The Adaptive Reuse and Historic Preservation of Fisk Generating Station, Chicago

1

The Adaptive Reuse of Fisk Generating Station________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

A Preliminary Analysis for Recycling Chicago’s Historic Coal-Fired Power Plant

Bethany SalmonUniversity of Illinois at Chicago, College of Urban Planning and Public Affairs May 2012

CONTENTSReusing Chicago’s Historic Power Plant 2The History of Fisk Station 4Perspectives on Fisk Station’s Impact 9Historic Buildings Onsite 11Key Considerations And Barriers For Adaptive Reuse 22Pilsen: A Neighborhood Analysis 32Potential Funding Mechanisms 36Recommendations for the Future Use Of Fisk Station 39Toward A Future In Historic Preservation and Adaptive Reuse 50Case Studies: The Adaptive Reuse of Power Plants 51

Image Credit, Front Cover: Steven Vance, “Pilsen industrial and the loop.” Flickr, March 14, 2009.

1

Hist

oric

Am

eric

an E

ngin

eerin

g

Hist

oric

Am

eric

an E

ngin

eerin

g

B.Sa

lmon

Today, Fisk Generating Station, located in Chi-cago’s Pilsen neighborhood, is commonly known for the community protests against the power plant’s pollution and environmental injustices. However, less people know of Fisk Station’s re-markable, historic role in the electric industry.

In the 19th century, the conventional reciprocating steam engine had reached its capacity in power production. Despite these limitations in generation technology, households, the elevated train system, and businesses continued to demand electricity. Samuel Insull, president of Chicago Edison, then only a small utility company, was forced to find an answer to increase energy production while main-taining low customer rates. Thus, Fisk Station pro-vided the solution and became the foundation for which the electric industry would build upon in the future.

Built in 1903, Fisk Station became the largest steam generating plant in the world, holding the first 5 megawatt (MW) steam turbine. The power plant stood as a daring innovation for its day, as there was no guarantee that the 5 MW turbine would become commercially successful. But the decision to build the largest turbine for its time ex-ceeded cautious experimentation beyond tradi-

tional electric generating design. As a result, the turbines installed at Fisk Station largely influenced Chicago Edison’s growth, the expansion of electric-ity within Chicago, and the technologic improve-ments at large in the electric industry. Only years after Fisk Station’s initial success, turbines contin-ued to generate greater electricity outputs. Chicago Edison was renamed to Commonwealth Edison Company, which still survives today.

Today, Fisk Generating Station occupies approxi-mately 44 acres and is owned by Midwest Genera-tion, a subsidiary company of Edison International. On February 28, 2012, Midwest Generation an-nounced that it would close Fisk Station by the end of 2012.

Under current regulations and the agreement to retire Fisk, Midwest Generation is required to dis-mantle the power plant’s equipment to ensure that it cannot be restarted. The company is not obli-gated to sell the site, but instead, must secure the property. Because Midwest Generation has yet to publicly announce any plans for selling Fisk Sta-tion, it is uncertain whether it will remain a con-taminated, unused, and fenced-off property. How-ever, Midwest Generation’s spokesman, Doug McFarlan, has commented that the company does

2

Reusing Chicago’s Historic Power Plant

Envi

ronm

enta

l Law

and

Pol

icy

Cen

ter

not want to own the site for a long period of time and is committed “to facilitate future uses of both properties for the public benefit or the pri-vate development acceptable for the community.”1

Unfortunately, the retirement of Fisk Station will generate significant economic consequences in terms of employment and tax revenue. Ac-cording to a Midwest Generation fact sheet released in 2005, Fisk Sta-tion provided approximately $1 million in property taxes.2 Retirement will also incur a loss in annual payroll taxes and local contributions from Midwest Generation.3 The site currently provides approximately 68 jobs, the majority of which are union workers.4 While the number of jobs lost is significant in itself, many of Fisk Station’s employees have been working at the site over 20 years.

The closure of the power plant will have profound economic impacts in terms of tax revenue, employment, and public funding. Thus, it is im-perative that future land provide similar or greater employment oppor-tunities and sources of revenue to benefit Pilsen.

However, after the initial announcement to close Fisk Station, support for the site’s remediation and transformation into a safe, productive community asset remains strong. Mayor Emanuel and the City of Chi-cago recently has formed a task force, which involves local organiza-tions, aldermen, city officials, and Midwest Generation. The task force has just begun to analyze how to proceed with redevelopment in order to promote future economic development and employment opportuni-ties.

But, given the short timeframe until retirement, it is imperative that his-toric preservation and adaptive reuse are considered in the site’s rede-velopment as Fisk Station greatly contributed to Chicago’s history and is vital in commemorating the city’s growth in the early 20th century. Although the power plant will no longer serve its original purpose, the historic buildings onsite can be modified to house new functions. Fisk Station’s unique architecture, historic significance, close proximity to downtown Chicago, and waterfront access deem the site an ideal can-didate for redevelopment and encourage project feasibility.

Although the power plant faces a number of barriers related to site ownership, short timeframe until it is retired, remediation, and redevel-opment costs, repurposing Fisk Station’s historic buildings offers a unique opportunity to strengthen the site’s underlying value as well as to encourage additional social, economic, and environmental growth in Pilsen.

Of Chicago’s earliest central power stations, today, Fisk Station is one of the only to survive. Because the power plant symbolizes both the growth of electricity and turbine technology in Chicago and the United States, it is a historic site worth preserving. A number of Fisk Station’s buildings, which feature ornate, classical revival architecture, remain on the site today.

The demolition of Fisk Station’s historic buildings would cause the loss of many magnificent and irreplaceable buildings, which symbolize the site’s rich history. Fisk Station offers valuable redevelopment opportu-nities that can drive employment and preserve community identity while improving public and environmental health. Transforming Fisk Station from an old, polluting generating station into a vital neighbor-hood landmark would showcase positive community investment, cele-brate the current cultural values, and promote a healthy, sustainable future. What was once the largest steam generating plant in the world could one day again serve future generations.

The overall goal of this document is to identify Fisk Station’s meaning-ful use and contributions over time, up the the present, where Midwest Generation announced the power plant’s closure. The provided history and key considerations for redevelopment are intended to highlight the urgency for preserving the power plant.

The prospects for the adaptive reuse of Fisk Station are yet to be fully explored, but may be magnificent in themselves. As the site prepares to close by the end of 2012, the City of Chicago, potential developers, community organizations, and Pilsen residents should identify the range of possibilities for Fisk Station, including preservation, and take appropriate steps in making this site a memorable and beneficial re-source for the future.

3

THE GROWTH OF ELECTRICITY IN CHICAGOChicago’s demand for electricity began as early as 1878, as manufac-turing, the new rapid street transit system, and residences increasingly required power.5 But, as Chicago became a flourishing industrial center and railroad hub, electricity service was limited.

Chicago’s transformation into an electric city depended heavily on Samuel Insull, Thomas Edison’s former apprentice. In 1892, Insull be-came president of Chicago Edison Company, a small utility company that eventually grew into Commonwealth Edison. During Insull’s first years as president of Chicago Edison, the company possessed limited generating power, which only served about 5,000 lighting customers.6 However, Insull envisioned an electricity market that provided universal, affordable service for all Chicagoans, which totaled approximately 1 million people.7 In order to achieve his goals in expanding service, Chi-cago Edison needed to increase sales and power generation, lower rates, and consolidate the city’s sprawling electric industry.8 Thus, Chi-cago Edison gradually became a monopoly by purchasing its competi-tor companies, consolidating franchise rights, building central service power plants, introducing aggressive sales campaigns to entice new customers, and built transmission lines extending service to suburban areas.9

TURBINE TECHNOLOGY: BARRIERS AND INNOVATIONAs electricity consumption and popularity rapidly increased, Chicago Edison struggled with supplying consistent power during peak hours.10 By 1901, the company had exceed the capacity of their generators.11

Electric growth was limited by the conventional reciprocating steam engine, the current generating technology. But Chicago’s increasing demand for electricity forced Insull to find a solution in new technologi-cal innovations. Additional generating stations would not be enough to increase power supply while maintaining low customer rates. In order to promote the mass consumption of electricity, turbines would have to generate more power.

Chicago Edison teamed with General Electric to develop a more effi-cient steam turbine, the turbogenerator, which unified once separate machine components into a more powerful, efficient system. Cheaper, less resource and space-intensive turbines would allow Chicago Edison to expand its electric service. The next step was to actually build a fully-functional power plant run by turbogenerators in Chicago.

In 1900, General Electric built a half-MW (megawatt) prototype, “about what was being readied abroad, but Insull decided that prime movers of 5 MW each were necessary for a 14-unit, 70 MW station. This was a grand leap from what had come before, and Insull wanted the first three units now in order to meet Chicago's growing demand.”12 A turbine that could produce 5 MW was more than twice as large as what Westing-house, the leader in AC turbines, had in operation at the time.13 Al-though General Electric and the engineers working on the project con-sidered the 5 MW turbine a huge manufacturing risk, Insull insisted on building a machine that would exceed the limits of existing technology. Insull recalled his daring decision to build the largest 5 MW turbo-generator yet, as “to make a steam turbine a fifth that size would be a step backward.”14 General Electric accepted the manufacturing risk,

4

The History of Fisk Station

but only because Insull agreed that Chi-cago Edison would assume all the ex-penses if the technology failed.15

Even with his business reputation at stake, Insull rejected conservative ad-vice. Because he intended to supply a large amount of power to Chicago’s ele-vated transit system, only untested tur-bine size and technology would be sufficient.16 “Such a large customer would require a generator that did not exist in the engineer’s minds. Insull would not be denied as he envisioned his company supplying power for the entire metropolitan area, something no producer had done before. That was (Thomas) Edison’s dream, although the wizard never had the means nor the technology to make that dream come true. Insull did.”17

FISK STATION’S TECHNOLOGIC SUCCESSIn December of 1901, Insull placed the order for the untested 5 MW turbine and, as he put it, the “great experiment” began.18 The same year, a site, located on a “a quiet street in an industrial dis-trict in an area known as Pilsen,” was purchased to house the turbogenerator technology.19 Due to its location on the South Branch of the Chicago River, the powerhouse was equipped with a steady supply of water and fuel access provided by coal barges.

On October 2, 1903, Fisk Street Gener-ating Station opened, containing the 5 MW, 11,000-horsepower coal-fired turbine.20

Powered from water boiled by burning coal, Fisk Station’s turbine was the larg-est turbogenerator in the world. Each unit measured 29' in height and 16'-6"in diameter. Although the original plant de-signs intended to place 14 generator units inside the powerhouse, in the end only 3 of the turbines were installed.21

Fisk Station’s mechanical success was instantly apparent, as the new unit pro-duced twice as much power as any steam engine ever built.22 Not only did the turbines achieved 80% energy effi-ciency, double that of Chicago Edison’s previous reciprocating unit technology, but they also spun ten times faster than the reciprocating predecessors, were one-tenth the weight, and required less maintenance.23 “The turbine proved to be an engineering wonder since its blades were the first human-made de-vices to travel faster than the speed of sound.”24

This new power production was signifi-cant in that it allowed Chicago Edison to supply power to the transit system, the largest electrical customer at the time. But even more important, Fisk Station’s turbines were the first step in improving the efficiency of generator technology.

5

SPECIAL REPORT ~ 54 ~ FIRST & FASTEST

engineers at General Electric used their sliderules to prove that everything was impossible.Even Fred Sargent told me it couldn’t be done.We were at the practical capacity of reciprocat-ing steam engines. We needed a bold solution,and I was prepared to go to the directors witha bold solution. The business was there if wecould provide a low rate.

So I dispatched Ferguson and Sargent toEurope to study the turbine installations in

various countriesand report backto me. CharlesCoffin (presidentof GeneralElectric) did notwant to take therisk of manufac-turing 5,000 kilo-watt units. I per-sisted, and wenegotiated a com-promise. GeneralElectric wouldbuild the unitsand take the riskthat they would

operate, and I (Commonwealth Edison) wouldpay for the installation.

On June 25, 1902, we broke ground on a 16-acre parcel along the South Branch of theChicago River at Fisk Street, about a quartermile west of Halsted Street. I will never forgetthat date. I was as nervous as I could bethroughout the construction. We were taking

a huge risk building the world’s largest turbineplant. Huge amounts of water would be neededas each turbine would be served by eight boil-ers. The condensers alone were a significantchallenge.

The boilers are four in a row with a firingisland between the two rows of boilers.Separate boiler and turbine rooms would belocated under a common roof. The switchhouse would be separate, 50 feet from themain building. Boiler pressure was designed at180 pounds per square inch, with the steamsuperheated another 150 degrees Fahrenheitand the turbines rotating at 750 rpm. We werereally breaking new ground, and it would bethe first 5,000 kilowatt unit placed in service.

On October 21, 1903, Sargent was superin-tending the steaming up of the unit. It made aterrific noise when it first started, and Sargentsuggested that I leave. I inquired, Fred, whatdo you think is going to happen? He did notknow but was concerned that there might bean explosion. I told Sargent that he shouldthen leave as well. His response was that it washis duty to stay. My response was that I wouldstay, because if he was going to be blown up, Iwould prefer to be blown up with him since, ifthe turbine failed, I would be blown up anyway.It worked, and I immediately ordered twomore units.

My men went to the elevated railways andgot their business, and we got the street rail-way business as well. While we sold a lot ofelectricity, we had to be very careful in collect-ing our bills. The elevated railways were in

constant financial trouble, and I do not knowwhy people ever invested in them. It would becrazy to expect that they would pay a dividend.We may have to make a financial investment inthose companies. We are working on a consol-idation plan as we speak. The Lake Street com-pany is a challenging situation. It looks like Imay have to get personally involved.

The street railway companies were a biggerfinancial mess, and Arnold has his hands fullover there at the BOSE. (Bion Arnold is theChairman of the Board of SupervisingEngineers, Chicago Traction—See WireReport.) While we have great interest in seeingthese street railway operations succeed, I do notwant to get involved as there is more thanenough for me to do in the electric business.Arnold is doing a good job, and he will beinvolved with a reorganization of all those com-panies under a common operating company.

About two years ago, I purchased a farmnear Libertyville. Mrs. Insull and Chappiespend a lot of time there. However, I am con-sumed with my work. A year ago last summer,while Chappie and his mother were travelingin Europe, I bought one of those newmachines (automobile). When I bought thefarm, there was no electricity, so I ran a line forthe six miles from Lake Bluff to Libertyville.While out driving around in that very peacefulcountryside, I began thinking, why not link upthe various power stations that compriseNorth Shore Electric, which I own as well.

Then I was thinking about the interurban,the Chicago & Milwaukee Electric, that cameto Libertyville in 1902. They have their ownpower plant in Highwood. North ShoreElectric has power plants in Waukegan andHighland Park. Why couldn’t I do the samething in Lake County that I am doing inChicago? We conducted a thorough survey ofthe area last year. There are 22 towns wellback from the towns along the lake. Ten ofthose towns have electric service, but only onehas service at night. The sheriff is constantlyat the door of these small power plants as theyare so financially insecure. Why not servethem with a central station and interconnect-ing power lines?

These areas are sparsely populated today, soit is a long-term situation. The interurbans canconnect them together, and we can sell powerto the interurbans as well as the farmers andthe residents. My brother, Martin, is doing thatvery thing in the New Albany, Indiana, areadown near Louisville. On thing we are going tohave to deal with is that about two years agothe Milwaukee interurban went into bankrupt-cy before they ever reached Milwaukee. Someof my boys are already looking at that situationas the Illinois communities that the interur-ban serves have very wealthy residents whocould use a lot of electricity.

Fisk Street Station as it appeared while under construction in 1903. The general construction is ofsteel covered with red pressed brick and ornamented with heavy cut Bedford stone. Photo fromThe Sargent & Lundy Story

Frederick Sargent whowas also one of the incorporators of theNorthwestern Elevated.Sargent & Lundy photo

Shor

e Li

ne In

teru

rban

Hist

oric

al S

ocie

ty

Below: Fisk Station during construction in 1903.

Fisk Street Generating Station marked “a historic departure from the current standards of the industry.”25 According to Insull, Fisk Station’s success was “the greatest thing which has happened in our business. In the months of November and December, we produced power at Fisk at a lower cost than any plant I have ever heard of using coal as a basis of power production.”26 From simultaneously achieving an in-crease in power output and a decrease production costs, Chicago Edison was now capable of selling power to more customers. The improved efficiency certainly aided the city’s subsequent electric revolution and the continual growth of Chicago Edison.

Because the site represented monumental engineering ac-complishments, “it was no surprise that visitors from the European electric industry traveled first to Chicago and to

Fisk” to view the technology.27 Fisk became a tourist attrac-tion as notable people, such as Thomas Edison and Britain’s King George and Queen Mary, visited the power plant.28 Fisk Station also held a number of garden parties to showcase its technology in which, “hundreds of visitors...wandered all over the place, admiring something new at every turn.”29 To-day, the original guestbook, filled with the signatures of countless visitors, remains at the site.

The original turbine “would be one of many because it was not all that efficient and the technology would be refined. Yet what had happened that day was the equivalent of taking a space program from orbiting around the earth to orbiting around the moon...From that point on, Chicago was on its way to becoming the most energy-intensive place in the world.”30

6

McG

raw

-Pub

lishi

ng C

ompa

ny

Zin

k

Far Left: Thomas Edison and others standing in front of the 5 MW turbine in Schenectady, New York, 1922.

Left: The Original Powerhouse, circa 1908.

IMPROVING FISK STATION’S TECHNOLOGYBecause the turbines at Fisk Station were so successful, three more 5 MW turbines were installed by 1905.31 However, the “development of turbine engines was so great that within six years not one of the original four was still being used.”32 Fisk Station’s steam turbine technology was continually improved upon. By 1907, the turbine units were retrofitted to an increased size of 12 MW, with a 140% boost in output.33 By 1910, the powerhouse contained 14 turbines and a total output of 168 MW.34

Even though the 5 MW turbines were quickly replaced at Fisk Station due to rapid technologic growth, the power plant continued to greatly influenced the evolution of the electric industry. The site continued to be a central part of Chicago Edison’s generating power even after the site’s initial success. In 1949, Fisk Station again became Common-wealth Edison’s largest generating station of the 10 in operation with the installation of a new 150 MW unit.35 In 1959, a 305 MW unit was installed, which produced “enough electricity to serve a city of nearly half a million population.”36 This technologic improvement increased the total net generating capability to 613 MW, a staggering comparison to Fisk Station’s first operational capacity of 5 MW.

Due to continual upgrades, none of the original generators are located at Fisk Station today. However, the original 5 MW turbine was returned to the headquarters of General Electric, the original manufacturer, in Schenectady, New York, “where is stands today as a monument to en-gineering genius.”37 According to one author, when viewing the original turbines, “you can get a feel for what an awesome process power pro-duction is, even in this age.”38 The original 5 MW Curtis turbine genera-tor unit was designated a national engineering landmark by the Ameri-can Society of Mechanical Engineers in 1975.39

FISK STATION’S CONTRIBUTION IN THE ELECTRICITY INDUSTRY AND CHICAGOThe 5 MW steam turbine “helped introduce the turbine to America; within a year after Fisk Street began operation, General Electric and Westinghouse received orders for 540,000 KW (540 MW) of turbo-

generator capacity.”40 Alongside influencing Chicago’s electric revolu-tion, the new steam turbogenerators also represent an industry-wide triumph of when the “the future of primary power arrived.”41 Today, after extensive decades of refinement, the advanced steam turbine technol-ogy remains a dominant power generator, representing more than 60% of all power generated.42 Although the steam turbine would not evolve into its more modern design for another decade, Fisk’s technology was crucial for creating the pathway to improve utility companies’ central power stations. The groundbreaking 5 MW units subsequently triggered an era of rapid technological advances in energy production and led to relentless competition toward the goal of cheap electricity.

As turbo-generating technology became more cost effective, Chicago Edison continued to build new powerhouses with greater generating capacities. For example, Quarry Street Station, located across the Chi-cago River from Fisk Station, opened in 1908, housing six 24 MW turbines.43 Quarry Street Station and Fisk Station were once connected with large electric lines to assist each plant according to varying peak loads and to add reliability to their operations.44 While the stations re-mained independent plants in order to ensure that a breakdown in one would not affect the other, their location near each other provided an economic, convenient advantage for combined operation. In addition, the two stations shared a chief engineer and a ferry service.45 The inte-grated system showcased innovation beyond just the single turbine.

The large supply of power and lower costs increased electricity’s role in Chicago’s growing entertainment, transit, and residential appliance in-dustries. Commonwealth Edison continued to expand service into the outlying suburbs to create a united network of power. As a result, Chi-cago was transforming into “the electric city” that Insull had envisioned.46

7

8

Top: 5 MW turbines lo-cated in the Original Powerhouse.

Bottom Left: 20 MW and 25 MW turbines, installed in 1914.

Bottom Right: Unit No. 18, circa 1980. H

istor

ic A

mer

ican

Eng

inee

ring

Reco

rdM

cGra

w-P

ublis

hing

Com

pany

Insu

ll

‣ Fisk Street Generating Station marked “a historic departure from the current standards of the industry.”47

‣ “The turbine proved to be an engineering wonder since its blades were the first human-made devices to travel faster than the speed of sound. The turbine’s hardened metal also maintained its shape de-spite being blasted by high-temperature steam, and the unit operated under these red-hot conditioned consistently for twenty-four hours a day.”48

‣ The turbine “would be one of many because it was not all that effi-cient and the technology would be refined. Yet what had happened that day was the equivalent of taking a space program from orbiting around the earth to orbiting around the moon...From that point on, Chicago was on its way to becoming the most energy-intensive place in the world.”49

‣After Fisk Station became operational, Insull stated the power plant’s success was “the greatest thing which has happened in our business. In the months of November and December, we produced power at Fisk at a lower cost than any plant I have ever heard of using coal as a basis of power production.”50

‣ In 1908, five years after Fisk Station first began operating, an editorial from the magazine Electrical World, commented on the site’s persist-ing significance. Although the magazine wrote of Fisk Station in previ-ous issues, the editorial stated, “no article can do justice to the care and thought bestowed on it, or to the completeness and beauty of the whole. It is a great cathedral, devoted to the religion of power, and a feeling of worship is inspired by the gigantic machines, the towering walls, the long-drawn aisles.”51

‣ In 1915, Commonwealth Edison’s advertisement called Fisk Station “A Mecca” as it “revolutionized the methods of making electricity.”52 It alluded to the power plant’s influence on the “high reputation that Chicago enjoys in the electrical industry is due in large part to the en-terprise, the boldness of initiative, the recognition of the economic fundamentals on which this business is based, and the desire to play fair, which this company has exhibited.”53

‣At the 25th anniversary commemorating the installation of Fisk Sta-tion’s first 5 MW steam turbine engine, Insull commented that the “great experiment” at the plant “marks the beginning of modern day development of the production of electric energy from steam and its distribution over large areas, such as we now have…The Fisk street station, as long as it stands, will be a monument to that departure.”54

‣ According to Insull, the power plant stood as “a monument to one of the greatest developments that has taken place in connection with our industry. The ability to mass very large amounts of energy production, the ability to do that at a very low investment cost, and to produce the energy from such machinery at an operating cost never heard of with reciprocating engines and at an efficiency never heard of with recipro-cating engines, has, to my mind, had a greater influence on the devel-opment of our business during the last decade than any other one thing...The history of the last decade, bringing us directly up to today or yesterday, has been one of marvelous progress in our industry, but, to my mind, it is but the start of what we can expect may come in the future.”55

‣ “It was no surprise that visitors from the European electricity industry traveled first to Chicago and to Fisk” to view the technology.

9

Perspectives on Fisk Station’s Impact

10

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Display Ad 11 -- No TitleChicago Daily Tribune (1872-1922); Apr 12, 1912; ProQuest Historical Newspapers Chicago Tribune (1849 - 1987)pg. 14

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Display Ad 5 -- No TitleChicago Daily Tribune (1872-1922); Jan 24, 1912; ProQuest Historical Newspapers Chicago Tribune (1849 - 1987)pg. 6

Left, Right: Commonwealth Edison advertisements for Fisk Generating Station, published in the Chicago Daily Tribune, 1912.

While Fisk Station symboli-cally represents a turning point in both Chicago and the electric industry’s evolu-tion, its buildings contain their own architectural sig-n ificance. Compared to modern power plants, Fisk Station’s various buildings are unique and surprisingly ornate, as they feature ele-ments of classical revival ar-chitecture.

The historic structures onsite include the Original Power-house, the Administration Building, Switch House No. 1, Switch House No. 2 and Transmission Terminal, and the Maintenance Building.56

The following descriptions are largely based on outdated information, either from the early 1900s or the mid 1980s, as well as from the author’s personal site tour in March 2012. Therefore, the present

conditions and status need to be further analyzed for their structural integrity and pres-ervation potential. Although the buildings will be de-scribed by their historic char-acteristics, it should be noted that the descriptions may not be an accurate representation given the possibility of reno-vations or natural deteriora-tion.

Nevertheless, the following images and descriptions still serve as a introduction to Fisk Station’s unique architectural characteristics. Many of these buildings are worth preserving in Fisk Station’s redevelop-ment to commemorate the site’s historic significance, architectural uniqueness, and contribution in revolutionizing the electric industry.

11

Historic Buildings Onsite

00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14

00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14

10

09

08

07

06

05

04

03

02

01

00

10

09

08

07

06

05

04

03

02

01

00

Historic(Buildings

Non0Historic(Structures

1.##Original#Powerhouse2.##Administra7on#Building3.##Switch#House#No.#14.##Switch#House#No.#25.##Maintenance#Shop6.##Frequency#Changer#House

7.##1959#Powerhouse8.##Transmission#Sta7on9.##Peaker#Units10.##Old#Transmission#Terminal#

1

3

2

6

4

5

9

10

8

7

Cermak Road

Chicago River

Below: Aerial view of Fisk Station’s layout, showing historic and hon-historic structures, looking south.

B.Sa

lmon

12

Historic(Buildings


1. Original*Powerhouse2. Administra7on*Building3. Switch*House*No.*14. Switch*House*No.*25. Maintenance*Shop6. Frequency*Changer*House

7.**1959*Powerhouse8.**Transmission*Sta7on9.**Peaker*Units10.**Old*Transmission*Terminal*

1

2

36

5

410

9 8

7

Right: Site layout of Fisk Generating Station’s Historic and Non-Historic Structures, look-ing south.

