The first mention of the proposed change came in a Chicago Tribune article written with bouncy cheer–as if to say, thank God, at long last, they’re gonna jazz up the old bag on North Michigan Avenue.
However, not all readers of that article shared Levy’s enthusiasm for the proposal. There is, in fact, a fierce and dogged battle going on between Hancock, a powerful corporation based in Boston, and residents of Streeterville, one of the city’s wealthiest and best-organized neighborhoods.
Best of Chicago voting is live now. Vote for your favorites »
“What they propose to do is like plopping a pimple on a landmark,” adds George Sikokis, president of the Streeterville Organization of Active Residents, a prominent community group in the area. “Worse than that, by taking away more open space, they’re turning Michigan Avenue into a canyon of high rises or a marble mausoleum. I’ve lived here 22 years and let me tell you, if we can’t walk down Michigan Avenue on a Saturday afternoon because of all the traffic, then it’s too much.”
Hancock, designed by the architectural firm of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, was perhaps the least offensive of the buildings erected at that time. Almost instantaneously, it became a Chicago landmark, praised by such architectural critics as Carl Condit for its practical and attractive use of space.
The criticism went unheeded, and city planners OK’d other developments along Michigan Avenue that were even less distinctive and far uglier than the Hancock. The attitude then (as now) was that cash-starved Chicago cannot be choosy. It must take development wherever and whenever it can.
Residents were unconvinced and quickly gathered more than 4,000 signatures on petitions denouncing the plan. In October they held a rally at the building, drawing about 100 supporters, as well as reporters from the major newspapers and television stations. “It seemed that once we raised the issue, just about everybody was on our side,” says Sikokis. “That’s how strongly people feel about the John Hancock building. One person who helped us a lot was Myron Goldsmith. He’s a well-known architect who used to work at Skidmore. He came right out and said that the building and the plaza form one integral design, one concept known all over the world. The proposal to add anything in the open space destroys this grand concept.”
“Hancock talks about making compromises, but we don’t believe in compromise if that means disfiguring an important building,” says Sikokis. “It’s the same old story. Every time they plan to build a new building or tear an old one down, we’re told to go along because the city needs the sales-tax revenue. Meanwhile, the rest of the city is falling apart for lack of investment, and we’re destroying the beauty of the area that makes all the developers want to come here in the first place. There’s got to be a better way of spreading our resources.”
