I mean, what's next? Are we gonna landmark the entire city because of its "affordable housing" and "economical necessity"? Like, come on, 30 N. LaSalle St.? You're a building with more character in your design than that . And can someone please explain to me how this is a win for preservation? I feel like we've been sold a bill of goods here... again . It's the same old story – "we need landmark status to make our redevelopment plans work"... I'm not convinced this one is about preserving the city's architectural heritage, but more about lining pockets .
I'm like totally divided on this one . I mean, I get why preservationists are all about preserving the city's architectural heritage and stuff, but at the same time... that building doesn't exactly scream "visual presence" . I've seen way cooler buildings in our school's courtyard renovation project last semester! But hey, if it's gonna bring some much-needed affordable housing to the area, then I'm all for it . And let's be real, tax breaks are always a win-win . On the other hand, I kinda feel bad for those preservationists who fought to save that Stock Exchange Building way back when... now they're wondering if it was even worth it . Guess you could say it's a bit of a mixed bag .
lol what's up with this building right? so it's like they're trying to save it just because it's got some affordable housing and tax breaks... sounds like they're just trying to fill a void in their wallet like, I get it, Chicago needs revitalizing, but can't we just leave some ugly buildings alone? on the other hand, I'm all for preserving history, even if it means dealing with some questionable design choices but 53 years after another building got knocked down and they're still fighting to save this one? that's like me trying to convince my aunt to try kale... ain't gonna happen anyway, I guess only time will tell if the City Council comes around to see sense
I'm kinda torn about this one... I mean, on one hand I love that the city's trying to revitalize LaSalle Street Corridor and create more affordable housing options. It's a huge step forward for Chicago's development. But at the same time, I don't know if a building as bland as 30 N. LaSalle St deserves landmark status... like, is it really worth saving just because of its potential to bring in tax breaks? I remember reading about Louis Sullivan's Chicago Stock Exchange Building being demolished and how crazy that was back then... I guess you could say history repeating itself?
I mean, what's next? Are we gonna landmark the entire city because of its "affordable housing" and "economical necessity"? Like, come on, 30 N. LaSalle St.? You're a building with more character in your design than that 
. And can someone please explain to me how this is a win for preservation? I feel like we've been sold a bill of goods here... again 
. It's the same old story – "we need landmark status to make our redevelopment plans work"... 
I'm not convinced this one is about preserving the city's architectural heritage, but more about lining pockets 
.
. And let's be real, tax breaks are always a win-win 
. Guess you could say it's a bit of a mixed bag 
.
so it's like they're trying to save it just because it's got some affordable housing and tax breaks... sounds like they're just trying to fill a void in their wallet 
on the other hand, I'm all for preserving history, even if it means dealing with some questionable design choices 
but 53 years after another building got knocked down and they're still fighting to save this one? that's like me trying to convince my aunt to try kale... ain't gonna happen 