CHICAGO | General Developments

[glowrock]

Visit Boston which has preserved so much even from the time frame of Chicago's history. Chicago is tearing down too much history

This is very true, pip. But also keep in mind, Boston literally lives and dies on historic tourism. People visit Boston to see history preserved. Same as with places like St. Augustine, Florida. Same with Alexandria VA, Charleston SC, Savannah GA, as well as of course the original section of Philadelphia. Tourists don't clamor for Chicago's history, at least not generally.

I'm not defending Chicago's relative disregard for historic preservation. In fact, I think it's pretty atrocious to say the least! I'm just saying that, unlike Boston (using your example), Chicago doesn't necessarily see a financial incentive to preserve its history as Boston does. Shortsighted in my opinion, but most likely accurate. :(

Aaron (Glowrock)

[west-town-brad]

I submit the following thesis...

one story building from 1985... tear that junk down, who would have built such a crap building in such a desirable area? we need density!

one story building from 1885... how dare you tear that down? it's history! get the pitchforks out! we need historical buildings!

:runaway:

[F1 Tommy]

I submit the following thesis...

one story building from 1985... tear that junk down, who would have built such a crap building in such a desirable area? we need density!

one story building from 1885... how dare you tear that down? it's history! get the pitchforks out! we need historical buildings!

:runaway:


In Chicago they will tear both down along with a few terra cotta 2 and 3 story buildings and call it progress.:D And the alderman will say he knew nothing about it when asked :)

[Rizzo]

I submit the following thesis...

one story building from 1985... tear that junk down, who would have built such a crap building in such a desirable area? we need density!

one story building from 1885... how dare you tear that down? it's history! get the pitchforks out! we need historical buildings!

:runaway:

Thats a warped analogy...just as unreasonable as a preservationist’s perspective that “all” developers think 100% of Chicago’s buildings should be demolishable.

The reasonable perspective is that century or older buildings retaining almost all their original details or in good condition should be automatic candidates for preservation..or at minimum their facades. And we shouldn’t be reducing unit counts but maintaining or increasing density. So many apartment buildings when I lived in Southport were knocked down for SFRs. The timeframe (whatever that may be) allows some expendability. Issues of scale and use should also be accounted for. For example, my position on UIC earlier was that the campus shouldn’t have blanket preservation as the university should be able to correct its architectural faults.

Personally I wouldn’t put up a fight for the Humboldt property. There’s worse offenses and the density is a huge benefit. But better preservation policy would lead to smarter development decisions not at the expense of architectural or cultural history.

[mark0]

I submit the following thesis...

one story building from 1985... tear that junk down, who would have built such a crap building in such a desirable area? we need density!

one story building from 1885... how dare you tear that down? it's history! get the pitchforks out! we need historical buildings!

:runaway:

I'll bite. Disregarding the architecture, which is almost always far more detailed and elegant in the pre war buildings than anything in 1985, the prewar buildings are built far superior structurally, the masonry at least. Multi wythe common brick walls with lime putty mortar of that era can last forever if taken care of. The post war hard bricks and cement mortar veneer walls are basically junk.

[pip]

This is very true, pip. But also keep in mind, Boston literally lives and dies on historic tourism. People visit Boston to see history preserved. Same as with places like St. Augustine, Florida. Same with Alexandria VA, Charleston SC, Savannah GA, as well as of course the original section of Philadelphia. Tourists don't clamor for Chicago's history, at least not generally.

I'm not defending Chicago's relative disregard for historic preservation. In fact, I think it's pretty atrocious to say the least! I'm just saying that, unlike Boston (using your example), Chicago doesn't necessarily see a financial incentive to preserve its history as Boston does. Shortsighted in my opinion, but most likely accurate. :(

Aaron (Glowrock)

All true but even outside the tourist areas of Boston so much is preserved. Most of Boston is not the perfect row house Beacon Hill everyone sees. Areas that gentrify in Boston are generally not tear-downs.

[left of center]

In my own anecdotal experience, there definitely is a greater appreciation for historic preservation in Boston, as well as much of the east coast (Philly, NYC, DC, for example), at least as compared to Chicago. While Boston does have the whole colonial history tourism dollar machine going full steam, it appears that much more of the older building stock in the city has survived, even in non touristy/residential areas.

While its great that Chicago is very much pro development (and I am in no way trying to create more roadblocks to development), I think the city can do a number of easy and common sense moves in order to bolster its existing preservation initiatives. For starters, we shouldn't have alderman who are surprised (or at least act the part) that a historically significant structure has been bulldozed in their ward.

[SpireGuy]

That sucks. Having strong preservation policy would help induce redevelopment of empty lots. They can start with everything orange rated must at least have their facade saved - no exceptions. It’s not a lot to ask. If a developer doesn’t like that they can move onto another property to tear down. I realize this specific example isn’t rated by the city which is why perhaps the survey must be updated.

Agreed! Developers should be forced to develop on vacant lots, which we have a ton of in Chicago. At the very least, they should save the facades of older buildings, include a slight setback, and build more density. If required, they will still build to make some money while preserving what makes Chicago special.

WE NEED TO ACT to force the city council to adopt stricter preservation guidelines. Any orange rated building should have a demo delay of at least 2 years. Until we protect our historic heritage, I think we need to drill the fact into people that CHICAGO DOESN'T CARE ABOUT ARCHITECTURE.

[Arm&Kedzie]

Also from the article linked:

Though the building is not designated a city landmark, it is deemed historically significant by the National Register of Historic Places. The agency lists it as a ‘contributing building’ in the Chicago Park Boulevard System Historic District. Contributing buildings add to the significance of historic districts, but aren’t so significant that demolition is restricted.

Valadez [Ald Moreno chief of staff] said he was not aware that the building was listed as such until a Sun-Times reporter notified him of the designation. When asked if the designation would impact the alderman’s support, Valadez said, “Perhaps,” adding that he is planning to confer with the city’s Landmarks Department. Wilmot Properties did not return calls for comment.



There seems to be a general lack of information about much of anything involving neighborhood buildings. What is significant? why? With a recent building demolished in the West Loop, the alderman said he had no idea of any architectural significance and no one had contacted him to try to stop demolition. Even groups that are trying to preserve buildings seem to be unable to actually communicate to the larger community.
Something I would suggest is that anyone interested in preservation get ahead of the curve. This building was vacant and owned by a developer. Not surprising the developer wants to replace it. Preservation and community groups should start the call early rather than waiting until it is too late.

