CHICAGO | General Developments

[harryc]

March 12








Trickster Studios - crossing in style

[SIGSEGV]

This is too bad:

Washington Park National Bank Building Likely To Be Demolished, Replaced With New Building

https://blockclubchicago.org/2019/03...-new-building/

CHICAGO — Despite preservationists’ hopes that the long-vacant, 95-year-old Washington Park National Bank building would be restored, the Cook County Land Bank Authority voted Friday to accept a developer’s proposal to instead demolish the property and replace it with a new building.

The building at 6300 S. Cottage Grove Ave. is owned by the Cook County Land Bank Authority, who announced in the fall it would seek a developer to transform the site into a mixed-use building with amenities that would benefit the community as part of an overall effort to revitalize the Woodlawn neighborhood, particularly near 63rd and Cottage Grove.

[the urban politician]

..

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I’m not sure where you’re looking, but you can easily still buy a 3 flat on the north side near transit for well under $1.2 million.

But not where I want to live.

The cumulative value of the 3 units in our 3-flat in Lincoln Square is $1.25M.

However, I'm admittedly a HARDCORE location snob. Not so much on the macro level, but on the micro level. Must be within a 1/4 mile walk to el stop. Must have at least 50 restaurants within 1/2 mile walk. Must be able to accomplish >90% of weekend errands on foot. Must be within 5 minute walk of school. Must be within 5 minute walk to grocery store. Etc.

There probably are areas on the northside where we might have been able to afford an entire (rundown) 3-flat, but I wouldn't have wanted to live there, nor done the requisite crapload of rehab work.

For me, location trumps all other considerations.

And I couldn't be happier with our location.

Lincoln Square is perhaps the most family-friendly neighborhood in the whole city.

[BonoboZill4]

Huh... so that DuSable park is going to be much larger than I thought. Would make for some really cool plays/movies on the lake like they do over at Navy Pier park

[harryc]

March 12



With Vista


With GEMS I

[emathias]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I’m not sure where you’re looking, but you can easily still buy a 3 flat on the north side near transit for well under $1.2 million.

I mean, you just must not be trying that hard. Hell, there is a 4 flat with a huge duplex in River North—2.5 blocks from One Chicago Square— right now that is on sale for $1.5 MM, and the owners are willing to sell it for $1.4 MM. I still think that’s high for an investment property, but if I were going to be a live in owner I’d take it in a heartbeat.

The criminal CRLTO doesn’t even apply to owner occupants in 4 or fewer unit buildings, so that’s an added bonus.

If I lived in the city I would definitely opt to own and live in a small multi unit. It just makes too much sense.

I was curious about the 4-flat you mentioned near OCS so I looked it up. It may be a 4-flat, technically, but it's tiny. The listing says the lot is 435 square feet which has to be a misprint, but it's not huge. The building is about half the depth of a normal 4-flat. I live in a 4-flat, next to a second 4-flat in River North, both from the same era as that one and on Google maps my building is twice the depth of that one, plus we have parking and and alley behind which that one on Chestnut doesn't.

Plus, having served on the board for over a decade here, I can tell you that maintenance expenses aren't going to be cheap for a building of that era. And with a boxed in lot, you're one major foundation issue away from having a teardown.

Even running the numbers, I don't see how you get above about an 8% return even when things after going great, and with any problems at all, that could disappear it even go negative for multiple years.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by emathias

I was curious about the 4-flat you mentioned near OCS so I looked it up. It may be a 4-flat, technically, but it's tiny. The listing says the lot is 435 square feet which has to be a misprint, but it's not huge. The building is about half the depth of a normal 4-flat. I live in a 4-flat, next to a second 4-flat in River North, both from the same era as that one and on Google maps my building is twice the depth of that one, plus we have parking and and alley behind which that one on Chestnut doesn't.

Plus, having served on the board for over a decade here, I can tell you that maintenance expenses aren't going to be cheap for a building of that era. And with a boxed in lot, you're one major foundation issue away from having a teardown.

Even running the numbers, I don't see how you get above about an 8% return even when things after going great, and with any problems at all, that could disappear it even go negative for multiple years.