B.Sa

lmon

THE ORIGINAL POWERHOUSE

Built in 1903, the Original Powerhouse once contained the most advanced and powerful 5 MW turbogenerators for its time.57 When it was first operational, “the building itself was ornate for a power station, featuring graceful three story mullioned arched windows and terra cotta ornamentation. Inside the generator room, streetlights lit the cavernous space. The turbine generator itself was a steel octopus, with pipes coming out of the bottom. Looking like something out of a Jules Verne novel, brass railings ringed the top and lower section of the unit. Oval-shaped openings on the tur-

bine made it look like a strange nautical vessel landlocked in the middle of a cathedral of power.”58

The powerhouse is adorned with large arched windows that measure 25’ wide and 32’ high, decorative red bricks, and white Bedford stone.59 “The exterior of the power house fea-tures a pedimented gable above the entrance...This building has slightly canted corners, and contains such decorative elements as rusticated quoins and pilasters, and embel-lished pendrils.”60

13

Top Left: The Original Powerhouse, circa 1908.

Bottom Left: The archi-tectural details of the northern facade of the Original Powerhouse, circa 1908.

Right: View on the floor of the Original Power-house turbine-room circa 1909.

McG

raw

-Pub

lishi

ng C

ompa

nyG

ebha

rdt

McG

raw

-Pub

lishi

ng C

ompa

ny

14

McG

raw

-Pub

lishi

ng C

ompa

ny

Hist

oric

Am

eric

an E

ngin

eerin

g Re

cord

McG

raw

-Pub

lishi

ng C

ompa

ny

B.Sa

lmon

B.Sa

lmon

Interior Views of the Original Power House

Top Left: Circa 1908.Bottom Left: Circa 1909.Top RIght: Circa 1980Bottom Right: March 2012

The interior of the original powerhouse also contains unique features rare in con-temporary power plant con-struction such as the walls’ “white enameled tile adorned with decorative brass lamps.”61 The concrete floors in the tur-bine room were once “covered with two-inch hexagonal terra-cotta tile,” but today the origi-nal flooring seems to have been removed or covered, as it now is concrete.62

Various sources disagree on the building designer. The His-toric American Engineering Record claims the Original Powerhouse was designed by Shepley, Butan, & Coolidge

whereas the Commission on Chicago Landmarks cites Burnham, D.H., & Co. as the responsible architect.63

Today, there is a small memo-rial garden along the western section of the powerhouse that commemorates people that have perished in past fires and accidents at the site.

Only the turbine-generator room located in west end of the building remains today. The demolition of the original boiler room is due to construction upgrades in 1959, discussed in the following section.

15

Exterior Views of the Original Power House

Far Right and Bottom Right: West facade in 2012 and circa 1980.

Top RIght: The north entrance to the Original Powerhouse turbine room, circa 1908.

B.Sa

lmon

Hist

oric

Am

eric

an E

ngin

eerin

g Re

cord

Hist

oric

Am

eric

an E

ngin

eerin

g Re

cord

1959 TURBINE-GENERATOR ROOM ADDI-TION TO THE ORIGINAL POWERHOUSE

In 1959, a large, red metal clad boiler and turbine-generator room was constructed and attached to the existing original 1903 power-house, replacing the original boiler house.64 The original smokestacks were removed and replaced with a single, 550-foot smokestack, which is also visible from many distant parts of the city.65 Today, the new turbine-generator building is the most visually prominent build-ing seen from Fisk Station’s entrance on Cermak Road.

While the building is still functional, the southern portion of the 1959 Powerhouse fac-ing toward the Chicago River was destroyed during a fire in November 1976.66 The south-ern facade of the 1903 Original Powerhouse was also damaged during the fire.67

Due to its more recent date of construction, this building may hold less historic and architectural value compared to the other buildings onsite. However, the 1959 turbine-generator building visually defines the site by symbolizing Fisk Sta-tion due to its size, prominent red color, and outward facing position, which could be con-sidered for preservation purposes.

16

B.Sa

lmon

Hist

oric

Am

eric

an E

ngin

eerin

g Re

cord

E.A. Rogers

Far Right: Turbine Unit No. 19 circa 1980 (top) and May 2012 (bottom).

Right: Fisk Station’s single smokestack and red, metal clad 1959 addition.

THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

The Administration Building, which measures 300’ by 80’, is located directly to the west of the Original Powerhouse and features similar ornate architectural qualities. The building stands three stories tall, flanked on both sides by one-story attachments that lead to subterranean storage halls.

“The detailing on the administration building in-cludes rusticated quoins, small two-over-two

light paired windows, and a large, segmental arch door with concrete keystones on the north fa-cade. There are concrete belt courses at the foundation and two parallel belts at the archi-trave, with a gabled facade and a flat roof.”68

Unfortunately, based on information provided on a site tour, today the Administration Building is closed off to Fisk employees due to asbestos contamination. The extent of contamination and interior conditions of the building are unknown.

17

Hist

oric

Am

eric

an E

ngin

eerin

g Re

cord

Right: The north and west facade of the Administration Building, looking southwest.

SWITCH HOUSE NO. 1

Switch House No. 1 is located to the west of the Administration Building. Built in 1920, Switch House No. 1 is similar to the other classical revival architecture fea-tured onsite.

“A rusticated base is defined by the concrete belt course. The fa-cade is broken by segmental arch windows. Four of the arched win-dows have a concrete keystone. Windows from the top of the base rise in slender vertical columns to the top of the structure; a feature similar to the nearby maintenance building. The top one-third of the building is defined by a wide steel beam which appears as a wide window transom. A thin concrete course is set across the brick fa-cade on the base of the top story.”69

The Historic American Engineering Record, when published in the mid-1980s, noted that the switch house contained some of the origi-nal switching boxes that converted power for use in Chicago’s electric street railways. A walkway, which connects the second floor of Switch House No. 1 to the Admin-istration Building, remains today.

Originally, Switch House No. 1 of-fered special facilities for Fisk Sta-tion’s employees. These provided conveniences meant keep “the high-est grade of faithful employees.”70 In 1908, an article in Electrical World, went as far to write, “The provi-sions for the comfort and welfare of employees around the Fisk Street station are even more nota-ble than the engineering features of the station.”71

Offices for the chief engineer and clerks, living quarters for turbine-room and electrical workers, and showers with individual lockers were located on second floor.72

The building also housed large din-ing rooms, which served meals some-what below cost to all work-ing men at the plant. “An elabo-rately equipped kitchen and 200-pound refrigerating plant adjoin the main dining room and electrically cooked meals are served every day.”73

Amenities such as the dining rooms and sleeping quarters were “even more necessary at the Fisk Street station than it would be in some other locations, because the station is in a district surrounded by railroad yards, factories, lumber yards, and a poor class of dwell-

18

Below: The eastern facade of Switch House No. 1 circa 1980 and 2012.

B.Sa

lmon

Hist

oric

Am

eric

an E

ngin

eerin

g Re

cord

ings, so that restaurants and other facilities for the men are not to be found in the neighborhood.”74

Although the employee accommodations were divided according to occupation, most were far superior to those usually provided to lower-ranking laborers, which was “undoubtedly a paying policy to care for the employees in this manner.”75

Switch House No. 1 also included an assembly and reading room, “where all important engi-neering periodicals are on files, together with

many books of reference.”76 The original added accommodations at Fisk Station offered “al-most the facilities of a club for its occupants, and in emergencies men can live there in com-fort for days at a time.”77

Unfortunately, based on information provided on a site tour, today Switch House No. 1 is closed off to Fisk employees due to asbestos contamination. The extent of contamination and interior condition of the building are unknown.

19

Left:The western facade of Switch House No. 1, 2012.

Below: One of the dining rooms located in the Switch House

B.Sa

lmon

Willi

am H

. Hod

ge

SWITCH HOUSE NO. 2 AND THE TRANS-MISSION TERMINALSwitch House No. 2 and the Transmission Ter-minal are situated on the northernmost portion of the Fisk Station site. Built in 1940, the one-story building contains “rusticated red-brick walls resting on a concrete foundation. Two oversized concrete entrances also have rusti-cated concrete pilasters. The ornamentation is stylized Classical motifs and exaggerated size. Of reinforced concrete construction, this build-ing is symmetrical in plan with a slightly project-ing central section. Its concrete cornice has a row of roof drains in square concrete orifices. An imposing metal double door marks the en-trance to the building.”78

Shaw, Naess, & Murphy are credited as the ar-chitects for Switch House No. 2.79

MAINTENANCE BUILDINGThe three-story Maintenance Building is located south of Switch House No. 2 and the Transmis-sion Terminal. The building measures 200’ by 80.’ Although a date is not given for when the building was constructed, the Maintenance Building features similar architecture to the other buildings onsite and has a “rusticated, one-story base with a concrete belt course above the base. There is also a concrete cor-nice above the main block of windows. The main massing has tall arched vertical lights. All windows are broken by a wide concrete band.”80

20

Top: East facade of Switch House No. 2, looking west.

Bottom: South and east facade of the Maintenance Shop, looking northwest.

Hist

oric

Am

eric

an E

ngin

eerin

g Re

cord

Hist

oric

Am

eric

an E

ngin

eerin

g Re

cord

FREQUENCY CHANGER HOUSE

The Frequency Changer House is lo-cated on the southeast corner of the site, west of Switch House No. 1. Al-though the original construction date is not known, “It was here that 60-cycle AC power was converted to 25-cycle DC power for use by Chicago's electric street railways...The building is

in excellent condition, although no longer used.”81 According to the His-toric American Engineering Record, circa 1980, the building was used for storage. The current uses and owner-ship of the building are unknown.

21

Right: East facade of the Frequency Changer House, looking west circa 1980 (top) and 2012 (bottom)

B.Sa

lmon

Hist

oric

Am

eric

an E

ngin

eerin

g Re

cord

INDUSTRIAL STRUCTURESIn addition to Fisk Station’s historic buildings, other structures and industrial equipment are located on the site. Known structures include a water treatment system that extends along the Chicago River, eight peaker plants located to the west of Switch House No. 2 and the Maintenance Building, conveyor belts, an “auxiliary boiler, coal handling and processing units, turbines fired with diesel and natural gas, and a gasoline storage tank.”82

Many times, adaptive reuse projects have preserved the original equipment to honor the industrial history of the site. In the case of coal-fired power plants, turbines, conveyor belts, coal hoppers, and overhead cranes have been restored to showcase past coal operations. Some of Fisk Station’s industrial equipment could potentially be preserved to symbolize the site’s past and role within the electric industry.

22

Key Considerations and Barriers For Adaptive Reuse

Left: Water treatment equipment located on the southern por-tion of the site, along the Chicago River.B.

Salm

on

B.Sa

lmon

OTHER HISTORIC FEATURESFisk Station also possesses various unique, non-industrial features. A memo-rial garden, which commemorates the workers and firefighters that have lost their lives in these industrial accidents, is located between the Original Power-house and the Administration building.

Large metal plagues that celebrated various site anniversaries are located outside the Original Powerhouse and inside other buildings. The original guestbook, which was signed by hun-dreds of visitors, such as Thomas Edi-son and Britain’s King George and Queen Mary, also remains onsite.

Just as Fisk Station’s historic buildings should be preserved, so should these original historic relics to commemorate each aspect of the site’s role in the elec-tric industry.

STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY AND CUR-RENT CONDITIONS OF THE HIS-TORIC BUILDINGS

Analyzing building integrity is of high im-portance as natural deterioration or a lack of maintenance over the past dec-ades could have harmed site structures. As previously noted, the Administration Building and Switch House No. 1 are both closed due to asbestos contamina-tion. It was unclear whether the Fre-

quency Changer House is also closed due to contamination or who owns the building. The current structural and inte-rior conditions of these buildings are un-known, as well as if other hazardous ma-terials, such as lead paint, industrial equipment, or storage is present inside. If preserved, remediated would be nec-essary due to asbestos contamination or for other hazardous materials. Based on a visible examination of the exterior of the buildings, some windows are broken and would need to be repaired or re-placed.

In some cases, such as that with the Frequency Changer House and Mainte-nance Building, no original construction date is known and should be identified to determine the extent of significance. However, based on the images provided, these structures seems to contain similar historic and architectural significance compared to the other buildings located at Fisk Station.

Despite some uncertainties in informa-tion, each historic buildings provides a unique opportunity for adaptive reuse. Of the historic buildings, the Original Powerhouse, the Administrative Build-ing, Switch House No. 1 and 2, the Maintenance Building, and the Fre-quency Changer House need to be fur-ther examined for their historic qualities, unique architectural features, structural integrity, and current conditions.

23

Below: Plague commemorating Fisk Station’s 100-year anniver-sary, located at the north entrance to the Original Powerhouse.

B.Sa

lmon

REMEDIATIONTypically, industrial or historic sites from the given era require remedia-tion efforts, which can entail remov-ing industrial equipment, under-ground storage tanks, or hazardous materials, such as asbestos or lead paint.83

In order to prepare Fisk Station’s property and buildings for an adaptive reuse project, the site will undoubtedly require remediation as the century of coal operations and adjacent industrial activities have polluted the property. Site contami-nation may be sizable due to the lack of strict regulations in the early twen-tieth century on pollution controls and industrial activities. Fisk Station most likely has cumulative levels of contamination.

The water in the Chicago River and soil should be tested to ensure proper remediation. According to Midwest Generation, today, “Fisk has no ground storage and receives its coal on a ‘just in time’ basis.”84 However, while coal is not currently stored on site, the site’s abundant land was once used to hold coal for power generation needs, which may have polluted soil and water.85

Fisk Station is also located on the South Branch of the Chicago River,

which has been historically polluted from waste, sewage, and heavy in-dustrial activities.86 Fisk Station has previously been cited for dumping debris in the Chicago River. For ex-ample, in 1968, Commonwealth Edi-son received a ticket by the Chicago Sanitary District and was required to remove and clean some debris de-posited in the river.87 Although the river has been cleaned, some pollut-ing remnants from Fisk Station’s past most likely remain.

In addition to soil and water hazards, some of the original historic build-ings, such as the Administration Building and Switch House No. 1, will need to be remediated due to asbestos. Lead paint or other haz-ardous substances may also be pre-sent.

A more detailed and comprehensive site analysis, involving soil, water, and building tests, needs to be con-ducted in order to determine the full extent and costs for cleaning and restoring the site.

However, the removal of hazardous contaminants and equipment on site provides the chance to enhance the local environment, once plagued by pollution. Remediated and restored building and land uses may provided new spaces for the community to benefit from.

24

B.Sa

lmon

B.Sa

lmon

Top Left: Transmis-sion line located to the south of Switch House No. 1.

Bottom Left: Eight peaker units, located at the northwestern portion of the site.

OWNERSHIPOne of the most prominent redevelopment issues facing Fisk Station is the complicated ownership of the site. Midwest Generation and the electric utility company, Commonwealth Edison (ComEd), coor-dinate in their regular business activities through electricity transmission and generation.88 As a re-sult, ComEd owns a number of structures and elec-tric lines located on or which directly travel through the site. Specifically, ComEd owns a transmission station located on the western portion of the prop-erty as well as an unused concrete metal structure that once housed electricity-related operations lo-cated to the west of Switch House No. 2.

Because of this haphazard ownership, dividing Fisk Station’s land for redevelopment could prove to be difficult as both ComEd and Midwest Generation would have to agree to sell the property and elec-tric lines may need to be redirected.

In addition, the ComEd transmission station would remain during and after redevelopment. This may be problematic for certain future land uses at Fisk Station, as the transmission station remains visually unattractive and could potentially be unsafe with an increase in pedestrian activity. Additionally, 8 peaker units, owned by Midwest Generation, are under contract until at least 2015.89

25

B.Sa

lmon

Left: ComEd substation, looking north west.

POTENTIAL FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION

Fisk Station’s buildings are worth preserving to commemo-rate the site’s historic significance, architectural uniqueness, contribution in revolutionizing the electric industry, and countless employees. Thus, Fisk Station may be eligible for either listing under the National Register of Historic Places or Chicago Landmark status. Historic designation under ei-ther of these preservation programs may be vital in protect-ing the site’s buildings from demolition and to fund rehabili-tation projects.

National Register of Historic PlacesFisk Station could qualify for the National Register as the site may meet some of the eligibility criteria, as it is or does:

• associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history;

• associated with the lives of significant persons in or past;

• embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, pe-riod, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction;

• yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.90

Historic integrity, whether the property has retained its origi-nal features that convey its significance, is also a crucial part of designation eligibility. In order for a building to become listed under the National Register, structures should not be significantly modified or deteriorated to assure the property can convey its historical affiliation or attribute.

However, given that Fisk Station has remained operational for over a century, some of the buildings have been largely altered. The 1959 turbine-generator room addition to the Original Powerhouse is the most prominent example of changes onsite. This is unfortunate as the Original Power-house, which contained the 5 MW turbines and thus largely represents the site’s historic significance, has been the most altered. Changes such as this may have compromised some of the site’s original integrity.

Exceptions for a building’s integrity apply depending on the reasons for designating a site. The National Register’s “Cri-teria for Evaluation” states, while “the essential physical fea-tures that enable it to convey its historic identity” must be maintained, “it is not necessary for a property to retain all its historic physical features or characteristics.”91

“A property that has lost some historic materials or details can be eligible if it retains the majority of the features that illustrate its style in terms of the massing, spatial relation-ships, proportion, pattern of windows and doors, texture of materials, and ornamentation. The property is not eligible, however, if it retains some basic features conveying massing but has lost the majority of the features that once character-ized its style.”92

Even though the original turbines, smokestacks, and some interior features have been removed, a great deal of historic interior and exterior features remain onsite. In order to de-termine if the historic integrity of Switch House No. 1 and 2, the Administrative Building, the Maintenance Building, and the Frequency Changer House has been weakened, the site will need to be further evaluated.

Although the discussed conditions and site changes at Fisk Station conflict with the select National Register criteria, the

26

power plant may still be eligible for historic designation due to a number of exceptions. Because Fisk Station contains more than one historic building, there is the potential for list-ing selected eligible buildings that have not been signifi-cantly altered on the National Register. However, the historic buildings should be collectively preserved as they all once contributed to the site’s overall operations and significance. Many of the historic buildings still possess their essential physical features and distinct architectural qualities that convey their meaning within the entire power plant.

Chicago Landmark Some of Fisk Station’s historic buildings also could be des-ignated as a Chicago Landmark. The Original Powerhouse as well as Switch House No. 1 and 2 are currently classified as “orange” rated buildings, which indicate they possess potentially significant architectural or historical features.93 Under the Demolition-Delay Ordinance, this rating may aid the preservation of these buildings as it is intended “to en-sure that no important historic resource can be demolished without consideration as to whether it should and can be preserved.”94

According to the City of Chicago, the ordinance, “estab-lishes a hold of up to 90 days in the issuance of any demoli-tion permit for certain historic buildings in order that the De-partment of Housing and Economic Development can ex-plore options, as appropriate, to preserve the building, in-cluding but not limited to landmark designation.”95 The delay period begins when the demolition permit is submitted to the Historic Preservation Division of the Department of Housing and Economic Development. This period can also be extended past 90 days if mutual agreement with the ap-plicant is present.

However, the Demolition-Delay Ordinance only provides lim-ited preservation protection against the demolition of Fisk Station’s historic buildings. Further measures should be taken to ensure that the site’s redevelopment plans include preservation. In addition, only three buildings have “orange” rated classifications, which neglects the historic and archi-tectural significance of the Administration Building, the Maintenance Shop, and the Frequency Changer House. The Demolition-Delay Ordinance should be extended to all build-ings onsite to increase the possibility of preserving the entire power plant site.

27

ZONINGFisk Station is currently zoned within a Planned Manufacturing District (PMD), a special zoning classification that seeks to pre-serve existing manufacturing areas and foster the city’s indus-trial base.96 Under the PMD classification, only certain land uses compatible with industrial growth are permitted. For example, residential uses are not permitted. The site is specifically located in PMD 11 Subdistrict A, which has its own set of allowed land use regulations.

In general, the decision to amend existing zoning is to be done in the “best interests of the public health, safety and general welfare, while also recognizing the rights of individual property owners.”97 While the permitted and prohibited uses are typically strict within PMDs, special uses may be allowed after being re-viewed and approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals and City Council.98

Proposed zoning changes should be consistent with adopted area plans and are appropriate based on changes in the area’s character “due to public facility capacity, other rezonings, or growth and development trends.”99 PMD zoning changes con-siders the district’s size, the number of existing firms and em-ployees, public and private investments, potential to support additional industrial uses and increased manufacturing employ-ment, proportion of land currently devoted to industrial uses and non-manufacturing uses, and the area’s importance to the city as an industrial district.100

Fisk Station is also located within the Pilsen Industrial Corridor. Similar to PMD designation, Chicago industrial corridor districts are intended to promote industrial development, thus typically rezoning should be avoided.101 However, in some cases rezon-ing may be appropriate.

In general, an industrial corridor property can be rezoned if:

1. the physical characteristics of the site make it intrinsi-cally unsuitable for industrial development. Physical con-straints include irregular site configuration, access barri-ers and other site-specific issues that, taken together, limit development; or substantial change in the character of the immediately surrounding area makes industrial re-development of the site impractical. Such change would be indicated by adopted plans, pattern of rezoning or the establishment of significant adjoining non-industrial uses; or the proposed non-industrial development fills an unmet need for a neighborhood service or public facility; and

2. the proposed non-industrial development will not result in burdensome zoning or other regulatory restrictions on neighboring industries; and

3. traffic to be generated by the development will not ex-ceed existing street capacity (or otherwise be accom-modated through specific measures to be taken by the applicant).102

The process to change PMD or industrial corridor zoning first includes filing an application with the Zoning Administrator, who then reviews and forwards a recommendation to the City Coun-cil Committee on Zoning.103 Afterwards, a hearing is held by the by the City Council Committee on Zoning, where further rec-ommendations are made. The final rezoning decision is deter-mined by a vote by the City Council. In addition to this tradi-tional rezoning process, for industrial corridors, additional ap-proval is needed by the Chicago Plan Commission. Before a hearing is held by the City Council Committee on Zoning, the Plan Commission must also hold a hearing to make recommen-dations on the proposed changes.104

28

29

Canalp

ort)Av

e

Halste

d)St

Cermak)Rd

1 6 th ) S t

1 8 t h ) S t

Canalp

ort)Av

e

Cermak)Rd

Can

al)St

Can

al)St

1 6 t h ) S t

1 8 t h ) S t

1 8 t h ) S t1 8 t h ) S t1 8 t h ) S t

Cermak)RdCermak)Rd

Racine)Ave

Racine)A

ve

1 6 t h ) S t1 6 t h ) S t

Ash

land)Ave

Ashland

)Ave

Ashland

)Ave

L umber )St

Halste

d)St

Dam

en)Ave

Dam

en)Ave

Western)Ave

Western)Ave

Western)Ave

Cullerton)StCullerton)StCullerton)StCullerton)St

Cermak)Rd

Blue)Is

land)A

ve Dam

en)Ave

Blue)Is

land)A

ve

Blue)Island)Ave

PMD 11

PMD 11

PMD 11

90

94

Fisk Generating

Station

00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14

00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14

10

09

08

07

06

05

04

03

02

01

00

10

09

08

07

06

05

04

03

02

01

00

Top Right: Sur-rounding Indus-trial Activity

Right: Fisk Sta-tion within the PMD.

S.Va

nce

Fisk Station’s redevelopment must consider these land use re-strictions. The site’s current designation as a PMD may prohibit a variety of desired future uses, such as residential develop-ment, but zoning can potentially be changed. Given that Fisk Station’s PMD and industrial corridor zoning classifications are intended to retain manufacturing within the city, the continuation of select industrial activity, which emphasize environmentally-friendly designs, would be practical. The site’s location is ideal for housing new green manufacturing facilities that generate new revenue sources and promote job development.

However, given Fisk Station’s history of pollution and attributed harm to residents’ public health, the site’s new land uses should feature cleaner operations that promote community wellness. Special use approval could be granted for parks and recreation, urban farms, entertainment venues, medical services, or other services that would benefit Pilsen residents. If manufacturing operations are chosen for the site’s redevelopment, it is possible that only a portion of Fisk Station’s property could be rezoned. This scenario could combine new industrial uses with other services or open space to most benefit the community.

ADJACENT LAND USESAlthough Fisk Station is located close to other industrial proper-ties, the site is surrounded by a variety of land uses to north of Cermak Road. Future land uses at the site should be compatible with the adjacent community and existing land uses. Currently, a mix of parks, residential, commercial, business, and manufac-turing parcels surround the Fisk site. Based on the surrounding amenities, Fisk Station’s “walk score” is calculated at 85 out of 100, meaning the site is “very walkable” and most errands can be accomplished on foot.105 Walkable amenities include a num-ber of restaurants, coffee shops, grocery stores, small stores, schools, parks, book stores, bars, and banks.

In terms of the public transportation assessment, Fisk Station’s has a good transit score, rating 62 out of 100, with “many

nearby public transportation options.”106 In terms of buses, Bus Route 21 is the closest, stopping .05 miles away from Fisk Sta-tion at Cermak Road and Carpenter Street. In addition, Bus Route 60, Route 8, Route 9, Route 18 are located within a mile. Trains are also located within a mile of the site and include the CTA Pink Line 18th Street Station, the CTA Orange Line Halsted Station, and the Metra Burlington Norther Santa Fe (BNSF) Hal-sted Station. Nearby highways include the Dan Ryan and Ste-venson Expressways.

In addition, two Planned Development (PD) parcels are located along the Chicago River to the east of Fisk Station. PD zoning is a special classification for larger development projects. It is in-tended to ensure adequate public review of proposals, encour-age unified planning, promote economically beneficial develop-ment patterns that are compatible with the character of existing neighborhoods, ensure a level of amenities appropriate to the nature and scale of the project, and encourage protection and conservation of natural resources.107

While the PD zoning classification includes a variety of regula-tions, land adjacent to waterways must meet specific develop-ment criteria to enhance and protect the “beauty, amenity, eco-nomic potential, recreation value and environmental quality of Chicago’s waterways.”108 A few of the requirements for PD wa-terfront parcels include providing public paths, landscaping, a setback from the water while complying with goals set forth in the city’s waterway design guidelines. The PD parcels include a small vegetated river trail.

Fisk Station’s close proximity to downtown, access to numerous roads, rail and bus transportation routes, and waterfront access on the South Branch of the Chicago River make the site an at-tractive location for redevelopment. The PD parcels also provide an opportunity to connect public river walks and natural, open space to Fisk Station.

