Guest presenter: Vincent Michael
Associate Professor, Chair, Historic Preservation (1993). BA and MA, 1982, University of Chicago, PhD candidate, University of Illinois-Chicago. Publications: Chicago Architectural Journal; Micheli
n Travel Publications; Chicago Historic Resources Survey; Chicago Neighborhoods: Design and Diversity; City In a Garden: Parks and Plans; AIA Guide to Chicago Architecture. Lectures: National Preservation Conference; Society of Architectural Historians; Arts & Crafts Conference; Restoration/ Renovation. Chair: National Council for Preservation Education; Gaylord Building Site Council. Boards: Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois.
He gave a wonderful presentation that showed the development of Chicago from its earliest days…
Links:
Prof. Michael’s bog at F Magazine, “Time Tells”
Chicago Landmarks Preservation Council
SAIC Masters Program in Historic Preservation
Chicago architecture – Chicago History Museum
Prof. Michael led us on a cultural and architectural tour by circling the Loop on the Brown Line. We also walked though the
Monadnock Building at 53. W. Jackson Blvd. and the Marquette Building at
140 S. Dearborn Avenue.
PowerPoint presentations from this class:
About Lora Lode – click to download…Part 1…Part 2
About Tom Tresser – click to download…
The Art of Crossing the Street Weblog 
I was really impressed with the knowledge that Vincent possessed. It was very natural to him. On the EL, without even turning his head over his shoulder, he knew exactly what was behind him, and what the buildings focal points were.
I guess my only question would be:
Is the restoration process, as a whole, holding Chicago back in terms of advances, such as environmentally friendly buildings, new forums for architecture, and function? While the Tiffany glass was fantastic, could that be saved and placed into a new building? Or a museum? I guess my statement would be that eventually a house cleaning is in order, or the city will be stuck in the past.
Now personally I don’t think that the restoration process is necessarily harmful to Chicago’s future, in fact, almost the opposite. . . But, I would like to hear other thoughts on the subject.
I hope this is kind of what we are using this for.
Great start! Thanks for taking the lead. Yes, this is the kind of reflection we’re looking for. Who wants to go next?
Hey!
I totally agree! The Prof was amazing! Practically a walking architectural encyclopedia!
Normally I kind of nod off when someone mentions architecture but I really found this tour today captivating. It was nice to actually go into the buildings being discussed rather than simply slideshowing them.
My favorite was the building with the old funky lightbulbs. Do they still sell them in stores like that? I would like to get some.
Also I did kind of share Nicholas’ thoughts on building restoration. As was said in the lesson today, Chicago is always reinventing itself. If there is such concern for restoration how much room does that leave for reinvention? Is there room for both?
Hope next class is as much fun.
Yes the first class was engaging and informative. I enjoyed meeting my classmates in a unconventional atmosphere. I look forward to this semester and feel lucky I selected this class as a part of my introduction to SAIC.
As for the buildings I think restoration is a vital part of our society. To know where we come from. No matter how advanced technology is, things like old fashioned light bulbs help us keep a line to our beginning.
I thought it was great that we got to be outside for class and walk around, especially on such a nice day. I really liked going inside the buildings we did to see the restored interiors, like the Tifany mosaic. Only I kind of forgot which building it was in.
I think restoration is important because it’s necessary that we learn from our past. Having so many functional examples of turn-of-the-century architecture is such a great resource to Chicago and the rest of the world and I’m sure these buildings have and will continue to inspire many an architect.
I’m not able to access “letters to a Young Poet”
I really enjoyed getting OUTSIDE of the classroom on Thursday. I never would have taken in the information the same way if I had been sitting in a chair looking at slides. I think the hands on nature of the class will be stimulating and will really help me to get involved.
My favorite stop on our tour was the Monadnock building. Considering all the strip malls and apartment complexes being erected in other areas, I thought it was awesome that there were so many people concerned with preserving a building’s history.
I can say with confidence that I have never taken a class like this one. It was really nice to be in the buildings and learning about them, instead of taking notes from a presentation. Vincent obviously has a passion for Chicago’s architecture and that’s what made the tour so exciting and informative. When we were on the train, I could tell that the other passengers were listening to him and checking out the buildings he was talking about. What a cool way to keep Chicago’s history alive!
