The McMansions are a) not ecologically sustainable, b) aesthetic disasters (they attempt to look "big" rather than looking welcoming), and c) bringing into the neighborhood a different, more entitled, less cultured, less egalitarian mindset.

Some tear downs, a small few in number, are very tastefully done and enhance the neighborhood. All of the tear downs come at a social cost however. It is the small, starter homes that are being lost. My friends and I all purchased the 2-3 bedroom ranch or bilevel homes with the 1950's kitchens and bathrooms. Most of us moved on to second homes within the village. These houses have disappeared from the village. It is very difficult for your typical young family to move into Western Springs if they are not wealthy. How does this change the fabric of a town? Of a school district? Wealth is not bad, but it is nice to have a diversity of economy in a village. On a separate note, it would be helpful if the village would create enforceable regulations (or just enforce the rules that exist) regarding the impact of large additions or new construction on neighbors. Just ask around, and someone has a horror story to tell about new flooding issues after next-door construction, and that is truly a shame.

Our Company has been helping buyers and sellers transact redevelopment property efficiently and effectively in WS for about 13 years.

What have we learned over that period? A couple of things:

1.Buyers want them and seller have them.
2. When there is controversy on the subject it most often centers around what goes up not what comes down.

Thanks,

Brian Hickey
Founder
teardowns.com

Brian,

If a private owner want to buy a property and rebuild it that is their right. But if you are a business who specializes in coming in and tearing down older homes to build large homes I feel your business is part of the problem. Who are are the buyers? If they come from outside the village I would say your business is contributing to the ruin of the character of Western Springs. Outsiders will not appreciate the history and character of the town. They just want a big new house. They should build one in a new suburb which can develops its own history and character over time.

As an example, there was a beautiful 1950's modern home at the corner of Maple and Woodland. I knew the family who owned it. It was architecturally and visually appropriate and beautiful for the site. It was torn down just a couple of years ago, you can still see the house on Google street view. The rebuild is just awful, way too big, grandiose and completely inappropriate for the lot. It just fills the whole space with no real added value except to show off somebody's wealth. What a shame. I hope someone had the sense to move the house to another lot at least but I doubt that happened.

I would like to see very strong regulations to control the visual ascetics of rebuilding which would preserve the feel of the neighborhoods. A home can be made larger without losing its general appearance and feel.

No to teardowns. First, their size gooses up property taxes of all adjacent properties. Municipal governments love teardowns and bend over backwards to accomodate developers - they get tax increases without a referendum - the "heavy" is the township assessor. Second, McMansions create drainage problems, both to adjacent properties as well as removing open earth for runoff - runoff which ends up overwhelming the storm sewers. Third, they destroy the community. In the 50's and 60's our town was economically diverse - you had white collar types as well as blue collar trades people. The smaller homes these people lived in are developer targets - whether the structure needs major repairs or not. Starter homes in this town are now rare - and that is wrong. We don't need the phony snobbery of the North Shore communities or Oak Brook. Fourth, this town eventually will have to address that it is on the state's list for NOT having affordable housing for those who don't have six figure incomes. Fifth, increasingly, younger couples do NOT want a McMansion - they can't afford the taxes and upkeep, don't want to do the necessary upkeep and prefer a considerable smaller building (but one which has all the electronic gadgetry and hi-tech). Last, as a long-time resident I'm sick and tired of non-resident developers coming into this community, ruining a neighborhood while pocketing their profit. Progress my foot - it is pure speculation at the community's expense.

Brian,

Thanks for your response. You just told us you are not in any way " involved in anyway with a tear down event"? Sorry, I just assumed with a company name "teardowns.com" you were somehow involved.

I certainly do not and would not deny you the right to do your business as you see fit. I just think the village should be more active in controlling the process so outside speculators cannot just build anything they want without village guidelines and input from the residents since it impacts them. That should not really impact you since there will always be buyers and sellers.

