CHICAGO | General Developments

[Via Chicago]

as the archdiocese announces it will likely be closing a substantial number of churches in the coming years, i think it will become important as a city to really figure out how to re-purpose these sorts of structures. converting smaller ones into homes works in some very select cases. but despite not being religious i hate to see houses of worship converted and gutted in that way. and how do you handle the cathedral size spaces, which is really the scale those in the roman catholic church exist on? these are some of the true architectural jewels and lynchpins in our city, but i fear we will lost more of these as time goes on. European citie have managed to preserves houses of worship of thousands of years. how do we do the same?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-archdiocese-parish-reorganization-met-20160205-story.html

[marothisu]

^ I think it depends on the size but churches are nice structures usually in some way. You could re use them in a variety of ways. There's a church in Manhattan at like 20th and 6th which is small but it's now a gym.

[ardecila]

^ No, this really doesn't work. Churches (at least traditional ones) are extremely expensive buildings to maintain, just based on their configuration. Steep roofs, complex rooflines, heavy ornamentation, lots of points for potential failure. The key here is finding something that will bring in enough revenue to cover the maintenance cost and still be profitable. In the neighborhoods where many of these churches are located, that's not remotely possible. Why would a gym take on all that expense when they can build a tilt up concrete box on any number of large vacant lots?

TIF districts or preservation tax credits are only a partial solution - they can address the capital needs to renovate the buildings, but not the ongoing costs of maintenance.

You asked how European cities do it? Most of them aren't grappling with the First Amendment, and they shovel liberal amounts of taxpayer money to support their churches which they consider (rightfully) to be important civic spaces regardless of their religious purpose.

I will say that the Archdiocese is not remotely taking advantage of the potential for tourism dollars. Most European churches are open to the public every day, and either charge admission or collect donations. Chicago Catholic churches are generally only open limited hours on certain days of the week for religious services. There's also a small potential to use these as performance spaces, even for secular music as Fourth Presbyterian does.

[marothisu]

Why would a gym take on all that expense when they can build a tilt up concrete box on any number of large vacant lots?


I think you are thinking too large. I stated above that the church in Manhattan is small - I'm not talking about a cathedral here and you shouldn't think so based on what I said. Property and land is much more expensive in Manhattan than here. So a small church like that - what makes you think that Chicago in a high traffic/populated area can't pull off the same thing? Obviously it's not going to be large churches, but small ones like this size could definitely pull it off

http://www.davidbartongym.com/dbgyms/limelight/


Another thought and this thing above did it too - nightclub. Again, there's many uses for churches and not all churches are big. Some like the one above (and I've seen these in Chicago) are much more doable. On the side though there have been successful conversions in town to residential.

[Ryanrule]

^ No, this really doesn't work. Churches (at least traditional ones) are extremely expensive buildings to maintain, just based on their configuration. Steep roofs, complex rooflines, heavy ornamentation, lots of points for potential failure. The key here is finding something that will bring in enough revenue to cover the maintenance cost and still be profitable. In the neighborhoods where many of these churches are located, that's not remotely possible. Why would a gym take on all that expense when they can build a tilt up concrete box on any number of large vacant lots?

TIF districts or preservation tax credits are only a partial solution - they can address the capital needs to renovate the buildings, but not the ongoing costs of maintenance.

You asked how European cities do it? Most of them aren't grappling with the First Amendment, and they shovel liberal amounts of taxpayer money to support their churches which they consider (rightfully) to be important civic spaces regardless of their religious purpose.

I will say that the Archdiocese is not remotely taking advantage of the potential for tourism dollars. Most European churches are open to the public every day, and either charge admission or collect donations. Chicago Catholic churches are generally only open limited hours on certain days of the week for religious services. There's also a small potential to use these as performance spaces, even for secular music as Fourth Presbyterian does.


Fuck subsiding churches, what kind of backward moronic shit is that?

Tax those fuckers for their valuable property.

[PKDickman]

We have a few church conversions around here. They were modest sized (2-3 lot) churches and made nice multi family residential spaces. One from 2000 is right outside my back door. These were churches that opted into the landmark district and that changed the economics of demolition.
There was one in Logan Square that they wanted to turn into a trapeze school, I am not sure how that plan panned out, but it sounded like a frickin ingenious use to me.

[ardecila]

Fuck subsiding churches, what kind of backward moronic shit is that?

Tax those fuckers for their valuable property.

People like you are why we are forced to slowly lose our churches to neglect and the elements while European cities can preserve their churches. (For the record, other religious structures like synagogues, etc are equally valuable civic spaces so this isn't a Christian thing exclusively)

Seriously though, would you have an objection if the city used TIF funds to purchase/renovate a closed church and then operated it as a community center? What if they leased it to small religious congregations on a first-come, first-served basis?

What if the city didn't purchase the church outright, but simply paid to renovate it and then retained control over event programming for 6 days a week for secular events and performances?

[ardecila]

We have a few church conversions around here. They were modest sized (2-3 lot) churches and made nice multi family residential spaces. One from 2000 is right outside my back door. These were churches that opted into the landmark district and that changed the economics of demolition.
There was one in Logan Square that they wanted to turn into a trapeze school, I am not sure how that plan panned out, but it sounded like a frickin ingenious use to me.

This is not a panacea. Residential conversions only work when demand in the neighborhood can support a certain level of construction cost. This won't work for a church structure in Garfield Park, Grand Crossing or Little Village.

You also totally kill the interior of the space, which is often just as significant as the outside.

I fully applaud the trapeze school idea. Obviously there are only so many trapeze schools to go around through.. :)

[the urban politician]

Seriously though, would you have an objection if the city used TIF funds to purchase/renovate a closed church and then operated it as a community center? What if they leased it to small religious congregations on a first-come, first-served basis?

What if the city didn't purchase the church outright, but simply paid to renovate it and then retained control over event programming for 6 days a week for secular events and performances?

^ That sounds good on paper but it's using tax dollars to create wasteful community centers (how many community centers do we actually need?) when the main use will continue to be a religious congregation for a certain faith.

As most people know, the typical interior of a catholic church is hardly adaptable to other, non-faith-based uses. It's not like you're going to have a basketball court in there. It's a church. You've got crosses, the Virgin Mary, angels, all sorts of religious symbolism in there.

I find all of that beautiful, and for aesthetic and historic reasons would love to see them preserved. But using public tax dollars? I'm afraid that's not in America's DNA, like it or not.

