We are the owners of 1225 Farwell. We want to thank all our neighbors for such insight, thoughtfulness and regard for our rights as a homeowner.
We have been here for 33 years, and I don't think that we know any of you who wrote to this website. Maybe it's because we never got to know each other while doing manual labor at the park sculpture, the Sheridan Road triangle, the Sheridan Road corner landscapes, or working numerous fundraisers to put all of these projects into being.
We are the silent minority - doing, not talking.
I resent the idea of defending our legal choice of sale. However, I am bristled most by your comments, so much so, that I now am writing.
We are on fixed income. Seems as though everyone is very concerned about affordable housing, but our group is left out. Did money play a part in our decision - yes. Money has a way of determining where you live now and in the future.
Please pay attention to this. NO ONE has gone through more anguish than the two of us for the decision to leave our roots and neighbors, and then to have our building torn down. NO ONE has gone through all available options that did not work out to save the building. Stop second-guessing us.
And to the Lonely Heart person, we are NOT feeble-minded seniors who "have had their heads filled with nonsense from the developers" and the "caved" in. My dear, you do not have to put your house on the market to know the anticipated outcome of the the sale -you contact several reputable realtors for qualified answers. AND, you have to know of any mitigating circumstances. It also seems that this person and others are experts in solid stone and brick buildings - WOW, I will refer you to my insurance company. The are solid, if they are maintained.
What is the cinder block issue? The newer building at 1235-37 has very attractive block. If that is cinder block, it's a thousand times nicer than the common brick that I see from one of my windows.
Our building is not historic! It does not have landmark status! Yes, it shows well. We took a dump and made something of it. It took, and still takes hard work and money to do so. What is ironic is that we are being penalized for having a well maintained building.
We interviewed developers and are confident of our choice. We looked at buildings he has developed. We actually were able to talk to residents who were coming and going. EVERYONE had high praise for his attention to detail, quality of construction, his willingness to correct any problems, and for just being an all-around nice guy. I think his tasteful construction will fit in beautifully.
I believe the most upsetting part of the teardown is the loss of the side yard. The yard is NOT considered green space when discussing city planning. Again, NO ONE is more upset than we are about losing our garden that we cultivated over the many years. Kind of reminds me though of a previous neighbor who always said, "You work, I enjoy." Years ago we were advised by our neighbors to blacktop our garden for parking - everyone always has an opinion. I believe that when emotions are really high, it makes way for exaggerations. I also believe that once the new building is here, most people now and in the future will have a favorable response.
We are not going to collect signatures to support our claim. We are not going to put our friends in an awkward position of signing and then living around people who seem to have become radical. I know that we have been good neighbors and have put a great deal of love and good will into Rogers Park. And now, we are hurt and feel unwelcome.
Thanks for reading our comments.
Leaving our Roots
50 comments:
Thanks for sharing with us all and thanks for the perspective this brings to a very emotional subject.
You should sleep well knowing you have done nothing wrong, regardless of what you hear from others or anything you read in these posts.
Clearly you did not make this decision lightly or without the best interest of your community in mind. We should all be so lucky to have the foresight to actually interview the developers you sold your "home" to.
For that I thank you
Best regards,
Jeff, you ignorant slut! How dare you. If an ocean of million dollar cinderblock condos is what it will take to drive you out of the neighborhood, I hope it happens tomorrow.
Since you are such a fabulous financial manager, not to mention urban preservationist, you SHOULD be a a position to buy this place and turn it into a two flat museum, right? Put your money where your mouth is, idiot. You are beneath contempt.
To the (real) owners - you have done absolutely nothing wrong in my book. I'm glad you will reap the reward for your long investment. The fact that you even bothered to check out the developer before making your decision goes above and beyond. I am much more sorry to lose good neighbors like you than I am to lose that building.
>We interviewed developers ... an all-around nice guy.
Excuse me, you didn't mention, who is this nice man you are selling to?
jeff o spat out: I would never allow such a building to be destroyed.
Make an offer money man.
Talk about retarted
Who is this nice man?
Come on Hugh I thought you knew everything.
Isn't this when you post a whole lot of things you find posted on the web and claim it as your own moral truth.
Why don't you and jeff o start a foundation and save all the buildings you two find to be important for all of us.
Let us know how that goes.
Best of luck to ya.
PS Who the fuck do you think you are?
Talk about touching a nerve...Jeff I think you need your medication adjusted. I hope when the day comes that you realize living on social security and not much else is not such a good deal, you will remember your insane rant here and feel ashamed.
Oh by the way, please give me the address of your building so that I can track:
Whether I think it is in good taste
Whether it fits my personal definition of historic merit
Whether I think you are maintaining it up to my personal standards
Whether I think what you paid for it was fair
Whether I think your current property tax assessment is fair
Whether I think it's current market value is fair
Whether the rent you charge your tenants is fair
Whether I think the buyer you eventually sell to is someone I would invite to Thankgiving dinner
and finally,
So I can watch you go in and out and decide if I need to start a community petition to force you to change your hairstyle.
