11/4/98
Alan Johnson - Architect, AJA Associates LTD, Architecture and Engineering <ajarch@aol.com>
Bill Lavicka - Developer/Structural Engineer, Historic Boulevard Development <allavi@aol.com>
Janelle Walker - Folklorist, Grad Student, Folklore Institute, Indiana University <jlwalker@grenzglier.com>
Steve Balkin - Economist, Roosevelt University <mar@interaccess.com>
BACKGROUND
The Maxwell Street neighborhood was Chicago's main immigrant entry neighborhood, the site of Chicago's oldest and largest public outdoor market, and an incubator for Chicago Blues, the precursor to rock n' roll. Today, there about 60 old buildings remain in the Maxwell Street area, half with operating businesses still in them.
The area is in the pathway of the University of Illinois at Chicago's (UIC) South campus expansion. The land upon which the old buildings sit is less than 10% of the campus expansion area. The University wants to use the land, upon which these buildings sit, for parking lots, retail space, and dorms. The University has acquired the power of eminent domain and intends to demolish all the remaining buildings in the area, except for a police station.
A city based and world wide preservation coalition wants the old buildings to be preserved. Support for the Maxwell Street Historic Preservation Coalition has grown, particularly among Blues fans, preservationists, and in the Jewish, African-American, and Mexican-American communities.
In March of 1998, Mayor Daley called together an Ad-Hoc Maxwell Street Advisory Committee to work out a compromise solution. The Committee consisted of representatives from UIC, The City of Chicago Department of Planning and Economic Development, the Maxwell Street Historic Preservation Coalition, and City hired architect consultants, Howard Decker and John Vinci. The outcome of these meeting was the Daley-Decker-Vinci compromise plan calling for preservation of 36 out of the 60 old buildings. Control of the use of the buildings would be with UIC. There was unanimous agreement this was a win-win plan.
UIC FACADISM
In August, 1998 UIC reneged on the Daley-Decker-Vinci Plan and intends to demolish almost everything, except for the police station. From the best information we have, we suspect that UIC now intends to save only a few exterior facades of these buildings.
According to discussion with architects and planners for the University of Illinois at Chicago, the University is proposing to use exterior facades for two reasons. They want to placate the Ad-Hoc Maxwell Street Advisory Committee by "preserving" some of the flavor of the original historical structures; and they want to allow for more flexibility in the location of floors behind the facades and build the new structures behind facades to a greater height than the current structures. It is also likely though that mechanicals and electrical can be combined to simplify work.
FACADISM
According to historian Mike Wallace, Americans are on an ever-intensifying "heritage binge." Museums, halls of fame, golden oldies, genealogy, historic districts, monuments, memorials, and reenactments, antique collecting, historical novels, costume epics, docudramas, restored urban centers, historic detail in architecture, etc. all demonstrate how "thoroughly obsessed with the past" we are. These tourists won't come to see facades, but they flock to places where they can have a brush with history, to places that are authentic.
"Focus on authenticity and quality" is the first of five principles of heritage tourism set forth by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The terms, of course, are subjective. Discussion and debate about authenticity rages on in many discipline:. What makes something authentic? How do we establish authenticity? These questions have plagued scholars for decades. But one thing is certain -- something called a facade is definitely not authentic. In a recent Chicago Tribune article, David Greising points to use of the term facade as "stark truth in labeling." He asks, "What word in the language could be more empty and false that 'facade'?" This practice of preserving only the false fronts negates the rich city life that went on in the rest of the buildings, and is all that the term facade implies: it is fake, phony, inauthentic, artificial, veneer, pasted on, false, superficial, cosmetic, a mere facade. Facadism, as its connotations suggest, hides something. In this case, facades would hide the ugly truth that the University of Illinois cares not at all about the real history of Maxwell Street or the conservation of culture in the area.
There are dozens of reasons why facadism isn't right. Some of them are intangibles, reasons that are universally understood among the historically and preservation-minded, but which are hard to sell to those bent on a facade-only approach. Sense of place, respect for history, the energy and long-term contribution of old buildings, cultural conservation, tradition, aesthetics, the politics of place, and architectural heritage are weighty arguments to be sure. But even if decision-makers don't give a hoot about any of these or about the immigrant or blues history of Maxwell Street, they should still favor saving full buildings for the sake of development and tourism and profit. For example, when Seneca Falls, NY established a Women's Rights Historic National Park, business leaders (probably not all feminists) poured money into remodeling. Said one village trustee, "if you've got Old Faithful in your town, you are in favor of geysers."
Even Jane Jacobs in The Death and Life of Great American Cities, certainly a basic text for any planner of any neighborhood in any city, identifies the need for "a good lot of plain, ordinary, low-value old buildings" in any successful urban district. Jacobs has an entire chapter titled "The need for aged buildings" (full buildings, not facades).
