Comments ( 6 )

• It causes me pain to post any story from that RAG the NY Post but here is an interesting editorial they had on development.

  I wonder what the Beachwood Reporter would say to this. His bias is anti development. Mine is generally pro development.

  http://www.nypost.com/seven/06242007/postopinion/editorials/fossilizing_gotham_editorials_.htm

• “It makes no sense to stop a neighborhood’s natural life cycle on behalf of marginally significant old buildings or fallow – and largely polluted – land…
  The fact is, too much of what the preservationists seek to save isn’t worth it.
  The city’s got more important needs.
  Like: Commerce. Housing. Jobs.
  If preservationists fear the loss of some “historic” relic, here’s an idea: Let them take a picture of it…”

  Why can’t the Chicago press similarly point out such obvious and widespread sentiments? Maybe as their revenues continue to dry up, it will one day dawn on them that pandering to zealouts is a losing business plan.

• Because we are not in a land-starved city. We have no natural barriers besides the lake- just flat land to sprawl on to Rockford and beyond. Besides that, it is frustrating to see historic buildings demolished when there are vacant or parking lots literally right across the street.

  In the case of the Lake Shore center, what the developer is proposing simply sucks. If you want to demolish the building then put up something worthy, not another terrible Lucien lagrange Disney-inspired tower. This luxury tower is NOT going to satisfy the city’s housing needs – it’s going to have a few hundred expensive condos and that’s it.

  Who says preservation is a “losing business plan?” Would you consider the redevelopment of the Medinah Temple and Tree Studios into first class retail a bad plan? Maybe you remember when Mr. Fifield said it was impossible to say that one too?

• Anon,

  what building satisfies the city’s housing needs?

  What this city needs more of is expensive condos and the people who live in them and pay taxes. A few hundred here and a few hundred there and purdy soon we’re talking a real impact.

  I don’t know enough about the Lake Shore/ Northwestern University building to give an informed opinion about whether it should be saved.

  I’ve never been inside of it. It is interesting on the outside and is a nice juxtaposition to the Mies buildings just north.

  Blair Kamin, who is arguably the most influential architecture writer in town, is undecided about whether the building is worth saving.
  http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/lifestyle/living/chi-0610_clubs_jpjun10,1,5798548.story?coll=chi-living-hed&ctrack=2&cset=true

  Before I give the definitive pirate opinion on the whole question I would want to see what was going to be built to replace it. Not only what does it bring architecturally to that location but what is the worth it brings in terms of taxes and people.

  Right now that building is empty and is owned by a non profit. No taxes and no people. I know the preservationists love that idea. “No taxes and no people, sounds like heaven to me Bill! Let’s import some buffalo from the Dakotas and let them roam around. Brilliant idea.”

  There is also an economic imperative at work. Let’s say a building is architecturally significant, but there is no way to renovate it or maintain it

  Not everything that is old is worth saving. Even buildings that may be worth saving may have too high a cost to maintain, renovate, or even operate. The “economics” of a particular building matter.

  Oh well. It will be fun to watch what happens.

• “Because we are not in a land-starved city. We have no natural barriers besides the lake- just flat land to sprawl on to Rockford and beyond.”

  It’s better to destroy farmland than architecturally mediocre and functionally obsolete buildings? Those farms are way more historic than these buildings around us.

  By the way, my “losing business plan” comment was meant to be a slur against chicago’s press which doesn’t provide balanced coverage on development issues. What every Tribune observer knows is that if you want to be on the front page of their Metro section, just form a NIMBY group and start screaming about congestion. “Congestion” is one of the most common words printed in the Tribune in the last decade. Well here’s an interesting factoid that the Trib printed today which should have been headlines.

  “Meanwhile, Chicago lost around 63,000 residents from 2000 to 2006. The city’s estimated population was 2,833,321 for 2006.

  According to many demographers, older urban centers like Chicago continue to lose population as people of childbearing age leave the city for the suburbs and as immigrants chase jobs that are rapidly flowing away from the inner cities.

  Only New Orleans, Detroit and Philadelphia lost more people during the same time period.”
  http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-census_28jun28,1,7183735.story?coll=chi-news-hed

  In 6 years, during a so called housing boom, we just lost 2% of our population. We’re being compared to New Orleans, Detroit and Philadelphia, and all the Tribune wants to write about is out of control development.

• Look, I’m not a 100% preservationist. Actually, I’m more pro-development than anything. There are buildings I recognize cannot be saved or should not be saved because whatever is replacing them will do the community better good.

  However, I still maintain that we are not a land starved city. I am not talking about chewing up farmland. You know very well how many empty lots there are all around the city. Do you not agree that it would be better to start filling those up before demolishing historic buildings?

  Go up and down the lake front and see how many parking lots the nearby highrises have – why can’t we build on those? It’s not preservationists- it’s community groups who complain about views and parking that shoot down high density proposals.