Quality of 1960s-1970s buildings? (Chicago, Sheridan: apartments, rentals, condominiums)

[ByTheLake]

Hello all, I may be condo-hunting in a couple of years depending on how some family and financial matters shake out, and I'd like to start sorting out options a little--I like to plan ahead

I'd be looking at Rogers Park and West Ridge, or maybe a little further south.

For a number of reasons an upper floor wouldn't be good for me. I have a family member who doesn't do well with stairs, that's the main thing. The heat in summer drives me nuts and it would be worse on higher floors, that's another. And then I play the piano and when I manage to do my exercise routine at all, I do it early in the morning, so I'd rather not have neighbors below me to disturb. I was thinking a garden condo in an older building might be good, but after reading a discussion here from a few years ago (bugs, dim light, potential flooding), I'm thinking maybe not.

So now I'm thinking, what about a first-floor unit in one of those small to medium-sized buildings from the sixties and seventies? There are a lot of them around Rogers Park. They mostly don't seem to have basements at all, and the ground floors are at or very close to ground level. That would be good for my family member (and for moving in the piano). But I don't have any experience with buildings of that vintage. Were the materials and construction practices still good at that time? How about energy efficiency and soundproofing? And would there be water or other problems I should be aware of?

Thanks in advance for any thoughts.

[chet everett]

It is hit or miss and has less to do with the "materials" than the maintenance (or lack of it) and wear and tear than some building owners ignore. Forty+ years of even little old lady tenants is going to mean that faucets drips, toilets might need two flushes and if the A/C or heat is been patched up instead of replaced you will be uncomfortable on the hottest and coldest days. Condos / apartments are also lot like cars in that what used to be "high end luxury" 40+ years ago is now pretty standard on current mid-level (or even econobox) units. Microwaves, dishwashers, disposers(which may or may not be technically against code inside Chicago depending on how the building connects to the sewer (grease traps vs direct), remote intercoms, etc were pretty rare for smaller buildings until recently...

If you are not going to be shopping for a few YEARS the current short supply of rentals may very well reverse and nicer units may be more plentiful.

[ByTheLake]

Thanks, those are useful points to keep in mind. I agree that maintenance is vital. When I said I wasn't experienced with that vintage, I probably should have clarified that I'm not used to buildings that *new*--in the decades since college I've lived in places from 50 to 80 years old, mostly. So doing or catching up with basic maintenance wouldn't faze me as long as the basic structure is sound and as long as big structural problems haven't been neglected.

[It'sAutomatic]

I don't feel like there are many buildings from the 60s and 70s in Rogers Park or West Ridge except for the corridor along Sheridan Road. Which structures are you speaking of?

[ByTheLake]

There's a current listing at 7133 N. Damen, for example, and I think there are some in the 1300 to 1500 blocks of Jarvis and Sherwin; and then there are the Bell-Oaks condominiums, I think they're called, just south of Lunt between Oakley and Bell. Those are the ones that come to mind at the moment. There seem to be a fair number. They aren't big complexes for the most part and they don't necessarily jump out at you when you're passing through the neighborhood.

[themag62]

Originally Posted by ByTheLake

Hello all, I may be condo-hunting in a couple of years depending on how some family and financial matters shake out, and I'd like to start sorting out options a little--I like to plan ahead

I'd be looking at Rogers Park and West Ridge, or maybe a little further south.

For a number of reasons an upper floor wouldn't be good for me. I have a family member who doesn't do well with stairs, that's the main thing. The heat in summer drives me nuts and it would be worse on higher floors, that's another. And then I play the piano and when I manage to do my exercise routine at all, I do it early in the morning, so I'd rather not have neighbors below me to disturb. I was thinking a garden condo in an older building might be good, but after reading a discussion here from a few years ago (bugs, dim light, potential flooding), I'm thinking maybe not.

So now I'm thinking, what about a first-floor unit in one of those small to medium-sized buildings from the sixties and seventies? There are a lot of them around Rogers Park. They mostly don't seem to have basements at all, and the ground floors are at or very close to ground level. That would be good for my family member (and for moving in the piano). But I don't have any experience with buildings of that vintage. Were the materials and construction practices still good at that time? How about energy efficiency and soundproofing? And would there be water or other problems I should be aware of?

Thanks in advance for any thoughts.

In a word: CRAP. Don't do it. I lived in these many years ago. Cheaply made.
Flimsy. NO SOUNDPROOFING. PAPER MACHE WALLS.
Your neighbors will want to murder you when you play piano because it will sound to them like you are in their living room.

[chet everett]

Fire codes in Chicago, especially for multi-family housing, have always been among the strictest in the nation. Regardless of whether the place was built in the pre-WWII era or more recently "paper-maiche" has never been allowed to seperate units. I agree that heavier plaster walls and concrete block construction are more effective than thinner walls in blocking sounds but I ave found the vast majority of apartments built during the 1960's - 70's inside Chicago to have at least that level of fireproofing...

Perhaps in other cities / suburban areas the quality of materials did drop off in that era but I have not found that to be true in Chicago.

[knitgirl]

I think there are people who would never consider those buildings because they are so darn ugly, so that could affect your resale.

[linicx]

The post WWII housing construction had a drastic change. Thousands of soldiers were coming home and buying houses thanks in part to the GI Bill. It began, at least where I live, an era of prefabricate rafters and walls and cookie cutter two bedroom houses called "pre-fab". Drywall replaced plastered walls. Cheap and fast on a slab was the mantra. There is still a surprising number of those hoses that exist across America. Yes, older houses can have their issues, but the older house with paster walls and natural wood is a good investment if the house has good bones. Older houses have character that the newer buildings do not.

The only way to find out is a inspection by a licensed Home Inspector. These inspections do not reveal hidden mold or radon -- something that empty buildings often hide. Mold remediation can often cost more than what one pays for the property. Homes that sit on the ground sometimes invite termites. And basements do flood. When that happens you sometimes see a water mark on the walls. I would not put a put a piano in any basement without heat and air because basements are notoriously damp. This may be true in Chicago, but it true in central Illinois -- partly because there is a lot of water sources and high humidity.

[andrew61]

Originally Posted by chet everett

Fire codes in Chicago, especially for multi-family housing, have always been among the strictest in the nation. Regardless of whether the place was built in the pre-WWII era or more recently "paper-maiche" has never been allowed to seperate units. I agree that heavier plaster walls and concrete block construction are more effective than thinner walls in blocking sounds but I ave found the vast majority of apartments built during the 1960's - 70's inside Chicago to have at least that level of fireproofing...

Perhaps in other cities / suburban areas the quality of materials did drop off in that era but I have not found that to be true in Chicago.

I seem to recall that the reason so many four-plus-ones were built in the '60s and '70s was that the Chicago fire code was much stricter for buildings that were more than five stories tall. Therefore, if the builders kept to a maximum of five stories, they could get away with using cheaper materials. Or something like that.