The architecture in Chicago is so unique. The mix of old buildings like the Monadnock and completely original pieces like The Bean and the Crown Fountain in Millenium Park really make this place stand out. I’m definitely going to pay more attention when I’m walking around and look for “Chicago School windows.”
I feel terrible that I missed it. But I look forward to many future adventures with you guys.
I must agree with everyone before me in saying that the tourguide’s knowledge on all things Chicago was exceptional!
I couldn’t help but be reminded, as Vincent was talking about the necessity of the great fire’s destruction in order to bring Chicago to it’s current state of rebiult grandeur, a quote from Hermann Hesse’s book Demian (which I’ll just throw out there since it is an english course!)–
“The bird struggles out of the egg. The egg is the world. Whoever wants to be born must first destroy a world”
Though of course it doesn’t exactly apply as the destruction of Chicago in the fire was surely not intentional… it just sprang to mind.
In general, the whole tour was extremely informative. I never knew that balloon framed and steel framed buildings originated in Chicago, nor did I know the importance of enclosing the steel frame with bricks or concrete. Plus, the stained glass art we saw in that one building was just phenomenal.
I actually had a woman who was sitting behind me on the train ask which school we were with, and then admit that she learned some new things about Chicago in the few stops!
Vincent’s tour was unique in a way, becuase it presented an idea that is rarely heard. Most Chicagoans whether it is saying that a cow tipped over a lantern, or that an outcast lit the fire out of spite never say that it was a necesity. I think that the quote Andrea used summed it up perfectly. Although it is disheartening to see people’s strive and work go to waste, it is often needed so that something better can grow from the ashes. After hearing about the necesity I was quite inspired, becuase it is so rare, but so true. It also took me out of my daily routine, not just the classroom, but of walking with a destination. I am a Chicago resident and for the past 4 or five years have walked by many of the buildings we toured on my way to work . However, I never really stopped to look around. People most of the time are so set on the destination that they do not enjoy the journey. The tour also opened my eyes to the art and beauty that is in everything around us. When I walk to work most of the buildings that are historical beauty I associated with as a road block to my destination. I understand now though the art that exists in all of the buildings we looked through. The building at Jackson and Clark? I believe amazed me. The building looked like it had been sculpted out of clay, yet was made out of stone. I think this is what can be interpretted by “The Art of Crossing the Street.”
I was impressed about the guest speaker’s knowledge of the history of Chicago. I really enjoyed the outside class; I have never had an English class like this before.
It was a very informative class and it was interesting to hear about the history that we’ve never heard of!
After this field trip, I would look the buildings and try to figure out what the building is made of, or even the time that it was built.
I think we all agree that looking at all of the architecture outside, rather that inside the classroom was a nice change from what most of us are used to. Vincent’s knowledge and passion for Chicago’s restoration is contagious. I have never taken a particular interest in architecture until our tour. Furthermore, one question that stuck with me until now is “who pays for public art?” This question was posed when we were taken to see the giant, red, metal sculpture, and it occured to me that the controversy surrouding public art is something that intrigues me. I don’t know about you guys but controversial art is one of my favorite things to study and hopefully is something we can get more involved in.
I’m looking foward to next Thursday!
“who pays for public art” stuck with me too and led me to start questioning who pays for art, public and private, and why they pay for it. why is public art, that is free, often condemned? what is the difference between paying for and not paying for art? does the price of art help to determine is quality? and when art is “free” does its location have anything to do with its reception by the public?
more directly relating back to class, i find myself paying complete attention to the frame of buildings now. i have noticed a lot of buildings that have the older light bulbs in them too.
It was refreshing to be able to get out side of the classroom and interact with the city with a class. I have always felt more engaged when I’m moving, or exploring beyond the walls of a classroom. A lecture about architecture in the city has great potential to put any listener to sleep, however when brought outside it allowed me to feel like a part it. I look forward to future classes that move us out side of the normal classroom and into the real world.
Like everyone else, I really enjoyed the unconventional class structure and just being outside! I was also impressed by Vincent’s knowlegde of the city. I think it is very important to be at least somewhat knowledgable, or at least aware of your surroundings. Upon further reflection on the class, I was really struck by how fine the line is between public and private art. For example, although private money may pay for the consruction and design of a buiding, it’s aesthectis and presence becomes free for all to look at and enjoy, and thus part of the public realm. As far as whether restoration is a postive thing for a city, I absolutely think it is, yet at the same time be willing to move forward. To really succeed in the future, I think we need to understand and have some respect for our past.
