CHICAGO | General Developments - Page 2357

west-town-brad · #**47121** Posted **May 11, 2020, 3:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Natoma

You ever notice that they roll out the uber lux renderings whenever they want to demolish something historic? This would take the place of two great rowhouses/walk-ups.

Ranquist is pretty high end, so I'd expect the final product to look like the renderings...

also, old does not mean historic

LouisVanDerWright · #**47122** Posted **May 13, 2020, 10:23 AM**

So I just saw someone in Facebook claim that the antenna on 1000 Lake Shore Drive was not actually dismantled, but blew off in a storm after years of disuse with parts of it landing on the beach across the drive. Is that total nonsense or true? They said they remember riding a bus on the drive and seeing a chunk of it embedded or stabbed into the sand.

Mr Downtown · #**47123** Posted **May 13, 2020, 4:39 PM**

^That seems pretty unlikely—but I don't know how to completely disprove such a claim.

Chicago Tribune archives include no mention of any such incident.

LouisVanDerWright · #**47124** Posted **May 13, 2020, 5:17 PM**

Yeah seems pretty dubious to me and no mention of it elsewhere online. Perhaps there is a seed of truth to it like that a piece of it or some equipment got blown off of it one time. Maybe that happened and this guy is remembering it as "the antenna fell off". Maybe a bit did blow off of it and then the city made them take the whole mast down?

Do you know when they took the mast down? Apparently the reason the penthouse is so huge on this building was to house the transmitter equipment. Would be interesting to explore the penthouse of this building and see what they are doing with that space today.

Mr Downtown · #**47125** Posted **May 13, 2020, 9:07 PM**

WTTW moved its transmitter to the Sears Tower mast in 1974, I think, but that doesn't mean they took down their old antenna immediately. And it might well have been subsequently leased out for two-way radio or similar use. I'm pretty sure I can see it in the 1972 aerials, but probably not in the 1983 aerials.

Darude_Sandstorm · #**47126** Posted **May 13, 2020, 11:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by west-town-brad

Ranquist is pretty high end, so I'd expect the final product to look like the renderings...

also, old does not mean historic

The old vs historic bit is rather pedantic and misses the point. I'm hurt by perhaps most of the demolitions in Chicago, but I looked at the buildings that will be demolished here and they don't do enough for me to miss them at all.

marothisu · #**47127** Posted **May 14, 2020, 2:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darude_Sandstorm

The old vs historic bit is rather pedantic and misses the point. I'm hurt by perhaps most of the demolitions in Chicago, but I looked at the buildings that will be demolished here and they don't do enough for me to miss them at all.

There have been some demolitions that hurt, but there's also a lot that are completely forgettable. A lot more probably than people even realize. Doing the map that I do for new construction permits has made me realize this. Houses like this are a dime a dozen in the midwest. And to be completely honest, I think what replaced it looks a bit better.

At the end of the day though, some of these get torn down because the buildings are in pretty bad shape to begin with which costs more to fix than to just tear it down and building something new. That needs to be taken into account. Buildings are old and when you don't take care of a lot of old buildings, they are going to deteriorate into a mess. I'm not saying all of them are like this but I think that people just assume all these buildings are in amazing shape and are simple to fix.

Darude_Sandstorm · #**47128** Posted **May 14, 2020, 9:01 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by marothisu

There have been some demolitions that hurt, but there's also a lot that are completely forgettable. A lot more probably than people even realize. Doing the map that I do for new construction permits has made me realize this. Houses like this are a dime a dozen in the midwest. And to be completely honest, I think what replaced it looks a bit better.

At the end of the day though, some of these get torn down because the buildings are in pretty bad shape to begin with which costs more to fix than to just tear it down and building something new. That needs to be taken into account. Buildings are old and when you don't take care of a lot of old buildings, they are going to deteriorate into a mess. I'm not saying all of them are like this but I think that people just assume all these buildings are in amazing shape and are simple to fix.

