halsted, um, the entire "south campus" and University Village, the ongoing piecemeal butchery of the lecture halls like Lincoln Hall, the weak pomocrapization of what was once the Forum) you have to admit any replacement would utterly suck from any design standpoint. They'd probably put a bronze statue of Walter Netsch in place of all the stuff of his they tore down, then maybe throw in some random fake cobblestone streets for good measure. Oh and a Jamba Juice on the ground floor.

[denizen467]

I think UIC UH actually looks rather attractive. Maybe it's up close that it starts to get ugly or appear crumbling - I would like to hear more specifics on what is supposedly so bad about it (and which can't be rectified through a renovation).

In fact I would sooner tear down 353 N Clark than tear down University Hall. 353 N Clark has some nice redeeming details, but overall it is just uselessly bland -- buzz kill after the excitement of some of the towers neighboring it.

[sentinel]

But what is "attractive" is clearly in the eye of the beholder - I would place money on my personal tastes finding University Hall much more attractive than any potential schlock that might replace it (yes, I find Brutalism attractive and visually pleasing). Given UIC's past horrendous design decisions (let's see, the new dorms at Harrison/Halsted, um, the entire "south campus" and University Village, the ongoing piecemeal butchery of the lecture halls like Lincoln Hall, the weak pomocrapization of what was once the Forum) you have to admit any replacement would utterly suck from any design standpoint. They'd probably put a bronze statue of Walter Netsch in place of all the stuff of his they tore down, then maybe throw in some random fake cobblestone streets for good measure. Oh and a Jamba Juice on the ground floor.

Yeah, but Viva, everything you just pointed out, the Harrison/Halsted dorms, south campus/University Village and even the lecture halls are steps in the right direction, have been very successful ventures and proof of UIC's growth. The Harrison/Halsted dorms were probably one of the main reasons why UIC has shifted over the decades from a strictly commuter campus to one that now has a thriving student population, so much so that they built other dorms, really nice ones behind the UIC exhibition hall on Roosevelt - this obsession with 'the living City as museum', veneration of past design foibles is getting out of hand and seems to be the mantra in here of people who are anti-growth, and have a stubborn, 'laissez-faire' attitude about urban development and design, especially of buildings that are undeserving (ala UH) - obviously everyone's entitled to their own opinions, and frankly I don't care what people think about my posts, I'm just trying to provide an example of why tearing down UH, IF it ever happens, won't be the end of the world.

Interestingly enough, when the UIC campus first gained recognition in the very early 70's, it was totally slammed, design-wise because the original elevated walkways between buildings were rarely used and eventually realized as a student security risk (that's why almost all of them have been torn down,one existing remnant remains, the overhead bridge adjacent to the A+A building, which originally connected all the way to, you guessed it, University Hall), the whole campus was heavily criticized as cold and unwelcoming, there were no outdoor gathering spaces for students (because of fear of protests, student unrest, etc) and ask anyone who went to school at that time and they'll gladly recount how much they hated the campus, I know because I've asked many people who were students and faculty at the time.

And for the record, I LIKE Brutalism too, apparently no one reads posts in here - give me a worthy Paul Rudolph or John Dinkeloo masterpiece anytime and I will gladly chain myself to it if such a structure were threatened by demolition - UH isn't worth the battle.

[The North One]

Disagreed. Save this beauty. It is one of the best examples of high-rise brutalism in the country. We cannot lose this treasure.

How is brutalist architecture considered a treasure?
i respect that you like the building but its just got to go.
i know nothing of the campus and all that, but that picture says it all.

[Mr Downtown]

there were no outdoor gathering spaces for students

You mean other than the amphitheater that was the very focal point of the campus? And the huge surrounding plazas?

http://www.uic.edu/depts/oaa/walkingtour/Netschtour/1.d.2-Netsch%20Campus.jpg

[sentinel]

You mean other than the amphitheater that was the very focal point of the campus? And the huge surrounding plazas?

http://www.uic.edu/depts/oaa/walkingtour/Netschtour/1.d.2-Netsch%20Campus.jpg

Excuse me Mr. Downtown, baiting with pictures of an underutilized, outdated plaza are one thing, but first-hand accounts are another. Those plazas above the lecture halls and that 'glorious' amphitheater were considered a mistake, that's why they're not there anymore - the open plaza that is now in it's place that opens directly onto the lecture halls is completely different and qualifies as an actual 'gathering space'.
Btw, being the focal point of the campus was probably good on paper, but as evidenced in your photo, not good in practice, because as far as I can tell, I only see, literally one or two people walking around on top - so much for bringing students together - nice try.