[marothisu]

This is not a panacea. Residential conversions only work when demand in the neighborhood can support a certain level of construction cost. This won't work for a church structure in Garfield Park, Grand Crossing or Little Village.


Yeah, not right not in EGP or WGP, though I think actually it might attract some attention in Little Village. EGP and Little Village are two completely different places. EGP is depopulated and while LV is below its peak, there's still 80,000 people there and many properties there which aren't in disarray. One of the weirdest differences in the city is in certain areas crossing from Little Village to North Lawndale. It's kind of crazy - going from a decent looking area to a shitty one within 10 seconds.

[Ryanrule]

People like you are why we are forced to slowly lose our churches to neglect and the elements while European cities can preserve their churches. (For the record, other religious structures like synagogues, etc are equally valuable civic spaces so this isn't a Christian thing exclusively)

Seriously though, would you have an objection if the city used TIF funds to purchase/renovate a closed church and then operated it as a community center? What if they leased it to small religious congregations on a first-come, first-served basis?

What if the city didn't purchase the church outright, but simply paid to renovate it and then retained control over event programming for 6 days a week for secular events and performances?

The churches own billions.
Tax them to the ground.

[the urban politician]

Yeah, not right not in EGP or WGP, though I think actually it might attract some attention in Little Village. EGP and Little Village are two completely different places. EGP is depopulated and while LV is below its peak, there's still 80,000 people there and many properties there which aren't in disarray. One of the weirdest differences in the city is in certain areas crossing from Little Village to North Lawndale. It's kind of crazy - going from a decent looking area to a shitty one within 10 seconds.

Little Village is....ever so slightly.....starting to warm up.

[ardecila]

I live in Pilsen and go through La Villita all the time. It's a pretty healthy, self-sufficient community, although it's a poor one. Both neighborhoods escaped the cycle of decay and arson that happened in the 1960s and experienced a slower racial transition in the 70s-80s as the old Czechs and Poles died or moved to the burbs.

That doesn't mean it will support expensive church-to-condo conversions, though. They couldn't even do it to St. Boniface in a pretty hot area of East Village (the building is still standing for now, although it's only a matter of time until a homeless dude breaks in and accidentally burns the place down).

That's why I'm seriously worried about St. Adalbert... in addition to having a declining congregation, it's also in bad shape physically. Fortunately it sits on a large lot, so the right redevelopment could include the saving of the church for some community use surrounded by dense TOD housing.

[PKDickman]

This is not a panacea. Residential conversions only work when demand in the neighborhood can support a certain level of construction cost. This won't work for a church structure in Garfield Park, Grand Crossing or Little Village.

You also totally kill the interior of the space, which is often just as significant as the outside.

I fully applaud the trapeze school idea. Obviously there are only so many trapeze schools to go around through.. :)

I didn't suggest it as a panacea. I only hoped to illustrate that these conversions are being done here and that costs that seem insurmountable in the face of dwindling congregations, can be dealt with by more creative economics.

I suspect the separation of church and state precludes funding with tax dollars, but I don't think it keeps us from pressuring the church to seek reuse before they are simply labeled "old and in the way."

[marothisu]

Little Village is....ever so slightly.....starting to warm up.

Very slightly, but I'd more like to see the residents of the community get wealthier and support it that way and not by gentrifying it. Anyway, I think LV gets a lot of crap unnecessarily from the safety standpoint. There are no doubt gangs there and crap going on, but oddly enough the crime rates aren't much different than an area like Lakeview. There are tons of families in the neighborhood and if you walk around 26th street on a Saturday afternoon, you wouldn't really think of it as some neighborhood full of gangs. Of course, nighttime is different or can be. There are many properties there which have been kept up well - you don't have to have tons of money to keep your property from falling into disarray (I'm talking about looking like complete crap). Go along Kedzie from 26th and north. Once you get a few hundred feet north of the Pink Line stop, it changes rapidly.

[harryc]

1/14
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-mSnXVrTH7nQ/VraZRuWVInI/AAAAAAAEbsw/KtPMvNCc7TE/s1024-Ic42/P1370592.JPG

1/28
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-VSyVsfeZKVU/VraY9TV36MI/AAAAAAAEbsw/S_lKbQrcvy4/s1024-Ic42/IMG_1600.CR2.jpg

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-aLNPgxtr7zA/VraY-S5HeCI/AAAAAAAEbsw/896E6MtiAqc/s1024-Ic42/P1390030.JPG

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-84BTigla6xk/VraZSLUe-AI/AAAAAAAEbsw/z3W-Pi_0p3I/s1024-Ic42/IMG_1609.CR2.jpg

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-bE_nQm6Nll4/VraZgBauePI/AAAAAAAEbs0/M3ovmtc-iOw/s1024-Ic42/P1390036.JPG

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-ChRlP9nprh8/VraZgzkVfJI/AAAAAAAEbs0/P6jvqXEoqWg/s1024-Ic42/IMG_1611.CR2.jpg

[Mikemak27]

It's a shame the Zurich American HQ wasn't built in Fulton market or Goose Island. It really is a neat building.

[marothisu]

Speaking of old buildings being converted. This old mansion on Addison near Southport is being converted to 10 units. Written about in October 2014. Received a permit the other day

http://chicago.curbed.com/archives/2014/10/22/developer-proposes-apartments-for-historic-north-side-home.php

[the urban politician]

^ I know everybody hates the burbs, but they exist and we at least need to have some interesting design out there as well. This thing makes quite a statement from the highway.

We can't let Dallas have all the fun.

[the urban politician]

Very slightly, but I'd more like to see the residents of the community get wealthier and support it that way and not by gentrifying it. Anyway, I think LV gets a lot of crap unnecessarily from the safety standpoint. There are no doubt gangs there and crap going on, but oddly enough the crime rates aren't much different than an area like Lakeview. There are tons of families in the neighborhood and if you walk around 26th street on a Saturday afternoon, you wouldn't really think of it as some neighborhood full of gangs. Of course, nighttime is different or can be. There are many properties there which have been kept up well - you don't have to have tons of money to keep your property from falling into disarray (I'm talking about looking like complete crap). Go along Kedzie from 26th and north. Once you get a few hundred feet north of the Pink Line stop, it changes rapidly.

^ How a property looks on the outside often says very little about interior conditions, in my experience of doing a lot of property walk-throughs in Chicago.

Reality is, especially in many of the Latino neighborhoods, you've got pretty rough conditions on the inside. For the most part, whatever eventually undermines Chicago's building stock will be from the inside out, not the outside in, especially the brick structures which were built like tanks over a century ago.

