Naperville's teardown trend - what do you think?

I think it is good for Naperville. It brings in a bigger tax base and people willing to spend money in the downtown area.

Historical charm is only valued by people who don't have to live within the constraints put on them by living in a designated 'historical' house. People who say the charm should be preserved should live in those houses. Let everyone else live how they want, within proper zoning laws.

Are you kidding me? The Naperville Sun discovered people are tearing down outmoded homes and building giant McMansions in their place? Ummm, 1995 just called and they want their news back.

Most of the new homes are sure better to look at than the more modest homes they replaced. Of course beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

When we look at the bigger issues of eminent domain and zoning and property rights, etc. it sure would be nice to build what you want on your own land. If we start with a bare piece of ground, whoever puts in the first shovel usually gets that option. The next question then is should future property owners forever after be hindered by the first persons choices or budget?

If a property owner chooses to have a rose in a cactus patch... isn't that their right?

If a propery owner chooses to buy a property in a historic district should they be forever after restricted to keep the flavor and charm of the neighborhood? If the answer to that question is yes, then why does that only seem to apply to residential property? Why are the developers free to transform the downtown retail zone into something that no longer even closely resembles downtown a few years ago and residents just a few blocks away do not have the same freedom?

There are some aspects of loss of affordable housing that result from teardowns that have not been fully thought through. I also believe we have to realize that some people, especially seniors on fixed incomes have seen the assessed value of their property values skyrocket because of the changes in their neighborhood. True their property is now worth a lot more on paper. But many of them do not want to sell and only want to live out their retirement years in the home they have occupied for many, many years. Some of these seniors can no longer easily afford the property taxes and maybe we can find a way to "freeze" their total property tax at a certain age and then let the assessor settle up with the balance due when the property is either sold by the senior or passed on to their estate.

Assuming that all homeowners are equally nice:

*Does a builder have the right to: blot out the sun in their neighbors yards, build three stories of windows looking into their neighbors back yard and rear bedroom windows and does the builder have the right to flood out the surrounding lots since their is no where for the water to go?

If you live in Naperville, the answer is yes.

It's not just bad for Naperville, it's bad for ALL older neighborhoods. Many that own homes in an older established area have owned for a long time. When property values are artificially inflated by these monstrosities it results in many of the older long time home owners being force out by the excessive real estate taxes.

Both of my Napervillian senior citizen relatives get a tax break that keeps the property tax reasonable.

The #1 reason that drives this process is Pride!!!!!!!!!(and not the pride you are thinking of)

"... Pride ( or hubris or vanity) is considered the original and most serious of the seven deadly sins, and indeed the ultimate source from which the others arise. It is identified as a desire to be more important or attractive than others...."

Teardown the junkers!

Keep the beautiful, well groomed homes. Any size.

Teardowns need to be replaced with homes that are in keeping with the neighborhood. Style and size needs to be considered.

Builders need to stop building big ugly box homes! The teardowns on the 500 block of Jefferson should be an example to them. Build an all American Four Square, not your awful castle!

Homeowners need to keep up their property. Renters too!

Yep, my family is doing a teardown. Not a Mc mansion! We want some yard!

Its just Naperville being what it is and keeping what it doesnt want out by not letting them afford anything in the city.

The teardown trend is GREAT for downtown Naperville! All the commercial lots downtown are now larger and updated...why shouldn't the homes be?
I feel it keeps the city looking nicer and prolongs builders, buyers and owners interest in Naperville.

if you buy a house, it should be your right to do with it what you want (add on, repaint, or even tear it down and start fresh) but it should be in keeping with the existing homes within the neighborhood (city zoning, which should be questioned constantly based on their negligent history). It all boils down to having a house you want, in a location you want. I've walked around some of the historic areas near the train station and downtown, and a LOT of those houses are just OLD.. NOT historic.. and many are beyond repair and should be taken down, but that doesn't mean it needs to be replaced by a house that will take up the entire lot (big fish in a small pond values)and.. you also don't want to turn these older areas into a carbon copy of the rest of naperville... and cover the area with more tract homes 5 feet from one another. The historic area does retain some charm and beauty which does make it unique due to the lack of any beauty or charm further away from downtown in the land of subdivisions, which has already been ruined by overbuilding.

if you buy a house, it should be your right to do with it what you want (add on, repaint, or even tear it down and start fresh) but it should be in keeping with the existing homes within the neighborhood (city zoning, which should be questioned constantly based on their negligent history). It all boils down to having a house you want, in a location you want. I've walked around some of the historic areas near the train station and downtown, and a LOT of those houses are just OLD.. NOT historic.. and many are beyond repair and should be taken down, but that doesn't mean it needs to be replaced by a house that will take up the entire lot (big fish in a small pond values)and.. you also don't want to turn these older areas into a carbon copy of the rest of naperville... and cover the area with more tract homes 5 feet from one another. The historic area does retain some charm and beauty which does make it unique due to the lack of any beauty or charm further away from downtown in the land of subdivisions, which has already been ruined by overbuilding.

