CHICAGO | General Developments

[harryc]

July 5


July 7

[ithakas]

So apparently 1393/1399 W. Lake Street, which housed La Luce, was just taken off the demolition delay list.

Does anyone know what they're building here, or why on God's green earth the city is allowing the owner to demo this gorgeous building? This is one of the best buildings in the area. Ever since I was a kid I can remember passing it by and feeling how unique it makes the block feel.

The historic losses of this boom are getting harder to take (the Smithfield buildings on Chicago/Wells, 215 W. Lake, and especially this).

[harryc]

June 30

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by ithakas

So apparently 1393/1399 W. Lake Street, which housed La Luce, was just taken off the demolition delay list.

Does anyone know what they're building here, or why on God's green earth the city is allowing the owner to demo this gorgeous building? This is one of the best buildings in the area. Ever since I was a kid I can remember passing it by and feeling how unique it makes the block feel.

The historic losses of this boom are getting harder to take (the Smithfield buildings on Chicago/Wells, 215 W. Lake, and especially this).

what the actual fuck

i ask again. WHY DO WE EVEN HAVE A GOD DAMN DELAY LIST? it seems like the only point of it is to say "hey, heres a cool unique gorgeous period building most other cities would kill for that i bet you didnt know was about to be ripped down for a shit box. enjoy watching it get reduced to rubble in the coming days!"

and furthermore, its time to really revist the survey that was done in '95 or whatever. its 20 years ago and lots has changed. clearly its not doing its job. stuff like this should not be falling through the cracks. i dont want a recession, but it seems like the only way to preserve things these days is to put developers out of work.

this one reminds me of the Artful Dodger building that was also so short shortsightedly lost. we're losing our precious corner buildings bit by bit. the one across from Old Town Ale House too. fuck.

[ithakas]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

and furthermore, its time to really revist the survey that was done in '95 or whatever.

Yeah, preservation desperately needs to go through the downtown-adjacent neighborhoods with a fine-tooth comb right now. It's where most of the growth is, and most of the potential for density.

The only way we're going to keep buildings at this scale safe in River North, the West Loop, and the South Loop is by giving them landmark status and taking them off the table for redevelopment.

[aaron38]

^^^ You can't force a building to be economical or desired by fiat. If they want to tear it down they'll just stop maintaining it and wait for the roof to cave in.
If you want buildings to be preserved then someone has to buy them who wants them preserved.

[Near North Resident]

That would be a travesty if that La Luce building gets torn down, what a beautiful building... especially since they own the parking lot adjacent to the building which looks roughly the same size

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by aaron38

^^^ You can't force a building to be economical or desired by fiat. If they want to tear it down they'll just stop maintaining it and wait for the roof to cave in.
If you want buildings to be preserved then someone has to buy them who wants them preserved.

this is BS. yes, you can force a building to be preserved, we do it all the time. and if they neglect it, then hit them with actual ENFORCEMENT of blight/code violation/slumlord penalties until they comply.

[ithakas]

Originally Posted by aaron38

^^^ You can't force a building to be economical or desired by fiat. If they want to tear it down they'll just stop maintaining it and wait for the roof to cave in.
If you want buildings to be preserved then someone has to buy them who wants them preserved.

Except, of course, that the person who wants to preserve it couldn't economically justify outbidding someone who's paying top dollar for a site in a hot market based on its redevelopment potential (ie. increased density). Which is why landmarks needs to step in and give it status, so it's priced into the market in the first place.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by aaron38

^^^ You can't force a building to be economical or desired by fiat. If they want to tear it down they'll just stop maintaining it and wait for the roof to cave in.
If you want buildings to be preserved then someone has to buy them who wants them preserved.

I would purchase this property in a heartbeat, but I doubt the owner wants to sell. There are probably dozens of landlords or developers who would love to own this fairly prime location. The problem is the current owner thinks they have a better idea and that no one will stop them from demolishing it. The only way to stop this is to organize against it and put pressure on the city. If they are barred from demo, this property will be bought by someone.

