Loop skyscraper that replaced Louis Sullivan masterpiece heads toward landmark protection

Chicago's 30 N. LaSalle St., a building with a dubious design pedigree, is on the cusp of gaining landmark status in a move that has drawn both praise and derision from preservationists.

The city's Commission on Chicago Landmarks will vote next month to grant preliminary landmark status to the tower, built in 1968 as part of a larger office complex. The decision comes despite the building's questionable architectural merits, with many critics labeling it an "architectural cipher" that lacks visual presence.

Proponents of the landmark designation argue that the 30 N. LaSalle project offers affordable housing and will receive significant tax breaks under the city's Class L program, a move seen as crucial to revitalizing Chicago's LaSalle Street Corridor. The tower is slated for conversion into residences, with at least 30% of units set aside for affordable housing.

Despite the building's relatively modest design pedigree, its inclusion in the landmark designation has sparked debate among preservationists, who see it as an opportunity to shore up the city's architectural heritage. Critics argue that the move is largely driven by economic necessity, with the project's developers relying on landmark status to make the financial case for their redevelopment plans.

As one preservationist pointed out, the building's inclusion in the landmark designation comes 53 years after its predecessor – Louis Sullivan's iconic Chicago Stock Exchange Building – was demolished under similar circumstances. The irony has not escaped those who fought to save that masterpiece from demolition, with many now questioning whether they were truly fighting for a cause worth saving.

The decision is set to be reviewed by the City Council next year, where it will need approval before becoming official.

I gotta say, this landmark thingy is kinda weird...
```
+---------------+
| +--+ |
| | building| |
| +--+ | |
| | |
| v |
+---------------+ |
| |
| economic | |
| necessity? | |
| |
v |
+-----------------------+
| Affordable housing|
| and tax breaks |
| for the community|
+-----------------------+
```
I mean, I get it, saving old buildings is important... but this one's design pedigree is kinda lacking . And don't even get me started on the irony of the previous building being demolished under similar circumstances . Maybe they should just leave the original plan for affordable housing alone?

I'm all about these maximalists, and I gotta say, this landmark thing is giving me some major pause . Like, 30 N LaSalle St might not be the most aesthetically pleasing building out there, but at the same time, who are we to decide what's 'worth saving' just because it doesn't fit someone's fancy architectural ideal? I mean, it's got a purpose – affordable housing and all that jazz – and that's gotta count for something, right?

And let's not forget about the bigger picture here. We're talking about revitalizing an entire corridor in Chicago, and if this building can play a part in that, then I'm all for it . It's like, maybe we should be focusing on what's good for the community rather than just trying to preserve some outdated architecture.

I know preservationists are gonna have a fit when they find out about this, but at the end of the day, it's all about progress and making the most of what we've got .

I gotta say, this landmark status business is just plain weird . I mean, I get that it's all about revitalizing the LaSalle Street Corridor and providing affordable housing, but do we really need to throw a bone to our developers by giving them a fancy title like "landmark"? It feels like a way to grease the wheels of progress without actually preserving anything of real value.

I remember when I was younger and saw some of these old buildings get demolished. Louis Sullivan's Chicago Stock Exchange Building is still bittersweet in my mind – what if we'd saved that one instead? Now, it seems like we're just retroactively giving nods to the developers who are trying to make a buck off of this whole thing.

What I do think, though, is that it's good that there are folks out there fighting for preservation. It's not about being stubborn or holding on to the past – it's about recognizing what makes our cities unique and worth keeping around.

I'm low-key shocked by this one . Landmark status for a building that's literally been dubbed an "architectural cipher" seems like a pretty stretch to me . I get why they want to boost affordable housing and tax breaks, but come on – can't we find a way to preserve some actual architectural gems instead of settling for something so... bland?

I mean, don't get me wrong, the developers' argument is valid, but do we really need a building with questionable design to be considered iconic just because it's affordable housing? I'm all for economic growth and revitalization, but let's not sacrifice our cultural heritage for the sake of progress.

I was just thinking about my trip to Chicago last summer and how I ended up getting lost in the Loop trying to find that famous deep-dish pizza place . But anyway, back to this building... I mean, I can see why some people would be upset about it being designated as a landmark, but like, come on, who needs that much tax break? On the bright side, at least they're making it affordable for people, so that's something. I wonder if anyone has explored the building itself... I bet there are some cool old-school vibes in there somewhere .

OMG!!! I'm literally freaking out right now! Chicago's 30 N. LaSalle St getting landmark status is like a dream come true for me!! I mean, who cares if the building design isn't that impressive? It's gonna be part of our city's history and we gotta preserve it!!! The fact that they're making affordable housing available is like, the icing on the cake ! We need more projects like this to make Chicago a better place for everyone! And let's be real, who doesn't love seeing a building get landmark status? It's like a badge of honor for our city!!! I'm rooting for it all the way! Fingers crossed it gets approved by the City Council next year!

I gotta say, this landmark status thing is wild . I mean, 30 N. LaSalle St. isn't exactly a masterpiece of architecture, but hey, who am I to decide what's good or bad? What really gets me, though, is that it's being done for affordable housing and tax breaks. That's the real win here, right? It's about creating opportunities for people who need 'em most.

I can see both sides of the preservationist argument, but I think they're getting caught up in trying to save every old building, no matter how flawed it is . At the end of the day, it's not just about saving a building; it's about preserving our community and making sure people have access to homes they can call their own.