Yeah that was poor word choice. I guess I meant most that get flagged by preservationists. And I think there's something to be said about the ways in which some buildings find themselves in a state of disrepair. I have no idea how often it happens but intentional neglect is a thing.

Via Chicago · #**47129** Posted **May 14, 2020, 2:36 PM**

speaking of preservation/lack thereof, theres an article in the Trib about this restored former dairy in LP which of course is getting torn down for some 3 lot concrete mansion. incredibly sad, the photos and history of what the owners did with this place is inspiring

https://www.chicagotribune.com/colum...mbu-story.html

https://www.zumper.com/apartments-fo...ark-chicago-il

im not against all teardowns, but stuff like this really hurts. and yes, i know that neighborhood has already irrevocably changed. but this mindset (aka paying 6 MIL simply to tear down a well preserved existing property) is some real end of rome shit

Handro · #**47130** Posted **May 14, 2020, 2:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

speaking of preservation/lack thereof, theres an article in the Trib about this restored former dairy in LP which of course is getting torn down for some 3 lot concrete mansion. incredibly sad, the photos and history of what the owners did with this place is inspiring

https://www.chicagotribune.com/colum...mbu-story.html

https://www.zumper.com/apartments-fo...ark-chicago-il

im not against all teardowns, but stuff like this really hurts. and yes, i know that neighborhood has already irrevocably changed.

That's... insane. That's a beautiful, historical house with plenty of potential for updates to fit someones personal style. I've never understood these types of teardowns... If they want a massive 3-lot mansion, why not buy a lot that doesn't currently have a structure like this on it? Even if you're completely oblivious to culture, history, and sense of place, why not save some money on demo...

It's crazy that shit like this is allowed, but zoning prevents multi-family from being built in the majority of the city.

Quote:

but this mindset (aka paying 6 MIL simply to tear down a well preserved existing property) is some real end of rome shit

Totally.

west-town-brad · #**47131** Posted **May 14, 2020, 3:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

speaking of preservation/lack thereof, theres an article in the Trib about this restored former dairy in LP which of course is getting torn down for some 3 lot concrete mansion. incredibly sad, the photos and history of what the owners did with this place is inspiring

https://www.chicagotribune.com/colum...mbu-story.html

https://www.zumper.com/apartments-fo...ark-chicago-il

im not against all teardowns, but stuff like this really hurts. and yes, i know that neighborhood has already irrevocably changed. but this mindset (aka paying 6 MIL simply to tear down a well preserved existing property) is some real end of rome shit

Great to see the owners cashed out their 30+ year personal investment.

HomrQT · #**47132** Posted **May 14, 2020, 4:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Natoma

You ever notice that they roll out the uber lux renderings whenever they want to demolish something historic? This would take the place of two great rowhouses/walk-ups.

https://goo.gl/maps/12hqod7Z4w7mS53Y6

Quote:

Originally Posted by marothisu

If I'm not mistaken, the historic buildings were recently demolished.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darude_Sandstorm

The old vs historic bit is rather pedantic and misses the point. I'm hurt by perhaps most of the demolitions in Chicago, but I looked at the buildings that will be demolished here and they don't do enough for me to miss them at all.

It stinks that we are tearing down ANY viable older building stock when we have empty lots and dilapidated buildings and parking lots still all over this city. I get it if there's a big density swap, like from a 3 flat to a 30 story building, but this just seems wasteful and unnecessary.

LouisVanDerWright · #**47133** Posted **May 14, 2020, 5:28 PM**

Honestly guys, the Dairy and those mutilated two flats are not the biggest problem here. Those buildings pale in comparison to the endless parade of excellent prewar stock all over the South and West side that is mercilessly plowed under on a daily basis. When you see greystone 3 flats biting the dust all over Garfield and Lawndale and Englewood, I'm really not concerned about a Chicago common building that is only relevant at all because it had an interesting historical use.

