DOCSLIB.ORG

Ludington Building

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ludington Building COLUMBIA COLLEGEOGCA CHICHICAGOCAGO OGCA CAMPUS PRESERVATIONNALP PLAN NALP emuolVVolume emuolVXIXIXI 4 S 110h1104 t ou SouthSouth 4 S Wa h 110 ash t ouAvenue Su mitted y McGuire Igleski & Associates, Inc. 00 e02nu..une 2000 00 e02nu. COLUMBIA COLLEGE CHICHICAGOCAGO CAMPUS PRESERVAPRESERVATIONTION PLANTION PLAN VOLUME I: SUMMARY AND PRIORITIZED RECOMMENDATIONS VOLUME II: DESCRIPTION OF ARCHITECTURAL STYLES, HISTORIC BUILDING PRESERVATION GUIDELINES AND GLOSSARY VOLUME III: 72 EAST 11TH STREET VOLUME IV: 33 EAST CONGRESS PARKWAY VOLUME V: 00 SOUTH MICHIGAN AVENUE VOLUME VI: 24 SOUTH MICHIGAN AVENUE VOLUME VII: 1014 SOUTH MICHIGAN AVENUE VOLUME VIII: 130 SOUTH MICHIGAN AVENUE VOLUME IX: 731 SOUTH PLYMOUTH COURT VOLUME X: 23 SOUTH WABASH AVENUE VOLUME XI: 1104 SOUTH WABASH AVENUE iiiiii Columbia College Chicago: Campus Preservation Plan McGuire Igleski & Associates, Inc. 110 South Wabash Avenue 2005 TABLE O5 CONTENTS VOLUME XI1 1104 SOUTH WABASH AVENUE Introduction........................................................................................... 1 Research, Evaluation and Building Classification................ 1 Building 4ones........................................................................ 1 Survey and Assessment of Elements and 5eatures............. 4 Building Information, History and Classification................................. 8 3ocumentation....................................................................... 7 Statement of Significance..................................................... 8 Historical Significance............................................................ 8 Architectural Significance...................................................... 9 3esign Philosophy................................................................12 3escription............................................................................14 4one Num ers and 3escriptions.......................................................17 3etailed 4one 3escriptions – 4one 11 Preservation..........18 3etailed 4one 3escriptions – 4one 31 Reha ilitation........23 3etailed 4one 3escriptions – 4one 41 5ree........................29 Bi liography........................................................................................32 Appendices A1 4oned 5loor Plans B1 Survey 3ata C1 Lighting Consultant Report 31 Mechanical Electrical and Plum ing Consultant Survey Notes iiiiiiiii Columbia College Chicago: Campus Preservation Plan McGuire Igleski & Associates, Inc. 110 South Wabash Avenue 2005 INTRO3UCTION Register or City of Chicago Landmark listing This report contains the results of the research, survey and assessment CLASS 0 – A uilding 00 years old or older that has not een of 1104 South Wa ash Avenue. Evaluation of the uilding was evaluated for National Register or City of Chicago Landmark eligi ility completed in three stages eginning with a road historical and architectural assessment for landmark eligi ility, continuing with the CLASS 8 – 40E00 Pending. A uilding 40E00 years old that is not eligi le for the National Register or City of Chicago classification of the uilding into zones and concluding with the survey Landmark listing, ut with the passing of time may ecome and assessment of individual architectural elements. eligi le and needs reEevaluation CLASS 7 – A uilding which has een determined to e ineligi le for Research, Evaluation and Building Classification the National Register or City of Chicago Landmark listing The uilding was researched and evaluated to determine its eligi ility for CLASS 8 – NonEHistoric landmark status ased on the classification levels listed elow. The classification identifies uildings of outstanding architectural quality or Research was performed to identify the following general information1 associative value, and distinguishes them from uildings of lesser Building Name/Historic name importance. The uilding has een evaluated ased on the National Address Type Register of Historic PlacesA criteria, assessing the uildingAs significance Architectural Style/3escription and the level of significance, (i.e. local, state, or nationalC. In the teDt NR Age/3ate of Construction Uniqueness refers to National Register and CL refers to Chicago Landmarks. The Site ConteDt uilding classification levels are1 Use Condition Modifications CLASS 1 – A uilding listed, or eligi le for listing, as a National Historic Historical Associations/Significance Landmark. Size EDisting documentation CLASS 2 – A uilding on, or eligi le for, the National Register at the References in pu lications and reports National significance level CLASS 3 – A uilding on, or eligi le for, the National Register at the Building 4ones State or Local significance level or City of Chicago Areas of the uilding were surveyed, assessed and assigned zone Landmark listing designations. 