tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7394091530012769761.post5080833652287577727..comments2024-03-27T04:02:47.206-04:00Comments on Old Urbanist: A Preservationist's DilemmaCharlie Gardnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07317335121565650040noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7394091530012769761.post-58176149614492211622012-06-09T16:45:10.755-04:002012-06-09T16:45:10.755-04:00I would refuse historic designation to streetcar s...I would refuse historic designation to streetcar suburbs as long as the streetcars were missing. Think about it. The historic contest is already spoilt and broken.<br /><br />--NathanaelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7394091530012769761.post-43760301917464457332011-10-05T12:21:52.610-04:002011-10-05T12:21:52.610-04:00Though the dilemma presented here is a reality and...Though the dilemma presented here is a reality and one faced by preservationists and planners alike, I think you are wrong to imply that these historic neighborhoods must change for the better of the city. Are there not plenty of non-designated/protected neighborhoods in which to apply infill and other densification measures?<br /><br />All too often, this sort of specious argument is made to erode the foundation of Historic Preservation; The zoning overlays are too restrictive and therefore nothing anywhere will ever be built for the betterment of society. The flaw is that these overlays represent a fraction of the available land in and around cities. Go somewhere else to experiment with adaptive use concepts...<br /><br />The preservationist has the unique job of applying foresight to reduce regret in future generations. Of course what we preserve now may not be so popular, but that is the point, that is why it needs preserving; because we do not want future generations to look back and say "why did they tear that down" or "what were they thinking when they built those infill houses?" just as we might look back and wonder why so many great buildings were demolished in the 60s and 70s to make way for parking garages.CWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14714279198511808379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7394091530012769761.post-61779765436829965522011-08-12T12:24:37.004-04:002011-08-12T12:24:37.004-04:00House at the back of the lot? Laneway House?
T...House at the back of the lot? Laneway House? <br /><br />This is new?<br /><br />Not.<br /><br />Working class immigrants and their children in Chicago used the two step approach to housing themselves more than a hundred years ago. Buy a vacant lot for cash (after saving, no Fannie or Freddie then). By what ever means necessary build what would become a large garage at the back of the lot as close to the lot lines as possible. Live in this structure.<br /><br />Save more money. Build a house on the front of the lot with the money they have saved. Move in this house, Open the back of the rear structure to open on the alley. You now have a house and garage.<br /><br />Some of these people failed and the rear structure remained as a house, later owners adding dormer and porches. I know I lived in and owned one on the Northside of Chicago during the 1970s-80s. There are still sections of the city where there are two three flat buildings standing one behind the other on narrow, deep lots.<br /><br />Building code changed and these are now illegal to build, but can still be used as housing with the proviso that the owner cannot break out the exterior walls to add more rooms, but you can still go up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com