CHICAGO | Boom rundown - everything over 12 floors. v5

[harryc]

Rode down to McCormick place today, on the way back took a few pictures.
( autostitch - the poor mans wide angle )


full size http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2176/2026650327_a13996a904_b.jpg


full size http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2160/2026655061_fd850bbdf5_b.jpg


full size http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2254/2026667073_64c81857ae_b.jpg


full size http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2358/2026672359_6618a5afbe_b.jpg


full size http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2225/2027480286_ad6d0cb7be_b.jpg

[honte]

Originally Posted by samoen313

i was in chicago a few weeks back and did a quite wonderful boat tour, led by a droll octogenarian who couldn't answer my one question. on the west side of the south loop of the river. there is one twenty or thirty story building with no windows on all but the top three floors.anyway, i was just wondering: what is it? why is it? and when might it ever go away?

It's an AT&T / SBC / Ameritech / whatever they're called anymore switching facility. It actually was built like that with no windows at lower floors.

Possibly even more surprising to you, it got a lot of critical acclaim when it was built. I have articles to prove it!

_________

Re: Parkview balconies, it looks like the Hovey influence might be making its way into downtown. I was looking at them today as well, and I quite like them - the bit of color here + orange on Avenue East has given Streeterville an unexpected "2000s" flair. I have my doubts that the orange balconies will survive the next 30 years, though... they may look very dated in a few years, and would be pretty easy to remove. I hope not. I am still upset about the cool kitchy balconies on the Sidney Morris building (1050 N. LSD I think it was) being removed.

[Nowhereman1280]

Yeah, I actually like it because it is purely Chicagoan, its honest, its form follows its function. Computers, servers, and switches don't need windows, in fact, its better to have the building insulated like that so you know you have control over the air flow. Everyone hates it until they become aware of its purpose.

So about it going away, that will definitely not happen for a long long time because it is a critical piece of infrastructure. The tour guide should have known that, that's what you get for not taking a cruise with Bvic!


Also, I really like the yellow balconies on Parkview West, a nice splash of a color on an already colorful building. At first I thought they would look like crap, but now I think they blend quite nicely with the design. That and the copper panels on the other side.

[SolarWind]

November 13, 2007


November 14, 2007

[i_am_hydrogen]

Nice. What are you using to stitch those shots?

[VivaLFuego]

edit,

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Do you really think this building will stand vacant for decades if they can't put in a 350-room hotel? Why not be satisfied with a 200-room hotel that fits into the existing buildings?

And then who chips in the extra money to make the project financially viable? TIF? How much would that be?

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen

Exactly. There's some interesting transformation afoot in that area:

4) Redevelopment of the North and Clybourn station

For real?!?

[denizen467]

Loewenberg seems to do ok when he hires Destefano or Jeanne Gang or Arquitectonica ... but that's probably only because (1) he's had the chance to spend several decades of his life spewing out some of his own junk and getting that out of his system and (2) he's been made painfully aware the design community generally can't stand him.

I'm with everyone else in being worried that Warman may be too early on his career curve to have arrived at similar revelations, and that he'll try to project his ego on that prominent corner in some disastrous fashion.

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

And then who chips in the extra money to make the project financially viable?

If you know you can't knock down the back of the landmark building, you don't pay the Chicago Athletic Club so much money to buy the property. See how that works?

To pay a lot for a landmark building based on the prospect that you'll be able to tear it down, and then seek to tear it down because you paid too much to save it--that's what the law calls a self-created hardship. It's like someone who kills his parents and then begs for mercy because he's an orphan.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

It's like someone who kills his parents and then begs for mercy because he's an orphan.

Not like that at all, but I get your point.

[NYC2ATX]

Guys I need help. There is a site under construction with a crane just recently assembled, but I don't know what building this is. It is on the northeast corner of State and Lake, by the El station. Can anyone help?

[Dan in Chicago]

^ That's theWit Hotel.

[i_am_hydrogen]

Originally Posted by denizen467

For real?!?

