Demolition Man: How Hans Morsbach Razed the Hyde Park YMCA

posted by chicago pop

"A vacant lot is not a pleasant site, but at this juncture, it is better than a decaying, dangerous building."*

-Hyde Park Herald editorial, on demolition of the 1907 Hyde Park YMCA in 1983

In light of recent events surrounding Doctor's Hospital, it is interesting to look back to the treatment of another historic building of the same vintage, the Hyde Park Division of the Chicago YMCA, at what is now the Dorchester Commons mini-mall.

Based on the Doctors Hospital episode, you may think you already know what happens when you have a historic, pre-World War I building, a neighborhood landmark that for several generations provided service to the community, that is suddenly shuttered and stands empty for several years.

The neighborhood rallies to save it, the effort is spearheaded by pillars of the community, including restaurant owner and concessionnaire Hans Morsbach, who use an obscure law to outwit a large and bumbling institution, thus preserving the historical integrity of the neighborhood, and keeping out unwanted commerce.

Wrong!

You don't do any of that. Instead, you tear down the blighted building within two years (Doctors Hospital has been vacant for nine). Instead of a labor union, you get the University to pick up your legal costs. And if any so-called "preservationists" make a ruckus and start floating conspiracy theories involving backroom maneuvers by the University, you call in the local newspaper, the Hyde Park Herald, to give you unconditional support and tell them what the neighborhood really wants: Tear down that old eyesore because it's within 1,200 feet of my property!

And you pave the way for its replacement, not by a top-notch building by a famous German or Italian architect worthy of Harper Avenue, but by ... a suburban-style minimall.

Here's what the Herald, that unwavering champion of unwavering community values, had to say about the sad fate of the old YMCA building.

The long-awaited demolition of the Hyde Park YMCA building has finally begun...

It was clear ... to the community at large that the outmoded building could not be salvaged at a reasonable cost. We are pleased that the developer ... has recognized that the community wanted that building removed before any serious incident occurred in this massive property which was becoming a haven for derelicts, thieves, and mischief-makers.

Here is the best part:

We do not give credence to the notion being bruited about the community that tearing down the building was a "conspiracy." If one wants to define a conspiracy in this case as a concerted effort by many people and institutions to keep Hyde Park-Kenwood from becoming a slum, so be it. It is always sad when a neighborhood landmark is torn down. In this case, it is doubly sad because this proud building rapidly deteriorated before our eyes.

Hyde Park YMCA, Front Door
[Source, Hyde Park Herald, June 17, 1959]

The essential details of the story are this: for financial reasons, the YMCA decided to close its Hyde Park facility in August of 1980. By the end of September, the 74 year old building was vacant. By the spring of 1981, a small group of neighbors, among them Hans Morsbach, and represented by the South East Chicago Commission (SECC), filed suit against the YMCA claiming that "the boarded-up property is a threat to their property because of its deteriorated condition," and that it was "an imminent threat to the health and safety of plantiffs, the plaintiff's neighbors, and the surrounding area."

The plaintiffs in the case invoked an obscure municipal ordinance according to which neighbors who lived or owned property within a certain distance -- 1,200 feet -- of an abandoned or dilapidated building could sue the owner to allow for demolition by the City. In 1981, the YMCA came close to finding a buyer, a developer who expressed an interest in gutting the structure and converting it to rental apartments which would include, it was stressed at the time, no Section 8 units.

The deal fell through, the lawsuit was successful, and Morsbach's group had the old building demolished.

Perhaps Morsbach's effort to keep the 1916 Doctors Hospital building vacant for nine years running somehow makes cosmic amends for helping to demolish a 1907 building that was vacant for only 2.

*[Source: http://ddd-hph.dlconsulting.com/cgi-bin/newshph?a=d&d=HPH19590617.1.2&e=00-00-0000-99-99-9999--20--1----YMCA+photo-all ]

Caryl Yasko's Labor of Love

posted by Elizabeth Fama

If you passed by the 55th Street mural, Under City Stone (c. 1972), last summer, you might have seen the artist, Caryl Yasko working to restore it. She spent several weeks there, if I'm not mistaken. All I know is that in less time, my daughter painted a mural of a pod of hippos and an entire African landscape on all four of her bathroom walls. I'm not sure who is funding the restoration, but as of March, 2008, the Chicago Public Art Group was still trying to find a donor for its repair. Perhaps Ms. Yasko was donating her time.