4oning divides the uilding into spaces ased on the CLASS 4 – A uilding that is potentially eligi le for the National Phase I historic documentation and landmark evaluation and takes into 111 Columbia College Chicago: Campus Preservation Plan McGuire Igleski & Associates, Inc. 110 South Wabash Avenue 2005 consideration historic conteDt, architectural significance, changes over means preserving a space as it was originally designed, including its time, style, materials, and features. scale, ornament, and materials. Spaces in this zone represent the highest degree of detail and finish. 4oning recognizes that the uilding has different spaces holding varying degrees of historic value. This hierarchy of spaces includes primary Level 21 Preservation 4one facades, secondary facades, highly ornamented pu lic spaces, plainly Areas eDhi iting distinguishing qualities, original materials or elementsG detailed pu lic spaces, and nonEpu lic / support spaces. 4ones or representing eDamples of skilled craftsmanship define the Level 2 transcend delineation y floorG it is typical that the zones divide pu lic Preservation 4one. Level 2 zones are less rich in historic materials and from private and private from utilitarian spaces. Stairways for eDample, detail compared to spaces in a Level 1 zone, nonethelessG the space is are zoned vertically. considered important to defining the unique character of the uilding. The zone level assigned to a space influences the degree of Every effort should e made to maintain and preserve the character and preservation treatment recommended for that space. 4oning is used to qualities of this zone. Preserving the character of a zone means apply restoration standards to significant areas and determine areas preserving the space as it was originally designed, including its scale, that are open to greater degrees of modification. 3efinitions of the siD ornament, and materials. different zones follow. Level 31 Reha ilitation 4one Level 11 Preservation 4one Areas which are modest in nature, not highly ornamented ut Areas eDhi iting unique or distinctive qualities, original materials or nonetheless, may e original, with historic features which have een elementsG or representing eDamples of skilled craftsmanshipG the work maintained at an accepta le level define this zone. This zone includes of a known architect or uilderG or associated with a person or event of secondary and tertiary spaces and areas generally out of pu lic view. preeminent importance define the Level 1 Preservation 4one. Level 1 areas are distinguished from Level 2 areas y a higher concentration of Work in this zone should e undertaken as sensitively as possi leG finish material and detail. however, contemporary methods, materials and designs may e The character and qualities of this zone should e maintained and selectively incorporated. The characteristics of this zone contri ute to preserved as the highest priority. Preserving the character of a zone the historic appearance, date to the period of historic significance or 222 Columbia College Chicago: Campus Preservation Plan McGuire Igleski & Associates, Inc. 110 South Wabash Avenue 2005 represent later, sensitive repair or replacement work, which should e Level 81 Impact Overlay 4one preserved and maintained. New work in this zone should respect the An impact overlay zone has een assigned in conHunction with one of the eDisting historic fa ric. zones 1E4 descri ed a ove. Level 41 5ree 4one Areas insensitively adapted resulting in a loss of significant historic Areas whose modification would not represent loss of character, code fa ric or elements define this overlay zone. EDamples include large violation or intrusion to an otherwise historically significant structure stylistically distinctive