CHICAGO | General Developments

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by honte

^ Oh sure, of course. Absolutely no value. Thanks BVictor, glad you've made that call for us. Now I can sleep at night.

Glad to be of service

[wrab]

Originally Posted by a chicago bearcat

....No building material is bad until it is used out of context or without creativity and care.

Bingo!

(Although "out-of-context" uses can be awfully fun - like orange shag on the roof (Goff).

[honte]

^ I don't agree, but I'm not sure this is the right place to discuss.

[jjk1103]

Originally Posted by ardecila

^^ Sad but true. CMUs are so goddam ugly, too, forcing people to rely on dishonest veneer solutions.

I believe honte once linked to a project designed to give CMUs an interesting shape, so that they would form patterns when used en masse.

.......what is a "CMU" ?

[Jibba]

^Concrete Masonry Unit

[jboy560]

Does anybody have any pictures of a 4+1? That sounds pretty ugly, but i want to see what they look like for myself. I can't find any pictures or anything.

[honte]

[denizen467]

^ Although often a first floor open-air parking garage is visible as well, contributing to their poor reputation

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by jboy560

Does anybody have any pictures of a 4+1? That sounds pretty ugly, but i want to see what they look like for myself. I can't find any pictures or anything.

Also, you can cruise around on Google streetview... in particular check out East Lakeview and Edgewater, which probably have the highest concentration (though examples are scattered far and wide, including Lincoln Park, Rogers Park, Hyde Park...).

Some of them have some seriously funky cool early-1960s motifs going on, in terms of materials (glazed brick, stones as in honte's pic) and quasi-space-agey cast concrete entryways (I'm not an architect so I'm probably not using all the correct terminology, here).

A few random examples:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=e...43879751378932

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=e...64045404301277

[honte]

^ That second one is pretty heinous. I like how the random roof element doesn't even align with the other facade elements. Classic.

[Chicago Shawn]

^yeah, that one drew out the ewww reaction.

I am a fan of the 4+1s though, as they are extremely dense. Check the number of mailboxes in the lobby next time anyone should walk past this one. These are so dense and have such a low parking ratio that they are today illegal in all city zoning classifications outside of downtown; but in reality is exactly the type of housing stock that really should be promoted as a minimum for TOD applications. They also provide market-rate affordable housing in neighborhoods that would not have it otherwise. I knew someone who lived in a Lincoln Park studio two years ago for $560 a month, ONE block in from the friggin' park. The 4+1 is also a unique Chicago vernacular, sure other cities may have some type of housing stock like this, but Chicago's are pretty unique.

[Taft]

Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn

I am a fan of the 4+1s though, as they are extremely dense. Check the number of mailboxes in the lobby next time anyone should walk past this one. These are so dense and have such a low parking ratio that they are today illegal in all city zoning classifications outside of downtown; but in reality is exactly the type of housing stock that really should be promoted as a minimum for TOD applications. They also provide market-rate affordable housing in neighborhoods that would not have it otherwise. I knew someone who lived in a Lincoln Park studio two years ago for $560 a month, ONE block in from the friggin' park. The 4+1 is also a unique Chicago vernacular, sure other cities may have some type of housing stock like this, but Chicago's are pretty unique.

Another bright side to them: they are a perfect backdrop for a 70's period movie set in the city. Just slap a few 15' banana boat cars on the street and voila! Instant time travel!

I live in east Lake View and sometimes get a feeling of being in a different time when walking past a block with several of these buildings on it. They may not be beautiful, but the neighborhood wouldn't feel the same without them.

Taft

[wrab]

Originally Posted by honte

.....bizarre "kitsch" decorative elements inspired by the best architects of the day (Frank Lloyd Wright flagstone, colored tiles somewhat like Le Corbusier, little concrete shell arches for canopies, etc)....