30

31

62Ch

icag

o Su

stai

nabl

e In

dust

ries

InduStrIAL corrIdor:

Indu

stri

al c

orri

dor –

Pils

enLa

nd u

se

I2I2

I2

I2

I2

I2

Ib

Ib

c

c

c

c

35TH ST

CERMAK RD

16TH ST

ARCHER AVE

DA

MEN

AVE

HA

LSTE

D S

T

STEVENSON EXPY

WES

TER

N A

VE

ASH

LAN

D A

VE

26TH ST

DA

N R

YAN

EXP

Y

CULLERTON ST

RA

CIN

E A

VE

BLUE

ISLA

ND A

VE

UN

ION

AVE

DAN RYAN EXPY

31ST ST

STEW

AR

T AV

E

ASH

LAN

D A

VE

CULLERTON ST

RA

CIN

E A

VE

BLUE ISLAND AVE

94

90

55

57

290

Indus

trial C

orrid

orRa

ilroad

Tra

cks

CTA

Stati

onME

TRA

Stati

onCi

ty Bo

unda

ry

Manu

factur

ingPM

DsCo

mmer

cial/B

usine

ssRe

siden

tial

Mixe

d-us

e Pu

blic O

pen S

pace

Lege

nd

N Indus

trial C

orrid

orRa

ilroad

Tra

cks

CTA

Stati

onME

TRA

Stati

onCi

ty Bo

unda

ry

Manu

factur

ingPM

DsCo

mmer

cial/B

usine

ssRe

siden

tial

Mixe

d-us

e PDs

Publi

c Ope

n Spa

ce

Lege

nd

ZONI

NG

ZONI

NG

Manu

factur

ing

Manu

factur

ing w

ith av

ailab

le SF

Comm

ercia

l with

avail

able

SF

Vaca

nt bu

ilding

s and

/or la

nd

Comm

ercia

l/Bus

iness

Resid

entia

lMi

xed-

use P

DsPu

blic O

pen S

pace

LAND

USE

Institu

tiona

l

Manu

factur

ing

Manu

factur

ing w

ith av

ailab

le SF

Comm

ercia

l with

avail

able

SF

Vaca

nt bu

ilding

s and

/or la

nd

Comm

ercia

l/Bus

iness

Resid

entia

lMi

xed-

use P

DsPu

blic O

pen S

pace

LAND

USE

Institu

tiona

l

62 Chicago Sustainable Industries

Ind

uS

tr

IAL

co

rr

Ido

r:

Industrial corridor – PilsenLand use

I2I2

I2

I2

I2

I2

Ib

Ib

c

c

c

c

35TH ST

CER

MA

K R

D

16TH ST

ARCHER AVE

DAMEN AVE

HALSTED ST

STEVENSON EXPY

WESTERN AVE

ASHLAND AVE

26TH ST DAN RYAN EXPY

CU

LLERTO

N S

T

RACINE AVE

BLUE ISLAND AVE

UNION AVE

DAN RYAN EXPY

31ST ST

STEWART AVE

ASHLAND AVE

CU

LLERTO

N S

T

RACINE AVE

BLUE ISLAND AVE

94

90

55

57

290

Industrial CorridorRailroad TracksCTA StationMETRA StationCity Boundary

ManufacturingPMDsCommercial/BusinessResidentialMixed-use Public Open Space

Legend

N

Industrial CorridorRailroad TracksCTA StationMETRA StationCity Boundary

ManufacturingPMDsCommercial/BusinessResidentialMixed-use PDsPublic Open Space

Legend

ZONING

ZONING Manufacturing

Manufacturing with available SFCommercial with available SF Vacant buildings and/or land

Commercial/BusinessResidentialMixed-use PDsPublic Open Space

LAND USE

Institutional

Manufacturing

Manufacturing with available SFCommercial with available SF Vacant buildings and/or land

Commercial/BusinessResidentialMixed-use PDsPublic Open Space

LAND USE

Institutional

Zoning and Land Uses Surrounding Fisk Station

Adap

ted

From

: City

of C

hica

go. “

Indu

stria

l Cor

ridor

Zon

ing

& La

nd U

se M

aps-

Pilse

n.”

Fisk Station

While Fisk Station itself is a historic site, its surrounding neighborhood, Pilsen, also possesses a notable and vibrant past. Pilsen, located only 3 miles southwest of Chicago’s downtown, is bounded by 16th Street to the north, Western Avenue to the west, and the south branch of the Chicago River to the east and south. Pilsen has been histori-cally known as a port of entry for working-class immigrants, housing Pol-ish, Czechoslovakians, Lithuanians, and Mexicans throughout its past.109 The diverse immigrant populations have transformed Pilsen into a dynamic, unique neighborhood unlike any in Chi-cago.

In the late 1800s and early 1900s, Pil-sen’s close proximity to industrial facto-ries and affordable housing attracted Polish, Czechoslovakians and Lithuani-ans immigrants to the neighborhood.110 Bohemians transformed Pilsen into a self-sufficient enclave, with “an usually high degree of functional eclecticism.”111 Densely placed activities as well as mixed-use buildings were designed to enhance the efficient use of space and

provide an environment where all the immigrants’ basic needs could be met. Thus, the Bohemians “created a crazy quilt, mixed-use, urbanism that stands in sharp contrast to the carefully zoned and delimited neighborhoods that were subsequently added to Chicago in the course of the twentieth century.”112

The original European immigrants’ self-sufficient land use design helped shape Pilsen’s current density and vitality. To-day, compared with other neighbor-hoods in Chicago, Pilsen’s land use is unusually mixed as residential, commer-cial, and industrial buildings are all lo-cated on the same blocks. Although Pil-sen’s Planned Manufacturing District (PMD), which contains the majority of industrial activities, is positioned at the south end of the neighborhood, manu-facturing and warehouse buildings still operate in the heart of Pilsen in close proximity to parks, schools, and busi-nesses. Pilsen remains dense, with a population density almost twice that of Chicago, and contains few vacant lots.113

32

Pilsen: A Neighborhood Analysis

P. B

arry

C. V

ogel

The Bohemians, many of which were craftsmen or artisans, built or-nate European-inspired buildings in the area that “enthusiastically ex-pressed their national identity in architectural terms, constructing many buildings based on the forms and styles of in their homeland.”114 A large portion of the neighborhood’s historic struc-tures, constructed between the 1850’s and 1920’s, have been preserved.115 Not only does Pilsen contain a high proportion of his-toric buildings, but the community possesses some of the oldest pre-served housing in the entire City of Chicago.116 Pilsen was designated an historic district in the National Register of Historic Places in 2006 due its existing late nineteenth and early twentieth century properties.117

Pilsen’s unique neighborhood characteristics have also been strongly influenced by the influx of Mexican immigrants beginning in the 1950s.118 “Pilsen’s Bohemian builders were so successful in shaping an environment suited to their needs as newly arrived immigrants that the neighborhood continues to be dominated by immigrants and their American-born children a century later.”119 The mixed-use landscape provided an ideal setting for new Latino immigrants to retain their cul-tural identity and connection to their homeland by taking advantage of the existing dense land uses and spaces for cultural gatherings. Mexican immigrants preserved the urban fabric created by their Bo-hemian predecessors and adapted neighborhood space to meet their own distinct needs.

33

Chic

ago

Apar

tmen

t Fin

der

My

Life

in P

ilsen

Blo

g

I. Hy

nes

I. Hy

nes

The ethnic shift from Eastern Europeans to Latinos is still highly visible in the neighbor-hood’s physical form as historic European ar-chitecture that once celebrated the Bohemi-ans’ heritage now coexists alongside count-less Latino-inspired murals honoring South and Central American culture. “Pilsen’s 19th Century persona...has been overlain by a Mexican American sensibility, expressed in the numerous murals, mosaics, and pastel painted cottages on every block.”120

Today, Pilsen remains one of Chicago’s larg-est Latino communities and “boasts a sense of Mexican heritage unparalleled to any other Chicago neighborhood. The community hosts well-known festivals, adorns buildings with murals, and plays host to numerous ethnic businesses catering to Latinos.”121 Various amenities, affordable housing stock, churches, restaurants, and unique shops reflect Latino residents’ culture, lifestyle, and identity.

Pilsen’s major commercial arteries are located along 18th Street, Halsted Street, Western Ave-nue, Cermak Road, Ashland Avenue, and Blue Island Avenue. These main commercial strips feature a wide variety of stores “that attract tourists and customers from across the city, and a bustle of sidewalk vendors and other entrepreneurs.”122 Many of these local stores and restaurants have been owned and operated by the same families for generations.123

According to 2000 census data, Pilsen still contains a strong working-class community, with a median household income of $27,763, more than $10,000 below Chicago’s income of

$38,625.124 In 2000, Pilsen’s population was comprised of 88.9% Hispanics, with 49.1% of the population foreign-born.125

GENTRIFICATIONPilsen’s unique character, which originated from its Bohemian and Mexican residents, still remains a prominent feature in the neighbor-hood. However, within the past few decades, Pilsen has been targeted for urban renewal, designated as a desirable location for upscale redevelopment.126 Beginning in 1985, Pilsen began slowly shifting from a predominately working-class to higher-income area. As a result, the renewal and rebuilding of the neighborhood to accommodate higher-income populations runs the risk of displacing former residents that can no longer afford ris-ing property values or taxes.

Many of Pilsen’s neighborhood characteristics are conducive to gentrification. The close proximity to Chicago’s downtown area and the University of Illinois at Chicago, access to numerous transportation routes, relatively low rents and property values, and unique charac-ter have deemed Pilsen an attractive place to live.127 Tax-increment financing (TIF), the rise of the “Chicago Arts District” in East Pilsen, continual exceptions to zoning laws, political actions, and the decrease in manufacturing have also aided gentrification processes, making Pilsen increasingly attractive to artists and middle-class professionals.128 Because Pilsen’s manufacturing facilities are no longer central to the area’s economy, developers and

34

My

Life

in P

ilsen

Blo

gT.

Klei

n

builders have specifically focused on the con-version of abundant industrial properties into upscale residential lofts.129

With the increase in urban renewal processes, Pilsen’s property values and taxes as well as rents have all increased making the neighbor-hood less affordable to its existing Latino residents.130 Between 1990 and 200, housing prices rose on average by 68%, while be-tween 1995 and 2002, average rents in-creased by 44%.131 Increases in rental prices are a notable concern, as approximately 74% of all housing units are renter occupied, with almost 60% of residents spending more than 30% of their income on rent.132

Thus, long-time residents, particularly renters, are vulnerable to displacement as increasing property values demand higher paying cus-tomers. Businesses are also threatened as “higher income tenants...shopping habits and demands cut on their business and, in the event of total gentrification, tend to ride them out of business.”133

It is inevitable that Pilsen will contribute to change and grow with time. However, future redevelopment projects should be mindful of Pilsen’s existing residents and its ethnic heri-tage. Historic designation is vital in that it has helped protect the area against some gentrifi-cation processes by balancing upscale, new development projects alongside preservation. Rather than demolishing and replacing his-toric buildings with new construction, Pilsen’s original architecture and character that com-memorates historic development and different

working-class immigrant groups can be pro-tected.

LACK OF PARKS AND OPEN SPACEDue to the neighborhood’s high density, Pil-sen lacks green, open spaces.134 In addition, public access to open space along the South Branch of the Chicago River is practically non-existent as the area is closed off by in-dustrial business.135 The main green spaces are city parks, but beyond these parks:

the eastern portion of the neighborhood includes few trees and little grass. Be-cause the residential lots are so densely built, yard space is minimal. There are few public street lawns along the streets. Some houses that are not pushed up to the edge of their lots have small front and/or back yards, occasionally planted with decorative or vegetable gardens. The western section of the district is less densely built and has considerably more trees, street lawns, and yard space.136

In order to enhance the neighborhood quality of life, encourage recreation, and promote additional social interactions, Pilsen should have greater access to parks and open spaces. Fisk Station may be an ideal location to build a park and river walk, as the site con-tains a substantial amount of land situated along the South Branch of the Chicago River.

35

10

Rehabilitation costs, particularly if they include sustainable design plans, can become a prominent barrier that limits the initiation or con-tinuation of adaptive reuse projects. Adaptive reuse costs are influ-enced by a number of factors that vary according to different building and site conditions, including time, potential remediation levels, extent of structural or construction activity, ownership, and project size. Be-cause renovation projects face a larger probability for unintended costs, separate funds should be set aside to ensure rehabilitation is com-pleted. In many cases, there is a perception that the costs will be greater than the future benefits.

However, to offset various rehabilitation costs and avoid cost overruns, successful projects leverage multiple sources of investment and financ-ing mechanisms. Although certain funding sources vary depending on the intended land use outcomes, mobilizing a mix of public and private funds at each stage of the project can minimize costs. Public funding includes grants, tax credits, or tax-increment financing. Private funds can derive from businesses, developers, or other organizations to aid the initial equity investments, loans, or grants.

In order to offset remediation and renovation costs, the redevelopment and rehabilitation of Fisk Generating Station’s historic structures can financed through a variety of sources. Adaptive reuse projects similar to Fisk Station have utilized:137

1. Brownfield and Remediation Grants administered by the U.S. Envi-ronmental Protection Agency. Specific types consist of:

• Assessment Grants: provide funding to inventory, character-ize, assess, and conduct planning and community involve-ment related to brownfield sites.

• Revolving Loan Fund Program: funding for a grant recipient to capitalize a revolving loan fund and to provide sub-grants to carry out cleanup activities at brownfield sites. When loans are repaid, the loan amount is returned into the fund and re-lent to other borrowers, providing an ongoing source of capi-tal within a community. Recipients must generally cover a share of costs amounting to 20% of total funds awarded.

• Cleanup Grants: provide funds to carry out cleanup activities at brownfield sites. An eligible entity may apply for up to $200,000 per site. Cleanup grants require a 20% cost share, which may be in the form of a contribution of money, labor, material, or services, and must be for eligible, allowable costs.

2. The Economic Development Assistance Program administered by the Economic Development Administration: Funds are typically al-lotted to provide decent affordable housing and create economic opportunities, primarily for low and moderate income people. Grant criteria includes assisting economically distressed or underserved communities and addressing national strategic priorities such as technology-led development, global competitiveness and innova-tion, and sustainable development. Grant recipients generally bear 50% of project costs.

3. Community Development Block Grants administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development: Grants are used to provide decent housing, a suitable living environment, and ex-

36

Potential Funding Mechanisms

panded economic opportunities principally for low and moderate income people. Funds must be applied for by local government en-tities and may be used for housing development purposes. Projects must use at least 70% of the funding to benefit low and moderate income individuals.

4. Historical Preservation tax credits, grants, or other incentives ad-ministered by the National Park Service or from State Historic Pres-ervation Offices.

After a property is listed in the National Register, owners can take advantage of the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives pro-gram, federal preservation grants for planning and rehabilitation, preservation easements to nonprofit organizations, and possibly International Building Code fire and life safety code alternatives.138 Other financial aid for rehabilitating historic properties includes charitable contributions, state tax incentives, tax credits for low-income housing, and preservation easements. However, when fed-eral funding is involved, rehabilitation projects must comply with The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.

Administered through the National Park Service, Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and State preservation offices, the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives program offers either a 20% or 10% rehabilitation tax credit equal to the amount spend to rehabilitate a property. Although both lower the amount of tax owed on the prop-erty, the programs differ in terms of eligibility requirements.139

The 20% rehabilitation tax credit applies to “a certified rehabilitation of a certified historic structure.”140 A certified historic structure is a building listed in the National Register or located within a registered historic district. The tax credit is available for the rehabilitation of income-producing buildings, specifically, “commercial, industrial, agricultural, or rental residential purposes, but it is not available for properties used exclusively as the owner’s private residence.”141 A certified rehabilitation must be approved the National Park Service in order to prevent damaging or destroying the interior or exterior

features that define a building’s historic character. Finally, to be eli-gible for the 20% tax credit, the rehabilitation project must meet IRS requirements, which are stipulated in the National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services’s report Historic Preservation Tax Incentives.

After completing a rehabilitation project, certification paperwork is sent to the State preservation office and the National Park Service to be evaluated.142 The tax credit is claimed through an IRS tax form, which is filed with the National Park Service certification for the project. Finally, the property owner must possess the building for 5 years after rehabilitation is completed, or pay back the credit in varying amounts depending on the length of ownership.143

The 10% tax credit differs in that it can be applied to the rehabilita-tion of non-historic buildings placed in service before 1936.144 Re-habilitation must be for non-residential use only and cannot be used on certified historic structures. In addition, the project costs must exceed either $5,000 or the adjusted value of the property, which-ever is greater. While there is no formal review process for the 10% rehabilitation tax credit, the credit must be claimed through the IRS. Finally, projects must meet three criteria: at least 50% of the exter-nal walls existing at the time rehabilitation began must remain in place at the project’s conclusion, at least 75% of the existing exter-nal walls must remain in place as either external or internal walls, and at least 75% of the internal structural framework must remain in place.145

Additional funding for the rehabilitation of a historic property is available through the state preservation offices. The Illinois state preservation office, Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, provide other types of financial aid. For example, historic properties owned by non-profit organizations or public entities can qualify for the Illi-nois Heritage Grant Program, which is matches the funds used in rehabilitation.146

37

5. Listing as a Chicago Landmark can qualify a property for a number of funding incentives. For example, the rehabilitation of a building in a commercial or industrial use may be qualified for Class-L Property Tax Incentives, which reduces the property tax rate for 12 years if the building upholds to the Cook County’s land assessment re-quirements and the project includes a minimum investment of 50% of the building’s assessed value.147 Commercial, industrial, hotel, or office buildings can also qualify for the Facade Easement Donation, the Facade Rebate Program, or a Permit Fee Waiver for City Build-ing Permits.148 Other buildings may qualify for financial aid through Enterprise Zone Programs, the Vintage Homes Program, and Retail Chicago Business Assistance programs. Finally, landmark status at the city-level in Chicago can also provide building or zoning code exceptions and technical assistance from city preservation specialists.149

6. New Markets Tax Credits (NMTC): Individuals and corporate inves-tors receive a federal income tax credit for making qualified equity investments in designated Community Development Entities. NMTC are intended to attracts investment capital to low-income communi-ties. A 39% credit of the investment is provided and is claimed over a seven-year period. In each of the first three years, a credit equal to 5% of the amount paid for stock or capital interest at the time of purchase is allotted to the investor. In the final four years, the credit increases to 6% annually.

7. Tax Increment Financing (TIF): A tool used to finance a project using the steam of revenue created by the project or other projects within a TIF district. Typically, when a TIF district is created, the amount of tax revenue that the area is currently generating is set as a baseline level held over a period of time. The additional property tax growth spurred by community improvements and TIF funding can then be used to fund new redevelopment projects or pay back bonds issued to pay upfront costs.

Fisk Station is located within Pilsen’s Industrial TIF Corridor, a 907-acre district intended to preserve manufacturing within Chicago.150 According to the City of Chicago, funds within the 907-acre district

“are targeted for the assembly and preparation of land for new con-struction projects, to foster rehabilitation projects where feasible, and to assist with private and public investment projects that sup-port local institutional uses. Additional priorities include improve-ments to seawalls along the Chicago River and assistance for job training and readiness programs.”151 In the past, Pilsen TIF district funds has been allocated for redevelopment projects including a Target store, the Chicago International Produce Market, Steiner Linen Corporation, Benito Juarez High School, and road and infra-structure improvements.152

8. Fisk Station is also located in Enterprise Zone 1, a specific area in-tended to foster and create employment opportunities through in-centives such as sales tax exemption, property tax reduction, fi-nance assistance, real estate tax exemption, investment tax credit, state jobs creation credit, machinery and equipment sales tax ex-emption, and utility tax exemption.153

9. Other sources include: tax abatement for a specified time period, energy efficiency incentives, private or non-profit grants or loans, or other sources can also contribute funding to an project.

Fisk Station’s redevelopment could utilize these discussed financial mechanisms to minimize costs and reinvest money back into Pilsen. The total project costs will depend on a variety of factors such as the extent of environmental contamination, the final land and building uses, or the buildings’ structural issues. The majority of cases involving the successful adaptive reuse of coal-fired power plants have leveraged a mix of public and private funding sources at each stage of the redevel-opment project. Because recycling power plants can prove to be costly, these financing tools may help minimize costs and push adaptive reuse forward.

38

The future of Fisk Station is yet to be uncov-ered given the recent announcement to close Fisk Station. Site ownership, remedia-tion, zoning, and project funding represent only a few of the difficult hurdles ahead. Within the coming months and years, new information and plans regarding the site’s future will be unveiled, especially as Mayor Emanuel’s task force has recently begun to further investigate the redevelopment poten-tial.

City officials, private developers, community members, local organizations, and other in-terested stakeholders must first consider preserving Fisk Station’s various buildings. Fisk Station possesses a remarkable place in history, serving as a tangible representa-tion of Chicago’s development and the growth of the electric industry. The power plant’s recent history is also worth remem-bering and preserving. For over a decade, environmental and community organizations campaigned against the pollution and envi-ronmental injustices caused by Fisk Station. The struggles, embodied within the site, should be remembered by the community and Chicago at large.

Even though Fisk Station will no longer serve its original function in generating electricity, the soon-to-be obsolete facility holds enor-mous opportunities in regenerating eco-nomic activity and providing valuable serv-ices to Pilsen residents. Given its rich his-tory, large acreage, and waterfront access, Fisk Station possesses a strong reuse po-tential to once again house new economi-cally viable functions and serve as a com-munity anchor. While the closure of Fisk Sta-tion has been deemed a historic victory in itself, efforts should now turn toward pre-serving the site and assigning its existing buildings new, positive identities with bene-ficial functions.

The demolition of Fisk Station would mean the loss of architecturally district structures that symbolize the modernization of electric-ity in the twentieth century and community activism. The ornate buildings and their sig-nificance cannot be replaced once demol-ished. Even if demolition was deemed more cost effective than preservation, it is not a recommended option for redevelopment as it would remove invaluable and priceless structures from Pilsen. Instead, these build-

39

Recommendations for the Future Use Of Fisk Station

Environm

ental Law

and

Policy Ce

nter

ings should be allowed to continue to thrive and serve the surrounding community.

There is also the potential for the site to remain unoccupied, fenced-off, and unused. Similar to demolition, vacancy would eliminate the oppor-tunity to transform Fisk Station into a space to meet the needs of Pilsen residents, the community, and serve future generations. Given the cur-rent economic environment, redevelopment may become a lengthy, ex-tensive process, which could leave the 44-acre site vacant for an in-definite period of time. Prolonged vacancy would hamper community development and adversely affect the local economy. But, ideally, re-mediating, beautifying, and revitalizing Fisk Station can help recapture economic investment and allow people to utilize the once polluted land.

Given its rich historic and architectural significance, it is clear that Fisk Station’s buildings should be protected in order to become a perma-nent feature in Pilsen to contribute to the neighborhood's dynamic fab-ric. However, the prominent issue remaining is how to transform Fisk Station into a purposeful place that creates jobs, fosters business growth, and enhances residents’ quality of life.

In order to ensure Fisk Station is preserved and assigned new viable functions, the site needs to be further examined for the extent of reme-diation necessary, building integrity, and structural issues. In addition, feasibility studies, which would include a financial and economic as-sessment for future reuse, should be conducted along with an exten-sive dialogue process involving Pilsen residents, local organizations, representatives from community business, historical preservation or-ganizations, and redevelopment stakeholders.

The following recommendations for the site have been determined through site specific research and from utilizing the lessons presented in the case studies featuring the adaptive reuse of power plants, dis-cussed later. These recommendations are by no means meant to be definitive. Instead, they stand as suggestions which hopefully will in-spire other creative reuse ideas within and without the Pilsen commu-nity.

However, regardless of specific future land uses, Fisk Station’s build-ings, unique character, defining architectural features should be pre-served and restored. In addition, new functions should retain Pilsen’s cultural, ethnic, and historic values, while also encouraging positive community development and economic growth.

The recommendations are as follows:

1. Attain Historic Designation Status to Preserve Fisk Station’s Buildings

As discussed earlier, Fisk Station may be eligible for listing under the National Register of Historic Places or Chicago Landmark status due to its distinct architecture and historic value. Historic designation under either of these preservation programs may be vital in protecting Fisk Station’s buildings from demolition and to fund rehabilitation projects.

Fisk Station offers a variety of unique industrial and architectural fea-tures that have repeatedly preserved in the adaptive reuse of other power plants across the United States. While industrial equipment once used for generating electricity, such as the turbines, smokestacks, steam pipes, or coal hoppers, may seem unfavorable for redevelop-ment, other adaptive reuse projects have restored selected features to maintain the power plant’s identity. Projects have even taken advantage of these characteristics and used them as unique marketing tools. De-fining features onsite could be preserved.

One defining characteristic of older power plants is their spacious turbine-generator halls, which provide a large open space to house creative new functions. Fisk Station actually possesses two generator rooms due to the 1959 addition. Select industrial equipment or other invaluable pieces, such as the various plaques commemorating the site anniversaries, could be restored to showcase the site’s past in electric-ity generation.

Since it first began operating in 1903, Fisk Station’s buildings have been repeatedly altered. The 1959 turbine-generator room addition to the Original Powerhouse, which contained the original 5 MW turbine

40

and thus largely represents the site’s historic significance, is the most prominent example of all the site renovations. The construction of the large, red metal clad turbine-generator building led to changes in interior features, the deconstruction of the original boiler room, and re-moval of several smokestacks, which has compromised the historic integ-rity of the existing buildings. The site’s original integrity is crucial for listing the site in the National Regis-ter of Historic Places and as a Chi-cago Landmark.

However, many of Fisk Station’s his-toric and architectural features re-main on the site today. Though the 1959 addition drastically changed the Original Powerhouse’s initial form, the turbine room has been preserved and continues to exhibit unique inte-rior and exterior features dating back to its construction in 1903. Other buildings onsite seem to have under-gone less renovations.

The fact that Fisk Station has contin-ued to operate since 1903 should be considered in designating the site historic. From its need to continually generate greater electricity, the power plant required numerous tech-nologic upgrades. Stylistically differ-ent than the other historic buildings onsite, the minimal, modern design

featured in the 1959 addition to the Original Powerhouse architecturally reflects the time it was constructed. However, this building alongside the loss of other characteristics due to renovations are symbolic of Fisk Sta-tion’s ongoing functions that lasted for over a century.

Due to its more recent date of con-struction, the 1959 addition does not necessarily represent the site’s archi-tecture or significance in history. Al-though some of the existing industrial equipment may hold a degree of sig-nificance and could be showcased in an adaptive reuse project, the overall structure may not be worth saving. Demolition may be favorable in order to increase open space along the Chicago River, house new activities onsite, or place further emphasis on other historic buildings. While ac-commodating new functions, remov-ing this structure would also not compromise the overall integrity of the site and its separate buildings. However, the removal of the 1959 addition may be difficult if the Origi-nal Powerhouse is preserved be-cause the two buildings are physi-cally connected and may share structural features.

