tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10923291.post3779547758093304618..comments2024-03-26T09:42:38.709-05:00Comments on ArchitectureChicago PLUS: Say Goodbye to the 1896 George H. Phillips houseLynn Beckerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03759748613223711212noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10923291.post-18715871592743633922014-01-15T22:57:28.124-06:002014-01-15T22:57:28.124-06:00Hi...This post is excellent.Thanks for sharing you...Hi...This post is excellent.Thanks for sharing your experience. <a href="http://www.focorealty.com/" rel="nofollow">A nice home</a> is a dream for everyone.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10923291.post-20935794604946700602014-01-14T15:46:29.153-06:002014-01-14T15:46:29.153-06:00There is and has never been a house known as the &...There is and has never been a house known as the "George H. Phillips House" until that name was fabricated/created by Marty Tangora, the owner of the adjacent property to the 4642 house. The owner of the adjacent property is using a "save the house" approach to cover his own self interests about not wanting a new building next to his Victorian mansion. Hell, he would probably object to Frank Lloyd Wright building another six-flat on a street that is already lined with six-flats. His tactics certainly do not reflect well on the distinguished Landmarks Commission. So sad.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10923291.post-54401880296694499612014-01-08T14:01:22.055-06:002014-01-08T14:01:22.055-06:00FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH :
http://www.change.org/...FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH :<br /><br /> http://www.change.org/petitions/rahm-emanuel-stop-demolition-of-1896-landmark-george-h-phillips-house?share_id=fGMjveDbid&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=petition_invitationAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10923291.post-19154759954135793032014-01-08T13:49:46.281-06:002014-01-08T13:49:46.281-06:00can some one clarify the current status of this pr...can some one clarify the current status of this property? The house is currently listed on real estate sales with a contingent offer. Properties move from active to contingent to pending to sold. This one has been contingent for a long time. That suggests that the buyer has some issues. Does anyone know for certain 1. Is the buyer a developer who wants to demolish it and build condos? 2. If the city is really going to demolish this property on Jan 13th., not likely that the buyer will close by then. Who then is paying for the demolition? The comments here suggest that the current owner is demolishing the building but the property has a sale offer on itAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10923291.post-64766955935171528652014-01-08T13:49:22.362-06:002014-01-08T13:49:22.362-06:00can some one clarify the current status of this pr...can some one clarify the current status of this property? The house is currently listed on real estate sales with a contingent offer. Properties move from active to contingent to pending to sold. This one has been contingent for a long time. That suggests that the buyer has some issues. Does anyone know for certain 1. Is the buyer a developer who wants to demolish it and build condos? 2. If the city is really going to demolish this property on Jan 13th., not likely that the buyer will close by then. Who then is paying for the demolition? The comments here suggest that the current owner is demolishing the building but the property has a sale offer on itAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10923291.post-63667857012975953142014-01-08T11:40:18.618-06:002014-01-08T11:40:18.618-06:00"after which it remained the home of his desc..."after which it remained the home of his descendents, the latest of whom are selling to developers..."<br /><br />Not to be petty, but techinically the current owners are not his descendents: Mr. Rutherford was married to a descendent of Phillips who very sadly died a long time ago. His second wife seems to be extremely fixated on the demolition of her husband's 1st wife's family home.<br /><br />Just making sure you have all the good gossip. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10923291.post-61673136978131407372014-01-07T12:37:41.279-06:002014-01-07T12:37:41.279-06:00I for one would rather have these old homes which ...I for one would rather have these old homes which is a part of the history of Architecture in Chicago stay standing instead of looking at a picture of what used to be standing on a lot. A few years ago I was driving past a beautiful red brick home that was being torn down on Winthrop near Glenlake. I parked my car and went to talk to the man standing in front of this home being destroyed and asked why. He had purchased this house, put it up for sale, and no one would pay him the asking price so he is removing it to put up a six flat of condos. I mentioned that we need to save and restore these beautiful old homes not destroy them. He said the old homes need to all be torn down and replaced they have outlived there usefulness. Like the old neighborhoodshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10480706987936321251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10923291.post-56876867703766934932014-01-07T12:10:09.086-06:002014-01-07T12:10:09.086-06:00While not every old structure is historic, this on...While not every old structure is historic, this one is. Those who "own" Frank Lloyd Wright houses in Oak Park are, to some degree, caretakers of legally protected works of art. One can't just bulldoze Wright houses, not for any price. Aldermen and developers need to be pressured, and held accountable for historic structures. Once these gems are gone, they are gone forever.