I was driving around a neighborhood in the extreme SE side of the city recently, down by Calumet/Hammond - block after block of 1950s/1960s bungalow-sized single-family homes - and all of them were decorated with stone insets like the ones you mention above. Mostly igneous rock (lava stone) as well as some flagstone. I'll try to dig up some pics. Now that I'm attuned to it, I'm seeing this aesthetic all over Chicagoland. Nowhere else in the country have I seen it in such profusion, although maybe I've just not been tuned in to it. But now I'm intrigued. Where did this start and how/why did it become so very popular.

[honte]

^ It's always baffled me too - you'll see tons of it if you head southwest ... there are small pockets in Bridgeport and then it just explodes by the time you get down by Midway.

But the 4+1s seem to be in a class by themselves - a higher class, actually. The stone seems rather common, but the other flourishes, such as the entry canopy in Viva's first photo, seem more "aware" of the overall architectural developments of the time than just the applique rocks - despite the fact that these "flourishes" are almost always misinterpretations of something great.

4+1s are more colorful too.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by honte

in a class by themselves - a higher class, actually. The stone seems rather common, but the other flourishes, such as the entry canopy in Viva's first photo, seem more "aware" of the overall architectural developments of the time than just the applique rocks - despite the fact that these "flourishes" are almost always misinterpretations of something great.

To climb aboard the 4+1 love train: I think those gestures are great! They're like front yard sculptures or something.

Chicago Shawn commented on their affordability. He's absolutely right. In East Lakeview, were it not for these units, there'd be little left of the young gay community.

[woodrow]

Ugghhh to the 4+1. When I first moved to Chicago, I went with an apartment finding company and the agent kept taking me to them even though I repeatedly said NO!!! They are awful inside with horrible little air court/shafts. They had paper thin walls. Dark. They may be great for city density, but I they can't be great for living.

Plus - they replaced tons of great stuff. At least in SE Lakeview (between B'way & Sheridan, Diversey & Addison). I know that the big old single family homes and turn of the century apartment buildings were in sad shape in the 1960's, but what replaced them are crap.

I do kinda like the rehabbed, reclad, enlarged unit, condo conversions that some 4+1's are undergoing.

[BWChicago]

The other important issue to consider with 4+1s is that they arose from exploitation of a zoning loophole. In 1957 he zoning code was amended; you find 4+1s in areas zoned R5-R7. Under fire codes, you would have to have an elevator and use better construction than masonry over frame for dwellings over 4 floors or 45 feet, so your lobby and parking are partially sunken and you have low ceiling heights to fit into that box. It's an exploitation of rules intended to allow single-family. And they stretch from lot line to lot line to maximize their FAR, since the parking wasn't included in calculations. So since these were studio and 1 BR units, they caused a huge spike in density in residential neighborhoods, and since they just had that one floor of parking they caused street parking to get way worse. The backlash against 4+1s is where we got the 1:1 parking ratio rule for low-rises and the requirements for side setbacks, since units on the sides and back got little light and they also cut off the light to neighbors.

In summary, four plus ones are a perverse demonstration of form follows function: A building form designed to maximize returns for developers by exploiting every loophole. They're dense, yes, but the way they achieve density is through resource hogging; the density was 2 to 3 times that recommended in the already optimistic 1958 comprehensive plan. There's absolutely no reason to be cheering on buildings constructed to the absolute lowest standards. The only ornament you see on there is banal imitation of real architecture to cynically appeal, like a low-rent Robert Venturi. You know what else would increase density? Dumbell tenements. Let's get some of those!

[VivaLFuego]

Almost everything built in Chicago neighborhoods is "exploiting" zoning loopholes by... uh, following the zoning guidelines to maximize return on investment. You see this constantly with the nearly identical form of all the new 3-flats (R4), 4-flats (R5), and 3 over 1 retail (B-2 and C-2) being built all over the city. I don't see what's nefarious about that, if the result was unintended then it's a deficiency in the zoning and building codes, not ill-will by the developers, whose very job it is to maximize return on the equity invested, be it their equity or someone elses.

Further, it's pretty bizarre to say that R5, R6, and R7 (may the latter rest in peace and some day return) were crafted to guide single family development. These are specifically higher density, multi-family zoning districts. R1, R2, and R3 are intended for single family, with maybe some spilling over to R4 (and recently R3.5) wherein a higher floor area ratio is warranted but not a particularly higher unit count.

