Subscribe: 
We’re not quite sure what to make of Chicagoist’s schizoid ramble on the developing mansion row in the 1800 and 1900 blocks of Orchard and Burling. Perhaps this photo, taken on the playground behind Newberry School on the 1800 block of Burling in 85-degree weather, will cheer them up. Being rich ain’t all strawberries and cream.
Related posts:
{ 30 comments }
Schizoid ramble is a perfect description of the article. The funniest parts were where both Blair Kamin and David Bahlman praised Penny Pritzker’s home which is completely hideous. Those guys are whores who know where their bread is buttered.
Kamin’s article was perhaps the worse I’ve read from him in a while. Griping about the construction of mega-mansions in Chicago is becoming so cliche these days and it’s that some of these people aren’t aware how boring their arguments are becoming.
They are BILLIONAIRES, people. Give me a friggin break–if they want to build on 5 lots, then they can & will. Kamin’s article goes on to mention how these houses aren’t welcoming to neighbors who want to come over and “borrow sugar”. Is Kamin completely out of his mind? What billionaire borrows sugar from his neighbor?
These mega-mansions should be seen as a positive change, and Kamin’s ramblings just reveal how bored he really is. There are nearly 50 towers under construction and thousands of housing units going up all over the city, and this is what he decided to focus on? Sheesh
What Kamin was referring to was that not everyone on Burling and similar streets is a billionaire and there is a jarring disconnect between the old homes and the new ones on these streets.
Alison,
I’m glad you can make some sense out of Kamin’s frothing rant. I couldn’t.
The only part of Kamin’s article that made sense to me was his hilariously belated “I didn’t mean you, Penny” toward the end of the article. Don’t bite the hand that feeds you.
“What Kamin was referring to was that not everyone on Burling and similar streets is a billionaire and there is a jarring disconnect between the old homes and the new ones on these streets.”
^ Well, duh.. The old homes accommodated factory workers, and the new ones accommodate CEO’s & business tycoons.
Chicago is a city full of jarring discontinuities. It’s a jungle of different development serving different purposes–there is nothing suprising here. From highrises next door to wood-frame houses, to century-old greystones next to strip malls, Chicago is undergoing the painfully awkward process of converting itself from one city to another, much akin to puberty.
Change is good. Investment is good. Build more and bigger–you can’t go wrong with bigger. The only caveat are parking lots–parking lots = bad use of land no matter how you try to justify them.
So Kamin’s the schizoid rambler, not us?
^ I never called him a schizoid rambler. I just don’t agree with him
Mr Smith,
People who aren’t rich seem to lose their normal good sense when writing about the houses of the rich. Started with you, added Kamin. Aren’t you happy to have your article placed on a par with Kamin’s?
I think it’s absolutely good sense to say that it’s overkill/greed to build houses that raze perfectly habitable, often historical houses, only to build self-serving structures that are wasteful and incongruent to the rest of the architecture around it. really. how many rooms can one person occupy at one time? we’re talking basic physics here.
if i were deemed a multi-millionaire tomorrow, i can assure you i wouldn’t build something like this. and of course the argument can be leveled that it’s their “right” to do so. but it’s also my “right” to be a jerk to people on a day-to-day basis. however, i don’t go out of my way to do so, nor do i think it’s in good taste.
lastly, the more i think about this — is it really normal good sense to rip down a bunch of homes and build new when there are so many great homes and places to live in chicago already? building huge structures over what were fine homes seems the most counterintuitive action, really. there are so many wonderful, beautiful homes with so much history and character that already exist in chicago that it seems foolish to start over.
Assume that you can’t have everything you want and ask whether, on balance, it’s a good thing to have the rich living in the city and involved in its life and future.
Would you rather have hospitals, parks and museums adopted and endowed in the city or in Lake Forest – where there’s plenty of buildable land? Would you rather have craftsmen employed in preserving their vanishing arts or not? And so forth …
Tolerating a garish house might just be the very small price that very few of us ever pay to gain a resource that millions of us may benefit from some day. Employing a dozen artisans for a year has a lot more lasting value than annoying the artistic sensibilities of a few dozen would-be tastemakers.
