The building on the corner of Lawrence and Clark is being demolished, as these pictures taken today show. The building to the west (next door to Crafty Beaver) and to the immediate north (formerly housing the african restaurant) have also been demolished. No word on what the developer has planned for this corner. It will surely never look the same.
That's unfortunate. It was a nice building. Who knows if it was worth preserving.
ReplyDeleteHere comes another ugly, cookie-cutter condo development.
ReplyDeletewell - I certainly disagree and am very happy to see that old ugly building go. It was such an eyesore and I doubt the thing could have been fixed up. regarless - Heres to another condo....
ReplyDeleteI found it odd they removed the windows before demolition. They seemed pretty old and not worth salvaging.
ReplyDelete"Old" windows are potentially worth quite a bit of money for salvage.
ReplyDeleteThey are often reconditioned and resold to folks looking for "authentic" replacements for historic structures.
I'm glad that they are finally doing something with that corner. It was becoming an eyesore. Tear it down or rehab it, either way something needed to be done.
ReplyDeleteYes, a building in decay is not good, however, these types of victorian area corner buildings are VERY rare north of about Irving Park Rd. They look very "Chicago" and define the sense of place. They also contribute to an area's history timeline and lend an overall feel that the area has been established for a very long time and will probaby be around and stable for many more years. All these factors contribute to an area's uniqueness and increased desirability over the long term. A neighborhood filled with lots of historic buildings has a very different feel than say areas of the city that had entire blocks leveled for urban renewal that are now filled with those red brick rows of townhouses.
ReplyDeleteWith that said, yes historic buidings in decay may not be pretty and do hold back further development of an area. Was every option explored to rehab this structure? Most likely not. The developer probably is making a LOT more money by tearing it down and building another one of those silly red brick condo buildings with the arches. I have also been at neighborhood meetings with developers that when questioned why they are not rehabbing a historic structure responded "we do not know how to rehab, we are in the business to demolish and build a new building." The developer even agreed he didn't even know how much money he could make by rehabbing. I fault the city for this type of mentality. There needs to be more incentive, education, etc by the city in order to create a whole new breed of developers that rehab and not destroy. So much for a "Green City" as well, demolishing buildings is EXTREMELY wasteful in both natural and synthetic (mostly petroleum products) materials.
Thank you anonymous. I totally agree with you. I love sheridan park, where I live, because of it's old, rehabbed buildings. No new building they put there will look better than that "eyesore" would if it were rehabbed. I would put money on it.
ReplyDeleteWell, we live in a quick-fix society where profits/potential have to be realized right now. Most people don't have a long term view of what the city is going to look like in 20 or 50 years when all of these "eyesores" are replaced by vanilla 4 story condos and bank branches.
ReplyDeleteIf the internal structure were up to code, then the thing should have been rehabbed.
ReplyDeleteAnon is dead on about the importance of historical bldg retention as it affects the neighborhood culture.
One thing I'm finding is that Chicago is quickly abandoning the spirit upon which the city was built (and is famous for).
When in doubt Blame it on Helen! LOL
ReplyDeleteAnonymous says....> "When in doubt Blame it on Helen!"
ReplyDeleteOkay, it's all Helen's fault.
You are right. Soon many of Chicago's neighborhoods will have more new buildings built since 1990 than the historic and well built structures put up by skilled craftsmen from Europe. This will completely change the look and feel of our city forever. At what point does the scale tip and Chicago stops looking like Chicago?
ReplyDeleteJust take a walk down some streets like Mohawk north of North Avenue. There are entire blocks of 1871-1910 buildings gone and huge overbearing single family homes in their place. Not only has this area been completely ridded of smaller housing units and thus any chance of diversity of socio-economic statuses, its place in history has been completely wiped out. Gone for good. This particular street consisted of many charming 1880's cottages and rowhouses that told the story of skilled European immigrants that meticulously hand carved ornamentation both inside and out of these structures. Many were solid red brick 2 and 3 flats with amazing stained glass windows. They all had interesting entrances facing the street. The city put its hand in destoying this once charming area as well, they allowed lower level garages FRONTING the street. Except for garbage pickup, the alleys are no longer used for garages.
Anyways, as a native Chicagoan whose ancestors helped build many of these structures, it causes a certain feel inside of me everytime I happen to pass by yet another 100+ year old building in the midst of demolition.
Actually - we should all blame this on richie daley - there is supposed to be rules and regulations etc for new buildings, such as set backs, green space etc.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that every new development can avoid having set backs, green space etc by hiring the daley and george law firm or the banks law firm to get variances.
Look at all the ugly structures being built around buena and kenmore - no 12 feet set backs, no green space - look at 4150 N kenmore - this is an eyesore already and its not even opened -
look at 4125 4129 n kenmore to large sqaure boxes where two single family homes once stood - how did this happen ? richie daley appointees only listen to his politically connected friends and no city rules for set backs, design etc are followed -
No offense, but I highly doubt Daley sits at his office all day looking at plans for the ordinary brick midrises going up all over the city. The alderman are most responsible for development in their wards. Whatever they decide, arbitrary or not, goes because of aldermanic privilege. The only place I see Daley getting personally involved in development is the 42nd ward and maybe the 2nd.
ReplyDelete4150 Kenmore fits in with its semi circle corner location and the building north across from the park.
ReplyDelete4125 and 4129 replaced two ratty frame SFH's that may have been used as multiunit buildings.
They are all welcome additions to my neighborhood.
The pirate has spoken. Now go whine somewhere else.
I agree with the poster that Daley is far removed from a lot of what people think he is responsible for.
ReplyDeleteThis aint Mayberry. I often wonder reading these posts from people how many are from small towns?
Here comes another ugly, cookie-cutter condo development
ReplyDeleteI love sheridan park, where I live, because of it's old, rehabbed buildings. No new building they put there will look better than that "eyesore" would if it were rehabbed. I would put money on it.
Look at all the ugly structures being built around buena and kenmore - no 12 feet set backs, no green space - look at 4150 N kenmore - this is an eyesore already and its not even opened -
i wonder if the talk from those here & other Uptown sites that the new condos are ugly & an eyesore, etc. have made them feel unwelcome.
It's like the COURAJ anti-condo signs, but coming form a different angle. So they then choose not to vote at all, as neither side seems to like them.
Any new building in the area to get a fresh look is welcome in my oppinion. The building itself (2nd floor and above) has street appeal, but if we want our community to grow and appreciate, we need some new structures. Nothing would make me more happy than to get rid of these crummy store fronts on Clark. The are an eyesore and attract bad elements.
ReplyDeleteThat building could have been saved. Unless it was not structually sound(which I doubt),it should have never been taken down.The character of that area has taken a huge blow.
ReplyDeleteYou know as much as I hate Starbucks and what comes with them,the owner could have saved the corner building and leased out some of the space to starbucks and maybe a Jimmy Johns or something while rehabbing the apartments above into luxury condos. That way there would have been a compromise and the building could have been saved. Starbucks will be in the area soon anyway, so why not keep a great building to house it?
ReplyDeleteI lived in that building from 1962 thru 1969. Believe it or not, it had an atrium in the middle of the building and was at one time fairly decent housing. It's a shame that it could not have been saved.
ReplyDelete