The Chicago Tribune gnashes its teeth about teardowns in Winnetka, the slowing phenomena of removing one house to build another in areas where land values are high.
The preservationists howl a bit, a group or two concerned with coherent neighborhoods doesn't like the juxtaposition of faux tudor with faux georgian buildings. But the main issue is skipped, I think.
Houses being torn down are of lower value than the replacement house built in its place. If it isn't the developer loses money. There are some real eyesores, even in Winnetka, thrown up during the Depression to split a large lot and stave off bankruptcy. The issue becomes, when is it OK to interfere with your neighbors choice in housing. Most of the teardowns should be applauded. What comes in to replace them are generally high quality, if not exceptional architecture, close enough to it.
Any thoughts from North Shore Readers?