SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Skyscraper & Highrise Construction (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=103)
-   -   CHICAGO | 1000M (1000 S Michigan) | 805 FT | 73 FLOORS | ON HOLD (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=218947)

MorganChi Jul 12, 2019 3:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UPChicago (Post 8630626)
It is pretty accurate, according to the MLS there are 32 units active and 80 units under contract. The most expensive unit under contract was listed at $3.4m, the most expensive unit active is $8.1m, the median list price for units under contract is $705k, and the median list price for units active is $1m.


So this is a go ?

LouisVanDerWright Jul 12, 2019 3:13 PM

That's actually not terrible in terms of pre sales. I think with 25% sold this could actually happen. I think there is probably also more hesitancy on the part of buyers to commit to buying in a large building like this because so many projects got dumped in the last crash. If this thing actually starts construction I have a feeling it would sell out fairly quickly, but they got to get there first.

UPChicago Jul 12, 2019 11:09 PM

If we assume the units sold near ask (doubtful) then they currently have $78m worth of property under contract at an average list of $974k.

pianowizard Jul 13, 2019 1:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright (Post 8630679)
That's actually not terrible in terms of pre sales. I think with 25% sold this could actually happen.

I just read on the Supertall Construction forum that even though Vista is nearly completed, it's still only 45% sold. Compared to that, 25% at this early point for 1000M actually sounds pretty decent. I hope it will happen, as the location is excellent, and both the condo prices and HOA fees are surprisingly affordable, e.g. a 605 sq ft unit with 2 bedrooms and 1 bathroom has a price tag of only $565,000, and an HOA fee of $293/month.

Ricochet48 Jul 13, 2019 3:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pianowizard (Post 8631433)
I just read on the Supertall Construction forum that even though Vista is nearly completed, it's still only 45% sold. Compared to that, 25% at this early point for 1000M actually sounds pretty decent. I hope it will happen, as the location is excellent, and both the condo prices and HOA fees are surprisingly affordable, e.g. a 605 sq ft unit with 2 bedrooms and 1 bathroom has a price tag of only $565,000, and an HOA fee of $293/month.

How does one fit 2 bedrooms in a 605 sqft unit. My 1BR 1BA is 900sqft...

Are we counting bunk or murphy beds? That's like a hotel room small.

LouisVanDerWright Jul 13, 2019 3:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ricochet48 (Post 8631486)
How does one fit 2 bedrooms in a 605 sqft unit. My 1BR 1BA is 900sqft...

Are we counting bunk or murphy beds? That's like a hotel room small.

I have a few 650 SF 2 beds, if you know how to plan efficiently you can hardly notice it's that small. My bedrooms fit queens comfortably and I have nice open concept living/kitchen areas. No tub in the bathrooms though, but people like poured in place showers better anyway.

pianowizard Jul 13, 2019 3:34 PM

Many years ago I lived in a 500 sq ft condo with 2 bedrooms and 1 bathroom. Yes the bedrooms were really small, but the kitchen was rather big, and the living room reasonably comfortable.

1000M's web site has detailed floorplans. This is the unit in question: https://1000southmichigan.com/floorp...tion-41-47-11/

And this 841 sqft unit has 3 bedrooms and 2 baths: https://1000southmichigan.com/floorp...tion-41-47-10/

SIGSEGV Jul 13, 2019 5:33 PM

^Bedrooms are usually way bigger than necessary. In a roommates sharing an apartment situation that makes sense, but if the bedroom is just used as a bedroom, it needn't be large.

Ned.B Jul 16, 2019 3:09 PM

I've always found that prewar building are much better at proportioning bedrooms versus living space than a lot of current residential buildings. Part of this is being driven by the increased depth of many of the buildings that are being built: longer, narrower units are causing more space to be wasted on corridor space. Part of this seems to be a trend, that in luxury developments is favoring very large bedrooms and bathrooms at the expense of living space. I've seen so many unit plans where you could almost ballroom dance in the bathroom, but you are lucky if you can fit a sofa, coffee table, and TV console in the living space...and forget about having a dining table.

That said, with the two units pianowizard posted, I think they are being a bit disingenuous showing queen beds in some of those bedrooms. In the bedroom with the massive column in the 2 bed unit 11, someone would have to basically climb over the bed to get to the nightstand or the closet. I am all for thoughtful efficient living, but here are several places in the plans where an additional 6" or so here and there would make the units significantly more usable.

glowrock Jul 16, 2019 5:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ned.B (Post 8633536)
I've always found that prewar building are much better at proportioning bedrooms versus living space than a lot of current residential buildings. Part of this is being driven by the increased depth of many of the buildings that are being built: longer, narrower units are causing more space to be wasted on corridor space. Part of this seems to be a trend, that in luxury developments is favoring very large bedrooms and bathrooms at the expense of living space. I've seen so many unit plans where you could almost ballroom dance in the bathroom, but you are lucky if you can fit a sofa, coffee table, and TV console in the living space...and forget about having a dining table.