This building was knocked down weeks ago...

[marothisu]

Agreed! Developers should be forced to develop on vacant lots, which we have a ton of in Chicago. At the very least, they should save the facades of older buildings, include a slight setback, and build more density. If required, they will still build to make some money while preserving what makes Chicago special.
.

How do you do that? Force the owners of the lots to sell? I am not sure why people have this notion that these lots are just up for grabs. People/companies own them. It's not like they're there for anybody to just take. I mean let's get real here. Do you really think that a developer would prefer to buy property with a building on it and tear it down? On average, doubt it - it costs more money and it's usually more time to start to build anything. I guess zoning could play into it, but - let's get real here about all of this.

You can start with land owners if you want this before you start with developers. And at the end of the day, it's probably harder because they have to pay less tax when there's nothing on the lot. If it's somewhere like downtown, then sitting on something for another year will probably net them more money at the end of the day and they probably really don't always have much reason to sell ASAP.

[JK47]

How do you do that? Force the owners of the lots to sell? I am not sure why people have this notion that these lots are just up for grabs. People/companies own them. It's not like they're there for anybody to just take. I mean let's get real here. Do you really think that a developer would prefer to buy property with a building on it and tear it down? On average, doubt it - it costs more money and it's usually more time to start to build anything. I guess zoning could play into it, but - let's get real here about all of this.


Personally land-banking is the thing that really gets my goat. I live up in Lakeview and everytime I pass by that stretch of Irving Park Rd that Thorek is letting lie fallow it just pisses me off.

That said, anything that tries to "encourage" landholders to develop vacant parcels (perhaps via an annual escalator on their tax bill) needs to be strenuously looked at for unintended consequences. I can see that leading to a lot of quick and dirty builds intended to fill the parcel, meet requirements, and not cost that much to construct. Not sure how we can encourage good development.

[ChickeNES]

How do you do that? Force the owners of the lots to sell? I am not sure why people have this notion that these lots are just up for grabs. People/companies own them. It's not like they're there for anybody to just take. I mean let's get real here. Do you really think that a developer would prefer to buy property with a building on it and tear it down? On average, doubt it - it costs more money and it's usually more time to start to build anything. I guess zoning could play into it, but - let's get real here about all of this.

You can start with land owners if you want this before you start with developers. And at the end of the day, it's probably harder because they have to pay less tax when there's nothing on the lot. If it's somewhere like downtown, then sitting on something for another year will probably net them more money at the end of the day and they probably really don't always have much reason to sell ASAP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax

[emathias]

Boston has had areas laying fallow before, both downtown and in the neighborhoods. If you extend that to the nearby cities, it's still true. Maybe they don't lose as much historic stock, but they do still manage some modern construction.

Every City is different, but it would be a mistake to think Boston has all those problems solved completely.

[the urban politician]

I for one own historic buildings, and would never think of knocking down such beautiful structures. I take joy in preserving them for the future. I love that Chicago is a city in which professionals making decent incomes would willingly live in a ruggedy old building! Think about that, this is probably the case in only a handful of cities in America. In the rest of this country, professionals would never even think about living in a building that wasn’t new or modern. That speaks volumes about the desirability of our built environment.

But if I was going to be encouraged to preserve an old structure, the city needs to be creative. Implement a 5 year property tax freeze, followed by 5 years of partial exemptions, of property taxes for Orange rated buildings that have undergone substantial rehabilitation (proof provided via permits and inspections). We can easily do this, but the city needs to make the effort, without penalizing property owners.

[Mr Downtown]

^How would that be better than the current Class L property tax incentives?

[PKDickman]

^How would that be better than the current Class L property tax incentives?

Sort of, Class L is for commercial, requires 50% of market value spent in rehab and reduces the assessed value to 10% of market (instead of 25%) for the first ten years then 15% and 20% year 11 and 12. They can also apply for federal tax credits.

The Historic Residence property freeze is for smaller residential projects. It requires 25% of market spent in rehab and freezes the pre-improvement assessment for 8 years and sliding to market over the next four.

All of them require that the property be on the Nat'l register or local landmark rolls which does not apply to all Oranges. But the owner can ask for landmarking in order get these credits and on an Orange, the chances are pretty good.

[harryc]

May 30

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1721/27647977147_3ab3868f14_h.jpg

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1740/42466722442_4b77c0a131_h.jpg

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1760/42466729952_cbb8a9f044_h.jpg

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1734/41616075575_a88979e9e3_h.jpg

[LouisVanDerWright]

How do you do that? Force the owners of the lots to sell? I am not sure why people have this notion that these lots are just up for grabs. People/companies own them. It's not like they're there for anybody to just take. I mean let's get real here. Do you really think that a developer would prefer to buy property with a building on it and tear it down? On average, doubt it - it costs more money and it's usually more time to start to build anything. I guess zoning could play into it, but - let's get real here about all of this.

You can start with land owners if you want this before you start with developers. And at the end of the day, it's probably harder because they have to pay less tax when there's nothing on the lot. If it's somewhere like downtown, then sitting on something for another year will probably net them more money at the end of the day and they probably really don't always have much reason to sell ASAP.

Guys land owners and developers are the same group: property owners. There isn't a separate "development market" and "land market" it's the same thing. The problem is our current laws allow valuable historic structures to come down so developers feel free to view historic buildings as a land play. This needs to be banned.

How do your force the landowners to sell? Well you don't force anyone to sell, you ban demolishing historic buildings for the land under them. This reduces the number of parcels developers can build on which jacks up land values for parcels that can be developed which would include already mutilated historic structures, insignificant structures, and already vacant land. Since there are now fewer sites available to build on the value of the remaining sites increases (less supply = higher price) and the owners of these properties are incentivized to sell, not forced to. Think about it, if you own a side lot you are using as a garden and the price of lots is $50k in your area, that's not all that enticing to give up your huge yard, but if the price of that lot jumps to $200k or $250k, well now we are talking.

