Posts Tagged ‘Historic Preservation’

     By Gary L. Cole AIA, ALA, Esq.

     [The following is for informational purposes only and should never be constructed as legal or business advice – architects should seek advice only from own their legal counsel and business advisors in advance when considering whether to undertake any of the services discussed in this article.]

     The following is Part 2 of a two-part series dealing with new professional services for architects.  Part 1 can be found at http://www.lawarkbuilding.com/?p=742.  Both parts will appear in the September 2010 issue of “Licensed Architect,” published in print and online by the Association of Licensed Architects.

    A White Paper containing Parts 1 and 2 of the article can be viewed by clicking on this sentence.

3.         The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation – What They Mean and What They Really Mean

     Central to any project’s approval for Historic Rehab Incentives is its compliance with The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (the “Standards”), which are published by the National Park Service (NPS) as a set of guiding concepts to ensure that properties retain their essential historic character during rehabilitation.  While complying with the Standards can mean qualifying for incentives, failing to comply almost always means denial.  In addition to denied Historic Rehab Incentives, locally landmarked projects that fail to meet the Standards may also fail to obtain permit approval from local historic preservation commissions.

     But despite the importance of a historic rehab project’s compliance with the Standards, and, despite some of the Standard’s interpretations having become a little calcified over the decades, they most definitely aren’t carved in stone.  The Standards are not prescriptive specifications; they’re performance guidelines that require interpretation on a case-by-case basis. 

     The NPS describes the Standards as follows: 

     “The Standards are a series of concepts about maintaining, repairing and replacing historic materials, as well as designing new additions or making alterations. They cannot, in and of themselves, be used to make decisions about which features of a historic property should be preserved and which might be changed. But once an appropriate treatment is selected, the Standards provide philosophical consistency to the work.” 

     “The Standards are to be applied to specific rehabilitation projects in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility.” Read the rest of this entry »

     By Gary L. Cole AIA, ALA, Esq.

     This article will be posted in two parts and a version of both parts will appear in the September 2010 issue of “Licensed Architect,” published in print and online by the Association of Licensed Architects.  The following is for informational purposes only and should never be constructed as legal or business advice – architects should seek advice only from own their legal counsel and business advisors in advance when considering whether to undertake any of the services discussed in this article.

PART 1 – Historic Rehab Financial Incentives and Working with Governmental Entities

     Ask a roomful of architects what each thinks is the most important element of a successful project and you’ll likely receive as many different answers as there are architects answering.  But nearly everyone will agree that the single most indispensable element of any project is financing – no money, no project.  Real estate developers are always searching for two things:  quality projects and ways to pay for them.  For purposes of this article, the latter is where architects come in.

     Though helping developers find ways to finance projects isn’t typically defined in their scope of services, architects involved in historic rehab may be able to expand their services and enhance their marketability by helping clients obtain Historic Rehabilitation Financial Incentives (Historic Rehab Incentives).  In these challenging economic times of reduced demand for traditional architectural services, architects who retool their skill sets and embrace new practice opportunities may gain a competitive edge in the market by providing services with unique economic value which, unlike their traditional design and construction services, can be easily quantified and are always in demand.

1.         Historic Rehabilitation Financial Incentives – Benefits and Availability

What are Historic Rehabilitation Financial Incentives?

     Historic Rehab Incentives are financial incentives offered by local, state or Federal governmental entities for rehabilitating properties that are either locally landmarked and/or listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and are intended to encourage reinvestment in historic properties.   

     While in some ways these incentives represent found money to developers, found money isn’t exactly the same as free money – as in a pot of gold – and in this case the gold is often guarded by one or more local, state or Federal governmental entities.  But for all the administrative hoops and hurdles government sometimes imposes, the potential bump to a qualifying project’s proforma can make the difference between a successful historic rehab project, or – no project at all. Read the rest of this entry »

     By Gary L. Cole AIA, Esq.

     On July 8, 2010 at 12:00 p.m., Gary L. Cole AIA, Esq. will present before the Chicago Chapter of the American Institute of Architects Historic Resources Committee at 35 E. Wacker Dr., Suite 250 Chicago, IL “Expanding Your Services:  Become an Historic Rehabilitation Economic Incentives Consultant.”  See http://www.aiachicago.org/events.asp for the AIA Chicago’s announcement.

