CHICAGO | General Developments

[LouisVanDerWright]

Yeah, residential side streets tend to be heavily forested in Chicago while commercial corridors suffer. They spend all kinds of money as they streetscape the streets they are replacing utilities on and then they don't come back to even check in for a decade or more. Meanwhile a bunch of healthy maturing trees are choked off at the base or irreparably scarred because no one bothers to reduce the size of tree well grates.

It's also worth remembering that most of Chicago was only built 125 years ago or less. The area where I live on the NW side is about 100 years old on average meaning that 100 year old trees are rare and 150+ years old is unheard of as this area was Prairie before it was settled. If you are familiar with how trees grow, there's a big difference between a bunch of 25-75 year old trees and 75-150 year old trees like you might see in Lincoln Park or unburned areas in certain Chicago neighborhoods and a few early suburban cores like Evanston or Oak Park. The trees on my street are just now coming together to completely enclose my street, given another 25 years, I expect my street will feel more like Edgewater Glen or Lincoln Park than the scrubby Logan Square side street vibe it is throwing off now.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Yeah, residential side streets tend to be heavily forested in Chicago while commercial corridors suffer.

truth. i live in edgewater (magnolia glen) in the middle of a veritable urban forest. the magnificent tree canopy is one of my absolute favorite aspects of my neighborhood. but as soon as i walk east to broadway or west to clark, it's like "WTF happened to all of the trees? where did they go?"

[harryc]

5/20

[msu2001la]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Chicago at least has a landscape ordinance that requires large developments to provide trees from a pre-approved list of trees likely to survive. (This doesn't apply to commercial streets.)

The Chicago landscape ordinance definitely applies to "commercial streets".

Any sidewalk wider than 9' requires trees. This applies to any development, not just large ones. It's part of the standard permitting process.

[msu2001la]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Yeah, residential side streets tend to be heavily forested in Chicago while commercial corridors suffer. They spend all kinds of money as they streetscape the streets they are replacing utilities on and then they don't come back to even check in for a decade or more. Meanwhile a bunch of healthy maturing trees are choked off at the base or irreparably scarred because no one bothers to reduce the size of tree well grates.

It's also worth remembering that most of Chicago was only built 125 years ago or less. The area where I live on the NW side is about 100 years old on average meaning that 100 year old trees are rare and 150+ years old is unheard of as this area was Prairie before it was settled. If you are familiar with how trees grow, there's a big difference between a bunch of 25-75 year old trees and 75-150 year old trees like you might see in Lincoln Park or unburned areas in certain Chicago neighborhoods and a few early suburban cores like Evanston or Oak Park. The trees on my street are just now coming together to completely enclose my street, given another 25 years, I expect my street will feel more like Edgewater Glen or Lincoln Park than the scrubby Logan Square side street vibe it is throwing off now.

Chicago forestry department is actually pretty progressive on street tree planting techniques that include below grade soil vaults, root paths, etc that will allow trees to thrive in tree-grate scenarios, but until the last 10 years or so no one at CDOT cared. So, they'd stick these little 2" trees in 5x5 grates and they'd all die after 4-5 years and sometimes get replaced, sometimes not.

That has definitely changed as CDOT's complete streets policy has been developed. Every new streetscape project in Chicago includes measures to ensure successful tree growth. Forestry now requires larger grates (most new projects are getting 5x10's now) in urban areas that will allow trees to actually grow and mature a bit more.

Any sidewalk/parkway wider than 9' gets new trees 25' on center whenever work on the buildings is done. This is required to get a building permit and isn't something limited to residential areas.

Some of the ordinance is already superceded by newer requirements, but you can get an idea of what is required for street tree planting here:
http://www.cityofchicago.org/content...nanceGuide.pdf

[spyguy]

I assumed this one was safe - apparently not:

This 128-Year-Old Row House Squeezed Between Condos Will Be Demolished

[J_M_Tungsten]

I guess if it's in terrible shape, as the article suggests, it would take a very willing and wealthy individual to bring back to life. The kicker in the article for me was it said that developers are running out of parking lots and other sites to develop?? Have they not looked at a map of area parking lots lately? Yes, some have been taken, but certainly not enough that would necessitate starting with this one.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by J_M_Tungsten

I guess if it's in terrible shape, as the article suggests, it would take a very willing and wealthy individual to bring back to life. The kicker in the article for me was it said that developers are running out of parking lots and other sites to develop?? Have they not looked at a map of area parking lots lately? Yes, some have been taken, but certainly not enough that would necessitate starting with this one.

EVERY developer in this town says "its in horrible shape, it cant possibly be restored or saved" when presented with the opportunity to tear down a row house and put up a shit box. translation "theres zero incentive for me to save this building, and the wife wants an in ground pool this year, and i have precisely zero interest in a restoration job in the first place". the article could have been copy/pasted from 3 or 4 other situations where buildings like this have been lost in the past year. every time...."nope, no way to fix things here, move along now...."

the exterior is beautiful. theres conveniently no photos of the interior. where theres a will theres a way. the will among developers to EVER fix up a building like this is simply not a thing that exists when the profit windfall from tearing it down is so substantial.

also once again, zero landmark protections. great job city of chicago!