I just grabbed two beautiful historic brick structures (a 2 flat and a 4 flat) in a package which also included two lots. I totally restored both buildings including having two 18"x7' art glass arch windows rebuilt and restored as well as grinding and tuckpointing the entire facebrick and putting back the original charcoal colored tuckpointing (it's amazing how many buildings used to have charcal colored joints but some clown stuffed white or grey mortar in there later ruining the awesome red/black color combo). Now I'm sitting on the two plots of the land which I basically own cash for free because the bank only wants to lien the buildings. I'm just land banking them until the value of each lot is high enough that the bank will finance construction of a new two flat just based off the land value. As soon as land values rise I'll build, but until then I'll just keep buying buildings to rehab.

But I digress, my point is that land is virtually free in most of the city. The affordability crisis is a myth, if there really was such want on demand you wouldn't be able to pick up lots on the fringes of gentrifying areas for $5000. The problem is simply that we allow demolition of historic building stock. If we banned that the historic stock would just get rehabbed and the developers would move on to areas where they can find crappy frame buildings to raze or vacant lots to build on.

Finally, as depressing as it can be to live here and know what once was (like the Stock Exchange or the lot at Division and Damen that used to be a Shell and is now being developed), I'm actually consistently shocked by what wasn't. There are huge swaths of the city where you see endless vacnt lots and think "damn they razed a whole neighborhood", but you look it up and it was actually shitty single story industrial buildings with huge storage yards. Or in the case of my two lots it was a crappy frame workers cottage that burned down on one lot and a weird one and a half story brick cottage that was jacked up when they raised the street and had a frame first floor built under it. In fact, there are several buildings on my block like this still standing and most of them have very little preservation value. In 10-20 years they will likely mostly be torn down and replaced by larger, better built, modern structures.

But that's just it, we are 150 years into our history since the fire, Boston has been around for almost three times as long. I'm willing to bet that a lower percentage of Boston has been constructed between 1870 and 1940 than Chicago. But to us it appears they've preserved much more of the city than us because we see everything built from 1600's through now. Chicago is still young and, as I said before, many parts of it never even were. We are still building up our housing stock and yes, part of that is going to be losing some historic stock. The key is preserving most of what is worth keeping and making sure that the next layer of structures is worthy of standing next to what we preserve. We need to make sure that we are adding our next layer of history just as a city like Boston has layered hundreds of years of construction until virtually every building in the city is worth preserving.

[PKDickman]

The problem is our current laws allow valuable historic structures to come down so developers feel free to view historic buildings as a land play. This needs to be banned.
Unfortunately, the financial incentive for the city, is to make you tear it down and build new.

Thanks to the vagaries of property tax limitation law, the city's property tax levy on "old property" is capped at 1994 plus inflation.

If you fix up an abandoned 3 flat in Douglas Park, when you're done, the taxes on that property might double, but the city does not see one extra dime. All that happens is that everyone else has their taxes lowered by an infinitesimal amount.

If you tear it down, the new construction constitutes "new property" and any increase in taxes is added upon the old levy.

If I was really a conspiracy nut, I would say, that it is in the city's best interest to do everything in its power to discourage you from repairing the property, to force you to tear it down, and then, stall up your permits for new construction until is has been assessed as vacant property, unloading its portion of the levy unto other taxpayers.

That way, they would make the most money.

But they'd never do that.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Unfortunately, the financial incentive for the city, is to make you tear it down and build new.

Thanks to the vagaries of property tax limitation law, the city's property tax levy on "old property" is capped at 1994 plus inflation.

If you fix up an abandoned 3 flat in Douglas Park, when you're done, the taxes on that property might double, but the city does not see one extra dime. All that happens is that everyone else has their taxes lowered by an infinitesimal amount.

If you tear it down, the new construction constitutes "new property" and any increase in taxes is added upon the old levy.

If I was really a conspiracy nut, I would say, that it is in the city's best interest to do everything in its power to discourage you from repairing the property, to force you to tear it down, and then, stall up your permits for new construction until is has been assessed as vacant property, unloading its portion of the levy unto other taxpayers.

That way, they would make the most money.

But they'd never do that.

Yeah but that incentivizes me not to tear down because my six flat that's worth say $1 million after I renovate it is only taxed like $5000 instead of the $10,000 that a new one would be.

Also I owned a building that was vacant so long it was taxed at land value and the taxes went up by 10 fold when I rehabbed it. You are telling me the tax increase from that came from lowering my neighbors taxes? Then there shouldn't be any issue with gentrification since it lowers taxes on existing neighbors houses?

[Khantilever]

Since there are now fewer sites available to build on the value of the remaining sites increases (less supply = higher price) and the owners of these properties are incentivized to sell, not forced to.

In partial equilibrium, that makes sense. But in general equilibrium, or in the long run after all other factors adjust, the value to other properties can easily fall as a result of preservation. It depends crucially on how substitutable these parcels are for one another (obviously the “historical” sites are superior, all else constant, else they wouldn’t be the ones facing redevelopment pressure). It also depends on how large the benefits of preservation are, I.e. do people care, and more generally how harmful the reduction in expected future density is to other properties. For example, land near the West Loop is increasingly expensive in *expectation* of lots of development there that would bring people and traffic to adjoining areas; so if development were to be suddenly limited, it could reduce their values.

It’s also not clear why one would be more likely to sell when the value increases. When one holds on to their land they’ve taken a long position, meaning they expect a future increase. If the benefits of preservation take a long time to develop, then that could mean that other properties’ values will be rising over a longer time frame than before—thereby discouraging selling. Regardless, it’s not important who owns the land. Once the time is ripe to develop the owner will sell to a developer (because that’s when developers’ bids should be highest), barring distortions from taxes or other policies that misalign incentives.

[PKDickman]

Then there shouldn't be any issue with gentrification since it lowers taxes on existing neighbors houses?

That might be true, if you were the only only one.
If their assessments go up because of your gentrification, then they too are paying a higher percentage of the levy.
The place where the taxes go down is a vacant lot at 63rd and Damen.

[BrinChi]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax

Yes please!

[VKChaz]

Are there numbers on how various cities have done side-by-side for preservation, or is this just conjecture? (honest question)

You can compare the number of landmarked sites between cities as a kind of proxy. For example, NYC which has a stronger preservation mentality lists over 36,000 in total. Using a per capita comparison of other cities to Chicago is obviously far from an apples to apples comparison given differences between cities and their histories, but it might give you some idea of the relative state of preservation.
http://www1.nyc.gov/site/lpc/designations/designations.page

[Kumdogmillionaire]

I honestly didn't think of NYC as a strong preservation mentality with how many old building tear downs there have been this cycle for new supertall skinnies.