     The intent of the presentation is to expose architects to new ways of expanding their services by building on their core skills while acquiring new ones, based on Mr. Cole’s experiences in historic preservation as both an architect and an attorney.  Architects involved in historic rehabilitation projects may be missing out on significant opportunities to enhance their practices and boost their fees by assisting developers in obtaining historic development incentives.

     Many historic rehabilitation projects succeed or fail depending on their ability to maximize available development incentives, like the historic tax credits.  Yet, despite being integral to the process of obtaining those incentives, many architects shy away from helping clients qualify for them, often referring that work to “consultants” who lack their detailed understanding of these projects.  But the good news is that there’s no great mystery in obtaining the skills and knowledge necessary to become an expert in historic development incentives – most architects already have or can easily acquire them. 

     Architects who assist their clients in obtaining historic development incentives to pay for projects may expand their range of professional services, increase project compensation and enhance their reputations in the development community, thereby gaining a competitive edge over their competition.

     The Learning Objectives for the presentation are:

     1.  Understand what historic development incentives are and how they impact project economics.

     2.  Learn how to research and combine available historic development incentives for any project. 

     3.  Learn the basics of dealing with local, state and federal preservation agencies when applying for historic development incentives, including interpreting the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards correctly and in a project’s best interest.

     4.  Learn how to correctly describe the scope of these new professional services, structure fees, limit professional liability and identify other professionals and consultants who may be needed.

     Gary L. Cole AIA, Esq. is an historic preservation architect and an attorney, a former Visiting Associate Professor of Architecture at the University of Illinois, an expert in historic preservation law and has worked with many types of historic development incentives for the past eighteen years.  He publishes timely articles about a wide range of design, construction, historic preservation, green building and accessibility issues at www.lawarkbuilding.com.

See http://www.classicistchicago.org/events

Thursday, June 3rd, 2010
10:00 am – 12:00 pm
Free for ICA&CA members

3610 S. Morgan Street
Chicago, IL
phone: 773.847.6300

Decorators Supply has been creating ornamental plaster and composite products for architectural and furniture projects since 1883. The company manufactured much of the ornament on the buildings of Chicago’s 1893 Columbian Exposition, and has continued to deliver the same quality and craftsmanship throughout the years to today. Their catalogues are a staple in many traditional and classical architects’ offices nationwide. The facility is a 20-minute walk from the Sox/35th Red Line stop, and parking is available in Decorators Supply’s lot or on the street. You will emerge covered in plaster dust, so please dress accordingly!

Event is sponsored in conjunction with the Historic Resources Committee of AIA Chicago. Advance registration is required. This event is FREE to ICA&CA members: just enter “30060161” in the AIA Member number box when registering.

Giza Pyramids

      By Gary L. Cole AIA, Esq.   

     Architect/Attorney Gary L. Cole AIA, Esq. is now listed on the Expert Witness Network at http://www.witness.net/free-expert-witness-directory-search.php?keywords=Gary+Cole

     A summary of Mr. Cole’s expert witness and Dispute Consultancy Services from the Expert Witness Network is provided below, with a fuller description at http://www.lawarkbuilding.com/?page_id=552

     From the Expert Witness Network:

     Gary L. Cole AIA, Esq. is an Illinois and Florida-licensed attorney and an Illinois-licensed architect with over 20 years experience in design and construction, real estate development, historic preservation and accessibility matters. He is one of the few individuals in the U.S. to hold both architecture and law licenses and was a Visiting Associate Professor of Architecture at the University of Illinois for over a decade, teaching hand-on graduate courses in traditional construction methods, building investigation and forensics.

     Mr. Cole provides expert witness services in all aspects of design and construction disputes, commercial and residential real estate transactions, accessibility claims and landmarking and other historic preservation-related disputes. As a practicing attorney and licensed architect, his knowledge of the law and expertise in the construction and real estate development industries permits him greater insights into dispute causes and solutions and allows him to communicate his findings more effectively than experts unfamiliar with the legal process.

     His experience also allows him to provide consultancy services for identifying and vetting other potential experts, thereby saving attorneys and their clients time and money and ensuring that the right expert is match with the right type of dispute. More information on Mr. Cole’s Expert Witness and Dispute Consultancy Services may be found by clicking the title link above.

