It's been 21 years since 9/11 and a full 58 years since the Dirksen building was constructed. Why NOW is this suddenly a threat? What's far more likely in Chicago is politicians (and their allies) having a financial interest in seeing these buildings come down.
The towers are not dangerous. They are not going to be replaced with something that generates more economic value. What's the point knocking them down?
The two buildings where already there, when the Courthouse was built. And nobody was worried about it. Why now? It is so strange. If they are really worried about security, they should build a new Courthouse with state of the art security-tech in an open area at the edge of the city or somewhere in the surrounding landscape.
It's not strange. It's a smokescreen for the Green New Nightmare. Part of the genius plan to save the world by destroying the modern western economy was to force every building to renovate to accommodate some new as-yet-undefined standard for perfect, carbon-neutral construction (these people have no idea how concrete works or how much energy is used to build things). So, you set a precedent by knocking down old buildings first. They're supposed to be the easiest to justify and the biggest gains to make. However, then you have to deal with the historical preservation issue. But, if you can overcome that in the courts, you set a precedent that makes opposition to the new wave of forced demolition that much more difficult. Once you realize how these people think, it's a lot easier to understand why they pick the battles they pick. This one obviously has nothing to do with "security" at all, since they immediately refuse any obvious, easy, or cost-effective compromises to address that concern. It's just there as a wedge.
In the 90s I was doing renovation work in a federal courthouse, I'd just park my truck near the loading dock and walk in, no guard, and the door wasn't even locked. If I did that now I may get shot, we live in a different world now. I don't have all the facts, so I'm not choosing sides, I'm just pointing out, that it's silly to blame the people that approved a building design 70 years ago.
I feel like being in the city center is safer than being on the outskirts, When you're further away from the city center there's less people and less hurdles to basic security...
It's worth mentioning that Chicago's Federal Plaza was designed by Mies van der Rohe, an architect who also played a significant role in shaping the city's architectural legacy.
52 million dollars to _remove_ a pair of apartment buildings that are a living testament to how the city literally rose again from the ashes... Have they considered like, getting some blinds? Or some curtains maybe? Hell, I think covering the entire side of the courthouse in one-way windows might even be cheaper still. Also: What part of *Housing Crisis* do they not understand? These people are why we have childproof bottles and microwaves come with instructions not to use them to dry your pets.
They are PIGS. FASCIST PIGS THAT DON'T CARE ABOUT US OR ANYTHING TO DO WITH US, and there are STILL people who don't believe it. They want you and me DEAD. THE IDEA THAT THEY HAVE A SPARK OF HUMANITY IN THEM IS LUDICROUS!!! They are empty shells with nothing inside them but hatred, greed, avarice, envy and a continual desire for ever more increasing depths of utter depravity and gut-wrenching evil of the most heinous sort. Imagine the worst you can think of and multiply it by a factor of 20. Then you will have the beginning of an idea of what a modern democrat is and what they stand for.
@StringerNews1 They could be. They are maintaining them anyway. I say move the courthouse. If the govt didn't cause so many bad feelings amongst citizens and other countries, they wouldn't need to keep covering their tracks.
@StringerNews1not sure what your point is. Hundreds of historic buildings in Chicago have been converted to apartments including office buildings in the Loop. That's how the Loop went from being a place where people went to work to a place where people actually live. The Loop has tons residents moving in every year so there is demand for housing in this area.
Simple solution? Remove the windows from the judges offices and make it like a prison and bulletproof. The federal government are experts at that anyways.
So sad to see that the government's post-9/11, knee-jerk reaction and paranoia continues to result in police state activity even if they literally destroy monuments to American creativity and ingenuity.
So... they spent Millions to acquire the building and land. Then... spent Millions for upkeep of the property. And now... they want to spend Millions to demolish the property. Your Tax Dollars hard at work. 🤦
Ah, Melbourne had a few of those 1880s skyscrapers, (tallest in the world outside Chicago and New York). But the last 12 storey one was demolished in 1980. Of course these days everyone wishes we had preserved more buildings from that era.
@@derkhaslol The 12 story one I was talking about was the APA building, but there were other 10+ story buildings as well. The Federal Hotel (demolished 1973) was only 8 stories, but it was the height of boom era opulence in Melbourne. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APA_Building,_Melbourne en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Coffee_Palace
I thought they just built buildings over them in Melbourne in that era. I remember going on holidays there many, many years ago & seeing a historic building inside a shopping centre or something, they just left the building there & built over the top of it, fully enclosing the historic building inside the new one. No idea if that building is still there or not, I remember at the time the comedy shows had a lot to say about that & made out it was the norm in Melbourne, but I'm really not sure how common it was
@@TheB1M Just an idea for a future building topic. Have you thought about informing your subscribers as to the latest findings (3 to 4 year scientific study and final report released for peer review approx. 2 years ago by Dr. Leroy Hulsey, Professor of Engineering, UAF.) in regard to the collapse of WTC Building 7 on 9/11? A real eye opener, especially NIST's unprofessional response in regard to the need for correction where their analysis and report has been shown to be seriously flawed.
Thanks for telling this story. I was visiting Chicago last week and stopped to notice these very two towers on State St, wondering why such classic buildings were uninhabited and sealed off. Now I know! Chicago is such a uniquely fantastic place.. America's most underrated city by far.
I always wondered about these buildings! Me and a friend managed to get into the Consumers building thanks to a Facebook invite to an "abandoned building party" downtown in the fall of 2009. Showed up with probably at least 80-100 people, someone who set up the party had already broken in the back door and people were setting up speakers and equipment on the 3rd floor. It seemed at the time the first two floors were still occupied. Since the music wasn't going yet we and some other people took the back staircase up to the top of the building and got out onto the roof to look around downtown, definitely a cool experience for a 21 year old that grew up in flat Indiana. Then we looked over the side of the building and saw the CPD squad cars at the bottom... In the end the CPD cleared us all out of the building, got at least one kid arrested for taking the door cover charge and setting up the party, and told the rest of us to get the hell out of downtown and said we were lucky we weren't getting arrested for trespassing on federal property. Now that last bit makes more sense!
@@RabbitsInBlack I knew a tds simp would have to run their lips. Because your guy is doing such a great job. Clowns like you who put these communists in office share the blame for all of thr country's problems
OK, so the Federal government can find $52M to demolish these buildings, turning them into an empty space with no economic value, but can't find money to renovate them and turn them into something that can be sold or rented for a profit. Alternatively, sell them to a developer, with caveats that protect the privacy of the courts and the integrity of the historic buildings - at least that way they have a chance of getting the taxpayers money back. Let's hope that UNESCO works faster than the Federal government.
As a local Chicagoan, thank you B1M for shinning a light on these beautiful buildings. Hopefully they are saved. All residents of Illinois should write to Durbin.
These beautiful old buildings are each "one of a kind" and can never be replaced. Since they are still in good physically condition, leave them as a trophy to the beautiful city of Chicago. Where I live a beautiful 1800s city hall was demolished and replaced with an ugly 12 story black glass tower. Another historic building was the decorative 1800s train station, which was replaced by a steel "barn-like" warehouse looking structure. Now, city leaders are now exclaiming, "why"? KEEP THESE BUILDINGS!!!
It costs a lot of money to maintain a building. So actively maintaining a building as a useless 'trophy' while we cannot afford to maintain even basic infrastructure in this country is a slap in the face to the poor.