I’ve walked through it. It’s in good shape, no evidence whatsoever of structural issues. The building size is decent but not huge. And maintenance costs—meh, that’s pretty much going to be the case for any Chicago property built before 1930, so I’m not sure what point you’re making with that.

I certainly think that if there is one location where parking is not needed, it would be here.

Point being, if you live in the duplex, you can probably easily collect $6500-7000 in rent from the 3 two bedroom apartments upstairs. That cuts so much out of your mortgage payments that it really makes the investment worth looking into as a live in owner—plus the added benefit that the RLTO doesn’t apply to live-in landlords, making that side of things a tad easier.

I agree with you on its issues as an investment property—it’s priced too high. Just my thoughts

[west-town-brad]

Originally Posted by marothisu

I'm sure that explains part of it, but I doubt it explains most of it. You can look at my new construction map (https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?m...169999999&z=10) for reference which goes back to mid August 2013. There have been 55 SFHs permitted between North, Clybourn, Armitage, and Wells in that time period. There were also 65 units in new multi unit buildings permitted in the same geographical area and time period.

Contrast that with West Town now. Between North, California, Hubbard, and the interstate there have been 329 new multi unit buildings permitted for a grand total of 1743 new units in multi-unit buildings (not counting the "Tower of Pizza Hut" by the way). Over 1000 of these units were in mostly 3 and 4 unit buildings (but some 8 unit-ers and a few ~30) south of Division Street. That means for every new SFH in Lincoln Park south of Armitage, there have been over 31 new units permitted in multi unit buildings south of North Avenue. If you're going the "for every 3 unit building torn down for a new SFH there, those people move to West Town" route, then every single SFH in Lincoln Park would have had to tear down 10+ 3-unit buildings each which is not even close to the case.

This isn't even counting what's north of North Avenue or what's in Logan Square. That number is going to double easily once we include Bucktown, Logan Square, etc. I'm sure it explains a little bit, but no - not buying it at all. The more likely explanation is that they went further north to areas like Lakeview, Roscoe Village, etc but no matter where they went, it's not even close to a 1-to-1 replacement.

I’m sure your numbers are correct, however here is an article from crains explaining my POV: https://www.chicagobusiness.com/arti...all-of-chicago

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by west-town-brad

I’m sure your numbers are correct, however here is an article from crains explaining my POV: https://www.chicagobusiness.com/arti...all-of-chicago

The article you posted does not support that at all as what they post is merely a very hypothetical situation with no supported evidence of it. It's a way of illustrating of one of the many possibilities for where these people went. However, the Census nor the IRS's public migration data goes to this granular of a level of geography. The lowest they go is the entire county. This is the source of your inspiration for this:

Second, as places like Lincoln Park become forbiddingly expensive, some people decide their next best option is, say, Wicker Park or Logan Square. When they arrive, they open coffee shops and hipster bars, attracting people with more money, who then bid up housing prices there, expanding the parts of the city where the working class simply can't afford to live.

But most potential residents will just decide to move to the suburbs. And, once there, they won't be supporting neighborhood businesses. They won't be contributing to the city's tax base. In other words, by pushing people to the suburbs, we're giving up neighborhood jobs and money the city desperately needs to provide services in every neighborhood in the city, including—especially—the ones that actually are struggling, far from Lincoln Park.

There is absolutely nothing in here showing an proof of your position, because there isn't any proof for this person to have. What they state is pure conjecture and actually, it's not even stated anecdotally as if they have met people in their own life who this describes. They just state a hypothetical - as commentary for what the effects of certain zoning could be, or losing population units. It's not meant to be taken literally as where everyone went.

The article talks about population losses since peak population in the 1950s and 1960s where Lincoln Park, along with nearly every other of the 77 community areas in town, lost population. Then it talks about housing unit loss there too and only mentions the above as a potential scenario for where people could go. There is absolutely no data shown at all in what I quoted above or the article which supports their position. Why would you so readily believe someone's opinion on where everyone went when they do not offer any data on the migration (which the Census does NOT have)?

