Hi Craig,
I was really upset on Saturday to find out that 1225 West Farwell, a beautifully maintained greystone 2-flat has been sold to a developer and they are planning to tear it down.
The only reason these developers are sharpening their knives for this property is because it has the misfortune of being on a double lot and they can put the magically-million-dollar-making 6 condos on the land.
The same people have owned and maintained the building for over 30 years. I am attaching photos showing how well-maintained it is. I talked to them on Saturday as I was taking photos and they sounded like a developer had gotten into their heads and filled it with nonsense.
I don't think they even bothered to try and list the property before caving in. It is just so sad.
I myself, don't oppose teardowns of "blighted" properties. But a solid stone and brick building? It makes me sick to my stomach and God knows we don't need what happened in Lakeview, to happen here?
A cinderblock city over is down there, with no character (and no parking)!
Anyway, in case you're interested I am sending this. I already emailed Michael Land. I really don't want to see this happen to our neighborhood.
Signed,
Terrified of this Teardown
12 comments:
That is very sad indeed....
How can it be stopped? That is the million dollar question. A property owner is offered a very attractive price to sell their property. They bite. Should our Gov be in the business of deciding who you can sell your building to? Have a community meeting and let the 1% of our demographic decide what is best for our community?
Do we set up an asthetics board? Dictating taste is an awfully hard thing to do. I personally hate the 4+ one's that were constructed in the sixties. Should they all be torn down? They are still someones home regardless of what many think of the design. Have a referendum on design sensibility?
Should the Gov subsidise every old two flat's lifelong upkeep and maintainence, or require owners of designated buildings to do so without the ability to sell it in a free market society? Exactly how long can these structures survive? With modern engineering can they last forever? Should they?
It is sad that such a lovely building must come down. I am certain that had it been on the market many single families would have bid on it but in the end independent buyers do not have the finances to compete with developers.
That said, perhaps we are jumping the gun here. Has anyone seen their plan for the property? Some new developments are quite nice and provide ample parking for the tenants if planned well.
I don't know if we can get some historic district designations- not sure if we qualify. Uptown is designated as such but the buildings there tend to be grander and more "architecturally significant". There are levels of importance given to buildings and I don't know all the designations. But, downzoning also would prevent more density- that is another option the Alderman can change the zoning.
RE: the four plus ones
I think many people consider those a blight. If you go to the Edgewater Historical Society it talks about the outcry in Edgewater as all the historic homes were torn down to make way for this sub-par construction. Did you know they cannot be built anymore?
Uptown is currently fighting developers to preserve it's historic buildings.
One criterion that would be used is condition- just a thought.
Charlie: It may be complicated and difficult but I think it's worth it to fight the good fight.
Craig: Thanks for posting.
I agree with Michael. Not all the new developments are bad and not all the old buildings contribute much to the 'character' of the neighborhood. It is a nice building, so it's sad that this one is coming down. However, for most people, isn't the most important thing that gives character to a city neighborhood the people who live there? I suspect that anxiety about the kind of people that buy condos is at the root of a lot of these discussions. And what misplaced presumptions and sterotypes about people are we clinging to if that is the case?
Look at the prices of single family houses in Roger's Park! It is certainly not working people that can afford them or even most professionals. The school teacher and fireman that live in my building can afford a condo, period. Don't we care about neighborhoods providing housing that people with ordinary incomes can afford to buy? Isn't middle class homeownership linked to other positive developments in city neighborhoods? I know that the developers don't care about any of this, but isn't this a potential positive result of some of the condo development in RP?
I suspect I will get flamed for this, and I know that my comments don't address the very legitimate concerns over green space and density and affordable housing for renters. I will be interested to read your comments pro and con.
Buildings built 100 years ago were built to a much higher standard than buildings today. Case in point: 3 layers of brick deep in many old buildings, stone details not fake poured concrete or cinderblock. These buildings have lasted 100 years and with care could easily last another 100.
One of the most wasteful and destructive things we can do for the environment is tear down and build new. It uses far less resources to restore and wastes much less. All this waste is not good for the environment.
Also, these buildings (in particular those with cinderblcok sides) will not last as long or look as well as better constructed buildings over time, which will bring down the value of the neighborhood. Case in point: cinderblock has to be re-sealed frequently. Has anyone rode the "L" past Wrigleyville lately and seen all the cracks in the 1990's cinderblock buildings? It looks bad and is costly for people to maintain and fix. Sub par construction and it looks like the back of a shopping mall.
