Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45
I would hope any survivor of the Great Fire of 1871 would be sacred nowadays, the same way I'm pretty sure San Francisco would never allow the demolition of anything predating the 1906 quake.
How come there are enough idiots with more money than taste in that city for this to work? You wouldn't be able to sell me a modern piece of crap building if I can instead get a century-old greystone in the same neighborhood. If everybody was like us, they'd all get restored, there would barely be any demand for the newer stuff.
|
I don't think any pre fire buildings that are left are in real jeopardy of demolition unless someone can post some prove of that. Most of the Pre 1871 structures are already gone, and not all of it was due to the fire. Time took its toll first. Any old pre fire houses/wooden buildings were more than likely replaced before WWI already.
Several of us have stated that the 1881 one building is likely worth saving.
But it is a lie to say it was build before the Great Chicago Fire of 1871 by a decade. This lie is a ploy to save the building that should be saved IMO but it is not a survivor of the Great Fire.
Like me and Glowrock said that other 2 flat is a disaster and needs to be replaced, luckily for the city and future owners by a modern 3 flat. The old 2 flat looks likely from the middle 1950's and it looks like it is collapsing upon itself.
Once again I repeat myself. I am in favor of saving the 1881 house out of respect and quality of the external components of the building. Heck even if the inside was a disaster and had to be re piped and wired it still would be worth saving IMO but that could very well be very expensive.
If I was a preservationist I would focus on the post fire 1881 building and not the 1955-60 two flat that looks not worth saving at all.