Two teardowns going on our street currently. One is tasteful, the other a little overdone and too large for the lot.

I think teardowns in general are not a bad thing. They replace old, unkept, decaying rental and owner-occupied homes with beautiful real estate that will prevent pockets of the inner neighborhoods from turning into rental slums.

On the other hand, council needs to keep tabs on the height restrictions (already passed) and apply some common sense when reviewing plans (does the house "fit" the yard, or does it look like a squeeze?) There's nothing worse than an elegant, expensive home built on a lot which is too small or incorrectly situated. Truly professional builders would prevent this from happening.

I think it is a shame that communities are starting to lose their special "character" by allowing teardowns to happen at such a high rate. It is becoming so that there is little difference between communities because all of the houses look the same. A good example is Hinsdale, where most of the new houses all look like they're made by the same builder. The character that once made Hinsdale unique is disappearing. Also, what about affordable housing? Smaller houses, which are usually enough for most families, and affordable, are being torn down to make huge houses that cost twice as much. How is that fair? Teardowns are reasonable when they replace a house that is too costly to repair, but if all they do is put a house that pushes all the way to the lot lines and dwarfs the other houses it is near, then it seems a little out of line.

Said By Anonymous on April 7, 2008 2:22 PM

"Its just Naperville being what it is and keeping what it doesnt want out by not letting them afford anything in the city."

But isn't that why people move to this community? I'll gladly pay even higher taxes if it means that the safety and desirablity of the community is maintained. There are plenty of suburbs around here, more affluent or less affluent, where people can choose to live. Naperville doesn't have to be the place for everyone.

Unfortunately for the Naperville community we are losing middle sized and common sense housing to the Mc Mansion trend. Moderate sized homes are not being built. The mega homes are irrational and simply not sustainable in the long run. Individuals and the community will be left with lots of houses that really don't make any sense. When will we figure this out? I believe sooner than you think.

Builders stop with the big ugly Mcmansions! Build something beautiful, Vintage style!

Why should there be any size restrictions for a house on a lot? Or height restrictions for that matter? If it is your property do we really need the city dictating any of this to us?

If it is ok for Edward Hospital to tower over its residential neighbors what is the practical difference if whatever is towering is a hospital or another house?

If it is ok for every commercial building in downtown to build out and up as high as they want on their land then why should residential property owners be treated any different? Just because one property owner wants a large yard doesn't mean every one want a large yard. Some may want a small yard and some may not want any at all and would rather have more house.

Back when the "historic district" was being built there wasn't any of this nonsense. Two guys could get together and design and build a house. A lot of times it was built with sweat equity... meaning they got it framed in, then moved in and finished it off as they could afford to. That would never fly in today's Naperville. Back "in the day" there weren't any inspections and wow most of these homes have managed to withstand the test of time for a 100 or more years. Now the City needs something like 20 different inspections before you can even move in. Why? Construction methods and materials are better than ever. Contractors have more training and education too.

But because the bureaucracy can, it does. Then you look at tragic situations like the porch collapse in Chicago a couple of years ago where a bunch of people were killed. Total failure of the inspection system and the City wasn't even found negligent. What are they supposed to be protection us from? The inspection system is so dysfunctional it should be completely dismantled and rebuilt. If passing an ispection isn't a guarantee that a building is safe then we really don't have any need for the inspection. We would be better off with an insurance policy from the builder. And it would cost us a whole lot less in the long run in terms of both time and money.

The zoning system isn't much better. Pay to play. Hire the right lawyers and the zoning commission and the city council will rezone every time. What is the point of zoning if everything gets rezoned? The graft and corruption exists in Naperville. You just need to know where and how to look for it.

QUOTING By Stinks on April 7, 2008 5:32 PM

But isn't that why people move to this community? I'll gladly pay even higher taxes if it means that the safety and desirablity of the community is maintained. There are plenty of suburbs around here, more affluent or less affluent, where people can choose to live. Naperville doesn't have to be the place for everyone.

You think your higher taxes are making you safe? LOL
Look at the murder that just happened because of punks doing drugs. The NPD was called serveral times and never did anything about it. Wake up if you think your in wonderland. You may keep the poor out like you want but that does not stop then from shooting you.

Aw, Stinks, given your comments in other posts, we know that what you mean by that is you'd gladly pay higher taxes "to keep those no-good minorities out of Naperville".

Also, Ric Romano (it's actually a reference to behind-the-times newsman Rick Romero, BTW) is right. This is not really a "sudden trend" in DuPage county by any means. Naperville, Downers Grove, Hinsdale, etc. are losing their vintage flair by tearing down old houses and stuffing shiny new McMansions onto every square inch of the lot that is physically possible. Some of these things have like 1 square foot of lawn. They look terrible, tacky, and very noveau-riche.

