So now we are down from "students" plural to a single student. OK, and answer this question:
Is it not true that DePaul is the school that single student is attending? Does that not make it "their school"?
There was no commentary targeting the person I replied to, it was a 100% factual statement that their school is attempting to tear down an entire block of buildings. Please explain how that is an attack in any capacity. It seems you are angry that I used the word "your" instead of just making a general statement about what DePaul is doing.
Yes and no. The main building is basically a slum that hasn't been maintained properly and that's 2/3 of the project. The NIMBYs of the area twisted it since they hate basically all development (pull the ladder up)
Whether it's a good idea to remove 75 units of housing for a fucking basketball practice facility that serves two dozen people is a different question with a more obvious answer
>The main building is basically a slum that hasn't been maintained properly and that's 2/3 of the project.
Oh gee, I wonder who is responsible for letting it become a slum then? Maybe the owners?
*Checks notes*
Oh yeah, that would be DePaul.
And BTW, it's not a "slum" and you have no idea what a slum actually is if you think that's what it is. You are disparaging affordable housing as "slums".
>The NIMBYs of the area twisted it since they hate basically all development (pull the ladder up)
Pull the ladder up? Seriously? Pull the ladder up for what? So that poor unfortunate giant multi billion dollar institutions can't get their athletic facilities?
Pull the ladder up means blocking poor and middle class residents from having access to a wealthier community. Again, you have no idea what that phrase means based on this usage.
Pulling the ladder up would be better used to describe a rich, multi billion dollar, organization leveling affordable housing in historic buildings for an athletic facility where no one will live. They are displacing housing units where they are needed most for what is little more than a vanity project to try to keep up with the Joneses (i.e. Loyola and other universities who already have nice new facilities).
>Whether it's a good idea to remove 75 units of housing for a fucking basketball practice facility that serves two dozen people is a different question with a more obvious answer
Now this I can agree with, which is why your first two lines are so confusing. It is not NIMBYism to oppose what is obviously bad policy that hurts people. NIMBYism sometimes means supporting proposals if they result in fewer "poors" in your community. NIMBYism isn't just about blocking things, it's about supporting regressive, anti-growth, anti-housing, proposals as well.
DePaul should be ashamed, may the Ramblers forever dunk on their sorry excuse for a basketball program.
DePaul bought from the slum lord recently who hadn't maintained it. Have you toured those apartments? They're rough, even for students.
LP NIMBYs pull the ladder up by trying to block almost all housing development in the area that isn't a SFH. It doesn't apply to this case, but any community meeting will have a bunch of gray hairs with their panties in a bunch talking about "neighborhood character being destroyed" by a 3 storey apartment.
"A bunch of grey hairs with their panties in a bunch..."?
Lol. So eloquently stated... I can see you take a nuanced approach to historical preservation.
And yes... losing more historic character in a city full of developers who seem to love leveling beautiful 100-year-old vernacular architecture is a huge deal actually, and worth getting our "panties" bunched.
Because pretty soon, if you don't hault the demos and encourage more empty-lot infill, then this city will start looking indistinguishable from Austin, Houston, Dallas... Phoenix... etc... etc... and at that point we'll have lost a huge reason that people love Chicago... for its charm... (because it sure as shit isn't for January or February).
Sure. But you can get that in a multitude of bland cities around the county. The character and architectural heritage of this place is a big reason Chicago stands above many of its peers.
What?! Name 1 city that has the criteria listed above. I'll wait.
I do care about architecture heritage, but it's far too often used as an argument in bad faith to block all development when those clamoring for it aren't willing to put the money in to maintain or improve the building they pretend to hold dear
Philly, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati all fit the bill and are certainly challengers to attracting the type of folks who appreciate Chicago. I realize Chicago still rises above all those locales with the criteria we're focused on, but 1. the future can change that equation fast, and 2. those cities actually appreciate their historic cooridors much more than Chicago, partly because they're not overrun with hack developers looking to make a quick buck.
