P. 1
The Adaptive Reuse of Coal-Fired Power Plants_Full Thesis

The Adaptive Reuse of Coal-Fired Power Plants_Full Thesis

|Views: 282|Likes:
Published by Bethany Salmon
The Adaptive Reuse of Coal-Fired Power Plants: A Preliminary Analysis for Recycling Chicago’s Fisk Generating Station

Bethany Salmon
Honors College Capstone Thesis/Independent Study
Spring 2012

The Adaptive Reuse of Coal-Fired Power Plants: A Preliminary Analysis for Recycling Chicago’s Fisk Generating Station

Bethany Salmon
Honors College Capstone Thesis/Independent Study
Spring 2012

More info:

Published by: Bethany Salmon on May 25, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/28/2014

pdf

text

original

The  Adap)ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants:   A  Preliminary  Analysis  for  Recycling  Chicago’s  Fisk   Genera

)ng  Sta)on

Bethany  Salmon Honors  College  Capstone  Thesis Independent  Study Sanjeev  Vidyarthi Brenda  Parker Spring  2012

Table  Of  Contents
Introduc)on   I.  The  Benefits  of  Adap)ve  Reuse   Environmental  Benefits   Economic  Benefits   Social  Benefits   II.  Key  Considera)ons  and  Barriers   Zoning   Compa)bility  with  Adjacent  Land  Uses   Exis)ng  Structures  and  Site  Quality   Historic  Designa)on   Funding  Mechanisms   Social  Considera)ons   Other  Considera)ons   An)cipated  Coal  Plant  Re)rements   Inherent  Building  Advantages   Loca)on-­‐Specific  Advantages:  Post-­‐Industrial  Waterfront  Redevelopment   The  Redevelopment  of  Post-­‐Industrial  Waterfronts:  Lessons  Learned   Specific  Concerns  for  the  Adap)ve  Reuse  of  Power  Plants   The  Redevelopment  Process:  A  Framework  for  the  Adap)ve  Reuse  of  Power  Plants   The  Future  of  Coal-­‐fired  Power  Plants   IV.  Case  Studies:  The  Adap)ve  Reuse  of  Power  Plants   Lessons  Learned   V.  The  History  and  Significance  of  Fisk  Sta)on   Historic  Significance   Historic  Buildings  Onsite   Fisk  Sta)on’s  An)cipated  Re)rement   Current  Site  Condi)ons  
Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

4 9 9 14 17 23 23 23 24 24 30 32 33 38 39 40 42 45 47 49 53 68 75 76 88 121 123
2

III.  Strategic  Advantages  and  Opportuni)es  in  the  Adap)ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   37

VI.  Analyzing  the  Adap)ve  Reuse  Poten)al  of  Chicago’s  Fisk  Genera)ng  Sta)on   Poten)al  for  Historic  Designa)on   Remedia)on   Zoning   Adjacent  Land  Uses   Poten)al  Funding  Mechanisms   Pilsen:  A  Neighborhood  Analysis   VII.  Recommenda)ons  for  Fisk  Sta)on’s  Future  Use   Bibliography  

130 131 139 140 143 144 145 159 182

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

3

Introduc3on
  Historic  preserva)on  and  sustainable  planning  were  originally  viewed  as  independent   processes  and  implemented  with  separate  purposes.  However,  a  number  of  adap)ve  reuse  pro-­‐ jects  across  the  world  have  united  these  two  concepts  by  connec)ng  their  shared  goals  in  con-­‐ serving  resources,  recycling  exis)ng  buildings,  encouraging  economic  growth,  revitalizing  com-­‐ muni)es,  and  planning  for  a  becer  future.     Adap)ve  reuse  is  defined  as  conver)ng  the  original  func)on  of  obsolete  or  vacant  build-­‐ ings  into  new  uses.  The  large  supply  of  exis)ng  buildings  worth  retaining-­‐-­‐some  which  may  not   possess  historic  characteris)cs,  but  are  “simply  underu)lized  structures  which  exhibit  signs  of   life  under  a  facade  of  age  and  neglect”-­‐-­‐present  incredible  opportuni)es  in  sustainable,  eco-­‐ nomic,  and  social  growth  to  ci)es. 1  Typically,  structurally-­‐sound  buildings  with  dis)nct  historic   or  architectural  significance  possess  a  strong  poten)al  for  adap)ve  reuse.   Adap)ve  reuse  entails  many  of  the  same  planning  techniques,  processes,  and  goals  u)l-­‐ ized  in  historic  preserva)on,  such  as  the  remedia)on  of  brownfield  sites,  retaining  original   building  characteris)cs,  commemora)ng  a  structure’s  past  heritage  or  opera)ons,  and  neigh-­‐ borhood  revitaliza)on.  Yet,  because  projects  are  not  limited  to  designated  historic  buildings,   adap)ve  reuse  offers  addi)onal  rehabilita)on  opportuni)es  compared  to  historic  preserva)on.   By  applying  redevelopment  to  a  larger  building  stock,  a  wide  range  of  structures  with  seemingly   licle  significance  can  be  valuable  environmental,  economic,  and  social  assets.     In  addi)on  to  historic  preserva)on,  adap)ve  reuse  also  involves  sustainable  develop-­‐ ment  prac)ces.  Adap)ve  reuse  projects  recycle  the  exis)ng  materials  already  present  in  the   building  stock,  which  reduces  the  amount  of  construc)on  waste  deposited  in  landfills  and   minimizes  addi)onal  fossil  fuel  use.  Many  proper)es  worth  saving,  par)cularly  if  historic,  follow   pacerns  of  sustainable  development  due  to  their  proximity  to  dense,  central  loca)ons.  The  lo-­‐ ca)onal  advantage  results  in  greater  walkability,  transit  accessibility,  and  connec)on  to  essen)al   services.  However,  many  )mes,  new  construc)on,  par)cularly  in  favor  of  green  design,  is  pre-­‐ ferred  over  preserving  exis)ng  buildings.  This  con)nuous  cycle  of  demoli)on  and  new  construc-­‐ )on  results  in  enormous  consequences  and  and  also  represents  immeasurable  foregone  oppor-­‐ tuni)es.

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

4

 

Yet,  within  the  past  few  decades,  adap)ve  reuse  has  gained  an  increasing  acen)on  in  its  

ability  to  transform  lifeless  structures  into  vibrant,  sustainable,  economically  viable  uses.  In  es-­‐ sence,  adap)ve  reuse  and  historic  preserva)on  are  both  inherently  green.  However,  the  energy   efficiency  and  sustainable  features  in  exis)ng  buildings  always  have  the  ability  to  be  improved   upon  through  retrofijng  sites  and  implemen)ng  green  ra)ng  systems  such  as  Leadership  in   Energy  and  Environmental  Design  (LEED)  standards.  In  order  to  address  climate  change  issues,   sustainable  urban  planning  must  turn  its  acen)on  to  the  vast  exis)ng  building  stock,  which  pro-­‐ vides  a  rich  source  of  raw  materials  for  new  projects.  Although  many  )mes  the  challenges  of   greening  exis)ng  buildings  is  greater  than  incorpora)ng  sustainable  elements  into  new  build-­‐ ings,  innova)ve  designs,  carefully-­‐constructed  engineering  plans,  and  technological  improve-­‐ ments  can  assist  in  overcoming  retrofijng  problems.  

 

A  building’s  original  purpose  can  become  obsolete  due  to  a  variety  of  factors,  such  as  

changes  in  economic  demand  for  its  services,  natural  deteriora)on,  technological  advances,  as   well  as  social  or  legal  shims.2  When  the  original  func)on  is  no  longer  needed,  typically  a  building   is  demolished  or  rehabilitated.  Rather  than  demolishing  old  buildings  to  make  way  for  new  con-­‐ struc)on  projects,  adap)ve  reuse  extends  the  life  of  buildings  through  recycling  the  basic  struc-­‐ ture,  fabric,  and  exis)ng  raw  materials.  Rehabilita)on  and  altera)ons  allows  exis)ng  buildings   to  serve  contemporary  uses  while  preserving  invaluable  features  from  the  past.  As  a  result  of   imagina)ve  planning,  buildings  which  were  once  wai)ng  for  demoli)on  can  once  again  provide   healthy  economic  support  to  developers  and  the  surrounding  neighborhood.     Vacant  buildings,  exis)ng  obsolete  buildings,  or  buildings  approaching  disuse  create  am-­‐ ple  opportuni)es  in  recycling  basic  structures.  The  adap)ve  reuse  of  buildings,  which  essen)ally   “breaths  new  life  into  exis)ng  buildings,”  transforms  the  previous  func)on  into  a  new  and  im-­‐ proved  environmental,  economic,  and  social  op)on  for  the  surrounding  community.     Today,  factors  related  to  environmental  degrada)on,  changing  economic  condi)ons,   quality  of  life  improvements  are  pushing  adap)ve  reuse  projects  forward.  Specifically,  the  rising   costs  of  resources,  the  decreased  availability  of  developable  proper)es,  and  fewer  acrac)ve   large-­‐scale  ventures  have  forced  developers  to  seek  alterna)ves  in  adap)ve  reuse  to  maximize   their  investment  goals.3  But  adap)ve  reuse  does  not  exclusively  apply  to  the  private  sector,  as  

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

5

around  the  world  non-­‐profit  organiza)ons,  governments,  and  other  stakeholders  are  also  recy-­‐ cling  underu)lized  structures  and  assigning  them  with  new  beneficial  uses.  And,  in  many  cases,   the  success  of  a  project  depends  of  the  collabora)on  and  partnership  of  several  of  these  stake-­‐ holders.     However,  assigning  new  func)ons  to  older  structures  requires  careful  planning  and  a   comprehensive  evalua)on  of  issues  related  to  zoning,  adjacent  land  uses,  neighborhood  charac-­‐ teris)cs,  remedia)on,  funding  op)ons,  stakeholder  interests,  market  feasibility,  and  regula)ons.   Given  these  constraints,  many  structures  may  not  be  suitable  for  adap)ve  reuse.  Although  the   general  considera)ons  that  determine  the  viability  and  success  rate  for  adap)ve  reuse  occur   through  out  all  projects,  each  specific  case  must  be  analyzed  independently  due  to  variances   among  factors.  

 

Although  there  are  countless  examples  of  adap)ve  reuse  projects  being  applied  to  a  va-­‐

riety  of  building  types  and  structures  around  the  world,  the  overall  purpose  of  this  thesis  is  to   examine  the  poten)al  for  repurposing  coal-­‐fired  power  plants.  Older  power  plants,  many  which   possess  historic  quali)es,  represent  electricity’s  legacy,  as  well  as  future  opportuni)es  for  build-­‐ ing  stronger  post-­‐industrial  neighborhoods.  In  addi)on,  this  thesis  provides  a  site-­‐specific  analy-­‐ sis  of  one  of  Chicago’s  coal-­‐fired  power  plants,  Fisk  Genera)ng  Sta)on,  in  order  to  iden)fy  the   site’s  adap)ve  reuse  opportuni)es  and  challenges  .   In  order  to  analyze  the  poten)al  reuse  value  of  Fisk  Genera)ng  Sta)on,  first,  the  general   advantages  produced  by  recycling  the  exis)ng  building  stock  and  major  issues  associated  with   planning  adap)ve  reuse  projects  will  be  discussed.  Chapter  I  will  examine  the  various  environ-­‐ mental,  economic,  and  social  benefits  related  to  adap)ve  reuse.  Chapter  II  will  iden)fy  and  dis-­‐ cuss  the  key  considera)ons  and  barriers  related  to  the  successful  planning  of  reuse  projects,   which  include  factors  such  as  zoning,  land  use  op)ons,  environmental  remedia)on,  funding   mechanisms,  and  regulatory  issues.  The  collected  informa)on  from  Chapters  I  and  II  are  in-­‐ tended  to  serve  as  an  introduc)on  for  evalua)ng  poten)al  adap)ve  reuse  projects.  In  addi)on,   the  discussed  material  is  meant  to  construct  a  basic  conceptual  framework  to  introduce   adap)ve  reuse  to  residents,  communi)es,  and  urban  planners  and  provide  references  relatable   to  their  own  local  projects.  

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

6

 

Chapter  II  will  focus  on  the  importance  of  repurposing  coal-­‐fired  power  plants,  given  the  

future  an)cipated  re)rements  of  a  large  por)on  of  the  exis)ng  coal  fleet  and  site  advantages   for  redevelopment.  Chapter  IV  will  briefly  showcase  a  number  of  coal-­‐fired  power  plants  that   have  been  rehabilitated  or  are  currently  in  the  process  of  being  recycled  for  new  building  pur-­‐ poses  within  the  United  States.  These  real-­‐life  examples  and  the  lessons  learned  will  help  high-­‐ light  the  actual  planning  issues  and  posi)ve  outcomes  for  the  adap)ve  reuse  of  power  plants.     Chapter  V  will  largely  concentrate  on  the  historic  and  architectural  significance  of  Fisk   Genera)ng  Sta)on,  a  coal-­‐fired  power  plant  located  in  Chicago’s  Pilsen  neighborhood,  to  dem-­‐ onstrate  the  site’s  value  in  preserva)on.  Built  in  1903,  Fisk  Sta)on  once  held  the  most  powerful   steam  turbine  genera)ng  technology  of  its  )me,  which  ul)mately  aided  Chicago’s  electric   growth  and  stood  as  the  world’s  most  sophis)cated  engineering  technology.  Fisk  Sta)on’s  revo-­‐ lu)onary  turbine  technology  triggered  a  new  era  of  innova)on  and  progress  within  the  electric   industry.  The  site  also  contains  a  number  of  architecturally  significant  buildings  built  in  the  early   20th  century,  a  rare  feature  in  many  opera)ng  power  plants.  The  current  opera)ng  condi)ons   and  closure  of  the  site  will  also  be  discussed.     Chapter  VI  will  examine  key  considera)ons  regarding  Fisk  Sta)on’s  adap)ve  reuse  po-­‐ ten)al.  The  possibility  for  lis)ng  the  site  as  an  historic  landmark,  remedia)on  issues,  zoning  re-­‐ stric)ons,  and  a  neighborhood  analysis  of  Pilsen  will  be  discussed.  Given  the  recent  announce-­‐ ment  of  the  power  plant’s  re)rement  by  the  end  of  2012,  the  ini)al  adap)ve  reuse  evalua)on   for  Fisk  Sta)on’s  historic  structures  presented  in  this  thesis  could  not  be  more  appropriate  and   )me  sensi)ve.  Although  the  site  faces  difficult  redevelopment  challenges,  Fisk  Sta)on  should   not  be  demolished,  but  preserved  to  commemorate  its  countless  employees,  monumental  role   in  the  electric  industry,  and  innova)ve  turbine  technology.     Chapter  VI  will  prescribe  a  variety  of  recommended  new  land  and  building  uses  for  the   site.  While  these  suggested  func)ons  are  not  meant  to  include  all  the  possibili)es  for  Fisk  Sta-­‐ )on’s  redevelopment,  the  recommenda)ons  are  intended  to  help  concerned  par)es  visualize   poten)al  site  opportuni)es  and  encourage  other  imagina)ve  site  uses.  However,  in  order  to  en-­‐ sure  that  Fisk  Sta)on’s  preserva)on  and  adap)ve  reuse  is  successful,  a  more  detailed  site  analy-­‐ sis  needs  to  be  conducted  and  the  proper  planning  process  involving  all  the  relevant  stakehold-­‐ ers  must  be  ini)ated.  

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

7

Introduc3on:  Sec3on  Endnotes
1  Urban  Land  Ins)tute.  Adap%ve  Use:  Development  Economics,  Process,  and  Profiles  (Washington:  The  Urban  Land  

Ins)tute,  1978),  3. 2  Craig  Langston  et  al.,  "Strategic  Assessment  of  Building  Adap)ve  Reuse  Opportuni)es  in  Hong  Kong,"  Building  and   Environment  43  (2008). 3  Urban  Land  Ins)tute.  Adap%ve  Use:  Development  Economics,  Process,  and  Profiles,  1.

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

8

I.  The  Benefits  Of  Adap3ve  Reuse
Environmental  Benefits
  Although  recycling  has  become  a  main  prac)ce  used  to  support  sustainable  efforts,  ini-­‐ )a)ves  typically  neglect  the  environmental  benefits  generated  from  repurposing  exis)ng  build-­‐ ings.  However,  it  has  been  commonly  quoted  that  “the  greenest  building  is  the  one  that  already   exists.”  While  adap)ve  reuse  has  tradi)onally  been  underemphasized  in  green  building  prac-­‐ )ces,  it  remains  a  prac)cal,  sustainable  alterna)ve  to  demoli)on  and  new  construc)on,  espe-­‐ cially  if  green  design  and  construc)on  technologies  are  integrated.  Because  reusing  the  built   environment  can  reduce  the  use  of  fossil  fuels  and  minimize  waste  genera)on,  projects  can   have  a  significant  influence  on  climate  change  reduc)on.   It  is  easily  forgocen  that  all  man-­‐made  things,  par)cularly  buildings,  require  an  exten-­‐ sive  amount  of  resources  to  create  and  manufacture.  Many  )mes,  manmade  items  result  in  a   high  environmental  price,  which  is  exacerbated  when  these  items  become  expendable.  How-­‐ ever,  recycling  buildings  takes  advantage  of  “embodied  energy,”  which  is  the  “energy  consumed   by  all  of  the  processes  associated  with  the  produc)on  of  a  building,  from  the  acquisi)on  of   natural  resources  to  product  delivery,  including  mining,  manufacturing  of  materials  and  equip-­‐ ment,  transport  and  administra)ve  func)ons.”1  Because  adap)ve  reuse  retains  embodied  en-­‐ ergy,  it  is  inherently  more  sustainable  than  new  construc)on  in  terms  of  conserving  resources   and  reducing  energy  use.  These  factors  are  par)cularly  important  given  that  building  construc-­‐ )on  and  opera)ons  account  for  about  48%  of  greenhouse  gas  emissions  in  the  United  States.2   In  addi)on,  some  es)mates  conclude  that  it  may  take  35  to  50  years  for  an  energy-­‐efficient  new   building  to  save  on  the  amount  of  energy  lost  in  demolishing  a  new  exis)ng  building.3   Repurposing  buildings  also  decreases  the  amount  of  demoli)on  and  construc)on  waste   deposited  in  landfills.  In  the  United  States,  buildings  account  for  40%  of  nonindustrial  solid   waste  or  the  equivalent  of  136  million  tons  of  construc)on  and  demoli)on  debris  each  year.4   Construc)on  debris  accounts  for  approximately  25%  of  the  municipal  waste  stream  each  year.5   Municipal  waste  must  be  loaded,  hauled,  and  transferred  from  trucks  to  trains  to  be  dumped  in   landfills,  which  consumes  a  great  deal  of  energy  and  fossil  fuels.6  Richard  Moe,  president  of  the  

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

9

Na)onal  Trust  for  Historic  Preserva)on,  further  explains  the  environmental  consequences  of   these  construc)on  processes: Demolishing  a  500,000-­‐sq.-­‐m.  building  creates  40,000  tons  of  debris,  enough  to  fill  250   railroad  boxcars,  a  train  two  miles  long,  heading  for  the  landfill.  Construc)ng  a  new   500,000-­‐sq.-­‐m.  building  would  release  as  much  carbon  into  the  atmosphere  as  driving  a   car  30  million  miles.7 Reusing  exis)ng  buildings  has  the  poten)al  to  significantly  reduce  demoli)on  and  construc)on   waste  and  fossil  fuel  use.  In  addi)on,  these  landfill  processes  also  produce  air,  water,  or  soil  pol-­‐ lu)on  through  carbon  emissions  or  from  hazardous  chemicals.     Instead  of  further  harming  the  environment,  adap)ve  reuse  projects  avoid  further  con-­‐ tamina)on,  while  also  providing  the  opportunity  to  remediate  sites.  Many  )mes  industrial  or   historic  sites  require  remedia)on  efforts,  which  can  entail  removing  industrial  equipment,  un-­‐ derground  storage  tanks,  or  hazardous  contaminants  like  asbestos  or  lead  paint.8  Remedia)on   alongside  adap)ve  reuse  provides  the  chance  to  enhance  the  environment  by  cleaning  the  exist-­‐ ing  building  stock  and  surrounding  natural  spaces.   The  report,  The  Greenest  Building:  Quan%fying  the  Environmental  Value  of  Building   Reuse,  recently  released  by  the  Na)onal  Trust  for  Historic  Preserva)on’s  Preserva)on  Green   Lab,  calculated  and  compared  the  environmental  impacts  of  reuse  and  new  construc)on  for  six   building  types,  including  single-­‐family  residen)al,  mul)-­‐family  residen)al,  commercial  office,   urban  village  mixed-­‐use,  elementary  school,  and  warehouse.  The  study  examined  indicators   within  four  environmental  impact  categories:  climate  change,  human  health,  ecosystem  quality,   and  resource  deple)on.  One  of  the  first  major  findings  was  that,  when  comparing  buildings  with   a  similar  size  and  func)on,  reuse  almost  always  produces  less  environmental  impacts  than   demoli)on  and  new  construc)on.  Depending  on  building  type,  reuse  saved  between  4  to  46%   more  than  new  construc)on  with  the  same  energy  performance  level.9  The  only  excep)on  to   this  trend  involved  the  warehouse-­‐to-­‐mul)family  conversion,  where  savings  ranged  from  8%   fewer  to  6%  greater  impacts  compared  to  new  construc)on.10  The  variance  in  the  warehouse-­‐ to-­‐mul)family  conversion  is  due  to  a  number  of  factors,  but  relates  to  the  amount  or  types  of   materials  used  in  these  types  of  projects.     In  addi)on,  the  study  found  that  the  reuse  of  buildings  with  an  average  energy  perform-­‐ ance  level  provides  immediate  climate  change  impact  reduc)ons  compared  to  more  energy-­‐
Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   10

efficient  new  construc)on.  Depending  on  the  building  type,  it  takes  10  to  80  years  for  a  30%   more  efficient  new  building  to  overcome  nega)ve  climate  change  impacts  related  to  the  con-­‐ struc)on  process  compared  to  an  average-­‐performing  exis)ng  building. 11  However,  only  a   warehouse-­‐to-­‐mul)family  conversion  stood  as  an  excep)on  to  the  climate  change  impact  sav-­‐ ings  based  on  the  amount  and  kind  of  materials  used  for  rehabilita)on.  Because  a  warehouse-­‐ to-­‐mul)family  conversion  seems  to  offer  less  climate  change  advantages,  “it  may  be  especially   important  to  retrofit  warehouse  buildings  for  improved  energy  performance,  and  that  care   should  be  taken  to  select  materials  that  will  maximize  environmental  savings.”12   Finally,  The  Greenest  Building  showed  that  “materials  macer,  ”  especially  because  “the   quan)fy  and  type  of  materials  used  in  building  renova)on  can  reduce,  or  even  negate,  the   benefits  of  reuse.”13  Some  reuse  projects,  such  as  the  conserva)on  of  schools  or  warehouses,   require  more  material  inputs.  Subsequently,  a  project  that  demands  a  great  deal  of  new  materi-­‐ als,  extensive  renova)on,  and  changes  in  the  original  building  footprint  generates  less  reuse   benefits  than  other  building  types.  Similar  to  previous  findings,  the  warehouse-­‐to-­‐mul)family   conversion  may  be  a  less  preferred  reuse  op)on  as  projects  were  less  environmentally  prefer-­‐ able  than  demoli)on  and  new  construc)on.14  However,  the  report  notes  that  while  warehouse   and  school  reuse  may  require  more  materials  than  other  renova)on  projects,  “reusing  these   buildings  is  s)ll  more  environmentally  responsible  –  in  terms  of  climate  change  and  resource   impacts  –  than  building  anew,  par)cularly  when  these  buildings  are  retroficed  to  perform  at   advanced  efficiency  levels.  Becer  tools  are  needed  to  aid  designers  in  selec)ng  materials  with   the  least  environmental  impacts.”15     The  findings  presented  in  The  Greenest  Building  indicate  the  broad  impacts  of  reuse   compared  to  new  construc)on.  However,  most  buildings  and  adap)ve  reuse  projects  will  need   to  be  analyzed  and  implemented  on  an  individual  basis  to  determine  and  enhance  the  environ-­‐ mental  benefits.

Inherent  Sustainable  Elements  in  Historic  or  Older  Buildings   Surprisingly,  many  historic  buildings  are  remarkably  energy  efficient  due  to  their  “site   sensi)vity,  quality  of  construc)on,  and  use  of  passive  hea)ng  and  cooling.”16  Before  technologi-­‐ cal  advances,  architectural  designs  provided  natural  light  and  ven)la)on  that  inten)onally  took  
Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   11

advantage  of  the  outside  environment  and,  as  a  result,  decreased  the  building’s  energy  use.  In-­‐ teres)ngly,  these  are  some  of  the  same  characteris)cs  used  today  in  sustainable  design.  Many   older  buildings  were  constructed  using  quality  materials  that  “display  a  useful  life  well  in  excess   of  their  more  modern  counterparts  (e.g.  use  of  solid  stone  walls,  slated  roofs,  marble  floors,   etc.)” 17  These  durable,  quality  materials  innately  have  a  longer  life  space,  providing  a  stepping   stone  to  adap)ve  reuse.  Although  some  of  these  buildings  may  face  retrofijng  challenges  or   for  installing  sustainable  features,  “this  should  not  be  considered  as  a  significant  issue,  and  in   many  cases  adap)ve  reuse  solu)ons  will  achieve  higher  opera)onal  performance  than  their   new  build  counterparts.” 18  

Improving  A  Building's  Sustainable  and  Energy  Efficient  Features   While  the  energy  efficiency  level  of  a  specific  property  varies,  collec)vely  buildings  con-­‐ )nue  to  profoundly  impact  the  environment  during  all  phases  of  service,  including  construc)on,   opera)on,  and  demoli)on.  In  the  United  States,  buildings  account  for  37%  of  primary  energy   use,  68%  of  all  electricity  use,  60%  of  nonfood/fuel  raw  material  use,  36  billion  gallons  of  water   used  per  day,  and  a  large  percent  of  carbon  dioxide,  sulfur  dioxide,  and  nitrous  oxide   emissions.19  Thus,  while  individually  some  proper)es  may  be  inherently  efficient  and  ideal  for   reuse,  many  buildings  can  be  improved  upon.  In  addi)on,  while  building  reuse  is  sustainable  in   itself,  it  alone  cannot  stop  environment  degrada)on  and  climate  change  impacts.  Therefore,  a   greater  focus  should  be  placed  on  how  to  incorporate  sustainable  design  into  exis)ng  buildings.   In  order  to  improve  upon  a  building’s  current  performance  level,  first,  an  energy  audit   can  help  iden)fy  specific  deficiencies  in  the  envelope  or  mechanical  systems.  A  building  can  be-­‐ come  more  energy-­‐efficient  through  elimina)ng  air  infiltra)on,  installing  efficient  hea)ng  or   cooling  systems,  using  efficient  electrical  systems  and  appliances,  repairing  or  upgrading  win-­‐ dows  and  doors,  installing  addi)onal  insula)on,  and  adding  shading  devices  such  as  awnings,   shades,  or  trees.20  Windows  can  be  improved  upon  through  simple  caulking  or  glazing,  or  if   necessary,  could  be  replaced  with  similar  counterparts  in  terms  of  size,  configura)on,  materials,   and  trim. 21  On-­‐site  renewable  energy,  which  includes  solar  panels,  geothermal  systems,  and   wind  turbines,  should  also  be  considered.  

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

12

 

Sustainable  designs  also  focus  on  the  conserva)on  of  water.22  This  can  entail  indoor  fea-­‐

tures  such  as  low-­‐flow  toilets  or  on-­‐demand  hot  water  to  reduce  usage.  Outdoor  features  such   as  permeable  pavement,  rain  barrels,  cisterns,  and  rain  gardens  help  prevent  storm  water  runoff   and  can  even  store  water  for  safe  reuse  purposes,  such  as  irriga)on  needs.  Exis)ng  buildings   can  also  feature  green  roofs  or  living  walls  to  provide  addi)onal  insula)on,  absorb  rainwater,   and  help  reduce  air  urban  temperatures   In  some  cases,  the  original  material  of  an  exis)ng  building  may  be  at  such  a  deteriorated   state  that  it  cannot  be  repaired.  Instead  of  simply  replacing  these  materials,  recycled  or   environmentally-­‐friendly  materials  should  be  used.  Ideally,  the  most  sustainable  products  will   be  durable,  have  a  long  life  span,  can  be  made  from  renewable  resources  or  post-­‐consumer   waste,  salvaged  from  previous  projects,  do  not  contain  toxic  substances,  and  may  be  produced   locally.  If  acemp)ng  to  maintain  the  historic  or  architectural  quali)es,  recycled  materials  can   also  be  used  to  match  the  original  windows,  doors,  decora)ve  trim,  floors,  or  exterior  surfaces.   The  sustainable  materials  should  also  hold  true  for  poten)al  new  construc)on  added  on  to  ex-­‐ is)ng  buildings  to  increase  the  square  footage.     Rehabilita)on  projects  should  strongly  consider  incorpora)ng  green  prac)ces  to  in-­‐ crease  energy  efficiency  and  adhering  to  green  ra)ng  systems,  such  as  the  Leadership  in  Energy   and  Environmental  Design  (LEED).  Renova)ons  incorpora)ng  green  design  should  preserve  the   original  architectural  or  significant  characteris)cs  of  the  building.  If  an  historic  designated  prop-­‐ erty  is  rehabilitated  with  federal  funds,  renova)ons  must  comply  with  the  U.S.  Secretary  of  the   Interior’s  Standards  for  Historic  Rehabilita%on,  which  will  be  explained  in  greater  detail  in  Chap-­‐ ter  II.  

 

Adap)ve  reuse  can  reduce  climate  change  impacts  and  further  enhance  the  environ-­‐

ment,  par)cularly  when  compared  to  new  construc)on.  Although  reuse  benefits  “may  seem   small  when  considering  a  single  building,”  “the  absolute  carbon-­‐related  impact  reduc)ons  can   be  substan)al  when  these  results  are  scaled  across  the  building  stock  of  a  city.”23  The  Greenest   Building:  Quan%fying  the  Environmental  Value  of  Building  Reuse  notes  that  if  the  city  of  Portland   retroficed  and  reused  single-­‐family  homes  and  commercial  office  buildings  that  are  likely  to  be   demolish  within  the  next  10  years,  the  poten)al  total  impact  reduc)on  would  amount  to  about  

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

13

231,000  metric  tons  of  carbon  dioxide,  approximately  15%  of  the  county’s  total  reduc)on  tar-­‐ gets  over  the  next  decade.24  Although  this  sta)s)c  is  based  on  a  smaller,  city-­‐wide  scale,  if  reuse   efforts  were  strengthened  na)onally,  environmental  impacts  could  be  substan)ally  reduced.

Economic  Benefits
  In  The  Death  and  Life  of  Great  American  Ci%es,  Jane  Jacobs  eloquently  spoke  of  the  in-­‐ herent  value  in  old  buildings  for  s)mula)ng  economic  ac)vity  and  crea)ng  lively  areas: Ci)es  need  old  buildings  so  badly  it  is  probably  impossible  for  vigorous  streets  and  dis-­‐ tricts  to  grow  without  them...The  economic  value  of  new  buildings  is  replaceable  in  cit-­‐ ies.  It  is  replaceable  by  the  spending  of  more  construc)on  money.  But  the  economic   value  of  old  buildings  is  irreplaceable  at  will.  It  is  created  by  )me.  This  economic  requi-­‐ site  for  diversity  is  a  requisite  that  vital  city  neighborhoods  can  only  inherit,  and  then   sustain  over  the  years.”25 According  to  Jacobs,  the  vitality  and  growth  spurred  by  unique,  old  proper)es  cannot  be  gener-­‐ ated  by  new  construc)on  alone.  Thus,  recycling  the  exis)ng  building  stock  is  impera)ve  in  the   livelihood  of  neighborhood.  Many  facili)es  appropriate  for  adap)ve  reuse  projects  typically  no   longer  serve  economically  viable  func)ons,  have  been  abandoned,  or  are  at  risk  of  becoming   vacant.  Adap)ve  reuse  of  obsolete  or  underu)lized  sites  can  help  avoid  vacancy  by  assigning   new  func)ons  and  services  to  communi)es,  which  subsequently  strengthens  the  city’s  tax  base.   Without  redevelopment,  these  structures  can  acract  addi)onal  disinvestment  or  crime  from   visible  deteriora)on  and  vacancy.26  The  economic  benefits  become  increasingly  important  for   blighted  industrial  areas  affected  by  the  decline  of  U.S.  manufacturing.  Recycling  old  industrial   sites  can  help  rejuvenate  neighborhoods  by  s)mula)ng  new  business  ac)vity.  In  addi)on,  ac-­‐ cording  to  a  report  published  by  PlaceEconomics  for  the  Advisory  Council  on  Historic  Preserva-­‐ )on,  historic  preserva)on  has  posi)ve  affects  on  the  local  economy,  in  terms  of  job,  property   values,  heritage  tourism,  and  downtown  revitaliza)on.27       Repurposed  sites  foster  local  economic  growth  and  community  reinvestment  by  generat-­‐ ing  new  tax  revenue  sources.  For  example,  in  1997,  the  Na)onal  Historic  Rehabilita)on  Tax   Credit  cer)fied  investment  was  $688  million,  which  then  generated  $762  million  in  income  and   $319  million  in  taxes.28  To  further  support  the  local  economy,  materials  and  labor  needed  for   remedia)on,  demoli)on,  and  construc)on  can  obtain  from  local  businesses. 29

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

14

 

Adap)ve  reuse  also  creates  employment  opportuni)es  offset  by  vacancy  or  a  plant’s  re-­‐

)rement  through  remedia)on,  demoli)on,  and  construc)on  that  generate  temporary  jobs.  New   land  uses  require  permanent  employment  posi)ons  for  staff,  maintenance,  or  other  posi)ons.   Research  indicates  that  dollar  for  dollar,  rehabilita)ng  historic  buildings  generates  more  em-­‐ ployment  than  new  construc)on.  For  example,  one  study  found  that  $1  million  in  historic  pres-­‐ erva)on  ac)vity  creates  about  38  jobs,  while  $1  million  in  new  construc)on  of  non-­‐residen)al   structures  creates  36  jobs.30  In  Delaware,  another  report  from  2010  found  that  $1  million  spent   on  rehabilita)ng  historic  proper)es  created  14.6  jobs,  whereas  11.2  jobs  were  created  in  new   construc)on  and  9.2  jobs  from  manufacturing  output  with  the  same  $1  million  spent.31  Simi-­‐ larly,  in  Georgia,  a  report  from  2011  indicated  that  historic  preserva)on  created  more  jobs  per   $1  million  of  economic  ac)vity  that  in  other  major  industries.32  While  historic  preserva)on  gen-­‐ erated  18.1  jobs,  new  construc)on  created  14.9,  poultry  processing  created  10.4,  air  transpor-­‐ ta)on  created  8.7,  computer  manufacturing  created  4,  and  automobile  manufacturing  crated   3.5.  Finally,  historic  preserva)on  has  the  ability  to  generate  a  variety  of  jobs  posi)ons.  From   2002  to  2009,  4,443  total  jobs  were  created  in  Kansas  from  historic  rehabilita)on  tax  credit   ac)vi)es.33  While  almost  half  of  those  jobs  were  in  the  construc)on  industry,  832  were  created   in  services,  605  in  retail,  and  500  in  manufacturing.  In  addi)on,  other  industry  sectors  were  im-­‐ pacted,  including  agriculture,  mining,  transporta)on,  and  public  u)li)es.     Repurposing  obsolete  or  vacant  buildings  also  encourages  local  economic  development   by  acrac)ng  new  businesses  and  increasing  property  values.34  One  study,  which  included  thou-­‐ sands  of  residen)al  proper)es  in  15  American  ci)es,  indicated  the  posi)ve  effect  on  property   values.  The  study  found  that  the  value  of  historic  designated  proper)es  was  5%  to  20%  higher   than  comparable  non-­‐designated  proper)es.35  In  addi)on,  historic  proper)es  produce  a  “halo   effect,”  where  even  the  proximity  to  a  heritage  district  raised  the  value  of  non-­‐designated  prop-­‐ er)es.  Based  off  another  study  released  in  2010,  houses  in  the  Na)onal  Register  historic  dis-­‐ tricts  in  Philadelphia  priced  14.3%  more  than  comparable  proper)es  not  located  in  a  historic   district.36  Similar  results  have  been  found  in  other  ci)es  and  because  of  the  increased  property   values,  the  county  and  city  received  addi)onal  tax  revenues  to  support  further  growth.     While  simultaneously  encouraging  sustainable  development,  adap)ve  reuse  u)lizes   “embodied  energy”  and  does  not  have  to  compensate  for  costs  already  spent  in  construc)ng  a   building.  Recycling  these  buildings  avoids  demoli)on  costs,  which  are  predicted  to  increase  with  
Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   15

the  rise  of  future  energy  prices.37  Rehabilita)on  can  even  cost  less  than  demoli)on  and  recon-­‐ struc)on,  given  there  are  no  addi)onal  issues  like  structural  changes,  major  building  code  viola-­‐ )ons,  or  environmental  remedia)on.38  One  report  notes: On  average,  the  cost  of  a  large  commercial  rehabilita)on  will  be  about  4%  lower  than   comparable  new  construc)on  on  a  clear  site.  If  the  new  building  requires  demoli)on  of   an  exis)ng  structure,  the  savings  are  greater…Even  where  rehabilita)on  costs  are  more   than  new  construc)on,  it  can  s)ll  produce  a  higher  rate  of  return.  Central  loca)ons,  in-­‐ teres)ng  architecture  and  high-­‐quality  materials  will  omen  lead  to  higher  rents  and  oc-­‐ cupancy  rates  for  heritage  buildings.39 In  addi)on  to  reusing  the  embodied  energy  in  the  original  building,  exis)ng  infrastructure  can   also  be  reused  to  case  on  costs.  One  es)mate  concludes  that  preserva)on  projects  save  50%  to   80%  in  infrastructure  costs  compared  to  new  suburban  developments.40   Projects  that  both  recycle  exis)ng  buildings  and  add  green  design  can  also  benefit  the   property’s  owner  or  managing  agency  by  providing  a  good  rate  of  return  on  the  investment.   Some  case  studies  have  shown  that  businesses  engaged  in  greening  exis)ng  buildings  have  re-­‐ ceived  payback  for  their  incremental  investment  in  as  low  as  two  years.41  Although  the  upfront   costs  for  retrofijng  and  adding  sustainable  design  may  be  considered  high  for  agencies,  retro-­‐ ficed  buildings  reduce  costs  in  the  long-­‐term  due  to  lower  overall  energy  and  opera)ng  costs.   By  greening  an  exis)ng  building,  the  u)lity  cost  savings  for  energy  and  water  typically  range   from  25%  to  40%.42  Sustainable  adap)ve  reuse  projects  also  produce  a  higher  rater  of  return  for   building  owners  as  the  retroficed  improvements  typically  increase  average  rents,  average  occu-­‐ pancy  rates,  and  the  resale  value.43   In  addi)on,  compared  to  construc)ng  new  space,  rehabilita)on  can  be  created  more   quickly  if  extensive  structural  reconstruc)on  is  not  required,  subsequently  lowering  construc-­‐ )on  costs  and  other  opera)onal  expenses.44  For  the  same  square  footage,  rehabilita)on  can   take  half  to  three-­‐quarters  of  the  )me  as  demoli)on  and  reconstruc)on.45   Heritage  tourism  created  by  historic  preserva)on,  which  can  be  extended  to  many   adap)ve  reuse  projects,  can  also  s)mulate  the  local  economy  through  spending  money  on  lodg-­‐ ing,  food,  retail,  transporta)on,  as  well  as  recrea)on  and  entertainment.  Tourist  spending  can   contribute  millions  of  dollars  to  state  sales  taxes  and  local  government  revenues,  while  also   suppor)ng  employment  and  payrolls.46  

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

16

 

Although  the  previous  informa)on  on  economic  development  focuses  primarily  on  his-­‐

toric  preserva)on,  as  it  is  the  most  relevant  data  available,  it  can  be  assumed  that  adap)ve   reuse  would  generate  similar  outcomes  because  it  entails  many  of  the  same  planning  and  reha-­‐ bilita)on  processes  as  historic  preserva)on.     The  discussed  economic  benefits  poten)ally  spurred  by  preserving  old  buildings  are  not   meant  to  insinuate  that  new  construc)on  is  expendable.  In  fact,  a  diverse  mixture  of  old  and   new  construc)on  reflects  the  economic  past  throughout  genera)ons  and  also  encourages  the   economic  growth  for  the  future.  Jacobs  writes,  “ The  only  harm  of  aged  buildings  to  a  city  dis-­‐ trict  of  street  is  the  harm  that  eventually  comes  of  nothing  but  the  old  age-­‐-­‐the  harm  that  lies  in   everything  being  old  and  everything  becoming  worn  out.” 47  Building  diversity  in  age  and  struc-­‐ ture  helps  create  lively  areas  by  supplying  different  affordability  levels  and  economically  valu-­‐ able  places  for  specific  businesses  and  residents.       To  conclude,  Jacobs’  touches  specifically  on  adap)ve  reuse’s  transforma)onal  ability  to   Among  the  most  admirable  and  enjoyable  sights  to  be  found  along  the  sidewalks  of  big   ci)es  are  the  ingenious  adapta)ons  of  old  quarters  to  new  uses.  The  town-­‐house  parlor   that  becomes  a  cramsman’s  showroom,  the  stable  that  becomes  a  house,  the  basement   that  becomes  an  immigrants’  club,  the  garage  or  brewery  that  becomes  a  theater,  the   beauty  parlor  that  becomes  the  ground  floor  of  a  duplex,  the  warehouse  that  becomes  a   factory  for  Chinese  food,  the  dancing  school  that  becomes  a  pamphlet  printer’s,  the   cobbler’s  that  becomes  a  church  with  lovingly  painted  windows-­‐-­‐the  stained  glass  of  the   poor-­‐-­‐the  butcher  shop  that  becomes  a  restaurant:  These  are  the  kinds  of  minor  changes   forever  occurring  where  city  districts  have  vitality  and  are  responsive  to  human  needs.48 reflect  on  economic  and  social  dynamism  within  neighborhoods:

Social  Benefits
  Old  buildings  are  more  than  just  bricks  and  mortar.  Building  walls  contain  countless  nar-­‐ ra)ves  from  the  past,  revealing  historical  periods,  neighborhood  or  economic  transforma)ons,   or  the  ajtudes  and  experiences  of  people  that  lived  or  worked  in  those  spaces.  Through  pre-­‐ serving  these  historic  characteris)cs  and  celebra)ng  once  valuable  community  spaces,  adap)ve   reuse  has  the  ability  to  generate  a  variety  of  social  benefits.     As  one  architect  notes,  “there  is  no  built  heritage  without  an  ‘intangible  dimension,’”   and  historic  heritage  is  vital  as  it  transports  “memory  from  a  distant  Time.”49  Exis)ng  and  his-­‐
Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   17

toric  buildings  are  the  “physical  manifesta)on  of  memory”  and  “a  community  without  memory   is  a  meaningless  place.”50  Through  their  life  cycles,  buildings  gain  immaterial  value.  The  “spirit  of   the  place”  or  the  “intangible  essence”  are  represented  in  a  building’s  form,  architectural  design,   materials  used,  use  and  func)on,  and  loca)on  worth  preserving.51  It  is  this  spirit  and  essence   that  assigns  buildings  as  a  living,  changing  part  of  a  city’s  environment.   Because  adap)ve  reuse  preserves  original  building  characteris)cs,  the  meaning  and   value  of  a  building’s  past  func)on  is  honored  and  remembered.  But,  in  addi)on  to  preserving   the  past  memory  embodied  with  a  building,  extending  the  life  of  a  building  and  assigning  new   func)ons  further  provides  the  opportunity  to  enhance  the  spirit  of  the  place,  or  the  intangible   essence,  that  deems  these  sites  significant.       While  each  individual  building  has  its  own  unique  significance,  buildings  are  not  isolated   from  their  surrounding  environment.  Buildings  contribute  to  the  significance  of  a  neighborhood   or  city  by  represen)ng  the  past  physical  environment,  former  opera)ons,  and  architecture.  In   addi)on,  preserva)on  of  the  built  environment  represents  and  helps  maintain  culture  or  a   neighborhood’s  iden)ty.  One  regional  planner  describes  the  importance  of  cultural  conserva-­‐ )on  as: maintaining  cultural  diversity  in  much  the  same  way  that  environmentalists  seek  to   maintain  biological  diversity...To  demolish  the  dis)nc)ve  neighborhoods  that  character-­‐ ize  the  world’s  ci)es  and  replace  them  with  uniform  twenty-­‐first-­‐  century  seclements  is   analogous  to  cujng  down  a  rain  forest  and  replacing  it  with  pasture  or  monocrop  )ll-­‐ age.  It  reduces  cultural  diversity  and  increases  entropy.52 Another  scholar  argues  that  “...physical  reminders  provide  a  sense  of  place  acachment,  con)nu-­‐ ity  and  connectedness  that  we  are  rarely  aware  of  but  that  play  a  significant  role  in  our  psycho-­‐ logical  development  as  individuals  and  in  our  ‘place  iden)ty’  or  ‘cultural  iden)ty’  as  families  or   ethnic  and  cultural  groups.”53  Preserva)on  can  strengthen  civic  pride  and  community  engage-­‐ ment  by  involving  residents  in  the  redevelopment  process  and  celebra)ng  their  neighborhood’s   heritage.   According  to  a  report  published  by  PlaceEconomics  for  the  Advisory  Council  on  Historic   Preserva)on,  preserva)on  is  also  strongly  related  to  a  neighborhood’s  quality  of  life:   The  long-­‐term  quality  and  character  of  a  community  is  directly  related  to  its  willingness   to  iden)fy,  protect,  and  enhance  those  places  that  define  and  differen)ate  it.  Educa-­‐ )onal,  cultural,  aesthe)c,  social,  and  historic  values  are  building  blocks  of  quality  of  life.  
Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   18

Historic  preserva)on  is  not  about  ci)es  being  the  museums  of  yesterday;  historic  pres-­‐ erva)on  is  about  using  heritage  resources  to  build  quality  of  life  for  tomorrow. 54   Quality  of  life  is  also  linked  to  and  determined  by  a  variety  of  the  economic  factors  dis-­‐

cussed  in  the  previous  sec)on,  such  as  business  ac)vity,  employment,  or  vacancy  rates.  Through   assigned  new  func)ons  to  an  exis)ng  building,  adap)ve  reuse  can  benefit  communi)es  by  re-­‐ ducing  the  number  of  vacant  or  obsolete  buildings,  which  further  prevents  crime  or  disinvest-­‐ ment  as  well  as  generates  new  tax  revenue  and  employment.55  Instead  of  limi)ng  growth,  re-­‐ purposed  buildings  add  valuable,  used  spaces  that  support  revitaliza)on  and  vibrancy.  While  the   final  intended  use  of  a  building  can  vary  according  to  project  type,  affordable  housing  units,   community  centers,  schools,  entertainment,  and  shopping  centers  can  all  provide  needed  or   desired  services  to  further  strengthen  a  neighborhood  and  its  inhabitants.     If  preserved,  exis)ng  buildings  can  pay  tribute  to  the  intangible  history  and  heritage   through  spreading  knowledge  about  its  past  life.  A  greater  knowledge  of  the  immaterial,  intan-­‐ gible  essence  can  help  guide  an  adap)ve  reuse  project  through  preserva)on  and  revitalizing  the   site  with  a  new  future.  Neglec)ng  a  site’s  past  culture  and  heritage  fails  to  take  advantage  of   poten)al  opportuni)es  for  the  best,  future  building  func)ons.  Historic  designa)on  status,  the   educa)on  poten)al  to  the  public,  and  rela)onship  to  the  neighborhood  may  be  overlooked.   Because  many  )mes  the  economic  aspects  are  stressed  in  adap)ve  reuse  projects,  it  is   difficult  to  preserve  or  enhance  the  original  spirit  of  the  place  or  the  intangible  essence,  which   are  overlooked  or  are  taken  into  account  to  a  lesser  degree. 56  Involved  stakeholders  in  adap)ve   reuse  projects  typically  strive  to  give  a  building  the  best  new  use,  gain  higher  profits  than  be-­‐ fore,  and  improve  the  community.  But  omen  the  intangible  essence  is  lem  out  of  the  original  in-­‐ ten)ons  for  preserving  the  site  as  well  as  the  surveys  and  evalua)ons.  Author  Stella  Maris  Casal   notes: It  needs  that  professionals  involved  are  more  aware  of  the  intangible  message  that  lies   beneath  the  material  message.  They  should  be  ready  to  react  with  sensi)vity,  and  also   with  crea)vity  to  enhance  the  hidden  cultural  references.  Successful  results  will  not  be  a   problem  of  major  or  minor  architectural  resources,  but  plainly  of  a  good  architectural   brief  and  proposal,  based  on  a  deep  knowledge  of  the  theore)cal  background  with  re-­‐ gard  to  preserving  the  spirit  of  the  place.  The  preserva)on  of  our  architectural  heritage   is  certainly  not  a  task  just  for  architects  but  a  mul)disciplinary  ac)vity,  but  it  is  the  archi-­‐ tect  who  finally  has  to  translate  into  concrete  material  ac)ons  the  ideas  for  the  rehabili-­‐ ta)on  and  thus  preserve  and  enlighten  the  intangible  message  of  our  built  heritage.57
Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   19

According  to  Casal,  it  is  not  enough  to  simply  carry  out  historic  research  or  conduct  “a  careful   survey  and  appraisal  of  architectural  quali)es  and  technical  condi)ons.”58     When  analyzing  the  best  use  of  an  exis)ng  building,  some  scholars  have  cau)oned   against  transforming  the  site  into  a  museum,  as  this  preserves  “almost  all  its  features,  except  its   real  life.”59  Instead  of  “mummifica)on,”  a  changing,  new  func)on  can  keep  it  alive.  Preserved   relics,  tes)monials,  and  references  of  the  past  such  as  the  original  building  name,  furniture,   equipment,  or  pictures  should  remain  alongside  the  new  purposes.  Architect  João  Campos   writes: One  of  the  most  obvious  parallels  that  can  be  established  is  the  danger  of  conver)ng  the   historical  into  a  consumer  product,  serving  the  people  who  visit  it  without  any  links  to   the  people  who  live  in  it...Monuments  and  sites  will  only  cons)tute  outstanding  exam-­‐ ples  of  mankind’s  genius  if,  to  the  aesthe)c  quali)es  of  a  know-­‐how  developed  by  differ-­‐ ent  peoples,  we  add  the  percep)on  of  a  cultural  value  that  makes  them  unique  and   inter-­‐relatable  with  a  universal  sense,  in  their  historicity  as  well  as  in  their  authen)city.60 Both  Casal  and  Campos  comment  on  the  difficulty  for  determining  the  best  new  use  of  an  exist-­‐ ing,  especially  in  how  to  preserve  the  true  intangible  essence.  Adap)ve  reuse  project  must  not   only  consider  and  ques)on  what  the  building  has  the  poten)al  to  become,  but  what  the  build-­‐ ing  has  been.  The  historic  tes)mony  and  immaterial  value  embodied  with  a  building  is  neces-­‐ sary  to  understand  in  the  process  of  determining  whether  to  demolish  or  preserve  a  building.    

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

20

Chapter  I:  Sec3on  Endnotes
1  Commonwealth  of  Australia,  Department  of  the  Environment  and  Heritage,  Adap%ve  Reuse:  Preserving  Our  Past,  

Building  Our  Future  (Commonwealth  of  Australia,  Department  of  the  Environment  and  Heritage,  2004);  Historic   Charleston  Founda)on,  Annual  Report  2010  (Historic  Charleston  Founda)on,  2010). 2  Na)onal  Trust  for  Historic  Preserva)on,  "Posi)on  Statement:  Historic  Preserva)on  and  Sustainability,”  Preserva-­‐ %on  Na%on,  accessed  October  31,  2011. 3  PlaceEconomics,  Measuring  the  Economics  of  Preserva%on:  Recent  Findings  (Advisory  Council  on  Historic  Preser-­‐ va)on,  June  2011),  6. 4  Carroon,  Sustainable  Preserva%on:  Greening  Exis%ng  Buildings,  5-­‐6. 5  Kathryn  Rogers  Merlino  and  Peter  Steinbrueck,  "The  Greenest  Prac)ce:  Cultural  Sustainability,  Adap)ve  Re-­‐use   and  the  New  Preserva)on  Ethic,"  Column  5,  no.  22  (2009),  70-­‐73. 6  Peter  Steinbrueck  and  Kathyrn  Rodgers  Merlino,"We  Recycle  Cans  and  Bocles,  Why  Not  Buildings?"  The  Sea]le   Times,  September  16,  2008. 7  James  T.  Kienle,  "Essay:  Can  Historic  Preserva)on  Help  Lead  Us  Out  of  the  Recession,"  Contract  Magazine,  Sep-­‐ tember  28,  2009. 8  Richard  A.  Scadden  and  Stephen  J.  Mitchell,  “Facility  Decommissioning  and  Adap)ve  Reuse”  (paper  presented,   Na)onal  Defense  Industrial  Associa)on  (NDIA)  27th  Environmental  Symposium  and  Exhibi)on,  Aus)n,  Texas,  April   23-­‐26,  2001). 9  Preserva)on  Green  Lab,  Na)onal  Trust  for  Historic  Preserva)on,  The  Greenest  Building:  Quan%fying  the  Environ-­‐ mental  Value  of  Building  Reuse  (Na)onal  Trust  for  Historic  Preserva)on,  2011),  vi,  61. 10  Ibid. 11  Ibid.,  viii-­‐ix. 12  Ibid.,  ix. 13  Ibid.,  78. 14  Ibid. 15  Ibid.,  ix. 16  Na)onal  Trust  for  Historic  Preserva)on,  "Posi)on  Statement:  Historic  Preserva)on  and  Sustainability.” 17  Langston  et  al.,  "Strategic  Assessment  of  Building  Adap)ve  Reuse  Opportuni)es  in  Hong  Kong.” 18  Craig  Langston,  “Green  Adap)ve  Reuse:  Issues  and  Strategies  for  the  Built  Environment,”  (paper  presented,  1st   Interna)onal  Conference  on  Sustainable  Construc)on  &  Risk  Management,  Chongqing  Municipality,  China,  June  12,   2010),  hcp://epublica)ons.bond.edu.au/sustainable_development/75/. 19  Carroon,  Sustainable  Preserva%on:  Greening  Exis%ng  Buildings,  5-­‐6. 20  Advisory  Council  on  Historic  Preserva)on,  Sustainability  and  Historic  Federal  Buildings  (Washington  D.C.,  May  2,   2011),  9,  hcp://www.preserva)onna)on.org/issues/sustainability/green-­‐lab/valuing-­‐building-­‐reuse.html. 21  Ibid.,  18. 22  Ibid.,  19-­‐20. 23  Preserva)on  Green  Lab,  Na)onal  Trust  for  Historic  Preserva)on,  The  Greenest  Building:  Quan%fying  the  Environ-­‐ mental  Value  of  Building  Reuse,  viii. 24  Ibid. 25  Jane  Jacobs.  The  Death  and  Life  of  Great  American  Ci%es  (New  York  and  Toronto:  Random  House,  1961)  187,  199. 26  Government  of  Saskatchewan,  Heritage  Resources  Branch,  Economic  Benefits  of  Heritage  Conserva%on  (Govern-­‐ ment  of  Saskatchewan,  accessed  November  11,  2011) 27  PlaceEconomics,  Measuring  the  Economics  of  Preserva%on:  Recent  Findings,  2. 28  David  Listokin,  Barbara  Listokin,  and  Michael  Lahr,  "The  Contribu)ons  of  Historic  Preserva)on  to  Housing  and   Economic  Development,"  Housing  Policy  Debate  9,  no.  3  (1998):  456..

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

21

29  Business  Review,  "Adap)ve  Reuse  of  Historic  Buildings  Makes  Economic  Sense."  The  Business  Review,  October  21,  

2002. 30  Listokin,  Barbara  Listokin,  and  Michael  Lahr,  "The  Contribu)ons  of  Historic  Preserva)on  to  Housing  and  Economic   Development.” 31  PlaceEconomics,  Measuring  the  Economics  of  Preserva%on:  Recent  Findings,  3. 32  Ibid. 33  Ibid. 34  Business  Review.  "Adap)ve  Reuse  of  Historic  Buildings  Makes  Economic  Sense." 35  Government  of  Saskatchewan,  Heritage  Resources  Branch,  Economic  Benefits  of  Heritage  Conserva%on. 36  PlaceEconomics,  Measuring  the  Economics  of  Preserva%on:  Recent  Findings,  4. 37  Commonwealth  of  Australia,  Department  of  the  Environment  and  Heritage,  Adap%ve  Reuse:  Preserving  Our  Past,   Building  Our  Future. 38  Langston  et  al.,  "Strategic  Assessment  of  Building  Adap)ve  Reuse  Opportuni)es  in  Hong  Kong,”  1711. 39  Government  of  Saskatchewan,  Heritage  Resources  Branch,  Economic  Benefits  of  Heritage  Conserva%on. 40  PlaceEconomics,  Measuring  the  Economics  of  Preserva%on:  Recent  Findings. 41  Jerry  Yudelson,  Greening  Exis%ng  Buildings  (New  York:  McGraw-­‐Hill  Companies,  2010),  22.   42  Ibid.,  76. 43  Ibid.,  35. 44  Craig  Langston  et  al.,  "Strategic  Assessment  of  Building  Adap)ve  Reuse  Opportuni)es  in  Hong  Kong,”  1711. 45  Ibid. 46  PlaceEconomics,  Measuring  the  Economics  of  Preserva%on:  Recent  Findings,  5. 47  Jacobs,  The  Death  and  Life  of  Great  American  Ci%es,  198. 48  Jacobs,  The  Death  and  Life  of  Great  American  Ci%es,  194-­‐195. 49  João  Campos,  “ The  Cultural  Consistence  of  Built  Heritage  Cons)tutes  its  Intangible  Dimension”  (paper  presented,   14th  ICOMOS  General  Assembly  and  Interna)onal  Symposium:  ‘Place,  memory,  meaning:  preserving  intangible   values  in  monuments  and  sites,’  Victoria  Falls,  Zimbabwe,  2003),  1. 50  PlaceEconomics,  Measuring  the  Economics  of  Preserva%on:  Recent  Findings,  9.   51  Stella  Maris  Casal,“The  Spirit  of  Place  and  the  New  Uses”  (paper  presented,  16th  ICOMOS  General  Assembly  and   Interna)onal  Symposium:  ‘Finding  the  spirit  of  place  –  between  the  tangible  and  the  intangible,’  Quebec,  Canada,   2008),  8,  hcp://openarchive.icomos.org/199/. 52  John  Keene,  "The  Links  Between  Historic  Preserva)on  and  Sustainability:  An  Urbanist's  Perspec)ve,"  In  Manag-­‐ ing  Change:  Sustainable  Approaches  to  the  Conserva%on  of  the  Built  Environment  (Los  Angeles:  The  Gecy  Conser-­‐ va)on  Ins)tute,  2003),  13,  15. 53  Setha  Low,  "Social  Sustainability:  People,  History  and  Values,"  in  Managing  Change:  Sustainable  Approaches  to   the  Conserva%on  of  the  Built  Environment  (Los  Angeles:  The  Gecy  Conserva)on  Ins)tute,  2003),  47. 54  PlaceEconomics,  Measuring  the  Economics  of  Preserva%on:  Recent  Findings,  9. 55  Langston  et  al.,  "Strategic  Assessment  of  Building  Adap)ve  Reuse  Opportuni)es  in  Hong  Kong,”  1712. 56  Stella  Maris  Casal,“The  Spirit  of  Place  and  the  New  Uses,”  8. 57  Ibid.,  9. 58  Stella  Maris  Casal,  “ The  Adap)ve  Re-­‐Use  of  Buildings:  Remembrance  or  Oblivion?”  (paper  presented,  14th  ICO-­‐ MOS  General  Assembly  and  Interna)onal  Symposium,  Victoria  Falls,  Zimbabwe,  2003),  1. 59  Ibid. 60  Campos,  “ The  Cultural  Consistence  of  Built  Heritage  Cons)tutes  its  Intangible  Dimension,”  4.