They look terrible, tacky, and very noveau-riche."

Yes, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

If we don't want terrible and tacky in residential Naperthrill then why do we allow it in commercial Naperthrill? Following that logic we wouldn't have WalMart, Sam's Club, Big Lots, and quite a few other places. Does anyone remember how garish Venture was??

Tacky? I guess only some of us drive down west Ogden Avenue and get to experience the ever increasing level of tackiness with all of the car dealers. Nine out of ten look like they were displaced from Cicero Avenue. Is that what we want in Naperthrill? What is really offensive to me as a veteran are the cheap sales pimps who exploit the American Flag by flying not only hundreds of flags, but more often than not hundreds of tattered American Flags. They should be ashamed. I would never buy a car from one of these cheap hustlers that have so little respect for the flag that they would exploit it in such a way!

Yet today we read that Naperville is starting up the "curb appeal" program to inspect residential homes. What a laugh! You would think the tax dollar whores at city hall would care more about the curb appeal of the commercial districts less they risk loosing a single tax dollar. Not a chance. These jerks are going to go out and inspect private homes and yet there are thousands of sign violations around town. Nearly every single strip mall has several sign violations, esp with all of the creaping use of banners, and temp signs, and they keep creeping out and out. Now the signs are off the property and into the right-of-way, medians, and parkways and the city does nothing.

But all these people at city hall have nothing better to do than to come out and inspect private homes? Curb appeal? They are going to save us from ourselves. Who is going to save us from them?

While in general I've always felt that if you bought a house it should be your right to do with it what you please, but within reason with respect to where you choose to buy your home.

Personally I find the teardowns and subsequent building of huge oversized monstrosities not all but most, as stepping over that line of reason.

As Anonymous asked: *Does a builder have the right to: blot out the sun in their neighbors yards, build three stories of windows looking into their neighbors back yard and rear bedroom windows and does the builder have the right to flood out the surrounding lots since their is no where for the water to go?

This is where the respect part comes in, there are rights on both sides of the fence. The neighbors might have choosen their home because it was their dream to own a home where the bright morning sunlight came through their bedroom windows to wake them, and the privacy the backyard provided as a quiet place to escape and unwind. In which case, if the new construction were as Anonymous described, the rights of owners of the new construction would effectively strip the owners of the home that is already in place of their right to maintain the very qualities that they bought their home for.

Aesthetically I must disagree with KeithOB's opinion that it keeps the city looking nicer. Taken individually each of these huge new homes may be attractive in appearance. But I have to say that the first thought that came to my mind upon seeing a row of them side by side, and the close proximity of each to the next, was that Naperville was starting to remind me of one of the first slum's I had ever seen, where the houses were so closely crowded together that the spaces between them seemed dark, dingy and dirty in the shadows they cast over them.

Finally I have to add, Anonymous stated it was Naperville's way of "keeping what it doesn't want out by not letting them afford anything in the city" to which Stinks replied "But isn't that why people move to this community? I'll gladly pay even higher taxes if it means that the safety and desirability of the community is maintained". Stinks: While it might maintain the desirability of the community, it maintaining the safety of the community would depend on your definition of safety. Sure that will work if violent crime such as the recent shooting is ones sole definition of safety. Personally my definition of safety is much wider than that, and based on my own personal experience wealth does not equal safety when you factor in "non-violent" crime. I have worked in Naperville for 26 years, and have lived in Naperville for 11 years, prior to moving here I lived in Joliet for 19 years. The amount of crime myself and my family were exposed to during the 19 years I lived in Joliet pales almost to obscurity compared to what we have experienced in just 11 years in Naperville. I have a tendancy to refer to this phenomenon as a sense of entitlement, it almost seems like some, not all, but some view that wealth as entitlement to do and take whatever they want without any remorse or responsibility, instead the primary concern is not getting caught. Now Stinks, I had to cut this to a reasonable size as once I started refering to the crime comparisons I found in providing examples that didn't seem so lengthy prior to writing them, once in text created a post the likes of which no one would want to read, so instead if you would like specific examples between you and I, I'm sure we can find a way in which I can provide them for you.

To Aurora on April 8, 2008 12:55 PM,

I think higher taxes make a community safer. Not absolutely safe, but safer.

It's not like the crime was a random act of violence. It was one set of losers killing another loser. I worry more about the random violence than this stuff.

To Kat on April 8, 2008 6:35 PM

I guess I'm really mostly concerned by acts of random violence. Petty thefts and vandalism, while disappointing and potentially costly, is not something I worry too much about .

If you've got stats, you can send them to stinks204 at gmail dot com.

Sent and thank you for your willingness to consider it.