They can be easily replaced with a modern building or turned into a park. Both are better options than keeping around old buildings with limitations that don't exist in modern construction. The new buildings can be made to look like anything you you want for "tourism". Only a mentally ill person looks at an old unused building and wants to waste money artificially keeping it standing unused instead of tearing it down. Tearing old stuff down that isn't as good as new stuff is called progress.
Yeah I hate that sh*t. Down the street from my place there used to be this super old classic farmhouse with like a half an acre field around it and it was smack dab in the middle of the suburbs and it stood out and just looked really cool because it seemed so out of place. Then they just recently demolished it and built a paved road surrounded by cookie cutter houses in its place. If I had the money to buy the property I would have done it in a heartbeat
@@dylonjackson8863 To purposely keep a rotting farmhouse on it? Why? What is so good about punishing the present and the future with the failures and waste of the past? You can pick that farmhouse up and live in it out in the country, but you don't get to prevent a city from modernizing. 100% of our cities were built over previous buildings. There isn't much space in any city that could be called original. So why pretend old stuff from the past that has no use is sacred? When current skyscrapers get too old, we should keep them as empty rotting buildings until they naturally fall?
@@remusvulpin6025 yea so get rid of useless suburban architecture, which makes up most of America. It’s bad for the environment, relays on cars and is bad for the environment. Getting rid of two historical buildings won’t help at all.
From the Chicago area and pissed to learn this. As if it was not enough that they tore down the jaw-dropping Federal Building (a massive domed building) in 1965 to build the current complex, but now they want to continue to destroy architectural heritage again. One of the best features of the current complex is that it is surrounded by a number older buildings that provide a cool architectural contrast to the international style modernism of the complex.
I didn't realize how beautiful the Chicago skyline and its various buildings are. I only knew the Sears Tower and the John Hancock Center. Very nice video, I always learn a lot with you. Cheers.
I would recommend you to watch a documentary about Chicago architecture. You will learn a lot more about other historic buildings and I think you like them.
Come to the city and take a tour. CAC runs guided tours of endless parts of the city, and the riverboat tours are one of our best tourist experiences, way better than shit like the bean or navy pier. Chicago’s residential architecture is also horribly underappreciated compared to the hype around the Loop. Its easily the most beautiful city in America aside from maybe New York or Boston.
It's kind of the definitive city to go to if you wanted to study architecture in the U.S. (From the beginning of modern skyscrapers to some of the latest. And there's a couple world class museums too that cover various aspects of industry and the arts.) If you want some viewing, come in the summer and take one of the river taxis or tours.
If the federal government didn't want them to be able to look in THEN THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE BUILT NEXT DOOR TO OTHER SKYSCRAPERS. Seems like a "not our problem" scenario.
It's absolutely ridiculous that these weren't turned into apartments and the government got in the way of that as usual. If you're so scared, move the courthouse to a much more secure place such as a high end suburb nearby like Highland Park... which happens to prove that any crazy violence can happen anywhere, so to knock down these iconic towers and not repurpose them is just ridiculous and would only happen in Chicago and Illinois with the one party government.
This happens all the time in states of all sides, maybe you should realize its not dem or rep that are the problem, its politicians in general, make them fear us and things like this wont happen, but nah, be bitches and let them walk all over you, like every other generation, itll get better, totally.
As a native of Chicago, I would like to know how one of our U.S. senators, Dick Durbin came up with this idea. If you want to surround your courthouse with vacant land, go put it on a farm (we have a lot of them) downstate somewhere, not in the middle of Chicago! There are other solutions to this problem, Senator Durbin.
Dick Durbin is literally the worst democratic senator. Dont know why you keep electing him. Look at his track record, he has obstructed a lot of democratic bills that had a chance of passing in the senate.
He didn’t come up with this idea. A lobbyist from the local constitution and demo industry group had this written up for him and gave a nice donation to his re-election fund. Just another cash grab of Bidens Build Back Better bill.
There is zero ways to build anything like the older buildings bc the building materials are unavailable or way to expensive. We have to save as many as we can
Building in older styles is still possible. The B1M showed a new thin art deco skyscraper in New York a while back. Theres another new skyscraper in Singapore built in an old style. Lots of buildings and entire new towns in Britain are being built in old architecture styles but are being built using modern techniques and modern materials.
This is also my true concern with preservation of historical buildings. If we as a society would still be building stuff like the two towers in the video then fine, tear down any old thing you like in the name of economic growth. But we don't, so any building that is demolished is a permanent, irrevocable loss.
Change and progression are natural phases of human development. Sentimentality must not stand in the way, there are simply too many people who lack homes and modern architecture is the only way to help them.
It's possible, of course, but difficult. There are easily available replacements materials. There is no reason the building can't use brick to create a similar aesthetic.
@@remusvulpin6025 Do you imagine that the federal government is going to put up housing blocks there after demolition? Don’t be absurd. You might as well say, “let’s kill granny because it’s good to take care of young people.” Even if it were true it doesn’t necessarily follow that the second part would come to pass.
replacing windows facing the courthouse with solid walls sounds like the solution to me. I'm sure gov't computer servers (for the windowless rooms/areas) plus the consolidation of other government offices into that building is possible, especially if the first few floors can maintain wrap around windows. Even better would be sharing the space with gov't offices from Chicago/Cook/Illinois. If it costs $50M to demolish, i'm sure it's worth $100M to preserve it.
I'm sure this can be accomplished without even replacing the windows. It should be possible to wall them off from the inside in such a way that it isn't too noticeable from the outside, perhaps completely unnoticeable from street level. But as others have pointed out, if the security of the courthouse is such a concern, they should start with securing the courthouse. Fermi approximation time! With what I see of the building on Google Maps and street view, and the height given by Wikipedia, I come up with 20,000 square metres of windows. An armoured glass company advertises about $1000 per square metre for glass that will stop armour piercing bullets from sniper rifles. So about $20M for the windows, not including installation costs. It seems to me that the cost of securing the courthouse is at least in the same ballpark as demolishing the two heritage buildings.
@@daexion Curtains can be easily moved. If they go the route of blocking the windows in the heritage buildings, I assume they would want to do it in such a way that a bad guy cannot easily unblock them without attracting some attention.
I'd block the windows in the Federal Building instead, if they really need to keep total what, secrecy, on that side of the building? There's no excuse for what Durbin wants to do.
I had no idea that I walking past history every time i went up and down state street. I am glad the city wants to preserve its history. Some of the first sky scrapers
pretty much everything in that area is historical! i definitely recommend looking into it. the architectural tours are very informative, though pricey. there are probably some good videos here on youtube...
The idea that historic preservation can slow down economic growth in certain areas, is really not founded on anything except world view. The whole of Europe has millions of history sites, scattered across the continent and it hasn't exactly slowed down economic growth. It has probably increased it, as we're visited by billions of tourists yearly, who both come from other parts of Europe, but many come from either the US or Asia, making a pretty solid case for how beneficial historic preservation is for the economy. So I'll change that quote to: Building new is great, except when it isn't.
