Prentice Hospital has to be saved! It is magnificient modern architecture.

If only there was a fund or an organization for preserving buildings.. There was a 100+ year church in my neighbourhood that was slated to be demolished, and the property sold to developers. There were efforts to register the church as a heritage building, as it was really spectacularly beautiful with huge stained glass windows and giant vaulted ceilings and reminiscent of old european churches. However, keeping the building in decent condition was bleeding the church's resources.. so what I guess I'm trying to say is, great, let's try to save buildings and landmarks, but who will foot the bill? If someone owns a building they cannot maintain, they should be able to sell the property to whomever they need to to get out of financial mess, no?

Personally, I have little emotional attachment to architecture. If the building is still functional, if it isn't massively expensive to maintain, if it's structually sound and only needs cosmetic attention, then I guess the locals who have to look at it all the time should weigh in and determine it's fate. (And funding.)

But a lot of 20th century and somewhat earlier structures (and art, for that matter) were essentially experiments that maybe we not that stable. If those disappear, the photo legacy will have to suffice, along with the cautionary tale of what happens when you don't build for the ages!

(Many ancient buildings in "the Old World" still stand because they either somehow still hold up without millions of dollars of investment, or their historical/archealogical value makes them tourist attractions that bring in revenue to the country (like Egypt, for example). Without that factor, more of those things would go away, too. I'm not suggesting things be demolished without consideration, but I AM saying that nothing lasts forever, and sometimes it's "time" for things to end. And that is really OK.

I'm of two minds about that hospital. On the one hand, it's unique and interesting. But on the other, its weird, curvy shape probably makes it hell to work in. It reminds me of the middle school I did hard time in for one ugly year, one of those places without any straight lines or permanent walls, made merely to conceal the chaos within.

So if it doesn't work as a hospital, then maybe it's time for it to go. Sick people deserve function over form.

I have no idea why Taliesin is posted here - Nobody has ever remotely considered demolishing it...
...however the overall issue reminds me of a Neutra house in Rancho Mirage that was purchased and summarilly demolished without so much as a wince from the local government.

http://www.architectureweek.com/2002/0424/news_1-1.html

http://www.pspreservationfoundation.org/maslon.html

Once they're gone - That's it.

it would be a sad, sad day should the city of Chicago let this building be torn down. It may not be Marina City, but it would be a shame to tear down the building of an architect that was so instrumental in giving Chicago some of its most iconic buildings. Especially since it has become such an important destination to see great architecture. Buildings are one of the ways we measure the values of a civilization. What does letting great architecture go to waste say about us?

You mentioned Frank Lloyd Wright... I actually live near many, many of his houses, and actually know two people who own ones. A lot of those houses have many issues with maintenence because they were not properly built to stay standing this long. It's great for us to preserve historical places like this when we can, but I often wonder if it's always right to try to save ALL of these sorts of structures.

I live in NYC and see so many glass and metal (disposable) building being put up and torn down at a moments notice. Buying and selling real estate, jobs for construction and demolition seem to be the reasons to put up a building these days. Real architecture in urban settings is dead. It is all paper thin walls that crack, easy to put up and tear down and most dollar per sq. foot. It is a shame so these historic building must be save. If not only to remind us that people used to live and work in these space and did not just occupy space until then next new building came along.

and now i'm even angrier to learn that it is Northwestern University that wants to tear this building down. A fancy private school whose tuition is $40,000+ can't afford to adaptively reuse this building? total crap.

I am distressed to read that yet another wonderfully iconic building is in danger. We need architecture from all eras to maintain the visual diversity that creates interesting urban areas in which to live and work. Another building by the same architect stands in Tacoma, WA - St. Joseph Hospital. Very similar design and one of my all time favorites: http://search.tacomapubliclibrary.org/postcard/postcardfull.asp?db=85

Interesting timing -- I was at Northwestern Hospital just today and learned about this. I'm split:

As a designer and a lover of history, it's sad to see something of value go.