pu lic spaces which have een inappropriately define this zone. This zone may include undistinguished repetitive or altered or su divided into smaller spaces resulting in loss of character. recently constructed areas and additions. An impact overlay zone can also e applied to eDterior faIades. Treatments, while sympathetic to the historic qualities and character of 3eficiencies in this zone should e corrected and loss of fa ric or the uilding, may incorporate eDtensive changes or total replacement historic elements mitigated when possi le. through the introduction of contemporary methods, materials and designs. Evaluation of Integrity Each space identified as a Level 1 or Level 2 Preservation 4one was also Level 01 Cautionary 4one Overlay evaluated for integrity. The integrity was ranked as High, Medium, or A cautionary zone overlay has een assigned in conHunction with one of Low ased on the description of integrity as defined in the National the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chicago from 1871-1893 Is the Focus of This Lecture
    Chicago from 1871-1893 is the focus of this lecture. [19 Nov 2013 - abridged in part from the course Perspectives on the Evolution of Structures which introduces the principles of Structural Art and the lecture Root, Khan, and the Rise of the Skyscraper (Chicago). A lecture based in part on David Billington’s Princeton course and by scholarship from B. Schafer on Chicago. Carl Condit’s work on Chicago history and Daniel Hoffman’s books on Root provide the most important sources for this work. Also Leslie’s recent work on Chicago has become an important source. Significant new notes and themes have been added to this version after new reading in 2013] [24 Feb 2014, added Sullivan in for the Perspectives course version of this lecture, added more signposts etc. w.r.t to what the students need and some active exercises.] image: http://www.richard- seaman.com/USA/Cities/Chicago/Landmarks/index.ht ml Chicago today demonstrates the allure and power of the skyscraper, and here on these very same blocks is where the skyscraper was born. image: 7-33 chicago fire ruins_150dpi.jpg, replaced with same picture from wikimedia commons 2013 Here we see the result of the great Chicago fire of 1871, shown from corner of Dearborn and Monroe Streets. This is the most obvious social condition to give birth to the skyscraper, but other forces were at work too. Social conditions in Chicago were unique in 1871. Of course the fire destroyed the CBD. The CBD is unique being hemmed in by the Lakes and the railroads.
    [Show full text]
  • Pittsfield Building 55 E
    LANDMARK DESIGNATION REPORT Pittsfield Building 55 E. Washington Preliminary Landmarkrecommendation approved by the Commission on Chicago Landmarks, December 12, 2001 CITY OFCHICAGO Richard M. Daley, Mayor Departmentof Planning and Developement Alicia Mazur Berg, Commissioner Cover: On the right, the Pittsfield Building, as seen from Michigan Avenue, looking west. The Pittsfield Building's trademark is its interior lobbies and atrium, seen in the upper and lower left. In the center, an advertisement announcing the building's construction and leasing, c. 1927. Above: The Pittsfield Building, located at 55 E. Washington Street, is a 38-story steel-frame skyscraper with a rectangular 21-story base that covers the entire building lot-approximately 162 feet on Washington Street and 120 feet on Wabash Avenue. The Commission on Chicago Landmarks, whose nine members are appointed by the Mayor, was established in 1968 by city ordinance. It is responsible for recommending to the City Council that individual buildings, sites, objects, or entire districts be designated as Chicago Landmarks, which protects them by law. The Comm ission is staffed by the Chicago Department of Planning and Development, 33 N. LaSalle St., Room 1600, Chicago, IL 60602; (312-744-3200) phone; (312­ 744-2958) TTY; (312-744-9 140) fax; web site, http ://www.cityofchicago.org/ landmarks. This Preliminary Summary ofInformation is subject to possible revision and amendment during the designation proceedings. Only language contained within the designation ordinance adopted by the City Council should be regarded as final. PRELIMINARY SUMMARY OF INFORMATION SUBMITIED TO THE COMMISSION ON CHICAGO LANDMARKS IN DECEMBER 2001 PITTSFIELD BUILDING 55 E.
