I never questioned whether Coffey’s interest was in saving buildings, but his approach cannot be called preservation or restoration, it’s adaptive reuse with a vaguely historicist spin.
You’re creating false dichotomies. There is ground between creating a museum and complete reconfiguration.
The problem with UIC was not the design, but the lack of maintenance. That’s why it was dark, forboding, and grimy. UIC’s overall plan was a one of a kind work by a cutting edge architect. Now it’s more workable, but architecturally it’s disjointed and mangled. A preservation approach would have taken the original elements and modified them to work properly. This is why when a Frank Lloyd Wright building leaks, we don’t put a pitched roof on it.
You imply that “most preservationists” are not concerned with making “older buildings to live today and in the future, accomplished with a healthy respect for the past.” Nothing’s further from the truth; all preservation work is concerned with making them live today and in the future, that’s what it’s all about. Coffey just doesn’t appear to be concerned with historical accuracy.
The DePaul Center is a fine, functional building with some excellent spaces, particularly the Law School lobby. And unquestionably it’s better than it was after Goldblatt’s was done with it. But it, too, lacks many of the features it had when it opened as Rothschild’s.
At those theaters, he cut corners and left them less grand than they were on opening day. At the Chicago he had to work on a shoestring budget; the restoration work there amounted to little more than heavy cleaning, removal of the 50s junk, and a new coat of paint; that’s why it was intended to resemble the 1933 appearance. It was cheaper. At the Oriental, the colors got toned down – that’s just imposing your own taste on a historic structure. Parts of the upper lobby went unrestored. I’m not a strict preservationist, I don’t mind the way the lobby space and stage was reconfigured, but the paint was pointlessly inaccurate. At the Palace you have cheap plastic lights.
And again you create a false dichotomy; there’s not a choice between accurate colors and demolition, that’s a matter of will and a drop in the bucket of overall funding. It’s not at all unfair to quibble. It’s the difference between a restoration that reflects the building’s true character and a compromised game of dress-up.
I was attending DePaul during the entire Biograph work, so I am completely aware of what was what. Here’s a photo from the 80s showing the auditorium: View link Here’s a photo showing the original appearance: View link The whole thing had been remodeled a lot, but the fact is that there was a good amount of plaster and other historic fabric like tile work in the lobby (still there under the carpet.) If you want an example of how it could have been reused and retained what was remained, go to the Broadway theater at Broadway and Belmont. Same era, similar style, and they managed to not have to rip it out completely. A job like that probably wouldn’t have forced Victory Gardens into dire straits, too. I personally asked Dan if there was ever any consideration towards restoration, and he told me that it was a matter of location, not having to build a new structure, and being able to use restoration tax credits. It’s well documented that the exterior wasn’t even accurate; Hollywood was a lot closer to correct when they had to make it over for the movies. Nobody said it had to be a single screen theater. It could have been a club, a performing arts venue like the broadway or vic, a bookstore – any number of uses could have helped it retain the things it was landmarked for, the Dillinger connection, its appearance, and an example of an early neighborhood movie house. As it stands, it looks different from any time in the past, including Dillinger’s era, and there are better-preserved examples of movie houses. It’s a pretty shell someone stuck a beautiful new theater in, but it’s not an either/or proposition.
The Auditorium is a different matter and it shows that he can do the job right if he has the resources and pressure to. And I really like almost all of Coffey’s new construction work. And I think that his historic work is nice, but it could be so much better. I agree that he does use available money efficiently and pragmatically, but one of the whole ideas of preservation is that you don’t need to spend a lot of money changing what’s already there to come out with a quality product.
Richmond Ind Oscar Cobb of Chicago is preparing plans for a $25.000 theater to be erected on the site of the Bradley opera house Stone; an Illustrated Magazine
Christian W. Brandt has recently completed a million dollar factory building for the Charles B Bohn Foundry Company and he is the designer and builder of the Majestic theatre the Wyandotte theatre the Del The theatre the LaSalle Gardens and many of the fine residences of Detroit The City of Detroit, Michigan, 1701-1922 By William Stocking, S. J. Clarke Publishing Company
The building of six theatres is in contemplation in Cleveland An office building and theatre on Euclid avenue and East Seventeenth street for J Laronge Company will cost about $2.500 000 DR Hanna is having plans prepared by CA Platt New York for a $750000 theatre on East Fourteenth street and Prospect avenue Hoffman Brothers have bought a site at 10210 Euclid avenue and will erect a four story theatre costing about $250,000 Rapp & Rapp Chicago are preparing plans for a five story theatre at East 105th street and Euclid avenue for the Pauled Realty Company to cost about $400.000 CH Crane and EG Kiehler Detroit are preparing plans for a $1.000 000 office building and theatre on Euclid avenue for the Allen Theatre enterprises Stone; an Illustrated Magazine
Petterino’s is on the site of the Woods' lobby, the Goodman’s main theater (the Albert) is on the site of the Woods' auditorium, and the black box (the Owen) is on the Cinestage’s footprint.
I never questioned whether Coffey’s interest was in saving buildings, but his approach cannot be called preservation or restoration, it’s adaptive reuse with a vaguely historicist spin.
You’re creating false dichotomies. There is ground between creating a museum and complete reconfiguration.
The problem with UIC was not the design, but the lack of maintenance. That’s why it was dark, forboding, and grimy. UIC’s overall plan was a one of a kind work by a cutting edge architect. Now it’s more workable, but architecturally it’s disjointed and mangled. A preservation approach would have taken the original elements and modified them to work properly. This is why when a Frank Lloyd Wright building leaks, we don’t put a pitched roof on it.
You imply that “most preservationists” are not concerned with making “older buildings to live today and in the future, accomplished with a healthy respect for the past.” Nothing’s further from the truth; all preservation work is concerned with making them live today and in the future, that’s what it’s all about. Coffey just doesn’t appear to be concerned with historical accuracy.
The DePaul Center is a fine, functional building with some excellent spaces, particularly the Law School lobby. And unquestionably it’s better than it was after Goldblatt’s was done with it. But it, too, lacks many of the features it had when it opened as Rothschild’s.
At those theaters, he cut corners and left them less grand than they were on opening day. At the Chicago he had to work on a shoestring budget; the restoration work there amounted to little more than heavy cleaning, removal of the 50s junk, and a new coat of paint; that’s why it was intended to resemble the 1933 appearance. It was cheaper. At the Oriental, the colors got toned down – that’s just imposing your own taste on a historic structure. Parts of the upper lobby went unrestored. I’m not a strict preservationist, I don’t mind the way the lobby space and stage was reconfigured, but the paint was pointlessly inaccurate. At the Palace you have cheap plastic lights.
And again you create a false dichotomy; there’s not a choice between accurate colors and demolition, that’s a matter of will and a drop in the bucket of overall funding. It’s not at all unfair to quibble. It’s the difference between a restoration that reflects the building’s true character and a compromised game of dress-up.
I was attending DePaul during the entire Biograph work, so I am completely aware of what was what. Here’s a photo from the 80s showing the auditorium: View link Here’s a photo showing the original appearance: View link The whole thing had been remodeled a lot, but the fact is that there was a good amount of plaster and other historic fabric like tile work in the lobby (still there under the carpet.) If you want an example of how it could have been reused and retained what was remained, go to the Broadway theater at Broadway and Belmont. Same era, similar style, and they managed to not have to rip it out completely. A job like that probably wouldn’t have forced Victory Gardens into dire straits, too. I personally asked Dan if there was ever any consideration towards restoration, and he told me that it was a matter of location, not having to build a new structure, and being able to use restoration tax credits. It’s well documented that the exterior wasn’t even accurate; Hollywood was a lot closer to correct when they had to make it over for the movies. Nobody said it had to be a single screen theater. It could have been a club, a performing arts venue like the broadway or vic, a bookstore – any number of uses could have helped it retain the things it was landmarked for, the Dillinger connection, its appearance, and an example of an early neighborhood movie house. As it stands, it looks different from any time in the past, including Dillinger’s era, and there are better-preserved examples of movie houses. It’s a pretty shell someone stuck a beautiful new theater in, but it’s not an either/or proposition.
