SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   General Development (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=86)
-   -   CHICAGO | General Developments (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=105764)

SamInTheLoop Mar 25, 2015 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyguy_7 (Post 6964850)
It's an intelligent, thought provoking post. Too many social and economic issues account for both the positive and negative aspects of Gentrification. We could go on and on. Also, notice how he didn't belittle anyone who differed in opinion? Worth re-reading if you didn't catch that.. .... .....

There's a difference between belittling a person and belittling woefully inferior ideas....

LouisVanDerWright Mar 25, 2015 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Via Chicago (Post 6964261)
Who cares that SROs and mental health clinics are closed as long as we get our cocktail bars, gourmet mac and cheese, and luxury micro apartments, right?

This wouldn't be a problem if it weren't illegal to build SRO's as-of-right on every single square foot of land in the city.

Quote:

are suddenly co-opting the culture and piggybacking on years of grassroots hard work now that its suddenly trendy to be there.
Lol, "co-opting the culture"? Really, that's not at all what gentrification is about if you look at this from any perspective not tainted by white guilt. These neighborhoods are redeveloping because of the quality of their location. People aren't moving into these neighborhoods en masse so they can get a good authentic taco. Sure that's a perk, but the neighborhoods, particularly in Chicago, have developed almost linearly without exception based upon the desirability of the location starting with the near North side working North then gradually spreading to the Northwest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Via Chicago (Post 6964312)
the problem with this forum is it is a echo chamber. a lot of people of the same sort of economic advantages patting each other on the back and cheer-leading the same causes, which they stand to gain from in one way or another.

im not anti-development by any stretch. but there are a lot of perspectives that are sorely lacking a mouthpiece, not just here but in the broader narrative. theres a pervasive attitude of "i got mine, the outcomes of anyone else is irrelevant"

I think it's more split along the lines of "people who actually have skin in the game" and "people who have never done this before". I know that both TUP, myself, and a few of the other regular voices on here have bought, managed, and owned buildings in neighborhoods like Pilsen, Little Village, Ukranian Village, and Avondale. We understand the depreciation cycle, we've known tenants in these areas for years, we understand the culture, we've seen how this works, we've dealt with the city, so of course we are going to see the cycle and, frankly, the business as what it is.

It's very easy to sit back and say "well shabby buildings are like Honda's, don't dis them for not being a BMW" if you've never dealt with a 110 year old tank of a building that is in complete disrepair. Guess what, as the owner of a Honda that is going on two decades, I can tell you that eventually cars wear out, buildings do to, but you can't just crush old buildings and recycle them. You need to completely rehab them inside and out which means higher rents ("gentrification") so the numbers actually work. If the current citizens don't have the money and no one else moves in, then the neighborhood rusts and eventually goes the way of Lawndale or Englewood. Neighborhoods like Little Village are perilously close to experiencing serious decay unless they see major reinvestment. That's what us "gentrifiers" do and it takes serious time, money, and guts.

And before you jump on your high horse about "I've got mine" and "have some empathy" realize that most people don't just go around buying buildings and then evicting all of the tenants so they can raise the rents. At least that's not how it is in Chicago. It's much more fine grained that than. I don't think I've ever forced someone out of an apartment because their rent was too low. I am busy enough turning over the units in my portfolio that have gone vacant "naturally" because someone moved out. The difference is, once I've put $10k into a unit, I sure as hell can't rent it out at $400 for a 2BR anymore. So that rent's going up to $800. I have dozens of tenants who are paying low rents who I just let be. I raise their rent maybe 3% a year and, if they pay, I let them be. Why? Because they are good people, well really, because it is good business.

One building I own I actually bought from the bank after the family living in it lost it to the bank. Various family units used to live in all six of the apartments. 4 of the 6 apartments are still rented to their family at well below market rents of $450 for a 2 BR. They leave me alone and put up with the relative "shabbiness" of their units because they know they are getting a deal. I'm OK with that because I've got bigger fish to fry than chasing away paying customers so I can spend money on renovating their units. But until you look at the shape many of these buildings in these areas are in and the kind of work that needs to be done, you can't say shit about gentrification. The building owned by the family that I described above would have been destroyed if I hadn't come in and purchased it. Practically all of the exterior elements of the building were failing and they already took out $300k in loans to make improvements that they somehow blew on something else. This type of situation is rampant in these areas and that's mainly what the "gentrifiers" are buying. We aren't picking off well maintained three flats, we are buying the properties that have significant repair costs priced in. These are the properties that need the most attention and could very well be the next vacant lot.