    [Show full text]
  • Planners Guide to Chicago 2013
    Planners Guide to Chicago 2013 2013 Lake Baha’i Glenview 41 Wilmette Temple Central Old 14 45 Orchard Northwestern 294 Waukegan Golf Univ 58 Milwaukee Sheridan Golf Morton Mill Grove 32 C O N T E N T S Dempster Skokie Dempster Evanston Des Main 2 Getting Around Plaines Asbury Skokie Oakton Northwest Hwy 4 Near the Hotels 94 90 Ridge Crawford 6 Loop Walking Tour Allstate McCormick Touhy Arena Lincolnwood 41 Town Center Pratt Park Lincoln 14 Chinatown Ridge Loyola Devon Univ 16 Hyde Park Peterson 14 20 Lincoln Square Bryn Mawr Northeastern O’Hare 171 Illinois Univ Clark 22 Old Town International Foster 32 Airport North Park Univ Harwood Lawrence 32 Ashland 24 Pilsen Heights 20 32 41 Norridge Montrose 26 Printers Row Irving Park Bensenville 32 Lake Shore Dr 28 UIC and Taylor St Addison Western Forest Preserve 32 Wrigley Field 30 Wicker Park–Bucktown Cumberland Harlem Narragansett Central Cicero Oak Park Austin Laramie Belmont Elston Clybourn Grand 43 Broadway Diversey Pulaski 32 Other Places to Explore Franklin Grand Fullerton 3032 DePaul Park Milwaukee Univ Lincoln 36 Chicago Planning Armitage Park Zoo Timeline Kedzie 32 North 64 California 22 Maywood Grand 44 Conference Sponsors Lake 50 30 Park Division 3032 Water Elmhurst Halsted Tower Oak Chicago Damen Place 32 Park Navy Butterfield Lake 4 Pier 1st Madison United Center 6 290 56 Illinois 26 Roosevelt Medical Hines VA District 28 Soldier Medical Ogden Field Center Cicero 32 Cermak 24 Michigan McCormick 88 14 Berwyn Place 45 31st Central Park 32 Riverside Illinois Brookfield Archer 35th
    [Show full text]
  • A Report on Preventing Any Further Desecration of the Jewish Cemetery of Thessaloniki, Greece Findings, Concerns and Recommendations
    A Report on Preventing any Further Desecration of the Jewish Cemetery of Thessaloniki, Greece Findings, Concerns and Recommendations Prepared for Asra Kadisha, Conference of Academicians for the Protection of Jewish Cemeteries and the Central Rabbinical Congress July 2008 By David Rubel Jewish Cemetery of Thessaloniki, Greece Findings, Concerns and Recommendations 2 BACKGROUND 1. The old Jewish cemetery of Thessaloniki is being desecrated by construction under the authority of the City of Thessaloniki and Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. The cemetery was once the largest Jewish cemetery in the world and is located in a city that was home to one of longest continuous Jewish communities only to be destroyed during the Nazi occupation in World War II. The Asra Kadisha (Committee for the Preservation of Gravesites), the leadership of the Jewish community of Greece, as well as other Jewish organizations dedicated to the preservation of cemeteries abroad, have all strongly protested the desecration of the Jewish cemetery as violation of their religious beliefs. All of these organizations have stated that construction is taking place inside the boundaries of the Jewish cemetery..All construction work of a new Metro station and a campus building should be halted immediately. CURRENT DESECRETION 2. Until an authoritative and unbiased map is finally produced of the Jewish cemetery of Thessaloniki, all construction in contested areas should stop immediately. An area of land with such great religious and historical significance deserves a full and exhaustive research undertaking. A professional land survey and thorough historical investigation are essential. Just from the research that we have conducted on the cemetery, it is abundantly clear that there is compelling evidence that significantly differs from the United States Consulate General Office in Thessaloniki (which is based on mapping from the Survey Office of Thessaloniki in 1936 and cannot be judged an objective party).