Not that I'm one to say knock the buildings down, but I take issue with your claim on Europe's economic growth. I'm sure if you study economic growth across countries it has been far greater over the last 150 years in countries such as the US,. For example, since 1950 Europe's population has gown by approximately 37%, whereas the US has more than doubled.
look at cities like san francisco. the nimbys in that city wanted to preserve their townhouses and prevent high rise apartment buildings from being built, and as a result, it's one of the most expensive places to live in the US. there's not enough housing to go around and there's no space to build more, so demand made living costs go sky high. that extra money spent on housing isn't going to other places in the economy, so that is definitely slowing economic growth i'm not saying they should knock the buildings down because they're going to be turned into a vacant lot, but what you're saying only makes sense if billions of people want to see some historical buildings
@@elijahkim3142 there are no "billions" of people living in the US or Chicago. But the millions that do live in both of them want those buildings preserved. When it comes to SF there are a lot of complex factors that are driving the prices of housing up. It's obviously not because of the preservation (which in most cases continue to be used after restauration) of a couple dozen of buildings. Even if they're knocked out and something is built on top, you can bet it's gonna be a huge office tower with shops. Not something that's gonna solve similar problems like in SF.
@@jollyroger35 Europe is by far the best place in the world in nearly every category but especially in quality of life, happiness, and economic success. Europeans get much much more for much less, all the while working less too. The euro is also far more important than the usd.
@@jollyroger35 ah yes, because economic success is based on population growth. Do you hear yourself? Please for the love of God do some statistical research and understand what and how these statistics work, because this is embarrassingly bad.
Please make a video on The Renovation of Cook County Hospital. I hadn't heard of it before, but I heard you mentioning it in this video. So I looked it up and it is absolutely gorgeous and a grand masterpiece!
@@frankthefkintank Oh they can still waste the 50 mill without even thinking about it, don't you worry about that. But at least they won't destroy 2 historic buildings in the process.
Chicago has the most beautiful architecture in the United Stated of America. Chicago has many Billion Dollar Mega Developments on its way such as Lincoln Yards, The 78, Bronzeville Lakefront, Tribune East Tower (1,422 FT Tall,) One Central development, The River District, the current construction boom in West Loop, the ambitious Lake Shore Drive transformation. Did I miss any other projects? B1M should definitely take a look because Chicago’s Skyline is going to look even more massive in the next 5 -10 years!!
So spend on moving the courthouse. Design will be able to incorporate new security options that have become necessary for protecting people and appropriate vehicular access and parking. The old one will become available for alternative use, while the new courthouse will be developed in a site without any overseeing buildings. The old buildings can be renovated and reoccupied, instead of remaining empty or getting demolished.
Great video! I say keep em both, not for their striking good looks but for there historical significance. National Archives repurpose is pretty brilliant
Hey B1M thank you for this video, I loved it. I really enjoy the architecture history aspect, and would love to see more videos that touch on how much the present is informed and reflected by the past. Cheers!
So instead of moving or modifying the courthouse by installing one-way film on the windows, they insist on destroying two historic buildings. That's extremely petty. Literally all they would need to do to fix the window issue is install reflective film or slats that prevent view from above.
You stayed they the city can't afford to maintain the vacant lot. Why would that be the city's burden if it is federal property? The federal government is currently maintaining the structures.
Transforming these historic structures into archives facilities makes sense to me. Chicago Federal Center has its own architectural history as a classic mid-century Miles van set Rohe creation. If the feds are really not interested in that solution why couldn’t they build a modern replacement elsewhere downtown? Perhaps on one of those undeveloped lots along the river south of the Loop? I know you couldn’t do all that with the $52M earmark, but Chicago Federal Center itself would be worth something even in this market.
yeh, a historic building becoming an archive building seems just perfect to me! Storing history inside history & fully meeting all the practical needs of the situation in the process
I remember when the Prudential building, at 44 stories, was the highest in Chicago. Many of those downtown buildings are classic and should be preserved. Tough call. Are they suitable for renovation or redevelopment?
if the federal government is so worried about threats from nearby buildings..... why did they build the courthouse in the middle of a city??? go ahead tear down the buildings on the same block, someone can still look in from the building on the other side of the street.....
Honestly the reason I visit towns and cities is for the architecture. I find older buildings to have more character. Especially since most modern buildings are usually just scare and tan.
Thank you for sharing this story about Chicago. I have loved our skyline here since the late 1960s. I have gone to live in New York in the early 1970s but I came back to Chicago because of family here. Our buildings downtown here are the center piece to our beautiful city. Taking down these two buildings in question is very strange and would take away our bid for UNESCO Heritage status. Our skyline along Lake Michigan is so beautiful but what are we risking by taking down these buildings and then leaving that site vacate? I hope we are awarded UNESCO status before the taking down of those two beautiful buildings.
@@iwouldliketoorderanumber1b79 I know for I will ask friends who work downtown close by there. I work and live up on the North side neighborhood of the city.
What about all of the other towers around that courthouse? Don't they also present a "security risk"? Why are only these towers targeted for demolition?
@@jouaienttoi oh yeah, lets demolish historic buildings and replace them with an ugly shoebox or glass tower just because you do not want to put some effort into making it more safe or renovating it to met modern standards climate change is joke then? You do realise how much carbon dioxide gets exposed whenever you demolish them???? Let alone build another ugly shoebox. They really shot themself in the leg didn't they. What a contradiction!
The fact that this was slipped into a bill in Congress is enough to convince me that there's people in Congress with a personal financial stake in this, simply because that's the only reason Congress ever does anything.
The national archive idea sounds good, but I think leaving the windows and installing false walls behind them would be better than bricking them up. Could also use some of the lower floors as retail/office space, since most of the judges office's are towards the top floors of the courthouse.
Hey @B1M ,can you please do a video about the tallest building in the world made from hemp? It's being built in Cape Town, South Africa🇿🇦 It's a very eco friendly, strong and temperature regulating material. AfriMat and Hemporium are constructing the building at 84 Harrington Street.
What I like about Chicago is its variety of unique and historic buildings. It would be boring if these historic skyscrapers are replaced by more glass boxes. Well, to me, anyways.
You are right, Chicago has one of the most unique skyscrapers they are well crafted and designed, they were the originals, we shouldn't feel bad for liking old things, I'm 21 and I like that type of architecture and if I had money I would definitely live in one of those buildings.
Abandon building becomes homeless camp. Crime increase in the camp and the police get called eventually. Then the government tears that shit down. Pretty common with buildings from that era in the decaying US.
The bottom line is how much will it cost to fix the buildings and what they could be used for.Just “preserving “ them and letting them rot is pointless.
It doesn't matter how much it cost. There's no reason for them to be vacant and the government just wants to have an empty lot.... so how is that useful?
@@MrMountainchris In the end it’s our money. I’d like it to be a well thought out use. Armor the glass on that side of the courthouse and make use of the buildings.
I've worked in that courthouse, and I know Chicago. The public story is clearly not the real story. My law school professor of property said that all cases are ultimately about one of two things: sex or money. In this situation, it's obvious that some powerful people have the potential to make a lot of money. We probably won't learn anything about the real reasons until someone announces a new project on that block. What is the status of the post office there? It was under-utilized for decades. Ten years from now, that site will have a very profitable new building on it.
I agree, else why would the federal government get involved? It sounds like someone with money wants the lots and struck some kind of behind the scenes deal to acquire the property.
These security analyst types cost tax payers billions per year. I can count how many times they've "upgraded" the entry control gates to military installations over the past decade. Seems like when they just finish a project, a couple years down the road they are tearing it all out to do something "different" costing millions.
If you want the option of bricking up the windows for and archive why not just keep the windows and brick it up behind it.. also easier to restore when there is no need for it anymore.