[10023]

I honestly didn't think of NYC as a strong preservation mentality with how many old building tear downs there have been this cycle for new supertall skinnies.

NYC just has a lot more old building stock though.

[LouisVanDerWright]

NYC just has a lot more old building stock though.

As a percentage of total building stock, probably not though. Chicago hasn't seen nearly the amount of urban development since WWII that NYC has and what we have had has been highly concentrated on the Noth side. There are whole sides of the city where 99% of the housing stock is prewar.

[marothisu]

I honestly didn't think of NYC as a strong preservation mentality with how many old building tear downs there have been this cycle for new supertall skinnies.

It completely depends on where you are. Greenwich Village for example is very preserved and they have pretty strict rules around there. My area, Upper West Side, is mostly older buildings and some blocks are really beautiful (my block for example). The stuff they aren't preserving for the most part is stuff in parts of Midtown where most tourists are, and also areas in Lower East Side, East Village, etc...and various parts of Brooklyn here and there. For the most part, things get preserved which is both a good and bad thing. The unfortunate part is when you are looking at actually living somewhere and there's truly a lot of old but not in great condition places out there. Chicago is better in that regard easily in my opinion, but NYC does a pretty good job of preserving old buildings.

However, I guess if you were to compare parts of Midtown with parts of downtown Chicago then you wouldn't find tons of difference in terms of preservation. I don't think people in either places have any trouble tearing down older low rise buildings for new developments.

[marothisu]

I calculated the neighborhood totals from Realtor.com for May. An H next to the name indicates this month was a high in total for the last 9 months (as far as my data goes back).

Top areas
1. Near North Side: 304 sales (H)
2. Lakeview: 300 (H)
3. West Town: 238 (H)
4. Lincoln Park: 180 (H)
5. Near West Side: 151 (H)
6. Logan Square: 134 (H)
7. Uptown: 100
8. Edgewater: 98
9. Near South Side: 97 (H)
10. Austin: 87
11. Irving Park: 81 (H)
12. Portage Park: 79 (H)
13. Lincoln Square: 78
14. North Center: 76 (H)
15. The Loop: 73
16. Avondale: 67 (H)
17. West Ridge: 66
18. Belmont Cragin: 63 (H)
19. Norwood Park: 60
20. Garfield Ridge: 54 (H)
21. Dunning: 52
22. Rogers Park: 48
23. Chicago Lawn: 45
24. Albany Park: 44 (H)
25T. Auburn Gresham: 43
25T. South Shore: 43

Areas not listed with high months being May 2018 in last 9 months: Beverly (39), Washington Heights (35 - tied), Clearing (34), Mount Greenwood (34), South Chicago (32), Hyde Park (32), Edison Park (29), Woodlawn (27), Douglas (24), Montclare (19), South Deering (14 - tied), Hegewisch (11 - tied), Pullman (8),

Biggest increases from April 2018 to May 2018
1. Lakeview: +67 sales
2. Logan Square: +31
3. Near South Side: +30
4T. Avondale: +29
4T. Lincoln Park: +29
6T. Irving Park: +22
6T. Norwood Park: +22
8. Austin: +19
9. Kenwood: +18
10T. Beverly: +17
10T. Edison Park: +17

Biggest decreases from April 2018 to May 2018
1. Jefferson Park: -26 sales
2. Edgewater: -19
3. Loop: -18
4. Calumet Heights: -14
5. Auburn Gresham: -10
6. Greater Grand Crossing: -9
7. Grand Boulevard: -8
8T. East Garfield Park: -7
8T. Englewood: -7
8T. Roseland: -7

$1M+ Sales (includes small/small-ish multi unit buildings too)
1. Near North Side: 44
2. Lincoln Park: 29
3. West Town: 20
4. Lakeview: 19
5. Logan Square: 18
6. North Center: 14
7T. Near South Side: 9
7T. Near West Side: 9
9. Lincoln Square: 8
10. The Loop: 4
11. Uptown: 3
12T. Edgewater: 1
12T. Hyde Park: 1
12T. Irving Park: 1
12T. Kenwood: 1
12T. Rogers Park: 1 (Multi family)
12T. West Ridge: 1 (Multi family)

[Kumdogmillionaire]

Great posts as usual marothisu!

[10023]

Generally speaking you do want to look at year over year comparisons, though, given the seasonality of real estate transactions in a place like Chicago.

[marothisu]

Generally speaking you do want to look at year over year comparisons, though, given the seasonality of real estate transactions in a place like Chicago.

Obviously, but perhaps you missed when I said I only have back 9 months (to September 2017).

[10023]

Obviously, but perhaps you missed when I said I only have back 9 months (to September 2017).
I get it. And if the data can be collected for another several months, the comparisons will start to get more interesting. But 9 months of data like this isn’t a time-series, it’s a snapshot.

[Jibba]

If you fix up an abandoned 3 flat in Douglas Park, when you're done, the taxes on that property might double, but the city does not see one extra dime. All that happens is that everyone else has their taxes lowered by an infinitesimal amount.

Can you elaborate on this? Or link to a source that I could read myself?

[the urban politician]

Indonesian Consulate moving to Fulton Market from the Loop:

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/realestate/20180604/CRED03/180609967/fulton-market-building-sold-to-indonesia

Interesting how much this area is changing...

[10023]

^ That’s not good news. Nothing kills activity in an area like diplomatic missions.

[PKDickman]

Can you elaborate on this? Or link to a source that I could read myself?

Here's Illinois' PTELL technical manual,
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiriJmv1rrbAhVEoFMKHZN9A2kQFggpMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.revenue.state.il.us%2Fpublications%2FLocalGovernment%2FPTAX1080.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2N7ZlyT8Pew-pms-JtC2OO

Cook County came under PTELL in '95 for the '94 tax year.
Chicago, as a home rule body, is not technically under PTELL but we wrote our own identical ordinance the same year. The city council edited it a few years ago to allow us to raise our levy for the express purpose of paying off pension obligations.

Below are the sailent sections.

Realize that when they talk of tax increase they are speaking of increases in the total levy or extension for each taxing body.

