Perusing posts and responses is always interesting because anyone can say nearly anything and is not required to be either a qualified expert or to indicate their relationship to that which they are “blogging” about.
To contradict BW, I find Coffey’s work quite good. He is clearly very interested in ensuring that future generations use the older buildings around them rather than seeing them torn down or turned into moribund museum pieces. When they are endangered, flawed or inadequate he seems to choose the right direction and puts them back into use. Who needs more parking lots or retail boxes!
As an Alumni of UIC I think he saved the place by eliminating the un-functional and amazingly discomforting and ugly elements of the campus. No one liked the place and it was a wreck. I personally think he exposed for us some of the few “good elements” of the original design. They may now be in a different and more pleasant context but so too is the Piazza Navona which was once an ancient Roman Circus but is now a beloved city square. We need to let things evolve and not stagnate. Not all old or near old buildings and places are or should be landmarks. We throw the term around quite loosely.
The comments above made me look back at his work and the projects mentioned. I had been in most of them several times at least.
When confronted by an unarguably “great” architectural landmark as at Louis Sullivan’s Auditorium, the care and work he did is done to a museum quality that is as good as any I have seen. The restored arches are astonishing. And from what I hear, the new stage and support spaces work fantastically well. It is clear he respects the true Landmarks when he works on them.
But clearly he takes a broader approach than most preservationists and wants older buildings to live today and in the future, accomplished with a healthy respect for the past.
At the DePaul Center where I sit in on occasional lectures, I am amazed at the transformation and the bustle. The dumpy old Goldblatts is now the near equivalent of Marshall Fields. It has a good exterior and a a very well scaled public interior. Or at least it was until DePaul ruined the new Jackson Boulevard entrance with an overemphasized Barnes Bookstore. It is better than the original but it respects the original.
As to the other downtown theaters, It seems when the original is a lesser, but still grand, original work such as the Oriental or the Palace, or even the Chicago Theaters, the same emphasis on making the best parts of a buildings past live in the present and be adaptable for the future is evident.
I believe only the Auditorium was functioning when he did work on these theaters and it is clear each of the four were beneficiaries of very differing construction budgets.
Restoration is a costly business and it seems unfair to quibble when the available budget is not a part of the evaluation equation. Would we prefer the above theaters be in productive use with new generations using them or quibble about exactness of original colors or building materials. Or should we just gather around a few hunks of lost buildings and mourn. It seems that a saved and productive building is hands down preferable to a demolished one. When the Auditorium was saved by Harry Weese, He didn’t have the money to restore the arches. When Coffey returned he did and was able to bring them to full glory.
If they are gone the colors matter not.
25 years ago I would never have expected to be able to see live shows in those halls. Now the seats are comfortable and spacious (not original) and the other audience comforts pretty well satisfied. From the complexity of the shows I’ve seen in them, it seems the same is true from the stage and stage support areas.
At the Biograph, I poked my head in before work began. There was no theater or lobby remaining on the inside. I searched this site and it is clear that the original was pretty nondescript at best. Now Victory Gardens has a state of the art playhouse that is perhaps one of the best in the city for seeing intimate plays. Comfortable, easy to hear and see, generally a pleasant and fun experience. It also seems to work very well and the exterior is well restored. It was never going to be a one screen movie house ever again. I think the result is a great and appropriate compromise.
So in conclusion it is easy to be an armchair critic but the body of work and its quality for Coffey is considerable and I’d trust him with any large preservation or adaptive re-use project. I sense he uses the dollars available very efficiently and pragmatically.
Perusing posts and responses is always interesting because anyone can say nearly anything and is not required to be either a qualified expert or to indicate their relationship to that which they are “blogging” about.
To contradict BW, I find Coffey’s work quite good. He is clearly very interested in ensuring that future generations use the older buildings around them rather than seeing them torn down or turned into moribund museum pieces. When they are endangered, flawed or inadequate he seems to choose the right direction and puts them back into use. Who needs more parking lots or retail boxes!
As an Alumni of UIC I think he saved the place by eliminating the un-functional and amazingly discomforting and ugly elements of the campus. No one liked the place and it was a wreck. I personally think he exposed for us some of the few “good elements” of the original design. They may now be in a different and more pleasant context but so too is the Piazza Navona which was once an ancient Roman Circus but is now a beloved city square. We need to let things evolve and not stagnate. Not all old or near old buildings and places are or should be landmarks. We throw the term around quite loosely.
The comments above made me look back at his work and the projects mentioned. I had been in most of them several times at least.
When confronted by an unarguably “great” architectural landmark as at Louis Sullivan’s Auditorium, the care and work he did is done to a museum quality that is as good as any I have seen. The restored arches are astonishing. And from what I hear, the new stage and support spaces work fantastically well. It is clear he respects the true Landmarks when he works on them.
But clearly he takes a broader approach than most preservationists and wants older buildings to live today and in the future, accomplished with a healthy respect for the past.
At the DePaul Center where I sit in on occasional lectures, I am amazed at the transformation and the bustle. The dumpy old Goldblatts is now the near equivalent of Marshall Fields. It has a good exterior and a a very well scaled public interior. Or at least it was until DePaul ruined the new Jackson Boulevard entrance with an overemphasized Barnes Bookstore. It is better than the original but it respects the original.
As to the other downtown theaters, It seems when the original is a lesser, but still grand, original work such as the Oriental or the Palace, or even the Chicago Theaters, the same emphasis on making the best parts of a buildings past live in the present and be adaptable for the future is evident.
I believe only the Auditorium was functioning when he did work on these theaters and it is clear each of the four were beneficiaries of very differing construction budgets.
Restoration is a costly business and it seems unfair to quibble when the available budget is not a part of the evaluation equation. Would we prefer the above theaters be in productive use with new generations using them or quibble about exactness of original colors or building materials. Or should we just gather around a few hunks of lost buildings and mourn. It seems that a saved and productive building is hands down preferable to a demolished one. When the Auditorium was saved by Harry Weese, He didn’t have the money to restore the arches. When Coffey returned he did and was able to bring them to full glory.
If they are gone the colors matter not.
25 years ago I would never have expected to be able to see live shows in those halls. Now the seats are comfortable and spacious (not original) and the other audience comforts pretty well satisfied. From the complexity of the shows I’ve seen in them, it seems the same is true from the stage and stage support areas.
At the Biograph, I poked my head in before work began. There was no theater or lobby remaining on the inside. I searched this site and it is clear that the original was pretty nondescript at best. Now Victory Gardens has a state of the art playhouse that is perhaps one of the best in the city for seeing intimate plays. Comfortable, easy to hear and see, generally a pleasant and fun experience. It also seems to work very well and the exterior is well restored. It was never going to be a one screen movie house ever again. I think the result is a great and appropriate compromise.
So in conclusion it is easy to be an armchair critic but the body of work and its quality for Coffey is considerable and I’d trust him with any large preservation or adaptive re-use project. I sense he uses the dollars available very efficiently and pragmatically.