CHICAGO | General Developments

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by aaron38

Millennials won't be "millennials" forever. They also will turn 35 and want a condo too.

honestly i dont see the appeal of condos. as an early 30-something whos still renting but (hopefully) will buy something in the next few years, id much rather have a small house with space for a garden. whats the appeal of shared walls and assessments and condo boards? id rather skip over that entirely, although i understand trendy areas will not have SFHs affordable to most first time home buyers. even still, id much rather live somewhere less trendy for the trade off...ive kind of exhausted everything i can get out of restaurant and bar scenes during my 20s quite honestly. id be perfectly content with a 100k 2 bedroom in little village or whatever.

or i suppose i should say, condos are a lot less appealing given their typical price. id have less of a problem if they were much cheaper than SFHs, but they rarely are. and if youre chasing "newness", its always gonna be a losing battle because new buildings are gonna come on board the next cycle and you've just lost the only selling point your building had. if im paying to own, i certainty want a space i can do with what i want, play with some dirt, refinish some furniture, listen to music at volumes i like, and not worry about listening to neighbors footsteps. i know SFHs get demonized here, but the reality is its the way most people prefer to live given the opportunity.

[the urban politician]

^ I'm sure a lot of people feel that way, like myself.

But condos are a necessity in really dense, expensive areas with a lot of demand for housing, and it's a way to gain equity (as well as get a tax break). You can't gain equity with a rental apartment.

Also, some people don't want to maintain a yard, even a small one in the city. I have a suburban yard and I doing yardwork just doesn't really interest me even at this point in my life (late 30's).

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

...
id have less of a problem if they were much cheaper than SFHs, but they rarely are. and if youre chasing "newness", its always gonna be a losing battle because new buildings are gonna come on board the next cycle and you've just lost the only selling point your building had. if im paying to own, i certainty want a space i can do with what i want, play with some dirt, refinish some furniture, listen to music at volumes i like, and not worry about listening to neighbors footsteps. i know SFHs get demonized here, but the reality is its the way most people prefer to live given the opportunity.

Condos are almost always cheaper than SFHs in the same area. Where are you looking that they are not? Obviously in River North a single family home is going to be seven figures and condos start in the $200ks. In Lincoln Park you might find a tiny fixer-upper SFH for $500k, but condos, again, start in the $200ks for the most part. West Lakeview you might find an unrenovated wood frame house for $400k if you look long enough, but you can find similarly unrenovated condos starting in the upper $100ks.

The only possible exception I can think of is in areas where housing markets are dramatically depressed, so any housing values are compressed toward the lower bounds of pricing, bringing them closer together. But in places that most people prefer to live, condos are going to be cheaper than homes, or they're going to be newer or recently renovated, and better-maintained than comparably-priced houses.

That said, I wouldn't mind having a house at this point. I just need to find one in a walkable area near a train station and a reasonable commute to the Loop that I can afford. And by "walkable" I don't mean rich-person walkable, necessarily. I also wouldn't mind living in Little Village or South Lawndale or McKinley Park, for example.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ I'm sure a lot of people feel that way, like myself.

But condos are a necessity in really dense, expensive areas with a lot of demand for housing, and it's a way to gain equity (as well as get a tax break). You can't gain equity with a rental apartment.

Also, some people don't want to maintain a yard, even a small one in the city. I have a suburban yard and I doing yardwork just doesn't really interest me even at this point in my life (late 30's).

oh i get it, and like i said i wouldnt mind considering one if the options at the lower end of the market werent so relentlessly bleak. given the choice between a drab drywall box in the south loop or a 100 year old worker cottage in a slightly more far flung area, its a no brainer to me. the new stuff on this board typically appears quite nice, but theyre not properties most average first time buyers are going to be able to afford.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by emathias

Condos are almost always cheaper than SFHs in the same area. Where are you looking that they are not? Obviously in River North a single family home is going to be seven figures and condos start in the $200ks. In Lincoln Park you might find a tiny fixer-upper SFH for $500k, but condos, again, start in the $200ks for the most part. West Lakeview you might find an unrenovated wood frame house for $400k if you look long enough, but you can find similarly unrenovated condos starting in the upper $100ks.