It seemed like the relationship between technology (functionality) and art was a recurring topic during Thursday’s tour. The consistent development of technology – to accomplish daily tasks with more ease and efficiency, and meet the demands of public need – always seems to inspire the aesthetic strategy of artists and other creative minds that work in that progressive time span. The buildings designed by Mies van der Rohe emphasize structure and even represent their new “frame technology” on their facade.
Public demand and its influences on artistic progress was evident in the tour of buildings’ restoration to their original design for nostalgic and historic reasons. And the public artwork in front of the post office (by Richard Serra) which was destroyed and replaced because the public was unhappy with the way it delayed their commute. I think its really relevant for an artist to consider the voice of the public as it relates to its environment (which is always growing and rebuilding and changing) and how this social entity communicates with art and the direction it takes. I’m really excited to see where we go from here… see you Thursday!
As an English class, I thought we would have nothing but just reading some stuffs, and discuss. However, it was different from ordinary English class. Went out for fieldtrip and Michael’s informs made me to have interest in Chicago downtown that I never concerned about before. It was rather ‘exploring’ to me who came from different country. I learn the style of each building and some of their behind stories…
It was fun and helpful.
Andrea … if you like stained glass, have you been to the stained glass museum at Navy Pier?
Too bad I missed the first class!
Hope to join the commenting from this week.
I must confess, after the tour of the loop – which I thoroughly enjoyed, I was left asking myself, why would the professors on the first day of class, choose to take us on an architectural tour of Chicago? Eventually, I came to realize that as an artist, it is crucial that we be plugged in and aware of our surroundings. If we are to make any social comment, or display work publicly, knowing the context of an area and society can only enhance and add another layer, and help us to make informed artistic decisions.
For me, the tour brought to light the similarities of art and architecture. A city is a work of art that is never really completed … it is in a state of constant creation. It is added to, changed, and modified to suit the needs of the different ‘viewers’. Restoring buildings gives the city a history and character, and adds points of variation and interest to what would otherwise be a homogonous space … older buildings provide texture and variation … it can be the quirky spaces that make exploring a city interesting and exciting …
Both art and architecture create spaces and experiences. Architecture’s very nature is the creation or definition of a space … architecture is “public art” … even the making and construction process is public … you notice the construction … both auditory and visually … an installation piece creates a physical space around the viewer … and there is something special that happens in the space between a painting and the viewer.
Public art such as sculpture, plays in this space or intersection between art and architecture. It can be simultaneously very architectural in its design, materials, and construction, referencing space or architecture in its vicinity, yet it can provide an artistic statement or expression.
When we stopped at the Calder sculpture, I was struck by its material, and the idea that materials may change the viewing experience, and the viewer’s relationship to the piece. Are certain materials more easily accessible than others? Is shock value a factor? For example, the Calder sculpture vs an Andy Goldsworthy sight specific sculpture … Personally, I relate to more delicate materials … there is something more human and welcoming in the natural …
If art is built to last, is it as powerful as if it were not built to last?
Maybe the materials of a building make architecture seem inaccessible as an art form … and that is why art and architecture are viewed as being separate … Although some art can be very inaccessible, and some architecture very accessible …
Anyway … just some thoughts that have been swirling around in my brain … Looking forward to discussing things in greater detail … See you Thursday!
I recently relocated from a city where you can see the great pyramids, take a gondola ride in Venice, wander the streets of New York City, visit the Eiffel Tower, and witness the eruption of a volcano all in one day. Las Vegas has been promoted as the ultimate adult playground. Being a city that relies so heavily on its tourism industry; the casinos, resorts, restaurants, theaters, etc. are constantly competing to create the latest sensory overloading extravaganza. Unlike Chicago, the structures in Las Vegas are not built to be permanent. Instead they continually renovating or changing their thematic identity. With the exception of the downtown area, most of the original gambling halls are long gone. Historic buildings and road have been destroyed. Fifty years is old by Vegas standards, and most buildings considered as dated are frequently imploded. Despite protests from the unfortunately small groups of concerned citizens, very little effort is made toward restoration. This is true not only for the resort area known as the Strip, but throughout the commercial and residential areas as well. Many of the original neighborhoods are being neglected, the residents are driven out in order to construct new condos and high rise office buildings.
