The PRU Crew went back and forth about things last night and again this morning. We aren't sure if today's post should haul off in a new direction on a new topic, or if the conversation from yesterday should be continued here?
The Crew did have a whole new topic for today, but we think we'll just save it for a later date and let PRU readers proceed at will.
The topic of land use has surely not been exhausted, but maybe the discussion has been, though we note the additional comments to it today.
And as Alderman Dave noted, the issue of the R-5 zoning district is on the table.
In addition, yesterday at least one poster raised the question of whether the City should proceed with a zoning amendment without the express blessing of a property owner. That's a good question, irrespective of what the law allows; kind of like a little sibling to the issue of eminent domain.
We would add to these topics the matter of "historic preservation" and how that could be handled.
Good luck today.
August 5, 2008
More Freewheeling?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
52 comments:
Like the post on the previous topic said, the developers know that their time in PR of getting things passed through is dwindling. When Howie goes, so does their free ride.
By the way PRU...Historic Preservation in PR is a HUGE JOKE. There is no preservation, just tear it down, put up another cookie cutter house.
The problem with historic preservation is someone has to decide and, as is often the case here, someone is going to be pissed off.
Someone who knows more or has lived longer then me please chime in. Are there not guidelines that are in place related to new residential construction? Isn't there some group that reviews the plans and says they are OK? I know I wanted to do some exterior work on my house and ran into setback issues (BS in my opinion).
If I ask what is the difference between a tear down and a "historically significant house" we are going to get varying answers.
People have talked about the three houses on Courtland. As I have said before, I like the design of some of them but they all need a great deal of work (and that is just from the exterior). This is simple economics. You are not going to find a buyer for that blue house on the corner who is going to buy the house and property and then put several 100K into it to make it look nice for us. You will find a buyer for the property who wants to put up a new house.
Of course if you do tear it down some people will like the design of the new home and some won't. Opinions, opinions everywhere.
yes, the guidelines are:
-owner of an old, historical home on a large size lot sells it to a developer
-greedy developer person (who donated money to Frimark for Mayor) knocks down the old home and puts two in its place
-no problem getting zoning variances passed due to above campaign contribution
-Park Ridge loses its historical charm and individuality, looks like most other towns
End of story.
anony-mouse:
I am not disagreeing with you but again I ask, who do you want to decide what is historically significant or cannot be torn down because it adds to the charm?
Let's say you own the blue house at the corner on Courtland. Are you suggesting that the city should say that you can sell only to someone who plans to restore the house?
If so, then why that house versus the house being torn down on my block?
anony-mouse,
I mostly love your posts, and the above is no exception... In my view, you've pretty much accurately laid out the reality of the process...but I'd say it has more to do with large-scale developments rather than just single family homes...
As for greedy developers...I just cannot blast somebody for wanting to make money...don't we all want to earn as much as we can...? My problems with "greed" are when I'm being asked to *subsidize* it...that's when I view the making of money as something that morphs into "greed"...
I must ask you, however, what your view of "old, historical home" is...is it the "old" that makes it an "historical" home...? Wouldn't that just be..."antique"...? As the person above your post said, there are guidelines for what qualifies as "historical"...and I would guess those guidelines are what should be followed if a preservation ordinance is to be enacted in PR... But I would guess that any individual property owner might loudly object about having restrictions placed on their property about what they could or could not do to it...because in a very real sense it would be that individual property owner who will then be suffering a "burden"...*subsidizing*, if you'll allow...for "preserving" the "historical" charm of PR...
How does that work? What benefits can or should be given to that property owner? Should it be with or without that property owners agreement? I'm always very wary of what gubmint promises to do *for* me...because too often it feels more like it's being done *to* me...
basically my thought is that Park Ridge is losing its charm by tearing down historical properties. Towns like Elmhurst and others saw that a few years ago and made changes to their zoning/city codes to prevent so many teardowns and lotline to lotline rebuilds.
By the way, I truly believe the blue house on the corner was uninhabitable and should be torn down. The ones next to it, I don't think so.
