I live not too far from the houses and I don't mind them. They are selling for $2.5 M and raising the value of my home if they get it.

I think the lack of windows on the side are due to the other homes to be built that will butt right up to the existing ones. A lot of $$$ for your neighbors to be right there but I bet they sell 'em.

These architects did a house on Cortland that looks nice - a lot of windows and with the same building materials.

I agree with Velma. Your comments do not sound as if they come from an architectural background but as someone that is simply voicing an opinion about something he doesn't care for.

I agree, the building on its own looks very stark but thank you for posting the picture of the sign because it places the building in context with what's being built around it. Context is so important because it's what makes the entire block read together as unified or not.

You would be surprised about the oddly placed windows if you were to ever experience the space from the inside. Architecture isn't just about applying an aesthetic to the exterior of a building (I wish Florida architects would catch on to this) but of creating SPACE. Placement of windows should be chosen to serve the function of what's taking place inside and how it relates (or not) to the outside. Have you ever lived in a house where there was only one wall on which to place an entertainment center and it just happens to be across from a west facing window so that you can't watch TV in the afternoon? These things need to be considered in designing a space to be functional.

As far as the large orange rectangles near the windows, if you've ever studied modern art, you would know that the pattern created with the "odd assortment of windows" pays homage to Piet Mondrian's work. The few dashes of color you mentioned add a nice contrast and balance to the building. Would you have preferred the entire building painted in one color and had a large orange box sitting on the site?

Chicago has a very rich history in architecture. Frank Lloyd Wright was ahead of his time and has had much influence there. The aesthetic you are used to seeing is based on what the architecture was of that particular time when it was built. A lot of things are to be considered in creating a building such as function, site factors, available materials, technology, cost factors, building codes, zoning regulations, context, I could go on and on. One of the main reasons that new buildings look so bad is because of cost factors. Architects have to decide where the most important place is to spend the money in their budget. Every extra corner drives up the cost as does adding extra trim around the windows. If you've ever done a comparison between older and newer buildings, you'll realize the difference has a lot to do with the windows and materials used. Older homes have a depth that newer ones don't because the windows were trimmed with deeper wood or brick or the windows were recessed far enough that when the sun changes direction, it casts beautiful shadows on the building making the facade richer and adding a finer scale to the details. These details used to be hand crafted by people who took pride in their work. Today, everything is about money. Construction costs are skyrocketing and we can't afford to put that level of detail into a building made out of materials that have a very short lifespan. So the architect has the choice to glue on foam bands (yes, that's what I said, foam and glue) around the building to make it look like a Tuscan villa or (s)he can be honest about the materials being used and let them be what they are instead of creating a fake facade reminiscent of a Disney theme park. If you ever travel to Florida, you'll understand what I mean. And if you ever travel to Europe, you'll see that new construction looks like the picture above and not like the typical Mediterranean facades we're used to seeing plastered all over a country that's no where near the Mediterranean Sea.

I believe that the architect did a nice job on that building and I would love to tour the inside to see how the space interacts with the street. It seems to me that there is a lot of private space in the house while the penetration on the front of the building allows a lot of natural light in and allows the home owners to engage in the street energy without a lot of intrusion.

I have a saying that I believe that people like the things they do only because they don't know any better. I just had the thought that the reverse is true as well that many people don't like certain things because they're not educated about it. I'm not saying that you're not educated, but it's clear that you are not in the subject of architecture otherwise you would have been more specific in your critique as to what is wrong with the building other than you simply don't like it.

I hope that in addressing your concerns, it's helped you to better understand the building and this type of architecture. You should try to get a tour of the place from the inside when it's finished. I bet you'll see it through new eyes and appreciate it more.

What a poorly written article. Not much to write about in Chicago these days Jeremy? I'd love to see some snapshots on what you find attractive in respect to architecture - possibly the suburban cookie cutter hell that the majority of Americans seem to be gravitating towards these days?

So.. are all the commenters real-estate agents? They need to learn how to spell.

Does ANYONE remember the gorgeous loft building, probably 100+ years old that was there before the "urban sandbox?" (The name fits the neighborhood, as "Liquor Park" has replaced Wrigleyville as the Chad and Trixie playground)

It was solidly built and would have probably lasted another 100 with proper care taken. It could have been rehabbed a bit and sold as condos. Do you know that Chicago was #1 in teardowns in the country last year? Yeah, we have a wonderful architectural history. But it's being lost, block by block. And unsold, ugly, half built or cheaply built condoliths have replaced single family brick bungalows and affordable rental units. The economy is going to hell. Hope some of these condos turn into affordable rental units when those who bought them to flip them get screwed.

Unfortunately for Mr. Westgard, we no longer live in the 1920's. I'm sorry but if there is an empty lot needing a building, would you suggest resurrecting the dead to erect an old building? It is simply not cost effective to build the way we did in the past. Everything is done by machine today. If you were to have a craftsman (if you could find one) hand detail a building like they did in the 1920's, "real people" wouldn't be able to afford it.

And just out of curiosity, do you drive a vintage car, only use a landline, and still hand write your letters instead of emailing? Why is it that people are ok with moving forward with technology but when it comes to architecture, they're stuck in the past? It doesn't take much to become un-educated about a subject. Pick up a copy of Dwell or Metropolis magazine and learn about your new environment the way you learned to use Windows XP or your iPhone.

Modern buildings are going to be built, despite your resistance. There is a quote that I apply to all areas of my life that has helped me deal with a lot of things that don't appeal to me. I really wish I knew who said it but it may help you to live with the cards you've been dealt.

"If you don't like something, change it. If you can't change it, change the way you think about it."

There are many homes that have adapted modern methods and materials to build historic looking homes and that is exactly what they are...historic LOOKING. And they look horrible. They don't have the depth and character that old buildings have because the materials we use today are cheap and lack mass. It's a slap in the facade to the original buildings. You cannot celebrate something by trying to copy it. It's like a guest showing up in a white dress to a wedding.

You CAN however, draw from some of the elements of older buildings and introduce them into new ones to give it the same flavor but to reproduce a historical style is inauthentic which makes the building lack in any type of integrity.

Poor taste is a matter of opinion, obviously. Poor design is a matter of training. This building, from what I can see of it, was designed well. I don't live in that neighborhood so whether it is in context or not is of another matter. I can't answer that without more information as I have on some of the other posts.

For the record, I'm not trying to be negative, I'm trying to make the point that just because you don't happen to like something doesn't mean the design is poor, it simply means you don't like it. And just because I happen to like it, doesn't make it good either. I'm basing my decision on my training in architecture.

Criticizing developers is so cliche! BTW, have you heard or Dwell magazine? I would start you education on moder architecture right there.