Chicagoist: Sneaky Condo Deals In Bucktown? What Gives Us That Idea?

Hugh

Tue, 10 Jan 2006 10:58:39 -0600

Kos is a regular Matlak contributor (Illinois State Board of Elections). Kos to Committee to Elect Matlak $500.00 6/3/2002 $500.00 3/6/2003 Kos to Friends of Ted Matlak $500.00 7/16/2004

Hugh

Tue, 10 Jan 2006 10:55:58 -0600

President, Secretary, and agent for Wally's Development, Inc. is ( ">Illinois Secretary of State): WALTER KOS 6411 W 89TH PL OAKLAWN 60453

Hugh

Tue, 10 Jan 2006 10:53:59 -0600

Matlak wrote: > A resident of the neighborhood who lives 200 feet from the building > bought the property at 1734 West Wabansia. Matt posted: > I've heard the owner who lives within 200 ft isn't a property owner > but a developer from the far southside 1734 W Wabansia and 1736 W Wabansia were sold to Wally's Development, Inc. on 7/18/2005 for $1,060,000 (Cook County Recorder of Deeds document number 0520835209).

Hugh

Mon, 09 Jan 2006 11:48:59 -0600

> ... they are building TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES... When is RS3 not RS3? The prospect of selling TWO luxury homes at this location is a major attraction of the plan for the tear-down. The developers are taking advantage of a loophole introduced into our fair city's zoning laws by our City Council on 2001. 1734 W Wabansia PIN 14-31-420-050 the "Artful Dodger" building 1736 W Wabansia PIN 14-31-420-049 the vacant lot immediately to the west 2 lots of 1,952 square feet each = 3904 square feet of lot area total The area is zoned RS-3. Now RS3 has a mean lot area per dwelling unit (MLA) of 2500 square feet per dwelling unit, so you might expect just: 3904 / 2500 = 1 unit maximum BUT R3 has an exception: 17-2-0303-B Exemption "In the RS3 district the minimum lot area per dwelling unit may be reduced to 1,500 square feet when 60% or more of the zoning lots fronting on the same side of the street between the two nearest intersecting streets have been lawfully improved with buildings containing more than one dwelling unit." 3904 / 1500 = 2 units maximum The developers Wally's Development, Inc. are using the fact that the N side of this block on Wabansia between Wood and Hermitage has buildings of more than one unit to justify the second unit they want to build at 1734 W. Wabansia. In other words, the preponderance of multi-unit buildings on the block is being used to justify two units on the corner, more dense than would normally be allowed. This exception was added to the zoning law by the City Council on 5/2/01. I don't think many Chicago homeowners know about it or what it means. It has profound impact because the Aldermen changed the zoning text, the very definition of RS-3, affecting all RS-3 districts in Chicago at once, with no map change. It is a stealth density increase: a density increase with no notification to neighbors. It is a tear-down incentive.

NotSoHealthy

Mon, 09 Jan 2006 10:45:49 -0600

Counterpoint: 1. The two single family homes have 99% chance of being built from an existing blueprint that will offer no significant architecture to the corner. 2. Structures are being built more efficiently and faster than ever. You are correct welcome to the 21st century. But building materials that were readily available in the 19th century no longer exist or have become too expensive to use in mass quantity. i.e. certain brick, types of concrete aggregate, certain wood species, lead, asbestos (they're not all good) etc. 3. Any type of shoddy work you find in an 80+ building is more than likely the work of a repair person not the G.C. 4. Many structures are important not because of the brick and mortar they were contructed with, but the memories they hold and the keys to history they possess. Although the house that my grandfather grew up in is now in one of the worst neighborhoods in Chicago, it is still a house that I can show to my kids as the place that their grandfather lived when he arrived to this country.

Realist

Mon, 09 Jan 2006 09:06:13 -0600

I realize you all are temporarily & passionately up in arms over this, but 1. they are building TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. Not condos. 2. Faster building processes doesn't mean cheaper building--welcome to the 21st century. 3. Everyone is as lazy as the next guy AND everyone is as detail oriented as the next guy. As someone renting an apt in a 80+ year old building, I can tell you, old buildings have as many cut corners and shoddy work as new. One would assume it depends on the person is building it, as well as the ones maintaining it. 4. How many sites of older buildings that have been knocked down have you returned to to mourn their passing? Will you do so for this one?

matt

Sun, 08 Jan 2006 02:31:55 -0600

i'ne heard the owner who lives within 200 ft isn't a property owner but a developer from the far southside and as a result i with draw from the discusion and i sure don't want to live in houston

matt

Sun, 08 Jan 2006 02:30:56 -0600

i'ne heard the owner who lives within 200 ft isn't a property owner but a developer from the far southside and as a result i with draw from the discusion and i sure don't want to live in houston

Hugh

Sat, 07 Jan 2006 14:42:00 -0600

Chuck wrote: > ... the City Council approved the 90-day hold. Do you have any more details on this? I thought the 90-day hold was automatically triggered because the property is listed as orange in the Chicago Historical Resources Survey. I did not know Council approval was required to start to clock. Thanks.