I wonder if, given advances in the likes of 3D printing, such beautiful turn of the 20th Century architecture could ultimately make a comeback; as opposed to the mid-20th century “international” half-assed minimalism cubes already making a comeback… just elaborate ornamental design patterns on the sides of incredibly simple steel frames… the early high rises were something else…
I know I love those styles too, the only way to really come back to these styles is if we made a trend. We would need craftsmen, artists, architects and very rich people to make it happen.
Let's be honest, some federal judge or bureaucrat just doesn't want the view out of their office blocked. This has nothing to do with security or the cost of maintaining the buildings.
Seems to me that the issue is rather overblown in it's importance. If the first skyscraper ever was demolished because it was far too expensive to be maintained than be just destroyed than these old buildings don't stand a chance.
That’s what I’m thinking. At this point it seems like they want to preserve the buildings just for the sake of preserving the buildings, which I personally don’t understand. I say get rid of them.
The first skyscraper was demolished 46 years after it was built. Preservation of century-old skyscrapers were not a thing back then. Consumers Building was built in 1913 and Century Building was built in 1915. Today, they both are more than a century old. Buildings like this defined the iconic look that the Chicago skyline has shown. Demolishing these buildings to protect a federal courthouse built decades after these buildings is just a preposterous and damning slap to Chicago's heritage.
@@jouaienttoi If you watched the video thoroughly instead of claiming it to be one-sided, it was told that the buildings were actually pretty much used a lot prior to it being acquired by the people managing the federal courthouse.
Replace "Empty" with "Green Space" and see how you feel about it.- I've no opinion other than the status quo is bad for everyone and everything. A green space park is better than derelict.
Exactly, I have no idea why people obsess over old stuff. These "historical" buildings aren't serving any purpose nor having an culturally significant history.
@@jouaienttoi Isn't the point of the video to suggest purposes for the building? Maybe it should stay, maybe it should go, but the only reason it is disused is because the feds are sitting on it.
Buildings like these should be preserved. I mean, they're history. Chicago built the earliest skyscrapers. New York would popularize them due to the Empire State and Chrysler Buildings that dominated Midtown. The Sears Tower and the Hancock are both engineering marvels. Those two historic buildings were one of the city's last early skyscrapers. And speaking of New York, they just demolished a hundred-year old hotel. It was called Hotel Pennsylvania, a former hotel near MSG. NYC never really learned, eh? First, they demolished the old Penn Station (the fourth Garden might be a landmark of its own, but the old Penn is much better in terms of architecture), then the Singer Building and the City Investment Building, then the Yankee Stadium, and then, this hotel? They should've done better ideas, like turning it into an apartment building with modern amenities.
Tear down the courthouse. The 2 buildings were there before it was and no one seemed concerned about safety when it was built. If the jerks in DC get their way and tear them down, the Fed Govt should have to pay all property taxes on the land and maintain it in such a way as to be a credit to Chicago.
I say move the court house
Put it up on stilts and have men walk it out to the swamps
or put the judges on the other side of the building...
Not like Chicago needs it anyway
right? if you are so concerned about threats from nearby buildings, why is the courthouse in the middle of a city filled with tall buildings????
Amazing how us peasants can come up with such innovative ideas!
It's been 21 years since 9/11 and a full 58 years since the Dirksen building was constructed. Why NOW is this suddenly a threat? What's far more likely in Chicago is politicians (and their allies) having a financial interest in seeing these buildings come down.
And if they can get a better view in their office with lifetime appointments, I'm sure they'd be happy to see them go.
You nailed it! $$$
Yeah, some very nice, sweetheart deal contracts will be written with that $52 million.
Someone wants to buy the lots
Follow the money, see when Durban's name appears
If they're worried about security, perhaps they shouldn't make a courthouse that's made of glass.
in the busiest street in the city...
Man but that's a hard pill to swallow. When the government is involved you can guarantee stupidity will soon follow.
or simply install blinds
Are you a sniper shooter getting tasked to take out folk in such said court rooms?
If security is an issue now why wasn't it one when the fed court building was established? A bunch of lies to hide an agenda.
The towers are not dangerous. They are not going to be replaced with something that generates more economic value. What's the point knocking them down?
Simply to eat up more of an already bloated federal budget.
@@larrysorenson4789 Greenspace!
Federal government go brrrrr
Sell it for cheap to a potential party donor?
@@OperationDarkside that sounds exactly like a reason for the federal government to get involved in a local issue.
The two buildings where already there, when the Courthouse was built. And nobody was worried about it.
Why now? It is so strange. If they are really worried about security, they should build a new Courthouse with state of the art security-tech in an open area at the edge of the city or somewhere in the surrounding landscape.
It's not strange. It's a smokescreen for the Green New Nightmare. Part of the genius plan to save the world by destroying the modern western economy was to force every building to renovate to accommodate some new as-yet-undefined standard for perfect, carbon-neutral construction (these people have no idea how concrete works or how much energy is used to build things). So, you set a precedent by knocking down old buildings first. They're supposed to be the easiest to justify and the biggest gains to make. However, then you have to deal with the historical preservation issue. But, if you can overcome that in the courts, you set a precedent that makes opposition to the new wave of forced demolition that much more difficult. Once you realize how these people think, it's a lot easier to understand why they pick the battles they pick. This one obviously has nothing to do with "security" at all, since they immediately refuse any obvious, easy, or cost-effective compromises to address that concern. It's just there as a wedge.
jusr turn the court house to a starbucks and a mcdonalds
In the 90s I was doing renovation work in a federal courthouse, I'd just park my truck near the loading dock and walk in, no guard, and the door wasn't even locked.
If I did that now I may get shot, we live in a different world now.
I don't have all the facts, so I'm not choosing sides, I'm just pointing out, that it's silly to blame the people that approved a building design 70 years ago.
Crooked democrats at work as usual.
I feel like being in the city center is safer than being on the outskirts, When you're further away from the city center there's less people and less hurdles to basic security...
It's worth mentioning that Chicago's Federal Plaza was designed by Mies van der Rohe, an architect who also played a significant role in shaping the city's architectural legacy.
52 million dollars to _remove_ a pair of apartment buildings that are a living testament to how the city literally rose again from the ashes... Have they considered like, getting some blinds? Or some curtains maybe? Hell, I think covering the entire side of the courthouse in one-way windows might even be cheaper still.
Also: What part of *Housing Crisis* do they not understand? These people are why we have childproof bottles and microwaves come with instructions not to use them to dry your pets.
They are PIGS. FASCIST PIGS THAT DON'T CARE ABOUT US OR ANYTHING TO DO WITH US, and there are STILL people who don't believe it. They want you and me DEAD. THE IDEA THAT THEY HAVE A SPARK OF HUMANITY IN THEM IS LUDICROUS!!! They are empty shells with nothing inside them but hatred, greed, avarice, envy and a continual desire for ever more increasing depths of utter depravity and gut-wrenching evil of the most heinous sort. Imagine the worst you can think of and multiply it by a factor of 20. Then you will have the beginning of an idea of what a modern democrat is and what they stand for.
@StringerNews1 They could be. They are maintaining them anyway. I say move the courthouse. If the govt didn't cause so many bad feelings amongst citizens and other countries, they wouldn't need to keep covering their tracks.
@@questioneverything9535 your a fool
@StringerNews1 Renovating can turn any building into living quarters. Look at the old brick mill buildings. Turned into condos or studio lofts.