The PTELL limits the yearly increase in a non-home rule taxing district’s property taxes billed.
The annual tax increase for PTELL taxing district is limited to 5 percent or the rate of in­flation, whichever is less. The PTELL slows the growth of property tax revenues to taxing districts when property values are increasing faster than the rate of inflation. As a whole, property owners have some protection from tax bills that increase because the market value of their property is rising rapidly.



PTELL taxing districts do not get less money; they just cannot raise as much from property taxes as they would be able to without the PTELL.
Generally, the yearly increase in taxes a district may bill for PTELL funds is limited to the rate of inflation. The law does allow amounts greater than inflation to be billed in each of the following situations:
New property (generally new construction) is added to the tax rolls.
The taxing district annexes property.
Voters approve one of four referenda allowed under the PTELL to increase the taxes billed.
A Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district expires. (The amount that had been available as the TIF increment is then available to the taxing district.).
The county clerk makes these allowances when the tax rate is computed.

“New property” includes the assessed value of
new improvements or additions to existing improvements on any parcel of real property that increased the assessed value of that real property during the levy year. It does not include maintenance and repair.

[Jibba]

Here's Illinois' PTELL technical manual,
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiriJmv1rrbAhVEoFMKHZN9A2kQFggpMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.revenue.state.il.us%2Fpublications%2FLocalGovernment%2FPTAX1080.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2N7ZlyT8Pew-pms-JtC2OO

Cook County came under PTELL in '95 for the '94 tax year.
Chicago, as a home rule body, is not technically under PTELL but we wrote our own identical ordinance the same year. The city council edited it a few years ago to allow us to raise our levy for the express purpose of paying off pension obligations.

Below are the sailent sections.

Realize that when they talk of tax increase they are speaking of increases in the total levy or extension for each taxing body.

The PTELL limits the yearly increase in a non-home rule taxing district’s property taxes billed.
The annual tax increase for PTELL taxing district is limited to 5 percent or the rate of in­flation, whichever is less. The PTELL slows the growth of property tax revenues to taxing districts when property values are increasing faster than the rate of inflation. As a whole, property owners have some protection from tax bills that increase because the market value of their property is rising rapidly.



PTELL taxing districts do not get less money; they just cannot raise as much from property taxes as they would be able to without the PTELL.
Generally, the yearly increase in taxes a district may bill for PTELL funds is limited to the rate of inflation. The law does allow amounts greater than inflation to be billed in each of the following situations:
New property (generally new construction) is added to the tax rolls.
The taxing district annexes property.
Voters approve one of four referenda allowed under the PTELL to increase the taxes billed.
A Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district expires. (The amount that had been available as the TIF increment is then available to the taxing district.).
The county clerk makes these allowances when the tax rate is computed.

“New property” includes the assessed value of
new improvements or additions to existing improvements on any parcel of real property that increased the assessed value of that real property during the levy year. It does not include maintenance and repair.

So in your Douglas Park example, the increase in taxes (the balance beyond inflation) owed on the newly rehabbed and up-valued property cannot go to the city, and so to make the math work they reduce the other properties in the district by this amount? I.e., the owner of the rehabbed building is still paying a tax increase, but the district as a whole is not generating additional funds for the city?

[PKDickman]

So in your Douglas Park example, the increase in taxes (the balance beyond inflation) owed on the newly rehabbed and up-valued property cannot go to the city, and so to make the math work they reduce the other properties in the district by this amount? I.e., the owner of the rehabbed building is still paying a tax increase, but the district as a whole is not generating additional funds for the city?

Precisely. If the city's levy is one billion, next year it can only get one billion plus inflation.
If the assessed value of half of the city doubles, the only difference is that half pays 2/3 of the levy and the other half only pays one third.

[ardecila]

^ That’s not good news. Nothing kills activity in an area like diplomatic missions.

Chicago isn't Washington, London or New York. These are usually small token offices. I'm sure they have security needs and they will demand a couple dedicated consulate parking spots, but the impact should be minimal on Fulton Market.

As a counter-example, the Mexican consulate is at Ashland and Jackson. Obviously Chicago has a very large Mexican population so this is a busy facility. The presence of Mexican consulate is actually a good thing in an area that is otherwise dominated by auto-oriented healthcare facilities and trade union offices. Not only does it support a Mexican bakery and a restaurant (with a nice patio!), it has also encouraged individual Mexican provinces to open promotional offices nearby to encourage business and tourism.

[SolarWind]

June 4, 2018

https://i.imgur.com/DiheRqX.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/065crtR.jpg

^ video display screens lining the terrace

Look inside McDonald's new Chicago headquarters
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/06/04/mcdonalds-chicago-headquarters.html (https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/06/04/mcdonalds-chicago-headquarters.html)

McDonald's CEO: We are evolving the business in a meaningful way (talks about the move back to Chicago)
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/06/04/mcdonalds-ceo-we-are-evolving-the-business-in-a-meaningful-way.html (https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/06/04/mcdonalds-ceo-we-are-evolving-the-business-in-a-meaningful-way.html)

[SolarWind]

June 4, 2018

https://i.imgur.com/Fy8NOdR.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/ewoPgtU.jpg

[left of center]

I didn't know a wrap around LED screen was going to be part of the plan for the MHQ. Looks really slick! Should add to the brightness and air of excitement along Restaurant Row.

[SolarWind]

June 4, 2018

https://i.imgur.com/9p6ec31.jpg

[SolarWind]

June 4, 2018

https://i.imgur.com/2EQGkS8.jpg

[SolarWind]

June 4, 2018

https://i.imgur.com/52DkoWS.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/PRY4eLN.jpg

[SolarWind]

June 4, 2018

https://i.imgur.com/e1o3q9G.jpg

[SolarWind]

June 4, 2018

https://i.imgur.com/2xtbktK.jpg

[Bombardier]

June 4, 2018

https://i.imgur.com/e1o3q9G.jpg

I was by this project yesterday. The brick looks really good. This is going to be nice when finished.

[ardecila]

I didn't know a wrap around LED screen was going to be part of the plan for the MHQ. Looks really slick! Should add to the brightness and air of excitement along Restaurant Row.

I don't think those are LED. That brightly colored strip looks like just a printed vinyl film applied to the glass railing. It might even be temporary, for McDonalds grand opening celebrations. There is a video screen right at the entrance, but that's definitely a temporary thing for the party.