[sentinel]

Also, here is a picture from Wikipedia of one of the classroom renovations, Douglas Hall I think - the 'before' is to the far left, with the exterior glazing exactly the same as University Hall, the 'after' is the building on the right, which is far superior, even just in terms of allowing sunlight inside the building.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/UIC_East_Campus_old_building_new_look.JPG/800px-UIC_East_Campus_old_building_new_look.JPG

oh, and here's a picture of Lord Mayor Richard the 1st, in that lovely amphitheater/plaza - my stars, look at all of the students gathering there! What a focal point indeed!
http://www.uic.edu/depts/oaa/walkingtour/Netschtour/RichardJDaley_CircleForum.JPG

[schwerve]

Interestingly enough, when the UIC campus first gained recognition in the very early 70's, it was totally slammed, design-wise because the original elevated walkways between buildings were rarely used and eventually realized as a student security risk (that's why almost all of them have been torn down,one existing remnant remains, the overhead bridge adjacent to the A+A building, which originally connected all the way to, you guessed it, University Hall), the whole campus was heavily criticized as cold and unwelcoming, there were no outdoor gathering spaces for students (because of fear of protests, student unrest, etc) and ask anyone who went to school at that time and they'll gladly recount how much they hated the campus, I know because I've asked many people who were students and faculty at the time.

the problem with the entire campus was that part of its design criteria was to prevent or protect from riots. Hence the elevated walkways, buildings with 2nd floors which jut out to prevent people scaling them, tinted windows which are too small for a person to climb through, no gathering spaces etc.

[Nowhereman1280]

ask anyone who went to school at that time and they'll gladly recount how much they hated the campus, I know because I've asked many people who were students and faculty at the time.


Its funny because every person I know who was at the school at the time laments the loss of the amphitheater and walkways... In fact, I just ran into a random person the other day who moved to California shortly after attending Circle and was back for the first time in about 40 years. He was remembering the way Chicago used to be and we were talking about all the changes. Two of the biggest issues in his mind were 1. Who the hell tore down the Granada Theater? and 2. How sad is it that they "destroyed" the Circle Campus?

The guy had no education or interest in architecture other than that of a random person off the street and he was as upset about the loss of the walkways as he was with the loss of the Granada Theater in Rogers Park. I dunno, I was just thinking how funny it is that this discussion came up literally the day after I met that guy.

Also, I was told by my Modern Art professor, who attended UIC and now teaches there, that people gave the walkways shit about not being used, but they all ignored the fact that the walkways were always packed during class changes and that they cut many minutes off the walk between most buildings. Now that I think about that point, I imagine that those pictures are probably only so "empty" because they are taken during class. If you take a picture of any college campus when classes are in session, its going to look pretty much empty. Take a picture right when classes are getting out/starting and its going to be crowded.

[VivaLFuego]

Also, here is a picture from Wikipedia of one of the classroom renovations, Douglas Hall I think - the 'before' is to the far left, with the exterior glazing exactly the same as University Hall, the 'after' is the building on the right, which is far superior, even just in terms of allowing sunlight inside the building.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/UIC_East_Campus_old_building_new_look.JPG/800px-UIC_East_Campus_old_building_new_look.JPG


Personally I find the exteriors of the renovated buildings (Douglas, Lincoln, etc.) to be utterly banal and devoid of any character or thoughtfulness in design whatsoever. There were ways to bring more light into the classrooms other than ripping off the entire facade.

The Harrison/Halsted dorms were probably one of the main reasons why UIC has shifted over the decades from a strictly commuter campus to one that now has a thriving student population, so much so that they built other dorms,

Oh, I think it's fantastic that they built dorms on campus, and agree that they were important in UIC's ongoing transformation. But even if they weren't hideously poor design, they are dreadfully out of place on that campus. My point was about not trusting UIC to build anything other than crapola design, not that everything should always be preserved no matter what.

[sentinel]

Its funny because every person I know who was at the school at the time laments the loss of the amphitheater and walkways... In fact, I just ran into a random person the other day who moved to California shortly after attending Circle and was back for the first time in about 40 years. He was remembering the way Chicago used to be and we were talking about all the changes. Two of the biggest issues in his mind were 1. Who the hell tore down the Granada Theater? and 2. How sad is it that they "destroyed" the Circle Campus? ...

What's really funny is that apparently that person hasn't been back to Chicago in 40 years and still refers to it as 'Circle' and of all things that they could have brought up about Chicago architecture, they lament the loss of the brutalist campus design??? That's funny to me - besides, there are still many buildings on campus from the original master plan that haven't changed a bit/have never been renovated, so I'm sure your friend will be right at home were they to ever visit again.

Also, I've never ever heard of any students gathering in the inter-connected overhead walkways before they were torn down - given the fact that between October to April, walking through the campus is like walking through a wind-tunnel, I think it would have been even worse in those walkways, which were probably very close to actual wind tunnels :haha:

[sentinel]

Personally I find the exteriors of the renovated buildings (Douglas, Lincoln, etc.) to be utterly banal and devoid of any character or thoughtfulness in design whatsoever. There were ways to bring more light into the classrooms other than ripping off the entire facade...