[west-town-brad]

Originally Posted by marothisu

The article you posted does not support that at all as what they post is merely a very hypothetical situation with no supported evidence of it. It's a way of illustrating of one of the many possibilities for where these people went. However, the Census nor the IRS's public migration data goes to this granular of a level of geography. The lowest they go is the entire county. This is the source of your inspiration for this:



There is absolutely nothing in here showing an proof of your position, because there isn't any proof for this person to have. What they state is pure conjecture and actually, it's not even stated anecdotally as if they have met people in their own life who this describes. They just state a hypothetical - as commentary for what the effects of certain zoning could be, or losing population units. It's not meant to be taken literally as where everyone went.

The article talks about population losses since peak population in the 1950s and 1960s where Lincoln Park, along with nearly every other of the 77 community areas in town, lost population. Then it talks about housing unit loss there too and only mentions the above as a potential scenario for where people could go. There is absolutely no data shown at all in what I quoted above or the article which supports their position. Why would you so readily believe someone's opinion on where everyone went when they do not offer any data on the migration (which the Census does NOT have)?

okay, thanks.

[PittsburghPA]

3/18/19

905 W Fulton


Fifteen Fifty on the Park

[emathias]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I’ve walked through it. It’s in good shape, no evidence whatsoever of structural issues. The building size is decent but not huge. And maintenance costs—meh, that’s pretty much going to be the case for any Chicago property built before 1930, so I’m not sure what point you’re making with that.

I certainly think that if there is one location where parking is not needed, it would be here.
...

I agree parking isn't needed (though I own a space, I don't own a car), I just mentioned my parking as a comparison of lot sizes.

As far as repair costs, part of what I didn't successfully convey is that repairs on small properties in downtown or downtownish areas are, in my experience, much more expensive, especially in places where staging anything becomes extremely difficult - like when there isn't a convenient parking lot or alley to drive through. That's my only point about those. It probably would be a decent live/rent sort of place assuming nothing goes wrong. And probably, if anything was going to go wrong with the construction next to it, it would have already happened so it's probably fairly stable right now.

[Via Chicago]

Does anyone know what's going on with the Lukas development that was supposed to be going in off the Sheridan red line stop. Originally announced like in 2014 and they were going to tear down that handsome apartment flat...but seems to have stalled?

[JK47]

Originally Posted by west-town-brad

I’m sure your numbers are correct, however here is an article from crains explaining my POV: https://www.chicagobusiness.com/arti...all-of-chicago

The author's conclusion is at best off base. The biggest driver of population decline isn't a loss of housing units but rather a decrease in household size. Using Lincoln Park as an example, the household size in that neighborhood decreased from 2.92 in 1950 to 2.01 in 2012 (a 31% reduction). Meanwhile the number of housing units in the neighborhood decreased by 8%. If household sizes were to increase back to their 1950 size then the population of Lincoln Park would be about 94000 people (close to its 102000 person peak). With current household sizes, in order to reach peak population density, Lincoln Park would need to increase the number of housing units in the neighborhood by 51%.

The reduction in population isn't the result of local factors in Chicago's economy but rather the local impact of macro changes in our society as family size and composition changed.

[marothisu]

Demolition permit was issued yesterday to finally destroy that Pizza Hut at North & Western. What was the last to replace this again?

[harryc]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

Does anyone know what's going on with the Lukas development that was supposed to be going in off the Sheridan red line stop. Originally announced like in 2014 and they were going to tear down that handsome apartment flat...but seems to have stalled?

Which flat - please don't say 1000-1010 Dakin.

[Via Chicago]

Unfortunately.

https://chicago.curbed.com/2016/8/11...w-sheridan-tod

That said, I'm hoping it's dead as a doornail given there's been no movement in a couple years...admired it from the train today and then remembered oh right....

[killaviews]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

Unfortunately.

https://chicago.curbed.com/2016/8/11...w-sheridan-tod

That said, I'm hoping it's dead as a doornail given there's been no movement in a couple years...admired it from the train today and then remembered oh right....

It does look like the building is empty though.

[harryc]

Originally Posted by killaviews

It does look like the building is empty though.

Back when it wasn't ( 1994 I think )

Chicago | Days on Dakin by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr
Chicago | Days on Dakin by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr
Chicago | Days on Dakin by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr
Chicago | Days on Dakin by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr