Subscribe: 
YoJoe just happened to be on the 1800 and 1900 blocks of Burling St on September 26, less than two weeks ago. I’ve just posted several dozen of the photos I took that day to Flickr. Take a look, and come up with your own take on these blocks.
My take: look at the photos, walk the street, and you’re hard-pressed to make any kind of a reasoned case against what’s been built there. It’s a decently attractive streetscape that pays respectful homage to the area’s history — not a jumble of screaming,hulking McMansions as some have contended.
Could it be better? Sure. The relevant point, I think, is that it could be far worse, and that the critics are way out of bounds on this one.
Related posts:
{ 42 comments }
i enjoyed your pictures of west chesterfield much more. All of these houses look incredibly odd with the sunken garage on the front facade.
NSH,
I’ll give you odd – but incredibly odd?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/yochicago1/265532756/
=incredibly odd
Thanks, Joe. I have no problem with this neighborhood whatsoever. The houses are beautiful. I don’t want to see front-facing garages proliferate (luckily they basically can’t), but in a very wealthy neighborhoods front-facing garages almost create an appropriate appearance of ‘privilege’ in a city that otherwise generally requires alleys.
looks too much like New York, bleh
Sorry, NSH. I still can’t give up the “incredibly.”
There are dozens more just like the above in the vicinity of the 1700 block of W Surf St, and hundreds more scattered around Lincoln Park and Lakeview. In fact, the more images I summon up in my head, I’m thinking about taking back the “odd” I gave up.
Those front garages are just bad; they look cheap, like they couldn’t afford the buy the lot next door to build a driveway. I think they are going to age badly however, the bottom photo, on the right, especially.
Interesting factoid; the first generation of ‘modernist’ architects were reacting to this kind of thing in the 20s, much as is happening today. Many of that generation has admitted that the more traditional stuff built then aged better than they expected. I don’t think, though, that this generation of traditional construction will, however. A lot of it is poorly built. The most dated are going to be these houses – which have shades of the 1880s to me – the detergent boxes and suburban McMansions (the future skid row rooming houses).
For those of you who love density and don’t like set backs, and think these mansions are Ok, what is so dense and city-ish about a street containing three or four rich guys? Chicago is a city of neighborhoods, it’s not New York, and many people like to live in the city, close to cultural amenities, good restaurants etc. but retain a neighborhood feel. That’s why they choose somewhere like Lincoln park instead of the Loop or the South Loop, which have their place in Chicago and serve people seeking a different lifestyle.
As for the claim that these homes are good because they raise the tax base, the increase in the tax base also could force out other Lincoln Park residents, who aren’t millionaires and suffer as their taxes rise. I spoke to one woman who lived in a workers’ cottage not far from Burling Street and saw her taxes rise at such a phenomenal rate that she had to walk 10 blocks to find a comparable house so she could try and appeal her taxes to the city.
And as for the claim that this is “rich-bashing” and that middle-class people don’t get criticized for their housing tastes, upper middle-class people do get attacked all the time. That’s where the term McMansion originated, and these homes are the next step up from the McMansions that you deride.
Joe just because they are common does not make them anymore odd. In fact they look more like the loading dock behind WalMart than the front of a revival architecture home Which I would normally be a fan of, sorry not in this case. Sorry, poor taste in my opinion.
Alison,
about that poor woman appealing her taxes to the city………she needs to appeal to the county. I don’t feel bad for her. I consider it whining. If she is on a standard 25 x 125 lot right around there she might get 1.2-1.5 million yankee dollars for her property….as a teardown. If she insists on staying she can take out some equity………I will refrain from crying for her.
I’ve been down those streets a few times in the last 3 months and it only amounts to a few blocks. I think Lincoln Park can survive with a few blocks of oversized homes.
Some of the older homes on the 500 block of Arlington are huge and take up large lots………..where is the complaining about that?
As I said in another post I happen to find the homes vulgar. That doesn’t mean I don’t want their egotistical owners spending their money in the city. More importantly with their massive and fragile egos they are more likely to donate massive amounts of money to cultural projects in the city if they live here.
Just take a walk through the museums and parks around here. How many have “Pritzker” or “Field” or some other rich persons name plastered somewhere?
The only rich person that I am aware of who didn’t insist his name go on anything was Julius Rosenwald of Sears fame……….he basically funded the Museum of Science and Industry……..notice it is not called the Rosenwald.