As long as your at it, why don't you send me you last years personal income tax return as well - I'm sure I will find some things in it that don't jive with my personal vision of good tax policy.
Hugh, the identity of the developer is none of your goddamn business. Wait till the building sells and look it up in the public record.
Jeff O,
I think I know you. You are the kid who sat in the back of the calssroom when I was a kid and drew pictures of vampires and read Camus and thought you were so much different and better than everybody else. You know how I know you? Cause, I was that kid! I grew up and got over myself one day and I think you should probably do the same.
To the owners - It's a shame that some people are so stupid. Xenophobes such as Jeff should go live in a castle in a far off land and pretend they are kings and queens and leave everyone else out of there little dementia. Enjoy your life wherever it takes you.
Yes, Charlie, now that you mention it, this property is a good example. Let's go with it and learn something about how our zoning laws effect our neighborhoods.
1225 W Farwell, PIN 11-32-124-011, is a fairly typical Chicago lot at 8700 square feet of land.
You can look up the lot size on the most excellent NewsChicago web site or the Cook County Assessor's web site.
1225 W Farwell is located in an RT4 district, the most common type of zoning in Rogers Park. RT4 has a "mean lot area" also known as the "minimum lot area" or MLA of 1000 square feet.
You can look up the current zoning and the corresponding MLA on the maps and tables on the City's web site or the Alderman's web site. (Although if you do look want to check the zoning for yourself, I would definitely recommend you use the interactive maps on the City's web site, because the Alderman's maps deliberately do not label the areas of RT4).
MLA throttles density. It is the amount of land you need for each unit. The MLA, in conjunction with the amount of land, determines the number of units that can be built, simply as follows:
8700 square feet of land / mean lot area of 1000 square feet = 8 units.
The law says to round down. But the law also says that the Zoning Administrator (with no hearing or other accountability) may grant a developer a bonus of 10%, known as an "administrative adjustment," but not just for the sake of building more units. Legally, the developer has to plead that the ONLY way the project would be profitable is if he is granted a 10% bonus. Developers often speak of this 10% bonus as their god-given right. In practice, it is a gimme for developers. The developer purchases a one-paragraph letter of support from the Alderman and files it with his application for his bonus and he's good to go.
In this case, we don't (yet) know who the developer is, but Charlie's umbrage at the question indicates that he is a good pal of the Alderman, or could be soon with a small contribution, a reasonable price to pay for an economic boon.
So the developer could build 9 units on this lot. This is characteristic of RT4 areas. ALL the cookie-cutter concrete block condo projects in Rogers Park are in these RT4 areas (6957 N Ashland, 6745 N Clark, 1761 and 1763 W Morse, 7018 N Ashland, 7028 N Ridge, 1528 W Greenleaf, etc.).
Let's consider what would have happened if this lot were RS3 instead. RS3 has an MLA of 2500 square feet. RT4 is not 25% more dense than RS3, it is TWO-AND-HALF times as dense.
8700 square feet of lot area / MLA 2500 = 3 units.
So the biggest building that could be built would be a three-flat. In practice, this two-flat would not be torn down to build a three-flat. It wouldn't bring in the big bucks. In effect, the RS3 designation would preserve this building. If this area were RS3 it would not attract the attention of developers. Developers are not being attracted to our neighborhood for the lakefront, or the wonderful, generous-hearted people, or the public transportation, they are attracted to our neighborhood for one reason: the vast areas of RT4 zoning that allow them to build quick, lucrative, cookie cutter concrete block condo projects.
Another insidious effect of the RT4 zoning is to greatly reduce the value of the property as a two-flat. A charming grey stone two-flat in an RT4 districts is a sitting duck. Even if a long-term owner or buyer were committed to the existing building, the economics of the building boom in Chicago make it inevitable that the property will be surrounded on all sides by 3 and 4 story concrete block condo projects, "block busting." Sunshine is a short-timer. The garden is a goner.
Yes, under the current zoning, our neighbors looking to get the most from their property are up against a wall, but it is a wall of our own construction. In the 47th ward, Alderman Schulter has virtually eliminated RT4 in favor of RS3. He did this to preserve the character of his ward. They have found that the less dense zoning cooled the tear-down mania, encouraged upkeep and maintenance, and boosted property values. A downzoning would encourage preservaton AND boost with property values.
In Alderman Moore's proposed zoning map, most of Rogers Park is RT4 before, and most of Rogers Park is RT4 after. RT4 is a very dangerous thing to leave lying around a Chicago neighborhood. These areas of RT4 are carefully nurtured by the Alderman, who's political campaign is financed largely by developers. Alderman Moore opens every zoning-related discussion by explaining that he is the Zoning Czar of Rogers Park, the so-called "alderman's prerogative." Living in Rogers Park, you may well be under the impression that the our City's zoning laws are the special property of the Alderman and his developer pals, a plastic thing, molded by them at will. The zoning laws in our City belong to ALL of us. The zoning laws are a contract between those of us that already have our life's savings invested here, and those who want to invest in our neighborhood. The zoning laws have profound impact on the look and feel of our neighborhood. It's up to us.
