Article: Unity Temple Restoration

To control SPAM, you must now be a registered user to post to this Message Board.

EFFECTIVE 14 Nov. 2012 PRIVATE MESSAGING HAS BEEN RE-ENABLED. IF YOU RECEIVE A SUSPICIOUS DO NOT CLICK ON ANY LINKS AND PLEASE REPORT TO THE ADMINISTRATOR FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION.

This is the Frank Lloyd Wright Building Conservancy's Message Board. Wright enthusiasts can post questions and comments, and other people visiting the site can respond.

You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, *-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned (and your service provider being informed). The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators of this forum have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic at any time they see fit.
Post Reply

DRN
Posts: 3921
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:02 am
Location: Cherry Hill, NJ

Post by DRN »

A hair and blood pressure raising item from the article:
The event came at a time in which some have expressed concern that a proposed 28-story tower, which would be constructed nearby on Lake Street, could create shadows on Unity Temple. If constructed, the building, presented by Golub & Company, would become the tallest in the village.

"That building will cast a shadow over Unity Temple every morning, every day of the year; and if you've been in this building, you know light is a big part of it," said historic preservation specialist Stephen Kelley.
See this related article:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/colu ... story.html

SDR
Posts: 18830
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Here in the Bay Area, we are told, homeowners in many neighborhoods are resisting the construction of multifamily dwellings, even those whose size would not exceed that of a generous single-
family home -- while such homes continue to receive planning permission. Meanwhile, teachers and other public employees cannot find affordable housing in the communities where they work.

I suppose this phenomenon is not new, nor is it confined to American cities.

S

Paul Ringstrom
Posts: 4271
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 4:53 pm
Location: Mason City, IA

Post by Paul Ringstrom »

This article discusses the new 28 story apartment to be built on the same block.
http://www.oakpark.com/News/Articles/12 ... ty-Temple/

The shading problem is one I had not thought about but is significant.
Owner of the G. Curtis Yelland House (1910), by Wm. Drummond

SDR
Posts: 18830
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

The shading of adjacent properties by tall buildings was first addressed by zoning regulation in 1916.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1916_Zoning_Resolution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equitable ... Manhattan)

Wikipedia's use of parentheses in URLs makes hot links inoperable; select "New York City" from the list presented.

S

DRN
Posts: 3921
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:02 am
Location: Cherry Hill, NJ

Post by DRN »

I'm all for higher density, as well as housing types and prices to fit all resident budgets within the community, transit oriented development, walkable communities, etc. I just question the logic of placing a 290' tall building along a street populated primarily with 30’-60' tall buildings, particularly when the proposed site is about 100' due east of a national historic landmark that was designed around the concept of sun illuminating its clerestories and skylights.

This town is the cradle of modern architecture in America and it might be diminishing its own historical crown jewel in the quest for tax ratable property for itself and profit for a developer.


Roderick Grant
Posts: 9884
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

The word "luxury" used to describe an apartment building that would cater to residents who use public transportation and are in need of apartment buildings makes no sense. Luxury buyers drive their own cars and can live wherever they want. This huge luxury building would place further strain on traffic, do nothing for public transit and not accommodate those who actually have a need for more apartment space, as opposed to high-end houses.

SDR
Posts: 18830
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

While I am sympathetic with those hoping to prevent an atrocity, there doesn't seem to be a necessity in dismissing an entire class of urbanites -- namely, those few who were born with a silver spoon in their mouth, the larger number
who have climbed and been helped to a higher echelon, and the growing number of shockingly-well-paid "new professionals" -- all of whom might wish to live in a nice community, in new quarters which they can afford, and who want
or need to be within easy striking distance of the big city . . .

This would be the target market for the developers of such a tower ? In five years, those who still need to own or control an individual conveyance, in such circumstance, will be driving little electric bubbles or that year's Smart Car . . .

Buildings are tailored to their physical context by way of codes, appeals, lenders, community outrage and activism -- as absorbed and regurgitated by architects. Like many things in life, the result is nearly always some sort of compromise
between a number of limiting factors. Whoever can exert the greatest influence -- on the entities that matter and will decide -- gets the most benefit from the performance. Let the games . . . begin !

S

Roderick Grant
Posts: 9884
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

The 5-year date for the reduction of "those who still need to own or control an individual conveyance" or are satisfied with "little electric bubbles or that year's Smart Car" may be approximate for Frisco, where owning a car is about as inconvenient as it is in Manhattan, but for the bulk of America, it is far too short, if achievable at all. GM is shutting down factories that make sedans, because the buyers want SUVs. Even if gas prices increase to $25/gallon, there will be plenty of people who will drive rather than wait in the rain at a bus stop. Private conveyance will never be eliminated nor reduced to claustrophobic bubbles.

The real threat of this particular tower is what it portends. Wilshire Boulevard in Westwood used to be lined with modest 2- to 3-story apartment buildings and "Main Street" type commercial buildings. One big luxury tower edged its way into the neighborhood, and now it is another urban canyon of extravagantly expensive condos, creating a horrendous traffic problem that did not exist before. If that can happen in Westwood, it can happen in Oak Park.

DavidC
Posts: 7399
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:22 pm
Location: Oak Ridge, TN

Post by DavidC »


DavidC
Posts: 7399
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:22 pm
Location: Oak Ridge, TN

Post by DavidC »


DavidC
Posts: 7399
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:22 pm
Location: Oak Ridge, TN

Post by DavidC »


Post Reply