According to the Illinois Secretary of State, Visionary Theatres Incorporated began operations on 9/24/2008. The agent is listed as Dawn Russo of Bolingbrook.
Village Entertainment, meanwhile, was involuntarily dissolved on 9/12/08.
Well, landmarks aren’t supposed to be contingent on how well the properties are taken care of, it’s about their architectural, social, aesthetic, character or other significance, and how intact that is. And the Congress definitely retains a high degree of integrity. Any number of locally designated landmarks are literally falling down. Interior landmarking is still extremely rare for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the difficulty of regulation.
The only protection National Register protection provides is review if federal funding or permits are involved. The only way local landmarking applies protection to NRHP buildings is if there is some rule that any NRHP building automatically gets local landmarking status too.
The CVS is pretty universally reviled. CVS acted in bad faith and I think broke some laws in their renovation, and the fairly weak Chicago Landmarks Commission didn’t force them to fix it all the way. But I think you’d agree that’s still preferable to having a standard CVS on that corner.
It appears that the building is being transformed into space for a new realty office. Their website is www.bigshouldersrealty.com . The interior appears to be gutted; I couldn’t see inside well enough. But its lineage should be more obvious now.
Government facilities are tax exempt, as are non-profit entities. As for the building’s assessed value, records show that it was billed approximately 70,000 in taxes this year. Keep in mind that the owner owns a number of businesses and properties, and if this enterprise is losing money, he may be able to write it off on his income taxes.
What you say about hypotheticals is true. A private owner can also let not-for-profits use it and write it off as a donation in kind. And a village owned situation, as exists in many theaters, they certainly can use it for any purpose they see fit at any rate they see fit. Des Plaines did buy a storefront building two doors from the theater for future redevelopment not long ago. The vacant storefront there is currently being used for FEMA offices after the flooding.
Well, there’s only the two storefronts, and they don’t seem to have any trouble keeping them filled, actually – a Mexican restaurant and a Thai restaurant. And if the government owned it, what kind of taxes would be paid? The theater is barely used now and is up for sale for $3.7 million – I don’t expect it to sell any time soon. It is scheduled to hold another New Years show.
I never questioned whether Coffey’s interest was in saving buildings, but his approach cannot be called preservation or restoration, it’s adaptive reuse with a vaguely historicist spin.
You’re creating false dichotomies. There is ground between creating a museum and complete reconfiguration.
The problem with UIC was not the design, but the lack of maintenance. That’s why it was dark, forboding, and grimy. UIC’s overall plan was a one of a kind work by a cutting edge architect. Now it’s more workable, but architecturally it’s disjointed and mangled. A preservation approach would have taken the original elements and modified them to work properly. This is why when a Frank Lloyd Wright building leaks, we don’t put a pitched roof on it.
You imply that “most preservationists” are not concerned with making “older buildings to live today and in the future, accomplished with a healthy respect for the past.” Nothing’s further from the truth; all preservation work is concerned with making them live today and in the future, that’s what it’s all about. Coffey just doesn’t appear to be concerned with historical accuracy.
The DePaul Center is a fine, functional building with some excellent spaces, particularly the Law School lobby. And unquestionably it’s better than it was after Goldblatt’s was done with it. But it, too, lacks many of the features it had when it opened as Rothschild’s.
At those theaters, he cut corners and left them less grand than they were on opening day. At the Chicago he had to work on a shoestring budget; the restoration work there amounted to little more than heavy cleaning, removal of the 50s junk, and a new coat of paint; that’s why it was intended to resemble the 1933 appearance. It was cheaper. At the Oriental, the colors got toned down – that’s just imposing your own taste on a historic structure. Parts of the upper lobby went unrestored. I’m not a strict preservationist, I don’t mind the way the lobby space and stage was reconfigured, but the paint was pointlessly inaccurate. At the Palace you have cheap plastic lights.
And again you create a false dichotomy; there’s not a choice between accurate colors and demolition, that’s a matter of will and a drop in the bucket of overall funding. It’s not at all unfair to quibble. It’s the difference between a restoration that reflects the building’s true character and a compromised game of dress-up.