You can see from the water on the ground that this mural gets a fair amount of weathering. The new steel frame "bent" system that supports the viaduct does not prevent seepage. In the middle of winter, there was a gigantic icicle spitefully crawling down the middle of the restored section of the mural.

In short: this particular wall is not suited for lasting mural art. Either that, or someone needs to maintain it almost annually. But how about this instead: maybe the mural artists should rotate, and we should accept that it's an impermanent art form? Or, if it's cheaper, maybe we can put up panel art, as is slated for the 53rd Street viaduct, and we can actually rotate the pieces periodically, rather than be tied to the art trends of the past?

Personally, I'm in the mood for hippos.

Harper Theater: Historically Significant?

posted by Elizabeth Fama

In the last few days, HPP reader "BWChicago" brought up the issue of the historic significance of the Hyde Park Movie Theater (see the comments on Chicago Pop's previous post). He mentioned that the Joffrey Ballet and Second City played there when it was called Harper Theater. He was the first person I've heard articulate reasons he thought the building had some historic merit, and it raised the level of the discussion in the comment section about demolition versus restoration.

San Nicola in Carcere, Rome

I really admire old objects and art, but I'm not a zealous preservationist yet. For instance, one of my favorite buildings in Rome is San Nicola in Carcere, which was built in the 6th Century on the ruins of three ancient temples, using the columns of the temples for one of its walls. It also has a jutting medieval prison tower (back from its days as a jail), and a 19th Century facade stuck on the front. Until the recent tourism era, Italians thought nothing of tearing down and rebuilding to suit current tastes and egos, or heck, just building sopra (on top of). I'm not sure that's such a bad model.

For an average person like me, then, a building in Hyde Park can have historic significance because (a) experts agree it's important architecturally, or (b) something important happened there, or (c) both. With regard to (a) BWChicago argued that the theater is probably nicer than any new structure that will be built there, which time will tell. With regard to (b), there was that Joffrey Ballet and Second City information he provided.

I did some cyber research on Harper Theater, and this is what I could find about its significance:

1) It was built as a vaudeville theater in 1913. (Vaudeville is cool.)

2) In 1995 the City of Chicago finished a 12-year inventory of all structures built before 1940 (the Chicago Historic Resources Survey). Even my house was evaluated (it's "too altered for architectural or historical significance," humph). Harper Theater is one of 9,600 properties listed as "orange" in their ranking system, meaning "possesses potentially significant architectural or historical features."

3) Landmarks Illinois -- which is a private (not state-run) preservation organization -- listed the theater on its 2008-2009 watch-list of endangered properties, after the University's deal with a developer fell through.

4) Bruce Sagan (publisher of the Hyde Park Herald) and his wife, Judith, bought the theater in 1964 to host the annual "Harper Theater Dance Festival." In November of 1965, the Joffrey Ballet -- which a year before had been forced to disband (for contractual reasons) -- staged a one-week comeback at Harper Theater with new dancers and new choreography, putting the corps back on the national radar. The Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater also participated in the Festival at some point.

From the Newberry Library's Inventory of Judith and Bruce Sagan Papers, 1965-1986:

Founders of the Harper Theater Dance Festival, Bruce and Judith Sagan met while students at the University of Chicago. Bruce Sagan, a publisher of local newspapers, bought the Harper Theater business block in Hyde Park and in 1964 he and Judith renovated the theater in order to present a cross-section of top dance companies, some of them new to Chicago audiences. The festivals provided a full week of performance opportunities at a time when most touring companies were subjected to one-and two-night stands while on the road. Although including both ethnic and classic dance at the beginning, the festivals soon specialized as a showcase for the best contemporary and experimental dance companies in the country, such as Merce Cunningham, Alwin Nikolais and Paul Taylor.

