Skyscraper City Forum banner
1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
centralnatbankbuildingrva
Joined
·
2,608 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
I have always been a fan of Older buildings, especially anything Victorian, especially stuff in places such as Chicago. Recently, I have "fallen in love" with much of the older architecture of Chicago. However, after visiting Chicago last year, and wondering off into Lincoln Park (Sheffield to be specific), I became extremely concerned about what tear downs were doing to so much of the great historic urban fabric of Chicago in places like Lincoln park, or the East village. I just don't see why there isn't more concern about stuff like this falling to the wrecker's ball for some faux suburban styled McMansion.


I have looked a little more into detail on the topic, and know that many of the areas are not land marked, and there is much resistance from ignorant homeowners. Yet, places like Sheffield which are already on the National register of historic places should not have these problems in the first place.
To conclude, why can such beautiful old neighborhoods face so much demolition (often leading to architectural suburbanization and sterilization), while this has almost never happened in places like Old Brooklyn, Richmond, or DC in the past few decades? Is there some common belief here (which I am not aware of)that you can just demolish your house no matter where it is?

Lastly, to conclude, I know that there are a handful of landmark districts already (old town triangle, mid north district, jeweler's row, Wicker park, Ukrainian village), but I have made this map with new ideas, perhaps to stop the destruction in other neighborhoods.
https://mapsengine.google.com/map/edit?authuser=0&hl=en&mid=zmmKAS8nkh1I.kVdkecVr-ksI
 

·
centralnatbankbuildingrva
Joined
·
2,608 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
anyone have any input?
 

·
centralnatbankbuildingrva
Joined
·
2,608 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
double
 

·
centralnatbankbuildingrva
Joined
·
2,608 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Really, nobody finds this to be at least somewhat disturbing?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,853 Posts
Its too perplexing to even discuss. ;)

Guess when a place gets too fancy its out with the old and in with the new.

The old Black Duck at 1800 n Halsted is supposed to get knocked down too.

Makes no sense.
 

·
centralnatbankbuildingrva
Joined
·
2,608 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Yeah, I had heard about the black duck
 

·
centralnatbankbuildingrva
Joined
·
2,608 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Its too perplexing to even discuss. ;)

Guess when a place gets too fancy its out with the old and in with the new.

The old Black Duck at 1800 n Halsted is supposed to get knocked down too.

Makes no sense.
But if nobody's discussing it, it will only get worse.

Furthermore, I'm also shocked that there is still this very dated "out with the old" mindset, really Chicago, really?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
58 Posts
Its too perplexing to even discuss. ;)

Guess when a place gets too fancy its out with the old and in with the new.

The old Black Duck at 1800 n Halsted is supposed to get knocked down too.

Makes no sense.
:eek:hno:

Wow, that is very disturbing!! That is a lovely building/corner there - truly indicative of the neighborhood "awesomeness" that so many Chicagoans rave about, but few actually bother preserving or defending.

Overall, this is a very troubling topic for me as well. I've been railing against some of this "teardown madness" for years. In regards to the lack of interest in the topic on this forum, the majority of the visitors here are - as the website's name implies - skyscraper fans or fanboys who cheer any new hirise development, no matter its design, street-scape impact, or destruction.

It's becoming increasingly hard to devote much time, thought, and effort to something that is becoming increasingly futile, particularly in Chicago - the preservation of historic low-rise architecture, homes, and neighborhoods. New York has done a fantastic job of preserving much of its historic architecture, particularly south of 14th. What many city planners and developers in Chicago fail to realize is preserving (but repurposing) "old" buildings can actually enhance a city's urbaness and vitality.

As lower Manhattan (ie. older/historic) and Brooklyn experience a renaissance (as has been happening for the past 10+years), New York has even gone so far as to create a development council which actually aims to be more involved in land-use planning and development, beginning with the design/proposal process. This is far cry from Chicago's aldermanic privileges which can be detrimentally prone to simple project rubberstamping.

On a side note, if you're interested in preservation, I encourage you to checkout the Landmark Preservation Council of Illinois and attend some meetings. Beware: you may be labeled a NIMBY on this board, however.


http://online.wsj.com/articles/new-york-city-council-launches-new-development-office-1402435027
 

·
centralnatbankbuildingrva
Joined
·
2,608 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Well, in that case, I actually support high-rise development around Chicago's core (and in virtually every other city in America, except for some parts of NYC). However, when you are simply tearing down beautiful, old buildings for more non-highrise density, I call that madness, and if that makes me what some ignorant Lincoln park McMansion Dwelling fool would call a NIMBY, then I'm a very PROUD NIMBY.
 

·
centralnatbankbuildingrva
Joined
·
2,608 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
THANK YOU SO MUCH!
 

·
Steven Vance
Joined
·
99 Posts

·
centralnatbankbuildingrva
Joined
·
2,608 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
^^ do you think you could link the addresses in Google maps?
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top