I was attending DePaul during the entire Biograph work, so I am completely aware of what was what. Here’s a photo from the 80s showing the auditorium: View link Here’s a photo showing the original appearance: View link The whole thing had been remodeled a lot, but the fact is that there was a good amount of plaster and other historic fabric like tile work in the lobby (still there under the carpet.) If you want an example of how it could have been reused and retained what was remained, go to the Broadway theater at Broadway and Belmont. Same era, similar style, and they managed to not have to rip it out completely. A job like that probably wouldn’t have forced Victory Gardens into dire straits, too. I personally asked Dan if there was ever any consideration towards restoration, and he told me that it was a matter of location, not having to build a new structure, and being able to use restoration tax credits. It’s well documented that the exterior wasn’t even accurate; Hollywood was a lot closer to correct when they had to make it over for the movies. Nobody said it had to be a single screen theater. It could have been a club, a performing arts venue like the broadway or vic, a bookstore – any number of uses could have helped it retain the things it was landmarked for, the Dillinger connection, its appearance, and an example of an early neighborhood movie house. As it stands, it looks different from any time in the past, including Dillinger’s era, and there are better-preserved examples of movie houses. It’s a pretty shell someone stuck a beautiful new theater in, but it’s not an either/or proposition.
The Auditorium is a different matter and it shows that he can do the job right if he has the resources and pressure to. And I really like almost all of Coffey’s new construction work. And I think that his historic work is nice, but it could be so much better. I agree that he does use available money efficiently and pragmatically, but one of the whole ideas of preservation is that you don’t need to spend a lot of money changing what’s already there to come out with a quality product.
Yeah, I’m not sure it’s time yet to change the name, since Visionary Theatres is obviously a corporate name.
According to the Illinois Secretary of State, Visionary Theatres Incorporated began operations on 9/24/2008. The agent is listed as Dawn Russo of Bolingbrook.
Village Entertainment, meanwhile, was involuntarily dissolved on 9/12/08.
Well, landmarks aren’t supposed to be contingent on how well the properties are taken care of, it’s about their architectural, social, aesthetic, character or other significance, and how intact that is. And the Congress definitely retains a high degree of integrity. Any number of locally designated landmarks are literally falling down. Interior landmarking is still extremely rare for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the difficulty of regulation.
The only protection National Register protection provides is review if federal funding or permits are involved. The only way local landmarking applies protection to NRHP buildings is if there is some rule that any NRHP building automatically gets local landmarking status too.
The CVS is pretty universally reviled. CVS acted in bad faith and I think broke some laws in their renovation, and the fairly weak Chicago Landmarks Commission didn’t force them to fix it all the way. But I think you’d agree that’s still preferable to having a standard CVS on that corner.
The American Contractor Building Permit index indicates that it was started in 1912. Architect was E.M. Newman.
Northwestern owned the theatre until 1947.
I swung by there tonight. Apparently it will be a music venue and bar called Lincoln Hall run by the owners of Schubas. Should be cool.
The Congress recently repainted their marquee.
David, I’m not sure you’re entirely clear on how landmarking is supposed to work.
It appears that the building is being transformed into space for a new realty office. Their website is www.bigshouldersrealty.com . The interior appears to be gutted; I couldn’t see inside well enough. But its lineage should be more obvious now.
Correct. I’m about 95% sure it’s the same building. I chewed through the topic thoroughly at View link
Both are available through Proquest, but you would have to be a member of a library which subscribes to it.
Julian
Here is a 1948 photo from LIFE magazine.
Here is a 1948 photo from LIFE magazine.
That’s not the way facade easements are supposed to work, you’re not supposed to buy them back
They are not, since they’ve never showed film on a regular basis.
The Chopin? That’s listed here.
Government facilities are tax exempt, as are non-profit entities. As for the building’s assessed value, records show that it was billed approximately 70,000 in taxes this year. Keep in mind that the owner owns a number of businesses and properties, and if this enterprise is losing money, he may be able to write it off on his income taxes.
What you say about hypotheticals is true. A private owner can also let not-for-profits use it and write it off as a donation in kind. And a village owned situation, as exists in many theaters, they certainly can use it for any purpose they see fit at any rate they see fit. Des Plaines did buy a storefront building two doors from the theater for future redevelopment not long ago. The vacant storefront there is currently being used for FEMA offices after the flooding.
