These historic towers in Chicago are at risk, but not because there’s a shiny new development
coming along that wants their site.
The US Federal Government … just wants to demolish them.
In a move that’s apparently all about improving security, the Consumers and Century buildings
on Chicago’s iconic Loop are currently slated for destruction.
But as an important part of the city’s architectural history, many are fighting hard to keep them
standing.
What's unusual is that there's now an earmark to demolish them, a $52 million earmark approved
by Congress as part of a big omnibus bill… earmarks we have not seen in the United States
in a long time, but specifically to demolish these buildings.
Critics argue the move would be a major architectural and economic blow for Chicago.
So why is the federal government getting involved in a local demolition project?
Why are they picking on these buildings?
And do people stand any chance of stopping it?
This is the $52M federal quest to demolish two of Chicago’s towers.
LOGO APPEAR
To really get your head around why the US government wants to demolish these buildings
and why that’s so contentious, you need to understand where they came from.
Back in 1871, the Great Chicago Fire devastated the city.
Burning for more than 24 hours, flames destroyed over 17,000 buildings and killed 300 people.
Left with over $200M in damages, Chicago looked to rebuild.
In the wake of the destruction a group of architects came together and began experimenting
with unique designs that could protect buildings from future fires and help jumpstart the economy.
Enter the Home Insurance Building.
Designed by William Le Baron Jenney and built in 1885 – it’s known today as the world’s
first skyscraper.
Its 10-storey steel frame was incredibly innovative at the time.
Before that, buildings used iron frames with thick masonry walls as support.
the development and integration of steel as a product to design buildings that were much
taller and thinner, that allowed for more light and air to come into these structures
prior to what we would known today as, you know, air conditioning and electric lighting…basically
the idea is almost a steel birdcage, if you will, which in which masonry is hung from
that steel birdcage.
And what that allowed for is larger window areas, larger spans, thinner buildings as
far as their depth of their walls.
The style soon became known as the Chicago School of Architecture.
Those innovations still continued today in our skyscrapers and our superstructures buildings
over 80 floors, sometimes way over a hundred floors that you see around the world, that
technology developed in Chicago and continued to develop even in the superstructures, like
the Sears Tower.
Now the Willis Tower and the John Hancock Building of the late 1960s and early 1970s.
By the mid 1910s, the style was recognizable around the city and two new additions joined
the club: the Century and Consumers Buildings.
Standing at 16 and 22 stories tall respectively, the pair were then-part of the city’s State
Street Retail District.
Tenants included small businesses, offices, and showrooms.
During construction, workers spent two months driving 38 caissons underground to support
the steel structure of the Consumers Building.
This steel was then covered in white architectural terra cotta.
As for the Century Building, it was known for being the strongest reinforced concrete
tower in the world at the time.
It was also recognized for its distinct vertical expressions along with a uniquely designed
facade ornament.
But the two towers would be the last of this particular innovative style in Chicago.
World War I broke out soon after and by the time it ended, the nation had dramatically
transformed – along with its architectural fashions.
Over the years, several of these buildings were demolished – including the historic
Home Insurance Building – to make way for new structures.
Now, the Century and Consumers buildings face a similar fate.
For decades, the pair have sat near a group of federal buildings - including a courthouse
and they’ve housed a number of businesses and offices.
After the September 11 attacks along with a threat of a truck bomb to the courthouse,
security fears around the area increased, and the federal government acquired the two
buildings along with the surrounding block.
Both were cleared of any remaining tenants.
Initially, there were plans to expand federal offices into the two towers.
But that never happened.
There was just never the funding for these structures to become federal offices.
And by the time the funding came around, they claimed they didn't have the need for these
offices.
Further ideas to create apartments were also squashed.
So, with no plans for renovation ever moving forward, the government spent millions of
dollars maintaining the properties while they sat empty and deteriorating.
But everything changed in 2022 when the US government set aside $52M to demolish them
in a federal appropriations bill.
So, why the sudden shift in course?
Ward: The federal government and the GSA feel that there could be a risk of security as
these buildings look right into the federal center offices, some of the courtrooms and
judge's chambers.
Senator Dick Durbin, the guy who introduced the Bill, said that: “​​Ensuring the
safety of the judges and employees who work in the Dirksen Courthouse must be a top priority
in light of the acute security threats they face.”
But according to some architects that explanation doesn’t hold much weight.
There are several cities where nearby buildings overlook federal courthouses, and they worry
that demolishing structures like this could set a precedent across the country.
Experts also say that demolition isn’t a typical solution to this type of risk.
Most architectural guidelines for counterterrorism efforts suggest things like mandating a 50
foot setback for federal structures, theoretically protecting them against any nearby bombings
on the streets.
But it’s not just the US government’s reasoning for demolition that makes it contentious.
With so much history, the Consumers and Century buildings – along with some other nearby
early Chicago skyscrapers – are currently being considered for a UNESCO World Heritage
nomination.
If that’s secured it would override the federal bill, legally protect the area and
could bring in more tourism and money for the city.
But if the buildings are demolished before then…
will really result in a negative and adverse opinion on our UNESCO's World Heritage Site
nomination, and I think really does present a possible embarrassment to the federal government
in the city of Chicago…
Critics argue that demolition would be a big loss economically as well.
They say the city can’t afford to maintain a vacant lot – especially after struggling
to lure workers back to offices which has slowed the post-pandemic recovery of the downtown
area.
if they're lost and that UNESCO's World Heritage nomination is lost.
We're talking about the potential of millions, tens of millions of dollars, perhaps per year,
maybe more.
The US federal government itself doesn’t usually get involved in these sorts of cases.
Preservationists typically deal with local and city governments when it comes to building
restoration and demolition – and in Chicago, they’ve usually been able to come together
and make plans where both parties are happy.
Ward Miller is part of one idea to save the buildings.
We came together and thought of the idea of, of an archive facility, because archives don't
need windows and they don't conform to the same code issues that residential dwellings
would.
And archives are very light sensitive…You could brick up any of the windows on the back
and side elevations that would be of concern.
Tom Hanks might not be a huge fan of that idea.
Despite the push for architectural preservation, some have been critical of that stance.
While there are many buildings around the world threatened by demolition – scholars
believe saving some can actually slow economic growth in certain areas.
For now at least, the federal government’s plan is to proceed with the building’s removal
and then keep a vacant lot.
Though it may truly improve security, in a city that prides itself on architectural history
such a move would mark another loss for its iconic design style.
Ward: We really have a lot to lose here as a city and and even as a nation.
And so we really want to encourage our senators, the judges and all the stakeholders in the
GSA to consider better ideas.
If you enjoyed this video and would like to get more from the definitive video channel
for construction, subscribe to The B1M.