Comments ( 15 )

• WOW.

  By Carson’s I’m assuming you mean the Carson Pirie Scott building?

• Shannon at Chicagoist has opened her mouth before without any basis of fact. As has become the norm for Chicagoist overall, Shannon’s opinion is purely based upon emotion and not actual knowledge. If this Chicqoist writer even had a clue, she would know that the Farwell Building is in no way on the level of the Carson Pirie Scott Building, and that there is no chance in hell that the same kind of thing could happen to Carson’s.

  Chicagoist has gotten full of itself over the past couple of years, and writing posts like this is a prime example, which is why I stopped reading it on a regular basis.

• We have to be very careful about the precedent that the Farwell sets. If people are able to hollow out historic buildings, especially in such a prominent location, we will soon be living in a city that looks like a Body Worlds exhibit…Everything will look cool from the street…dead inside. It is a shame that no one will ever get a chance to truly experience these buildings ever again.

• Joe, Where did you come up with the quote infering a death threat quote, isn’t that a bit much? I take her comment as, essentially if someone wants to touch Carson’s, the powers to be will lie down on that one as well.

  Also, is it any surpise to Lucien Lagrange involved in yet another controversial preservation issue. He may be a brilliant Architect as it relates to making buildings, etc., but as it relates to where he wants to place those buildings, he is a phony. The whole ‘woe is the old man architect charm’ during presentations is nothing but a ‘snake oil’ sale presentation.

• I clearly remember a couple years ago when the Tribune quoted Burt Natarus saying something like this, “With these preservationists, it’s a one way street. They think that a building lasts forever, and you are either with them or you are against them, and if you are against them, you are evil.”

  That statement was dead on accurate. Among preseration activists, you find a number of complete lunatics. It’s a cult religion to them.

• Jeffery,

  It’s a literal reading of “Your lives will be forfeit.” I’m just quoting.

  That kind of language has no place in the public sphere.

  I worked in a mental hospital for 4 1/2 years when I was in college. We had one patient in particular who wrote letters along the lines of “you deserve to die” to the US President. Whenever the President was in town, our patient was on lockdown and Secret Service agents were stationed outside the building.

  People who express the thought that someone deserves to die for “even thinking of touching” a landmark building have lost either their moral compass, or their mind, or both.

• I think there is too much of an alarm being sounded by the Farwell building. There is no reason to believe this sets a precedent. It seems like there is enough of a discussion occurring to ensure that future facadectomies of landmarked buildings will be looked at very critically.

  Besides, they reduced the number of parking levels and hoisted them up to the 6th floor. That’s a pretty good buffer from the street if you ask me.

• Sadly, those who own the building, letting it go to it’s demise, have much role in it’s fate, as ultimately, the ‘perceived state’ of the building was used to decide against its future. Of course, if one buys just to let this happen, then that would be a shame.

• I think that, maybe, the Chicagoist comment has been taken a wee bit too seriously here. Weeeeee bit.

• Brendan,

  Au contraire.

  There’s no light-hearted interpretation that’s possible, and nothing even remotely humorous about suggesting that people should die.

  The expression of these adolescent fantasies needs, if anything, to be taken far more seriously if we are to maintain any semblance of civilized discourse in our society. More people need to stand up and call this what it is: revolting and not to be tolerated.

• now Joe, is there even a single example of a preservation murdering a developer?

  without any precedent I can’t take the comment too seriously, although I agree it’s pretty juvenile and counterproductive to their cause.

• dammit, meant to say “preservationist murdering a developer”

  stronger coffee than usual. : P

• Carter,

  There’ve been lots of instances of new construction buildings being burned by people with an environmental or preservationist agenda.

  I’m not contending that this is a direct threat, simply that this kind of argument has no place in a civilized society. It feeds the loonies, and we already have too many of them.

• It’s nothing more than heavy handed hyperbole, typical of the crap Chicagoist has been putting out lately.

• Attrill,

  I know I’m sounding like a broken record, but this is more than hyperbole. It crosses a line that simply can’t be crossed.