@StringerNews1not sure what your point is. Hundreds of historic buildings in Chicago have been converted to apartments including office buildings in the Loop. That's how the Loop went from being a place where people went to work to a place where people actually live. The Loop has tons residents moving in every year so there is demand for housing in this area.
Simple solution? Remove the windows from the judges offices and make it like a prison and bulletproof. The federal government are experts at that anyways.
Prison is for you and me, not for the elite.
Prisons are designed to keep people in, not keep people out. I think you mean a bank
@@frankthefkintank you mean like epstein?
Sounds a lot like an American school.
Stained glass blocks the view from the inside replace the windows with stained glass
So sad to see that the government's post-9/11, knee-jerk reaction and paranoia continues to result in police state activity even if they literally destroy monuments to American creativity and ingenuity.
Those monuments have become run down empty useless eyesore. There's more than one way to preserve history.
@@MikMoen fine by me - I don't own it!
It’s intentional.
@@MikMoen they were occupied until the federal government acquired them, literally purposefully put into a state of disrepair
That's if we take 9/11 on "face" value (WTC Building 7 collapse).
So... they spent Millions to acquire the building and land.
Then... spent Millions for upkeep of the property.
And now... they want to spend Millions to demolish the property.
Your Tax Dollars hard at work.
🤦
Obama's stomping grounds. I'm sure that makes what's going on in Chiraq entirely honest.
Thanks!
Ah, Melbourne had a few of those 1880s skyscrapers, (tallest in the world outside Chicago and New York). But the last 12 storey one was demolished in 1980. Of course these days everyone wishes we had preserved more buildings from that era.
1970-1980 Really did demolish a lot of historical buildings.
@@derkhaslol The 12 story one I was talking about was the APA building, but there were other 10+ story buildings as well. The Federal Hotel (demolished 1973) was only 8 stories, but it was the height of boom era opulence in Melbourne. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APA_Building,_Melbourne en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Coffee_Palace
I hope they don’t destroy them we can also paint a large mural on the buildings
almost like removing the entirety of the past is not good... huh weird.
I thought they just built buildings over them in Melbourne in that era. I remember going on holidays there many, many years ago & seeing a historic building inside a shopping centre or something, they just left the building there & built over the top of it, fully enclosing the historic building inside the new one. No idea if that building is still there or not, I remember at the time the comedy shows had a lot to say about that & made out it was the norm in Melbourne, but I'm really not sure how common it was
Love your channel, dude. Your content is always great to watch and you cover many topics i've never heard of. Thank you for your hard work!
✊✊✊
@@TheB1M Just an idea for a future building topic. Have you thought about informing your subscribers as to the latest findings (3 to 4 year scientific study and final report released for peer review approx. 2 years ago by Dr. Leroy Hulsey, Professor of Engineering, UAF.) in regard to the collapse of WTC Building 7 on 9/11? A real eye opener, especially NIST's unprofessional response in regard to the need for correction where their analysis and report has been shown to be seriously flawed.
Thanks for telling this story. I was visiting Chicago last week and stopped to notice these very two towers on State St, wondering why such classic buildings were uninhabited and sealed off. Now I know! Chicago is such a uniquely fantastic place.. America's most underrated city by far.
i'm sure mayor beetlejuice and the party machines agree with you.
I always wondered about these buildings! Me and a friend managed to get into the Consumers building thanks to a Facebook invite to an "abandoned building party" downtown in the fall of 2009. Showed up with probably at least 80-100 people, someone who set up the party had already broken in the back door and people were setting up speakers and equipment on the 3rd floor. It seemed at the time the first two floors were still occupied. Since the music wasn't going yet we and some other people took the back staircase up to the top of the building and got out onto the roof to look around downtown, definitely a cool experience for a 21 year old that grew up in flat Indiana. Then we looked over the side of the building and saw the CPD squad cars at the bottom...
In the end the CPD cleared us all out of the building, got at least one kid arrested for taking the door cover charge and setting up the party, and told the rest of us to get the hell out of downtown and said we were lucky we weren't getting arrested for trespassing on federal property. Now that last bit makes more sense!
Imagine the us federal government being worried about embarrassment in 2022.
The hardest thing is removing all the Orange streaks all over. Bleach apparently doesn't work.
@@RabbitsInBlack I knew a tds simp would have to run their lips. Because your guy is doing such a great job. Clowns like you who put these communists in office share the blame for all of thr country's problems
@@RabbitsInBlack chameleon Harris and Joe Brandon don't represent USA, though they currently do
Word
@@tiestokygoericprydz3963 Dump doesn’t either 😂
OK, so the Federal government can find $52M to demolish these buildings, turning them into an empty space with no economic value, but can't find money to renovate them and turn them into something that can be sold or rented for a profit. Alternatively, sell them to a developer, with caveats that protect the privacy of the courts and the integrity of the historic buildings - at least that way they have a chance of getting the taxpayers money back.
Let's hope that UNESCO works faster than the Federal government.
Ikr f the government sometimes bruh
We are in the era of the Moocher. Things are going to get much worse before they get better.
Turtles move faster than the govt.
Honestly I don’t think UNESCO matters… The U stands for useless for sure here, especially facing the US gov…
Listen, we gotta give billions to Ukraine…..stop worrying about your own country. It’s lost and destroyed……
As a local Chicagoan, thank you B1M for shinning a light on these beautiful buildings. Hopefully they are saved. All residents of Illinois should write to Durbin.
They should vote him out.
These beautiful old buildings are each "one of a kind" and can never be replaced. Since they are still in good physically condition, leave them as a trophy to the beautiful city of Chicago. Where I live a beautiful 1800s city hall was demolished and replaced with an ugly 12 story black glass tower. Another historic building was the decorative 1800s train station, which was replaced by a steel "barn-like" warehouse looking structure. Now, city leaders are now exclaiming, "why"? KEEP THESE BUILDINGS!!!
It costs a lot of money to maintain a building. So actively maintaining a building as a useless 'trophy' while we cannot afford to maintain even basic infrastructure in this country is a slap in the face to the poor.
They can be easily replaced with a modern building or turned into a park. Both are better options than keeping around old buildings with limitations that don't exist in modern construction. The new buildings can be made to look like anything you you want for "tourism". Only a mentally ill person looks at an old unused building and wants to waste money artificially keeping it standing unused instead of tearing it down.
Tearing old stuff down that isn't as good as new stuff is called progress.
Yeah I hate that sh*t. Down the street from my place there used to be this super old classic farmhouse with like a half an acre field around it and it was smack dab in the middle of the suburbs and it stood out and just looked really cool because it seemed so out of place. Then they just recently demolished it and built a paved road surrounded by cookie cutter houses in its place. If I had the money to buy the property I would have done it in a heartbeat
Beautiful?? Yikes
@@dylonjackson8863 To purposely keep a rotting farmhouse on it? Why? What is so good about punishing the present and the future with the failures and waste of the past? You can pick that farmhouse up and live in it out in the country, but you don't get to prevent a city from modernizing. 100% of our cities were built over previous buildings. There isn't much space in any city that could be called original. So why pretend old stuff from the past that has no use is sacred? When current skyscrapers get too old, we should keep them as empty rotting buildings until they naturally fall?
These buildings are historic and unique; they represent something beautiful that can never be replaced once it is gone. Think about that.
Honestly, they're probably better, with more significant examples in Chicago than those two, the Wrigley building is of a similar style and era.
Tear down the drab looking Dirkson Courthouse instead. Move the federal courthouse to the Fulton Market area of Chicago.