Have you ever bought an abandoned property and then fought off a city demo case and multiple other building code cases? I have...

SamInTheLoop Mar 25, 2015 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by munchymunch (Post 6964895)
But Lend Lease Joining in IS big, Lend Lease has mad capital. This could lead to a major development on these parcels. I'm very excited as what is planned.


Yes, yes, yes - and yes. To translate for him into WeirdAaronese: Riverside South (or whatever this massive development will be called) is NOW A THING!

LouisVanDerWright Mar 25, 2015 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baronvonellis (Post 6964137)
Well a few stops down the pink line is Little Village an already Mexican enclave ;)

How do you think they ended up in Little Village? The community filled up Pilsen and they gradually moved West into little village. That's of course exactly why complaints against gentrification are almost always complete tripe. Communities and neighborhoods are not static things, they change, that change is what makes cities interesting. Hipsters moving into Pilsen and pushing out Mexicans is no more gentrification than Mexicans moving into Pilsen and pushing out Czechs. It's no more gentrification than the current process of Chads and Trixies pushing hipsters out of Ukranian Village and Wicker Park. Periodic changes are necessary for cities to be truly dynamic and diverse and, as such, no one gets to lay claim to any area as "theirs" unless they actually own it.

If you are a hipster in Logan Square, buy your two flat so a Yuppie can't push you out.

If you are a Mexican in Little Village, buy your six flat so a Yuppie can't push you out.

If you are a gay in Boystown, buy your condo so a Cubs Fan can't push you out.

That's how the system works. The best part about this is that the "well they don't make enough money" argument is totally cancelled out by the fact that land values are heavily linked to the income of the local residents which is why you can buy a 6 flat in Little Village for $75,000. This is also why we have laws forcing banks to lend equally in all neighborhoods and to not discriminate based on race or other factors.

LouisVanDerWright Mar 25, 2015 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chi-Sky21 (Post 6964276)

Wow thanks, that's gonna be sizable. You know the economy is starting to heat up when an $100,000,000 project completely flies under the radar.

http://www.terraengineering.com/wp-c...evelopment.jpg
terraengineering.com

200,000 SF and 177,000 SF. Those have to be reasonably tall buildings to achieve that much space on what looks to be about a 50,000 SF and 30,000 SF floor plate respectively. I wonder what this will look like?

LouisVanDerWright Mar 25, 2015 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wierdaaron (Post 6964637)
CMK owning the land between River City and Roosevelt isn't news, but them buying the land north of River City would be.

Seems unlikely that those two lots could be connected, unless they built over River City (LVDW??????) or tunneled under it.

I've probably said it before, but I'm very excited about the notion of these lots getting developed, and CMK has a decent eye for design, but outside of condo projects they haven't shown much diversity in project type. You could use these lots for a big mixed-use development with mall-like retail.

Someone here said that Lend Lease is planning to hit Chicago hard with a new development, which lead to speculation that they're going to revive the Lake Meadows megaproject, but maybe they're going to hit hard in the South Loop.

This is not the cantilever project, lol, but you may be onto something:

The mall inside of River City (yes there is one if you didn't know that) is owned separately from the condo portion by a group of developers who know what they are doing. I would not be at all surprised if they work out some kind of deal with CMK to finally activate that space properly.

SamInTheLoop Mar 25, 2015 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen (Post 6959221)
Sterling Bay is a client, so I should tread lightly with my criticism, but I'm not a fan on the blue glass. I've seen shots where the glass looks really blue and others where it looks clear. Guess I need to pay the site a visit to confirm firsthand.

Chicago Architecture Blog:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-MdLidZKsoj...ultonannex.jpg

http://www.1kfulton.com/development/construction.php
http://imageshack.com/a/img537/5568/CmjV3Z.jpg


(apologies for being late to the game, but this detail is so bad it absolutely needs to be reposted)

Sterling Bay is not a client (even if they were, this transgression is so acute, I'd still call the fuckers out!), so I'll take it from here:

What in the world did they do to the new building (annex) with the brick - and beige - elements?!? That's preposterously bad. I can't believe they would even attempt something so obviously foolish......what the hell were they thinking? The annex was the one piece of this project that I thought would really salvage the entire thing (I'm not overly impressed with the cold storage rehab itself).....I'm mean, the renderings were pretty sharp - but with this single stroke here, they've completely ruined this thing aesthetically.

