Big Burling Street Development Gets A Big Demo Permit

1660 North Burling Street demolition permitted1660 North Burling Street, circa 2009, via Google Street View

A new development we told you about in December coming to a vacant lot on North Burling Street in Lincoln Park will, it turns out, fill more than that empty space. A demolition permit was issued on January 22 to bring down the residence and its detached garage at 1660 North Burling Street. That will allow extra space for the new condos permitted for 1658 North Burling.

1658 North Burling Street construction permitted

Turns out, this isn’t the only lot to be filled by 1658 North Burling. Image via Google Street View

1660 North Burling Street demolition permitted

1660 North Burling Street and garage, from the alley. Image via Google3 Street View

According to real estate records, 1660 North Burling was built in 1892. Development Group LLC Quantum Capital, the developer putting up the eight-unit building, purchased the home in September for $4.5 million. DemoX is named as the contractor for the razing, at a reported cost of $14,000. It is presumed they’ll get started right away, though they can’t be blamed if they wait a few days until our sub-zero temperatures go away.

Subscribe to YIMBY’s daily e-mail

Follow YIMBYgram for real-time photo updates
Like YIMBY on Facebook
Follow YIMBY’s Twitter for the latest in YIMBYnews

.

11 Comments on "Big Burling Street Development Gets A Big Demo Permit"

  1. Hell ya! Let’s keep wiping away our history!!! Awesome!

    • It’s awesome if you care about housing that people can live in.

      • We can do both. There are plenty of empty lots, this is why we need to be okay with going above 5 stories all over the city. 8-10 stories is perfect in my opinion and with no-minimal parking, we don’t even need tall high rises in most cases.

        • I’m a builder/developer in Chicago and it’s not so simple. Cities need planning, otherwise you end up like LA or Houston, where it’s a sprawl and people have 8 story buildings next to single family home, which erodes neighborhood feels. It’s not right to just throw up 10 story buildings anywhere there’s a vacant lot. Not to mention, the financials of construction change drastically when you push past 5 stories. The construction type is different and more projects wouldn’t pencil except in extremely expensive neighborhoods. Even the jump to 4 stories is expensive since you’re required to put in an elevator, sprinklers, etc. I’m keeping it simple here, but there’s a lot to consider. It’s not as simple as you’re stating. Not to mention, vacant lots that are owned by the City, sure they can be released to be built on, but you cannot force private owners of vacant property to sell or build.

        • It shouldn’t need to be said, but we can also get more creative with the repurposing older buildings. Hypothetically speaking, why not renovate the existing building and add a huge addition in the side yard.

  2. William Preston | January 24, 2026 at 4:53 pm | Reply

    I bought the house at 1660 N Burling St. in 1974 for $8,500. It was a four apartment building then. I renovated it for a several years and sold it in 1984 for over $250,000.The people who bought it from me expanded it and renovated it more. It is sad to see these old house getting torn down. I was married in that house.

  3. William Preston | January 25, 2026 at 9:48 am | Reply

    This house is in an area that was not burned by the Chicago Fire. The fire stopped a block or so east. This house started as a small frame cottage, probably on log piers, most likely before the fire. Later, it was raised and the basement and first floor were built underneath it. Then, probably in 1892, they added the very urban looking front addition. The second floor joists are notched into a heavy timber sill (12 x 12 or so) which is proof that it was original a frame cottage on piers.

  4. SHAME ON CHICAGO! AND ALL THOSE COMPLICIT IN DESTROYING OUR HISTORY.

  5. And for those who care about the truth, the lot directly south of the building was not a VACANT lot. It is a side yard and garden. I know, I lived there.

  6. William Preston | January 26, 2026 at 8:27 pm | Reply

    The lot directly south of 1660 N. Burling was purchased by me when I owned 1660. I bought it from the City who had acquired it in a tax sale action. I bought it for $20,000 in about 1979 or 1980. I put black dirt, sod and a hedge around the lot and built a garage on the alley line. There was still a vacant lot to the south, which the next owners purchased to add to their garden.

Leave a Reply to JK60626 Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.


*