Quote:
Originally Posted by r18tdi
Those suburban townhouses behind the crane really Rustles my Jimmies in a most uncomfortable way. Woof.
Who thought that was a good idea?
|
People who actually wanted to sell units and move on.
When Dearborn Park I was developed, there was simply almost no market for mid- and highrise units. A third highrise planned for north of Roosevelt was eventually cancelled, and the site in 1985 became townhouses. South of Roosevelt, the foundations for a Stanley Tigerman–designed midrise had actually been poured when about 1991 the developers decided they'd never sell the units and stopped, switched and built more townhouses there instead. Remember that the consortium that built Dearborn Park lost 59 cents of every dollar they put in.
Folks who think citymaking is like SimCity forget about carrying costs. Real developers who survive to do more than one project don't recklessly swing for the fences on every pitch. They pick the low-hanging fruit first: sites where the difference between current cost and potential value is greatest. And they choose a product mix that can actually be sold in a reasonable time frame, not what will look good on the skyline 20 years after they took bankruptcy on the project.