The restoration of SOM's Inland Steel Building in Chicago has some angles to it worth noting. This article in the New York Times describes how the building has long been a favorite of starchitect Frank Gehry and his involvement is one of the most newsworthy aspects of the story. I was surprised to find, however, that he has played the role primarily of motivator, deal-maker and minor partner, not architect. Instead, Mr. Gerhy impressed me by his insistence that the building's original design firm, SOM, lead the renovations.
Renovation, not true restoration, appears to have been the original intent even of SOM. It is not surprising that sustainability was a primary goal and that the Chicago Landmarks Commission stepped in to perhaps temper the changes proposed.
Note the exchange between the parties described in the article, language all too familiar to preservationists: “They didn’t want us to change so much as a doorknob,” Mr. Cohen said. But in a telephone interview last week, he said that most of the issues had been resolved and that renovations, which will turn Inland Steel into a Class A office building, were moving forward." The next paragraph makes it clear that the renovations have qualified for the 20% Federal Historic Tax Credits, although the program is not called out by name.
So to me the point of the story is the illustration of two important aspects of modern preservation practice; 1) No matter how successful, respected or talented, modern architects do not by default practice modern preservation techniques and 2) despite the initial knee-jerk reaction to the preservation approach, such as “They didn’t want us to change so much as a doorknob", preservation concerns can be incorporated into an economically sound project.
The image above is from the blog of John W. Darrow, LEED AP. Other really good information and images of the project are also available at this post.
Recent Comments