Indeed, prior to 4+1s being "outlawed" the parking requirement for studies was much less than any other unit (was it 0 per unit, then raised to .5 as part of killing the 4+1 - I believe the 1957 code already stipulated 1 space per unit for 1-bedroom units and higher) - additionally, I think the maximum percentage of "efficiency" units (studios) was also lowered to force new buildings to have more 1-bedrooms rather than studios and ergo more parking spaces.

In short, the deficiencies of the 4+1 could have been largely cured without prohibiting future unit/population density in construction: specifying modest 4-foot side setbacks in R5/R6 or perhaps modifying the building code to specify a certain setback/clearance for bedroom windows; amending the fire code re: elevators for multi-family vs. single-family buildings rather than based on building height; or, if a specific block was to remain lined with stately single family rowhomes rather than redeveloped as apartments, downzone it rather than neuter the zoning designation; and so on.

I understand that circa 1965, the shortage of free on-street vehicle storage was a crisis of epic proportions, but I think there's a defensible case it's time to move beyond that. Again this problem could have been solved (and can still be solved, looking forward) through other means.

[honte]

BWC has done a very good job of elaborating on what I alluded to in my first post on the subject. I think these buildings were more exploitative than the typical housing development.... many of their worst faults could have been entirely avoided if they were truly what was intended by the regulations, or should I say, if the regulations were loosened such that the developments could have proceeded with a bit more humanity.

There is no denying that these buildings tipped the scales on profit far toward the developers, and they did some reprehensible damage... so there is this evil streak that runs through all the other benefits, and this unfortunately taints the whole picture both from a historic and practical sense.

[Taft]

Originally Posted by BWChicago

The other important issue to consider with 4+1s is that they arose from exploitation of a zoning loophole. In 1957 he zoning code was amended; you find 4+1s in areas zoned R5-R7. Under fire codes, you would have to have an elevator and use better construction than masonry over frame for dwellings over 4 floors or 45 feet, so your lobby and parking are partially sunken and you have low ceiling heights to fit into that box. It's an exploitation of rules intended to allow single-family. And they stretch from lot line to lot line to maximize their FAR, since the parking wasn't included in calculations. So since these were studio and 1 BR units, they caused a huge spike in density in residential neighborhoods, and since they just had that one floor of parking they caused street parking to get way worse. The backlash against 4+1s is where we got the 1:1 parking ratio rule for low-rises and the requirements for side setbacks, since units on the sides and back got little light and they also cut off the light to neighbors.

In summary, four plus ones are a perverse demonstration of form follows function: A building form designed to maximize returns for developers by exploiting every loophole. They're dense, yes, but the way they achieve density is through resource hogging; the density was 2 to 3 times that recommended in the already optimistic 1958 comprehensive plan. There's absolutely no reason to be cheering on buildings constructed to the absolute lowest standards. The only ornament you see on there is banal imitation of real architecture to cynically appeal, like a low-rent Robert Venturi. You know what else would increase density? Dumbell tenements. Let's get some of those!

I understand--clinically, factually--the arguments you are making. But I think you miss what these "post-war tenements" offer to the urban fabric. For instance, I would argue the density and vibrancy of east Lake View wouldn't exist without them. I would also argue that they provide something that is in high demand in Chicago: relatively cheap housing in a "hip", vibrant neighborhood.

Sure, college students wanting to move to Chicago could find a 1 bedroom in a graystone up in rogers park, logan square or some other far flung neighborhood with less density and local amenities. But more often than not, they choose to stretch their budget a bit and move into relatively low-quality housing in Lake View or other popular neighborhoods. In other words, these types of buildings offer choices to those who are financially constrained.

You can argue that these buildings reduce the quality of life for established, more affluent residents of these neighborhoods. Vis a vis parking issues, density, etc. they probably do. But in the long run, I think such inconveniences are outweighed by the benefits to the city.

Taft