Why isn't facadism preservation? For the same reason a cubic zirconia isn't a diamond, that Formica isn't wood, that Disney World isn't the real world.
WHY UIC FACADISM IS WRONG
This UIC facade-only concept is unacceptable for five primary reasons:
a) The destruction of the buildings behind the facades will result in the throwing away of useful structural floors and walls and original materials/finishes. We accept that the mechanicals and electrical must be redone but the structure of the building represents at least 40% of the cost of the building. This removal of useful building elements will result in creation of more uneccessary landfill materials. In addition perfectly servicable space will be thrown away only to have to be rebuilt. The economics of preservation of buildings has shown time after time that it is no more expensive to reuse a structure than to build new. In addition, when one considers the cost of demolition, landfill costs, and historic preservation tax credits, preservation is even more affordable.
b)The pasting on of the original facades over a taller building with possible blanking over of openings will result in a visual mess. Any additional height must be set back from the face to allow the original mass of building to remain and preserve shape and context of the building or what preservationists call "sensitivity to scale." If UIC intends to set the new buildings behind a mass of original building then why not keep the existing buildings? Says Grant Dehard, director of the Foundation for San Francisco's Architectural Heritage, "When only facades are retained, we lose the functional reasons for the building's original appearance, such as the spacing of structural systems, the relationship of the building plan and original function to the facade, or its relationship to the scale, rhythm, color and materials of neighboring buildings."
c) The original buildings are representative of the history of the area. We could no more paste on the facade of Abraham Lincoln's house onto a bank building and call it history that doing the same to the Maxwell Street buildings. The immigrants life style was plain and hard and the simple interiors of the remaining buildings demonstrate how we all (nation of immigrants) rose up to build this great nation. An original tin ceiling, worn wood floor or exposed brick walls show more eloquently than brand new what life was like there. Lee H. Nelson, architectural consultant to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Preservation Projects writes,
Even though buildings may be of historic, rather than architectural significance, it is their tangible elements that embody its significance for association with specific events or persons and it is those tangible elements both on the exterior and interior that should be preserved.
The elements are still there, ready to be reused, so history does not have to compromise the future. As the preservation of old industrial buildings with worn floors, etc. for reuse as new residential projects shows, these spaces are more marketable.
d) Facades don't bring shoppers or crime-preventing pedestrian activity. UIC plans a retail development and dormitories right where the old Maxwell Street buildings are. For the new development to be successful, students and shoppers have to feel safe and there is safety in numbers. The preserved old buildings embedded into this area, creating a genuine historic district, would be yet another use for the area which will bring tourists and visitors, locally and from around the world. Those extra eyes on the street add safety and economic value. Facades do not draw people to an area as much as preserved whole buildings.
e) A benefit of the UIC expansion for nearby residents is the creation of jobs. Rehab work is more labor intensive that new construction. Keeping and rehabbing the old buildings would create more jobs than just keeping the facades.
CONCLUSION
Facadism is the wrong idea and only acceptable in the rare instances where the building behind is no longer usable. Even in those instances, the replacement of the shape, bulk and feel of the original is necessary. Maxwell Street buildings do not require replacement because they are still in good shape structurally. They also contain original materials that demonstrate where we as a nation of immigrants came from. We should keep the original fabric of the cloth(buildings) even if patches and repair are required. The end result, historical buildings, with updated mechanicals and electrical, will serve and instruct the future while respecting and honoring the past.
Saving building facades is common practice by those who want to appease right-minded but bothersome opponents in order to proceed with a plan to destroy the fabric of a neighborhood and build new structures in its place. It is a "form of tokenism in preservation," according to Grant Dehart, an "easy way for developers ... to tip their hats to preservation while not really saving any buildings. The University of Illinois is throwing out a bone -- the people of Chicago should insist on some meat.
SOURCES
Carl Abbott (1984). "The Facadism Fad: Is It Preservation?" Historic Preservation, October.
Linda Caldwell (1996). "Heritage Tourism: A Tool for Economic Development." Keys to the Marketplace: Problems and Issues in Cultural and Heritage Tourism. Ed. Patricia Atkinson Wells. Middlesex, UK: Hisarlik.
David Greising (1998). "Tree Studios could be sapped of its real life." Chicago Tribune, October 28
Jane Jacobs (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House
Michael T. Kaufman (1994). A Tenement Is a Home For History. The New York Times, January 7. P. B1 and B8.
Lee H. Nelson (1998). Architectural Character: Identifying the Visual Aspects of Historic Buildings as an Aid to Preserving. Preservation Brief#17, Historic Preservation Services, National Park Service, 1998
Mike Wallace (1996). Mickey Mouse History and Other Essays on American Memory. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
web page provided by OPENAIR-MARKET NET
return to Preserve Maxwell Street