I think the new facades are great - simple, elegant and much more in line with Miesian Chicago style than the original Netsch designs.

[amfleisch]

As a current student, I hate the BSB and University Hall. Most of my classes are in the BSB and it is downright depressing inside and confusing still after 4 years of dealing with that building. They are currently fixing up the outside staircases. I believe that UIC can make good use of the surface parking behind the BSB and across the street from the UIC Pavilion by building class rooms and dorms and maybe creating a more traditional quad. However for a better connection the the rest of the campus, I believe BSB should be torn down if they do decide to build up that surface lot.

University Hall, I think could be all good if they just fixed it up and took care of the darn building. That rebuilt plaza between BSB and UH does not really function well because they have these stupid fountains in the middle of walkways so people have to walk around them for the quickest way to class. they also took down these mettle pipe things that connected the ground to the tower already.

I do have class in the new Lincoln Hall and i believe that UIC did an awesome job with that building, and I think all the class room buildings should look like that. But I really don't know why UIC did not match up the colors of Lincoln Hall and the new Douglas Hall. One is beige on the outside and is white.

The problem with UIC is that it is kinda stuck between trying to be an urban campus and trying be a traditional college campus. The new dorms, rec center, and classroom buildings are great for students. But too me, the campus does not really flow well with itself. I kinda even think just better landscaping and new street furniture like lights, benches, and garbage cans just fix that up a little.

There is also a huuuuuuge chunk of green space by Taylor and Morgan tucked away by the Science and Engineering buildings that no one uses, UIC should look into doing something there to get students to use the open space.

[BWChicago]

-When the UIC campus was built, the design and walkways were hailed by the architectural press.
-They were torn down because the construction was done on a budget and they were poorly maintained: clogged drains, burned out lights, bad decisions that made the radiant heating fail
-Walter Netsch steadfastly denied that the campus was designed to prevent riots, rather the materials and detailing were intended to be more humanizing
-These pictures, and architectural photography in general, avoided showing people; it's quite possible they were taken immediately after construction, on a Sunday, whatever for that very reason. Additionally, the campus was brand new, meaning that enrollment was way, way below what the campus was designed for (9,000 enrolled in the first year, projected to be 20,000 students by 1969 - which is about what it's at NOW - the failure to reach the projected numbers contributed greatly to the deferred maintenance), so of course it looks empty. And they were TWO story walkways, so you don't see what's going on underneath.
-The amphitheatre was only removed because it didn't work without the plazas above it; the campus was designed expressly for "meeting in the hall" - that is why it was organized by function, instead of by department. More faculty than students, so let the faculty move around, too.
-Here's a good post by the head of the preservation dept at UIC about why the Lincoln Hall renovations suck: http://vincemichael.wordpress.com/2008/12/18/yuck-at-uic/
-The concrete screens are for texture and screening, and are unusually bulky because they don't use rebar, the concrete is expressive; these were carefully designed to let the correct amount of light into the classrooms so blinds and their associated maintenance costs would be unnecessary
-One of the main reasons for the 2 story walkways was that there were supposed to be garages across the perimeter streets, so these would connect the campus, but since there were not garages, it lost some purpose
-You talk about weather and the elevated walkways - that's why there were elevated walkways, so you could walk under them in bad weather.
-The campus also looked desolate because it never had nearly the student body size predicted
-Arts & Architecture has never worked right because it was *only half built*- it was a double helix design of which only one helix was built, so of course the circulation doesn't make sense.

I visited UIC in 2004 when I was looking at colleges, and I *hated* the environment because it had all these interesting buildings that didn't seem connected to each other in a sensible way. Then I learned that they used to, but they were messed up. I went to DePaul, which instead had the bland, inoffensive character of a town center development.

I'll try to scan in some of the articles I have about Circle Campus' development this week. The campus is already pretty much ruined, but the pieces are worth reusing.

[Kippis]

The problem with UIC is that it is kinda stuck between trying to be an urban campus and trying be a traditional college campus. The new dorms, rec center, and classroom buildings are great for students. But too me, the campus does not really flow well with itself. I kinda even think just better landscaping and new street furniture like lights, benches, and garbage cans just fix that up a little.

I 100% agree with that. UIC's "renovation" in the late 90's in actuality did very little to enhance the campus' overall experience. The new landscaping is absolutely terrible IMHO, and most of the walkways, which (correct me if I'm wrong) were installed just under a decade ago to replace the elevated ones, are so horribly uneven and poorly maintained that anyone wearing sandals should take out an insurance policy before walking around out there.