Yet, despite its lack of historic or ar-chitectural significance, the removal of the 1959 addition would be to se-

41

Hist

oric

Am

eric

an E

ngin

eerin

g Re

cord

McG

raw

-Pub

lishi

ng C

ompa

ny

lectively edit Fisk Station’s chronological de-velopment. The 1959 turbine-generator build-ing has become the visual representation for identifying Fisk Station due to its size, promi-nent red color, outward facing position, and smokestack that is visible from distant parts of the city. If preserved, the 1959 addition could commemorate Fisk Station’s distinct identity, operations, and events. The building could also pay tribute to the decade of activ-ism by environmental and community organi-zations against Fisk Station’s pollution, to the continual technological upgrades that oc-curred after the original 5 MW turbine’s initial success, and to the countless employees who worked at the site. If the redevelopment plans for Fisk Station intend to preserve the build-ing’s more recent industrial past, the red metal clad structure provides a unique visual connection and memory to the site.

The preservation of Fisk Station is vital in pre-serving Pilsen’s historic architecture and heri-tage. Without historic status, Fisk Station re-mains unprotected and cannot receive neces-sary financial aid for rehabilitation. The power plant is located just a block outside the Pilsen Historic District boundaries and, thus, is not a recognized as a historic landmark. In addition, a few of the buildings on site are rated “or-ange” on the City of Chicago’s Historic Re-sources Survey. Under Chicago’s Demolition-Delay Ordinance, these buildings would be subject for review during a 90-day hold before demolition, but only provides limited protec-tion against being torn down. Because his-toric designation listing relies heavily on local

political support, Fisk Station’s preservation must also seek to obtain aldermanic and offi-cials’ support.

In order to advocate for the historic preserva-tion of Fisk Station, residents, community or-ganizations, preservation groups, and city of-ficials should be involved to understand the site’s historical and architectural significance and ensure it is protected in the future. If nec-essary, methods to advocate for preservation could include a letter writing petition, gaining support by elected officials and city officials, meeting with the current owner Midwest Gen-eration to discuss preservation, directing preservation groups and community organiza-tions to lead campaign, or holding public events.

Although the discussed renovations and al-terations may pose a challenge in designating the site historic, Fisk Station’s buildings may still be eligible. Because Fisk Station contains numerous buildings, it is possible that only selected buildings could be listed. However, these historic buildings should be collectively preserved as they all once contributed to the site’s operations and significance. Many of the historic buildings still possess their essen-tial physical features and distinct architectural qualities that convey their significance within the entire power plant. Even though building features have been stripped over the power plant’s lifetime, historic designation will help ensure the unique characteristics will not be lost in the future.

42

E.A.

Rog

ers

2. Subdivide the Property for Mixed Land Uses

Fisk Station’s large site size and various historic buildings allows for a range of new, creative land use options. Mixed-uses may be the most beneficial option rather than a single purpose as it would take advan-tage of the site’s unique layout and could serve all stakeholders in-volved, particularly residents.

Each historic building onsite could one day hold different purposes. The diversity in each building’s attributes, such as square footages, layout, or location on the site, should be studied further for decision making. The unique buildings features should be utilized to assign the best new uses, that realistically fit into the spaces, and to attract potential ten-ants. For example, the Original Powerhouse contains a large turbine-generator room with tall ceilings and ornate interior details. The poten-tial uses of the Original Powerhouse would no doubt differ from the Frequency Changer House, which is much smaller in size and located closer to the remaining substation and Chicago River. Overall, redevel-opment should take full advantage of the potential create uses of Fisk Station’s unique buildings and layout.

Rehabilitating Fisk Station’s historic structures into market uses should be a priority in terms of restoring the loss in employment and tax reve-nues. In order to continue to support the city’s tax base and surround-ing community, there is substantial pressure for the redevelopment pro-ject to create an equal or larger amount of revenue and employment opportunities than those offset by Fisk Station’s retirement. Remedia-tion, rehabilitation, and construction on the site can generate diverse types of temporary jobs while the final redevelopment project will re-quire permanent employment positions. Attractions geared toward tour-ists may also be a considerable option to create permanent, year-round jobs and expand the local economy.

The new land and building uses should also be considered in regards to larger economic development goals and local issues in Pilsen. Under-standing the local context and public role is vital in creating new, valu-able, and economically viable building functions. To ensure Fisk Sta-tion’s reuse support Pilsen’s future prosperity, residents’ input, unmet

needs, and Pilsen’s long-term goals should be examined. The market for potential tenants and an assessment of the future prices for services in relation to residents’ need and affordability should also be evaluated.

Regardless of the specific future functions, general redevelopment goals for Fisk Station should include preserving and strengthening Pil-sen’s cultural and historic character, incorporating environmentally-friendly uses for residents to enjoy, providing affordable services to be used by residents, encouraging positive community investment, and triggering economic growth.

Overall, Fisk Station should play a supportive role in Pilsen’s future and avoid magnifying gentrification in the area. The gentrification processes occurring in Pilsen, specifically upscale development projects and the conversion of industrial spaces into artist work spaces or residential lofts, places Fisk Station in a precarious situation. The site’s large acre-age and waterfront access deems it an attractive, valuable property for private real estate developers. Given that the planning process for re-development has only just begun, it is difficult to chart a course for Fisk Station’s future role in the community. But Fisk Station should not be-come part of the current trend in demolition or the conversion of indus-trial spaces oriented toward higher-income populations. Instead, Fisk Station’s new land uses could be allotted to both public and private purposes.

Mixed-use development also may be crucial in dispersing project costs over time and in enhancing project feasibility. Because Fisk Station possesses a large site size, a unique layout, and separate buildings, redevelopment could occur in phases. Remediating or rehabilitating one building or land parcel at a time may lessen the financial risk due to continually monitoring changes in the marketplace and ensuring fund-ing will be available over the long-run.

In addition, a coordinated, staged process could also help avoid the vacancy of all buildings for prolonged periods and provide additional time to deal with other site problems. For example, the site is divided in a complicated manner in terms of ownership. ComEd owns transmis-sion and electric lines, a substation, and others structures located

43

throughout the site. Thus, if the site is developed, electric lines may need to be rerouted. Phased development could allow for some por-tions of the site to operate, while simultaneously addressing other prob-lems or planning aspects in different areas or buildings.

However, the question remains in how to make Fisk Station a purpose-ful place for all to benefit and learn from. Specific land use options could include new light industrial activity, small businesses, waterfront access and parks, or a museum or cultural center. Based on its current zoning and location, Fisk Station is ideal for housing new industrial ac-tivities. But zoning changes to allow other civic uses may also prove beneficial to the community.

Collectively, the potential new land and building uses discussed below could provide different types of jobs and various amenities to Pilsen residents. These recommended purposes are explained in greater detail below.

Industrial and Small Business Development With an Emphasis on SustainabilityFisk Station’s future land uses need to be considered in terms of zoning restrictions. Due its current location within Pilsen’s Planned Manufac-turing District (PMD) and its surrounding industrial operations, industrial operations remain an ideal future use. Fisk Station could potentially be transformed into a sustainable manufacturing facility in order to create green jobs and foster Pilsen’s economic growth. Because it is sur-rounded by a variety of industrial businesses, the site could also poten-tially work with nearby industrial businesses in terms of materials, divi-sion of labor, or the like. A green manufacturing facility is a feasible op-tion as this type of land use is permitted under the current PMD status and some of the existing industrial equipment could potentially be re-used. In addition, because Fisk is currently connected to the electric grid through its existing infrastructure, renewable energy generation could more easily be integrated into redevelopment designs.

Finally, Fisk Station could also serve as a location for sustainable work-force, technology, or business development in order to support green job training, entrepreneurship, and manufacturing growth. Large build-ings, such as the Administration Building or Switch House No. 1 could serve as a business incubator, which would house new businesses with modest means.

Parks and Open Space: Waterfront RedevelopmentPilsen has historically lacked parks and open spaces due to its density and development patterns. In addition, much of the Chicago River is closed off and inaccessible due to industrial operations. Today, “Many locals have a contradictory or complicated attitude toward the river. They see it as polluted, dirty, smelly…many local residents steer clear of the river or don’t even know exactly where it is or how to access it. This confusion is certainly justified. Winding through industrial areas and city fleet management vehicle depots, the stretch of waterway on either side of the Racine Avenue Pumping Station in Bridgeport is elu-sive, its banks mostly blocked and obscured by chain-link fencing, thick vegetation, and imposing old brick buildings.”154

Similarly, Fisk Station has been closed off to residents for decades. However, a portion of the site could potentially be transformed into a publicly accessible park, which features green space and trails. Be-cause Fisk is located on the South Branch of the Chicago River, it re-mains a valuable property that could provide future waterfront access, open space, and recreational activities to residents.

Two properties, zoned as Planned Developments (PD), are located to the east of Fisk Station and feature a short, vegetated public trail along the South Branch of the Chicago River. However, the trail is very short and most residents are not aware of its existence. The only entry point is located at the back of the distribution warehouse at 929 W. Cermak Road. The riverside path on the PD parcels to the east offer the poten-tial to extend the trail and green space to Fisk’s waterfront. Building a contiguous natural open space would welcome pedestrian traffic, fur-ther enhance the area’s environmental quality, and benefit the commu-

44

nity. Because Pilsen lacks parks and natural open spaces, adding a public river walk is essential.

Fisk Station could also prove important in changing the perception and nature of the Chicago River in Pilsen. The site could help improve upon the health and well-being of residents by providing recreational outdoor activities, such as sports fields, canoeing, kayaking, picnic areas, or fishing. Instead of polluting Pilsen and restricting access to the river, Fisk Station could one day provide a place for families to enjoy nature, learn about native plants and urban wildlife, and spend time together.

Fisk Station could potentially connect to Chicago’s water transportation system, making the site an new entry point for Pilsen. This may include extending river taxis, architectural boat tours, kayaking, and canoeing from the Loop. Although bringing river taxis and boat tours to Pilsen may seem costly or unlikely, waterway transit already extends to the nearby neighborhood of Chinatown and also has provoked an interest in involved stakeholders. Lynn Osmond, the Chicago Architecture Foundation President and CEO, has discussed extending the organiza-tion’s boat tours to Pilsen.155 The Foundation’s architectural boat tour is used by 200,000 people per year, producing $5 million in revenue for the company, not including the additional indirect impacts related to tourism. Osmond states:

Right now, the majority of the activity around the river is contained downtown, but that could be addressed…The plan is to continue that, ideally all the way to Pilsen, so that you end up with a continu-ous flow across the city…With Pilsen, if you had something to show along the river, people would start to see the area as an asset...It would be fabulous to go out to Pilsen regularly—if, every Sunday morning for instance, there was this extended river tour that really went up to the North and South Branches. The changes in the river have had a lot to do with the buildings. If you look at the number of new buildings in the last 20 years, a major proportion around the river has been built since then. Their success is clearly connected.”156

Connecting Pilsen to Chicago’s transportation and tourist system at Fisk Station could spur additional economic development in the neigh-borhood, draw more visitors to tour the Pilsen Historic District, and also provide a new transit route for residents.

With new green spaces and a water transit system, Fisk Station could become a distinguished site for both Pilsen and Chicago. It has the po-tential to become a destination, that draws in both community residents and tourist, while also providing an exciting place to visit and enjoy.

Museum or Education Center

One of Fisk Station’s historic buildings could potentially house a mu-seum or educational center to celebrate the history of Fisk Station or Pilsen’s ethnic or cultural past. A museum or education center is ideal as it could create year-round jobs and provide a learning environment for both residents and tourists.

One potential option would include creating a museum dedicated to the site’s industrial history and the growth of electricity, perhaps affiliated with Chicago’s Museum of Science and Industry. In addition to creating a place for all people to learn about electricity’s development and tech-nologic innovations, Fisk Station would also service as a memorial to the power plant’s role within the industry. Besides the historic buildings, a number of historic artifacts remain at the site today. For example, in-dustrial equipment related to past coal operations, the memorial garden which commemorates past employees and firefighters that have lost their lives in accidents, historic photographs, and large metal plagues that celebrated various site anniversaries could be preserved and re-stored within a museum. The original guestbook signed by hundreds of visitors, including Thomas Edison and Britain’s King George and Queen Mary, remains at the site. These original historic pieces are vital in hon-oring and remembering the importance of Fisk Station, but also in edu-cating the public on the site’s past.

Although the original 5 MW turbine has been removed from the site, it has been preserved and remains at General Electric’s headquarters in New York. The 5 MW turbine was a daring innovation for its day and led

45

to Fisk Station’s success. As a result, the turbine has been designated national engi-neering landmark by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. General Electric could return the 5 MW turbine to Fisk Sta-tion for public display and to commemorate the power plant’s past. Preserving both the industrial and non-industrial artifacts in Fisk Station would provide a unique educational experience for Pilsen residents and visitors.

Additionally, a museum could also be geared toward honoring Pilsen’s various cultures and immigrant, working-class groups that have greatly influenced the neighborhood’s development. A facility of this type could also adopt a broader historic focus in related to Pilsen’s Historic District and provide walking tours to nearby historic landmarks and shops. A museum dedicated to Pilsen’s culture and history will help pro-mote additional business opportunities and heritage tourism.

The creation of a museum in one of Fisk Station’s buildings would welcome pedes-trian activity. Thus, additional amenities, such as cafes, artist galleries, small stores, or performance spaces, could be built into the site to serve the needs of residents and visitors. However, if one of Fisk Station’s buildings were to be reused as a museum, the space should also be utilized to house neighborhood activities and support. Al-though tourism is important in strengthening Pilsen’s economic growth,

Tourist initiatives can be damaging to communities, such as Pilsen, where low-income residents are struggling for re-sources; these resources are instead be-ing funneled to support people who en-ter the community for a brief period of time, consume and absorb certain as-pects of it, and then leave it to its own self-preservation and the often polluting effects of this tourism....Tourism, how-ever, as a primary local development tac-tic may carry the danger of solely provid-ing an experience to the tourist while ig-noring factors influencing quality of life for its residents.157

Thus, tourism should not be prioritized over existing residents, but instead alongside community support. A cultural center could house meetings, public events, festivals, and exhibitions. In addition, other commu-nity resources and services, such as job training or placement, could be provided.

Fisk Station presents a rare opportunity in promoting an understanding and education of electricity, immigrant populations, and Pilsen’s historic aspects. Industrial equip-ment that once helped in the power plant’s operations along with other historic artifacts that remain at the site today. These unique features are vital in conveying information on Fisk Station’s rich legacy and paying tribute to its past. At the same time, Fisk Station can also house valuable community spaces that support Pilsen residents and their cultural activities.

46

Zin

k

Below: Thomas Edison and others standing in front of the 5 MW turbine in 1922. The turbine could po-tentially be returned to Fisk Station.

Far Below: Plaque commemorating Fisk Station’s 100-year anniversary, which could be preserved.

B.Sa

lmon

Moving Toward a Mixed-Use Future

These proposed uses demonstrate the extraordinary possibilities in assigning Fisk Station diverse and creative land options. After a detailed site

analysis, feasibility studies should be conducted to identify the site’s true market potential and ensure that the land use options adhere to the community’s needs.

47

Historic(Buildings


1. Original*Powerhouse2. Administra7on*Building3. Switch*House*No.*14. Switch*House*No.*25. Maintenance*Shop6. Frequency*Changer*House

7.**1959*Powerhouse8.**Transmission*Sta7on9.**Peaker*Units10.**Old*Transmission*Terminal*

1

2

36

5

410

9 8

7

B.Sa

lmonRight: Site layout of Fisk

Station, which could be subdivided for mixed-use purposes.

3. Integrate Sustainable Elements And Uses

Fisk Station’s historic preservation should be implemented alongside sustainable design. Fisk Station should follow in the footsteps of other adaptive reuse cases that have successfully restored a power plant’s original features, while also retrofitting the building to increase energy efficiency and lessen the site’s environmental impacts. Some power plants, which once polluted the surrounding neighborhood, are now LEED-certified structures. Additionally, these facilities have even inte-grated sustainability into their new building functions, such as in the case of a charter school’s curriculum.

Green infrastructure and design could include energy production via a geothermal system or solar panels, retrofitted historic windows, storm water management, energy efficient heating and cooling systems, green roods, or onsite urban agriculture. These sustainable elements should be used to showcase innovative solutions in reutilizing industrial power plants and how contaminated sites can be repurposed for a cleaner future. In addition, because the site is zoned for industrial activ-ity, the site could also potentially house businesses that manufacture sustainable-based products or technology.

Given the site’s history of pollution, sustainable aspects should be in-corporated into Fisk Station’s future land uses to improve upon resi-dents’ quality of health and the existing environment. Fisk Station should become a city attraction that demonstrates how a dirty power plant can be successfully transformed into an environmentally-friendly, vibrant space that engages public activity.

4. Multi-Stakeholder InvolvementMulti-stakeholder involvement is key in redeveloping Fisk Station, re-gardless of who is directing or funding the project. The city, elected of-ficials, private developers, preservation firms, Midwest Generation, en-gineers, architects, neighborhood organizations, residents, or any other local stakeholders should be involved in the planning process for the site’s future uses. These partnerships are necessary in order to provide

various expertise and perspectives, as well as to gain community, po-litical, or financial support for redevelopment.

However, each of these stakeholders will have different goals and ob-jectives for future use. For example, a real estate developer would be most interested in obtaining the best return on an investment, a preser-vation group would aim to save the original integrity of buildings, whereas Pilsen residents may want to focus on services they need most in the community. Fisk Station’s final use should try to satisfy most, if not all, interests involved, but should also place additional em-phasis for Pilsen residents and community organizations as the final land reuse would affect them most.

Thus, public engagement is crucial for the site’s success and the proc-ess must be opened to all residents for their input on the future land uses. Fisk Station played an important role in Pilsen’s local history and economy, through providing employment, revenue, and other financial assistance. In addition, the pollution generated by the power plant has been a major concern for residents and community organizations, trig-gered over a decade of protests. The redevelopment project within Pil-sen should strive to preserve historic and cultural identity while also meeting the community’s needs.

5. Competitive Project ProposalsBecause Fisk Station will no longer generate electricity by the end of 2012, new creative uses must be assigned to the property. As stated in the previous recommendation, a variety of participants should be in-cluded in the redevelopment process. Specifically, community organi-zations, students and departments from nearby Chicago universities, local architectural design companies, and engineering firms should be encouraged to engage in the process through designing site proposals or providing expertise on various topics.

Specially, a contest for the future land uses or architectural designs could be opened to the public, community organizations, and potential businesses. These types of proposals are vital in identifying unseen creative and innovative ideas to be used for finding unique future reuse

48

options. A competitive contest would help create a vision for the site’s fu-ture and allow the public to partici-pate in the planning process.

6. Creative Designs for the Existing SubstationWhile the redevelopment of Fisk Sta-tion would entail removing various industrial equipment that once aided electricity generation, the electrical substation, owned by ComEd, is to remain on the site after the power plant retires. The substation presents aesthetic and safety challenges for certain future land uses at Fisk Sta-tion. High voltage substations also need to be secured to ensure the public is protected from harm or possible malfunctions.

However, creative solutions can help merge electrical operations with a future increase in pedestrian or eco-nomic activity. For example, in Aus-tin, Texas, the substation at Seaholm Power Plant will be concealed with a wall. Additional information on the adaptive reuse of this site is dis-cussed later. Instead of a conven-tional barrier, the wall will showcase public art and various designs, which may include wood, concrete panels, perforated metal, and even rainbow-colored lights at night.158 Austin City Hall has approved the construction

of a 12 to 25 foot wall at an esti-mated cost of $800,000. The costs will be primarily funded by the prop-erty owner, Austin Energy. The re-maining costs will come from Aus-tin’s Art in Public Places program, which requires designated funds for city art projects.

Seaholm Power Plant’s redevelop-ment is to include new stores, a ho-tel, residences, and an event space, which will increase overall activity in the area. As a result, the wall is im-portant in creating a pedestrian friendly environment for enhanced safety, while also serving as an at-traction. Rather than remaining visu-ally unattractive or dangerous, the wall benefits both visitors and those who live or work near Seaholm Power Plant.

Fisk Station could potentially follow a solution like the one provided by Seaholm Power Plant that trans-formed an ordinary chain-linked fence into an artistic, unique wall. Additionally, a substation wall sur-rounding the substation at Fisk Sta-tion could take advantage of Pilsen’s artistic resources and contribute to Pilsen’s ethnic heritage. The wall could complement the neighbor-hood’s Latino-inspired murals and mosaics, that have long reflected the values of Pilsen residents.

49

14

Substation�Art�Wall

Southeast�Corner�at�Shoal�Creek�and�the�planned�2nd Street�Bridge

14

17

NIGHT.�Southwest�Wall�at�planned�2nd Street�and�West�Avenue,�across�the�street�from�the�Seaholm Power Plant.


17

25East�Wall�along�Shoal�Creek�Trail.


25

NADA

A

Below: Preliminary designs for the substation wall at Seaholm Power Plant in Austin, Texas.

NADA

ANA

DAA

In 1903, Fisk Station became a monument to the electric engi-neering world. When built, the power plant was the largest, most efficient steam generating plant in the world of its kind. Its origi-nal 5 MW turbines triumphed against the technologic limits of the reciprocating engine. As a result, Fisk Station aided the growth of electricity in Chicago as well as the electric industry at large through spurring rapid technologic improvements throughout the 20th century. Of Chicago Edison’s earliest central power stations, today Fisk Station is one of the only to survive. Thus, its historic buildings should be preserved to honor its in-novative, influential role and ornate architecture.

The closure of Fisk Station by the end of 2012 will have pro-found economic impacts on both Pilsen and Chicago. Although the site faces a number of redevelopment challenges, the newly formed task force created by the City of Chicago has begun to plan for the site’s future. However, the prospects for the adaptive reuse of Fisk Station are yet to be fully explored. It is uncertain whether it will remain a contaminated, unused, and fenced-off property or become a memorable, beneficial re-source for the community.

Many power plants across the United States today have been converted into valuable community spaces and remain impres-sive educational resources on the history of electricity. The re-development of Fisk Station should follow similar footsteps of past successful examples by showcasing the future civic, eco-nomic, and recreational value of repurposing power plants.

It is imperative that historic preservation and reuse are consid-ered for Fisk Station’s redevelopment. Although the power plant will no longer serve its original purpose, the buildings can be modified to house new functions. Fisk Station’s unique assets, classical revival architecture, historic significance, close proxim-ity to downtown Chicago, and waterfront access deem the site an ideal candidate for redevelopment and encourage project feasibility. The site offers valuable redevelopment opportunities that can drive employment and preserve community identity while improving public and environmental health. Transforming Fisk Station from an old, polluting coal-fired power plant into a vital neighborhood landmark would showcase positive commu-nity investment, celebrate current cultural values, and promote a healthy, sustainable future for Chicago.

The featured recommendations highlight the immense possibili-ties for Fisk Station, but are no means intended to define the site’s future. The extraordinary opportunities remain to be seen for Pilsen and for Chicago at large. However, if preserved and reused for positive purposes, Fisk Station’s historic buildings can become a valuable asset to Chicago, illustrating creative outcomes alongside historic preservation. The site should con-tinue to honor the ingenuity and modernization in the electric industry while also providing new economic benefits and an ex-citing place to visit. What was once the largest steam generating plant in the world should one day serve future generations with-out erasing the past.

50

Toward A Future In Historic Preservation and Adaptive Reuse

The following cases studies highlight successful adaptive reuse projects, which have been completed or are currently in the proc-ess of being redeveloped. In general, the examples demonstrate the extraordinary opportunities for power plants along with the best methods and different approaches for effectively recycling old, obsolete generating stations. Power plants have been repur-posed in other countries, which acknowledges these sites’ inter-national significance in redevelopment projects. However, for the purpose of this preservation plan, only examples located in the United States will be included. By only focusing on national case studies, these examples intend to present more realistic, practical project comparisons based on similar regulatory requirements, political structures, and funding options.

Many older coal-fired power plants possess inherent building characteristics that warrant these sites ideal for redevelopment. In addition, due to the economic factors associated with the use of coal for energy generation amidst stricter environmental regula-tions and competitive alternatives, a large number of existing power plants in the United States are planned or are looking to retire within the next few years or decade. As a result, coal-fired power plants have become attractive candidates for adaptive reuse due to their industrial features, unique architecture, size, and proximity to the waterfront or dense urban centers. As more old facilities close and no longer serve their originally intended purpose, they can be assigned a new, unrelated uses that incor-porates both sustainable design and historic preservation.

Power plants have been converted into a diverse range of new building and land uses for both public and private purposes. In past examples, these sites were transformed into offices, com-munity spaces, museums, schools, shopping centers, entertain-ment districts, condominiums and apartments, or mix-use devel-opments projects. However, regardless of the final building use, one of the most important aspects to be gained from the collec-tion of examples is that, even though reusing power plants can be one of the most challenging types of adaptive reuse, projects are feasible and have been successful. The cases studies from across the United States strongly illustrate that, many times, redevelop-ment is worth the challenge.

Collectively, these case studies create a compelling case for re-mediating and repurposing other valuable retiring or decommis-sioned power plants. While the physical transformations are visu-ally impressive, these projects symbolize the coexistence of his-toric preservation and sustainability through preserving the origi-nal industrial history while simultaneously assigning a more environmentally-friendly purpose to benefit the surrounding com-munities.

The adaptive reuse of coal-fired power plants is not limited to the six case studies presented below. For example, in Portland, Ore-gon, Station L Power Plant was converted into the Oregon Mu-seum of Science and Industry, which features sustainable design elements and cost a total of $40 million.159 The South Street Power Station, located in Providence, Rhode Island, will be soon

51

Case Studies: The Adaptive Reuse of Power Plants

house a restaurant, museum, office space, and luxury hotel at a cost estimated to total over $150 million.160 In 2013, PG&E Power Station B, in Sacramento, California, will be reopened as the Powerhouse Science Center, a high-tech education facility that is estimated to cost $50 million.161 Other repurposed power plants, or those that are in the process of being redeveloped, include: Salem Harbor Power Station, in Salem Massachusetts; Chester Power Station in Chester, Pennsylvania, IRT Powerhouse in New York City, New York; Pennsylvania Railroad Powerhouse in Queens, New York; Mission Road Power Plant in San Antonio, Texas; and Ottawa Street Power Station in Lansing, Michigan. The growing number of projects featuring the adaptive reuse of power plants indicate that these buildings and sites are an attractive and popular redevelopment option for cities and developers.

Lessons LearnedEach case study highlights the different approaches in preserving historic, architectural characteristics and assigning a new purpose to an obsolete power plant. Although each adaptive reuse exam-ple is unique, collectively they illustrate a variety of lessons in re-gards to recycling coal-fired power plants. The valuable lessons gained from examining these case studies include:

‣ A power plant’s close proximity to an urban center or location along the waterfront has aided redevelopment through spur-ring private investment and attracting City attention. Even though these buildings have outlived their original use, they are typically located on properties that have an underlying value. This may be due to the existing infrastructure, transpor-tation access, or other nearby services.