As long as the rich obey the civic rules, I say leave them alone to live the way they want to live.
I guess I’m just wondering what it was in that post that led you to describe it as “schizoid” or rambling? It’s not mine, but I thought it was a pretty decent summary of Chandler’s piece. And you can save your backhanded compliments, thanks.
Maybe Mr. Zekas doesn’t understand what the definition of the word “schizoid” is? Or perhaps he’s just looking to drive traffic to this site?
I’d wager it’s a little of both.
Erin,
It was a pretty decent summary of Chandler’s piece. Let’s leave it at that. People like us who live in glass houses, etc.
Joe this isn’t the only area of the city to build homes. If Pritzker wanted 7 lots to build her fortress why not try the South Shore community? She could get the whole block, and everything is already town down, and get a lake view. Or the northwest side, say sauganash woods, plenty of land and privacy. This is all about showing off to her peers, something she would not be able to do in Lake Forest, South Shore, Sauganash or any other community except Lincoln Park.
Furthermore, why do we need to leave them alone? They are part of the community and should be held accountable to disruption of the communty’s lifestyle no matter how many fountains they donate. Hubris at its best, I am suprised you support it.
I agree that the rich should be left alone. I don’t fear that their kids will be selling drugs on the corner. But it does concern me that in an anti-development ward, they are the only ones that Vi Daley is giving zoning exceptions to. It’s obvious that Vi Daley is getting paid either through fraudulently identified campaign contributions or possibly with consulting fees for her husband.
Held accountable?
Hey, this is Lincoln Park – no one is held accountable for their public behavior, least of all the yuppies who degraded it.
As to schizoid – socially isolated is one meaning. The post I felt reflected the writer’s social isolation from the world that was being described. Did I miscalculate or does the writer have a lot of familiarity with that world?
No, the rich kids won’t be selling drugs “on the corner.” They’re much too smart for that. They’ll sell them out of their bedrooms or at school via Internet connections instead.
First, I don’t quite get the picture and how it ties into the mansion article relating to either the Trib or Chicagoist.
Second, I wrote the “schizoid” Chicagoist article in question. I may not be very familiar with the world of megamillionaires, but I’m very familiar with Chicago architecture and how the makeup of buildings affects various neighborhoods. I understand that the rich can basically do whatever they want and I realize they’re under no obligation to build anything remotely aesthetically pleasing, aside from some landscaping to break up all the concrete (Vi Daley’s decree). What I have a major problem with is these developers strong-arming current building owners into selling so that they can have that much more frontage for what is already bloated beyond belief. As a member of Preservation Chicago, I am also opposed to the destruction of perfectly usable buildings, buildings that made up a sizable part of an old neighborhood, just so a millionaire can say they have a 10,000 square foot house in the heart of the city. I venture to say that to the rich, these mansions are nothing but mere status symbols, while they tore down much history to make way for them…and when they die or their family leaves the premises, the city will have another unnecessary blight on its hands.
Shannon,
The picture shows a young girl wearing patent leather shoes and a heavy dress on a warm day at the playground. She’s with her nanny. The other girl has a little more freedom and is dressed more appropriately for the weather and the locale.
You’re dripping with attitude toward anyone who has money – which should call your aesthetic judgments into question too.
Anyone who’s being “strong-armed” can and should call the police. Or does that phrase perhaps say more about you than it does about the tactics involved.
Since you admittedlly have so little familiarity with the rich how can you possibly venture to say their homes are “mere status symbols.” Got news for ya, Shannon, billionaires don’t need “mere status symbols” of this order.
And the city’s going to have a blight on its hands when the owner dies or the family leaves? No one will step up to buy these homes?
Much history was torn down to make way for these homes? You’re kidding, right? Some people want to live in a city; you apparently want to live in a museum.
You’ve drifted past schizoid into another realm entirely. But then, I lack the exalted credential of membership in Preservation Chicago.
What city was Sandburg talking about in these words:
SMASH down the cities.
Knock the walls to pieces.
Break the factories and cathedrals, warehouses
and homes
Into loose piles of stone and lumber and black
burnt wood:
You are the soldiers and we command you.
Build up the cities.
Set up the walls again.
