CHICAGO | General Developments

[J_M_Tungsten]

A bit of an over generalization on Americans, no? Even if it is true that a majority don't care, saying Americans throws the ones who do care under the bus. I would like to see the building restored, but even though I have never restored a building myself, I cannot imagine it is a pleasant, or cheap, process. I also don't know anyone who lives in a place where they are the first owner of a new unit.

[emathias]

I like that building on Superior, too, but one also has to consider that many people wouldn't want to live in a building made to look tiny by its neighbors and in perpetual shade because of them. I think it's an awesome building, but given its surroundings I'm not that surprised that it's on track to be a teardown. The number of people willing to restore it is small, and the number of people with both the money and the will to restore it and live in it shoehorned in where it is has to be tiny. So it's unfortunate, but not surprising.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Possibly, but I also think it has to do with ownership of where you are from. I think that people who are in a place for longer tend to take better ownership of it. I can say with certainty that i care more about the old buildings of Chicago now than when I first moved to town. People learn more about the history too - to someone, the Muddy Waters house might be just another semi neglected home. Until they realize what it is after learning about the actual history of the place. In a transitional place like Chicago where so many people move in and out, people know less about it than someone who has been there 10, 20, 30, etc years.

Theres plenty of transients in all sorts of global cities. But theres a greater respect for the heritage even among people just passing through, wheras ours appears to be perceived as disposable.

And to your point about the location of this particular building...its only shitty because of the teardowns that preceded it.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

Theres plenty of transients in all sorts of global cities. But theres a greater respect for the heritage even among people just passing through, wheras ours appears to be perceived as disposable.

There is definitely less of a transient nature in some European cities except for a few than you think (like London, Istanbul to an extent, etc). Many cities have tons of people and their families staying there for generations.

[ChickeNES]

Soil testing rig in the parking lot at the SW corner of Jefferson and Monroe.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

Why is this home considered crappy construction, and what will inevitably be replacing it isnt? Youre telling me the windows/floors/heating system in these new condos will last 128 years? Yea right. How is this considered trading up?

Actually, yes, modern building materials are amazing and likely to hold up better than almost all interior buildouts from 50+ years ago. The exterior materials we use today are probably not quite as nice, but they are a lot less labor intensive and time consuming. But when you start talking about things like pex, steel studs, PVC, etc etc instead of plaster and lathe, galvanized pipe, wood frame windows, and all the old style stuff, you can quickly see that today's building systems are going to last much longer if not multiple times longer than the old style materials and methods.

The real problem you should be focusing your ire on is the fact that Chicago building code makes it just as expensive to renovate an old building as it is to build a new one. The difference being you get surprises in old buildings which can blow out your entire project and almost never have an unpleasant surprise in all new construction. If it were half as expensive to renovate as it is to build new, then people would almost never want to tear down unless they absolutely had to.

[prelude91]

I'll probably get heat for this comment, but I'm convinced part of the reason preservation in Chicago sucks is Midwestern attitude of our residents. Chicagoans, on average, demand more living space than those living in cities such as SF, NYC, Boston, and virtually all European cities, and even if a classic vintage building was beautifully restored, many buyers would still demand new and shiney, with more elbow room.
Thus, not only is it easier to demo and build new, the pool of buyers is much larger. Unless the city puts some policy in place around preservation, we can continue to expect losing historic structures.

[r18tdi]

Originally Posted by ChickeNES

Soil testing rig in the parking lot at the SW corner of Jefferson and Monroe.

Reming me, is there an active proposal associated with that parking lot?

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by prelude91

I'll probably get heat for this comment, but I'm convinced part of the reason preservation in Chicago sucks is Midwestern attitude of our residents. Chicagoans, on average, demand more living space than those living in cities such as SF, NYC, Boston, and virtually all European cities, and even if a classic vintage building was beautifully restored, many buyers would still demand new and shiney, with more elbow room.
Thus, not only is it easier to demo and build new, the pool of buyers is much larger. Unless the city puts some policy in place around preservation, we can continue to expect losing historic structures.