Hugh

Sat, 07 Jan 2006 14:30:25 -0600

Matlak wrote: > A resident of the neighborhood who lives 200 feet from the building bought the property at 1734 West Wabansia. Does anyone know who this is?

Hugh

Sat, 07 Jan 2006 14:26:46 -0600

How long has the bar been closed? Was noise a problem lately?

Anon

Sat, 07 Jan 2006 13:41:43 -0600

Matt, Matlak & Gabinski are cock-to-cock partners, Obvoiusly.

Hugh

Fri, 06 Jan 2006 22:47:30 -0600

Street Justice, Matlak Style Matlak wrote: >Unfortunately, the previous bar was not a respectful neighbor. Our office received numerous parking, noise, and other complaints regarding patrons of the bar. WOW! I didn't know the penalty for noise was the wrecking ball.

geekgrrl

Fri, 06 Jan 2006 20:30:37 -0600

gee, matt, i bet you'd hate europe. on a side note... my first step upon entering City Hall was, 'wow, this building is freaking gorgeous. when's Daley knocking it down?'

Tom

Fri, 06 Jan 2006 17:18:16 -0600

matt- reread chicago jason's post from 1:41pm today. it is not an "ad hominem" attack (oooooh, such big, latin-y words) and it pretty nicely sums up a why a preservation minded person thinks the way he does. oh, and "progress" does not automatically entail the destruction of the past. history is important to most people.

McLofts

Fri, 06 Jan 2006 17:14:09 -0600

Hey Matt, If they do actually build a quality modern building with good architecture I'm sure most people would be happy. Chances of that happening vs. crappy cookie cutter/project looking condo set back from the sidewalk, eh not so good.

Michelle

Fri, 06 Jan 2006 16:44:09 -0600

I guess I wouldn't mind new construction if it was actually built with some quality, craftmanship and fortitude to stand the test of time. That is the charm of older buildings--the knowledge that time, patience and painstaking hard work went into them. Today, high-rises are slapped up in a matter of months and you have to wonder what the construction of them is really like (can we say inefficient/uneconomical cinder block). Though some older buildings may look like crap on the outside--the interiors of them still hold the detailing of actual carpentry and workmanship, which when it comes to architecture, large and small, is one of the foundations of the history of Chicago.

matt

Fri, 06 Jan 2006 16:34:09 -0600

It's interesting that the preservationists with such an "obvious" argument can only defend their position with ad hominem attacks. I'm sorry you don't like modern buildings, or the people who can buy them, but tearing down shitty old buildings (and that building is dilapidated, go check it out yourself)is a natural progression in any environment, esp a popular urban neighborhood. you can't stop progress, but i guess you can stand on the sidelines and cry all you want.

Compass Rose

Fri, 06 Jan 2006 15:50:29 -0600

Does anyone know if there is an online version of the petition circulating to save this building?

NotSoHealthy

Fri, 06 Jan 2006 15:20:56 -0600

The city speant 10 years putting together an assesment of all the buildings in Chicago. Here is the Hargis assesment for the property. They rated it as "orange" which means it is eligible for historic designation if the owner wished to apply http://gis.hpa.state.il.us/hargis/Reports/Reports.aspx?RefNumVariable=133226&FormType=Short

McLofts.

Fri, 06 Jan 2006 14:44:38 -0600

Typical bullshit, Maybe the neighbors will miss the building when they get one of those awesome loft boxes that look identical to public housing. "Old buildings look the same" Matt, you're either blind or stupid, maybe both.

anon

Fri, 06 Jan 2006 14:04:21 -0600

Matlak & Gabinski are the flying fish fuck artists.

NotSoHealthy

Fri, 06 Jan 2006 13:51:42 -0600

Histroic structures are Expensive! Roofs leak all the time, They are drafty, expensive to heat, have no air conditioning, creaky floors, thin walls, craked plaster, structural damage, smell funny, etc. etc. Although time will take its toll on any building, structures such as this one were built with sweat not power tools, thus they are heavy in craftsmanship and character. Matt although the two flats from the pre war era all kinda looked the same, I guarantee each one is different in its own little way. Mass production just wasn't invented yet.

m

Fri, 06 Jan 2006 13:46:01 -0600

Matlak's office's response: Thank you for your email. A resident of the neighborhood who lives 200 feet from the building bought the property at 1734 West Wabansia. He bought the property in order to eliminate the existing 6-unit apartment building and tavern with no parking. Plans for the space include two single-family homes, each with 2 parking spots. Unfortunately, the previous bar was not a respectful neighbor. Our office received numerous parking, noise, and other complaints regarding patrons of the bar. This building had been on the market for over a year before the current owner bought it. At this time, we did not receive a single request to have the property landmarked, nor have there been interests by buyers who would choose to rehab the existing building into the condition needed to meet landmark requirements. Please call our office and ask to speak with Jessica if you have any further questions at (773) 227-1100. Thank You! tmatlak@cityofchicago.org

Matt

Fri, 06 Jan 2006 13:41:52 -0600

Chuck, really I want to know what the difference is? that the old buildings are old?