    [Show full text]
  • National Register of Historic Places Inventory -- Nomination Form
    Form No. 10-300 (Rev. 10-74) Theme: 19th-century Architecture UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES INVENTORY -- NOMINATION FORM SEE INSTRUCTIONS IN HOW TO COMPLETE NATIONAL REGISTER FORMS _____________TYPE ALL ENTRIES - COMPLETE APPLICABLE SECTIONS______ I NAME HISTORIC Letter II Building_________________________________ AND/OR COMMON Sears, Roebuck and Company __ ______ CITY, TOWN CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT Chicago VICINITY OF 7th STATE CODE COUNTY CODE Illinois Cook CLASSIFICATION CATEGORY OWNERSHIP STATUS PRESENT USE _D I STRICT —PUBLIC XX.OCCUPIED —AGRICULTURE —MUSEUM -XBUILDING(S) XXPRIVATE —UNOCCUPIED XXcOMMERCIAL —PARK _STRUCTURE —BOTH —WORK IN PROGRESS —EDUCATIONAL —PRIVATE RESIDENCE _SITE PUBLIC ACQUISITION ACCESSIBLE —ENTERTAINMENT —RELIGIOUS _OBJECT —IN PROCESS —YES: RESTRICTED —GOVERNMENT —SCIENTIFIC —BEING CONSIDERED XX.YES: UNRESTRICTED —INDUSTRIAL —TRANSPORTATION —NO —MILITARY —OTHER: OWNER OF PROPERTY NAME Mr. Dean A. Swift, President (312-875-2500) STREET & NUMBER Sears, Roebuck and Company, Sears Tower CITY, TOWN STATE Chicago VICINITY OF Illinois 60680 LOCATION OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION COURTHOUSE. REGISTRY OF DEEDS, ETC. Cook County Recorder's Office STREETS NUMBER CITY, TOWN STATE Chicago Illinois REPRESENTATION IN EXISTING SURVEYS TITLE Historic American Buildings Survey, OAHP, National Park Service, Dept. of Interior DATE ^FEDERAL —STATE —COUNTY —LOCAL DEPOSITORY FOR SURVEY RECORDS Library of Congress CITY, TOWN STATE Washington D.C. DESCRIPTION CONDITION CHECK ONE CHECK ONE —EXCELLENT —DETERIORATED —UNALTERED XXoRIGINAL SITE J?GOOD —RUINS XXALTERED —MOVED DATE. —FAIR _UNEXPOSED The dimensions of the building were stupendous for the period. It is 144 feet deep on Van Buren and Congress and 402 feet long on State Street. It is 132 feet high, eight stories in height, each floor had 16 foot ceilings when constructed it was one of the largest buildings in the world in floor area and cubic volume.
    [Show full text]
  • Second Annual Report 1934
    74th Congress, 1st Session House Document No: 31 SECOND ANNUAL REPORT of the FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK BOARD covering operations of the FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS THE HOME OWNERS' LOAN CORPORATION THE FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN DIVISION FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN INSURANCE CORPORATION from the date of their creation through December 31, 1934 FEBRUARY 14, 1935.-Referred to the Committee on Banking and Currency and ordered to be printed with illustration UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON: 1935 Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK BOARD, Washington, February 11, 195. SIR: Pursuant to the requirements of section 20 of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act, we have the honor to submit herewith the second annual report of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board covering operations for the year 1934 (a) of the Federal Home Loan Banks, (b) the Home Owners' Loan Corporation, (c) the Federal Savings and Loan Division, and (d) the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation from organization to December 31, 1934. JOHN H. FAHEY, Chairman. T. D. WEBB, W. F. STEVENSON, FRED W. CATLETT, H. E. HOAGLAND, Members. THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. iM Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis SECOND ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK BOARD ON THE OPERATIONS OF THE FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK SYSTEM FOR THE YEAR 1934 When the Federal Home Loan Bank System closed its 1933 opera tions December 31 it had 2,086 members, consisting mostly of building and loan, homestead associations, and cooperative banks who had subscribed for stock in the Corporation to the amount of $10,908,300.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Student Housing Mid-Year Market Overview 2020 Student Housing Mid-Year Market Overview
    2020 STUDENT HOUSING MID-YEAR MARKET OVERVIEW 2020 STUDENT HOUSING MID-YEAR MARKET OVERVIEW 2 MOONTOWER AUSTIN, TX CONTENTS Student Housing Sales Volume 6 Buyer Profile 7 Seller Profile 8 Cap Rates 9 Pricing Metrics 10 Capital Markets 12 The Team 14 About Us 16 3 Newmark Knight Frank’s Student Housing group proudly presents the 2020 Student Housing Mid-Year Market Overview. The research and conclusions contained within this report are based on our detailed and committed tracking of relevant data metrics across the entire student housing industry. We strive to offer the best brokerage services in the industry and pride ourselves on seamlessly integrating best-in-class investment sales with debt and equity, offering clients unparalleled access to domestic and international capital sources. For more information on this report or details on our available listings, please feel free to contact our team. Student Housing Investment Sales Ryan Lang Vice Chairman T 512.637.1296 [email protected] Jack Brett Associate Director T 832.434.5575 [email protected] Ben Harkrider Transaction Manager T 512.637.1435 [email protected] Jeremy Borst Senior Financial Analyst T 512.637.1239 [email protected] Mallory Rodriguez Transaction Services Coordinator T 737.236.0356 [email protected] Debt & Structured Finance Trent Houchin Director T 512.637.1298 [email protected] Matt Greer Executive Managing Director T 512.637.1236 [email protected] NEWMARK KNIGHT FRANK STUDENT HOUSING 2530 Walsh Tarlton Lane, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78746 T 512.342.8100 | F 512.637.1740 | www.ngkf.com 4 THE RIDGE CLEMSON CLEMSON, SC 5 2020 STUDENT HOUSING MID-YEAR MARKET OVERVIEW STUDENT HOUSING SALES VOLUME After a strong 2019, the student housing sector has shown resilience in 2020, 2020 YTD BROKER MARKET SHARE due to COVID-19.
