CHICAGO | Highrise Projects & Construction, v7

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Kngkyle

I wish a developer would propose a condo tower that doesn't have 20 floors of amenities and the associated $2000 per month in association fees. Maybe a slight exaggeration but it has become absolutely ridiculous these days. I'd be in the market for a new construction condo downtown but I don't care to pay insane HOA fees for a golf simulator, indoor lap pool, sauna, fitness classes, and demo kitchen. Keep that gimmicky shit in the luxury apartment buildings where you just bake it into the rent. Of course developers will advertise much lower HOA fees until they unload the burden onto enough owners who will quickly see their HOA fees increase by 50% for the next 10 years - I'm not falling for that bullshit.

Am I alone here?

/rant

There's been nearly 2500 multi unit/mixed use buildings of 2 to 8 units issued permits for new construction in Chicago since Jan 1, 2012. Add another 100 buildings for the 9 to 12 unit range. I don't know exactly how many are apartments vs. condos, but I guarantee most are actually condos.

I own a condo in one of those buildings. We have ~2400 sq ft and our HOA is under $350/mo as we have basically no amenities. It mainly goes to landscaping, trash, water, building insurance, snow removal, reserves, etc. Yeah it's not a high rise but there's loads of options for people who want to own a condo without any amenities and pay fairly little for HOA.

[SamInTheLoop]

Kinzie Morgan is very disappointing. Ultra-Fultonized base, banal tower. Bad stuff.

Lake and Halsted looks pretty good. Wish the hotel use would have worked out here though....a decent sized hotel on Halsted would have been a great add.

[Randomguy34]

Can we please have a definition of what "Fultonized" means in this context? Kinzie/Morgan's base doesn't look like anything close to other Fulton Market developments, and if anything it looks closer to Prairie-style

[Kngkyle]

Originally Posted by marothisu

There's been nearly 2500 multi unit/mixed use buildings of 2 to 8 units issued permits for new construction in Chicago since Jan 1, 2012. Add another 100 buildings for the 9 to 12 unit range. I don't know exactly how many are apartments vs. condos, but I guarantee most are actually condos.

I own a condo in one of those buildings. We have ~2400 sq ft and our HOA is under $350/mo as we have basically no amenities. It mainly goes to landscaping, trash, water, building insurance, snow removal, reserves, etc. Yeah it's not a high rise but there's loads of options for people who want to own a condo without any amenities and pay fairly little for HOA.

Oh I'm well aware - I own and live in one. But it's not a highrise downtown which was my whole point. Those don't get built anymore.

[BuildThemTaller]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

Can we please have a definition of what "Fultonized" means in this context? Kinzie/Morgan's base doesn't look like anything close to other Fulton Market developments, and if anything it looks closer to Prairie-style

That term has lost all meaning, if it ever had any. It has brick? There are right angles? Windows!

[SamInTheLoop]

^ Not complicated, guys. Fultonized simply means that the design guidelines for this area are encouraging/mandating these wildly incongruous designs for the bottom few stories of Fulton Market Towers. Completely incohesive. I believe they were well-intentioned, but massively backfired.

I can only assume that decent architects active in the district absolutely loathe this aspect of the guidelines because it so clearly trashes the design integrity of these projects.

Certainly not to state that a cohesive design down to sidewalk would have saved Kinzie Morgan, as the towers themselves here are pretty bad.

[Chi-Sky21]

Honestly I am ok with it. I do not know where the sweet spot is on these mandates but this sure seems to bring more good than bad.

[rlw777]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

Can we please have a definition of what "Fultonized" means in this context? Kinzie/Morgan's base doesn't look like anything close to other Fulton Market developments, and if anything it looks closer to Prairie-style

I believe I coined the term a few years ago. It was about the proliferation of designs that had a faux brick warehouse style base with a glassy modern hat on top. I don't particularly hate the style I would just prefer some more variety

[ardecila]

I think even city planners are getting tired of the Fultonized approach. Last year the Committee on Design actively encouraged 301 S Green to extend their curtain wall down to ground level rather than have it be a glass hat on a blocky base. The result is more sleek and monolithic at the corner with the blocky base only appearing at the sides by the neighbors. And 301 S Green is surrounded by classic Chicago brick warehouses, so if the Fulton approach made sense anywhere it is there. Sterling Bay's office towers in Fulton have also been getting more sleek and modernist, 360 N Green doesn't have a speck of brick or faux-industrial detailing and that is *in* Fulton Market.

[rlw777]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I think even city planners are getting tired of the Fultonized approach. Last year the Committee on Design actively encouraged 301 S Green to extend their curtain wall down to ground level rather than have it be a glass hat on a blocky base. The result is more sleek and monolithic at the corner with the blocky base only appearing at the sides by the neighbors. And 301 S Green is surrounded by classic Chicago brick warehouses, so if the Fulton approach made sense anywhere it is there. Sterling Bay's office towers in Fulton have also been getting more sleek and modernist, 360 N Green doesn't have a speck of brick or faux-industrial detailing and that is *in* Fulton Market.

