CHICAGO | General Developments

[Randomguy34]

Chicago's first new courtyard in probably decades is about to start construction! Imagine if we kept building them post-WWII


https://chicago.urbanize.city/post/d...4907-n-paulina

[pip]

^ I'm impressed!

[twister244]

Wrong thread - Delete

[Jstange059]

Just had a really interested lecture from an architect in Chicago, who focuses on projects that engage the community. The lecture was focused on the chicago boombox popup shops, and the new Boys and Girls club in West Humboldt Park/Austin. A lot of good insights about how buildings can serve their communities

You can listen to the lecture here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/17Y1...ew?usp=sharing

[mh777]

I see a demo permit was applied for/issued for 1520 N Wells yesterday... I'd assume this parcel is included in the 1528 N Wells Development. Or at least I hope it is. Really don't have any idea on why this project has taken so long to break ground..

[Randomguy34]

4225-29 W. Madison St is on this month's ZBA agenda. 8 units plus a dog day care, nice that we're seeing more mixed-use on the West Side lately


https://www.austinweeklynews.com/202...garfield-park/

[SolarWind]

January 30, 2024

[dewbs]

https://chicago.urbanize.city/post/h...-wellssuperior



This is getting knocked down for "a five-story new development". But, "The three-story brick and wood framed structure at 720 N. Wells was built in 1867, before the Great Chicago Fire of 1871, but is green rated on the Chicago Historic Resources Survey with no protections from demolition."

[Randomguy34]

This city is a joke when it comes to preservation

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by dewbs

https://chicago.urbanize.city/post/h...-wellssuperior



This is getting knocked down for "a five-story new development". But, "The three-story brick and wood framed structure at 720 N. Wells was built in 1867, before the Great Chicago Fire of 1871, but is green rated on the Chicago Historic Resources Survey with no protections from demolition."

Absolutely fucking awful. I really hope a massive fight is put up by preservationists. Reilly is an absolute garbage person.

[Steely Dan]

Shameful.

And sadly not surprising.

As random said, this town completely fucking sucks at preservation.

[ajradfotwo]

I'm all for development and I'm even supportive of redeveloping very old buildings if they're falling apart or unremarkable. This building on the corner is in good shape and is one of the most attractive in all of river north. I can't believe they're going to tear it down for what I'm sure will be some cheap POS. Anyone willing to knock these buildings down won't have anything on their mind other than building as cheaply as possible.

[left of center]

There are cities that would absolutely *kill* to have the kind of historic urban fabric that we seemingly demolish without a second thought. Very sad indeed. I sincerely hope preservationists raise hell to stop this. Especially in River North, which has lost so much of its historic brick building stock to shitty beige concrete crap.

[Coastal Elitist]

It's a beautiful building, but, if it's worth keeping around, someone should give the developer an offer to buy the property instead of weaponizing the government against the development. In my opinion, using historic preservation as a means to stop development makes us no better than the NIMBYs.

[nomarandlee]

Gross. I am not great at this type of thing. Whose office/name would be worth contacting to appeal this demolition?

[OrdoSeclorum]

Originally Posted by Coastal Elitist

It's a beautiful building, but, if it's worth keeping around, someone should give the developer an offer to buy the property instead of weaponizing the government against the development. In my opinion, using historic preservation as a means to stop development makes us no better than the NIMBYs.

Your framing here is creating a straw man. It's not "weaponizing" anything. And the point isn't to "stop development". It's to prevent the destruction of economic value. The value buildings like this bring is shared among all Chicagoans but that's hard to price. There are extremely clear and well-understood economic principles around difficult to price externalities which require sensible regulations.

I understand a light hand when it comes to this stuff. But ideological maximalists are never happy with "some regulations are good and some are bad." It always ends up going to "We should be able to buy child porn and heroin at Walgreens."

[Coastal Elitist]

Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum

Your framing here is creating a straw man. It's not "weaponizing" anything. And the point isn't to "stop development". It's to prevent the destruction of economic value. The value buildings like this bring is shared among all Chicagoans but that's hard to price. There are extremely clear and well-understood economic principles around difficult to price externalities which require sensible regulations.

I understand a light hand when it comes to this stuff. But ideological maximalists are never happy with "some regulations are good and some are bad." It always ends up going to "We should be able to buy child porn and heroin at Walgreens."

You bring up a great point! It may very well be the case that that building provides a positive externality. With that in mind, the economically efficient action to take would be to tax the demolition of the building such that the developer bears the full costs of the action they're taking. It wouldn't be to make the demolition illegal altogether.

[pullmanman]

Originally Posted by Coastal Elitist

You bring up a great point! It may very well be the case that that building provides a positive externality. With that in mind, the economically efficient action to take would be to tax the demolition of the building such that the developer bears the full costs of the action they're taking. It wouldn't be to make the demolition illegal altogether.

I do actually think you make a good point.

I and many others on this forum believe that our current piecemeal rezoning process for developments should be replaced by widespread upzoning similar to the TOD ordinance. Along the same lines, I don't think fighting each individual demolition is really a winning strategy, compared to proactively pursuing some sort of landmarking, fines or incentives to promote historic preservation.

However, it's still a shame we're losing some very nice historic buildings to a barely larger replacement. I think many people would feel different if it was 10+ stories.

[dewbs]

Originally Posted by pullmanman

I do actually think you make a good point.

I and many others on this forum believe that our current piecemeal rezoning process for developments should be replaced by widespread upzoning similar to the TOD ordinance. Along the same lines, I don't think fighting each individual demolition is really a winning strategy, compared to proactively pursuing some sort of landmarking, fines or incentives to promote historic preservation.

However, it's still a shame we're losing some very nice historic buildings to a barely larger replacement. I think many people would feel different if it was 10+ stories.

Exactly. If the new thing was in some respect better I'd be all on board. But 5 stories just seems totally wasteful. At least it's not coming down for a parking lot, I guess.

[Ned.B]

Looking at 720 Wells, I see what appears to be a fiberglass cornice and windows and other features (like the first floor arches) that might post-date the 1990s historic survey. It likely got a green rating because it's condition and amount of historic material didn't warrant a yellow or orange rating at that time. This is a definite issue with not updating the survey since then: first that many buildings have had restorative work that might garner a higher rating since the survey, and second since the survey was done before the Demolition Delay ordinance was attached to it, and some buildings might have been considered differently if the difference between a yellow and orange rating was known to be the difference between having some demolition protections, and having none.

Really the only path available to this building now would be to try to get a Wells Street district on Chicago Landmark's calendar, as this building on it's own might not have the significance or the integrity to be an individual landmark.