By the third season, Bruce Sagan gave up his active involvement in the dance festivals and Judith Sagan became sole producer. In 1971 the festival, now the Harper Dance Foundation, moved to downtown Chicago to the Civic Theater and then to the University of Chicago's Mandel Hall between 1971 and 1975. After 1975, the foundation became dormant, but was reactivated in 1979 to bring the Paul Taylor Dancers back to the Civic Theater.

5) BWChicago also stresses the fact that Second City played at Harper Theater, but the only reference I could find was relatively insignificant, in an obituary about Byrne Pivens:

Married in 1954, the Pivens left Chicago in 1955 to work and study in New York, but they returned here in 1967 to appear in the short-lived Second City Repertory Company at the old Harper Theater in Hyde Park.

In fact, the two true ancestor groups of Second City -- Playwrights Theater Club and subsequently The Compass Players -- played in bars on 55th Street (University Tap and Compass Tavern) that both fell to urban renewal. The Bee Hive, a highly influential jazz club, was also razed (among other music venues).

So while we debate the significance of Hyde Park Movie Theater, I say that we also dig up the foundations of those bars and clubs on 55th, and -- like Santa Maria Sopra Minerva in Rome -- we build new taverns and a nightlife right on top of them. What better way to honor the past?

NIMBY's Corner: Morsbach Keeps Apologizing; Spicer Makes Up More Stuff

posted by chicago pop

If anyone wonders why the same names keep popping up again and again on this blog, there's a simple reason: the same few names keep out-gassing in the Herald like crabby spouses, or mucking around elsewhere leaving monkey wrenches conspicuously dangling about.

It's sort of like Blagojevich: we didn't ask for his behavior, but he just keeps doing crazy stuff and getting media attention for it.

So, to come back to our long-time HPP favorite, the Janus-faced Hans Morsbach, defender of the neighborhood and of high principles.

If ever there has been reason to quote Shakespeare on the blog, it is with reference to his latest letter on the Doctors Hospital vote -- in which he defends -- one more time -- his position. Note to Hans: me thinks thou dost protest too much.

Yes, it's been over a month, and Hans is still apologizing for the dumb decision he encouraged his neighbors to take and that most of the rest of the neighborhood is ticked off about. If it really had been the right thing to do, I don't think we would have had this blizzard of propaganda in the aftermath.

Taking the best interests of the neighborhood to heart, Morsbach issues this rejoinder to White Lodging's Bruce White:

I did not know of the extent of your philanthropic intentions and how they affect me. Do you
suggest that knowing that the University Medical Center receives a large donation will make a bigger impact on my life than looking every day at an ugly building, or give you license to tear down a landmark? ... Do you think that when your employees park on Harper Avenue that I think that is the cost of progress?

[Emphasis on personal pronouns added by the editor.]

So Hans is clearly not concerned about himself, and this comes through, as it also came through the referendum.

To satisfy the literary critics among us, I'll point out that it's unclear what "ugly building" Morsbach is referring to, as the Doctors Hospital is certainly no beauty, something which Morsbach himself confessed in an earlier letter in the summer of 2007. ("I have never paid much attention to the architectural merit of the hospital..." Herald LTE, July 18, 2007).

And of course, Doctors Hospital does not have landmark status, as Morsbach claims. But when you're out-gassing to the Herald, little details like that tend to escape out the blowhole.




On the note of factual inaccuracy, especially with regard to claims of things not falling apart and it just generally being OK that entropy and the second law of thermodynamics have become the governing principles of Hyde Park development, Mr. Jack Spicer makes the claim in today's Herald that the troubled Herald Building on 53rd and Harper is "a very solid building and in very good condition." ("HPHS seeks landmark status for 53rd and Harper," Kate Hawley, Herald, Wednesday December 10, 2008).

Now, the Herald Building that fronts 53rd has been vacant since spring of 2008, but even before that we have it from a variety of sources that it was falling apart.

For example, we learn from the October 11, 2006 Herald, that the company once interested in renovating the Harper Theater ran up against the problem of the building's advanced deterioration and the costs that fixing it would have entailed.