I also remember a story about an east coast mega millionaire who quietly funded many charities……….no one even knew. They guy lived modestly appearing solidly middle class.
Some lawsuit he got sucked into made the news that he was worth 100’s of millions public and the fact of his quiet donations.
ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH
Rosenwald is on enough stuff in HP-K/UofC. Plus his house, the Rosenwald House, is the biggest in Kenwood.
DN,
well calling it the Rosenwald house is probably something informal. As for his name being on stuff in HP/U of C area………
I wasn’t aware of that. You’ve just ruined my image of Julius Rosenwald………I’m going to take a hot bath and cry now.
ARRRRRRRRRRRRGH
Alison,
An “increase in the tax base” has the opposite effect of forcing anyone out.
Since talking about rich people gets journalists totally unhinged, use the example of a manufacturing plant.
Build a manufacturing plant that adds $20 million to the tax base and, everything else being equal, everyone else’s taxes would go down.
You have something you’re trying to say – wish I knew what it was.
What I said was the influx of very big homes has raised the taxes of individual owners of other homes there.
DN Said:
“Those front garages are just bad; they look cheap, like they couldn’t afford the buy the lot next door to build a driveway. I think they are going to age badly however, the bottom photo, on the right, especially.”
^ So you’d rather see a streetscape punctuated by driveways, and thus wider spaces between houses, than this setup? I strongly disagree. Driveways are just as suburban (if not more, because they take up more space) as garages.
DN also said:
“Interesting factoid; the first generation of ‘modernist’ architects were reacting to this kind of thing in the 20s, much as is happening today. Many of that generation has admitted that the more traditional stuff built then aged better than they expected. I don’t think, though, that this generation of traditional construction will, however. A lot of it is poorly built.”
^ You had me in the beginning, until you made the assumption that these houses will age more poorly. Oh really? Did you just climb out of your time machine to tell us that? And how do you know that these millionaire mansions were built poorly–did you look at the blueprints? Are wood, brick, and concrete suddenly less sturdy now than they were 100 years ago?
Talk about odd: the Tribune story on this part of town, including an online poll asking people whether mansions belong in Chicago. It seems people are dressing up their egalitarian values and disgust with wealth as a complaint about aesthetics. I expect that from art and architecture critics like Kamin, who, in their attempt to fuse aesthetic critique with social criticism, merely confuse the two. But “above the fold” of the webpage of the supposedly moderate-to-conservative Tribune??
One of the chief mistakes of the Tribune article is to talk about the neighborhood as if it were defined by the exceptions that encompass multiple city lots, the Parillo and the Pritzker properties. Most of the properties on Burling and Howe are townhouses on city lots, as you can see from the pictures.
The writer of the article expressed great surprise that this particular area has attracted a lot of money, despite the fact that it is not directly adjacent to the lake. What is odd is not this situation but the author’s amazement. Obviously, its a testament to the desirability of Lincoln Park, and the fact that east Lincoln Park is filled in or otherwise unavailable. Lincoln Park has other fine attributes aside from proximity to the lake, namely the beauty of much of its housing stock, and its proximity to downtown. My goodness, the Tribune must be puzzled by the mansions of South Kenwood, most of which are not exactly lakefront property, and absolutely flummoxed by the very existence of Oakbrook. How dare they build big houses far from the lake in such a featureless environment!
People who think these mansions don’t belong in the city: I assume you would like them to be tucked away in the North Shore somewhere out of sight? They’ll be safe there, not raising the property values of middle income people. And I suppose you would then do away with that other urban ideal in the liberal pantheon of ideas that imagines people of diverse incomes living in the same municipality?
urban politician said:
Did you just climb out of your time machine to tell us that? And how do you know that these millionaire mansions were built poorly–did you look at the blueprints? Are wood, brick, and concrete suddenly less sturdy now than they were 100 years ago?
Diane Burns is suing her developer only a few years after the completion of her home on this block. The reason: poor construction. Dn is not off base with his assumption.
Alison,
That’s not what you said. Thanks for clarifying what you meant to say.
In any event, you’re conjecturing, not stating a fact. It’s possible, perhaps even probable, that building a spectacular new home in an area raises property values in the area, and that that translates into an increase in assessed valuation for neighboring properties. The increase in assessed valuation only results in an increase in property taxes if that property’s percentage of the overall property taxes being levied also increases.