‣ The success of a project is not necessary based on the final building or land use, as power plants have been repurposed for a variety of new public or private functions. However, the surrounding area should be examined in order to determine what is the best fit for reuse.

‣Many power plants have been left vacant for years or decades after they have been decommissioned, which can contribute to the erosion of a neighborhood’s character and harm the lo-cal economy. Instead of remaining derelict or vacant, sites have become attractive, integral parts of the surrounding neighborhood by generating new jobs, tax revenue, and busi-ness opportunities.

‣ In some cases, the adaptive reuse of a specific project has spurred further economic development in the surrounding area or has been implemented in conjunction with larger redevel-opment plans.

‣ Power plants offer a variety of unique industrial and architec-tural features that have repeatedly been preserved in the final reuse. Industrial equipment once used for generating electric-ity, such as the turbines, smokestacks, steam pipes, or coal hoppers, may seem unfavorable for redevelopment. However, the original features have been preserved in many buildings in order to maintain the power house’s identity and have even been used as a unique marketing tools.

‣ Older power plants’ large turbine-generator halls provide a vast open space to house new building uses. These turbine-generator halls are an appealing building feature due to the versatility in implementing new functions or purposes.

‣Multi-stakeholder involvement is key regardless of who is di-recting or funding the project. The city, private developers, neighborhood organizations, and residents should be involved in the planning process. These partnerships are necessary in order to gain social, political, or financial support to move the redevelopment process forward.

‣Who currently owns the site may determine the future for adaptive reuse. For example, in some cases, the power plant may still be owned by the utility company, who may refuse to sell the site to pursue their own objectives or, conversely, place the building on the market to earn a profit. However, many power plants have been repurposed due to strong ex-

52

ternal support outside the utility company, by community or-ganizations or the local government.

‣ Because power plants are or once were a vital part of a neigh-borhood’s local history and economy, residents and commu-nity organizations play a strong role in the redevelopment process. In some cases, citizens have been the driving force behind adaptive reuse and have helped determine the final land use options. Understanding the local context and public role is vital in creating a new, valuable, and economically vi-able building function.

‣Most coal-fired power plants require remediation, which typi-cally entails dismantling industrial equipment as well as re-moving asbestos, lead paint, underground tanks, or any other hazardous materials. The extent of remediation depends on a variety of factors, such as the building’s age.

‣ Although the total costs for an adaptive reuse project varies case to case, recycling power plants can become more ex-pensive due to environmental clean up efforts or the final building use. A few projects were primarily funded by private investments. However, most adaptive reuse examples utilized a variety of financial mechanisms from both public and private sources to minimize the total costs and help pay for each stage of redevelopment.

‣ In some examples, historic preservation has been imple-mented alongside sustainable design. These projects highlight the ability to successfully restore a power plant’s original char-acteristics, while also retrofitting features to increase energy efficiency and lessen the environmental impacts caused by the building. Some power plants, which once polluted the sur-rounding neighborhood, are now LEED-certified structures. In one case, sustainability was even integrated into a charter school’s curriculum.

‣ In general, the “best” adaptive reuse design depends on a number of circumstances, including the building characteris-tics and future site use. Many times a reuse design reflects the

community’s goals or civic pride. In some examples, only the exterior of the original power plant has been preserved. How-ever, in other cases, the industrial equipment has either been reutilized for new manufacturing purposes or has been re-stored as a showcase piece to pay tribute to building’s history in power generation. Regardless of the final reuse, repurposing power plants provides a unique opportunity to preserve and repurpose a building’s distinctive architecture and structural features.

The highlighted case studies display diverse and ambitious final building and land options for power plants. These industrial relics, many of which remained vacant for decades before redevelop-ment, today serve as an impressive, educational resource on the history of electricity. The lessons learned are crucial in under-standing the different strategies and factors related to the reuse of power plants. They have demonstrated the methods used to pre-serve a powerhouse’s original character and assign these spaces new functions. In addition, these examples emphasize the future civic, economic, and recreational value of repurposing power plants, especially as they have helped foster community revitali-zation in the past.

These case studies are valuable in considering the adaptive reuse of Chicago’s Fisk Generating Station. Analyzing how similar struc-tures have been reused may be worthwhile in determining the site’s final outcome. Placing the location and other local redevel-opment challenges aside, each example is relevant for comparing and determining Fisk Station’s adaptive reuse potential. The in-formation and insight yielded from these examples shed light into how Fisk Station could similarly benefit from adaptive reuse and helps visualize the creative possibilities for the site’s future.

53

54

Original Use: Pratt Street Power Plant, 1900-1973Current Use: Mixed-use entertainment, retail, and office spaceRedevelopment Dates: 1995-1999Project Costs: $50 millionMajor Funding Mechanisms: Private funding from Cordish Companies

Key Project Features and Results:‣ After sitting vacant for many years, the

City of Baltimore bought the site in 1977. However, after a number of failed attempts to reuse and renovate the power plant, the City allowed Cordish Co. to convert the site into an enter-tainment hub. Thus, this example high-lights adaptive reuse success through public-private partnerships and large private investments.

‣ The site’s new uses include ESPN Zone, the Hard Rock Cafe, Barnes and Noble, and a variety of restaurant. To-day, the Pratt Street Power Plant is a tourist destination, which attracts about 10 million visitors and generates millions of dollars in taxes to the public sector.

Key Project Features and Results:‣ The building is architecturally signifi-

cant, featuring Neo-Classical details, and also played an important role in the development of Baltimore City, as it

provided power to the city’s trolley sys-tem. It was placed on the National Register in 1987.

‣ The adaptive reuse project is an excel-lent example of visually preserving the past industrial uses of the site. Cordish Co. preserved many original building features, including the four smoke-stacks, coal chutes, and large open floor plan.

‣ Due to the Power Plant’s success, Cordish Co. invested an additional $35 million in the adjacent pier, creating a continuous entertainment district. Opened in 2001 and 2002, Power Plant Live! features an outdoor live-music venue, restaurants, bars, and clubs.

Redevelopment Issues:‣ During the 1980s, Six Flags Theme

Parks attempted to convert the power plant into an indoor amusement park. The amusement park failed and was closed in 1989, leaving the site vacant.

‣ During redevelopment, Cordish Co. wanted to increase the openness of the building’s interior by removing the original coal chutes and smokestacks. However, Maryland’s historic preserva-tion agency vetoed the idea, forcing the company to adapt its reuse plans. Today, the coal chutes at the base of the smokestacks are used as reading rooms in Barnes and Noble.

Pratt Street Power PlantBaltimore, Maryland! ! !

Maryland Historic Trust

Cordish Co

.

55

Original Use: Moran Plant, 1953-1986Current Use: To be converted into a LEED

certified, community-owned recreation center

Site Size: Approximately 4 acresRedevelopment Dates: 1990-Project Costs: $16-20 million

Major Funding Mechanisms:‣ City of Burlington ‣ Vermont Department of Environmental

Conservation Grants‣ Federal Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credits‣ Tax Increment Financing‣ New Market Tax Credits‣ U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development: Brownfields Economic Development Initiative Grant, Section 108 Loan, Community Development Block Grant

‣ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Brownfields Assessment Grants and Brownfields Sustainability Program Grant

Key Project Features and Results:‣ The previous building owner, Burlington

Electric, had properly decommissioned Moran Plant by removing most major equipment and hazardous materials. Al-though additional remediation was

needed to prepare Moran for reuse, these previous efforts served as a rede-velopment advantage.

‣ In order to finance the project without increasing property taxes, the City of Burlington utilized multiple funding sources for all stages of the redevelop-ment process, including site analysis, remediation, and rehabilitation. Redevel-opment is also intended to be self-supporting, as future tenants renting the space will generate revenue for the City to cover expenditures.

‣ The project is anticipated to trigger eco-nomic growth for the city by creating 500 construction and 80 permanent jobs.

‣ Moran Plant sat vacant and contami-nated for many years, but will soon serve as a new recreation center, or “family adventure center,” intended to benefit the community. An indoor ice skating rink, rocking climbing, sailing center, as well as restaurants and cafes will be built at Moran. The site is also part of a larger waterfront park redevelopment plan, that includes new bike paths, green space, and a skate park.

‣ Sustainable elements are to be incorpo-rated into Moran Plant’s new design.

Shay To?

enWaymarking

Moran PlantBurlington, Vermont! ! !

56

Redevelopment Issues:‣ Over the course of planning, two potential tenants, the

Lake Champlain Maritime Museum and the Vermont Children’s Museum, withdrew their offers to rent spaces onsite. Their offers were withdrawn due to construction delays caused by the postponement of the develop-ment agreement and financial negotiations between the

City and the developer, which needed City Council ap-proval.

‣ Although the adaptive reuse of Moran Plant has been funded by a variety of sources, future tenants are vital in financing the project’s debt.

Jane

Lindh

olm

Moran PlantBurlington, Vermont! ! !

57

SDG&E Station BSan Diego, California

Original Use: SDG&E Station B, 1911-1983Current Use: Electra Condos, luxury residential high riseRedevelopment Dates: 2005-2008Project Costs: $248 millionMajor Funding Mechanisms: Pri-

vate by Bosa Development Co.

Key Project Features and Results:‣ Station B once powered San Di-

ego’s streetcar system. The origi-nal building featured both Neo-classical and Art Deco architec-ture. Due to its aesthetic and his-toric significance, the building was designated a City Landmark in 1998, despite the fact that the smokestacks were removed in 1994.

‣ After remaining vacant for 20 years, Bosa Development Co. converted Station B into San Di-ego’s tallest residential building at 43-stories tall. The units were o r i g i n a l l y p r i c e d b e t w e e n $500,000 and $2.5 million.

‣ Today, Electra Condos features luxury amenities such as an open

lounge, business center, 24-hour concierge and security service, fitness center, roof-deck, swim-ming pool, and garden.

‣ In order to construct the 43-story residential building within its landmark status, Bosa Develop-ment Co. only preserved Station B’s original facade and built the high-rise tower on top. Although the original turbine hall was de-molished, it was rebuilt in the final design to match the original and now functions as a conservatory. Station B is an interesting exam-ple of adaptive reuse in that only the facade has been preserved.

‣ Projects with large redevelopment costs, like the $248 million pro-vided Bosa Development Co., are typically endured by private in-vestments.

San Diego State University

Lew Breeze

Danne

cker & Associates

58

Comal Power PlantNew Braunfels, Texas

Original Use: Comal Power Plant, 1925-1973Current Use: Landmark Lofts, residential lofts and apartmentsSite Size: 28 acresRedevelopment Dates: 2005-2008Project Costs: Approximately $35.5 million Major Funding Mechanisms: ‣ Private: $20 million for building renovation

by the Larry Peel Company‣ Public, quasi-governmental utility com-

pany: $11.5 million for the environmental clean up by the building’s previous owner and operator, Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA)

Key Project Features and Results:‣ After standing vacant for almost 30 years,

the previous owner and operator of the site, LCRA, began remediation. LCRA was not required to clean up Comal Power Plant, and instead could have demolished or continued to leave the site vacant. However, remediation, which was com-pleted in 1999, entailed dismantling gener-ating equipment, stripping lead paint, re-pairing the Comal Dam, as well as remov-ing asbestos and other hazardous materi-als.

‣ After remediation, private funding largely paid for the rehabilitation of Comal Power Plant. Larry Peel Company converted the site into 110 lofts and also built 178 sepa-rate apartments on the surrounding prop-erty. Although primarily residential, the site also houses vacation rentals, offices, and retail space.

‣ When built in 1926, the site was the largest power plant west of the Mississippi River. The power plant originally carried out President Roosevelt’s initiative to spread power to rural areas and farms and also played an important role in supplying elec-tricity to military bases during World War II. In 2004, the building was listed in the Na-tional Register of Historic Places and re-ceived Recorded Texas Historic Landmark designation. Due to its National Register status, tax credits were used for rehabilita-tion.

‣ Many of the building’s original features were preserved, including a 100-ton crane inside. The exterior also retained the same basic appearance, with the preservation of two smokestacks and the original LCRA roof-top sign.

‣ Comal Power Plant’s redevelopment was enhanced given the fact that the site is lo-cated adjacent to the Comal River and Landa Park, both popular recreation areas and tourist attractions.

Larry Peel Com

pany

Larry Peel Com

pany

59

Seaholm Power PlantAustin, Texas

Original Use: Seaholm Power Plant, 1950-1989Current Use: To be converted into a mixed-use retail, office, condominiums, hotel, event, and more than 3 acres of open green spaceSite Size: 7.8 acresRedevelopment Dates: 2005-Project Costs: $150-180 millionMajor Funding Mechanisms: Public-private partnershipKey Project Features and Results:‣ Seaholm Power Plant features Art

Deco Moderne style architecture, which will be preserved in the final reuse project. While the site was deemed eligible to be listed in the Na-tional Register of Historic Places, it has yet to be officially designated as his-toric.

‣ The original driving force behind the site’s redevelopment was due to the local citizens group, Friends of Sea-holm. In 1996, Friends of Seaholm be-gan campaigning to save the site and convert it for new public uses. The

group’s collective action led the Austin City Council to examine Seaholm Power Plant’s adaptive reuse potential and form a planning committee. As a result, the City directed the public util-ity, Austin Energy, to decommission the site. The redevelopment process has continued to heavily involve the public.

‣ In 2004, the City and Austin Energy completed site remediation processes. The 9-year, $15 million environmental cleanup effort entailed removing indus-trial equipment, asbestos, metal-based paints, mercury, and polychlorinated biphenyls.

‣ After the power plant was deemed ready for reuse, the City considered bids from developers, eventually ac-cepting $117.2 million from Seaholm Power Plant, LLP.

‣ The final site uses includes a concert and event space, a 160-room boutique hotel, 800 condominiums, offices, retail shops, and open green space. The project is expected to create over 200 jobs and generate $2 million in tax revenue annually.

Friend

s of Seaho

lm

60

Key Project Features and Results:‣ Seaholm Power Plant showcases a successful example of a public-

private partnership. While the majority funds are from private sources, the City contributed over $18 million to the total project costs, to be used for street and utility projects, public parks, and a parking garage. The City also initiated remediation, began planning for the site’s reuse by forming a redevelopment team, and created a Tax-Increment Financing zone. Seaholm Power Plant’s success is largely due to the City’s strong involvement and close collaboration with the site developer, Seaholm Power Plant, LLC.

‣ Like most adaptive reuse projects featuring power plants, an electri-cal substation typically remains on the site. However, these substa-tions present aesthetic and safety challenges. Seaholm Power Plant’s redevelopment included a unique way to merge electrical operations with the future increase in pedestrian, residential, and economic activity. Austin City Hall approved the construction of a wall, estimated at $800,000, which will confine the electrical substa-tion. In addition, instead of building a conventional barrier, the sub-station wall will feature public art, making the project Austin’s most expensive public art project to date. The majority of funding will be provided by Austin Energy, with the City’s Art in Public Places pro-gram paying the rest.

Seaholm Pow

er, LLC

Seaholm Power PlantAustin, Texas

Seaholm Pow

er, LLC

61

Original Use: Sears, Roebuck, & Co. Power House, 1905-1973

Current Use: Power House High (Public Charter High School) and Charles H. Shaw Technology and Learning Center

Site Size: 90,000 sq. ft. building on a 55-acre site

Redevelopment Dates: 2005-2009Project Costs: $48 millionMajor Funding Mechanisms: ‣ Approximately 50% of funding derived

from private contributions: capital cam-paign, loans, and the Homan Arthington Foundation

‣ Federal Historic Tax Credits‣ New Market Tax Credits‣ City of Chicago, Chicago Development

Fund ‣ Grants, from organizations such as the

Illinois Clean Energy Community Foun-dation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

Key Project Features and Results:‣ The Sears Power House once provided

electricity to the entire 55-acre Sears complex, the largest mail order and mer-chandise facility of its time. The complex closed in 1973 when Sears moved its headquarters to downtown Chicago. Many buildings on site were designated a

National Historic Landmark in 1978. However, the Sears Power House sat va-cant for over 30 years.

‣ In the late 1980s, Sears’ executives, de-veloper Charlie Shaw, and the City be-gan to plan the redevelopment of the entire Sears complex, today known as Homan Square.

‣ Before it was suggested to convert the building into a school, the developers spent approximately $2 million on reme-diation to remove asbestos and lead paint.

‣ The Power House was converted into a public charter high school and a com-munity meeting center. Rather than re-main vacant, the building now provides a valuable space and educational re-sources to benefit the neighborhood and its residents.

‣ As part of a larger neighborhood rede-velopment plan, the adaptive reuse of the Sears Power House has helped revi-talize Homan Square. Today, Homan Square has expanded through providing new neighborhood services, mixed-income housing units, shops, grocery stores, a movie theater, a police station, recreation and health centers, and schools.

John

Chu

ckman

“Hom

an Squ

are Po

wer Hou

se”

Sears, Roebuck, & Co. Power HouseChicago, Illinois

62

Key Project Features and Results:‣ The project highlights multi-stakeholder involvement. Planning for

Power House High’s reuse incorporated public, private, and com-munity partnerships with The City of Chicago, Homan Arthington Foundation, Henry Ford Learning Institute, MacRostie Historic Advi-sors, architects from Farr Associates, community leaders, and busi-nesses representatives. Although almost 50% of the total project costs were funded by private investments, the City played an impor-tant role by contributing millions of dollars in road, sewer, and infra-structure improvements and also committed $15 million to building a new Park District site.

‣ The Sears Power House is an excellent of merging historic preserva-tion with sustainable, green design. The project preserved many of the building’s historic and industrial features such as the original windows, terra cotta floor tiles, a turbine, 40-ton gantry crane, the

smokestack, coal hoppers, coal ash conveyor belt, and steam pip-ing. In addition to restoring the powerhouse’s original characteris-tics, Power House High also achieved LEED-Platinum status with from installing a geo-thermal heating and cooling system, retrofitted historic windows, energy efficient lighting system, and low-flow toi-let features. The turbine room, in which an original turbine has been preserved, now serves as a cafeteria, school assembly hall, and community event space.

‣ Power House High also showcases the successful integration of historic preservation and sustainable development in power plants, especially for educational purposes. The school’s curriculum at Power House High incorporates themes associated with environ-mental sustainability and green technology.

Darris Lee Harris

Darris Lee Harris

Foun

daOo

n for Hom

an Squ

are


63

Darris Lee Harris

Foun

daOo

n for Hom

an Squ

are


Foun

daOo

n for Hom

an Squ

are

64

Case Studies: Section References

Pratt Street Power PlantColumbia University, Department of Historic Preservation of the Gradu-

ate School of Architecture, Planning & Historic Preservation. Pre-serving the Former IRT Powerhouse: A Preservation Plan, Columbia University, 2009, 68-69.

Cordish Companies. “Featured Developments.” The Cordish Compa-nies, 2008. http://www.cordish.com/sub.cfm?section=newdev

Hequet, Marc. “Power Plants.” Retail Traffic, November 1, 2006. http://retailtrafficmag.com/development/retail_power_plants/

Maryland Historical Trust's National Register.,“Pratt Street Power Plant,” Maryland Historical Trust. Accessed March 10, 2012, http://mht.maryland.gov/nr/NRDetail.aspx?HDID=978&FROM=NRMapFR.html

Scadden, Richard A. “Adaptive Reuse of Obsolete Power Plants.” Pres-entation at the Air & Waste Management Association (A&WMA) 94th Annual Conference, Orlando, FL, June 2001, 5.

Moran PlantCity of Burlington, Vermont, Community and Economic Development

Office. “Moran Plant: Overview.” Burlington Community and Eco-nomic Development Office. Accessed March 1, 2012. http://burlingtonvt.gov/CEDO/Waterfront/Moran/Overview/

City of Burlington, Vermont, Community and Economic Development Office. “Moran Plant: History and Past Ideas.” Burlington Commu-nity and Economic Development Office. Accessed March 1, 2012. http://burlingtonvt.gov/CEDO/Waterfront/Moran/History-and-Past-Ideas/

City of Burlington, Vermont, Community and Economic Development Office. “Moran Plant: Financing Plan.” Burlington Community and Economic Development Office. Accessed March 1, 2012. http://burlingtonvt.gov/CEDO/Waterfront/Moran/Financing-Plan/

City of Burlington, Vermont, Community and Economic Development Office. “Moran Plant: Site Data.” Burlington Community and Eco-nomic Development Office. Accessed March 1, 2012. http://burlingtonvt.gov/CEDO/Waterfront/Moran/Site-Data/

De Sousa, Christopher. “Moran Center, Burlington, Vermont: A U.S. EPA Brownfields Sustainability Pilot.” University of Illinois at Chicago, Institute for Environmental Science and Policy, June 2011.

www.uic.edu/orgs/brownfields/research-results/documents/MoranCenter.pdf

Engineering Ventures. “Moran Plant Renovation.” Engineering Ventures. Accessed March 1, 2012. http://www.engineeringventures.com/projects/structural-engineering/recreational/moran-plant-renovation

ENPRO Services, Inc., “From EPA Brownfields Site to Community Cen-ter,” ENPRO Services, Inc., 2010, www.enpro.com/testimonials/MoranPowerPlant.pdf

Lindholm, Jane. “Bob Kiss on IRV, Burlington Telecom And The Moran Plant.” Vermont Public Radio, March 4, 2010. http://www.vpr.net/news_detail/87395/bob-kiss-on-irv-burlington-telecom-moran-plant

“Moran Municipal Generation Station - Burlington, Vermont.” Waymark-ing, accessed March 12, 2012. http://www.waymarking.com/gallery/image.aspx?f=1&guid=737a5463-edf6-44b2-bcc0-bb94e967b175

Totten, Shay. “Burlington May Finally Give the Old Moran Plant a New Life.” Seven Days, September 23, 2009. http://www.7dvt.com/2009burlington-may-finally-give-old-moran-plant-new-life

Totten, Shay. “Maritime Museum Withdraws from Moran Redevelop-ment.” Seven Days, September 28, 2011. http://7d.blogs.com/blurt/2010/09/maritime-museum-withdraws-from-moran-redevelopment.html.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Burlington Reaps $25K EPA Grant for Brownfields Sustainability Project,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Re-development of Former Coal Plant. News Releases from Region 1, September 4, 2008. http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/6d651d23f5a91b768525735900400c28/8ace26d5891e188b852574ba006bc828!OpenDocument

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Green Design Options for the Moran Center at Waterfront Park Revitalization Project.” U.S. Envi-ronmental Protection Agency. Accessed March 2, 2012. epa.gov/brownfields/sustain_plts/factsheets/burlington_susfs.pdf

SDG&E Station BBosa Development. “Electra.” Bosa Development. Accessed March 1,

2012. http://electra.bosadev.com/

65

http://www.cordish.com/sub.cfm?section=newdev


http://retailtrafficmag.com/development/retail_power_plants/




http://mht.maryland.gov/nr/NRDetail.aspx?HDID=978&FROM=NRMapFR.html






http://burlingtonvt.gov/CEDO/Waterfront/Moran/Overview/


http://burlingtonvt.gov/CEDO/Waterfront/Moran/History-and-Past-Ideas/






http://burlingtonvt.gov/CEDO/Waterfront/Moran/Financing-Plan/


http://burlingtonvt.gov/CEDO/Waterfront/Moran/Site-Data/


http://www.uic.edu/orgs/brownfields/research-results/documents/MoranCenter.pdf






http://www.engineeringventures.com/projects/structural-engineering/recreational/moran-plant-renovation






http://www.enpro.com/testimonials/MoranPowerPlant.pdf


http://www.vpr.net/news_detail/87395/bob-kiss-on-irv-burlington-telecom-moran-plant/






http://www.waymarking.com/gallery/image.aspx?f=1&guid=737a5463-edf6-44b2-bcc0-bb94e967b175




http://www.7dvt.com/2009burlington-may-finally-give-old-moran-plant-new-life




http://7d.blogs.com/blurt/2010/09/maritime-museum-withdraws-from-moran-redevelopment.html




http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/6d651d23f5a91b768525735900400c28/8ace26d5891e188b852574ba006bc828!OpenDocument






http://electra.bosadev.com


Breeze, Lew. “San Diego's Comprehensive Source for Downtown Living: Electra.” Lew Breeze. Accessed March 1, 2012. http://www.sdcondo.com/electra.html

Columbia University, Department of Historic Preservation of the Gradu-ate School of Architecture, Planning & Historic Preservation. Pre-serving the Former IRT Powerhouse: A Preservation Plan. Columbia University, 2009, 77.

Dannecker and Associates. “Electra San Diego Condos.” Dannercker and Associates. Accessed March 2, 2012. http://www.welcometosandiego.com/san-diego-neighborhoods/condos-for-sale-downtown-san-diego/columbia-the-waterfront/electra-san-diego/#img0

San Diego State University, College of Professional Studies and Fine Arts. “New SDSU Gallery.” San Diego State University, March 2, 2012. http://downtowngallery.sdsu.edu/index.php/gallery/about/

Save Our Heritage Organization. “SDG&E Station ‘B.’” Reflections Newsletter 35, no. 3, 2004. http://sohosandiego.org/reflections/2004-3/2004-11_sdge.htm

Showley, Roger M. “Second Time Around: Three Old Kids on the Block Come to Life for a New Generation.” San Diego Union-Tribune, Sep-tember 18, 2005. http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050918/news_mz1h18second.html

Comal Power Plant Comal County Government. “Comal Power Plant.” Comal County Gov-

ernment. Accessed March 3, 2012. http://www.co.comal.tx.us/Historical/Properties/Comal_Power_Plant.htm

Dupuy, Richard, Robert Ashworth, and Lydia Frenzel. “Turning a Liability into an Asset! The Story of an Old Power Plant.” Ultra High Pressure (UHP) Projects, Inc. Accessed March 3, 2012. http://www.uhpprojects.com/services/comal2.htm

Larry Peel Company, “The Landmark, New Braunfels, TX.” Larry Peel Company. Accessed March 3, 2012. http://landmarklofts.com/history/

McLeod, Gerald E. “Day Trips.” The Austin Chronicle, April 11, 2003. http://www.austinchronicle.com/columns/2003-04-11/154443/

McLeod, Gerald E. “Day Trips: The Defunct Comal Power Plant in New Braunfels Finds New Life as a hotel.” The Austin Chronicle, June 2, 2010. http://www.austinchronicle.com/columns/2000-06-02/77427/


Seaholm Power PlantAmerican Clean Skies Foundation. Repurposing Legacy Power Plants:

Lessons For the Future. American Clean Skies Foundation, August 2011, 18-19.