But damaged, leaky, exposed plumbing, settling joists, cracking beams, 100 year old electrical wiring, peeling plaster, leaking roofs over time take their toll.

The only hope for Little Village's building stock, long term, is gentrification. Gentrification will save Chicago, the lack of it will lead to a loss of generations of building stock.

[marothisu]

^ How a property looks on the outside often says very little about interior conditions, in my experience of doing a lot of property walk-throughs in Chicago.


Of course - and I totally agree. However, even if the interiors can be so so or bad in some of these places, at least they are kept up on the outside. It's partially unsettling to walk or drive through a neighborhood that looks like complete crap on the outside because nobody could keep up the buildings on the outside.


The only hope for Little Village's building stock, long term, is gentrification. Gentrification will save Chicago, the lack of it will lead to a loss of generations of building stock.

Yes - but at the same time it needs to be smart gentrification and not turning every area into a cookie cutter area where a lot of the real culture was pushed out. It's definitely possible to do otherwise.

[r18tdi]

I think of the Zurich HQ as a very handsome Goettsche tower that's lying on its side.

[Ryanrule]

Well to fix that, you need more people in these neighborhoods to own their homes, instead of renting the same place for 30 years.

[Ryanrule]

^ I know everybody hates the burbs, but they exist and we at least need to have some interesting design out there as well. This thing makes quite a statement from the highway.

We can't let Dallas have all the fun.

I am totally in favor of Dallas building all the stupid suburban hq's that go to shit in 10 years.

[VKChaz]

Gentrification will save Chicago, the lack of it will lead to a loss of generations of building stock.

Another approach (or step) is to ensure housing funds are available to owners of properties. Not restorations necessarily, but enough to shore up a property to ensure it is safe and structurally sound, extending its life. Then, at some later time, when more investment comes to an area, a new owner can more fully restore a property.

[the urban politician]

I am totally in favor of Dallas building all the stupid suburban hq's that go to shit in 10 years.

I know you are, my post was really based on reading the Urbanophile's recent post (http://www.urbanophile.com/2016/01/31/chicago-is-winning-the-battle-for-the-executive-headquarters/).

I take most of what Aaron Renn says with a grain of salt, but what he says here has some merit--namely that in the interior US Chicago's downtown is a magnet for headquarters in the same fashion that suburban Dallas is a HQ magnet for companies that want a suburban campus.

The problem is, any erosion of Chicago's suburbs being applauded here isn't really happening as much to downtown Chicago's benefit, although that rhetoric is being thrown around. It is mostly happening to the benefit of sunbelt suburbs.

[the urban politician]

Well to fix that, you need more people in these neighborhoods to own their homes, instead of renting the same place for 30 years.

Everybody hates on landlords, but I have seen plenty of shitty properties where the owner lives in them. **

These are 100, 120, 130, even 140 year old structures were are talking about. It is very costly to bring them up to code. I don't know of a solution in many cases beyond a massive rehab, which can cost well over $100k, including permits and inspections.

Lets not kid ourselves, the city wants gentrification. Every action being taken by Chicago right now, you name it, favors gentrification. Look up countless properties in lower/moderate income neighborhoods, and you will see inspections, violations, building court hearings, sometimes injunctions. So owners are being pestered by the city already and facing fines.

In addition so much of the city is underzoned, with countless properties being existing nonconforming, which means it is nearly impossible to create more housing units. Less housing units = higher rents, something we have all discussed here many times before.

And, of course, property taxes and other costs are always headed upward.

The only thing you will see is a senior homeowner's exemption. But once that old geezer sells, the taxes shoot right back up.


** I bought a frame owner-occupied 3 flat in Pilsen a few months ago, a close walk from the Damen Pink Line stop, and have now started rehabbing it. It has a cracked slab and some structural issues. It is undergoing rehab now, the estimated cost is $150k. There is no way in hell the owner who lived there could have afforded that. He was being harrassed by the city, dragged to court, and faced fines and injunctions. In fairness, though, it didn't help that his 2 gangster sons were selling drugs from the property.

[ChiTownWonder]

^ I know everybody hates the burbs, but they exist and we at least need to have some interesting design out there as well. This thing makes quite a statement from the highway.

We can't let Dallas have all the fun.

I agree, it confuses me how many people on this forum want to see the demise of the suburbs, or at least act like it. i really want to see the suburbs prosper, not in their current state but to a more urban neighborhood extent. wouldn't it be nice if we could have urban pockets scattered around chicagoland with a higher design standard and with better transport connecting them to bring people away from their cars?

[LouisVanDerWright]

Well to fix that, you need more people in these neighborhoods to own their homes, instead of renting the same place for 30 years.

True to a degree, but being a homeowner doesn't make you qualified to be a homeowner. We learned that lesson in the last recession, 70%+ homeownership rates just don't work because less than 70% of the population has the means, skills, and abilities required to be an owner. Homeownership doesn't do any good at all if the owner is incapable of maintaining property and probably actually hurts significantly. For example, having too many elderly owners in an area often is a negative because they don't have the means or physical ability to complete the upkeep necessary. Just look at condo prices in Edgewater where the market is totally flooded with 1965 time capsules that haven't ever been updated. That's because a huge number of those units were bought by people in a very specific age bracket who are no longer able to care for their homes. As a result you can get a very large condo on the 20th floor of a highrise overlooking the lake for practically nothing.

Same goes for homeownership among the poor. Does it really help? Maybe a bit, but many people in lower income brackets don't have the time, money, education, etc to be a responsible homeowner. If you simply turned over the keys to every building in Little Village to the current occupants it's likely the area would rapidly go down hill, not improve.

^ How a property looks on the outside often says very little about interior conditions, in my experience of doing a lot of property walk-throughs in Chicago.


It's absolutely amazing how well Chicago's old housing stock's exteriors hold up in our climate. They really knew how to build things right back then. I have a couple of buildings in Little Village that probably have been tuckpointed once in their existence, but they've come through 120 or 130 years with absolutely no structural damage and very little cosmetic damage. Even the original woodwork on the eves of one of my buildings is basically in perfect shape save for a couple of the ornate spindles that fell off over time.


** I bought a frame owner-occupied 3 flat in Pilsen a few months ago, a close walk from the Damen Pink Line stop, and have now started rehabbing it. It has a cracked slab and some structural issues. It is undergoing rehab now, the estimated cost is $150k. There is no way in hell the owner who lived there could have afforded that. He was being harrassed by the city, dragged to court, and faced fines and injunctions. In fairness, though, it didn't help that his 2 gangster sons were selling drugs from the property.

