CHICAGO | 1000M (1000 S Michigan) | 805 FT | 73 FLOORS - Page 40

HomrQT · #**781** Posted **Oct 29, 2017, 10:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by left of center

Your average condo buyer isn't going to care all that much about the building's exterior appearance. Their priorities are a well designed unit, that the lobby and public spaces look nice, the location works for them, and that they feel that they get a good bang for their buck. As long as the exterior isn't outrageously ugly, its more of an afterthought. Clearly, those of us on this site would probably rank architectural merit a bit higher on our list.

You're absolutely correct.

I have a brain teaser for you. If there were two buildings across the street from each other, absolutely identical on the inside and cost of living were the same, but one building is ugly as sin on the outside and the other was a gorgeous building in an architectural style you greatly admire - which building would you choose to live in? If you live in the ugly building, then when you look out the window you see the really nice building, but you know you live in the building that looks crappy. If you live in the nice building, you'd have to look at the ugly building when you look outside. So which is it?

left of center · #**782** Posted **Oct 29, 2017, 10:31 PM**

^ What are the chances of the uggo building getting demo'd or redeveloped in the near future?

HomrQT · #**783** Posted **Oct 29, 2017, 10:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by left of center

^ What are the chances of the uggo building getting demo'd or redeveloped in the near future?

Hehe. That could be a good reason to pick the nicer building, in the hopes that the ugly one goes away at some point. But until it goes away you're stuck looking at it.

left of center · #**784** Posted **Oct 30, 2017, 12:05 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomrQT

Hehe. That could be a good reason to pick the nicer building, in the hopes that the ugly one goes away at some point. But until it goes away you're stuck looking at it.

I can always keep the shades drawn. But I can't blindfold people who are coming over. I'll take my chances that this ugly building is in a ward with a pro development alderman lol

HomrQT · #**785** Posted **Oct 30, 2017, 12:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by left of center

I can always keep the shades drawn. But I can't blindfold people who are coming over. I'll take my chances that this ugly building is in a ward with a pro development alderman lol

It's in Pilsen...

Chicago_Forever · #**786** Posted **Oct 30, 2017, 12:36 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kumdogmillionaire

Late 2018? I had thought it was supposed to start in early 2018. This project feels like it will never start...

Dude chill! This thing was always suppose to start late 2018. From The very start, I’ve always heard or read that sales would start in late 2017 with ground breaking taking place in fall 2018. As far as I’m concerned, it ain’t fall 2018 yet so there’s no point in bitching about it not starting yet. People who didn’t closely follow Wanda Vista bitched about it never starting too.

Chicago_Forever · #**787** Posted **Oct 30, 2017, 12:46 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Domer2019

And to think they were originally trying to fill 1000' worth of units. I'd like to think tepid sales are because of the awkward design, but probably not...

Considering the sales center has only been open for about a month, if not less, it’s probably way too early to say whether sales are tepid unless you’re part of the sales team and have first hand knowledge that none of the units have been sold or something.

BVictor1 · #**788** Posted **Oct 30, 2017, 12:53 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bonsai Tree

I saw a commercial for 1000M last night. I knew they were marketing really hard, but commercials? Really? I don't even think Vista had commercials.

Lincoln Park 2520 did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kumdogmillionaire

Late 2018? I had thought it was supposed to start in early 2018. This project feels like it will never start...

Perhaps if pre-sales makes it there quicker, they'll start earlier. When I went into the sales center, I heard they needed 30% sales to obtain financing. There are what, 325 planned units? So they need 95-100 pre-sales it seems.

Domer2019 · #**789** Posted **Oct 30, 2017, 12:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicago_Forever

Considering the sales center has only been open for about a month, if not less, it’s probably way too early to say whether sales are tepid unless you’re part of the sales team and have first hand knowledge that none of the units have been sold or something.

I was assuming that sales had commenced prior to this heavy-handed marketing (as portrayed here), but if that's untrue then it paints a different picture.

UPChicago · #**790** Posted **Oct 30, 2017, 2:53 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicago_Forever

Considering the sales center has only been open for about a month, if not less, it’s probably way too early to say whether sales are tepid unless you’re part of the sales team and have first hand knowledge that none of the units have been sold or something.

Mte

jc5680 · #**791** Posted **Oct 30, 2017, 2:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

Lincoln Park 2520 did.
Perhaps if pre-sales makes it there quicker, they'll start earlier. When I went into the sales center, I heard they needed 30% sales to obtain financing. There are what, 325 planned units? So they need 95-100 pre-sales it seems.

30% seems low… it's been a while but I thought 50% was the typical condo funding threshold.

Is there some sort of Wanda like partner here that affects the financing?

That threshold really changes my outlook on the likelihood of this getting built.

Domer2019 · #**792** Posted **Oct 30, 2017, 2:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jc5680

30% seems low… it's been a while but I thought 50% was the typical condo funding threshold.

Is there some sort of Wanda like partner here that affects the financing?

That threshold really changes my outlook on the likelihood of this getting built.

There are also ~ 200 rental units, so it's not 100% condo.

jc5680 · #**793** Posted **Oct 30, 2017, 2:48 PM**

Ah, that's what I was missing, makes sense. thx

UPChicago · #**794** Posted **Oct 30, 2017, 3:13 PM**

I think 30% is the usual threshold

BVictor1 · #**795** Posted **Oct 30, 2017, 3:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Domer2019

There are also ~ 200 rental units, so it's not 100% condo.

It is 100% condo

The rental went the way of the original design.

UPChicago · #**796** Posted **Oct 30, 2017, 3:49 PM**

• Video Link

May as well post this

Domer2019 · #**797** Posted **Oct 30, 2017, 6:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

It is 100% condo

The rental went the way of the original design.

Ah, ok. Curbed's article right after the change included those incorrect figures.

Mr Downtown · #**798** Posted **Oct 31, 2017, 3:15 AM**

^The affordable units, too?

Kumdogmillionaire · #**799** Posted **Oct 31, 2017, 5:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

^The affordable units, too?

Is that even a thing? Affordable units that are condominium? That wouldn't even make sense. I'm also surprised they didn't just pay the penalty to have no affordable units in the building already.

Mr Downtown · #**800** Posted **Oct 31, 2017, 6:46 PM**

^That's how the developer planned to go, and that's how the PD was approved. But when Ald. King took office, she claims to have gone back and insisted on affordable units in the building. But I can't find any details on the number, ownership, or whether they'll even be in the same tower.