By Gary L. Cole AIA, Esq.

          Online virtual worlds, also called metaverses, have been around for some time now, all the while growing in complexity and sophistication, first in gaming and then as online 3D social networking sites.  But the majority of these are fantasy worlds – like the well-known role-playing game World of Warcraft  for sword-swinging gamers, and Second Life  (SL) – a metaverse where social interaction between avatars, not troll bashing, is the primary objective.  

          Freed of annoyances like structural engineering and material specifications, building and zoning codes, weather and oh, yes – gravity – anyone willing to shell out a few Second Life Lindens (SL’s virtual currency), can purchase virtual real estate on Second Life and build a house, a commercial building, a Harvard lecture hall, a floating museum – just about anything.  And businesses are taking note as quite a few corporations and educational institutions have opened virtual operations in Second Life and extended their marketing to the virtual world.

          But as imaginative constructs, fantasy virtual worlds will probably be limited to pretty much what they are now – fun, a little business and education maybe, but mostly a pleasant distraction.  Not that there’s anything wrong with that. 

          Enter now the mirror world – a virtual replication of an actual world – not a fantasy world.  While Second Life members have reproduced certain real world buildings within its servers, mirror worlds take it even further and replicate actual cities.  And these cities are populated with avatars – 3D virtual representations of their users (or who their users want to be) who walk, talk and fly about with other avatars, any one of whom might be a real person sitting at their keyboard on the other side of the world, or your neighbor next door.

          One of the best of these mirror worlds is Berlin-based Metaversum GmbH’s Twinity which currently features mirror versions of Singapore, London and Berlin – with more cities in the works.  After creating an account and downloading their software, Twinity members can beam their avatars to just outside Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate as it looks today – or, back to 1989 as it looked before the fall of the Berlin Wall.  Or teleport to London and stroll around Piccadilly Circus or Trafalgar Square (no virtual pigeons that I could see).  The visuals are very good and the sense of place real within the limitations of today’s computer technology – and we all know how long that stands still.   Read the rest of this entry »

By Gary L. Cole AIA, Esq.

            Note:  Despite its title, this article in no way advocates scrapping the current practice of local landmarking, though it does propose that serious upgrades are not only desirable, but probably unavoidable. 

            Part 1 of this two-part series argues that a combination of possible changes in the historic preservation legal landscape and the certainty of a dwindling supply of properties worthy of landmarking may force the current practice of government-controlled local landmarking to evolve. 

            Part 2 of this series proposes modifying the current practice of local landmarking in a way that addresses both problems raised in Part 1 by shifting landmarking from a government-only practice to one that shares responsibilities with the private business and investment sectors, i.e., those with the capital and the appetite for risk needed to invest in historic rehabilitation – a plan I’m calling here Local Landmarking v2.0.

Part 1 – Possibly –  Maybe – Depends.

“If, one day, for some mysterious reason, all the buildings, settlements, suburbs and structures built after 1945 – especially those commonly called “modern” – vanished from the face of the earth, would we mourn their loss?   Would the disappearance of  the prefabricated tower blocks, mass housing estates, commercial strips, business parks, modular production halls, university campuses, schools and new towns, damage the identity of our favorite cities and landscapes?

If, on the other hand, some parallel phenomenon destroyed in one fell swoop the whole of out pre-World War II architectural heritage, namely all “historic” buildings, hamlets, villages, bridges, and cities, what would be the significance of such an event?  What would be a greater loss?  Replacing all pre-1945 buildings with post-war buildings, or the reverse?”

Leon Krier – Introduction to “The Architecture of Community”

            Since the enactment of the National Historic Preservation Act in 1966, preservationists, including local, state and federal agencies, have been busy promoting the preservation of our nation’s built environment through a number of means, including, legally designating both individual properties and districts as historic via local preservation ordinances, sometimes state landmarking programs, and by listing on the federal National Register of Historic Places. 

            Initially created as a response to the widespread destruction the country’s pre-WW II built environment during the mid-century halcyon days of urban renewal, government-run landmarking has become one of preservation’s most effective tools for achieving its goals.  However, four decades and more into it, historic preservation as a movement is roughly middle-aged and changes generally unnoticed by the preservation community are starting to manifest that could mark the winding down of an era of largely unfettered government-controlled landmarking. 