Well, there’s only the two storefronts, and they don’t seem to have any trouble keeping them filled, actually – a Mexican restaurant and a Thai restaurant. And if the government owned it, what kind of taxes would be paid? The theater is barely used now and is up for sale for $3.7 million – I don’t expect it to sell any time soon. It is scheduled to hold another New Years show.
It is listed under its current name, the Bank of America Theatre
I never questioned whether Coffey’s interest was in saving buildings, but his approach cannot be called preservation or restoration, it’s adaptive reuse with a vaguely historicist spin.
You’re creating false dichotomies. There is ground between creating a museum and complete reconfiguration.
The problem with UIC was not the design, but the lack of maintenance. That’s why it was dark, forboding, and grimy. UIC’s overall plan was a one of a kind work by a cutting edge architect. Now it’s more workable, but architecturally it’s disjointed and mangled. A preservation approach would have taken the original elements and modified them to work properly. This is why when a Frank Lloyd Wright building leaks, we don’t put a pitched roof on it.
You imply that “most preservationists” are not concerned with making “older buildings to live today and in the future, accomplished with a healthy respect for the past.” Nothing’s further from the truth; all preservation work is concerned with making them live today and in the future, that’s what it’s all about. Coffey just doesn’t appear to be concerned with historical accuracy.
The DePaul Center is a fine, functional building with some excellent spaces, particularly the Law School lobby. And unquestionably it’s better than it was after Goldblatt’s was done with it. But it, too, lacks many of the features it had when it opened as Rothschild’s.
At those theaters, he cut corners and left them less grand than they were on opening day. At the Chicago he had to work on a shoestring budget; the restoration work there amounted to little more than heavy cleaning, removal of the 50s junk, and a new coat of paint; that’s why it was intended to resemble the 1933 appearance. It was cheaper. At the Oriental, the colors got toned down – that’s just imposing your own taste on a historic structure. Parts of the upper lobby went unrestored. I’m not a strict preservationist, I don’t mind the way the lobby space and stage was reconfigured, but the paint was pointlessly inaccurate. At the Palace you have cheap plastic lights.
And again you create a false dichotomy; there’s not a choice between accurate colors and demolition, that’s a matter of will and a drop in the bucket of overall funding. It’s not at all unfair to quibble. It’s the difference between a restoration that reflects the building’s true character and a compromised game of dress-up.
I was attending DePaul during the entire Biograph work, so I am completely aware of what was what. Here’s a photo from the 80s showing the auditorium: View link Here’s a photo showing the original appearance: View link The whole thing had been remodeled a lot, but the fact is that there was a good amount of plaster and other historic fabric like tile work in the lobby (still there under the carpet.) If you want an example of how it could have been reused and retained what was remained, go to the Broadway theater at Broadway and Belmont. Same era, similar style, and they managed to not have to rip it out completely. A job like that probably wouldn’t have forced Victory Gardens into dire straits, too. I personally asked Dan if there was ever any consideration towards restoration, and he told me that it was a matter of location, not having to build a new structure, and being able to use restoration tax credits. It’s well documented that the exterior wasn’t even accurate; Hollywood was a lot closer to correct when they had to make it over for the movies. Nobody said it had to be a single screen theater. It could have been a club, a performing arts venue like the broadway or vic, a bookstore – any number of uses could have helped it retain the things it was landmarked for, the Dillinger connection, its appearance, and an example of an early neighborhood movie house. As it stands, it looks different from any time in the past, including Dillinger’s era, and there are better-preserved examples of movie houses. It’s a pretty shell someone stuck a beautiful new theater in, but it’s not an either/or proposition.
The Auditorium is a different matter and it shows that he can do the job right if he has the resources and pressure to. And I really like almost all of Coffey’s new construction work. And I think that his historic work is nice, but it could be so much better. I agree that he does use available money efficiently and pragmatically, but one of the whole ideas of preservation is that you don’t need to spend a lot of money changing what’s already there to come out with a quality product.
View link
View link
View link
View link
That’s one of the more ludicrous excuses I’ve heard.