Chicago Reader

Michael Reese Hospital: The First Sacrificial Lamb 

Preservationists' battle over the Michael Reese Hospital campus is just a taste of how the Olympics will drive public policy if Chicago wins the games.

The Michael Reese Hospital campus

The Michael Reese Hospital campus

A group of preservationists has been making the rounds of the neighborhood Olympic forums I wrote about last week, passing out flyers and pestering officials with questions. They're not officially opposed to the Olympics, but anyone wondering whether Chicago needs the games should pay close attention to their battle to save the Michael Reese Hospital campus from demolition.

I repeat: many of the preservationists are most emphatically not against bringing the games to Chicago. They're basically agnostic on the issue: if the games come, fine; if they don't come, that's fine too.

But they are fiercely opposed to tearing down the Michael Reese structures. As they see it demolition is not just environmentally unsound (as opposed to reuse) but also culturally reckless, since they believe at least eight of the buildings were designed in part by the great Bauhaus architect Walter Gropius.

"These buildings are impossible to replace, so we should do everything we can to keep from destroying them," says Grahm Balkany, founder of the Gropius in Chicago Coalition. "We're talking about cultural resources of international importance. To frivolously destroy them is inexcusable."

To actual opponents of Chicago's Olympic bid, the focus on saving these empty buildings is a head-scratcher, since there are other, arguably more pressing reasons to stop the city from carrying out its plans—such as the probability that they could cost the city billions of dollars it doesn't have. But the city's response to the preservationists demonstrates how the Olympics are likely to drive public policy in this town for the next seven years if Chicago is picked to host them. What Mayor Daley's Olympic planners think is in their best interest will trump every other concern, no matter how big or small.

Originally, you may recall, Daley wanted to build the Olympic Village over the railroad tracks near McCormick Place. But in 2007 he shifted his gaze to the Michael Reese site. Last year he had the City Council commit up to $86 million to buy and demolish all of the Reese structures except for one building (which wasn't designed by Gropius) and a parking garage; after that, plans call for a developer to buy the site off the city, build 7,500 units that will house athletes during the games, and then convert them to residences.

But as Balkany points out, there's no guarantee that Chicago will win the right to hold the Olympics. At the moment, it's vying with Madrid, Rio, and Tokyo for the International Olympic Committee's approval, and some international observers—including the folks behind the BidIndex at GamesBids.com—say Chicago's chances are fading, perhaps to the point where they may depend on a late-hour appeal by President Obama. (Surely there are a few other causes more worthy of your time, Mr. President?)

So if that's the case, the preservationists ask, why can't the city at least promise to hold off on demolishing the Reese buildings until after October 2, when the IOC makes its pick?

They've put the question to city and Olympic officials repeatedly in the past several months. The answer is always the same: Chicago needs to send a message to the IOC that it's fully determined to stage the games. (And what would make the point better than knocking down a bunch of buildings that some people happen to think are valuable?) Also, officials say, they need to start now on asbestos abatement and other interior work that has to precede a teardown.

"There's a very specific time line to get this built," Arnold Randall, the bid committee's director of neighborhood legacies, said at a recent hearing at the South Shore Cultural Center. "We feel to make that happen we need to begin demolition now."

The preservationists don't buy it. First of all, by now they think it has to be abundantly clear to the IOC—if not the whole freaking world—that Daley and the Chicago 2016 gang are dead set on hosting the games. Among other things, they're spending $50 million to win the bid during the worst recession in generations.

Second, if Chicago does win, holding up demolition for a couple months really shouldn't make or break the Olympic Village project, even in a city well known for overruns and delays. "There's other buildings they could demolish first besides the really valuable ones," says Balkany. "They'd still have almost seven full years to get the project done."

Moreover, the preservationists argue, why cut off your nose to spite your face? If the buildings are not just gutted but ripped down and Chicago doesn't get the games, we'll be left with a big vacant field on the south lakefront and building something else from scratch will be the only option. If the buildings are left up, developers would at least be able to reuse some or all of them.