But as someone who just learned that I need further treatment for recurrent cancer, dang!, why wouldn't we let them build a new facility that better will better serve the researchers who will use it?

This hospital building can have many uses: Offices, a hotel, studio spaces...

Building preservation can be considered a form of (necessary) cultural censorship. Somethings are going to have to go and some are going to stay. Otherwise, you might as well stop the clock and make Manhattan a theme park right now. Unlike other cultural goods, you cannot digitize a building and store it in an archive for future generations.

I think preservation is a much more difficult decision for single-purpose and controversial structures. Think of all the beautiful train stations that have met the wrecking ball. But what do you do with a disused cathedral or a natatorium or an office building shaped like a giant picnic basket or the dilapidated house in which a cultural figure spent part of his youth?

http://www.travelblog.org/Photos/4318010

And then, what do you do with the Palace of the Republic, the East German parliament house? Or the Nuremberg parade grounds? Where "Triumph of the Will" was filmed? The grounds are a place to learn about the horrible power of propaganda, however, that particular propaganda is still working much too well on too many boneheads.

There are organizations for saving buildings! Chicago has Preservation Chicago and Landmarks Illinois, along with a number of neighborhood organizations. Join up! Save buildings!

I agree we can't save everything -- but I do believe we should be good curators and save our best things. Prentice is definitely one of them. In addition to being one of the most innovative architects and engineers -- Goldberg liked people -- all of his designs were centered around them. He thought the standard "box" was too cold and based his design on cylinders, because we relate to them more easily.

And Prentice is good hospital design. Instead of long corridors, it put nurses at the center -- with easy access to patients. When it closed, it may have had a decorating problem -- victim of ugly wallpaper border -- but not a design problem. Nurses loved to work there. It was designed to give patients better care -- and it did. The hospital model was repeated a number of times -- with the majority of them still vibrant, functioning hospitals.

When we moved to Sacramento from Chicago I was struck by the strange mix of architecture in the downtown/Midtown area, as well as the lack of buildings of any historical or architectural value...

I've recently learned that in the 60's and 70's fabulous theaters, hotels, businesses and historical mansions were torn down. They replaced the mansions with parking lots and state buildings (most of which are empty now), and we are left with only 3. The 2 and 4 unit apartment buildings from the 1800's-1940's, and more than half of the craftsman (including homes designed by FLW) single story and two story homes were demolished to have nasty tiny, multi-unit apartments put in their place.

It took the loss of the Alhambra Theatre to finally start a preservation movement. Developers are a dirty word here. They will tear something down, rather than revamp it into something new.

I personally feel that a landmark is what makes the city special, once it's gone, there's no getting it back. Could you imagine San Fran without the painted ladies or NYC without the Chrysler building?

My suggestion about the cost is to charge a tax for the preservation of the Historical landmarks. If you charge a tax for the upkeep of sports arenas and infrastructure why not for landmarks?

I think the Prentice Hospital looks gorgeous, but if the options are:

A) Tear it down so Northwestern can build a better hospital in its place or

B) Leave it and don't build a hospital at all

I say people take precendence over architecture. Saving lives and giving people better treatment is more important. The happy medium would be if Northwestern could renovate Prentice so that it could function like they want it to without sacrificing the clover shape, but I'm not sure how feasible that really is.

I think the Hospital building is fantastic, and could benefit from creative re-use. However, the points brought up by commenters here are not taking into account all facts that are evident from the articles about this debate:

1. The hospital that was housed in the building has been moved to a newer facility in 2007.

2. Northwestern does not intend to build another hospital in its place. It wants to put up a high-rise that will house offices and research labs for the Medical School.

3. A person of authority with the Northeastern facilities management contends that the University if not interested in creative re-use, and would like to move on with demolition because "demolition bids came in relatively cheap and he wants to take one while he can."

So really, it comes down to economics and private ownership vs. cultural significance, and economics usually win in the end, no matter how sad that might be.