I'd like to see cinderblock use banned for residential constrcution.
I also don't think ALL developments are bad, but tearing down pristine buildings to put up something of lesser quality is something I disagree with. Also, the motivational impulse here is greed. Someone has to look out for the good of society and our sense of history and place.
Look what happened in Lakeview- you have entire streets and blocks that have been cemented over by new condos with fasades and shopping mall sides! All the history has been lost. Sorry to go on, but I feel really strongly about this. I believe a sense of history can do alot for us. What is the expression, without knowledge of history, we run the risk of repeating the same mistakes over again...
RPNeighbor,
I do not doubt that you feel strongly about maintaining a sense of history in our neighborhood but not all old homes were built so well and that is exactly why they have been torn down. Some were built filled with things that are really bad for the environment such as asbestos and creosote. Many are in dire need of wiring and heating system upgrades. Trust me, I had a neighbor almost die a few years ago from carbon monoxide poisoning in her charming old two flat. It could very well be that even though the home looks well maintained, it may be in need of major repairs. I live in a rehabbed courtyard building and really feel a sense of history but rehabbing is not always feasible.
Not all new construction is done using cinderblock. They don't use old "Chicago common" and face brick building techniques much anymore either but I have seen some new buildings that do use time tested and trusted techniques. Also, many builders are given incentives here in the city to use non-polluting materials and building in environmentally friendly elements such as green roofs and low emission/high efficiency appliances. I think it all depends on the builder.
I'm not saying that there isn't a time to fight to save something precious and historic but American's seem to get very sentimental over buildings that over a hundred years old whereas in Europe and Asia, they tear down buildings 3 or 4 times as old everyday without batting an eye.
I met a woman tonight at the zoning meeting who lives on Farwell and has a petition going and a meeting scheduled with the Alderman Oct. 10th. Anyone interested can email me at jmm922@yahoo.com with your name and address and I will pass it onto her to add to the petition.
I know I am beating a dead horse, but have you checked out Freemont and Aldine between Clark & Halsted and some areas over there in Lakeview?
People I know that live over there are sickened by what it looks like now. How can so-called luxury condos be built with cinderblocks?
Michael K:
The developer that is looking to build on this particular property also built the one 2 doors down and used cinderblock on the sides. How nice is that for the neighbors to look out their windows at grey concrete? It's a quality of life issue.
And even if it needs repairs, who is to say someone wouldn't be up to the task. Take the single family home on Lunt at the alley by ennui- who would have ever thought that would get rehabbed and I heard it sold recently for like $900K or something. There are people who appreciate old buildings. I'll stop now, I've more than made my point.
> ... the city is growing and we need more housing units. That means that we need to allow at least some of the small, older buildings to be torn down to build larger, new ones. ... Just trying to state the obvious.
How is this obvious? I get nervous when someone tells me something is obvious. What is your source?
Last night Ms. Heather Campbell of the Metropolitan Planning Council explained to us that the authors of our zoning laws over-estimated how much Chicago would grow, that Chicago is over-zoned in terms of the potential number of units, and that Chicago is loosing people to the suburbs.
There may be an affordable housing shortage in Chicago, but there is a GLUT of the cinder-block condos that are being built here.
To me it is obvious that the people that already have their life savings invested in a neighborhood have a say in how built up they want their neighborhood to be.
The MPC is comprised primarily of private investors and developers who have large multi-unit developments downtown and in the River North neighborhoods. I would be cautious about any information they bring to the table. It is unfortunate that so many "non-profit" organizations have a for profit agenda on the back burner.
Show up on Monday, Sept 26 evening at St. Scholastic. Complain about "downzoning," which allows these condo building creeps from changing the fabric of the community. Too many condos means too few homeowners in a Single Family home strapped community.
Look at Chicago mag; only 38 homes sold in Rogers Park this year compared with 990 condos. There is no home stock because the condo creeps are destroying the homes.
If you own a home, don't sell it to a condo creep. Let them convert the apartments. Even try to get Moore (HA) to zone apartments as single family where there is a tear down or make the SF home subject to zoning so if torn down, only a Single family home can go up.
St. Scholastica should be stoked with those who think that we need to keep SF homeowners in Rogers Park, rather than in Chicago. Compare the crackerbox palaces in the new burbs to Rogers Park and it is sick to see the loss of character looming in RP.
As stated, the proposals allow for "downzoning," which gives developers the green light to tear down anything, like the Federal Style home that the Chef in water sold to the townhouse production down Ridge Blvd.
Post a Comment