So lets say that property in this market is worth a Million bucks. You have the 100k to put down and you finance 900k at 2%. (30 yrs)
Your mortgage alone is $3500 (ball park) add taxes,utilities insurance,monthly repairs,marketing (if you think you can rent that other space in this market)
Lets be really safe and say your monthly nut is $5000.00
to keep this baby going.
Do you think there are tons of people lining up to buy this,live in one unit and (TRY) to rent the other for say $1500.00 to help offset costs? Are there even that many people out there who want this as a single family home?
Maybe so,but that is not an easy sell to anybody who wants this as is, with no intention of changing a thing.
I am sure someone more smarter than me can figure out the real numbers.
Go figure
JeffO,
Please allow me to educate you on the common usage of the word xenophobe as put forth by H.L. Mencken in The History of the American Language as you are obviously quite oblivious. It is the contention of Mr. Mencken that the derogatory use of the word xenophobe to refer to someone who has an irratioanl fear of change appeared in the American language circa 1890 in letters penned by Robert Louis Stevenson in regards to the gentry at the time being opposed to the formation of unions and fears of a peasant uprising. It is now commonly used to refer to those afraid of all change. Next time you decide to challenge someone's grammar, pick up a book first. Anyone can copy and paste a definition from dictionary.com.
By the way, you keep mentioning that they could have chosen to sell to an individual owner with the capitol to maintain the property. This is highly unlikely as anyone with the funds to outbid a developer surely would not live in a neighborhood where not only can you hear gunshots and see drug dealers and crack whores at any time of day, but you're often close enough to hear the shell cases hit the ground and smell the smoke from the crack pipes.
One last thing and then I intend to ignore all further nonsense commentary. If you really hold your neighbors in such contempt and if you really feel that we are all trying to destroy the community - Why don't YOU move somewhere else? Dumb ass.
Oh, and "The Man" JeffO. Who are you, Huggy Bear. Talk about commonplace insults. You said that you own a building. Sounds to me like you are "The Man".
> ... anyone with the funds to outbid a developer surely would not live in a neighborhood where ... gunshots ... drug dealers ... crack whores ... crack pipes.
This is a version of the myth of Real Estate Developer as Hero of Urban Renewal. This popular pro-development rhetoric asks us to remember that our neighborhood is so pathetic that we should be grateful for any project, and to forget how the developer's themselves exacerbate the problems.
If east Roger Park is so horrible, how does the developer plan to sell luxury condos?
Cheers to that Ellen! If I suffered through decades of the shithole this neighborhood once was, I'd sell it and move to Hawaii too if I could.
The idea that these people are failures because they invested in a community long ago that noone cared about is ludicrous.
I hope they all are able to live quite comfortably.
Hugh,
They are able to sell condos here because tey are still affordable but you have to admit that there are lots of issues that need to be resolved before we are going to attract millionaires to live in these homes. It will probably happen one day but right now it's just not feasible.
I've decided that Jeff O's comments are a prank - no one could really be that much of an imbecile. You really wound us up, jeffo! "the Man"! That's priceless!
Thomas, hang in there. I promise to try to take to to a higher plane from now on...
Hugh, I appreciate your comments. This is the kind of conversation we need to have - not the savaging of individual homeowners. There are undoubtedly good arguments for downzoning, including the preservation of housing stock that gives charm to a neighborhood.
On the other hand, I don't really understand why density is bad in itself. I have lived in or visited many large cities thoughout the world and within certain thresholds, the relationship between density and quality of life is far from clear to me. Your comments also beg the question about why it is better for the community to make a priority of preserving housing that, in the current market, only the rich can afford to buy - regardless of the motives of developers or the Alderman. As far as the "cookie cutter" issue is concerned, how exactly does the zoning prevent that? Let's say there was a situation (granted, hard to imagine in the present market) where a developer could make money building a three flat - why is an ugly three flat better than an ugly six flat that 6 middle class families can afford to buy now?
I haven't made up my mind on any of this yet. I would really like to hear your thoughts on my concerns, Hugh.
Oh, and Charlie, if you could tell me where I can get that 2% mortgage, I would really appreciate it.
Ellen's post illustrates another important dynamic that is shaping our neighborhood that is worth surfacing and discussing. Every day, the property owners in our neighborhood are getting older. Many of the remaining single-family homes in particular tend to be owned by seniors. In looking into the back-stories of the recent tear-downs in Rogers Park, it is not uncommon to find the sad passing of one of our long-time residents. (The cinder black condo projects on the south side of the 1700 block of W Morse are an example). Their children may be long gone, but the next gen is still VERY interested in the proper disposition of the ancestral home. Once again non-residents clash with residents in the debate over the future of our neighborhood. Sometimes we find we are not so much disagreeing with our neighbors as we are with their children. Outside investors have a disproportionate voice as opposed to homeowners and residents, another example being developers from the northern suburbs purchasing influence through campaign contributions.