It is clear that there is a much larger issue here. The issue is between the residents who have lived here 10+ years and the residents who moved in during the boom housing market. In my understanding people who moved to Park Ridge 10+ years ago moved here because its proximity to Chicago, affordability, quaintness, beauty, and a place where raising a family in a safe enviornment was the priority for most families. Now the new Park Ridgian wants the shops from Michigan Ave, the busyness of "the city," extravagant homes and condos that can be found near Lake Michigan, and want their child to be shielded from any sort of interaction with someone who is, dare I say it, different. I do not think my views are way out of line because I know they are shared by many of my peers and the differences in community members is stark and easily seen.
anony-mouse:
I agree about the blue house but isn't that a part of the problem. There are houses that, based on their condition, are uninhabitable. I see one on Stewart a block east of Western on my way to the park. Very nice lot but the house cannot be lived in. Even as a tear down the house has been on the market for well over a year.
So if a new one is put up in the place of the blue one it seems to me that screws the historic charm argument. You may save the other two if a buyer/rehaber can be found but you have a new one (probably HUGE new one) right there at the corner.
As an aside, there are some reletively new construction homes (on prospect for example) that I find very nice in their appearance.
Anonymous at 12:20,
Excuse my bluntness, but you're full of nonsense.
"new Park Ridgians"...? The Uptown redevelopment plan was begun much more than 10 years ago...! ...by many people with more than 10 years residency!
As for wanting "their child to be shielded from any sort of interaction with someone who is, dare I say it, different"...more nonsense...
People have a RIGHT to want to shield their child from danger or dangerous people...and that includes risky populations such as PADS homeless "guests"... Park Ridge does not have the same level of risk to be found in larger cities...and wanting to maintain that aspect of "Action Ridge" hardly strikes me as some personal character flaw among PR residents...
It is also NOT a character flaw to dislike being panhandled when moving about in public... I find it obnoxious...
Some friends very recently told me about a "clean, clean-cut, 30-35y.o. man" walking around outside of Starbucks asking for help and handouts... They gave him $.
My response was if he can walk around all clean and clean-cut asking for handouts, he can also ask, "Do you want fries with that?" Don't give him money, give him a copy of the want-ads...
Utter nonsense.
Let's face it--rich people can do whatever they want because they are rich, and can afford to buy these houses and demolish them. However, if the city was really serious about preservation, they would give tax breaks to those than would be willing to fix these old homes up. This would allow, those that aren't rich to have some incentive to actually be able to afford to fix them up. Residents who would like to rehab can't because of the costs and if there are no tax breaks--why bother. TAX BREAKS would definitely give me the incentive to fix my older home up verses--why bother, it will only be knocked down anyway.
anonymous @ 1230--I agree, not ALL should be preserved. There are definitely some eyesores out there. BUT not all.
Newer isnt always better.
The two homes built on Prospect just north of Stewart that are in place of the three story farmhouse are obnoxiously placed and offensive to the neighborhood.
There's more, I just cant think of them right now.
Holy generalization Batman!! I moved here 5 years ago. If you add school system to your list then it pretty much covers the reasons we chose to move here.
In terms of extravagance, some of my favorite homes in PR are very extravagant homes that are not new construction.
The other thing I would say is I see a contradiction in your post. You say that one of the reasons people moved here in the good ole'days was to raise their kids in a nice safe environment. Then you attach the stigma to the new people that they want to shelid their people from anyone different. I can only assume this is a reference to the PADS debate. Whether you agree with their position or not, it would seem that some are motivated by wanting to raise their kids in a nice safe environment.
I love Park Ridge and am very happy with our choice to make it our home. But I would say that if someones primary goal is to expose their kids to expose their children to all the differences (be the economic, social, racial, ethnic etc.) in this world this is far from the perfect place to do it. My daughter was exposed to exponentially more diversity in the first 4.5 years of her life living in the city. I dare say it was probably the same 30 years ago.
If your going to stop the tear downs across the board just like River Forest - then do it.
Keep a kicker clause in there that if the home has seen better days and it falling apart, can't be repaired without a leg and an arm in costs ...then and only then should they be able to tear it down.
Just like the white shack on greenwood - its done! Seen better days!! But some that are oranged fenced aleady - I can't believe that they are willing to tear them down.
If they didn't sell - is that a reason to tear it down ?