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

22

II.  Key  Considera3ons  and  Barriers
  A  number  of  major  considera)ons  and  barriers  should  be  examined  in  determining  the   viability,  best  new  land  use,  and  success  of  an  adap)ve  reuse  project.  The  following  informa)on   is  intended  to  introduce  general  issues  related  to  redevelopment  processes.  Zoning,  compa)bil-­‐ ity  with  adjacent  land  uses,  exis)ng  structure,  environmental  contamina)on,  historic  designa-­‐ )on  process,  funding  mechanisms,  as  well  as  social,  poli)cal,  economic  and  regulatory  consid-­‐ era)ons  will  be  discussed.

Zoning
  Zoning  dictates  the  allowed  land  use  for  a  par)cular  site,  which  varies  by  municipal  or   local  governments.  These  jurisdic)ons  were  originally  intended  to  promote  health,  safety,  and   general  welfare.  Property  owners  and  site  developers  must  ensure  that  the  future  use  of  an  ex-­‐ is)ng  building  will  be  permiced  according  to  the  designated  zoning  laws.     Although  some  exis)ng  zoning  classifica)ons  can  be  changed  and  amended  to  assign   new  adap)ve  reuse  building  func)ons,  government  approval  is  typically  needed.  However,   some  overlying  districts  or  specific  codes  may  make  zoning  changes  difficult.  For  example,  ci)es   such  as  Chicago  have  created  Planned  Manufacturing  Districts  (PMD),  a  special  zoning  classifi-­‐ ca)on  intended  to  prohibit  land  use  changes  to  preserve  exis)ng  manufacturing  areas  and  fos-­‐ ter  the  city’s  industrial  base.  Special  zoning  districts,  such  as  PMDs,  can  make  zoning  changes   difficult  and  stand  as  a  regulatory  barrier,  limi)ng  the  future  new  uses  of  an  exis)ng  building.  

Compa3bility  with  Adjacent  Land  Uses
  In  order  to  successfully  assign  a  cohesive  and  beneficial  new  use  for  an  adap)ve  reuse   site,  the  surrounding  community,  density,  demographic  data,  exis)ng  land  uses,  and  desirability   of  the  loca)on  must  be  analyzed.  The  amount  of  adjacent  residen)al,  commercial,  business,   parks  or  manufacturing  parcels  and  exis)ng  infrastructure  need  to  be  examined  to  ensure  that   the  new  building  func)on  and  design  spa)ally  flows  and  connects  with  the  neighborhood.  For   example,  a  residen)al  building  may  not  be  the  best  new  use  for  an  exis)ng  building  if  the  recy-­‐ cled  site  is  located  next  to  a  pollu)ng,  noisy  factory.  Similarly,  typically  a  grocery  store  would  not  
Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   23

be  the  best  choice  for  an  adap)ve  reuse  project  if  another  grocery  store  is  located  next  to  the   site.  Rather,  if  a  neighborhood  lacks  a  specific  service,  the  poten)al  op)ons  for  the  site  should   seriously  consider  those  needed  resources.  Finally,  transporta)on  and  density  of  the  surround-­‐ ing  land  uses  are  crucial  in  determining  walkability  and  accessibility  to  the  site.

Exis3ng  Structures  and  Site  Quality
  To  reuse  and  modify  the  func)ons  of  the  exis)ng  buildings  onsite,  the  structural  integ-­‐ rity,  durability,  lot  size,  and  environmental  quality  need  to  be  assessed.  Feasibility  and  project   success  can  heavily  depend  on  the  exis)ng  founda)on  or  poten)al  construc)on  issues.  Al-­‐ though  many  old  buildings  were  inherently  built  with  quality  materials  and  sturdy  frames,  )me   and  a  lack  of  maintenance  can  contribute  to  physical  deteriora)on  or  structural  failure.1  In  ad-­‐ di)on  to  the  structural  characteris)cs,  the  condi)ons  of  the  roof,  windows,  interior  and  exterior   walls,  stairs,  floors,  plumbing,  insula)on,  ven)la)on,  and  ligh)ng  should  all  be  inves)gated  to   determine  the  extent  renova)on  required.  The  ini)al  analysis  of  these  building  features  can   help  iden)fy  what  areas  need  be  improved  upon  to  make  the  building  more  energy-­‐efficient.   Nonetheless,  extensive  or  unan)cipated  structural,  architectural,  or  design  challenges  can  ex-­‐ tend  the  rehabilita)on  )me  and  drama)cally  increase  the  total  costs.  Therefore,  these  issues   need  to  be  iden)fied  early  in  the  adap)ve  reuse  process  to  calculate  a  cost/benefit  ra)on  and   determine  the  overall  feasibility  of  repurposing  a  site.     Many  old  industrial  or  historic  sites  also  require  remedia)on  to  clean  up  environmental   contamina)on  caused  by  harmful  materials  such  as  asbestos,  lead,  or  underground  tanks.  The   level  of  remedia)on  required  by  regula)ons  will  depend  on  the  intended  land  uses  and  degree   of  contamina)on.  However,  given  the  history  of  pollu)on  caused  by  old  coal-­‐fired  power  plants,   sustainable  features  should  be  incorporated  into  a  site’s  new  use  to  improve  the  neighborhood’s   quality  of  health  and  the  exis)ng  environment.

Historic  Designa3on
  The  historic  quali)es  and  architectural  features  of  an  exis)ng  also  should  be  studied  in   order  to  preserve  the  original  character  and  value  within  the  community.  To  help  ensure  preser-­‐ va)on,  some  buildings  may  qualify  as  a  historically  recognized  property  through  the  Na)onal  
Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   24

Historic  Landmarks  and  Na)onal  Register  of  Historic  Places,  both  federal  programs.2    Addi)onal   programs  for  designa)ng  historic  landmarks  are  provided  through  municipal  or  local  govern-­‐ ments.   In  order  for  a  building  to  qualify  as  a  Na)onal  Historic  Landmark,  it  needs  to  represent   na)onal  significance  through  an  outstanding  aspect  of  American  history  or  culture,  such  as:   • • • • be  a  loca)on  with  the  strongest  associa)on  with  a  turning  point  or  significant  event   in  our  na)on's  history. be  the  best  loca)on  to  tell  the  story  of  an  individual  who  played  a  significant  role  in   the  history  of  our  na)on. be  an  excep)onal  representa)on  of  a  par)cular  building  or  engineering  method,   technique,  or  building  type  in  the  country provide  the  poten)al  to  yield  new  and  innova)ve  informa)on  about  the  past   through  archeology.3

The  building  should  contain  a  “high  degree  of  integrity,”  or  should  not  be  significantly  modified   or  deteriorated,  to  assure  the  property  can  convey  its  historical  affilia)on  or  acribute.4    The  des-­‐ igna)on  process  usually  takes  2  to  5  years.5     The  designa)on  criteria  and  process  for  the  Na)onal  Register  of  Historic  Places  is  similar   to  Na)onal  Historic  Landmarks,  but  differs  in  that  chosen  buildings  for  the  Na)onal  Register   have  a  smaller  geographic  significance,  primarily  on  state  or  local  level.6    As  a  result,  in  many   cases,  there  is  a  greater  likelihood  that  a  historic  buildings  will  be  eligible  for  Na)onal  compared   to  gaining  Na)onal  Historic  Landmarks  status.  Thus,  the  Na)onal  Register  evalua)on  criteria,   legal  requirements,  and  program  benefits  will  be  described  in  greater  detail.     For  a  site  to  become  eligible  for  the  Na)onal  Register,  it  must  first  present  a  “quality  of   significance  in  American  history,  architecture,  archeology,  engineering,  and  culture.”7  In  addi-­‐ )on,  the  property  must  “possess  integrity  of  loca)on,  design,  sejng,  materials,  workmanship,   feeling,  and  associa)on”  and  that: A. are  associated  with  events  that  have  made  a  significant  contribu)on  to  the  broad   pacerns  of  our  history;  or B. are  associated  with  the  lives  of  significant  persons  in  or  past;  or

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

25

C. embody  the  dis)nc)ve  characteris)cs  of  a  type,  period,  or  method  of  construc)on,   or  that  represent  the  work  of  a  master,  or  that  possess  high  ar)s)c  values,  or  that   represent  a  significant  and  dis)nguishable  en)ty  whose  components  may  lack  indi-­‐ vidual  dis)nc)on;  or D. have  yielded  or  may  be  likely  to  yield,  informa)on  important  in  history  or   prehistory.8 It  should  be  noted  that  historic  integrity,  or  whether  the  property  has  retained  its  original  fea-­‐ tures  that  convey  its  significance,  is  a  crucial  part  of  designa)on  eligibility.  Seven  aspects  of  in-­‐ tegrity  include:  loca)on,  design,  sejng,  materials,  workmanship,  feeling,  and  associa)on.     Although  “cemeteries,  birthplaces,  graves  of  historical  figures,  proper)es  owned  by  re-­‐ ligious  ins)tu)ons  or  used  for  religious  purposes,  structures  that  have  been  moved  from  their   original  loca)ons,  reconstructed  historic  buildings,  proper)es  primarily  commemora)ve  in  na-­‐ ture,  and  proper)es  that  have  achieved  significance  within  the  past  50  years”  are  typically  not   eligible  for  the  Na)onal  Register,  some  excep)ons  may  allow  these  sites  to  qualify.9   The  first  step  in  gaining  lis)ng  a  property  in  the  Na)onal  Register  of  Historic  Places,  re-­‐ quires  property  owners,  organiza)ons,  government  agencies,  or  other  individuals  and  groups  to   submit  a  historic  designa)on  nomina)on  to  state  historic  preserva)on  offices.10  State  historic   preserva)on  offices  are  responsible  for  solici)ng  public  comments  and  reviewing  the  proposed   nomina)ons  with  the  state’s  Na)onal  Register  Review  Board.  While  the  length  of  the  review   process  varies  by  state,  it  typically  “will  take  a  minimum  of  90  days.”11  During  this  period  the   state  offices  also  no)fy  property  owners  and  local  governments  of  the  nomina)on,  and  if  own-­‐ ers  object  historic  designa)on  status,  the  property  cannot  be  listed.  However,  the  nomina)on   may  be  forwarded  to  the  Na)onal  Park  Service  for  a  Determina)on  of  Eligibility  for  further  re-­‐ view.  Amer,  completed  nomina)ons,  accompanied  by  recommenda)ons,  are  presented  to  the   Na)onal  Park  Service  for  final  review,  which  makes  a  decision  within  45  days. 12   The  U.S.  Secretary  of  the  Interior  is  responsible  for  establishing  standards  for  the  preser-­‐ va)on,  rehabilita)on,  and  maintenance  of  historic  buildings.  The  Secretary  of  the  Interior’s   Standards  for  Rehabilita%on  (Department  of  the  Interior  regula)ons  36  CFR  67)  include  details   on  a  building’s  site,  interior  and  exterior,  materials,  sizes,  occupancies,  landscaping,  and  reno-­‐ va)ons.  The  Standards  pertain  to  all  historic  listed  in  or  eligible  for  lis)ng  in  the  Na)onal  Regis-­‐ ter  of  Historic  Places.  The  Secretary  of  the  Interior’s  Standards  for  Rehabilita%on  are  as  follows:

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

26

1. A  property  shall  be  used  for  its  intended  historic  purpose  or  be  placed  in  a  new  use  that   requires  minimal  change  to  the  defining  characteris)cs  of  the  building  and  its  site  and   environment. 2. The  historic  character  of  a  property  shall  be  retained  and  preserved.  The  removal  of  his-­‐ toric  materials  or  altera)on  of  features  and  spaces  that  characterize  a  property  shall  be   avoided. 3. Each  property  shall  be  recognized  as  a  physical  record  of  its  )me,  place,  and  use.   Changes  that  create  a  false  sense  of  historical  development,  such  as  adding  conjectural   features  or  architectural  elements  from  other  buildings,  shall  not  be  undertaken.   4. Most  proper)es  change  over  )me;  those  changes  that  have  acquired  historic  signifi-­‐ cance  in  their  own  right  shall  be  retained  and  preserved.   5. Dis)nc)ve  features,  finishes,  and  construc)on  techniques  or  examples  of  cramsman-­‐   ship  that  characterize  a  historic  property  shall  be  preserved. 6. Deteriorated  historic  features  shall  be  repaired  rather  than  replaced.  Where  the  severity   of  deteriora)on  requires  replacement  of  a  dis)nc)ve  feature,  the  new  feature  shall   match  the  old  in  design,  color,  texture,  and  other  visual  quali)es  and,  where  possible,   materials.  Replacement  of  missing  features  shall  be  substan)ated  by  documentary,   physical,  or  pictorial  evidence. 7. Chemical  or  physical  treatments,  such  as  sandblas)ng,  that  cause  damage  to  historic   materials  shall  not  be  used.  The  surface  cleaning  of  structures,  if  appropriate,  shall  be   undertaken  using  the  gentlest  means  possible. 8. Significant  archeological  resources  affected  by  a  project  shall  be  protected  and  pre-­‐ served.  If  such  resources  must  be  disturbed,  mi)ga)on  measures  shall  be  undertaken. 9. New  addi)ons,  exterior  altera)ons,  or  related  new  construc)on  shall  not  destroy  historic   materials  that  characterize  the  property.  The  new  work  shall  be  differen)ated  from  the   old  and  shall  be  compa)ble  with  the  massing,  size,  scale,  and  architectural  features  to   protect  the  historic  integrity  of  the  property  and  its  environment. 10. New  addi)ons  and  adjacent  or  related  new  construc)on  shall  be  undertaken  in  such  a   manner  that  if  removed  in  the  future,  the  essen)al  form  and  integrity  of  the  historic   property  and  its  environment  would  be  unimpaired.13   To  qualify  for  federal  tax  credits  or  assistance,  a  rehabilita)on  project  must  comply  with  

these  standards  to  ensure  changes  are  consistent  with  the  original  historic  character.  As  a  result,   the  Standards  are  par)cularly  significant  when  installing  contemporary,  green  design  elements   in  a  historic  property.  A  more  recent  publica)on,  the  Illustrated  Guidelines  on  Sustainability  for   Rehabilita%ng  Historic  Buildings,  serves  as  an  addi)onal  guide  that  showcases  the  best  prac)ces  
Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   27

for  how  to  incorporate  sustainable  features  and  cites  recommenda)ons.14  Thus,  early  planning   and  the  use  of  professional  staff  can  help  ensure  that  rehabilita)on  is  carried  out  correctly,  fed-­‐ eral  tax  credits  are  received,  and  damage  to  a  historic  building’s  fabric  is  avoided.     The  success  and  viability  of  certain  redevelopment  projects  may  jeopardized  due  to  the   length  of  the  designa)on  process  and  strict  standards  required  if  federal  money  or  tax  incen-­‐ )ves  are  involved.  However,  these  programs  are  instrumental  in  preserving  valuable  proper)es   that  represent  various  aspects  of  na)onal,  state,  or  local  history,  which  otherwise  might  be  de-­‐ molished  or  harmfully  altered.  In  addi)on,  designa)on  status  can  also  encourage  the  rehabilita-­‐ )on  of  historic  sites,  par)cularly  within  the  private  sector,  through  providing  property  owners   with  a  number  of  financial  incen)ves.

Financial  Incen3ves   Amer  a  property  is  listed  in  the  Na)onal  Register,  owners  can  take  advantage  of  the  Fed-­‐ eral  Historic  Preserva)on  Tax  Incen)ves  program,  federal  preserva)on  grants  for  planning  and   rehabilita)on,  preserva)on  easements  to  nonprofit  organiza)ons,  and  possibly  Interna)onal   Building  Code  fire  and  life  safety  code  alterna)ves.15  Other  financial  aid  for  rehabilita)ng  his-­‐ toric  proper)es  includes  charitable  contribu)ons,  state  tax  incen)ves,  tax  credits  for  low-­‐ income  housing,  and  preserva)on  easements.  However,  as  previously  noted,  when  federal   funding  is  involved,  rehabilita)on  projects  must  comply  with  The  Secretary  of  the  Interior’s   Standards  for  Rehabilita%on.   Administered  through  the  Na)onal  Park  Service,  Internal  Revenue  Service  (IRS),  and   State  preserva)on  offices,  the  Federal  Historic  Preserva)on  Tax  Incen)ves  program  offers  either   a  20%  or  10%  rehabilita)on  tax  credit  equal  to  the  amount  spend  to  rehabilitate  a  property.  Al-­‐ though  both  lower  the  amount  of  tax  owed  on  the  property,  the  programs  differ  in  terms  of  eli-­‐ gibility  requirements.16   The  20%  rehabilita)on  tax  credit  applies  to  “a  cer%fied  rehabilita%on  of  a  cer%fied  his-­‐ toric  structure.”17  A  cer%fied  historic  structure  is  a  building  listed  in  the  Na)onal  Register  or  lo-­‐ cated  within  a  registered  historic  district.  The  tax  credit  is  available  for  the  rehabilita)on  of   income-­‐producing  buildings,  specifically,  “commercial,  industrial,  agricultural,  or  rental  residen-­‐ )al  purposes,  but  it  is  not  available  for  proper)es  used  exclusively  as  the  owner’s  private  
Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   28

residence.”18  A  cer%fied  rehabilita%on  must  be  approved  the  Na)onal  Park  Service  in  order  to   prevent  damaging  or  destroying  the  interior  or  exterior  features  that  define  a  building’s  historic   character.  Finally,  to  be  eligible  for  the  20%  tax  credit,  the  rehabilita)on  project  must  meet  IRS   requirements,  which  are  s)pulated  in  the  Na)onal  Park  Service,  Technical  Preserva)on  Serv-­‐ ices’s  report  Historic  Preserva%on  Tax  Incen%ves.     Amer  comple)ng  a  rehabilita)on  project,  cer)fica)on  paperwork  is  sent  to  the  State   preserva)on  office  and  the  Na)onal  Park  Service  to  be  evaluated.19  The  tax  credit  is  claimed   through  an  IRS  tax  form,  which  is  filed  with  the  Na)onal  Park  Service  cer)fica)on  for  the  pro-­‐ ject.  Finally,  the  property  owner  must  possess  the  building  for  5  years  amer  rehabilita)on  is   completed,  or  pay  back  the  credit  in  varying  amounts  depending  on  the  length  of  ownership.20   The  10%  tax  credit  differs  in  that  it  can  be  applied  to  the  rehabilita)on  of  non-­‐historic   buildings  placed  in  service  before  1936.21  Rehabilita)on  must  be  for  non-­‐residen)al  use  only   and  cannot  be  used  on  cer%fied  historic  structures.  In  addi)on,  the  project  costs  must  exceed   either  $5,000  or  the  adjusted  value  of  the  property,  whichever  is  greater.  While  there  is  no  for-­‐ mal  review  process  for  the  10%  rehabilita)on  tax  credit,  the  credit  must  be  claimed  through  the   IRS.  Finally,  projects  must  meet  three  criteria:  at  least  50%  of  the  external  walls  exis)ng  at  the   )me  rehabilita)on  began  must  remain  in  place  at  the  project’s  conclusion,  at  least  75%  of  the   exis)ng  external  walls  must  remain  in  place  as  either  external  or  internal  walls,  and  at  least  75%   of  the  internal  structural  framework  must  remain  in  place.22   State  and  local  governments  may  also  offer  designa)on  programs  that  feature  other  fi-­‐ nancial  incen)ves  for  rehabilita)on.  The  sec)on  )tled  “Poten)al  for  Historic  Designa)on,”  in   Chapter  V:  The  Adap)ve  Reuse  of  Fisk  Genera)ng  Sta)on,  will  provide  more  in-­‐depth  informa-­‐ )on  on  the  designa)on  process  and  financial  aid  provided  specifically  in  Illinois  and  Chicago.     Clearly,  all  old  buildings  or  newer  buildings  worth  saving  do  not  meet  the  criteria  for  his-­‐

toric  designa)on  status  or  to  receive  financial  aid.  While  these  historic  preserva)on  programs   are  vital  in  protec)ng  eligible  buildings,  they  exclude  other  sites  and  structures  with  adap)ve   reuse  poten)al,  especially  if  the  property  is  less  than  50  years  old.  Therefore,  proper)es  with-­‐ out  historic  designa)on  may  face  a  greater  likelihood  of  demoli)on  due  to  the  lack  of  federal  

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

29

protec)on  and  financial  support.  But  these  valuable  buildings  should  not  be  overlooked  as  their   reuse  can  provide  various  environmental,  economic,  and  social  benefits.  

Funding  Mechanisms
  Rehabilita)on  costs,  par)cularly  if  they  include  sustainable  design  plans,  are  one  of  most   prominent  barriers  that  limits  the  ini)a)on  or  con)nua)on  of  adap)ve  reuse  projects.  Adap)ve   reuse  costs  are  influenced  by  a  number  of  factors  that  vary  according  to  different  building  and   site  condi)ons,  including  )me,  poten)al  remedia)on  levels,  extent  of  structural  or  construc)on   ac)vity,  ownership,  and  project  size.  Because  renova)on  projects  face  a  larger  probability  for   unintended  costs,  separate  funds  should  be  set  aside  to  ensure  rehabilita)on  is  completed.  In   many  cases,  there  is  a  percep)on  that  the  costs  will  be  greater  than  the  future  benefits.     However,  to  offset  various  rehabilita)on  costs  and  avoid  cost  overruns,  successful  pro-­‐ jects  leverage  mul)ple  sources  of  investment  and  financing  mechanisms.  Although  certain  fund-­‐ ing  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  EPA  reme-­‐ dia)on  or  assessment  grants,  historic  preserva)on  tax  credits,  tax-­‐increment  financing  districts,   new  market  tax  credits,  or  sustainability  grants.  Private  funds  can  derive  from  businesses,  de-­‐ velopers,  or  other  organiza)ons  to  aid  the  ini)al  equity  investments,  loans,  or  grants.  Some  spe-­‐ cific  available  adap)ve  reuse  financing  op)ons  include:23 1. Brownfield  and  Remedia)on  Grants  administered  by  the  U.S.  Environmental  Protec)on   Agency.  Specific  types  consist  of: • • Assessment  Grants:  provide  funding  to  inventory,  characterize,  assess,  and  con-­‐ duct  planning  and  community  involvement  related  to  brownfield  sites. Revolving  Loan  Fund  Program:  funding  for  a  grant  recipient  to  capitalize  a  revolv-­‐ ing  loan  fund  and  to  provide  sub-­‐grants  to  carry  out  cleanup  ac)vi)es  at  brown-­‐ field  sites.  When  loans  are  repaid,  the  loan  amount  is  returned  into  the  fund  and   re-­‐lent  to  other  borrowers,  providing  an  ongoing  source  of  capital  within  a  com-­‐ munity.  Recipients  must  generally  cover  a  share  of  costs  amoun)ng  to  20%  of   total  funds  awarded. Cleanup  Grants:  provide  funds  to  carry  out  cleanup  ac)vi)es  at  brownfield  sites.   An  eligible  en)ty  may  apply  for  up  to  $200,000  per  site.  Cleanup  grants  require  a  

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

30

20%  cost  share,  which  may  be  in  the  form  of  a  contribu)on  of  money,  labor,  ma-­‐ terial,  or  services,  and  must  be  for  eligible  and  allowable  costs.   2. The  Economic  Development  Assistance  Program  administered  by  the  Economic  Devel-­‐ opment  Administra)on:  Funds  are  typically  alloced  to  provide  decent  affordable  hous-­‐ ing  and  create  economic  opportuni)es,  primarily  for  low  and  moderate  income  people.   Grant  criteria  includes  assis)ng  economically  distressed  or  underserved  communi)es   and  addressing  na)onal  strategic  priori)es  such  as  technology-­‐led  development,  global   compe))veness  and  innova)on,  and  sustainable  development.  Grant  recipients  gener-­‐ ally  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  expanded  economic  opportuni)es  principally  for  low  and  moderate   income  people.  Funds  must  be  applied  for  by  local  government  en))es  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  Preserva)on  Tax  Credits  and  grants  administered  by  the  Na)onal  Park  Service   or  from  State  Historic  Preserva)on  Offices.  Please  refer  to  the  previous  sec)on  )tled   “Historic  Designa)on”  for  more  informa)on.   5. New  Markets  Tax  Credits  (NMTC):  Individuals  and  corporate  investors  receive  a  federal   income  tax  credit  for  making  qualified  equity  investments  in  designated  Community  De-­‐ velopment  En))es.  NMTC  are  intended  to  acracts  investment  capital  to  low-­‐income   communi)es.  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  )me  of  purchase  is  alloced  to  the  investor.  In  the  final   four  years,  the  credit  increases  to  6%  annually.   6. Low-­‐income  Housing  Tax  Credits:  These  federal  housing  tax  credits  encourage  the  private   market  to  invest  in  affordable  rental  housing.  Developers  of  qualified  projects  can  then   sell  these  credits  to  investors  to  raise  capital  or  equity  for  a  projects,  reducing  the  debt   that  the  developer  would  otherwise  have  to  borrow.  Because  the  debt  is  lower,  a  tax  
Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   31

credit  property  can  in  turn  offer  lower,  more  affordable  rents.  If  the  property  complies   with  program  requirements,  investors  receive  a  dollar-­‐for-­‐dollar  credit  against  their  fed-­‐ eral  tax  liability  each  year  over  a  period  of  10  years.  The  amount  of  the  annual  credit  is   based  on  the  amount  invested  in  the  affordable  housing. 7. Tax  Increment  Financing  (TIF):  A  tool  used  to  finance  a  project  using  the  steam  of  reve-­‐ nue  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  genera)ng  is  set   as  a  baseline  level  held  over  a  period  of  )me.  The  addi)onal  property  tax  growth   spurred  by  community  improvements  and  TIF  funding  can  then  be  used  to  fund  new  re-­‐ development  projects  or  pay  back  bonds  issued  to  pay  upfront  costs.   Tax  abatement  for  a  specified  )me  period,  energy  efficiency  incen)ves,  private  or  non-­‐profit   grants  or  loans,  or  other  sources  can  also  contribute  funding  to  an  project.

Social  Considera3ons
  Just  as  vacancy  or  obsolescence  significantly  impacts  a  neighborhood,  so  does  the  final   purpose  or  func)on  of  a  building.  Both  public  engagement  and  mul)-­‐stakeholder  involvement   are  crucial  aspects  in  adap)ve  reuse  project  success  to  foster  ini)al  as  well  as  con)nual  finan-­‐ cial,  poli)cal,  and  community  support.  Municipali)es,  planning  officials,  or  developers  need  to   ensure  that  the  public  has  a  basic  understanding  of  redevelopment  concepts,  through  defining   the  adap)ve  reuse  process  and  conveying  how  residents  will  benefit.  Because  the  new  use  of  a   building  should  aim  to  benefit  the  surrounding  community  and  its  inhabitants,  residents’  feed-­‐ back,  concerns,  ques)ons,  and  advice  should  be  solicited  and  taken  into  considera)on.  In  some   cases,  neighborhood  opposi)on  could  delay  or  stop  a  project’s  implementa)on.  However,  con-­‐ sulta)on  with  residents  and  community  organiza)ons  can  help  preserve  with  exis)ng  heritage   and  culture,  iden)fy  the  neighborhood’s  wishes,  gain  a  public  consensus,  meet  the  community’s   needs,  and  integrate  new  building  uses  with  future  neighborhood  plans.  Educa)onal  sessions,   public  workshops,  and  hearings  can  promote  a  necessary,  con)nual  dialogue  between  planners   or  developers  and  neighborhood  residents.

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

32

Other  Considera3ons
  In  addi)on  to  the  previously  discussed  considera)ons  and  poten)al  barriers  for  adap)ve   reuse  projects,  other  general  factors  should  also  be  considered  and  include:   • Building  Ownership:  A  knowledge  of  and  a  rela)onship  with  owners  are  necessary  to   analyze  the  overall  land  acquisi)on  processes.  Ownership  can  help  determine  if  or  when   a  property  will  be  sold  and  the  expected  costs.  The  adap)ve  reuse  process  can  also  de-­‐ pend  on  whether  the  property  owner  ini)a)ng  rehabilita)on  is  a  private  or  public   agency. • Poli)cal  Agenda  and  Support:  Poli)cians,  mayors,  city  officials,  planners  and  aldermen   can  help  drive  the  redevelopment  of  a  building,  which  is  especially  important  if  approval   is  needed  for  zoning  changes  or  to  push  forward  redevelopment  plans.  Poli)cal  support   is  also  useful  to  providing  municipal  funding  to  projects. • Regulatory  Requirements:  According  to  one  report,  released  by  the  Na)onal  Trust  for   Historic  Preserva)on’s  Preserva)on  Green  Lab,  “building  policies  and  codes  in  the   United  States  have  historically  favored  the  needs  and  goals  of  new  construc)on.”  Rigid   regulatory  codes  can  make  adap)ve  reuse  difficult,  especially  if  a  project  intends  to  in-­‐ corporate  energy-­‐efficient,  green  design  into  an  exis)ng  building.24  Although  legal  regu-­‐ la)ons  will  vary  by  the  type  of  project  and  loca)on,  many  adap)ve  reuse  sites  will  need   to  comply  with  federal,  state,  and  local  laws  in  terms  of  the  extent  of  environmental  re-­‐ media)on,  project  approval,  building  and  fire  codes,  accessibility,  parking,  or  renova)on   permits.  In  some  cases,  code  requirements  may  require  extensive,  costly  building   changes  and  updates.   • Market  Analysis:  A  building’s  new  use  should  be  analyzed  within  a  market  context  to  en-­‐ sure  the  intended  func)on  is  an  economically  viable  reuse  op)on  that  will  provide  a  use-­‐ ful  service  to  foster  addi)onal  economic  growth.  A  market  evalua)on  can  consider   whether  the  building  func)on  provides  necessary,  desirable,  marketable,  or  affordable   services  to  the  surrounding  neighborhood.  Poten)al  tenants,  which  may  be  necessary  as  

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

33

rents  could  support  project  debt  or  maintenance  amer  the  ini)al  rehabilita)on  invest-­‐ ment,  could  also  be  analyzed.     Based  on  the  discussed  considera)ons  and  barriers,  some  exis)ng  buildings  may  be  suit-­‐

able  for  reuse,  par)cularly  if  the  basic  building  structure  or  founda)on  is  severely  compromised.     These  considera)ons  can  help  determine  whether  a  proposed  func)on  may  be  the  most  appro-­‐ priate  or  best  fit  for  an  adap)ve  reuse  project.  Adap)ve  reuse  projects  may  be  a  a  more  costly,   riskier,  unpredictable  op)on  than  new  construc)on.  However,  early,  careful  site  evalua)ons  and   planning  lead  a  project  to  its  success.  

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

34

Chapter  II:  Sec3on  Endnotes
1  Northcountry  Coopera)ve  Founda)on,  Jeff  Allman,  Allman  &  Associates,  Too  Good  to  Throw  Away:  The  Adap%ve  

Reuse  of  Underused  Buildings  (Northcountry  Coopera)ve  Founda)on,  2005),   hcp://www.ncdf.coop/documents/Adap)veReuseFINAL.pdf. 2  U.S.  Department  of  the  Interior,  Na)onal  Park  Service,  “Na)onal  Historic  Landmarks  Program.”  U.S.  Na%onal  Park   Service,  last  modified  December  13,  2010,  hcp://www.cr.nps.gov/nhl/. 3  U.S.  Department  of  the  Interior,  Na)onal  Park  Service,  “Na)onal  Historic  Landmarks  Program,  Page  1:  What  is  a   Na)onal  Historic  Landmark?”  U.S.  Na%onal  Park  Service,  last  modified  December  13,  2010,   hcp://www.nps.gov/history/nhl/tutorial/About/About1.htm. 4  U.S.  Department  of  the  Interior,  Na)onal  Park  Service,  “Na)onal  Historic  Landmarks  Program,  Page  1:  What  is  ‘a   high  degree  of  integrity’  and  why  is  it  an  key  requirement  for  NHL  designa)on?,”  U.S.  Na%onal  Park  Service,  last   modified  December  13,  2010,  hcp://www.nps.gov/history/nhl/tutorial/Workshop2/criteria3.htm. 5    U.S.  Department  of  the  Interior,  Na)onal  Park  Service,  “Na)onal  Historic  Landmarks  Program,  Page  8:  How  long   does  it  take  for  a  property  to  become  a  NHL?”  U.S.  Na%onal  Park  Service,  last  modified  June  13,  2011,   hcp://www.nps.gov/history/nhl/tutorial/Workshop1/begin8.htm. 6  U.S.  Department  of  the  Interior,  Na)onal  Park  Service,  “Na)onal  Register  of  Historic  Places  Program:  Fundamen-­‐ tals,”  U.S.  Na%onal  Park  Service,  last  modified  June  13,  2011,   hcp://www.nps.gov/history/nr/na)onal_register_fundamentals.htm. 7  U.S.  Department  of  the  Interior,  Na)onal  Park  Service.  “How  to  Apply  to  the  Na)onal  Register:  Criteria  for  Evalua-­‐ )on.”  U.S.  Department  of  the  Interior,  Na%onal  Park  Service.  2002.   hcp://www.nps.gov/history/nr/publica)ons/bulle)ns/nrb15/nrb15_2.htm 8  Ibid. 9  Ibid. 10  U.S.  Department  of  the  Interior,  Na)onal  Park  Service,  “Na)onal  Register  of  Historic  Places  Program:  Fundamen-­‐ tals.” 11  Ibid. 12  Ibid. 13  U.S.  Department  of  the  Interior,  Na)onal  Park  Service,  The  Secretary  of  the  Interior’s  Standards  for  Rehabilita%on   &  Illustrated  Guidelines  on  Sustainability  for  Rehabilita%ng  Historic  Buildings  (Washington,  D.C.:  U.S.  Department  of   the  Interior,  2011),  viiii-­‐ix,  www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/index.htm. 14  Ibid. 15  Illinois  Historic  Preserva)on  Agency,  “Benefits  and  Protec)ons  Offered  by  Na)onal  Register  Lis)ng.”  Illinois  His-­‐ toric  Preserva%on  Agency,  accessed  February  11,  2012,  hcp://www.illinoishistory.gov/PS/benefitsnr.htm;  U.S.  De-­‐ partment  of  the  Interior,  Na)onal  Park  Service.  “Na)onal  Register  of  Historic  Places  Program:  Frequently  Asked   Ques)ons,”  U.S.  Department  of  the  Interior,  Na%onal  Park  Service,  June  13,  2011,  hcp://www.nps.gov/nr/faq.htm. 16  U.S.  Department  of  the  Interior,  Na)onal  Park  Service,  Technical  Preserva)on  Services,  Historic  Preserva%on  Tax   Incen%ves,  (U.S.  Department  of  the  Interior,  Na)onal  Park  Service:  2009),   hcp://www.nps.gov/tps/tax-­‐incen)ves/taxdocs/about-­‐tax-­‐incen)ves.pdf 17  Ibid.,  4. 18  Ibid. 19  Ibid.,  8. 20  Ibid.,  12-­‐13. 21  Ibid.,  16. 22  Ibid.,  17.

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

35

23  Richard  A.  Scadden,  “Adap)ve  Reuse  of  Obsolete  Power  Plants,”  (paper  presented,  Air  &  Waste  Management  

Associa)on  (A&WMA)  94th  Annual  Conference,  Orlando,  FL,  June  2001);Gregory  C.  Staple  and  Machew  I.  Slavin,   “Repurposed  Coal  Plant  Sites  Empower  and  Revive  Communi)es,”  The  Public  Manager,  Spring  2012,  45-­‐47,   www.cleanskies.org/wp-­‐content/uploads/2012/03/43-­‐47_featureStapleSlavin-­‐1-­‐1.pdf;  Northcountry  Coopera)ve   Founda)on,  Jeff  Allman,  Allman  &  Associates,  Too  Good  to  Throw  Away:  The  Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Underused  Build-­‐ ings;  Illinois  Historic  Preserva)on  Agency,  “Benefits  and  Protec)ons  Offered  by  Na)onal  Register  Lis)ng;”  Scadden,   “Facility  Decommissioning  and  Adap)ve  Reuse;”  American  Clean  Skies  Founda)on,  Repurposing  Legacy  Power   Plants:  Lessons  For  the  Future  (American  Clean  Skies  Founda)on,  August  2011). 24  Preserva)on  Green  Lab,  Na)onal  Trust  for  Historic  Preserva)on,  The  Greenest  Building:  Quan%fying  the  Environ-­‐ mental  Value  of  Building  Reuse,  85-­‐86.

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

36

III.  Strategic  Advantages  and  Opportuni3es  in  the   Adap3ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants
  Many  older  coal-­‐fired  power  plants  possess  inherent  building  characteris)cs  that  war-­‐ rant  these  sites  ideal  for  redevelopment.  In  addi)on,  due  to  economic  factors  associated  with   the  use  of  coal  for  energy  genera)on  amidst  stricter  environmental  regula)ons,  a  larger  number   of  exis)ng  power  plants  in  the  United  States  will  re)re  within  the  next  few  years  or  decade.   Thus,  greater  acen)on  should  be  placed  on  how  to  redevelop  these  obsolete  coal-­‐fired  power   plants,  par)cularly  because  recycling  these  sites  presents  various  adap)ve  reuse  challenges.   However,  the  adap)ve  reuse  of  obsolete  industrial  buildings  “were  probably  the  first   adap)ve  use  efforts  to  capture  widespread  public  acen)on.”1  Due  to  changes  in  technology,   manufacturing  pacerns,  the  labor  force,  and  transporta)on  systems,  many  industries  have   changed  loca)ons,  leaving  once-­‐thriving  industrial  buildings  or  districts  obsolete,  underu)lized,   or  abandoned.  These  “empty  and  lifeless”  buildings  can  nega)vely  influence  surrounding  neigh-­‐ borhoods,  either  visually,  socially,  or  economically.2  One  of  the  major  areas  of  concern  is  the  lost   of  tax  revenues  and  employment  generated  from  the  decrease  in  manufacturing.     While  the  economics  of  any  adap)ve  reuse  project  is  crucial  in  analyzing  the  success,  the   redevelopment  of  many  industrial  sites,  such  as  coal-­‐fired  power  plants,  depends  on  more  than   a  simple  market  analysis.  With  aesthe)c  and  historic  quali)es,  many  of  these  buildings  are  valu-­‐ able  resources  within  urban  areas  and  “provide  visual  documenta)on  of  American’s  industrial   development,  reflec)ng  both  changes  in  manufacturing  methods  and  advancements  in  building   technology.”3  A  new  apprecia)on  for  industrial  spaces  now  aids  the  crea)ve  reuse  and  trans-­‐ forma)on  into  a  variety  of  new  purposes,  including  residen)al  loms,  ar)st  workspaces,  offices,   new  manufacturing  uses,  or  other  commercial  func)ons.  Recycling  the  exis)ng  industrial  build-­‐ ing  stock,  including  older  coal-­‐fired  power  plants,  adds  to  the  vitality  and  revitaliza)on  of  ci)es   and  urban  neighborhoods  through  regenera)ng  new  economic  ac)vity  while  also  preserving   the  heritage  of  these  sites.  

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

37

An3cipated  Coal  Plant  Re3rements
  Over  150  electric  genera)ng  power  plants,  many  of  which  were  constructed  decades   ago,  are  predicted  to  re)re  due  to  new  regula)ons  on  pollu)on  control,  increased  energy  costs,   and  economic  compe))on  related  to  alterna)ve  fuels,  such  as  natural  gas.4  Because  a  large   por)on  of  the  current  coal  fleet  is  40  to  50  years  old,  about  one-­‐third  of  the  exis)ng  coal  fleet   lacks  necessary  emission  control  technology. 5  Stricter  pollu)on  regula)ons  required  by  recent   Environmental  Protec)on  Agency  (EPA)  legisla)on  would  require  billions  of  dollars  in  retrofits  to   these  aging  coal-­‐fired  power  plants.6  Rather  than  install  expensive  pollu)on-­‐control  equipment   to  meet  EPA  requirements,  many  u)li)es  are  choosing  to  the  more  cost-­‐effec)ve  op)on  to  close   their  power  plants.  In  addi)on,  various  states  have  adopted  Renewable  Energy  Standards,  which   requires  u)li)es  to  provide  a  por)on  of  their  electricity  from  renewable  energy  sources  like   wind,  solar,  bio-­‐fueled  gas,  and  geothermal  energy.  In  addi)on,  due  to  the  loca)on  near  dense   urban  areas  and  nega)ve  public  sen)ment  toward  pollu)ng  facili)es,  coordinated  ac)vist  pres-­‐ sure  has  pushed  the  re)rement  of  many  coal-­‐fired  power  plants  forward.   The  Electric  Power  Research  Ins)tute  recently  es)mated  that  power  from  exis)ng  coal-­‐ fired  power  plants  would  be  reduced  approximately  two-­‐thirds  by  2025,  replaced  largely  by  re-­‐ newable  energy  or  other  alterna)ve  sources.7  Re)ring  old  coal-­‐fired  power  plants  has  become  a   growing  trend  in  the  United  States.  From  January  1,  2010  to  February  29,  2012,  u)lity  compa-­‐ nies  have  announced  the  re)rement  of  or  closed  106  coal  plants.8  The  total  energy  output,   42,895  megawacs  (MW),  which  amounts  to  13%  of  the  total  coal  fleet.   In  many  neighborhoods,  coal-­‐fired  power  plants  are,  or  were,  once  a  vital  part  of  the  lo-­‐ cal  economy  as  they  contribute  tax  revenue  and  employ  residents.  However,  due  to  deindustri-­‐ aliza)on  and  decline  of  coal  use,  many  of  these  facili)es  no  longer  serve  economically  viable   func)ons,  have  been  abandoned,  or  are  at  risk  of  becoming  vacant.  Without  redevelopment,   these  structures  can  acract  addi)onal  disinvestment  or  crime  from  visible  deteriora)on  and   vacancy.9  Redevelopment  efforts  should  focus  on  repurposing  power  plants  to  revitalize  indus-­‐ trial  areas,  encourage  economic  growth,  and  generate  environmentally-­‐friendly  employment.  In   addi)on,  because  many  coal-­‐fired  power  plants  have  a  history  of  pollu)on  and  environmental   injus)ce,  adap)ve  reuse  or  the  redevelopment  of  these  sites  should  strive  to  produce  a  cleaner   future  through  remedia)on  and  poten)ally  incorpora)ng  sustainable  design  into  new  land  uses.
Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   38

Inherent  Building  Advantages
  A  number  of  industrial  buildings,  par)cularly  older  coal-­‐fired  power  plants,  possess  in-­‐ herit  redevelopment  advantages,  making  them  acrac)ve  candidates  for  adap)ve  reuse.  The   structure  and  facades  of  industrial  spaces  were  omen  designed  to  reflect  the  specific  func)ons   of  building.  When  industrial  spaces  no  longer  serve  their  original  func)on,  most  “prove  to  be   solid,  have  flexible  spa)al  quali)es  and  be  of  expressive  interest.  If  the  seclement  has  some  po-­‐ ten)al  for  development,  there  is  an  acrac)ve  conversion  business  in  sight.”10  The  Urban  Land   Ins)tute  comments  on  the  unique,  appealing  features  of  industrial  design: A  sense  of  strength,  simplicity,  and  dignity  can  be  expressed  in  these  u)litarian  struc-­‐ tures.  Windows  are  usually  arranged  in  rhythmic  pacerns,  and  decora)ve  elements  such   as  arches,  brick  corbeling,  or  corner  quoins  break  the  severity  of  exterior  walls.  Interiors   are  characterized  by  exposed  structural  elements  of  heavy  )mber  of  cast  iron  and  by   great  volumes  of  unobstructed  spaces.11   While  “the  exis)ng  fabric  of  the  building  can  be  a  determining  factor  in  the  adap)ve  use  design”   for  most  other  building  types,  industrial  buildings  are  typically  “shells  with  interior  framing.  This   lack  of  constraint  in  the  interior  allows  great  flexibility  in  introducing  contemporary  design   elements.”12  In  addi)on,  innate  building  characteris)cs,  such  as  large  open  spaces  and  tall  ceil-­‐ ings,  offer  countless  possibili)es  in  redesigning  and  repurposing  the  site.  Unique  features  such   as  exposed  materials,  including  the  exis)ng  brick  or  piping,  and  mechanical  equipment  can  also   increase  the  acrac)veness  of  reusing  these  buildings.  While  these  descrip)ons  only  generally   portray  industrial  buildings,  each  site  is  unique  and  should  be  examined  individually  for  its   adap)ve  reuse  poten)al.     In  terms  of  coal-­‐fired  power  plants,  many  of  the  older  sites  contain  architectural,  aes-­‐ the)c,  or  historical  appeal.  Besides  represen)ng  countless  people  and  events  from  the  electric   age,  many  of  these  industrial  relics  physically  provide  unique,  ample  space  for  new  uses.  Most   older  plants  were  constructed  with  spacious  turbine-­‐generator  halls,  purposely  built  with  tall   ceilings  to  house  large  steam-­‐cycled  turbines  and  boilers.13  These  large  rooms  provide  remark-­‐ able  and  versa)le  design  opportuni)es  that  can  accommodate  a  variety  of  new  func)ons  on  a   grand  scale.  The  exterior  and  interior  of  buildings  may  also  exhibit  invaluable,  detailed  architec-­‐ ture  that  is  not  present  in  the  new  construc)on  of  power  plants.  These  architectural  features   can  be  preserved  to  maintain  historic  or  industrial  iden)ty  for  the  structure  itself  and  past  role  
Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   39

in  the  surrounding  community.  Similar  to  preserving  original  industrial  equipment  and  architec-­‐ tural  features,  other  material  ar)facts,  such  as  plaques,  pictures,  and  even  furniture,  should  be   considered  in  redevelopment  plans  to  preserved  the  immaterial,  intangible  values  that  repre-­‐ sent  the  site  when  it  once  operated.     As  men)oned  in  Chapter  I,  many  historic  or  older  buildings  have  inherent  energy-­‐ efficient  and  sustainable  elements  due  to  their  site  sensi)vity,  construc)on  quality,  and  use  of   natural  light  and  ven)la)on.14  However,  because  these  building  systems  pre-­‐date  modern  green   technology,  energy  efficiency  can  certainly  be  improved  upon.  Thus,  the  adap)ve  reuse  of  coal-­‐ fired  power  plants  provides  the  opportunity  to  enhance  energy  efficiency  and  incorporate  sus-­‐ tainable  design.  In  addi)on,  green  building  features  become  notably  important  when  recycling  a   coal-­‐fire  power  plant,  given  the  history  and  opera)ons  of  these  buildings  are  marked  by  unsus-­‐ tainable  and  environmentally-­‐unfriendly  ac)vi)es  such  as  fossil  fuel  use,  environmental  degra-­‐ da)on,  and  pollu)on.  

Loca3on-­‐Specific  Advantages:  Post-­‐Industrial  Waterfront  Redevelop-­‐ ment
  Older  coal-­‐fired  power  plants  are  also  acrac)ve  adap)ve  reuse  candidates  due  to  their   loca)on.  Historically,  many  power  plants  were  built  in  strategic  loca)ons  along  waterfronts  and   near  dense  urban  centers  to  support  business  opera)ons  and  provide  access  to  necessary   resources.15  Because  of  their  historic  proximity  to  city  centers,  many  sites  are  pedestrian-­‐ friendly  and  situated  near  exis)ng  infrastructure,  such  as  roads,  public  u)li)es,  and  transporta-­‐ )on  routes.  Waterfront  access  also  encourages  redevelopment  through  providing  valuable  land   for  recrea)onal  ac)vi)es  or  open,  green  space.16  Due  to  these  geographic  advantages,  power   plants  can  be  incorporated  into  urban  renewal  efforts.  In  the  past,  power  plants’  inherent  quali-­‐ )es  have  aided  adap)ve  reuse  into  a  variety  of  new  uses  such  as  residen)al,  commercial,  green   industrial,  entertainment-­‐oriented,  recrea)onal,  educa)onal,  community-­‐based,  mixed-­‐use,  or   open  space  developments.  Successful  adap)ve  reuse  projects  of  coal-­‐fired  power  plants  will  be   showcased  in  detail  in  Chapter  IV.

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

40

 

Historically,  waterfronts  were  important  nodes  for  ci)es,  serving  as  port  loca)on  for  im-­‐

por)ng  or  expor)ng  goods  while  also  providing  space  for  manufacturing  ac)vi)es.  The  “indus-­‐ trial  capital  and  produc)on”  once  contributed  to  the  vitality  and  wealth  of  a  city.17  However,   with  the  decrease  in  manufacturing  and  now  the  an)cipated  closure  of  many  coal-­‐fired  power   plants,  large  industrial  parcels  with  waterfront  access  no  longer  serve  their  previous  func)ons.   The  shim  toward  a  service  economy,  outsourcing  from  globaliza)on,  new  technological  im-­‐ provements,  and  the  use  of  other  types  of  transport  has  lessened  the  need  for  the  heavy  use  of   industrial  buildings  and  land.     Today,  ci)es’  post-­‐industrial  urban  waterfronts  are  becoming  highly-­‐valued  for  their  re-­‐ development  poten)al.  While  acrac)ve,  these  waterfront  areas,  such  as  those  that  possess   coal-­‐fired  power  plants,  typically  contain  a  number  of  redevelopment  issues.  Areas  once  “where   the  Industrial  Revolu)on  was  manifest,”  now  possesses  a  legacy  of  contamina)on  and  environ-­‐ mental  degrada)on  to  be  avoided.18  Post-­‐industrial  land  is  typically  isolated  or  underu)lized,   separated  from  the  physical,  social,  and  economic  ac)vity  occurring  in  the  city.  Thus,  the  chal-­‐ lenge  is  to  reconnect  residual  industrial  land  back  to  the  neighborhood  or  city.   Challenges  aside,  many  of  these  industrial  buildings,  including  coal-­‐fired  power  plants,   are  definitely  worth  preserving.  Recycling  these  spaces  has  the  ability  to  integrate  historic  pres-­‐ erva)on  and  past  heritage  into  the  contemporary  city.  While  abandoned  or  obsolete  industrial   buildings  may  present  difficul)es  in  how  to  acract  new  capital,  assign  new  ac)vi)es  and  func-­‐ )ons,  or  remediate  polluted  sites,  they  present  rare  opportuni)es  within  urban  sejngs  for   residents,  visitors,  or  tourists  to  once  again  enjoy  water’s  edge.  These  redevelopment  projects,   “speak  to  our  future,  and  to  our  past.  They  speak  to  a  past  in  industrial  produc)on,  to  a  )me  of   tremendous  growth  and  expansion,  to  social  and  economic  structures  that  no  longer  exist,  to  a   )me  when  environmental  degrada)on  was  an  unacknowledged  by-­‐product  of  growth  and   profit.”19  In  addi)on,  these  projects  speak  to  the  future  through  supplying  the  opportunity  to   reconnect  sites  with  the  city  and  assign  more  beneficial  func)ons  to  support  neighborhood  or   city  growth.     Author  Richard  Marshall  writes  that  urban  waterfront  revitaliza)on  efforts  provide  a   “hope  for  urban  vitality.”20  Marshall  describes  the  immense  poten)al  in  revitalizing  these  areas,   par)cularly  as  the  large  availability  of  land  is  generally  rare  within  city  limits.  This  “land  allows  

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

41

for  programs,  omen  at  odds  with  the  scale  and  grain  of  the  tradi)onal  city,  to  find  places  to  lo-­‐ cate.  These  are  the  sites  for  big  program  facili)es  such  as  museums,  exhibi)on  halls  conven)on   centers  and  sports  stadiums.”21     The  geographic  loca)on  of  some  post-­‐industrial  land  and  coal-­‐fired  power  plants  also   strengthens  redevelopment  poten)al.  Author  Mar)n  Millspaugh  notes  that,  because  the  origi-­‐ nal  city  relied  on  piers  and  head-­‐houses,  historic  neighborhoods  developed  around  industrial   areas.  Industrial  buildings  and  land  are: likely  to  be  surrounded  by  the  city’s  oldest  and  most  beau)ful  neighborhood  of  build-­‐ ings,  streets,  and  plazas—surroundings  which  produce  an  ideal  sejng  for  redevelop-­‐ ment  of  the  abandoned  property  with  new  uses,  especially  those  that  are  generated  by   the  growing  need  of  the  people  of  the  world  for  new  and  expanded  leisure  and  recrea-­‐ )onal  facili)es.” 22 In  addi)on  to  acrac)ve  historic  surroundings,  a  central  loca)on  near  the  city  center  creates  the   advantage  of  easy  access  to  exis)ng  public  transit  systems,  which  include  the  local  streets,   highways,  trains,  or  buses.  Millspaugh  also  comments  a  prominent  redevelopment  advantage   for  post-­‐industrial  land  is  due  to  “simply  the  presence  of  water”  as: it  has  a  magical  quality  that  acracts  and  moves  the  human  spirit  like  no  other  element.   The  presence  of  a  sizeable  body  of  water  gives  all  port  areas  an  emo)onal  appeal  which   is  ideal  for  recrea)on,  entertainment  and  cultural  ac)vi)es—which  in  economic  terms   create  the  founda)ons  for  tourism  as  well  as  for  leisure  ac)vi)es  of  the  local   popula)on.23

The  Redevelopment  of  Post-­‐Industrial  Waterfronts:  Lessons  Learned
  Geographic  loca)on,  large  proper)es,  and  waterfront  access  are  major  factors  in  acract-­‐ ing  redevelopment.  However,  in  order  to  achieve  post-­‐industrial  waterfront  redevelopment  suc-­‐ cess,  Millspaugh  comments  on  a  number  of  lessons  learned.  Because  public  and  private  sectors   contain  similar  objec)ves,  public-­‐private  partnerships  should  be  formed  to  move  toward  eco-­‐ nomic  development.24  An  agreed-­‐upon  master  plan  for  the  future  land  uses,  which  is  supported   by  a  realis)c  business  plan  projec)ng  the  market  demand  and  availability  of  funding  sources,  is   also  crucial.  Next,  Millspaugh  writes  on  the  significance  of  community  involvement: It  is  important  that  the  plans,  and  the  )metable,  have  a  consensus  of  support  from  the   community  at  large.  The  local  popula)on  needs  to  be  sold  on  a  concept  before  it  will  be   embraced  by  out-­‐of-­‐town  developers  and  investors,  and  the  best  way  to  obtain  a  sus-­‐
Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   42

tained  community  consensus  is  by  making  the  ci)zens  feel  they  ‘own’  the  project,  and   the  developer  is  simply  the  instrument  of  the  public  will. 25 The  public  and  community  members  should  be  allowed  to  influence  the  redevelopment  or   adap)ve  reuse  design,  which  could  include  aspects  such  as  building  sizes,  massing,  height  and   propor)on,  and  aesthe)cs.  Professionals  alone  cannot  create  a  project  that  reflects  “the  implicit   values  of  the  local  people  and  their  environment.  Aerial,  or  bird’s-­‐eye,  view  are  helpful  to  gain   understanding  of  a  three-­‐dimensional  plan,  but  the  final  test  is  the  view  seen  by  the  man  or   woman  in  the  street,  or  at  water  level.”26  A  successful  adap)ve  reuse  of  industrial  waterfront   areas  cannot  risk  losing  touch  with  the  “residents,  who  will  ul)mately  be  the  most  important   customers,  or  cons)tuents,  of  the  project”  and  favorable  public  rela)ons  must  be  maintained. 27   Gaining  support  and  authorizing  the  project  through  the  local  poli)cal  process  is  another   major  aspect  in  implemen)ng  redevelopment  plans.  Depending  on  the  project  and  who  actually   owns  the  property,  governments  and  elected  officials  are  typically  necessary  for  policy  and  fiscal   control,  acrac)ng  private  funds,  and  public  infrastructure.  Many  )mes,  a  contract  or  develop-­‐ ment  agreement  between  a  city,  private  en)ty,  or  non-­‐profit  organiza)on  is  formed  to  ensure   specific  objec)ves  or  func)ons  ensue.   Due  to  the  large  parcel  sizes  or  con)nuous  tracts,  architectural  designs  for  the  construc-­‐ )on  on  post-­‐industrial  waterfront  areas  should  be  coordinated  to  ensure  a  uniformly  high  stan-­‐ dard  of  aesthe)c  quality  within  various  projects.  In  addi)on,  the  control  and  coordina)on  of  the   )ming  of  construc)on  is  essen)al  in  order  to  achieve  a  complementary  phasing  process  and   minimize  the  disrup)on  of  other  ac)vi)es.  Thus,  the  process  should  be  somewhat  flexible  and   con)nuously  monitored  to  respond  to  poten)al  changes  in  the  economy  or  in  the  original  plan.
 

Rinio  Brucomesso  also  comments  on  factors  that  contribute  to  the  successful  post-­‐

industrial  waterfront  redevelopment  projects.  Waterfront  sites  represen)ng  “industrial  archeol-­‐ ogy”  should  be  refined  with  a  new  image  and  defini)ve  func)on  to  enhance  urban  quality.28  A   designated,  specific  importance,  such  as  becoming  a  hub  for  water  taxis,  and  an  assigned  new   iden)ty  creates  an  acrac)ve  image  for  future  users.   According  to  Brucomesso,  there  should  be  a  “plurality  of  func)ons  assigned  to  the  area,   in  rela)on  to  both  its  regenera)on  as  well  as  its  rela)onship  with  the  rest  of  the  city”  to  allow   the  waterfront  to  have  different  but  complementary  roles.29  Large  areas  of  redeveloped  land  

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

43

should  not  be  limited  to  a  single  func)on,  but  contain  a  mix  of  purposes  with  both  public  and   private  sectors  co-­‐exis)ng  in  the  new  func)ons,  spaces,  and  actors  managing  services.     In  addi)on,  to  enhance  the  quality  of  post-­‐industrial  waterfront  proper)es,  the  area   must  be  opened  and  accessible  to  the  public.  To  link  the  area  to  the  city  center  and  outlying   zones,  pedestrian  access  is  essen)al  and  various  modes  of  public  transit,  through  either  land  or   water,  must  be  improved  upon.  However,  “limita)ons  on  vehicle  traffic”  is  recommended.30  In-­‐ stead,  upgraded  transporta)on  through  the  adjacent  waterways,  which  can  include  methods   such  as  water  taxis,  can  help  residents  rediscover  different  types  of  mobility  and  relieve  pres-­‐ sure  on  city  streets  and  the  other  exis)ng  transit  op)ons.  Modal  interchanges  can  help  link  the   different  transit  systems  of  land  and  water  while  also  encouraging  an  acrac)ve  flow  of  visitors.     Finally,  post-­‐industrial  waterfronts  should  be  enjoyed  within  its  surrounding  urban  land-­‐ scape.  Elements,  such  as  the  design  and  aesthe)cs,  should  be  salvaged  as  a  testament  to  the   site’s  past  character  to  rediscover  or  introduce  symbolic  values  associated  with  presence  of  wa-­‐ ter,  industrial  past,  and  its  determining  use.  Brucomesso  recommends  that  the  redeveloped   area  should  be: highlighted  by  the  environmental  and  urban  features  of  the  waterfront,  to  emphasize   the  unusual  nature  of  this  urban  zone  (its  contact  with  the  water,  the  view  of  the  water,   and  the  city  from  this  border  zone,  the  presence  of  usual  consolidated  ac)vi)es,  ect.),  in   order  to  make  it  appreciated  by  those  to  frequent  it.31 Thus,  in  order  to  achieve  this  recommenda)on,  the  redeveloped  land  and  the  adjacent  water   must  be  of  high  quality.  If  necessary,  remedia)on  of  the  land  or  water  should  be  conducted.     Redevelopment  should  not  simply  focus  on  the  end-­‐product,  ignore  the  risk  and  prob-­‐ lems,  be  removed  from  the  crucial  poli)cal  and  financial  mechanisms,  or  neglect  the  context  or   the  site’s  rela)onship  to  area.  Marshall  comments  that  there  is  a  tendency  to  view  post-­‐ industrial  urban  waterfronts  as  “a  kind  of  urban  panacea,  a  cure-­‐all  for  ailing  ci)es  in  search  of   new  self-­‐images  or  ways  of  dealing  with  issues  of  compe))on  for  capital  development  or  tourist   dollars.”32  Each  project  must  be  analyzed  realis)cally  and  independently.  Redevelopment  re-­‐ quires  significant  sources  of  capital,  gradual  phasing  and  build-­‐up  processes  due  to  large  land   sizes,  and  the  par)cipa)on  of  differing  government  bodies,  the  private  sector,  and  nonprofit  or-­‐ ganiza)ons.  Millspaugh  writes,  “the  players  will  need  to  understand  that  the  stakes  are  high— both  for  winning  or  losing—because  the  waterfront  is  probably  the  only  one  the  community  
Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   44

has,  and  they’d  becer  be  prepared  to  do  it  right  because  they  won’t  be  given  another  chance.”33   Because  of  the  higher  levels  of  risk  and  difficul)es,  implementa)on  should  remain  flexible  while   simultaneously  adhering  to  the  original  adopted  vision  or  principles.