FWIW, I snagged a $5 McD's gift card from a promo girl on Randolph this morning. All the West Loop snobs were turning them down... whatever, more McFlurry for me lol.

[left of center]

I don't think those are LED. That brightly colored strip looks like just a printed vinyl film applied to the glass railing. It might even be temporary, for McDonalds grand opening celebrations. There is a video screen right at the entrance, but that's definitely a temporary thing for the party.

FWIW, I snagged a $5 McD's gift card from a promo girl on Randolph this morning. All the West Loop snobs were turning them down... whatever, more McFlurry for me lol.

Ah, drats. Well, in either case hope it sticks around.


Pffft, I don't care how much money you got in the bank, no one is too good for a free McFlurry!

[SolarWind]

I don't think those are LED. That brightly colored strip looks like just a printed vinyl film applied to the glass railing. It might even be temporary, for McDonalds grand opening celebrations. There is a video screen right at the entrance, but that's definitely a temporary thing for the party.

It's an LED display. You can see it change in the video from Channel 7 News at the 10 second mark in the bottom left-hand corner (link below). It's possible it was just for the ceremonial opening. We'll see.

McDonald's celebrates grand opening of West Loop headquarters (http://abc7chicago.com/video/embed/?pid=3559736)

[bnk]

Between the massive investment in the west loop and activity in the south loop I really feel like the boom is in full gear now.



https://chicago.curbed.com/2018/6/5/17412922/south-loop-apartments-alta-grand-central


South Loop rental development at Wells and Harrison breaks cover

The project would add another 350 apartments to the hot neighborhood
By Jay Koziarz Jun 5, 2018, 9:00am CDT


A rendering of the Alta Grand Central. Pappageorge Haymes Partners
Chicago’s booming South Loop could soon welcome yet another apartment project, this time in the form of twin 14-story towers slated for the southwest corner of Wells and Harrison streets.
Known officially as Alta Grand Central, the development revealed its name and a single rendering via a new Instagram account late last week, first spotted by construction blog Building Up Chicago. Prior to that, the unnamed project was listed on May’s agenda of Chicago’s Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), as reported by Crain’s.

...

Currently little more than vacant land, the site at Wells and Harrison is flanked on two sides by Southbank, a separate seven-acre development calling for five buildings and up to 2,700 units. South of that, thousands more residences are slated for the multiphase Riverline development and the 62-acre megaproject known as The 78.
Although the Alta Grand Central team has yet to land a permit to start drilling the building’s foundation, earth-moving equipment is already on-site preparing the parcel for future construction.

...

...



https://www.builtinchicago.org/2018/06/05/chicago-tech-exec-hires-may-2018


Meet the 7 high-level hires Chicago tech companies made last month

by Michael Hines
June 5, 2018

...









https://therealdeal.com/chicago/2018/06/04/here-are-chicagos-top-10-construction-permits-issued-in-may/


Here are Chicago’s top 10 construction permits issued in May


By Alex Nitkin | Research by Laura Hanrahan
June 04, 2018 03:12PM



Chicago’s building boom is reaching far beyond Downtown.

The top 10 building permits issued in May were all for properties outside the Loop, kick-starting tens of millions of dollars in development in neighborhoods including Edgewater, West Ridge and Archer Heights.
With three projects combining for more than $200 million in estimated costs, the West Loop was represented more than any other neighborhood on the list. Between ZOM Living’s 357-unit apartment complex and two Fulton Market developments by Sterling Bay, even more cranes are set to sprout from the West Loop’s rapidly growing skyline.

1. 939 West Washington Boulevard | $103.5 million

May’s largest permitted project, designed by bKL Architecture, will sit a pair of 15-story apartment buildings atop a shared three-floor podium. It would add 357 residential units and 13,700 square feet of residential space to the booming West Loop by the time it’s completed.


2. 754 South Wabash Avenue | $45 million

Columbia College moved forward on the latest development on its South Loop campus, getting the go-ahead for its modern five-story student center at the corner of Wabash Avenue and 8th Street. The 114,000 square-foot facility was designed by architect Gensler to include cavernous interior spaces enclosed in a glassy facade....

...










something big is about to happen....I feel it....

I think some people know something... There is some real money already approved out there...


The news is .....

[harryc]

June 4

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1742/40798335130_4a509dc097_h.jpg

[SolarWind]

June 5, 2018

https://i.imgur.com/MxMOEeA.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/ZdtgLnG.jpg

[SolarWind]

June 5, 2018

https://i.imgur.com/j0UaaYW.jpg

[SolarWind]

June 5, 2018

https://i.imgur.com/hGSrUSL.jpg

[SolarWind]

June 5, 2018

https://i.imgur.com/554pi5V.jpg

[ChiHi]

[QUOTE=SolarWind;8211092]June 5, 2018

https://i.imgur.com/MxMOEeA.jpg

Am I the only one that thinks these looks strangely out of place given their surroundings? I like them but just seem to be in the wrong place.

[mark0]

[QUOTE=SolarWind;8211092]June 5, 2018

https://i.imgur.com/MxMOEeA.jpg

Am I the only one that thinks these looks strangely out of place given their surroundings? I like them but just seem to be in the wrong place.

Totally agree. You need a neighborhood of these, not on corner of busy traffic street, completely out of context; edit: still though they are beautiful crafted

[Near North Resident]

[QUOTE=SolarWind;8211092]June 5, 2018

https://i.imgur.com/MxMOEeA.jpg

Am I the only one that thinks these looks strangely out of place given their surroundings? I like them but just seem to be in the wrong place.

no, there is a ton of housing like this all over the area...

[the urban politician]

^ Somebody needs to build one of these in Streeterville, to balance out all of those giant glassy boxes in the sky

[Rizzo]

[QUOTE=SolarWind;8211092]June 5, 2018

https://i.imgur.com/MxMOEeA.jpg

Am I the only one that thinks these looks strangely out of place given their surroundings? I like them but just seem to be in the wrong place.

No, there’s clusters of 1800’s era 2-4 story buildings nearby of the same scale. A break in height and massing allows taller buildings to be revealed and appreciated. Plus my thought is if something tall isn’t built here, it will be built elsewhere, perhaps extending the skyline.