            The usual justification for local governments to convey landmark status on privately owned property is for the “protection” of the property for the “public good” via restrictive ordinances which, in a broader legislative scheme, are somewhat balanced by various financial incentives for private investment – private investment being the only truly sustainable method of preserving historic properties.  The incentives are tagged, of course, with the usual government oversight and controls during their term.

             But does a recent Illinois case herald the twilight of changes in the public’s taste for government-enforced “protection” of private property, and will this condition become more dire as the ready supply of good candidates for landmarking begins to dry up, forcing preservationists to nominate less-worthy properties, which, of course, would make government-controlled landmarking more vulnerable to successful legal challenges as well as undermine the credibility of local landmarking? Read the rest of this entry »

Through its Renew and Rebuild initiative, the American Institute of Architects (AIA) recently released its AIA Economic Stimulus Recommendations, a set of construction-related spending recommendations for the Obama administration’s proposed economic stimulus package. Among the proposals are: $25.7 billion for “21st Century Schools”; $50 billion for various green-related construction projects and an enlargement of the Energy Efficient Commercial Buildings Tax Deduction; $12 billion for “Transit and Livable Communities,” and various business-related tax amendments.

For the sake of this posting, Law/Ark assumes that the AIA’s recommendations are based on sound research and backed with specificity, and don’t simply represent a wish list of funding for projects that in less desperate economic times have gone, or would go, unnoticed by Congress. So stipulated. But the AIA may be missing an historic opportunity to aggressively advocate for the strengthening of an existing program that for several decades has proven effective in achieving the dual goals of stimulating economic development by incentivizing private investment in our communities, and protecting our cultural heritage – the Historic Preservation Tax Credit Program (HPTCP).

Administered by the National Park Service and state historic preservation offices, the current HPTCP allows a 20 percent federal income tax credit for all “qualified rehabilitation expenditures” (as defined by the Internal Revenue Code), incurred as part of the rehabilitation of an income-producing certified historic property that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. In simplified terms, for a project that incurs, say, $10 million in qualified rehabilitation expenditures, the developer of the project would qualify for $2 million (i.e., 20 percent) in dollar-for-dollar federal income tax credits. The HPTCP, especially when combined with other development incentives, works to attract developers and encourage investment in projects that might otherwise fail a proforma’s bottom line test.

But, for unknown reasons, the AIA Economic Stimulus Recommendations seems a bit tepid in its support of a more robust HPTCP. The AIA recommends increasing the HPTCP from the current 20 percent to 40 percent – so far, so good – however, that recommendation only applies to very small commercial historic rehabilitation projects. From the AIA’s website, the enhanced HPTCP benefits appear to apply only to:

“. . . smaller projects in which the qualified rehabilitation expenditures do not exceed $2 million.”

The AIA correctly recommends an increase in the HPTCP’s tax credit rate to 40 percent – it hasn’t changed since the Tax Reform Act of 1986 when it was decreased from 25 percent to the current 20 percent – but the recommendation falls short by imposing a $2 million cap on the qualified rehabilitation expenditures eligible for the enhanced tax credit rate. And, as currently promoted, the AIA’s HPTCP recommendations need clarification – is it intended that small projects with qualified rehabilitation expenditures of, say – $2.1 million, are disqualified for the higher tax credit rate altogether, or is it intended that projects with qualified rehabilitation expenditures greater than $2 million can take the 40 percent tax credit for the first $2 million of qualified rehabilitation expenditures, and then drop back down to the current 20 percent tax credit for those qualified rehabilitation expenditures in excess of the first $2 million? The former eliminates all but smaller projects from the enhanced HPTCP, the latter would include all projects, though with graduated benefits.

The HPTCP has a well-proven record as an effective tool for stimulating private investment in income-producing historic properties. Without clarification from the AIA, it’s hard to see why, as part of an $87.7 billon dollar spending proposal, it didn’t seize the high ground and also propose a significant increase to the incentives for income-producing historic rehabilitation by recommending the 40 percent HPTCP rate for all income-producing historic rehabilitation projects, not just the relatively small ones.