Specific  Concerns  for  the  Adap3ve  Reuse  of  Power  Plants
  It  should  be  noted  that  some  industrial  sites  or  power  plants  lack  the  criteria  for  com-­‐ ple)ng  a  successful  adap)ve  reuse  project.  Coal-­‐fired  power  plants  face  a  number  of  dis)nct   adap)ve  reuse  barriers.  Repurposing  may  not  be  an  op)mal  choice  for  some  sites  due  to  a  lack   of  architectural  or  historic  character,  structural  integrity  problems,  ownership  and  property  ac-­‐ quisi)on,  stakeholder  involvement,  )ming,  or  other  factors  previously  discussed  in  Chapter  II.  In   some  cases,  demoli)on  may  be  the  preferred  outcome.

Total  Adap3ve  Reuse  Costs  and  Timeframe   Adap)ve  reuse  planning  and  outcomes  varies  from  case  to  case,  which  will  be  shown  in   greater  detail  in  Chapter  IV.  Thus,  the  redevelopment  of  each  coal-­‐fired  power  plant  will  entail     different  levels  of  cost  and  )me  depending  on  factors  such  as  remedia)on,  the  final  reuse  func-­‐ )on,  funding  sources,  and  building  issues.  Based  on  a  variety  of  case  studies,  total  costs  for  the   redevelopment  of  obsolete  power  plants  ranges  from  $10  million  for  small  projects,  $40-­‐$80   million  for  medium-­‐size  programs,  and  $150-­‐$180  million  for  larger  projects.34     Similar  to  cost,  the  )ming  to  complete  a  redevelopment  project  remains  variable.  How-­‐ ever,  site  development,  including  both  remedia)on  and  rehabilita)on,  typically  takes  several   years.  The  process  may  be  extended  due  to  zoning  changes,  unan)cipated  problems,  historic   designa)on,  or  financing  issues.

Remedia3on   Almost  all  coal-­‐fired  power  plants  will  require  remedia)on.  Industrial  equipment,  coal   ash  piles,  underground  storage  tanks,  and  hazardous  contaminants,  including  asbestos,  lead   paint,  mercury,  or  polychlorinated  biphenyls  (PCBs),  must  be  removed  to  leave  a  clean  building   shell  for  an  adap)ve  reuse  project. 35  While  remedia)on  can  be  a  )me-­‐consuming  and  costly  

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

45

process,  successful  environmental  clean  up  efforts  have  been  implemented  at  a  number  of  coal-­‐ fired  power  plant.     Building  a  cleaner  future  for  the  surrounding  neighborhoods  is  par)cularly  important   given  that  many  power  plants  emit  hazardous  substances  such  as  par)culate  macer,  mercury,   or  other  chemicals,  which  nega)vely  affect  human  health  and  contaminate  air  or  water   supplies.36  Repurposing  coal-­‐fired  power  plants  enhances  the  environment  by  cleaning  the  exist-­‐ ing  building  stock  as  well  as  surrounding  natural  spaces.  Instead  of  simply  demolishing  a  build-­‐ ing  that  once  polluted  surrounding  communi)es,    adap)ve  reuse  has  the  ability  to  transform   power  plants,  which  once  contributed  to  the  degrada)on  of  the  environmental  and  polluted   communi)es,  into  clean  sites  that  foster  neighborhood  vitality  rather  than  harming  community   health.  In  addi)on,  their  past  nega)ve  iden)fy  can  be  reshaped  into  a  more  sustainable  and   beneficial  use  for  the  community.  Today,  repurposed  power  plants  include  sustainable  designs   in  their  final  building  and  land  uses.     Sites  that  require  significant  remedia)on  efforts  may  face  larger  redevelopment  costs.   Site  cleanup  varies  depending  on  the  new  intended  land  use  and  whether  asbestos,  landfills,   above-­‐ground  fuel  storage  tanks,  transmission  substa)on,  lead-­‐based  paint,  or  other  hazardous   chemicals  need  to  be  removed.  Because  Hunter’s  Point  Power  Plant,  located  in  San  Francisco,   was  heavily  contaminated,  the  es)mated  costs    for  remedia)on  in  2003  totaled  $25  million.37   Remedia)on  at  the  Comal  Power  Plant  in  New  Braunfels,  Texas  required  $11.3  million  over  a   period  of  3  years.38  In  general,  the  costs  of  remedia)on  is  lower  for  newer  coal-­‐fired  power   plants  as  less  hazardous  chemicals  were  used  in  the  construc)on  or  opera)ons.  While  remedia-­‐ )on  can  be  expensive  and  )me  consuming,  early  planning  and  local,  state,  or  federal  assistance   programs  can  minimize  the  costs.  

Vacancy  and  Postponed  Redevelopment   Success  stories  across  the  United  States  featuring  the  adap)ve  reuse  of  power  plants   illustrate  that,  many  )mes,  redevelopment  is  worth  the  challenge.  In  his  conference  paper  to   the  Na)onal  Defense  Industrial  Associa)on’s  27th  Environmental  Symposium  and  Exhibi)on,   Richard  Scadden  states  that  a  lack  of  ac)on  or  interven)on  for  re)ring  or  obsolete  coal-­‐fired   power  plants:
Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   46

should  be  approached  cau)ously.  In  some  cases,  owners  view  this  as  the  least  cost  ap-­‐ proach  with  minimal  impact  on  their  con)nued  opera)ons  and  budget.  This  can  be  a   false  impression  if  environmental  liabili)es  exist  or  the  building  is  in  disrepair.  Not  ad-­‐ dressing  environmental  contamina)on  can  lead  to  undesirable  results  such  as  migra)on   of  contamina)on,  more  severe  environmental  impacts,  regulatory  enforcement  ac)ons,   bad  publicity,  and  more  costly  cleanups  at  a  later  date.  Abandonment  of  buildings  or  de-­‐ ferred  maintenance  can  lead  to  an  exacerba)on  of  small  issues,  animal  infesta)ons,  and   safety  hazards  because  of  structural  deteriora)on  or  hazardous  materials  exposure.  Un-­‐ controlled  or  abandoned  buildings  also  can  become  a  target  for  transients  and  homeless   people.39   In  a  number  of  cases,  amer  re)ring,  power  plants  have  been  lem  vacant  for  years  or  even  

decades.  These  abandoned,  derelict  structures  can  harm  local  communi)es  through  crea)ng   blight  and  by  not  providing  vital  tax  revenue  or  jobs.     However,  electric  companies’  early  announcements  declaring  the  re)rement  of  specific   power  plants  could  be  advantageous  to  redevelopment.  By  an)cipa)ng  a  par)cularly  site’s  clo-­‐ sure,  ci)es  and  developers  can  begin  planning  before  the  plant  officially  re)res  and  avoid  for-­‐ gone  opportuni)es.  Instead  of  vacancy,  abandonment,  or  demoli)on,  early  planning  for  reuse   can  encourage  economic  and  community  growth.  By  jumpstar)ng  the  redevelopment  process,   site  evalua)ons,  property  acquisi)on,  funding,  stakeholder  involvement,  remedia)on,  future   site  func)ons,  innova)ve  design  solu)ons,  and  tax  revenue  and  employment  replacements  may   be  determined  or  secured  sooner  to  help  promote  adap)ve  reuse  success.

The  Redevelopment  Process:  A  Framework  for  the  Adap3ve  Reuse  of   Power  Plants
  The  following  framework,  adapted  from  Richard  Scadden’s  Facility  Decommissioning  and   Adap%ve  Reuse,  describes  the  sequen)al  planning  process  for  the  adap)ve  reuse  of  coal-­‐fired   power  plants  as  well  as  the  contextual  rela)onship  of  specific  considera)ons  and  barriers.40     This  process  is  also  helpful  in  evalua)ng  whether  or  how  a  building  should  be  reused,  or  demol-­‐ ished.  The  descrip)on  below  is  intended  to  show  the  general  rela)ve  order  of  adap)ve  reuse   opera)ons.  However,  because  each  building  and  site  is  unique,  these  factors  can  occur  at  differ-­‐ ent  stages  or  may  even  be  absent.  The  general  process  includes:41

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

47

1. An  Ini&al  Building  and  Site  Assessment  to  define  the  current  site  condi)ons,  regula-­‐ )ons,  major  areas  of  concern,  general  cost  ranges,  and  poten)al  op)ons  for  the  future   adap)ve  reuse  of  the  site.  This  stage  is  comprised  of: • An  Environmental  assessment  of  the  soil,  groundwater,  and  buildings  is  necessary   to  determine  if  any  hazardous  materials,  equipment,  or  chemicals  are  present   and  the  extent  of  contamina)on  onsite.  Site  sampling,  previous  studies,  inter-­‐ views  with  senior  staff,  original  site  plans  and  photos,  maintenance  ac)vi)es,   regulatory  inspec)ons,  and/or  building  construc)on  informa)on  can  be  used  to   complete  this  task.  In  addi)on,  building  age,  processes  associated  with  electric   genera)on,  hazardous  material  storage  or  spills,  and  past  abatement  ac)vi)es   can  also  provide  valuable  informa)on  on  the  exis)ng  contamina)on  levels.   A  Regulatory  Review  of  federal,  state,  and  local  requirements  should  be  con-­‐ ducted  to  provide  a  basis  for  the  allowed  methods  and  levels  of  environmental   contamina)on  on  site  as  well  as  for  es)ma)ng  the  cleanup  levels  required  for   the  intended  future  use. An  Equipment  inventory  inside  buildings  and  on  the  property  should  be  per-­‐ formed  to  provide  informa)on  on  remedia)on,  the  necessary  dismantling  of  in-­‐ dustrial  equipment,  and  the  associated  cost  analysis. A  Building  inspec%on  of  the  architectural  design,  historical  significance,  construc-­‐ )on  materials,  current  condi)on,  poten)al  physical  deteriora)on,  structural  in-­‐ tegrity,  and  square  footage. The  Site  Assets  and  Loca%on  should  also  be  evaluated.  This  includes  site  acreage,   surrounding  neighborhood,  adjacent  land  uses,  demographic  informa)on,  com-­‐ munity  needs,  and  exis)ng  infrastructure  such  as  access  to  transporta)on  or   public  u)li)es.  

2. An  Evalua&on  of  the  Alterna&ve  Ac&ons  should  be  performed  to  help  decide  the  viabil-­‐ ity  of  an  adap)ve  reuse  project  and  to  move  toward  developing  a  general  plan  and  im-­‐ plementa)on  strategy  for  the  desired  future  use  of  the  site.  The  es)mated  costs  and  in-­‐ forma)on  collected  in  the  Ini%al  Building  and  Site  Assessment  will  help  determine  which   alterna)ve  is  the  most  appropriate,  desired  course  of  ac)on.  Generally,  the  poten)al   alterna)ves  include  leaving  the  facility  as  is  to  be  dealt  with  at  a  later  date,  remediate   the  site  and  leave  the  facility  to  be  dealt  with  at  a  later  date,  remediate  the  site  and  dis-­‐ mantle  all  the  equipment  to  prepare  for  an  adap)ve  reuse  project,  or  demolish  the  facil-­‐ ity.  To  comprehensively  evaluate  the  alterna)ves,  the  step  typically  includes  analyzing: • The  environmental  goals  to  determine  the  extent  of  remedia)on  ac)on  in  re-­‐ gards  to  the  poten)al  demoli)on,  preserva)on  of  the  exis)ng  buildings,  or  new   construc)on Public  and  community  interests  for  redeveloping  site

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

48

• • • • •

Poli)cal  and  financial  support  for  ac)on Engineering,  design,  and  modeling  specifica)ons  or  plans Economic  analysis  of  overall  costs,  new  tax  revenue  genera)on,  job  crea)on,   growth  for  the  community Funding  op)ons  and  financial  issues Scheduled  )meline

3. Facility  Decommissioning  should  occur  amer  the  site  assessment,  analysis  of  alterna)ve   op)ons,  and  preliminary  planning  ac)vi)es.  This  stage  is  prepares  the  site  for  adap)ve   reuse,  which  can  include  comple)ng:   • • • • Environmental  remedia)on Equipment  dismantling   Building  demoli)on Regulatory  approval  (permits,  ect)

4. Comple&ng  the  Adap&ve  Reuse  Project  is  the  final  stage  where  selected  final  plans  are   implemented.  Depending  on  the  final  reuse  of  the  site,  implementa)on  can  include  re-­‐ habilita)on  of  the  exis)ng  facility  to  prepare  it  for  its  new  intended  use  and  return  the   site  to  an  economically  viable  func)on  that  benefits  the  community.  If  the  building  has   been  demolished,  the  site  can  be  prepared  for  new  construc)on  or  open  space.  

The  Future  of  Coal-­‐fired  Power  Plants
  Many  coal-­‐fired  power  plants  are  a  crucial  aspect  of  post-­‐industrial  waterfront  redevel-­‐ opment  efforts.  Because  many  coal-­‐fired  power  plants  were  typically  built  on  large  parcels  of   waterfront  property  with  a  close  proximity  to  city  centers  and  related  infrastructure,  they  are   ideal  candidates  for  redevelopment.  Given  the  large  number  of  an)cipated  re)rements,   adap)ve  reuse  of  coal-­‐fired  power  plants  can  help  reconnect  obsolete  industrial  spaces  back  to   the  surrounding  city  and  neighborhood.  Although  these  facili)es  are  becoming  obsolete  and  no   longer  serve  their  originally  intended  use,  coal-­‐fired  power  plants  can  be  assigned  a  new,  unre-­‐ lated  purpose.  

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

49

 

New  func)ons  for  obsolete  power  plants  can  help  create  a  becer,  economically  viable  

alterna)ve  for  these  site,  while  also  increasing  residents’  quality  of  life.  Instead  of  vacancy,  un-­‐ employment,  and  a  significant  loss  in  taxes,  these  buildings  are  revived  to  house  new  business   ac)vity  and  employment  posi)ons.  Adap)ve  reuse  projects  have  the  op)on  of  incorpora)ng   crea)ve  or  unconven)onal  new  land  uses  that  also  encourage  addi)onal  physical,  economic,   social  improvements  along  the  waterfront.  For  example,  the  development  of  new  transporta-­‐ )on  infrastructure,  such  as  by  integra)ng  a  water  taxi  system  connected  to  other  modes  of  pub-­‐ lic  transit  within  the  city,  may  increase  site  accessibility,  promote  a  becer  quality  of  life  for  resi-­‐ dents,  and  even  acract  tourists  or  visitors.  Capitalizing  on  these  opportuni)es  can  help  promote   a  healthier  environment  overall  by  encouraging  vitality  and  vibrancy  rather  than  decline.  Thus,   the  past  problems  of  redundant,  residual  waterfront  industry  can  be  transformed  into  one  of   opportunity  through  bringing  new  users,  purposes,  and  services  to  exis)ng  facili)es.   The  redevelopment  issues  can  be  daun)ng  as  reuse  requires  a  great  deal  of  innova)on,   )me,  and  financial  assets  due  to  large  property  sizes,  environmental  contamina)on,  regula)ons,   overlapping  jurisdic)ons,  or  other  factors.  But  urban  waterfront  regions  and  their  industrial   buildings  possess  the  opportunity  to  create  new  func)onal,  enriching  land  joined  with  the  city   rather  than  remaining  separate.  Marshall  writes: In  these  possibili)es,  we  remember  that  urban  development  is  not  just  for  profit,  or  per-­‐ sonal  aggrandizement,  but  for  the  benefit  of  humanity  and  the  planet  as  well.  It  is  on  the   urban  waterfront  that  these  visions  of  the  city  are  finding  form. ...Ci)es  will  not  succeed  by  ignoring  the  physical  realm  of  the  city.  As  ci)es  shim  from  in-­‐ dustrial  to  service  economies,  a  major  aspect  of  their  success  will  be  in  the  quality  of   their  urban  environments.  It  is  here  that  the  waterfront  plays  a  cri)cal  role.  Waterfronts   are  omen  the  most  degraded  places  in  the  city,  being  the  sites  of  the  former  industries.   Waterfronts  are  also  highly  visible  loca)ons  in  most  ci)es.  The  image  of  the  city  can  be   remade  here. 42

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

50

Chapter  III:  Sec3on  Endnotes
1  Urban  Land  Ins)tute.  Adap%ve  Use:  Development  Economics,  Process,  and  Profiles,  217. 2  Ibid. 3  Ibid. 4  American  Clean  Skies  Founda)on,  Repurposing  Legacy  Power  Plants:  Lessons  For  the  Future,  6;  Scadden,  

“Adap)ve  Reuse  of  Obsolete  Power  Plants,”  1;  Brian  Koenig,  “Dozens  of  Power  Plants  Closing  Due  to  New  EPA   Rules,”  The  New  American,  December  20,  2011,   hcp://thenewamerican.com/tech-­‐mainmenu-­‐30/energy/10253-­‐dozens-­‐of-­‐power-­‐plants-­‐closing-­‐due-­‐to-­‐new-­‐epa-­‐r ules. 5  Simon  Lomax,  "‘Massive’  Closures  of  U.S.  Coal  Plants  Loom,  Chu  Says"  Bloomberg  Businessweek,  February  9,   2011;  American  Clean  Skies  Founda)on,  Repurposing  Legacy  Power  Plants:  Lessons  For  the  Future,  6. 6  Dina  Spector,  "Dozens  Of  Coal  Factories  Forced  To  Shut  Down  In  Response  To  Strict  EPA  Regula)on,"  The  Business   Insider,  August  9,  2011;  American  Clean  Skies  Founda)on,  Repurposing  Legacy  Power  Plants:  Lessons  For  the  Fu-­‐ ture,  6. 7  Union  of  Concerned  Scien)sts,  A  Risky  Proposi%on:  The  Financial  Hazards  of  New  Investments  in  Coal  Plants  (UCS   Publica)ons,  March  2011),  44,   hcp://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/a-­‐risky-­‐proposi)on_report.pdf. 8  Stephen,  Lacey.  “Nine  More  Dirty,  Aging  Coal  Plants  Set  to  Close,  Bringing  Total  U.S.  Re)rements  to  106  Plants   Since  2000,”  Think  Progress,  February  29,  2012.   hcp://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/02/29/435012/dirty-­‐aging-­‐coal-­‐plants-­‐set-­‐to-­‐close/?mobile=nc 9  Government  of  Saskatchewan,  Heritage  Resources  Branch,  Economic  Benefits  of  Heritage  Conserva%on. 10  Casal,  “ The  Adap)ve  Re-­‐Use  of  Buildings:  Remembrance  or  Oblivion?”  1. 11  Urban  Land  Ins)tute.  Adap%ve  Use:  Development  Economics,  Process,  and  Profiles,  217. 12  Urban  Land  Ins)tute.  Adap%ve  Use:  Development  Economics,  Process,  and  Profiles,  218. 13  Scadden,  “Adap)ve  Reuse  of  Obsolete  Power  Plants,”3.   14  Na)onal  Trust  for  Historic  Preserva)on,  "Posi)on  Statement:  Historic  Preserva)on  and  Sustainability;”  Langston   et  al.,  "Strategic  Assessment  of  Building  Adap)ve  Reuse  Opportuni)es  in  Hong  Kong;”  Langston,  “Green  Adap)ve   Reuse:  Issues  and  Strategies  for  the  Built  Environment.”   15  Scadden,  “Adap)ve  Reuse  of  Obsolete  Power  Plants,”  2-­‐4. 16  Na)onal  Trust  for  Historic  Preserva)on,  "Posi)on  Statement:  Historic  Preserva)on  and  Sustainability.” 17  Richard  Marshall,  “Contemporary  Urban  Space-­‐making  at  the  Water’s  Edge,”  in  Waterfronts  in  Post-­‐Industrial   Ci%es,  edited  by  Richard  Marshall,  3-­‐14  (London:  Spon  Press,  2001),  5. 18  Ibid.,  3. 19  Ibid.,  5. 20  Ibid.,  3.   21  Ibid.,  6. 22  Mar)n  Millspaugh,  “Waterfronts  as  Catalysts  for  City  Renewal,”  in  Waterfronts  in  Post-­‐Industrial  Ci%es,  edited  by   Richard  Marshall,  74-­‐85  (London:  Spon  Press,  2001),  78. 23  Ibid. 24Ibid.,  81. 25  Ibid.,  82. 26  Ibid. 27  Ibid.,  83. 28  Rinio  Brucomesso,  “Complexity  of  the  Urban  Waterfront,”  in  Waterfronts  in  Post-­‐Industrial  Ci%es,  edited  by  Rich-­‐ ard  Marshall,  39-­‐49  (London:  Spon  Press,  2001),  40.

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

51

29  Ibid.,  43. 30  Ibid.,  46. 31  Ibid. 32  Marshall,  “Contemporary  Urban  Space-­‐making  at  the  Water’s  Edge,”6. 33  Millspaugh,  “Waterfronts  as  Catalysts  for  City  Renewal,”  85. 34  American  Clean  Skies  Founda)on,  Repurposing  Legacy  Power  Plants:  Lessons  For  the  Future,  27. 35  Scadden,  “Adap)ve  Reuse  of  Obsolete  Power  Plants,”  2;  Northcountry  Coopera)ve  Founda)on,  Jeff  Allman,  All-­‐

man  &  Associates,  Too  Good  to  Throw  Away:  The  Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Underused  Buildings,  9. 36  U.S.  Environmental  Protec)on  Agency,  “Reducing  Air  Pollu)on  from  Power  Plants,”  U.S.  Environmental  Protec%on   Agency,  April  26,  2011. 37  Ibid. 38  Ibid. 39  Scadden,  “Facility  Decommissioning  and  Adap)ve  Reuse;”  6-­‐7. 40  Ibid. 41  Ibid. 42  Marshall,  “Contemporary  Urban  Space-­‐making  at  the  Water’s  Edge,”  4,9.

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

52

IV.  Case  Studies:  The  Adap3ve  Reuse  Of  Power  Plants
  Given  the  impending  re)rement  of  coal-­‐fired  power  plants  across  the  United  States  and   the  advantageous  site  characteris)cs  ideal  for  redevelopment,  many  of  these  buildings  possess   a  high  poten)al  for  future  adap)ve  reuse  projects.  Coal-­‐fired  power  plants  have  become  acrac-­‐ )ve  candidates  for  adap)ve  reuse  due  to  their  industrial  features,  unique  architecture,  size,  and   proximity  to  the  waterfront  or  dense  urban  centers.  As  more  old  facili)es  close  and  no  longer   serve  their  originally  intended  use,  they  can  be  assigned  a  new,  unrelated  purpose  that  incorpo-­‐ rates  both  sustainable  design  and  historic  preserva)on.     The  following  cases  studies  highlight  successful  adap)ve  reuse  projects,  which  have   been  completed  or  are  currently  in  the  process  of  being  redeveloped.  In  general,  the  examples   demonstrate  the  extraordinary  opportuni)es  for  power  plants  along  with  the  best  methods  and   different  approaches  for  effec)vely  recycling  old,  obsolete  genera)ng  sta)ons.  These  case  stud-­‐ ies  also  illustrate  and  build  upon  previously  discussed  topics  related  to  the  environmental,  eco-­‐ nomic,  and  social  benefits  detailed  in  Chapter  I,  and  the  development  considera)ons  from   Chapter  II.  Although  power  plants  have  been  repurposed  in  other  countries,  which  showcases   these  sites’  interna)onal  significance  in  redevelopment  projects,  for  the  purpose  of  this  thesis,   only  examples  located  in  the  United  States  will  be  included.  By  only  focusing  on  na)onal  case   studies,  these  examples  intend  to  present  more  realis)c,  prac)cal  project  comparisons  based  on   similar  regulatory  requirements,  poli)cal  structures,  and  funding  op)ons.   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,   community  spaces,  museums,  schools,  shopping  centers,  entertainment  districts,  condomini-­‐ ums  and  apartments,  or  mix-­‐use  developments  projects.  However,  regardless  of  the  final  build-­‐ ing  use,  one  of  the  most  important  aspects  to  be  gained  from  the  collec)on  of  examples  is  that,   even  though  reusing  power  plants  can  be  one  of  the  most  challenging  types  of  adap)ve  reuse,   projects  are  feasible  and  have  many  )mes  been  successful.  The  cases  studies  from  across  the   United  States  strongly  illustrate  that,  many  )mes,  redevelopment  is  worth  the  challenge.   Collec)vely,  these  case  studies  create  a  compelling  case  for  remedia)ng  and  repurposing   other  valuable  re)ring  or  decommissioned  coal-­‐fired  power  plants.  While  the  physical  transfor-­‐ ma)ons  are  visually  impressive,  these  projects  symbolize  the  coexistence  of  historic  preserva-­‐
Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   53

)on  and  sustainability  through  preserving  the  original  industrial  history  while  simultaneously   assigning  a  more  environmentally-­‐friendly  purpose  to  benefit  the  surrounding  communi)es.     The  adap)ve  reuse  of  coal-­‐fired  power  plants  is  not  limited  to  the  six  case  studies  pre-­‐ sented  below.  For  example,  in  Portland,  Oregon,  Sta)on  L  Power  Plant  was  converted  into  the   Oregon  Museum  of  Science  and  Industry,  which  features  sustainable  design  elements  and  cost  a   total  of  $40  million.1  The  South  Street  Power  Sta)on,  located  in  Providence,  Rhode  Island,  will   be  soon  house  a  restaurant,  museum,  office  space,  and  luxury  hotel  at  a  cost  es)mated  to  total   over  $150  million.2    In  2013,  PG&E  Power  Sta)on  B,  in  Sacramento,  California,  will  be  reopened   as  the  Powerhouse  Science  Center,  a  high-­‐tech  educa)on  facility  that  is  es)mated  to  cost  $50   million.3  Other  repurposed  power  plants,  or  those  that  are  in  the  process  of  being  redeveloped,   include:  Salem  Harbor  Power  Sta)on,  in  Salem  Massachusecs;  Chester  Power  Sta)on  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  Ocawa  Street  Power   Sta)on  in  Lansing,  Michigan.  The  growing  number  of  projects  featuring  the  adap)ve  reuse  of   coal-­‐fired  power  plants  indicate  that  these  buildings  and  sites  are  an  acrac)ve  and  popular  re-­‐ development  op)on  for  ci)es  and  developers.     Amer  describing  each  adap)ve  reuse  case  study,  various  lessons  learned  will  be  exam-­‐ ined  and  summarized.

 

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

54

PraV  Street  Power  Plant
Bal)more,  Maryland Original  Use:  Prac  Street  Power  Plant,  1900-­‐1973 Current  Use:  Mixed-­‐use  entertainment,  retail,  and  office  space Redevelopment  Dates:  1995-­‐1999 Project  Costs:  $50  million Major  Funding  Mechanisms:  Private  funding  from  Cordish  Companies Key  Project  Features  and  Results: • Amer  sijng  vacant  for  many   years,  the  City  of  Bal)more  bought  the  site  in  1977.  How-­‐ ever,   amer  a  number  of  failed  acempts  to  reuse  and  renovate  Prac  Street  Power   Plant,   the  City  allowed  Cordish  Co.  to  convert  the  site  into  an  entertainment  hub.  Thus,   this   project  showcases  the  importance  of  public-­‐private  partnerships  and   success  through   large  private  investments. • The  site’s  new  uses  include  ESPN   Zone,  the  Hard  Rock  Cafe,  Barnes  and  Noble,  and  a   variety   of  restaurant.  Today,  the  Prac  Street  Power  Plant   is  a  tourist   des)na)on,  which   acracts  about   10   million  visitors  and  generates  millions  of  dollars  in  taxes  to  the  public   sector.  

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

55

Maryland  Historic  Trust

PraV  Street  Power  Plant
Bal)more,  Maryland Key  Project  Features  and  Results: • The   building   is   architecturally   significant,   featuring   Neo-­‐Classical   details,   and   also   played  an  important  role  in  the  development  of  Bal)more  City,  as  it  provided  power  to   the  city’s  trolley  system.  It  was  placed  on  the  Na)onal  Register  in  1987. • The  adap)ve  reuse  project  is  an  excellent   example   of   visually   preserving  the  past   in-­‐ dustrial  uses  of  the  site.  Cordish  Co.   preserved  many   original  building  features,  includ-­‐ ing  the  four  smokestacks,  coal  chutes,  and  large  open  floor  plan.   • Due  to  the  Power  Plant’s  success,  Cordish  Co.  invested  an  addi)onal  $35  million  in  the   adjacent  pier,  crea)ng  a  con)nuous  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  acempted  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)on  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.  

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

56

Cordish  Co.

Moran  Plant
Burlington,  Vermont Original  Use:  Moran  Plant,  1953-­‐1986 Current  Use:  To  be  converted  into  a   LEED  cer)fied,  community-­‐owned   recrea)on  center Site  Size:  Approximately  4  acres Redevelopment  Dates:  1990-­‐ Project  Costs:  $16-­‐20  million Major  Funding  Mechanisms: • City  of  Burlington  
Waymarking

• Vermont   Department   of   Environ-­‐ mental  Conservation  Grants • Federal   Historic   Rehabilita)on   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,   Com-­‐ munity  Development  Block  Grant • U.S.   Environmental   Protec)on   Agency:   Brownfields  Assessment   Grants  and  Brownfields  Sustain-­‐ ability  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.  Although  addi)onal  reme-­‐ dia)on  was  needed   to   prepare  Moran  for   reuse,   these  previous  efforts  served   as  re-­‐ development  advantage.

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

57

Shay  Tocen

Moran  Plant
Burlington,  Vermont Key  Project  Features  and  Results: • In  order  to  finance  the  project   without   increasing  property   taxes,   the  City   of  Burling-­‐ ton  u)lized  mul)ple  funding  sources  for  all  stages  of  the  redevelopment  process,  such   as  site  analysis,  remedia)on,  and  rehabilita)on.  Redevelopment  is  also  intended  to  be   self-­‐suppor)ng,  as  future  tenants  ren)ng  the  space  will  generate  revenue  for  the  City   to  cover  expenditures.   • The  adap)ve  project  is  an)cipated  to  trigger  economic  growth  for  the  city  by  crea)ng   500  construc)on  and  80  permanent  jobs.   • Moran  Plant   sat  vacant   and  contaminated  for  many   years,  but   will  soon  serve  as  a  new   recrea)on  center,  or   “family  adventure  center,”  intended  to  benefit  the  community.  An   indoor  ice  ska)ng  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  incorporated  into  Moran  Plant’s  new  design. Redevelopment  Issues: • Two  poten)al  tenants,   the  Lake  Champlain   Mari)me  Museum  and  the  Vermont   Chil-­‐ dren’s  Museum,   withdrew  their   offers   to  rent   spaces  onsite.  Their   offers  were  with-­‐ drawn   due  to   construc)on  delays   caused  by   the  postponement  of  the  development   agreement   and   financial   nego)a)ons   between   the   City   and   the   developer,   which   needed  City  Council  approval.   • Although  the  adap)ve  reuse  of  Moran  Plant  has  been  funded  by  a  variety  of  sources,   future  tenants  are  vital  in  financing  the  project’s  debt.  

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

58

Jane  Lindholm

SDG&E  Sta3on  B
San  Diego,  California

Original  Use:  SDG&E  Sta)on  B,   1911-­‐1983 Current  Use:  Electra  Condos,  lux-­‐ ury  residen)al  high  rise Redevelopment  Dates:  2005-­‐2008 Major  Funding  Mechanisms:  Pri-­‐ vate  by  Bosa  Development  Co. Key  Project  Features  and  Results: • Sta)on   B   once   powered   San   Diego’s  streetcar   system.  The   original   building   featured     both   Neoclassical   and   Art   Deco  architecture.   Due  to   its   aesthe)c   and   historic   signifi-­‐ cance,   the  building   was  des-­‐ ignated   a   City   Landmark   in   1998,   despite   the   fact   that   the   smokestacks   had   been   previously  removed  in  1994.   • After   remaining   vacant   for  20   years,   Bosa  Development   Co.   converted   Station  B   into   San   Diego’s   tallest   residential   building  at  43-­‐stories  tall.  The   units   were   originally   priced   between  $500,000  and  $2.5  million. • Today,  Electra  Condos  features  luxury   amenities  such  as  an  open  lounge,  business  cen-­‐ ter,   24-­‐hour   concierge  and  security   service,   fitness  center,   roof-­‐deck,   swimming  pool,   and  garden.
San  Diego  State  University

Project  Costs:  $248  million

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

59

Dannecker  &  Associates

SDG&E  Sta3on  B
San  Diego,  California Key  Project  Features  and  Results: • In  order  to  building  the  43-­‐story   residen)al  building  within  its  landmark  status,  Bosa   Development   Co.   only   preserved  Sta)on   B’s  original   facade   and   built   the  high-­‐rise   tower   on  top.   Although   the  original  turbine  hall  was  demolished,  it  was  rebuilt  in  the   final  design  to  match  the  original  and  now   func)ons  as  a  conservatory.  Sta)on  B  is  an   interes)ng  example  of   the  adap)ve  reuse  of  power  plants  in  that  only   the  facade  has   been  preserved. • Projects  with   large  redevelopment   costs,   like  the   $248   million  provided  Bosa  Devel-­‐ opment  Co.,  are  typically  endured  by  private  investments.

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

Lew  Breeze

60

Comal  Power  Plant
New  Braunfels,  Texas Original  Use:  Comal  Power  Plant,  1925-­‐ 1973 Current  Use:  Landmark  Loms,  residen)al   loms  and  apartments Site  Size:  28  acres Redevelopment  Dates:  2005-­‐2008 Project  Costs:  Approximately  $35.5  million   • Private:  $20  million  for  building  reno-­‐ va)on  by  the  Larry  Peel  Company • Public,   quasi-­‐governmental   u)lity   company:   $11.5   million  for   the  envi-­‐ ronmental  clean   up  by   the   building’s   previous  owner   and  operator,  Lower   Colorado  River  Authority  (LCRA)   Key  Project  Features  and  Results: • Amer   standing   vacant   for   almost   30   years,  the  previous  owner  and  opera-­‐ tor  of   the  site,  LCRA,  began  remedia-­‐ )on.   LCRA  was  not  required  to  clean   up   Comal   Power   Plant,   and   instead   could  have  demolished  or   con)nued   to   leave  the   site   vacant.   Completed   in   1999,   environmental   remedia)on   entailed   dismantling   genera)ng   equipment,   stripping   lead   paint,   re-­‐ pairing   the   Comal   Dam,   as   well   as   removing   asbestos   and   other   haz-­‐ ardous  materials.   • Amer   remedia)on,   private   funding   largely   paid  for   the  rehabilita)on  of   Comal   Power   Plant.   Larry   Peel  Com-­‐ pany  converted  the  site  into  110  loms   and   also   built   178   separate   apart-­‐ ments   on   the  surrounding   property.   Although  primarily   residen)al,   vaca)on  rentals   and  provided  and  the  site  also  houses  office  and  retail  space.  
Larry  Peel  Company

Major  Funding  Mechanisms:  

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

61

Larry  Peel  Company

Comal  Power  Plant
New  Braunfels,  Texas Key  Project  Features  and  Results: • When   built   in   1926,   the  site  was   the   largest   power   plant   west   of   the   Mississippi   River.   The   power   plant   originally   carried   out   Presi-­‐ dent   Roosevelt’s   ini)a)ve   to   spread   power   to   rural   areas   and   farms  and   also   played   an   impor-­‐ tant  role  in  supplying  electricity  to   military   bases   during   World   War   II.  In  2004,  the  building  was  listed   in  the  Na)onal  Register   of  Historic   Places   and   received   Recorded   Texas   Historic   Landmark   designa-­‐ )on.  Due  to  its  Na)onal  Register  status,  tax  credits  were  used  for  rehabilita)on.   • Many   of  the  building’s  original  features  were  preserved,  including  the  100-­‐ton  crane   inside.  The  exterior  also  retained  the  same  basic  appearance,  with  the  preserva)on  of   two  smokestacks  and  the  original  LCRA  roof-­‐top  sign. • Comal  Power   Plant’s  redevelopment  was  also  due   to  the  face  that   it  is  located  adja-­‐ cent  to  the  Comal  River  and  Landa  Park,  both  popular  recrea)on  areas  and  tourist  at-­‐ trac)ons.

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

62

Larry  Peel  Company

Larry  Peel  Company

Seaholm  Power  Plant
Aus)n,  Texas Original  Use:  Seaholm  Power  Plant,  1950-­‐1989 Current  Use:  To  be  converted  into  a  mixed-­‐use   retail,  office,  condominiums,  hotel,  event,   and  more  than  3  acres  of  open  green  space Site  Size:  7.8  acres Project  Costs:  $150-­‐180  million Major  Funding  Mechanisms:  Public-­‐private   partnership Key  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)onal  Register  of  Historic   Places,   it   has   yet   to   be   officially   desig-­‐ nated  as  historic.       • The   original   driving   force   behind   the   site’s  redevelopment  was  due  to  the  local   ci)zens   group,   Friends   of   Seaholm.   In   1996,   Friends   of   Seaholm   began   cam-­‐ paigning   to   save  the   site   and   convert   it   for   new   public   uses.   The   group’s  collec-­‐ )ve  ac)on  led  the  Aus)n   City   Council  to   examine  Seaholm  Power   Plant’s  adap)ve   reuse   poten)al   and   form   a   planning   commicee.  As  a  result,  the  City   directed   the   public   u)lity,   Aus)n   Energy,   to   de-­‐ commission  the  site.   The   redevelopment   process  has   con)nued  to   heavily   involve   the  public. • In   2004,   the   City   and   its   public   u)lity   company,   Aus)n   Energy,   completed   re-­‐ media)on.   The  9-­‐year,   $15   million   envi-­‐ ronmental  cleanup   effort   entailed   removing   industrial   equipment,   asbestos,   metal-­‐ based  paints,  mercury,  and  polychlorinated  biphenyls.  
Seaholm  Power,  LLC

Redevelopment  Dates:  2005-­‐

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

63

Friends  of  Seaholm

Seaholm  Power  Plant
Aus)n,  Texas Key  Project  Features  and  Results: • Amer  the  power  plant  was  deemed  ready  for  reuse,  the  City   considered  bids  from  de-­‐ velopers,  eventually  accep)ng  $117.2  million  from  Seaholm  Power  Plant,  LLP. • 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   mil-­‐ lion  to  the  total  project  costs,  to  be  used  for  street  and  u)lity   projects,  public  parks,   and  a  parking  garage.  The  City  also  ini)ated  remedia)on,  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  collabora)on  with  the  site  developer,  Seaholm  Power  Plant,  LLC.   • The  final  site  uses  includes  a  concert  and  event  space,  a  160-­‐room  bou)que  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. • Like  most  adap)ve  reuse  project  featuring   power  plants,  an  electrical  substa)on  typi-­‐ cally   remains  on   the   site.   However,   these   substa)ons  present   aesthe)c   and  safety   challenges.   Seaholm   Power   Plant’s  redevelopment   included  a  unique  way   to  merge   electrical  opera)ons  with  the  future  increase  in  pedestrian,  residen)al,   and  economic   ac)vity.   Aus)n  City   Hall   approved   the  construc)on  of   a  wall,   es)mated  at  $800,000,   which  will  confine  the  electrical  substa)on.  In  addi)on,  instead  of  building  a  conven-­‐ )onal  barrier,   the  substa)on  wall  will  feature   public  art,  making   the  project   Aus)n’s   most  expensive  public  art  project  to  date.   The  majority  of  funding  will  be  provided  by   Aus)n  Energy,  with  the  City’s  Art  in  Public  Places  program  paying  the  rest.  

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

Seaholm  Power,  LLC

64

Sears,  Roebuck,  &  Co.  Power  House
Chicago,  Illinois 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
John  Chuckman

Site  Size:  90,000  sq.  m.  building  on  a  55-­‐acre   site Redevelopment  Dates:  2005-­‐2009 Project  Costs:  $48  million Major  Funding  Mechanisms:   • Approximately   50%  of   funding   from  pri-­‐ vate   contributions:   capital   campaign,   loans,  and  the  Homan  Arthington  Founda-­‐ tion • Federal  Historic  Tax  Credits • New  Market  Tax  Credits • City   of   Chicago,   Chicago   Development   Fund   • Grants,   from   organizations  such   as  the   Illinois  Clean  Energy  Community  Founda-­‐ tion   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  vacant  for  over  30  years.   In  the  late  1980s,  Sears’   execu)ves,   developer  Charlie  Shaw,   and  the  City  began  to  plan   the  redevelopment  of  the  en)re  Sears  complex,  today  known  as  Homan  Square. Before  it  was  suggested  to  convert  the  building  into  a  school,  the  developers  spent  ap-­‐ proximately  $2  million  on  remedia)on  to  remove  asbestos  and  lead  paint.
65

• •

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

“Homan  Square  Power  House”

Sears,  Roebuck,  &  Co.  Power  House
Chicago,  Illinois Key  Project  Features  and  Results: • The  Power   House   was  converted   into   a  public   charter   high  school   and   a  community   mee)ng.   The  neighborhood  surrounding  the  Power   Plant   has   been  plagued   with  eco-­‐ nomic  disinvestment,   low  high  school  gradua)on  rates,   and  poor  school  districts.  Rather   than   remain   vacant,   the   building   now   provides  a  valuable  space  and   educa)onal  re-­‐ sources  to  benefit  the  neighborhood  and  its  residents.   As  part  of  a  larger   neighborhood  redevelopment  plan,   the  adap)ve  reuse   of   the   Sears   Power  House  has  helped  revitalized  Homan  Square.  Today,  Homan  Square  has  expanded   neighborhood  service,  new  mixed-­‐income  housing   units,  shops,   grocery   stores,  a  movie   theater,  a  police  sta)on,  recrea)on  and  health  centers,  and  schools. The  project   highlights  multi-­‐stakeholder   involvement.   Planning   for   Power   House  High’s   reuse  incorporated  public,  private,  and  community  partnerships  with  The  City  of  Chicago,   Homan  Arthington  Foundation,  Henry   Ford  Learning  Institute,  MacRostie  Historic  Advisors,   architect   Farr   Associates,   community   leaders,   and  businesses   representatives.   Although   almost  50%  of  the  total  project  costs  were  funded  by  private  investments,   the  City  played   an  important   role  by  contributing  millions  of   dollars  in  road,  sewer,  and  infrastructure  im-­‐ provements  and  committed  $15  million  to  building  a  new  Park  District  site.

Founda)on  for  Homan  Square

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

66

Darris  Lee  Harris

Darris  Lee  Harris

Sears,  Roebuck,  &  Co.  Power  House
Chicago,  Illinois Key  Project  Features  and  Results: • The  Sears  Power   House  is  an  excellent  of  merging  historic   preservation  and  sustainable,   green   design.   The   adaptive   reuse   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   piping.   In   addition  to  restoring  the  powerhouse’s  original  charac-­‐ teristics,   Power   House   High   also   achieved   LEED-­‐ Platinum  status  with  its  geo-­‐thermal  heating  and  cool-­‐ ing   system,   retrofitted   historic   windows,   energy   effi-­‐ cient  lighting  system,   and  low-­‐flow  toilet   features.  The   turbine   room,   in   which  an   original   turbine   has  been   preserved,   now   serves   as   cafeteria,   school   assembly   hall,  and  community  event  space. Power   House  High   showcases  the   successful  integra-­‐ tion  of  historic   preservation  and  sustainable  develop-­‐ ment   in  coal-­‐fired   power   plants,   especially   for   educa-­‐ tional   purposes.   The   school’s   curriculum   at   Power   House  High  incorporates  themes  associated  with  envi-­‐ ronmental  sustainability  and  green  technology.  

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

67

Darris  Lee  Harris

Founda)on  for  Homan  Square

Founda)on  for  Homan  Square

Lessons  Learned
  Each  case  study  highlights  a  different  approach  in  preserving  the  historic  and  architec-­‐ tural  characteris)cs  as  well  as  assigning  a  new  purpose  to  an  obsolete  power  plant.  Although   each  adap)ve  reuse  example  is  unique,  collec)vely  they  illustrate  a  variety  of  lessons  in  regards   to  recycling  coal-­‐fired  power  plants.  The  valuable  lessons  gained  from  collec)vely  examining   these  case  studies  include: • A  power  plant’s  close  proximity  to  an  urban  center  or  loca)on  along  the  waterfront  has   aided  redevelopment  through  spurring  private  investment  and  acrac)ng  City  acen)on.   Even  though  these  buildings  have  outlived  their  original  use,  they  are  typically  located   on  proper)es  that  have  an  underlying  value.  This  may  be  due  to  the  exis)ng  infrastruc-­‐ ture,  transporta)on  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  and  private  func)ons.   However,  the  surrounding  area  should  be  examined  in  order  to  determine  what  is  the   best  fit  for  reuse. Many  power  plants  have  been  lem  vacant  for  years  or  decades  amer  re)ring,  which  can   contribute  to  the  erosion  of  a  neighborhood’s  character  and  harm  on  the  local  economy.   But,  today,  many  sites  have  been  repurposed  and  transformed  into  vibrant  community   spaces. In  some  cases,  adap)ve  reuse  spurred  further  economic  development  in  the  surround-­‐ ing  area  or  were  implemented  in  conjunc)on  with  larger  redevelopment  plans.  Instead   of  remaining  derelict  or  vacant,  sites  have  become  acrac)ve,  integral  parts  of  the  sur-­‐ rounding  neighborhood  by  genera)ng  new  jobs,  tax  revenue,  and  business  opportuni-­‐ )es.   Power  plants  offer  a  variety  of  unique  industrial  and  architectural  features  that  have  re-­‐ peatedly  been  preserved  in  the  final  reuse.  Industrial  equipment  once  used  for  generat-­‐ ing  electricity,  such  as  the  turbines,  smokestacks,  steam  pipes,  or  coal  hoppers,  may   seem  unfavorable  for  redevelopment.  However,  many  adap)ve  reuse  projects  have  pre-­‐ served  original  features  in  order  to  maintain  the  power  house’s  iden)ty  and  have  even   taken  advantage  of  these  characteris)cs  through  using  them  as  a  unique  marke)ng  tool.   Older  power  plants’  large  turbine-­‐generator  halls  provide  a  vast  open  space  to  house   new  building  use.  These  turbine-­‐generator  halls  are  an  appealing  building  feature  due  to   the  versa)lity  in  implemen)ng  new  func)ons  or  purposes. Mul)-­‐stakeholder  involvement  is  key  regardless  of  who  is  direc)ng  and  funding  the  pro-­‐ ject.  A  city,  private  developers,  neighborhood  organiza)ons,  and  residents  should  all  be   involved  in  the  planning  process  for  the  building’s  future  use.  These  partnerships  are   necessary  in  order  to  gain  social,  poli)cal,  or  financial  support  that  moves  the  redevel-­‐ opment  process  forward.
68

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

Who  currently  owns  the  site  may  determine  the  future  for  adap)ve  reuse.  For  example,   in  many  cases,  the  power  plant  may  s)ll  be  owned  by  the  u)lity  company,  which  may   refuse  to  sell  the  site  to  pursue  their  own  objec)ves  or  place  the  building  on  the  market   to  earn  a  profit.  However,  many  power  plants  have  been  repurposed  due  to  strong  ex-­‐ ternal  support  outside  the  u)lity  company,  by  community  organiza)ons  or  the  local  gov-­‐ ernment.   Because  power  plants  are  or  once  were  a  vital  part  of  a  neighborhood’s  local  history  and   economy,  residents  and  community  organiza)ons  play  a  strong  role  in  the  redevelop-­‐ ment  process.  In  some  cases,  ci)zens  have  been  the  driving  force  for  adap)ve  reuse  and   have  helped  determine  the  final  land  use  op)ons.  Understanding  the  local  context  and   public  role  is  vital  in  crea)ng  a  new,  valuable,  and  economically  viable  building  func)on.   Most  power  plants  require  remedia)on,  which  typically  entails  dismantling  industrial   equipment  as  well  as  removing  asbestos,  lead  paint,  underground  tanks,  or  any  other   hazardous  materials. Although  the  total  costs  for  an  adap)ve  reuse  project  varies  case  to  case,  recycling   power  plants  may  be  more  expensive  due  to  environmental  clean  up  efforts  and  the   chosen  building  use.  A  few  projects  were  primarily  funded  by  private  investments.  How-­‐ ever,  most  adap)ve  reuse  examples  u)lized  a  variety  of  financial  mechanisms  from  both   public  and  private  sources  to  minimize  the  total  costs  and  help  pay  for  each  stage  of  re-­‐ development.   In  some  examples,  historic  preserva)on  has  been  implemented  alongside  sustainable   design.  These  projects  highlight  the  ability  to  successfully  restore  a  power  plant’s  original   features,  while  also  retrofijng  features  to  increase  energy  efficiency  and  lessen  the  en-­‐ vironmental  impacts  caused  by  the  building.  Some  power  plants,  which  once  polluted   the  surrounding  neighborhood,  are  now  LEED-­‐cer)fied  structures.  In  one  case,  sustain-­‐ ability  was  even  integrated  into  a  charter  school’s  curriculum. In  general,  the  “best”  adap)ve  reuse  design  depends  on  a  number  of  circumstances,  in-­‐ cluding  the  building  characteris)cs  and  future  site  use.  Many  )mes  a  reuse  design  re-­‐ flects  the  community’s  goals  or  civic  pride.  In  some  examples,  only  the  exterior  of  the   original  power  plant  has  been  preserved.  However,  in  other  cases,  the  industrial  equip-­‐ ment  has  either  been  reu)lized  for  new  manufacturing  purposes  or  been  restored  as  a   showcase  piece  to  pay  tribute  to  building’s  history  in  power  genera)on.  Some  examples   also  incorporated  green  design  elements.  Regardless  of  the  final  reuse,  repurposing   power  plants  provides  a  unique  opportunity  to  preserve  and  reuse  a  building’s  dis)nc-­‐ )ve  architecture  and  structure  features.

    The  highlighted  case  studies  display  diverse  and  ambi)ous  final  building  and  land  op)on   for  power  plants.  These  industrial  relics,  many  of  which  remained  vacant  for  decades  before  re-­‐ development,  today  serve  as  an  impressive,  educa)onal  resource  on  the  history  of  electricity.  

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

69

The  lessons  learned  are  crucial  in  understanding  the  different  strategies  and  factors  related  to   the  reuse  of  power  plants.  They  have  demonstrated  the  methods  used  to  preserve  power-­‐ house’s  original  character  and  assign  these  spaces  new  func)ons.  In  addi)on,  these  examples   emphasize  the  future  civic,  economic,  and  recrea)onal  value  of  repurposing  power  plants,  es-­‐ pecially  as  they  have  helped  foster  community  revitaliza)on  in  the  past.   These  case  studies  are  valuable  in  considering  the  adap)ve  reuse  of  Chicago’s  Fisk  Gen-­‐ era)ng  Sta)on,  discussed  in-­‐depth  in  the  following  chapters.  Analyzing  how  similar  structures   have  been  reused  may  be  worthwhile  in  determining  the  site’s  final  outcome.  Pujng  loca)on   and  other  local  redevelopment  challenges  aside,  each  example  is  relevant  for  comparing  and   determining  Fisk  Sta)on’s  adap)ve  reuse  poten)al.  The  informa)on  and  insight  yielded  from   these  examples  shed  light  into  how  Fisk  Sta)on  could  similarly  benefit  from  adap)ve  reuse  and   helps  visualize  the  crea)ve  possibili)es  for  the  site’s  future.

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

70

Sec3on  Sources
PraV  Street  Power  Plant Columbia  University,  Department  of  Historic  Preserva)on  of  the  Graduate  School  of  Architecture,  Planning  &   Historic  Preserva)on.  Preserving  the  Former  IRT  Powerhouse:  A  Preserva%on  Plan,  Columbia  University,   2009,  68-­‐69.   Cordish  Companies.  “Featured  Developments.”  The  Cordish  Companies,  2008.   hcp://www.cordish.com/sub.cfm?sec)on=newdev Hequet,  Marc.  “Power  Plants.”  Retail  Traffic,  November  1,  2006.   hcp://retailtrafficmag.com/development/retail_power_plants/ Maryland  Historical  Trust's  Na)onal  Register.,“Prac  Street  Power  Plant,”  Maryland  Historical  Trust.  Accessed   March  10,  2012,  hcp://mht.maryland.gov/nr/NRDetail.aspx?HDID=978&FROM=NRMapFR.html  Scadden,  Richard  A.  “Adap)ve  Reuse  of  Obsolete  Power  Plants.”  Presenta)on  at  the  Air  &  Waste  Management   Associa)on  (A&WMA)  94th  Annual  Conference,  Orlando,  FL,  June  2001,  5. Moran  Plant City  of  Burlington,  Vermont,  Community  and  Economic  Development  Office.  “Moran  Plant:  Overview.”  Burling-­‐ ton  Community  and  Economic  Development  Office.  Accessed  March  1,  2012.   hcp://burlingtonvt.gov/CEDO/Waterfront/Moran/Overview/ City  of  Burlington,  Vermont,  Community  and  Economic  Development  Office.  “Moran  Plant:  History  and  Past   Ideas.”  Burlington  Community  and  Economic  Development  Office.  Accessed  March  1,  2012.   hcp://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.   hcp://burlingtonvt.gov/CEDO/Waterfront/Moran/Financing-­‐Plan/ City  of  Burlington,  Vermont,  Community  and  Economic  Development  Office.  “Moran  Plant:  Site  Data.”  Burling-­‐ ton  Community  and  Economic  Development  Office.  Accessed  March  1,  2012.   hcp://burlingtonvt.gov/CEDO/Waterfront/Moran/Site-­‐Data/ De  Sousa,  Christopher.  “Moran  Center,  Burlington,  Vermont:  A  U.S.  EPA  Brownfields  Sustainability  Pilot.”  Uni-­‐ versity  of  Illinois  at  Chicago,  Ins)tute  for  Environmental  Science  and  Policy,  June  2011.   www.uic.edu/orgs/brownfields/research-­‐results/documents/MoranCenter.pdf Engineering  Ventures.  “Moran  Plant  Renova)on.”  Engineering  Ventures.  Accessed  March  1,  2012.   hcp://www.engineeringventures.com/projects/structural-­‐engineering/recrea)onal/moran-­‐plant-­‐renova) on ENPRO  Services,  Inc.,  “From  EPA  Brownfields  Site  to  Community  Center,”  ENPRO  Services,  Inc.,  2010,   www.enpro.com/tes)monials/MoranPowerPlant.pdf Lindholm,  Jane.  “Bob  Kiss  on  IRV,  Burlington  Telecom  And  The  Moran  Plant.”  Vermont  Public  Radio,  March  4,   2010.  hcp://www.vpr.net/news_detail/87395/bob-­‐kiss-­‐on-­‐irv-­‐burlington-­‐telecom-­‐moran-­‐plant “Moran  Municipal  Genera)on  Sta)on  -­‐  Burlington,  Vermont.”  Waymarking,  accessed  March  12,  2012.   hcp://www.waymarking.com/gallery/image.aspx?f=1&guid=737a5463-­‐edf6-­‐44b2-­‐bcc0-­‐bb94e967b175 Tocen,  Shay.  “Burlington  May  Finally  Give  the  Old  Moran  Plant  a  New  Life.”  Seven  Days,  September  23,  2009.   hcp://www.7dvt.com/2009burlington-­‐may-­‐finally-­‐give-­‐old-­‐moran-­‐plant-­‐new-­‐life Tocen,  Shay.  “Mari)me  Museum  Withdraws  from  Moran  Redevelopment.”  Seven  Days,  September  28,  2011.   hcp://7d.blogs.com/blurt/2010/09/mari)me-­‐museum-­‐withdraws-­‐from-­‐moran-­‐redevelopment.html. U.S.  Environmental  Protec)on  Agency.  “Burlington  Reaps  $25K  EPA  Grant  for  Brownfields  Sustainability  Pro-­‐ ject,”  U.S.  Environmental  Protec)on  Agency,  Re-­‐development  of  Former  Coal  Plant.  News  Releases  from   Region  1,  September  4,  2008.   hcp://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/6d651d23f5a91b768525735900400c28/8ace26d5891e188b8 52574ba006bc828!OpenDocument Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   71

U.S.  Environmental  Protec)on  Agency.  “Green  Design  Op)ons  for  the  Moran  Center  at  Waterfront  Park  Revi-­‐ taliza)on  Project.”  U.S.  Environmental  Protec)on  Agency.  Accessed  March  2,  2012.   epa.gov/brownfields/sustain_plts/factsheets/burlington_susfs.pdf SDG&E  Sta3on  B Bosa  Development.  “Electra.”  Bosa  Development.  Accessed  March  1,  2012.  hcp://electra.bosadev.com/ Breeze,  Lew.  “San  Diego's  Comprehensive  Source  for  Downtown  Living:  Electra.”  Lew  Breeze.  Accessed  March   1,  2012.  hcp://www.sdcondo.com/electra.html Columbia  University,  Department  of  Historic  Preserva)on  of  the  Graduate  School  of  Architecture,  Planning  &   Historic  Preserva)on.  Preserving  the  Former  IRT  Powerhouse:  A  Preserva%on  Plan.  Columbia  University,   2009,  77.   Dannecker  and  Associates.  “Electra  San  Diego  Condos.”  Dannercker  and  Associates.  Accessed  March  2,  2012.   hcp://www.welcometosandiego.com/san-­‐diego-­‐neighborhoods/condos-­‐for-­‐sale-­‐downtown-­‐san-­‐diego/col umbia-­‐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.    hcp://downtowngallery.sdsu.edu/index.php/gallery/about/ Save  Our  Heritage  Organiza)on.  “SDG&E  Sta)on  ‘B.’”  Reflec%ons  Newsle]er  35,  no.  3,  2004.   hcp://sohosandiego.org/reflec)ons/2004-­‐3/2004-­‐11_sdge.htm Showley,  Roger  M.  “Second  Time  Around:  Three  Old  Kids  on  the  Block  Come  to  Life  for  a  New  Genera)on.”  San   Diego  Union-­‐Tribune,  September  18,  2005.   hcp://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050918/news_mz1h18second.html Comal  Power  Plant   Comal  County  Government.  “Comal  Power  Plant.”  Comal  County  Government.  Accessed  March  3,  2012.   hcp://www.co.comal.tx.us/Historical/Proper)es/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.   hcp://www.uhpprojects.com/services/comal2.htm Larry  Peel  Company,  “ The  Landmark,  New  Braunfels,  TX.”  Larry  Peel  Company.  Accessed  March  3,  2012.   hcp://landmarkloms.com/history/ McLeod,  Gerald  E.  “Day  Trips.”  The  Aus%n  Chronicle,  April  11,  2003.   hcp://www.aus)nchronicle.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   Aus%n  Chronicle,  June  2,  2010.  hcp://www.aus)nchronicle.com/columns/2000-­‐06-­‐02/77427/ Scadden,  Richard  A.  “Adap)ve  Reuse  of  Obsolete  Power  Plants.”  Presenta)on  at  the  Air  &  Waste  Management   Associa)on  (A&WMA)  94th  Annual  Conference,  Orlando,  FL,  June  2001,  5. Seaholm  Power  Plant American  Clean  Skies  Founda)on.  Repurposing  Legacy  Power  Plants:  Lessons  For  the  Future.  American  Clean   Skies  Founda)on,  August  2011,  18-­‐19. Claire  van  Ryzin,  Jeanne.  “Council  OKs  rainbow-­‐hued  Seaholm  Wall  Design.”  The  Statesman,  February  9,  2012.   hcp://www.statesman.com/news/local/council-­‐oks-­‐rainbow-­‐hued-­‐seaholm-­‐wall-­‐design-­‐2164175.html Collins,  Mark.  “Planned  Seaholm  Development  Puts  Re)red  Power  Plant  to  Different  Use,”  Community  Impact   Newspaper,  April  10,  2009.   hcp://impactnews.com/ar)cles/planned-­‐seaholm-­‐development-­‐puts-­‐re)red-­‐power-­‐plant-­‐to-­‐different-­‐use Columbia  University,  Department  of  Historic  Preserva)on  of  the  Graduate  School  of  Architecture,  Planning  &   Historic  Preserva)on.  Preserving  the  Former  IRT  Powerhouse:  A  Preserva%on  Plan.  Columbia  University,   2009,  75.  

