preservation

i read an article in the trib this morning about a neighborhood being landmarked in chicago. i recently joined preservation chicago, where they were talking about how some people don't want their block landmarked, not unlike this Hanna character in the trib article. during the preservation meeting, i asked the president, who was speaking, if the reason people didn't want their houses to be landmarked was because of money. once landmarked, you have to get approval to change anything on the outside of your house, like new windows or structural changes, which can add time and money to a project.

but this hanna guy (who is a "wealthy mortgage banker") is bitching that landmarking prevents new houses from being built, including "affordable housing."

let's examine that.

the article says that, in that block, "...the proposed district has experienced four demolitions--one of them a brick and stone three-flat designed in 1913--that have all been replaced with mega-mansions."

out of 124 buildings, four have been demolished. that's not a lot. but i'm on the side of preservation, so four is too much if they were really significant or unique buildings. and who wouldn't want a shittily-constructed "mega-mansion" put up in its place. they're sterile, uninteresting and add nothing to the neighborhood except more wealthy mortgage bankers.

also, what exactly affordable about that neighborhood. some of you who don't live in chicago know that even lincoln park is too expensive for most people's taste. so mr. hanna is saying that by landmarking gems in rich neighborhoods, the city is preventing affordable housing being built in those areas.

no one in those neighborhoods would allow affordable housing to be built anyway. and what would constitute "affordable" in lincoln park? $1200 a month in rent for a one bedroom? $300,000 mortgage? to a wealthy banker, that probably is affordable, but for us working stiffs, that's way out of our price range. and everytime an beautiful, old building gets knocked down, the city and developers always put in a huge, ugly, souless three-flat or mega-mansion. they aren't going to waste precious space on a bungalow or an apartment building. and no way are they going to cut their profit margins by building "afforable housing."

mr. hanna needs to think about where he lives and what he's saying before he opens his big, rich mouth.

ps. i realize that buildings could be torn down in cheaper neighborhoods, too. actually, i think it happens more in less desirable areas because the buildings are more likely to be foreclosed or run-down because the owners can't keep them up. or it's a rental building or house, and the owner really lives in boca raton and doesn't give a shit about it. but does that mean that rich developers can take over these poor neighborhoods and tear down history just because the people there can't afford to keep them away? no. there are plenty of other, ugly, non-historically significant houses and buildings that can be torn down instead.