Just so everyone on here knows, TUP has an affinity for buying total garbage buildings and renovating them. I buy some pretty nasty stuff, but TUP has an iron stomach when it comes to total disaster zone buildings. :D

[Tom Servo]

The only hope for Little Village's building stock, long term, is gentrification. Gentrification will save Chicago, the lack of it will lead to a loss of generations of building stock.

Unreal. :uhh:

[Tom Servo]

It's a shame the Zurich American HQ wasn't built in Fulton market or Goose Island. It really is a neat building.

This. :cheers:

[PKDickman]

It's absolutely amazing how well Chicago's old housing stock's exteriors hold up in our climate. They really knew how to build things right back then. I have a couple of buildings in Little Village that probably have been tuckpointed once in their existence, but they've come through 120 or 130 years with absolutely no structural damage and very little cosmetic damage. Even the original woodwork on the eves of one of my buildings is basically in perfect shape save for a couple of the ornate spindles that fell off over time.


That's because the old buildings were built with technologies thousands of years in the making.
Chicago common brick is by modern standards a pretty crappy brick. It's porous, has a low compressive strength and has unequal hardness, but it is so perfectly suited to the lime putty mortars of the day that walls laid a hundred years ago are still self healing. Frankly, misguided repointing with portland mortars has probably led to more decay than leaving them alone.

They also understood that keeping water away was more effective than waterproofing.
Take a look at the brickmold on a B side window. Chances are it has a 1/2 rnd bead running down the inside edge. Whats more, they went through a lot of shenanigans to make this bead miter into a similar one on the head jamb. That's not decorative, it's so water runing down will be diverted around window to the sill.

If you look close at old buildings, you'll see this thinking in a thousand different spots. Sills are pitched and have a drip edge ground into the lower edges, buildings have watercourses and cornices.
They didn't put them there because the looked cool, they felt they needed them so why not make them attractive.

[harryc]

1/29
Caisson under the bridge
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-aZb5CG8qHhs/Vrfl6ezh-hI/AAAAAAAEbuk/KUO2y55fHtk/s912-Ic42/P1390044.JPG

2/2
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-gQsKGyVGRnc/Vrfl6qRKBUI/AAAAAAAEbuo/fY-1kdY3vSY/s1024-Ic42/P1390154.JPG

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-V4P2SwEBoq8/Vrfl7ZFSoHI/AAAAAAAEbus/BWU4shblh7c/s912-Ic42/P1390158.JPG

2/4
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-x_yguoqyCz0/Vrfl7hbyAfI/AAAAAAAEbuw/coZpGg9Cqys/s912-Ic42/P1390319.JPG

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-ZTNFmeb3nHE/Vrfl8jdmRdI/AAAAAAAEbu4/e3bl017_wj0/s912-Ic42/P1390330.JPG

[Ryanrule]

I agree, it confuses me how many people on this forum want to see the demise of the suburbs, or at least act like it. i really want to see the suburbs prosper, not in their current state but to a more urban neighborhood extent. wouldn't it be nice if we could have urban pockets scattered around chicagoland with a higher design standard and with better transport connecting them to bring people away from their cars?

Only if we dragged them into the tax district.

[harryc]

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-DDcdpRwXw7E/Vrf2XxmYDeI/AAAAAAAEbvI/-WdBtbhiBsU/s912-Ic42/P1380278.JPG

[Via Chicago]

Speaking of old buildings being converted. This old mansion on Addison near Southport is being converted to 10 units. Written about in October 2014. Received a permit the other day

http://chicago.curbed.com/archives/2014/10/22/developer-proposes-apartments-for-historic-north-side-home.php

See, this is a perfect example of a conversion that basically guts any integrity the building once had, assuming the renderings are any indication. Honestly calling this a conversion is pretty generous as I see no remaining original elements, much less even facade.

[Via Chicago]

The churches own billions.
Tax them to the ground.

Good luck convincing the US Supreme Court of that.

Tax exemption maintains a separation of church and state, and ensures freedom of religion. Regulation of religion is unconstitutional. Also keep in mind if we end exemptions for churches, we would have to do so for all non profits.

[chrisvfr800i]

I agree, it confuses me how many people on this forum want to see the demise of the suburbs, or at least act like it. i really want to see the suburbs prosper, not in their current state but to a more urban neighborhood extent. wouldn't it be nice if we could have urban pockets scattered around chicagoland with a higher design standard and with better transport connecting them to bring people away from their cars?

In the spirit of detente, I, a willful suburban resident, am very happy to see city neighborhoods thrive and improve. Good suburban communities and good city communities shouldn't be mutually exclusive.

[Via Chicago]

Little Village is....ever so slightly.....starting to warm up.

my girlfriend just bought a charming old brick home there for 100k. she also grew up in the neighborhood tho (actually, the same block. her parents are still there). so, the presence of gangbangers is for better or worse somewhat "normal", because at the end of the day theyre simply kids she saw grow up. she has noted with more than a little amusement the arrival of some white young people to the neighborhood, although she also notes that many of them only last a short period of time before she sees the moving trucks and their parents return to help them pack up. also, while shes from the area she still expresses headaches with the culture itself...the persistent violence esp (when we started dating she said she finally came to realize how strange the community she came from must seem to outsiders...to her, it was just the way things were) but also the noise and constant parties that take over alleys during the summer, which now as a homeowner is more than a little annoying. She's also spoken about the decline of 26th street, and how when she was a kid it was a super vibrant commercial district. Its still there to a degree, but when we went out to eat on Devon not too long ago she remarked that the energy on a summer night there reminded her of what 26th used to be but has in a sense lost.

[Skyguy_7]

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-DDcdpRwXw7E/Vrf2XxmYDeI/AAAAAAAEbvI/-WdBtbhiBsU/s912-Ic42/P1380278.JPG

Appreciate your fine work this weekend, Harry! Did you get a good look at the hotel renovation? It appears as though that orange paneling might be the final product.. :shrug:

[Ryanrule]

Good luck convincing the US Supreme Court of that.

Tax exemption maintains a separation of church and state, and ensures freedom of religion. Regulation of religion is unconstitutional. Also keep in mind if we end exemptions for churches, we would have to do so for all non profits.

The church has repeatedly crossed the line, putting its shriveled dick into politics.
It's time to castrate it.