Historic buildings are one of the aesthetics of a city.
Agreed 👌
Well that building looks ugly so who cares
Modern architecture is the way to go, we need to think about maximising utility to prevent overcrowding
@@remusvulpin6025 yea so get rid of useless suburban architecture, which makes up most of America. It’s bad for the environment, relays on cars and is bad for the environment. Getting rid of two historical buildings won’t help at all.
They arent that old my parents own a house thats older than that
From the Chicago area and pissed to learn this. As if it was not enough that they tore down the jaw-dropping Federal Building (a massive domed building) in 1965 to build the current complex, but now they want to continue to destroy architectural heritage again. One of the best features of the current complex is that it is surrounded by a number older buildings that provide a cool architectural contrast to the international style modernism of the complex.
Thumbs up for mentioning the domed Federal Building that once stood on that parcel of land.
If you haven't seen it, google it. You'll be amazed.
I didn't realize how beautiful the Chicago skyline and its various buildings are. I only knew the Sears Tower and the John Hancock Center. Very nice video, I always learn a lot with you. Cheers.
I would recommend you to watch a documentary about Chicago architecture. You will learn a lot more about other historic buildings and I think you like them.
@@javierpacheco8234 Thx for taking the time to tell me. 👍
Come to the city and take a tour. CAC runs guided tours of endless parts of the city, and the riverboat tours are one of our best tourist experiences, way better than shit like the bean or navy pier.
Chicago’s residential architecture is also horribly underappreciated compared to the hype around the Loop. Its easily the most beautiful city in America aside from maybe New York or Boston.
It's kind of the definitive city to go to if you wanted to study architecture in the U.S. (From the beginning of modern skyscrapers to some of the latest. And there's a couple world class museums too that cover various aspects of industry and the arts.) If you want some viewing, come in the summer and take one of the river taxis or tours.
If the federal government didn't want them to be able to look in THEN THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE BUILT NEXT DOOR TO OTHER SKYSCRAPERS. Seems like a "not our problem" scenario.
Wouldn't be the first time the government took down two towers
Yep lol America is a terrible place.
This got big local press when the plan was announced but its since been pushed to wayside of local news here. I'm glad you brought this back up.
It's absolutely ridiculous that these weren't turned into apartments and the government got in the way of that as usual. If you're so scared, move the courthouse to a much more secure place such as a high end suburb nearby like Highland Park... which happens to prove that any crazy violence can happen anywhere, so to knock down these iconic towers and not repurpose them is just ridiculous and would only happen in Chicago and Illinois with the one party government.
This happens all the time in states of all sides, maybe you should realize its not dem or rep that are the problem, its politicians in general, make them fear us and things like this wont happen, but nah, be bitches and let them walk all over you, like every other generation, itll get better, totally.
Oh no. Can't do that...then the judges won't have grifted million $ views...
As a native of Chicago, I would like to know how one of our U.S. senators, Dick Durbin came up with this idea. If you want to surround your courthouse with vacant land, go put it on a farm (we have a lot of them) downstate somewhere, not in the middle of Chicago! There are other solutions to this problem, Senator Durbin.
Drown him in letters. Lobbying is the best way to shove it to your politicians' faces that your opinions matter.
Dick Durbin is literally the worst democratic senator. Dont know why you keep electing him. Look at his track record, he has obstructed a lot of democratic bills that had a chance of passing in the senate.
The idea is to turn Chicago into Huston where much of the down town area is nothing but vacant lots.
He didn’t come up with this idea. A lobbyist from the local constitution and demo industry group had this written up for him and gave a nice donation to his re-election fund. Just another cash grab of Bidens Build Back Better bill.
So put the courthouse farther away from the people lol
*reads title* “well they’re damn good at doing that now aren’t they.”
absolutely this is a wonderful video. thumbs up !.,,.,.
There is zero ways to build anything like the older buildings bc the building materials are unavailable or way to expensive. We have to save as many as we can
Building in older styles is still possible. The B1M showed a new thin art deco skyscraper in New York a while back. Theres another new skyscraper in Singapore built in an old style. Lots of buildings and entire new towns in Britain are being built in old architecture styles but are being built using modern techniques and modern materials.
This is also my true concern with preservation of historical buildings. If we as a society would still be building stuff like the two towers in the video then fine, tear down any old thing you like in the name of economic growth. But we don't, so any building that is demolished is a permanent, irrevocable loss.
Change and progression are natural phases of human development. Sentimentality must not stand in the way, there are simply too many people who lack homes and modern architecture is the only way to help them.
It's possible, of course, but difficult. There are easily available replacements materials. There is no reason the building can't use brick to create a similar aesthetic.
@@remusvulpin6025 Do you imagine that the federal government is going to put up housing blocks there after demolition? Don’t be absurd. You might as well say, “let’s kill granny because it’s good to take care of young people.” Even if it were true it doesn’t necessarily follow that the second part would come to pass.
replacing windows facing the courthouse with solid walls sounds like the solution to me. I'm sure gov't computer servers (for the windowless rooms/areas) plus the consolidation of other government offices into that building is possible, especially if the first few floors can maintain wrap around windows. Even better would be sharing the space with gov't offices from Chicago/Cook/Illinois.
If it costs $50M to demolish, i'm sure it's worth $100M to preserve it.
I'm sure this can be accomplished without even replacing the windows. It should be possible to wall them off from the inside in such a way that it isn't too noticeable from the outside, perhaps completely unnoticeable from street level.
But as others have pointed out, if the security of the courthouse is such a concern, they should start with securing the courthouse. Fermi approximation time! With what I see of the building on Google Maps and street view, and the height given by Wikipedia, I come up with 20,000 square metres of windows. An armoured glass company advertises about $1000 per square metre for glass that will stop armour piercing bullets from sniper rifles. So about $20M for the windows, not including installation costs. It seems to me that the cost of securing the courthouse is at least in the same ballpark as demolishing the two heritage buildings.
@@JonMartinYXD Yes, the windows can be blocked from the inside with walls or, more conventionally, heavy blackout curtains.
@@daexion Curtains can be easily moved. If they go the route of blocking the windows in the heritage buildings, I assume they would want to do it in such a way that a bad guy cannot easily unblock them without attracting some attention.
I'd block the windows in the Federal Building instead, if they really need to keep total what, secrecy, on that side of the building? There's no excuse for what Durbin wants to do.
@@lifequest7453 Offices need windows for the mental health of the people working in them.
History should be preserved when possible.
Not in 'Murica it seems...
Full stop
These buildings are unused. The security argument is weak, but that location could be better used for green spaces or a more modern building.
USA dosent have a history. Asian countries have proper history and too some extent European
@@Maji0.07 but people like you will say “it’s too old and ugly”
I had no idea that I walking past history every time i went up and down state street. I am glad the city wants to preserve its history. Some of the first sky scrapers
pretty much everything in that area is historical! i definitely recommend looking into it. the architectural tours are very informative, though pricey. there are probably some good videos here on youtube...
Great video! As usual, informative and well explained 🙂
Chicago is historically stunning. There is already a movement by Commision of Chicago Landmarks to protect these buildings!
The idea that historic preservation can slow down economic growth in certain areas, is really not founded on anything except world view. The whole of Europe has millions of history sites, scattered across the continent and it hasn't exactly slowed down economic growth. It has probably increased it, as we're visited by billions of tourists yearly, who both come from other parts of Europe, but many come from either the US or Asia, making a pretty solid case for how beneficial historic preservation is for the economy. So I'll change that quote to:
Building new is great, except when it isn't.