I know I'll take heat for this, but:

The 1970s weren't famous for great architecture. And this building supports that premise.

I'm a Chicagoan, born and bred, and every time I pass it I say to myself, "What were they thinking?"

It looks like an air-conditioner.

"You mentioned Frank Lloyd Wright... A lot of those houses have many issues with maintenence because they were not properly built to stay standing this long..."

Not quite.
The buildings he designed were on the cutting edge - they were designed decades in advance of the development of the types of building materials which would have better enabled them to withstand time and the elements...
...if you took some of those designs off the shelf and built them today with the double glazing, membrane roofing, lightweight concretes and PEX tubing for radiant floor heating we have available to us today - you'd have a much more durable structure.

Besides which - Name me another building approaching 100 years of age that doesn't have maintenance issues?

@mgs7640
LOL

(Granted, I have never seen an AC shaped like that... I feel like the building would be better off with more windows, however.)

I am side-eyeing that hardware store hard. It can't be on any architectural basis that they want to save it, can it?

Not when it's really ugly, as this one is. Has anyone seriously disputed the beauty of the architecture in old European cities? This is apples and oranges, IMO.

A hospital in my Toronto neighborhood went through this (Bridgepoint Health). They have a very cool looking semicircular building dating from the early 1960s. The rooms are so small, modern equipment can't fit and often there can be only one person in the room with the patient (so much for family visits). There was an outcry when Bridgepoint proposed replacing the building, predicated largely on a "but it's cool looking!" argument. I think Toronto could do more to preserve buildings of all ages but in this case, I come down on the side of having a functioning hospital. I suspect that's the thinking in Chicago - the Prentice building is different and interesting but the priority is fighting disease.

From the sounds of it, people have proposed some pretty creative reuses of the Prentice building -- including several designs that accommodate the research use Northwestern is striving for. It'd be a pity if such a unique building were lost.

@mjs7640: I can't believe you said that on AT! How dare you suggest that the emperor's nekkid?

First, a few points about the Architect-
Bertrand Goldberg. Not only was Betrand Goldberg a visionary groundbreaking architect - for example when the iconic Marina Towers were designed in the 1960's, he incorporated many things people need & use- a Grocery, a Cinema, a Gym, a Dry Cleaner and a Marina- at the time- totally original thinking.
His designs were typically Organic in nature- the River City project in Chicago's South Loop features the most spacious "Studio" units you will ever set foot in - full of light (thanks to transoms) and storage- due to thoughtful design.
My mother lived there- and her experience was so positive; something she still references from over 20 years ago.
More to the point- Northwestern Memorial Hospital has been shown many adaptive reuse plans- that do not make building "unserviceable". Additionally, they have NO PLANS drawn- and no FUNDS to develop anything on the site- in fact a gravel lot to the immediate south of this building has been vacant for years, since Northwestern demoed THAT building.

Finally - in the words of Michael Lewis from the NYTimes......"It is again evident that every great building leads a double life.
It is a valuable commodity (Art) that occupies the physical space of another (Real Estate) -true of no other category of art."

@thicklizzie I totally agree with your comment. I believe in new smartly designed green buildings but unfortunately what I mostly see are cheaply made, generic buildings being built all over the city.
Visit Asheville, NC and you can see why it is important to save iconic buildings. This place is an art deco architectural gem that was thankfully preserved. Although some might think Prentice is not very appealing, we will be thankful one day to have at least some
interesting architecture juxtaposed with bland
strip malls.

It is sad when these buildings do get torn down even if they do have ugly architecture. It is like in Detroit they recently tore down the Ford Auditorium. The auditorium was an ugly building but had so much history. There are some cool pix at:http://thebigdetroit.com/files/TheFordAuditorium.html. The inside is completely falling apart.

A little late to the party, but...

Thanks to AT for posting this.

@Man of Steel, thanks for the positive comments regarding my beloved building. It's always nice to see that not everyone thinks River City is an eyesore.