The building and its interior also need extensive repair and renovation," [the Herald told us, going on to quote the local art house theater chain Classic Cinemas (owner of the Tivoli in Downers Grove)], "Typically when you have an existing shell, a rough number [for renovation] is about $1 million per screen." ... In 2002, renovation cost estimates for the 1,200-seat theater building and its attachments were approximately $10 million.

Repairing the Harper Theater, in 2002, would have cost about 10x more than usual for a theater of its vintage. That seems like a decent index of the structure's dilapidation.

The article continues with a quote from Irene Sherr: "The theater now has deteriorated even further. They [Classic Cinemas] felt it was in terrible shape then and basically you had to rebuild the theater behind keeping the facade."

These statements from 2006 seem to corroborate the University's appraisal in this week's Herald, that "the building is in rough shape -- so bad it may not last another winter. In recent weeks, it has been surrounded with scaffolding, a measure to protect pedestrians from falling debris."

Makes sense. So what is Spicer's position on the scaffolding protecting pedestrians?

From the Herald, again: "He ... said the university doesn't have a permit for the sidewalk scaffolding."

Apart from this curious aversion to public safety measures, that's the second time Spicer is wrong, in one article. Kate Hawley actually checks this fact (bravo!), and tells us that a "valid permit is on file through February 15."

Perhaps the Hyde Park Historical Society, instead of scoffing at scaffolding, should ask its members to take time off work in order to hand out hard hats to all passers by?

(Fine Photograph of Herald Building on 53rd, with Large Brick Mass of Harper Theater Looming In Background, and Deteriorating Antiballistic Radar Platform Above. Credit: Shahzad Ahsan, Chicago Maroon)

Doctor's Hospital Petition: Hypocrites or Blackmailers?

posted by Peter Rossi

On November 4th, residents of the 39th precinct will vote on a referendum to make their precinct dry. Opponents of a hotel at the Doctor's Hospital site gathered the 150 signatures required from the 600 odd registered voters in this tiny precinct. A simple majority of those who vote on the referendum is needed to prevail. That means that only a handful of voters will determine the future of commercial development in HP.

An interesting soup of local "preservation" activists, labor organizers, university employees, and students canvassed for signatures.

Several of the petition circulators are local "preservationists" who are on public record as favoring a "re-use" of the existing Doctor's Hospital buildings. I reproduce two petition forms that were circulated by these "preservationists" below.

So much for "we want good development not this development" and "I'm in favor of a hotel; I just want preservation" and "I'm pro-development." Exploiting an absurd 1934 Illinois law, these folks have turned tail on their preservation roots. Voting this precinct dry will make any mixed used development infeasible, including re-use of the existing buildings. In all probability, the passage of this referendum would condemn the Doctor's Hospital Buildings to remain vacant indefinitely.

Would any developer come to Hyde Park after the cross has been burned on the lawn of Doctor's Hospital? Not likely, "those people are crazy; they would hurt themselves to avoid a restaurant or hotel in their neighborhood." So this petition has the potential to do great harm to Hyde Park and surrounding communities.

This looks pretty bad for the track record of some of the same folks who opposed development at McMobil, on Cornell, at St. Stephens, oppose fixing the Point, and want to gum up the works at Harper Court. They are more like undertakers than preservationists.

The sponsors of the petition have now signaled that this was all about a spot of blackmail. Vista Homes resident and winner of the petition sweepstakes, Mr. Rechtschaffen, let the cat of the bag in a letter in the Herald. Well, we want you (the developer and the U) to play ball; we aren't necessarily that interested voting the precinct dry. The head of the HP-KCC Preservation committee approached University officials and intimated that he didn't think the petition "had to go through," wink, wink.

Ah, the Prince would be proud of his HP proteges. They don't give a damn about preservation, they just want to hold feet to the fire. To what end, though? Mr. Rechschaffen is concerned about parking and noise. It's not clear he has any solution other than no hotel. He dances around the idea of a smaller hotel but this doesn't really help with his noise problem.

Mr. Lane of Harper Ave is even more obvious, "this has always been about the community process not the hotel." Translation: we want say in this project. We don't really care about the outcome; we just want power. Our other NIMBY friend is shy, or should I say sly, and doesn't say.

