CHICAGO | General Developments

[Via Chicago]

knocking this building down for shitty generic condos is not going to make north ave any less wide or somehow improve the streetscape or pedestrian experience or the appeal of the neighborhood in any way shape or form



WOW WHAT A BEUAT. i can just feel the romance of Chicago oozing out of it.

[Chi-Sky21]

I would say Fulton Market is not the same as this. A lot of fulton market is old warehouse and supply buildings. In my book a lot of those buildings are not really that great. Buildings like these in old town are more worthy of preservation.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

knocking this building down for shitty generic condos is not going to make north ave any less wide or somehow improve the streetscape or pedestrian experience or the appeal of the neighborhood in any way shape or form



WOW WHAT A BEUAT. i can just feel the romance of Chicago oozing out of it.

I mean, it's basically a rehash of an old warehouse. Not exactly out of place in an old Chicago neighborhood...

https://www.google.com/maps/place/W+...55cffb!6m1!1e1

[Via Chicago]

im being dramatic, and youre right the design isnt terrible. id be happy with it anywhere else. like a vacant lot down the street.

i just cant look at these proposals in a bubble and pretend that we're not losing something of significance, because we are. and in my eyes, the worth of the existing historical structure outweighs whatever could potentially replace it. because its in fact irreplaceable and nothing like it will ever be built again. thats not hyperbole. old world craftsmanship is not ever coming back and we should be making every effort to preserve buildings which a result of that, and ESPECIALLY those which hold down corners and commercial corridors with this sort of grace and welcoming human-scaled charm. the lack of appreciation for just how good we have it is beyond my comprehension. i truly feel we're our own worst enemies. prior generation have given us a tremendous gift in built environment, and we cant even perform the basic task of of good stewardship?

[Jibba]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Old Town needs to be denser. North Avenue needs to be fronted by larger buildings given how wide it is.

I agree that strip malls and lots should be the first things to go (and a lot of those are being developed too), but I can't help but feel that Old Town needs to go a bit more vertical.

The site in question is B3-5. If it extends all the way south to 1548, you're looking at ~18,000 gross sq. ft. The most they can get out of that would be almost 90 units. The corner building at North/Wieland alone has 54 units. For this to be even half worth it, I would want triple the unit count. And it would never be worth it to me, because there is a scarcity of urban spaces like this where you have two buildings with proud bays and no setbacks opposite one another on a tight street with no landscape strip.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Jibba

The site in question is B3-5. If it extends all the way south to 1548, you're looking at ~18,000 gross sq. ft. The most they can get out of that would be almost 90 units. The corner building at North/Wieland alone has 54 units. For this to be even half worth it, I would want triple the unit count. And it would never be worth it to me, because there is a scarcity of urban spaces like this where you have two buildings with proud bays and no setbacks opposite one another on a tight street with no landscape strip.

According to the Crains article the building being demo'd has 24 apartments

Excerpt:

The buildings JAB bought, which had been home to the Tipre Hardware store and 24 apartments, will be demolished by Aug. 1, when construction will start on the new structure,

Personally I think the ship sailed on some of these cutsy historic buildings in areas like this. It will be hard to justify their preservation when 1) they are right next to giant auto-sewers like North Avenue which badly needs to be fronted by more prominent structures which reinforce the streetwall and convey a bolder sense of urbanity and 2) when land values, particularly close to transit, are getting so high.

If Chicago had gone about the business of doing what it's currently doing (having a central area residential boom of epic proportions) back in the 1910's/1920's like New York did, we would be seeing beautiful and ornamented 10-20 story buildings all over the place instead of these newer structures going up. But alas, much of Chicago's prewar building stock consists of these nice but far too small properties which are no longer serving the demand that's out there.

[Jibba]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

According to the Crains article the building being demo'd has 24 apartments

Excerpt:



Personally I think the ship sailed on some of these cutsy historic buildings in areas like this. It will be hard to justify their preservation when 1) they are right next to giant auto-sewers like North Avenue which badly needs to be fronted by more prominent structures which reinforce the streetwall and convey a bolder sense of urbanity and 2) when land values, particularly close to transit, are getting so high.

If Chicago had gone about the business of doing what it's currently doing (having a central area residential boom of epic proportions) back in the 1910's/1920's like New York did, we would be seeing beautiful and ornamented 10-20 story buildings all over the place instead of these newer structures going up. But alas, much of Chicago's prewar building stock consists of these nice but far too small properties which are no longer serving the demand that's out there.