[UrbanLibertine]

To keep the good news coming on beautiful buildings being torn down. The ZBA will hear a matter next week to demolish 1000 W. Monroe to build an 8-story building.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8803...8i6656!6m1!1e1

[the urban politician]

I still think the real tragedy is that countless buildings on the south side have been lost and replaced with nothing. At least here you will probably see a large and substantial, and very urban, replacement

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I still think the real tragedy is that countless buildings on the south side have been lost and replaced with nothing. At least here you will probably see a large and substantial, and very urban, replacement

unless the real estate market crashes tomorrow in which case we will be left with a vacant lot for another 20 years. because thats definitely never happened.

this building is already relatively dense and mixed use. whatever comes along will at best be recreating a poor facsimile of whats already there.

[the urban politician]

^ This will not be a vacant lot for 20 years

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ This will not be a vacant lot for 20 years

thats what people said when the merc was torn down too.

[the urban politician]

And they were right. It hasn't been 20 years and 130 N Franklin is likely to start soon

Don't get me wrong, I hear your concerns. But I can tell from your numerous posts here that you don't seem to understand the mindset of a small business or property owner very much. Your solutions all stem from Government in some way penalizing people all the time. That will never be a good solution, it hasn't worked very well for several reasons.

Instead of villainizing property owners we should be trying to find better ways to reward them for preservation. Landmarking and slapping code violations on properties harbor resentment against the city by property owners. They feel like they are being harassed. This is especially true for property owners who don't have a lot of money and whose properties are their nest egg. Just dinging them over and over again and taking them to court because of the inevitable wear and tear that occurs with their building is not a way to save a landmark, I'm afraid.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by UrbanLibertine

To keep the good news coming on beautiful buildings being torn down. The ZBA will hear a matter next week to demolish 1000 W. Monroe to build an 8-story building.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8803...8i6656!6m1!1e1

Meh, that building is mediocre. It already lost its cornice. I'll take an 8 story building.

Chicago just needs to be denser. Too bad prior to 1940 the city wasn't building more 8-10 story buildings. Then we wouldn't be dealing with this problem today

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

And they were right. It hasn't been 20 years and 130 N Franklin is likely to start soon

Don't get me wrong, I hear your concerns. But I can tell from your numerous posts here that you don't seem to understand the mindset of a small business or property owner very much. Your solutions all stem from Government in some way penalizing people all the time. That will never be a good solution, it hasn't worked very well for several reasons.

Instead of villainizing property owners we should be trying to find better ways to reward them for preservation. Landmarking and slapping code violations on properties harbor resentment against the city by property owners. They feel like they are being harassed. This is especially true for property owners who don't have a lot of money and whose properties are their nest egg. Just dinging them over and over again and taking them to court because of the inevitable wear and tear that occurs with their building is not a way to save a landmark, I'm afraid.

if you willingly dont maintain your property in the hopes that it will degrade to the point that restoration is not possible or simply land bank it for decades you are the very definition of a slumlord and are a menace to your surrounding neighbors and community. im not talking about a little peeling paint.

unfortunately we are losing even well maintained buildings now, and landmarking is one of the few tools the city has to preserve a shred of character and history in areas where it is at extreme peril.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

if you willingly dont maintain your property in the hopes that it will degrade to the point that restoration is not possible or simply land bank it for decades you are the very definition of a slumlord and are a menace to your surrounding neighbors and community. im not talking about a little peeling paint.

This is quite an assumption. And a silly one.

A vast majority of property owners are not willingly trying to let their property fall apart.

Damn, you sure have a chip against property owners. Did a landlord run over your cat when you were a kid?

The city will never get anywhere treating property owners like hostile enemies. They should be viewed as partners.

[Via Chicago]

i am responding to aaron38's assertion that "if they want to tear it down they'll just stop maintaining it and wait for the roof to cave in." this is the hypothetical situation i am speaking to.