I think cost has more to do with it. In prime areas of NYC, property is expensive. Even in prime areas like Brooklyn, you're going to buying homes for over $1M. Small building in Manhattan? Easily spend $5M, $10M, $20M for a small multi unit building. Paying $10M for a small building, tearing it down and constructing a new one is not going to give you as much money as something in Chicago where you could get a multi unit building for under $1M and build something with just a few units that sells for $1M+ each.

There are many people in NYC who like their space - and many continue living in Manhattan because they value the area more, but many move away to other areas of the metro or even other metro areas all together. I have met countless people in NYC area who moved to areas like New Jersey because they got more space. Most people I work with at my office in Manhattan don't even live in Manhattan - very, very few. Even the single people with no family. Most people live in NJ, or another borough because they could afford a little more space for their money.

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by marothisu

I think cost has more to do with it. In prime areas of NYC, property is expensive. Even in prime areas like Brooklyn, you're going to buying homes for over $1M. Small building in Manhattan? Easily spend $5M, $10M, $20M for a small multi unit building. Paying $10M for a small building, tearing it down and constructing a new one is not going to give you as much money as something in Chicago where you could get a multi unit building for under $1M and build something with just a few units that sells for $1M+ each.

It's funny, because if you asked a NYC developer, they would tell you they need to knock down a vintage building and upzone to get an ROI.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Well constructed perhaps but not always well maintained, especially the frame buildings.

And again you still haven't addressed that no matter how well built they are they rarely pass muster with Chicago's building code.

And again, is a building well constructed if the interior is made of plaster and lathe with asbestos floor tiles and knob and tube wiring? The fact is the shell of old buildings is often the only "well constructed" part of it from a modern perspective. Worse yet, the shell might be housing dangerous, expensive to remediate, conditions. Everything in our society is a game and the rules in Chicago currently result in the mass destruction of older housing stock. It's not the developers, it's the system.

Example, my six unit I'm renovating. Big beautiful side entrance six flat with a corner turret and 12-14' ceilings. Totally gutted shell when I got it, the city had like 4 or 5 court actions against it simultaneously. they charged me $2000 every six months for vacant building fees while I spun my wheels dealing with the bureaucracy. Go in to get permits for the first time, nope you can't have retail anymore even though it has been a retail space for 130 years. Fine, I'll just get a zoning change, deal with the alderman and his cronys, six months later have zoning changed. Reapply for permits, this time the city just keeps changing their minds. Zoning doesn't properly record the zoning change for both of my PINs, get kicked back out of the system because of THEIR mistake. Get zoning to correct their error, reapply for permits again. This time zoning is mad that there was an extra dormer added to the roof by previous owners, doesn't agree with my exiting arrangement either because my building has a fire escape and they don't like fire escapes. Alright, we modify floor plans and agree to remove dormer. They spent 3 months telling me I had to add a back porch to my building and tear the fire escape off despite my explaining to them that their would entail either encroaching on the neighboring lot or somehow building it under the L. Finally pound that concept through their thick skulls. Rinse and repeat for like five other issues.

Took me a year to get permits alone, but that was on my second try, the first try (which burned $1700 in permit fees for nothing) wasted six months in for permits and another six months getting zoning. All in all I had to sit on the building for over three years just dealing with the bureaucratic crap because my existing building is way overbuilt for the current zoning and building codes. So I get my construction budget, $550k because I need to do it all to commercial code. I am putting in cast iron stack and 2" COPPER for vents throughout the building just because there is a retail space in the property. For $550k I could have just razed this beautiful, tall, old building and built a brand new jumbo brick six flat. Now I personally felt that the generous dimensions and beautiful aesthetics of the existing structure were worth it, but from a numbers perspective I wonder if I'm not an idiot...



