Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright
^^^ Why wouldn't they? There is value in that existing building. Why would they spend $120k demolishing it and another $1.2 million building the exact same thing in its place when they could renovate the existing structure for maybe $500k total? There is a reason people rehab buildings instead of tearing them down and that is that it is cheaper to rehab them. A good rehab costs $80-100/SF, new construction starts at $150/SF and goes up from there.
Well actually you can do that and, in fact, developers regularly do that. This is a global city. Cities don't just sit around and wait for people and businesses just because of nostalgia (of course unless the nostalgia is big enough to support those businesses). This is a city of change and if there are people who can't or refuse to adapt to change then why would they expect anything else to happen but for them to be pushed out of a changing neighborhood?
|
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to being argumentative just debating a little of course I do not expect you to agree with me. I understand your point completely about targeting infill development. The problem with infill development is it seems to require many small developers and individual owners coming in an area and developing lots. These areas on the southside are so vacant that I personally can't really picture infill development taking hold for many many many decades. With so much vacant land, a large developer is more fitting to come in and redevelop large swaths than smaller developers and individuals attempting infill.
I kind of look at it like this, if you are missing a tooth you replace that one tooth, if you are missing teeth you get dentures. lol
There are people doing infill development down there on more intact blocks. My sister unfortunately purchased a condo on 58th and Calumet in 2008 and there are developers renovating and building on those blocks but the housing stock is also more intact.
All of the buildings on the right have been renovated.