The only possible exception I can think of is in areas where housing markets are dramatically depressed, so any housing values are compressed toward the lower bounds of pricing, bringing them closer together. But in places that most people prefer to live, condos are going to be cheaper than homes, or they're going to be newer or recently renovated, and better-maintained than comparably-priced houses.

im talking moreso about the general options available to someone with say 100-200k (im guessing the budget for your typicalal single first time home buyer that hasnt fallen backwards into some cash) to spend across the city at large. its inevitably going to be a tradeoff between less space closer to a trendy area, or more space in a less trendy more far flung area. but the structure youre actually purchasing, i would argue is nearly always more bang for buck if you get a SFH somewhere more away from the action. and again, im done with that scene mostly. acquiring a home to me cant be seperated from what I can use it for...and a condo feels incredibly restrictive. and the condos at the low end of the market are depressing and bleak in my experience. SFHs at the low end of the market might need a little work, but theyre infinitely more appealing places and if theyre vintage, have good bones and some charm and with a little effort can be brought back to something even better.

chicago is still a city filled with affordable SFHs if youre flexible, and its an option one wouldnt even be able to consider in NY/SF/Seattle.

[george]

Thanks, Jibba. A few more.

[wierdaaron]

I think the thing with condos is that there needs to be a healthy mix of them with rentals, and in highly dynamic areas like the loop it makes way more sense for all or heavily favored toward rentals because there's going to be lots of turnover and the rates can be adjusted for the changing markets. Living in the loop is like living in Disney World. It's perfect for some people at some times in their life, but fewer people are going to want to be there their whole lives. It's more like a place you visit for a couple years. So better to keep them rentals so they can turn over quickly to the next person who wants to experience it.

Plus, any condo building downtown is going to have such high monthly dues to pay for the building that you might as well be renting anyway. The standard rent-v-own logic is that you'd save money by buying because your mortgage payment would be lower, but a lot of these loop-area condo buildings have dues upwards of $2,000 a month. That throws the standard math out of the window.

In conclusion: rent downtown, own someplace where you can see a tree.

[Near North Resident]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

Here's more about the 7 story building at 171 N. Wabash from Crain's:



http://www.chicagobusiness.com/reale...hicagobusiness

that is bloody awful, its like something you would see in the downtown of one of our suburbs, not the loop!

[Near North Resident]

Originally Posted by marothisu

http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20150...s-western-stop

50 townhomes of $750K each proposed for a vacant lot at Cortland and Campbell. Neighbors say there's a "gang problem" there and hope this helps fix it. This is a block or so away from the Western Blue Line stop.

love this nimby logic

""It's been empty for such a long period of time and so gang infested, but I'm concerned about traffic," said Joe Kopera, a Logan Square resident who lives near the site."

yeah who cares about gangs when theorhetical cars are the extremely concerning thing from this development

[k1052]

Originally Posted by wierdaaron

Plus, any condo building downtown is going to have such high monthly dues to pay for the building that you might as well be renting anyway. The standard rent-v-own logic is that you'd save money by buying because your mortgage payment would be lower, but a lot of these loop-area condo buildings have dues upwards of $2,000 a month. That throws the standard math out of the window.

In conclusion: rent downtown, own someplace where you can see a tree.

That depends a lot on the particular building you buy in. I'm starting my next property search (river north) and most of the assesments I'm running into are in the $350-$700 range depending on the size and type of building. Then again I'm not in the market for a $1-3M sky palace that seem to be getting all the new build attention which obviously have more formidable assessments.

[Justin_Chicago]

Originally Posted by wierdaaron

I think the thing with condos is that there needs to be a healthy mix of them with rentals, and in highly dynamic areas like the loop it makes way more sense for all or heavily favored toward rentals because there's going to be lots of turnover and the rates can be adjusted for the changing markets. Living in the loop is like living in Disney World. It's perfect for some people at some times in their life, but fewer people are going to want to be there their whole lives. It's more like a place you visit for a couple years. So better to keep them rentals so they can turn over quickly to the next person who wants to experience it.

Plus, any condo building downtown is going to have such high monthly dues to pay for the building that you might as well be renting anyway. The standard rent-v-own logic is that you'd save money by buying because your mortgage payment would be lower, but a lot of these loop-area condo buildings have dues upwards of $2,000 a month. That throws the standard math out of the window.

In conclusion: rent downtown, own someplace where you can see a tree.