The Auditorium is a different matter and it shows that he can do the job right if he has the resources and pressure to. And I really like almost all of Coffey’s new construction work. And I think that his historic work is nice, but it could be so much better. I agree that he does use available money efficiently and pragmatically, but one of the whole ideas of preservation is that you don’t need to spend a lot of money changing what’s already there to come out with a quality product.
View link
View link
View link
View link
That’s one of the more ludicrous excuses I’ve heard.
The Kedzie Annex Sidney Lovell Architect Construction News Vol XXXIV No 13 September 28 1912 Chicago Ill One column of text Three half tone illustrations 725.8 Quarterly Bulletin Containing an Index of Literature from the Publications of Architectural Societies and Periodicals on Architecture and Allied Subjects V. 1-12, V. 13, No. 1-3; Jan. 1, 1900-Oct. 1, 1912 By American Institute of Architects
Richmond Ind Oscar Cobb of Chicago is preparing plans for a $25.000 theater to be erected on the site of the Bradley opera house Stone; an Illustrated Magazine
Detroit Plans being prepared by G Howard architect 2328 Dime Bank Bldg for theater for Colonial Theater Co Estimated cost Bids will be received about May 1 The Bridgemen’s Magazine By International Association of Bridge, Structural, and Ornamental Iron Workers
Christian W. Brandt has recently completed a million dollar factory building for the Charles B Bohn Foundry Company and he is the designer and builder of the Majestic theatre the Wyandotte theatre the Del The theatre the LaSalle Gardens and many of the fine residences of Detroit The City of Detroit, Michigan, 1701-1922 By William Stocking, S. J. Clarke Publishing Company
Ãà ALLEN THEATRE С HOWARD CRANE By I T Irary Architectural Record
Correct. There are a few other really nice articles about it. It was a very cool theater.
And finally, a nice view of the original facade:
WILSON AVENUE THEATER II L Ottenheimer Architect Book of the Annual Exhibition of the Chicago Architectural Club By Chicago Architectural Club
G. Albert Lansburgh was evidently also an architect here:Photos
The following source backs up Fred:
The building of six theatres is in contemplation in Cleveland An office building and theatre on Euclid avenue and East Seventeenth street for J Laronge Company will cost about $2.500 000 DR Hanna is having plans prepared by CA Platt New York for a $750000 theatre on East Fourteenth street and Prospect avenue Hoffman Brothers have bought a site at 10210 Euclid avenue and will erect a four story theatre costing about $250,000 Rapp & Rapp Chicago are preparing plans for a five story theatre at East 105th street and Euclid avenue for the Pauled Realty Company to cost about $400.000 CH Crane and EG Kiehler Detroit are preparing plans for a $1.000 000 office building and theatre on Euclid avenue for the Allen Theatre enterprises Stone; an Illustrated Magazine
Early View
Book of the Annual Exhibition of the Chicago Architectural Club By Chicago Architectural Club
An article on Pridmore’s nearby College Theater at DePaul
I believe it’s a recital hall or something at the top. No idea what they use it for now.
View link
Yeah, it’s still there. Helmut Jahn’s office is in the dome.
Some of them are still working, but not all.
Wrong theater. That would be the current Cadillac Palace
Bookman’s Alley. It’s still there.
Petterino’s is on the site of the Woods' lobby, the Goodman’s main theater (the Albert) is on the site of the Woods' auditorium, and the black box (the Owen) is on the Cinestage’s footprint.
http://www.tpcworld.com/ports.asp?id=79