CHICAGO | General Developments

[Busy Bee]

ardecila/tup: +1

[Ryanrule]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Another issue we are having today is a labor shortage. My contractor is having problems finding labor for certain aspects of some of our projects today. There is so much work out there and not enough labor to go around. This would be a great time to be employed in construction. We need foreign labor more now than ever.

pay more.

[Via Chicago]

but that would cut into teh profitz

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Ryanrule

pay more.

Can't find any apartments in your budget? Just pay more! You don't really need a social life or Internet access.

If the numbers don't work, they don't work. It cuts both ways. Ultimately a labor shortage translates into less housing production, less supply and higher rents.

Construction especially is very boom/bust, and we're coming off of the biggest bust in a century so it's logical that a lot of people left the construction industry. Plus, the usual sources of workers (i.e. immigration) have dried up in the current political climate. I'm not just talking about Mexicans here but also Irish and Polish builders, many of them skilled, who are now migrating to Canada and Australia instead of the United States because our immigration system is so messed up.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

but that would cut into teh profitz

Or it just makes the project totally unfeasible because the bank won't approve a loan with construction costs that are too high relative to the finished value. Everyone has bosses, even "evil developers". Also, construction cost inflation is fundamentally one of the issues that causes booms and busts as prices rise and push developers into riskier and riskier financial situations until there is a systematic failure. Also, paying more does happen, but it doesn't magic new labor into existence. It takes years to learn a trade and if there aren't enough skilled tradesmen around, the price simply goes up and up, that's passed on to the tenants and is a major factor as to why we see almost exclusively luxury housing under construction. Either you pay out the 🞵🞵🞵 for something super nice that needs to be rented out for a lot of money or you build nothing at all. That works out just great for the middle class in particular...

[pip]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

Oh hey look, another well maintained 1890s building without landmark protection being marketed as a teardown opportunity! Phenomenal that we are actively looking to clear these obsolete buildings from our landscape!

http://chicago.curbed.com/2016/5/24/11761484/chicago-downtown-apartment-building-for-sale

That's just terrible. This whole area of town is going to be sterile, highrises and parking podiums, and not an inviting place. They have just ripped up everything old.

[F1 Tommy]

Originally Posted by ardecila

^.

Skilled craftsmen were rare then as they are now.

I do not know what you are thinking but that statement is ubsurd. They have very few people now that can do anything highly detailed without the use of computer and machine. The days of hand made are mostly gone in this country with a few exceptions.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by F1 Tommy

I do not know what you are thinking but that statement is ubsurd. They have very few people now that can do anything highly detailed without the use of computer and machine. The days of hand made are mostly gone in this country with a few exceptions.

With a few exceptions like construction where dearly everything is still done by hand. The only difference is the construction materials we are working with today are generally higher quality and we have more power tools (which tend to make things more precise). Think about it, masonry isn't really any different today than it was 1000 years ago. The main difference is more consistent brick quality and gas powered masonry saws that are faster and more precise than breaking brick by hand. I'm curious as to what parts of a building you feel are not "hand made" today.

[F1 Tommy]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

With a few exceptions like construction where dearly everything is still done by hand. The only difference is the construction materials we are working with today are generally higher quality and we have more power tools (which tend to make things more precise). Think about it, masonry isn't really any different today than it was 1000 years ago. The main difference is more consistent brick quality and gas powered masonry saws that are faster and more precise than breaking brick by hand. I'm curious as to what parts of a building you feel are not "hand made" today.

No construction is assembled by hand, not made by hand other than the slabs of cement that are made as the base.... To be more specific, look at all the details on old buildings under wich you find the masonry you are referring underneath. Now we get pre fab made in Southeast Asia glass sheets that are assembled on site. Sure you get a simplified version of that on some neo classic building, but they are not done nearly as detailed or ornate or as good.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by F1 Tommy

No construction is assembled by hand, not made by hand other than the slabs of cement that are made as the base....

There is no material difference between manufacturing a pane of glass in a 1900 blast furnace than there is today. Same with bricks, if your definition of "made by hand" is one person digging clay out of a river bank and firing bricks a few at a time, then that hasn't been happening for a few centuries. Modern techniques like extruded brick are far superior to old ways if doing it and I really don't think anyone counts the manufacture of the materials as something done by "skilled craftsmen".

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by pip

That's just terrible. This whole area of town is going to be sterile, highrises and parking podiums, and not an inviting place. They have just ripped up everything old.

I'm shocked by the laissez faire attitude the city has with preservation, and even more shocked many on this forum have that same viewpoint.

Clearly the city needs to step in and prevent the demo of our historic building stock.

[Ned.B]

^I think we are focusing on different things and otherwise missing each others points. There are absolutely handmade building elements which you cannot get without exorbitant amounts of money these days. Things like carved stone and wood features, cast metal ornament, glazed tilework, which even the most modest of building from the late 19th and early 20th century buildings had. These elements are still highly desirable today, as evidenced by the companies that scramble around these buildings salvaging parts as they are being demolished. Those arts are very much dying. As a company that does restorations work, our list of qualified tradespeople shrinks every year.