I purchased a 1 bedroom back in 2007/2008 and my mortgage + association fee is a few hundred less than what people are renting equivalent units in my building. I also get interest and property tax deductions with my built up equity. It depends on how long you have been owning the place. I do not recommend owning unless you will be in the place for at least five years, but salary inflation on a "fixed mortgage" adds up over time and now it makes sense for me to continue living there until the right new construction pops up in my preferred price range. I personally rather have a 3 bedroom high rise condo than a SFH because I value my time more than dealing with maintenance and yard work. Lastly, if I am in the office very late, I rather have a 15 minute commute home than 45 minutes to an hour to Ravenswood or Edgewater.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by wierdaaron

In conclusion: rent downtown, own someplace where you can see a tree.

meh.

i own a condo unit in marina city that i rent out for more money ($1,200/month) than i pay in mortgage/assessment/taxes ($950/month). i don't live there any more, but if i did, it'd be cheaper to own than rent.

and when the mortgage is paid off in 20 years, my wife and i plan to use it as our pied a terre.

[Ned.B]

Originally Posted by Near North Resident

that is bloody awful, its like something you would see in the downtown of one of our suburbs, not the loop!

Good thing between the L tracks, this building's short stature and the mid-block location, that this project isn't going to have much visibility either way. It would be better if it lost the pediment, round top windows, and keystones, and just tried to be an understated brick background building.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by Justin_Chicago

I rather have a 15 minute commute home than 45 minutes to an hour to Ravenswood or Edgewater.

eh, i bike every day from edgewater to loop in around 30 minutes and its consistently one of the best parts of my day, and in fact one of my single favorite things about living in chicago. basically a built in exercise+mental health routine, and it gives me time to decompress in between. living on shady streets is big too. but hey, different strokes and all (I would love a shorter a commute in winter when I get pushed back onto the L though. even then, thats where i get my reading done).

that said, its kinda blowing my mind you can own a place in Marina City for under a grand/month.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

that said, its kinda blowing my mind you can own a place in Marina City for under a grand/month.

keep in mind that it's a small 500 SF studio unit.

but yeah, it only costs me $950/month* to carry it, and i can definitely rent it out for more money than that these days.

(*) mortgage payment: $560, assessment: $240, prop. taxes: $150.

[Jibba]

Originally Posted by Ned.B

Good thing between the L tracks, this building's short stature and the mid-block location, that this project isn't going to have much visibility either way. It would be better if it lost the pediment, round top windows, and keystones, and just tried to be an understated brick background building.

Exactly. Just copy the main elevation of this wholesale:


source

Or make this 7 stories:

source

You only need an extra layer of brick here and there. It wouldn't cost that much, and the additional cost would be offset by not having to order "ornate" windows. Just bulk order all ones of the same size.

[Jim in Chicago]

Originally Posted by Ned.B

Good thing between the L tracks, this building's short stature and the mid-block location, that this project isn't going to have much visibility either way. It would be better if it lost the pediment, round top windows, and keystones, and just tried to be an understated brick background building.

Agreed. Lose the pediment, stretch the Chicago style windows across the entire façade and choose the right brick and the whole thing will just disappear into the background. Not always a bad thing. At least it wouldn't be a turd!

I don't have access to the entire Crain's article - does it explain how they're planning to get 60 units into 6 floors. Must either be a very deep building or they're all studios!

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by Jibba

Exactly. Just copy the main elevation of this wholesale:

...or just go all out and embrace the kitsch:


Source: Bradley Maule

"The technologically unadvanced brick, the old-fashioned, double-hung windows, the pretty materials around the entrance, and the ugly antenna not hidden behind the parapet in the accepted fashion, all are distinctly conventional in image as well as substance, or, rather, ugly and ordinary."

But yeah. It is not difficult to make decent architecture. These talentless hacks just make it look hard. Find a pre-Modern building and reduce it to its basic shapes. "Traditional" forms, minimalist detailing. Bam. Done. You see this type of infill all over Germanic Europe.

[wierdaaron]

What's going on with that project? Why so short? Zoning on that lot? Couldn't you PD that thing and make it at least 30 stories without ruffling anybody's feathers? I love when parking lots disappear, but this feels like someone not realizing the value of that location.

[PKDickman]

Originally Posted by wierdaaron

What's going on with that project? Why so short? Zoning on that lot? Couldn't you PD that thing and make it at least 30 stories without ruffling anybody's feathers? I love when parking lots disappear, but this feels like someone not realizing the value of that location.

It is PDed. That is the problem.
t is Subarea B and Subarea A sucked all but 7 FARs from B.

It also sucked all the DUs, which is why they're asking for relief.