“I think it’s the ugliest building on the street…it has small windows. It’s not elegant. The façade is not elegant. It looks like a prison. You drive by and say, ‘what’s going on in there?’
“There’s nothing you can do with this building. You know, racquetball, swimming pool, gymnasium, you know, it’s a health club. Nothing you can do with it…tear it down and put something beautiful there.”
– Architect Lucien Lagrange, principal in Lucien Lagrange Architects, in a recent conversation with Yo on his firm’s plan with Fifield Realty to build a condo building on the site of the Lake Shore Athletic Club – a plan preservationists oppose. Late yesterday Ald. Brendan Reilly (42nd) announced his opposition to demolishing the 1924 structure.
Is his plan to tear down a 1924 building and build something that looks like it was built in 1924? In Paris?
This guy is starting to act like the second coming of Mies – heck, he’s not even the second coming of Jahn at this point.
If he wants something beautiful he should push for something modern or concede it to someone like a Gang, Norten, de Portzamparc, Nouvel or Meier.
Oh yeah, or Jahn.
If this building were in Paris, Lucien would be touting how BEE-YOO-TEE-FUL it is…says alot for his character…he sees $$$ from Fifield and will say anything to tear down history.
He simply wants the commission for designing a new building. These comments are driven by greed, nothing more.
LaGrange is an official scumbag and a disgrace to the profession. If one can’t respect the history if his own field, he has lost all sense of dignity, in my opinion.
Kudos to Alderman Reilly
I love this:
“You drive by and say, ‘what’s going on in there?'”
These are the drivers you just want to slap upside the head – look at the damn road in front of you when you’re driving!
“it has small windows. It’s not elegant. The façade is not elegant. It looks like a prison.”
Regardless of who made the statement and for what motivation, there’s some truth to it.
Lucien LaGrange is one of the worst architects in the city. In fact, he could be THE worst if we judge him on his total negative impact on Chicago. If he hates the building, than the preservationists are on the right track!
Lucien, please leave Chicago immediately!
Being less than formerly schooled in architecture, I would appreciate some of the above criticism with some sort of basis.
If I wrote something like, “that builder sucks” whenever I didn’t like something… without why they suck… well, I’d get real boring fast.
The personal attacks are getting old from some of the commentators with no basis. Maybe we can enlighten the group…or at least have a sense of humor.
That said, I think the building is ugly too (personal tatste) and would like to see best and highest use for the land, if, it is in fact difficult to do anything with this building in its current form.
The LSAC is certainly not up there with the most significant – historically and certainly not architecturally – structures downtown (LaGrange is on the right track here even if his analysis is a bit too harsh). However, I am very glad the building won’t be demolished because the proposed LaGrange-designed replacement is a step backward for design quality at the site. Lucien continually mistakes the Chicago public for being as unsophisticated in taste as himself. Designing a new structure to “blend in” with a neighborhood, to “look as if it has always been there”, to crudely mock historical forms of architecture with cheap materials and details is absurd. People don’t want faux historic, “traditional” silliness – they want designs that admit we live in the 21st century. The want honest expression, the want innovation, the want a contemporary ‘feel’ because they live contemporary lives, they want open space, a flood of natural light provided by floor to ceiling, wall to wall glass. LaGrange provided none of this with his backward-looking design. The only acceptable reason for demolishing the LSAC would be because it is going to be replaced with something superior, innovative, even cutting edge – a much taller building that represents an important modern design contribution to the Chicago skyline – something of no less than landmark quality….
It’s difficult to match up these lectures about what “people want” with what they actually buy.
Say what you will, Lagrange has had an eye for what people will buy – and that’s the real test of what people want.
Replacing the LSAC with something that generates jobs and real estate taxes and makes money for the developer is – last I heard – still a socially worthwhile goal.
Joe,
I am shocked that you are going to define a socially worthwhile goal. How dare you!?!!
Northwestern should be forced to keep that building forever because it is old and historic. So what if it has little modern utility. They are a non profit. They can afford it.
It makes me weep for Old Comiskey Park. I remember whizzing in the troughs as a child….sniffle….Oh Gawd,……….then they tore it down……..it was historic……at least they could have saved the troughs……maybe gold plated them……sniff sniff
Joe – the simple response to that is look at the performance of new developments introduced to the downtown market in the last few years. Overwhelmingly, the top sales performers have been designed in a contemporary language. The projects that like to pretend this is Paris, 1885 – not so much (a few notable exceptions notwithstanding, of course)…
Sam,
Your simplistic argument tells me nothing. There may be any number of reasons for the absorption rates you cite that have nothing to do with the architecture. I could counter that some awful contemporary trash sold exceedingly well. So what?
My argument is addressed to Lagrange’s buildings – they’ve sold. The fact that some people want to buy one thing has nothing to do with whether other people want to and should have the opportunity to buy something else. Don’t impose your aesthetic judgments on them unless you’re willing to pay for them.
As a pure aside, am I the only one who thinks the LSAC looks like a) the developers ran out of money 2/3 of the way up or b) vandals carried away the top third?
“It’s difficult to match up these lectures about what “people want” with what they actually buy.”
True, but this is why we have govt intervening in a host of things that have been found worthy of larger social value – warnings/taxes on cigarettes & booze, seatbelt laws, water purification standards, nuclear waste disposal standards, etc.
People rarely want to ante up for the long term cost of anything, it’s one of the major failures of capitalism philosophy – and I’d say having a City that doesn’t look bland & is interesting enough to attract tourism and talent from out of the area is – although certainly more difficult to value – a legitimate issue.
And what about all those poor guys running the architectural boat tours, for example? : )
Take a look at the City south of Roosevelt, there’s still tons and tons of space for people to create buildings/jobs/tax revenue, etc.
I still maintain that “more tax revenue” is a useless goal until we have a local govt than can be held more accountable for the money they’re already squandering.
Lucien LaGrange is the king of Schlock architecture. in Chicago. His buildings are showy and gawdy, and they represent a false Walt Disney version of the past that only cheapens the existing stock of historic buildings we already have.
The sales argument has little sway. McMansions also sell like crazy, but does that make them immune from attack??? Our culture does not value good design, and arts education is severely lacking at all levels of school. Call me an elitist if you like, but the taste of the American middle class is often quie far off the mark, and we should hold our precious downtown to a higher standard!
Or in the case of Lucien LaGrange, I should replace “middle class” with “moneyed class”.
Carter,
Analogies to laws that protect public health are a pretty far stretch when it comes to advancing aesthetic interests.
“the taste of the American middle class is often quie far off the mark”
One could easily subsitute the word ‘preservationist’ for ‘American middle class’ in that statement.
“Analogies to laws that protect public health are a pretty far stretch when it comes to advancing aesthetic interests.”
I don’t think so. The effects of a physical environment on residents has been studied relentlessly, from the effects certain colors have (fast food restaurants favor that garish shade of orange, as it makes people uncomfortable and they won’t loiter long after eating their food; psych wards go neutrals, as do prisons, etc), to the effects more sunlight (Alaska has the highest suicide rate in the country, a lack of sunlight has been identified as a key component of that depression), more greenery (studies have shown less violence on the street in poor areas with more trees, etc.
not to mention, nobody likes to be boxed in, that’s why to punish people you put them in a small cage. better visual stimuli promotes smarter people, it’s why you give kids those mobiles, etc.
is lucien french? i just moved back to chicago from paris after 6 years, the french would NEVER allow a lucien lagrange design in zee capitol! his work is not sophisticated, interesting nor sensitive to its surroundings. X/O, you have got to be kidding. did the sofitel tap him to do their hotel? of course not. it is all about keeping the billing machine running.