I think not and we need some guide lines here......fast...we can hear the bulldozer coming for Howie's house...............
calm down bean, it's okay, someone doesn't agree with you.
Anonymous at 12:52,
You should not mistake my definitive statements for a lack of calm...
...and instead of practicing some ridiculous version of patronizing paternalism, why not offer something of substance that might be useful to the conversation...
...but I understand if you find my e-personality more enticing than the topic at hand...
woweee---patronizing paternalism
Is there any other kind??
why don't you run for office bean.
Sorry to interrupt the bean show, but can we get back to historic preservation?
I am interested in hearing more about the codes passed in Elmhurst and River Forest.
What is detailed in those?
Thanks for the good postings!
Anonymous at 2:03,
You never know...
Anonymous at 2:12,
What...??? You don't find the "bean show" riveting...??? ;)
...and I agree, I would also like to hear about those towns' ordinances...thank you for getting back on topic...
all 28 pages of Elmhurst's historic preservation ordinance:
http://www.elmhurst.org/elmhurst/zoning/HPOrdinance.pdf
I'm going back to watching the Cubs game...
I think there's a pretty good chance Bean has already taken her turn in the hot seat. : )
Bean, I think a certain Anonymous has a crush on you!
I'm unimpressed and undeterred...
Bean (undeterred) for Mayor!!
Being a big fan of private property rights, I reviewed the Elmhurst ordinance. As I suspected, it requires that the homeowner of a home nominated for historic status, agree to the designation before an application can proceed. So, unless there is a real (financial) incentive to agree, or you're a true believer who doesn't care about limiting their value, I doubt you'll see many houses obtain the designation here in Action Ridge.
I believe that with a few legitimate exceptions, most of the homes that are torn down here deserve to be. The real problem is that the homes replacing them are mostly awful and repetitive. I would imagine that if the new homes were more thoughtfully designed, there would be a much smaller outcry about the tear-downs. Many blame the builders, but like the crack dealer needing a buyer, they'll keep building the crap as long as there's a market. Heck one of our former alderman lives in one of them. More discerning buyers would mean better design.
I hate to be the contrarian in the room, even if it typically works out that way, but I find the fairly non-stop laments about houses being torn down and the disparaging comments about new construction becoming more than a little hackneyed, if not presumptuous. For those who are opposed to change, I offer you Amish country. Move there. Nothing changes. You’ll like it.
To those who create their own merit badges based on their time in Park Ridge, and then seek to lord their status over others, as if they were some sort of informal senate of elders, please. We all paid for our homes. Your rights are no greater than anyone else’s. In point of fact, if people stopped moving here (which seems to be your fondest “no change… no change” wish) the property values you seem to think are based on something other than supply and demand would stop rising.
As to the “old houses” we are supposed to see passing with a tear in our eye, yes, there is some quite awful construction out there and, yes, there is some that is nice but out of place. But, comments about those structures elide the fact that some rather unattractive, if not some down right property-value destroying hideous homes have been taken down and in their place, some quite lovely, large and wonderful homes have gone up. Let’s keep the good separate from the bad, shall we?
Moreover, as we are all here on a blog where too many trumpet rights they don’t actually have (1st Amendment rights to free speech on this page, for instance; a right to host a non-conforming use, etc. with no need to seek zoning approval, etc.), we seem to quickly forget that preservation means you’re imposing limits on people wishing to sell what is likely their most valuable asset, their home. (What else would a preservation district do?) Go ask folks who actually live in an areas designated “historic” or with some other limitation what they have to go through to simply paint their house or if they would buy the house again if they had a choice.
Anyone wants to create new construction standards (a matter distinct from an “historic” district)? I’m all for that. I wish it had happened earlier. Shame that Crescent as you drive towards Hodges Park wasn’t zoned as all large scale painted homes with porches, maintaining and reinforcing the tendency of homes on the street, in a way Naperville has done with part of its preservation district. Perhaps if that had happened earlier, some of the bad new construction might not have gone up…and some of the bad old construction might not have gone up. Walk down the street and you’ll see what I mean.
Now there is pages of a-historical bloviating about the Uptown, the beauty of the lot on which Uptown now sits, the serene pastoral beauty of under utilized if not unused green space, home to an inadequate. I sit here reading these posts and wonder if those folks recall the decrepit blandness of what was replaced (a sign, three large pines and a brick shed) or if their sepia tinted glasses allow them to actually see what is on the north side of the street currently.