UIC should definitely take a better look at problems that lay right in front of them as it stands right now - as a matter of fact, instead of worrying about the future of BSB and UH, why couldn't they worry about the rapidly deteriorating condition of the dorms at Harrison & Halsted? Or repair the lights and paint over the abhorrent amount of graffiti in the stairwell inside the A&A Building?

On the plus side, however, I think that they did do a decent job with the Douglas and Lincoln Hall renovations, especially seeing the result as compared to the Netch-designed halls - it's like night and day. Although I do agree in some respects that they could have taken more care in designing the new(-ish) buildings, I think that they look much better than the old ones they're replacing. Of course, that again could just be on the issue of maintenance.

[Mr Downtown]

baiting with pictures of an underutilized, outdated plaza are one thing, but first-hand accounts are another.

I guess I don't understand your point. When you said (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=4464383#post4464383) "there were no outdoor gathering spaces for students (because of fear of protests, student unrest, etc)," I simply replied with obvious photographic evidence showing five places specifically designed for informal student gatherings and meetings. Whether students later found them welcoming and useful is another issue altogether, but it certainly is not easily determined by examining architectural photography, which generally tried to show the buildings without people whenever possible.

The idea that the campus was designed to limit student protests is quite demonstrably false, given that it was actually under construction before Mario Savio ever even enrolled in the University of California. Netsch was tasked with creating something new: a campus much more urban than traditional small-town or land-grant campuses, but not as dense and invisible in the city fabric as NYU.

[george]

9-19

Stalled mixed use at Division & Honore

http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/9159/divhonore.jpg


New auto dealership at North & Bosworth - Mercedes or BMW, not sure.

http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/6125/bmw2kp.jpg

http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/9620/bmw1k.jpg

[ardecila]

It's Mercedes-Benz of Chicago's new digs.

I'm glad to see all the remnant lots from the Kennedy's construction get filled up. It really gives the sense that one is driving through a dense city, where buildings jut right up to expressways. Frontage roads prevent the Eisenhower and Ryan from feeling this way, although the Stevenson has a dense feeling through Bridgeport.

[Para]

I can understand an argument to save UH, but along with an interior renovation, it will need extensive exterior renovations as well as it is literally crumbling.

I cannot, however, understand an argument to save the BSB. It is one of the most user-unfriendly buildings possibly ever built. Navigation inside is near impossible. The stairs to get to the higher floors are located in completely useless areas. The narrow and cramped hallways as well as the center stairs in the atrium get clogged when any classes let out, and it's location is incredibly inconvenient, especially in the winters.

The poster that brought up the landscaping problem is correct. The ground level walkways that were put in place to substitute for the elevated ones are laid out in mindless arrays that involve much more walking than should be needed. Also, these are usually not cleared well if at all during the winter, creating a complete mess.

The renovated Lincoln and Douglass Halls have gone over quite well with students. More interior space has allowed large learning and tutoring areas to be set up on the lower floors, with standard classrooms on top. Someone mentioned there being other ways to bring in natural light other than ripping the facade off. There really weren't any other ways though. The original skin was designed specially to NOT bring in much natural light at all. We can argue about whether it was worth it, but what I hear as the most common complaint about the lecture halls is their lack of natural light.

[harryc]

Its funny because every person I know who was at the school at the time laments the loss of the amphitheater and walkways... ...

I lament -

Also, I was told by my Modern Art professor, who attended UIC and now teaches there, that people gave the walkways shit about not being used, but they all ignored the fact that the walkways were always packed during class changes and that they cut many minutes off the walk between most buildings. Now that I think about that point, I imagine that those pictures are probably only so "empty" because they are taken during class. If you take a picture of any college campus when classes are in session, its going to look pretty much empty. Take a picture right when classes are getting out/starting and its going to be crowded.
Definitely - I used them extensively, and remember them as quite crowded during class change.

[harryc]

...

Also, I've never ever heard of any students gathering in the inter-connected overhead walkways before they were torn down - given the fact that between October to April, walking through the campus is like walking through a wind-tunnel, I think it would have been even worse in those walkways, which were probably very close to actual wind tunnels :haha:

Not a Jack London fan are you ?

And yes some of us still call it Circle - the only University in the world named after a highway interchange - now that's history.

[harryc]

Additional floor - thankfully not visible from Wacker
Sept 17
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SrgEVcILX0I/AAAAAAABa9g/MR1ujt-dJgo/s800/P1540556.JPG

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SrgET_-RzFI/AAAAAAABa9Y/lWpiQh7QG1A/s800/P1540548.JPG

[J_M_Tungsten]

^^^ what exactly are they doing with this?

[Nowhereman1280]

Re UIC: Clearly no one ever congregagted on the walkways:

http://www.uic.edu/depts/oaa/walkingtour/Netschtour/6.0.1-Second%20Story%20Walkways.jpg
UIC.edu