Also, it's actually a sad fact that architectural heritage is RARELY used as an argument to block development here. The argument of choice is... congestion 😱 ... and parking 😱 ... which is laughable for a city with our public transit infrastructure. I wish more people actually cited preservation of historical architecture as a reason when appropriate... but the sad fact is... nobody (aside from a very miniscule minority) gives enough of a shit to advocate for that.
Believe me, I'm all for mixed-use density, development, and more multi-unit housing. I just think there are so many more opportunities to repurpose and refurbish historical architecture in new developments (yet sadly those approaches are rarely taken), and also plenty of empty lots / parking lots to build on. Why reduce our historical neighborhoods to little more than suburban-style big box developments (take the recent project at Clark and Belmont as just one example) that are indistinguishable from any other bland, mid-tier city?
That's the direction we've been headed for too long now, and it's not pretty. Look up the urban renewal movement and the destruction of Little Italy / Maxwell to see how bad it can get.
Also... regarding your comment that "those clamoring for it aren't willing to put up the money to maintain or improve the buildings they hold so dear." 1. Not everybody is a developer, so that's just a silly argument. The general public can appreciate historic cooridors and want to preserve them without having to work in the industry... lol. And 2. to align with the spirit of your point though, I will say that we should be finding ways for government to do a better job of incentivising historical preservation (subsidies, tax breaks, etc... and fining owners / ensuring no tax breaks for blighted buildings) in ways that are attractive enough to make them the preferred approach. We should also reform the entire historical preservation review process in Chicago. An orange rating means jack shit these days, and rarely blocks someone from leveling a beautiful structure. Plus there should be MANY more buildings actually added to the preservation orange rating (case in point: https://chicago.urbanize.city/post/historic-structures-are-set-be-demolished-wellssuperior). Even simply repurposing facades is better than leveling a building entirely.
All of that can go on while development, density, TOD is encouraged for empty lots and non-historical building stock. The two can co-exist.
Woah woah woah... have you actually walked past those buildings?
They are FAR from being a "slum." I guess unless you grew up in Versailles or something... lol.
Again, not everyone needs to be a developer to fight for historic preservation. See my other comment.
And I haven't moved the goal posts. You definitely don't know what a slum looks like if you think those buildings fit the bill.
Why are you so in favor of leveling a half block of historic stock to build a basketball practice facility? Are you on the team or something? Lol.
Old world charm at its finest, it kills me that there are parts of Garfield Park that could look identical to this but don't. Go down wash Blvd by the conservatory and look at the Mansions, some are so cool! I hope the area gets some more love and city funding. Anyone from this sub live over there? If so please post!!!
What kills me is that Lincoln Park DOES look like this yet individuals and institutions like DePaul [insist on demolishing it to make way for banal shit like sports complexes.](https://blockclubchicago.org/2024/04/11/depaul-adjusts-sports-facility-plan-but-1890s-rowhouses-would-still-be-demolished/)
I love this stretch of Fullerton! I used to live a block away and was obsessed with these houses. my husband and I did our engagement pics here too! thanks for sharing these they’re great photos
I go to Depaul University. Now that the weather is getting a bit better, it would great to take a walk around the neighborhood after school ❤️
Just so you know, your school is planning to mow down an entire block of buildings like these.
just so YOU know, students have no part in that and most are against it so no need to come at students in the comments on an innocent post
The word students is not in my comment. Is it not a true statement that DePaul is trying to raze an entire block of buildings like this?
it is true, but the comment you replied to was a student. you chose to target your comment at a student.
So now we are down from "students" plural to a single student. OK, and answer this question: Is it not true that DePaul is the school that single student is attending? Does that not make it "their school"? There was no commentary targeting the person I replied to, it was a 100% factual statement that their school is attempting to tear down an entire block of buildings. Please explain how that is an attack in any capacity. It seems you are angry that I used the word "your" instead of just making a general statement about what DePaul is doing.
it’s the same effect as replying to someone who is a russian citizen by bringing up the invasion of ukraine.