[nomarandlee]

I'm in favor of most downtown districts to have a wide variety of mix-used buildings. This helps further that end and from the photos at least it looks like the workmanship is pretty solid or better.

It's nitpicking but I wouldn't mind it seeing one or two more floors added on to match the streetwall height of the pre-war condos down the block. That is far cry from expecting every buildling in the the area need be 12-30 floors however.

[marothisu]

I used to live a block from these rowhomes. I can tell who is not familiar with the area by the comments. These are not out of place with the area. They are out of place with what the picture shows. There are numerous late 19th century/early 20th century low rise buildings close to this.

[Jibba]

The problem with projects like that is, to be successful, they need to be a 100% replication of the original style (as opposed to a simulation); go down to 99%, and cognitive (and thus aesthetic) dissonance sets in, and the illusion is breached.

Thus is the issue with this specific project. Its mass in plan is the size and has the proportions of a high-rise, and it looks it.

[Busy Bee]

Am I the only one that thinks these looks strangely out of place given their surroundings? I like them but just seem to be in the wrong place.

You are not alone, but for me it has more to do with their scale and the somewhat subjective desire for them to be one story taller with the bay standing 3 stories tall not a stumpy feeling 2. But that would probably screw up their program for the development, but that's what I would have done. It seems strange to see the older building on the right be taller than this new development.

[ithakas]

Speaking of this block, have there been any signs of movement (either on site or in the permit world) of the Bush Temple addition building?


https://www.chicagoarchitecture.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/812-North-Clark-St_Cam02-1024x1024.jpg
Chicago Architecture Blog (Courtesy of Hartshorne Plunkard Architecture)

[10023]

June 5, 2018

https://i.imgur.com/MxMOEeA.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/ZdtgLnG.jpg
The cladding stone on these is disappointing. Maybe it’ll look better with age. I’m still glad that someone tried.

And yes the bay windows should extend the whole height of the building.

[SolarWind]

Speaking of this block, have there been any signs of movement (either on site or in the permit world) of the Bush Temple addition building?

No activity as of yesterday, when I walked past the site. It's fenced off and there were a couple of cars parked there.

[SolarWind]

June 6, 2018

https://i.imgur.com/ob4qUEC.jpg

[Chi-Sky21]

June 6, 2018

https://i.imgur.com/ob4qUEC.jpg

I did not fully appreciate the size of this project..... not your average makeover!

[PittsburghPA]

Speaking of Sears/Willis Tower construction, does anybody know why the antenna lights haven't been turned on since April (to my best recollection)? Also although I don't see it every night it appears the same might apply to Hancock/875 N Michigan.

[Fvn]

Speaking of Sears/Willis Tower construction, does anybody know why the antenna lights haven't been turned on since April (to my best recollection)? Also although I don't see it every night it appears the same might apply to Hancock/875 N Michigan.

Lighting schedule:
WILLIS TOWER ANTENNA LIGHTING SCHEDULE
January 12-23 Choose Chicago Color: Blue
January 22-28 Lurie Children’s Hospital Color: Red
February 3-5 American Heart Association Color: Red
February 14 Valentine’s Day Color: Pink & Red
March TBA National MS Society, Greater IL Chapter Color: Orange
March 16-18 St. Patrick’s Day Color: Green
April 2 Autism Awareness Color:Blue
April 20-22 Earth Day Color: Green & Blue
April TBA Blackhawks Playoffs Color: Red
July 3-4 Independence Day Color: Red & Blue
July 16-22 Special Olympics 50th Anniversary: Red
August TBA First Bears Preseason Home Game Color: Orange & Blue
September TBA Pulmonary Fibrosis Awareness Color: Blue
September TBA The Chicago Police Memorial Foundation Color: Blue
September TBA Lymphoma Research Foundation Color: Red
September TBA First Bears Home Game Color: Blue & Orange
September TBA National Ovarian Cancer Coalition Color: Teal
October TBA Lynn Sage (Breast Cancer Awareness Month) Color: Pink
October TBA National Fallen Firefighters Foundation Color: Red & Blue
October TBA Chicago Cubs Playoffs Color: Blue
October TBA United Airline/ EQUAL Business Resource Group Color: Purple
October 31 Halloween Color: Orange
November TBA Alzheimer’s Foundation America Color: Teal
November 9-11 Veterans Day Color: Green
November TBA Alzheimer’s Foundation of America Color: Teal
November TBA Pancreatic Cancer Awareness & March of Dimes Color: Purple
November TBA Holidays Color: Green & Red
December 28 – January 1 2019 New Years Celebration Color: Purple & Amber

http://theskydeck.com/plan-a-visit/upcoming-events/ (Bottom of page)

[r18tdi]

Speaking of this block, have there been any signs of movement (either on site or in the permit world) of the Bush Temple addition building? I heard a spring/summer start. But Cedar is pretty loose with keeping to their timelines.

[Via Chicago]

The cladding stone on these is disappointing. Maybe it’ll look better with age. I’m still glad that someone tried.

And yes the bay windows should extend the whole height of the building.


yea i mean for all the ballyhoo about "no expense spared", this is pretty underwhelming.

[ardecila]

Sigh. New limestone doesn't look old at first, folks. It's gotta develop a patina. Look at 15 CPW in NY which is only now starting to show some patina.

Also, though... you would think with underground parking and real limestone on those rowhouses, it would just be a drop in the bucket to do real copper trims, but :shrug:

[Via Chicago]

age isnt gonna fix that pop top. or those double hung windows that look like theyre off the shelf from Home Depot

[Steely Dan]

or those double hung windows that look like theyre off the shelf from Home Depot

what are you talking about?

the windows clearly have Marvin stickers on them.

that's a high-end, high-quality residential window product.

Marvin is the freaking antithesis of "off the shelf from Home Depot".

If Marvin windows won't satisfy your impossibly high standards, then nothing in this world will.

[Busy Bee]

^Oh come on. Those are high end black aluminum clad Marvin windows. The last time I checked that's not the same thing as the Pella vinyl econo line at the Home Depot. Perhaps upper sash mullions would have been appropriate but obviously that's not what buyers are wanting.

[Busy Bee]

what are you talking about?

the windows clearly have Marvin stickers on them.

that's a high-end, high-quality residential window product.

Marvin is the freaking antithesis of "off the shelf from Home Depot".

