CHICAGO | General Developments

[Via Chicago]

yes Little Village. i cant speak to why they were doing what they were doing. all i know is i saw a gorgeous 1800s era facade getting chucked off the side of the unit with crowbars and crashing to the ground below with alarming speed and im not sure i buy that A) there was a problem to begin with, B) a problem couldnt have somehow been addressed more sensitively.

[PKDickman]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

yes Little Village. i cant speak to why they were doing what they were doing. all i know is i saw a gorgeous 1800s era facade getting chucked off the side of the unit with crowbars and crashing to the ground below with alarming speed and im not sure i buy that A) there was a problem to begin with, B) a problem couldnt have somehow been addressed more sensitively.

They stripped a fine gray-stone three flat on Wolcott.



Frankly, I would have preferred the Barney Rubble look.

[Investing In Chicago]

The lot that houses The Weiner Circle on Clark in Lincoln Park is for sale - almost a guarantee it will be redeveloped.
The potential bad news is that the beautiful 5 story grey stone immediately to the South is part of the package, not sure if that building is protected, but both lots are being marketed as a "development opportunity".

https://www.google.com/maps/place/W+...!4d-87.6429531

[west-town-brad]

Originally Posted by PKDickman

They stripped a fine gray-stone three flat on Wolcott.



Frankly, I would have preferred the Barney Rubble look.

once the cornice goes.... which likely happened slowly over 40 years of skipped maintenance...

[PKDickman]

Originally Posted by west-town-brad

once the cornice goes.... which likely happened slowly over 40 years of skipped maintenance...

I think your confused. There was no problem with the stonework.
They removed it because they wanted it to look like the after shot.

[west-town-brad]

Originally Posted by PKDickman

I think your confused. There was no problem with the stonework.
They removed it because they wanted it to look like the after shot.

cornice likely fell off years ago or was ripped off due to maintenance cost. in the 2007 streetview shot it's already missing.

what I'm saying is that once the cornice is gone (and this is my opinion only) you've kind of lost the character of the building anyway.

[left of center]

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

The lot that houses The Weiner Circle on Clark in Lincoln Park is for sale - almost a guarantee it will be redeveloped.
The potential bad news is that the beautiful 5 story grey stone immediately to the South is part of the package, not sure if that building is protected, but both lots are being marketed as a "development opportunity".

https://www.google.com/maps/place/W+...!4d-87.6429531

The building (2616-2618 N Clark) is rated Orange by the Landmarks Commission. Hopefully they will deny any demolition permit, after the designated 90 day hold (assuming the developer decided to go that route). It really is a gorgeous building.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by PKDickman

They stripped a fine gray-stone three flat on Wolcott.



Frankly, I would have preferred the Barney Rubble look.

That's an absolute crime!

[Rizzo]

Going off on a tangent here. But the change of that facade is clearly a matter of taste and it’s a bad choice. These newer facades of flat aluminum panel or synthetic composites just don’t look all that great after 10 years. Already a couple similar homes in my hood have a dirty look that’s not that elegant patina with age you see on older buildings, but a dirty motel look with streaks of dirt and oil canning damage.

I know it’s not the case with everyone, but a good number of condo building facades are not maintained like they should be until they get really really really bad. Technically a yearly gentle powerwash to metal and glass facades should be part of a maintenance schedule.

So it’s a shame when a durable, long lasting material is removed and replaced with a cheap alternative. It’s not as low maintenance as one might think.

[AMWChicago]

As awkward as it is, it at least makes the streetscape interesting. Not like everyone in the neighborhood is gonna do this. It's just an experiment. Even if it looks bad, at least it diversifies the reso wall along the sidewalk.

[AMWChicago]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

Map of the connector proposal.

This is one of those things I wish could just appear over night. Would be amazing to have this overlay of infrastructure. Almost like the Musk Loop. I wish a multi billionaire would just write the check so it could be built. Because transit like this would spur so much development and likely only have positive outcomes. It just needs the cash to happen.

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by left of center

The building (2616-2618 N Clark) is rated Orange by the Landmarks Commission. Hopefully they will deny any demolition permit, after the designated 90 day hold (assuming the developer decided to go that route). It really is a gorgeous building.

The google image doesn't even do the building justice. It is really striking when approached from the street. That is one that has to be preserved.

[modkris]

The photo of the building on Wolcott is totally washed out and makes it look horrible. This is actually really nice looking in person although the previous design looked very good as well. The door on the new version is bright orange, like almost traffic cone orange. This is now a very modern single family home much like you'd see in Dwell magazine.