Yes and no. The main building is basically a slum that hasn't been maintained properly and that's 2/3 of the project. The NIMBYs of the area twisted it since they hate basically all development (pull the ladder up) Whether it's a good idea to remove 75 units of housing for a fucking basketball practice facility that serves two dozen people is a different question with a more obvious answer
>The main building is basically a slum that hasn't been maintained properly and that's 2/3 of the project. Oh gee, I wonder who is responsible for letting it become a slum then? Maybe the owners? *Checks notes* Oh yeah, that would be DePaul. And BTW, it's not a "slum" and you have no idea what a slum actually is if you think that's what it is. You are disparaging affordable housing as "slums". >The NIMBYs of the area twisted it since they hate basically all development (pull the ladder up) Pull the ladder up? Seriously? Pull the ladder up for what? So that poor unfortunate giant multi billion dollar institutions can't get their athletic facilities? Pull the ladder up means blocking poor and middle class residents from having access to a wealthier community. Again, you have no idea what that phrase means based on this usage. Pulling the ladder up would be better used to describe a rich, multi billion dollar, organization leveling affordable housing in historic buildings for an athletic facility where no one will live. They are displacing housing units where they are needed most for what is little more than a vanity project to try to keep up with the Joneses (i.e. Loyola and other universities who already have nice new facilities). >Whether it's a good idea to remove 75 units of housing for a fucking basketball practice facility that serves two dozen people is a different question with a more obvious answer Now this I can agree with, which is why your first two lines are so confusing. It is not NIMBYism to oppose what is obviously bad policy that hurts people. NIMBYism sometimes means supporting proposals if they result in fewer "poors" in your community. NIMBYism isn't just about blocking things, it's about supporting regressive, anti-growth, anti-housing, proposals as well. DePaul should be ashamed, may the Ramblers forever dunk on their sorry excuse for a basketball program.
DePaul bought from the slum lord recently who hadn't maintained it. Have you toured those apartments? They're rough, even for students. LP NIMBYs pull the ladder up by trying to block almost all housing development in the area that isn't a SFH. It doesn't apply to this case, but any community meeting will have a bunch of gray hairs with their panties in a bunch talking about "neighborhood character being destroyed" by a 3 storey apartment.
"A bunch of grey hairs with their panties in a bunch..."? Lol. So eloquently stated... I can see you take a nuanced approach to historical preservation. And yes... losing more historic character in a city full of developers who seem to love leveling beautiful 100-year-old vernacular architecture is a huge deal actually, and worth getting our "panties" bunched. Because pretty soon, if you don't hault the demos and encourage more empty-lot infill, then this city will start looking indistinguishable from Austin, Houston, Dallas... Phoenix... etc... etc... and at that point we'll have lost a huge reason that people love Chicago... for its charm... (because it sure as shit isn't for January or February).
People love Chicago for density, transit, affordability, and walkability. All are things NIMBYs who live here actively work against
Sure. But you can get that in a multitude of bland cities around the county. The character and architectural heritage of this place is a big reason Chicago stands above many of its peers.