Let’s reduce this to a level that can’t be misunderstood. Assume a city with only two properties in it, mine and my neighbor’s, each worth $100,000. Between us we have to support a city that levies $1,000 in property taxes. So, we each pay $500 of the total levy.
Now, my neighbor builds a home that’s worth $4 million on his property. It raises my property value to $1 million. The city now has a total tax base of $5 million as opposed to the $200k it had before this. It still levies the same $1,000 in property taxes. My neighbor will now pay 80% of that and I’ll only have to pay 20%. Hoorah!
Play this out at a larger level and it’s not quite so simple. But I hope I’ve made my point – the simplistic statement that building these homes raises the property taxes of neighbors, without more, is total hogwash. I believe it’s based on attitude, not grounded on fact. It simply gives the politicians cover to raise taxes and blame someone else.
Joe it’s really hard for me to agree that these homes are spectacular. I was truthfully disapointed looking at the pictures. Thanks for taking them though, you saved me a trip!
NSH: Think about the logic of your comment. Because one famous wealthy person, Diane Burns, is unhappy with the construction quality of her home, then Dn must be right that developers cut corners with rich people’s houses.
You are arguing on the basis of a sample of 1! Don’t you think its far more likely that developers cut corners on low income housing, where the margins are lower and the future tenants less powerful, than housing for the rich?
I find it amusing that people purport to hate *everything* about these houses: the people inside them must be obnoxious and shallow, the aesthetics are revolting, the construction must be poor, the location is bad, “there goes the neighborhood,”… the list goes on…
Another highly amusing idea from one of your supporters, the otherwise esteemable David Bahlman… In the Tribune article, Bahlman is quoted to have said, “I think the Pritzker house is very good. It’s basically a revival of Miesian modernism. … To me the modernist [houses] are less objectionable because they are at least contemporary. You’re using an architectural idiom that is of today. You’re not copying something.”
How can it not be “Miesian modernism” yet simultaneously not be “copying something”? How is modernism “contemporary”? Miesian modernism is at least a half century old. Bahlman is making an arbitrary distinction. So its okay to imitate something that is 50 years old, but its not okay to imitate something that is centuries old?
Diane Burns lawsuit struck me as baseless. Her builder has a long track record and prior to that had never been sued. He also builds high end homes……where it strikes me the owners would be more likely to sue.
She claimed racism was the builders motivation for building a “bad” home.
There is no such thing as perfection in home building. Every plank in a hardwood floor is not going to perfectly match or contrast to the next plank.
My own take on her lawsuit is that she is a marginally talented newsreader with a high income and really high level of narcissism.
ARRRRRRRRRRRGH
NSH,
Where did I say these homes are “spectacular?” I didn’t use the word.
Jake,
Thanks for contributing some eloquent common sense to a discussion that’s becoming hilariously divorced from reality.
I once walked one of my now-deceased architects – who fancied himself a modernist – down a street in DePaul to show him a lovely example of some homes I was planning to build in a style that people simply loved.
He got very huffy with me, and I think I can recall his exact words from 20 years ago: “As an architect, I have an obligation to the culture not to simply repeat the stale forms of the past.” He may have said a sacred obligation, or I may just be embellishing my memory.
I told him that, as a builder, I had an obligation to the culture to build homes that people thought attractive and that complemented the area. And that he had an obligation to his family to shut up, draw the f**ing thing, and earn a check. I loved the plans he produced.
Ah Joe, you use the IrishPirate way of dealing with things “shut the “f*** up” and stop whining.
That is my secondary motto. My first is…….
ARRRRRRRRRRRRGH
Jake:
I also thank you for injecting some sense into this witch-hunt. I remember thinking the exact same thing–copying the styles of 1900 is unacceptable ’shlock’, yet mimicking 1950’s ‘modernism’ is tastefully acceptable?
You naysayers haven’t given a single convincing reason why we should condemn these properties as worse than anything else built recently. In fact, I think they are an improvement over much of the infill we’ve seen, and I highly doubt you guys will manage to prove otherwise.
UP,
I think we have at least one wiccan involved in or monitoring the discussion, so it’s best to leave religion (“witch-hunt”) out of it. Note tongue in cheek, please!