    [Show full text]
  • First Chicago School
    FIRST CHICAGO SCHOOL JASON HALE, TONY EDWARDS TERRANCE GREEN ORIGINS In the 1880s Chicago created a group of architects whose work eventually had a huge effect on architecture. The early buildings of the First Chicago School like the Auditorium, “had traditional load-bearing walls” Martin Roche, William Holabird, and Louis Sullivan all played a huge role in the development of the first chicago school MATERIALS USED iron beams Steel Brick Stone Cladding CHARACTERISTICS The "Chicago window“ originated from this style of architecture They called this the commercial style because of the new tall buildings being created The windows and columns were changed to make the buildings look not as big FEATURES Steel-Frame Buildings with special cladding This material made big plate-glass window areas better and limited certain things as well The “Chicago Window” which was built using this style “combined the functions of light-gathering and natural ventilation” and create a better window DESIGN The Auditorium building was designed by Dankmar Adler and Louis Sullivan The Auditorium building was a tall building with heavy outer walls, and it was similar to the appearance of the Marshall Field Warehouse One of the most greatest features of the Auditorium building was “its massive raft foundation” DANKMAR ALDER Adler served in the Union Army during the Civil War Dankmar Adler played a huge role in the rebuilding much of Chicago after the Great Chicago Fire He designed many great buildings such as skyscrapers that brought out the steel skeleton through their outter design he created WILLIAM HOLABIRD He served in the United States Military Academy then moved to chicago He worked on architecture with O.
    [Show full text]
  • Campus Climate Survey Validation Study Final Technical Report
    Bureau of Justice Statistics Research and Development Series Campus Climate Survey Validation Study Final Technical Report Christopher Krebs, Christine Lindquist, Marcus Berzofsky, Bonnie Shook-Sa, and Kimberly Peterson RTI International 3040 Cornwallis Road, P.O. Box 12194 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194 Michael Planty, Lynn Langton, and Jessica Stroop Bureau of Justice Statistics 810 Seventh Street, NW Washington, DC 20531 R&DP-2015:04 NCJ 249545 January 2016 Research papers have been reviewed by BJS to ensure the accuracy of information presented and adherence to confidentiality and disclosure standards. This paper is released to inform interested parties about research and methodologies sponsored by BJS. Any opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of BJS and the U.S. Department of Justice. This report was prepared using federal funds provided by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, under award number 2011-NV-CX-K068. The BJS project managers were Michael Planty, Victimization Unit Chief, and Lynn Langton, Senior Statistician. Campus Climate Survey Validation Study Abstract Presents the results of a nine-school pilot test that was conducted to develop a campus climate survey that collects school-level data on sexual victimization of undergraduate students. The report describes the development of the survey instrument and procedures for data collection, nonresponse bias analysis, weighting, and validity assessment. It presents estimates for each school on the prevalence and incidence of sexual assault, rape, and sexual battery during the 2014–15 academic year, as well as characteristics of the victims and incidents.