Separated-at-birth twin, is that you? ;)

[Baronvonellis]

This is pretty much 99% historically accurate with appropriate details and traditional proportions with a proper cornice. Of course, new stone isn't going to look like 100 year old stone lol. Old stone was also covered with coal dust which this will never be exposed to. They did a fantastic job and nailed it! I don't see how you could nit-pick this one, when there's so much other junk being built with no respect to proportion or detail.
If the whole block was built with buildings of similar massing it would be like a European city, but you can hardly fault the builder for that.

[ChiHi]

I'm in favor of most downtown districts to have a wide variety of mix-used buildings. This helps further that end and from the photos at least it looks like the workmanship is pretty solid or better.

It's nitpicking but I wouldn't mind it seeing one or two more floors added on to match the streetwall height of the pre-war condos down the block. That is far cry from expecting every buildling in the the area need be 12-30 floors however.

I guess when I meant out of context it was more in the sense that when I see these types of rowhouses in say Gold Coast or Lincoln Park they blend in a little better. I'm not saying a high rise should have been built here. Since it's what holds the corner something with another 1-2 stories to tie in with the neighboring building a bit. Perhaps I'll feel a little different once trees are planted and they aren't quite as exposed. The buildings themselves look really nice though.

[Vlajos]

Marvin windows are beautiful AND expensive. We just did a project on our house and our architect insisted we use Marvin unless we wanted to go for something more outrageously expensive. They look gorgeous and match the 100 year old windows in the rest of the house.

I think those rowhomes look great btw. Anyone know the prices?

[LouisVanDerWright]

Lol at the criticism of the townhomes. What a joke.

The only valid complaint is the poptop which doesn't make sense historically. Oh and they should have used copper, but these are italiante which typically sees black cornices, not copper.

[PKDickman]

Lol at the criticism of the townhomes. What a joke.

The only valid complaint is the poptop which doesn't make sense historically. Oh and they should have used copper, but these are italiante which typically sees black cornices, not copper.

Yes, copper cornices are actually pretty rare. And the have the annoying habit of pissing green all over your nice limestone.

[Via Chicago]

Marvin windows are beautiful AND expensive.

they may be well made, but at least with the choice they went with it dosent look at that different from the street.

but thats why im always bummed every time someone rips out original period windows. nothing modern really replicates the quality of vintage glass IMO. cant replicate it.

https://www.npi.org/sites/default/files/images/P4011077wdw1.JPG

[Steely Dan]

they may be well made, but at least with the choice they went with it dosent look at that different from the street.

if an expensive window like Marvin isn't good enough for you, then what window product should they have gone with so that it "dosent look at that different from the street"?



but thats why im always bummed every time someone rips out original period windows. nothing modern really replicates the quality of vintage glass IMO. cant replicate it.
but these townhomes are new construction; there aren't any 100 year old windows available in the marketplace these days.

besides, the single pane glazing of a vintage window leaks energy like a sieve and can't really be used in new construction anymore with modern energy codes.




i think the windows on these new townhomes look really damn sharp.

use a high quality product, get a high quality result. sometimes you do get what you pay for.

and on that note, i'll stop shilling for Marvin now.

[harryc]

New on Clark [ty Tom]
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1745/42650944201_a5beae38c5_b.jpg


You never appreciate the dismal little food court - until it is gone.
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1751/28777370748_3cf1bfd9ad_h.jpg

[Tom In Chicago]

^Clark [/nitpick]

. . .

[Kumdogmillionaire]

I will tear down that food court free of charge with my own bare hands. May take a while though...

[Jibba]

This is pretty much 99% historically accurate with appropriate details and traditional proportions with a proper cornice. Of course, new stone isn't going to look like 100 year old stone lol. Old stone was also covered with coal dust which this will never be exposed to. They did a fantastic job and nailed it! I don't see how you could nit-pick this one, when there's so much other junk being built with no respect to proportion or detail.
If the whole block was built with buildings of similar massing it would be like a European city, but you can hardly fault the builder for that.

There are a few things to nit-pick, though. The street-facing corner is not resolved appropriately, IMO. And the cornice is much too large; if the purpose of the treatment of the third level is to defer to the levels below, I can't think of why they chose to crown it with such a massive piece of material.

EDIT: Actually, both of these issues are not present in the design as originally illustrated (http://www.boothhansen.com/portfolio/chestnut-row-homes/), so perhaps this was a matter of contractor follow-through (lack thereof). If BH had made a row-house version of their excellent Mohawk Street Neo-Georgian (http://www.boothhansen.com/portfolio/mohawk-street-residence/), then we'd really have something lovely here...

[harryc]

May 30

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1757/40843975730_b852f9a207_b.jpg

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1749/28778616718_0c72a99ce5_h.jpg

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1748/41752072825_1bfe03a3cb_b.jpg

[left of center]

^ FINALLY! Man, that building really needed a good cleanup. The last vintage building in the Loop still covered in half century old coal smog, IIRC.

[Skyguy_7]

^ Half century? She’s 91! MCMXXVII is 1927 if I recall my Roman Numerals correctly.

[PittsburghPA]

Lighting schedule:


http://theskydeck.com/plan-a-visit/upcoming-events/ (Bottom of page)

Don't they normally illuminate it white on the off days when there is not a special color? It hasn't been lit up in over a month.

[Mr Downtown]

^I think that's a new thing they're trying to avoid attracting and killing birds that are migrating back north this time of year. But I see 311 South Wacker didn't get the memo.

[PittsburghPA]

^I think that's a new thing they're trying to avoid attracting and killing birds that are migrating back north this time of year. But I see 311 South Wacker didn't get the memo.

I'm not sure if that's a joke or not but given the current state of the universe I could believe it. If they are shutting off the lights that's a damn shame. The illuminated antennae are a bastion of Chicago Architecture supremacy. Bring back the lights!

[Via Chicago]

Chicago skyscrapers kill tens of thousands of migratory birds every year. It's not a joke, it's a real issue and anything to address it is a net positive. We'll survive without even more excess vanity.

[the urban politician]

Chicago skyscrapers kill tens of thousands of migratory birds every year. It's not a joke, it's a real issue and anything to address it is a net positive. We'll survive without even more excess vanity.

Birds that don’t fly into antennae will be selected for, and over generations the genes for ignoring these antennae will be removed from the population.