Do they take Millennials for absolute morons? What draws them to the lofty warehouse into office reuse spaces in not insignificant part is the authenticity, the character, the history, etc.......Sterling Bay and its architect are simply flat-out mocking them here with this awful design choice...............

I'm starting to come around to a view that Sterling Bay has been at least as - if not moreso (probably) - lucky and connected than it has been smart and sophisticated with its successes to date in the techey/creative office space trend (fad? - fads can last for a little while, mind you)........

Folks, this is neither smart, nor sophisticated.....this is some major ham-fisted shit design.....

SamInTheLoop Mar 25, 2015 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright (Post 6964941)

I think it's more split along the lines of "people who actually have skin in the game" and "people who have never done this before".

And before you jump on your high horse about "I've got mine" and "have some empathy"

Have you ever bought an abandoned property and then fought off a city demo case and multiple other building code cases? I have...


Sheeshh......please - c'mon, I bet you've never even run a $25 bil hedge fund........or had a tech firm you've created launch into a $10 bil IPO..........

LouisVanDerWright Mar 26, 2015 12:57 AM

Started 5 years ago with $5,000 and a $40k/year job with $50,000 of student loans, I'm not exactly from old money. Just got lucky that I wasn't able to buy before the bust. I live on a shoestring budget and put every dime I earn back into my business.

ardecila Mar 26, 2015 2:31 AM

The CMK project is indeed good news. My semi-informed hunch is that they will go for a mix of highrises and lower-scaled buildings (townhouses, etc) like a modernist Kinzie Park. It will not be wall-to-wall highrises ala Lakeshore East, which create the need for new infrastructure to serve them.

Mr Downtown Mar 26, 2015 3:42 AM

^And I've been told Perkins + Will is doing the planning.

munchymunch Mar 26, 2015 4:08 AM

http://i.giphy.com/8fen5LSZcHQ5O.gif

harryc Mar 26, 2015 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marothisu (Post 6964922)
In less exciting but still good news, the zoning commission approved at least some zoning changes for 4025 N Broadway which is 6 stories and 20 units. It goes it'll go place of a vacant Ace Hardware.

http://assets.dnainfo.com/generated/...extralarge.jpg

Hope somebody salvages the terracotta .

the urban politician Mar 26, 2015 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 6965207)
The CMK project is indeed good news. My semi-informed hunch is that they will go for a mix of highrises and lower-scaled buildings (townhouses, etc) like a modernist Kinzie Park. It will not be wall-to-wall highrises ala Lakeshore East, which create the need for new infrastructure to serve them.

I am definitely keeping my excitement reserved, especially after the disasters of Roosevelt Collection and the Dearborn Park I and II planning failures.

I am fed up with modernist planning. I like modernist design for individual buildings, but modernist planning is a joke, an absolute failure.

I expect no less from the site plan than cul de sacs, winding dead end roads, etc etc. Bring me a classical streetgrid with some active ground level spaces, and I could care less if the buildings are designed by a teenager. That to me will make this a successful district. But I'm sure that's too simple, after all we HAVE to make it cooler than that, right? :rolleyes:

SamInTheLoop Mar 26, 2015 1:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright (Post 6965107)
Started 5 years ago with $5,000 and a $40k/year job with $50,000 of student loans, I'm not exactly from old money. Just got lucky that I wasn't able to buy before the bust. I live on a shoestring budget and put every dime I earn back into my business.


I know I'm still getting the hang of this using sarcasm and facetiousness thing on the internet - hell, maybe of this internet thing in general - but I still can't believe you took my last comment at straight face value and provided some credentials to support your case.....

SamInTheLoop Mar 26, 2015 1:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 6965495)
I am definitely keeping my excitement reserved, especially after the disasters of Roosevelt Collection and the Dearborn Park I and II planning failures.

I am fed up with modernist planning. I like modernist design for individual buildings, but modernist planning is a joke, an absolute failure.