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

72

Friends  of  Seaholm.  “ The  Adap)ve  Reuse  of  Seaholm  Power  Plant.”  Friends  of  Seaholm.  Accessed  March  4,   2012.  hcp://friendsofseaholm.com/ Geiser  A.,  “Repurposing  a  Downtown  Icon:  Firm  to  Buy  Defunct  Historical  Seaholm  Power  Plant  Amid  Cri)-­‐ cism,”  The  Daily  Texan,  May  5,  2010,   hcp://www.dailytexanonline.com/content/repurposing-­‐downtown-­‐icon;   Hinkle,  Josh  and  Doug  Shupe.  “Seaholm  to  have  Lighted,  Colorful  Wall.”  KXAN,  February  10,  2012.   hcp://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/local/aus)n/seaholm-­‐to-­‐have-­‐lighted-­‐rainbow-­‐wall Jonsson,  Kayla.  “Aus)n  Energy  finances  wall  art  for  Seaholm  Power  Plant.”  The  Daily  Texan,  February  15,  2012.   hcp://www.dailytexanonline.com/news/2012/02/15/aus)n-­‐energy-­‐finances-­‐wall-­‐art-­‐seaholm-­‐power-­‐plan t Scadden,  Richard  A.  “Adap)ve  Reuse  of  Obsolete  Power  Plants.”  Presenta)on  at  the  Air  &  Waste  Management   Associa)on  (A&WMA)  94th  Annual  Conference,  Orlando,  FL,  June  2001,  6. Scadden,  Richard  A.  and  Stephen  J.  Mitchell.  “Facility  Decommissioning  and  Adap)ve  Reuse.”  Presenta)on  at   Na)onal  Defense  Industrial  Associa)on  (NDIA)  27th  Environmental  Symposium  and  Exhibi)on,  Aus)n,   Texas,  April  23-­‐26,  2001,  10-­‐11. Seaholm  Power,  LLC.  “Power  Plant  Redevelopment.”  Seaholm  Power,  LLC.  Accessed  March  3,  2012.   hcp://www.seaholm.info/ Sears,  Roebuck,  &  Co.  Power  House American  Clean  Skies  Founda)on.  Repurposing  Legacy  Power  Plants:  Lessons  For  the  Future.  American  Clean   Skies  Founda)on,  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  Collec)ons:  Chicago  Post-­‐ cards,  Volume  8.  October  1,  2010   hcp://chuckmancollec)onvolume8.blogspot.com/2010/10/postcard-­‐chicago-­‐sears-­‐roebuck-­‐plant.html Founda)on  for  Homan  Square.  Annual  Report  Update:  2011.  Founda)on  for  Homan  Square,  2011.   hcp://www.homansquare.org/files/pdf/2010-­‐11_annual_report.pdf Founda)on  for  Homan  Square.  Annual  Report  Update:  2009-­‐2010.  Founda)on  for  Homan  Square,  2010.   hcp://www.homansquare.org/files/pdf/homan_square_ar_2009-­‐10_r3.pdf Founda)on  for  Homan  Square.  “Henry  Ford  Academy  Power  House  High:  Power  House  High  Campaign  Up-­‐ date.”  Founda)on  for  Homan  Square,  First  Quarter  2008.   Founda)on  for  Homan  Square.  “History.”  Homan  Square.  Accessed  March  4,  2012.   hcp://www.homansquare.org/history Founda)on  for  Homan  Square.  “Power  House”  Homan  Square.  Accessed  March  4,  2012.   hcp://www.homansquare.org/power-­‐house Gerfen,  Ka)e.  “Charles  H.  Shaw  Technology  and  Learning  Center.”  Architect,  February  16,  2010.   hcp://www.architectmagazine.com/adap)ve-­‐reuse/charles-­‐h-­‐shaw-­‐technology-­‐and-­‐learning-­‐center.aspx Harris,  Darris  Lee.  “Sears  Power  House.”    Darris  Lee  Harris  Accessed  March  2,  2012.   hcp://www.darrisharris.com/ Homan  Square  Community  Center  Founda)on.  A  Short  History  of  a  Long  Journey:  Homan  Square  Annual  Re-­‐ port  2005.  Homan  Square  Community  Center  Founda)on,  2005.   Homan  Square  Community  Center  Campus.  “Homan  Square:  From  Vacancy  to  Vibrancy.”  Homan  Square  Com-­‐ munity  Center  Campus,  2007.   “Homan  Square  Power  House.  “  DTKindler  Communica%ons,  Shoo  fly  design.  Accessed  March  3,  2012.   hcp://homansquarepowerhouse.com Illinois  Clean  Energy  Community  Founda)on.  “Energy  Efficiency.”  Illinois  Clean  Energy  Community  Founda)on,   Accessed  March  2,  2012.  hcp://www.illinoiscleanenergy.org/ph-­‐energy-­‐efficiency/

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

73

Kamin,  Blair.  “Power  play:  architects  help  turn  old  Sears  power  plant  in  Chicago  into  new  charter  school.”  City-­‐ scapes,  Chicago  Tribune,  September  01,  2009.   hcp://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/theskyline/2009/09/power-­‐play-­‐architects-­‐help-­‐turn-­‐old-­‐sears-­‐p ower-­‐plant-­‐in-­‐chicago-­‐to-­‐new-­‐charter-­‐school-­‐.html Long,  JT.  “Crea)ng  a  Powerhouse  School.”  Constructor,  March-­‐April  2010.   hcp://constructoragc.construc)on.com/mag/2010/Mar-­‐Apr/1003-­‐PepperConstruc)on.asp MacRos)e  Historic  Advisors,  LLC.  “Adap)ve  Reuse  for  Educa)onal  Facili)es:  The  Charles  H.  Shaw  Technology   and  Learning  Center.”  MacRos)e  Historic  Advisors,  LLC.  Accessed  March  5,  2012.   hcp://www.macros)ehistoric.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.  Na)onal  Park  Service.  “ The  Na)onal  Historic  Landmark  Database:  Sears,  Roebuck,  And  Company.”  Na-­‐ )onal  Park  Service.  Accessed  February  11,  2012.   hcp://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1755&ResourceType=Building.  

Chapter  IV:  Sec3on  Endnotes
1  American  Clean  Skies  Founda)on,  Repurposing  Legacy  Power  Plants:  Lessons  For  the  Future,  12. 2  Ibid.,  24-­‐25. 3  Ibid.,  14.

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

74

V.  The  History  And  Significance  Of  Fisk  Sta3on
  Today,  Fisk  Genera)ng  Sta)on,  located  in  Chicago’s  Pilsen  neighborhood,  is  commonly   known  for  the  community  protests  against  the  power  plant’s  pollu)on  and  environmental  injus-­‐ )ces.  However,  less  know  of  Fisk  Sta)on’s  role  in  the  electric  industry  and  its  historic  signifi-­‐ cance.  In  the  late  nineteenth  century,  the  conven)onal  reciproca)ng  steam  engine  had  reached   its  capacity  in  power  produc)on.  Despite  these  limita)ons  in  genera)on  technology,  house-­‐ holds,  the  elevated  train  system,  and  businesses  con)nued  to  demand  electricity.  Samuel  Insull,   president  of  Chicago  Edison,  which  then  only  a  small  u)lity  company,  was  forced  to  find  an  an-­‐ swer  to  increase  energy  produc)on  while  maintaining  low  customer  rates.  Thus,  Fisk  Sta)on   provided  the  solu)on  and  became  the  founda)on  for  which  the  electric  industry  would  build   upon  in  the  future.   Built  in  1903,  Fisk  Sta)on  became  the  largest  steam  genera)ng  plant  in  the  world,  hold-­‐ ing  the  first  5  megawac  (MW)  steam  turbine.  The  power  plant  stood  as  a  daring  innova)on  for   its  day,  as  there  was  no  guarantee  that  the  5  MW  turbine  would  become  commercially  success-­‐ ful.  But,  the  decision  to  build  the  largest  turbine  for  its  )me  exceeded  cau)ous  experimenta)on   beyond  the  tradi)onal  electric  genera)ng  design.  As  a  result,  the  turbines  installed  at  Fisk  Sta-­‐ )on  largely  influenced  Chicago  Edison’s  growth,  the  expansion  of  electricity  within  Chicago,  and   the  technologic  improvements  in  the  electric  industry.    Only  years  amer  Fisk  Sta)on’s  ini)al  success,  turbines  con)nued  to  generate  greater   electricity  outputs  and  Chicago  Edison  was  renamed  to  Commonwealth  Edison  Company,  which   s)ll  survives  today.  Today,  Fisk  Genera)ng  Sta)on  is  owned  by  Midwest  Genera)on,  a  subsidiary   company  of  Edison  Interna)onal.  On  February  28,  2012,  Midwest  Genera)on  announced  that  it   would  close  Fisk  Sta)on  by  the  end  of  2012.     Given  the  short  )meframe  un)l  re)rement,  Fisk  Sta)on’s  redevelopment  should  place   greater  emphasis  on  preserva)on  as  the  site  greatly  contributed  to  Chicago’s  history  and  is  vital   in  commemora)ng  the  city’s  growth  in  the  early  twen)eth  century.  Of  Chicago’s  earliest  central   power  sta)ons,  today,  Fisk  Sta)on  is  one  of  the  only  to  survive.  Because  the  power  plant  sym-­‐ bolizes  both  the  growth  of  electricity  and  turbine  technology  in  Chicago  and  the  United  States,  

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

75

it  is  a  historic  site  worth  preserving.  A  number  of  Fisk  Sta)on’s  buildings,  which  feature  ornate,   classical  revival  architecture,  remain  on  the  site  today.     The  demoli)on  of  Fisk  Sta)on’s  historic  buildings  would  cause  the  loss  of  many  magnifi-­‐ cent  and  irreplaceable  buildings,  which  symbolize  the  site’s  rich  history.  Fisk  Sta)on  offers  valu-­‐ able  redevelopment  opportuni)es  that  can  drive  employment  and  preserve  community  iden)ty   while  improving  public  and  environmental  health.  Transforming  Fisk  Sta)on  from  an  old,  pollut-­‐ ing  genera)ng  sta)on  into  a  vital  neighborhood  landmark  would  showcase  posi)ve  community   investment,  celebrate  the  current  cultural  values,  and  promote  a  healthy,  sustainable  future.   What  was  once  the  largest  steam  genera)ng  plant  in  the  world  could  one  day  again  serve  future   genera)ons.     This  chapter  will  explore  Fisk  Sta)on’s  history  and  current  condi)ons,  iden)fy  its  mean-­‐ ingful  use  and  contribu)ons  over  )me,  up  the  the  present,  where  Midwest  Genera)on  an-­‐ nounced  the  power  plant’s  closure.  In  addi)on,  specific  building  and  industrial  structures  will  be   showcased.  The  following  chapter  will  examine  the  poten)al  and  barrier  for  its  adap)ve  reuse.  

Historic  Significance
  Fisk  Genera)ng  Sta)on’s  is  more  recently  known  for  its  issues  surrounding  environ-­‐ mental  injus)ce  and  community  protests  over  the  power  plant’s  pollu)on.  Yet,  in  the  early   twen)eth  century,  the  plant  greatly  influenced  Chicago’s  electric  revolu)on  and  signified  the   na)on’s  technologic  improvements  in  power  produc)on.  Few  people  are  aware  of  the  site’s  his-­‐ toric  significance,  which  is  a  crucial  component  in  considering  Fisk  Sta)on’s  preserva)on  and   redevelopment.  

The  Growth  of  Electricity  in  Chicago   Chicago’s  demand  for  electricity  began  as  early  as  1878,  which  simultaneously  resulted   in  u)lity  growth  and  compe))on,  increased  manufacturing,  the  expansion  of  the  rapid  street   transit  system,  and  residen)al  electric  use.1  But,  as  Chicago  became  a  flourishing  industrial  and   railroad  hub,  electricity  service  was  limited.     Chicago’s  transforma)on  into  an  electric  city  depended  heavily  on  Samuel  Insull,  Thomas   Edison’s  former  appren)ce.  In  1892,  Insull  became  president  of  Chicago  Edison  Company,  a  
Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   76

small  u)lity  company  that  eventually  grew  into  Commonwealth  Edison.  Upon  arriving  to  the   city,  Insull  stated  Chicago  presented,  "the  best  opportunity...in  the  United  States  to  develop  the   business  of  the  produc)on  and  distribu)on  of  electrical  energy."2  He  later  went  on  to  become   “the  most  important  na)onal  leader  of  the  electric  u)lity  industry.”3  Through  out  the  early   twen)eth  century,  Insull  directed  the  expansion  of  Chicago’s  electricity  service  by  building  a   powerful  corporate  monopoly,  maintaining  widespread  low  rates,  marke)ng  acrac)ve  adver-­‐ )sements,  and  making  risky  engineering  decisions  in  new  untested  technology.   During  Insull’s  first  years  as  president  of  Chicago  Edison,  the  company  possessed  limited   genera)ng  power,  which  only  served  about  5,000  ligh)ng  customers.4  At  that  )me,  Chicago  Edi-­‐ son  was  not  the  city’s  largest  or  most  powerful  u)lity  company.  However,  Insull  envisioned  an   electricity  market  that  provided  universal,  affordable  service  for  all  Chicagoans,  which  at  the   )me  totaled  approximately  a  million  people.5  In  order  to  achieve  his  goals  of  expanding  service,   Chicago  Edison  would  have  to  increase  sales  and  power  genera)on,  lower  rates,  and  consolidate   the  city’s  sprawling  electric  industry.6  Thus,  Chicago  Edison  gradually  became  a  monopoly,  as   Insull  began  a  legacy  of  purchasing  compe)tor  companies  and  consolida)ng  franchise  rights.7   The  company  also  introduced  aggressive  sales  campaigns  to  en)ce  new  customers  and  built   transmission  lines  that  extended  service  to  suburban  areas  outside  of  Chicago.   Insull  also  concentrated  on  the  city’s  prevalent  isolated  plants.  During  the  late  1800s,   many  large  buildings,  skyscrapers,  factories  possessed  self-­‐contained  genera)ng  systems. 8  Be-­‐ cause  the  isolated  system  provided  addi)onal  control  and  convenience,  many  building  and   business  owners  preferred  self-­‐genera)ng  power.  However,  Insull  believed  that  central  service   sta)ons  were  more  appropriate,  as  specific  genera)ng  sites  had  the  ability  supply  power  far  be-­‐ yond  the  power  plant.  Dealmaking,  adver)sing,  the  geographic  extension  of  high-­‐voltage   transmission  lines,  and  low  energy  rates  made  the  central  sta)on  a  becer  alterna)ve  to  the  self-­‐ contained,  isolated  systems.  By  1904,  new  isolated  plants  began  to  drama)cally  decline.  

Turbine  Technology:  Barriers  and  Innova3on   As  electricity  consump)on  and  popularity  rapidly  increased,  Chicago  Edison  struggled   with  supplying  consistent  power  during  peak  hours.9  By  1901,  the  company  had  exceed  the  ca-­‐ pacity  of  their  generators.10  Chicago  Edison’s  growth  was  limited  by  current  genera)ng  technol-­‐
Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   77

ogy.  In  his  book,  The  Electric  City:  Energy  and  the  Growth  of  the  Chicago  Area,  1880-­‐1930,  Har-­‐ old  Plac,  writes,  “Engineers  and  investors  had  an)cipated  the  problems  of  designing  larger  and   more  efficient  prime  movers.  But  un)l  the  rapid  growth  of  demand  for  electricity  in  Chicago   forced  Insull  to  find  a  solu)on,  technological  innova)on  had  proceeded  at  the  slow  pace  of  cau-­‐ )ous  experimenta)on.”11     Addi)onal  genera)ng  sta)ons  would  not  be  enough  to  increase  power  supply  while   maintaining  low  customer  rates.  In  order  to  promote  the  mass  consump)on  of  electricity,  tur-­‐ bines  would  have  to  generate  more  power.  But  the  current  technologic  constraints  presented  a   huge  challenge:   Up  un)l  that  point,  most  of  the  prevailing  power-­‐genera)on  technology  relied  upon  two   basic  components:  a  steam  engine  and  a  dynamo.  They  were  two  separate  units  con-­‐ nected  by  belts,  which  resulted  in  a  tremendous  loss  in  energy.  Not  only  were  they  inef-­‐ ficient,  they  were  limited  as  to  how  much  power  they  could  produce  since  the  dynamo   could  turn  only  so  fast  in  this  arrangement.12 En)rely  new  generator  technology  was  needed  to  “replace  the  size-­‐limited,  gasoline-­‐powered,   piston-­‐driven  engines.”13  Chicago  Edison  teamed  with  manufacturer  General  Electric  to  develop   a  more  efficient  steam  turbine,  the  turbogenerator,  based  off  of  European  designs.14  The  new,   innova)ve  turbogenerator  unified  once  separate  machine  components  into  a  more  powerful,   efficient  system.  The  new  turbogenerators  presented  a  number  of  benefits  compared  to  the   previously  used  technology:   A  steam  turbine,  however,  eliminated  the  engine  en)rely.  A  coal-­‐fired  boiler  would  heat   water  to  create  a  high-­‐pressure  stream  that  would  turn  the  blades  in  the  turbine,  whose   sham  was  directly  connected  to  the  dynamo.  Instead  of  being  40  percent  efficient  in  its   conversion  of  heat  and  mo)on  to  electricity,  the  new  unit  could  be  80  percent  efficient.   Less  coal  was  needed,  the  turbine  could  turn  faster  and  create  more  power.  It  was  a   rela)vely  simple  principle  that  is  essen)ally  s)ll  in  use  today  in  every  coal-­‐,  gas-­‐,  and  oil-­‐ fired  power  plant.15 With  cheaper,  less  resource  and  space  intensive  steam  turbines,  Chicago  Edison  would  be  able   to  expand  electric  service  further.  The  next  step  was  to  build  an  fully-­‐func)onal  power  plant  run   by  turbogenerators  in  Chicago.   In  1900,  General  Electric  built  a  half-­‐MW  (megawac)  prototype,  “about  what  was  being   readied  abroad,  but  Insull  decided  that  prime  movers  of  5  MW  each  were  necessary  for  a  14-­‐

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

78

unit,  70  MW  sta)on.  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.”16  A  turbine  that  could  pro-­‐ duce  5  MW  was  more  than  twice  as  large  as  what  Wes)nghouse,  the  leader  in  AC  turbines,  had   in  opera)on  at  the  )me.17  Although  General  Electric  and  the  engineers  working  on  the  project   considered  Insull’s  vision  a  huge  manufacturing  risk,  Insull  insisted  on  building  a  machine  that   would  exceed  the  limits  of  the  exis)ng  technology.  During  a  speech  on  June  26,  1912  before  the   Brooklyn  Edison  Company  Sec)on  of  the  Na)onal  Electric  Light  Associa)on,  Insull  recalled  his   daring  decision  to  build  the  largest  5  MW  turbogenerator  yet,  as  “to  make  a  steam  turbine  a   fimh  that  size  would  be  a  step  backward.”18   Even  with  his  business  reputa)on  at  stake,  Insull  rejected  conserva)ve  advice.  Because   he  intended  to  supply  a  large  amount  of  power  to  Chicago’s  elevated  transit  system,  only  un-­‐ tested  turbine  size  and  technology  would  be  sufficient.19  “Such  a  large  customer  would  require   a  generator  that  did  not  exist  in  the  engineer’s  minds.  Insull  would  not  be  denied  as  he  envi-­‐ sioned  his  company  supplying  power  for  the  en)re  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.”20     Insull  told  his  board  of  directors,  that  his  dream  of  widespread  electricity  “could  only  be   obtained  from  highly  economical  power  sta)ons  resul)ng  in  a  very  low  cost  of  energy,  compet-­‐ ing  against  privately  owned  uneconomical  steam  plants.  The  opportunity  to  get  this  large  power   business  was  right  at  my  threshold  and  I  knew  that  unless  I  built  the  most  economical  power   sta)on  possible,  that  opportunity  would  be  lost.”21  In  order  for  General  Electric  to  take  the   manufacturing  risk  building  with  the  5  MW  turbine,  Insull  agreed  that  Chicago  Edison  would  as-­‐ sume  the  expenses  if  the  technology  failed.22  

Fisk  Genera3ng  Sta3on’s  Technologic  Success   In  December  of  1901,  Insull  placed  the  order  for  the  untested  5  MW  turbine  and,  as  he   put  it,  the  “great  experiment”  began.23  The  same  year,  a  site,  located  on  a  “a  quiet  street  in  an   industrial  district  in  an  area  known  as  Pilsen,”  was  purchased  to  house  the  untested  turbo-­‐ generator  technology  (Fig.  5.1).24  Built  on  this  newly  acquired  land,  Fisk  Street  Genera)ng  Sta-­‐ )on  “would  mark  a  historic  departure  from  the  current  standards  of  the  industry.”25  Due  to  its  
Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   79

loca)on  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.   SPECIAL REPORT

~ 54 ~

constant financi why people ever crazy to expect t We may have to those companie idation plan as w pany is a challe may have to get The street rai financial mess, over there at th Chairman of Engineers, Ch Report.) While w these street railw want to get inv enough for me Arnold is doing involved with a r panies under a c About two ye near Libertyvil spend a lot of ti sumed with my while Chappie a Fisk Street Station as it appeared while under construction in 1903. The general construction is of in Europe, I Fig.  5.1:  View  of  Fisk  Sta)on  during  its  construc)on  in  1903.   steel covered with red pressed brick and ornamented with heavy cut Bedford stone. Photo from machines (auto The Sargent & Lundy Story Printed  in  Shore  Line  Interurban  Historical  Society,  “A  Conversa)on  with  Samuel  Insull,”  First  &  Fastest  26,  vol.   farm, there was 1  (2009):   huge engineers at General Electric used their slide a 54. risk building the world’s largest turbine the six miles fr rules to prove that everything was impossible. plant. Huge amounts of water would be needed While out drivin   Even Fred Sargent told me it couldn’t be done. as each turbine would be served by eight boil- countryside, I be   We were October  2,  1903,  Fisk  Street  Genera)ng  Sta)on  condensers alone were a5significant the various po On   at the practical capacity of reciprocat- ers. The opened,  containing  the    MW,   North Shore Ele ing steam engines. We needed a bold solution, challenge. 11,000-­‐horsepower  coal-­‐fired  turbine.26  As  Fisk  Sta)on  was  powered  up,  Insull  commented  on   Then I was th The boilers are four in a row with a firing and I was prepared to go to the directors with a poten)al  for  the  new  technology  to  fail,  we islandit  between Ithe blow  rows ith  it  anyways   the Chicago & M bold solution. The business was there if sta)ng,  “If   goes  up,    will  two up  w of boilers. the   Separate boiler and turbine rooms would be to Libertyville i could provide a low rate. in  more  ways  than  one,  so  I  might  as  well  stay  here.”27 under a common roof. The switch power plant i So I dispatched Ferguson and Sargent to located   Europe to study the turbine installations in coal,  Fisk  Sta)on’s  5  separate, 50 feet the  largest   Electric has po Powered  from  water  boiled  by  burning   house would be MW  turbine  was  from the various countries main building. Boiler pressure was designed at Highland Park. turbogenerator  in  the  world.  Each  unit  measured  180 in  height  and  16'-­‐6"in  diameter  (Fig.  5.2).   thing in Lake and report back 29'   pounds per square inch, with the steam to me. Charles superheated another 150 degrees powerhouse,   Although  the  original  plant  designs  intended  to  place  14  generator  units  inside  the  Fahrenheit Chicago? We co Coffin (president and the turbines rotating at 750 rpm. We were the area last ye of General really breaking new ground, and it would be back from the those towns hav Electric) did not the first 5,000 kilowatt unit placed in service. Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   80 On October 21, 1903, Sargent was superin- has service at n want to take the risk of manufac- tending the steaming up of the unit. It made a at the door of th turing 5,000 kilo- terrific noise when it first started, and Sargent are so financia them with a cen

in  the  end  only  three  of  the  turbines  were  installed.28  Eight  boilers,  arranged  perpendicular  to   the  turbines,  eight  boilers  provided  turbogenerators  with  steam.  “ This  turbine-­‐boiler  arrange-­‐ ment  was  a  departure  from  the  conven)onal  method  of  sejng  the  boilers  in  a  line  parallel  to   the  turbines.”29

Fig.  5.2:  Thomas  Edison  and  others  standing  in  front  of  the  5  MW  turbine-­‐generator   monument  in  Schenectady,  New  York  in  1922. Image  from  John  C.  Zink,  “Steam  Turbines  Power  an  Industry:  A  Condensed  History  of   Steam  Turbines,”  Power  Engineering,  August  1,  1996.  

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

81

 

Fisk  Sta)on’s  mechanical  success  became  instantly  apparent,  as  the  new  unit  produced  

twice  as  much  power  as  any  steam  engine  ever  built.30  Not  only  did  the  turbines  achieved  80%   energy  efficiency,  double  that  of  Chicago  Edison’s  previous  reciproca)ng  unit  technology,  but   they  also  spun  ten  )mes  faster  than  the  reciproca)ng  predecessors,  were  one-­‐tenth  the  weight,   and  required  less  maintenance.31  “ 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  tur-­‐ bine’s  hardened  metal  also  maintained  its  shape  despite  being  blasted  by  high-­‐temperature   steam,  and  the  unit  operated  under  these  red-­‐hot  condi)oned  consistently  for  twenty-­‐four   hours  a  day.”32   Power  produc)on  demanded  less  fuel,  with  a  kilowac  (KW)  hour  now  requiring  less  than   four  pounds  of  coal  compared  to  the  previous  seven  pounds  needed.33  The  greater  energy  out-­‐ puts  coupled  with  a  reduc)on  in  coal  consump)on  provided  an  addi)onal  benefit  to  the  sur-­‐ rounding  city  and  its  residents  by  lessening  smoke  pollu)on. 34   This  new  power  produc)on  was  significant  in  that  it  allowed  Chicago  Edison  to  supply   power  to  the  transit  system,  the  largest  electrical  customer  at  the  )me.  But  even  more  impor-­‐ tant,  Fisk  Sta)on’s  turbines  became  the  first  step  in  improving  the  efficiency  of  generator  ma-­‐ chinery  and  technology.  The  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  orbi)ng  around  the  earth  to  orbi)ng  around  the  moon...From  that   point  on,  Chicago  was  on  its  way  to  becoming  the  most  energy-­‐intensive  place  in  the  world.”35     Insull  stated  Fisk  Sta)on’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  produc)on.  Our  balance   sheets  for  the  year  will  show  up  very  well.”36  From  simultaneously  achieving  an  increase  in   power  output  and  a  decrease  produc)on  costs,  Chicago  Edison  was  now  capable  of  selling   power  to  more  customers.  The  improved  efficiency  certainly  aided  the  city’s  subsequent  electric   revolu)on  and  the  con)nual  growth  of  Chicago  Edison.     Because  the  site  represented  monumental  engineering  accomplishments,  “it  was  no   surprise  that  visitors  from  the  European  electric  industry  traveled  first  to  Chicago  and  to  Fisk”  to   view  the  technology.37  Fisk  became  its  own  tourist  acrac)on  as  notable  people,  such  as  Thomas  

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

82

Edison  and  Britain’s  King  George  and  Queen  Mary,  visited  the  power  plant.38  Fisk  Sta)on  also   held  a  number  of  garden  par)es  to  showcase  the  excep)onal  technology  in  which,  “hundreds  of   visitors...wandered  all  over  the  place,  admiring  something  new  at  every  turn.”39  Today,  the   original  guestbook,  filled  with  the  signatures  of  countless  visitors,  s)ll  remains  the  the  site.  Fisk   Sta)on’s  fame  in  the  early  twen)eth  century  contributes  to  the  historic  significance  of  the  site. Technologic  Improvements  A\er  Fisk  Sta3on’s  Ini3al  Success   The  original  technologic  improvements  and  enhanced  efficiency  from  1903  cut  produc-­‐

)on  costs  by  half,  which  provided  Chicago  Edison  with  new  opportuni)es  for  growth.  Chicago   Edison,  which  became  Commonwealth  Edison  in  1907,  con)nued  to  acquire  more  power  com-­‐ panies  and  proceeded  to  expand  electric  service  to  the  surrounding  metropolitan  area.  Generat-­‐ ing  technology  also  became  more  cost  effec)ve  and  energy  efficient.     Because  the  turbines  at  Fisk  Sta)on  were  so  successful,  three  more  5  MW  turbines  were   installed  by  1905.40  However,  the  “development  of  turbine  engines  was  so  great  that  within  six   years  not  one  of  the  original  four  was  s)ll  being  used.”41  Instead,  the  steam  turbine  technology   at  Fisk  Sta)on  was  con)nually  improved  upon.  Chicago  Edison’s  guaranteed  contracts  with  Chi-­‐ cago’s  transit  companies  provided  the  investment  capital  needed  for  upgrading  the  power   plant’s  first  genera)ng  system  and  steam  turbine  technology.  By  1907,  the  turbine  units  were   retroficed  to  an  increased  size  of  12  MW,  with  a  140%  boost  in  output.42  By  1910,  the  power-­‐ house  contained  14  turbines  and  a  total  output  of  168  MW.43  According  to  Insull,  the  retrofits   were  ensued  all  “with  the  same  building,  the  same  number  of  boilers,  the  same  grate  surface,   the  same  stack  capacity,  [and]  prac)cally  the  same  amount  of  money  invested.”44     By  1949,  Fisk  Sta)on  again  became  Commonwealth  Edison’s  largest  genera)ng  sta)on  of   the  10  in  opera)on  with  the  installa)on  of  a  new  150  MW  unit. 45  In  1959,  a  305  MW  unit  was   installed,  which  produced  “enough  electricity  to  serve  a  city  of  nearly  half  a  million   popula)on.”46  This  technologic  improvement  increased  the  total  net  genera)ng  capability  to   613  MW,  a  staggering  comparison  to  Fisk  Sta)on’s  first  opera)onal  capacity  of  5  MW.   Because  the  power  plant  was  con)nually  upgraded  to  generate  more  electric  power,   none  of  the  original  generators  are  located  at  Fisk  Sta)on  today.  However,  the  original  5  MW   turbine  was  returned  to  the  headquarters  of  General  Electric,  the  original  manufacturer,  in  
Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   83

Schenectady,  New  York,  “where  is  stands  today  as  a  monument  to  engineering  genius.”47  Ac-­‐ cording  to  one  author,  when  viewing  the  original  turbines,  “you  can  get  a  feel  for  what  an  awe-­‐ some  process  power  produc)on  is,  even  in  this  age.”48  The  original  5  MW  Cur)s  turbine  genera-­‐ tor  unit  was  designated  a  na)onal  engineering  landmark  by  the  American  Society  of  Mechanical   Engineers  in  1975.49

Fisk  Sta3on’s  Technologic  Impact  on  the  Electricity  Industry  and  in  Chicago   Eloquently  put  by  Insull,  Fisk  Sta)on’s  original  turbogenerator  represented  true  innova-­‐ )on  and  risk.  The  power  plant  stood  as:   a  monument  to  one  of  the  greatest  developments  that  has  taken  place  in  connec)on   with  our  industry.  The  ability  to  mass  very  large  amounts  of  energy  produc)on,  the  abil-­‐ ity  to  do  that  at  a  very  low  investment  cost,  and  to  produce  the  energy  from  such  ma-­‐ chinery  at  an  opera)ng  cost  never  heard  of  with  reciproca)ng  engines  and  at  an  effi-­‐ ciency  never  heard  of  with  reciproca)ng  engines,  has,  to  my  mind,  had  a  greater  influ-­‐ ence  on  the  development  of  our  business  during  the  last  decade  than  any  other  one   thing.   True,  we  were  looking  for  some  means  of  producing  energy  in  greater  quan))es  at   lower  cost,  and  under  circumstances  of  greater  reliability  than  produc)on  could  possibly   be  with  a  reciproca)ng  engine,  as  compared  with  the  low  investment  cost,  low  bearing   cost,  and  great  reliability  of  a  rota)ng  prime  mover;  but  the  fact  is  that  in  agreeing  to   take  the  risks  of  manufacture,  and  to  give  the  industry  something  which  it  needed   badly....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.50   The  5  MW  steam  turbine  “also  helped  introduce  the  turbine  to  America;  within  a  year  

amer  Fisk  Street  began  opera)on,  General  Electric  and  Wes)nghouse  received  orders  for   540,000  KW  (540  MW)  of  turbogenerator  capacity.”51  Alongside  influencing  Chicago’s  electric   revolu)on,  the  new  steam  turbogenerators  also  represent  an  industry-­‐wide  triumph  of  when   the  “the  future  of  primary  power  arrived.”52  Today,  amer  extensive  decades  of  refinement,  the   advanced  steam  turbine  technology  remains  a  dominant  power  generator,  represen)ng  more   than  60%  of  all  power  generated.53  Although  the  steam  turbine  would  not  evolve  into  its  more   modern  design  for  another  decade,  Fisk’s  technology  was  crucial  for  crea)ng  the  pathway  to   improve  u)lity  companies’  central  sta)ons.  The  groundbreaking  5  MW  units  subsequently  trig-­‐

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

84

gered  the  era  of  rapid  technological  advances  in  size  and  efficiency  for  energy  produc)on  as   well  as  led  to  relentless  compe))on  toward  the  goal  of  cheap  electricity.   Even  though  the  5  MW  turbines  were  quickly  replaced  at  Fisk  Sta)on,  the  power  plant   greatly  influenced  the  evolu)on  and  upward  growth  of  the  electric  industry,  which  con)nued  to   be  a  central  part  of  Chicago  Edison’s  genera)ng  power  even  amer  the  site’s  ini)al  success.     In  1908,  five  years  amer  Fisk  Sta)on  first  began  opera)ng,  an  editorial  from  the  magazine   Electrical  World,  commented  on  the  site’s  persis)ng  significance.  Although  the  magazine  wrote   of  Fisk  Sta)on  in  previous  issues,  the  editorial  stated,  “no  ar)cle  can  do  jus)ce  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  gigan)c  machines,   the  towering  walls,  the  long-­‐drawn  aisles.”54  In  1915,  an  adver)sement  produced  by  Common-­‐ wealth  Edison  )tled,  called  Fisk  Sta)on  “A  Mecca”  as  it  “revolu)onized  the  methods  of  making   electricity.”55  The  adver)sement  also  alluded  to  the  power  plant’s  influence  on  the  “high  repu-­‐ ta)on  that  Chicago  enjoys  in  the  electrical  industry  is  due  in  large  part  to  the  enterprise,  the   boldness  of  ini)a)ve,  the  recogni)on  of  the  economic  fundamentals  on  which  this  business  is   based,  and  the  desire  to  play  fair,  which  this  company  has  exhibited.”56     In  1928,  at  the  25th  anniversary  commemora)ng  the  installa)on  of  Fisk  Sta)on’s  first  5   MW  steam  turbine  engine,  Insull  commented  on  how  the  success  of  the  “experiment”  at  the   site  revolu)onized  electric  genera)ng  power.  Insull  stated,  “I  think  this  sta)on  marks  the  begin-­‐ ning  of  modern  day  development  of  the  produc)on  of  electric  energy  from  steam  and  its  distri-­‐ bu)on  over  large  areas,  such  as  we  now  have…The  Fisk  street  sta)on,  as  long  as  it  stands,  will   be  a  monument  to  that  departure.”57    As  turbo-­‐genera)ng  technology  became  more  cost  effec)ve,  Chicago  Edison  con)nued   to  build  new  powerhouses  with  greater  genera)ng  capaci)es.  For  example,  Quarry  Street  Sta-­‐ )on,  located  across  the  Chicago  River  from  Fisk  Sta)on,  opened  in  1908,  housing  six  24  MW   turbines. 58  Quarry  Street  Sta)on  and  Fisk  Sta)on  were  connected  with  large  electric  lines  to  as-­‐ sist  each  plant  according  to  varying  peak  and  low  loads  as  well  as  adding  reliability  to  their   opera)ons.59  While  the  sta)ons  remained  independent  plants  in  order  to  ensure  that  a  break-­‐ down  in  one  would  not  affect  the  other,  their  loca)on  near  each  other  provided  an  economic,   convenient  advantage  for  combined  opera)on.  In  addi)on,  the  two  sta)ons  shared  a  chief  en-­‐

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

85

gineer  and  a  ferry  service.60  The  integrated  system  showcased  innova)on  beyond  just  the  single   turbine.     In  1912,  Northwest  Street  Sta)on  opened  with  two  20  MW  units,  four  )mes  the  capacity   of  Fisk  Sta)on’s  original  turbines  built  just  a  decade  before.61  Just  two  years  later,  a  30  MW  tur-­‐ bine  was  installed  at  Northwest  Street  Sta)on,  which  at  the  )me  was  the  largest  in  the  world.62   By  the  mid-­‐1920s,  a  single  turbine  could  generate  175  MW,  which  was  enough  to  power  a  small   city.63    In  addi)on,  the  amount  of  coal  needed  to  generate  1  KW-­‐hour  of  electricity  decreased   from  7.3  pounds  in  1902  to  1.5  pounds  in  1932,  which  undoubtedly  reduced  input  costs   further.64   The  increasing  supply  of  power  and  lower  costs  increased  electricity’s  role  in  Chicago’s   growing  entertainment,  transit,  and  residen)al  appliance  industries.  Commonwealth  Edison   con)nued  to  expand  service  into  the  outlying  suburbs  to  create  a  united  network  of  power.  Chi-­‐ cago  was  transforming  into  “the  electric  city”  in  which  Insull  had  envisioned.65     The  Role  of  Samuel  Insull    Ini)ally,  Insull’s  daring  experimenta)on  and  risky  engineering  decisions  directed  the   construc)on  of  Fisk  Sta)on’s  ill-­‐advised  turbines.  Yet,  at  the  )me,  Insull  could  not  predict  how   the  first  5  MW  unit  would  set  the  stage  for  future  turbogenerator  advancements  in  both  Chi-­‐ cago  and  the  electric  industry  at  large.  Although  a  great  deal  of  Fisk  Sta)on’s  success  has  been   acributed  to  Insull,  he  is  not  soley  responsible  for  Chicago’s  growth  and  turbine  technology  evo-­‐ lu)on.  However,  author  Thomas  P.  Hughes  notes  Insull’s  significance:   The  technology  and  organiza)on  of  the  Chicago  system  were  a  synthesis  of  the  ideas  and   ac)vi)es  of  innumerable  inventors,  engineers,  entrepreneurs,  manufacturers,  and  man-­‐ agers  from  all  parts  of  the  world.  Insull  did  not  invent  the  Chicago  system  to  the  extent   that  Edison  invented  the  Pearl  Street  system.  Edison  acquired  patents  on  the  essen)al   components  of  his  system  and  the  organizing  concept  of  the  system  was  clearly  his.  In-­‐ sull  was  not  a  professional  inventor  or  an  engineer.  He  was,  however,  a  systems  concep-­‐ tualizer  comparable  to  Edison,  but  on  a  high  level  of  abstrac)on.  Edison,  though  deeply   aware  of  the  seamless  fabric  of  economics  and  technology,  was  rela)vely  naive  about   the  long-­‐term  economic  and  social  factors  making  up  the  environment  within  which  his   system  func)oned...Edison  did  not  ar)culate  his  technological  and  economic  concepts   so  that  a  large  organiza)on  could  make  decisions  and  carry  out  policy  without  his  imme-­‐ diate  supervision.  

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

86

Insull,  by  contrast,  analyzed  and  ar)culated  concepts  that  guided  policy  not  only  in  Chi-­‐ cago  but  in  other  u)li)es  as  well.  His  conceptual  syntheses  involved  social  and  market   needs,  financial  trends,  poli)cal  (especially  regulatory)  policies,  economic  principles,   technological  innova)ons,  engineering  design,  and  managerial  techniques.  Insull  dis-­‐ cussed  his  concepts,  policies,  and  experiences  in  addresses  to  u)lity  groups  and  to  the   public.66 As  president  of  Chicago  Edison,  which  later  was  renamed  to  Commonwealth  Edison,  Insull   played  a  crucial  role  in  construc)ng  the  founda)on  of  today’s  electric  grid  in  Chicago.  Through   managing  and  controlling  Chicago  Edison’s  agenda,  Insull  directed  decisions  that  resulted  in  the   use  of  central  sta)ons  rather  than  isolated  power  plants  and  the  crea)on  of  the  most  efficient   steam  turbine  technology  of  its  day,  which  replaced  the  reciproca)ng  engine.  His  risky  “experi-­‐ ment”  in  building  the  5  MW  turbine  triggered  the  era  of  rapid  technological  advances  in  steam   turbine  technology,  which  inaugurated  a  new  era  of  power  genera)on.  

Employees  at  Fisk  Sta3on     In  addi)on  to  Fisk  Sta)on’s  technologic  and  electric  significance  in  history,  the  countless   employees  that  worked  at  the  plant  throughout  its  history  should  not  go  unno)ced.  While  the   plant’s  safety  has  been  drama)cally  improved  over  the  past  century,  a  number  of  men  died  in   accidents  throughout  the  twen)eth  century.67  Today,  a  memorial  garden  located  adjacent  to   Fisk  Sta)on’s  Original  Powerhouse  commemorates  the  workers  and  firefighters  that  lost  their   lives  in  these  industrial  accidents.  Fisk  Sta)on  also  offered  remarkable  accommoda)ons  and   ameni)es  to  employees,  which  will  be  discussed  later  in  this  chapter.

Fisk  Sta3on’s  Contribu3on  to  Electric  Technology  and  Growth     Chicago  Edison’s  success  was  largely  based  on  coupling  improved  genera)ng  technology   with  the  acquisi)on  and  consolida)on  of  rivaling  companies,  and  exclusivity  agreements.  These   factors  allowed  Chicago  Edison  to  scale  up  genera)on  and  distribu)on  to  serve  more  customers   at  a  cheaper  rate.  The  efficient  turbogenerators,  such  as  the  5  MW  units  installed  at  Fisk  Sta)on,   pushed  the  company’s  business  growth  as  well  as  future  technologic  innova)ons  in  the  engi-­‐ neering  world  further.

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

87

 

Chicago  Edison’s  success,  the  growth  of  electricity  within  Chicago,  and  the  moderniza-­‐

)on  and  technologic  improvements  of  the  electric  industry  are  embodied  with  Fisk  Sta)on.  In   the  late  nineteenth  century,  the  conven)onal  reciproca)ng  steam  engine  had  reached  its  capac-­‐ ity  in  power  produc)on.  Despite  the  limita)ons  in  genera)on,  Chicago  required  addi)onal  elec-­‐ tricity.  As  a  result,  Fisk  Sta)on  was  constructed  to  hold  the  largest  steam  turbine  yet.   Fisk  Sta)on’s  first  5  MW  steam  turbine  was  a  daring  innova)on  for  its  day.  When  or-­‐ dered,  their  was  no  guarantee  of  commercial  success.  However,  the  decision  to  build  the  tur-­‐ bines  once  housed  in  Fisk  Sta)on  exceeded  cau)ous  experimenta)on.  With  the  most  innova)ve   technology  of  its  kind  and  of  any  size,  Fisk  Sta)on  became  the  largest  steam  genera)ng  plant  in   the  world.  Of  Chicago  Edison’s  earliest  central  power  sta)ons,  today  Fisk  Sta)on  is  one  of  the   only  to  survive.  Fisk  Sta)on’s  buildings-­‐-­‐many  of  which  are  s)ll  intact  onsite-­‐-­‐are  worth  preserv-­‐ ing  to  commemorate  their  historic  significance,  architectural  uniqueness,  contribu)on  in  revo-­‐ lu)onizing  the  electric  industry,  and  countless  employees.  This  site  greatly  contributed  to  Chi-­‐ cago’s  history  and  is  vital  in  commemora)ng  the  city’s  growth  in  the  early  twen)eth  century.  

Historic  Buildings  Onsite
  While  Fisk  Sta)on  symbolically  represents  a  turning  point  in  both  Chicago  and  the  elec-­‐ tric  industry’s  evolu)on,  its  buildings  contain  their  own  architectural  significance.  Compared  the   architecture  in  more  recently  built  power  plants,  Fisk  Sta)on’s  various  buildings  are  unique  and   surprisingly  ornate,  as  they  were  built  with  classical  revival  architecture.  Classical  revival  archi-­‐ tecture  commonly  features  “symmetrical  facades,  minimal  use  of  bays,  towers  or  other  project-­‐ ing  building  elements,  classical  ornament,  including  columns,  cornices,  and  triangular  pedi-­‐ ments,  and  wide  variety  of  materials,  including  brick,  stone,  terra  coca,  and  wood.”68   The  poten)al  historic  structures  featured  in  the  Historic  American  Engineering  Record   site  analysis  and/or  that  were  viewed  on  a  tour  to  Fisk  Sta)on  include  the  Original  Powerhouse,   the  Administra)on  Building,  Switch  House  No.  1,  Switch  House  No.  2  and  Transmission  Terminal,   and  the  Maintenance  Building.69  A  number  of  other  large  structure  or  industrial  equipment  are   also  present.  The  general  site  layout  is  shown  in  Fig.  5.3,  5.4,  and  5.5.     The  following  analysis  of  the  exis)ng  buildings  is  based  on  outdated  informa)on,  either   from  the  early  1900s  or  the  mid  1980s,  as  well  as  from  the  author’s  personal  site  tour  in  March  
Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   88

2012.  Therefore,  the  present  condi)ons  and  status  need  to  be  further  analyzed  for  their  struc-­‐ tural  integrity  and  preserva)on  poten)al.  Although  the  buildings  will  be  described  by  their  his-­‐ toric  characteris)cs,  it  should  be  noted  that  the  descrip)ons  may  not  be  an  accurate  represen-­‐ ta)on  given  the  possibility  of  renova)ons  or  natural  deteriora)on.  Nevertheless,  the  following   images  and  descrip)ons  s)ll  serve  as  a  introduc)on  to  Fisk  Sta)on’s  unique  architectural  char-­‐ acteris)cs.  The  redevelopment  of  the  site  should  highly  consider  preserving  these  ornate  build-­‐ ings  in  order  to  commemorate  the  historic  engineering,  electric,  and  architectural  significance.  
00 10 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

Historic(Buildings
09

08

1.##Original#Powerhouse 2.##Administra7on#Building 3.##Switch#House#No.#1 4.##Switch#House#No.#2 5.##Maintenance#Shop 6.##Frequency#Changer# House

Cermak Road

07

Non0Historic(Structures
7.##1959#Powerhouse 8.##Transmission#Sta7on 9.##Peaker#Units 10.##Old#Transmission#Terminal#

4 10 9 8 5

06

05

04

7 1

03

2 6

02

3
01

Chicago River
00 00 01

Fig.  5.3:  Site  layout  of  Fisk  04 enera)ng  Sta)on’s  Historic  and  Non-­‐Historic  Structures.   G 02 03 05 06 07 08 09 Image  created  by  author.

10

11

12

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

89

 

00 35

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35 35

34

34

33

Historic(Buildings
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Original*Powerhouse Administra7on*Building Switch*House*No.*1 Switch*House*No.*2 Maintenance*Shop Frequency*Changer*House

33

32

32

31

31

30

30

29

29

28

Non0Historic(Structures
7.**1959*Powerhouse 8.**Transmission*Sta7on 9.**Peaker*Units 10.**Old*Transmission*Terminal*
8 10

28

4
27 26

27

26

25

25

9 5

7
24

24

23

23

22

22

21

21

20

19

3 6

2

1

20

19

18

18

17

17

16

16

15

15

14

14

13

13

12

12

11

11

10

10

09

09

08

Fig.  5.4:  Site  layout  of  Fisk  Genera)ng  Sta)on’s  Historic  and  Non-­‐Historic  Structures.   Image  created  by  author.

08

07

07

06

06

05

05

04

04

03

03

02

02

01

01

00 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

00

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

90

1 7 2

3

6

5 9 8

Historic(Buildings
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Original*Powerhouse Administra7on*Building Switch*House*No.*1 Switch*House*No.*2 Maintenance*Shop Frequency*Changer*House

4

10

Non0Historic(Structures
7.**1959*Powerhouse 8.**Transmission*Sta7on 9.**Peaker*Units 10.**Old*Transmission*Terminal*

Fig.  5.5:  Site  layout  of  Fisk  Genera)ng  Sta)on’s  Historic  and  Non-­‐Historic  Structures.   Image  created  by  author.

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

91

The  Original  Powerhouse   Built  in  1903,  the  Original  Powerhouse  once  contained  the  most  advanced  and  powerful   5  MW  turbogenerators  for  its  )me.70  In  his  eloquent  portrayal,  author  John  Wasik  describes  the   original  characteris)cs  of  the  powerhouse  and  its  turbines  when  it  first  became  opera)onal:   The  building  itself  was  ornate  for  a  power  sta)on,  featuring  graceful  three  story  mul-­‐ lioned  arched  windows  and  terra  coca  ornamenta)on.  Inside  the  generator  room,   streetlights  lit  the  cavernous  space.  The  turbine  generator  itself  was  a  steel  octopus,   with  pipes  coming  out  of  the  bocom.  Looking  like  something  out  of  a  Jules  Verne  novel,   brass  railings  ringed  the  top  and  lower  sec)on  of  the  unit.  Oval-­‐shaped  openings  on  the   turbine  made  it  look  like  a  strange  nau)cal  vessel  landlocked  in  the  middle  of  a  cathedral   of  power.71   In  1908,  author  William  Hodge  commented  on  the  architecture  of  the  Original  Power-­‐

house  in  contrast  to  the  neighborhood,  sta)ng,  “ The  buildings  stand  out  in  grateful  relief   against  less  acrac)ve  surroundings.”72  An  addi)onal  descrip)on  wricen  in  1908  in  an  editorial   from  the  magazine  Electrical  World,  commented  on  the  persis)ng  significance  and  beauty  of  the   site.  Although  the  magazine  had  wricen  of  Fisk  Sta)on  and  the  Original  Powerhouse  in  previous   issues,  the  editorial  stated,  “no  ar)cle  can  do  jus)ce  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  gigan)c  machines,  the  towering  walls,  the   long-­‐drawn  aisles.”73   Featuring  classical  revival  architecture,  the  exterior  of  the  powerhouse  is  adorned  with   large  arched  windows  that  measure  25  feet  wide  and  32  feet  high,  large  skylights  that  provided   “perfect  ligh)ng  and  ven)la)on,”  decora)ve  red  bricks,  and  white  Bedford  stone.74  A  site  analy-­‐ sis  by  the  Historic  American  Engineering  Record,  conducted  in  the  mid-­‐1980s,  describes  the  ex-­‐ terior  architectural  features: The  exterior  of  the  power  house  features  a  pedimented  gable  above  the  entrance...This   building  has  slightly  canted  corners,  and  contains  such  decora)ve  elements  as  rus)cated   quoins  and  pilasters,  and  embellished  pendrils.  Large  arched  windows  extend  up  to  two-­‐ thirds  of  the  building's  height.  A  wide  concrete  belt  course  extends  around  the  building   above  the  founda)on  and  below  the  windows.  The  cornice  is  composed  of  a  second   concrete  belt.75   The  photograph  in  Fig.  5.6  displays  the  northern  exterior  of  the  powerhouse  circa  1908.  

The  architectural  and  structural  outline  of  the  northern  exterior  of  the  Original  Powerhouse  is  

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

92

shown  in  Fig.  5.7.  However,  only  the  turbine-­‐generator  room  located  in  west  end  of  the  building   remains  today  (Fig.  5.8).  The  demoli)on  of  the  original  boiler  room  is  due  to  construc)on  up-­‐ grades  in  1959,  which  will  be  discussed  in  the  following  sec)on,  “1959  Turbine-­‐Generator  Room   Addi)on  to  the  Original  Powerhouse.”   The  architectural  features  of  the  west  facade  of  the  Original  Powerhouse  are  showcased   in  Fig.  5.9,  Fig.  5.10,  and  Fig.  5.11.  Today,  there  is  a  small  memorial  garden  along  the  western   sec)on  of  the  powerhouse  that  commemorates  people  that  have  perished  in  fires  and  accidents   at  the  site.   The  interior  of  the  original  powerhouse  also  contained  unique  features  rare  in  contem-­‐ porary  construc)on  that  deemed  the  room  “very  handsome.”76  The  interiors  walls  possess   “white  enameled  )le  adorned  with  decora)ve  brass  lamps.”77  The  concrete  floors  in  the  turbine   room  were  once  “covered  with  two-­‐inch  hexagonal  terra-­‐coca  )le,”  but  today  the  original  floor-­‐ ing  seems  to  have  been  removed  or  covered,  as  it  now  is  concrete.78  Fig  5.12-­‐Fig.  5.17  shows   the  interior  features  from  the  present  and  past,  as  well  as  the  different  turbine  units  once   housed  in  the  building.   Although  various  sources  disagree  on  who  actually  designed  the  building,  the  Historic   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.79  Plans  for  Fisk  Sta)on’s  redevelopment  should  strongly  consider  preserv-­‐ ing  the  Original  Powerhouse  due  to  its  ornate  architecture  and  historic  significance  in  engineer-­‐ ing  and  electricity.

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

93

Fig.  5.6:    The  exterior  of  the  Original  Powerhouse,  circa  1908,  looking  south.    Printed  in  McGraw-­‐Publishing  Company,  "The  System  and  Opera)ng  Prac)ce  of  the  Commonwealth  Edison   Company,  Chicago,”  Electrical  World  51,  no.  20  (1908):  1025.

Fig.  5.7:  The  architectural  details  of  the  northern  facade  of  the  Original  Powerhouse  circa  1908.   Printed  in  George  Frederick  Gebhardt,  Steam  Power  Plant  Engineering  (New  York:  John  Wiley  &  Sons,  1908),   776.

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

94

Fig.  5.8:  The  north  entrance  to  the  Original  Powerhouse  turbine  room,  circa  1908.  Image  from  Library  of  Congress,  Prints  &  Photographs  Division,  Historic  American  Engineering  Record,  “Common-­‐ wealth  Electric  Company,  Fisk  Street  Electrical  Genera)ng  Sta)on,”  survey  number  HAER  ILL,  16-­‐CHIG,  140,  Photo   #8,  hcp://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/hhh.il0671/photos.034788p.

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

95

Fig.  5.9:  West  facade  of  the  Original  Powerhouse,  looking  southeast,  circa  1980.  Image  from  Library  of  Congress,  Prints  &  Photographs  Division,  Historic  American  Engineering   Record,  “Commonwealth  Electric  Company,  Fisk  Street  Electrical  Genera)ng  Sta)on,”  survey   number  HAER  ILL,  16-­‐CHIG,  140,  Photo  #9,   hcp://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/hhh.il0671/photos.034789p

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

96

Fig.  5.10:  West  facade  entrance  to  the  Original  Powerhouse,  looking  south  (lem)   and  details  of  the  building’s  historic  windows  (right),  in  2012. Photographs  by  author.  

Fig.  5.11:  West  facade  entrance  to  the  Original  Powerhouse,  in  2012,  looking  northwest. Photograph  by  author.   Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   97

Fig.  5.12:  Interior  view  of  the  turbine  room  in  the  Original  Power  House  circa  1908.   Printed  in  McGraw-­‐Publishing  Company,  "The  System  and  Opera)ng  Prac)ce  of  the  Common-­‐ wealth  Edison  Company,  Chicago,”  Electrical  World  51,  no.  20  (1908):  1023.

Fig.  5.13:  20  MW  and  25  MW  turbines  at  Fisk  Sta)on,  installed  in  1914.   Printed  in  Samuel  Insull,  Central  Sta%on  Electric  Service:  Its  Commercial  Development  and  Eco-­‐ nomic  Significance  as  Set  forth  in  the  Public  Addresses  (1897-­‐1914)  of  Samuel  Insull  (Chicago:  Pri-­‐ vate  Print,  1915),  420.  

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

98

Fig.  5.14:  View  of  the  turbine-­‐generator  room  in  the  Original  Powerhouse,  circa  1980.  Turbine  Unit.   No.  18  has  since  been  removed.   Image  from  Library  of  Congress,  Prints  &  Photographs  Division,  Historic  American  Engineering  Re-­‐ cord,  “Commonwealth  Electric  Company,  Fisk  Street  Electrical  Genera)ng  Sta)on,”  survey  number   HAER  ILL,  16-­‐CHIG,  140,  Photo  #16,  hcp://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/hhh.il0671/photos.034796p

Fig.  5.15:  View  inside  the  Original  Powerhouse  (lem)  and  exis)ng  elevator   (right)  in  2012. Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   99

Fig.  5.16:    View  on  the  floor  of  the  Original  Powerhouse  turbine-­‐room  circa  1909.   Printed  in  McGraw-­‐Publishing  Company,  "Prac)cal  Opera)on  of  Fisk  Street  and  Quarry  Street  Sta)ons  in  Chi-­‐ cago,"  Electrical  World  53,  no.  22  (1909):  1292.

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

100

Fig.  5.17:    View  of  the  Original  Powerhouse  turbine-­‐room  circa  1909.   Printed  in  McGraw-­‐Publishing  Company,  "Prac)cal  Opera)on  of  Fisk  Street  and  Quarry  Street  Sta)ons  in   Chicago,"  Electrical  World  53,  no.  22  (1909):  1293.

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

101

1959  Turbine-­‐Generator  Room  Addi3on  to  the  Original  Powerhouse   In  1959,  a  large,  red  metal  clad  boiler  and  turbine-­‐generator  room  was  constructed  and   acached  to  the  exis)ng  original  1903  powerhouse  (Fig.  5.18,  Fig.  5.19)80  The  new  turbine-­‐ generator  building  is  the  most  visually  prominent  building  seen  from  Fisk  Sta)on’s  entrance  on   Cermak  Road.  The  original  smokestacks  were  removed  and  replaced  with  a  single,  550-­‐foot   smokestack,  which  is  also  visible  from  many  distant  parts  of  the  city.81     While  the  building  is  s)ll  func)onal,  the  southern  por)on  of  the  1959  Powerhouse  fac-­‐ ing  toward  the  Chicago  River  was  destroyed  during  a  fire  in  November  1976.  Other  buildings   onsite  were  also  damaged  due  to  the  fire.  According  to  an  ar)cle  in  the  Chicago  Tribune,  “ The   fire  destroyed  a  quarter-­‐mile-­‐long  conveyor  system  that  carried  the  coal  directly  from  barges  to   furnaces  that  supply  steam  to  operate  the  turbine  generators.  The  blaze  also  damaged  an  elec-­‐ trical  control  room,  maintenance  shops  for  the  boiler  rooms,  and  related  buildings  in  the  Com-­‐ monwealth  Edison  complex.”82  Another  ar)cle  from  the  Chicago  Tribune  commented  on  the   damage  caused  by  the  fire,  which  “roared  along  the  steel  conveyor  to  a  fly-­‐ash  warehouse,  then   collapsed  on  a  building  that  stored  resistors,  bringing  down  power  poles  and  cables  as  it  fell.   The  burning  conveyor  next  set  fire  to  the  roof  of  the  switch  house,  then  collapsed  on  the  roof  of   a  control  room,  and  set  fire  to  the  roof  of  a  building  housing  a  boiler  and  the  steam  turbines.”83     According  to  the  Historic  American  Engineering  Record,  the  southern  facade  of  the  1903  Origi-­‐ nal  Powerhouse  was  also  damaged  during  the  fire.84  Walter  Watroba,  a  firefighter,  then  41,  was   trapped  in  debris  when  conveyor  system  collapsed  and  died  several  hours  later.     The  southern  facade  of  the  powerhouse  circa  1980  and  in  2012  is  shown  in  Fig.  5.  20   Due  to  its  more  recent  date  of  construc)on,  this  building  may  hold  less  historic  and  ar-­‐ while  the  interior  is  shown  in  Fig.  5.21  and  Fig.  5.22.   chitectural  value  compared  to  the  other  buildings  onsite.  But  the  1959  turbine-­‐generator  build-­‐ ing  visually  defines  the  site  by  symbolizing  Fisk  Sta)on  due  to  its  size,  prominent  red  color,  and   outward  facing  posi)on,  which  could  be  considered  for  preserva)on  purposes.

 
Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   102

Fig.  5.18:  Fisk  Genera)ng  Sta)on  single  smokestack  and  red,  metal  clad  1959   addi)on  to  the  Original  Powerhouse.  Image  from  Eric  Allix  Rogers,  “Fisk  Sta)on,”  Flickr,  October  5,  2008.

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

103

Fig.  5.19:  The  original  site  layout.  The  boiler  room,  highlighted  in  red,  was  replaced  by  the  1959  addi-­‐ )on  to  the  Original  Powerhouse.  The  Original  Powerhouse,  shown  in  orange,  remains  onsite  today. Adapted  from  William  H.  Hodge,  “ The  Commonwealth  Edison  Company,”  Public  Service  Management   4,  no.  5  (May  1908):  133.