> ... why it is better for the community to make a priority of preserving housing that ... only the rich can afford to buy ...
As opposed to luxury condos that only the rich can afford?
To address the issue that started all this: The fact is this, the homeowner isn't destroying anything. They are getting what's due them. Perhaps Ellen is happy where she is and has no interest in living in a home that she has described as needing a lot of work. Not everyone has had the good fortune to build an empire for their children.
I intend to live here for a long time and it is in my best interest to see that the quality of life for everyone here is the best it can be. I expect that I will come to know many of you that attend meetings and have discussions that are productive all round. We will not always agree and things wil probably get heated at times but I think it best to keep inflammatory comments to a minimum.
In response to the owners comments a few things.
1. I never called you "feeble-minded" seniors nor would I ever do such a thing. I don't know you and I don't know who you talked to about selling your building. I do know that there exists the possibility of finding a buyer that would not tear the building down and buy the building at a fair market price. I don't know how long you spent researching the possibilities to save the property etc... I hope that when I am at the point you are at, I will be able to live up to my own ideals- maybe I won't- but I pray that isn't the case.
When I said a "developer has your ear", that is true- it is obvious that you went with the developer.
You yourself said that it was a very difficult decision. If it was me and I sold to a developer, I would see it as a defeat of my ideals- that is why I phrased it that way ("caved in").
2. I believe you are in a minority if you consider cinderblock attractive. Most people I know find it industrial looking. And it really is inferior as far as life-expectancy it does not last near as long as 3 layers of common brick. I don't think you'll see 100 year old cinderblock buildings that are admired the way your building is. Maybe time will prove me wrong, but I dount it.
If they put brick on the sides of that building, it would make me sleep better.
3. Please don't assume that people who comment on blogs don't "do" and just "talk". It simply isn't true. Many of the people I know on this blog (myself included)show up for meetings, pick up litter, and take an interest in what goes on here. Just because you haven't met them in your travels doesn't mean they haven't done anything. I myself have plans to do alot of things here and get involved even more- I just haven't had 30 years to do it yet.
and finally, just because I care about architecture doesn't make me a "lonley heart"- what's up with that?
Despite this whole thing, I wish you guys well and hold no hard feelings toward you - even if you do towards me- I am sorry to see the building torn down is all. It's a beautiful building- no, it's not the Dawes mansion or what not- just a common beauty, which I value as well. If we only save the majors, we would lose ALOT.
wish you well.
> ... the relationship between density and quality of life is far from clear to me.
Zoning 101
Zoning has wide impact, but the single most important is density. Some will encourage you to view zoning as an incredibly complex issue best left to professionals, but if you want to quickly spin up on zoning, cut through the noise and focus on two issues:
1. density
2. use
Density is the single most important thing regulated by zoning, because it effects so many other things: parking, sunshine, noise, privacy, traffic, green space. The laws for set-backs and yards are a joke when the approval process for exceptions is a simple matter of purchasing a brief letter from an Alderman who is all too willing to sell it, so if you want to keep the Park in Rogers Park, look to lower densities. Nothing sets the look and feel of an area as much as the issue of how closely the developers are allowed to pack us in on top of each other.
The laws for uses determine whether or not a methadone clinic or a body shop can go in next door to you. There are technically three categories of use:
1. prohibited,
2. permitted ("by rights"), and
3. special uses (which technically require a hearing).
But again, the distinction between permitted and special is a joke when the approval process for special uses is a mere exercise, so focus on prohibitted versus allowed (permitted or special considered together).
So download, print off, and study the density and use tables on the Alderman's web site:
Ward Zoning Remap
I just want to say one more thing to the whole forum here on real estate and seller's rights etc...
There's more to life than getting the most money for something. Do we take the jobs that pay the highest or the one we love? Do we buy the most expensive house we can afford or do we live below our means so we can have more time with our family etc...? I really think we should think longer term and not just with our wallets.
Look what kind of president we got from people thinking with their wallets folks.
The issue of affordability has been raised.
Affordable housing is a big loser in Alderman Moore's proposed zoning map changes. The proposed map is a major concession to developers since it keeps most of Rogers Park as RT4.
Currently our City has two ownership-based affordable housing ordinances potentially applicable to the condo projects we are discussing here:
1. The "Mayor's" affordable housing ordinance
2. The Chicago Partnership for Affordable Neighborhoods (CPAN) ordinance
The Mayor's ordinance kicks in only when a developer gets a deal on City land. In our neighborhood it is pretty much irrelevant because we don't have any idle City land lying around.
The CPAN program kicks in when a developer asks for a zoning change. The CPAN ordinance requires the developer to set-aside some units for sale at "affordable" levels. The percentage of the units is not specified, it's up to the City to negotiate. In the course of these negotiations, the community can raise other issues, such as parking, set-backs, yards, landscaping, materials, etc.