I hope that's the case. I was disappointed when 1043 W Fulton Markets design got revised and used brick instead of limestone. A decision I assume was made based on some community pressure. I could be wrong.

[Randomguy34]

The team expanding Fifth-Third arena at 301 S Damen also wants to build 1,200 units in a future phase. No active proposals or renderings yet, but the maximum heights will be 295 feet: https://chicago.legistar.com/Legislation...2B-275CAE818303&Options=Advanced&Search=

At 116-138 S Paulina, the City Church wants to build a new place of worship and a 184 foot, 76 unit building: https://chicago.legistar.com/Legislation...A8-3169CA6D8D7B&Options=Advanced&Search=

The skyline is slowly expanding to Damen...

[r18tdi]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

The team expanding Fifth-Third arena at 301 S Damen also wants to build 1,200 units in a future phase. No active proposals or renderings yet, but the maximum heights will be 295 feet: https://chicago.legistar.com/Legislation...2B-275CAE818303&Options=Advanced&Search=

That's huge news.

Could this be a sign that Wirtz is finally serious about properly redeveloping the asphalt hellscape the surrounds the UC?

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

The team expanding Fifth-Third arena at 301 S Damen also wants to build 1,200 units in a future phase. No active proposals or renderings yet, but the maximum heights will be 295 feet: https://chicago.legistar.com/Legislation...2B-275CAE818303&Options=Advanced&Search=

At 116-138 S Paulina, the City Church wants to build a new place of worship and a 184 foot, 76 unit building: https://chicago.legistar.com/Legislation...A8-3169CA6D8D7B&Options=Advanced&Search=

The skyline is slowly expanding to Damen...

That's only for starters... They have plans for 663 hotel rooms. If there's a reduction in hotel keys, they'll be an increase in residential units. 2 hotel rooms per one residential unit.

If there are no hotel keys at all, you could have 1,532 dwelling units.

[ardecila]

Well Marquette already sank the first stake with The Lydian. It probably makes sense for there to be a similar highrise TOD development at the old Malcolm X site north of the Eisenhower as well.

This is still a few years out, probably in the "next cycle" whenever that happens. CTA has a lease on the old Malcolm X site for construction staging while they rebuild the Blue Line, so they will be using the land for a few more years.

The City Church project is nice to see as well. I wonder how much of this is DPD flexing their new muscles under the Connected Communities ordinance? It's surprising that a megachurch would plan for a residential highrise on their own. Financing and building a highrise is far beyond the ability of most churches to take on. For now I assume it is merely an extra expense to put in a deep foundation.

[ajradfotwo]

Looks like its at about 15 floors or a little over half up

20230622_172821 by ajdrewster, on Flickr

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by r18tdi

That's huge news.

Could this be a sign that Wirtz is finally serious about properly redeveloping the asphalt hellscape the surrounds the UC?

I doubt it. I think both Hawks/Bulls ownership groups have little interest in wanting to commit to the neighborhood. Thirty years ago, when they built the UC, the area was still too dicey to make substantial development plans. Now both ownership groups are led by rather elderly patriarchs. When Rocky or JR are gone (which could be one month or ten years from now), their heirs may want to try to leverage a new stadium elsewhere or sell to an ownership group that isn't tied down with an old stadium and questionable residential/commercial development.

My bet is that one or both of the owners will sell within the next ten years and/or try to build a new shiny new stadium somewhere else (perhaps on the old CS footprint?). Until that scenario plays out, why build a huge new retail/commercial/residential complex centered around the current UC?

[k1052]

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

I doubt it. I think both Hawks/Bulls ownership groups never want to commit to the neighborhood. Thirty years ago, when they built the UC, the area was still too dicey to make substantial development plans for. Now both ownership groups are led by rather elderly patriarchs. When Rocky or JR are gone (which could be one month or ten years from now), their heirs may want to try to leverage a new stadium elsewhere or sell to an ownership group that isn't tied down with an old stadium and questionable residential/commercial development.

My bet is that one or both of the owners will sell within the next ten years and/or try to build a new shiny new stadium somewhere else (perhaps on the old CS footprint?). Until that scenario plays out, why build a huge new retail/commercial/residential complex centered around the current UC?

I think my counter argument might be that they can see what the Ricketts have done to wring more dollars out of Wrigleyville and they might want some of that action.

[SolarWind]

June 20, 2023

[SolarWind]

June 5, 2023



June 8, 2023















June 20, 2023

[SolarWind]

June 5, 2023



June 8, 2023









June 20, 2023









June 22, 2023