Developers of income-producing historic rehabilitation projects borrow money from commercial lenders to fund their projects; they provide both short-term employment to teams of professionals – architects, engineers and consultants – and to general and specialty contractors. The completed projects also provide long-term jobs for the businesses that manage and occupy those completed properties. Best of all from the government’s perspective, those projects generate sales, property and income taxes during their construction and operational phases.

A successful AIA recommendation to increase the HPTCP could spur private investment in both large and small certified historic income-producing properties, create jobs and generate real taxes – surely the most sustainable way to ensure the long-term survival of historic properties and make a real contribution to the stated goals of the a massive, deficit spending-based federal economic stimulus bill – that is, actually stimulate the economy.

Copyright Gary L. Cole 2009.

Two of Louis Comfort Tiffany’s finest Chicago works have recently been restored to their original splendor – one in its original setting, the other half a country away following a century-long trek that ended in the subtropics of central Florida.

When the Chicago Public Library (now the Chicago Cultural Center) was completed in 1897, Tiffany’s 38-foot glass dome, comprised of approximately 30,000 separate pieces of art glass set in 243 separate panels adorning an iron frame, formed a spectacular focal point to the city’s new, richly detailed neoclassical library. The receiving vaults supporting the dome were covered in marble and mosaics, also by Tiffany. It remained unaltered until the 1930s when the original protective translucent glass covering Tiffany’s dome was replaced with a concrete and copper dome which obscured all natural light essential to the dome’s original visual effect. And so it remained for nearly 70 years.

At Chicago’s World’s Columbian Exposition in 1893, among the many art glass treasures exhibited at the Tiffany & Co. pavilion, located within the Manufacturers and Liberal Arts Building, was a neo-Byzantine chapel. The chapel was composed of marble steps and platforms leading to an alter set within sixteen columns which supported four receding concentric arches focused around a glass mosaic reredo panel of two facing peacocks, symbolizing eternity. The steps, altar, columns and arches were richly detailed with multi-colored glass mosaics and Christian iconography. A separate room to the right of the altar contained a baptismal font composed of a massive mosaic and lead-camed glass covered sphere, which sat on eight short columns. Richly complex leaded glass windows displaying biblical scenes and narratives surrounded the chapel and a 1,000 pound iron and glass electrolier cross hung above the heads of viewers. Stories emerged that visitors were so transfixed by the chapel’s ecclesiastical effect that they removed their hats in respect. In 2008, I acquired an original 18-page letter written by a woman who attended the Columbian Exposition in October 1893, and who reported the following about the Tiffany Chapel:

“Tiffany’s exhibit was fine. One of his exhibits was a chapel with full size altar in it, illustrating their interior decorations, and it was perfectly beautiful. The stained glass windows were representations of scenes in the Bible and were lovely.”

But just as time and circumstance had been unkind to Tiffany’s Dome, it would be even more so to his chapel. After the Columbian Exposition closed in 1893, and for the next nearly seventy years, the chapel repeatedly escaped near destruction. It was first purchased by a wealthy patron, Mrs. Celia Whipple Wallace, and donated to the Cathedral Church of St. John the Divine in New York City, where it was installed in the church’s basement crypt, awaiting final above-ground installation upon completion of the church. But the chapel was ill suited for the low-ceilinged crypt and it suffered from neglect and poor maintenance. By 1916, Mrs. Wallace had died and the church’s new architect, working in the Gothic Revival style, made it clear that the neo-Byzantine Tiffany Chapel would never emerge from the crypt. Tiffany had the undamaged remains of the chapel removed from the church at his own expense and installed in an outbuilding at Laurelton Hall, the 84-room mansion he built in 1905 at his 600-acre Long Island waterfront estate. Tiffany died in 1933 and left Laurelton Hall and the chapel to the Tiffany Foundation. In 1949, the Tiffany Foundation began auctioning off parts of the estate and the chapel, eventually selling Laurelton Hall for $10,000. The estate was mostly unused and reportedly served as a storage facility for refrigerators until in 1957, when it was largely destroyed by fire – though the chapel was relatively undamaged. And there it sat, exposed to vandals and the elements – waiting.