I was incorrect--54 units is for the 227 - 245 W North. You make a valid point, but again, with the access that this site has to multiple transit options, to make the sacrifice 'worth it', the site use needs to be times more intense (not that you're arguing against that).

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

If Chicago had gone about the business of doing what it's currently doing (having a central area residential boom of epic proportions) back in the 1910's/1920's like New York did, we would be seeing beautiful and ornamented 10-20 story buildings all over the place instead of these newer structures going up. But alas, much of Chicago's prewar building stock consists of these nice but far too small properties which are no longer serving the demand that's out there.

we have 1 million less people in Chicago than we had 60 years ago. the notion that the built environment we were gifted is insufficient falls flat.

IF chicago hadnt neglected and disinvested in vast swaths of the city for the past half century (which all had attractive built environments of their own) we wouldnt have the issue of concentrating wealth and opportunity in only a handful of areas.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

we have 1 million less people in Chicago than we had 60 years ago. the notion that the built environment we were gifted is insufficient falls flat.

It doesn't matter, the demand is WAY different than it was 100 years ago. Instead of being a city full of factories all over town where people lived in small 3 flats, 2 flats, and bungalows, the big boom in demand is downtown and near L stops.

Regardless of the difference in population between now and then. The city is capturing this demand as we speak, day by day. It's not about whether you and I like it, it's about the reality on the ground. And unfortunately, buildings like this in such high demand areas are going to be threatened.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

And unfortunately, buildings like this in such high demand areas are going to be threatened.

and thats precisely why we need stronger protections for these sorts of structures. as long as there are strip malls and big box stores and shitty Chase banks in these neighborhoods (the vast majority of which were built in the recent past, and replaced historic structures themselves), the notion that we now suddenly need to sacrifice the best examples of our heritage because "where oh where will we house the precious knowledge workers? we're fresh out of room!" is not going to gain any sympathy from me.

[urbanpln]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

im being dramatic, and youre right the design isnt terrible. id be happy with it anywhere else. like a vacant lot down the street.

old world craftsmanship is not ever coming back and we should be making every effort to preserve buildings which a result of that, and ESPECIALLY those which hold down corners and commercial corridors with this sort of grace and welcoming human-scaled charm. the lack of appreciation for just how good we have it is beyond my comprehension. i truly feel we're our own worst enemies. prior generation have given us a tremendous gift in built environment, and we cant even perform the basic task of of good stewardship?

I believe that you are spot on. I know some of these old buildings are expensive to rehab, and from an economic/financial perspective building new and denser make good business sense, but you can't replace that majestic environment that comes along with some of these old, well crafted buildings. Milwaukee Avenue in Wicker Park excites me when approaching from the south at Ashland to North Avenue. I believe Motor Row, although is not vibrant yet, will have the same emotion impact on pedestrians. People love these types of streetscapes for varies reasons. One reason is they are human scale and can take you to another time in history emotionally (yes the built environment impacts your emotions). I was just in New Orleans last weekend, and as usual the street in the central area were packed. The warehouse district, and Magazine Street in garden district were teaming with pedestrians too. The added attraction was the old and unique architecture. It takes pedestrian life to another level, and without highrise density. Preservation saved New Orleans. I would argue that it is the most well liked City in the south if not the country. I know Chicago has more going for it economically than New Orleans, but N.O.L.A. punches above its weight because it realized long ago that it had something that was unique. Chicago must fine a way to maintain it architectural history for the same reasons. I know it does not have a historic concentrated core like N.O.L.A., but it has many intersections that could be redeveloped around these old buildings.

[ardecila]

As a property owner in New Orleans, I can tell you that the preservation community there is definitely stifling growth, even on vacant and underused parcels. They've gone far beyond stopping teardowns and now just exist to dictate style to developers. It's absolutely crazy the amount of the city that has landmark protection, and they are killing the sustainability of the city by fighting against density on high ground.

TUP is ultimately right, the ship sailed on North Avenue when they widened the street in the 1960s into a massive auto sewer, and then rebuilt the north side with a bunch of anti-urban, fortress-like gated communities. They absolutely ruined what had been a thriving business district akin to Armitage Ave and Milwaukee Ave, and sealed the fate of North/Clybourn as autopia hell. Then they closed off Ogden, so the neighborhood ended up with two massive urban renewal scars instead of one.