Fig.  5.20:  A  detailed  view  of  the  coal  conveyor  system,  looking  north  at  the  1959  powerhouse,  circa   1980  (Lem).  The  southern  facade  in  2012,  which  has  been  altered  due  to  fire  damage  (right). Lem:  Image  from  Library  of  Congress,  Prints  &  Photographs  Division,  Historic  American  Engineering   Record,  “Commonwealth  Electric  Company,  Fisk  Street  Electrical  Genera)ng  Sta)on,”  survey  number   HAER  ILL,  16-­‐CHIG,  140,  Photo  #5,   hcp://lcweb2.loc.gov/pnp/habshaer/il/il0600/il0671/photos/034785pv.jpg Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   104

Fig.  5.21:  Turbine  Unit  No.  19  located  in  the  1959  addi)on  to  the  Original  Powerhouse,  circa  1980.  Image  from  Library  of  Congress,  Prints  &  Photographs  Division,  Historic  American  Engineering  Record,   “Commonwealth  Electric  Company,  Fisk  Street  Electrical  Genera)ng  Sta)on,”  survey  number  HAER  ILL,  16-­‐ CHIG,  140,  Photo  #18  hcp://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/hhh.il0671/photos.034798p

Fig.  5.22:  Turbine  Unit  No.  19  located  in  the  1959  addi)on  to  the  Original  Powerhouse,  2012. Photograph  by  author.

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

105

The  Administra3on  Building   The  Administra)on  Building,  which  measures  300’  by  80’,  is  located  directly  to  the  west   of  the  Original  Powerhouse  and  features  similar  ornate  architectural  quali)es.  The  building   stands  three  stories  tall,  flanked  on  both  sides  by  one-­‐story  acachments  that  lead  to  subterra-­‐ nean  storage  halls.  The  Historic  American  Engineering  Record  describes  the  structure: The  detailing  on  the  administra)on  building  includes  rus)cated  quoins,  small  two-­‐over-­‐ two  light  paired  windows,  and  a  large,  segmental  arch  door  with  concrete  keystones  on   the  north  facade.  There  are  concrete  belt  courses  at  the  founda)on  and  two  parallel   belts  at  the  architrave,  with  a  gabled  facade  and  a  flat  roof.85   Unfortunately,  based  on  informa)on  provided  on  a  site  tour,  today  the  Administra)on  Building   is  closed  off  to  Fisk  employees  due  to  asbestos  contamina)on.  The  extent  of  contamina)on  and   interior  condi)ons  of  the  building  are  unknown.  Images  of  the  exterior  of  the  building  are   shown  in  Fig.  5.23  and  Fig.  5.24.

Fig.  X:  North  and  west  facade  of  the  Administra)on  Building,  looking  southeast.   Image  from  Library  of  Congress,  Prints  &  Photographs  Division,  Historic  American  Engineering  Re-­‐ cord,  “Commonwealth  Electric  Company,  Fisk  Street  Electrical  Genera)ng  Sta)on,”  survey  number   HAER  ILL,  16-­‐CHIG,  140,  Photo  #12,  hcp://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/hhh.il0671/photos.034792p. Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   106

Fig.  5.24:  The  Administra)on  Building  in  2012,  looking  southeast.   Photograph  by  author.  

Switch  House  No.  1   Switch  House  No.  1  is  located  to  the  west  of  the  Administra)on  Building.  Built  in  1920,   Switch  House  No.  1  is  similar  to  the  other  classical  revival  architecture  featured  onsite:   A  rus)cated  base  is  defined  by  the  concrete  belt  course.  The  facade  is  broken  by  seg-­‐ mental  arch  windows.  Four  of  the  arched  windows  have  a  concrete  keystone.  Windows   from  the  top  of  the  base  rise  in  slender  ver)cal  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  facade  on  the  base  of  the  top  story.86   The  Historic  American  Engineering  Record,  when  published  in  the  mid-­‐1980s,  noted  that  the   switch  house  contained  some  of  the  original  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  Administra)on  Building,  remains  today.  The  exterior  of  Switch  House  No.  1  is  illus-­‐ trated  in  Fig.  5.25-­‐5.29.

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

107

 

Originally,  Switch  House  No.  1  offered  special  facili)es  for  Fisk  Sta)on’s  employees.  

These  provided  conveniences  meant  keep  “the  highest  grade  of  faithful  employees.”87  In  1908,   an  ar)cle  in  Electrical  World,  went  as  far  to  write,  “ The  provisions  for  the  comfort  and  welfare   of  employees  around  the  Fisk  Street  sta)on  are  even  more  notable  than  the  engineering  fea-­‐ tures  of  the  sta)on.”88     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.89  Sleeping  rooms  for   employees  “who  may  have  been  detained  at  the  sta)on  very  late  at  night  are  provided.  Also   two  or  three  rooms  for  special  employees  whose  du)es  may  be  such  that  this  is  par)cularly   advisable.”90  The  building  also  housed  large  dining  rooms,  which  served  meals  some-­‐what  be-­‐ low  cost  to  all  working  men  at  the  plant  (Fig.  5.29).  “An  elaborately  equipped  kitchen  and  200-­‐ pound  refrigera)ng  plant  adjoin  the  main  dining  room  and  electrically  cooked  meals  are  served   every  day.”91  Ameni)es  such  as  the  dining  rooms  and  sleeping  quarters  were  “even  more  neces-­‐ sary  at  the  Fisk  Street  sta)on  than  it  would  be  in  some  other  loca)ons,  because  the  sta)on  is  in   a  district  surrounded  by  railroad  yards,  factories,  lumber  yards,  and  a  poor  class  of  dwellings,  so   that  restaurants  and  other  facili)es  for  the  men  are  not  to  be  found  in  the  neighborhood.”92 Although  the  employee  accommoda)ons  were  divided  according  to  occupa)on,  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.”93   Switch  House  No.  1  also  included  an  assembly  and  reading  room,  “where  all  important   engineering  periodicals  are  on  files,  together  with  many  books  of  reference.”94  The  original   added  accommoda)ons  at  Fisk  Sta)on  offered  “almost  the  facili)es  of  a  club  for  its  occupants,   and  in  emergencies  men  can  live  there  in  comfort  for  days  at  a  )me.”95   Unfortunately,  based  on  informa)on  provided  on  a  site  tour,  today  Switch  House  No.  1  is   closed  off  to  Fisk  employees  due  to  asbestos  contamina)on.  The  extent  of  contamina)on  and   interior  condi)on  of  the  building  are  unknown.

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

108

Fig.  5.25:  North  and  east  facade  of  the  Switch  House  No.  1,  looking  southeast.  The  Admin-­‐ istra)on  Building  is  located  to  the  lem.  Image  from  Library  of  Congress,  Prints  &  Photographs  Division,  Historic  American  Engi-­‐ neering  Record,  “Commonwealth  Electric  Company,  Fisk  Street  Electrical  Genera)ng  Sta-­‐ )on,”  survey  number  HAER  ILL,  16-­‐CHIG,  140,  Photo  #10,   hcp://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/hhh.il0671/photos.034790p.

Fig.  5.26:  The  eastern  facade  of  Switch  House  No.  1  in  2012.  The  second-­‐story  walkway  con-­‐ nects  to  the  Administra)on  Building. Photograph  by  author.   Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   109

Fig.  5.27:  The  eastern  facade  of  Switch  House  No.  1  in  2012.   Photograph  by  author.  

Fig.  5.28:  The  western  facade  of  Switch  House  No.  1  in  2012.   Photograph  by  author.   Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   110

Fig.  5.29:  One  of  the  dining  rooms  located  in  Switch  House  No.  1.   Printed  in  William  H.  Hodge,  “ The  Commonwealth  Edison  Company,”  Public  Service  Man-­‐ agement  4,  no.  5  (May  1908):  134.

Switch  House  No.  2  and  the  Transmission  Terminal   Switch  House  No.  2  and  the  Transmission  Terminal  are  situated  on  the  northernmost   por)on  of  the  Fisk  Sta)on  site  (Fig.  5.30).  Built  in  1940,  the  one-­‐story  building  contains:   ...rus)cated  red-­‐brick  walls  res)ng  on  a  concrete  founda)on.  Two  oversized  concrete   entrances  also  have  rus)cated  concrete  pilasters.  The  ornamenta)on  is  stylized  Classical   mo)fs  and  exaggerated  size.  Of  reinforced  concrete  construc)on,  this  building  is  sym-­‐ metrical  in  plan  with  a  slightly  projec)ng  central  sec)on.  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.96 Shaw,  Naess,  &  Murphy  are  credited  as  the  architects  for  Fisk  Sta)on’s  Switch  House  No.  2.97
Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   111

Fig.  5.30:  East  facade  of  Switch  House  No.  2,  looking  west.   Image  from  Library  of  Congress,  Prints  &  Photographs  Division,  Historic  American  Engineering  Record,  “Common-­‐ wealth  Electric  Company,  Fisk  Street  Electrical  Genera)ng  Sta)on,”  survey  number  HAER  ILL,  16-­‐CHIG,  140,  Photo   #11,  hcp://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/hhh.il0671/photos.034791p

Maintenance  Building   The  three-­‐story  Maintenance  Building  is  located  south  of  Switch  House  No.  2  and  the   Transmission  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:   rus)cated,  one-­‐story  base  with  a  concrete  belt  course  above  the  base.  There  is  also  a   concrete  cornice  above  the  main  block  of  windows.  The  main  massing  has  tall  arched   ver)cal  lights.  All  windows  are  broken  by  a  wide  concrete  band. 98 The  Maintenance  Building  is  shown  in  Fig.  5.31.

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

112

Fig.  5.31:  South  and  east  facade  of  the  Maintenance  Shop,  looking  northwest.  Image  from  Library  of  Congress,  Prints  &  Photographs  Division,  Historic  American  Engineering  Record,  “Com-­‐ monwealth  Electric  Company,  Fisk  Street  Electrical  Genera)ng  Sta)on,”  survey  number  HAER  ILL,  16-­‐CHIG,  140,   Photo  #20  hcp://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/hhh.il0671/photos.034800p

Frequency  Changer  House   The  Frequency  Changer  House  is  located  on  the  southeast  corner  of  the  site,  west  of   Switch  House  No.  1  (Fig.  5.32,  Fig.  5.33).  Although  the  original  construc)on  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  condi)on,  although  no  longer  used.”99  Ac-­‐ cording  to  the  Historic  American  Engineering  Record,  circa  1980,  the  building  was  used  for  stor-­‐ age.  The  current  uses  and  ownership  of  the  building  are  unknown.

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

113

Fig.  5.32:  East  facade  of  the  Frequency  Changer  House,  looking  west.   Image  from  Library  of  Congress,  Prints  &  Photographs  Division,  Historic  American  Engineering   Record,  “Commonwealth  Electric  Company,  Fisk  Street  Electrical  Genera)ng  Sta)on,”  survey   number  HAER  ILL,  16-­‐CHIG,  140,  Photo  #13,   hcp://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/hhh.il0671/photos.034793p

Fig.  5.33:  Frequency  Changer  House  in  2012,  looking  north.   Photograph  by  author.  

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

114

Addi3onal  Buildings,  Industrial  Structures,  and  Dis3nct  Historic  Features  Onsite   In  addi)on  to  Fisk  Sta)on’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  Main-­‐ tenance  Building,  conveyor  belts,  an  “auxiliary  boiler,  coal  handling  and  processing  units,  tur-­‐ bines  fired  with  diesel  and  natural  gas,  and  a  gasoline  storage  tank.”100  Some  of  these  structures   are  shown  in  Fig.  5.34  -­‐  Fig.  5.38.   One  of  the  most  prominent  redevelopment  issues  facing  Fisk  Sta)on  is  the  complicated   ownership  of  the  site.  Midwest  Genera)on  and  the  electric  u)lity  company,  Commonwealth   Edison  (ComEd),  coordinate  in  their  regular  business  ac)vi)es  through  electricity  transmission   and  genera)on.101  As  a  result,  ComEd  owns  a  number  of  structures  and  electric  lines  located  on   or  that  directly  travel  through  land  owned  by  Midwest  Genera)on.  Based  on  informa)on  pro-­‐ vided  in  a  tour  to  the  site,  ComEd  owns  the  transmission  sta)on  located  on  the  western  por)on   of  the  property  as  well  as  an  unused  concrete,  metal  structure  that  once  housed  electricity-­‐ related  opera)ons  located  to  the  west  of  Switch  House  No.  2.  Because  of  this  haphazard  owner-­‐ ship,  dividing  Fisk  Sta)on’s  land  for  redevelopment  could  prove  to  be  difficult  as  both  ComEd   and  Midwest  Genera)on  would  have  to  agree  to  sell  their  property  and  electric  lines  may  need   to  be  redirected.   If  the  property  is  sold  for  redevelopment,  the  ComEd  transmission  sta)on  on  the  west-­‐ ern  por)on  of  the  site  would  remain.  This  may  pose  as  a  problem  for  certain  future  land  uses  at   Fisk  Sta)on,  as  the  transmission  sta)on  remains  visually  unacrac)ve.  Addi)onally,  the  eight   peaker  units,  owned  by  Midwest  Genera)on,  are  under  contract  un)l  at  least  2015.102   Many  )mes,  adap)ve  reuse  projects  preserve  the  original  equipment  to  honor  the  in-­‐ dustrial  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  opera)ons.  Some  of   Fisk  Sta)on’s  industrial  equipment  could  poten)ally  be  preserved  to  symbolize  the  site’s  past   and  role  within  the  electric  industry.  However,  in  remedia)ng  the  site,  most  of  the  hazardous  or   heavy  industrial  equipment  will  need  to  be  removed.  The  industrial  equipment  or  hazardous   materials  onsite  need  to  be  further  examined  in  order  for  remedia)on  efforts  to  ensue.  

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

115

 

Fisk  Sta)on  also  possesses  various  unique,  non-­‐industrial  features.  A  memorial  garden,  

which  commemorates  the  workers  and  firefighters  that  have  lost  their  lives  in  these  industrial   accidents,  is  located  between  the  Original  Powerhouse  and  the  Administra)on  building.  In  ad-­‐ di)on,  a  number  of  known  historic  ar)facts  remain  at  Fisk  Sta)on  today,  including  large  metal   plagues  that  celebrated  various  site  anniversaries  and  the  original  guestbook,  which  was  signed   by  hundreds  of  visitors,  such  as  Thomas  Edison  and  Britain’s  King  George  and  Queen  Mary.  One   of  the  site’s  commemora)ve  metal  plagues,  mounted  on  the  Original  Powerhouse,  is  shown  in   Fig.  5.39.  Just  as  Fisk  Sta)on’s  historic  buildings  should  be  preserved,  so  should  these  original   historic  relics  to  commemorate  each  aspect  of  the  site’s  role  in  the  electric  industry.

Fig.5.34:  The  ComEd  owned  substa)on,  looking  north  west.   Photograph  by  author.  

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

116

Fig.  5.35:  Transmission  line  onsite,  located  to  the  south  of  Switch  House   No.  1 Photograph  by  author.

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

117

Fig.  5.36:  Water  treatment  equipment  located  on  the  southern  por)on  of  the  site,  along  the  Chicago  River.   Photographs  by  author.  

Fig.  5.37:  Fisk  Sta)on’s  peaker  plants,  located  to  the  east  of  the  Maintenance  Shop  and  Switch  House  No.  2.   Photograph  by  author. Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   118

Fig.  5.38:  Coal  dock,  coal  conveyor  belt,  and  southern  facade  of  1959  Genera)ng  Sta)on  on  the   southeast  por)on  of  the  site.  A  remnant  of  the  original  boiler  house,  a  single  wall  and  large  arched   window    is  located  below  the  conveyor  belt,  but  no  longer  exists  on  the  site.   Image  from  Library  of  Congress,  Prints  &  Photographs  Division,  Historic  American  Engineering  Re-­‐ cord,  “Commonwealth  Electric  Company,  Fisk  Street  Electrical  Genera)ng  Sta)on,”  survey  number   HAER  ILL,  16-­‐CHIG,  140,  Photo  #4,  hcp://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/hhh.il0671/photos.034784p

Fig.  X:  Plague  located  at  the  north  entrance  to  the  Original  Powerhouse,  commemora)ng  Fisk   Sta)on’s  100-­‐year  anniversary,  in  2012.   Photograph  by  author.   Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   119

The  Current  Structural  Integrity  and  Condi3ons  of  the  Historic  Buildings     In  terms  of  known  structural  integrity,  the  Historic  American  Engineering  Record  states,   the  exis)ng  “four  large  buildings...contain  reinforced  concrete  founda)ons,  steel  frames,  and   common-­‐bond  brick  walls.”103  However,  the  site  analysis  does  not  make  clear  exactly  which   buildings  this  descrip)on  refers  to  or  other  specific  details  on  site  integrity.  Because  the  Historic   American  Engineering  Record  was  conducted  in  the  mid-­‐1980s  and  addi)on  informa)on  on  the   current  condi)ons  is  limited,  the  true  integrity  of  these  buildings  is  unknown.     Analyzing  building  integrity  is  important  as  natural  deteriora)on  or  a  lack  of  mainte-­‐ nance  over  the  past  decades  could  have  harmed  site  structures.  As  previously  noted,  based  off   of  informa)on  provided  on  a  site  tour,  the  Administra)on  Building  and  Switch  House  No.  1  are   both  closed  due  to  asbestos  contamina)on.  It  was  unclear  whether  the  Frequency  Changer   House  is  also  closed  due  to  contamina)on  or  who  owns  the  building.  The  current  structural  and   interior  condi)ons  of  these  buildings  are  unknown,  as  well  as  if  other  hazardous  materials,  such   as  lead  paint,  industrial  equipment,  or  storage  is  present  inside.  If  preserved,  remediated  would   be  necessary  due  to  asbestos  contamina)on  or  for  other  hazardous  materials.  Based  on  a  visible   examina)on  of  the  exterior  of  the  buildings,  some  windows  are  broken  and  would  need  to  be   repaired  or  replaced.   The  total  extent  of  damage  caused  by  the  fire  in  1976  is  also  unknown.  Although  some   of  the  specific  buildings  harmed  by  the  fire  could  not  be  determined  through  relevant  sources   or  a  site  tour,  por)ons  of  the  exis)ng  1959  turbine-­‐generator  room  and  the  Original  Power-­‐ house  were  damaged.     In  some  cases,  such  as  that  with  the  Frequency  Changer  House  and  Maintenance  Build-­‐ ing,  no  original  construc)on  date  is  given  and  should  be  iden)fied  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  Sta)on.       Despite  some  uncertain)es  in  informa)on,  each  historic  buildings  provides  a  unique  op-­‐ portunity  for  adap)ve  reuse.  Of  the  historic  buildings,  the  Original  Powerhouse,  the  Adminis-­‐ tra)ve  Building,  Switch  House  No.  1  and  2,  the  Maintenance  Building,  and  the  Frequency   Changer  House  need  to  be  further  examined  for  their  historic  quali)es,  unique  architectural  fea-­‐ tures,  structural  integrity,  and  current  condi)ons.  While  it  would  be  ideal  to  preserve  all  the  his-­‐
Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   120

toric  buildings  to  maintain  Fisk  Sta)on’s  architectural,  electric,  and  engineering  value,  only  some   of  the  selected  structures  may  be  suitable  for  adap)ve  reuse.  For  example,  historic  designa)on   status  on  the  Na)onal  Register,  which  would  help  provided  protec)on  and  necessary  funding  to   redevelopment  the  site,  may  only  apply  to  certain  buildings  that  have  not  been  significantly  al-­‐ tered  by  previous  renova)ons.  In  addi)on,  severe  deteriora)on,  damage,  structural  issues  may   deem  some  of  the  structures  inadequate  for  building  reuse.  Because  the  architectural  and  inte-­‐ rior  characteris)cs  for  many  of  the  buildings  has  been  recorded  in  historic  documents  and  pho-­‐ tographs,  the  adap)ve  reuse  of  Fisk  Sta)on  presents  a  unique  opportunity  to  restore  some  of   the  buildings’  the  original  features  have  been  altered  or  are  no  longer  present.  

Fisk  Sta3on’s  An3cipated  Re3rement
  On  February  28,  2012,  Midwest  Genera)on  announced  that  it  would  shut  Fisk  Sta)on   down  by  the  end  of  2012.  The  decision  was  based  on  a  number  of  factors,  including  pressure   from  decade  long  protests  by  environmental  and  community  organiza)ons  on  the  environ-­‐ mental  injus)ce  and  pollu)on  generated  by  Fisk,  a  lawsuit  against  Midwest  Genera)on  on  emis-­‐ sion  controls,  and  a  largely  supported  Clean  Power  Ordinance  that  would  require  Fisk  Sta)on  to   clean  up  or  shut  down.104  Similar  to  other  coal-­‐fired  power  plants  in  the  United  States,  Fisk  Sta-­‐ )on’s  re)rement  is  largely  to  the  increasing  costs  in  coal  genera)on  and  pollu)on  control   retrofijng.105  According  to  Pedro  Pizarro,  president  of  Midwest  Genera)on's  parent  company,   Edison  Mission  Group,  "Unfortunately,  condi)ons  in  the  wholesale  power  market  simply  do  not   give  us  a  path  for  con)nuing  to  invest  in  further  retrofits.”106  Poli)cal  pressure  also  played  a  vital   role  as  a  final  deal  to  shut  down  Fisk  Sta)on  was  brokered  by  Mayor  Rahm  Emanuel,  who  sup-­‐ ported  efforts  to  clean  up  Chicago’s  power  plants  before  taking  office.107     The  ac)vism  and  support  by  environmental  and  community  organiza)ons,  aldermen,   and  the  Mayor  were  vital  in  contribu)ng  to  Fisk  Sta)on’s  closure.  Although  the  closure  of  Fisk   Sta)on  has  been  referred  to  as  an  historic  victory  and  one  of  the  biggest  environmental  suc-­‐ cesses  in  Chicago,  Fisk  Sta)on’s  redevelopment  will  require  con)nued  efforts  and  acen)on  as   the  site  s)ll  faces  many  difficul)es.     Fortunately,  environmental  organiza)ons  and  Mayor  Emanuel  have  already  displayed   support  for  the  site’s  remedia)on  and  transforma)on  into  a  safe,  produc)ve  community  asset.  
Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   121

Amer  the  ini)al  announcement  to  close  Fisk  Sta)on,  support  remains  strong  on  the  part  of   Mayor  Emanuel,  aldermen,  and  community  organiza)ons.  Following  the  announcement  of  the   power  plant’s  closure,  local  community  organiza)ons  have  begun  to  organize  mee)ngs  and  in-­‐ forma)on  sessions  seeking  community  input  on  how  to  proceed  with  redevelopment.     In  addi)on,  Mayor  Emanuel  has  pledged  to  begin  planning  for  the  redevelopment  of  the   site  in  order  to  promote  future  economic  development  and  employment  opportuni)es.108  The   Mayor  and  the  City  of  Chicago  recently  created  a  task  force,  which  will  work  toward  redevelop-­‐ ing  the  site.  An  advisory  group  is  to  be  assembled,  consis)ng  of  “three  community  members,   one  member  from  Midwest  Genera)on,  the  alderman,  one  representa)ve  from  labor,  and  two   economic  development  representa)ves  from  City  Hall.”109  The  advisory  group  will  assess  the   site,  consider  community  input,  as  well  as  determine  poten)al  economic  and  employment  de-­‐ velopment  op)ons  for  the  site.  The  Delta  Ins)tute,  a  non-­‐profit  organiza)on,  will  lead  the  en)re   process  as  “independent  facilitators  of  the  group  and  be  responsible  for  the  final  report.”110  The   Joyce  Founda)on  and  the  Sierra  Club  have  agreed  to  help  fund  the  planning  process,  with  each   contribu)ng  $50,000.     Although  the  redevelopment  process  already  includes  a  number  of  important  commu-­‐ nity  organiza)ons,  financial  resources,  poli)cal  issues,  private  interests  could  s)ll  pose  concerns   over  reusing  the  site  in  a  publicly  beneficial  manner.  Amer  over  a  decade  of  figh)ng  to  close  Fisk   Sta)on,  some  residents  and  community  organiza)ons  may  remain  wary  of  how  city  official  and   Midwest  Genera)on  will  handle  the  redevelopment  process.  However,  currently,  most  stake-­‐ holders  seem  op)mis)c  in  commijng  to  building  beneficial  uses  at  the  site.   Because  the  planning  process  is  in  its  ini)al  stage,  the  outcomes  remain  unclear.  The   short  )meframe  given  to  create  a  comprehensive,  preliminary  report  by  the  Mayor’s  task  force   and  leading  up  to  Fisk  Sta)on’s  official  re)rement  may  prove  to  be  problema)c.  Although  the   site’s  redevelopment  should  not  be  rushed,  it  should  be  considered  a  high  priority  in  terms  of   restoring  the  loss  in  employment  and  tax  revenues,  as  well  as  crea)ng  a  beneficial,   environmentally-­‐friendly  use  for  the  the  surrounding  neighborhood  and  residents.

 

Under  current  regula)ons  and  the  agreement  to  re)re  Fisk,  Midwest  Genera)on  is  re-­‐

quired  to  dismantle  the  power  plant’s  equipment  to  ensure  that  it  cannot  be  restarted.  The  
Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   122

company  is  not  obligated  to  sell  the  site,  but  instead,  must  secure  the  property.  Because  Mid-­‐ west  Genera)on  has  yet  to  publicly  announce  any  plans  for  selling  Fisk  Sta)on,  it  is  uncertain   whether  it  will  remain  a  contaminated,  unused,  and  fenced-­‐off  property.  If  Fisk  Sta)on  is  not   sold,  Midwest  Genera)on  would  s)ll  need  to  pay  for  a  number  of  maintenance  costs,  such  as  on   security  and  u)li)es.  However,  Midwest  Genera)on’s  spokesman,  Doug  McFarlan,  has  com-­‐ mented  that  the  company  does  not  want  to  own  the  site  for  a  long  period  of  )me.111  McFarlan   has  also  stated  that  Midwest  Genera)on  is  commiced  “to  facilitate  future  uses  of  both  proper-­‐ )es  for  the  public  benefit  or  the  private  development  acceptable  for  the  community.” 112   Property  acquisi)on  may  also  be  problema)c  as  Fisk  Sta)on  is  haphazardly  divided  in   ownership.  Commonwealth  Edison  owns  a  transmission  sta)on,  electric  lines,  buildings,  and   industrial  structures  located  on  the  site.  Other  site  challenges  include  restric)ve  zoning  regula-­‐ )ons,  remedia)on,  and  historic  designa)on,  which  will  be  explained  in  further  detail  later  in  this   chapter.    Although  Fisk  Sta)on’s  redevelopment  presents  difficult  obstacles  and  may  occur  over   many  years,  early  planning  stage  and  con)nued  interest  is  vital  for  successful  site  reuse.

Current  Site  Condi3ons
  Over  the  past  century,  Fisk  Sta)on’s  site  opera)ons  have  been  significantly  altered.  In   1999,  Commonwealth  Edison  sold  Fisk  Sta)on  to  Edison  Interna)onal’s  Midwest  Genera)on.   Today,  Fisk  Sta)on  is  located  on  approximately  44  acres,  which  includes  the  switchyard  owned   by  Commonwealth  Edison  on  the  western  por)on  of  the  property.113     The  updated  genera)ng  units,  s)ll  powered  by  coal,  now  provide  a  total  output  of  ap-­‐ proximately  326  MW.  Coal  is  delivered  by  barge  from  South  Branch  of  the  Chicago  River.  Accord-­‐ ing  to  Midwest  Genera)on,  “Fisk  has  no  ground  storage  and  receives  its  coal  on  a  ‘just  in  )me’   basis...The  barge  towing  company  delivers  two  to  three  barges  daily  and  removes  empty   barges.”114  Eight  peaker  units  are  also  located  on  the  site,  which  provide  addi)onal  power  when   electricity  demand  increases  in  the  summer,  during  power  outages,  or  to  maintain  reliability.  In   addi)on  to  coal,  Fisk  Sta)on  is  powered  by  natural  gas  for  igni)on,  combus)on  support,  boiler   opera)ons,  and  the  peaker  units.  According  to  one  report,  “Peoples  Gas  delivers  natural  gas  un-­‐ der  a  delivery  contract  that  includes  balancing  storage,  which  is  shared  by  the  Crawford   Sta)on.” 115
Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   123

Fisk  Sta3on’s  Economic  Impacts   Unfortunately,  the  re)rement  of  Fisk  Sta)on  will  generate  significant  economic  conse-­‐ quences  in  terms  of  employment  and  tax  revenue.  According  to  a  Midwest  Genera)on  fact   sheet  released  in  2005,  Fisk  Sta)on  provided  approximately  $1  million  in  property  taxes.116  In   addi)on,  the  site  currently  provides  approximately  68  jobs,  the  majority  of  which  are  union   workers.117  In  2005,  the  payroll  and  benefits  totaled  approximately  $7.5  million.118  While  the   number  of  jobs  lost  is  significant  in  itself,  many  of  Fisk  Sta)on’s  employees  have  been  working  at   the  site  for  20  to  30  years.     The  most  recent  data  released  by  Midwest  Genera)on  combines  the  economic  impacts   of  Fisk  Sta)on  with  the  nearby  power  plant  Crawford  Sta)on.  While  these  combined  impacts  do   not  individually  represent  Fisk  Sta)on,  the  informa)on  gives  insight  into  the  power  plants’  con-­‐ tribu)on  to  the  neighborhood  and  city  at  large.  According  to  a  fact  sheet  released  in  2011  by   Midwest  Genera)on,  the  Fisk  and  Crawford  power  plants: • • • • • • Provide  $1.9  million  in  annual  local  property  taxes  to  the  city  of  Chicago.   Pay  $1.1  million  in  annual  payroll  taxes.   Donate  $400,000  to  local  chari)es  and  nonprofit  agencies  annually.   Spend  $23  million  annually  with  local  suppliers  and  organized  labor  to  support  plant  op-­‐ era)ons  and  maintenance  ac)vi)es  during  the  year.   Employ  235,000  man-­‐hours  of  contract  labor  annually,  among  the  largest  in  the  building   and  construc)on  trades  in  Chicago.   Contribute  $30,000  in  scholarships  to  local  students  annually.119

The  economic  support  provided  by  Fisk  Sta)on  is  significant.  The  closure  of  the  power  plant  will   have  profound  impacts  in  terms  of  tax  revenue,  employment,  and  public  funding.  It  is  vital  that   the  site’s  new  intended  land  uses  provide  new  employment  opportuni)es  and  sources  of  reve-­‐ nue  that  are  similar  or  greater  than  the  economic  benefits  Fisk  Sta)on  once  generated.  

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

124

Chapter  V:  Sec3on  Endnotes
1  Harold  Plac,  “Gas  and  Electricity,”  In  Encyclopedia  of  Chicago,  edited  by  Janice  L.  Reiff,  Ann  Durkin  Kea)ng,  and  

James  R.  Grossman,  (Chicago  Historical  Society,  2005),  accessed  January  27,  2012,   hcp://encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/504.html.     2  Robert  L.  Bradley,  Edison  to  Enron:  Energy  Markets  and  Poli%cal  Strategies  (Salem:  Scrivener  Publishing  LLC,  2011),   65. 3  Harold  L.  Plac,  The  Electric  City:  Energy  and  the  Growth  of  the  Chicago  Area,  1880-­‐1930  (Chicago:  The  University   of  Chicago  Press,  1991),  xvii. 4  Ibid.,  69. 5  Ibid. 6  Ibid.,  71. 7  Ibid.,  72-­‐73. 8  Plac,  The  Electric  City:  Energy  and  the  Growth  of  the  Chicago  Area,  1880-­‐1930,  101-­‐102. 9  Bradley,  Edison  to  Enron:  Energy  Markets  and  Poli%cal  Strategies,  92. 10  Plac,  The  Electric  City:  Energy  and  the  Growth  of  the  Chicago  Area,  1880-­‐1930,  109. 11  Ibid.,  113. 12  John  Wasik,  The  Merchant  of  Power:  Sam  Insull,  Thomas  Edison,  and  the  Crea%on  of  the  Modern  Metropolis   (New  York:  Palgrave  Macmillan,  2006),  84. 13  Richard  Munson,  From  Edison  to  Enron:  The  Business  of  Power  and  What  it  Means  for  the  Future  of  Electricity   (Westport:  Praeger  Publishers,  2005),  53;  Bradley,  Edison  to  Enron:  Energy  Markets  and  Poli%cal  Strategies,  92. 14  Bradley,  Edison  to  Enron:  Energy  Markets  and  Poli%cal  Strategies,  92. 15  Wasik,  The  Merchant  of  Power:  Sam  Insull,  Thomas  Edison,  and  the  Crea%on  of  the  Modern  Metropolis,  84. 16  Bradley,  Edison  to  Enron:  Energy  Markets  and  Poli%cal  Strategies,  92-­‐93. 17  Wasik,  The  Merchant  of  Power:  Sam  Insull,  Thomas  Edison,  and  the  Crea%on  of  the  Modern  Metropolis,  84. 18  Samuel  Insull,  Central  Sta%on  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. 19  Wasik,  The  Merchant  of  Power:  Sam  Insull,  Thomas  Edison,  and  the  Crea%on  of  the  Modern  Metropolis,  84. 20  Ibid. 21  Ibid. 22  Thomas  P.  Hughes,  “ The  Electrifica)on  of  America:  The  System  Builders,”  Technology  and  Culture  20,  no  1.  (Janu-­‐ ary  1979):  145. 23  Bradley,  Edison  to  Enron:  Energy  Markets  and  Poli%cal  Strategies,  93;  Hughes,  “ The  Electrifica)on  of  America:  The   System  Builders,”  145.   24  Wasik,  The  Merchant  of  Power:  Sam  Insull,  Thomas  Edison,  and  the  Crea%on  of  the  Modern  Metropolis,  84. 25  Plac,  The  Electric  City:  Energy  and  the  Growth  of  the  Chicago  Area,  1880-­‐1930,  114. 26  Bradley,  Edison  to  Enron:  Energy  Markets  and  Poli%cal  Strategies,  93. 27  Philip  Hampson,  “Edison  Plans  Fete  for  Old  Turbine  Plant,”  Chicago  Daily  Tribune,  September  11,  1953,  C7. 28  Library  of  Congress,  Prints  &  Photographs  Division,  Historic  American  Engineering  Record,    “Commonwealth  Elec-­‐ tric  Company,  Fisk  Street  Electrical  Genera)ng  Sta)on,  1111  West  Cermak  Avenue,  Chicago,  Cook  County,  IL,”    Li-­‐ brary  of  Congress.  [survey  number  HAER  ILL,  16-­‐CHIG,  140-­‐;  accessed  February  14,  2012],  3,   hcp://www.loc.gov/pictures/collec)on/hh/item/il0671/ 29  Ibid. 30  Wasik,  The  Merchant  of  Power:  Sam  Insull,  Thomas  Edison,  and  the  Crea%on  of  the  Modern  Metropolis,  86. 31  Bradley,  Edison  to  Enron:  Energy  Markets  and  Poli%cal  Strategies,  94. 32  Munson,  From  Edison  to  Enron:  The  Business  of  Power  and  What  it  Means  for  the  Future  of  Electricity,  53.   Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   125

33  Bradley,  Edison  to  Enron:  Energy  Markets  and  Poli%cal  Strategies,  94. 34  Plac,  The  Electric  City:  Energy  and  the  Growth  of  the  Chicago  Area,  1880-­‐1930,  115. 35  Wasik,  The  Merchant  of  Power:  Sam  Insull,  Thomas  Edison,  and  the  Crea%on  of  the  Modern  Metropolis,  86. 36  Wasik,  The  Merchant  of  Power:  Sam  Insull,  Thomas  Edison,  and  the  Crea%on  of  the  Modern  Metropolis,  91-­‐92. 37  Bradley,  Edison  to  Enron:  Energy  Markets  and  Poli%cal  Strategies,  112. 38  Wasik,  The  Merchant  of  Power:  Sam  Insull,  Thomas  Edison,  and  the  Crea%on  of  the  Modern  Metropolis,  87. 39  McGraw-­‐Publishing  Company,  "Chicago  Conven)on  Na)onal  Electric  Light  Associa)on,"  Electrical  World  51,  no.  

22  (1908):  1150. 40  Hughes,  “ The  Electrifica)on  of  America:  The  System  Builders,”  146. 41  Hampson,  “Edison  Plans  Fete  for  Old  Turbine  Plant,”  C7. 42  Plac,  The  Electric  City:  Energy  and  the  Growth  of  the  Chicago  Area,  1880-­‐1930,  114. 43  Bradley,  Edison  to  Enron:  Energy  Markets  and  Poli%cal  Strategies,  112. 44  Ibid.,  93. 45  “New  Edison  Turbo-­‐Unit  in  Service,”  Chicago  Daily  Tribune,  July  21,  1949,  A7. 46  “Giant  Edison  Turbine  Unit  Put  In  Service,”  Chicago  Daily  Tribune,  April  4,  1959,  E5. 47  Plac,  The  Electric  City:  Energy  and  the  Growth  of  the  Chicago  Area,  1880-­‐1930,  114. 48  Wasik,  The  Merchant  of  Power:  Sam  Insull,  Thomas  Edison,  and  the  Crea%on  of  the  Modern  Metropolis,  263. 49  Library  of  Congress,  Prints  &  Photographs  Division,  Historic  American  Engineering  Record,    “Commonwealth  Elec-­‐ tric  Company,  Fisk  Street  Electrical  Genera)ng  Sta)on,  1111  West  Cermak  Avenue,  Chicago,  Cook  County,  IL,”  1. 50  Insull,  Central  Sta%on  Electric  Service:  Its  Commercial  Development  and  Economic  Significance  as  Set  forth  in  the   Public  Addresses  (1897-­‐1914)  of  Samuel  Insull,  354-­‐355. 51  Ibid. 52  Bradley,  Edison  to  Enron:  Energy  Markets  and  Poli%cal  Strategies,  94. 53    Wasik,  The  Merchant  of  Power:  Sam  Insull,  Thomas  Edison,  and  the  Crea%on  of  the  Modern  Metropolis,  87. 54  McGraw-­‐Publishing  Company,  "Chicago  Conven)on  Na)onal  Electric  Light  Associa)on,"  1150. 55  Commonwealth  Edison  Company,  “Fisk  Street  a  Mecca:  No.  2  of  a  Series  of  Adver)sements  on  Electric  Service  in   Chicago,”  Chicago  Daily  Tribune,  October  7,  1915,  9. 56  Ibid. 57  “Insull  Unveils  Tablet  at  Fisk  Edison  Sta)on,”  Chicago  Daily  Tribune,  November  15,  1928,  13. 58  Wasik,  The  Merchant  of  Power:  Sam  Insull,  Thomas  Edison,  and  the  Crea%on  of  the  Modern  Metropolis,  88. 59  William  Keily,  "Quarry  Street  Sta)on  of  the  Commonwealth  Edison  Company,  Chicago,"  Electrical  World  53,  no.  1   (1909):  18 60  Ibid.,  19. 61  Bradley,  Edison  to  Enron:  Energy  Markets  and  Poli%cal  Strategies,  112. 62  Ibid. 63  Munson,  From  Edison  to  Enron:  The  Business  of  Power  and  What  it  Means  for  the  Future  of  Electricity,  53. 64  Ibid. 65  Plac,  The  Electric  City:  Energy  and  the  Growth  of  the  Chicago  Area,  1880-­‐1930,  139. 66  Hughes,  “ The  Electrifica)on  of  America:  The  System  Builders,”  148. 67  Wasik,  The  Merchant  of  Power:  Sam  Insull,  Thomas  Edison,  and  the  Crea%on  of  the  Modern  Metropolis,  87. 68  City  of  Chicago,  The  Commission  on  Chicago  Landmarks,  "Classical  Revival/Beaux-­‐Arts,"  Chicago  Landmarks,  ac-­‐ cessed  January  27,  2012,  hcp://webapps.cityofchicago.org/landmarksweb/web/styledetails.htm?styId=204;  City  of   Chicago,  “Demoli)on  Delay,”  City  of  Chicago  Historic  Preserva%on,  accessed  March  19,  2012,   hcp://www.cityofchicago.org/content/city/en/depts/dcd/supp_info/demoli)on_delay.html 69  Library  of  Congress,  Prints  &  Photographs  Division,  Historic  American  Engineering  Record,    “Commonwealth  Elec-­‐ tric  Company,  Fisk  Street  Electrical  Genera)ng  Sta)on,  1111  West  Cermak  Avenue,  Chicago,  Cook  County,  IL,”  4-­‐5.

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

126

70  Library  of  Congress,  Prints  &  Photographs  Division,  Historic  American  Engineering  Record,    “Commonwealth  Elec-­‐

tric  Company,  Fisk  Street  Electrical  Genera)ng  Sta)on,  1111  West  Cermak  Avenue,  Chicago,  Cook  County,  IL,”  1. 71  Wasik,  The  Merchant  of  Power:  Sam  Insull,  Thomas  Edison,  and  the  Crea%on  of  the  Modern  Metropolis,  85. 72  William  H.  Hodge,  “ The  Commonwealth  Edison  Company,”  Public  Service  Management  4,  no.  5  (May  1908):  140.   73  McGraw-­‐Publishing  Company.  "Chicago  Conven)on  Na)onal  Electric  Light  Associa)on."  Electrical  World  51,  no.   22  (1908):  1150. 74  Hodge,  “ The  Commonwealth  Edison  Company,”  140. 75  Library  of  Congress,  Prints  &  Photographs  Division,  Historic  American  Engineering  Record,    “Commonwealth  Elec-­‐ tric  Company,  Fisk  Street  Electrical  Genera)ng  Sta)on,  1111  West  Cermak  Avenue,  Chicago,  Cook  County,  IL,”  3-­‐4. 76  Ibid.,  141. 77  Library  of  Congress,  Prints  &  Photographs  Division,  Historic  American  Engineering  Record,    “Commonwealth  Elec-­‐ tric  Company,  Fisk  Street  Electrical  Genera)ng  Sta)on,  1111  West  Cermak  Avenue,  Chicago,  Cook  County,  IL,”  3-­‐4. 78  George  Frederick  Gebhardt,  Steam  Power  Plant  Engineering  (New  York:  John  Wiley  &  Sons,  1908),  744.   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,   hcp://webapps.cityofchicago.org/landmarksweb/search/searchdetail.htm?pin=1729200002&formNumber=31010 7001;  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,   hcp://webapps.cityofchicago.org/landmarksweb/search/searchdetail.htm?pin=1729200007&formNumber=31010 7003;  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,   hcp://webapps.cityofchicago.org/landmarksweb/search/searchdetail.htm?pin=1729200002&formNumber=31010 7004;  Library  of  Congress,  Prints  &  Photographs  Division,  Historic  American  Engineering  Record,    “Commonwealth   Electric  Company,  Fisk  Street  Electrical  Genera)ng  Sta)on,  1111  West  Cermak  Avenue,  Chicago,  Cook  County,  IL,”  3. 80  Library  of  Congress,  Prints  &  Photographs  Division,  Historic  American  Engineering  Record,    “Commonwealth  Elec-­‐ tric  Company,  Fisk  Street  Electrical  Genera)ng  Sta)on,  1111  West  Cermak  Avenue,  Chicago,  Cook  County,  IL,”  3. 81  Wasik,  The  Merchant  of  Power:  Sam  Insull,  Thomas  Edison,  and  the  Crea%on  of  the  Modern  Metropolis,  87. 82  Philip  Wacley,  “Plant  at  Half  Capacity:  Edison  Fire  Es)mate:  $2  million,”  Chicago  Tribune,  November  24,  1976,  6. 83  Philip  Wacley,  “Edison  Plant  Ruins  Combed  for  Clues,”  Chicago  Tribune,  November  23,  1976,  5.   84  Library  of  Congress,  Prints  &  Photographs  Division,  Historic  American  Engineering  Record,    “Commonwealth  Elec-­‐ tric  Company,  Fisk  Street  Electrical  Genera)ng  Sta)on,  1111  West  Cermak  Avenue,  Chicago,  Cook  County,  IL,”  4. 85  Ibid. 86  Ibid.,  4-­‐5. 87  McGraw-­‐Publishing  Company,  "The  System  and  Opera)ng  Prac)ce  of  the  Commonwealth  Edison  Company,  Chi-­‐ cago,"  Electrical  World  51,  no.  20  (1908):  1030. 88  McGraw-­‐Publishing  Company,  "The  System  and  Opera)ng  Prac)ce  of  the  Commonwealth  Edison  Company,  Chi-­‐ cago,"  Electrical  World  51,  no.  20  (1908):  1030. 89  Hodge,  “ The  Commonwealth  Edison  Company,”144. 90  Ibid. 91  Ibid. 92  McGraw-­‐Publishing  Company,  "The  System  and  Opera)ng  Prac)ce  of  the  Commonwealth  Edison  Company,  Chi-­‐ cago,"  Electrical  World  51,  no.  20  (1908):  1030. 93  Frank  Koester,  Steam-­‐Electric  Power  Plants:  A  Prac%cal  Trea%se  on  the  Design  of  Central  Light  and  Power  Sta%ons   and  their  Economical  Construc%on  and  Opera%on  (New  York:  D.  Van  Nostrand  Company,  1908),  381.   94  Koester,  Steam-­‐Electric  Power  Plants:  A  Prac%cal  Trea%se  on  the  Design  of  Central  Light  and  Power  Sta%ons  and   their  Economical  Construc%on  and  Opera%on,  381.

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

127

95  McGraw-­‐Publishing  Company,  "The  System  and  Opera)ng  Prac)ce  of  the  Commonwealth  Edison  Company,  Chi-­‐

cago,"  Electrical  World  51,  no.  20  (1908):  1030. 96  Library  of  Congress,  Prints  &  Photographs  Division,  Historic  American  Engineering  Record,    “Commonwealth  Elec-­‐ tric  Company,  Fisk  Street  Electrical  Genera)ng  Sta)on,  1111  West  Cermak  Avenue,  Chicago,  Cook  County,  IL,”  4. 97  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,   hcp://webapps.cityofchicago.org/landmarksweb/search/searchdetail.htm?pin=1729200007&formNumber=31010 7003   98  Library  of  Congress,  Prints  &  Photographs  Division,  Historic  American  Engineering  Record,    “Commonwealth  Elec-­‐ tric  Company,  Fisk  Street  Electrical  Genera)ng  Sta)on,  1111  West  Cermak  Avenue,  Chicago,  Cook  County,  IL,”  4. 99  Ibid.,  5. 100  Illinois  Environmental  Protec)on  Agency,  In  The  Macer  of  Midwest  Genera)on,  LLC  Fisk  Genera)ng  Sta)on  and   Crawford  Genera)on  Sta)on:  Order  Responding  to  Pe))oners  Request  that  the  Administrator  Object  to  Issuance  of   a  State  Opera)ng  Permit.  Pe))on  number  V-­‐2005-­‐1,  CAAPP  No.  95090081  and  95090076,  March  25,  2005,  1.   hcp://yosemite.epa.gov/r5/r5ard.nsf/8a853ab744d510c68625745800533fd5/4da3fdd18eece3a8862574c8006fd2 6b/$file/order.midwestgen.fiskcrawford.pdf 101  Ci)zens  Against  Ruining  the  Environment,  The  Environmental  Law  and  Policy  Center,  Natural  Resources  Defense   Council,  Inc.,  Respiratory  Health  Associa)on  of  Metropolitan  Chicago,  Sierra  Club  v.  Midwest  Genera)on.  No.  09-­‐cv-­‐ 05277,  (N.D.  IL  May,  14,  2010),  24. 102  Ben  Meyerson,  “Powering  Forward:  What  Happens  Amer  Pilsen's  Fisk  Power  Plant  Unplugs  in  December,”  Chi-­‐ cago  Journal,  March  14,  2012.  hcp://www.chicagojournal.com/News/03-­‐14-­‐2012/Powering_forward 103  Library  of  Congress,  Prints  &  Photographs  Division,  Historic  American  Engineering  Record,    “Commonwealth   Electric  Company,  Fisk  Street  Electrical  Genera)ng  Sta)on,  1111  West  Cermak  Avenue,  Chicago,  Cook  County,  IL,”  3. 104  “Cleaning  out  the  coal-­‐fired  clunkers,”  Chicago  Tribune,    June  06,  2011,   hcp://ar)cles.chicagotribune.com/2011-­‐06-­‐06/news/ct-­‐edit-­‐coal-­‐20110606_1_fisk-­‐and-­‐crawford-­‐state-­‐line-­‐power-­‐ sta)on-­‐midwest-­‐genera)on;  Pilsen  Environmental  Rights  and  Reform  Organiza)on  (PERRO),“Chicago’s  Coal  Plants   to  Re)re:  Clean  Power  Coali)on,  City  of  Chicago  and  Midwest  Genera)on  Sign  Historic  Agreement,”  PERRO  Press   Release,  February  21,  2012. 105  Michael  Hawthorne  ,“2  Coal-­‐Burning  Plants  to  Power  Down  Early.”  Chicago  Tribune,  March  1,  2012,   hcp://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-­‐met-­‐coal-­‐plant-­‐shutdowns-­‐20120301,0,4861271.story 106  City  of  Chicago,  Office  of  the  Mayor,  “Mayor  Emanuel  Announces  Agreement  With  Midwest  Genera)on  to  Re)re   Two  Coal-­‐fired  Power  Plants  in  Chicago,”  City  of  Chicago,  February  29,  2012.   hcp://www.fiskandcrawford.com/assets/content/pdf/MWGEN_FiskCrawfordRe)rement.pdf. 107  Ibid. 108  “Emanuel  says  coal-­‐plant  sites  will  be  redeveloped,”  13  WREX,  WorldNow,  March  8,  2012, hcp://www.wrex.com/story/17114159/emanuel-­‐says-­‐coal-­‐plant-­‐sites-­‐will-­‐be-­‐redeveloped;  City  of  Chicago,  Office   of  the  Mayor,  “Mayor  Emanuel  Announces  Agreement  With  Midwest  Genera)on  to  Re)re  Two  Coal-­‐fired  Power   Plants  in  Chicago,” 109    City  of  Chicago,  Mayor's  Press  Office,  “Mayor  Emanuel  Announces  Plan  to  Develop  Economic  Development  and   Job  Crea)on  Alterna)ves  for  Fisk  and  Crawford  Power  Plants,”  City  of  Chicago,  March  8,  2012, hcp://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/mayor/press_room/press_releases/2012/march_2012/mayor_emanu el_announcesplantodevelopeconomicdevelopmentandjobcre.html 110  Ibid. 111  Kari  Lydersen,  “When  Coal  Plants  Shut  Down,  What  Happens  Next?”  Midwest  Energy  News,  March  20,  2012,   hcp://www.midwestenergynews.com/2012/03/20/when-­‐coal-­‐plants-­‐shut-­‐down-­‐what-­‐happens-­‐next/

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

128

112    Alejandro  Escalona,  “Amer  Pilsen,  Licle  Village  plants  close,  will  lomy  ambi)ons  mesh?”  Chicago  Sun-­‐Times,  

April  10,  2012.   hcp://www.sun)mes.com/news/escalona/11124939-­‐452/amer-­‐pilsen-­‐licle-­‐village-­‐plants-­‐close-­‐will-­‐lomy-­‐ambi)ons -­‐mesh.html 113  U.S.  Securi)es  and  Exchange  Commissions,  Form  10-­‐K:  Annual  Report  Pursuant  to  Sec%on  13  of  15(d)  of  the  Se-­‐ curi%es  Exchange  Act  of  1934  for  the  Fiscal  Year  Ended  December  31,  2006  for  Midwest  Genera%on,  LLC.  Commis-­‐ sion  File  Number  333-­‐59348  (Washington  D.C.:  February  28,  2007),  5.   114  Midwest  Genera)on,  “Fisk  Sta)on  Fact  Sheet,”  Edison  Interna)onal,  January  2005,   www.edison.com/files/2005_factsheet_fisk.pdf 115  U.S.  Securi)es  and  Exchange  Commissions,  5. 116  Midwest  Genera)on,  “Fisk  Sta)on  Fact  Sheet.” 117  Midwest  Genera)on,“Financial  Benefits  to  the  Community,”  Fisk  &  Crawford  Fact  Sheets,  September  7,  2011,   hcp://www.fiskandcrawford.com/assets/content/pdf/MWG_FiskCrawford_FinancialBenefits.pdf 118  Midwest  Genera)on,  “Fisk  Sta)on  Fact  Sheet.” 119  Midwest  Genera)on,“Financial  Benefits  to  the  Community.”

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

129

VI.  Analyzing  The  Adap3ve  Reuse  Poten3al  Of  Chicago’s   Fisk  Genera3ng  Sta3on
  As  examined  in  Chapter  V,  Fisk  Sta)on  was  a  daring  innova)on  for  its  day.  In  1903,  it   stood  as  the  the  largest  steam  genera)ng  plant  in  the  world  and  housed  the  first  5  MW  steam   turbine.  Fisk  Sta)on  largely  influenced  Chicago  Edison’s  growth,  the  expansion  of  electricity  in   Chicago,  and  the  moderniza)on  of  the  electric  industry.     Today,  of  Chicago’s  earliest  central  power  sta)ons,  Fisk  Sta)on  is  one  of  the  only  to  sur-­‐ vive.  Because  the  power  plant  is  a  rare  example  of  its  kind,  as  it  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  Sta)on’s  buildings,  which  feature  ornate,  classical  revival  architec-­‐ ture,  remain  on  the  site  today.  The  demoli)on  of  Fisk  Sta)on  would  cause  the  loss  of  many   magnificent,  irreplaceable  buildings  and  eliminate  the  opportunity  to  preserve  the  site’s  rich   history.  Architecturally  dis)nct  features,  such  as  the  red  brick,  large  arched  windows,  and  white   glazed  )les,  along  with  site’s  immaterial  value  cannot  be  replaced  once  demolished.  What  once   stood  as  the  largest  steam  genera)ng  plant  in  the  world  should  be  transformed  into  a  valuable   community  space  to  be  used  by  future  genera)ons.     Given  Fisk  Sta)on  is  to  close  by  the  end  of  2012,  it  is  impera)ve  that  historic  preserva-­‐ )on  and  adap)ve  reuse  are  considered  for  the  site’s  redevelopment.  Although  the  power  plant   will  no  longer  serve  its  original  purpose,  the  buildings  can  be  modified  to  house  new  func)ons.   Fisk  Sta)on’s  unique  architecture,  historic  significance,  close  proximity  to  downtown  Chicago,   and  waterfront  access  deem  the  site  an  ideal  candidate  for  redevelopment  and  encourage  pro-­‐ ject  feasibility.  Although  the  power  plant  faces  a  number  of  barriers  related  to  site  ownership,   short  )meframe  un)l  it  is  re)red,  remedia)on,  and  redevelopment  costs,  repurposing  Fisk  Sta-­‐ )on’s  historic  buildings  offers  a  unique  opportunity  to  strengthen  the  site’s  underlying  value  as   well  as  to  encourage  addi)onal  social,  economic,  and  environmental  growth  in  Pilsen.     The  prospects  for  the  adap)ve  reuse  of  Fisk  Sta)on  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  Chi-­‐ cago,  poten)al  developers,  community  organiza)ons,  and  Pilsen  residents  should  iden)fy  the  

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

130

range  of  possibili)es  for  Fisk  Sta)on,  including  preserva)on,  and  take  appropriate  steps  in  mak-­‐ ing  this  site  a  memorable  and  beneficial  resource  for  the  future.     This  chapter  examines  the  major  considera)ons  related  to  the  adap)ve  reuse  of  Fisk   Sta)on.  The  process  for  lis)ng  the  site  as  a  historic  landmark,  future  remedia)on  issues,  zoning   restric)ons,  adjacent  land  uses,  poten)al  funding  mechanisms,  and  a  neighborhood  analysis  of   Pilsen  will  be  discussed  in  order  to  iden)fy  the  site-­‐specific  redevelopment  barriers  and  oppor-­‐ tuni)es.  In  addi)on,  these  factors  will  be  vital  for  iden)fying  feasible  future  reuse  op)ons,   which  will  be  explored  in  Chapter  VII.  