That said, with the two units pianowizard posted, I think they are being a bit disingenuous showing queen beds in some of those bedrooms. In the bedroom with the massive column in the 2 bed unit 11, someone would have to basically climb over the bed to get to the nightstand or the closet. I am all for thoughtful efficient living, but here are several places in the plans where an additional 6" or so here and there would make the units significantly more usable.

Which post-war? ;) Post-WWI units tend to have shoeboxes for bedrooms, barely holding a full bed and perhaps a nightstand (forget about larger beds and the possibility of a dresser!), while units built a bit before to a little after WWII tend to have fairly reasonably-sized bedrooms. I will agree that nowadays the trend is towards big bedrooms and tiny living rooms, which IMO is absurd.

Of course a lot of the differences I've seen in Chicago might be tenement vs. non-tenement buildings in terms of their original purpose.

Aaron (Glowrock)

Buckman821 Jul 16, 2019 5:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ned.B (Post 8633536)
I've always found that prewar building are much better at proportioning bedrooms versus living space than a lot of current residential buildings. Part of this is being driven by the increased depth of many of the buildings that are being built: longer, narrower units are causing more space to be wasted on corridor space. Part of this seems to be a trend, that in luxury developments is favoring very large bedrooms and bathrooms at the expense of living space. I've seen so many unit plans where you could almost ballroom dance in the bathroom, but you are lucky if you can fit a sofa, coffee table, and TV console in the living space...and forget about having a dining table.

Could not possibly agree more with this post. Do buyers today really value a spacious bathroom and kitchen over having room for a dining table? To me it's insane. I tend to look at Kitchens and Baths as utilitarian rooms built to accomplish a task. Living rooms and Dining Rooms are for spending time in and should be gracefully proportioned. I really think this was best accomplished in the 1920's.

RedCorsair87 Jul 16, 2019 5:38 PM

^Definitely disagree with you there. As a former cook, I would rather have a spacious and functional kitchen and smaller living/dining room. I rarely have more than one person over at a time. If I do, I have common areas in my building to entertain if need be. My current kitchen is dreadfully small and is creatively stifling when it comes to deciding what to cook.

I recently upgraded from a queen to a king-sized mattress and I appreciate the extra space needed for that in addition to an end table and a dresser.

Vlajos Jul 16, 2019 5:54 PM

^ I personally love dining rooms, but if my choice were to have a bigger kitchen and no dining room, I would opt to have no dining room. We luckily found and bought a 100+ year old home with a large kitchen (combined old kitchen with a bedroom) and a large dining room. I also agree with the poster that said modern bedrooms are needlessly large. I use my bedroom to sleep and maybe read in bed. That's about it. Just a waste of space as long as my bed and our dressers fit, no need for anything bigger.

LouisVanDerWright Jul 16, 2019 6:09 PM

The issue is that a lot of "open concept" floor plans drop a full kitchen into the living room without making the room larger to accommodate that.

Prewar buildings from the interwar period, particularly the lat 1920s "roaring twenties" era have some of the best floor plans around. That said, there are modern layouts that blow the old ones out of the water, but you aren't going to find them everywhere because spending money on design is developers taboo...

Handro Jul 16, 2019 6:32 PM

My building was built in 1916, we have two bedrooms able to fit a queen bed and a nightstand, plus a pretty tight kitchen/living combo. Weirdly large bathroom though, considering the sizes of the rest of the rooms.

ardecila Jul 16, 2019 6:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glowrock (Post 8633673)
Of course a lot of the differences I've seen in Chicago might be tenement vs. non-tenement buildings in terms of their original purpose.

Aaron (Glowrock)

Yep... despite the nostalgia that some preservationists like to spout, most working class people in pre-war Chicago did not live in large, gracious apartments. If you were middle class and had a decent income (i.e. not a factory job) perhaps you could afford a nicer, more spacious apartment in a courtyard building. The very wealthiest could afford units in Gold Coast highrises or other lakefront neighborhoods like South Shore or Lakeview.

Ergo, "prewar" apartments are not automatically superior to postwar apartments in Chicago... I personally liked living in my greystone walkup tenement with tiny bedrooms, but I could absolutely see many people preferring a 2BR in a 4+1 from the 60s, for example.

Arm&Kedzie Sep 6, 2019 8:59 PM

Bids are due for subs on this one next week. Bid Docs seam to be about ~75% so still in budgeting phase... but there is definitely movement.

SamInTheLoop Sep 6, 2019 9:06 PM

^ That's nice to hear. I've been thinking that some folks here had seemingly given up on this one, and I found it curious. Perhaps many have just forgotten how long it can take large condo towers that go through traditional construction financing arrangements to finalize them (post go-go early-mid 2000s).

NOT saying I believe they will definitely pull this off. However, I've far from written it off.

Zapatan Sep 7, 2019 4:52 PM

I mean, I'd live on one of the upper floors overlooking the park, just sayin'

Steely Dan Sep 10, 2019 7:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arm&Kedzie (Post 8679938)
Bids are due for subs on this one next week. Bid Docs seam to be about ~75% so still in budgeting phase... but there is definitely movement.

that's very interesting to hear.

i hadn't been holding out much hope for this one.


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:30 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.