The merits and effectiveness of these programs could be debated, but my point here is that if you support affordable set-asides, you will support the idea of decreasing density. The Alderman's proposal gives developers all the density they want without bringing them to the table. We have all been to the Alderman's info-mercial meetings where it is explained to us, "Legally, there's nothing we can do, it's by rights." If Rogers Park had a more restrictive zoning overall, we could have more serious discussions with developers. We would have more control. We can put ourselves in the driver's seat if we want.
Hey Nico
I was a little quick with my example.
At 5.85% 100k down 30yr fixed= 5300.00 month
I doubt there lining up
Jeff o
I can only take the owners word that they indeed feel that they sold it to a developer who will build a well crafted quality structure.
Talking about the "character of RP" we are dominated by Large multi family turn of the last century courtyard buildings. We also have a large number of post war 4 plus one's. The urban equivilent to Skokie and Morton Grove.
The # of single family homes and two flats pales in comparison.
This is not the near west side,where you had thousands of frame homes lining the streets of Bucktown,Wicker Park and Humbolt Park. We are more like Logan Square in that respect. These are places where the "character" has been really altered.
We are talking about the minority of Real Estate here. If we are really worried about the character of Rogers Park we should start designating "Historical Status" to the 40-60 unit building erected in the first park of the last Century.
I say tear down the 4+ ones and pioneer the rebirth of the 20-40 unit Multi Family dwelling made by craftsmen and woman using proven standards centuries old with an eye towards modern environmental stewardship.All built from Chicago Brick.
Now that would presrve the character of Rogers Park.
Anybody willing to write that business plan?
Excuse me Hugh, I was asking you a real question. You had my ear - why do you have to be so pompous? I've been studying the proposed zoning maps for as long as they have been available and attending all the RP zoning meetings as well as the meetings to defeat the Evanston Marina, meetings to create community friendly development of the park, CAPS meetings, etc. I have been interested to hear the political backstory as well, which you spend a lot of time giving us. I have already conceded your point that downzoning has some advantages. All I was trying to say is that density isn't all there is to it. Luckily, unmikely's comments were able to address some of my concerns.
As for the "luxury condos" being for the rich, you don't have to be an advertising executive to know that the "luxury" part is hype or an accountant to figure out that a middle class family has an easier time buying a $300,000 condo than an $800,000 two flat. If you don't agree with my comment about housing the middle class can afford, why don't you just admit that it just isn't a priority for you or make a cogent argument about why these developments don't really serve this purpose. My neighbors are a public elementary school teacher, a fireman and a nurse - is that your definition of the rich?
What type of legislation is in place regarding use of the space in regards to zoning? I still feel that an owner should sell to whomever they want with a guilt free conscience but aside from buildings being torn down, there are also those big beautiful homes that are broken up into office spaces and business uses. Shouldn't these be zoned as residential? How do they get around this issue? It's just my personal opinion but it depresses me when a house is not being used as a home.
Hugh, your comment posted at 3:42 was very interesting to me - I did not get a chance to see it before my last posting. This is the kind of information that really helps me develop an informed opinion.
Those of us that are newer to the neighborhood look to you guys for information and guidance. Please don't scuttle the discussion just because sometimes we raise questions that seem to indicate a position you don't support.
Jeff, I'm sure that Hugh can take care of himself without you as his protecter. At least he tries to give us well reasoned information -I just wanted him to know that showing a little patience will serve his arguments better than sarcasm.
Don't assume we're against you just because we ask questions. As I said before, you have our ear. Use this access wisely, or eventually we'll just stop listening.
Let me get to the point. I don't want anything torn down that has value. I want to attract more single families to the neighborhood because I think it would be in our best interests. That is very difficult when many of the most desirable properties are occupied by businesses rather than families. Also, if we are trying to encourage responsible home ownership, do you think that a business is going to think twice about selling to a developer?
Jeff 'oh',
Oh my Jeff 'o', you have got my readers in an up-roar. Some folks have e-mailed me and want some censorship here. As one who has been put in this situation before, I'm cutting you some slack. For now.
I love a good e-lynching, but please, save the foul mouth name calling for the after hours at the Morseland Bar or the ilovemorseblogsite. If I have to behave, so do YOU!
The perception that everyone else is doing it, that it is inevitable that the buildings on all sides will be torn down for 3 or 4 story cookie-cutter cinder block luxury condo projects, that no one would want to live in a lone single family home tucked deeply back in a dark crevice, that tear-down is inevitable, contributes to a tendency to slack off on preventive maintenance.