Perhaps property tax incentives for renovations would encourage more people to fix up an older, smaller home rather than tear down. My neighbors and I are in smaller, older homes on large (50' x 205') lots and fear a tear down every time a neighboring home goes on the block. We suspect being on a busy road (Wolf) inhibits some of the folks looking to tear down. It would be lovely to see more people renovate rather than raze. One of the advantages we've found in being in a smaller (but up to date- tile floors, granite countertops, modern garage) is that we have a real backyard in which to play and entertain. My children's friends mostly live in larger, newer homes, but the kids gush when they come over here that my kids have the best backyard ever. If there were some way to convince people that building lot-line to lot-line is a waste and an environmental hazard to the neighborhood . . .

As usual, enjoying the fantastic discussion and diverse voting on this!

If a home has been neglected to the point where it is cheaper to tear it down and build a new home than it is to make it reasonably inhabitable the market will decide. But once the natural drainage is blocked it is gone forever. And ordinance enforcement has not been consistent IMHP. And increased property taxes have done NOTHING to improve our crumbling old pipes and streets. Or to give us a sense of community.

This town is full of "Mc Mansion" style homes, I have been in one, they need flare guns in every hallway....
I personaly see this town as a large bank... Its filled with great people.. But, The money that is poured into homes could be used in donations towards the village.
We need a large section of town ( Old Town ) that doesnt have these huge houses all over the place.
This town is nicknamed "The Play Ground For the Rich " by CNN...
These houses are the reasons why.
I am only a 6th Grader, but i know enough to outsmart teenagers...
( espeecialy the teenagers that make this town a nightmare with arson, drinking, doing illegal drugs, and all sorts of other stuff) ....
I love this town, But its loosing its "historical punch" ..
In my opinion.. A tear down IS a tragity..

My mom and I used to live in a 20's brick home, with my grandparents, in 59'-64' - the 3900 block of Grove. If you know what 'Mayfield' of TV-land was, that was WS in those years. I loved living there.

I just street-viewed our old house (I live far away now) and was disappointed to see a photo of construction work, turning it into what I call one of the huge monstrosity homes that have gone up there in years past.

If nothing else, most of the ones I have seen there are aesthetically retching to me - huge but not attractive, too big for the lots. I know that people have families and have to live somewhere but it is still disappointing to see that done to some of these homes. I was there four years ago for the first time in a long time, walking around the old neighborhoods. It was fun to see and also good to see kids walking on their own back from lunch to my old school Laidlaw, even if someone did call the police on me (I was taking pictures throughout my walk) :)

It seemed still not far off from "Mayfield."

I'll try to personalize this discussion a little further. I grew up in a Hinsdale home built in the late 1800's - a great old lady, close to town and school, lots of character - the whole thing, I get it.

The house is still standing, kind of, I drive by it almost daily and wonder what will happen when the current owner becomes a seller. My experience tells me that the owner will sell to the buyer willing to pay the most $ (nothing new here).

The dilemma, question, issue, problem....? Let's take the preservation side (that seems to be where most of the angst is) - what is the cost of renovation, because as it sits now (I went through it recently) it is unlikely the new buyer wouldn't have interest in new this and that (kitchen, baths etc.).

What would a renovation project entail? Firstly, the basement is full of asbestos, the plumbing is a disaster, no A/C, windows are trouble, the electrical is dangerous, kitchen is unworkable by today's standards etc.

Anyone have any idea what it would cost to make it safe, somewhat efficient and user-friendly? My guess is about $1MM - now that's a spicy meatball :)

Again, like it or hate it - the buyer will be the only one to determine the fate of the old house. I often look at old photos of a city scape (i.e. Chicago's skyline) or suburban community (like WS) and when I do, I see change.

IMO, at the end of the day it should be about evolution not revolution.

Peace.

Brian

Thanks for sharing, guys! Nice to see some old stories and threads get fresh interest.