Not that I'm one to say knock the buildings down, but I take issue with your claim on Europe's economic growth. I'm sure if you study economic growth across countries it has been far greater over the last 150 years in countries such as the US,. For example, since 1950 Europe's population has gown by approximately 37%, whereas the US has more than doubled.
look at cities like san francisco. the nimbys in that city wanted to preserve their townhouses and prevent high rise apartment buildings from being built, and as a result, it's one of the most expensive places to live in the US. there's not enough housing to go around and there's no space to build more, so demand made living costs go sky high. that extra money spent on housing isn't going to other places in the economy, so that is definitely slowing economic growth
i'm not saying they should knock the buildings down because they're going to be turned into a vacant lot, but what you're saying only makes sense if billions of people want to see some historical buildings
@@elijahkim3142 there are no "billions" of people living in the US or Chicago. But the millions that do live in both of them want those buildings preserved.
When it comes to SF there are a lot of complex factors that are driving the prices of housing up. It's obviously not because of the preservation (which in most cases continue to be used after restauration) of a couple dozen of buildings.
Even if they're knocked out and something is built on top, you can bet it's gonna be a huge office tower with shops. Not something that's gonna solve similar problems like in SF.
@@jollyroger35 Europe is by far the best place in the world in nearly every category but especially in quality of life, happiness, and economic success. Europeans get much much more for much less, all the while working less too. The euro is also far more important than the usd.
@@jollyroger35 ah yes, because economic success is based on population growth. Do you hear yourself? Please for the love of God do some statistical research and understand what and how these statistics work, because this is embarrassingly bad.
Please make a video on The Renovation of Cook County Hospital. I hadn't heard of it before, but I heard you mentioning it in this video. So I looked it up and it is absolutely gorgeous and a grand masterpiece!
I live here in Chicago and it's truly a piece of art!
I second this!
Hi there, guy from Germany here. I hope Chicago is able to safe and re-use the towers, as they are actually really beautiful for old skyscrapers! 👍👍
If it's a security issue they could just put curtains or blinds up in their windows.
it's not actually a security issue. it's probably about money
Replace the windows in the courthouse with black or mirrored glass. Or, you know, close the blinds.
Or replace the glass with mirrored panes so the judge's suites will have a nice view of themselves!
But then the government doesn't get to waste $50,000,000 and cause disruption in downtown Chicago.
@@frankthefkintank Oh they can still waste the 50 mill without even thinking about it, don't you worry about that. But at least they won't destroy 2 historic buildings in the process.
painting them black is cheaper ....but, we know money burns a hole in government hands.
Chicago has the most beautiful architecture in the United Stated of America.
Chicago has many Billion Dollar Mega Developments on its way such as Lincoln Yards, The 78, Bronzeville Lakefront, Tribune East Tower (1,422 FT Tall,) One Central development, The River District, the current construction boom in West Loop, the ambitious Lake Shore Drive transformation. Did I miss any other projects? B1M should definitely take a look because Chicago’s Skyline is going to look even more massive in the next 5 -10 years!!
It’s gonna be as high as the crime rate and murders!
I just went in March for the first time and did the architecture river tour, it was amazing!
@@Jiggy609 I have lived in Chicago my whole life and I never get tired of it. It’s a beauty!
@@omarhernandez6518 truly! I’ll be back soon for sure
You forgot the major skyscraper developments in the Fulton Market area.
So spend on moving the courthouse. Design will be able to incorporate new security options that have become necessary for protecting people and appropriate vehicular access and parking. The old one will become available for alternative use, while the new courthouse will be developed in a site without any overseeing buildings.
The old buildings can be renovated and reoccupied, instead of remaining empty or getting demolished.
Thanks for the great update
LOVE THE B1M. ALWAYS HAVE GREAT IMPORTANT VIDEOS.
Great video! I say keep em both, not for their striking good looks but for there historical significance. National Archives repurpose is pretty brilliant
Hey B1M thank you for this video, I loved it. I really enjoy the architecture history aspect, and would love to see more videos that touch on how much the present is informed and reflected by the past. Cheers!
Put up curtains in the courthouse??
So instead of moving or modifying the courthouse by installing one-way film on the windows, they insist on destroying two historic buildings. That's extremely petty. Literally all they would need to do to fix the window issue is install reflective film or slats that prevent view from above.
The federal government loves to waste tax money on bullshit like this yet they cannot figure out why most Americans despise the federal government.
Love your videos! :)
You stayed they the city can't afford to maintain the vacant lot. Why would that be the city's burden if it is federal property? The federal government is currently maintaining the structures.
Transforming these historic structures into archives facilities makes sense to me. Chicago Federal Center has its own architectural history as a classic mid-century Miles van set Rohe creation. If the feds are really not interested in that solution why couldn’t they build a modern replacement elsewhere downtown? Perhaps on one of those undeveloped lots along the river south of the Loop? I know you couldn’t do all that with the $52M earmark, but Chicago Federal Center itself would be worth something even in this market.
yeh, a historic building becoming an archive building seems just perfect to me! Storing history inside history & fully meeting all the practical needs of the situation in the process
Millions of dollars a year to maintain a vacant block. Where can I get a job like that?
Run for office
I remember when the Prudential building, at 44 stories, was the highest in Chicago. Many of those downtown buildings are classic and should be preserved. Tough call. Are they suitable for renovation or redevelopment?
I just looked at a photo when the Chicago board of trade building was the tallest building in Chicago.
3.14 both the English -English and he American English talk is SOUND SO DELIGHTFUL for me to listen to.
5:55 Lol crooked judges are afraid they might get sniped from the buildings near by
if the federal government is so worried about threats from nearby buildings..... why did they build the courthouse in the middle of a city??? go ahead tear down the buildings on the same block, someone can still look in from the building on the other side of the street.....
I hope not! They're pretty!
Remember last episode when we learned towers will last forever. Didn't see this twist coming.
Honestly the reason I visit towns and cities is for the architecture. I find older buildings to have more character. Especially since most modern buildings are usually just scare and tan.
never the funding..... but yet 52 mil to tear em down........... geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Nice to see a video on my home town. Chicago is rich in architecture.
Thank you for sharing this story about Chicago. I have loved our skyline here since the late 1960s. I have gone to live in New York in the early 1970s but I came back to Chicago because of family here. Our buildings downtown here are the center piece to our beautiful city. Taking down these two buildings in question is very strange and would take away our bid for UNESCO Heritage status. Our skyline along Lake Michigan is so beautiful but what are we risking by taking down these buildings and then leaving that site vacate? I hope we are awarded UNESCO status before the taking down of those two beautiful buildings.
So are you sure they haven’t begun the process of demolishing them yet?
@@iwouldliketoorderanumber1b79 I know for I will ask friends who work downtown close by there. I work and live up on the North side neighborhood of the city.
What about all of the other towers around that courthouse? Don't they also present a "security risk"? Why are only these towers targeted for demolition?
Because they are unused and lack modern safety standards? This video is bias and doesn't go over all the details regarding the demolition.
@@jouaienttoi oh yeah, lets demolish historic buildings and replace them with an ugly shoebox or glass tower just because you do not want to put some effort into making it more safe or renovating it to met modern standards climate change is joke then? You do realise how much carbon dioxide gets exposed whenever you demolish them???? Let alone build another ugly shoebox. They really shot themself in the leg didn't they. What a contradiction!