[k1052]

While I'd generally like to see these kinds of buildings saved I have to concur that North Ave is permanently screwed from a pedestrian standpoint and am rather leery of imparting to much power to blanket preservation efforts lest they become, wittingly or otherwise, viable vehicles for NIMBY opposition.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by Jibba

Ugh, that really stings. What's worse is that nothing on that portion of Southport is ever replaced by anything of greater value--the surrounding citizens prohibit it. They want their nice simulacrum of urbanity to push the stroller down on Sundays and to do all of their functional living and shopping at those monstrous strip centers on Ashland.

These will be great developments for all of the uncultured ignoramuses in that part of town that can't live without their over-scaled open floor plans and need clean white boxes to buy their boring shit in.

Uh, show up at the community meetings at Butcher's tap. You'd be surprised. Doubt anyone there would tell you they appreciate it. With the exception of southport ave, the majority of new development nearby (at least 90 percent of it) has replaced crappy frame homes with handsome brick structures. Residents aren't happy with the cheap stuff on southport but there isn't anything they can do to request better design if it's by right. When it's something that's required a zoning change, I believe architectural quality has swayed the vote. A 3-flat clunker that was supposed to replace a 100 year old house on Roscoe was recently voted down. Yet they were fine with an increase in density and increase in height but dreaded the cmu block walls above the roof lines.

But you're right on the open scale floor plans, won't deny that. I recently found out my place was 3-seperate apartments at one time, renovated 6 years ago into one single unit . Talk about a substantial loss of density for a single parcel.

[PKDickman]

Originally Posted by ardecila

They absolutely ruined what had been a thriving business district akin to Armitage Ave and Milwaukee Ave, and sealed the fate of North/Clybourn as autopia hell. Then they closed off Ogden, so the neighborhood ended up with two massive urban renewal scars instead of one.

A thriving business district like this?




Widening may have been ill advised in retrospect, but put away the rose colored glasses.It was a pretty nasty place when they did it.

[urbanpln]

Originally Posted by ardecila

As a property owner in New Orleans, I can tell you that the preservation community there is definitely stifling growth, even on vacant and underused parcels. They've gone far beyond stopping teardowns and now just exist to dictate style to developers. It's absolutely crazy the amount of the city that has landmark protection, and they are killing the sustainability of the city by fighting against density on high ground.

I'm not suggesting that Chicago adopt New Orleans rigid policies. All I'm saying is this stuff matters and a middle ground needs to be found. Over the past year I've seen many properties, many on this sight, destroyed. Most of those building were were worth saving.

[LouisVanDerWright]

^^^ The best thing the city could do to improve preservation is stop making it so damn expensive to renovate existing buildings. As I've griped before, its virtually the same price to rennovate a historic six flat as it is to build a Belmont Special (TM) happy brick and CMU monstrosity.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by PKDickman

A thriving business district like this?

Widening may have been ill advised in retrospect, but put away the rose colored glasses.It was a pretty nasty place when they did it.

Context though. What did other commercial strips look like at the time? Milwaukee Ave, Armitage, Chicago Ave...? Those were not gutted for a massive street-widening.

Much of the city was declining in some way, especially that area as it transitioned to being Puerto Rican. The favorite reaction at the time to dense, crowded neighborhoods (Especially those with minority populations) was simply to clear-cut buildings.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by marothisu

This is for 1548 N Weiland Ave which I think is something like 6 stories and 60 units. There's more than just this building being torn down. Also a few buildings to the south on Weiland will be torn down it looks like.

Really wish some of the vacant lots nearby, like the one at North & North Park Ave over a few blocks could go instead of these actual good buildings.

Apparently I'm psychic because this parking lot just got a building permit yesterday for a 7 story, 69 unit + 1st floor retail building. It also lists that it'll be basement parking. Developer is Sedgwick.


Also, here's a bigger render of what's going up at North & Weiland (6 stories, 60 units). I like what is there now better, but I think this could be worse. So I guess it'll be an influx of 2 buildings of at least 6 stories in Old Town totalling almost 130 units together where there's 24 right now. Hate the loss of the building that's there right now, but again this could be worse IMO:

[the urban politician]

^ Old Town badly needs to go vertical. I think it's far too low slung and cute. I know there will be losses, but in the end I think a lot of the historic buildings will still be there. I prefer to see more density, more enclosure, and I'm really rooting for that hotel proposal.