[the urban politician]

^ How many properties have you restored?

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ How many properties have you restored?

I grew up in a 130 year old home that my parents lovingly restored. Whats your point? People are living in homes older than our country in Europe and Asia. The difference? They give a shit.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

I grew up in a 130 year old home that my parents lovingly restored. Whats your point? People are living in homes older than our country in Europe and Asia. The difference? They give a shit.

They care, and also the places aren't usually crappy construction, at least the old stone stuff in Europe. They last longer than a typical wood frame home. People do care about the history too and often times those cities in Europe, except a few, are not as transitional than a NYC or Chicago.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by marothisu

They care, and also the places aren't usually crappy construction, at least the old stone stuff in Europe. They last longer than a typical wood frame home. People do care about the history too and often times those cities in Europe, except a few, are not as transitional than a NYC or Chicago.

What about this home suggests crappy construction to you. You realize most of these were built by European immigrant craftspeople, yes?

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?

Perfectly encapsulates everything about the modern world. We're getting conned, folks. And we're willing to pay a premium for it!

[the urban politician]

There is a difference between restoring your own home and throwing money into the trash restoring an investment property that will never reward you with a return on your investment. The city has just made it an absolutely abysmal experience restoring older properties. It's better to tear down and rebuild, especially if what you build is clearly going to be 10 times more profitable.

Btw, I'm rehabbing a beautiful building in Lincoln Park as we speak, that is in a landmarked district. I'm doing it without the proper permits so I'm taking a bit of a risk, but it's worth it because Chicago's Building Dept has become the perfect example of completely unfettered government over regulation

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

There is a difference between restoring your own home and throwing money into the trash restoring an investment property that will never reward you with a return on your investment. The city has just made it an absolutely abysmal experience restoring older properties. It's better to tear down and rebuild, especially if what you build is clearly going to be 10 times more profitable.

Well, I more or less admitted as much. I understand why its happening. Dosent mean i like it or that i think its enhancing our city or making making it a better place in the long run.

Again, the fact that its not even landmarked (a rare building to begin with, in a neighborhood where it is clearly threatened) says it all.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

What about this home suggests crappy construction to you. You realize most of these were built by European immigrant craftspeople, yes?

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?

Perfectly encapsulates everything about the modern world. We're getting conned, folks. And we're willing to pay a premium for it!

Chill out. I never mentioned the fucking building on Superior. Stop assuming - I never stated it. I was talking in general terms about the difference of the US between numerous European cities and why European cities tend to have more preservation. I also listed other points. They weren't meant to be taken as a "these ALL are the reasons together." They are OR statements. Construction could be bad OR people don't care as much here. Not AND.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Chill out. I never mentioned the fucking home on Superior. Stop assuming - I never stated it. I was talking in general terms about the differnce of the US between numerous European cities.

Well, we're talking about Chicago and the vast majority of our homes that were built pre WWII are well constructed...is my point. And we're throwing them into the landfill.

[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.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

Well, we're talking about Chicago and the vast majority of our homes that were built pre WWII are well constructed...is my point. And we're throwing them into the landfill.

I responded to your question directly about the difference between Europe and here. It had nothing to do with this. And there are many homes that are well constructed in Chicago that have been torn down, I'm not denying it. People also take crappy care of their buildings and neglect them. Look at the building in Wicker Park on Milwaukee which was the industrial building that was going to be converted to condos. The developer wanted to do that, and the building was constructed well. Except the owner neglected it and the city told the developer they would have to tear it down as it was in bad shape due to the neglect. Very few structures in the world can last by themselves without some sort of care. Most have to be maintained. Even some of the world's most sturdy buildings undergo structural repairs. Last time I was in the Ays Sofya in Istanbul, which was built nearly 1500 years ago and easily one of the sturdiest buildings I've ever stepped foot in, it was undergoing structural repairs to part of it. One of the domes could have easily collapsed if they just decided to neglect it all of a sudden.

WHICH IS WHY I specified that my statements are OR, not AND. That's why I mentioned transitional, and people not caring. Many people who live in Rome have been there their entire lives, or around the area. They care about preserving the history. This isn't the case with the average person who's lived in Chicago for 2 years. They don't care as much on average about preservation of history.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by marothisu

WHICH IS WHY I specified that my statements are OR, not AND. That's why I mentioned transitional, and people not caring. Many people who live in Rome have been there their entire lives, or around the area. They care about preserving the history. This isn't the case with the average person who's lived in Chicago for 2 years. They don't care as much on average about preservation of history.

I think it has much more to do with a national attitude than a city one. Americans in general couldnt care less about anything thats older than 10 or 20 years. "Ew, someone lived in this building BEFORE me??!"

We had good bones laid down, and most of "old" america could define our national heritage if they were simply able to survive long enough. Old downtowns, local vernaculars, etc. have nearly entirely been replaced by suburbia and big box culture. And now our inner cities, which had at least been able to survive the purge thanks of all things to lack of interest, now are threatened more than ever that the interest has returned.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

I think it has much more to do with a national attitude than a city one. Americans in general couldnt care less about anything thats older than 10 or 20 years. "Ew, someone lived in this building BEFORE me??!"

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.