To me the main outrage of stuff like the Dairy is the sheer wastefulness of it. It's a perfectly serviceable building and now all those finishes are going to wind up in the landfill.

marothisu · #**47134** Posted **May 14, 2020, 6:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Honestly guys, the Dairy and those mutilated two flats are not the biggest problem here. Those buildings pale in comparison to the endless parade of excellent prewar stock all over the South and West side that is mercilessly plowed under on a daily basis. When you see greystone 3 flats biting the dust all over Garfield and Lawndale and Englewood, I'm really not concerned about a Chicago common building that is only relevant at all because it had an interesting historical use.

To me the main outrage of stuff like the Dairy is the sheer wastefulness of it. It's a perfectly serviceable building and now all those finishes are going to wind up in the landfill.

100000% agree. Everyone should take a look at the daily feed of demo permits issued. Soooo many are on the south and west side. A lot of them are emergency demos meaning the buildings are not safe. Tons of good housing stock being lost either in general or because the buildings have become neglected. These parts of town have just as much awesome older housing stock as north sode that we all focus a ton on..

I might put together some stats later on south vs. West. Vs. North side/downtown demo. It might surprise some people.

HomrQT · #**47135** Posted **May 14, 2020, 7:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by marothisu

100000% agree. Everyone should take a look at the daily feed of demo permits issued. Soooo many are on the south and west side. A lot of them are emergency demos meaning the buildings are not safe. Tons of good housing stock being lost either in general or because the buildings have become neglected. These parts of town have just as much awesome older housing stock as north sode that we all focus a ton on..

I might put together some stats later on south vs. West. Vs. North side/downtown demo. It might surprise some people.

Info like that should be shared far and wide. It could raise awareness and slow down the destruction of these buildings in some capacity.

Darude_Sandstorm · #**47136** Posted **May 14, 2020, 7:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by west-town-brad

Great to see the owners cashed out their 30+ year personal investment.

That really isn't what is being discussed. It shouldn't be legal to build on 3 lots like this within walking distance of a CTA bus stop.

west-town-brad · #**47137** Posted **May 14, 2020, 8:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darude_Sandstorm

That really isn't what is being discussed. It shouldn't be legal to build on 3 lots like this within walking distance of a CTA bus stop.

it shouldn't be legal to build the building that's been there for 100+ years?

Darude_Sandstorm · #**47138** Posted **May 14, 2020, 10:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by west-town-brad

it shouldn't be legal to build the building that's been there for 100+ years?

I'm talking about new construction. Zoning allows for 15,500 sq ft SFH here.

Goose Island Guru · #**47139** Posted **May 15, 2020, 4:29 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by marothisu

There have been some demolitions that hurt, but there's also a lot that are completely forgettable. A lot more probably than people even realize. Doing the map that I do for new construction permits has made me realize this. Houses like this are a dime a dozen in the midwest. And to be completely honest, I think what replaced it looks a bit better.

At the end of the day though, some of these get torn down because the buildings are in pretty bad shape to begin with which costs more to fix than to just tear it down and building something new. That needs to be taken into account. Buildings are old and when you don't take care of a lot of old buildings, they are going to deteriorate into a mess. I'm not saying all of them are like this but I think that people just assume all these buildings are in amazing shape and are simple to fix.

The replacement is definitely better, but that porch roof is nasty. Holy shingles

LouisVanDerWright · #**47140** Posted **May 15, 2020, 5:36 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by west-town-brad

it shouldn't be legal to build the building that's been there for 100+ years?

Welcome to the current status quo for 75% of the buildings in the city of Chicago. Fact is we don't get lot line to lot line buildings, corner side entrance six flats, courtyards, two flats, and any other number of historical multifamily programs because they are outright illegal to build under any zoning district in our current code. And building with a turret or bay window over hanging the ROW, for example, is flat out illegal now. You can even be charged by the city for having the audacity to own such an existing non-conforming building. They will toss addtional fees on your permits because you had the gall to renovate a 125 year old building with a turret infringing on the air rights of the public way.