Old Chicago Photographs

[JDG373]

Originally Posted by UrbanSophist

Why did they tear it all down??

...and why does it continue... ...? http://www.chicagotribune.com/featur...6641.htmlstory

[urbanlife78]

image hosted on flickr

I was just staring at this photo and it seriously is insane how much Chicago has grown in the past 50 years. Whatever happened in Chicago 50 years ago has definitely worked out for it because based off this image, the city could of easily stayed stagnant and would be nothing more than a relic of a past generation of a city...lucky for us that never happened.

[JDG373]

Historic preservation isn't opposed to growth and development. Chicago has an amazing skyline, and the downtown office space and other infrastructure developments that have happened here in the post war era have been vital toward positioning the city as a global player in the twentyfirst century. But many poorly thought out planning decisions have also occurred - does it make sense to destroy an architecturally significant 20 story building from the late nineteenth century and replace it with a parking lot - or a one story currency exchange? Its a poor use of space, it adds to traffic congestion, it eliminates density, and it eliminates the historic, urban character of the city that we have been enjoying in these old photos. Preservation isn't stagnation - its making smart planning decisions and respecting the history of a place, reflected in the built environment, that makes it unique.

[nicksplace27]

Originally Posted by JDG373

Historic preservation isn't opposed to growth and development. Chicago has an amazing skyline, and the downtown office space and other infrastructure developments that have happened here in the post war era have been vital toward positioning the city as a global player in the twentyfirst century. But many poorly thought out planning decisions have also occurred - does it make sense to destroy an architecturally significant 20 story building from the late nineteenth century and replace it with a parking lot - or a one story currency exchange? Its a poor use of space, it adds to traffic congestion, it eliminates density, and it eliminates the historic, urban character of the city that we have been enjoying in these old photos. Preservation isn't stagnation - its making smart planning decisions and respecting the history of a place, reflected in the built environment, that makes it unique.

That all sounds wonderful, but the problem emerges when this idea is taken too far. If historic preservation was too strict in the Loop, then companies wishing to build massive offices and expand dramatically won't locate in a spot where only three to five story buildings with constraining floorplans are allowed.

Lets campare it to Detroit's skyline. Yes Detroit's skyline and urban character downtown has not changed a lot, but the only reason why it hasn't changed is becuase there isn't any economic growth going on in the city. But even Detroit, in an effort to revitalize, built the Ren Center so that also changed the nature of the skyline.

In area like San Francisco and Washinton DC; where there is height limits, strict preservation codes and strong neighborhood groups, there has also been a massive bleedoff of people and corporations to the surrounding suburbs in both respective places. Thier saving grace is that they developed great inter-urban transit given thier topographical constraints. This wouldn't be the case.

If this happened in the 1950s in Chicago, we would be in a suburban wasteland. All of the infastructure would have been highway and auto based. Every corporation, faced with a constricting and expensive downtown, would leave for the gleaming glass office parks of Shaumburg. A much, much larger and sadder version of all the highway dependant, suburban dominated cities in the midwest.

I'm not saying we shouldn't save examples of wonderful turn of the century architecture in the loop, but we should be able to say goodbye to some old structures on Lake and Franklin dating back to the 1870s in order to build an 80 story tower that would house dozens of companies employing thousands of people.

At the same time, we should be landmarking and trying to preserve the Italinate Beauty built during the 1880s on the northeast corner of dearborn and randolph.

[JDG373]

Originally Posted by nicksplace27

That all sounds wonderful, but the problem emerges when this idea is taken too far....At the same time, we should be landmarking and trying to preserve the Italinate Beauty built during the 1880s on the northeast corner of dearborn and randolph.

- I agree, and I believe that preservation should inherently be a give and take process and should not represent an impediment to economic growth. However, some buildings are worth saving - especially when a sound economic case can be made for adaptive reuse. Here's a great example -
http://www.landmarks.org/recent_scherer.htm

- You're right about that Italianate- that it is a fine old building.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by nicksplace27

At the same time, we should be landmarking and trying to preserve the Italinate Beauty built during the 1880s on the northeast corner of dearborn and randolph.

Huh? It's been a Chicago Landmark for twenty-seven years.

[urbanlife78]

I would dare say Chicago has done a pretty good job preserving much of its historical content. Actually one could argue that the amount of land the old railways opened up for new development is what saved many of Chicago's old buildings from ever coming down.

[nicksplace27]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Huh? It's been a Chicago Landmark for twenty-seven years.

Oh I know. I was saying that while we should landmark that structure; if they want to demolish a few of those (three story buildings from the 1880s) in the central loop in order to build an 80 story mixed use scraper, I say let them.

Basically, I'm defending the idea of a very discerning preservation code.

[Mr Downtown]

^It sounds like your discernment process consists of looking at the proposed replacement. That's not discernment; it's situational ethics.

[nicksplace27]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

^It sounds like your discernment process consists of looking at the proposed replacement. That's not discernment; it's situational ethics.

Well what is a better process?

[Mr Downtown]

Landmark designations should be made based solely on the merits of the existing building, completely independent of whether anything is proposed for that site—much less what the new thing looks like. Ideally, landmarking should be done long before there's any discussion of redevelopment, so that property owners don't feel that their development rights have somehow been snatched away at the last minute.

[desertpunk]

c.1960

image hosted on flickr

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jvh33/

[t_george]

I've been reading an amazing volume, "Chicago and its Makers, A Narrative of Events 1833-1926" Felix Mendelsohn 1929. Over 400 photos of old Chicago. This book is big and is difficult to scan... but here's a few including a letter & pamphlet intended to promote the book at its publishing in 1929.

[Mr Downtown]

A short clip showing State & Madison in 1897:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GG2h-bGjjlw

More people than buildings or streetscapes, but a remarkable collection of midcentury street photography has recently come to light:

http://vivianmaier.blogspot.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWEDOnBfDUI

Exhibit begins January 8th at the Chicago Cultural Center.

[VelesHomais]

Great thread. It's always interesting to see the evolution of a great city.

[hoogbouw010]

Scanned from my own collection of old negatives:

1. From 1962.


2.


3.Removed, posted incorrectly as Chicago.

4.

[Mr Downtown]

Number 3 is actually Manhattan, not Chicago. I believe that's the Third Avenue El at 43rd Street.

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Number 3 is actually Manhattan, not Chicago. I believe that's the Third Avenue El at 43rd Street.

Good catch, I don't imagine Chicago ever had a Murray Hill Hardware store. Plus E 43rd would put that photo in the middle of the Southside, which looks nothing like that photo, and I am not sure it ever did look anything like that.

Nonetheless, I do love all these old photos...it is always amazing how long Chicago's architecture was frozen in time, we are really lucky the city never died off cause it could of easily happened if the modern architecture boom never happened there.

[The Urban Politician]

Originally Posted by hoogbouw010

^ Dang, I wonder what time of the day this pic was taken?

Either it was dawn on Sunday, or there simply wasn't as much traffic back in those days. Nowadays, you'll rarely see a scene like this

[Mr Downtown]

^About 2 pm, based on the shadows.