    [Show full text]
  • Chicago No 16
    CLASSICIST chicago No 16 CLASSICIST NO 16 chicago Institute of Classical Architecture & Art 20 West 44th Street, Suite 310, New York, NY 10036 4 Telephone: (212) 730-9646 Facsimile: (212) 730-9649 Foreword www.classicist.org THOMAS H. BEEBY 6 Russell Windham, Chairman Letter from the Editors Peter Lyden, President STUART COHEN AND JULIE HACKER Classicist Committee of the ICAA Board of Directors: Anne Kriken Mann and Gary Brewer, Co-Chairs; ESSAYS Michael Mesko, David Rau, David Rinehart, William Rutledge, Suzanne Santry 8 Charles Atwood, Daniel Burnham, and the Chicago World’s Fair Guest Editors: Stuart Cohen and Julie Hacker ANN LORENZ VAN ZANTEN Managing Editor: Stephanie Salomon 16 Design: Suzanne Ketchoyian The “Beaux-Arts Boys” of Chicago: An Architectural Genealogy, 1890–1930 J E A N N E SY LV EST ER ©2019 Institute of Classical Architecture & Art 26 All rights reserved. Teaching Classicism in Chicago, 1890–1930 ISBN: 978-1-7330309-0-8 ROLF ACHILLES ISSN: 1077-2922 34 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Frank Lloyd Wright and Beaux-Arts Design The ICAA, the Classicist Committee, and the Guest Editors would like to thank James Caulfield for his extraordinary and exceedingly DAVID VAN ZANTEN generous contribution to Classicist No. 16, including photography for the front and back covers and numerous photographs located throughout 43 this issue. We are grateful to all the essay writers, and thank in particular David Van Zanten. Mr. Van Zanten both contributed his own essay Frank Lloyd Wright and the Classical Plan and made available a manuscript on Charles Atwood on which his late wife was working at the time of her death, allowing it to be excerpted STUART COHEN and edited for this issue of the Classicist.
    [Show full text]
  • Office Buildings of the Chicago School: the Restoration of the Reliance Building
    Stephen J. Kelley Office Buildings of the Chicago School: The Restoration of the Reliance Building The American Architectural Hislorian Carl Condit wrote of exterior enclosure. These supporting brackets will be so ihe Reliance Building, "If any work of the structural arl in arranged as to permit an independent removal of any pari the nineteenth Century anticipated the future, it is this one. of the exterior lining, which may have been damaged by The building is the Iriumph of the structuralist and funclion- fire or otherwise."2 alist approach of the Chicago School. In its grace and air- Chicago architect William LeBaron Jenney is widely rec- iness, in the purity and exactitude of its proportions and ognized as the innovator of the application of the iron details, in the brilliant perfection of ils transparent eleva- frame and masonry curtain wall for skyscraper construc- tions, it Stands loday as an exciting exhibition of the poten- tion. The Home Insurance Building, completed in 1885, lial kinesthetic expressiveness of the structural art."' The exhibited the essentials of the fully-developed skyscraper Reliance Building remains today as the "swan song" of the on its main facades with a masonry curtain wall.' Span• Chicago School. This building, well known throughout the drei beams supported the exterior walls at the fourth, sixth, world and lisled on the US National Register of Historie ninth, and above the tenth levels. These loads were Irans- Places, is presenlly being restored. Phase I of this process ferred to stone pier footings via the metal frame wilhout which addresses the exterior building envelope was com- load-bearing masonry walls.'1 The strueture however had pleted in November of 1995.
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainable Water Management on Brownfields Sites
    Sustainable Water Management on Brownfields Sites Ryan Fenwick, Graduate Assistant, Environmental Finance Center, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY Water Infrastructure Capacity Building Team | HUD Capacity Building for Sustainable Communities Program | October 2012 Background This practice guide was developed by the Environmental Finance Center Network (EFCN) through the Capacity Building for Sustainable Communities program funded by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development and the US Environmental Protection Agency. Through a cooperative agreement with HUD, EFCN is providing capacity building and technical assistance to recipients of grants from the federal Partnership for Sustainable Communities, an interagency collaboration that aims to help towns, cities, and regions develop in more economically, environmentally, and socially sustainable ways. Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 2 Brownfields: An Unintended Consequence ........................................................................................................ 2 Water Management and Brownfields: New Challenges and First Steps ............................................................. 3 Potential for GI and LID on Brownfields Sites .................................................................................................... 4 Funding Sources ..............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]