Anyone know how initial sales have been going? I've been seeing a ton of advertising around for this one.

The ARO requires that the affordable units are in-kind with the market rate units, so yes, affordable condos do exist. They're a rare breed because:
-most condo projects downtown were built before 2015, so they pretty much all paid the in-lieu fee to avoid building affordables
-most condo projects in the neighborhoods are either too small to trigger the ordinance, or if they are larger, they are built as-of-right or done as a conversion of an existing building.
-there are a handful of new-construction condos larger than ten units out in the neighborhoods, that received zoning changes and were subject to the ARO, but again, most of these were built before 2015 so they also paid the in-lieu fee.


We sold some affordable condos in the Cabrini area a few years ago. They were not more difficult to sell than any other condo. However, the buyer has to be income-verified by the Chicago Community Land Trust, and they have to sign a special affordability covenant that caps the resale value and restricts who can buy it from the original owner. There is literally no investment value to an affordable condo, it just offers the owner a little more control over their dwelling space than a rental does. It also comes with a maintenance burden, though, so I wouldn't really recommend it except maybe as a way to build credit. :shrug:

Not sure if this has been posted but heres a promotional video for 1000m. Lots of cool renderings

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ind_ISx-voA

^ Wow, the building looks great in the video. A lot better than the rendering pics. Sleeker and more fluid.

The transition from base to tower still looks a bit off, due to the cantilever. The video seems to avoid viewing that area head on, and focuses primarily on the lobby entrance and the top of the tower.

So much better in video than in these renderings! I mean it's not even close and the tower is going blend in with Essex and Vinoly splendidly!

Thnx for that....:cheers:

Lol nice Keats poem and also very natural hair color Helmet Jahn.

The building looks good.

I love the comments Jahn makes re the connection between architecture and art

I'm definitely warming to the design. The cladding should look really slick--I still marvel at the housing on Clybourn and the IIT dorms, and they're a decade old now. The tuck into the S elevation will help offset the bloating from the rounded sides tapering outward as they ascend, and I like the interplay between the angular creases and the round bends; that will be great to admire from directly below.

The columns that conspicuously span between the lower segment and the tower could be more elegantly integrated into the design; either by emphasizing their connection with the tower more (by meeting a thicker floorplate) or totally minimizing them, say to have the same width as the floor plate spandrels (though, I'm presuming they can't do the latter, structurally). But they're expressed, which I like, as the whole assembly communicates the acrobatics involved in poising the tower out and over its southern neighbor.

It's not the handsome, architectonic spectacle of the first iteration, but it's sleeker (and more elegant, in a few ways).

Once again, I see that actual curved glass has been VE'd out of a Helmut Jahn design.

At the March 2016 public meeting, the developer assured me that wouldn't happen on this project.

Well, surprise, a lying, cheating developer

We didn’t have to use the same finishes. We used the same color palette, but with bamboo flooring instead of oak, builder-grade Kountry Wood cabinets instead of the imported Italian ones. We saved money where we could, but the units were still good quality. The city officials we dealt with were actually very happy with the results.

IIRC the equity cap never expires for the initial buyer. The unit has to stay affordable for 30 years, so it can’t be sold for more than the allowable affordable price. After 30 years, it can be sold to market-rate buyers at full market value, but all that extra value goes back into the CCLT’s trust fund.

Careful Jahn can hear what we're thinking!:sly:

Yeah, look at all that curved glass in the original rendering...

The best lie was the developer of that Clark and Belmont project who was going to clad it with terra cotta.

Yeah, that so didn’t happen...

Yes, assuring you versus $$... You though you'd win?

CNA Center, 1000 S Michigan, etc... as an architect, why bother even designing curved glass without concrete approval that it will survive redesigns (excluding form changes)? And as a developer, why bother approving that early on in the project cycle? Just to make the first public rendering look pretty?

Can someone post the new renderings? The video won't play for me.

The vid doesn't work... it looks like someone hacked it or took it offline.

The link still works, try a different browser.


That's not how it works. If a developer wants to change a minor feature that doesn't totally change the design... they're usually allowed.

I didn't realize they price difference from straight to curved glass corners was so dramatic that it would change the image of a whole building, aka CNA. Does anyone know the price difference?