Charlie, your comments raise a point that has also been touched on at some of the zoning meetings. Zoning has little real impact on style other than the bulk and sometimes height of the building, right? Some communities have civic design codes to control additional aspects of the look and feel of the architecture, like the shape of rooflines, size of windows, the materials on facades, etc. The definitions of the "historic" community aesthetic can sometimes be pretty loose - there are cities in the west that mandate that all the fast food restaurants need to have spanish tile roofs, or have adobe facades, for example - I think the operating pricipal is aesthetic unity, with whatever they think is the prettiest part of their history ruling the day. It is easy to imagine how codes like these could enforce the kind of bland homogeneity that people in Chicago don't want. And who is to say what the aesthetic standards should be - I guess there must of been a point where the four plus ones looked really cool and modern next to all those old-timey stone two-flats.
However, in some cases, when created with intelligence, these kinds of codes can help keep newer construction in older neighborhoods from becoming eyesores; that is, if non-contextuality is the definition of an eyesore. I point to San Francisco and Paris as two examples. Codes like this might also be useful when the surrounding "character" is not really something that would be possible or desirable to designate as a landmark or historic preservation zone - those designations have their downsides, too.
Personally, I think this could be sort of a Pandora's box and I guess I think RP has other priorities right now, but I just put it out there as another possibility to put the breaks on the cinderblock stuff.
Hugh, tell me where I can buy a single family house in RP that will cost me less that 2 grand a month in mortgage, taxes and insurance, a house that isn't in tatters, that I wouldn't have to spend thousands of dollars a year maintaining because of its condition (which I wouldn't be able to afford anyway, since the 2 grand would be the absolute limit) and I will buy it tomorrow.
It has nothing to do with not desiring or valuing these houses. It is just that the cost of entry is so high. You know that, and I think your comments demonstrate that you just don't care. That is your perogative - you have a perfect right to try to protect a minority interest in RP - the interests of those who can afford to buy and keep those houses the way you think is best. Just don't tell me in the next breath that the developers are the only greedy ones.
I like the idea of tearing down all the 4 plus ones. I don't think they ever looked really good. Low ceilings, cheaper materials, if they looked good new-that didn't last long. They slipped thru before the building codes were changed and then they were banned. Ever wonder why they don't make them anymore? They are not up to current codes- they were considered shoddy construction- apologies to anyone who owns/lives in one.
I am glad most people seem to agree on the cinderblock issue at least. I wonder if we had a petition we could get it banned in our ward...
Let me first go on record as saying that cinderblock and four plus ones are not my personal taste. My personal taste is a lovingly restored 18th century stone villa on a hilltop in the south of France, and in my version of the ideal universe, all the nice people in the entire world would get would get to live in one for free forever if they felt like it. I also will disclose that I have the good fortune of not living in a "cinderblock cookie cutter" or a four plus one - but I would like to remind you all that those despised dwellings are someones home too, and that they probably don't like them much either, but they are the best option they've been able to figure out so far.
I hope the reign of the cinderblock will be over soon. Probably as soon as the interest rates start going up. Then some new aesthetic horror will be spawned by the next housing bubble and we can start whining all over again. I am still waiting for a really, really good argument for why they are bad for the community, other than, on the more mature end of the scale, people don't like the way they look, and on the less mature end, fear and loathing for the kinds of people we imagine buys them. Personally, I find the whole thing a bit overstated when it comes to RP - there are many more conversions than teardowns, aren't there? As Charlie pointed out, single family homes and two flats are not really that prevalent in RP and if you want to change the zoning to try to preserve them, I'm not going to spend any energy standing in your way. Perhaps the "cookie cutters" are as shoddily constructed as the four plus ones...great, then ban them on those grounds. Fine by me.
As for those four plus ones. Well, they are ugly, no doubt about it. I am glad they are banned, because they are built out of cardboard. I don't like looking at them. I wish someone could find a way to do what Charlie suggested, and write that genius business plan. On the other hand, they provide housing for some of the more vulnerable members of the community - remember them? Some of them are even pretty well maintained - flowers out front, lace curtains in the windows. Do I think the immigrant families, elderly people, disabled people, working poor, children of the working poor, etc. who make up many of the residents of those flats would be happier in the new, quality constructed, green technology, pretty courtyard building Charlie described? Yep. Integrate the poorer among us into the larger fabric of the neighboorhood, in attractive quality housing that supports their dignity, thus perhaps ameliorating some of the terrible social ills caused by concentrating and isolating them into ghettos and substandard housing? Sounds great. Sounds true to the ideal of supporting diversity that RP never stops congratulating itself for. Oh wait, we were thinking those replacements for the four plus ones would be for them, right? Ooops. Maybe only in the ideal universe.
nico's mom
I totally hear you on your last comment.
Cinderblock-obsessive that I appear to be now, I have to say that it is not just about the look. I have commented before that cinderblock needs to be resealed every 5-8 years or so (ballpark figure-I need to get exact) and many people that buy these condos don't realize that. This is what I see could happen. It seems that some of these people buying these new condos are buying them for flipping and as an investment. Case in point, the one up the street from 1225 Farwell I have been told that most of the units have turned 3 times already and the building is maybe 7 years old max. Now, I suppose anyone who can afford the condo can afford the maintenence right? If they aren't maintained properly though the buildings will deteriorate at a much faster level and water will get into the building etc...
