Okay, so recently Chicago has altered zoning to not allow 3 or 4 storey brick flats to be built in neighborhoods of single family homes. Much of this I agree with, since they do look out of character.

Yet these same newer brick 3-4 storey buildings going up all over the city as infill have been heavily criticized for being soul-less and lacking character. Goonsta has some nice pics of them in the "Chicago has it..." thread.

But I don't know--I look at them, and sure they're not as beautiful as their 19th century/early 20th century brethren, but I don't mind them so much. They help create an urban streetwall, they are generally "in character" by being brick or stone and having nice entrances along the street, and some occasionally even offer retail space on the ground floor. They definitely contribute to revitalizing formerly vacant neighborhoods and contribute to the urban environment and street life. Now sure, even the critics say they're better than empty lots, but I think they're a LOT better than empty lots.

What, exactly, is wrong with these structures? Do they bother you guys as much as they bother Blair Kamin?

I mind low density infill which is sprouting up in lincoln park below armitage on Orchard, burling, howe, and dayton streets. Elegant medium density brick 3 and 4 flats are destroyed and replaced with single family mansions some taking up 5 lots!!!!!!!! These homes are modern castles and have 3 car GARAGES!!! Alderman Vi Daley has said the populaiton of Lincoln Park is delcining becasue of this low-density trend. It's interesting that the city is interested in mainting the housing stock of single - family home neighborhood, but not the housing stock of a medium density neighborhood filled with 3 and 4 flats

There are different kinds of bland infill. Some are actually quite pleasing, I think; others do, I think, detract from the architectural feel of a neighborhood. The worst are the nearly completely flat-fronted, smooth brick facades. I hate those.

But I think there should be 3 or 4 storey brick flats in single family home neighborhoods! Especially considering that most single-family homes in Chicago are ugly and were built in the 50s-70s. How else will we densify the city?

I mind low density infill which is sprouting up in lincoln park below armitage on Orchard, burling, howe, and dayton streets. Elegant medium density brick 3 and 4 flats are destroyed and replaced with single family mansions some taking up 5 lots!!!!!!!! These homes are modern castles and have 3 car GARAGES!!! Alderman Vi Daley has said the populaiton of Lincoln Park is delcining becasue of this low-density trend. It's interesting that the city is interested in mainting the housing stock of single - family home neighborhood, but not the housing stock of a medium density neighborhood filled with 3 and 4 flats

^Wow, I didn't know Lincoln Park's population was actually declining. Wow, imagine that--a stable neighborhood with rising property values that is actually losing population. And they're tearing down 3-flats and converting them to mega-mansions? Hmmmm..... I guess my theory is correct--Lincoln Park is slowly turning into an extension of the Gold Coast.

Is this a bad thing? Maybe not. By far, the major trend around the city is to add density, not to reduce it. But Lincoln Park may be a great example of what we may expect of a neighborhood as it matures. Highly successful neighborhoods, over time, stop growing and attract such exorbitant wealth that people actually spend money to use up more land, thus decreasing the neighborhood's population but increasing the average salary.

I wonder if other highly successful neighborhoods will eventually be bound to this fate?

^The Gold Coast is by far the densest neighborhood in Chicago so if Lincoln Park is losing population then LP can not possible be an extensrion of the GC.

I'm sure the decrease in density in Lincoln Park has been going on for awhile. I didn't know about 5-lot McMansions, but even 10 years ago, 3-flats were being converted into single family homes by owners who wanted the extra space and didn't need the income from renting out the other units to pay the mortgage.

Yes, density gets reduced somewhat by this, but the people who do this also generally have children and are choosing to stay in the city rather than move out to the burbs, so urbanists can't be completely critical of what they're doing. But don't get me wrong: 5 lots with a 3-car garage is a bit much. Any sense of how widespread this particular phenomenon is in Lincoln Par,

I would suspect that any population loss from this phenomenon would be absorbed by new highrise and midrise development. I would also guess that the 5-lot mansion being mentioned here is probably an exception to a 2-lot or 3-lot norm.

Highly successful neighborhoods, over time, stop growing and attract such exorbitant wealth that people actually spend money to use up more land, thus decreasing the neighborhood's population but increasing the average salary.

I wonder if other highly successful neighborhoods will eventually be bound to this fate?

The mansion-stage isn't the end of the line. Eventually land values rise so high (way higher than the building sitting on it) that all the rich folks sell-off to condo developers. Eventually, when the land value rises higher than value of, and the cost of replacing, the mid rises, they in turn get torn down themselves and replaced with hi-rises. This continues until the land can no longer rise high enough to warrant larger buildings.

It's a natural process. It will continue unless stopped by NIMBY's or a refusal to rezone.

Isn't there a word for that process? Wait... right... gentrification :)

^No, this doesn't involve displacing low-income residents. All the development is voluntary. No evictions.