Back in March, one of our writers here at the Yo briefly mentioned Mainstreet Station Condominiums, Bernard Katz and Associates‘ 71- unit development at Main Street and Chicago Avenue in southern Evanston. He wrote: “The nine-story building, the design of which can best be described assssdddddddfsfgkj;s… sorry, I dozed off for a bit there.”
The post prompted a long, thoughtful email from the building’s architect, John Clark, principal in Cordogan, Clark & Associates. We’re posting it here with his permission:
From a certain perspective, it’s almost a compliment. Let me explain why.
I think for years Evanston has been victim to a lot of new development that seems out of place and that fights with or doesn’t reinforce Evanston’s very special “sense of place.” The older architectural fabric of Evanston has wonderful integrity and coherence. And for me, this particular corner, and the older buildings to the east of it, is a great part of Evanston. As you may have, I’ve known this corner, and this area, for a long time. Perhaps I like this area, and its old building stock, more than most people do. And I worked to design a building I thought would be worthy to replace the existing white terra cotta / tan brick building that is currently on this corner. In many ways this new building pays homage to this existing building and its context . I hope Mainstreet Station, when built, looks like it was meant to be here. And I wouldn’t find it insulting if people thought it was the original building on this corner.
New construction always creates some disruption. Given its scale, I wanted this new architecture to disrupt this area as little as possible, to minimize the shadows it casts on its neighbors, and to enhance its setting.
Alderwoman Melissa Winn and Carolyn Brezinski, head of Evanston’s Department of Architecture, and I were all on the same wavelength here, which helped smooth the design process.
On the first floor, our building incorporates aspects of the existing retail building into its design. Retail storefronts extend along Main Street, interrupted only by the entrance to the Condominiums. They wrap around the corner onto Chicago Avenue, extending south to the retail parking entrance.
One big difference between our building and the existing retail building on this corner is that our building is set 4 feet back from its north and west property lines. On the West elevation, and portions of the North, the storefront glazing is pushed 3 feet further back. So the sidewalks on Chicago Avenue are gaining about 7′ of usable space; and overall we are adding about 2300 sf of usable area to the public walkways.
The way the upper floors of our building form an L shape that is pushed west and south, moves our building about as far away from the neighboring residential building to the east as it can go. So instead of creating a wall on Main Street we create a landscaped courtyard, with the majority of the upper residential floor area set so far back that it minimizes the shadow it casts onto Main Street. The roof offsets are accented with plantings and, at the third floor, with a roof garden.
On Main street, the 2nd and 3rd floors are pushed back, to retain the feel of single story retail on Main. The setback above retail is accented with planting. Except at the corner of Chicago and Main, about 60% of the upper condominium floors are pushed even further back, about 80′ back on average, to minimize their presence on Main Street, and to push away from the residential building to the east.
In elevation, our building is organized in 3 main parts:
· First floor Retail and Retail Parking;
· Second and Third Floors Condominium Parking
· And Floors 4 through 9 Condominiums.
The design and detailing of our building is somewhat traditional, in the sense that it is similar to some of its older neighboring buildings: Like them, it is divided into three parts: a base (the retail and parking floors) a middle (the condominium floors) and a top (the upper floor and cornice)At the first floor level, the detailing is similar to the existing building on this site, in that its off-white frame, in this case is made of limestone colored precast, is accented with tan Endicott ironspot bricks. And we are further accenting these with glazed blue tiles. Also, we have accented the retail level with wall sconces, signage bands and banners which are unified into the design and enliven the streetscape.
Similar detailing carries throughout the building, on the balcony railings, and on the top floor capitols which feature blue tiles set into reveals: These are small, but they will sparkle when sunlight hits them. This will subtly enliven the facade. At the lower levels and above they add a great complement to the tan brick and cream colored precast.
Overall this design is different than any recent building to be built in Evanston. In many ways it more directly continues earlier types of design, on this block and elsewhere. But it is also one that fits comfortably in the 21st century.
One of my main design inspirations for this building was Otto Wagner’s residential and public work in Vienna, and also Wagner’s student Josef Hoffmann’s. I wanted Chicago and Main to respect the two buildings to the east. Wagner explored a transitional architectural vocabulary that bridges traditional and contemporary design . His work has long interested me also because of his link to Chicago: There was some strong design cross pollenization between him and both Sullivan and Wright in the early years of the 20th century. And I think the traditional aspects and abstracted classicism of much of Wright and Sullivan’s work is now more apparent in the hindsight provided by so much proportionless contemporary architecture. Also, I think exploring this vocabulary further at this corner helped create and aesthetic “bridge” between buildings to the east and the new building on the northwest corner diagonally opposite it .