For the record I am a fan of revival architecture. Unfortunately these examples come off looking gaudy. Joel took some pictures of a prairie revival development in Portage Park. These were done correctly and true to form
http://yochicago.com/today/new-construction/another-phase-underway-at-portage-park-townhome-development_2795/
It’s one thing to pay homage and give respect to history when designing a new structure, but it is quite another to create, through the use of over the top architecural blingy-ness, a form of architecture that never existed, and pass it off as “old world”. No matter how vernacular you get, the exhuberant ornamentation is just inappropriate for our modern world, and to me, in poor taste.
Save this style for the amusement parks… Or Georgia…
“It’s possible, perhaps even probable, that building a spectacular new home in an area raises property values in the area, and that that translates into an increase in assessed valuation for neighboring properties. The increase in assessed valuation only results in an increase in property taxes if that property’s percentage of the overall property taxes being levied also increases.
Let’s reduce this to a level that can’t be misunderstood. Assume a city with only two properties in it, mine and my neighbor’s, each worth $100,000. Between us we have to support a city that levies $1,000 in property taxes. So, we each pay $500 of the total levy.
Now, my neighbor builds a home that’s worth $4 million on his property. It raises my property value to $1 million. The city now has a total tax base of $5 million as opposed to the $200k it had before this. It still levies the same $1,000 in property taxes. My neighbor will now pay 80% of that and I’ll only have to pay 20%. Hoorah!”
Does this hypothetical have any basis in reality? Are there any cities that keep the amount of their property tax levy static? Chicago doesn’t. Take a look at the budget:
http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_EDITORIAL/f._Appendix.pdf
The property tax levy doubled from 2000 to 2004: from $136.3 million to $273.3 million.
It’s great that you acknowledge that “it’s not quite so simple” when applied on larger scale. Nevertheless, your example is just as simplistic as the one that you labeled “hogwash.” The extra lines you devote to your city with two houses strikes me as putting lipstick on a pig.
OINK OINK.
Increasing property values is a good thing. It may hurt a few people but the vast majority of people in this city benefit from it.
If you live in an area that has had better than average appreciation and you don’t plan to sell anytime soon you may suffer because of higher taxes. However, when you die your heirs will be quite happy to sell and take the profit.
ARRRRRRRRRRRGH
In response to Devon:
I infer from your comment that if an architect is to copy the past, (s)he must “quote” rather than paraphrase. Influence must be pure, not multivalent.
But isn’t most architecture a form of reinterpretation, a borrowing from multiple sources? Must an architect of classical styles act merely as a conductor rather than as a composer? Why are architects allowed latitude with 20th century forms but little latitute with earlier forms?
What about the prized district of mansions in the Gold Coast? Are those revival mansions strict quotation-like interpretations? Are those mansions without bling?
And how is over-the-top, architectural-blinginess something new? Were not classical architectural styles used to express grandeur throughout history by the church and by royalty? The difference between then and now is not the existence of blinginess, but the democraticization of that blinginess.
Urban Politician has said it well before. Buildings gain a certain authenticity as they age. Only then will the cognoscenti – Kamen, Ben Weese and the like — view these buildings with aesthetic approval.
Iffy,
Take my simplistic example and double the property tax levy from $1,000 to $2,000. Assume the city would have done that whether my neighbor built a higher-priced home or not (the only fair assumption).
After the doubling my neighbor is still paying 80% of the property tax and I’m still paying 20%, or $400 – in brief, for the math-challenged out there – less than the $500 I was paying before my neighbor raised my property value and before the taxes doubled.
Lipstick on a pig? Far from it – it’s trying to expose the politician pigs and the attitude pigs. There is no necessary connection, from a purely economic and mathematical standpoint, between the rate at which my property value increases and whether or not my property tax increases.
Everyone, I would respectfully suggest, needs to think this through a lot more clearly.
I think it’s sad that in a city known world-wide for it’s modern and innovative architecture, builders and architects revert back to the past in order to appeal the lowest common desires of susceptible consumers.
I don’t hate all the houses shown here (the garages kind of make me think of San Francisco) and even a few of them show a refined, tasteful interpretation the Classical. But some of them are so ostentatious and the forms and massing so ill-conceived, I think that there is no way they will ever be viewed with aesthetic approval.
I like architecture that brings something new to the table; that inspires, not just aspires. Mimicking old ideas of grandeur immediately becomes pretentious. I’m all for luxury, but taste shouldn’t have to pay the price.