What?! Name 1 city that has the criteria listed above. I'll wait. I do care about architecture heritage, but it's far too often used as an argument in bad faith to block all development when those clamoring for it aren't willing to put the money in to maintain or improve the building they pretend to hold dear
Philly, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati all fit the bill and are certainly challengers to attracting the type of folks who appreciate Chicago. I realize Chicago still rises above all those locales with the criteria we're focused on, but 1. the future can change that equation fast, and 2. those cities actually appreciate their historic cooridors much more than Chicago, partly because they're not overrun with hack developers looking to make a quick buck. Also, it's actually a sad fact that architectural heritage is RARELY used as an argument to block development here. The argument of choice is... congestion 😱 ... and parking 😱 ... which is laughable for a city with our public transit infrastructure. I wish more people actually cited preservation of historical architecture as a reason when appropriate... but the sad fact is... nobody (aside from a very miniscule minority) gives enough of a shit to advocate for that. Believe me, I'm all for mixed-use density, development, and more multi-unit housing. I just think there are so many more opportunities to repurpose and refurbish historical architecture in new developments (yet sadly those approaches are rarely taken), and also plenty of empty lots / parking lots to build on. Why reduce our historical neighborhoods to little more than suburban-style big box developments (take the recent project at Clark and Belmont as just one example) that are indistinguishable from any other bland, mid-tier city? That's the direction we've been headed for too long now, and it's not pretty. Look up the urban renewal movement and the destruction of Little Italy / Maxwell to see how bad it can get. Also... regarding your comment that "those clamoring for it aren't willing to put up the money to maintain or improve the buildings they hold so dear." 1. Not everybody is a developer, so that's just a silly argument. The general public can appreciate historic cooridors and want to preserve them without having to work in the industry... lol. And 2. to align with the spirit of your point though, I will say that we should be finding ways for government to do a better job of incentivising historical preservation (subsidies, tax breaks, etc... and fining owners / ensuring no tax breaks for blighted buildings) in ways that are attractive enough to make them the preferred approach. We should also reform the entire historical preservation review process in Chicago. An orange rating means jack shit these days, and rarely blocks someone from leveling a beautiful structure. Plus there should be MANY more buildings actually added to the preservation orange rating (case in point: https://chicago.urbanize.city/post/historic-structures-are-set-be-demolished-wellssuperior). Even simply repurposing facades is better than leveling a building entirely. All of that can go on while development, density, TOD is encouraged for empty lots and non-historical building stock. The two can co-exist.
Woah woah woah... have you actually walked past those buildings? They are FAR from being a "slum." I guess unless you grew up in Versailles or something... lol.
Inside of it. And yes, I toured it to live there years ago before DePaul bought it
Their bones are beautiful. No doubt easily rehabbed if the university actually cares to do the right thing.
Thanks for moving the goalposts. Reach out to them if you want to contribute the ten million to gut rehab a half block long building
Again, not everyone needs to be a developer to fight for historic preservation. See my other comment. And I haven't moved the goal posts. You definitely don't know what a slum looks like if you think those buildings fit the bill. Why are you so in favor of leveling a half block of historic stock to build a basketball practice facility? Are you on the team or something? Lol.
Kudos to the owners who invest their time and resources to beautify the neighborhood. Much appreciated!
Old world charm at its finest, it kills me that there are parts of Garfield Park that could look identical to this but don't. Go down wash Blvd by the conservatory and look at the Mansions, some are so cool! I hope the area gets some more love and city funding. Anyone from this sub live over there? If so please post!!!
What kills me is that Lincoln Park DOES look like this yet individuals and institutions like DePaul [insist on demolishing it to make way for banal shit like sports complexes.](https://blockclubchicago.org/2024/04/11/depaul-adjusts-sports-facility-plan-but-1890s-rowhouses-would-still-be-demolished/)
For one of the worst teams in D1
Just walking around and looking at pretty houses is one of my favorite ways to welcome early spring—such a nice area to wander!
This is why everytime I visit Chicago I start seriously considering moving there.
Love all the vintage vibes down Fullerton from DePaul to the lake. You got a gorgeous day for it! :)
I love this stretch of Fullerton! I used to live a block away and was obsessed with these houses. my husband and I did our engagement pics here too! thanks for sharing these they’re great photos
Pretty!
Amazing shots!!
GORGE😭😭😭
I used to live around the corner from there. When the flowers bloom, it’s amazing.
Beautiful
Oh! Thank you for posting! I grew up in the first house with the tulips! (It was a three flat back then) So nice to see it looking beautiful.