I expect no less from the site plan than cul de sacs, winding dead end roads, etc etc. Bring me a classical streetgrid with some active ground level spaces, and I could care less if the buildings are designed by a teenager. That to me will make this a successful district. But I'm sure that's too simple, after all we HAVE to make it cooler than that, right? :rolleyes:


I think it's not unreasonable to hope for - and expect - both a truly urban plan alongside great architecture.....

Chi-Sky21 Mar 26, 2015 1:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 6965495)
I expect no less from the site plan than cul de sacs, winding dead end roads, etc etc. Bring me a classical streetgrid with some active ground level spaces, and I could care less if the buildings are designed by a teenager. That to me will make this a successful district. But I'm sure that's too simple, after all we HAVE to make it cooler than that, right? :rolleyes:

What street grid do you propose them have? There is no road to the west, why take up the site by putting in more roads? You only need to access Wells. This site pretty much dictates a dead end road. Hopefully we get some sort of nice public space along the river out of it at least.

SamInTheLoop Mar 26, 2015 1:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 6965279)
^And I've been told Perkins + Will is doing the planning.

Now we're talking! Good news for them to be able to also land at least a couple of the building design commissions........I definitely like the idea of a mix of architects to be involved in designing individual buildings in a project such as this....


Ardecila could very well be right on the mix of structures......I would just hope that they do not go too heavy on any townhouse component....throw a few midrises in and a smallish townhome component, fine, but I do really want to see a handful of great towers in this area....

While we're talking about this area, Mr Downtown - or anyone else - any word on when/if McCaffery plans to move on their apartment tower (my understanding - although correct if wrong - is that they are selling two of the high-rise parcels, but likely keeping the one that 'fits right into' the inset in the NW corner of the existing RC structure.....)?

joeg1985 Mar 26, 2015 2:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright (Post 6964952)
Hipsters moving into Pilsen and pushing out Mexicans is no more gentrification than Mexicans moving into Pilsen and pushing out Czechs.

If you are a hipster in Logan Square, buy your two flat so a Yuppie can't push you out.

If you are a Mexican in Little Village, buy your six flat so a Yuppie can't push you out.

If you are a gay in Boystown, buy your condo so a Cubs Fan can't push you out.

That's how the system works.


Not to belabor this but this isn't totally correct. The Pols and Czechs didn't leave necessarily because they were priced out of the hood by poor immigrants, they left because they were racist and didn't like the Hispanics moving into their hood. I know this for a fact because the 86 year old sister of my grandmother who used to live in Pilsen and now lives in Burbank told me so with her own mouth. The Hispanics being pushed out by hipsters is an economic thing. One is not like the other.

Also, buying a place doesn't mean that you won't be pushed out. People live in a hood like Boystown because they want to be around other gay people. If all those other gays have left and been replaced with straight Cubs fans or whatever, then you no longer live in the same hood. Even though your location has not changed. So buying a place in and of itself does not guarantee that you won't feel pushed out of your hood.

SamInTheLoop Mar 26, 2015 2:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlw777 (Post 6956870)
I think you're giving way too much weight to the architectural role in sales. A lot of other information is needed before coming to the conclusion that one building is leasing more because of the design. I also think you're giving 150 more praise than it's due. I thought it was good the first time when it was UBS tower... And the second time when it was 155 n Wacker.

I agree with this (unfortunately, as I wish design had a greater direct impact on leasing and sales.......it does have some impact, but as you say I agree that LVDW was giving too much weight in this case)......the main reason architects in their professional capacity, and developers - as they of course ultimately decide exactly what gets built - should strive for greatness in design is because of a public accountability they should inherently feel, and take very seriously......some people, including some who will be reading this, won't 'get' this, and some never will, regrettably....

I also agree with you specifically on 150 Riverside. First - full disclosure - I like this design, I like it fine. I'm excited about this project. That being said, it's quite obviously very derivative of the architects' previous work, and, moreover, some of the coolest design elements here are in fact almost necessitated by the site itself..........

On pre-leasing performance to-date - vs. River Point, for instance - they're actually pretty close right now.....I've heard that River Point is maybe 55-60% leased already, and they have other leases that are currently being negotiated.........so I don't see a huge difference certainly in comparative performance at the moment (for a time there it seemed as though O'Donnell had opened up more of a lead, but I believe that's closed quite a bit).....


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:19 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.