CHICAGO | General Developments

[PKDickman]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

http://oururbantimes.com/preservatio...ct-wicker-park

Developer seeks to demolish historic building in Milwaukee Ave. Landmark District in Wicker Park

By: Elaine Coorens

Date: 09/20/2013

Owner of the property at 1505 N. Milwaukee, Steve Lipe, Lipe Property Company, and his architect Brent Norsman, Norsman Architects, presented a proposal to the Wicker Park Committee's (WPC) Preservation and Development (P and D) Committee to demolish the building at 1501 N. Milwaukee Ave. in the Milwaukee Avenue Historic District at a meeting this week.

I am sure that you all will be stymied to learn that this building was saved from demolition. Thanks, largely, to a thoroughly researched report from the Landmarks staff that suggested that, in a landmark district intended to show a wide range of Chicago's 19th and 20th century commercial buildings, the lone example of a false front, frame commercial building in the district should be considered important.

The difference between this building and the Black Duck building, is that this building had been landmarked.

It took 20 years to do. Virtually all of the commercial buildings were cut out of the city's Wicker Park District when it was created.

As I said before about the Black duck:
The neighborhood is gonna have to give a lot to save them. If they don't insist that they be individually landmarked as a prerequisite to any deal, they will be wasting their time.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I don't see how it could not be situational. You weigh the community benefits of redevelopment vs. the community benefits of preservation, for any given proposal. That's the purpose of having community meetings for zoning relief. The developer asks for additional property rights, usually in return for certain concessions to the community. It's unfortunate that so much of our city is zoned for low-density in transit-accessible locations, so this process happens too often.

And yes, density (exclusive of height or design) is a valid planning goal that does sometimes outweigh historic considerations; it helps pay for the costs of transit, services, parks, and other public goods. In this case, the developer's already revealed that he's willing to save the corner building in exchange for permission to build a 7th floor, so I don't really see why we shouldn't be pushing for the option that saves Black Duck.

Yup.

Originally Posted by ardecila

At any rate, I think you have a skewed idea of what we all think.

Double yup. And it's also always accompanied by a weird smugness.

[Mr Downtown]

Starting a preservation battle after something new is proposed does make it situational. But it's not supposed to work that way. The city should already know which buildings are worth landmarking, and the developer should already know how large a building he can build. The horse trading we do in this town is what gets us into trouble, trouble from which we've been saved only by a very pliant state supreme court.

[ardecila]

But we do know what buildings are worth saving. That was the point of the Chicago Historic Resources Survey. Granted, it doesn't include any buildings built after 1940, which is a glaring omission, but it does apply to older buildings like Black Duck, which garnered an orange rating.,

Yeah, the horse trading sucks, but the zoning is less permissive than it should be thanks to decades of aldermanic meddling and downzoning. A community planning process that led to an ironclad master plan (I sat through one in New Orleans) would avoid the horse trading, but we'd essentially give up on the idea of densifying through infill since nobody wants denser buildings in their neighborhoods. That means we'd need to write off most L-adjacent neighborhoods as locked in amber, except the industrial areas where there are no NIMBYs to complain.

[jbrady3324]

http://blog.chicagoarchitecture.info...d-and-rebuilt/

[the urban politician]

^ In the end, not much different from the previous proposal. Either way, I'll take it. That site needs to be redeveloped BADLY.

[jbrady3324]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ In the end, not much different from the previous proposal. Either way, I'll take it. That site needs to be redeveloped BADLY.

I'd take almost anything at this point, although I do like the ducks on the side of the building. I really think the grand ave corridor is an interesting area. A lot going on between this, the business tower by sterlingbay further down on grand, and the hotel(s) along Fulton.

[wierdaaron]

When I first saw the headline, I hoped "One of Chicago’s Worst Blocks" referred to Clark from Jackson to Congress.

[BB 1871]

Originally Posted by wierdaaron

When I first saw the headline, I hoped "One of Chicago’s Worst Blocks" referred to Clark from Jackson to Congress.

I don't know if you've seen this but, it's a pretty stellar article on that exact block that the CAB wrote a year or so ago

http://blog.chicagoarchitecture.info...t-worst-block/

[wierdaaron]

Originally Posted by BB 1871

I don't know if you've seen this but, it's a pretty stellar article on that exact block that the CAB wrote a year or so ago

http://blog.chicagoarchitecture.info...t-worst-block/

I saw that before, but didnt make the connection that it was from the same site.