This was all accomplished by some pretty cynical political maneuvering. Our NIMBY handful went to some of their close neighbors at Vista Homes and Harper Ave and said "I know you are nervous about change, don't trust the wicked developer and arrogant U; let's slow this whole thing down." Well, they haven't "slowed it" down. In this kind of high stakes game, there is only go or no go. If the petition passes, this dooms the site and probably our neighborhood to no commercial development for some time.

The doomsday machine has been turned on. Does anyone seriously think that Mr. Rechtschaffen, Mr. Lane or the man behind the curtain are going to turn it off? Are they going to go door to door to tell their neighbors -- "Just kidding on that petition, the developer licked our boots clean, please vote NO?"

In the end, reasonable people will prevail and this measure will be defeated. Folks in the 39th will think it through and point the gun away from their foot.

The real question is will our students of Machiavelli be held accountable for this irresponsible act?

Next week: Anatomy of A Blackmail. A look at how this was set in the motion with the aid of local 1, Unite-HERE.

Who are the Real Preservationists?

posted by Peter Rossi

"Preservation" is a much used and much abused term. To my way of thinking, preservation of man-made objects such as buildings or engineering structures requires repair and/or restoration. One can preserve a river or forest simply by leaving it alone, but to abandon a man-made structure is not to preserve it.

The Faux Preservationists

Hyde Park is home to self-anointed "preservationists" who believe that it is only necessary to stop the bulldozers. After spooking local officials into halting change, these folks walk away to leave the structures abandoned and decaying. Examples of this breed include members of the preservation committees of the Hyde Park Historical Society and the Hyde Park-Kenwood Community Conference.

Here are some prime examples of what these folks have "achieved."

Doctor's Hospital is an eyesore created by those who don't have any criteria as to constitutes a worthwhile building and who lack the perseverance and wherewithal to preserve the structure by finding another use for it.

Abandoned Doctor's Hospital

Shuttered Out Patient Entrance

Over several years, a major effort was made by a small group, the "Community Task Force," to stop all proposals for fixing the Point and restoring the Caldwell Landscaping. They boast of having raised more than $90,000 but have nothing to show for it.

Crumbling South Side of Point (photo by Beth Fama)

Local "preservationists" lobbied for the "preservation" of St. Stephens Church on Blackstone near 57th. They succeeded (with some help from an incompetent developer and intrusive neighbors) in creating another abandoned eyesore. Once a month or so, the dome gets daubed with a new coat of graffiti.

New Graffiti on St. Stephens

The First Unitarian Church of Hyde Park at 57th and University faced the problem of preserving the spire extending above its Gothic tower. Strapped for funds, the church was forced to tear it down which was cheaper than repairing it. Less than one half of the $90,000 raised to keep the Point from being fixed could have preserved a Hyde Park landmark.

Where's My Hat? Missing Spire on First Unitarian

The Accidental Preservationist

Hyde Park is home to one of the largest collection of theological seminaries in the nation. Seminary training is not a growth industry and many seminaries are struggling to maintain their historic quarters. Chicago Theological Seminary (CTS) is one such institution. In 2006, a storm blew off limestone blocks from atop its beautiful brick and limestone tower. As luck would have it, this afforded the strapped institution the opportunity to fix their tower, thanks, in part, to an obliging insurance company.

CTS Tower Renovations

The Real Preservationist

The real preservationists in Hyde Park cannot be found in the empty street car station on Lake Park Avenue or in the back rooms of Cosimo's restaurant. The real preservationists are ensconced in the administration building at the University of Chicago.

We may all be aware of the major building program under way at the U, but few know about the huge set of preservation projects.

I provide a partial listing and some illustrations.

Rockefeller Chapel is undergoing a $21 million restoration. This sum does not include the new organ and restoration of the carillion.

Rockefeller Chapel Restoration

One of the oldest and most beautiful buildings at U of C is Ida Noyes Hall. The roof and tudor-like wooden details of this building had fallen into severe disrepair. The university is in the midst of a major effort to restore the building facade and roof.

Ida Noyes Roofing Restoration Detail

Construction of the Caesar Pelli-designed Ratner athletic center rendered the women's swimming pool at Ida Noyes obsolete. The Graduate School of Business just completed at $2.5 million reworking of this space to a study center. Preservation of buildings requires making changes in the use of the buildings without changing their character.

