“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.”
– Tomi, commenting on our link to a Chicagoist post on the Landmarks Commission’s Farwell Building decision
I’ve never been inside the Farwell Building, and I don’t plan to rush down there before it falls. I suspect the interior isn’t worth the trip.
Does anyone know whether Tomi is making a hollow argument? Will we really have lost anything at all if the Farwell’s interior is replaced by parking?
Another comment from that post that I picked up on is…“an urban strip mall with no uniqueness and no sense of community.â€?
This reflects a common attitude among preservationists. Preserving physical things is only part of their ideology. Their goal is to social engineer an idealized Norman Rockwellesque vision of the good old days that never even existed.
You know, I consider myself pretty sympathetic to preservationists, but that strikes me as a little too Big Brother.
The public is affected by exteriors, absolutely. But interiors? I see that as an infringement on property rights, absolutely.
Personally, I’d be happy if the current “condo canyon” types would just friggin bring back the bay window, I do not understand why in the residential neighborhoods everything needs to be FLAT.