A vacant lot can be turned into. a green zone, park, botanical garden or arboretum, eco friendly
The fact that this was slipped into a bill in Congress is enough to convince me that there's people in Congress with a personal financial stake in this, simply because that's the only reason Congress ever does anything.
Doesn't removing the buildings just move the line of sight for a sniper to whatever building is behind it?
ReMoVe ThOse BuIlDinGs as WelL!!11!1!1
/s
Remove all the buildings apart from the courthouse then
/s
@@mats7492 Fuck it, just raze all of chicago. Being in a population center only increases chances of being attacked!
/s
Illinois has very restrictive gun laws and we know laws prevent crime so there is no risk from potential snipers.
Remove the whole city apart from the courthouse
The national archive idea sounds good, but I think leaving the windows and installing false walls behind them would be better than bricking them up. Could also use some of the lower floors as retail/office space, since most of the judges office's are towards the top floors of the courthouse.
Hey @B1M ,can you please do a video about the tallest building in the world made from hemp? It's being built in Cape Town, South Africa🇿🇦
It's a very eco friendly, strong and temperature regulating material.
AfriMat and Hemporium are constructing the building at 84 Harrington Street.
Also new building materials made from fungi. Very promising.
Hello, can you talk please about the colon tower in madrid, it is having a remodeling from an old design to a modern design.
Thanks!!!
Please keep me updated 👍
“…The Sears Tower, now the Will-“
*zoom call drops*
What I like about Chicago is its variety of unique and historic buildings. It would be boring if these historic skyscrapers are replaced by more glass boxes. Well, to me, anyways.
You are right, Chicago has one of the most unique skyscrapers they are well crafted and designed, they were the originals, we shouldn't feel bad for liking old things, I'm 21 and I like that type of architecture and if I had money I would definitely live in one of those buildings.
Makes my Wednesday. Cheers.
Abandon building becomes homeless camp. Crime increase in the camp and the police get called eventually. Then the government tears that shit down. Pretty common with buildings from that era in the decaying US.
I loved watching this. I learned so much and it was fascinating.
The bottom line is how much will it cost to fix the buildings and what they could be used for.Just “preserving “ them and letting them rot is pointless.
It doesn't matter how much it cost. There's no reason for them to be vacant and the government just wants to have an empty lot.... so how is that useful?
@@MrMountainchris In the end it’s our money. I’d like it to be a well thought out use. Armor the glass on that side of the courthouse and make use of the buildings.
Great video as always
Thanks!!
I've worked in that courthouse, and I know Chicago. The public story is clearly not the real story. My law school professor of property said that all cases are ultimately about one of two things: sex or money. In this situation, it's obvious that some powerful people have the potential to make a lot of money. We probably won't learn anything about the real reasons until someone announces a new project on that block. What is the status of the post office there? It was under-utilized for decades. Ten years from now, that site will have a very profitable new building on it.
I agree, else why would the federal government get involved? It sounds like someone with money wants the lots and struck some kind of behind the scenes deal to acquire the property.
These security analyst types cost tax payers billions per year. I can count how many times they've "upgraded" the entry control gates to military installations over the past decade. Seems like when they just finish a project, a couple years down the road they are tearing it all out to do something "different" costing millions.
Woah, deja vu!
The real question is how much of the $52 MIllion actually made it to Dick Durbin's pocket.
Awesome video as usual
Thank you SO much!! 🙌
If you want the option of bricking up the windows for and archive why not just keep the windows and brick it up behind it.. also easier to restore when there is no need for it anymore.
Excellent content as usual! And, off the topic, what is the name of the track used from 6:11?
It wouldnt be the first time the u.s goverment took down 2 towers
I wonder if, given advances in the likes of 3D printing, such beautiful turn of the 20th Century architecture could ultimately make a comeback; as opposed to the mid-20th century “international” half-assed minimalism cubes already making a comeback… just elaborate ornamental design patterns on the sides of incredibly simple steel frames… the early high rises were something else…
I know I love those styles too, the only way to really come back to these styles is if we made a trend. We would need craftsmen, artists, architects and very rich people to make it happen.
When BM1 posts a new video...the whole world stops to watch and learn
Let's be honest, some federal judge or bureaucrat just doesn't want the view out of their office blocked.
This has nothing to do with security or the cost of maintaining the buildings.
I miss the good parts of Chicago, hopefully projects like this will make changes in the area for the better.
Government being the bad guy again
Yep
Seems to me that the issue is rather overblown in it's importance.
If the first skyscraper ever was demolished because it was far too expensive to be maintained than be just destroyed than these old buildings don't stand a chance.
That’s what I’m thinking. At this point it seems like they want to preserve the buildings just for the sake of preserving the buildings, which I personally don’t understand. I say get rid of them.
The first skyscraper was demolished 46 years after it was built. Preservation of century-old skyscrapers were not a thing back then.
Consumers Building was built in 1913 and Century Building was built in 1915. Today, they both are more than a century old. Buildings like this defined the iconic look that the Chicago skyline has shown. Demolishing these buildings to protect a federal courthouse built decades after these buildings is just a preposterous and damning slap to Chicago's heritage.
Exactly! This video is so one-sided. The building is unused and could easily be replaced with a modern structure.
@@jouaienttoi If you watched the video thoroughly instead of claiming it to be one-sided, it was told that the buildings were actually pretty much used a lot prior to it being acquired by the people managing the federal courthouse.
Replace "Empty" with "Green Space" and see how you feel about it.- I've no opinion other than the status quo is bad for everyone and everything. A green space park is better than derelict.
Exactly, I have no idea why people obsess over old stuff. These "historical" buildings aren't serving any purpose nor having an culturally significant history.
@@jouaienttoi Isn't the point of the video to suggest purposes for the building? Maybe it should stay, maybe it should go, but the only reason it is disused is because the feds are sitting on it.
Buildings like these should be preserved. I mean, they're history. Chicago built the earliest skyscrapers. New York would popularize them due to the Empire State and Chrysler Buildings that dominated Midtown. The Sears Tower and the Hancock are both engineering marvels. Those two historic buildings were one of the city's last early skyscrapers.
And speaking of New York, they just demolished a hundred-year old hotel. It was called Hotel Pennsylvania, a former hotel near MSG. NYC never really learned, eh? First, they demolished the old Penn Station (the fourth Garden might be a landmark of its own, but the old Penn is much better in terms of architecture), then the Singer Building and the City Investment Building, then the Yankee Stadium, and then, this hotel? They should've done better ideas, like turning it into an apartment building with modern amenities.
An empty lot is always worse than a building, old or new. And the only thing worse than an empty lot is a parking lot!
It’s not like they haven’t destroyed 2 towers before
Always hits me in the feels destroying something I made.
Racing to wipe out a site before it gets protected is just the most 'meraca core thing Ive seen in a bit.
Protected by UNESCO? How dumb is that.
Gotta say, a video focused on an interview with one person on one side of the issue doesn’t exactly feel like it’s exploring the whole issue at hand.
Exactly!
Tear down the courthouse. The 2 buildings were there before it was and no one seemed concerned about safety when it was built. If the jerks in DC get their way and tear them down, the Fed Govt should have to pay all property taxes on the land and maintain it in such a way as to be a credit to Chicago.
Private sector always does it better than public.
Public sector are a charity .