[Via Chicago]

The church has repeatedly crossed the line, putting its shriveled dick into politics.
It's time to castrate it.

if you want to make that your personal vendetta have at it.

it dosent really address how we save our architectural heritage.

[marothisu]

See, this is a perfect example of a conversion that basically guts any integrity the building once had, assuming the renderings are any indication. Honestly calling this a conversion is pretty generous as I see no remaining original elements, much less even facade.

I don't think the renderings are ANY indication. They're crude and very basic - they show pretty much nothing other than the structure of the building, so I don't think so. I also read elsewhere (maybe DNA Info) that they were going to be preserving everything about the facade.

[Via Chicago]

^
i hope so, and that they make an effort to carry the look of the old brick facade over to the new portion. it looked like they were just throwing some cheap siding up from that image.

[marothisu]

^
i hope so, and that they make an effort to carry the look of the old brick facade over to the new portion. it looked like they were just throwing some cheap siding up from that image.

I think whoever the developer is, is really basic. It was right in the Curbed article I linked btw. A little reading would have the answer:

The property is currently listed for sale as a vacant lot with an ask of $1.575 million, but a developer is looking to preserve the building's front facade and add a rear and side addition to convert the 100+ year old structure into ten apartment units, DNAinfo reports.

[ithakas]

It looks like Coyne College is leaving their campus and parking lot in Fulton Market: https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20160209/west-loop/coyne-college-is-leaving-fulton-market-its-huge-building-is-for-sale

[msu2001la]

It looks like Coyne College is leaving their campus and parking lot in Fulton Market: https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20160209/west-loop/coyne-college-is-leaving-fulton-market-its-huge-building-is-for-sale

This is a huge site, just outside of the (proposed/finalized??) landmark district. It will be very interesting to see what happens there.

Also crazy that Coyne is moving from Fulton Market to State/Madison, which seems like it would be a way more expensive location, but I guess they are downsizing.

[Via Chicago]

It looks like Coyne College is leaving their campus and parking lot in Fulton Market: https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20160209/west-loop/coyne-college-is-leaving-fulton-market-its-huge-building-is-for-sale


^never knew what that building was. always looked like a somewhat nice bus terminal or packing facility from a few blocks away.

[ardecila]

This is a huge site, just outside of the (proposed/finalized??) landmark district. It will be very interesting to see what happens there.

Also crazy that Coyne is moving from Fulton Market to State/Madison, which seems like it would be a way more expensive location, but I guess they are downsizing.

It's just outside of the landmark district, but inside of the PMD. Residential is out of the question here, as is hotel and certain kinds of retail.

Ald. Hopkins came out in favor of abolishing the Clybourn Corridor PMD (it's unclear if he will win) but this is a different ward, different alderman (Burnett).

[BWChicago]

This is a huge site, just outside of the (proposed/finalized??) landmark district. It will be very interesting to see what happens there.

Also crazy that Coyne is moving from Fulton Market to State/Madison, which seems like it would be a way more expensive location, but I guess they are downsizing.

And a very strange place for a trade school. I'd think you'd need parking for a trade school, and there's about a billion industrial lofts they could have chosen. Too bad, it's an interesting low-budget Booth Hansen building. http://www.boothhansen.com/projects/coyne-college/

[MultiModal]

Really big stuff is coming to Sears Tower soon. Very extensive renovations to the interior (such as new tenant amenities and elevator modernization) which will start very soon and is expected to be finished by August. butttttt way more interesting is that Sears will completely redo the base and lobby, wrapping the building in two floors of retail and moving the Skydeck entrance underground. Overall adding around 150,000 SF of retail. Lastly, and maybe most exciting, they want a grocery store for the LL of the building. Unfortunately, the retail portion is not expected to begin construction until Q1 of 2017 with delivery Q2 of 2018.

[ChickeNES]

Really big stuff is coming to Sears Tower soon. Very extensive renovations to the interior (such as new tenant amenities and elevator modernization) which will start very soon and is expected to be finished by August. butttttt way more interesting is that Sears will completely redo the base and lobby, wrapping the building in two floors of retail and moving the Skydeck entrance underground. Overall adding around 150,000 SF of retail. Lastly, and maybe most exciting, they want a grocery store for the LL of the building. Unfortunately, the retail portion is not expected to begin construction until Q1 of 2017 with delivery Q2 of 2018.

This makes me a bit nervous to be honest, given how poorly this kind of renovation has been done in the past. Any info on the architect? It will be nice to see the god-awful blank wall on Adams finally fixed, but I'll miss the mailbox atrium.

[OhioGuy]

Unsure if this should be posted in the Chicago thread, but it looks like construction of a pathetic strip mall won't be happening at the busy intersection of Madison & Harlem in Forest Park (bordering Oak Park, approximately 3-4 blocks from the Harlem Green Line and Harlem Blue Line stations). The developer says the city wants to build a mixed use development on the site as an eastern anchor to the downtown corridor. Good news!

Madison-Harlem Starbucks proposal is dead (http://www.forestparkreview.com/News/Articles/2-2-2016/Madison_Harlem-Starbucks-proposal-is-dead/)
Developer pulls out. Reportedly, Forest Park is looking for a larger project
Tuesday, February 2nd, 2016 1:26 PM

http://media3.forestparkreview.com/Images/2/2/39420/2/1/2_2_39420_2_1_690x520.jpg
Image link (http://www.forestparkreview.com/News/Articles/2-2-2016/Madison_Harlem-Starbucks-proposal-is-dead/)

A developer has withdrawn a proposal to build a strip mall at the northwest corner of Harlem and Madison in Forest Park that would have included a Starbucks coffee shop and a Medspring Urgent Care facility.

David King, who brokered the deal to attract the two businesses to the corner, which currently is a vacant parcel, said he already has put the 20,000-square-foot-plus property back on the market.

"The discussion with the village of Forest Park from day one was: "Is this a Madison Street property or a Harlem Avenue property?" King said in a telephone interview.

One of the sticking points with the proposal by Midwest Property Group Ltd. was the drive-thru window at the proposed Starbucks, which aimed to capture the business of some 35,000 motorists who pass by daily on Harlem Avenue, King said.

He believes the village wants to put in a larger, mixed-use residential building at the location that could serve as the eastern anchor of Forest Park's downtown business district.

"They're looking for a bigger building with more density," he said.

Neither Forest Park Mayor Tony Calderone nor Village Administrator Timothy Gillian returned calls requesting an interview.

King noted that a developer could build a 27,000-square-foot building at the site without needing a zoning variance from the village. He is currently marketing the property to developers interested in a larger structure.