Poten3al  for  Historic  Designa3on
  Due  to  its  dis)nct  architecture  and  historic  value,  Fisk  Sta)on  may  be  eligible  for  either   lis)ng  under  the  Na)onal  Register  of  Historic  Places  or  Chicago  Landmark  status.  Historic  desig-­‐ na)on  under  either  of  these  preserva)on  programs  may  be  vital  in  protec)ng  Fisk  Sta)on’s   buildings  from  demoli)on  as  well  as  to  fund  rehabilita)on  projects. Na3onal  Register  of  Historic  Places   As  noted  in  the  sec)on  )tled  “Historic  Designa)on”  in  Chapter  II,  proper)es  with  historic   significance  site  may  be  eligible  for  the  Na)onal  Register  of  Historic  Places.  Designa)on  under   the  Na)onal  Register  is  important  for  historic  proper)es  as  it  legally  protects  these  sites  from   demoli)on  or  harmful  renova)ons  and  provides  access  to  a  number  of  financial  incen)ves  for   rehabilita)on.  See  Chapter  II,  “Historic  Designa)on,”  for  more  detailed  informa)on  on  the  des-­‐ igna)on  process  and  federal  support  for  the  Na)onal  Register  program.     Due  to  the  site’s  significance  in  history,  architecture,  and  engineering,  Fisk  Sta)on’s  vari-­‐ ous  buildings  may  qualify  for  the  Na)onal  Register  lis)ng.  To  be  eligible,  a  property  must  first   meet  one  of  the  following  criteria  for  evalua)on:   • • • An  event,  a  series  of  events  or  ac)vi)es,  or  pacerns  of  an  area's  development  (Crite-­‐ rion  A); Associa)on  with  the  life  of  an  important  person  (Criterion  B); A  building  form,  architectural  style,  engineering  technique,  or  ar)s)c  values,  based   on  a  stage  of  physical  development,  or  the  use  of  a  material  or  method  of  construc-­‐ )on  that  shaped  the  historic  iden)ty  of  an  area  (Criterion  C);  or
131

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

•  

A  research  topic;  the  property  has  informa)onal  value  that  yields  important  infor-­‐ ma)on  on  prehistory  or  history  (Criterion  D).1

First,  Fisk  Sta)on  may  qualify  for  the  Na)onal  Register  as  the  events  that  occurred  at  the  

site  have  contributed  to  history  on  the  local  and  na)onal  level  (Criterion  A).  Fisk  Sta)on  stands   as  a  relic  of  the  electric  industry’s  history  within  Chicago,  Illinois,  and  even  the  United  States.   The  Original  Powerhouse  once  held  the  largest  steam  turbine  system  in  the  world,  which  ul)-­‐ mately  triggered  a  revolu)on  in  turbine  technology,  the  growth  of  Chicago’s  electricity  system,   and  Chicago  Edison’s  success.  Even  during  Fisk  Sta)on’s  first  decade  of  opera)ons,  the  site  was   deemed  a  monument  in  engineering,  acrac)ng  thousands  of  visitors  from  across  the  world.  Al-­‐ though  the  original  5  MW  turbine  is  no  longer  located  in  the  Original  Powerhouse,  the  unit  was   designated  a  na)onal  engineering  landmark  by  the  American  Society  of  Mechanical  Engineers  in   1975.2  The  other  buildings  onsite  that  helped  the  power  plant  operate  also  hold  preserva)on   value  as  they  were  a  vital  part  of  the  electric  industry’s  history.  The  events  that  occurred  at  Fisk   Sta)on  in  the  early  twen)eth  century  have  made  a  significant  contribu)on  to  the  subsequent   development  in  engineering  technology  and  electricity.       Second,  Fisk  Sta)on  is  associated  with  the  life  and  decisions  of  an  important  person  in   history  whose  ac)vi)es  are  proven  important  (Criterion  B).  The  5  MW  turbine  housed  at  Fisk   Sta)on  would  not  have  been  possible  with  out  Samuel  Insull,  president  of  Chicago  Edison.   Against  his  colleagues’  advice,  Insull  demanded  General  Electric  build  the  largest,  most  energy   efficient  steam  turbine  generator  for  its  day.  His  daring  decisions  and  vision  for  expanding  Chi-­‐ cago’s  electricity  service  pushed  turbine  technology  and  the  electric  industry  forward.  Although   the  site’s  success  was  made  possible  by  countless  people,  Fisk  Sta)on  also  illustrates  Insull’s  im-­‐ portant  achievements.   Finally,  Fisk  Genera)ng  Sta)on  may  meet  the  Na)onal  Register  criteria  as  the  various   proper)es  possesses  a  dis)nct  architectural  style  (Criterion  C).  As  seen  in  site  photographs  and   through  historic  descrip)ons,  most  of  the  buildings  at  Fisk  Sta)on  showcase  classical  revival  ar-­‐ chitecture,  typically  rare  in  other  powerhouses.  These  ornate  characteris)cs  occur  both  in  the   buildings’  exterior  and  interior  features,  which  deem  each  structure  beau)ful  and  unique.     Unfortunately,  because  Fisk  Sta)on  has  operated  since  1903,  the  site  has  been  repeat-­‐ edly  altered  and  undergone  mul)ple  renova)ons.  The  1959  addi)on  to  the  Original  Power-­‐ house  has  drama)cally  changed  the  ini)al  structure,  even  though  a  large  por)on  of  the  struc-­‐
Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   132

ture  is  s)ll  intact.  In  addi)on,  a  fire  in  1976  caused  extensive  damage  to  the  site  to  the  southern   por)on  of  the  1959  turbine-­‐generator  addi)on  and  the  Original  Powerhouse.  However,  the  full   extent  of  damage  remains  unclear.   Typically,  reconstructed  historic  buildings  are  not  eligible  for  the  Na)onal  Register,  al-­‐ though  some  excep)ons  exist.  The  historic  integrity,  or  the  original  features  of  a  property  that   convey  its  significance,  many  )mes  is  compromised  amer  extensive  renova)ons.3  In  terms  of  as-­‐ sessing  the  integrity  of  proper)es,  the  ul)mate  ques)on  is  whether  the  property  has  retained   the  iden)ty  for  which  it  is  significant.  Building  altera)ons  may  conflict  with  Na)onal  Register   eligibility  in  historic  integrity  based  on  aspects  such  as  loca)on,  design,  sejng,  materials,   workmanship,  feeling,  and  associa)on.4  Specifically,  Fisk  Sta)on’s  various  renova)ons  may  con-­‐ tradict  the  following  requirements  in  historic  integrity,  cited  in  the  “Criteria  for  Evalua)on”  by   the  Na)onal  Park  Service:   • Design:  Design  is  the  combina)on  of  elements  that  create  the  form,  plan,  space,  struc-­‐ ture,  and  style  of  a  property.  It  results  from  conscious  decisions  made  during  the  original   concep)on  and  planning  of  a  property  (or  its  significant  altera)on)  and  applies  to  ac)vi-­‐ )es  as  diverse  as  community  planning,  engineering,  architecture,  and  landscape  archi-­‐ tecture.  Design  includes  such  elements  as  organiza)on  of  space,  propor)on,  scale,  tech-­‐ nology,  ornamenta)on,  and  materials.   A  property's  design  reflects  historic  func)ons  and  technologies  as  well  as  aesthe)cs.  It   includes  such  considera)ons  as  the  structural  system;  massing;  arrangement  of  spaces;   pacern  of  fenestra)on;  textures  and  colors  of  surface  materials;  type,  amount,  and  style   of  ornamental  detailing;  and  arrangement  and  type  of  plan)ngs  in  a  designed  land-­‐ scape.... • Materials:  Materials  are  the  physical  elements  that  were  combined  or  deposited  during   a  par)cular  period  of  )me  and  in  a  par)cular  pacern  or  configura)on  to  form  a  historic   property.  The  choice  and  combina)on  of  materials  reveal  the  preferences  of  those  who   created  the  property  and  indicate  the  availability  of  par)cular  types  of  materials  and   technologies.  Indigenous  materials  are  omen  the  focus  of  regional  building  tradi)ons  and   thereby  help  define  an  area's  sense  of  )me  and  place. A  property  must  retain  the  key  exterior  materials  da)ng  from  the  period  of  its  historic   significance.  If  the  property  has  been  rehabilitated,  the  historic  materials  and  significant   features  must  have  been  preserved....a  property  whose  historic  features  and  materials   have  been  lost  and  then  reconstructed  is  usually  not  eligible... • Workmanship:  Workmanship  is  the  physical  evidence  of  the  crams  of  a  par)cular  culture   or  people  during  any  given  period  in  history  or  prehistory.  It  is  the  evidence  of  ar)sans'   labor  and  skill  in  construc)ng  or  altering  a  building,  structure,  object,  or  site.  Workman-­‐ ship  can  apply  to  the  property  as  a  whole  or  to  its  individual  components.  It  can  be  ex-­‐
133

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

pressed  in  vernacular  methods  of  construc)on  and  plain  finishes  or  in  highly  sophis)-­‐ cated  configura)ons  and  ornamental  detailing.  It  can  be  based  on  common  tradi)ons  or   innova)ve  period  techniques.   Workmanship  is  important  because  it  can  furnish  evidence  of  the  technology  of  a  cram,   illustrate  the  aesthe)c  principles  of  a  historic  or  prehistoric  period,  and  reveal  individual,   local,  regional,  or  na)onal  applica)ons  of  both  technological  prac)ces  and  aesthe)c   principles.  Examples  of  workmanship  in  historic  buildings  include  tooling,  carving,  paint-­‐ ing,  graining,  turning,  and  joinery.   • Feeling:  Feeling  is  a  property's  expression  of  the  aesthe)c  or  historic  sense  of  a  par)cu-­‐ lar  period  of  )me.  It  results  from  the  presence  of  physical  features  that,  taken  together,   convey  the  property's  historic  character.  For  example,  a  rural  historic  district  retaining   original  design,  materials,  workmanship,  and  sejng  will  relate  the  feeling  of  agricultural   life  in  the  19th  century.   Associa%on:  Associa)on  is  the  direct  link  between  an  important  historic  event  or  person   and  a  historic  property.  A  property  retains  associa)on  if  it  is  the  place  where  the  event   or  ac)vity  occurred  and  is  sufficiently  intact  to  convey  that  rela)onship  to  an  observer.   Like  feeling,  associa)on  requires  the  presence  of  physical  features  that  convey  a  prop-­‐ erty's  historic  character.  For  example,  a  Revolu)onary  War  baclefield  whose  natural  and   manmade  elements  have  remained  intact  since  the  18th  century  will  retain  its  quality  of   associa)on  with  the  bacle.  Because  feeling  and  associa)on  depend  on  individual  per-­‐ cep)ons,  their  reten)on  alone  is  never  sufficient  to  support  eligibility  of  a  property  for   the  Na)onal  Register.5 In  terms  of  the  Na)onal  Register’s  criteria  regarding  integrity,  altera)ons  in  the  original  

 

design,  sejng,  materials,  workmanship,  feeling,  and  associa)on  may  present  obstacles  for  Fisk   Sta)on’s  historic  designa)on.  The  1959  turbine-­‐generator  room  addi)on  to  the  Original  Power-­‐ house  is  the  most  prominent  example  of  a  large  building  renova)on  onsite.  It  is  unfortunate   that  the  Original  Powerhouse,  which  contained  the  5  MW  turbines  and  thus  largely  represents   the  site’s  historic  significance,  has  been  the  most  altered.  In  addi)on,  the  original  5  MW  turbine   was  removed  from  the  building  and  now  located  in  New  York  at  General  Electric’s  headquarters.   Its  historic  integrity  is  the  most  compromised  in  terms  of  design,  materials,  workmanship,  feel-­‐ ing,  and  associa)on.     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  deter-­‐ mine  if  the  historic  integrity  of  Switch  House  No.  1  and  2,  the  Administra)ve  Building,  the  Main-­‐ tenance  Building,  and  the  Frequency  Changer  House  has  been  weakened,  the  site  will  need  to  

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

134

be  further  evaluated.  While  the  exteriors  of  some  of  buildings  show  signs  of  visible  deteriora-­‐ )on,  overall,  it  seems  as  though  these  buildings  have  undergone  less  altera)ons.   While  the  Na)onal  Park  Service’s  “Criteria  for  Evalua)on”  states,  “It  is  not  necessary  for   a  property  to  retain  all  its  historic  physical  features  or  characteris)cs,”  the  property  must  main-­‐ tain  “the  essen)al  physical  features  that  enable  it  to  convey  its  historic  iden)ty.”6  Depending  on   the  reasons  for  designa)ng  a  site  within  the  Na)onal  Register,  different  levels  of  integrity  are   required.  For  example,  if  a  property  is  listed  for  its  “building  form,  architectural  style,  engineer-­‐ ing  technique,  or  ar)s)c  values...(Criterion  C),”  the  property  “must  retain  most  of  the  physical   features  that  cons)tute  that  style  or  technique.”7  However:   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,  spa)al  rela)on-­‐ ships,  propor)on,  pacern  of  windows  and  doors,  texture  of  materials,  and  ornamenta-­‐ )on.  The  property  is  not  eligible,  however,  if  it  retains  some  basic  features  conveying   massing  but  has  lost  the  majority  of  the  features  that  once  characterized  its  style. 8 The  Na)onal  Register  “Criteria  for  Evalua)on”  also  considers  designa)on  based  on  a  compari-­‐ son  of  similar  proper)es  and  for  rare  examples  of  a  property  type.9     Although  the  discussed  condi)ons  and  site  changes  at  Fisk  Sta)on  conflict  with  the  Na-­‐ )onal  Register  criteria,  the  power  plant  may  s)ll  be  eligible  for  historic  designa)on  due  to  a   number  of  excep)ons.  Because  Fisk  Sta)on  contains  more  than  one  historic  building,  it  is  also   possible  that  only  selected  eligible  buildings  that  have  not  been  significantly  altered  could  be   listed  in  the  Na)onal  Register.  However,  each  historic  building,  apart  from  the  1959  turbine-­‐ generator  room,  should  be  collec)vely  preserved  as  they  all  once  contributed  to  the  site’s  op-­‐ era)ons  and  significance.  Many  of  the  historic  buildings  s)ll  possess  their  essen)al  physical  fea-­‐ tures  and  dis)nct  architectural  quali)es  that  convey  their  significance  within  the  en)re  power   plant. Chicago  Landmark  Status   Fisk  Sta)on’s  historic  buildings  may  also  be  eligible  for  city-­‐designated  historic  status.  In   Chicago,  a  property  can  be  officially  designated  as  a  Chicago  Landmark  by  the  City  Council.  To  be   become  a  Chicago  Landmark,  a  property  is  be  considered  if  it  meets  the  criteria  for  designa)on   by  represen)ng  value  as  a  part  of  the  city,  state,  or  na)onal  heritage,  a  significant  historic  event,  

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

135

significant  person,  exemplary  architecture,  work  of  significant  architect  or  designer,  dis)nc)ve   theme,  or  unique  or  dis)nc)ve  visual  feature.10  In  addi)on,  the  proposed  landmark  must  con-­‐ tain  preserved  integrity  in  which  the  original  characteris)cs  that  express  the  property’s  signifi-­‐ cance  remain.  Similar  to  state  and  federal  historic  designa)on  programs,  the  Chicago  Landmarks   program  is  vital  in  that  it  provides  legal  protec)on  for  preserva)on  and  poten)ally  financial  aid   for  rehabilita)on.     The  Commission  on  Chicago  Landmarks  is  responsible  for  the  recommenda)on  of  sites   for  preserva)on  and  reviewing  the  proposed  alterna)on,  demoli)on,  or  new  construc)on  of   designated  proper)es.  In  general,  the  Chicago  Landmark  Designa)on  Process  includes:   1. Preliminary  Summary  of  Informa)on:  The  Commission  on  Chicago  Landmarks  staff  re-­‐ searches  significances  of  a  site,  and  then  submits  a  report  to  the  Commission  for  review.   2. Preliminary  Recommenda)on:  The  Commission  votes  on  whether  they  will  consider  the   proposed  designa)on.  If  the  Commission  votes  to  proceed,  the  Commission  gains  the   authority  to  review  building  permits.   3. Report  from  the  Department  of  Housing  and  Economic  Development:  The  report  states   how  the  proposed  landmark  designa)on  may  affect  neighborhood  plans,  the  Compre-­‐ hensive  Plan  of  the  City  of  Chicago,  or  any  other  policies.  In  addi)on,  the  report  includes   the  Commissioner’s  recommenda)ons  in  terms  of  relevant  planning  considera)ons  and   regarding  approval,  rejec)on,  or  modifica)on  of  the  proposed  designa)on. 4. The  Commission  Requests  Owner  Consent:  Owner  consent  is  advisory,  but  not  required,   for  designa)on  except  for  houses  of  worship.  If  the  property  owner  does  not  consent,  a   public  hearing  is  held.   5. Public  Hearing:  A  public  hearing  provides  the  opportunity  for  people  to  tes)fy  or  present   evidence  to  assist  the  Commission  in  its  considera)on  for  a  proposed  landmark.  Any   person,  organiza)on,  or  other  legal  en)ty  whose  use  or  enjoyment  of  the  proposed   landmark  may  be  injured  by  designa)on  or  the  approval  or  disapproval  of  a  proposed   altera)on,  construc)on,  reconstruc)on,  erec)on,  demoli)on,  or  reloca)on  of  a  pro-­‐ posed  or  designated  landmark  may  become  a  party  to  a  permit  applica)on  proceeding.   6. Final  Commission  Recommenda)on:  Amer  reviewing  the  en)re  record,  the  Commission   votes  whether  to  recommend  the  proposed  landmark  designa)on  to  the  City  Council.   7. Hearing  by  City  Council’s  Commicee  on  Zoning,  Landmarks  and  Building  Standards:  The   Commission’s  recommenda)on  is  sent  to  the  City  Council’s  Commicee  on  Zoning,   Landmarks  and  Building  Standards,  which  votes  on  whether  to  recommend  the  designa-­‐ )on  to  the  full  City  Council.  

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

136

8. Vote  on  Designa)on  by  City  Council:  The  designa)on  the  proposed  Chicago  Landmark   becomes  a  legisla)ve  act  of  the  City  Council.11  
 

Currently,  some  of  Fisk  Sta)on’s  historic  buildings  have  a  reasonable  chance  to  be  pre-­‐

served  for  their  historic  significance  and  to  be  designated  as  a  Chicago  Landmark.  The  Original   Powerhouse  as  well  as  Switch  House  No.  1  and  2  are  currently  classified  as  “orange”  rated  build-­‐ ings  under  the  City  of  Chicago’s  Demoli)on-­‐Delay  Ordinance,  indica)ng  they  possess  poten)ally   significant  architectural  or  historical  features.12  The  Demoli)on-­‐Delay  Ordinance  may  aid  the   preserva)on  of  these  buildings  as  it  is  intended  “to  ensure  that  no  important  historic  resource   can  be  demolished  without  considera)on  as  to  whether  it  should  and  can  be  preserved.”13   According  to  the  City  of  Chicago,  the  ordinance,  “establishes  a  hold  of  up  to  90  days  in   the  issuance  of  any  demoli)on  permit  for  certain  historic  buildings  in  order  that  the  Department   of  Housing  and  Economic  Development  can  explore  op)ons,  as  appropriate,  to  preserve  the   building,  including  but  not  limited  to  landmark  designa)on.”14  The  delay  period  begins  when   the  demoli)on  permit  is  submiced  to  the  Historic  Preserva)on  Division  of  the  Department  of   Housing  and  Economic  Development.  This  period  can  also  be  extended  past  90  days  if  mutual   agreement  with  the  applicant  is  present.     However,  the  Demoli)on-­‐Delay  Ordinance  only  provides  limited  preserva)on  protec)on   against  the  demoli)on  of  Fisk  Sta)on’s  historic  buildings.  Further  measures  should  be  taken  to   ensure  that  the  site’s  redevelopment  plans  include  preserva)on.  In  addi)on,  only  three  build-­‐ ings  have  “orange”  rated  classifica)ons,  which  neglects  the  historic  and  architectural  signifi-­‐ cance  of  the  Administra)on  Building,  the  Maintenance  Shop,  and  the  Frequency  Changer   House.  Demoli)on-­‐Delay  Ordinance  should  be  extended  to  all  buildings  onsite  to  increase  the   possibility  of  preserving  the  en)re  site.   Financial  Incen3ves  for  Rehabilita3on     Similar  to  the  Na)onal  Register,  a  property  listed  as  a  Chicago  Landmark  can  qualify  for  a   number  of  funding  incen)ves.  For  example,  the  rehabilita)on  of  a  building  in  a  commercial  or   industrial  use  may  be  qualified  for  Class-­‐L  Property  Tax  Incen)ves,  which  reduces  the  property   tax  rate  for  12  years  if  the  building  upholds  to  the  Cook  County’s  land  assessment  requirements   and  the  project  includes  a  minimum  investment  of  50%  of  the  building’s  assessed  value.15   Commercial,  industrial,  hotel,  or  office  buildings  can  also  qualify  for  the  Facade  Easement  Do-­‐
Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   137

na)on,  the  Facade  Rebate  Program,  or  a  Permit  Fee  Waiver  for  City  Building  Permits.16  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  excep)ons  and  technical  assistance   from  city  preserva)on  specialists.17   Addi)onal  funding  for  the  rehabilita)on  of  a  historic  property  is  available  through  the   state  preserva)on  offices.  The  Illinois  state  preserva)on  office,  Illinois  Historic  Preserva)on   Agency,  provide  other  types  of  financial  aid.  For  example,  historic  proper)es  owned  by  non-­‐ profit  organiza)ons  or  public  en))es  can  qualify  for  the  Illinois  Heritage  Grant  Program,  which  is   matches  the  funds  used  in  rehabilita)on.18 The  Poli3cal  Process  Behind  Historic  Designa3on     Acaining  designa)on  status  can  prove  to  be  difficult  as  it  requires  strong  poli)cal  back-­‐ ing.  In  the  ar)cle  “Boundaries  of  Power:  Poli)cs  of  Urban  Preserva)on  in  Two  Chicago  Neigh-­‐ borhoods,”  author  Yue  Zhang  comments  on  the  historic  designa)on  process  in  Pilsen.  Zhang   notes  that  historic  designa)on  status  in  Chicago  is  almost  impossible  without  poli)cal  support.   While  demographics,  economics,  and  the  physical  condi)ons  of  communi)es  influence  urban   preserva)on,  “none  of  them  is  a  determinant  factor  for  landmark  designa)on.”19  Instead,  urban   poli)cs  play  a  large  role  in  urban  preserva)on  as  it  dictates  the  policy  process.     Although  the  final  designa)on  decision  for  the  Na)onal  Register  of  Historic  Places  is   made  at  the  federal  level,  local  poli)cal  support,  par)cularly  by  aldermen,  is  essen)al.  In  addi-­‐ )on,  Chicago’s  Historic  Preserva)on  Division  and  the  Commission  on  Chicago  Landmarks  play   central  roles  in  the  designa)on  policy  process,  but  Chicago’s  aldermen  maintain  substan)al   power  over  zoning  and  redevelopment.  Alderman  have  veto  power  over  preserva)on  efforts  in   their  wards  and  without  their  support,  city  staff  will  not  propose  or  pass  certain  buildings  for   landmark  status.20  Zhang  writes: it  seems  aldermen  do  not  par)cipate  in  the  process  of  urban  preserva)on  un)l  the  final   City  Council  vote;  however,  they  have  invisible  agenda-­‐sejng  power  to  influence  the   landmark  designa)on  from  the  very  beginning.  Preserva)on  ini)a)ves  opposed  by  the   aldermen  do  not  have  the  chance  to  enter  the  formal  policy  process,  whereas  those   supported  by  the  aldermen  are  endorsed  by  the  (Commission  on  Chicago  Landmarks).  In  

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

138

other  words,  it  is  the  preference  of  the  local  alderman  that  determines  the  administra-­‐ )ve  decision  on  landmark  designa)on  outside  the  formal  decision-­‐making  process.21   Without  strong  support  by  Alderman  Danny  Solis,  Pilsen  may  have  not  been  listed  as  a  historic   district  on  the  Na)onal  Register  of  Historic  Places.  

Remedia3on
  Typically,  industrial  or  historic  sites  require  remedia)on  efforts,  which  can  entail  remov-­‐ ing  industrial  equipment,  underground  storage  tanks,  or  hazardous  materials,  such  as  asbestos   or  lead  paint.22  Fisk  Sta)on  will  undoubtedly  require  remedia)on  as  the  century  of  coal  opera-­‐ )ons  and  adjacent  industrial  ac)vi)es  have  polluted  the  property.  A  more  detailed  and  compre-­‐ hensive  site  analysis,  involving  soil,  water,  and  building  tests,  needs  to  be  conducted  in  order  to   determine  the  full  extent  and  costs  for  cleaning  and  restoring  the  site.   In  order  to  prepare  Fisk  Sta)on’s  property  and  buildings  for  an  adap)ve  reuse  project,   the  industrial  equipment  will  need  to  be  dismantled  and  removed.  Structures  on  site  include  a   water  treatment  system,  eight  peaker  plants,  conveyor  belts,  an  “auxiliary  boiler,  coal  handling   and  processing  units,  turbines  fired  with  diesel  and  natural  gas,  and  a  gasoline  storage  tank.”23   The  water  in  the  Chicago  River  and  soil  should  also  be  tested  to  ensure  proper  remedia-­‐ )on.  Past  opera)ons  and  a  history  of  industrial  pollu)on  in  the  area  has  undoubtedly  lem  the   site  contaminated.  According  to  Midwest  Genera)on,  today,  “Fisk  has  no  ground  storage  and   receives  its  coal  on  a  ‘just  in  )me’  basis.” 24  However,  while  coal  is  not  currently  stored  on  site,   the  site’s  abundant  land  was  once  used  to  hold  coal  for  Fisk  Sta)on’s  power  genera)on  needs,   which  may  have  polluted  soil  and  water.25     Fisk  Sta)on  is  also  located  on  the  South  Branch  of  the  Chicago  River,  which  has  been  his-­‐ torically  polluted  from  waste,  sewage,  and  heavy  industrial  ac)vi)es.26  Fisk  Sta)on  has  previ-­‐ ously  been  cited  for  dumping  debris  in  the  Chicago  River.  For  example,  in  1968,  Commonwealth   Edison  received  a  )cket  by  the  Chicago  Sanitary  District  and  was  required  to  remove  and  clean   some  debris  deposited  in  the  river.27  Although  the  river  was  cleaned,  some  pollu)ng  remnants   from  Fisk  Sta)on’s  past  most  likely  remain.

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

139

 

Site  contamina)on  may  be  sizable  due  to  the  lack  of  strict  regula)ons  in  the  early  twen-­‐

)eth  century  on  pollu)on  controls  and  industrial  ac)vi)es.  Fisk  Sta)on  most  likely  has  cumula-­‐ )ve  levels  of  contamina)on  due  to  over  a  century  of  coal-­‐related  opera)ons  and  emissions  as   well  as  from  other  adjacent  industrial  opera)ons  near  the  site.  In  addi)on  to  soil  and  water   hazards,  some  of  the  original  historic  buildings,  such  as  the  Administra)on  Building  and  Switch   House  No.  1,  will  need  to  be  remediated  due  to  asbestos.  Lead  paint  or  other  hazardous  sub-­‐ stances  may  also  be  present.     Remedia)on  of  Fisk  Sta)on’s  en)re  property  could  be  difficult  due  to  the  haphazard   ownership  of  the  site  by  both  Midwest  Genera)on  and  ComEd.  Assuming  the  property  will  be   sold  before  remedia)on  efforts  ensue,  both  companies  must  be  involved  in  the  selling  process.   However,  the  removal  of  hazardous  contaminants  and  equipment  on  site  provides  the  chance  to   enhance  the  environment,  which  was  once  plagued  by  pollu)on.  Cleaned  and  restored  building   and  land  uses  may  provided  new  spaces  for  the  community  to  benefit  from.  

Zoning
  Fisk  Sta)on  is  currently  zoned  within  a  Planned  Manufacturing  District  (PMD),  a  special   zoning  classifica)on  that  seeks  to  preserve  exis)ng  manufacturing  areas  and  foster  the  city’s   industrial  base.28  Under  the  PMD  classifica)on,  only  certain  land  uses  compa)ble  with  industrial   growth  are  permiced.  For  example,  no  residen)al  uses  are  allowed.  The  site  is  specifically  lo-­‐ cated  in  PMD  11  Subdistrict  A,  which  has  its  own  set  of  allowed  land  use  regula)ons.  Please  see   Appendix  I  for  the  specific  uses  allowed  at  Fisk  Sta)on.     In  general,  the  decision  to  amend  exis)ng  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.”29  Proposed  zoning  changes  should  be  consistent  with  adopted  area  plans  and   is  appropriate  based  on  changes  in  the  area’s  character  “due  to  public  facility  capacity,  other   rezonings,  or  growth  and  development  trends.”30  The  decision  considers  if  the  proposed   changes  will  be  compa)ble  with  the  area’s  surrounding  zoning,  other  uses,  density,  and  building   scale  as  well  as  if  public  infrastructure  facili)es  and  city  services  will  be  adequate  to  serve  the   proposed  development  at  the  )me  of  occupancy.
Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   140

 

While  the  permiced  and  prohibited  uses  are  typically  strict  within  PMDs,  special  uses  

may  be  allowed  amer  being  reviewed  and  approved  by  the  Zoning  Board  of  Appeals.  According   to  the  Chicago  Zoning  Ordinance  and  Land  Use  Ordinance,  a  proposed  new  special  use  for  a   PMD  must  meet  the  following  criteria:   1. complies  with  all  applicable  standards  of  the  Zoning  Ordinance; 2. is  in  the  interest  of  the  public  convenience  and  will  not  have  a  significant  adverse  impact   on  the  general  welfare  of  the  neighborhood  or  community; 3. is  compa)ble  with  the  character  of  the  surrounding  area  in  terms  of  site  planning  and   building  scale  and  project  design; 4. is  compa)ble  with  the  character  of  the  surrounding  area  in  terms  of  opera)ng  charac-­‐ teris)cs,  such  as  hours  of  opera)on,  outdoor  ligh)ng,  noise,  and  traffic  genera)on;  and 5. is  designed  to  promote  pedestrian  safety  and  comfort.31 The  Zoning  Board  of  Appeals  and  City  Council  must  determine  if  the  rezoning  of  property  will   nega)vely  affect  the  viability  of  the  industrial  corridor.  Thus,  PMD  zoning  changes  considers  the   district’s  size,  the  number  of  exis)ng  firms  and  employees,  public  and  private  investments,  po-­‐ ten)al  to  support  addi)onal  industrial  uses  and  increased  manufacturing  employment,  propor-­‐ )on  of  land  currently  devoted  to  industrial  uses  and  non-­‐manufacturing  uses,  and  the  area’s   importance  to  the  city  as  an  industrial  district.32   The  process  to  change  PMD  or  industrial  corridor  zoning  first  includes  filing  an  applica-­‐ )on  with  the  Zoning  Administrator,  who  then  reviews  and  forwards  a  recommenda)on  to  the   City  Council  Commicee  on  Zoning.33  Amerwards,  a  hearing  is  held  by  the  by  the  City  Council   Commicee  on  Zoning,  where  further  recommenda)ons  are  made.  The  final  rezoning  decision  is   determined  by  a  vote  by  the  City  Council.     In  addi)on  to  PMD  zoning,  Fisk  Sta)on  is  also  located  within  the  Pilsen  Industrial  Corri-­‐ dor.  Similar  to  PMD  designa)on,  Chicago  industrial  corridor  districts  are  intended  to  promote   industrial  development,  typically  rezoning  should  be  avoided.34  However,  in  some  cases  rezon-­‐ ing  may  be  appropriate.  In  addi)on  to  the  tradi)onal  rezoning  process  described  above,  addi-­‐ )onal  approval  is  needed  by  the  Chicago  Plan  Commission.  Before  a  hearing  is  held  by  the  City   Council  Commicee  on  Zoning,  the  Plan  Commission  must  also  hold  a  hearing  to  make  recom-­‐ menda)ons  on  the  proposed  changes. 35  In  general,  an  industrial  corridor  property  can  be  re-­‐ zoned  if:    
Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   141

1. the  physical  characteris)cs  of  the  site  make  it  intrinsically  unsuitable  for  industrial  de-­‐ velopment.  Physical  constraints  include  irregular  site  configura)on,  access  barriers  and   other  site-­‐specific  issues  that,  taken  together,  limit  development;  or  substan)al  change   in  the  character  of  the  immediately  surrounding  area  makes  industrial  redevelopment  of   the  site  imprac)cal.  Such  change  would  be  indicated  by  adopted  plans,  pacern  of  rezon-­‐ ing  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  fa-­‐ cility;  and   2. the  proposed  non-­‐industrial  development  will  not  result  in  burdensome  zoning  or  other   regulatory  restric)ons  on  neighboring  industries;  and   3. traffic  to  be  generated  by  the  development  will  not  exceed  exis)ng  street  capacity  (or   otherwise  be  accommodated  through  specific  measures  to  be  taken  by  the  applicant).36     Fisk  Sta)on’s  redevelopment  must  consider  these  land  use  restric)ons.  The  site’s  current  

designa)on  as  a  PMD  may  prohibit  a  variety  of  desired  future  uses,  such  as  residen)al  devel-­‐ opment,  zoning  can  poten)ally  be  changed  with  City  Council  approval  if  the  proposed  rezoning   does  not  adversely  affect  the  con)nued  industrial  viability  of  the  PMD  or  the  industrial  outlined   in  the  Chicago  Zoning  Ordinance  and  Land  Use  Ordinance.37  Most  industrial  uses  are  allowed   onsite,  which  is  ideal  for  housing  new  green  manufacturing  facili)es  that  generate  revenue  and   jobs.  Given  that  Fisk  Sta)on’s  PMD  and  industrial  corridor  zoning  are  intended  to  retain  manu-­‐ facturing  within  the  city,  environmentally-­‐friendly  industrial  land  uses  should  be  considered.  In   addi)on  to  its  zoning,  because  Fisk  Sta)on  has  excellent  transporta)on  access  to  accommodate   industrial  businesses  and  is  surrounded  by  other  manufacturing  facili)es,  the  preserva)on  of   some  industrial  ac)vity  would  be  prac)cal.     But,  given  Fisk  Sta)on’s  history  of  pollu)on,  which  has  harmed  public  health,  the  site’s   new  land  uses  should  feature  cleaner  opera)ons  that  promote  community  wellness.  Special  use   approval  could  be  granted  for  parks  and  recrea)on,  urban  farms,  entertainment  venues,  medi-­‐ cal  services,  or  other  services  that  would  benefit  Pilsen  residents.  If  manufacturing  opera)ons   are  deemed  necessary,  it  is  possible  that  only  a  por)on  of  Fisk  Sta)on’s  property  could  be  re-­‐ zoned.  This  scenario  could  combine  new  industrial  uses  with  other  services  or  open  space  to   most  benefit  the  community.  

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

142

Adjacent  Land  Uses
  Although  Fisk  Sta)on  is  zoned  within  PMD  11  and  located  near  industrial  proper)es,  the   site  is  surrounded  by  a  variety  of  adjacent  land  uses  to  the  north  of  Cermak  Road.  The  intended   new  land  uses  for  the  site  should  be  compa)ble  with  the  adjacent  community  and  exis)ng  land   uses.  Currently,  a  mix  of  parks,  residen)al,  commercial,  business,  and  manufacturing  parcels   surround  the  Fisk  site.  Based  on  the  surrounding  ameni)es,  Fisk  Sta)on’s  “walk  score”  is  calcu-­‐ lated  at  85  out  of  100,  meaning  the  site  is  “very  walkable”  and  most  errands  can  be  accom-­‐ plished  on  foot.38  Walkable  ameni)es  include  a  number  of  restaurants,  coffee  shops,  grocery   stores,  small  stores,  schools,  parks,  book  stores,  bars,  and  banks.     In  terms  of  the  public  transporta)on  assessment,  Fisk  Sta)on’s  has  a  good  transit  score,   ra)ng  62  out  of  100,  with  “many  nearby  public  transporta)on  op)ons.”39  In  terms  of  buses,  Bus   Route  21  is  the  closest,  stopping    .05  miles  away  from  Fisk  Sta)on  at  Cermak  Road  and  Carpen-­‐ ter  Street.  In  addi)on,  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  Sta)on,  the   CTA  Orange  Line  Halsted  Sta)on,  and  the  Metra  Burlington  Norther  Santa  Fe  (BNSF)  Halsted   Sta)on.  Expressways  increase  accessibility  to  the  site,  with  the  Dan  Ryan  Expressway  (I-­‐90,  I-­‐94)   and  the  Stevenson  Expressway  (I-­‐55)  nearby.     Fisk’s  Sta)on’s  close  proximity  and  access  to  downtown,  access  to  numerous  roads,  rail   and  bus  transporta)on  routes,  and  waterfront  access  on  the  South  Branch  of  the  Chicago  River   make  the  site  an  acrac)ve  loca)on  for  redevelopment.   In  addi)on,  two  Planned  Development  (PD)  parcels  are  located  along  the  Chicago  River   to  the  east  of  Fisk  Sta)on.  The  PD  zoning  classifica)on  is  intended  to: • • • • • • ensure  adequate  public  review  of  major  development  proposals; encourage  unified  planning  and  development;  promote  economically  beneficial  development  pacerns  that  are  compa)ble  with  the   character  of  exis)ng  neighborhoods; ensure  a  level  of  ameni)es  appropriate  to  the  nature  and  scale  of  the  project; allow  flexibility  in  applica)on  of  selected  use,  bulk,  and  development  standards  in  order   to  promote  crea)ve  building  design  and  high-­‐quality  urban  design;  and encourage  protec)on  and  conserva)on  of  natural  resources.40

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

143

While  the  PD  zoning  classifica)on  includes  a  variety  of  regula)ons,  land  adjacent  to  waterways   must  meet  specific  development  criteria  to  enhance  and  protect  the  “beauty,  amenity,  eco-­‐ nomic  poten)al,  recrea)on  value  and  environmental  quality  of  Chicago’s  waterways.” 41  A  few  of   the  requirements  for  PD  waterfront  parcels  include  providing  public  paths,  landscaping,  a  set-­‐ back  from  the  water  while  complying  with  goals  set  forth  in  the  city’s  waterway  design  guide-­‐ lines.    

Poten3al  Funding  Mechanisms
  In  order  to  offset  remedia)on  and  renova)on  costs,  the  redevelopment  and  rehabilita-­‐ )on  of  Fisk  Genera)ng  Sta)on’s  historic  structures  can  financed  through  a  variety  of  sources.  As   men)oned  in  Chapter  II,  “Funding  Mechanisms,”  adap)ve  reuse  projects  similar  to  Fisk  Sta)on   have  u)lized:   1. Brownfield  and  Remedia)on  Grants  administered  by  the  U.S.  Environmental  Protec)on   Agency.   2. The  Economic  Development  Assistance  Program  administered  by  the  Economic  Devel-­‐ opment  Administra)on 3. Community  Development  Block  Grants  administered  by  the  U.S.  Department  of  Housing   and  Urban  Development. 4. Historical  Preserva)on  Tax  Credits  and  grants  administered  by  the  Na)onal  Park  Service   or  from  State  Historic  Preserva)on  Offices,  if  listed  on  the  Na)onal  Register  for  Historic   Places. 5. New  Markets  Tax  Credits. 6. Private  investments  and  contribu)ons.   7. Other  public  or  private  grants.     If  Fisk  was  designated  a  Chicago  Landmark,  the  site  may  qualify  for  the  building  permit  

waiver,  facade  rebate  program,  facade  easement  dona)on,  or  Class-­‐L  property  tax  incen)ves.42   Other  financial  aid  for  historic  designa)on  may  be  provided  by  the  Illinois  historic  preserva)on   office.     Tax-­‐increment  financing  (TIF)  should  also  be  considered  as  a  poten)al  funding  op)on  in   Fisk  Sta)on’s  redevelopment.  The  site  is  located  within  Pilsen’s  Industrial  TIF  Corridor,  a  907-­‐ acre  district  intended  to  preserve  manufacturing  within  Chicago.43  According  to  the  City  of  Chi-­‐
Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   144

cago,  funds  within  the  907-­‐acre  district  “are  targeted  for  the  assembly  and  prepara)on  of  land   for  new  construc)on  projects,  to  foster  rehabilita)on  projects  where  feasible,  and  to  assist  with   private  and  public  investment  projects  that  support  local  ins)tu)onal  uses.  Addi)onal  priori)es   include  improvements  to  seawalls  along  the  Chicago  River  and  assistance  for  job  training  and   readiness  programs.” 44  Pilsen  TIF  district  funds  has  been  allocated  for  redevelopment  projects   including  a  Target  store,  the  Chicago  Interna)onal  Produce  Market,  Steiner  Linen  Corpora)on,   Benito  Juarez  High  School,  and  road  and  infrastructure  improvements.45     Fisk  Sta)on  is  also  located  in  Enterprise  Zone  1,  a  specific  area  intended  to  foster  and   create  employment  opportuni)es  through  incen)ves  such  as  sales  tax  exemp)on,  property  tax   reduc)on,  finance  assistance,  real  estate  tax  exemp)on,  investment  tax  credit,  state  jobs  crea-­‐ )on  credit,  machinery  and  equipment  sales  tax  exemp)on,  and  u)lity  tax  exemp)on.46   Fisk  Sta)on’s  redevelopment  could  u)lize  these  discussed  financial  mechanisms  to   minimize  costs  and  reinvest  money  back  into  Pilsen.  The  total  project  costs  will  depend  on  a  va-­‐ riety  of  factors  such  as  the  extent  of  environmental  contamina)on,  the  final  land  and  building   uses,  or  the  buildings’  structural  issues.  The  majority  of  cases  involving  the  successful  adap)ve   reuse  of  coal-­‐fired  power  plants  have  leveraged  a  mix  of  public  and  private  funding  sources  at   each  stage  of  the  redevelopment  project.  Because  recycling  power  plants  can  prove  to  be  costly,   these  financing  tools  may  help  minimize  costs  and  push  adap)ve  reuse  forward.  

Pilsen:  A  Neighborhood  Analysis
  While  Fisk  Sta)on  itself  is  a  historic  site,  its  surrounding  neighborhood,  Pilsen,  also  pos-­‐ sesses  a  notable  and  vibrant  past.  Pilsen,  located  only  3  miles  southwest  of  Chicago’s  down-­‐ town,  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  historically  known  as  a  port   of  entry  for  working-­‐class  immigrants.47  In  the  late  1800s  and  early  1900s,  Pilsen’s  close  proxim-­‐ ity  to  industrial  factories  and  affordable  housing  acracted  Polish,  Czechoslovakians  and  Lithua-­‐ nians  immigrants  to  the  neighborhood.48  The  Bohemians  transformed  Pilsen  into  a  self-­‐ sufficient  enclave,  with  a  retail  strip,  churches,  and  manufacturing  district  with  plen)ful  em-­‐ ployment  opportuni)es  all  located  in  the  community.49  In  addi)on,  the  Bohemians,  many  of   which  were  cramsmen  or  ar)sans,  built  ornate  European-­‐inspired  buildings  in  the  area,  much  of  

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

145

which  has  been  preserved.50  In  the  1950s,  the  European  popula)on  began  to  decrease  with  the   influx  of  working-­‐class  La)no  immigrants,  primarily  of  Mexican  descent.51  By  1970,  Pilsen  be-­‐ came  the  first  majority  La)no  neighborhood  in  Chicago.   Today,  Pilsen  remains  an  important  cultural  center  and  is  one  of  Chicago’s  largest  La)no   communi)es.  According  to  2000  census  data,  Pilsen  s)ll  remains  a  strong  working-­‐class  com-­‐ munity,  with  a  median  household  income  of  $27,763,  more  than  $10,000  below  Chicago’s  me-­‐ dian  income  of  $38,625.52  At  the  )me,  Pilsen  possessed  88.9%  Hispanics,  with  49.1%  of  the   popula)on  foreign-­‐born.53

Historic  and  Current  Land  Use   Because  Pilsen  survived  the  Great  Chicago  Fire  in  1871,  the  neighborhood  contains  a  va-­‐ riety  of  historic  structures  built  between  the  1850’s  and  1920’s.54  Not  only  does  Pilsen  contain  a   high  propor)on  of  historic  buildings,  but  the  community  possesses  some  of  the  oldest  housing   s)ll  preserved  in  the  en)re  City  of  Chicago.55  Because  many  late  nineteenth  and  early  twen)eth   century  proper)es  have  been  preserved,  Pilsen  was  designated  a  historic  district  in  the  Na)onal   Register  of  Historic  Places  in  2006.56     Pilsen’s  current  land  use  and  development  largely  reflects  historic  immigrant  seclement   pacerns.  According  to  the  registra)on  form  for  Pilsen’s  designa)on  as  a  historic  district  in  the   Na)onal  Register  of  Historic  Places,  the  neighborhood  possesses  several  aspects  that  dis)nguish   it  from  other  immigrant  enclaves  in  Chicago.     First,  Pilsen’s  ini)al  European  seclers  “enthusias)cally  expressed  their  na)onal  iden)ty   in  architectural  terms,  construc)ng  many  buildings  based  on  the  forms  and  styles  of  in  their   homeland.”57  The  Bohemians  replicated  the  “materials,  massing,  decora)on,  and  func)ons  of   the  buildings  they  knew  in  Europe”  in  order  to  transport  their  original  heritage  to  Pilsen.58  To-­‐ day,  many  buildings  con)nue  to  feature  Baroque  and  European  architectural  styles,  character-­‐ ized  by  ornate  moldings,  variegated  brickwork,  and  rus)cated  stonework.   Second,  the  Bohemians  “created  an  environment  with  an  usually  high  degree  of  func-­‐ )onal  eclec)cism.”59  Densely  placed  ac)vi)es  as  well  as  mixed-­‐use  buildings  were  designed  to   enhance  the  efficient  use  of  space  and  create  an  environment  where  all  immigrants’  basic  needs   could  be  met.  Mixed-­‐used  buildings  united  various  func)ons  while  industrial  ac)vi)es,  restau-­‐
Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   146

rants,  shops,  spaces  for  social  interac)ons,  and  housing  were  all  placed  in  close  proximity  to   each  other,  typically  on  the  same  block.  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  twen)eth  century.”60  Pilsen’s  unique   mixed  land  use  and  zoning  historically  encouraged  economic  and  social  self-­‐sufficiency.       The  original  self-­‐sufficient  design  in  mixed-­‐land  use  helped  shape  Pilsen’s  current  density   and  vitality.  Today,  Pilsen  remains  very  dense,  containing  a  popula)on  density  almost  twice  that   of  Chicago,  and  possesses  few  vacant  lots.61  Compared  with  other  Chicago  neighborhoods,  Pil-­‐ sen’s  land  use  is  unusually  mixed  with  residen)al,  commercial,  and  industrial  buildings  all  lo-­‐ cated  on  the  same  block.  Although  the  majority  of  industrial  ac)vi)es  operated  in  Pilsen’s   Planned  Manufacturing  District  (PMD),  which  is  posi)oned  at  the  south  end  of  the  neighbor-­‐ hood,  manufacturing  and  warehouse  buildings  s)ll  operate  in  the  heart  of  Pilsen  in  close  prox-­‐ imity  to  parks,  schools,  and  businesses.  In  addi)on,  most  residen)al  blocks  con)nue  to  feature   unique  “hybrid  corner  buildings,”  with  stores  on  the  ground  floor  and  apartments  above.62   Pilsen’s  unique  neighborhood  characteris)cs  were  also  strongly  influenced  by  the  influx   of  Mexican  immigrants  beginning  in  the  1950s.  “Pilsen’s  Bohemian  builders  were  so  successful   in  shaping  an  environment  suited  to  their  needs  as  newly  arrived  immigrants  that  the  neighbor-­‐ hood  con)nues  to  be  dominated  by  immigrants  and  their  American-­‐born  children  a  century   later.”63  La)nos  beneficed  from  the  deliberate  neighborhood  designs  just  as  the  Bohemians  did,   and  could  retain  their  cultural  iden)ty  and  connec)on  to  their  homeland  by  taking  advantage  of   the  dense  land  uses  and  public  spaces.  Thus,  Pilsen’s  unique  architecture  and  density  was  “cre-­‐ ated  en)rely  by  and  for  its  newly  arrived  seclers.  Pilsen’s  buildings  and  ins)tu)ons  have   blended  the  influences  of  the  distant  countries  with  urban  forms  and  elements.”64   Although  “the  Bohemians  had  been  the  builders  of  Pilsen,  the  Mexicans  were  its   preserva)onists.”65  Mexican  immigrants  simultaneously  preserved  the  urban  fabric  created  by   their  Bohemian  predecessors  and  adapted  neighborhood  space  to  meet  their  own  dis)nct   needs.  The  cohesive  community  elements  created  by  Bohemians  are  carried  on  today  by  Mexi-­‐ can  and  La)no  residents.  Professor  and  author  John  Betancur  describes  the  neighborhood’s  cur-­‐ rent  characteris)cs:  “Pilsen  boasts  a  sense  of  Mexican  heritage  unparalleled  to  any  other  Chi-­‐ cago  neighborhood.  The  community  hosts  well-­‐known  fes)vals,  adorns  buildings  with  murals,  

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

147

and  plays  host  to  numerous  ethnic  businesses  catering  to  La)nos.” 66  The  various  ameni)es,  af-­‐ fordable  housing  stock,  churches,  restaurants,  and  unique  shops  reflect  La)no  residents’  cul-­‐ ture,  lifestyle,  and  iden)ty.     The  ethnic  shim  from  Eastern  Europeans  to  La)nos  is  s)ll  highly  visible  in  the  neighbor-­‐ hood’s  physical  form  as  historic  European  architecture  that  once  celebrated  the  Bohemians’   heritage  now  coexists  alongside  countless  La)no-­‐inspired  murals  honoring  South  American  cul-­‐ ture.  Pilsen’s  immigrant  seclement  pacerns  helped  merge  the  Bohemian  architectural  land-­‐ scape  with  the  more  recent  Mexican  heritage.  In  Chicago’s  Seven  Most  Threatened  Buildings:   Pilsen,  Preserva)on  Chicago  states,  “Pilsen’s  19th  Century  persona...has  been  overlain  by  a   Mexican  American  sensibility,  expressed  in  the  numerous  murals,  mosaics,  and  pastel  painted   cocages  on  every  block.” 67  Diverse  immigrant  popula)ons  have  transformed  Pilsen  into  a  dy-­‐ namic,  unique  neighborhood  unlike  any  in  Chicago.  

Pilsen’s  Lack  of  Parks  and  Open  Space   Due  to  the  neighborhood’s  high  density,  Pilsen  lacks  green,  open  spaces. 68  In  addi)on,   public  access  to  open  space  along  the  South  Branch  of  the  Chicago  River  is  prac)cally  non-­‐ existent  in  Pilsen  as  the  area  is  closed  off  by  industrial  business.69  The  main  green  spaces  are   city  parks,  including  Harrison  Park  and  Barrec  Park  on  the  western  por)on  of  the  neighbor-­‐ hood.  Pilsen’s  eastern  sec)on  features  Throop  Park,  Dvorak  Park,  and  Reyes  Park.  But  beyond   these  parks: the  eastern  por)on  of  the  neighborhood  includes  few  trees  and  licle  grass.  Because  the   residen)al  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  decora)ve  or  vegetable   gardens.  The  western  sec)on  of  the  district  is  less  densely  built  and  has  considerably   more  trees,  street  lawns,  and  yard  space.70 In  order  to  enhance  the  neighborhood  quality  of  life,  encourage  recrea)on,  and  promote  addi-­‐ )onal  social  interac)ons,  Pilsen  should  have  greater  access  to  parks  and  open  spaces.  Fisk  Sta-­‐ )on  may  be  an  ideal  loca)on  to  build  a  park  and  river  walk,  as  the  site  contains  a  substan)al   amount  of  land  situated  along  the  South  Branch  of  the  Chicago  River.  

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

148

Current  Commercial  and  Industrial  Ac3vi3es   Pilsen’s  major  commercial  arteries  are  located  along  18th  Street,  Halsted  Street,  Western   Avenue,  Cermak  Road,  Ashland  Avenue,  and  Blue  Island  Avenue.  These  main  commercial  strips   feature  a  wide  variety  of  stores  “that  acract  tourists  and  customers  from  across  the  city,  and  a   bustle  of  sidewalk  vendors  and  other  entrepreneurs.”71  Many  of  these  local  stores  and  restau-­‐ rants  have  been  owned  and  operated  by  the  same  families  for  genera)ons.72  18th  Street  exem-­‐ plifies  Pilsen’s  diverse  business  ac)vity  and  historic  vitality: Establishments  selling  tacos,  carnitas,  and  horchatas  (Mexican  milkshakes)  have  replaced   the  Bohemian  saloons  and  ships  of  the  District’s  late  nineteenth  century  days,  but  the   street  con)nues  to  epitomize  the  character  of  the  neighborhood.  Pilsen  was  and  re-­‐ mains  a  largely  self-­‐sufficient  neighborhood,  able  to  support  a  vibrant  community  with  a   complete  network  of  residen)al,  commercial,  cultural,  and  industrial  resources.  West   18th  Street  –  on  street  out  of  many  that  are  included  in  the  District  –  captures  this  qual-­‐ ity  in  microcosm.73   In  2009,  the  Local  Ini)a)ves  Support  Corpora)on  (LISC)  MetroEdge  conducted  a  retail  

scan  to  assess  Pilsen’s  current  and  poten)al  opportuni)es  for  commercial  development.  The   study  showed  Pilsen  is  a  good  place  to  live  and  visit  based  on  its  easy  access  to  services  such  as   grocery  stores,  bakeries,  ar)st  community,  restaurants,  and  neighborhood  events.74  Pilsen’s   strong  Mexican  iden)ty  also  “makes  it  a  des)na)on  for  dining,  merchandise,  arts  and   events/fes)vi)es.”75  The  LISC  retail  scan  report  also  found  that  buying  power  is  strong  within   Pilsen,  ranking  8  out  of  Chicago’s  77  community  areas.76  However,  Pilsen  s)ll  has  unmet  retail   needs  in  some  categories  including  hardware  stores  and  general  merchandise  stores,  which  in-­‐ clude  businesses  similar  to  Target,  Macy’s,  or  dollar  stores.77     Industrial  ac)vity  is  predominately  located  within  the  Pilsen  Industrial  Corridor  and   Planned  Manufacturing  District  (PMD)  along  the  South  Branch  of  the  Chicago  River.  However,   some  industrial  spaces  are  s)ll  situated  in  close  proximity  to  residences,  parks,  schools,  and   businesses. Gentrifica3on   Within  the  past  few  decades,  Pilsen  has  been  targeted  for  urban  renewal,  designated  as   a  desirable  loca)on  for  upscale  redevelopment.78  Beginning  in  1985,  Pilsen  began  to  slowly  at-­‐ tract  higher-­‐income  popula)ons.  As  a  result,  the  renewal  and  rebuilding  of  the  neighborhood  to  
Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   149

accommodate  wealthier  residents  threatens  to  displace  former  working-­‐class  popula)on  that   can  no  longer  afford  rising  property  values  or  taxes.   Many  of  Pilsen’s  neighborhood  characteris)cs  are  conducive  to  gentrifica)on.  The  close   proximity  to  Chicago’s  downtown  area  and  the  University  of  Illinois  at  Chicago,  access  to  nu-­‐ merous  transporta)on  routes,  rela)vely  low  rents  and  property  values,  and  unique  character   have  deemed  Pilsen  an  acrac)ve  place  to  live.79  Tax-­‐increment  financing  (TIF),  the  rise  of  the   “Chicago  Arts  District”  in  East  Pilsen,  con)nual  excep)ons  to  zoning  laws,  poli)cal  ac)ons,  and   the  decrease  in  manufacturing  have  also  aided  gentrifica)on  processes,  making  Pilsen  increas-­‐ ingly  acrac)ve  to  ar)sts  and  middle-­‐class  professionals.80  Because  Pilsen’s  manufacturing  facili-­‐ )es  are  no  longer  central  to  the  area’s  economy,  developers  and  builders  have  specifically  fo-­‐ cused  on  the  conversion  of  abundant  industrial  proper)es  into  upscale  residen)al  loms.81     As  a  result,  Pilsen’s  property  values,  taxes,  and  rents  have  increased,  making  the  neigh-­‐ borhood  less  affordable  to  its  exis)ng  La)no  residents. 82  Between  1990  and  200,  housing  prices   rose  on  average  by  68%,  while  between  1995  and  2002,  average  rents  increased  by  44%. 83  In-­‐ creases  in  rental  prices  is  notable,  as  approximately  74%  of  all  housing  units  are  renter  occu-­‐ pied,  with  almost  60%  of  residents  spending  more  than  30%  of  their  income  on  rent.84  The  con-­‐ version  of  large  industrial  facili)es  into  upscale  residen)al  proper)es  provide  a  telling  example   of  the  neighborhood's  increasing  property  values.  In  2005  and  2006,  luxury  condominiums  built   in  the  eastern  por)on  of  Pilsen  possessed  market  rate  values  as  high  at  $699,000  per  unit,  well   above  the  neighborhood  median  income  of  $27,000.85   A  recent  report,  The  Pilsen  Building  Inventory  Project,  analyzed  current  building  condi-­‐ )ons  and  publicly  available  informa)on  on  building  permits,  property  taxes,  assessed  values,   property  sales,  and  ownership  to  examine  the  gentrifica)on  processes  occurring  in  Pilsen  from   Fall  2004  to  Spring  2006.  First,  the  study  found  a  drama)c  increase  in  the  property  values  for  all   zoning.  There  was  25%  to  49%  increase  in  43%  of  Pilsen’s  proper)es’  assessed  values,  with  an   addi)onal  50%  to  74%  increase  in  assessed  values  in  23%  of  the  proper)es.86  In  addi)on,  24   proper)es  experienced  an  increase  in  over  125%  in  assessed  value,  from  $30,000  to  over   $200,000. 87  Property  values  were  directly  linked  to  increases  in  property  taxes,  as  $1000  in-­‐ crease  in  the  assessed  value  correlated  with  $165  increase  in  taxes.88  Thus,  the  escalated  prop-­‐ erty  values  and  taxes  are  making  Pilsen  less  affordable  to  the  exis)ng  working-­‐class  popula)on.  

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

150

 

In  addi)on,  The  Pilsen  Building  Inventory  Project  found  a  mismatch  between  current  zon-­‐

ing  and  actual  land  use,  which  has  made  it  easier  for  developers  to  gentrify  the  neighborhood.   According  to  the  report,  “ This  mismatch  between  zoning  and  actual  use  means  that  developers   can  buy  a  single  family  home,  demolish  it,  and  rebuild  three  to  four  story  condominiums  or   rental  units  in  its  place,  all  without  any  community  or  city  zoning  board  approval.”89  As  a  result,   some  of  Pilsen’s  historic  buildings  have  been  demolished  to  make  way  for  new,  upscale  and   higher  priced  buildings.  The  mismatch  between  exis)ng  zoning  and  actual  land  use  also  has  an   influence  on  the  neighborhood’s  industrial  spaces  as  some  are  zoned  for  residen)al  use.  Be-­‐ cause  residen)al  conversion  has  a  higher  rate  of  return  than  manufacturing,  many  of  these  old   industrial  spaces  are  easily  being  legally  transformed  into  residen)al  loms.   Thus,  long-­‐)me  residents,  par)cularly  renters,  are  vulnerable  to  displacement  as  in-­‐ creasing  property  values  demand  higher  paying  customers.  Businesses  are  also  threatened  as   “higher  income  tenants...shopping  habits  and  demands  cut  on  their  business  and,  in  the  event   of  total  gentrifica)on,  tend  to  ride  them  out  of  business.”90  Betancur  writes  that  Pilsen’s  gentri-­‐ fica)on  threatens: tradi)onal  building  and  home  owners  along  with  ethnic  retailers  represen)ng  the  bulk   of  Pilsen  while  benefi)ng  banks,  speculators  with  the  proper  financial  back  up  and  know   how,  trendy  retailers,  large  chain  stores  and  large  box  retailers,  and  owners  of  large   tracks  of  land  and  manufacturing  buildings.91   In  Gentrifica%on  before  Gentrifica%on?  The  Plight  of  Pilsen  in  Chicago,  Betancur  analyzes  

the  role  local  governments,  developers,  and  private  investors  aid  neighborhood  redevelopment   by  packaging  and  selling  the  culture  of  a  place.92  Pilsen’s  dis)nct  ethnic  culture  and  Mexican   heritage  have  been  used  as  a  “marke)ng  tool  in  the  quest  to  make  areas  more  appealing  to  out-­‐ side  residents,  developers,  and  businesses...As  such,  it  is  by  defini)on,  a  process  of  co-­‐opted   culture—indeed  it  implies  a  process  of  dis-­‐embedding  and  repackaging  of  local  culture  along   the  lines  of  the  general  industry  of  culture.”93  For  example,  tourism  has  become  increasing  cen-­‐ tral  to  Pilsen’s  development  through  acrac)ons  like  The  Mexican  Fine  Arts  Center  Museum,   walking  tour  maps,  trolley  rides,  tourist  buses,  and  Fiesta  del  Sol,  Pilsen’s  annual  street  fes)val.   According  to  Betancur,  this  type  of  tourism  and  development  poten)ally  neglects  residents: Tourist  ini)a)ves  can  be  damaging  to  communi)es,  such  as  Pilsen,  where  low-­‐income   residents  are  struggling  for  resources;  these  resources  are  instead  being  funneled  to  
Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   151

support  people  who  enter  the  community  for  a  brief  period  of  )me,  consume  and  ab-­‐ sorb  certain  aspects  of  it,  and  then  leave  it  to  its  own  self-­‐preserva)on  and  the  omen   pollu)ng  effects  of  this  tourism....Tourism,  however,  as  a  primary  local  development  tac-­‐ )c  may  carry  the  danger  of  solely  providing  an  experience  to  the  tourist  while  ignoring   factors  influencing  quality  of  life  for  its  residents.94 Although  Pilsen’s  strong  cultural  iden)ty  have  been  an  integral  part  of  the  resistance  against   development  and  displacement,  it  is  also  being  used  as  a  selling  point  to  trigger  gentrifica)on.   Consequently,  the  “commodifica)on  of  culture  on  the  part  of  the  city  and  developers  be  the   eventual  displacement  of  the  same  heritage  they  are  promo)ng.  Ironically,  community  residents   strive  to  exert  a  strong  cultural  iden)ty  as  a  means  of  solidarity  and  resistance  to  outside  pres-­‐ sures—the  same  element  policy  makers  manipulate  to  induce  gentrifica)on.”95   Pilsen  as  a  Historic  District   Pilsen’s  abundant  historic  proper)es  and  rich  history  helped  add  the  neighborhood  to   the  Na)onal  Register  of  Historic  Places  in  2006.96  Historic  designa)on  is  vital  in  that  it  helps  pro-­‐ tect  the  area  against  some  gentrifica)on  processes.  Rather  than  demolishing  and  replacing  his-­‐ toric  buildings  with  new  construc)on,  over  4,400  eligible  proper)es  in  Pilsen’s  historic  district   will  be  preserved  and  rehabilitated.  In  addi)on,  Pilsen’s  original  architecture  and  character,   which  commemorates  the  historic  development  and  different  working-­‐class  immigrant  groups,   is  protected.  Thus,  historic  designa)on  can  help  balance  upscale,  new  development  projects   alongside  preserva)on.   Designa)on  is  also  helping  to  reduce  displacement,  as  the  Na)onal  Register  of  Historic   Places  offers  tax  incen)ves  for  the  rehabilita)on  of  historic  proper)es  in  the  district. 97  Eligible   building  owners  can  qualify  for  a  property  tax  freeze  in  return  for  renova)ng  and  preserving   their  historic  buildings.98  A  freeze  in  the  assessed  value  of  a  qualified  building  can  extend  over  8   years,  followed  by  an  addi)onal  4  years  where  the  property’s  assessed  value  will  be  gradually   readjusted  to  its  current  market  value. 99     The  12  years  in  reduced  property  taxes  are  significant  in  that  they  provide  financial  sup-­‐

port  for  property  owners  to  reinvest  in  Pilsen’s  current  building  stock,  rather  than  new  con-­‐ struc)on  or  demoli)on.  This  incen)ve  program  is  also  vital  in  terms  of  gentrifica)on,  as  rising   property  values  and  taxes  in  Pilsen  have  led  to  the  displacement  of  lower-­‐income  and  minority  

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

152

residents.  Instead  of  displacement,  through  rehabilita)ng  historic  proper)es,  long-­‐)me  home-­‐ owners  benefit  from  the  increase  value  of  their  property  and  maintain  the  same  rate  in  prop-­‐ erty  taxes.  This  incen)ve  program  may  prove  to  be  crucial  in  helping  exis)ng  residents  improve   their  proper)es  without  being  priced  out  of  the  neighborhood.     However,  lis)ng  Pilsen  on  the  Na)onal  Register  of  Historic  Places  has  not  been  a  perfect   cure  for  protec)ng  the  neighborhood  against  gentrifica)on.100  The  large  percentage  of  renters   can  not  take  advantage  of  the  historic  rehabilita)on  incen)ves.  In  addi)on,  many  of  the  neigh-­‐ borhood’s  working-­‐class  homeowners  cannot  afford  to  renovate  their  historic  proper)es,  leav-­‐ ing  them  vulnerable  against  Pilsen’s  increasing  property  values  and  taxes.     Historic  preserva)on  alone  cannot  stop  gentrifica)on.  Today,  Pilsen  con)nues  to  acract   new  development  projects  geared  toward  higher  income  groups.  As  a  result,  Pilsen’s  long-­‐)me   residents,  its  original  historic  architectural,  and  heritage  remain  threatened.  Preserva)on  Chi-­‐ cago  describes  the  neighborhood's  unique  urban  characteris)cs  which  need  to  be  preserved   and  protected:   Taking  a  stroll  down  any  street  acests  to  the  viability  of  a  neighborhood  that  must  be   preserved,  in  its  en)rety,  at  all  costs.  The  simple  act  of  turning  a  corner  can  reveal  a  mu-­‐ ral  exploding  from  the  side  of  a  building.  A  garage  door  becomes  an  ar)st’s  canvas,  tell-­‐ ing  the  story  of  a  community  and  its  people  to  anyone  who  passes  by.  In  a  neighborhood   starved  for  green  space,  the  street  becomes  a  ball  field  and  chairs  has)ly  borrowed  from   the  kitchen  table  instantly  transform  the  sidewalk  into  a  welcoming  front  porch.  The  in-­‐ s)nct  to  place  flowerpots  on  a  windowsill,  on  the  front  steps,  or  on  any  other  horizontal   surface  seldom  goes  unfulfilled.  Fences  are  not  fences,  but  art  galleries  and,  what  would   be  an  ordinary  sidewalk  sale  in  any  other  Chicago  neighborhood,  in  Pilsen  becomes  an   outdoor  Bazaar.  Pushcarts  selling  ices  and  other  delectable  Mexican  treats  ply  the   streets  or  are  found  strategically  parked  on  busy  corners,  and  a  constant  chorus  of  chil-­‐ dren’s  voices  underscores  it  all.  Even  the  faded  and  peeling  paint  lends  an  aura  of  charm-­‐ ing  realness  in  a  city  whose  current  administra)on  favors  newness  and  suburban   sterility. 101 Gentrifica)on  remains  a  threat  as  “on  some  blocks,  almost  every  building  has  been  demolished   and  replaced  with  luxury  housing.”102   Preserving  Pilsen’s  History   Throughout  its  history,  Pilsen’s  working-­‐class  Bohemians  and  La)nos  built  and  preserved   the  neighborhood’s  rich  architecture,  diverse  ethnic  heritage,  and  unique  urban  character.  Pil-­‐ sen’s  neighborhood  characteris)cs  must  be  protected  to  thwart  the  nega)ve  effects  of  gentrifi-­‐

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

153

ca)on,  including  the  displacement  of  exis)ng  La)no  residents  and  their  dis)nct  culture  as  well   as  the  destruc)on  of  the  Pilsen’s  historic  architecture.  It  is  inevitable  that  Pilsen  will  contribute   to  change  and  grow  with  )me.  However,  future  redevelopment  projects  should  be  mindful  of   Pilsen’s  exis)ng  residents  and  its  ethnic  heritage.   The  preserva)on  of  Fisk  Sta)on  is  vital  in  preserving  Pilsen’s  historic  architecture  and   heritage.  However,  the  power  plant  is  located  just  a  block  outside  the  Pilsen  Historic  District   boundaries  and,  thus,  is  not  a  recognized  as  a  historic  landmark.  Without  this  historic  status,   Fisk  Sta)on  remains  unprotected  and  cannot  receive  necessary  financial  aid  for  rehabilita)on.  In   addi)on,  it  is  unclear  whether  the  city  or  aldermen  are  in  favor  of  the  historic  preserva)on  of   Fisk  Sta)on.  Because  historic  designa)on  lis)ng  relies  heavily  on  local  poli)cal  support,  Fisk   Sta)on’s  preserva)on  must  also  seek  to  obtain  aldermanic  support.  