<br />Steve Shayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16288690005548175054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10923291.post-29386507327962067082014-01-07T12:04:50.501-06:002014-01-07T12:04:50.501-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Steve Shayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16288690005548175054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10923291.post-32911159220591853012014-01-06T22:52:51.483-06:002014-01-06T22:52:51.483-06:00It is interesting to note that the developer assoc...It is interesting to note that the developer associated with this property is also seeking to raze another early Lakeview house (1020 W Oakdale), which is also following the 90-day demolition delay. <br /><br />2013 was a good year for development, considering that well-over 500 frame and brick houses and flats were razed and replaced with still more cinder-block exercises in real estate investment.<br /><br />National Register Historic Districts cover several northside neighborhoods, but their contributing structures are routinely razed. Despite our existing preservation tools (Demo Delay and down-zoning among others) and despite decades of research (both economic and social) showing the societal benefits of reusing existing buildings, these characteristic older areas of the city will reflect even more our society's unsustainable preoccupation with things which are new and easily disposed of.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10923291.post-24251296867348701022014-01-06T16:22:25.843-06:002014-01-06T16:22:25.843-06:00Isn't this area a landmarked district? Was th...Isn't this area a landmarked district? Was there the attempt to landmark this to prevent demolition?<br /><br />As for Anonymous, the woman who owns this doesn't care about putting up a new building, she cares about demolishing the current house. She has said that no matter what, it's coming down. She also is willing to sell it, for something like 10x what the developer has bought it for. That sounds like something that if it's not, should be illegal. If she wanted the amount the developer was offering, why shouldn't everyone be able to get in for that price? To raise it for some and not all is definitely discriminatory. Brianbobcathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17762299406023279109noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10923291.post-6599531616035453452014-01-06T15:58:39.485-06:002014-01-06T15:58:39.485-06:00Dear anonymous,
Let me help you find your humanity...Dear anonymous,<br />Let me help you find your humanity: presume you watched some being you loved (a pet or a friend/family member) got sucked into the lake during a fierce storm. You'd like to do something about it, but you can't or shouldn't. It's just fate, it's nature that befell your loved one, so you objectively can't blame anyone (just like your "law" argument). Does your loss hurt any less? Do you just walk away and say "oh well, that the way life is..." NO - you forever wish the better outcome had occurred. These people are looking for that life preserver, or that rope and none of its working. They know what's being lost, and somehow all this happening within the letter of the law doesn't help soothe the outcome.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08724956536031640550noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10923291.post-81469805281615428012014-01-06T15:55:30.175-06:002014-01-06T15:55:30.175-06:00When someone wants to exempt themselves from the r...When someone wants to exempt themselves from the rules that govern everyone else, that's called breaking the law, no matter how neat the procedures may be. <br /><br />Do you really expect us to believe that a vacant lot is a good investment for the owners? It makes sense only if they believe they can subvert the current law, supported by the community, that protects the neighborhood from still more overbuilding. <br /><br />The owners being true to their word is not shocking. Their spitefulness, cynicism, and selling out their community for a big personal payday is. Lynn Beckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03759748613223711212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10923291.post-42498370298764525242014-01-06T15:32:09.815-06:002014-01-06T15:32:09.815-06:00I never saw anything or observed anything that sug...I never saw anything or observed anything that suggested the owners wanted to break the law. They wanted an upzoning and it wasn't granted.<br /><br />They said from the very beginning they had plans to tear down the house if the law allowed it. The law allows it and they waited the required 90 days so now it's coming down. <br /><br />The owners are being true to their word. Why is anyone shocked by that?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10923291.post-21543495416646559952014-01-06T14:06:35.226-06:002014-01-06T14:06:35.226-06:00Anonymous, then you must not understand the underl...Anonymous, then you must not understand the underlying principles of zoning either.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10923291.post-28639964662617286682014-01-06T14:06:30.651-06:002014-01-06T14:06:30.651-06:00So you don't believe in the rule of law? Or in...So you don't believe in the rule of law? Or in your mind is the law just for "the little people"?<br /><br />The facts are these: The owner wanted to break the law, to get an exemption from the law so they could make more money at the expense of the community and its character. Their demand was denied and now they're going to punish the law-abiding community by tearing down the house out of spite, even though there appears to be prospective buyers for it. <br /><br />What don't you understand about how repulsive this is?Lynn Beckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03759748613223711212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10923291.post-25715171077153558382014-01-06T13:56:13.549-06:002014-01-06T13:56:13.549-06:00"If the scorched-earth tactics deployed to de..."If the scorched-earth tactics deployed to destroy the Phillips house succeed..."<br /><br />The new owners wish to demolish it. They own it. You don't. I don't understand this whole "the architecture is more legally powerful than the owner's right to do what he wants with his property" thing. It's odd.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com