[ithakas]

PILSEN — An alderman will likely deny a developer's controversial plan to build 500 apartments on a vacant Pilsen site.

After the Pilsen Land Use Committee recently issued an unfavorable recommendation, Ald. Danny Solis (25th) told DNAinfo Chicago this week that he likely won't sign off on the project, effectively killing the plan for now.

"It is too many units," Solis said.
https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20160211/pilsen/plan-for-500-units-on-vacant-pilsen-site-likely-wont-get-aldermans-ok

[jc5680]

A week or so old, but the new cornice is all but installed now on the building at Madison and Halsted.

http://www.j-carlson.com/ancilary/halstedmadison.jpg

[the urban politician]

https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20160211/pilsen/plan-for-500-units-on-vacant-pilsen-site-likely-wont-get-aldermans-ok

A setback for Pilsen, but the clock is ticking. Eventually that land will be developed

[Kumdogmillionaire]

I remember walking by that every day during the summer on my way back from the gym. They really did a nice job cleaning that thing up!

[Vlajos]

A setback for Pilsen, but the clock is ticking. Eventually that land will be developed

What does the alderman want for the site?

[the urban politician]

The Alderman wants to stay in office. That means balancing the needs of development versus the whining of some members of the Mexican community who won't give up on east Pilsen. The reality, this is a form of regulation of unfettered free market gentrification. It will slow down the process and grab headlines, a political win. But the Alderman can't stop people from buying and rehabbing every property in the district and raising rents. Eventually the whole area will be overrun with gentrifiers and community opposition to a big development at that site will be attenuated. If you read that article you can see that community groups in University Village really want that site developed.

[Near North Resident]

https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20160211/pilsen/plan-for-500-units-on-vacant-pilsen-site-likely-wont-get-aldermans-ok

wonder if there was some "influence" by the Podmajersky family on this, I'm sure they are loving that rents in pilsen are skyrocketing and probably don't want any more competition

[Via Chicago]

Pods have always charged above what the rest of Pilsen was asking as it is. so much for "supporting artists"

[ardecila]

The Alderman wants to stay in office. That means balancing the needs of development versus the whining of some members of the Mexican community who won't give up on east Pilsen. The reality, this is a form of regulation of unfettered free market gentrification. It will slow down the process and grab headlines, a political win. But the Alderman can't stop people from buying and rehabbing every property in the district and raising rents. Eventually the whole area will be overrun with gentrifiers and community opposition to a big development at that site will be attenuated. If you read that article you can see that community groups in University Village really want that site developed.

Developed, yes. Developed densely, no. By the time the neighborhood gentrifies fully it will become hostile to rentals and new multifamily, so we'll end up with a large townhouse development in the New Postmodern style popular in 2025...

The positive news is that Solis is approving the plan to reuse an old factory on 21st St. 99 units but only 52 parking spaces, so it ought to put a lot more pedestrian and bike traffic on the sleepy dead end of Blue Island.

The developers are "getting away" with only 10% affordable since they are donating the factory's old parking lot for new athletic fields. As an added bonus, the developers are preserving the massive water tower on the roof. :cool:

[Ryanrule]

How vulnerable are the various nimby controlled alderman?

[Jim in Chicago]

How vulnerable are the various nimby controlled alderman?

Not very. They act the way the do since the Ninbys they please are the ones who keep them in office.

[aaron38]

https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20160211/pilsen/plan-for-500-units-on-vacant-pilsen-site-likely-wont-get-aldermans-ok

Around 2005, at the request of the community, Solis and the land use committee developed a mandate requiring a minimum of 21 percent of all new developments to be designated as affordable housing units. The rule applies to new developments of 10 or more units that seek zoning changes from the city or use city land or subsidies, Solis said.

Solis' 21 percent mandate — which only applies to Pilsen, not other parts of the 25th Ward — is double the city's mandate requiring 10 percent of new developments to be affordable housing units.


A vacant lot has 0% affordable housing. They ask for double, they get zero. Typical government overreach.
And yet another example of NIMBY-govt collusion driving up the price of housing. 500 new units would have done a lot to meet demand.

Another example of people being bad at math. 10% of 500 units is 50 affordable units. After they downsize this, probably to 200 units, 20% of 200 is 40 units.

[george]

LondonHouse's Three-Level Rooftop Bar Could Be Chicago's Coolest New Spot
This been covered already?

https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20160211/downtown/londonhouses-three-level-rooftop-bar-could-be-chicagos-coolest-new-spot

[the urban politician]

^ Math and logic are not the strong point of affordable housing whiners. That's probably why they are in their position to begin with.

Some people, faced with a lower standard of living, work hard, sacrifice, and raise their income. Others bitch to elected officials to improve their lot for them. Two different philosophies.

[Via Chicago]

Some people, faced with a lower standard of living, work hard, sacrifice, and raise their income.

Thanks for the pep talk Ronald.

[maru2501]

someone should really move to texas

[the urban politician]

Let's face it, this is an absolute corruption of zoning. Zoning laws exist to create a legal framework as to who can build what, of what size and dimensions, how many units, commercial or residential, etc etc.

Zoning does not tell us how much rent we can charge. Plain and simple. For Aldermen to simply block zoning because it threatens affordability in an area just lacks any rhyme or reason.

[maru2501]

yeah someone will have to sue soon

[Skyguy_7]

Thanks for the pep talk Ronald.
Selective attention, I see. Don't let yourself ignore the detrimental philosophy of those who are ruining our country.

^ Math and logic are not the strong point of affordable housing whiners. That's probably why they are in their position to begin with.

Some people, faced with a lower standard of living, work hard, sacrifice, and raise their income. Others bitch to elected officials to improve their lot for them. Two different philosophies.

[Via Chicago]

if only the poor stopped being poor, our country could finally be great again. vote trump!

somehow it only a problem when the poor try to use government to advocate for them. when the rich craft policies to favor themselves, thats simply known as democracy i guess.

[IrishIllini]

Let's face it, this is an absolute corruption of zoning. Zoning laws exist to create a legal framework as to who can build what, of what size and dimensions, how many units, commercial or residential, etc etc.

Zoning laws exist also to regulate development and ensure the comprehensive development of the city. For better or worse is subjective. Zoning also plays a role in economic segregation, although I'm not entirely sure it's reasonable to argue that's the primary purpose of zoning.

Zoning does not tell us how much rent we can charge. Plain and simple. For Aldermen to simply block zoning because it threatens affordability in an area just lacks any rhyme or reason.