Another example, I'm in for permits on a classy 1920's brick bungalow on a corner lot. I appreciate old buildings and hate when people "pop the top" on bungalows and just add an ugly ass second level. So I go out of my way to only raise the roof on the back size of the building where it doesn't face the corner. Corner side gets two nice little dormers that match the original end cap dormers. Go in for permits: No, basement is 3" too far above grade and counts towards FAR in the eyes of zoning, not allowed to dormer out attic because FAR is used up below grade. Go talk to building department, No, you can't build out the basement and use that as livable space because it is only 7' 3" and it must be at least 7' 6" if the space is not already built out as living area. So Zoning says "the basement is livable area that counts against your FAR limit" and the building department says "this is not livable area because the ceilings are too low." Meanwhile other buildings on my block have totally been totally mutilated at will because their basements are inferior to mine and more below grade so they don't count towards FAR. So at this point the city is saying "you need to spend another $40-50k renovating this building that you originally had a $137k budget for." Well at that point my budget is pushing $200k which is the cost to build a smart home from scratch. I am going to just bite the bullet on this one, but really the smart decision is to raze it and build a smart home. Literally the city is contradicting itself on this property, but I can't fight it, I am just stuck in the middle holding the bag to either lower the ceiling height to 6'6" (which makes zero sense) or digging down the basement to 7'6" (which also involves underpinning the foundation) just because my building sticks 3" further out of the ground than the others on the block. But I'm just a "greedy developer" what do I know...

[munchymunch]

Originally Posted by ChickeNES

Soil testing rig in the parking lot at the SW corner of Jefferson and Monroe.

Last heard Fifield had these plans floating around, but they put the lot up for sale over a year ago.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by prelude91

It's funny, because if you asked a NYC developer, they would tell you they need to knock down a vintage building and upzone to get an ROI.

Maybe a developer with a lot of money, but someone who is looking to make a little bit of money who can't afford a $10M building with just a few units isn't going to be doing that. In Chicago though they have a much better chance of actually buying what they want if they don't is my point. Since the prices are lower in Chicago, more developers may be able to play the game than in NY for certain types of properties in certain areas. Look at some of the buildings even in river north like this. You could pay a few million for a building and then build something like the one that's 12 stories and 10 units. You'll make a high ROI if they sell, though to your point real estate is higher in NY anyway so it could always just even out or work more in NY favor even if done correctly.

[ChiTownWonder]

Originally Posted by munchymunch

Last heard Fifield had these plans floating around, but they put the lot up for sale over a year ago.

ahhh wish this could of happened.

[Stunnies23]

Lois: sounds like way too much government beaurocracy. The zoning and building department should be merged into one to stop this madness.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Actually, yes, modern building materials are amazing and likely to hold up better than almost all interior buildouts from 50+ years ago. The exterior materials we use today are probably not quite as nice, but they are a lot less labor intensive and time consuming. But when you start talking about things like pex, steel studs, PVC, etc etc instead of plaster and lathe, galvanized pipe, wood frame windows, and all the old style stuff, you can quickly see that today's building systems are going to last much longer if not multiple times longer than the old style materials and methods.

The real problem you should be focusing your ire on is the fact that Chicago building code makes it just as expensive to renovate an old building as it is to build a new one. The difference being you get surprises in old buildings which can blow out your entire project and almost never have an unpleasant surprise in all new construction. If it were half as expensive to renovate as it is to build new, then people would almost never want to tear down unless they absolutely had to.

Im not denying that highrises/skyscrapers are built to high tolerances. But generally speaking for residential homes? Lets run down the list. Windows? Not a chance, esp the kinds that are put into most stuff today (Pella, etc). That stuff is going to be lucky to last 20 years. My apartment still has the original 100+ windows. It kills me to see rehabs tossing these in the trash for some Menards special. Hardwood floors? Only gains character the older it gets. Same with exterior brick. I see new condos all over town that have awful water stains and whatever else running down the side after only 5 years. Old boilers/piping were designed to be long lasting and serviceable...everything today has some form of planned obselences built in. This goes beyond home construction and applies to virtually every aspect of out modern way of life. Who fixes a TV any more? Everyone assumes its only meant to last 5 years, so just throw it in the alley and buy a new one. This cynical attitude didnt always exist.

The bigger picture is what kind of appreciation are these buildings going to have down the road...if they fall out of favor after 20-30 years because they were cheaply designed and built then we're not really gaining anything of value if they just get torn down due to that. Id say we're already seeing it with the condos that went up in the 90s.