Put together once more the factories and cathedrals,
warehouses and homes
Into buildings for life and labor:
You are workmen and citizens all: We
command you.
I would like to quote Joe Zekas
“The city should have a rational land planning process with clear guidelines and not leave developers and communities at the mercy of random yahoos with unknown and unknowable agendas and no concern for the city as a whole.”
Joe do you still support your own words?
NSH,
What makes you question what I said? If anything, my posts here reinforce my point.
What we’re seeing with the rich-bashing is people who want their sentiments to rule and who don’t seem to give a damn about process or law or much of anything that enables the freedoms we enjoy when it produces results they disagree with.
What we’re talking about is a few blocks of homes on one-way streets that few people enter and that really affect very few people. You’d think from the tone of the discussion that these homes were being built at the edge of Buckingham Fountain!
The middle-class is left alone when it builds ugly homes. Why aren’t the rich?
for the record, I will not bash anyone, or at least try my hardest not to
I would think you would disagree with them for building suburban style villas where average density is at its highest point in the city. I would think you would argue that if Pritzker wanted to be a responsible citizen she could select a different neighborhood where such a building would not look so out of place. Personally I approve of the mansions as it creates an urban green space in an overcrowded neighborhood that was not there before.
They built what the law allowed them to build, and they built it according to their taste – as it’s generally been assumed people have the right to do.
My use of the term “Fort Pritzker” pretty clearly states my disagreement with the aesthetics of the home. But so what? Pritzker hasn’t done anything evil or dishonorable by building the home, or even anything bad.
Do I wish these homes had been done better? Sure. But again, so what? On balance, these streets are no worse than the typical street in Lincoln Park.
How about hearing some more plaudits for the owners on these streets who’ve built well?
Regardless of your opinion regarding the mansions, I think the point many of the commenters were making is that it is unnecessary to call out Chicagoist or any other blog summarizing the Trib’s story when you have made it very clear that Kamin was on a, as you put it, “frothing rant.” If we’re going to call someone out, call out the Trib. There’s no need for a blog war here. Now back to your corners, people.
But Sarah, it’s no fun poking at the Trib – they don’t poke back.
And that’s why they’re in big trouble and looking at shedding assets. I have always thought that Blair Kamin is an idiot. If I were him, I would be responding.
Parrillo just wants to make a lasting legacy (of his name and ego) by building the Parrillo Mansion, the seven-lot, 20,000 square-foot mansion that may be included in architecture tours of 2106. If I had the money, I believe I would just maybe buy a top floor penthouse of 400 N LSD. And save that extra 15 million for starving kids in Africa.
What you sensationally call ’schizoid’ is merely Ms. Chandler being a journalist: presenting the rationale behind these mega-mega-mansions on the one hand and the disruption to the city’s character on the other.
To wit: “Yet there is supposed to be a kind of egalitarianism about living in the city. Everybody gets a 25-foot wide lot whether they have a million-dollar art collection or a bungalow. That can make giant, multi-lot mansions seem somehow undemocratic, Susanka notes.”
Of course Chicago has rich folks trying to build palatial estates. And of course the neighbors are upset. The article would be disingenuous if it included one and not the other.
Justin,
Huh? TJ, who knew something about democracy, didn’t see anything undemocratic about his home at Monticello.
Your vision of a city seems to be antithetical to mine – a place of near-infinite variety that accommodates the rich and the powerful, and the disposessed as well as the 25-footers.
Your vision of young journalists also differs from mine. I see most of them as sorely lacking a range of experiences, intolerant of any viewpoint but their own, and puffed up with an importance they’ve yet to earn.
Balance – listen to yourself: “the rationale behind these mega-mega-mansions” and “disruption.” You deny up front that there’s any validity to the viewpoint of the people who build these homes by the way you characterize them. Head on out to some of the places where there are real mega-mansions and these 10,000 to 20,000 square footers would seem commonplace.
In the 1980’s, in Seattle, it was common to tear down big homes on multiple city lots, and replace them with skinny homes on 25′ wide lots. The activiists bitched. Today in Chicago, we experience the complete opposite. No matter what one does, people complain. It’s a free county. Activists suck.
Comments on this entry are closed.