There’s the old city hall, the new pizzeria and then, what?, stray old homes sitting gapped toothed and mostly empty with vacant lots between, a business that sits back on its lot incongruously out of place with the face wall of the other store fronts right against the side walk (but, oddly, no one worries about ice falling off of those buildings) with the next marginally aesthetically acceptable building being the bank. Those 4-6 lots should be replaced with something new, and if it means that the city has to work with a developer to move the pizzeria and the old city hall, I’m all for it.
I say this knowing that no sooner will I post than there will be those who will again bemoan the “fact” (actually no more than a subjective bias raised to “fact” status by their senatorial presumptions) that the city is “losing its character”. Losing its character? Look at what is being replaced. Lose it all, I say. Replace the bad with the new. Bring in new people, make the downtown even more vibrant and alive.
Or, just asking in passing, is that the problem: if we bring in more new, young people, will those who lord their time here over new-comers feel like they are losing their influence – you know, the same influence that brought us a fraud and a hack for a mayor. How’s that working out for you?
Anyway… that’s one contrarian’s view, for whatever it is worth.
Charles--
I still believe we should try to salvage some of the lovely old homes, but YES, knock down those that are in disrepair.
My issue is (and always has been)...why are builders putting up homes that are from lotline to lotline? Do we HAVE TO be right on top of each other? Why is the city approving two homes being built on a lot that previously had one home?
Again, it's greed.
You are right. I have been here a long time. I don't like what I see. We don't have to look like all the other towns around us.
How nice that you suggest we move to Amish country.
Wow Charles another person who reads the PRU but is not part of the PRUde crew. I'm sure any of the younger readers of this blog completely agree with you as I do. Just as I said a few days ago that people are complaining about PR being "destroyed" you have stated the same in that PR is "losing its character" whatever the hell that means. Out with the old in with the new.
how about "IN with the old, and out with you?"
There is something that occurs to me.
First many here are the recent development. I will grant you that the revenue benefits to the city are as yet to materialize. However, there is a least a potential for additional revenue. The argument is that PR's tax base is not from businesses but from residences.
That brings me to number two. Many here rail about houses being torn down and new ones built. Well if house is torn down and a 1,000,000+ home goes up that increases the tax base.
So we are against those two things but of course we are also all against higher taxes as well.
Out with the mouse bring in the new house.
LMFAO
Anony-mouse:
Irony, it is lost on some.
I pointed out the "no change" attitude that appears here so often and the presumption upon which it is based, you follow it up with a "IN with the old, and out with you?"
I wish I had written that - but if I had, people would say that I was being didn't truly understand the position or was being unfair. That you said it for us, however, puts, in your own words, a finely crafted point to the attitude. Thank you.
As often happens when a topic comes up on these blogs, I become much more observant as I drive/walk around town. With that in mind I have taken an informal visual survey.
Now let stipulate that I am sure people will be able to site examples where my survey is wrong. But in looking at new construction homes and where they are on their lots versus the neighbor, and in looking at two older homes side by side, I did not see in my survey that any of the new homes had encroached on lot lines any more then what appears to be typical in PR. Take for example Cumberland in the block north of Stewart. There are new homes and old homes. The space between the homes appears to be fairly consistent to me. It is the same way in the neighborhood in which I live.
The new homes are larger in terms of height and certainly more imposing. Again it is a matter of taste if people like them or not.
If I was in charge of making the rules of keeping the "quaintness of Park Ridge alive I would do the following:
* Lot size no longer an issue--If there is (1) house on a 100'x150 lot, then only (1)house can be built in it's place. This eliminates builders from constructing (2) houses on one large lot.
* Enough of this Chicago gangway look--Side yards have to be a minimum of 10' on a 50" lot. Double lots have to have a minimum of 15" on each side.
* Those building new homes would have to set up an escrow account for damages done to neighbors property.
* A minimum of (4) desiduous trees (with trunk size a miminum of 6") must be planted on the property.
* Notify those wanting to build that this is not Barrington Hills, and scrunching their monstrosity onto any lot in PR looks ridiculous.