GSB Study Space in Old Ida Noyes Women's Swimming Pool

NIMBYs in our neighborhood frequently accuse the U of having designs on the old houses it owns along Woodlawn Avenue. Some would like to declare this an historical corridor, further frustrating any attempt to preserve these buildings.

The University has taken over 5710 S. Woodlawn and put on an addition to house the office of diversity. The NIMBYs would make this sort of change impossible and doom these houses to neglect.

Addition to 5710 S. Woodlawn Ave.

To compete against other top institutions, the Law School needed to upgrade student facilities. The Eero Saarinen Library tower posed a difficult problem - how to renovate in a manner consistent with the needs of the law school and the style of architecture? $25 million later, the Law School has created a gorgeous new space.

Law School Library Staircase

The fountain in front of the school is a distinctive landmark but also a barrier to pedestrians and contributes to a isolated feeling. The School is spending approximately $2 million to create a new zero-depth fountain that will convert into a pedestrian plaza in the winter months. In front of the fountain, a new winter garden is under construction on the Midway. Along with the new dorms at 61st and Ellis, this will go a long way to making a real South campus.

Law School Fountain Repair

This is only a partial list of the projects completed or planned by the University. The Mies van der Rohe designed SSA building will get all new windows in the summer of 2008. A $51 million gut rehab of the Searle (Chemistry) building will retain gothic symmetry on the quads but with a new interior. The University has poured over $27 million into renovations of International House. Burton-Judson is undergoing a multi-year facade and roof restoration at a cost of over $13 million.

Miesian SSA Facade

"You are being unfair, yet again," I can hear the NIMBYs chanting while carefully reading this post. The U of C is a wealthy institution, we can't possibly match the resources of a major university with a 6 billion+ endowment. The only thing we can do is scream "no."

You are wrong. First off, many local NIMBYs have the view that the University's interests are not aligned with the community, particularly on preservation. I think the facts speak otherwise. It is in the University's interest, perhaps more than any other institution in our neighborhood, to preserve their historical buildings and find ways of blending the new with the old.

Secondly, many NIMBYs actively discourage the University's preservation efforts by opposing all change and failing to recognize that there has to be a balance between preservation and change. We must be able to build great buildings, if only to have something that future generations fight to preserve.

Finally, some of our local NIMBYs have shown a remarkable commitment to the political process of opposing change. They are not much for the harder work of raising money and designing new structures to complement the old, though. Is this because they are naive and misguided or because the later is hard work that doesn't put you in the limelight?

The Preservation Con Game and the Point

posted by Peter Rossi

Are you in favor of preservation? "You bet."

Do you want to preserve the Point? "Of course, I do; this is a beautiful and absolutely unique place on Chicago's lakefront."

Does it follow then that you want to preserve the Point revetment? A few self-appointed community "activists" want you to jump to this conclusion and blindly follow their lead.

For seven years, this group has done everything in their power to table all plans to fix the Point revetment. There is no end in sight.

It is possible to preserve our beloved Point. We can also preserve and even improve our access to the lake. We can restore the Caldwell landscaping. We cannot preserve the Point revetment. It must be rebuilt.

The revetment has been irreparably damaged along its entire 6000 foot length. In some places, the original revetment has become nothing but a jumbled pile of limestone blocks. In others, the original revetment has been replaced with a hideous "pill box" or coffin stretch of concrete. In still others, the substructure of crushed stone is gone and the blocks are hanging, unsupported, waiting to fall in. These photos tell the tale of woe (check out Beth Fama's excellent post for more details and pics):

Collapse of Revetment "Steps"

Failed Promenade
(photos by E. Fama)

In order to fix the Point revetment, you have to remove the existing limestone blocks and build a new substructure. Extensive Army Corp of Engineers studies have shown that the only substructure that can work is a steel piling wall backed by a concrete base. The limestone blocks can then be returned and added both above and below a concrete base promenade.