Chicago Jason

Fri, 06 Jan 2006 13:41:36 -0600

Couldn't disagree with you more, Matt. It is extremely rare in the city--at least in the neighborhoods I'm familiar with--to find examples of long stretches of IDENTICAL two-or three-flats. The differences might be subtle--window detailing, porches, parapets--or more obvious, but there is almost always some variation, most of which was there from the beginning. I'd argue that is the best of both worlds--overall unity of the streetscape with individual, often delightful variations. Something similar may happen to the rows of identical condos being built today, but I doubt it. First, many of the newer buildings are not built to last. Second, more truly identical properties are being built in greater quantities (see next paragraph). Third, many condo buildings are just plain butt-ugly, and no amount of age will fix that. I think this is where many objections to the condo boom come from--people don't like seeing solidly built, modestly scaled, architecturally detailed structures replaced with unornamented, weirdly proportioned, brick (that weird oversized brick) and glass boxes. A major difference between 1906 and 2006 is that few developers back in 1906 developed a series of lots all at the same time. Where large lots (or a bunch of adjacent small lots) were developed, you generally find courtyard apartments--I'd wager that's what yielded the highest return on investment at the time. Many landowners sold off smaller lots a few at a time over a period of many years, which is why we see as many different types of buildings now as we do. Count me as one person who isn't saying "whatever" in the face of the loss of Chicago's charm and character. I live here precisely because of those qualities. If I wanted cheap, architecturally insipid, ticky-tacky overblown construction in the midst of a sea of chain stores, I'd move to the suburbs.

m

Fri, 06 Jan 2006 13:40:51 -0600

Matt: you're a moron who'd be just as happy residing in Houston. Please relocate immediately and enjoy. My letter to Matlak: Ald. Matlak: Count me among the thousands of city residents opposed to tearing down the “Artful Dodger building” to make way for two character-free, cheaply-constructed mansions for rich people. Why the potential teardown of a building constructed in 1899 (an era of materials and craftsmanship gone forever) is even up for debate completely baffles me. Sincerely, (My Name)

Chuck

Fri, 06 Jan 2006 13:35:48 -0600

Let's try to remember here that the issue is not the tavern, it's the building, which includes six residential units. This being Daley's CHicago the tavern is a settled topic. It ain't coming back, unless any new Artful Dodger starts selling blue cheese burgers with the option of replacing fries with celery sticks. And Matt, if you can't see the difference between "cookie cutter" from 100 years ago and the cynical boxes put up today, I can't help ya there, bub.

Joel

Fri, 06 Jan 2006 13:23:28 -0600

I always thought the Artful Dodger was way underrated actually. Quality affordable beer and drinks, good music, friendly laid-back atmosphere. Pain in the ass to get to and it'd get a little packed late on weekend nights but whatever. And whatever they change the name to, old white dudes will be drinking at The Berghoff bar for years to come. All the "classic old buildings" do look the same but it's hard to say they don't have more beauty and character than the majority of new condos going up now. Whatever, things change.

s

Fri, 06 Jan 2006 13:22:32 -0600

They aren't tearing this down to build more condo's... they are tearing it down to build 2 single family homes which very few people could even afford. Speaking of Wrigleyville... that stupid ballpark looks so much like the other ones that were built around the same time... they should tear it down and build one of those modern "cookie-cutter" ones in it's place.

matt

Fri, 06 Jan 2006 13:12:09 -0600

if you care so much, why not buy the building yourself? i sure wouldn't want any of those yahoos telling me what to do with my property. No one ever seems to mention that when they built these old "classic buildings" they all looked the same. When we lived in wrigleyville everyone was up in arms about them leveling the old two flats to put in new "cookie cutter" three or four flats. No one ever mentioned that all the old two flats all looked exactly the same.

lit

Fri, 06 Jan 2006 13:04:27 -0600

artful dodger overrated? you obviously never had a dirty martini there!

Stephen

Fri, 06 Jan 2006 12:56:00 -0600

If I were looking for a condo, I'd much rather live in a rehabbed version of the above building, instead of the generic crappy condo building that will spring up in its place. (I do believe I've mentioned this sentiment elsewhere, but it bears repeating.) Also, as an actor, one of my goals is to live over a bar someday.

josh

Fri, 06 Jan 2006 12:53:44 -0600

Isn't having a tavern on a residential street the whole point of living in the city?

fido

Fri, 06 Jan 2006 12:18:53 -0600

First the berghoff, now the artful dodger: how many overrated bars in chicago must close? damn. jesus is crying somewhere, i just know it.

appopt

Fri, 06 Jan 2006 12:18:29 -0600

I don't live in the neighborhood and I have nothing but humiliating memories from the Artful Dodger but, just yesterday, I was walking past this very building and thinking about how horribly ugly all the new construction in the area is. Daley and his cronies on the City Council are really allowing the destruction of the unique character of many Chicago neighborhoods, and they should be held accountable.

Joel

Fri, 06 Jan 2006 12:07:14 -0600

Huh, I'd never seen the Dodger in the light of day before.

Erin

Fri, 06 Jan 2006 12:02:10 -0600

Ugh. Matlak has to be one of the most useless aldermen on the council. I have never heard one person say anything positive about him.