I appreciate your struggles with rehabs, and I think pretty much everyone would agree that the departments in nearly all aspects of life here make things more complicated and difficult than they need to be.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

Im not denying that highrises/skyscrapers are built to high tolerances. But generally speaking for residential homes? Lets run down the list. Windows? Not a chance, esp the kinds that are put into most stuff today (Pella, etc). That stuff is going to be lucky to last 20 years. My apartment still has the original 100+ windows. It kills me to see rehabs tossing these in the trash for some Menards special. Hardwood floors? Only gains character the older it gets. Same with exterior brick. I see new condos all over town that have awful water stains and whatever else running down the side after only 5 years. Old boilers/piping were designed to be long lasting and serviceable...everything today has some form of planned obselences built in. This goes beyond home construction and applies to virtually every aspect of out modern way of life. Who fixes a TV any more? Everyone assumes its only meant to last 5 years, so just throw it in the alley and buy a new one. This cynical attitude didnt always exist.

Old windows are extremely high maintenance and fall apart if not constantly maintain after like 20 years. They are vastly inferior from a insulation and even uv infiltration perspective. The windows I'm installing in my current project are aluminium framed with double pane argon glass that has a UV coating to block out damage to finishes and furniture due to constant sunlight. I have another six flat in the area that still has original windows and, while the four pane look is cool, they don't hold a candle. The windows on my building should last at least 50 years with next to no maintenance expect perhaps the occasional fogging from a broken seal (which can cheaply be replaced since these are all modular today and easily dis and re assembled). Even the current vinyl options have gotten really good. If you buy a set of Chicago's own Climateguard windows (which are basically dirt cheap) they are going to last you a good 25-30 years with literally no maintenance. After that point you might have to start replacing loose pieces or broken seals, but even that is far less than scraping all the panes and resetting them which needs to constantly be done with old frames.

Actually, old piping tends to completely rust shut after 50+ years. Copper theoretically could last over a hundred if properly isolated from ionization. Pex is limited only by the strength of the joints as the tubing itself is polyvinyl and won't degrade for tens of thousands of years. Same applies to PVC, old iron stacks eventually rust out (which is why the city code requiring this is moronic, more work for an inferior result) PVC will last thousands of years or more as long as the joints hold out (older PVC had problems with this).

Also, don't confuse one bad modern product like split face brick with general quality issues. Split face was quickly banned after it's failings revealed themselves. This happens from time to time with new building materials, sometimes with much more serious consequences (see asbestos). Most brick today is much harder and less pourous. It also has very good consistency and quality. In fact, one of the failings of modern brick is that it lacks some of the aesthetic charm caused by the impurities and manufacturing techniques for old bricks like Chicago Common. Over the long term, today's brick should last just as long as if not longer than the stuff from 100 years ago. But as is the case with anything, it's all about maintenance. Let any building get inundated with water on a regular basis and it will all go to hell, new or old. If split face brick lets in water, then of course all buildings built with it will go to hell. That's not necessarily because they are generally poor quality, it could be because of one error. Same happens with certain older styles that generally age poorly. Not every old building is a good one. In fact, most old buildings that were poorly built have already been razed, so you have something of a sampling bias as well.

[Via Chicago]

Oh hey look, another well maintained 1890s building without landmark protection being marketed as a teardown opportunity! Phenomenal that we are actively looking to clear these obsolete buildings from our landscape!

http://chicago.curbed.com/2016/5/24/...lding-for-sale

[ardecila]

^ I can't get on board with this kind of "everything today sucks" mentality.

Plaster/lathe is a terrible way to build, which is why even plaster today is done over metal mesh or blue board.

Old growth pine for framing was nice, but totally not sustainable to use as we basically depleted the Northwoods forests over 30 years. Old growth pine for floors is also nice - for pine - but still not as durable as hardwoods used today.

Also, let's not romanticize the "European craftsmen" that build Chicago. Most of them were uneducated Irish/Polish/Italian guys who worked as masons, carpenters, roofers or simply laborers, at absurdly low wages that today we would find socially unacceptable. Skilled craftsmen were rare then as they are now.

[the urban politician]

^ Another issue we are having today is a labor shortage. My contractor is having problems finding labor for certain aspects of some of our projects today. There is so much work out there and not enough labor to go around. This would be a great time to be employed in construction. We need foreign labor more now than ever.