Did anyone read “The Fountainhead”?
Hey Kyle,
Newsflash:
Many of the gaudy buildings built in Chicago in the gilded age were copies of architectural styles that were around in Europe for centuries, if not millennia.
Gaudiness has been around for about as long as wealthy humans have existed. You should check out some of the hotels built here in NYC in the early 1900’s if you want to see gaudiness. Talk about a celebration of sculptured terra cotta…
urban politician
this is how a sunken garage SHOULD look. Notice how well it is hidden.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/18554371@N00/266412658/
NSH:
The arguments keep changing. First it’s the sunken garage, then it’s the shlocky displays of wealth, then it’s the lack of innovation, even though buildings that completely rip off Miesian modernism or 1920’s Prarie-styles are considered okay.
Which one is it? I guess nothing is good enough, or perhaps the “taste-makers” as Joe said just can’t get over their own issues with people who have a lot more money than them and like to spend it.
Our tastemakers, unencumbered by the burden of having to solve real-world trade-offs that come with having money, and unhampered by any familiarity with floor-area ratios, height constraints, what space is calculated toward FARs, etc., etc. can babble on at length.
If one of them were to hit the lottery for $100 million – and, yeah, I know they’re too sophisticated to play the lottery, but let’s just suppose – and had to build their tasteful $5 million house on a 25-foot lot on Burling, they’d likely build something very similar to what’s already been built.
And it would have a sunken garage. There’s no other way to solve the parking problem and still maximize the livable area of the house.
Maximize living area? I know, I know – people “don’t need all that space.” Well, “needs” change once you have a certain amount of money and the ability to live in a certain way.
When was the last time any of our oh-so-confident critics read a zoning code and understood the trade-offs it imposes? Or explored what types of building materials are really out there to accomplish their objectives? Or had to face the question of the resale value of what they were building? Or, or, or? Did they ever even take an economics course, much less understand its content? How many of them have even ever paid a real estate tax bill? Or know what equalized assessed valuation means? Or, or, or?
urban politician,
You do realize you are calling me out on arguments I have not made correct? Is this why you call yourself politician?
I have nothing against a sunken garage, just not on the front facade, and if you must do a front facade, how about designing just a one car opening? These houses should be big enough to manuaver 2 or 3 vehicles through such a setup.
As far as ripping off other architects. I am all for it! In fact I have done it myself on a few of my projects. You must be true to the architect or the style is all i’m saying.
I have issues with god awful bungalow renovations that kill the style of the homes as well. Does this make me a classist snob now? I don’t like the buildings, they were done poorly.
Apparently this is a touchy subject. I was just expressing a preference for more modern and innovative architecture. I thought I was being fair. I didn’t realize that anyone here was personally responsible for the projects being discussed. And if you’re not behind them, why are you being so defensive?
Umm, Joe, I have built a number of houses and I know all about keeping within the parameters of zoning and building codes. And I know about trade-offs and compromises. I like those challenges and I don’t take the easiest way out – necessity is the mother of innovation. Throwing money at a problem never solves the root issues. It takes a lot of thinking and a lot of thinking outside the confines of Tudor arches or Corinthian columns.
And, Joe, I think you’re pretty arrogant to assume you know my budgets and what I do or do not design. And the assumption that you know more about construction and economics than anyone else contributing to this site is just plain conceited.
Urban Politician – you articulated my point exactly. Thank you for pointing out exactly why we should constantly be rethinking architecture.
Kyle,
Didn’t mean to offend the people who are knowledgeable, or suggest that some of the commentors aren’t. Apologies if I did.
I was merely suggesting that some of the comments appear to ignore or, worse be unaware of, some very real constraints.
Constraints! Thank you Joe. Do any of these examples show any type of constraint in your opinion? My view is the developer (which there only seems to be only a couple as floor plans look to be copied multiple times). Took every luxury afforded to a suburban home and tried to stuff it on a 25 ft lot. How is this working with constraint for your surroundings? It’s kinda like going to the cadillac dealership and buying the model with the gold grill and landau roof not because it looks the best but because it is the one with the most options.
No problem, Joe. It’s a very subjective subject. But I’m glad that we live in a city that is so passionate about this kind of stuff.
and the idea that was in my head,
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2102/1339/1600/burling%20street%20concept.jpg
Comments on this entry are closed.