"We say it again and again," says Balkany. "What's the rush?"

They said it again at a July 21 meeting at Olivet Baptist Church, at 31st and King Drive. Chaired by Fourth Ward alderman Toni Preckwinkle, the meeting was held to discuss potential impact of the Reese demolition on residents of the nearby Prairie Shores complex. Following a presentation by Cassandra Francis, director of Olympic Village development for Chicago 2016, Preckwinkle warned the preservationists she wasn't going to take any of their questions until Prairie Shores residents were through with theirs.

And so at least a dozen preservationists, wearing their Walter Gropius T-shirts, waited in the back of the room while Preckwinkle and Francis fielded questions about everything from construction noise to asbestos removal to rat migration.

It was obvious that the Olympic plans are very important to residents of Prairie Shores. The 2016 Olympics may seem like some far-off, abstract proposition to many Chicagoans, but not for those in the unenviable position of living next door to a mammoth construction project.

And lots of Prairie Shores residents say the city has already started the Michael Reese work in typical shoot-first-ask-questions-later fashion. At the meeting they noted that workers had begun clearing out some of the buildings immediately after the city took control of the property on July 1. In their efficiency they didn't use chutes to drop trash from the buildings into Dumpsters, and sheets of paper blew all around the area for days.

Preckwinkle heard their gripes and recited her office phone number, telling them to call with new or ongoing concerns. Francis apologized and promised residents that they wouldn't have to worry about litter again—from now site workers would use chutes to get rid of waste.

It took more than two hours to answer most of the questions from Prairie Shores residents, leaving little time for the preservationists to say their piece. But someone did get to ask Preckwinkle the central question: why can't demolition at least be delayed until October? Preckwinkle replied that questions about Reese would be addressed at an August 11 meeting.

How do we know the hospital won't be demolished by then? the preservationists persisted.

"I talked to [Chicago 2016 president] Lori Healey this morning," Preckwinkle said. "She told me that there are no plans to do any demolition before October 2."

At first the preservationists cheered, as if they'd won a major victory. But within minutes they started parsing what Preckwinkle had said and realized it was no victory at all.

"'No plans' means only that there are no plans today," noted realtor and activist Brad Suster. "That doesn't mean that they won't draw some up tomorrow."

Two days later, in fact, the city's Public Building Commission awarded $11 million in contracts to two demolition firms, Brandenburg and Heneghan Wrecking, for asbestos removal and other "interior demolition."

Really, from Mayor Daley's perspective, it makes the most sense to tear down all of the Reese buildings, including the most treasured, just to get the preservationists off his back. Once those structures are gone, there won't be a lot of incentive for preservationists to keep showing up at meetings about the Olympics.

Balkany contends that demolishing the buildings could provoke at least some preservationists to get off the fence and actively join the Olympics opposition.

Maybe he's right, but by then it'll be too late. When Mayor Daley had Meigs Field torn up in the middle of the night, the opposition rallied with public relations campaigns and lawsuits. They scored some political points, but Meigs was still gone for good, and everyone knew it.

Ben Joravsky discusses this column weekly with journalist Dave Glowacz at mrradio.org/theworks. And for more on Chicago politics, see our blog.

Comments (15) RSS

Showing 1-5 of 15

Add a comment | All comments »

Like Lynn Becker's recent all-over-the place ranting article that used a lot of words without really saying anything (did the Reader have to lay off their editor?), Joravsky's whining piece does little to help anyone understand what is important about these buildings. Perhaps because other than saying that some are forgettably associated with a famous German architect, there's not much to say about these hospital buildings. Joravsky, in fact, says nothing.

In addition to serving as eyesores along the lakefront, these buildings don't push the design envelope like other modern works of the period.

Pretending the individuals associated with this "preservation" movement are not opposed to the Olympics and then publishing this Balkany person's threat of more Olympics opposition if his group doesn't get their way, is plain stupid.

Who is this Balkany person, anyway? That's not explained in this article either.