That's what I read:

Originally Posted by spyguy

http://www.heartlandrebusiness.com/articles/OCT07/highlight1.html

Chicago Retail Market
Edward Zifkin and Greg Moyer

Along the Clybourn Corridor, M Development has purchased the triangle at Clybourn Street, North Avenue and Halsted Street in the North-Clybourn retail corridor. The transit stop on the site will be redeveloped and the portion of the property previously occupied by a gas station will become a state-of-the-art Apple store.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

If you know you can't knock down the back of the landmark building, you don't pay the Chicago Athletic Club so much money to buy the property. See how that works?

To pay a lot for a landmark building based on the prospect that you'll be able to tear it down, and then seek to tear it down because you paid too much to save it--that's what the law calls a self-created hardship. It's like someone who kills his parents and then begs for mercy because he's an orphan.

So who compensates the athletic club for the value that was eliminated from their property when any demolition is restricted? Who makes up the difference if the project is still unviable financially even with rock-bottom acquisition?

I'm just saying. It's hypothetical for this discussion without real numbers, but IMO anytime you place any restrictions on development you should be prepared to front the cost of that restriction. Otherwise you wind up with rotting albatrosses like the YWCA on Michigan, St. Stephen's Church in Hyde Park, etc. This is not to say I don't support some measure of historic preservation and landmarking, but such initiatives have major costs, especially when applied too broadly (try doing anything in real estate in San Francisco, for example).

Offhand, this project seems like a -potentially- good middle ground between preservation and progress, assuming there is little to no TIF involvement and assuming the new highrise is of good quality.

[honte]

^ In doing preservation work, you get asked the first question a lot. The answer (from the preservation side) is simply that zoning is not a guarantee or a right, and you do not have that value until you actually realize it from a sale or build within that limit. No one has taken value away from your property; they might have reduced speculative value.

Real estate is an investment, and like any other investment, it can go either way. It is worth noting, studies also show that buildings in landmark districts appreciate faster than those in non-landmarked areas. Also, I've never seen any study showing a long-term depreciation due to landmarking, just potential shifts in appreciate rates.

Question Two: If this really happens (which in my opinion is less frequent than we are led to believe), you know the answer: TIF. I'd far rather have TIF money used for this purpose than some of the hare-brained things it has been going toward recently. Also, landmarked buildings get substantial tax relief, which is supposed to help offset any of the possible complications, but it usually just ends up in someone's pocket, and is forgotten when the "hardship" discussions start up.

[NYC2ATX]

Originally Posted by Dan in Chicago

^ That's theWit Hotel.

Wow! What a cool, sleek building! Sort of a Chicago take on the Westin Times Square. I'm surprised I haven't heard of this before now. Thanks Dan.

[X-fib]

Originally Posted by Jaroslaw

It's always been hard to distinguish between the two except by very close reading. I think you're right, though. From the AR website:

"Though downtown developers were sitting on just 64 unsold completed units at the end of the quarter, the supply of unsold condos includes 3,539 units that are under construction and will be completed between now and 2010, according to Appraisal Research...."

There are other variables in this number, but I don't want to get deleted.

It would also be intersting to include 2006/2007 comparisons of the sales of, and on the market numbers for pre-existing, pe-owned units. This figure is a killer in the real estate markets in some other parts of the country and is a real gauge of the state of the economy.

[aaron38]

Originally Posted by Jaroslaw

--estimated downtown condo sales for 2007: 4,000 (down from 5,783 last year and 8,162 in 2005)

the supply of unsold condos includes 3,539 units that are under construction and will be completed between now and 2010, according to Appraisal Research...."

So in a slowdown year 4000 condos sold, and there are 3500 available for the next 2-3 years?
Even if sales plumet 50% there would still be a shortage of units. Or am I reading that wrong?

[BVictor1]

As a reminder, I hope someone from the forum will be able to attend the Solstice on the Park meeting tonight at 7pm.