That block really needs a nuke-and-rebuild. I figure the pawn shop is the only thing preventing that, since they're probably making good money.

[DonMendigo]

Too bad they've just put up a low-rise with an eyesore monstrosity of a wooden fence immediately abutting the sidewalk on the northeast corner of Halsted and Grand.

[jbrady3324]

Originally Posted by DonMendigo

Too bad they've just put up a low-rise with an eyesore monstrosity of a wooden fence immediately abutting the sidewalk on the northeast corner of Halsted and Grand.

That is The Dawson which is a restaurant by Billy Lawless (The Gage, Henri)

[george]

Originally Posted by BB 1871

I don't know if you've seen this but, it's a pretty stellar article on that exact block that the CAB wrote a year or so ago

http://blog.chicagoarchitecture.info...t-worst-block/

Love this block! I agree with the author, this should be preserved as a living museum. A remnant of old school Loop character. This strip was also the original China Town.

[Rizzo]

My runner up block would be between Rush and Wabash on Chicago. I love that old red brick apartment building with the basement and raised ground floor shops. Also it's landmarked so it's never going anywhere for some junky glass skyscraper. Too bad the Amanda Apartments is struggling. It's still a great building even with tacky postmodern renovation.

[wierdaaron]

Sure, preserve those shop fronts as a reminder of ye olden tymes, but get rid of the bums and vagrants who smell the place up and make pedestrians clutch their purses.

[the urban politician]

"HOTEL -- MEN ONLY"

I find that very strange..

[harryc]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

"HOTEL -- MEN ONLY"

I find that very strange..

Community bathroom.

[BVictor1]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...,4145832.story

A new Plan for Chicago: A challenge to Tribune readers

October 6, 2013

A century ago civic architect Daniel Burnham mapped a physical future for this city. He had intended to design social remedies as well but didn't deliver. Today, with education failures, joblessness, crime and other intertwined challenges confronting Chicago with the fourth great crisis of its 176 years, the Tribune invites readers and organizations to finish Burnham's work — to address the imperiled livability, uneven prosperity and desperate public finances that have driven residents to leave by the hundreds of thousands. In coming months, you, and we, will explore how this metropolis can better survive and thrive. Together, our mission echoes Burnham's: Make no little plans.

Some crises come abruptly and concentrate the mind. October 1871: Wind-driven flames incinerate much of Chicago. Residents whose homes and businesses are vaporized sleep on whatever dirt isn't scorched to ashen grit. Winter weather is but a few weeks away.

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

"HOTEL -- MEN ONLY"

I find that very strange..

Bathroom down the hall has been mentioned, but also not wanting to be raided for prostitution.

[Chicago Shawn]

Originally Posted by ardecila

But we do know what buildings are worth saving. That was the point of the Chicago Historic Resources Survey. Granted, it doesn't include any buildings built after 1940, which is a glaring omission, but it does apply to older buildings like Black Duck, which garnered an orange rating.,

Yeah, the horse trading sucks, but the zoning is less permissive than it should be thanks to decades of aldermanic meddling and downzoning. A community planning process that led to an ironclad master plan (I sat through one in New Orleans) would avoid the horse trading, but we'd essentially give up on the idea of densifying through infill since nobody wants denser buildings in their neighborhoods. That means we'd need to write off most L-adjacent neighborhoods as locked in amber, except the industrial areas where there are no NIMBYs to complain.

Exactly. The horse trading we do in this town is a result of years of downzoing to engage in "community based planning", where nearly every development must be a discussion with alderman and the neighbors who need to gain something they want from the investment in their neighborhood. It adds time and expense to every project and can make some innovative concepts not even worth the effort. Our neighborhoods our very under-zoned once you step away from commercial streets, to the point were about half of the existing building stock in the denser neighborhoods no longer is in compliance to underlying zoning. This includes all of the lakefront residential high-rises, 4+1's, courtyard apartment buildings, corner apartment buildings, coach houses, various buildings otherwise compliant but in violation of present setback regulations and often 3 and 4 flats on single standard city lots. Building something contextual in these areas will result in the horse trading give and take "negotiations".