The Alderman is against the project because the current residents of Pilsen are against the project. The writing is on the wall for them. The young, mostly white, professionals are coming and they don't want to be displaced. I understand their fears, but unfortunately, when you don't own your home, you are subjected to displacement through the gentrification process.

Chicago is a huge city with tons of land for new housing. I know it's not the "politically safe" answer, but it's the fairest one. If someone is willing to pay a higher rent to live in the housing you currently occupy, it is totally reasonable for the landlord to raise rent. I understand moving sucks and not everyone has the means to move, but neighborhoods change.

[Via Chicago]

People seem to forget that private charity exists and we don't need the govt forcing their ideas of charity (and control) onto us.


yes, and those evil government schools, and government fire departments, and government libraries, and government roads, and government trains, and government parks, and government police, and government dams, and...

so sick of all this government control over my life! if we just rely on the benevolence of the ultra wealthy to trickle down their scraps im sure it will all work out in the end.

[Jibba]

The increased affordable unit requirement only applies to 10+ unit developments seeking a zoning change; it doesn't bind developers that are building as of right. An extra 10% affordable units isn't the most burdensome quid pro quo for developers looking to maximize their own profits.

That being said, I don't consider 500 units to be too many units at that site, and the zoning should already be there for such an amount, but that's unfortunately not the case.

Edit: And 500 units on a 7.85-acre site is not very dense: it almost meets the MLA of RM-4.5.

[ithakas]

Chicago is a huge city with tons of land for new housing.

This is the key fact when debating gentrification in Chicago. The fact is, for every Pilsen or Logan Square, this city has a few neighborhoods on the South or West Side whose properties' market values have plummeted in the last ten years. The people who live in these homes, much like people all over the country, have most of their wealth locked up in their property.

Would you rather have to cash out of a neighborhood and move on, or be stuck living in a neighborhood with little opportunity because your mortgage is underwater? Hopefully anyone who is displaced can infuse these troubled areas with more investment and population.

Also, I feel the gentrification debate has been framed primarily by coastal journalists in cities without this problem. The gentrification protestors often aren't the poor, they're the first wave gentrifiers incredulous at signs of the second wave gentrifiers. The guy leading the 'anti-gentrification' protests in Logan Square is a professor at Loyola who moved back here from New York a few years ago.

-Sent from my $1300 3 bedroom apartment in Logan Square

[J_M_Tungsten]

Not sure much about the history, but wasn't Pilsen a mainly German neighborhood at one point? When did it shift demographics and why?

[Vlajos]

This is the key fact when debating gentrification in Chicago. The fact is, for every Pilsen or Logan Square, this city has a few neighborhoods on the South or West Side whose properties' market values have plummeted in the last ten years. The people who live in these homes, much like people all over the country, have most of their wealth locked up in their property.

Would you rather have to cash out of a neighborhood and move on, or be stuck living in a neighborhood with little opportunity because your mortgage is underwater? Hopefully anyone who is displaced can infuse these troubled areas with more investment and population.

Also, I feel the gentrification debate has been framed primarily by coastal journalists in cities without this problem. The gentrification protestors often aren't the poor, they're the first wave gentrifiers incredulous at signs of the second wave gentrifiers. The guy leading the 'anti-gentrification' protests in Logan Square is a professor at Loyola who moved back here from New York a few years ago.

-Sent from my $1300 3 bedroom apartment in Logan Square

Not surprising really.

[Kumdogmillionaire]

Mods might want to get this board back on topic, getting a little political in here

[prelude91]

if only the poor stopped being poor, our country could finally be great again. vote trump!

somehow it only a problem when the poor try to use government to advocate for them. when the rich craft policies to favor themselves, thats simply known as democracy i guess.

The problem as I see it is the poor usually don't know what is good for them, they need to be told what to do in most scenarios, not the other way around.

[PKDickman]

Let's face it, this is an absolute corruption of zoning. Zoning laws exist to create a legal framework as to who can build what, of what size and dimensions, how many units, commercial or residential, etc etc.

In this case that is exactly what it does.
But the framework (Approx 340 units) is not what the developer wants.

Affordable housing ordinance is not the price of zoning, it is the price of more zoning than you got with the deed.

In the downtown districts, it is a little more straight forward. The minimum price for extra zoning is 80% of what it would cost to purchase enough extra land to support the increase. It's not so straight forward out in the neighborhoods.

yeah someone will have to sue soon

Someone will, but they will lose.
There is no constitutional right to a zoning change.
The reasonable expectation for a fair hearing is the best anyone can hope for.

[Via Chicago]

The problem as I see it is the poor usually don't know what is good for them, they need to be told what to do in most scenarios, not the other way around.

i think what youre describing is the definition of exploitation.

[LouisVanDerWright]

if only the poor stopped being poor, our country could finally be great again. vote trump!

somehow it only a problem when the poor try to use government to advocate for them. when the rich craft policies to favor themselves, thats simply known as democracy i guess.

See, this is the problem. We don't have a direct democracy for a reason. We are not supposed to "lobby" and elect officials because they promise us a handout (whether corporate or individual welfare). We are supposed to elect officials who will make the most rational decision on any given policy based upon the input of qualified advisors and the best interest of the people.

The poor electing people who will give them handouts is no different than public sector unions electing people who will give them raises or corporations getting people elected who will give them tax loopholes. It's all the same debasement of our society and breakdown of the rule of law. The real shame in this case is that the "poor" are not even getting a benefit out of this move, they are literally screaming for something they can't get without totally changing our economic system (which will never happen). They are demanding cake, but eating it in this instant. They want affordable housing, but they are restricting supply. This is tantamount to cutting off the nose to spite the face. This benefits no one except for the alderman who is getting brownie points with an uninformed electorate by making what is essentially a symbolic decision with negative consequences for everyone.

[ardecila]

In this case that is exactly what it does.
But the framework (Approx 340 units) is not what the developer wants.

The size of the site creates a mandatory PD. Even if the developer cut their proposal in half, it wouldn't matter... PD kicks in above 3 acres (for detached homes) or 60 units for multifamily. No matter how you develop the site it will be above those thresholds.

Because of the mandatory PD, the alderman has the leverage to demand affordable housing even when the ARO does not explicitly require it.

[Via Chicago]

See, this is the problem. We don't have a direct democracy for a reason. We are not supposed to "lobby" and elect officials because they promise us a handout (whether corporate or individual welfare). We are supposed to elect officials who will make the most rational decision on any given policy based upon the input of qualified advisors and the best interest of the people.