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

154

Chapter  V:  Sec3on  Endnotes
1  U.S.  Department  of  the  Interior,  Na)onal  Park  Service.  “How  to  Apply  to  the  Na)onal  Register:  Criteria  for  Evalua-­‐

)on.” 2  Library  of  Congress,  Prints  &  Photographs  Division,  Historic  American  Engineering  Record,    “Commonwealth  Elec-­‐ tric  Company,  Fisk  Street  Electrical  Genera)ng  Sta)on,  1111  West  Cermak  Avenue,  Chicago,  Cook  County,  IL,”  1. 3  U.S.  Department  of  the  Interior,  Na)onal  Park  Service.  “How  to  Apply  to  the  Na)onal  Register:  Criteria  for  Evalua-­‐ )on.” 4  Ibid. 5  Ibid. 6  Ibid. 7  Ibid. 8  Ibid. 9  Ibid. 10  City  of  Chicago,  Commission  on  Chicago  Landmarks,  Landmarks  Ordinance  and  the  Rules  and  Regula%ons  of  the   Commission  on  Chicago  Landmark  (Chicago:  City  of  Chicago,  August  3,  2011),  4-­‐5,   hcp://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/zlup/Historic_Preserva)on/Publica)ons/Chicago_Landmark s_Ordinance.pdf 11  City  of  Chicago,  Housing  and  Economic  Development  Historic  Preserva)on,  “Landmarks  Designa)on  Process.”   City  of  Chicago,  accessed  March  24,  2012,   hcp://www.cityofchicago.org/content/city/en/depts/dcd/supp_info/landmarks_designa)onprocess.html;  City  of   Chicago,  Commission  on  Chicago  Landmarks,  Landmarks  Ordinance  and  the  Rules  and  Regula%ons  of  the  Commis-­‐ sion  on  Chicago  Landmark,  5-­‐9. 12  City  of  Chicago,  The  Commission  on  Chicago  Landmarks,  “Historic  Survey:  Details  for  building  at  (1029-­‐1179)  W   CERMAK  RD.” 13  City  of  Chicago,  “Demoli)on  Delay.” 14  Ibid. 15  City  of  Chicago,  Department  of  Housing  and  Economic  Development,  “Economic  Incen)ves  for  the  Repair  and   Rehabilita)on  of  Historic  Buildings.”  City  of  Chicago,  accessed  March  23,  2012,  1,   hcp://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/zlup/Historic_Preserva)on/Publica)ons/Incen)ves_Flyer.pd f 16  Ibid. 17  City  of  Chicago,  Department  of  Housing  and  Economic  Development.  “Preserva)on  Incen)ves.”  City  of  Chicago,   Chicago  Landmarks,  accessed  February  14,  2012, hcp://webapps.cityofchicago.org/landmarksweb/web/preserva)on.htm 18  Illinois  Historic  Preserva)on  Agency,  “Benefits  and  Protec)ons  Offered  by  Na)onal  Register  Lis)ng.” 19  Yue  Zhang,  “Boundaries  of  Power:  Poli)cs  of  Urban  Preserva)on  in  Two  Chicago  Neighborhoods,”Urban  Affairs   Review  47,  no  4  (2011):  516. 20  Ibid.,  522. 21  Ibid.,  524. 22  Scadden,  “Adap)ve  Reuse  of  Obsolete  Power  Plants,”  2. 23  Illinois  Environmental  Protec)on  Agency,  In  The  Macer  of  Midwest  Genera)on,  LLC  Fisk  Genera)ng  Sta)on  and   Crawford  Genera)on  Sta)on:  Order  Responding  to  Pe))oners  Request  that  the  Administrator  Object  to  Issuance  of   a  State  Opera)ng  Permit.  Pe))on  number  V-­‐2005-­‐1,  CAAPP  No.  95090081  and  95090076,  March  25,  2005,  1. 24  Midwest  Genera)on,  “Fisk  Sta)on  Fact  Sheet.” 25  McGraw-­‐Publishing  Company.  "The  System  and  Opera)ng  Prac)ce  of  the  Commonwealth  Edison  Company,  Chi-­‐ cago,”  1027. Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   155

26Jeanne  Gang,  Reverse  Effect:  Renewing  Chicago's  Waterways  (Chicago:  Studio  Gang  Architects,  2011),  9-­‐18.   27  Casey,  Bukro.  “Edison  Will  Remove,  Truck  Away  Debris,”  Chicago  Tribune,  October  23,  1968,  5. 28  City  of  Chicago,  “Chicago  Zoning  Ordinance  and  Land  Use  Ordinance”  (City  of  Chicago:  American  Legal  Publishing  

Corpora)on,  2011),  17-­‐6-­‐0400    PMD,  Planned  Manufacturing  Districts,   hcp://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Illinois/chicagozoning/chicagozoningordinanceandlanduseordinanc?f=te mplates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:chicagozoning_il 29  City  of  Chicago,  “Chicago  Zoning  Ordinance  and  Land  Use  Ordinance”  (City  of  Chicago:  American  Legal  Publishing   Corpora)on,  2011),  17-­‐13-­‐0308  Review  and  Decision-­‐Making  Criteria. 30  Ibid. 31  City  of  Chicago,  “Chicago  Zoning  Ordinance  and  Land  Use  Ordinance”  (City  of  Chicago:  American  Legal  Publishing   Corpora)on,  2011),  17-­‐13-­‐0905  Approval  Criteria. 32  City  of  Chicago,  “Chicago  Zoning  Ordinance  and  Land  Use  Ordinance”  (City  of  Chicago:  American  Legal  Publishing   Corpora)on,  2011),  17-­‐13-­‐0403  Review  and  Decision-­‐Making  Criteria. 33  Ibid. 34  City  of  Chicago,  Corridors  Of  Industrial  Opportunity:  A  Plan  For  Industry  In  Chicago  (Chicago,  2004),  1.   35  City  of  Chicago,  “Chicago  Zoning  Ordinance  and  Land  Use  Ordinance”  (City  of  Chicago:  American  Legal  Publishing   Corpora)on,  2011),  17-­‐13-­‐0400    Zoning  map  amendments  within  industrial  corridors. 36  City  of  Chicago,  Corridors  Of  Industrial  Opportunity:  A  Plan  For  Industry  In  Chicago,  3-­‐4. 37  City  of  Chicago,  “Chicago  Zoning  Ordinance  and  Land  Use  Ordinance”  (City  of  Chicago:  American  Legal  Publishing   Corpora)on,  2011),  17-­‐13-­‐0403  Review  and  Decision-­‐Making  Criteria. 38  Walk  Score,  “Walk  Score  for  1111  W  Cermak  Rd  Chicago,  IL,”  Walk  Score,  accessed  February  23,  2012,   hcp://www.walkscore.com/score/1111-­‐w-­‐cermak-­‐rd-­‐chicago-­‐il.   39  Ibid. 40  City  of  Chicago,  “Chicago  Zoning  Ordinance  and  Land  Use  Ordinance”  (City  of  Chicago:  American  Legal  Publishing   Corpora)on,  2011),  17-­‐8-­‐0100  Planned  Development,  Purpose. 41  City  of  Chicago,  “Chicago  Zoning  Ordinance  and  Land  Use  Ordinance”  (City  of  Chicago:  American  Legal  Publishing   Corpora)on,  2011),  17-­‐8-­‐0509  Development  Along  Waterways,  17-­‐8-­‐0912  Waterways. 42  City  of  Chicago,  Department  of  Housing  and  Economic  Development.  “Economic  Incen)ves  for  the  Repair  and   Rehabilita)on  of  Historic  Buildings.”  City  of  Chicago,  accessed  March  23,  2012,  1,   hcp://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/zlup/Historic_Preserva)on/Publica)ons/Incen)ves_Flyer.pd f 43  Ibid. 44  Ibid. 45  Ibid. 46  City  of  Chicago.  “Enterprise  Zone  Program.”  City  of  Chicago.  Accessed  February  13,  2012.   hcp://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/dcd/supp_info/enterprise_zone_program.html 47  Gabriela  F.  Arredondo,  “Lower  West  Side,”  In  Encyclopedia  of  Chicago,  edited  by  Janice  L.  Reiff,  Ann  Durkin   Kea)ng,  and  James  R.  Grossman  (Chicago  Historical  Society,  2005),   hcp://encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/765.html 48  John  Betancur,  Gentrifica%on  before  Gentrifica%on?  The  Plight  of  Pilsen  in  Chicago  (Chicago:  Nathalie  P.  Vorhees   Center  for  Neighborhood  and  Community  Improvement,  2005),  6,   hcp://www.uic.edu/cuppa/voorheesctr/Publica)ons/Gentrifica)on%20before%20Gentrifica)on.pdf 49    Susan  F.  Grossman  et  al.,  “Pilsen  and  The  Resurrec)on  Project:  Community  Organiza)on  in  a  La)no  Community,”   Journal  of  Poverty  4,  no.  1-­‐2  (2000):  135,  hcp://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J134v04n01_06.     50  Historic  Preserva)on  Program,  University  of  Virginia.  Na%onal  Register  of  Historic  Places:  Registra%on  Form,  Pil-­‐ sen  Historic  District  (U.S.  Department  of  the  Interior,  Na)onal  Park  Service.  October  2005),  Sec)on  8,  Page  15.

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

156

51  Betancur,  Gentrifica%on  before  Gentrifica%on?  The  Plight  of  Pilsen  in  Chicago,  6;  Preserva)on  Chicago.  Chicago’s  

Seven  Most  Threatened  Buildings:  Pilsen,  1. 52  Yue  Zhang,  “Boundaries  of  Power:  Poli)cs  of  Urban  Preserva)on  in  Two  Chicago  Neighborhoods,”Urban  Affairs   Review  47,  no  4  (2011):  526,  hcp://uar.sagepub.com/content/47/4/511. 53  Betancur,  Gentrifica%on  before  Gentrifica%on?  The  Plight  of  Pilsen  in  Chicago,  7.   54  Preserva)on  Chicago.  Chicago’s  Seven  Most  Threatened  Buildings:  Pilsen,  1. 55  Great  Ci)es  Ins)tute,  “Pilsen  (Lower  West),”  Great  Ci%es  Ins%tute,  Neighborhoods  Ini%a%ve,  accessed  March  14,   2012,  hcp://www.uicni.org/page.php?sec)on=neighborhoods&subsec)on=pilsen. 56  Elizabeth  Duffrin,  “ Tax  Freeze  Helps  Preserve  Pilsen,”  ChicagoTalks,  November  17,  2008,   hcp://www.chicagotalks.org/2008/11/17/tax-­‐freeze-­‐helps-­‐preserve-­‐pilsen/ 57  Historic  Preserva)on  Program,  University  of  Virginia.  Na%onal  Register  of  Historic  Places:  Registra%on  Form,  Pil-­‐ sen  Historic  District,  Sec)on  8,  11. 58  Ibid. 59  Ibid. 60  Ibid.,  Sec)on  8,  11-­‐12. 61  Betancur,  Gentrifica%on  before  Gentrifica%on?  The  Plight  of  Pilsen  in  Chicago,  15;  Great  Ci)es  Ins)tute,  “Pilsen   (Lower  West).” 62  Ibid.,  Sec)on  7,  2. 63  Historic  Preserva)on  Program,  University  of  Virginia.  Na%onal  Register  of  Historic  Places:  Registra%on  Form,  Pil-­‐ sen  Historic  District,  Sec)on  8,  11. 64  Ibid. 65  Ibid.,  Sec)on  8,  17. 66  Betancur,  Gentrifica%on  before  Gentrifica%on?  The  Plight  of  Pilsen  in  Chicago,  23. 67  Preserva)on  Chicago.  Chicago’s  Seven  Most  Threatened  Buildings:  Pilsen,  2. 68  Preserva)on  Chicago.  Chicago’s  Seven  Most  Threatened  Buildings:  Pilsen,  2;  Field  Museum,  Department  of  Envi-­‐ ronment,  Culture,  and  Conserva)on  (ECCo),  Engaging  Chicago’s  Diverse  Communi%es  in  the  Chicago  Climate  Ac%on   Plan.  Community  #4:  Pilsen’s  Mexican  Community:  Findings  and  Recommenda%ons  At-­‐A-­‐Glance  (Field  Museum,   Chicago:  December  2010),  3;  Historic  Preserva)on  Program,  University  of  Virginia.  Na%onal  Register  of  Historic   Places:  Registra%on  Form,  Pilsen  Historic  District,  Sec)on  7,  3. 69  Tom  McCann,  “Riverfront  Renewal  Not  Reaching  Pilsen,”  Chicago  Tribune,  July  02,  2000,
hcp://ar)cles.chicagotribune.com/2000-­‐07-­‐02/news/0007020100_1_parks-­‐chicago-­‐river-­‐navy-­‐pier 70  Historic  Preserva)on  Program,  University  of  Virginia.  Na%onal  Register  of  Historic  Places:  Registra%on  Form,  Pil-­‐

sen  Historic  District,  Sec)on  7,  3. 71  Great  Ci)es  Ins)tute,  “Pilsen  (Lower  West).” 72  Susan  F.  Grossman  et  al.,  “Pilsen  and  The  Resurrec)on  Project:  Community  Organiza)on  in  a  La)no  Community.”   Journal  of  Poverty  4,  no.  1-­‐2  (2000):  137.   73  Historic  Preserva)on  Program,  University  of  Virginia.  Na%onal  Register  of  Historic  Places:  Registra%on  Form,  Pil-­‐ sen  Historic  District,  Sec)on  8,  13.   74  Ibid. 75  Ibid. 76  Ibid. 77  Ibid.,  2-­‐4. 78  Yue  Zhang,  “Boundaries  of  Power:  Poli)cs  of  Urban  Preserva)on  in  Two  Chicago  Neighborhoods,”Urban  Affairs   Review  47,  no  4  (2011):  526;  David  Wilson,  Jared  Wouters,  and  Dennis  Grammenos.  “Successful  protect-­‐community   discourse:  spa)ality  and  poli)cs  in  Chicago's  Pilsen  neighborhood.”  Environment  and  Planning  36,  (2004):  1182.

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

157

79  Kaaren  Fehsenfeld,  "Zoning  in  on  Pilsen:  As  Development  Moves  in,  Old-­‐Timers  Move  Out,"  Chicagotalks,  May  

26,  2010,   hcp://www.chicagotalks.org/2010/05/26/zoning-­‐in-­‐on-­‐pilsen-­‐as-­‐development-­‐moves-­‐in-­‐old-­‐)mers-­‐move-­‐out/ 80  Yue  Zhang,  “Boundaries  of  Power:  Poli)cs  of  Urban  Preserva)on  in  Two  Chicago  Neighborhoods,”Urban  Affairs   Review  47,  no  4  (2011):  526;  David  Wilson,  Jared  Wouters,  and  Dennis  Grammenos.  “Successful  protect-­‐community   discourse:  spa)ality  and  poli)cs  in  Chicago's  Pilsen  neighborhood.”  Environment  and  Planning  36,  (2004):  1182;   Fehsenfeld,  "Zoning  in  on  Pilsen:  As  Development  Moves  in,  Old-­‐Timers  Move  Out.” 81  Winifred  Curran  and  Euan  Hague.  The  Pilsen  Building  Inventory  Project  (DePaul  University  Department  of  Geog-­‐ raphy,  Chicago:  2006),  4,  hcp://steans.depaul.edu/aboutus/partnerships/geography.asp 82  Betancur,  Gentrifica%on  before  Gentrifica%on?  The  Plight  of  Pilsen  in  Chicago,  11. 83  Yue  Zhang,  “Boundaries  of  Power:  Poli)cs  of  Urban  Preserva)on  in  Two  Chicago  Neighborhoods,”Urban  Affairs   Review  47,  no  4  (2011):  528.   84  Yue  Zhang,  “Boundaries  of  Power:  Poli)cs  of  Urban  Preserva)on  in  Two  Chicago  Neighborhoods,”Urban  Affairs   Review  47,  no  4  (2011):  527;  Winifred  Curran  and  Euan  Hague.  The  Pilsen  Building  Inventory  Project  (DePaul  Uni-­‐ versity  Department  of  Geography,  Chicago:  2006),  3. 85  Ibid. 86  Winifred  Curran  and  Euan  Hague.  The  Pilsen  Building  Inventory  Project  (DePaul  University  Department  of  Geog-­‐ raphy,  Chicago:  2006),  1. 87  Ibid. 88Ibid. 89  Ibid.,  1-­‐2. 90  Betancur,  Gentrifica%on  before  Gentrifica%on?  The  Plight  of  Pilsen  in  Chicago,  12.   91  Ibid. 92  Betancur,  Gentrifica%on  before  Gentrifica%on?  The  Plight  of  Pilsen  in  Chicago,  20-­‐21. 93  Ibid.,  20. 94  Ibid.,  28-­‐29. 95  Ibid.,  27. 96  Duffrin,  “ Tax  Freeze  Helps  Preserve  Pilsen.”   97  Miriam  Y.  Cintron,  “ Tax  incen)ves  strengthen  Pilsen’s  Historic  District.”  Gaze]e,  September  4,  2009,   hcp://www.gazecechicago.com/index/2009/09/tax-­‐incen)ves-­‐strengthen-­‐pilsen%E2%80%99s-­‐historic-­‐district;   Duffrin,  “ Tax  Freeze  Helps  Preserve  Pilsen.” 98  Illinois  Historic  Preserva)on  Agency,  “Property  Tax  Assessment  Freeze.”  Illinois  Historic  Preserva%on  Agency,  ac-­‐ cessed  March  14,  2012,  hcp://www.illinoishistory.gov/PS/taxfreeze.htm. 99  Ibid. 100    Yue  Zhang,  “Boundaries  of  Power:  Poli)cs  of  Urban  Preserva)on  in  Two  Chicago  Neighborhoods,”Urban  Affairs   Review  47,  no  4  (2011):  527. 101    Preserva)on  Chicago.  Chicago’s  Seven  Most  Threatened  Buildings:  Pilsen,  2. 102    Ibid.

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

158

VII.  Recommenda3ons  For  Fisk  Sta3on’s  Future  Use
  The  future  of  Fisk  Sta)on  is  yet  to  be  uncovered  given  the  recent  announcement  to  close   Fisk  Sta)on.  Site  ownership,  remedia)on,  zoning,  and  project  funding  represent  only  a  few  of   the  difficult  hurdles  ahead.  Within  the  coming  months  and  years,  new  informa)on  and  plans   regarding  the  site’s  future  will  be  unveiled,  especially  as  Mayor  Emanuel’s  task  force  has  begun   to  further  inves)gate  the  redevelopment  poten)al.     City  officials,  private  developers,  community  members,  local  organiza)ons,  and  other   interested  stakeholders  must  first  consider  preserving  Fisk  Sta)on’s  various  buildings.  Fisk  Sta-­‐ )on  possesses  a  remarkable  place  in  history,  serving  as  a  tangible  representa)on  of  Chicago’s   development  and  the  growth  of  the  electric  industry.  The  power  plant’s  recent  history  is  also   worth  remembering  and  preserving.  For  over  a  decade,  environmental  and  community  organi-­‐ za)ons  campaigned  against  the  pollu)on  and  environmental  injus)ces  caused  by  Fisk  Sta)on.   The  struggles,  embodied  within  the  site,  should  be  remembered  by  the  community  and  Chicago   at  large.       Even  though  Fisk  Sta)on  will  no  longer  serve  its  original  func)on  in  genera)ng  electric-­‐ ity,  the  soon-­‐to-­‐be  obsolete  facility  possesses  enormous  opportuni)es  in  regenera)ng  economic   ac)vity  and  providing  valuable  services  to  Pilsen  residents.  Given  its  rich  history,  large  acreage,   and  waterfront  access,  Fisk  Sta)on  possesses  a  strong  reuse  poten)al  to  once  again  house  new   economically  viable  func)ons  and  serve  as  a  community  anchor.  While  the  closure  of  Fisk  Sta-­‐ )on  has  been  deemed  a  historic  victory  in  itself,  efforts  should  now  turn  toward  preserving  the   site  and  assigning  its  exis)ng  buildings  new,  posi)ve  iden))es  with  beneficial  func)ons.      The  demoli)on  of  Fisk  Sta)on  would  cause  the  loss  of  architecturally  district  structures   that  symbolize  the  moderniza)on  of  electricity  in  the  twen)eth  century  and  community  ac)v-­‐ ism.  The  ornate  buildings  and  their  significance  cannot  be  replaced  once  demolished.  Even  if   demoli)on  was  deemed  more  cost  effec)ve  than  preserva)on,  it  is  not  a  recommended  op)on   for  redevelopment  as  it  would  remove  invaluable  and  priceless  structures  from  Pilsen.  Instead,   these  buildings  should  be  allowed  to  con)nue  to  thrive  and  serve  the  surrounding  community.    Another  worst-­‐case  scenario  might  include  the  site  remaining  unoccupied,  fenced-­‐off,   and  unused.  Similar  to  demoli)on,  vacancy  would  eliminate  the  opportunity  to  transform  Fisk  
Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   159

Sta)on  into  a  space  to  meet  the  needs  of  Pilsen  residents,  the  community,  and  serve  future   genera)ons.  Given  the  current  economic  environment,  redevelopment  may  become  a  lengthy,   extensive  process,  which  could  leave  the  44-­‐acre  site  to  remain  vacant  for  an  indefinite  period   of  )me.  Prolonged  vacancy  would  hamper  community  development  and  adversely  affect  the   local  economy.  But,  ideally,  remedia)ng,  beau)fying,  and  revitalizing  Fisk  Sta)on  can  help  re-­‐ capture  economic  investment  and  allow  people  to  u)lize  the  once  polluted  land.   Given  its  rich  historic  and  architectural  significance,  it  is  clear  that  Fisk  Sta)on’s  buildings   should  be  protected  in  order  to  become  a  permanent  feature  in  Pilsen  to  contribute  to  the   neighborhood's  dynamic  fabric.  However,  the  prominent  issue  remaining  is  how  to  transform   Fisk  Sta)on  into  a  purposeful  place  that  creates  jobs,  fosters  business  growth,  and  enhances   residents’  quality  of  life.     In  order  to  ensure  Fisk  Sta)on  is  preserved  and  assigned  new  viable  func)ons,  the  site   needs  to  be  further  examined  for  the  extent  of  remedia)on  necessary,  building  integrity  and   structural  issues.  In  addi)on,  feasibility  studies,  a  financial  and  economic  assessment  for  future   reuse  should  be  conducted  along  with  an  extensive  dialogue  process  involving  Pilsen  residents,   local  organiza)ons,  representa)ves  from  community  business,  historical  preserva)on  organiza-­‐ )ons,  and  redevelopment  stakeholders.   The  following  recommenda)ons  for  the  site  have  been  determined  by  u)lizing  the  les-­‐ sons  presented  in  the  case  studies  featuring  the  adap)ve  reuse  of  power  plants  shown  in  Chap-­‐ ter  IV.  In  addi)on  to  the  site-­‐specific  details  explored  in  Chapter  V  and  Chapter  VI  were  u)lized.   These  recommenda)ons  are  by  no  means  meant  to  be  defini)ve.  Instead,  they  stand  as  sugges-­‐ )ons  which  hopefully  will  inspire  other  crea)ve  reuse  ideas  within  and  without  the  Pilsen  com-­‐ munity.     However,  regardless  of  specific  future  land  uses,  Fisk  Sta)on’s  buildings,  unique  charac-­‐ ter,  defining  architectural  features  should  be  preserved  and  restored.  In  addi)on,  new  func)ons   should  retain  Pilsen’s  cultural,  ethnic,  and  historic  values,  while  also  encouraging  posi)ve  com-­‐ munity  development  and  economic  growth.  The  recommenda)ons  are  as  follows:

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

160

1. AVain  Historic  Designa3on  Status  to  Preserve  Fisk  Sta3on’s  Buildings   As  discussed  in  Chapter  VI,  “Poten)al  for  Historic  Designa)on,”  Fisk  Sta)on  may  be  eligi-­‐ ble  for  lis)ng  under  the  Na)onal  Register  of  Historic  Places  or  obtain  Chicago  Landmark  status   due  to  its  dis)nct  architecture  and  historic  value.  Historic  designa)on  under  either  of  these   preserva)on  programs  may  be  vital  in  protec)ng  Fisk  Sta)on’s  buildings  from  demoli)on  and  to   fund  rehabilita)on  projects.   Historic  preserva)on  can  be  used  as  a  tool  for  economic  development  as  it  is  vital  in   providing  a  number  of  financial  mechanisms  for  rehabilita)ng  Fisk  Sta)on.  These  incen)ves  are   useful  in  offsejng  redevelopment  costs  and  to  ensure  the  site  will  be  transformed  into  a  bene-­‐ ficial  use  in  the  future.  For  further  informa)on  on  incen)ves,  refer  to  Chapter  II,  “Historic  Desig-­‐ na)on”  and  Chapter  VI,  “Poten)al  for  Historic  Designa)on.”  

 

 Fisk  Sta)on  offers  a  variety  of  unique  industrial  and  architectural  features  that  have  re-­‐

peatedly  preserved  in  the  adap)ve  reuse  of  other  power  plants  across  the  United  States.  While   industrial  equipment  once  used  for  genera)ng  electricity,  such  as  the  turbines,  smokestacks,   steam  pipes,  or  coal  hoppers,  may  seem  unfavorable  for  redevelopment,  other  adap)ve  reuse   projects  have  restored  selected  features  to  maintain  the  power  plant’s  iden)ty.  Projects  have   even  taken  advantage  of  these  characteris)cs  and  used  them  as  unique  marke)ng  tools.  Defin-­‐ ing  features  onsite  could  be  preserved.     One  defining  characteris)c  of  older  power  plants  is  their  spacious  turbine-­‐generator   halls,  which  provide  a  large  open  space  to  house  crea)ve  new  func)ons.  Fisk  Sta)on  actually   possesses  two  generator  rooms  due  to  the  1959  addi)on.  Select  industrial  equipment  or  other   invaluable  piece,  such  as  the  various  plaques  commemora)ng  the  site  anniversaries,  could  be   restored  to  showcase  the  site’s  past  in  electricity  genera)on.   Since  it  first  began  opera)ng  in  1903,  Fisk  Sta)on’s  buildings  have  been  repeatedly  al-­‐ tered. The  1959  turbine-­‐generator  room  addi)on  to  the  Original  Powerhouse,  which  contained   the  original  5  MW  turbine  and  thus  largely  represents  the  site’s  historic  significance,  is  the  most   prominent  example  of  all  the  site  renova)ons.  The  construc)on  of  the  large,  red  metal  clad   turbine-­‐generator  building  led  to  changes  in  interior  features,  the  deconstruc)on  of  the  original   boiler  room,  and  removal  of  several  smokestacks,  which  has  compromised  the  historic  integrity  
Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   161

of  the  exis)ng  buildings.  The  site’s  original  integrity  is  crucial  for  lis)ng  the  site  in  the  Na)onal   Register  of  Historic  Places  and  as  a  Chicago  Landmark.     However,  many  of  Fisk  Sta)on’s  historic  and  architectural  features  remain  on  the  site  to-­‐ day.  Though  the  1959  addi)on  dras)cally  changed  the  Original  Powerhouse’s  ini)al  form,  the   turbine  room  has  been  preserved  and  con)nues  to  exhibit  unique  interior  and  exterior  features   da)ng  back  to  its  construc)on  in  1903.  Other  buildings  onsite  seem  to  have  undergone  less   renova)ons.     The  fact  that  Fisk  Sta)on  has  con)nued  to  operate  since  1903  should  be  considered  in   designa)ng  the  site  historic.  From  its  need  to  con)nually  generate  greater  electricity,  the  power   plant  required  numerous  technologic  upgrades.  Stylis)cally  different  than  the  other  historic   buildings  onsite,  the  minimal,  modern  design  featured  in  the  1959  addi)on  to  the  Original  Pow-­‐ erhouse  architecturally  reflects  the  )me  it  was  constructed.  However,  this  building  alongside   the  loss  of  other  characteris)cs  due  to  renova)ons,  are  symbolic  of  Fisk  Sta)on’s  ongoing  func-­‐ )ons  that  lasted  for  over  a  century.   Due  to  its  more  recent  date  of  construc)on,  the  1959  addi)on  does  not  necessarily  rep-­‐ resent  the  site’s  architecture  or  significance  in  history.  Although  some  of  the  exis)ng  industrial   equipment  may  hold  a  degree  of  significance  and  could  be  showcased  in  an  adap)ve  reuse  pro-­‐ ject,  the  overall  structure  may  not  be  worth  saving.  Demoli)on  may  be  favorable  in  order  to  in-­‐ crease  open  space  along  the  Chicago  River,  house  new  ac)vi)es  onsite,  or  place  further  empha-­‐ sis  on  other  historic  buildings.  While  accommoda)ng  new  func)ons,  removing  this  structure   would  also  not  compromise  the  overall  integrity  of  the  site  and  its  separate  buildings.  However,   the  removal  of  the  1959  addi)on  may  be  difficult  if  the  Original  Powerhouse  is  preserved  be-­‐ cause  the  two  buildings  are  physically  connected  and  may  share  structural  features.     Yet,  despite  its  lack  of  historic  or  architectural  significance,  the  removal  of  the  1959  ad-­‐ di)on  would  be  to  selec)vely  edit  Fisk  Sta)on’s  chronological  development.  The  1959  turbine-­‐ generator  building  has  become  the  visual  representa)on  for  iden)fying  Fisk  Sta)on  due  to  its   size,  prominent  red  color,  outward  facing  posi)on,  and  smokestack  that  is  visible  from  many  dis-­‐ tant  parts  of  the  city.  If  preserved,  the  1959  addi)on  could  commemorate  Fisk  Sta)on’s  dis)nct   iden)ty,  opera)ons,  and  events.  The  building  could  also  pay  tribute  to  the  decade  of  ac)vism  by   environmental  and  community  organiza)ons  against  Fisk  Sta)on’s  pollu)on,  to  the  con)nual  

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

162

technological  upgrades  that  occurred  amer  the  original  5  MW  turbine’s  ini)al  success,  and  to   the  countless  employees  who  worked  at  the  site.  If  the  redevelopment  plans  for  Fisk  Sta)on  in-­‐ tend  to  preserve  the  building’s  more  recent  industrial  past,  the  red  metal  clad  structure  pro-­‐ vides  a  unique  visual  connec)on  and  memory  to  the  site.  

 

Without  historic  status,  Fisk  Sta)on  remains  unprotected  and  cannot  receive  necessary  

financial  aid  for  rehabilita)on.  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  addi)on,  a  few  of  the   buildings  on  site  are  rated  “orange”  on  the  City  of  Chicago’s  Historic  Resources  Survey.  Under   Chicago’s  Demoli)on-­‐Delay  Ordinance,  these  buildings  would  be  subject  for  review  during  a  90-­‐ day  hold  before  demoli)on,  but  only  provides  limited  protec)on  against  being  torn  down.  Be-­‐ cause  historic  designa)on  lis)ng  relies  heavily  on  local  poli)cal  support,  Fisk  Sta)on’s  preserva-­‐ )on  must  also  seek  to  obtain  aldermanic  and  officials’  support.     In  order  to  advocate  for  the  historic  preserva)on  of  Fisk  Sta)on,  residents,  community   organiza)ons,  preserva)on  groups,  and  city  officials  should  be  involved  to  understand  the  site’s   historical  and  architectural  significance  and  ensure  it  is  protected  in  the  future.  If  necessary,   methods  to  advocate  for  preserva)on  could  include  a  lecer  wri)ng  pe))on,  gaining  support  by   elected  officials  and  city  officials,  mee)ng  with  the  current  owner  Midwest  Genera)on  to  dis-­‐ cuss  preserva)on,  direc)ng  preserva)on  groups  and  community  organiza)ons  to  lead  cam-­‐ paign,  or  holding  public  events.   Although  the  discussed  renova)ons  and  alterna)ons  may  pose  a  challenge  in  designat-­‐ ing  the  site  historic,  Fisk  Sta)on’s  buildings  may  s)ll  be  eligible.  Because  Fisk  Sta)on  contains   numerous  buildings,  it  is  possible  that  only  selected  buildings  could  be  listed.  However,  these   historic  buildings  should  be  collec)vely  preserved  as  they  all  once  contributed  to  the  site’s  op-­‐ era)ons  and  significance.  Many  of  the  historic  buildings  s)ll  possess  their  essen)al  physical  fea-­‐ tures  and  dis)nct  architectural  quali)es  that  convey  their  significance  within  the  en)re  power   plant.  Even  though  building  features  have  been  stripped  over  the  power  plant’s  life)me,  historic   designa)on  will  help  ensure  the  unique  characteris)cs  will  not  be  lost  in  the  future.  

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

163

2. Subdivide  the  Property  for  Mixed  Land  Uses   Fisk  Sta)on’s  large  site  size  and  various  historic  buildings  allows  for  a  range  of  new,  crea-­‐ )ve  land  use  op)ons.  Mixed-­‐uses  may  be  the  most  beneficial  op)on  rather  than  a  single  pur-­‐ pose  as  it  would  take  advantage  of  the  site’s  unique  layout  and  could  serve  all  stakeholders  in-­‐ volved,  par)cularly  residents.     Each  historic  building  onsite  could  one  day  hold  different  purposes.  The  diversity  in  each   building’s  acributes,  such  as  square  footages,  layout,  or  loca)on  on  the  site,  should  be  studied   further  for  decision  making.  The  unique  buildings  features  should  be  u)lized  to  assign  the  best   new  uses,  that  realis)cally  fit  into  the  spaces,  and  to  acract  poten)al  tenants.  For  example,  the   Original  Powerhouse  contains  a  large  turbine-­‐generator  room  with  tall  ceilings  and  ornate  inte-­‐ rior  details.  The  poten)al  uses  of  the  Original  Powerhouse  would  no  doubt  differ  from  the  Fre-­‐ quency  Changer  House,  which  is  much  smaller  in  size  and  located  closer  to  the  remaining  sub-­‐ sta)on  and  Chicago  River.  Overall,  redevelopment  should  take  full  advantage  of  the  poten)al   create  uses  of  Fisk  Sta)on’s  unique  buildings  and  layout.     Rehabilita)ng  Fisk  Sta)on’s  historic  structures  into  market  uses  should  be  a  priority  in   terms  of  restoring  the  loss  in  employment  and  tax  revenues.  In  order  to  con)nue  to  support  the   city’s  tax  base  and  surrounding  community,  there  is  substan)al  pressure  for  the  redevelopment   project  to  create  an  equal  or  larger  amount  of  revenue  and  employment  opportuni)es  than   those  offset  by  Fisk  Sta)on’s  re)rement.  Remedia)on,  rehabilita)on,  and  construc)on  on  the   site  can  generate  diverse  types  of  temporary  jobs  while  the  final  redevelopment  project  will  re-­‐ quire  permanent  employment  posi)ons.  Acrac)ons  geared  toward  tourists  may  also  be  a  con-­‐ siderable  op)on  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.  Understanding  the  local  context  and  public  role  is   vital  in  crea)ng  new,  valuable,  and  economically  viable  building  func)ons.  To  ensure  Fisk  Sta-­‐ )on’s  reuse  support  Pilsen’s  future  prosperity,  residents’  input,  unmet  needs,  and  Pilsen’s  long-­‐ term  goals  should  be  examined.  The  market  for  poten)al  tenants  and  an  assessment  of  the  fu-­‐ ture  prices  for  services  in  rela)on  to  residents’  need  and  affordability  should  also  be  evaluated.     Regardless  of  the  specific  future  func)ons,  general  redevelopment  goals  for  Fisk  Sta)on   should  include  preserving  and  strengthening  Pilsen’s  cultural  and  historic  character,  incorporat-­‐
Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   164

ing  environmentally-­‐friendly  uses  for  residents  to  enjoy,  providing  affordable  services  to  be  used   by  residents,  encouraging  posi)ve  community  investment,  and  triggering  economic  growth.   Overall,  Fisk  Sta)on  should  play  a  suppor)ve  role  in  Pilsen’s  future  and  avoid  magnifying   gentrifica)on  in  the  area.  The  gentrifica)on  processes  occurring  in  Pilsen-­‐-­‐specifically  upscale   development  projects  and  the  conversion  of  industrial  spaces  into  ar)st  work  spaces  or  resi-­‐ den)al  loms-­‐-­‐places  Fisk  Sta)on  in  a  precarious  situa)on.  The  site’s  large  acreage  and  water-­‐ front  access  deems  it  an  acrac)ve,  valuable  property  for  private  real  estate  developers.  Given   that  the  planning  process  for  redevelopment  has  only  just  begun,  it  is  difficult  to  chart  a  course   for  Fisk  Sta)on’s  future  role  in  the  community.  But  Fisk  Sta)on  should  not  become  part  of  the   current  trend  in  demoli)on  or  the  conversion  of  industrial  spaces  oriented  toward  higher-­‐ income  popula)ons.  Instead,  Fisk  Sta)on’s  new  land  uses  could  be  alloced  to  both  public  and   private  purposes.     Mixed-­‐use  development  also  may  be  crucial  in  dispersing  project  costs  over  )me  and  in   enhancing  project  feasibility.  Because  Fisk  Sta)on  possesses  a  large  site  size,  a  unique  layout,   and  separate  buildings,  redevelopment  could  occur  in  phases.  Remedia)ng  or  rehabilita)ng  one   building  or  land  parcel  at  a  )me  may  lessen  the  financial  risk  due  to  con)nually  monitoring   changes  in  the  marketplace  and  ensuring  funding  will  be  available  over  the  long-­‐run.  In  addi-­‐ )on,  a  coordinated,  staged  process  could  also  help  avoid  the  vacancy  of  all  buildings  for  pro-­‐ longed  periods  and  providing  addi)onal  )me  to  deal  with  other  site  problems.  For  example,  the   site  is  divided  in  a  complicated  manner  in  terms  of  ownership.  ComEd  owns  transmission  and   electric  lines,  a  substa)on,  and  others  structures  located  throughout  the  site.  Thus,  if  the  site  is   developed,  electric  lines  may  need  to  be  rerouted.  Phased  development  could  allow  for  some   por)ons  of  the  site  to  operate,  while  simultaneously  addressing  other  problems  or  planning  as-­‐ pects  in  different  areas  or  buildings.   However,  the  ques)on  remains  in  how  to  make  Fisk  Sta)on  a  purposeful  place  for  all  to   benefit  and  learn  from.  Specific  land  use  op)ons  could  include  new  light  industrial  ac)vity,  small   businesses,  waterfront  access  and  parks,  or  a  museum  or  cultural  center.  Based  on  its  current   zoning  and  loca)on,  Fisk  Sta)on  is  ideal  for  housing  new  industrial  ac)vi)es.  But  zoning  changes   to  allow  other  civic  uses  may  also  prove  beneficial  to  the  community.  

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

165

 

Collec)vely,  the  poten)al  new  land  and  building  uses  discussed  below  could  provide  dif-­‐

ferent  types  of  jobs  and  various  ameni)es  to  Pilsen  residents.  These  recommended  purposes   are  explained  in  greater  detail  below.  

Industrial  and  Small  Business  Development  With  an  Emphasis  on  Sustainability   Fisk  Sta)on’s  future  land  uses  need  to  be  considered  in  terms  of  zoning  restric)ons.  Due   its  current  loca)on  within  Pilsen’s  Planned  Manufacturing  District  (PMD)  and  its  surrounding   industrial  opera)ons,  industrial  opera)ons  remain  an  ideal  future  use.  Fisk  Sta)on  could  poten-­‐ )ally  be  transformed  into  a  sustainable  manufacturing  facility  in  order  to  create  green  jobs  and   foster  Pilsen’s  economic  growth.  Because  it  is  surrounded  by  a  variety  of  industrial  businesses,   the  site  could  also  poten)ally  work  with  nearby  industrial  businesses  in  terms  of  materials,  divi-­‐ sion  of  labor,  or  the  like.  A  green  manufacturing  facility  is  a  feasible  op)on  as  this  type  of  land   use  is  permiced  under  the  current  PMD  status  and  some  of  the  exis)ng  industrial  equipment   could  poten)ally  be  reused.  In  addi)on,  because  Fisk  is  currently  connected  to  the  electric  grid   through  its  exis)ng  infrastructure,  renewable  energy  genera)on  could  more  easily  be  integrated   into  redevelopment  designs.     Finally,  Fisk  Sta)on  could  also  serve  as  a  loca)on  for  sustainable  workforce,  technology,   or  business  development  in  order  to  support  green  job  training,  entrepreneurship,  and  manu-­‐ facturing  growth.  Large  buildings,  such  as  the  Administra)on  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  Redevelopment   Pilsen  has  historically  lacked  parks  and  open  spaces  due  to  its  density  and  development   pacerns.  In  addi)on,  much  of  the  Chicago  River  is  closed  off  and  inaccessible  due  to  industrial   opera)ons.  Today,  “Many  locals  have  a  contradictory  or  complicated  ajtude  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  jus)fied.  Winding   through  industrial  areas  and  city  fleet  management  vehicle  depots,  the  stretch  of  waterway  on   either  side  of  the  Racine  Avenue  Pumping  Sta)on  in  Bridgeport  is  elusive,  its  banks  mostly   blocked  and  obscured  by  chain-­‐link  fencing,  thick  vegeta)on,  and  imposing  old  brick  buildings.”1

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

166

 

Similarly,  Fisk  Sta)on  has  been  closed  off  to  residents  for  decades.  However,  a  por)on  of  

the  site  could  poten)ally  be  transformed  into  a  publicly  accessible  park,  which  features  green   space  and  trails.  Because  Fisk  is  located  on  the  South  Branch  of  the  Chicago  River,  it  remains  a   valuable  property  that  could  provide  future  waterfront  access,  open  space,  and  recrea)onal  ac-­‐ )vi)es  to  residents.   Two  proper)es,  zoned  as  Planned  Developments  (PD),  are  located  to  the  east  of  Fisk   Sta)on  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  distribu)on  warehouse  at  929  W.  Cermak  Road.  The  riverside   path  on  the  PD  parcels  to  the  east  offer  the  poten)al  to  extend  the  trail  and  green  space  to   Fisk’s  waterfront.  Building  a  con)guous  natural  open  space  would  welcome  pedestrian  traffic,   further  enhance  the  area’s  environmental  quality,  benefit  the  community.  Because  Pilsen  lacks   parks  and  natural  open  spaces,  adding  a  public  river  walk  is  essen)al.  Fisk  Sta)on  could  also  prove  importa)on  in  changing  the  percep)on  and  nature  of  the  Chicago   River  in  Pilsen.  The  site  could  help  improve  upon  the  health  and  well-­‐being  of  residents  by  pro-­‐ viding  recrea)onal  outdoor  ac)vi)es,  such  as  sports  fields,  canoeing,  kayaking,  picnic  areas,  or   fishing.  Instead  of  pollu)ng  Pilsen  and  restric)ng  access  to  the  river,  Fisk  Sta)on  could  one  day   provide  a  place  for  families  to  enjoy  nature,  learn  about  na)ve  plants  and  urban  wildlife,  and   spend  )me  together.     Fisk  Sta)on  could  poten)ally  be  connected  to  Chicago’s  water  transporta)on  system,   making  the  site  an  new  entry  point  for  Pilsen.  This  may  include  extending  river  taxis,  architec-­‐ tural  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  Founda)on  President  and  CEO,  has  discussed  extending  the   organiza)on’s  boat  tours  to  Pilsen.2  The  Founda)on’s  architectural  boat  tour  is  used  by  200,000   people  per  year,  producing  $5  million  in  revenue  for  the  company,  not  including  the  addi)onal   indirect  impacts  related  to  tourism.  Osmond  states: Right  now,  the  majority  of  the  ac)vity  around  the  river  is  contained  downtown,  but  that   could  be  addressed…The  plan  is  to  con)nue  that,  ideally  all  the  way  to  Pilsen,  so  that   you  end  up  with  a  con)nuous  flow  across  the  city…With  Pilsen,  if  you  had  something  to  
Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   167

show  along  the  river,  people  would  start  to  see  the  area  as  an  asset...It  would  be  fabu-­‐ lous  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  build-­‐ ings  in  the  last  20  years,  a  major  propor)on  around  the  river  has  been  built  since  then.   Their  success  is  clearly  connected.”3   Connec)ng  Pilsen  to  Chicago’s  transporta)on  and  tourist  system  at  Fisk  Sta)on  could  

spur  addi)onal  economic  development  in  the  neighborhood,  draw  more  visitors  to  tour  the  Pil-­‐ sen  Historic  District,  and  also  provide  a  new  transit  route  for  residents.     With  new  green  spaces  and  a  water  transit  system,  Fisk  Sta)on  could  become  a  dis)n-­‐ guished  site  for  both  Pilsen  and  Chicago.  It  has  the  poten)al  to  become  a  des)na)on,  that   draws  in  both  community  residents  and  tourist,  while  also  providing  an  exci)ng  place  to  visit   and  enjoy.  

Museum  or  Educa3on  Center   One  of  Fisk  Sta)on’s  historic  buildings  could  poten)ally  house  a  museum  or  educa)onal  

center  to  celebrate  the  history  of  Fisk  Sta)on  or  Pilsen’s  ethnic  or  cultural  past.  A  museum  or   educa)on  center  is  ideal  as  it  could  create  year-­‐round  jobs  and  provide  a  learning  environment   for  both  residents  and  tourists.     One  poten)al  op)on  would  include  crea)ng  a  museum  dedicated  to  the  site’s  industrial   history  and  the  growth  of  electricity,  which  perhaps  is  affiliated  with  Chicago’s  Museum  of  Sci-­‐ ence  and  Industry.  In  addi)on  to  crea)ng  a  place  for  all  people  to  learn  about  electricity’s  de-­‐ velopment  and  technologic  innova)ons,  Fisk  Sta)on  would  also  service  as  a  memorial  to  the   power  plant’s  role  within  the  industry.  Besides  the  historic  buildings,  a  number  of  historic  ar)-­‐ facts  remain  at  the  site  today.  For  example,  industrial  equipment  related  to  past  coal  opera)ons,   the  memorial  garden  which  commemorates  past  employees  and  firefighters  that  have  lost  their   lives  in  industrial  accidents,  historic  photographs,  and  large  metal  plagues  that  celebrated  vari-­‐ ous  site  anniversaries  could  be  preserved  and  restored  within  a  museum.  The  original  guest-­‐ book  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  honoring  and  remem-­‐ bering  the  importance  of  Fisk  Sta)on,  but  also  in  educa)ng  the  public  on  the  site’s  past.  
Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   168

 

Although  the  original  5  MW  turbine  has  been  removed  from  the  site,  it  has  been  pre-­‐

served  and  remains  at  General  Electric’s  headquarters  in  New  York.  The  5  MW  turbine  was  a   daring  innova)on  for  its  day  and  led  to  Fisk  Sta)on’s  success.  As  a  result,  the  turbine  has  been   designated  na)onal  engineering  landmark  by  the  American  Society  of  Mechanical  Engineers.   General  Electric  could  return  the  5  MW  turbine  to  Fisk  Sta)on  for  public  display  and  to  com-­‐ memorate  the  power  plant’s  past.  Preserving  both  the  industrial  and  non-­‐industrial  ar)facts  in   Fisk  Sta)on  would  provide  a  unique  educa)onal  experience  for  Pilsen  residents  and  visitors.   Addi)onally,  a  museum  could  also  be  geared  toward  honoring  Pilsen’s  various  cultures   and  immigrant,  working-­‐class  groups  that  have  greatly  influenced  the  neighborhood’s  develop-­‐ ment.  A  facility  of  this  type  could  also  adopt  a  broader  historic  focus  in  related  to  Pilsen’s  His-­‐ toric  District  and  provide  walking  tours  to  nearby  historic  landmarks  and  shops.  A  museum   dedicated  to  Pilsen’s  culture  and  history  will  help  promote  addi)onal  business  opportuni)es   and  heritage  tourism.     The  crea)on  of  a  museum  in  one  of  Fisk  Sta)on’s  buildings  would  welcome  pedestrian   ac)vity.  Thus,  addi)onal  ameni)es,  such  as  cafes,  ar)st  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  Sta)on’s  buildings  were  to  be  reused  as  a  museum,  the  space  should  also  be  u)lized  to   house  neighborhood  ac)vi)es  and  support.  Although  tourism  is  important  in  strengthening  Pil-­‐ sen’s  economic  growth, Tourist  ini)a)ves  can  be  damaging  to  communi)es,  such  as  Pilsen,  where  low-­‐income   residents  are  struggling  for  resources;  these  resources  are  instead  being  funneled  to   support  people  who  enter  the  community  for  a  brief  period  of  )me,  consume  and  ab-­‐ sorb  certain  aspects  of  it,  and  then  leave  it  to  its  own  self-­‐preserva)on  and  the  omen   pollu)ng  effects  of  this  tourism....Tourism,  however,  as  a  primary  local  development  tac-­‐ )c  may  carry  the  danger  of  solely  providing  an  experience  to  the  tourist  while  ignoring   factors  influencing  quality  of  life  for  its  residents.4 Thus,  tourism  should  not  be  priori)zed  over  exis)ng  residents,  but  instead  alongside  commu-­‐ nity  support.  A  cultural  center  could  house  mee)ngs,  public  events,  fes)vals,  and  exhibi)ons.  In   addi)on,  other  community  resources  and  services,  such  as  job  training  or  placement,  could  be   provided.     Fisk  Sta)on  presents  a  rare  opportunity  in  promo)ng  an  understanding  and  educa)on  of   electricity,  immigrant  popula)ons,  and  Pilsen’s  historic  aspects.  Industrial  equipment  that  once  
Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   169

helped  in  the  power  plant’s  opera)ons  along  with  other  historic  ar)facts  that  remain  at  the  site   today.  These  unique  features  are  vital  in  conveying  informa)on  on  Fisk  Sta)on’s  rich  legacy  and   paying  tribute  to  its  past.  At  the  same  )me,  Fisk  Sta)on  can  also  house  valuable  community   spaces  that  support  Pilsen  residents  and  their  cultural  ac)vi)es.

Moving  Toward  a  Mixed-­‐Use  Future   These  proposed  uses  demonstrate  the  extraordinary  possibili)es  in  assigning  Fisk  Sta)on   diverse  and  crea)ve  land  op)ons.  Amer  a  detailed  site  analysis,  feasibility  studies  should  be   conducted  to  iden)fy  the  site’s  true  market  poten)al  and  ensure  that  the  land  use  op)ons  ad-­‐ here  to  the  community’s  needs. 3.  Integrate  Sustainable  Design  and  Purposes  Into  the  Site’s  Final  Uses   Fisk  Sta)on’s  historic  preserva)on  should  be  implemented  alongside  sustainable  design.   Fisk  Sta)on  should  follow  in  the  footsteps  of  other  adap)ve  reuse  cases  that  have  successfully   restored  a  power  plant’s  original  features,  while  also  retrofijng  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-­‐cer)fied  structures.  Addi)onally,  these  facili)es   have  even  integrated  sustainability  into  their  new  building  func)ons,  such  as  in  the  case  of  a   charter  school’s  curriculum.     Green  infrastructure  and  design  could  include  energy  produc)on  via  a  geothermal  sys-­‐ tem  or  solar  panels,  retroficed  historic  windows,  storm  water  management,  energy  efficient   hea)ng  and  cooling  systems,  green  roods,  onsite  urban  agriculture.  These  sustainable  elements   should  be  used  to  showcase  innova)ve  solu)ons  in  reu)lizing  industrial  power  plants  and  how   contaminated  sites  can  be  repurposed  for  a  cleaner  future.  In  addi)on,  because  the  site  is   zoned  for  industrial  ac)vity,  the  site  could  also  poten)ally  house  businesses  that  manufacture   sustainable-­‐based  products  or  technology.   Given  the  site’s  history  of  pollu)on,  sustainable  aspects  should  be  incorporated  into  Fisk   Sta)on’s  future  land  uses  to  improve  upon  residents’  quality  of  health  and  the  exis)ng  envi-­‐ ronment.  Fisk  Sta)on  should  become  a  city  acrac)on  that  demonstrates  how  a  dirty  power  

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

170

plant  can  be  successfully  transformed  into  an  environmentally-­‐friendly,  vibrant  space  that  en-­‐ gages  public  ac)vity. 4.  Mul3-­‐Stakeholder  Involvement   Mul)-­‐stakeholder  involvement  is  key  in  redeveloping  Fisk  Sta)on,  regardless  of  who  is   direc)ng  or  funding  the  project.  The  city,  elected  officials,  private  developers,  preserva)on   firms,  Midwest  Genera)on,  engineers,  architects,  neighborhood  organiza)ons,  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  exper)se  and  perspec)ves,  as  well   as  to  gain  community,  poli)cal,  or  financial  support  to  move  redevelopment  forward.     However,  each  of  these  stakeholders  will  have  different  goals  and  objec)ves  for  future   use.  For  example,  the  site  owner,  a  real  estate  developer  would  be  most  interested  in  obtaining   the  best  return  on  an  investment,  a  preserva)on  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  Sta)on’s  final  use  should  try  to  sa)sfy  most,  if  not  all,  interests  involved,  but   should  also  place  addi)onal  emphasis  for  Pilsen  residents  and  community  organiza)ons  as  the   final  land  reuse  would  affect  them  most.   Thus,  public  engagement  is  crucial  for  the  site’s  success  and  the  process  must  be  opened   to  all  residents  for  their  input  on  the  future  land  uses.  Fisk  Sta)on  played  an  important  role  in   Pilsen’s  local  history  and  economy,  through  providing  employment,  revenue,  and  other  financial   assistance.  In  addi)on,  the  pollu)on  generated  by  the  power  plant  was  a  major  historical  con-­‐ cern  for  residents  and  community  organiza)ons,  which  triggered  over  a  decade  of  protests.  The   redevelopment  project  within  Pilsen  should  strive  to  preserve  historic  and  cultural  iden)ty   while  also  mee)ng  the  community’s  needs.  

5.  Compe33ve  Project  Proposals   Because  Fisk  Sta)on  will  no  longer  generate  electricity  by  the  end  of  2012,  new  crea)ve   uses  must  be  assigned  to  the  property.  As  stated  in  the  previous  recommenda)on,  a  variety  of   par)cipants  should  be  included  in  the  redevelopment  process.  Specifically,  community  organi-­‐ za)ons,  students  and  departments  from  nearby  Chicago  universi)es,  local  architectural  design  

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

171

companies,  and  engineering  firms  should  be  encouraged  to  engage  in  the  process  through  de-­‐ signing  site  proposals  or  providing  exper)se  on  various  topics.     Specially,  a  contest  for  the  future  land  uses  or  architectural  designs  could  be  opened  to   the  public,  community  organiza)ons,  and  poten)al  businesses.  These  types  of  proposals  are   vital  in  iden)fying  unseen  crea)ve  and  innova)ve  ideas  to  be  used  for  finding  unique  future   reuse  op)ons.  A  compe))ve  contest  would  help  create  a  vision  for  the  site’s  future  and  allow   the  public  to  par)cipate  in  the  planning  process.

6.  Crea3ve  Designs  for  the  Exis3ng  Substa3on   While  the  redevelopment  of  Fisk  Sta)on  would  entail  removing  various  industrial   equipment  that  once  aided  electricity  genera)on,  the  electrical  substa)on,  owned  by  ComEd,  is   to  remain  on  the  site  amer  the  power  plant  re)res.  The  substa)on  presents  aesthe)c  and  safety   challenges  for  certain  future  land  uses  at  Fisk  Sta)on.  High  voltage  substa)ons  also  need  to  be   secured  to  ensure  the  public  is  protected  from  harms  or  possible  malfunc)ons.       However,  crea)ve  solu)ons  can  help  merge  electrical  opera)ons  with  a  future  increase   in  pedestrian  or  economic  ac)vity.  For  example,  in  Aus)n,  Texas,  the  substa)on  at  Seaholm   Power  Plant  will  be  concealed  with  a  wall.  Addi)onal  informa)on  on  the  adap)ve  reuse  of  this   site  is  discussed  in  Chapter  IV.  Instead  of  a  conven)onal  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.5  Aus)n  City  Hall  has  approved  the  construc)on  of  a  12  to  25   foot  wall  at  an  es)mated  cost  of  $800,000.  The  preliminary  drawings  for  the  wall  are  shown  in   Fig.  7.1-­‐7.4.  The  costs  will  be  primarily  funded  by  the  property  owner,  Aus)n  Energy.  The  re-­‐ maining  costs  will  come  from  Aus)n’s  Art  in  Public  Places  program,  which  requires  designated   funds  for  city  art  projects.     Seaholm  Power  Plant’s  redevelopment  is  to  include  new  stores,  a  hotel,  residences,  and   an  event  space,  which  will  increase  overall  ac)vity  in  the  area.  As  a  result,  the  wall  is  important   in  crea)ng  a  pedestrian  friendly  environment  for  enhanced  safety,  while  also  serving  as  an  at-­‐ trac)on.  Rather  than  remaining  visually  unacrac)ve  or  dangerous,  the  wall  benefits  both  visi-­‐ tors  and  those  who  live  or  work  near  Seaholm  Power  Plant.