I realize that the same is true of any building that isn't maintained but at the risk of sounding like a savant, I'll say that 3 layers of common brick and brick in general are more water resistent- never need to be re-sealed and will last longer and look better. Buildings that last longer are better for the environment. It's like recu=ycling when old buildings are rehabbed instead of torn down- we all are in favor of recyling I assume.
Now I know our neighborhood and country face much more dire social issues than the style and construction of our buildings and I care about that. I just for some reason have chosen to take this as one of my "causes" and I am trying to get others on board- I'll admit it.
Here's the link I posted before about problems with cinderblock:
http://www.tuckpointing.com/windows/news/problems_with_concrete.html
I have to start my own blog so I can talk about why I feel this issue is important. I don't want to take up that much space here!
I'm with you all the way....
Your right on target Nico's mom.
Hope everyone gets a chance to check out the Glenwood Ave Arts fest this weekend!
Thanks RP neighbor.....Great link
Given the choice, I personally would never use this method of construction. I am no expert by a long shot but I do have some experience building homes, and for the record I live in and manage a very well maintained 20 unit vintage building built in 1930 up on Jarvis.
That said, this part of that article is a much larger issue than weather or not you like the looks of split faced cinder block.
Not all contractors or carpenters are created equal. If someone really wanted a pet project and wanted to tackle a real problem.....this one is a doozy (what ever that means)sp?
cut from the article: "A large part of [the problem] is a function of workmanship and who's doing the work," agreed Scott Conwell, an architect and area marketing director for the International Masonry Institute, based in Chicago. "Union masons tend to do a better job," he said. But with a building boom in progress and with endemic shortages of skilled craftsmen, anybody with a pickup truck can call himself a mason and get hired, he said.
Now the Union thing is a whole story it self...
Thanks to everyone for playing
"There is no more boring conversation than one where everyone agrees" said by someone
Having rows and rows of homes that look alike have been around since the industrial age began. Factory owners used to build row on row of houses with varying levels of quality for their workers to occupy. Look at just about any neighborhood near an old factory and you'll see what I mean. Ravenswood is a good example. Generally, the closer to the factory the simpler and more humble the home. Some are nice and some are kind of ugly. The bungalows out around the Brickyard are like that too. They were built as starter homes after WW II and most people consider them to be a Chicago trademark. The bungalows generally have different types of brick to distinguish one home from its neighbor though. Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that a certain amount of homogeneity can be nice so long as certain standards are adhered to. It is hard to control that now when developers are working on lot to lot rather than entire blocks.
Sure. The four plus ones are the big blocky looking buildings that were mostly built in the early 60's, I believe. They are five stories tall but the ground floor has single lobby entrance that faces the street and sometimes uses a different material on the ground floor facade, hence the name four plus one. There are a lot of them on Sheridan road. You can find pictures of typical examples by googling "four plus ones"+Chicago.
Aren't most of the four plus one buildings south of Devon? There are a lot of similar buildings in the neighborhood but they don't have garages underneath them. They ar mostlu brick with ugly stone stripes up the side.
My wife and I rented in a four plus one in Lakeview on Aldine a few years ago and we really liked the apartment. It was big and had a good layout and had lots of storage. We even looked at a beautiful place on Pratt that was like the building described above. We fell in love with the inside but in the end we just couldn't past how ugly the exterior was.
I wonder if rather than talking about tearing these down (which is unlikely) if there might be ways of dressing them up a bit.
Can anyone speak to the relationship between residential density zoning and it's impact on the development of the retail corridors in RP? I realize that open space and green space are important, but I am really bothered by the lack of a normal urban concentration and variety of decent walkable retail and services in RP. Is anyone else?
Some elements of my working hypothesis are that
a. there is concentration of high density, low income residences nearest the shopping streets
b. the weathier people live in lower density areas father from the shopping streets
c. people have developed the habit of going out of the neighborhood for retail, restaurants, etc.
d. due to the fact that RP was originally a suburb, there was never that much retail space to begin with, and other than Clark street, retailers are not persuaded there is enough traffic, car or pedestrian, to make their business viable.
e. Some of the existing zoning has allowed too much commercial use on the high traffic streets (the autobody shops on Clark for example) displacing other kinds of businesses.
If you don't think that density zoning has much bearing on the situation, can you please explain how you came to that opinion? One example I am thinking of is Andersonville, which appears to have lower residential density than RP throughout,(although I have never confirmed that) but yet still has pretty strong retail. Is that due to historically higher income levels maintained over time, or better distribution of wealth? I would be very interested if someone has already thought this through.
Please don't repeat Fagus' argument that it is essentially our fault for not shopping more often in what already exists on Morse/Howard. I don't think that really gets to the heart of the problem.
