Are any of the features, stained glass, door knobs, etc. going to be salvaged?
I love the quote. This is clearly a case where the short-term pecuniary gains of a few will have a negative impact on the rest of the community. If we do not do something to prevent this kind of behavior in the future, Sheridan Park will become yet another McNeighborhood of faceless apartment and condo buildings.
This just made my day. Glad to see the Phillips follow through on their threat. It gives me hope for this neighborhood. Enjoy your new empty lot, Sheridan Park!
Who wouldn't be thrilled by a neighbor threatening to level a historic home unless all the other neighbors comply with his demands? It is a happy day when someone does follow through on a threat. It shows pluck and consistency!
Gary, you don't even know who you're rooting for. The home was built by George Phillips. His family lived in it after his death. One of the Phillips' descendants married Thomas Rutherford. It is Tom Rutherford and his charming second wife, Judith, who sold it to the Finans. The Finans say they will tear it down and make it a parking lot. The Phillips made no threats. In fact, I believe the former Mrs. Rutherford, nee Phillips, is probably whirling in her grave about now at what her widower has done.If you're gonna be oppositional, at least try get the names right, son.
Who cares about what dead people lived there? My lord. This is just silly. The house has been gutted for decades. Now everybody cares?
There's been nothing recorded for that property with the county since 2009 as of December 31st. So unless the Finan's closed on it in the last week it hasn't changed title yet.There's a whole lot of speculation going on here as to the specifics of what is happening here and who is responsible. I just hope we don't sit looking at a vacant lot for years. Perhaps after it sits vacant for awhile new Alderman elect Davis and her Chief of Staff/Slackey--TRUTH or whatever he calls himself can rezone it for a tent encampment. I miss the tent encampment that was off Montrose in Sheridan Park in the late eighties. If we're going to elect Shiller's COS, then we need to bring back the eighties! Dancing with Denice and the Eighties!
Thank you to everyone who participated in meetings as well as those who offered support and made their voice heard. Regardless of outcome, I am proud to live in a neighborhood that will stand up to have it's voice heard. Thanks also to UU for the coverage.
This situation is just the same as the neighborhood fight in ’09 to block an upzoning request and to save an historic Victorian home at 4627 N. Beacon. The neighborhood lost the fight there as well. The house was torn down, and ever since, the lot has remained vacant – giving the neighborhood a poorly maintained eyesore. That developers continue to have the opportunity to destroy the wonderful architecture that provides unique beauty to this neighborhood is appalling. The city does nothing to support efforts to save or preserve our historically notable architecture (this home received an AIA architectural designation). And we community residents will lose out yet again . . . left with another vacant lot; or equally sad, a non-descript 6-flat that looks identical to hundreds already scattered around the northside. There is no question a buyer can be found to renovate this home – but the owners have refused to work towards that goal and allow time to achieve that end.
Perfectly said caw33!
Where does Cappleman stand on all of this? Shouldn't it be his civic duty to inform the block club and community, on the status of this charade especially considering the quorum we all reached at the latest "meeting" endorsed by the alderman.
So I guess it comes down to what would the neighbors who blocked the property owner's request for a zoning change to put in a new condo building find less sufferable and quality of life damaging to look at for a moment or two a day - a new six flat or a vacant lot? Would the people who opposed the property owner of the Victorian on Beacon now rather have what the owner wanted to do or the poorly maintained eyesore of a vacant lot they now have? If people wanted to keep seeing the house sitting there for their own quality of life purposes, they should have bought the property.
Sean, she didn't want to sell it to anyone other than the developers who would tear it down. People expressed interest, but she gouged them like 4x what she charged the developer. Please follow the facts next time.
Sean, logic has no place here. Uptown Revivalist and his cadre have a constitutional right to dictate how other people spend their money. And if they don't get what they want, no one will. This message board has taught me a valuable lesson. In the future, I will make a point of attending every zoning meeting that I'm permitted to. As a lifelong democrat, I never thought I'd be the one standing up for business interests. But as a resident of Uptown, I've learned that there are those who'd rather live in a ghetto than see another "non-descript 6-flat" be built. I wonder -- in 1896, did Uptown Revivalist's great-great-grandfather complain about yet another Victorian home going up?
Brianbobcat, well if it was important enough to these people, they should have met her price. And you are telling me two contradictory things, that she didn't want to sell it to anyone but developers and that she offered it to others at a higher price. The fact remains that the only way for people who did not want to see the building torn down to make sure it wasn't torn down would have been for them to buy it.
Sean - at the first meeting regarding the fate of this house, Judith Rutherford, who owned it along with her husband, stood up and exclaimed to those in attendance (as she took photos of everyone) that she is selling this home to the Finans at 525K and if anyone else wanted to buy it to save it, the price would go up to $1.5 million. The fate of the house was sealed by the Rutherfords and the Finans. Other parties were interested in viewing the property, but were not allowed access. I can't say both parties behavior didn't play a huge part in the refusal to upzone - at least in my opinion. Between Judith's behavior and Liz Finan constantly calling the neighborhood a ghetto and threating to turn the lot into a parking lot, they didn't garner a lot of support. Both parties would have been better off if they kept their mouths shut. Again, just my opinion.