Always visible to the public, Tiffany’s dome began its journey back to the artist’s original vision in December 2007, when the Chicago Cultural Center began its restoration. The art glass panels were removed by a glass restorer and each panel was taken apart, cleaned and repaired with new leading. Decorative polycarbonate panels replaced the original art glass panels during the restoration. In January 2008, the 1930s concrete and copper dome which had blocked natural light for most of the previous century was finally removed and was replaced with a multi-layered protective glass above the iron frame of the art glass’s dome. In April 2008, Preston Bradley Hall – the location of Tiffany’s dome within the Chicago Cultural Center – was closed for the restoration of the dome’s iron frame, which was covered with aluminum leaf and coated with an amber-tinted glaze to resemble gold leaf. In June 2008, the restored art glass panels were reinstalled in the restored iron frame. The room opened on July 1, 2008, and the Tiffany Dome was presented to the public in its naturally lit condition for the first time in nearly seventy years.

The Tiffany Chapel was to take a more precarious road to restoration. In 1957, one of Tiffany’s daughters contacted Winter Park, Florida philanthropists Jeannette and Hugh McKean about purchasing one of the windows at Laurelton Hall. Hugh McKean had been a student of Tiffany’s at Laurelton Hall in 1930, and in 1955 Jeannette McKean had produced a retrospective of Tiffany’s work at the Charles Hosmer Morse Museum of American Art in Winter Park (named after her grandfather). Visiting the ruins of Laurelton Hall, the McKeans decided to purchase the chapel and arranged to have it crated and moved to Winter Park (the McKeans also purchased Laurelton Hall’s four-columned Eastern-influenced loggia and in 1978 donated it to New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art, where it can be viewed today). But despite their careful instructions to the carrier, much of the chapel was merely tossed into the back of a truck for the long journey to Florida, damaging some of the elements. The McKeans then spent several decades acquiring portions of the chapel that had been previously auctioned off by the Tiffany Foundation, which, along with the pieces of the chapel, were stored in wooden crates in the Charles Hosmer Morse Museum, awaiting restoration. Jeannette McKean died in 1989 and Hugh McKean died in 1995. In 1996, the museum began planning an expansion to house the Tiffany Chapel. Over a two-year period the chapel was restored by a team of art glass conservation experts and in 1999 the restored Tiffany Chapel, including the wood entrance door from its Laurelton Hall installation, was opened to the public at the Charles Hosmer Morse Museum – 106 years after its first public appearance at the Columbian Exposition.

The Chicago Cultural Center, despite its prominent location at the corner of Michigan Avenue and Randolph Street, has always seemed to me to be one of Chicago’s most underrated neoclassical public buildings. It was the location for several key scenes in Brian De Palma’s 1987 “The Untouchables,” including the scene where Kevin Costner’s Eliot Ness tosses gangster Frank Nitti from the roof of the building. The unrestored Tiffany Dome can also be seen in the background of several of the movie’s interior shots. But besides the Tiffany Dome, the building’s fine handling of interior and exterior Greek and Romanesque elements, the marble Grand Staircase, bronze entry doors, Vermont green marble detailing, coffered ceilings and Tiffany wall mosaics, put it in a class with neoclassical buildings anywhere – including two 19th century Chicago contemporaries, the Art Institute and the Museum of Science and Industry (formerly the Columbian Exposition’s Palace of Fine Arts). And with the restoration of the Tiffany Dome, the City of Chicago has recognized the Chicago Cultural Center as one of Chicago’s many public architectural treasures. Chicago visitors, looking for a break from the frenetic Millennium Park, can step across Michigan Avenue for docent-led or self-guided tours of the calmly elegant Chicago Cultural Center and view the restored Tiffany Dome.

But for those with warmer climates in mind, I recently had the chance to visit the Tiffany Chapel in its restored setting at the Charles Hosmer Morse Museum. The restored chapel sits serenely in its own wing lit from above by the enormous restored electrolier and surrounded by its original baptismal font and art glass windows in a setting that may indeed approximate Tiffany’s original intent at the Columbian Exposition. The museum also houses many other Tiffany products, leaded glass windows and other artifacts from Laurelton Hall that were rescued by the McKeans. For enthusiasts of Louis Comfort Tiffany’s work, it’s well worth the pilgrimage to Winter Park – itself an interesting alternative to Orlando’s well-known theme parks and a nice place to escape Chicago’s lake effect snow and the land of the wind chill factor.

© Copyright Gary L. Cole 2009

Photo of Chicago Cultural Center Tiffany Dome by BWChicago