Claire van Ryzin, Jeanne. “Council OKs rainbow-hued Seaholm Wall Design.” The Statesman, February 9, 2012. http://www.statesman.com/news/local/council-oks-rainbow-hued-seaholm-wall-design-2164175.html

Collins, Mark. “Planned Seaholm Development Puts Retired Power Plant to Different Use,” Community Impact Newspaper, April 10, 2009. http://impactnews.com/articles/planned-seaholm-development-puts-retired-power-plant-to-different-use

Columbia University, Department of Historic Preservation of the Gradu-ate School of Architecture, Planning & Historic Preservation. Pre-serving the Former IRT Powerhouse: A Preservation Plan. Columbia University, 2009, 75.

Friends of Seaholm. “The Adaptive Reuse of Seaholm Power Plant.” Friends of Seaholm. Accessed March 4, 2012. http://friendsofseaholm.com/

Geiser A., “Repurposing a Downtown Icon: Firm to Buy Defunct Histori-cal Seaholm Power Plant Amid Criticism,” The Daily Texan, May 5, 2010, http://www.dailytexanonline.com/content/repurposing-downtown-icon;

Hinkle, Josh and Doug Shupe. “Seaholm to have Lighted, Colorful Wall.” KXAN, February 10, 2012. http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/local/austin/seaholm-to-have-lighted-rainbow-wall

Jonsson, Kayla. “Austin Energy finances wall art for Seaholm Power Plant.” The Daily Texan, February 15, 2012. http://www.dailytexanonline.com/news/2012/02/15/austin-energy-finances-wall-art-seaholm-power-plant


Scadden, Richard A. and Stephen J. Mitchell. “Facility Decommissioning and Adaptive Reuse.” Presentation at National Defense Industrial

66

http://www.sdcondo.com/electra.html


http://www.welcometosandiego.com/san-diego-neighborhoods/condos-for-sale-downtown-san-diego/columbia-the-waterfront/electra-san-diego/#img0








http://downtowngallery.sdsu.edu/index.php/gallery/about/


http://sohosandiego.org/reflections/2004-3/2004-11_sdge.htm


http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050918/news_mz1h18second.html




http://www.co.comal.tx.us/Historical/Properties/Comal_Power_Plant.htm




http://www.uhpprojects.com/services/comal2.htm


http://landmarklofts.com/history/


http://www.austinchronicle.com/columns/2003-04-11/154443/




http://www.statesman.com/news/local/council-oks-rainbow-hued-seaholm-wall-design-2164175.html




http://impactnews.com/articles/planned-seaholm-development-puts-retired-power-plant-to-different-use




http://friendsofseaholm.com


http://www.dailytexanonline.com/content/repurposing-downtown-icon




http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/local/austin/seaholm-to-have-lighted-rainbow-wall




http://www.dailytexanonline.com/news/2012/02/15/austin-energy-finances-wall-art-seaholm-power-plant




Association (NDIA) 27th Environmental Symposium and Exhibition, Austin, Texas, April 23-26, 2001, 10-11.

Seaholm Power, LLC. “Power Plant Redevelopment.” Seaholm Power, LLC. Accessed March 3, 2012. http://www.seaholm.info/

Sears, Roebuck, & Co. Power HouseAmerican Clean Skies Foundation. Repurposing Legacy Power Plants:

Lessons For the Future. American Clean Skies Foundation, August 2011, 10.

Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP). “Charles H. Shaw Technology and Learning Center.” Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning. Accessed December 4, 2011.

Chuckman, John. “Postcard-Chicago-Sears Roebuck Plant-Aerial-Early.” Chuckman’s Collections: Chicago Postcards, Volume 8. Oc-tober 1, 2010 http://chuckmancollectionvolume8.blogspot.com/2010/10/postcard-chicago-sears-roebuck-plant.html

Foundation for Homan Square. Annual Report Update: 2011. Founda-tion for Homan Square, 2011. http://www.homansquare.org/files/pdf/2010-11_annual_report.pdf

Foundation for Homan Square. Annual Report Update: 2009-2010. Foundation for Homan Square, 2010. http://www.homansquare.org/files/pdf/homan_square_ar_2009-10_r3.pdf

Foundation for Homan Square. “Henry Ford Academy Power House High: Power House High Campaign Update.” Foundation for Homan Square, First Quarter 2008.

Foundation for Homan Square. “History.” Homan Square. Accessed March 4, 2012. http://www.homansquare.org/history

Foundation for Homan Square. “Power House” Homan Square. Ac-cessed March 4, 2012. http://www.homansquare.org/power-house

Gerfen, Katie. “Charles H. Shaw Technology and Learning Center.” Ar-chitect, February 16, 2010. http://www.architectmagazine.com/adaptive-reuse/charles-h-shaw-technology-and-learning-center.aspx

Harris, Darris Lee. “Sears Power House.” Darris Lee Harris Accessed March 2, 2012. http://www.darrisharris.com/

Homan Square Community Center Foundation. A Short History of a Long Journey: Homan Square Annual Report 2005. Homan Square Community Center Foundation, 2005.

Homan Square Community Center Campus. “Homan Square: From Va-cancy to Vibrancy.” Homan Square Community Center Campus, 2007.

“Homan Square Power House. “ DTKindler Communications, Shoo fly design. Accessed March 3, 2012. http://homansquarepowerhouse.com

Illinois Clean Energy Community Foundation. “Energy Efficiency.” Illinois Clean Energy Community Foundation, Accessed March 2, 2012. http://www.illinoiscleanenergy.org/ph-energy-efficiency/

Kamin, Blair. “Power play: architects help turn old Sears power plant in Chicago into new charter school.” Cityscapes, Chicago Tribune, September 01, 2009. http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/theskyline/2009/09/power-play-architects-help-turn-old-sears-power-plant-in-chicago-to-new-charter-school-.html

Long, JT. “Creating a Powerhouse School.” Constructor, March-April 2010. http://constructoragc.construction.com/mag/2010/Mar-Apr/1003-PepperConstruction.asp

MacRostie Historic Advisors, LLC. “Adaptive Reuse for Educational Fa-cilities: The Charles H. Shaw Technology and Learning Center.” MacRostie Historic Advisors, LLC. Accessed March 5, 2012. http://www.macrostiehistoric.com/pages/sears_power_house_/106.php

Petersen, Laurie. “Power Switch: This New High School is a Spark For Students—and the Neighborhood.”Chicago Architect, January-February 2012, 27-30.

U.S. National Park Service. “The National Historic Landmark Database: Sears, Roebuck, And Company.” National Park Service. Accessed February 11, 2012. http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1755&ResourceType=Building.

67

http://www.seaholm.info


http://chuckmancollectionvolume8.blogspot.com/2010/10/postcard-chicago-sears-roebuck-plant.html




http://www.homansquare.org/files/pdf/2010-11_annual_report.pdf


http://www.homansquare.org/files/pdf/homan_square_ar_2009-10_r3.pdf




http://www.homansquare.org/history


http://www.homansquare.org/power-house


http://www.architectmagazine.com/adaptive-reuse/charles-h-shaw-technology-and-learning-center.aspx




http://www.darrisharris.com/


http://homansquarepowerhouse.com


http://www.illinoiscleanenergy.org/ph-energy-efficiency/


http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/theskyline/2009/09/power-play-architects-help-turn-old-sears-power-plant-in-chicago-to-new-charter-school-.html






http://constructoragc.construction.com/mag/2010/Mar-Apr/1003-PepperConstruction.asp




http://www.macrostiehistoric.com/pages/sears_power_house_/106.php




http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1755&ResourceType=Building




References

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Sustainability and Historic Federal Buildings. Washington D.C., May 2, 2011. http://www.preservationnation.org/issues/sustainability/green-lab/valuing-building-reuse.html

American Clean Skies Foundation. Repurposing Legacy Power Plants: Les-sons For the Future. American Clean Skies Foundation, August 2011.

American Institute of Electrical Engineers. The Chicago Electrical Handbook. Chicago: American Institute of Electrical Engineers, 1904. http://openlibrary.org/books/OL23413423M/The_Chicago_electrical_handbook

American Society of Mechanical Engineers. “The First 500-Kilowatt Curtis Vertical Steam Turbine: An International Historic Mechanical Engi-neering Landmark.” The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, July 23, 1990. http://files.asme.org/ASMEORG/Communities/History/Landmarks/5527.pdf

Arredondo. Gabriela F. “Lower West Side.” In Encyclopedia of Chicago, ed-ited by Janice L. Reiff, Ann Durkin Keating, and James R. Gross-man. Chicago Historical Society, 2005. http://encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/765.html

Avila, Oscar. “Pilsen Goes on Historic List.” Chicago Tribune, February 28, 2006. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-02-28/news/0602280132_1_tax-freeze-historic-list-historic-district.

Baker, Joseph. “Out With The Old: More Coal-Fired Generation Closures Announced.” Energy Boom, March 1, 2012. http://www.energyboom.com/emerging/out-old-more-coal-fired-generation-closures-announced

Barry, Patrick.” Neighborhood Tourism: Pilsen Main Street Tour.” Community Beat, March 4, 2009. http://communitybeat.blogspot.com/2009/03/neighborhood-tourism-pilsen-main-street.html

Benfield, Kaid. "Turning Polluting Power Plants into Green Neighborhood Development." Switchboard, Natural Resources Defense Council Staff Blog, September 8, 2011.

Bernhard, F.H. “New Features of Central-Station Service in Chicago.” Elec-trical Review and Western Electrician 54, no. 22 (1909): 968-1976.

http://books.google.com/ebooks/reader?id=HYYfAQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader

Betancur, John. Gentrification before Gentrification? The Plight of Pilsen in Chicago. Chicago: Nathalie P. Vorhees Center for Neighborhood and Community Improvement, 2005. http://www.uic.edu/cuppa/voorheesctr/Publications/Gentrification%20before%20Gentrification.pdf

⎯--. “Gentrification and Community Fabric in Chicago.” Urban Studies 48, no. 2 (2011): 383-406.

Bouman, Mark J. “‘The Best Lighted City in the World’: The Construction of a Nocturnal Landscape in Chicago,” in Chicago Architecture and Design, 1923-1993: Reconfiguration of an American Metropolis, ed-ited by John Zukowksy, 33-52. Chicago: Art Institute of Chicago, 1993.

Bradley, Robert L. Edison to Enron: Energy Markets and Political Strategies. Salem: Scrivener Publishing LLC, 2011.

Bosa Development. “Electra.” Bosa Development. Accessed March 1, 2012. http://electra.bosadev.com/

Breeze, Lew. “San Diego's Comprehensive Source for Downtown Living: Electra.” Lew Breeze. Accessed March 1, 2012. http://www.sdcondo.com/electra.html

Bruttomesso, Rinio. “Complexity of the Urban Waterfront.” In Waterfronts in Post-Industrial Cities, edited by Richard Marshall, 39-49. London: Spon Press, 2001.

Bukro, Casey. “Edison Will Remove, Truck Away Debris.” Chicago Tribune, October 23, 1968.

Business Review. "Adaptive Reuse of Historic Buildings Makes Economic Sense." The Business Review, October 21, 2002.

Campos, João. “The Cultural Consistence of Built Heritage Constitutes its Intangible Dimension.” Paper presented at the 14th ICOMOS Gen-eral Assembly and International Symposium: ‘Place, memory, mean-ing: preserving intangible values in monuments and sites,’ Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe, 2003.

Carroon, Jean. Sustainable Preservation: Greening Existing Buildings. Ho-boken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2010.

Casal, Stella Maris. “The Adaptive Re-Use of Buildings: Remembrance or Oblivion?” Paper presented at the 14th ICOMOS General Assembly and International Symposium: ‘Place, memory, meaning: preserving intangible values in monuments and sites,” Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe, 2003. http://openarchive.icomos.org/489/.

68

http://www.preservationnation.org/issues/sustainability/green-lab/valuing-building-reuse.html




http://openlibrary.org/books/OL23413423M/The_Chicago_electrical_handbook




http://files.asme.org/ASMEORG/Communities/History/Landmarks/5527.pdf




http://encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/765.html


http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-02-28/news/0602280132_1_tax-freeze-historic-list-historic-district




http://www.energyboom.com/emerging/out-old-more-coal-fired-generation-closures-announced




http://communitybeat.blogspot.com/2009/03/neighborhood-tourism-pilsen-main-street.html








http://www.uic.edu/cuppa/voorheesctr/Publications/Gentrification%20before%20Gentrification.pdf








http://openarchive.icomos.org/489/


Casal, Stella Maris. “The Spirit of Place and the New Uses.” Paper pre-sented at the 16th ICOMOS General Assembly and International Symposium: ‘Finding the spirit of place – between the tangible and the intangible,’ Quebec, Canada, 2008. http://openarchive.icomos.org/199/.

Cintron, Miriam. “Tax incentives strengthen Pilsen’s Historic District.” Ga-zette, September 4, 2009. http://www.gazettechicago.com/index/2009/09/tax-incentives-strengthen-pilsen%E2%80%99s-historic-district.

Chicago Apartment Finders Inc. “Pilsen” Chicago Apartment Finders Inc. Accessed March 2, 2012/ http://www.chicagoapartmentfinders.com/chicago-neighborhoods/pilsen.aspx

Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP). “Charles H. Shaw Tech-nology and Learning Center.” Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning. Accessed December 4, 2011.

Chuckman, John. “Postcard-Chicago-Sears Roebuck Plant-Aerial-Early.” Chuckman’s Collections: Chicago Postcards, Volume 8. October 1, 2010 http://chuckmancollectionvolume8.blogspot.com/2010/10/postcard-chicago-sears-roebuck-plant.html

Citizens Against Ruining the Environment, The Environmental Law and Pol-icy Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., Respiratory Health Association of Metropolitan Chicago, Sierra Club v. Midwest Generation. No. 09-cv-05277, (N.D. IL May, 14, 2010).

City of Burlington, Vermont, Community and Economic Development Office. “Moran Plant: Overview.” Burlington Community and Economic De-velopment Office. Accessed March 1, 2012. http://burlingtonvt.gov/CEDO/Waterfront/Moran/Overview/

--. “Moran Plant: History and Past Ideas.” Burlington Community and Eco-nomic Development Office. Accessed March 1, 2012. http://burlingtonvt.gov/CEDO/Waterfront/Moran/History-and-Past-Ideas/

--. “Moran Plant: Financing Plan.” Burlington Community and Economic De-velopment Office. Accessed March 1, 2012. http://burlingtonvt.gov/CEDO/Waterfront/Moran/Financing-Plan/

--. “Moran Plant: Site Data.” Burlington Community and Economic Devel-opment Office. Accessed March 1, 2012. http://burlingtonvt.gov/CEDO/Waterfront/Moran/Site-Data/

City of Chicago. “Chapter 2: Physical & Economic Assessment.” In The Chi-cago Central Area Plan, 20-32. Chicago: 2003. http://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/zlup/Planning_and_Policy/Publications/Central_Area_Plan_DRAFT/03_Central_Area_Plan_Chapter2a.pdf

--. “Chicago Zoning Ordinance and Land Use Ordinance.” City of Chicago, American Legal Publishing Corporation, 2011. http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Illinois/chicagozoning/chicagozoningordinanceandlanduseordinanc?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:chicagozoning_il

⎯--. Corridors Of Industrial Opportunity: A Plan For Industry In Chicago. Chi-cago, 2004.

⎯--. “Demolition Delay.” City of Chicago Historic Preservation. Accessed March 19, 2012. http://www.cityofchicago.org/content/city/en/depts/dcd/supp_info/demolition_delay.html

⎯--. “Enterprise Zone Program.” City of Chicago. Accessed February 13, 2012. http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/dcd/supp_info/enterprise_zone_program.html

⎯--. “Pilsen Industrial Corridor TIF.” City of Chicago. Accessed February 13, 2012. http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/dcd/supp_info/tif/pilsen_industrialcorridortif.html

⎯--. “Tax Increment Financing Program.” City of Chicago. Accessed February 13, 2012. http://www.cityofchicago.org/content/city/en/depts/dcd/supp_info/tax_increment_financingprogram.html

City of Chicago, Commission on Chicago Landmarks. Landmarks Ordinance and the Rules and Regulations of the Commission on Chicago Landmarks. Chicago: City of Chicago, August 3, 2011. http://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/zlup/Historic_Preservation/Publications/Chicago_Landmarks_Ordinance.pdf

City of Chicago, Department of Housing & Economic Development. “Chi-cago Department of Zoning.” Zoning Data Reflects all Ordinances Passed Prior to April 13, 2011. https://gisapps.cityofchicago.org/zoning/liability.html

⎯--. “Economic Incentives for the Repair and Rehabilitation of Historic Build-ings.” City of Chicago. Accessed March 23, 2012.

69



http://www.gazettechicago.com/index/2009/09/tax-incentives-strengthen-pilsen%E2%80%99s-historic-district




http://www.chicagoapartmentfinders.com/chicago-neighborhoods/pilsen.aspx




















http://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/zlup/Planning_and_Policy/Publications/Central_Area_Plan_DRAFT/03_Central_Area_Plan_Chapter2a.pdf






http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Illinois/chicagozoning/chicagozoningordinanceandlanduseordinanc?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:chicagozoning_il






http://www.cityofchicago.org/content/city/en/depts/dcd/supp_info/demolition_delay.html




http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/dcd/supp_info/enterprise_zone_program.html




http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/dcd/supp_info/tif/pilsen_industrialcorridortif.html




http://www.cityofchicago.org/content/city/en/depts/dcd/supp_info/tax_increment_financingprogram.html




http://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/zlup/Historic_Preservation/Publications/Chicago_Landmarks_Ordinance.pdf




https://gisapps.cityofchicago.org/zoning/liability.html

https://gisapps.cityofchicago.org/zoning/liability.html

http://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/zlup/Historic_Preservation/Publications/Incentives_Flyer.pdf

⎯--. “Preservation Incentives.” City of Chicago, Chicago Landmarks. Ac-cessed February 14, 2012. http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/landmarksweb/web/preservation.htm

City of Chicago, Housing and Economic Development Historic Preservation. “Landmarks Designation Process.” City of Chicago. Accessed March 24, 2012. http://www.cityofchicago.org/content/city/en/depts/dcd/supp_info/landmarks_designationprocess.html

City of Chicago, Mayor's Press Office. “Mayor Emanuel Announces Agree-ment With Midwest Generation to Retire Two Coal-fired Power Plants in Chicago.” City of Chicago, February 29, 2012. http://www.fiskandcrawford.com/assets/content/pdf/MWGEN_FiskCrawfordRetirement.pdf

⎯--. “Mayor Emanuel Announces Plan to Develop Economic Development and Job Creation Alternatives for Fisk and Crawford Power Plants.” City of Chicago, March 8, 2012. http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/mayor/press_room/press_releases/2012/march_2012/mayor_emanuel_announcesplantodevelopeconomicdevelopmentandjobcre.html

City of Chicago, The Commission on Chicago Landmarks. "Classical Revival/Beaux-Arts." Chicago Landmarks. Accessed January 27, 2012. http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/landmarksweb/web/styledetails.htm?styId=204.

⎯--. “Historic Survey: Details for building at (1029-1179) W CERMAK RD.” Chicago Landmarks. Accessed January 27, 2012. http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/landmarksweb/search/searchdetail.htm?pin=1729200002&formNumber=310107001.

⎯--. “Historic Survey: Details for building at (1029-1179) W CERMAK RD.” Chicago Landmarks. Accessed January 27, 2012. http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/landmarksweb/search/searchdetail.htm?pin=1729200007&formNumber=310107003

⎯--. “Historic Survey: Details for building at (1029-1179) W CERMAK RD.” Chicago Landmarks. Accessed January 27, 2012. http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/landmarksweb/search/searchdetail.htm?pin=1729200002&formNumber=310107004

Claire van Ryzin, Jeanne. “Council OKs rainbow-hued Seaholm Wall De-sign.” The Statesman, February 9, 2012. http://www.statesman.com/news/local/council-oks-rainbow-hued-seaholm-wall-design-2164175.html

Claire van Ryzin, Jeanne. “Schematic design for Seaholm Substation Wall Art approved; Colored lights added.” Austin 360, February 10, 2012. http://www.austin360.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/seeingthings/entries/2012/02/10/schematic_design_for_seaholm_s.html

“Cleaning Out the Coal-fired Clunkers.” Chicago Tribune, June 06, 2011. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-06-06/news/ct-edit-coal-20110606_1_fisk-and-crawford-state-line-power-station-midwest-generation.

Collins, Mark. “Planned Seaholm Development Puts Retired Power Plant to Different Use,” Community Impact Newspaper, April 10, 2009. http://impactnews.com/articles/planned-seaholm-development-puts-retired-power-plant-to-different-use

Columbia University, Department of Historic Preservation of the Graduate School of Architecture, Planning & Historic Preservation. Preserving the Former IRT Powerhouse: A Preservation Plan. Columbia Univer-sity, 2009.

Comal County Government. “Comal Power Plant.” Comal County Govern-ment. Accessed March 3, 2012. http://www.co.comal.tx.us/Historical/Properties/Comal_Power_Plant.htm

Commonwealth Edison Company. “Fisk Street a Mecca: No. 2 of a Series of Advertisements on Electric Service in Chicago.” Chicago Daily Trib-une, October 7, 1915.

⎯--. “Display Ad 5: Reliability is the Keynote of Commonwealth Edison Serv-ice.” Chicago Daily Tribune, January 24, 1912.

⎯--. “Display Ad 11: A Capacity of 180, 000 Horsepower from These 10 Turbo-Generators at Fisk Street Station.” Chicago Daily Tribune, April 12, 1912.

Commonwealth of Australia, Department of the Environment and Heritage. Adaptive Reuse: Preserving Our Past, Building Our Future. Com-monwealth of Australia, Department of the Environment and Heri-tage, 2004.

Cordish Companies. “Featured Developments.” The Cordish Companies, 2008. http://www.cordish.com/sub.cfm?section=newdev

70





http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/landmarksweb/web/preservation.htm




http://www.cityofchicago.org/content/city/en/depts/dcd/supp_info/landmarks_designationprocess.html




http://www.fiskandcrawford.com/assets/content/pdf/MWGEN_FiskCrawfordRetirement.pdf




http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/mayor/press_room/press_releases/2012/march_2012/mayor_emanuel_announcesplantodevelopeconomicdevelopmentandjobcre.html






http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/landmarksweb/web/styledetails.htm?styId=204




http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/landmarksweb/search/searchdetail.htm?pin=1729200002&formNumber=310107001
















http://www.austin360.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/seeingthings/entries/2012/02/10/schematic_design_for_seaholm_s.html






http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-06-06/news/ct-edit-coal-20110606_1_fisk-and-crawford-state-line-power-station-midwest-generation
















Curran, Winifred and Euan Hague. The Pilsen Building Inventory Project. DePaul University Department of Geography, Chicago: 2006. http://steans.depaul.edu/aboutus/partnerships/geography.asp

Dannecker and Associates. “Electra San Diego Condos.” Dannercker and Associates. Accessed March 2, 2012. http://www.welcometosandiego.com/san-diego-neighborhoods/condos-for-sale-downtown-san-diego/columbia-the-waterfront/electra-san-diego/#img0

De Sousa, Christopher. “Moran Center, Burlington, Vermont: A U.S. EPA Brownfields Sustainability Pilot.” University of Illinois at Chicago, Institute for Environmental Science and Policy, June 2011. www.uic.edu/orgs/brownfields/research-results/documents/MoranCenter.pdf

Duffrin, Elizabeth. “Tax Freeze Helps Preserve Pilsen.” ChicagoTalks. No-vember 17, 2008. http://www.chicagotalks.org/2008/11/17/tax-freeze-helps-preserve-pilsen/

Dunbar, Wells. “Will an Art Wall Determine the Future of Downtown's Sea-holm Redevelopment?” KUT News, Fenruaru 9, 2012. http://kutnews.org/post/will-art-wall-determine-future-downtowns-seaholm-redevelopment

Dupuy, Richard, Robert Ashworth, and Lydia Frenzel. “Turning a Liability into an Asset! The Story of an Old Power Plant.” Ultra High Pressure (UHP) Projects, Inc. Accessed March 3, 2012. http://www.uhpprojects.com/services/comal2.htm

“Emanuel says coal-plant sites will be redeveloped.” 13 WREX, WorldNow, March 8, 2012. http://www.wrex.com/story/17114159/emanuel-says-coal-plant-sites-will-be-redeveloped

Engineering Ventures. “Moran Plant Renovation.” Engineering Ventures. Ac-cessed March 1, 2012. http://www.engineeringventures.com/projects/structural-engineering/recreational/moran-plant-renovation

ENPRO Services, Inc., “From EPA Brownfields Site to Community Center,” ENPRO Services, Inc., 2010, www.enpro.com/testimonials/MoranPowerPlant.pdf

Environmental Law and Policy Center. “fisk.jpg.” In Print Quality Photos, February 29, 2012, http://elpc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/Fisk%20Photos.zip

Escalona, Alejandro. “After Pilsen, Little Village plants close, will lofty ambi-tions mesh?” Chicago Sun-Times, April 10, 2012. http://www.suntimes.com/news/escalona/11124939-452/after-pilsen-little-village-plants-close-will-lofty-ambitions-mesh.html

Falk, Tyler. "Transforming Old Polluting Power Plants into Green Urban Spaces." SmartPlanet, September 8, 2011. http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/cities/transforming-old-polluting-power-plants-into-green-urban-spaces/892

Fehsenfeld, Kaaren. "Zoning in on Pilsen: As Development Moves in, Old-Timers Move Out." Chicagotalks. May 26, 2010. http://www.chicagotalks.org/2010/05/26/zoning-in-on-pilsen-as-development-moves-in-old-timers-move-out/

Field Museum, Department of Environment, Culture, and Conservation (ECCo). Engaging Chicago’s Diverse Communities in the Chicago Climate Action Plan. Community #4: Pilsen’s Mexican Community. Field Museum, Chicago: December 2010.

⎯. Engaging Chicago’s Diverse Communities in the Chicago Climate Action Plan. Community #4: Pilsen’s Mexican Community: Findings and Recommendations At-A-Glance. Field Museum, Chicago: December 2010.

Foundation for Homan Square. Annual Report Update: 2009-2010. Founda-tion for Homan Square, 2010. http://www.homansquare.org/files/pdf/homan_square_ar_2009-10_r3.pdf

⎯--. Annual Report Update: 2011. Foundation for Homan Square, 2011. http://www.homansquare.org/files/pdf/2010-11_annual_report.pdf

⎯--. “Henry Ford Academy Power House High: Power House High Campaign Update.” Foundation for Homan Square, First Quarter 2008.