Dragging Meigs Field into the dialogue is further confounding; preservationists should be kissing Daley's ass for restoring that section of the sacred "forever open free and clear" lakefront to a public amenity, not a private airport for the rich.

The Reader should get to know the difference between journalists and whiners and engage the services of a few of the former. I think enough good ones are out of work right now. Put an ad in your paper.

Posted by BentoBox on July 30, 2009 at 3:49 PM | Report this comment

These buildings are classic architecture, all of a sudden???

These are ugly buildings and the era of architecture they represent is better idealized in other buildings.

This is just another rant by the anti-Olympic Games crowd.

If you want to follow somebody's ideology, follow the classic Chicago architect and planner, Daniel Burnham, who said "Make no small plans" and try to bring the Olympics to Chicago.

Posted by Moon on July 30, 2009 at 5:25 PM | Report this comment

I've been following this story pretty closely over the last month or so, so I can reply to a couple of Bento's points.

Apparently, from reading around the web a bit, Balkany is an architect. He was fairly active in the preservation community a few years ago, and was one of the founders of Preservation Chicago. He's also a scholar on Gropius, which explains why he wants to save Reese.

From what I've seen (I went down to visit the campus one day before they fenced it off), the buildings are beautiful in a modernist way, which means the details are what matters. They're in pretty bad shape right now, so it's a little hard to see that beauty in some places. They're kind of like the Mies buildings at IIT. It's a bit hard to see why they matter so much until you know what the architect was going for, and then you realize that they're pretty cool.

Posted by ds901 on July 30, 2009 at 5:42 PM | Report this comment

Gropius didn't work secretly. That these buildings were not widely acclaimed earlier is because they were not great to begin with. THIS IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN THE IIT CAMPUS. That it took a lot of research to uncover a connection to Gropius, whose work is widely known and recognized, is an indicator that these buildings are NOT important. I encourage anyone to take an actual look at them. Not in pretty pictures, but in person. Even with the fence around the property, one can get a very good look, including from the pedestrian bridge. This is just another opportunity for whining idiots to complain about a Mayor who wants to move the city forward. Pretending the Olympics will be a bad thing is so ridiculous. I'll bet a similar group existed trying to prevent The White City from taking place.

Posted by STOPyourWHINING on July 31, 2009 at 9:55 AM | Report this comment

Burnham probably never said that, Moon. See over here: http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/danie…

Posted by Kiki Yablon on July 31, 2009 at 4:32 PM | Report this comment

Add a comment

Author Archives

  • October Surprise

    Mayor Daley says he’s not raising property taxes. But he is. Here’s how.
    • Nov 5, 2009
  • Transparency in Action

    How a bill intended to expand the state Freedom of Information Act was bastardized to expand the mayor's shadow budget
    • Nov 19, 2009
  • We Win!

    Believe me: losing the Olympics bid is a very, very good thing.
    • Oct 2, 2009
  • More»

Latest in Feature

  • A Kink in the Campaign

    If his challenge to Deb Mell's nominating petition succeeds, state rep candidate Joe Laiacona just might run unopposed in the Democratic primary. But can a leather master actually win in the general election?
    • Nov 19, 2009
  • Transparency in Action

    How a bill intended to expand the state Freedom of Information Act was bastardized to expand the mayor's shadow budget
    • Nov 19, 2009
  • Joe Laiacona's Challenge to Deb Mell's Petition

    The full document
    • Nov 19, 2009
  • More»

Recent Comments

  • Re: A Kink in the Campaign

    • Top five reasons Joe Laiacona should be elected:
      (5) He could become majority whip.
      (4)…

    • on November 20, 2009
  • Re: A Kink in the Campaign

    • I am Goddess on the Dungeon Place podcast. Though I certainly appreciate that our podcast…

    • on November 19, 2009
  • Re: Transparency in Action

    • Oak Park's Tif was extended by old Governor Ryan, old paly, old pal of ours…

    • on November 19, 2009

©2009 Creative Loafing Media
All Rights Reserved.