From an architectural / design perspective, are you happy with the direction Chicago is headed? (Lincoln: how much, townhouses)

[Standard111]

Originally Posted by FAReastcoast

This doesn't take away from your stupid comment that "they tore down all the old houses".

It's an accurate comment. Not my fault that you're ignorant of LP and its construction activity.

Why not ask "your brother", since he's the "development king of Chicago"?

[FAReastcoast]

Originally Posted by Standard111

Well I think you're lying. And, no, I don't think "your brother" conveniently happens to be the biggest developer in Lincoln Park.

Please tell me these supposed blocks in LP where there are few teardowns and the blocks are not protected from teardowns? You can't.

Believe what you want, I could care less. Virtually every block south of Fullerton, North of North, East of Southport, West of Halsted has large, intact, vintage housing. I have spoken with Michelle Smith on this issue, as I am looking at a couple multi families in the neighborhood, but want assurance buildings on the block with Orange status will not be torn down for McMansions, of course she cannot ensure that, as Orange is not landmark status. So, no, there are not blocks protected from teardowns, I never said there were. Though i wish that was the case.

[Standard111]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Old Town Triangle for the most part.

Where in Old Town Triangle are there blocks that aren't 1. Protected, or 2. Lots of newer construction?

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Standard111

Where in Old Town Triangle are there blocks that aren't 1. Protected, or 2. Lots of newer construction?

If you honestly think that there's a bunch of new construction in Old Town Triangle then you don't know what you're talking about. Most of the houses there are not new within the last 10 years. I walked around that area just the other day on many blocks and barely spotted any new construction homes. The only area near there which has more teardowns is around Halsted. Go around Sedgwick and you'll be hard pressed to find almost anything truly new teardown esque. I'm talking about North of North Avenue.

[FAReastcoast]

Originally Posted by Standard111

Where in Old Town Triangle are there blocks that aren't 1. Protected, or 2. Lots of newer construction?

You keep bringing up this point of Protected, that is part of my whole premise; why are these areas not protected?

I live in an area off the southport corridor where entire blocks of Chicago greystones are being renovated as Tunney has a big initiative of preservation, I just wish this extended to other areas of the city.

Look at some of the work of Mangan Builders (who did my place) and see what a renovated greystone can look like. 10x better than most new construction.

[FAReastcoast]

Originally Posted by marothisu

If you honestly think that there's a bunch of new construction in Old Town Triangle then you don't know what you're talking about. Most of the houses there are not new within the last 10 years. I walked around that area just the other day on many blocks and barely spotted any new construction homes. The only area near there which has more teardowns is around Halsted. Go around Sedgwick and you'll be hard pressed to find almost anything truly new teardown esque. I'm talking about North of North Avenue.

He/she clearly has no idea what they are talking about.

[FAReastcoast]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Old Town Triangle for the most part.

Though right off Old Town Triangle, my in-laws business bought a 1890's 3 flat on an extra wide lot off Cleveland ave., it is literally one of the nicest buildings I have seen in LP (only saw pictures), but after purchasing, they were able to tear down the house in 45 days following closing, no 90 day window (since it wasn't orange), the new house is great, but it is scary how fast these things turnaround.

There are a couple of similar examples on Dayton St.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by FAReastcoast

Though right off Old Town Triangle, my in-laws business bought a 1890's 3 flat on an extra wide lot off Cleveland ave., it is literally one of the nicest buildings I have seen in LP (only saw pictures), but after purchasing, they were able to tear down the house in 45 days following closing, no 90 day window (since it wasn't orange), the new house is great, but it is scary how fast these things turnaround.

There are a couple of similar examples on Dayton St.

That's sad - why'd they tear it down? Burling could be another example. Also I love the buildings on Armitage, especially around Halsted - Sheffield.

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by FAReastcoast

There are ways to build to accommodate parking without large podiums (underground).

I agree with you and the others that the parking podiums downtown are an issue. If you go to a city like Paris, it's not just the street-level retail that activates the public realm... It's also the windows from the second story up the seventh, some of which are open or have balconies or flower boxes. Nothing makes a street fell more foreboding than a four-story blank wall, no matter what you do to dress it up.

I have actually been on design teams for more than one downtown high-rise (only one of which was actually built here in Chicago), and the parking podium is nearly always mandated by the developer due to economics and scale. Chicago has a high water table so it's difficult to build many stories underground without issues, and the cost per parking space is quite high even if you go down just one or two stories. I once worked on a competition for a large office tower in the Loop with a local architecture firm, and we offered a solution where the front of the parking podium was lobbed off to allow for more "active" uses facing the major street orientation of the lobby. The developer was intrigued, but ultimately went with a more tried-and-true formula.

[FAReastcoast]

Originally Posted by marothisu

That's sad - why'd they tear it down? Burling could be another example. Also I love the buildings on Armitage, especially around Halsted - Sheffield.

Money and the city allowed them to. It really is sad, but I see both ends of it. The Governments job is to regulate the market, and if they are not going to do so, the free market will dictate what is worth saving and what isn't.

I moved myself and my wife from NYC to Chicago (where she grew up), to get out of the corporate wall street world, and become more of an entrepreneur in the real estate game. This is nearly impossible to do in NYC unless you have tens of millions of dollars or several investors, who will eat away at all of your profits. Chicago offers less barriers of entry for those who want to go alone and don’t have tens of millions. Though it is a double edged sword as it is easier to tear down the current urban fabric of many neighborhoods.