[ardecila]

^ Ironic as the architect was Studio Dwell... I believe this building would have been a total teardown candidate, except that the existing building offered more volume and smaller setbacks than current zoning would allow, so the architect convinced the client to re-use the shell of the old building at great cost. They sliced atriums through the building, installed extensive steel framework throughout, and excavated the basement significantly. May have done some underpinning to the foundation as well.

They may also be keeping the option open to re-subdivide the lot in the future, the side lot is just a big yard and driveway right now but the house is worth more at re-sale if it comes with a second developable lot... the home would lose its lawn but there is also thousands of SF of decks and balconies on the home itself

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by Rizzo

My condo building has 1 parking stall for 9 two bedroom units. All the other multi-family buildings on my street have 6-20 units and 0-1 spaces. Street parking is still easy. For larger buildings, it should be up to the developer.

You’ll always here complaints about parking from neighbors who generally have off street parking. I’ve never understood how any of those complaints have merit. No one is stealing your private garage.

There must be enough SFH or alley garages as well in that case. Of course street parking doesn't tend to be terrible in truly residential neighborhoods that don't border major retail/commercial zones, say like the one I happen to live in (for the time-being!)

Aaron (Glowrock)

[PKDickman]

Originally Posted by ardecila

^ Ironic as the architect was Studio Dwell... I believe this building would have been a total teardown candidate, except that the existing building offered more volume and smaller setbacks than current zoning would allow, so the architect convinced the client to re-use the shell of the old building at great cost. They sliced atriums through the building, installed extensive steel framework throughout, and excavated the basement significantly. May have done some underpinning to the foundation as well.

They may also be keeping the option open to re-subdivide the lot in the future, the side lot is just a big yard and driveway right now but the house is worth more at re-sale if it comes with a second developable lot... the home would lose its lawn but there is also thousands of SF of decks and balconies on the home itself

No, that is what they wanted.
It is a 4200 sqft bldg on a 6600 sq ft parcel. They have another 1000 buildable feet.
The set back is the same as neighbors, although it may be one - two feet taller than it should be.

They would need a zoning change to subdivide, because they could only cut out a 1250 sqft lot and still be conforming.

[10023]

Originally Posted by PKDickman

They stripped a fine gray-stone three flat on Wolcott.



Frankly, I would have preferred the Barney Rubble look.

That’s not even a good-looking modern house. Cheap construction for sure.

[10023]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

Map of the connector proposal.

Very cool, thanks for posting. What are the realistic prospects for this actually happening?

Also, they use a lot of comparisons to London in that document, so you can all just deal with it when I do the same.

[Mr Downtown]

^1 in 50 chance. It's a bunch of business leaders and real estate guys (not the real heavy hitters) who meet a few times a year to view a PowerPoint about progress of their "study" and then make observations like "my wife and I were in Frankfurt last year and we saw these trolley-car things running around, right in the middle of the streets. And it looked like there were normal people riding them. Why couldn't we have something like that in Chicago?"

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

That's an absolute crime!

Originally Posted by PKDickman

No, that is what they wanted.
It is a 4200 sqft bldg on a 6600 sq ft parcel. They have another 1000 buildable feet.
The set back is the same as neighbors, although it may be one - two feet taller than it should be.

They would need a zoning change to subdivide, because they could only cut out a 1250 sqft lot and still be conforming.

No, that building maxes out the zoning. Where are you getting 4200 SF from? It's a much larger building than that. They even cut out floor sections as was mentioned above so they could add a small penthouse for the rooftop deck without increasing the total SF.

That said the owner is a young investment banker type and absolutely had to have the smarthome look. He chose to destroy a historic building and repurpose it as his own mini mansion. He also paid dearly for doing that as old buildings don't like being ripped apart completely and mutilated. They essentially had to rebuild it completely structurally. Virtually nothing but certain sections of the Chicago common brick remains. They basically built a new construction mcmansion inside of an old building's brick walls without actually demolishing it completely. Total waste of time and money in my opinion. When you really look at what the project yielded they probably spent twice as much money just so they could keep certain sections of old Chicago common brick walls which they could have just built new from salvage brick for a fraction of the cost.

Even in light of the zoning/FAR issue, you don't have to keep all four walls standing to retain FAR. You just have to keep one above grade wall of only one floor high. If you look at the rear and side of the building you will notice they even cut out huge sections of brick to put in massive bands of glass requiring the existing structure be shored up while a new steel header is placed under it. They didn't even leave the header exposed which would have been a good design choice.

This entire project puzzles me but I guess you can never really account for other people's "taste".