The rapid and unpredictable changes common in Vegas made it difficult for me to feel any sort of attachment to the city during the seven years I resided there. I was reminded of this during our tour on the El. The well-balanced mixture of old architecture and new gives Chicago character, a unique identity. For me personally there is a sense connection to both the past and present. It is with pride that I call Chicago “home.”
i loved that we were able to get out of the classroom and have a “handson” experience. especially when we are learning about something in a public place, its great to actually see it in reality. i was also very impressed by the knowledge of the speaker… and on many occasions he pointed out small details in which i would have never noticed in architecture. though it was alot of information to take in, i very much enjoyed the experience and find myself much more interested in architecture, and look at buildings in the area with a completely different perspective. i also loved the brief history of chicago talk he gave. being new to the area, i have very little knowledge of what happened here. learning about the great fire of chicago in 1871 (which ive heard many people refrence to) was quite interesting.
I feel very conflicted as a photographer and an artist regarding the topic of architectural preservation and the like. On one hand, I feel that by trying to preserve buildings and elements of the city we are preventing new things from being able to propagate.The Chicago Fire showcases exactly what I mean. The destruction led to so much regrowth and new ways of thinking. By holding on to what already exists aren’t we limiting the city to what has already been created?
I say I’m conflicted about this because despite the previous paragraph, I tend to shoot mainly analog photography. Which is, in essence, clinging to the past technologies and techniques and not allowing room for new ways of technology and new ways of thinking.
The Monadnock building especially made me wonder about the value preservation has for us. While it was interesting seeing the old-fashioned shops, wouldn’t the space be better utilized by different stores or the same ones with more efficient means of work?
I was really expecting a ten minute class with a short speech about the class and a syallabus, but I was really suprised when we informed that we were to go outside and explore the city. It gave me a sense of excitement and desire to further explore the city, along with the desire to further involve myself within the class.
It made me question the true motive about the class, and I am curious to see what the semester entails.
I was pretty surprised about the system of this class, because you read and write, and thats basically all you do in English class.. but going on a field trip was interesting.
Also, i liked guest speaker’s presentation as well..
i got to know more about architecture; all the materials, way to build, ideas, and so on.
I, like everyone else, thought that the architectural tour was very interesting and informative. I’ve lived in Chicago for most of my life, and have worked downtown for years. I had passed so many of those buildings so many times and never even noticed them before. Chicagoans don’t ever really look up. It was great to share some of the things I learned with my friends as we were walking around downtown the other day.
And realizing that as a Chicagoan I had never noticed these buildings before made me wonder what the usefulness of such wonderful architecture, and the quest to preserve and restore it, is. There’s been discussion here of public art, and the inclusion of architecture as public art. I agree that architecture is a form of public art. But with that, one must consider the audience, who the public is, which public the art is serving. I would argue that the public art of downtown Chicago doesn’t particularly serve Chicagoans as a whole. People don’t really live downtown– they commute in to work, rush about their days, and leave as quickly as possible, not really having the time to enjoy the public art. The only people who really have *time* to take in public art downtown are tourists. Downtown definitely caters to two groups– workers and tourists. I discovered this when I worked at the John Hancock Observation Deck and the Navy Pier Ferris wheel. All the tourists I encountered had this sense of entitlement to the city, because they were used to being catered to, and had such disrespect for the people who worked the attractions, the people who make their homes here. To me, all that public art downtown is just more catering to tourism, and doesn’t actually serve me, a resident of Chicago. This was a big issue that was brought up when they began building Millenium Park, since a lot of Chicagoans couldn’t see how the city could justify building a park that many of them would never use.
Sorry to be verbose, but this is what struck me most about our architectural tour and the discussion about public art. I think it’s so important to always consider who your audience is and who your art serves…
I really like the way of teaching style. It is different from other classes and I enjoyed first class. Also, I liked the guest speaker’s presentation. It was good chance to know about Chicago area and architectural system. See you tomorrow
It was interesting to know how chicago has grown since the fire happened. Seeing the buildings that were still standing through all those years was amazing. It wouldn’t been that impressive if I saw it on the slides or just in pictures.
People happened to value old things. As things get old as valuable they get because of the history they carry along with. I don’t know if it’s appropriate way to describe it but as far as fashion, old fashion circulates around time to time but in more progressive and fresh ways. Preserving old buildings might prevent chicago to have more rooms to build new buildings and grow larger, but otherwise it can also help to progress things out of what we had in the past.