The poor electing people who will give them handouts is no different than public sector unions electing people who will give them raises or corporations getting people elected who will give them tax loopholes. It's all the same debasement of our society and breakdown of the rule of law.

this is all going to get deleted anyway so im not going to go to any real effort to reply other than to say that the poorest and most vulnerable segments of our society attempting to work even a small portion of the system in their favor is really the least of my concerns, given how much the system itself has fuck*ed them over the years. more power to them.

[the urban politician]

somehow it only a problem when the poor try to use government to advocate for them. when the rich craft policies to favor themselves, thats simply known as democracy i guess.

No it's friggin not. How many times do I have to tell you that I have a problem with BOTH of those situations?

Sheesh, it's like reinventing the wheel with you every time we have this discussion. I might as well be talking to a broken turntable

[JK47]

Let's face it, this is an absolute corruption of zoning. Zoning laws exist to create a legal framework as to who can build what, of what size and dimensions, how many units, commercial or residential, etc etc.


You're describing how zoning functions not it's purpose. Zoning, as a process, is intended to improve the quality of life in a community by coordinating the uses of adjacent parcels in order to avoid conflicts.

[PKDickman]

The size of the site creates a mandatory PD. Even if the developer cut their proposal in half, it wouldn't matter... PD kicks in above 3 acres (for detached homes) or 60 units for multifamily. No matter how you develop the site it will be above those thresholds.

Because of the mandatory PD, the alderman has the leverage to demand affordable housing even when the ARO does not explicitly require it.

Certainly he has leverage, but whether he would use it is unclear in this case, because that is not what the developer asked for.

It would not be required by the ARO.

Personally, I believe the local oversight of any project put through the PD process solely on the basis of threshholds, should be limited to how the project interacts with the surrounding community. Things like curb cuts and drainage could have the force of demands, but brick color and affordability, should never raise above the level of polite suggestions.

[aaron38]

In this case that is exactly what it does.
But the framework (Approx 340 units) is not what the developer wants.

The size of the site creates a mandatory PD...
Because of the mandatory PD, the alderman has the leverage to demand affordable housing even when the ARO does not explicitly require it.

The alderman only has leverage to demand, has zero leverage to actually ensure those demands are met. And here his demands are apparently for 160 fewer units total (which of themselves would help control prices) for a measly 18 more affordable units. And he won't actually get those 68 affordable units because they're not going to be built.

He could have had 500/50, and walked away wanting 340/68. Makes no sense.

[harryc]

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-AaeKNjxa9Fw/Vr6fOQbPbeI/AAAAAAAEb2A/fXSf5EHxt9U/s800-Ic42/IMG_2066.CR2.jpg

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-GiPCIblbTsI/Vr6fNqkxaUI/AAAAAAAEb18/iugvi7w_Rdg/s800-Ic42/IMG_2058.CR2.jpg

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-ncXuImQ_xfg/Vr6fOwvBHXI/AAAAAAAEb2E/J_PNBhXvAlM/s800-Ic42/IMG_2078.CR2.jpg

[urbanpln]

The problem as I see it is the poor usually don't know what is good for them, they need to be told what to do in most scenarios, not the other way around.

This kind of thinking is backwards. You are seriously uninformed.

[Via Chicago]

Prelude must think he is immune from financial hardship. Ignorance is bliss I suppose.

All it takes is one job loss or health issue or economic downturn. Never forget that, and never think that you are somehow superior to anyone else based on your income. It is utterly meaningless, and if you think it's not you have a lot left to learn in life. Would be far more interested to hear how your contributing to society.

[prelude91]

Prelude must think he is immune from financial hardship. Ignorance is bliss I suppose.

All it takes is one job loss or health issue or economic downturn. Never forget that, and never think that you are somehow superior to anyone else based on your income. It is utterly meaningless, and if you think it's not you have a lot left to learn in life. Would be far more interested to hear how your contributing to society.

I'm not sure how any of this is relevant to what I said. Perhaps I should clarify, I'm speaking specifically about affordable housing/Gentrification.

I own 4 buildings in Pilsen, so have first hand account on the stupidity I hear in the neighborhood about the neighborhood. The fact is, virtually all of the people I speak with don't have a clue about economics, and make demands that are financially unfeasible. I don't understand how they are in a position to be telling the decision makers how the neighborhood should be run.

[Via Chicago]

as feared, St Adalbert is officially closing. i hope another congregation is able to step in and make use of the space.

[Kumdogmillionaire]

as feared, St Adalbert is officially closing. i hope another congregation is able to step in and make use of the space.

Definitely, or at least reused with the same structure. That building is too beautiful to go to waste

[ardecila]

Definitely, or at least reused with the same structure. That building is too beautiful to go to waste

I'm super sad to see this go. It was the home church for two generations of my family, now I live around the corner.

Fortunately, it's not just the church but a large parking lot and school/rectory that sits comfortably inside the TOD zone of 18th.

A fairly dense redevelopment here could save the church building, especially if the parishioners have made headway towards raising the $3M restoration cost and Solis doesn't make any bullshit affordable housing demands.

Unfortunately the Archdiocese often frowns or outright prohibits re-use for religious purposes, so a Protestant congregation can't move in.

[Emprise du Lion]

I'm super sad to see this go. It was the home church for two generations of my family, now I live around the corner.

Fortunately, it's not just the church but a large parking lot and school/rectory that sits comfortably inside the TOD zone of 18th.

A fairly dense redevelopment here could save the church building, especially if the parishioners have made headway towards raising the $3M restoration cost and Solis doesn't make any bullshit affordable housing demands.

Unfortunately the Archdiocese often frowns or outright prohibits re-use for religious purposes, so a Protestant congregation can't move in.

Sadly they haven't. Apparently their GoFundMe page has only raised $1,650 over 9 months.
https://www.gofundme.com/rbhwb33u

[HowardL]

As sad as it might be to see a beautiful piece of architecture go, I can't be saddened to see religion lose its grip on this city. I would gladly trade all of the basilicas, mosques, temples and grand religious structures for architecture that actually serves some use.

[ardecila]

As sad as it might be to see a beautiful piece of architecture go, I can't be saddened to see religion lose its grip on this city. I would gladly trade all of the basilicas, mosques, temples and grand religious structures for architecture that actually serves some use.

I could not disagree with you more strongly.

A city without a soul and with no place for the sublime or supernatural is not a city I want to live in.