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

172

 

Fisk  Sta)on  could  poten)ally  follow  a  solu)on  like  the  one  provided  by  Seaholm  Power  

Plant  that  transformed  an  ordinary  chain-­‐linked  fence  into  an  ar)s)c,  unique  wall.  Addi)onally,   a  substa)on  wall  surrounding  the  substa)on  at  Fisk  Sta)on  could  take  advantage  of  Pilsen’s  ar-­‐ )s)c  resources  and  contribute  to  Pilsen’s  ethnic  heritage.  The  wall  could  complement  the   neighborhood’s  La)no-­‐inspired  murals  and  mosaics,  that  have  long  reflected  the  values  of  Pilsen   residents.
Substation Art Wall

Substation Art Wall Southeast Corner at Shoal Creek and the planned 2nd Street Bridge

14 14

5’

West Wall at planned West Avenue Extension, across the street from Seaholm Development. 5’ 0” minimum clear pedestrian way planned for east side of West Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   Avenue
18

173

18

Substation Art Wall

NIGHT. Southwest Wall at planned 2nd Street and West Avenue, across the street from the Seaholm Power Plant. Substation Art Wall
17 17

Fig.  7.1-­‐7.4:  Preliminary  Designs  for  the  substa)on  Wall  at  Seaholm  Power  Plant.   Image  by  NADAAA,  “Seaholm  Substa)on  Wall,  Art  In  Public  Places  Project:  Schema)c  Design  Updated  Rendering,”   25 East Wall along Shoal Creek Trail. resenta)on  to  the  City  Council,  February  9,  2012.   NADAAA,  P
25

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

174

Conclusion   Many  power  plants  across  the  United  States  today  have  been  converted  into  valuable   community  spaces  and  remain  impressive  educa)onal  resources  on  the  history  of  electricity.   The  redevelopment  of  Fisk  Sta)on  should  follow  similar  footsteps  of  past  successful  examples   by  showcasing  the  future  civic,  economic,  and  recrea)onal  value  of  repurposing  power  plants.      It  is  crucial  to  note  that  Fisk  Sta)on  offers  valuable  redevelopment  opportuni)es  that   can  drive  employment  and  preserve  community  iden)ty  while  improving  public  and  environ-­‐ mental  health.  Transforming  Fisk  Sta)on  from  an  old,  pollu)ng  coal-­‐fired  power  plant  into  a  vital   neighborhood  landmark  would  showcase  posi)ve  community  investment,  celebrate  current  cul-­‐ tural  values,  and  promote  a  healthy,  sustainable  future  for  Chicago.   These  featured  recommenda)ons  highlight  the  immense  possibili)es  for  Fisk  Sta)on,   but  are  no  means  intended  to  define  the  site’s  future.  The  extraordinary  opportuni)es  remain   to  be  seen  for  Pilsen  and  for  Chicago  at  large.  However,  if  preserved  and  reused  for  posi)ve   purposes,  Fisk  Sta)on’s  historic  buildings  can  become  a  valuable  asset  to  Chicago,  illustra)ng   crea)ve  outcomes  alongside  historic  preserva)on.  The  site  should  con)nue  to  honor  the  inge-­‐ nuity  and  moderniza)on  in  the  electric  industry  while  also  providing  new  economic  benefits   and  an  exci)ng  place  to  visit.  What  was  once  the  largest  steam  genera)ng  plant  in  the  world   should  one  day  serve  future  genera)ons  without  erasing  the  past.  

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

175

Chapter  VII:  Sec3on  Endnotes
1  Jeanne  Gang,  Reverse  Effect:  Renewing  Chicago's  Waterways  (Chicago:  Studio  Gang  Architects,  2011),  99. 2  Jeanne  Gang,  Reverse  Effect:  Renewing  Chicago's  Waterways  (Chicago:  Studio  Gang  Architects,  2011),  35. 3  Ibid.
4  Ibid.,  28-­‐29.

5  Kayla  Jonsson,  “Aus)n  Energy  finances  wall  art  for  Seaholm  Power  Plant,”  The  Daily  Texan,  February  15,  2012.  

hcp://www.dailytexanonline.com/news/2012/02/15/aus)n-­‐energy-­‐finances-­‐wall-­‐art-­‐seaholm-­‐power-­‐plant

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

176

Appendix   PMD  (Planned  Manufacturing  District) Use  Table  and  Standards PMD  11,  Subdistrict  A City  of  Chicago  Zoning  Ordinance,  17-­‐6-­‐0403-­‐F,  Supp.  No.  15 P  =  Permiced  by  Right   S  =  Special  Use  Approval  Required   PD  =  Planned  Development  Approval  Required     -­‐ =  not  allowed
Public  And  Civic A.  Day  Care B.  Deten)on  and  Correc)onal  Facili)es   C.  Parks  and  Recrea)on  (except  as  more  specifically  regulated) 1.  Community  Centers,  Recrea)on  Buildings  and  Similar  Assembly  Use 2.  Community  Garden D.  Postal  Service E.  Public  Safety  Services F.  U)li)es  and  Services,  Minor U)li)es  and  Services,  Major Commercial H.  Adult  Use I.  Animal  Services 1.  Shelters/Boarding  Kennels 2.  Sales  and  Grooming 3.  Veterinary 4.  Stables J.  Ar)st  Work  Space K.  Building  Maintenance  Services P -­‐ S P -­‐ P -­‐ -­‐ -­‐ S -­‐ -­‐ P P P P

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

177

L.  Business  Support  Services 1.Copying  and  Reproduc)on Business/Trade  School 3.  Day  Labor  Employment  Agency 4.  Employment  Agencies M.  Urban  Farm 1.  Indoor  Opera)on 2.  Outdoor  Opera)on 3.  Roomop  Opera)on N.  Communica)on  Service  Establishments O.  Construc)on  Sales  and  Service 1.  Building  Material  Sales 2.  Contract/Construc)on  Storage  Yard P.  Drive-­‐Through  Facility Q.  Ea)ng  and  Drinking  Establishment 1.  Restaurant,  Limited 2.  Restaurant,  General 3.  Tavern R.  Entertainment  and  Spectator  Sports 1.  Small  Venue 2.  Medium  Venue 3.  Inter-­‐Track  Wagering  Facility   4. Indoor  Special  Event  Class  A,  including  incidental  liquor  sales 5.  Indoor  Special  Event  Class  B,  including  incidental  liquor  sales S.  Financial  Services  (except  as  more  specifically  regulated) 1.  Consumer  Loan  Establishment -­‐ -­‐ S P P P -­‐ P P P P P -­‐ P P P P P P P

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

178

2.  Payday  Loan  Store 3.  Pawn  Shop T.  Food  and  Beverage  Retail  Sales U.  Gas  Sta)ons V.  Medical  Service W.  Office  (except  more  specifically  regulated) 1.  High  Technology  Office 2.  Electronic  Data  Storage  Center X.  Parking,  Non-­‐Accessory Y.  Personal  Service Z.  Repair  or  Laundry  Service,  Consumer AA.  Residen)al  Storage  Warehouse BB.  Retail  Sales,  General CC.  Sports  and  Recrea)on,  Par)cipant DD.  Schools,  Elementary  and  High  (non-­‐boarding) EE.  Vehicle  Sale  and  Service 1.  Auto  Supply/Accessory  Sales 2.  Car  Wash  or  Cleaning  Service 3.  Heavy  Equipment  Sales/Rental 4.  Light  Equipment  Sales/Rental  (e.g.,  auto,  motorcycle  and  boat  sales) 5.  Motor  Vehicle  Repair  Shop,  not  including  body  work,  pain)ng  or  commercial   vehicle  repairs 6.  Motor  Vehicle  Repair  Shop,  may  include  body  work,  pain)ng  or  commercial   vehicle  repairs 7.  Vehicle  Storage  and  Towing 8.  RVs  or  Boat  Storage Industrial

-­‐ -­‐ P S P P P P P P P S P -­‐ -­‐

-­‐ S P -­‐ P P P P

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

179

FF.  Manufacturing,  Produc)on  and  Industrial  Service 1.  Ar)san  (on-­‐site  produc)on  of  goods  by  hand  manufacturing,  involving  the   use  of  hand  tools  and  small-­‐scale,  light  mechanical  equipment)   2.  Limited  (manufacturing  of  finished  parts  of  products,  primarily  from  previ-­‐ ously  prepared  materials) 3.  General  (all  manufacturing-­‐-­‐except  intensive  manufacturing-­‐-­‐of  finished  or   unfinished  products,  primarily  from  extracted  or  raw  materials,  or  recycled  or   secondary  materials,  or  bulk  storage  and  handling  of  such  products) 4.  Intensive  (manufacturing  of  acetylene,  cement  lime,  gypsum  or  plaster-­‐of-­‐   paris,  chlorine,  corrosive  acid  or  fer)lizer,  insec)cides,  disinfectants,  poisons,   explosives,  paint,  lacquer,  varnish,  petroleum  products,  coal  products,  plas)c   and  synthe)c  resins  and  radioac)ve  materials) GG.  Mining/Excava)on HH.  Recycling  Facili)es 1.  Class  I 2.  Class  II 3.  Class  III 4.  Class  IVA 5.  Class  IVB 6.  Class  V II.  Warehouse  and  Freight  Movement  (except  as  more  specifically  regulated) 1.  Container  Storage 2.  Freight  Terminal 3.  Outdoor  Storage  or  Raw  Materials  as  a  Principal  Use JJ.  Waste-­‐Related  Use 1.  Hazardous  Materials  Disposal  or  Storage 2.  Incinerators 3.  Incinerators,  Municipal 4.  Liquid  Waste  Handling  Facili)es 5.  Reprocessable  Construc)on/Demoli)on  Material  Facility
Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

P P P

P

-­‐

P P S S S S P P P P

S -­‐ S S S
180

6.  Resource  Recovery  Facili)es 7.  Sanitary  Landfills 8.  Transfer  Sta)ons 9.  Modified  Transfer  Sta)ons Other LL.  Wireless  Communica)on  Facili)es   1.  Co-­‐located 2  .Free-­‐standing  (Towers)

S S S S

S P P

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

181

Bibliography
Advisory  Council  on  Historic  Preserva)on.  Sustainability  and  Historic  Federal  Buildings.  Wash-­‐ ington  D.C.,  May  2,  2011.   hcp://www.preserva)onna)on.org/issues/sustainability/green-­‐lab/valuing-­‐building-­‐reu se.html American  Clean  Skies  Founda)on.  Repurposing  Legacy  Power  Plants:  Lessons  For  the  Future.   American  Clean  Skies  Founda)on,  August  2011. American  Ins)tute  of  Electrical  Engineers.  The  Chicago  Electrical  Handbook.  Chicago:  American   Ins)tute  of  Electrical  Engineers,  1904.   hcp://openlibrary.org/books/OL23413423M/The_Chicago_electrical_handbook American  Society  of  Mechanical  Engineers.  “ The  First  500-­‐Kilowac  Cur)s  Ver)cal  Steam  Tur-­‐ bine:  An  Interna)onal  Historic  Mechanical  Engineering  Landmark.”  The  American  Society   of  Mechanical  Engineers,  July  23,  1990.   hcp://files.asme.org/ASMEORG/Communi)es/History/Landmarks/5527.pdf Arredondo.  Gabriela  F.  “Lower  West  Side.”  In  Encyclopedia  of  Chicago,  edited  by  Janice  L.  Reiff,   Ann  Durkin  Kea)ng,  and  James  R.  Grossman.  Chicago  Historical  Society,  2005.   hcp://encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/765.html Avila,  Oscar.  “Pilsen  Goes  on  Historic  List.”  Chicago  Tribune,  February  28,  2006.   hcp://ar)cles.chicagotribune.com/2006-­‐02-­‐28/news/0602280132_1_tax-­‐freeze-­‐historic -­‐list-­‐historic-­‐district. Baker,  Joseph.  “Out  With  The  Old:  More  Coal-­‐Fired  Genera)on  Closures  Announced.”  Energy   Boom,  March  1,  2012.   hcp://www.energyboom.com/emerging/out-­‐old-­‐more-­‐coal-­‐fired-­‐genera)on-­‐closures-­‐a nnounced Benfield,  Kaid.  "Turning  Pollu)ng  Power  Plants  into  Green  Neighborhood  Development."   Switchboard,  Natural  Resources  Defense  Council  Staff  Blog,  September  8,  2011. Bernhard,  F.H.  “New  Features  of  Central-­‐Sta)on  Service  in  Chicago.”  Electrical  Review  and  West-­‐ ern  Electrician  54,  no.  22  (1909):  968-­‐1976.   hcp://books.google.com/ebooks/reader?id=HYYfAQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&out put=reader Betancur,  John.  Gentrifica%on  before  Gentrifica%on?  The  Plight  of  Pilsen  in  Chicago.  Chicago:   Nathalie  P.  Vorhees  Center  for  Neighborhood  and  Community  Improvement,  2005.   hcp://www.uic.edu/cuppa/voorheesctr/Publica)ons/Gentrifica)on%20before%20Gentr ifica)on.pdf ⎯. “Gentrifica)on  and  Community  Fabric  in  Chicago.”  Urban  Studies  48,  no.  2  (2011):  383-­‐406.   Bouman,  Mark  J.  “‘The  Best  Lighted  City  in  the  World’:  The  Construc)on  of  a  Nocturnal  Land-­‐ scape  in  Chicago,”  in  Chicago  Architecture  and  Design,  1923-­‐1993:  Reconfigura%on  of  an   American  Metropolis,  edited  by  John  Zukowksy,  33-­‐52.  Chicago:  Art  Ins)tute  of  Chicago,   1993. Bradley,  Robert  L.  Edison  to  Enron:  Energy  Markets  and  Poli%cal  Strategies.  Salem:  Scrivener   Publishing  LLC,  2011. Bosa  Development.  “Electra.”  Bosa  Development.  Accessed  March  1,  2012.   hcp://electra.bosadev.com/

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

182

Breeze,  Lew.  “San  Diego's  Comprehensive  Source  for  Downtown  Living:  Electra.”  Lew  Breeze.   Accessed  March  1,  2012.  hcp://www.sdcondo.com/electra.html Brucomesso,  Rinio.  “Complexity  of  the  Urban  Waterfront.”  In  Waterfronts  in  Post-­‐Industrial  Cit-­‐ ies,  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.  "Adap)ve  Reuse  of  Historic  Buildings  Makes  Economic  Sense."  The  Business   Review,  October  21,  2002.   Campos,  João.  “ The  Cultural  Consistence  of  Built  Heritage  Cons)tutes  its  Intangible  Dimension.”   Paper  presented  at  the  14th  ICOMOS  General  Assembly  and  Interna)onal  Symposium:   ‘Place,  memory,  meaning:  preserving  intangible  values  in  monuments  and  sites,’  Victoria   Falls,  Zimbabwe,  2003. Carroon,  Jean.  Sustainable  Preserva%on:  Greening  Exis%ng  Buildings.  Hoboken:  John  Wiley  &   Sons,  Inc.,  2010.   Casal,  Stella  Maris.  “ The  Adap)ve  Re-­‐Use  of  Buildings:  Remembrance  or  Oblivion?”  Paper  pre-­‐ sented  at  the  14th  ICOMOS  General  Assembly  and  Interna)onal  Symposium:  ‘Place,   memory,  meaning:  preserving  intangible  values  in  monuments  and  sites,”  Victoria  Falls,   Zimbabwe,  2003.    hcp://openarchive.icomos.org/489/. Casal,  Stella  Maris.  “ The  Spirit  of  Place  and  the  New  Uses.”  Paper  presented  at  the  16th  ICOMOS   General  Assembly  and  Interna)onal  Symposium:  ‘Finding  the  spirit  of  place  –  between   the  tangible  and  the  intangible,’  Quebec,  Canada,  2008.   hcp://openarchive.icomos.org/199/. Cintron,  Miriam.  “ Tax  incen)ves  strengthen  Pilsen’s  Historic  District.”  Gaze]e,  September  4,   2009.   hcp://www.gazecechicago.com/index/2009/09/tax-­‐incen)ves-­‐strengthen-­‐pilsen%E2%8 0%99s-­‐historic-­‐district. 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  Collec)ons:   Chicago  Postcards,  Volume  8.  October  1,  2010   hcp://chuckmancollec)onvolume8.blogspot.com/2010/10/postcard-­‐chicago-­‐sears-­‐roeb uck-­‐plant.html Ci)zens  Against  Ruining  the  Environment,  The  Environmental  Law  and  Policy  Center,  Natural  Re-­‐ sources  Defense  Council,  Inc.,  Respiratory  Health  Associa)on  of  Metropolitan  Chicago,   Sierra  Club  v.  Midwest  Genera)on.  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  Development  Office.  Accessed  March   1,  2012.  hcp://burlingtonvt.gov/CEDO/Waterfront/Moran/Overview/ ⎯.  “Moran  Plant:  History  and  Past  Ideas.”  Burlington  Community  and  Economic  Development   Office.  Accessed  March  1,  2012.   hcp://burlingtonvt.gov/CEDO/Waterfront/Moran/History-­‐and-­‐Past-­‐Ideas/ ⎯.  “Moran  Plant:  Financing  Plan.”  Burlington  Community  and  Economic  Development  Office.   Accessed  March  1,  2012.   hcp://burlingtonvt.gov/CEDO/Waterfront/Moran/Financing-­‐Plan/ ⎯.  “Moran  Plant:  Site  Data.”  Burlington  Community  and  Economic  Development  Office.  Ac-­‐ cessed  March  1,  2012.  hcp://burlingtonvt.gov/CEDO/Waterfront/Moran/Site-­‐Data/
Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   183

City  of  Chicago.  “Chapter  2:  Physical  &  Economic  Assessment.”  In  The  Chicago  Central  Area  Plan,   20-­‐32.  Chicago:  2003.   hcp://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/zlup/Planning_and_Policy/Public a)ons/Central_Area_Plan_DRAFT/03_Central_Area_Plan_Chapter2a.pdf ⎯.  “Chicago  Zoning  Ordinance  and  Land  Use  Ordinance.”  City  of  Chicago,  American  Legal  Pub-­‐ lishing  Corpora)on,  2011.   hcp://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Illinois/chicagozoning/chicagozoningordinanc eandlanduseordinanc?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:chicagozoning_il ⎯. Corridors  Of  Industrial  Opportunity:  A  Plan  For  Industry  In  Chicago.  Chicago,  2004. ⎯.  “Demoli)on  Delay.”  City  of  Chicago  Historic  Preserva%on.  Accessed  March  19,  2012.   hcp://www.cityofchicago.org/content/city/en/depts/dcd/supp_info/demoli)on_delay.h tml ⎯. “Enterprise  Zone  Program.”  City  of  Chicago.  Accessed  February  13,  2012.   hcp://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/dcd/supp_info/enterprise_zone_program.h tml ⎯. “Pilsen  Industrial  Corridor  TIF.”  City  of  Chicago.  Accessed  February  13,  2012.   hcp://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/dcd/supp_info/)f/pilsen_industrialcorridor )f.html   ⎯. “Tax  Increment  Financing  Program.”  City  of  Chicago.  Accessed  February  13,  2012.   hcp://www.cityofchicago.org/content/city/en/depts/dcd/supp_info/tax_increment_fina ncingprogram.html City  of  Chicago,  Commission  on  Chicago  Landmarks.  Landmarks  Ordinance  and  the  Rules  and   Regula%ons  of  the  Commission  on  Chicago  Landmarks.  Chicago:  City  of  Chicago,  August   3,  2011.   hcp://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/zlup/Historic_Preserva)on/Publi ca)ons/Chicago_Landmarks_Ordinance.pdf City  of  Chicago,  Department  of  Housing  &  Economic  Development.  “Chicago  Department  of   Zoning.”  Zoning  Data  Reflects  all  Ordinances  Passed  Prior  to  April  13,  2011.   hcps://gisapps.cityofchicago.org/zoning/liability.html ⎯. “Economic  Incen)ves  for  the  Repair  and  Rehabilita)on  of  Historic  Buildings.”  City  of  Chi-­‐ cago.  Accessed  March  23,  2012.   hcp://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/zlup/Historic_Preserva)on/Publi ca)ons/Incen)ves_Flyer.pdf ⎯. “Preserva)on  Incen)ves.”  City  of  Chicago,  Chicago  Landmarks.  Accessed  February  14,  2012.   hcp://webapps.cityofchicago.org/landmarksweb/web/preserva)on.htm City  of  Chicago,  Housing  and  Economic  Development  Historic  Preserva)on.  “Landmarks  Desig-­‐ na)on  Process.”  City  of  Chicago.  Accessed  March  24,  2012.   hcp://www.cityofchicago.org/content/city/en/depts/dcd/supp_info/landmarks_designa )onprocess.html City  of  Chicago,  Mayor's  Press  Office.  “Mayor  Emanuel  Announces  Agreement  With  Midwest   Genera)on  to  Re)re  Two  Coal-­‐fired  Power  Plants  in  Chicago.”  City  of  Chicago,  February   29,  2012.   hcp://www.fiskandcrawford.com/assets/content/pdf/MWGEN_FiskCrawfordRe)rement .pdf

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

184

⎯.  “Mayor  Emanuel  Announces  Plan  to  Develop  Economic  Development  and  Job  Crea)on  Al-­‐ terna)ves  for  Fisk  and  Crawford  Power  Plants.”  City  of  Chicago,  March  8,  2012.   hcp://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/mayor/press_room/press_releases/2012/m arch_2012/mayor_emanuel_announcesplantodevelopeconomicdevelopmentandjobcre. html City  of  Chicago,  The  Commission  on  Chicago  Landmarks.  "Classical  Revival/Beaux-­‐Arts."  Chicago   Landmarks.  Accessed  January  27,  2012.   hcp://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.   hcp://webapps.cityofchicago.org/landmarksweb/search/searchdetail.htm?pin=1729200 002&formNumber=310107001. ⎯.  “Historic  Survey:  Details  for  building  at  (1029-­‐1179)  W  CERMAK  RD.”  Chicago  Landmarks.   Accessed  January  27,  2012.   hcp://webapps.cityofchicago.org/landmarksweb/search/searchdetail.htm?pin=1729200 007&formNumber=310107003 ⎯.  “Historic  Survey:  Details  for  building  at  (1029-­‐1179)  W  CERMAK  RD.”  Chicago  Landmarks.   Accessed  January  27,  2012.   hcp://webapps.cityofchicago.org/landmarksweb/search/searchdetail.htm?pin=1729200 002&formNumber=310107004 Claire  van  Ryzin,  Jeanne.  “Council  OKs  rainbow-­‐hued  Seaholm  Wall  Design.”  The  Statesman,   February  9,  2012.   hcp://www.statesman.com/news/local/council-­‐oks-­‐rainbow-­‐hued-­‐seaholm-­‐wall-­‐design-­‐ 2164175.html Claire  van  Ryzin,  Jeanne.  “Schema)c  design  for  Seaholm  Substa)on  Wall  Art  approved;  Colored   lights  added.”  Aus)n  360,  February  10,  2012.   hcp://www.aus)n360.com/blogs/content/shared-­‐gen/blogs/aus)n/seeingthings/entrie s/2012/02/10/schema)c_design_for_seaholm_s.html “Cleaning  Out  the  Coal-­‐fired  Clunkers.”  Chicago  Tribune,    June  06,  2011.   hcp://ar)cles.chicagotribune.com/2011-­‐06-­‐06/news/ct-­‐edit-­‐coal-­‐20110606_1_fisk-­‐and-­‐ crawford-­‐state-­‐line-­‐power-­‐sta)on-­‐midwest-­‐genera)on. Collins,  Mark.  “Planned  Seaholm  Development  Puts  Re)red  Power  Plant  to  Different  Use,”   Community  Impact  Newspaper,  April  10,  2009.   hcp://impactnews.com/ar)cles/planned-­‐seaholm-­‐development-­‐puts-­‐re)red-­‐power-­‐pla nt-­‐to-­‐different-­‐use Columbia  University,  Department  of  Historic  Preserva)on  of  the  Graduate  School  of  Architec-­‐ ture,  Planning  &  Historic  Preserva)on.  Preserving  the  Former  IRT  Powerhouse:  A  Preser-­‐ va%on  Plan.  Columbia  University,  2009. Comal  County  Government.  “Comal  Power  Plant.”  Comal  County  Government.  Accessed  March   3,  2012.  hcp://www.co.comal.tx.us/Historical/Proper)es/Comal_Power_Plant.htm Commonwealth  Edison  Company.  “Fisk  Street  a  Mecca:  No.  2  of  a  Series  of  Adver)sements  on   Electric  Service  in  Chicago.”  Chicago  Daily  Tribune,  October  7,  1915. ⎯.  “Display  Ad  5:  Reliability  is  the  Keynote  of  Commonwealth  Edison  Service.”  Chicago  Daily   Tribune,  January  24,  1912.

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

185

⎯.  “Display  Ad  11:  A  Capacity  of  180,  000  Horsepower  from  These  10  Turbo-­‐Generators  at  Fisk   Street  Sta)on.”  Chicago  Daily  Tribune,  April  12,  1912.   Commonwealth  of  Australia,  Department  of  the  Environment  and  Heritage.  Adap%ve  Reuse:   Preserving  Our  Past,  Building  Our  Future.  Commonwealth  of  Australia,  Department  of   the  Environment  and  Heritage,  2004. Cordish  Companies.  “Featured  Developments.”  The  Cordish  Companies,  2008.   hcp://www.cordish.com/sub.cfm?sec)on=newdev Curran,  Winifred  and  Euan  Hague.  The  Pilsen  Building  Inventory  Project.  DePaul  University  De-­‐ partment  of  Geography,  Chicago:  2006.   hcp://steans.depaul.edu/aboutus/partnerships/geography.asp Dannecker  and  Associates.  “Electra  San  Diego  Condos.”  Dannercker  and  Associates.  Accessed   March  2,  2012.   hcp://www.welcometosandiego.com/san-­‐diego-­‐neighborhoods/condos-­‐for-­‐sale-­‐downto wn-­‐san-­‐diego/columbia-­‐the-­‐waterfront/electra-­‐san-­‐diego/#img0 De  Sousa,  Christopher.  “Moran  Center,  Burlington,  Vermont:  A  U.S.  EPA  Brownfields  Sustainabil-­‐ ity  Pilot.”  University  of  Illinois  at  Chicago,  Ins)tute  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.  November  17,  2008.   hcp://www.chicagotalks.org/2008/11/17/tax-­‐freeze-­‐helps-­‐preserve-­‐pilsen/ Dunbar,  Wells.  “Will  an  Art  Wall  Determine  the  Future  of  Downtown's  Seaholm  Redevelop-­‐ ment?”  KUT  News,  Fenruaru  9,  2012.   hcp://kutnews.org/post/will-­‐art-­‐wall-­‐determine-­‐future-­‐downtowns-­‐seaholm-­‐redevelop ment 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.   hcp://www.uhpprojects.com/services/comal2.htm “Emanuel  says  coal-­‐plant  sites  will  be  redeveloped.”  13  WREX,  WorldNow,  March  8,  2012.   hcp://www.wrex.com/story/17114159/emanuel-­‐says-­‐coal-­‐plant-­‐sites-­‐will-­‐be-­‐redevelop ed Engineering  Ventures.  “Moran  Plant  Renova)on.”  Engineering  Ventures.  Accessed  March  1,   2012.   hcp://www.engineeringventures.com/projects/structural-­‐engineering/recrea)onal/mor an-­‐plant-­‐renova)on ENPRO  Services,  Inc.,  “From  EPA  Brownfields  Site  to  Community  Center,”  ENPRO  Services,  Inc.,   2010,  www.enpro.com/tes)monials/MoranPowerPlant.pdf Escalona,  Alejandro.  “Amer  Pilsen,  Licle  Village  plants  close,  will  lomy  ambi)ons  mesh?”  Chicago   Sun-­‐Times,  April  10,  2012.   hcp://www.sun)mes.com/news/escalona/11124939-­‐452/amer-­‐pilsen-­‐licle-­‐village-­‐plant s-­‐close-­‐will-­‐lomy-­‐ambi)ons-­‐mesh.html Falk,  Tyler.  "Transforming  Old  Pollu)ng  Power  Plants  into  Green  Urban  Spaces."  SmartPlanet,   September  8,  2011.   hcp://www.smartplanet.com/blog/ci)es/transforming-­‐old-­‐pollu)ng-­‐power-­‐plants-­‐into-­‐ green-­‐urban-­‐spaces/892
Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   186

Fehsenfeld,  Kaaren.  "Zoning  in  on  Pilsen:  As  Development  Moves  in,  Old-­‐Timers  Move  Out."   Chicagotalks.  May  26,  2010.   hcp://www.chicagotalks.org/2010/05/26/zoning-­‐in-­‐on-­‐pilsen-­‐as-­‐development-­‐moves-­‐in -­‐old-­‐)mers-­‐move-­‐out/ Field  Museum,  Department  of  Environment,  Culture,  and  Conserva)on  (ECCo).  Engaging  Chi-­‐ cago’s  Diverse  Communi%es  in  the  Chicago  Climate  Ac%on  Plan.  Community  #4:  Pilsen’s   Mexican  Community.  Field  Museum,  Chicago:  December  2010.   ⎯.  Engaging  Chicago’s  Diverse  Communi%es  in  the  Chicago  Climate  Ac%on  Plan.  Community  #4:   Pilsen’s  Mexican  Community:  Findings  and  Recommenda%ons  At-­‐A-­‐Glance.  Field  Mu-­‐ seum,  Chicago:  December  2010.     Founda)on  for  Homan  Square.  Annual  Report  Update:  2009-­‐2010.  Founda)on  for  Homan   Square,  2010.   hcp://www.homansquare.org/files/pdf/homan_square_ar_2009-­‐10_r3.pdf ⎯.  Annual  Report  Update:  2011.  Founda)on  for  Homan  Square,  2011.   hcp://www.homansquare.org/files/pdf/2010-­‐11_annual_report.pdf ⎯.  “Henry  Ford  Academy  Power  House  High:  Power  House  High  Campaign  Update.”  Founda)on   for  Homan  Square,  First  Quarter  2008.   ⎯.  “History.”  Homan  Square.  Accessed  March  4,  2012.  hcp://www.homansquare.org/history ⎯.  “Power  House”  Homan  Square.  Accessed  March  4,  2012.   hcp://www.homansquare.org/power-­‐house Friends  of  Seaholm.  “ The  Adap)ve  Reuse  of  Seaholm  Power  Plant.”  Friends  of  Seaholm.  Ac-­‐ cessed  March  4,  2012.  hcp://friendsofseaholm.com/ Gebhardt,  George  Frederick.  Steam  Power  Plant  Engineering.  New  York:  John  Wiley  &  Sons,   1908.   hcp://books.google.com/books?id=KH5DAAAAIAAJ&dq=fisk+Commonwealth+edison+la yout+plan&source=gbs_navlinks_s Geiser  A.,  “Repurposing  a  Downtown  Icon:  Firm  to  Buy  Defunct  Historical  Seaholm  Power  Plant   Amid  Cri)cism,”  The  Daily  Texan,  May  5,  2010,   hcp://www.dailytexanonline.com/content/repurposing-­‐downtown-­‐icon Gellman,  Erik.  “Pilsen.”  In  Encyclopedia  of  Chicago,  edited  by  Janice  L.  Reiff,  Ann  Durkin  Kea)ng,   and  James  R.  Grossman.  Chicago  Historical  Society,  2005.   hcp://encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/2477.html Gerfen,  Ka)e.  “Charles  H.  Shaw  Technology  and  Learning  Center.”  Architect,  February  16,  2010.   hcp://www.architectmagazine.com/adap)ve-­‐reuse/charles-­‐h-­‐shaw-­‐technology-­‐and-­‐lear ning-­‐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  Con-­‐ serva%on.  Government  of  Saskatchewan.  Accessed  November  11,  2011. Great  Ci)es  Ins)tute.  “Pilsen  (Lower  West).”  Great  Ci%es  Ins%tute,  Neighborhoods  Ini%a%ve.  Ac-­‐ cessed  March  14,  2012.   hcp://www.uicni.org/page.php?sec)on=neighborhoods&subsec)on=pilsen. Grossman,  Susan  F.,  Rita  M.  Cardoso,  Giselle  G.  Belanger,  Jerry  Belski,  Tyra  C.  Corethers,  Mary  E.   Pejnelli,  and  Maurice  A.  Redd.  “Pilsen  and  The  Resurrec)on  Project:  Community  Or-­‐

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

187

ganiza)on  in  a  La)no  Community.”  Journal  of  Poverty  4,  no.  1-­‐2  (2000):  131-­‐149.   hcp://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.   hcp://www.darrisharris.com/ Hawthorne,  Michael.  “2  Coal-­‐Burning  Plants  to  Power  Down  Early.”  Chicago  Tribune,,  March  1,   2012.   hcp://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-­‐met-­‐coal-­‐plant-­‐shutdowns-­‐20120301,0,4 861271.story Hequet,  Marc.  “Power  Plants.”  Retail  Traffic,  November  1,  2006.   hcp://retailtrafficmag.com/development/retail_power_plants/ Hinkle,  Josh  and  Doug  Shupe.  “Seaholm  to  have  Lighted,  Colorful  Wall.”  KXAN,  February  10,   2012.   hcp://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/local/aus)n/seaholm-­‐to-­‐have-­‐lighted-­‐rainbow-­‐wall Historic  Charleston  Founda)on.  Annual  Report  2010.  Historic  Charleston  Founda)on,  2010.   Historic  Preserva)on  Program,  University  of  Virginia.  Na%onal  Register  of  Historic  Places:  Regis-­‐ tra%on  Form,  Pilsen  Historic  District.  US  Department  of  the  Interior,  Na)onal  Park  Serv-­‐ ice.  October  2005. Hodge,  William  H.  “ The  Commonwealth  Edison  Company.”  Public  Service  Management  4,  no.  5   (May  1908):  131-­‐144.   hcp://books.google.com/ebooks/reader?id=r_LlAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&outp ut=reader Homan  Square  Community  Center  Founda)on.  A  Short  History  of  a  Long  Journey:  Homan   Square  Annual  Report  2005.  Homan  Square  Community  Center  Founda)on,  2005.   Homan  Square  Community  Center  Campus.  “Homan  Square:  From  Vacancy  to  Vibrancy.”  Homan   Square  Community  Center  Campus,  2007.   “Homan  Square  Power  House.  “  DTKindler  Communica%ons,  Shoo  fly  design.  Accessed  March  3,   2012.  hcp://homansquarepowerhouse.com Hughes,  Thomas  P.  “ The  Electrifica)on  of  America:  The  System  Builders.”  Technology  and  Cul-­‐ ture  20,  no  1.  (January  1979):  124-­‐161.  hcp://www.jstor.org/stable/3103115.   Illinois  Clean  Energy  Community  Founda)on.  “Energy  Efficiency.”  Illinois  Clean  Energy  Commu-­‐ nity  Founda)on,  Accessed  March  2,  2012.   hcp://www.illinoiscleanenergy.org/ph-­‐energy-­‐efficiency/ Illinois  Environmental  Protec)on  Agency.  In  The  Macer  of  Midwest  Genera)on,  LLC  Fisk  Gener-­‐ a)ng  Sta)on  and  Crawford  Genera)on  Sta)on:  Order  Responding  to  Pe))oners  Request   that  the  Administrator  Object  to  Issuance  of  a  State  Opera)ng  Permit.  Pe))on  number   V-­‐2005-­‐1,  CAAPP  No.  95090081  and  95090076.  March  25,  2005.   hcp://yosemite.epa.gov/r5/r5ard.nsf/8a853ab744d510c68625745800533fd5/4da3fdd1 8eece3a8862574c8006fd26b/$file/order.midwestgen.fiskcrawford.pdf Illinois  Historic  Preserva)on  Agency.  “Benefits  and  Protec)ons  Offered  by  Na)onal  Register  List-­‐ ing.”  Illinois  Historic  Preserva%on  Agency.  Accessed  February  11,  2012.   hcp://www.illinoishistory.gov/PS/benefitsnr.htm.   ⎯. “Property  Tax  Assessment  Freeze.”  Illinois  Historic  Preserva%on  Agency.  Accessed  March  14,   2012.  hcp://www.illinoishistory.gov/PS/taxfreeze.htm.
Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   188

⎯. “Benefits  and  Protec)ons  Offered  by  Na)onal  Register  Lis)ng.”  Illinois  Historic  Preserva%on   Agency.  Accessed  February  11,  2012.  hcp://www.illinoishistory.gov/PS/benefitsnr.htm ⎯.  “Property  Tax  Assessment  Freeze.”  Illinois  Historic  Preserva%on  Agency.  Accessed  March  14,   2012.  hcp://www.illinoishistory.gov/PS/taxfreeze.htm. Insull,  Samuel.  Central  Sta%on  Electric  Service:  Its  Commercial  Development  and  Economic  Sig-­‐ nificance  as  Set  forth  in  the  Public  Addresses  (1897-­‐1914)  of  Samuel  Insull.  Chicago:  Pri-­‐ vate  Print,  1915. “Insull  Unveils  Tablet  at  Fisk  Edison  Sta)on.”  Chicago  Daily  Tribune,  November  15,  1928. Jacobs,  Jane.  The  Death  and  Life  of  Great  American  Ci%es.  New  York  and  Toronto:  Random   House,  1961. Jenkins,  W.C.  “Chicago’s  Marvelous  Electrical  Development:  What  Thomas  A.  Edison  Has  Lived   to  See.”  Na%onal  Magazine.  February  and  January,  1911.   hcp://www.archive.org/details/na)onalmagazine33brayrich Jonsson,  Kayla.  “Aus)n  Energy  finances  wall  art  for  Seaholm  Power  Plant.”  The  Daily  Texan,  Feb-­‐ ruary  15,  2012.   hcp://www.dailytexanonline.com/news/2012/02/15/aus)n-­‐energy-­‐finances-­‐wall-­‐art-­‐se aholm-­‐power-­‐plant Kamin,  Blair.  “Power  play:  architects  help  turn  old  Sears  power  plant  in  Chicago  into  new  charter   school.”  Cityscapes,  Chicago  Tribune,  September  01,  2009.   hcp://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/theskyline/2009/09/power-­‐play-­‐architects-­‐hel p-­‐turn-­‐old-­‐sears-­‐power-­‐plant-­‐in-­‐chicago-­‐to-­‐new-­‐charter-­‐school-­‐.html Keene,  John.  "The  Links  Between  Historic  Preserva)on  and  Sustainability:  An  Urbanist's  Per-­‐ spec)ve."  In  Managing  Change:  Sustainable  Approaches  to  the  Conserva%on  of  the  Built   Environment.  Los  Angeles:  The  Gecy  Conserva)on  Ins)tute,  2003. Keily,  William.  "Quarry  Street  Sta)on  of  the  Commonwealth  Edison  Company,  Chicago,"  Electri-­‐ cal  World  53,  no.  1  (1909):  17-­‐24.   hcp://www.archive.org/details/electricalworld53newy Kienle,  James  T.  "Essay:  Can  Historic  Preserva)on  Help  Lead  Us  Out  of  the  Recession."  Contract   Magazine,  September  28,  2009.   Koenig,  Brian.  “Dozens  of  Power  Plants  Closing  Due  to  New  EPA  Rules.”  The  New  American,  De-­‐ cember  20,  2011.   hcp://thenewamerican.com/tech-­‐mainmenu-­‐30/energy/10253-­‐dozens-­‐of-­‐power-­‐plants -­‐closing-­‐due-­‐to-­‐new-­‐epa-­‐rules Koester,  Frank.  Steam-­‐Electric  Power  Plants:  A  Prac%cal  Trea%se  on  the  Design  of  Central  Light   and  Power  Sta%ons  and  their  Economical  Construc%on  and  Opera%on.  New  York:  D.  Van   Nostrand  Company,  1908.   hcp://books.google.com/ebooks/reader?id=ISgKAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&outpu t=reader Langston,  Craig.  “Green  Adap)ve  Reuse:  Issues  and  Strategies  for  the  Built  Environment.”  Paper   presented  at  the  1st  Interna)onal  Conference  on  Sustainable  Construc)on  &  Risk  Man-­‐ agement,  Chongqing  Municipality,  China,  June  12,  2010.   hcp://epublica)ons.bond.edu.au/sustainable_development/75/ Langston,  Craig,  Francis  K.W.  Wong,  Eddie  C.M.  Hui,  and  Li-­‐Yim  Shen.  "Strategic  Assessment  of   Building  Adap)ve  Reuse  Opportuni)es  in  Hong  Kong."  Building  and  Environment  43   (2008):  1709-­‐1718.
Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   189

Lacey,  Stephen.  “Nine  More  Dirty,  Aging  Coal  Plants  Set  to  Close,  Bringing  Total  U.S.  Re)rements   to  106  Plants  Since  2000.”  Think  Progress,  February  29,  2012.   hcp://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  Company.  Accessed  March   3,  2012.  hcp://landmarkloms.com/history/ Library  of  Congress,  Prints  &  Photographs  Division,  Historic  American  Engineering  Record.   “Commonwealth  Electric  Company,  Fisk  Street  Electrical  Genera)ng  Sta)on,  1111  West   Cermak  Avenue,  Chicago,  Cook  County,  IL.”    Library  of  Congress.  [survey  number  HAER   ILL,  16-­‐CHIG,  140-­‐;  accessed  February  14,  2012].   hcp://www.loc.gov/pictures/collec)on/hh/item/il0671/ Lindholm,  Jane.  “Bob  Kiss  on  IRV,  Burlington  Telecom  And  The  Moran  Plant.”  Vermont  Public  Ra-­‐ dio,  March  4,  2010.   hcp://www.vpr.net/news_detail/87395/bob-­‐kiss-­‐on-­‐irv-­‐burlington-­‐telecom-­‐moran-­‐plant Listokin,  David,  Barbara  Listokin,  and  Michael  Lahr.  "The  Contribu)ons  of  Historic  Preserva)on   to  Housing  and  Economic  Development."  Housing  Policy  Debate  9,  no.  3  (1998):  431-­‐ 478. Local  Ini)a)ves  Support  Corpora)on  (LISC)  and  the  Pilsen  Planning  Commicee.  Pilsen:  A  Center   of  Mexican  Life,  Quality-­‐of-­‐Life  Plan.  LISC  New  Communi)es  Ini)a)ve,  Chicago:  2006.   www.newcommuni)es.org/cmadocs/Pilsen_QofL_2006.pdf Local  Ini)a)ves  Support  Corpora)on  (LISC)  and  the  Resurrec)on  Project.  Improving  the  Quality   of  Life  in  Pilsen.  LISC  New  Communi)es  Ini)a)ve,  Chicago:  2000.   www.newcommuni)es.org/cmadocs/PilsenQofLplan2000.pdf Local  Ini)a)ves  Support  Corpora)on  (LISC)  MetroEdge.  Pilsen  (Retail)  Scan  Execu%ve  Summary.   Local  Ini)a)ves  Support  Corpora)on,  October  2009. Lomax,  Simon.  "‘Massive’  Closures  of  U.S.  Coal  Plants  Loom,  Chu  Says."  Bloomberg    Busi-­‐ nessweek,  February  9,  2011. Long,  JT.  “Crea)ng  a  Powerhouse  School.”  Constructor,  March-­‐April  2010.   hcp://constructoragc.construc)on.com/mag/2010/Mar-­‐Apr/1003-­‐PepperConstruc)on.a sp Low,  Setha.  "Social  Sustainability:  People,  History  and  Values."  in  Managing  Change:  Sustainable   Approaches  to  the  Conserva%on  of  the  Built  Environment.  Los  Angeles:  The  Gecy  Con-­‐ serva)on  Ins)tute,  2003.   Lydersen,  Kari.  “When  Coal  Plants  Shut  Down,  What  Happens  Next?”  Midwest  Energy  News,   March  20,  2012.   hcp://www.midwestenergynews.com/2012/03/20/when-­‐coal-­‐plants-­‐shut-­‐down-­‐what-­‐h appens-­‐next/ MacRos)e  Historic  Advisors,  LLC.  “Adap)ve  Reuse  for  Educa)onal  Facili)es:  The  Charles  H.  Shaw   Technology  and  Learning  Center.”  MacRos)e  Historic  Advisors,  LLC.  Accessed  March  5,   2012.  hcp://www.macros)ehistoric.com/pages/sears_power_house_/106.php Marshall,  Richard.  “Contemporary  Urban  Space-­‐making  at  the  Water’s  Edge.”  In  Waterfronts  in   Post-­‐Industrial  Ci%es,  edited  by  Richard  Marshall,  3-­‐14.  London:  Spon  Press,  2001.   Maryland  Historical  Trust's  Na)onal  Register.,“Prac  Street  Power  Plant,”  Maryland  Historical   Trust.  Accessed  March  10,  2012,   hcp://mht.maryland.gov/nr/NRDetail.aspx?HDID=978&FROM=NRMapFR.html
Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   190

McCann,  Tom.  “Riverfront  Renewal  Not  Reaching  Pilsen.”  Chicago  Tribune,  July  02,  2000.   hcp://ar)cles.chicagotribune.com/2000-­‐07-­‐02/news/0007020100_1_parks-­‐chicago-­‐rive r-­‐navy-­‐pier McGraw-­‐Publishing  Company.  "Chicago  Conven)on  Na)onal  Electric  Light  Associa)on."  Electri-­‐ cal  World  51,  no.  22  (1908):  1146-­‐1153.   hcp://books.google.com/books/reader?id=LQVRAAAAYAAJ& ⎯. "Prac)cal  Opera)on  of  Fisk  Street  and  Quarry  Street  Sta)ons  in  Chicago,"  Electrical  World   53,  no.  22  (1909):  1289-­‐1294.  hcp://www.archive.org/details/electricalworld53newy ⎯. "The  System  and  Opera)ng  Prac)ce  of  the  Commonwealth  Edison  Company,  Chicago."  Elec-­‐ trical  World  51,  no.  20  (1908):  1023-­‐1039.   hcp://books.google.com/books/reader?id=LQVRAAAAYAAJ&.   McLeod,  Gerald  E.  “Day  Trips.”  The  Aus%n  Chronicle,  April  11,  2003.   hcp://www.aus)nchronicle.com/columns/2003-­‐04-­‐11/154443/ ⎯. “Day  Trips:  The  Defunct  Comal  Power  Plant  in  New  Braunfels  Finds  New  Life  as  a  hotel.”  The   Aus%n  Chronicle,  June  2,  2010.   hcp://www.aus)nchronicle.com/columns/2000-­‐06-­‐02/77427/ Midwest  Genera)on.  “Financial  Benefits  to  the  Community.”  Fisk  &  Crawford  Fact  Sheets.  Sep-­‐ tember  7,  2011.   hcp://www.fiskandcrawford.com/assets/content/pdf/MWG_FiskCrawford_FinancialBen efits.pdf ⎯.  “Fisk  Sta)on  Fact  Sheet.”  Edison  Interna)onal.  January  2005.   www.edison.com/files/2005_factsheet_fisk.pdf ⎯.  “Midwest  Genera)on  Employees:  Serving  Communi)es  Where  They  Live  And  Work.”  Fisk  &   Crawford  Fact  Sheets.  September  9,  2011.   hcp://www.fiskandcrawford.com/assets/content/pdf/MWG_FiskCrawford_Employees.p df Millspaugh,  Mar)n.  “Waterfronts  as  Catalysts  for  City  Renewal.”  In  Waterfronts  in  Post-­‐Industrial   Ci%es,  edited  by  Richard  Marshall,  74-­‐85.  London:  Spon  Press,  2001.   “Moran  Municipal  Genera)on  Sta)on  -­‐  Burlington,  Vermont.”  Waymarking,  accessed  March  12,   2012.   hcp://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  Fu-­‐ ture  of  Electricity.  Westport:  Praeger  Publishers,  2005. NADAAA.  “Seaholm  Substa)on  Wall,  Art  In  Public  Places  Project:  Schema)c  Design  Updated   Rendering.”  NADAAA,  Presenta)on  to  the  City  Council,  February  9,  2012.   hcps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/291429-­‐seaholm-­‐wall-­‐presenta)on.html Na)onal  Trust  for  Historic  Preserva)on.  "Posi)on  Statement:  Historic  Preserva)on  and  Sustain-­‐ ability."  Preserva%on  Na%on.  Accessed  October  31,  2011. “New  Edison  Turbo-­‐Unit  in  Service.”  Chicago  Daily  Tribune,  July  21,  1949. Northcountry  Coopera)ve  Founda)on,  Jeff  Allman,  Allman  &  Associates.  Too  Good  to  Throw   Away:  The  Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Underused  Buildings.  Northcountry  Coopera)ve  Founda-­‐ )on,  2005.  hcp://www.ncdf.coop/documents/Adap)veReuseFINAL.pdf Petersen,  Laurie.  “Power  Switch:  This  New  High  School  is  a  Spark  For  Students—and  the   Neighborhood.”Chicago  Architect,  January-­‐February  2012,  27-­‐30.
Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants   191

Pilsen  Environmental  Rights  and  Reform  Organiza)on  (PERRO).“Chicago’s  Coal  Plants  to  Re)re:   Clean  Power  Coali)on,  City  of  Chicago  and  Midwest  Genera)on  Sign  Historic  Agree-­‐ ment.”  PERRO  Press  Release,  February  21,  2012. PlaceEconomics.  Measuring  the  Economics  of  Preserva%on:  Recent  Findings.  Advisory  Council  on   Historic  Preserva)on,  June  2011.   hcp://www.landmarks.org/pdfs/Measuring%20the%20Economics%20of%20Preserva)o n.pdf Plac,  Harold  L.  The  Electric  City:  Energy  and  the  Growth  of  the  Chicago  Area,  1880-­‐1930.  Chi-­‐ cago:  The  University  of  Chicago  Press,  1991. ⎯.  “Gas  and  Electricity.”  In  Encyclopedia  of  Chicago,  edited  by  Janice  L.  Reiff,  Ann  Durkin   Kea)ng,  and  James  R.  Grossman.  Chicago  Historical  Society,  2005.  Accessed  January  27,   2012.  hcp://encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/504.html.     Preserva)on  Chicago.  Chicago’s  Seven  Most  Threatened  Buildings:  Pilsen.  2006.   www.preserva)onchicago.org/userfiles/file/pilsen.pdf Preserva)on  Green  Lab,  Na)onal  Trust  for  Historic  Preserva)on.  The  Greenest  Building:  Quan%-­‐ fying  the  Environmental  Value  of  Building  Reuse.  Na)onal  Trust  for  Historic  Preserva)on,   2011. Rogers  Merlino,  Kathryn,  and  Peter  Steinbrueck.  "The  Greenest  Prac)ce:  Cultural  Sustainability,   Adap)ve  Re-­‐use  and  the  New  Preserva)on  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.     hcp://downtowngallery.sdsu.edu/index.php/gallery/about/ Save  Our  Heritage  Organiza)on.  “SDG&E  Sta)on  ‘B.’”  Reflec%ons  Newsle]er  35,  no.  3,  2004.   hcp://sohosandiego.org/reflec)ons/2004-­‐3/2004-­‐11_sdge.htm Scadden,  Richard  A.  “Adap)ve  Reuse  of  Obsolete  Power  Plants.”  Paper  presented  at  the  Air  &   Waste  Management  Associa)on  (A&WMA)  94th  Annual  Conference,  Orlando,  FL,  June   2001. Scadden,  Richard  A.  and  Stephen  J.  Mitchell.  “Facility  Decommissioning  and  Adap)ve  Reuse.”   Paper  presented  at  Na)onal  Defense  Industrial  Associa)on  (NDIA)  27th  Environmental   Symposium  and  Exhibi)on,  Aus)n,  Texas,  April  23-­‐26,  2001. Schmic,  Zachary.  “ The  Topographical  Determinants  of  Intraurban  Air  Pollu)on  Exposure:  An  As-­‐ sessment  of  the  Crawford  and  Fisk  Coal-­‐fired  Power  Plants  in  Chicago,  Illinois.”  M.S.  diss.,   Northern  Illinois  University,  2010.   hcp://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?did=2068234381&Fmt=7&clientId=1509&RQT=309&V Name=PQD.   Seaholm  Power,  LLC.  “Power  Plant  Redevelopment.”  Seaholm  Power,  LLC.  Accessed  March  3,   2012.  hcp://www.seaholm.info/ Shore  Line  Interurban  Historical  Society.  “A  Conversa)on  with  Samuel  Insull.”  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   Genera)on.”  San  Diego  Union-­‐Tribune,  September  18,  2005.   hcp://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050918/news_mz1h18second.html Spector,  Dina.  "Dozens  Of  Coal  Factories  Forced  To  Shut  Down  In  Response  To  Strict  EPA  Regula-­‐ )on."  The  Business  Insider,  August  9,  2011.

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

192

Spielman,  Fran.  “Emanuel  brokers  deal  to  shut  two  pollu)ng  coal  fire  plants.”  Chicago  Sun-­‐ Times.  February  28,  2012.   hcp://www.sun)mes.com/news/10943296-­‐417/emanuel-­‐brokers-­‐deal-­‐to-­‐shut-­‐two-­‐poll u)ng-­‐coal-­‐fire-­‐plants.html Staple,  Gregory  C.  and  Machew  I.  Slavin.  “Repurposed  Coal  Plant  Sites  Empower  and  Revive   Communi)es.”  The  Public  Manager,  Spring  2012.   www.cleanskies.org/wp-­‐content/uploads/2012/03/43-­‐47_featureStapleSlavin-­‐1-­‐1.pdf Steinbrueck,  Peter,  and  Kathyrn  Rodgers  Merlino.  "We  Recycle  Cans  and  Bocles,  Why  Not  Build-­‐ ings?"  The  Sea]le  Times,  September  16,  2008. Tocen,  Shay.  “Burlington  May  Finally  Give  the  Old  Moran  Plant  a  New  Life.”  Seven  Days,  Sep-­‐ tember  23,  2009.   hcp://www.7dvt.com/2009burlington-­‐may-­‐finally-­‐give-­‐old-­‐moran-­‐plant-­‐new-­‐life ⎯.  “Mari)me  Museum  Withdraws  from  Moran  Redevelopment.”  Seven  Days,  September  28,   2011.   hcp://7d.blogs.com/blurt/2010/09/mari)me-­‐museum-­‐withdraws-­‐from-­‐moran-­‐redevelo pment.html. Union  of  Concerned  Scien)sts.  A  Risky  Proposi%on:  The  Financial  Hazards  of  New  Investments  in   Coal  Plants.  UCS  Publica)ons,  March  2011.   hcp://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/a-­‐risky-­‐proposi)on_report.pdf Urban  Land  Ins)tute.  Adap%ve  Use:  Development  Economics,  Process,  and  Profiles.  Washington:   The  Urban  Land  Ins)tute,  1978. U.S.  Department  of  the  Interior,  Na)onal  Park  Service.  “How  to  Apply  to  the  Na)onal  Register:   Criteria  for  Evalua)on.”  U.S.  Department  of  the  Interior,  Na%onal  Park  Service.  2002.   hcp://www.nps.gov/history/nr/publica)ons/bulle)ns/nrb15/nrb15_2.htm ⎯.  “ The  Na)onal  Historic  Landmark  Database:  Sears,  Roebuck,  And  Company.”  U.S.  Na%onal   Park  Service.  Accessed  February  11,  2012.   hcp://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1755&ResourceType=Building.   ⎯.  “Na)onal  Historic  Landmarks  Program.”  U.S.  Na%onal  Park  Service.  Last  modified  December   13,  2010.  hcp://www.cr.nps.gov/nhl/. ⎯.  “Na)onal  Register  of  Historic  Places  Program:  Frequently  Asked  Ques)ons.”  U.S.  Depart-­‐ ment  of  the  Interior,  Na%onal  Park  Service.  June  13,  2011.   hcp://www.nps.gov/nr/faq.htm. ⎯.  “Na)onal  Register  of  Historic  Places  Program:  Fundamentals.”  U.S.  Na%onal  Park  Service.   Last  modified  June  13,  2011.   hcp://www.nps.gov/history/nr/na)onal_register_fundamentals.htm. ⎯.  “Na)onal  Historic  Landmarks  Program,  Page  1:  What  is  ‘a  high  degree  of  integrity’  and  why   is  it  an  key  requirement  for  NHL  designa)on?.”  U.S.  Na%onal  Park  Service.  Last  modified   December  13,  2010.  hcp://www.nps.gov/history/nhl/tutorial/Workshop2/criteria3.htm. ⎯.  “Na)onal  Historic  Landmarks  Program,  Page  1:  What  is  a  Na)onal  Historic  Landmark?”  U.S.   Na%onal  Park  Service.  Last  modified  December  13,  2010.   hcp://www.nps.gov/history/nhl/tutorial/About/About1.htm ⎯.  “Na)onal  Historic  Landmarks  Program,  Page  8:  How  long  does  it  take  for  a  property  to  be-­‐ come  a  NHL?”  U.S.  Na%onal  Park  Service.  Last  modified  June  13,  2011.   hcp://www.nps.gov/history/nhl/tutorial/Workshop1/begin8.htm

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

193

⎯.  The  Secretary  of  the  Interior’s  Standards  for  Rehabilita%on  &  Illustrated  Guidelines  on  Sus-­‐ tainability  for  Rehabilita%ng  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,  Na)onal  Park  Service,  Technical  Preserva)on  Services.  Historic   Preserva%on  Tax  Incen%ves.  U.S.  Department  of  the  Interior,  Na)onal  Park  Service:  2009.   hcp://www.nps.gov/tps/tax-­‐incen)ves/taxdocs/about-­‐tax-­‐incen)ves.pdf ⎯.  “ Tax  Incen)ves  for  Preserving  Historic  Proper)es.”  U.S.  Department  of  the  Interior,  Na%onal   Park  Service.  Accessed  March  21,  2012.  hcp://www.nps.gov/tps/tax-­‐incen)ves.htm U.S.  Environmental  Protec)on  Agency.  “Reducing  Air  Pollu)on  from  Power  Plants.”  U.S.  Envi-­‐ ronmental  Protec%on  Agency.  April  26,  2011. ⎯.  “Burlington  Reaps  $25K  EPA  Grant  for  Brownfields  Sustainability  Project,”  U.S.  Environmental   Protec)on  Agency,  Re-­‐development  of  Former  Coal  Plant.  News  Releases  from  Region  1,   September  4,  2008.   hcp://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/6d651d23f5a91b768525735900400c28/8ac e26d5891e188b852574ba006bc828!OpenDocument ⎯.  “Green  Design  Op)ons  for  the  Moran  Center  at  Waterfront  Park  Revitaliza)on  Project.”  U.S.   Environmental  Protec)on  Agency.  Accessed  March  2,  2012.   epa.gov/brownfields/sustain_plts/factsheets/burlington_susfs.pdf U.S.  Securi)es  and  Exchange  Commissions.  Form  10-­‐K:  Annual  Report  Pursuant  to  Sec%on  13  of   15(d)  of  the  Securi%es  Exchange  Act  of  1934  for  the  Fiscal  Year  Ended  December  31,  2006   for  Midwest  Genera%on,  LLC.  Commission  File  Number  333-­‐59348.  Washington  D.C.:   February  28,  2007. Walk  Score.  “Walk  Score  for  1111  W  Cermak  Rd  Chicago,  IL.”  Walk  Score.  Accessed  February  23,   2012.  hcp://www.walkscore.com/score/1111-­‐w-­‐cermak-­‐rd-­‐chicago-­‐il.   Wasik,  John.  The  Merchant  of  Power:  Sam  Insull,  Thomas  Edison,  and  the  Crea%on  of  the  Mod-­‐ ern  Metropolis.  New  York:  Palgrave  Macmillan,  2006. Wacley,  Philip.  “Edison  Plant  Ruins  Combed  for  Clues.”  Chicago  Tribune,  November  23,  1976. ⎯.  “Plant  at  Half  Capacity:  Edison  Fire  Es)mate:  $2  million.”  Chicago  Tribune,  November  24,   1976. Wilson,  David,  Jared  Wouters,  and  Dennis  Grammenos.  “Successful  protect-­‐community  dis-­‐ course:  spa)ality  and  poli)cs  in  Chicago's  Pilsen  neighborhood.”  Environment  and  Plan-­‐ ning  36,  (2004):  1173  -­‐1190. Wilson,  Mark  R.,  Stephen  R.  Porter,  and  Janice  L.  Reiff.  “Commonwealth  Edison  Co.”  In  Encyclo-­‐ pedia  of  Chicago.  Chicago  Historical  Society,  2005.  Accessed  January  27,  2012.   hcp://encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/2622.html Yudelson,  Jerry.  Greening  Exis%ng  Buildings.  New  York:  McGraw-­‐Hill  Companies,  2010. Zhang,  Yue.  “Boundaries  of  Power:  Poli)cs  of  Urban  Preserva)on  in  Two  Chicago   Neighborhoods.”Urban  Affairs  Review  47,  no.  4  (2011):  511–540.   hcp://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.   hcp://images.pennnet.com/ar)cles/pe/cap/cap_pe43958-­‐56.gif

Adap%ve  Reuse  of  Coal-­‐Fired  Power  Plants  

194

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->