⎯--. “History.” Homan Square. Accessed March 4, 2012. http://www.homansquare.org/history

⎯--. “Power House” Homan Square. Accessed March 4, 2012. http://www.homansquare.org/power-house

Friends of Seaholm. “The Adaptive Reuse of Seaholm Power Plant.” Friends of Seaholm. Accessed March 4, 2012. http://friendsofseaholm.com/

Gebhardt, George Frederick. Steam Power Plant Engineering. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1908. http://books.google.com/books?id=KH5DAAAAIAAJ&dq=fisk+Commonwealth+edison+layout+plan&source=gbs_navlinks_s

71

http://steans.depaul.edu/aboutus/partnerships/geography.asp
















http://www.chicagotalks.org/2008/11/17/tax-freeze-helps-preserve-pilsen/




http://kutnews.org/post/will-art-wall-determine-future-downtowns-seaholm-redevelopment






http://www.wrex.com/story/17114159/emanuel-says-coal-plant-sites-will-be-redeveloped












http://elpc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/Fisk%20Photos.zip




http://www.suntimes.com/news/escalona/11124939-452/after-pilsen-little-village-plants-close-will-lofty-ambitions-mesh.html




http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/cities/transforming-old-polluting-power-plants-into-green-urban-spaces/892




http://www.chicagotalks.org/2010/05/26/zoning-in-on-pilsen-as-development-moves-in-old-timers-move-out/
















http://books.google.com/books?id=KH5DAAAAIAAJ&dq=fisk+Commonwealth+edison+layout+plan&source=gbs_navlinks_s




Geiser A., “Repurposing a Downtown Icon: Firm to Buy Defunct Historical Seaholm Power Plant Amid Criticism,” The Daily Texan, May 5, 2010, http://www.dailytexanonline.com/content/repurposing-downtown-icon

Gellman, Erik. “Pilsen.” In Encyclopedia of Chicago, edited by Janice L. Reiff, Ann Durkin Keating, and James R. Grossman. Chicago His-torical Society, 2005. http://encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/2477.html

Gerfen, Katie. “Charles H. Shaw Technology and Learning Center.” Archi-tect, February 16, 2010. http://www.architectmagazine.com/adaptive-reuse/charles-h-shaw-technology-and-learning-center.aspx

“Giant Edison Turbine Unit Put In Service.” Chicago Daily Tribune, April 4, 1959.

Government of Saskatchewan, Heritage Resources Branch. Economic Benefits of Heritage Conservation. Government of Saskatchewan. Accessed November 11, 2011.

Great Cities Institute. “Pilsen (Lower West).” Great Cities Institute, Neighbor-hoods Initiative. Accessed March 14, 2012. http://www.uicni.org/page.php?section=neighborhoods&subsection=pilsen.

Grossman, Susan F., Rita M. Cardoso, Giselle G. Belanger, Jerry Belski, Tyra C. Corethers, Mary E. Pettinelli, and Maurice A. Redd. “Pilsen and The Resurrection Project: Community Organization in a Latino Community.” Journal of Poverty 4, no. 1-2 (2000): 131-149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J134v04n01_06.

Hampson, Philip. “Edison Plans Fete for Old Turbine Plant.” Chicago Daily Tribune, September 11, 1953.

Harris, Darris Lee. “Sears Power House.” Darris Lee Harris Accessed March 2, 2012. http://www.darrisharris.com/

Hawthorne, Michael. “2 Coal-Burning Plants to Power Down Early.” Chicago Tribune,, March 1, 2012. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-coal-plant-shutdowns-20120301,0,4861271.story

Hequet, Marc. “Power Plants.” Retail Traffic, November 1, 2006. http://retailtrafficmag.com/development/retail_power_plants

Hinkle, Josh and Doug Shupe. “Seaholm to have Lighted, Colorful Wall.” KXAN, February 10, 2012.


Historic Charleston Foundation. Annual Report 2010. Historic Charleston Foundation, 2010.

Historic Preservation Program, University of Virginia. National Register of Historic Places: Registration Form, Pilsen Historic District. US De-partment of the Interior, National Park Service. October 2005.

Hodge, William H. “The Commonwealth Edison Company.” Public Service Management 4, no. 5 (May 1908): 131-144. http://books.google.com/ebooks/reader?id=r_LlAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader

Homan Square Community Center Foundation. A Short History of a Long Journey: Homan Square Annual Report 2005. Homan Square Com-munity Center Foundation, 2005.

Homan Square Community Center Campus. “Homan Square: From Vacancy to Vibrancy.” Homan Square Community Center Campus, 2007.

“Homan Square Power House. “ DTKindler Communications, Shoo fly de-sign. Accessed March 3, 2012. http://homansquarepowerhouse.com

Hughes, Thomas P. “The Electrification of America: The System Builders.” Technology and Culture 20, no 1. (January 1979): 124-161. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3103115.

Hynes, Irina. “Pilsen Historic District, Chicago.” Flickr, April 17, 2010. http://www.flickr.com/photos/ihynz/4532806416/

⎯--. “Pilsen neighborhood, Chicago.” Flickr, April 17, 2010. http://www.flickr.com/photos/ihynz/4532806474/in/photostream

⎯--. “Pilsen neighborhood, Chicago.” Flickr, April 17, 2010. http://www.flickr.com/photos/ihynz/4532806290/in/photostream

Illinois Clean Energy Community Foundation. “Energy Efficiency.” Illinois Clean Energy Community Foundation, Accessed March 2, 2012. http://www.illinoiscleanenergy.org/ph-energy-efficiency/

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. In The Matter of Midwest Genera-tion, LLC Fisk Generating Station and Crawford Generation Station: Order Responding to Petitioners Request that the Administrator Ob-ject to Issuance of a State Operating Permit. Petition number V-2005-1, CAAPP No. 95090081 and 95090076. March 25, 2005. http://yosemite.epa.gov/r5/r5ard.nsf/8a853ab744d510c68625745800533fd5/4da3fdd18eece3a8862574c8006fd26b/$file/order.midwestgen.fiskcrawford.pdf

72











http://www.uicni.org/page.php?section=neighborhoods&subsection=pilsen




http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J134v04n01_06

http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J134v04n01_06



http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-coal-plant-shutdowns-20120301,0,4861271.story












http://books.google.com/ebooks/reader?id=r_LlAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader






http://www.jstor.org/stable/3103115

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3103115

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ihynz/4532806416/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ihynz/4532806416/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ihynz/4532806474/in/photostream






http://yosemite.epa.gov/r5/r5ard.nsf/8a853ab744d510c68625745800533fd5/4da3fdd18eece3a8862574c8006fd26b/$file/order.midwestgen.fiskcrawford.pdf






Illinois Historic Preservation Agency. “Benefits and Protections Offered by National Register Listing.” Illinois Historic Preservation Agency. Ac-cessed February 11, 2012. http://www.illinoishistory.gov/PS/benefitsnr.htm.

⎯--. “Property Tax Assessment Freeze.” Illinois Historic Preservation Agency. Accessed March 14, 2012. http://www.illinoishistory.gov/PS/taxfreeze.htm.

⎯--. “Benefits and Protections Offered by National Register Listing.” Illinois Historic Preservation Agency. Accessed February 11, 2012. http://www.illinoishistory.gov/PS/benefitsnr.htm

⎯--. “Property Tax Assessment Freeze.” Illinois Historic Preservation Agency. Accessed March 14, 2012. http://www.illinoishistory.gov/PS/taxfreeze.htm.

Insull, Samuel. Central Station Electric Service: Its Commercial Development and Economic Significance as Set forth in the Public Addresses (1897-1914) of Samuel Insull. Chicago: Private Print, 1915.

“Insull Unveils Tablet at Fisk Edison Station.” Chicago Daily Tribune, No-vember 15, 1928.

Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York and Toronto: Random House, 1961.

Jenkins, W.C. “Chicago’s Marvelous Electrical Development: What Thomas A. Edison Has Lived to See.” National Magazine. February and January, 1911. http://www.archive.org/details/nationalmagazine33brayrich

Jonsson, Kayla. “Austin Energy finances wall art for Seaholm Power Plant.” The Daily Texan, February 15, 2012. http://www.dailytexanonline.com/news/2012/02/15/austin-energy-finances-wall-art-seaholm-power-plant

Kamin, Blair. “Power play: architects help turn old Sears power plant in Chi-cago into new charter school.” Cityscapes, Chicago Tribune, Sep-tember 01, 2009. http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/theskyline/2009/09/power-play-architects-help-turn-old-sears-power-plant-in-chicago-to-new-charter-school-.html

Keene, John. "The Links Between Historic Preservation and Sustainability: An Urbanist's Perspective." In Managing Change: Sustainable Ap-proaches to the Conservation of the Built Environment. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 2003.

Keily, William. "Quarry Street Station of the Commonwealth Edison Com-pany, Chicago," Electrical World 53, no. 1 (1909): 17-24. http://www.archive.org/details/electricalworld53newy

Kienle, James T. "Essay: Can Historic Preservation Help Lead Us Out of the Recession." Contract Magazine, September 28, 2009.

Klein, Tim. “Time Out Chicago Tackles Pilsen.” Time Out Chicago, February 18, 2009. http://chicagoist.com/2009/02/18/time_out_tackles_pilsen.php

Koenig, Brian. “Dozens of Power Plants Closing Due to New EPA Rules.” The New American, December 20, 2011. http://thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/energy/10253-dozens-of-power-plants-closing-due-to-new-epa-rules

Koester, Frank. Steam-Electric Power Plants: A Practical Treatise on the De-sign of Central Light and Power Stations and their Economical Con-struction and Operation. New York: D. Van Nostrand Company, 1908. http://books.google.com/ebooks/reader?id=ISgKAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader

Langston, Craig. “Green Adaptive Reuse: Issues and Strategies for the Built Environment.” Paper presented at the 1st International Conference on Sustainable Construction & Risk Management, Chongqing Mu-nicipality, China, June 12, 2010. http://epublications.bond.edu.au/sustainable_development/75/

Langston, Craig, Francis K.W. Wong, Eddie C.M. Hui, and Li-Yim Shen. "Strategic Assessment of Building Adaptive Reuse Opportunities in Hong Kong." Building and Environment 43 (2008): 1709-1718.

Lacey, Stephen. “Nine More Dirty, Aging Coal Plants Set to Close, Bringing Total U.S. Retirements to 106 Plants Since 2000.” Think Progress, February 29, 2012. http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/02/29/435012/dirty-aging-coal-plants-set-to-close/?mobile=nc

Larry Peel Company, “The Landmark, New Braunfels, TX.” Larry Peel Com-pany. Accessed March 3, 2012. http://landmarklofts.com/history/

Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, Historic American Engi-neering Record. “Commonwealth Electric Company, Fisk Street Electrical Generating Station, 1111 West Cermak Avenue, Chicago, Cook County, IL.” Library of Congress. [survey number HAER ILL, 16-CHIG, 140-; accessed February 14, 2012]. http://www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/hh/item/il0671/

Lindholm, Jane. “Bob Kiss on IRV, Burlington Telecom And The Moran Plant.” Vermont Public Radio, March 4, 2010.

73

http://www.illinoishistory.gov/PS/benefitsnr.htm


http://www.illinoishistory.gov/PS/taxfreeze.htm






http://www.archive.org/details/nationalmagazine33brayrich

http://www.archive.org/details/nationalmagazine33brayrich











http://www.archive.org/details/electricalworld53newy


http://chicagoist.com/2009/02/18/time_out_tackles_pilsen.php

http://chicagoist.com/2009/02/18/time_out_tackles_pilsen.php

http://thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/energy/10253-dozens-of-power-plants-closing-due-to-new-epa-rules




http://books.google.com/ebooks/reader?id=ISgKAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader




http://epublications.bond.edu.au/sustainable_development/75/

http://epublications.bond.edu.au/sustainable_development/75/

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/02/29/435012/dirty-aging-coal-plants-set-to-close/?mobile=nc






http://www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/hh/item/il0671/




http://www.vpr.net/news_detail/87395/bob-kiss-on-irv-burlington-telecom-moran-plant

Listokin, David, Barbara Listokin, and Michael Lahr. "The Contributions of Historic Preservation to Housing and Economic Development." Housing Policy Debate 9, no. 3 (1998): 431-478.

Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) and the Pilsen Planning Com-mittee. Pilsen: A Center of Mexican Life, Quality-of-Life Plan. LISC New Communities Initiative, Chicago: 2006. www.newcommunities.org/cmadocs/Pilsen_QofL_2006.pdf

Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) and the Resurrection Project. Improving the Quality of Life in Pilsen. LISC New Communities Initia-tive, Chicago: 2000. www.newcommunities.org/cmadocs/PilsenQofLplan2000.pdf

Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) MetroEdge. Pilsen (Retail) Scan Executive Summary. Local Initiatives Support Corporation, October 2009.

Lomax, Simon. "‘Massive’ Closures of U.S. Coal Plants Loom, Chu Says." Bloomberg Businessweek, February 9, 2011.

Long, JT. “Creating a Powerhouse School.” Constructor, March-April 2010. http://constructoragc.construction.com/mag/2010/Mar-Apr/1003-PepperConstruction.asp

Low, Setha. "Social Sustainability: People, History and Values." in Managing Change: Sustainable Approaches to the Conservation of the Built Environment. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 2003.

Lydersen, Kari. “When Coal Plants Shut Down, What Happens Next?” Mid-west Energy News, March 20, 2012. http://www.midwestenergynews.com/2012/03/20/when-coal-plants-shut-down-what-happens-next/

MacRostie Historic Advisors, LLC. “Adaptive Reuse for Educational Facili-ties: The Charles H. Shaw Technology and Learning Center.” Mac-Rostie Historic Advisors, LLC. Accessed March 5, 2012. http://www.macrostiehistoric.com/pages/sears_power_house_/106.php

Marshall, Richard. “Contemporary Urban Space-making at the Water’s Edge.” In Waterfronts in Post-Industrial Cities, edited by Richard Marshall, 3-14. London: Spon Press, 2001.

Maryland Historical Trust's National Register.,“Pratt Street Power Plant,” Maryland Historical Trust. Accessed March 10, 2012, http://mht.maryland.gov/nr/NRDetail.aspx?HDID=978&FROM=NRMapFR.html

McCann, Tom. “Riverfront Renewal Not Reaching Pilsen.” Chicago Tribune, July 02, 2000. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2000-07-02/news/0007020100_1_parks-chicago-river-navy-pier

McGraw-Publishing Company. "Chicago Convention National Electric Light Association." Electrical World 51, no. 22 (1908): 1146-1153. http://books.google.com/books/reader?id=LQVRAAAAYAAJ&

⎯--. "Practical Operation of Fisk Street and Quarry Street Stations in Chi-cago," Electrical World 53, no. 22 (1909): 1289-1294. http://www.archive.org/details/electricalworld53newy

⎯--. "The System and Operating Practice of the Commonwealth Edison Company, Chicago." Electrical World 51, no. 20 (1908): 1023-1039. http://books.google.com/books/reader?id=LQVRAAAAYAAJ&.

McLeod, Gerald E. “Day Trips.” The Austin Chronicle, April 11, 2003. http://www.austinchronicle.com/columns/2003-04-11/154443/

⎯--. “Day Trips: The Defunct Comal Power Plant in New Braunfels Finds New Life as a hotel.” The Austin Chronicle, June 2, 2010. http://www.austinchronicle.com/columns/2000-06-02/77427/

Midwest Generation. “Financial Benefits to the Community.” Fisk & Crawford Fact Sheets. September 7, 2011. http://www.fiskandcrawford.com/assets/content/pdf/MWG_FiskCrawford_FinancialBenefits.pdf

⎯--. “Fisk Station Fact Sheet.” Edison International. January 2005. www.edison.com/files/2005_factsheet_fisk.pdf

⎯--. “Midwest Generation Employees: Serving Communities Where They Live And Work.” Fisk & Crawford Fact Sheets. September 9, 2011. http://www.fiskandcrawford.com/assets/content/pdf/MWG_FiskCrawford_Employees.pdf

Millspaugh, Martin. “Waterfronts as Catalysts for City Renewal.” In Water-fronts in Post-Industrial Cities, edited by Richard Marshall, 74-85. London: Spon Press, 2001.

“Moran Municipal Generation Station - Burlington, Vermont.” Waymarking, accessed March 12, 2012. http://www.waymarking.com/gallery/image.aspx?f=1&guid=737a5463-edf6-44b2-bcc0-bb94e967b175

Munson, Richard. From Edison to Enron: The Business of Power and What it Means for the Future of Electricity. Westport: Praeger Publishers, 2005.

74





http://www.newcommunities.org/cmadocs/Pilsen_QofL_2006.pdf

http://www.newcommunities.org/cmadocs/Pilsen_QofL_2006.pdf

http://www.newcommunities.org/cmadocs/PilsenQofLplan2000.pdf














http://www.midwestenergynews.com/2012/03/20/when-coal-plants-shut-down-what-happens-next/














http://thenewamerican.com/component/mailto/?tmpl=component&link=aHR0cDovL3RoZW5ld2FtZXJpY2FuLmNvbS90ZWNoLW1haW5tZW51LTMwL2VuZXJneS8xMDI1My1kb3plbnMtb2YtcG93ZXItcGxhbnRzLWNsb3NpbmctZHVlLXRvLW5ldy1lcGEtcnVsZXM%3D

http://thenewamerican.com/component/mailto/?tmpl=component&link=aHR0cDovL3RoZW5ld2FtZXJpY2FuLmNvbS90ZWNoLW1haW5tZW51LTMwL2VuZXJneS8xMDI1My1kb3plbnMtb2YtcG93ZXItcGxhbnRzLWNsb3NpbmctZHVlLXRvLW5ldy1lcGEtcnVsZXM%3D

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2000-07-02/news/0007020100_1_parks-chicago-river-navy-pier




http://books.google.com/books/reader?id=LQVRAAAAYAAJ&










http://www.fiskandcrawford.com/assets/content/pdf/MWG_FiskCrawford_FinancialBenefits.pdf






http://www.edison.com/files/2005_factsheet_fisk.pdf

http://www.edison.com/files/2005_factsheet_fisk.pdf

http://www.fiskandcrawford.com/assets/content/pdf/MWG_FiskCrawford_Employees.pdf










My Life in Pilsen Blog. “Pilsen Murals.” My Life In Pilsen. February 9, 2010. http://mylifeinpilsen.blogspot.com/2010/02/pilsen-murals_09.html

NADAAA. “Seaholm Substation Wall, Art In Public Places Project: Schematic Design Updated Rendering.” NADAAA, Presentation to the City Council, February 9, 2012. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/291429-seaholm-wall-presentation.html

National Trust for Historic Preservation. "Position Statement: Historic Pres-ervation and Sustainability." Preservation Nation. Accessed October 31, 2011.

“New Edison Turbo-Unit in Service.” Chicago Daily Tribune, July 21, 1949.Northcountry Cooperative Foundation, Jeff Allman, Allman & Associates.

Too Good to Throw Away: The Adaptive Reuse of Underused Build-ings. Northcountry Cooperative Foundation, 2005. http://www.ncdf.coop/documents/AdaptiveReuseFINAL.pdf

Petersen, Laurie. “Power Switch: This New High School is a Spark For Stu-dents—and the Neighborhood.”Chicago Architect, January-February 2012, 27-30.

Pilsen Environmental Rights and Reform Organization (PERRO).“Chicago’s Coal Plants to Retire: Clean Power Coalition, City of Chicago and Midwest Generation Sign Historic Agreement.” PERRO Press Re-lease, February 21, 2012.

PlaceEconomics. Measuring the Economics of Preservation: Recent Find-ings. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, June 2011. http://www.landmarks.org/pdfs/Measuring%20the%20Economics%20of%20Preservation.pdf

Platt, Harold L. The Electric City: Energy and the Growth of the Chicago Area, 1880-1930. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1991.

⎯--. “Gas and Electricity.” In Encyclopedia of Chicago, edited by Janice L. Reiff, Ann Durkin Keating, and James R. Grossman. Chicago His-torical Society, 2005. Accessed January 27, 2012. http://encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/504.html.

Preservation Chicago. Chicago’s Seven Most Threatened Buildings: Pilsen. 2006. www.preservationchicago.org/userfiles/file/pilsen.pdf

Preservation Green Lab, National Trust for Historic Preservation. The Green-est Building: Quantifying the Environmental Value of Building Reuse. National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2011.

Rogers Merlino, Kathryn, and Peter Steinbrueck. "The Greenest Practice: Cultural Sustainability, Adaptive Re-use and the New Preservation Ethic." Column 5, no. 22 (2009): 70-73.

San Diego State University, College of Professional Studies and Fine Arts. “New SDSU Gallery.” San Diego State University, March 2, 2012. http://downtowngallery.sdsu.edu/index.php/gallery/about/

Save Our Heritage Organization. “SDG&E Station ‘B.’” Reflections Newslet-ter 35, no. 3, 2004. http://sohosandiego.org/reflections/2004-3/2004-11_sdge.htm

Scadden, Richard A. “Adaptive Reuse of Obsolete Power Plants.” Paper presented at the Air & Waste Management Association (A&WMA) 94th Annual Conference, Orlando, FL, June 2001.

Scadden, Richard A. and Stephen J. Mitchell. “Facility Decommissioning and Adaptive Reuse.” Paper presented at National Defense Indus-trial Association (NDIA) 27th Environmental Symposium and Exhibi-tion, Austin, Texas, April 23-26, 2001.

Schmitt, Zachary. “The Topographical Determinants of Intraurban Air Pollu-tion Exposure: An Assessment of the Crawford and Fisk Coal-fired Power Plants in Chicago, Illinois.” M.S. diss., Northern Illinois Uni-versity, 2010. http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?did=2068234381&Fmt=7&clientId=1509&RQT=309&VName=PQD.

Seaholm Power, LLC. “Power Plant Redevelopment.” Seaholm Power, LLC. Accessed March 3, 2012. http://www.seaholm.info/

Shore Line Interurban Historical Society. “A Conversation with Samuel In-sull.” First & Fastest 26, vol. 1 (2009): 52-55. www.shore-line.org/_pdfs/Insull_Spring10.pdf

Showley, Roger M. “Second Time Around: Three Old Kids on the Block Come to Life for a New Generation.” San Diego Union-Tribune, Sep-tember 18, 2005. http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050918/news_mz1h18second.html

Spector, Dina. "Dozens Of Coal Factories Forced To Shut Down In Re-sponse To Strict EPA Regulation." The Business Insider, August 9, 2011.

Spielman, Fran. “Emanuel brokers deal to shut two polluting coal fire plants.” Chicago Sun-Times. February 28, 2012. http://www.suntimes.com/news/10943296-417/emanuel-brokers-deal-to-shut-two-polluting-coal-fire-plants.html

Staple, Gregory C. and Matthew I. Slavin. “Repurposed Coal Plant Sites Empower and Revive Communities.” The Public Manager, Spring 2012. www.cleanskies.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/43-47_featureStapleSlavin-1-1.pdf

75

http://mylifeinpilsen.blogspot.com/2010/02/pilsen-murals_09.html

http://mylifeinpilsen.blogspot.com/2010/02/pilsen-murals_09.html

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/291429-seaholm-wall-presentation.html




http://www.ncdf.coop/documents/AdaptiveReuseFINAL.pdf

http://www.ncdf.coop/documents/AdaptiveReuseFINAL.pdf

http://www.landmarks.org/pdfs/Measuring%20the%20Economics%20of%20Preservation.pdf






http://www.preservationchicago.org/userfiles/file/pilsen.pdf

http://www.preservationchicago.org/userfiles/file/pilsen.pdf





http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?did=2068234381&Fmt=7&clientId=1509&RQT=309&VName=PQD






http://www.shore-line.org/_pdfs/Insull_Spring10.pdf

http://www.shore-line.org/_pdfs/Insull_Spring10.pdf





http://www.suntimes.com/news/10943296-417/emanuel-brokers-deal-to-shut-two-polluting-coal-fire-plants.html




http://www.cleanskies.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/43-47_featureStapleSlavin-1-1.pdf




Steinbrueck, Peter, and Kathyrn Rodgers Merlino. "We Recycle Cans and Bottles, Why Not Buildings?" The Seattle Times, September 16, 2008.

Totten, Shay. “Burlington May Finally Give the Old Moran Plant a New Life.” Seven Days, September 23, 2009. http://www.7dvt.com/2009burlington-may-finally-give-old-moran-plant-new-life

⎯--. “Maritime Museum Withdraws from Moran Redevelopment.” Seven Days, September 28, 2011. http://7d.blogs.com/blurt/2010/09/maritime-museum-withdraws-from-moran-redevelopment.html.

Union of Concerned Scientists. A Risky Proposition: The Financial Hazards of New Investments in Coal Plants. UCS Publications, March 2011. http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/a-risky-proposition_report.pdf

Urban Land Institute. Adaptive Use: Development Economics, Process, and Profiles. Washington: The Urban Land Institute, 1978.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. “How to Apply to the National Register: Criteria for Evaluation.” U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 2002. http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/nrb15_2.htm

⎯--. “The National Historic Landmark Database: Sears, Roebuck, And Com-pany.” U.S. National Park Service. Accessed February 11, 2012. http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1755&ResourceType=Building.

⎯--. “National Historic Landmarks Program.” U.S. National Park Service. Last modified December 13, 2010. http://www.cr.nps.gov/nhl/.

⎯--. “National Register of Historic Places Program: Frequently Asked Ques-tions.” U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. June 13, 2011. http://www.nps.gov/nr/faq.htm.

⎯--. “National Register of Historic Places Program: Fundamentals.” U.S. Na-tional Park Service. Last modified June 13, 2011. http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/national_register_fundamentals.htm.

⎯ ⎯--. “National Historic Landmarks Program, Page 1: What is ‘a high degree of integrity’ and why is it an key requirement for NHL designation?.” U.S. National Park Service. Last modified December 13, 2010. http://www.nps.gov/history/nhl/tutorial/Workshop2/criteria3.htm.

⎯--. “National Historic Landmarks Program, Page 1: What is a National His-toric Landmark?” U.S. National Park Service. Last modified Decem-ber 13, 2010. http://www.nps.gov/history/nhl/tutorial/About/About1.htm

⎯--. “National Historic Landmarks Program, Page 8: How long does it take for a property to become a NHL?” U.S. National Park Service. Last modified June 13, 2011. http://www.nps.gov/history/nhl/tutorial/Workshop1/begin8.htm

⎯--. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation & Illustrated Guidelines on Sustainability for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, 2011. www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/index.htm.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Technical Preserva-tion Services. Historic Preservation Tax Incentives. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service: 2009. http://www.nps.gov/tps/tax-incentives/taxdocs/about-tax-incentives.pdf

⎯--. “Tax Incentives for Preserving Historic Properties.” U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Accessed March 21, 2012. http://www.nps.gov/tps/tax-incentives.htm

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Reducing Air Pollution from Power Plants.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. April 26, 2011.