Personally, I think it's rather sad. I'm a Naperville native - lived here my entire life. I remember Broker's department store, the Naper Theatre, the old fire station (now Lou Malnati's), the National Tea grocery store, Cock Robin, etc. I could go on and on. The teardowns all over town - not just in the residential sections, but in the commercial areas as well, just reinforce my feelings that Naperville no longer has that small town, hometown feel. It's just become another display of pretentiousness and excess. I'll be very sad when my childhood home is torn down and replaced with a gigantic, brick monstrosity that is too large for the lot, and unfortunately, it's just a matter of time.

Can the builders build something with charm, character? 1920 style, not big ugly boxes!

I think it would be a shame to grow up in Naperville all your life and one day decide to revisit your childhood home only to realize it was torn down to put up an ugly mansion.

Many probably dont care, especially when you have all the money, but to me that is quite sad.

I have lived in Naperville for 5 years and I try to see all the good and put blinders on to the other, but what I am constantly reminded of is people showing off how much money they have and throwing it in your face. I think this is a big example of it.
Got to have the biggest house in the neighborhood.

What happened to simplicity?
Maybe I belong in the country...

I apologize for repeating what you said Naperville Native.
I saw your post after I posted mine

Sad to say, builders build what people want and what they are willing to buy. After that they think about profit margin.

If there was a demand for charm they would peddle as much of it as they could. If red gutters and green shutters were all the rage the builders would be glad to supply and even charge a premium if they could.

Just consider what the monthly interest payment is on a builders construction load for one of these 2 million dollar houses. Not too many of the McMansions are built to order, most of these are spec houses so the builder wants something that will sell very, very quickly once it is completed. Every day one of these spec houses sits on the market unsold it can eat up around $300 of profit, plut taxes, plus utilities. Yep, sits 10 days that's $3,000 profit gone. And guess what? The asking price has already included a comfortable cushion to allow for market averages on how long it may likely take to sell.

Another facet of the teardowns is the number of derelict vacant houses in downtown that are reminiscent of a depressed inner-city. These houses are a repeated source of break ins and under age drinking parties that are the hallmark of gang activity.

If the market downturn continues, will the builders be allowed to convert their empty unsold mansions into six flat apartments like downtown Aurora and Elgin? Converting to a Duplex is an automatic in Naperville.

The third area of concern in the Downtown is the number of rental houses that are owned by amoral investors whether they are Builders, Realtors or speculators that are rented as apparent 7-11 stores like what has been described as the scene of the murder in S. Naperville last week. If renters look, dress and act like gang members, they probably are. If a house has foot and vehicle traffic like a convenience store, it probably is.

And finally, will the City allow builders to keep empty new houses off the tax rolls at their fair market values as a continuing subsidy?

Anyone who sees suspicious foot or vehicle traffic or drinking parties and isn't doing anything to report it and let the police investigate is responsible for the problems that develop if they ignore. We had a suspicious house in our area and let me tell you it was investigated after it was reported. Well more than investigated actually. At first I thought they were filming an episode of "Cops"... then I realized what was going down.

What makes you think empty new houses are off the tax rolls or that the city is subsidizing builders?

"What makes you think empty new houses are off the tax rolls or that the city is subsidizing builders?"

Point one, the police know that there are issues in the Downtown, watch the arrest reports. Unfortunately shutting down a 7-11 store type house is not easy from what I have seen. What can make it difficult is when you are talking about several addresses that are working in unison.

Point two, when are the new houses set to the market value tax?

After the occupancy permit is issued. How long can a house go without an occupancy permit, appears to be years. Moving furniture in seems to make it a model which also differs the taxes. From actual finish until the taxes are set to market appears to be two years if the house sits empty. If you have better knowledge on this one, I am open to input.

Just consider what the monthly interest payment is on a builders construction load for one of these 2 million dollar houses. Not too many of the McMansions are built to order, most of these are spec houses so the builder wants something that will sell very, very quickly once it is completed. Every day one of these spec houses sits on the market unsold it can eat up around $300 of profit, plut taxes, plus utilities. Yep, sits 10 days that's $3,000 profit gone. And guess what? The asking price has already included a comfortable cushion to allow for market averages on how long it may likely take to sell.

------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Would it not make more sense to incent the builders to tear down the shacks and tax them at the rate of just the dirt? Get rid of the extreme low-end-tenant rental properties and vacant attractive nuisance properties! Alternatively, if they want to rent them, force the new owners to bring the properties up to code. Carrot and a stick.

The City can not be so hard up for taxes that we have to endure the perpetual slum like conditions that exist in the downtown today.

Vacant lots that the builders can "build to order" seems to be the best way to manage what has become a mess. One way to make this happen is mandate how long construction can last, like not more than six months; then force the properties onto the tax rolls at fair market value. There are townships that have better rules for limiting the behavior of the builders.

Are all builders bad, are all builders good? No.