I'm curious to see how this plays out next year when it goes to the City Council . Will it get approval, or will some folks try to block it? Either way, I hope the end result is something that benefits everyone in the long run

I just don't get why they're doin' this. I mean, I know Chicago's been tryin' to revamp its downtown area and all, but can't we just leave some old buildings alone? This building's design is straight ugly, if you ask me . I remember seein' it when I was younger and thinkin', "what in the world...?" And now they wanna turn it into apartments and give tax breaks to the devs? It just seems like a bunch of fancy footwork to get somethin' done. I guess that's how it is when you're tryin' to gentrify an area, but still...

"The question isn't who's going to let me; it's who's going to stop me." – Ayn Rand

idk why they're even considering this building lol, its design is straight ugly . I mean i get that it's got some history and all but come on, it's just a bland tower in the middle of nowhere. And now they wanna make it an "affordable housing" thing? sounds like a way to get some tax breaks, you know? anyway, if they do end up making it a landmark, i hope they actually use that money for the residents and not just for fancy decorations

come on guys, landmark status for this building? it's like naming a parking garage a cultural monument . don't get me wrong, affordable housing and all that jazz is great, but does that really outweigh the fact that it's just another bland 60s skyscraper? newsflash: architecture should be about more than just being functional and being cheap to build . what's next, landmarking a strip mall in Des Moines? i'm not saying it can't be saved, but let's not get ahead of ourselves here... this whole thing feels like a cash grab to me

omg can u believe this? they're makin landmark status 4 that weirdo building on LaSalle St? like i get why people wanna save it cuz of affordable housing & tax breaks, but cmon, its design is kinda meh... i mean, its not even the most iconic building in chicago! and now ppl are sayin its inclusion is just about economic necessity? like, what happened 2 the buildings we actually care about, like sullivan's stock exchange building? that got demolished under similar circumstances & we're still talkin about it 53 yrs later? this landmark thing is all about politics & money

The designation of 30 N. LaSalle St. as a potential landmark is an intriguing development that speaks to the complex interplay between economic necessity and preservationist sentiment . While some may view this building as lacking in visual presence or architectural merit, its inclusion in the landmark designation highlights the city's commitment to revitalizing the LaSalle Street Corridor through redevelopment efforts .

The fact that at least 30% of units will be set aside for affordable housing is a significant boon for the community, and it's essential to acknowledge the economic drivers behind this decision . Nevertheless, it raises questions about the motivations behind the landmark designation, particularly in light of past controversies surrounding similar projects .

Ultimately, the City Council will have a critical role to play in ensuring that this designation is used as a tool for positive change, rather than simply being a convenient means of justification for redevelopment plans .

idk about this...landmark status for a building thats literally just a tower of glass and steel? its not like its some historic masterpiece or anything...i mean i guess if its gonna help bring in affordable housing units then its cool, but its not like the city is making a huge sacrifice here...it seems like more of an economic move than an actual attempt to preserve any real architectural significance

I gotta say, I'm all for the 30 N. LaSalle St getting some recognition, but do we really need to turn it into a landmark just 'cause it's affordable housing? I mean, what's wrong with that? It's not like it's gonna change the city's skyline or anything . And let's be real, the building's got its own weird charm to it - kinda like the "cipher" people say it is . But for all its flaws, it's a piece of Chicago history and it deserves some credit. I'm not saying we should just save every old building just 'cause it's old (although, that's not a bad idea either ). What I am saying is, let's not overthink this one - sometimes it's okay to give the city's history a break and let things be what they are. We can always learn from our mistakes and move forward .

idk why ppl r gettin all worked up over this 1 building . its not like its gonna bring back louis sullivan or anythin... but i guess if it means they get affordable housing and some tax breaks, then yeah idc how the building looks, just dont let some ppl dictate what's 'cool' or 'worthy' of preservin . whats next, gonna preserve all the ugly buildings in chicago?

I think this is a pretty mixed bag, you know? On one hand, I get why preservationists want to save this building - it's got history and all that jazz. But at the same time, I'm not sure if we're putting too much stock in its design pedigree... I mean, it's from 1968! Still, I do think it's great that they're prioritizing affordable housing in the conversion process. That's a huge win for the community. And hey, even if the building itself isn't super architecturally impressive, it's still got a certain... character? But what really gets me is the irony of it all - here we are 53 years later and this building gets landmark status under similar circumstances to its predecessor being torn down. That just feels like déjà vu, you know?

I gotta say, I'm like totally perplexed by this whole thing . I mean, don't get me wrong, affordable housing and all that jazz sounds awesome, but come on... a building that's basically an "architectural cipher" is getting landmark status? It just doesn't add up to me. And what's with the tax breaks under Class L program? Sounds like a sweet deal for the devs, but I'm not convinced it's all about preserving the city's heritage . It's just so... convenient. 53 years after that iconic Chicago Stock Exchange Building was demolished, and now we're giving this other building landmark status because... why? It feels like a PR stunt to me. And I'm not even gonna get started on the economic arguments . Just seems like a case of "if it's good for business, it must be good" .

idk about this one ... i mean, don't get me wrong, affordable housing and tax breaks are def important, but does landmark status really just give free pass for questionable architecture? it's like they're rewarding a building just because it's gonna make some rich people happy. what about the artistry, the craftsmanship, the soul of the city's history? can't we do better than this?