I do think this building will be special for the area. I also think it’s an elegant design, if perhaps understated. But If to an extent it looks like it was already there, or perhaps reminiscent of buildings you’ve seen before in Evanston, and does not especially jump out at you as being different, to me that’s a good thing. Because many parts of Evanston seem in need of design that helps restore and reinforce what makes it a very livable, pedestrian friendly and human scaled city.
He’s joking, right? Sarcasm can be so tricky on the web….
As for the architecture of the building – congratulations John – you’ve created a wonderful little monument to banality here!
To the architect (if he’s reading this):
It is a tragedy to be a fairly young man in Evanston, I gather. You architects cater to the horrible taste of geriatric old fogies who try to run all of the development there. Sadly, in the 3 or 4 years from now when they all die, our generation will have to spend decades looking at the monument to banality that went up to please their dull tastes.
They should go back to playing Bingo and you guys should go back to designing buildings that are attractive, interesting, and fit into the century in which we live.
I’ll take this over those goofy glass and concrete monstrosities with the crooked windows any day. In 10 years those will be about as stylish as shag carpet.
^ This one’s already a “shag carpet”, so I’m not sure what your point is.
I think I agree with some points from all the posters. It is an incredibly dull design. The architect’s intent seems genuine and he has his heart in the right place, but… look at that thing. Hoffman and Wagner must be doing some serious spinning about now. Its not much better than the gulag they erected on the opposite(nw) corner that looks like a detention facility. As for the comments made by the urban politician (by the way you might want to change that moniker as when I think of urban politicians I want to gag) that only old fogies want buildings that are intelligent enough to respond to the history of a place as opposed to being in denial about it: Well, let them build these “brave-new-century” buildings in Schaumburg or Skokie. I guess you would prefer another Optima structure with its cheap 1950’s-era bland curtain wall with brightly colored balconies to deflect the fact that they are incapable of designing a sophisticated structure that is in harmony with the Evanston tradition. Oh no! I sound like an old fogie! Tell the architects that are lucky enough to work in this town that they should just look at the old Marshall Field’s building at Church and Sherman for inspiration. Modern for its time but still works in the context of the surrounding neighborhood.
I’m never in support of bad architecture, either neo-traditional or modern.
I for one absolutely love the Harold Washington Library Center and 65 E Goethe, for example.
But in the old days they used quality materials with skilled craftsmanship. Now days we can only hope for a second rate copy.
Except for the few instances I mentioned above where real money was spent, I’d rather not even bother to mimic the past if we can’t reproduce such quality structures.
Well, it’s a step up from Section 8 housing. As for Optima, their Skokie project is wonderful, and their Evanston projects aren’t all too bad either.
Anon, what is it about the Optima Skokie project that is wonderful? Is it the way it blends into its environment? Maybe the way it relates to the scale of its surroundings? Perhaps the Orwellian/corporate headquarter massing is what’s so charming? Personally, I’d be scared to come home to this.By the way, an out of town observer driving by with me thought it WAS an office building! Try to design buildings whose function match the typology. Why do our residences have to look like offices? Maybe because there is a derth of talented architects being given the opportunity to design important buildings like this. Urban, I’m not sure that money, or lack of it is at the root of these problems. Rather an insistent stubborness on some architects’ parts to think that all building solutions can be solved by the use of the almighty glass curtain wall.
That out of towner exemplifies what is wrong with public reaction. After seeing millions of dull brick in-fill, they believe that can only serve residential purposes, and that glass and steel are only for commercial use. Well sorry, but that is incorrect. The juxtaposition between ultra modern and old is something that we should strive for instead of emulating the past (which, btw, will be destroyed with this project) on a cheap budget. Stop pretending that Chicago and suburbs are some centuries-old city that needs to be protected and realize that even the great architectural capitals like Paris have seen the benefits to modern design.
Paul, you and the other glass-haters aren’t thinking about how you sound.
You have nothing to say about architecture. You sound about as irrelevant as an old man who hates modern music because “this sounds like noise, it’s nothing like the tunes of my day”
Urban, as to having nothing to say about architecture (bragging here) I am an architect who regularly wins awards and whose work appears in national and international publications. So I feel I am qualified to speak on this subject. I am also a recording musician as it turns out and modern music if just fine with me. What you are missing from my missives is that many architects fall back on the comfort of the same solutions over and over. There is NOTHING innovative about cladding all buildings, residential or commercial, in banal curtail walls with no detail. Curtain walls are so 1920. Shag carpeting, if you will.You can indict architects who use classicism as an easy solve-all solution to their projects but is that any different from modernists using the same crutch? I think there should be a new architectural expression for our times. It may not be easy and it may not be something you can paste in your renderings from an autocad program. It will have to be hard work and intellectual rigor to make it happen. I’m not suggesting brick-infill like Anon suggests but new an inventive ways to express the places we live in as “home” and not an overgrown strip mall or storage facility. Look at Hector Guimard’s apartments in Paris. They are most definitely modern for their day but as infill work elegantly with their neighbors. What a concept!