There's no mystery to any of this. When a lot costs $500-800K, most people want to put as much house on it as they can fit, otherwise you've got real expensive grazing land. So you've got to have zoning ordinances which preserve light and air through height restrictions and setbacks. But this is America, and if somebody wants to tear down an old house and build their dream house, so long as it doesn't block my light and air and isn't a public nightmare, they should be allowed to do that. By the same token, if they want their house preserved, then they should pay to have it encased in lucite. Thank you.
I see from these comments that the Republicans are taking back Park Ridge. Well, Dems, you had a good ride.
ms. manchester:
what ideas being expressed in these comments do you see as being from "the republicans" and which ones, if any, from the
"democrats"? i want to make sure i understand which is which for future reference.
Who is going to pay, and how much, to "preserve" an "historical" house? Are the taxpayers going to be stuck with that bill? And who is going to make the decision of whether a house is "historical" or not? Some politically-connected "preservationists" (or anti-preservationists) put on a committee by the mayor or the city council?
If we give somebody tax breaks to rehab instead of tear down, how much are we going to have to give to make it a real incentive? And are the taxpayers expected to foot the bill for that, too?
"Preservation" sounds great but, like most other things, the devil is in the details. And for all the talk of "preservation" over the past couple of years, I have yet to hear one practical idea of how to achieve it.
Hey Charles:
What do you mean by The Old City Hall?
agreed ms. manchester. agreed.
e.e.:
Great question. The only ones here, that I have seen, who apply political labels are those self-nominated "old Park Ridge" folks who eagerly self-identify themselves as Republicans (without anyone asking). I don't know how national political identifications apply to local matters like zoning matters, but it seems awful damn important to them. Too much Fox "News" I suspect.
Yesterday I saw a large, "lot line to lot line" new construction house that had a McCain sign out front. It is on Belle Plaine a few blocks east of Western. That's got to cause some confusion amongst the "old Park Ridge = Republican" crowd, I'd suspect.
Me? The tide flows in and the tide flows out. There's a lesson there, one that can be applied to Uptown, Frimark or national matters. In each instance I happen to like the way the tide is flowing and, consequently, am looking forward to the next few years.
Charles
I think Charles you oughta just keep your comments to yourself.
Whoa there Mike!!! What is it about Charles' comments that bother you? Did he strike a nerve?
I for one thought blogs were about all opinions, not just Mike's opinion.
Personally, I find the comments I have seen from Charles to be very entertaining.
I'm not critical of how he or others feel about the various issue though he seems to come across rather obnocxiously.
Well shame on Chris!! He is, of course, the only person on the blogs who comes off as obnoxious. He should know better!
Anonymous @ 5:27.
Had to be the Fox "News" comment. He's channeling his inner Bill O'Reilly.
Otherwise, Thanks.
has anyone read the insert in the last Saturday / Sunday bulleton from Immaculate Conception Church? The Pastor assurred his congregation that the new parish center that is being built will not house a PADS site because of trouble he experienced from his last Parish. Maybe someone from St Pauls's should speak to this Pastor and get first hand information about the negative side of PADS before going forward. Americans help the unfortunate (do you remember 911, the hurricane in New Orleans, the fire at OLA years ago etc.) Egos need to be put aside and common sense needs to prevale especially where children are involved. MAybe PADS should buy an empty storefront on Higgens near the El and open a shelter where the homeless can get to easlily...how many homeless can ride the Metra ?
Yes, agreed. And maybe City Council members should speak to city leaders in other communities about how much time and money the police and other depts have to spend on PADS issues.
This won't pass.
I guess it depends how big the cars are.
You think on Higgins near the El is going to solve the objections????
This kills me!!!
First it is in a church with no school and the neighbors object.
Next we are in a Church with a school and the school parents object.
Where on Higgins do you suggest? I am still relatively new here but what is North of Higgins all the way along the area near the EL stop? You guessed it - neighboorhoods. You have condos and townhomes and houses and neighboorhoods all the abuting Higgins. I am sure many of them have children and will have the same concerns (justified and unjustified) that have laready been expressed.
Isn't it logical that their reaction is going to be similiar to those around St. Mary's??
Post a Comment