[r18tdi]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

Oh hey look, another well maintained 1890s building without landmark protection being marketed as a teardown opportunity! Phenomenal that we are actively looking to clear these obsolete buildings from our landscape!

http://chicago.curbed.com/2016/5/24/11761484/chicago-downtown-apartment-building-for-sale

The base is far from original but it has plenty of nice details. I like the window caps.

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by prelude91

I'm shocked by the laissez faire attitude the city has with preservation, and even more shocked many on this forum have that same viewpoint.

Clearly the city needs to step in and prevent the demo of our historic building stock.

I think most of us here? think it is ridiculous to tear down such a building. I know I do. And most other cases that people point out to I usually agree as well. The North Avenue bay Apartments recently springs to mind. If someone else shows disgust first I'm usually inclined to piggyback off their sentiment.

I really really hope that there is a revisit in making many of the turn of the century 3-4 story buildings in River North a landmark district. And even better if that were to be extend the effort to some buildings in Streeterville, Gold Coast, West Loop, and South Loop where there is the huge influx of condo towers.

And what has been said a million times is that it's frustrating when we see so many low-rise 🞵🞵🞵🞵 buildings and empty lots in these hoods but developers sacrifice city heritage and diversity by plowig down these wonderful low rises.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by pip

That's just terrible. This whole area of town is going to be sterile, highrises and parking podiums, and not an inviting place. They have just ripped up everything old.

but DAH DENSITY! and we will be able to brag in meaningless skyscraper fanboy arguments about how many high rises we're building as if that defines quality of life at street level!

honestly, id love to get more involved in preservation efforts besides donating a bit of cash to Preservation Chicago. if that makes me a NIMBY so be it. if anyone has suggestions about ways to be more active in this space id be interested.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

but DAH DENSITY! and we will be able to brag in meaningless skyscraper fanboy arguments about how many high rises we're building as if that defines quality of life at street level!

honestly, id love to get more involved in preservation efforts besides donating a bit of cash to Preservation Chicago. if that makes me a NIMBY so be it. if anyone has suggestions about ways to be more active in this space id be interested.

Blaming having new high rises for not having an active area is a cop out. it has nothing to do with that. You can create active street level with new buildings. Give me a break. The problem is elsewhere with how it's actually done and we've talked about it a ton before on why developers need to change how they do it.

The only way it gets more boring, at least for retail/commercial is when a developer comes in and doesn't want any of it. People need to demand retail/commercial with most every building downtown.

[marothisu]

All the way in Joliet, but Amazon just announced it plans to build a new warehouse there and hire 2000 full time workers for it.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/realestat...903/amazon-plans-second-joliet-warehouse

Looks like the fairly new building in the 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 Triangle with Urban outfitters and Maple & Ash just sold for $53M to the real estate arm of the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/realestat...ed-to-maple-ash-urban-outfitters-sold-to

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Blaming having new high rises for not having an active area is a cop out. it has nothing to do with that. You can create active street level with new buildings. Give me a break. The problem is elsewhere with how it's actually done and we've talked about it a ton before on why developers need to change how they do it.

The only way it gets more boring, at least for retail/commercial is when a developer comes in and doesn't want any of it. People need to demand retail/commercial with most every building downtown.

Of course you CAN create good street level engagement with a highrise, the problem is majority of developers don't.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by prelude91

Of course you CAN create good street level engagement with a highrise, the problem is majority of developers don't.

Yes, exactly my point, but there's still good examples of it out there. You can't blame the actual reality of a high rise - it's up to the developer to create it to be good or not, and it is possible to do it well. I don't know, I wish there was something in place like TOD which is for retail/commercial in certain areas when you make a building. Giving an incentive for a developer to make space for it who is normally on the fence. Not sure if it would work though.

Issue is that you create TOD - great. You create more density - but some developers for whatever reason don't want to try and build in retail/commercial there or more than one space, sometimes, even if they've created a building for 400 units and it creates these 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 dead zones here and there which should not exist.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Blaming having new high rises for not having an active area is a cop out. it has nothing to do with that. You can create active street level with new buildings. Give me a break. The problem is elsewhere with how it's actually done and we've talked about it a ton before on why developers need to change how they do it.

The only way it gets more boring, at least for retail/commercial is when a developer comes in and doesn't want any of it. People need to demand retail/commercial with most every building downtown.

i guess my point is moreso this block is already one of the most vibrant and attractive in the area, and it has nothing to do with highrises. while perhaps this building isnt quite on the level as those to the west (which would be a tall order, given that they are some of the best in the city, period), it still holds down that end of the block with dignity and would be landmarked itself in virtually any other city. more importantly, its human scaled. something that we seem to be incapable of embracing any longer, despite the fact that people i would suspect prefer to live and work among these sorts of buildings given the choice. and as long as we have parking requirements, we will always have to contend with ugly bases. that being the reality, we have had the street level experience absolutely obliterated in large swaths of downtown neighborhoods. they are not pleasant places to spend time. we have gone backwards rather than forwards, despite the fact more people are living there.

i am fine with new development. i am not fine with it when it entails these sorts of presumed losses. the sorts of demo's we are seeing in this area are unconscionable.

edit: referring to this specifically
http://chicago.curbed.com/2016/5/24/11761484/chicago-downtown-apartment-building-for-sale