⎯--. “Burlington Reaps $25K EPA Grant for Brownfields Sustainability Pro-ject,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Re-development of Former Coal Plant. News Releases from Region 1, September 4, 2008. http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/6d651d23f5a91b768525735900400c28/8ace26d5891e188b852574ba006bc828!OpenDocument

⎯--. “Green Design Options for the Moran Center at Waterfront Park Revitali-zation Project.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed March 2, 2012. epa.gov/brownfields/sustain_plts/factsheets/burlington_susfs.pdf

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissions. Form 10-K: Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 of 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2006 for Midwest Generation, LLC. Commission File Number 333-59348. Washington D.C.: February 28, 2007.

76









http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/a-risky-proposition_report.pdf




http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/nrb15_2.htm










http://www.cr.nps.gov/nhl/

http://www.cr.nps.gov/nhl/

http://www.nps.gov/nr/faq.htm


http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/national_register_fundamentals.htm

http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/national_register_fundamentals.htm

http://www.nps.gov/history/nhl/tutorial/Workshop2/criteria3.htm

http://www.nps.gov/history/nhl/tutorial/Workshop2/criteria3.htm

http://www.nps.gov/history/nhl/tutorial/About/About1.htm

http://www.nps.gov/history/nhl/tutorial/About/About1.htm

http://www.nps.gov/history/nhl/tutorial/Workshop1/begin8.htm

http://www.nps.gov/history/nhl/tutorial/Workshop1/begin8.htm

http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/index.htm

http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/index.htm

http://www.nps.gov/tps/tax-incentives/taxdocs/about-tax-incentives.pdf






http://www.nps.gov/tps/tax-incentives.htm

http://www.nps.gov/tps/tax-incentives.htm







Vance, Steven.“Pilsen industrial and the loop.” Flickr, March 14, 2009. http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesbondsv/3354655439/in/photostream

Vogel, Carl. “Blog Covers the Murals of Pilsen.” Pilsen Portal, August 21, 2009. http://www.pilsenportal.org/news/72

Walk Score. “Walk Score for 1111 W Cermak Rd Chicago, IL.” Walk Score. Accessed February 23, 2012. http://www.walkscore.com/score/1111-w-cermak-rd-chicago-il.

Wasik, John. The Merchant of Power: Sam Insull, Thomas Edison, and the Creation of the Modern Metropolis. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006.

Wattley, Philip. “Edison Plant Ruins Combed for Clues.” Chicago Tribune, November 23, 1976.

⎯--. “Plant at Half Capacity: Edison Fire Estimate: $2 million.” Chicago Trib-une, November 24, 1976.

Wilson, David, Jared Wouters, and Dennis Grammenos. “Successful protect-community discourse: spatiality and politics in Chicago's Pilsen neighborhood.” Environment and Planning 36, (2004): 1173 -1190.

Wilson, Mark R., Stephen R. Porter, and Janice L. Reiff. “Commonwealth Edison Co.” In Encyclopedia of Chicago. Chicago Historical Society, 2005. Accessed January 27, 2012. http://encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/2622.html

Yudelson, Jerry. Greening Existing Buildings. New York: McGraw-Hill Com-panies, 2010.Zhang, Yue. “Boundaries of Power: Politics of Urban Preservation in Two

Chicago Neighborhoods.”Urban Affairs Review 47, no. 4 (2011): 511–540. http://uar.sagepub.com/content/47/4/511

Zink, John C. “Steam Turbines Power an Industry: A Condensed History of Steam Turbines.”

Power Engineering, August1, 1996. http://images.pennnet.com/articles/pe/cap/cap_pe43958-56.gif

77

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesbondsv/3354655439/in/photostream




http://www.pilsenportal.org/news/72

http://www.pilsenportal.org/news/72

http://www.walkscore.com/score/1111-w-cermak-rd-chicago-il




http://uar.sagepub.com/content/47/4/511


http://images.pennnet.com/articles/pe/cap/cap_pe43958-56.gif

http://images.pennnet.com/articles/pe/cap/cap_pe43958-56.gif

Endnotes

78

1 Alejandro Escalona, “After Pilsen, Little Village plants close, will lofty ambitions mesh?” Chicago Sun-Times, April 10, 2012. http://www.suntimes.com/news/escalona/11124939-452/after-pilsen-little-village-plants-close-will-lofty-ambitions-mesh.html2 Midwest Generation, “Fisk Station Fact Sheet.”3 Midwest Generation,“Financial Benefits to the Community.”4 Midwest Generation,“Financial Benefits to the Community,” Fisk & Crawford Fact Sheets, September 7, 2011, http://www.fiskandcrawford.com/assets/content/pdf/MWG_FiskCrawford_FinancialBenefits.pdf5 Harold Platt, “Gas and Electricity,” In Encyclopedia of Chicago, edited by Janice L. Reiff, Ann Durkin Keating, and James R. Grossman, (Chicago Historical Society, 2005), accessed January 27, 2012, http://encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/504.html. 6 Ibid., 69.7 Ibid.8 Ibid., 71.9 Ibid., 72-73.10 Bradley, Edison to Enron: Energy Markets and Political Strategies, 92.11 Platt, The Electric City: Energy and the Growth of the Chicago Area, 1880-1930, 109.12 Bradley, Edison to Enron: Energy Markets and Political Strategies, 92-93.13 Wasik, The Merchant of Power: Sam Insull, Thomas Edison, and the Creation of the Modern Metropolis, 84.

14 Samuel Insull, Central Station Electric Service: Its Commercial Development and Economic Significance as Set forth in the Public Addresses (1897-1914) of Samuel Insull (Chicago: Private Print, 1915), 354.15 Thomas P. Hughes, “The Electrification of America: The System Builders,” Tech-nology and Culture 20, no 1. (January 1979): 145.16 Wasik, The Merchant of Power: Sam Insull, Thomas Edison, and the Creation of the Modern Metropolis, 84.17 Ibid.18 Bradley, Edison to Enron: Energy Markets and Political Strategies, 93; Hughes, “The Electrification of America: The System Builders,” 145. 19 Wasik, The Merchant of Power: Sam Insull, Thomas Edison, and the Creation of the Modern Metropolis, 84.20 Bradley, Edison to Enron: Energy Markets and Political Strategies, 93.

21 Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, Historic American Engineering Record, “Commonwealth Electric Company, Fisk Street Electrical Generating Sta-tion, 1111 West Cermak Avenue, Chicago, Cook County, IL,” Library of Congress. [survey number HAER ILL, 16-CHIG, 140-; accessed February 14, 2012], 3, http://www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/hh/item/il0671/22 Wasik, The Merchant of Power: Sam Insull, Thomas Edison, and the Creation of the Modern Metropolis, 86.23 Bradley, Edison to Enron: Energy Markets and Political Strategies, 94.24 Munson, From Edison to Enron: The Business of Power and What it Means for the Future of Electricity, 53. 25 Platt, The Electric City: Energy and the Growth of the Chicago Area, 1880-1930, 114.26 Wasik, The Merchant of Power: Sam Insull, Thomas Edison, and the Creation of the Modern Metropolis, 91-92.27 Bradley, Edison to Enron: Energy Markets and Political Strategies, 112.28 Wasik, The Merchant of Power: Sam Insull, Thomas Edison, and the Creation of the Modern Metropolis, 87.29 McGraw-Publishing Company, "Chicago Convention National Electric Light Asso-ciation," Electrical World 51, no. 22 (1908): 1150.30 Wasik, The Merchant of Power: Sam Insull, Thomas Edison, and the Creation of the Modern Metropolis, 86.31 Hughes, “The Electrification of America: The System Builders,” 146.32 Hampson, “Edison Plans Fete for Old Turbine Plant,” C7.33 Platt, The Electric City: Energy and the Growth of the Chicago Area, 1880-1930, 114.34 Bradley, Edison to Enron: Energy Markets and Political Strategies, 112.35 “New Edison Turbo-Unit in Service,” Chicago Daily Tribune, July 21, 1949, A7.36 “Giant Edison Turbine Unit Put In Service,” Chicago Daily Tribune, April 4, 1959, E5.37 Platt, The Electric City: Energy and the Growth of the Chicago Area, 1880-1930, 114.38 Wasik, The Merchant of Power: Sam Insull, Thomas Edison, and the Creation of the Modern Metropolis, 263.39 Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, Historic American Engineering Record, “Commonwealth Electric Company, Fisk Street Electrical Generating Sta-tion, 1111 West Cermak Avenue, Chicago, Cook County, IL,” 1.40 Ibid.41 Bradley, Edison to Enron: Energy Markets and Political Strategies, 94.42 Wasik, The Merchant of Power: Sam Insull, Thomas Edison, and the Creation of the Modern Metropolis, 87.43 Wasik, The Merchant of Power: Sam Insull, Thomas Edison, and the Creation of the Modern Metropolis, 88.















79

44 William Keily, "Quarry Street Station of the Commonwealth Edison Company, Chi-cago," Electrical World 53, no. 1 (1909): 1845 Ibid., 19.46 Platt, The Electric City: Energy and the Growth of the Chicago Area, 1880-1930, 139.47 Platt, The Electric City: Energy and the Growth of the Chicago Area, 1880-1930, 114.48 Munson, From Edison to Enron: The Business of Power and What it Means for the Future of Electricity, 53. 49 Wasik, The Merchant of Power: Sam Insull, Thomas Edison, and the Creation of the Modern Metropolis, 86.50 Wasik, The Merchant of Power: Sam Insull, Thomas Edison, and the Creation of the Modern Metropolis, 91-92.51 McGraw-Publishing Company, "Chicago Convention National Electric Light Asso-ciation," 1150.52 Commonwealth Edison Company, “Fisk Street a Mecca: No. 2 of a Series of Ad-vertisements on Electric Service in Chicago,” Chicago Daily Tribune, October 7, 1915, 9.53 Ibid.54 “Insull Unveils Tablet at Fisk Edison Station,” Chicago Daily Tribune, November 15, 1928, 13.55 Insull, Central Station Electric Service: Its Commercial Development and Economic Significance as Set forth in the Public Addresses (1897-1914) of Samuel Insull, 354-355.56 Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, Historic American Engineering Record, “Commonwealth Electric Company, Fisk Street Electrical Generating Sta-tion, 1111 West Cermak Avenue, Chicago, Cook County, IL,” 4-5.57 Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, Historic American Engineering Record, “Commonwealth Electric Company, Fisk Street Electrical Generating Sta-tion, 1111 West Cermak Avenue, Chicago, Cook County, IL,” 1.58 Wasik, The Merchant of Power: Sam Insull, Thomas Edison, and the Creation of the Modern Metropolis, 85.59 Hodge, “The Commonwealth Edison Company,” 140.60 Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, Historic American Engineering Record, “Commonwealth Electric Company, Fisk Street Electrical Generating Sta-tion, 1111 West Cermak Avenue, Chicago, Cook County, IL,” 3-4.61 Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, Historic American Engineering Record, “Commonwealth Electric Company, Fisk Street Electrical Generating Sta-tion, 1111 West Cermak Avenue, Chicago, Cook County, IL,” 3-4.62 George Frederick Gebhardt, Steam Power Plant Engineering (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1908), 744.

63 City of Chicago, The Commission on Chicago Landmarks, “Historic Survey: Details for building at (1029-1179) W CERMAK RD,” Chicago Landmarks, accessed January 27, 2012, http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/landmarksweb/search/searchdetail.htm?pin=1729200002&formNumber=310107001; City of Chicago, The Commission on Chicago Landmarks, “Historic Survey: Details for building at (1029-1179) W CERMAK RD,” Chicago Landmarks, accessed January 27, 2012, http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/landmarksweb/search/searchdetail.htm?pin=1729200007&formNumber=310107003; City of Chicago, The Commission on Chicago Landmarks, “Historic Survey: Details for building at (1029-1179) W CERMAK RD,” Chicago Landmarks, accessed January 27, 2012, http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/landmarksweb/search/searchdetail.htm?pin=1729200002&formNumber=310107004; Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Divi-sion, Historic American Engineering Record, “Commonwealth Electric Company, Fisk Street Electrical Generating Station, 1111 West Cermak Avenue, Chicago, Cook County, IL,” 3.64 Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, Historic American Engineering Record, “Commonwealth Electric Company, Fisk Street Electrical Generating Sta-tion, 1111 West Cermak Avenue, Chicago, Cook County, IL,” 3.65 Wasik, The Merchant of Power: Sam Insull, Thomas Edison, and the Creation of the Modern Metropolis, 87.66 Philip Wattley, “Plant at Half Capacity: Edison Fire Estimate: $2 million,” Chicago Tribune, November 24, 1976, 6.67 Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, Historic American Engineering Record, “Commonwealth Electric Company, Fisk Street Electrical Generating Sta-tion, 1111 West Cermak Avenue, Chicago, Cook County, IL,” 4.68 Ibid.69 Ibid., 4-5.70 McGraw-Publishing Company, "The System and Operating Practice of the Com-monwealth Edison Company, Chicago," Electrical World 51, no. 20 (1908): 1030.71 McGraw-Publishing Company, "The System and Operating Practice of the Com-monwealth Edison Company, Chicago," Electrical World 51, no. 20 (1908): 1030.72 Hodge, “The Commonwealth Edison Company,”144.73 Ibid.74 McGraw-Publishing Company, "The System and Operating Practice of the Com-monwealth Edison Company, Chicago," Electrical World 51, no. 20 (1908): 1030.75 Frank Koester, Steam-Electric Power Plants: A Practical Treatise on the Design of Central Light and Power Stations and their Economical Construction and Operation (New York: D. Van Nostrand Company, 1908), 381. 76 Koester, Steam-Electric Power Plants: A Practical Treatise on the Design of Central Light and Power Stations and their Economical Construction and Operation, 381.77 McGraw-Publishing Company, "The System and Operating Practice of the Com-monwealth Edison Company, Chicago," Electrical World 51, no. 20 (1908): 1030.













80

78 Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, Historic American Engineering Record, “Commonwealth Electric Company, Fisk Street Electrical Generating Sta-tion, 1111 West Cermak Avenue, Chicago, Cook County, IL,” 4.79 City of Chicago, The Commission on Chicago Landmarks, “Historic Survey: Details for building at (1029-1179) W CERMAK RD,” Chicago Landmarks, accessed January 27, 2012, http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/landmarksweb/search/searchdetail.htm?pin=1729200007&formNumber=310107003

80 Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, Historic American Engineering Record, “Commonwealth Electric Company, Fisk Street Electrical Generating Sta-tion, 1111 West Cermak Avenue, Chicago, Cook County, IL,” 4.81 Ibid., 5.82 Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, In The Matter of Midwest Generation, LLC Fisk Generating Station and Crawford Generation Station: Order Responding to Petitioners Request that the Administrator Object to Issuance of a State Operating Permit. Petition number V-2005-1, CAAPP No. 95090081 and 95090076, March 25, 2005, 1. http://yosemite.epa.gov/r5/r5ard.nsf/8a853ab744d510c68625745800533fd5/4da3fdd18eece3a8862574c8006fd26b/$file/order.midwestgen.fiskcrawford.pdf83 Scadden, “Adaptive Reuse of Obsolete Power Plants,” 2.84 Midwest Generation, “Fisk Station Fact Sheet.”85 McGraw-Publishing Company. "The System and Operating Practice of the Com-monwealth Edison Company, Chicago,” 1027.86Jeanne Gang, Reverse Effect: Renewing Chicago's Waterways (Chicago: Studio Gang Architects, 2011), 9-18. 87 Casey, Bukro. “Edison Will Remove, Truck Away Debris,” Chicago Tribune, Octo-ber 23, 1968, 5.88 Citizens Against Ruining the Environment, The Environmental Law and Policy Cen-ter, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., Respiratory Health Association of Met-ropolitan Chicago, Sierra Club v. Midwest Generation. No. 09-cv-05277, (N.D. IL May, 14, 2010), 24.89 Ben Meyerson, “Powering Forward: What Happens After Pilsen's Fisk Power Plant Unplugs in December,” Chicago Journal, March 14, 2012. http://www.chicagojournal.com/News/03-14-2012/Powering_forward90 Ibid.91 Ibid.92 Ibid.93 City of Chicago, The Commission on Chicago Landmarks, “Historic Survey: Details for building at (1029-1179) W CERMAK RD.”94 City of Chicago, “Demolition Delay.”95 Ibid.

96 City of Chicago, “Chicago Zoning Ordinance and Land Use Ordinance” (City of Chicago: American Legal Publishing Corporation, 2011), 17-6-0400 PMD, Planned Manufacturing Districts, http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Illinois/chicagozoning/chicagozoningordinanceandlanduseordinanc?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:chicagozoning_il97 City of Chicago, “Chicago Zoning Ordinance and Land Use Ordinance” (City of Chicago: American Legal Publishing Corporation, 2011), 17-13-0308 Review and Decision-Making Criteria.98 City of Chicago, “Chicago Zoning Ordinance and Land Use Ordinance” (City of Chicago: American Legal Publishing Corporation, 2011), 17-13-0905 Approval Crite-ria.99 Ibid.100 City of Chicago, “Chicago Zoning Ordinance and Land Use Ordinance” (City of Chicago: American Legal Publishing Corporation, 2011), 17-13-0403 Review and Decision-Making Criteria.101 City of Chicago, Corridors Of Industrial Opportunity: A Plan For Industry In Chi-cago (Chicago, 2004), 1. 102 City of Chicago, Corridors Of Industrial Opportunity: A Plan For Industry In Chi-cago, 3-4.103 Ibid.104 City of Chicago, “Chicago Zoning Ordinance and Land Use Ordinance” (City of Chicago: American Legal Publishing Corporation, 2011), 17-13-0400 Zoning map amendments within industrial corridors.105 Walk Score, “Walk Score for 1111 W Cermak Rd Chicago, IL,” Walk Score, ac-cessed February 23, 2012, http://www.walkscore.com/score/1111-w-cermak-rd-chicago-il. 106 Ibid.107 City of Chicago, “Chicago Zoning Ordinance and Land Use Ordinance” (City of Chicago: American Legal Publishing Corporation, 2011), 17-8-0100 Planned Devel-opment, Purpose.108 City of Chicago, “Chicago Zoning Ordinance and Land Use Ordinance” (City of Chicago: American Legal Publishing Corporation, 2011), 17-8-0509 Development Along Waterways, 17-8-0912 Waterways.109 Gabriela F. Arredondo, “Lower West Side,” In Encyclopedia of Chicago, edited by Janice L. Reiff, Ann Durkin Keating, and James R. Grossman (Chicago Historical Society, 2005), http://encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/765.html110 John Betancur, Gentrification before Gentrification? The Plight of Pilsen in Chi-cago (Chicago: Nathalie P. Vorhees Center for Neighborhood and Community Im-provement, 2005), 6, http://www.uic.edu/cuppa/voorheesctr/Publications/Gentrification%20before%20Gentrification.pdf









http://www.chicagojournal.com/News/03-14-2012/Powering_forward

http://www.chicagojournal.com/News/03-14-2012/Powering_forward















81

111 Historic Preservation Program, University of Virginia. National Register of Historic Places: Registration Form, Pilsen Historic District, Section 8, 11.112 Ibid., Section 8, 11-12.113 Betancur, Gentrification before Gentrification? The Plight of Pilsen in Chicago, 15; Great Cities Institute, “Pilsen (Lower West).”114 Historic Preservation Program, University of Virginia. National Register of Historic Places: Registration Form, Pilsen Historic District, Section 8, 11.115 Preservation Chicago. Chicago’s Seven Most Threatened Buildings: Pilsen, 1.116 Great Cities Institute, “Pilsen (Lower West),” Great Cities Institute, Neighborhoods Initiative, accessed March 14, 2012, http://www.uicni.org/page.php?section=neighborhoods&subsection=pilsen.117 Elizabeth Duffrin, “Tax Freeze Helps Preserve Pilsen,” ChicagoTalks, November 17, 2008, http://www.chicagotalks.org/2008/11/17/tax-freeze-helps-preserve-pilsen/118 Betancur, Gentrification before Gentrification? The Plight of Pilsen in Chicago, 6; Preservation Chicago. Chicago’s Seven Most Threatened Buildings: Pilsen, 1.119 Historic Preservation Program, University of Virginia. National Register of Historic Places: Registration Form, Pilsen Historic District, Section 8, 11.120 Preservation Chicago. Chicago’s Seven Most Threatened Buildings: Pilsen, 2.121 Betancur, Gentrification before Gentrification? The Plight of Pilsen in Chicago, 23.122 Great Cities Institute, “Pilsen (Lower West).”123 Susan F. Grossman et al., “Pilsen and The Resurrection Project: Community Or-ganization in a Latino Community.” Journal of Poverty 4, no. 1-2 (2000): 137. 124 Yue Zhang, “Boundaries of Power: Politics of Urban Preservation in Two Chicago Neighborhoods,”Urban Affairs Review 47, no 4 (2011): 526, http://uar.sagepub.com/content/47/4/511.

125 Betancur, Gentrification before Gentrification? The Plight of Pilsen in Chicago, 7. 126 Yue Zhang, “Boundaries of Power: Politics of Urban Preservation in Two Chicago Neighborhoods,”Urban Affairs Review 47, no 4 (2011): 526; David Wilson, Jared Wouters, and Dennis Grammenos. “Successful protect-community discourse: spati-ality and politics in Chicago's Pilsen neighborhood.” Environment and Planning 36, (2004): 1182.127 Kaaren Fehsenfeld, "Zoning in on Pilsen: As Development Moves in, Old-Timers Move Out," Chicagotalks, May 26, 2010, http://www.chicagotalks.org/2010/05/26/zoning-in-on-pilsen-as-development-moves-in-old-timers-move-out/128 Yue Zhang, “Boundaries of Power: Politics of Urban Preservation in Two Chicago Neighborhoods,”Urban Affairs Review 47, no 4 (2011): 526; David Wilson, Jared Wouters, and Dennis Grammenos. “Successful protect-community discourse: spati-ality and politics in Chicago's Pilsen neighborhood.” Environment and Planning 36, (2004): 1182; Fehsenfeld, "Zoning in on Pilsen: As Development Moves in, Old-Timers Move Out.”

129 Winifred Curran and Euan Hague. The Pilsen Building Inventory Project (DePaul University Department of Geography, Chicago: 2006), 4, http://steans.depaul.edu/aboutus/partnerships/geography.asp130 Betancur, Gentrification before Gentrification? The Plight of Pilsen in Chicago, 11.131 Yue Zhang, “Boundaries of Power: Politics of Urban Preservation in Two Chicago Neighborhoods,”Urban Affairs Review 47, no 4 (2011): 528. 132 Yue Zhang, “Boundaries of Power: Politics of Urban Preservation in Two Chicago Neighborhoods,”Urban Affairs Review 47, no 4 (2011): 527; Winifred Curran and Euan Hague. The Pilsen Building Inventory Project (DePaul University Department of Geography, Chicago: 2006), 3.133 Betancur, Gentrification before Gentrification? The Plight of Pilsen in Chicago, 12. 134 Preservation Chicago. Chicago’s Seven Most Threatened Buildings: Pilsen, 2; Field Museum, Department of Environment, Culture, and Conservation (ECCo), En-gaging Chicago’s Diverse Communities in the Chicago Climate Action Plan. Commu-nity #4: Pilsen’s Mexican Community: Findings and Recommendations At-A-Glance (Field Museum, Chicago: December 2010), 3; Historic Preservation Program, Univer-sity of Virginia. National Register of Historic Places: Registration Form, Pilsen Historic District, Section 7, 3.135 Tom McCann, “Riverfront Renewal Not Reaching Pilsen,” Chicago Tribune, July 02, 2000,http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2000-07-02/news/0007020100_1_parks-chicago-river-navy-pier

136 Historic Preservation Program, University of Virginia. National Register of Historic Places: Registration Form, Pilsen Historic District, Section 7, 3.137 Richard A. Scadden, “Adaptive Reuse of Obsolete Power Plants,” (paper pre-sented, Air & Waste Management Association (A&WMA) 94th Annual Conference, Orlando, FL, June 2001);Gregory C. Staple and Matthew I. Slavin, “Repurposed Coal Plant Sites Empower and Revive Communities,” The Public Manager, Spring 2012, 45-47, www.cleanskies.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/43-47_featureStapleSlavin-1-1.pdf; Northcountry Cooperative Foundation, Jeff Allman, Allman & Associates, Too Good to Throw Away: The Adaptive Reuse of Underused Buildings; Illinois Historic Preser-vation Agency, “Benefits and Protections Offered by National Register Listing;” Scadden, “Facility Decommissioning and Adaptive Reuse;” American Clean Skies Foundation, Repurposing Legacy Power Plants: Lessons For the Future (American Clean Skies Foundation, August 2011).138 Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, “Benefits and Protections Offered by Na-tional Register Listing.” Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, accessed February 11, 2012, http://www.illinoishistory.gov/PS/benefitsnr.htm; U.S. Department of the Inte-rior, National Park Service. “National Register of Historic Places Program: Frequently Asked Questions,” U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, June 13, 2011, http://www.nps.gov/nr/faq.htm.

























82

139 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services, Historic Preservation Tax Incentives, (U.S. Department of the Interior, Na-tional Park Service: 2009), http://www.nps.gov/tps/tax-incentives/taxdocs/about-tax-incentives.pdf140 Ibid., 4.141 Ibid.142 Ibid., 8.143 Ibid., 12-13.144 Ibid., 16.145 Ibid., 17.146 Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, “Benefits and Protections Offered by Na-tional Register Listing.”147 City of Chicago, Department of Housing and Economic Development, “Economic Incentives for the Repair and Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings.” City of Chicago, accessed March 23, 2012, 1, http://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/zlup/Historic_Preservation/Publications/Incentives_Flyer.pdf148 Ibid.149 City of Chicago, Department of Housing and Economic Development. “Preserva-tion Incentives.” City of Chicago, Chicago Landmarks, accessed February 14, 2012,http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/landmarksweb/web/preservation.htm150 Ibid.151 Ibid.152 Ibid.153 City of Chicago. “Enterprise Zone Program.” City of Chicago. Accessed February 13, 2012. http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/dcd/supp_info/enterprise_zone_program.html154 Jeanne Gang, Reverse Effect: Renewing Chicago's Waterways (Chicago: Studio Gang Architects, 2011), 99.155 Jeanne Gang, Reverse Effect: Renewing Chicago's Waterways (Chicago: Studio Gang Architects, 2011), 35.156 Ibid.157 Ibid., 28-29.158 Kayla Jonsson, “Austin Energy finances wall art for Seaholm Power Plant,” The Daily Texan, February 15, 2012. http://www.dailytexanonline.com/news/2012/02/15/austin-energy-finances-wall-art-seaholm-power-plant159 American Clean Skies FoundaOon, Repurposing Legacy Power Plants: Lessons For

the Future, 12.160 Ibid., 24-‐25.

161 Ibid., 14.



















Date post:	04-Dec-2014
Category:	Documents
Upload:	bethany-salmon
View:	109 times
Download:	3 times

The Adaptive Reuse and Historic Preservation of Fisk Generating Station, Chicago

Documents