The Save the Pointers and their fellow travelers would have you believe that they want a "preservation plan" for the revetment. They cannot define what they mean by "preservation." To define preservation would expose the basic fallacy and open up the possibility that some plan might actually be acceptable. "I know it when I see it" seems to be the definition of preservation that applies here.

Those who argue for the excellent Compromise Plan can be conveniently labelled as anti-preservation while those whose real agenda is to do nothing can disguise themselves as "preservation" advocates.

While all of this obfuscation goes on, the revetment crumbles into the lake and the land behind the revetment is ignored. The beautiful landscaping that this revetment once protected has been allowed to decline to little more than a patch of grass and some spindly trees.

Behind this preservation con game is the cyncial belief that the users of the Point can be tricked into supporting vague proposals for "preservation." No progress can be portrayed as a "success." "Success" is achieved simply by rejecting plans to fix the revetment.

The stark truth is that the outcome of the preservation con game will be no progress for more than ten years.*

It is time enough to demand progress. FIX THE POINT!

*It has already been seven years since the first proposal was advanced to fix the Point. The Save the Pointers are waiting on a review by an Army Corps official that by their own estimate will take at least 1.5 more years. We still don't know what this review will achieve. Will a new plan be developed that is acceptable to all parties? Is there any grounds for optimism? I think not. In the end, final plans must be drawn, bids let, and construction must start. There is no way this could happen any sooner than four years from now even assuming that the Save the Pointers execute a complete about-face.

The Preservation Con Game

posted by Peter Rossi

A time-honored NIMBY tactic is to assert an opinion frequently in hopes that it will become regarded as fact. If we scream frequently that the Doctor's Hospital should be preserved, this will shift the debate from "is the Doctor's Hospital worth preserving?" to "how can we preserve it?" The NIMBYs are now applying this tactic in discussions with Chicago Maroon reporters.

In a recent editorial , Maroon editors urge the university to seriously consider an alternative "preservation" proposal drawn up under the auspices of the Hyde Park Historical Society preservation committee. Does this imply that the Maroon editorial board accepts the proposition that the Doctor's Hospital should be preserved?

Those who advocate the preservation of this building have made no arguments regarding its architectural merits. It is not a unique building (the firm that designed it produced over 100 similar structures) nor is it an exemplar of any style of architecture. The only thing we say say about the building is that it is reasonably old. To my eye, it has that gloomy look that reminds you of obsolete institutions such as state mental hospitals or orphanages.

The Maroon editorial states that our local preservationists claim Doctor's Hospital is an "architectural landmark." It is not. No city, state or federal landmarks agency has declared this to be the case. A private preservation group who call themselves the Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois has put the Doctor's Hospital on their "watchlist." There is no formal criteria for inclusion on this list and inclusion does not constitute landmark status.

So what this boils down to is that a handful of Hyde Parkers have declared the Doctor's Hospital to be worth preserving and have not been required to justify that conclusion.

It is not even clear what the alternative preservation proposal consists of. Are there cost estimates, architectural plans, and engineering studies? The Maroon news story quotes local "preservationist" Jack Spicer as arguing (quite irresponsibly) that you can have your preservation cake and eat it too. That is, it might be cheaper to preserve the buildings. It stands to reason that to preserve even the facade of the hospital will be much more expensive than building a middle of the line Marriott.

But even if it turned out that Doctor's Hospital was designed by Frank Lloyd Wright's chauffeur, we still must ask - could this structure make a viable hotel? If you were a prospective student, parent, or visiting faculty, would you want to stay behind this ugly facade? It looks like a Columbia University dorm circa 1940. It will make the Omni New Haven look like the Ritz and the Durant Hotel in Berkeley look like the Savoy. The Stanford Park in Palo Alto will seem like Shangri-La.

Going the preservation route will maximize the chances that this site will remain an embarrassing eyesore and visitors to the U of C will stay downtown. We need a hotel. Preservation can't and shouldn't work for this site.

I would encourage Maroon reporters to ask hard questions of preservation advocates and check some of the assertions which are going unverified. We will all be better off for it. This is something that our local newspaper, the Hyde Park Herald, should do but we have learned that the Maroon is a far better source of real news. The Maroon has a 50 per cent larger circulation to boot -- so, go to it guys!