I tend to lean towards nico's mom's view about the distribution of wealth. But foot traffic also has much more to do with it. Since people who walk down Howard or Morse between Sheridan and Clark are usually bombarde with sights of drug dealing and gang activity, they are less likely to stop and window shop. These areas tend to have a few liquor/convenience stores and a few currency exchanges and maybe a payday loan office.
On Howard there are lots of great little shops as soon as you get west of Clark and also tons of places on Clark street. It's kind of a hike for me though and many of the shops cater to recent immigrants and I am unfamiliar with a lot of the products and services or they simply don't suit my tastes. I love the restaurants though and I do all my produce shopping at the Rogers Park fruit market on Clark and Rogers.
Michael,
I used to live in Lakeview too, between Broadway and Sheridan just south of Belmont, and there were lots of four plus ones all over the place. In general, the exteriors were in a bit better condition than what we see up here (perhaps because they were constructed a little later?), but another thing I think made a difference is that many of the Lakeview four plus ones were set back from the street, so that there was a little strip of green in front of them, 8 - 12 feet or so wide, with grass, shrubs, some flowers, sometimes small trees.
I don't know if that is something that can be fixed in the existing buildings, but I think it shows how important setbacks and decent landscaping around any building can be, and why we should push for it in any new zoning going forward.
I have thought the same thing about landscaping and sprucing up the four plus ones. It is AMAZING what some landscaping can do for a mediocre building. I thought adding shutters or some other architectural detail would help too. Also, removing rusted wall-unit a/c units would help. The building on Pratt & Glenwood needs help in this regard.
I hate to see resources wasted and fixing up existing- even a 4+1 is a better option I agree. This would be a GREAT city beautification project to have some kind of incentive for owners of these buildings to make them more attractive. The city is giving help to Bungalow owners for historic purposes but why not beautify the troubled buildings as well. It would make a better quality of life for everyone.
Jeff O - I agree with you on many points BUT I don't agree with attacking people and judging so unmercilessly- I myself try to be more diplomatic as I think it is more effective in moving others- take Obama as an example (not saying I'm Obama or anything).
Sometimes we all fall short- I know I do. I don't agree with what they did either but then maybe my priorities and values are different- not excusing anything but none of us knows what it's like to walk in another's shoes- easy man!
Also, slamming people in an anonymous forum and not face to face could be viewed as cowardly- as you yourself said you wouldn't say these things in person. I think the same decorum should hold in online forums
.
Now please don't lash out at me because I agree with you.
peace out
Jeff O
Maybe it is better to get angry than bummed out as I am about the building being leveled...
A friend suggested contacting the developer (if we could find out who it is) and approaching them with the suggestion of developing it as 2 duplexes(keeping the building intact) and perhaps even building on the adjacent lot. That would be better than a teardown.
>A friend suggested contacting the developer (if we could find out who it is) ...
1215 W Farwell, PIN 11-32-124-011, is not sold, yet. The owners are on Yahoo! People Search.
Thanks Hugh- I have spoken to the owners directly- I don't know if they will change their mind and try to get the property developed rather than leveled. I know of a situation in Lakeview (on newport) where the neighbors got Alderman Tunney involved and he intervened and found a developer to rehab a building rather than level a historic Victorian. The street is now in process of becoming landmarked.
I have to finish that letter to the Alderman's office this week.
Here's a story that helps further illustrate the critical difference between RT4 and RS3 zoning.
A developer in Uptown is claiming he accidentally bought an historic single-family home in an RS3 district, and is asking the community to correct his error with a change in zoning to RT4 so he can proceed with his tear-down for a cookie-cutter cinder-block luxury condo project. Incredible! Check it out.
Neighbors try to save properties in Sheridan Park National Historic District
Should I stay or should I go?
By Peter von Buol, Special to Inside
Excerpt:
This house at 4627 N. Beacon St. is the oldest house remaining in the Sheridan Park National Historic District. A developer has clashed with his neighbors about his wishes to tear it down to build eight condos on the site.
Two buildings in Uptown's Sheridan Park neighborhood have been slated for demolition despite their contributions to the neighborhood's designation as a federally-designated National Historic District. However, concerned neighbors and local architectural preservationists have not given up their attempts to save the two structures. ...
The current owner of the property located at 4627 N. Beacon St., Chris Byrne, told those in attendance that he bought the Queen Anne-style building because he erroneously believed it had an R-4 zoning designation. A computerized search of city records had wrongly indicated its zoning as R-4 but an analysis of the city's actual zoning records showed that it was among properties that had been down-zoned to R-3 in 2001.
The owner says he purchased the property so that the structure could be replaced with an eight-unit condominium development. Without the zoning change, his plans to replace a building that has been recognized by the Commission on Chicago Landmarks as "architecturally significant" have so far been stifled. ...
http://www.insideonline.com/site/epage/28636_162.htm
Charlie, don't you want to rise to the defense of the owners of those 4+1s? They have done nothing illegal, this is America, property rights, ratta ratta. Isn't this where you post insisting that if anyone hates a 4+1 so much, they make an offer?
Post a Comment