HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Skyscraper & Highrise Construction


1000M in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • Chicago Skyscraper Diagram

Map Location
Chicago Projects & Construction Forum

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1841  
Old Posted Feb 9, 2021, 7:48 AM
dropdeaded209's Avatar
dropdeaded209 dropdeaded209 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Berlin
Posts: 381
looks like all the detailing for the crown fell by the wayside... too bad
__________________
Director of Starship Chicago, The Absent Column and the upcoming epic Battleship Berlin.

"Helmut Jahn has never suffered a failure of nerve."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1842  
Old Posted Feb 9, 2021, 5:19 PM
Jibba's Avatar
Jibba Jibba is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by dropdeaded209 View Post
looks like all the detailing for the crown fell by the wayside... too bad
I think that's an improvement. The uninterrupted façade will help promote the sculptural aspect of the design, given the dimensionality of its curvy shape.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1843  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2021, 1:49 PM
CaptainJilliams CaptainJilliams is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 5
Renderings Reveal Updated Design For 1000M At 1000 S Michigan Avenue In South Loop



Renderings have been revealed of the updated design for 1000M, a residential tower located at 1000 S Michigan Avenue in South Loop. Located on an empty lot, the site fronts S Michigan Avenue midblock between E 9th Street and E 11th Street. Time Equities and JK Equities are the developers behind the project.

https://chicagoyimby.com/2021/02/ren...outh-loop.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1844  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2021, 2:49 PM
Barrelfish Barrelfish is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainJilliams View Post

Renderings have been revealed of the updated design for 1000M, a residential tower located at 1000 S Michigan Avenue in South Loop. Located on an empty lot, the site fronts S Michigan Avenue midblock between E 9th Street and E 11th Street. Time Equities and JK Equities are the developers behind the project.

https://chicagoyimby.com/2021/02/ren...outh-loop.html
Here is the key quote from that article:
Quote:
The change in unit type from condos to rentals was a result of the financing structure behind the project. The developers secured construction financing in two phases, where the provider had the option to change or rescind funds for the second phase if they chose to. In the late spring of 2020, financing for the second phase was not released by the provider and the project was halted. The developers hope that the change in unit type will allow for the reinstatement of financing either by the current provider or a new provider. Final negotiations on financing are still underway.
So as we suspected, COVID was just a fig leaf for the pause in construction last year. And they still have not secured financing to actually finish it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1845  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2021, 4:36 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,226
So according to article, all rentals, now 738 units. Big boost in density. I wish them all the luck in the world in pulling this off.

I haven't researched, but I wonder if these developers have any relevant experience (let alone a strong established track record) with very large rental development? If not, that will certainly not make things easier to pull off financing here. It's a heavy lift, and I hope they can get it done. If they run into real difficulty in the months ahead, would appear to be a good opportunity to JV with an established player in the market, or potentially sell to one that can hit the ground running.
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1846  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2021, 5:24 PM
Chi-Sky21 Chi-Sky21 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,045
We just better not end up with a half built skeleton to look at for years and years from Grant Park and the Lake.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1847  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2021, 9:33 PM
Mikelacey45's Avatar
Mikelacey45 Mikelacey45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Chicago
Posts: 58
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1848  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2021, 9:40 PM
Ricochet48 Ricochet48 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: River North, Chicago
Posts: 136
"This extremely dense concentration of dwelling units could create safety problems and potentially lower the property values of the existing community”

What a joke.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1849  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2021, 9:53 PM
left of center's Avatar
left of center left of center is offline
1st Ward
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Big Onion
Posts: 1,964
Quote:
The new proposal “would change the character of the building from what was originally to be a condominium of resident owners to a more transient population of renters,” Simon Fox, property manager of the building at 910 S. Michigan Ave., wrote in a letter to Ald. Sophia King (4th), who represents the neighborhood.
Yes.... transients. On Boul Mich, overlooking the park and the lake. By the sounds of it you would think they are building a highrise SRO here. Give me a break with these fatalistic/doomsday whines.
__________________
"Eventually, I think Chicago will be the most beautiful great city left in the world." -Frank Lloyd Wright
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1850  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2021, 10:21 PM
glowrock's Avatar
glowrock glowrock is offline
Becoming Chicago-fied!
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Chicago (West Avondale)
Posts: 19,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by left of center View Post
Yes.... transients. On Boul Mich, overlooking the park and the lake. By the sounds of it you would think they are building a highrise SRO here. Give me a break with these fatalistic/doomsday whines.
The residents and adjoining property owners along Michigan Ave. need to non-politely go fuck themselves. This has got to be the most insipidly ridiculous logic I've ever read! Transients, in an expensive rental tower on Michigan Ave.? Wow, what a bunch of bovine excrement!

Aaron (Glowrock)
__________________
"My first day in Chicago, September 4, 1983. I set foot in this city, and just walking down the street, it was like roots, like the motherland. I knew I belonged here." -- Oprah Winfrey
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1851  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2021, 12:43 AM
RedCorsair87 RedCorsair87 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 496
Right. Because Nema is not all rental and a block away.

Give me a break
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1852  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2021, 2:40 AM
Bombardier Bombardier is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 404
^And Essex a block in the other direction... both completed within a few months of one another... SMH
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1853  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2021, 2:45 AM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 23,330
That's some "level 11" NIMBY dip-shittery right there.

Just when you think they can't possibly ratchet up the stupid any higher.....
__________________
If a Pizza is baked in a forest, and no one is around to eat it, is it still delicious?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1854  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2021, 4:23 AM
SteelMonkey's Avatar
SteelMonkey SteelMonkey is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Chicago
Posts: 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by glowrock View Post
The residents and adjoining property owners along Michigan Ave. need to non-politely go fuck themselves. This has got to be the most insipidly ridiculous logic I've ever read!

Aaron (Glowrock)
Exactly
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1855  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2021, 2:56 PM
gebs's Avatar
gebs gebs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: South Loop
Posts: 653
I'm giving them a huge benefit of the doubt when I say that, in this case, I think they're using the word "transients" to refer to people who live in the building for one year and then bounce somewhere else, and not nomads or the dispossessed.

Still, I agree with everyone that their logic is hugely flawed.
__________________
Vote the monsters out.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1856  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2021, 4:01 PM
Tombstoner Tombstoner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 972
Quote:
Originally Posted by left of center View Post
Give me a break with these fatalistic/doomsday whines.
I don't this this has as much to do with fatalism or doomsday-cultism as much as good ol' fashioned "for many of us, this will block our view." Many units have a south-east facing view that this will obviously impede. You can get why they'd be sad about that, but there's a difference between being sad and being indignant.
Personally, I find the tower boring as hell (enough of a widening towards the top to be mildly noticeable but too subtle to make an architectural statement). Not that the neighbors care...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1857  
Old Posted Mar 17, 2021, 8:34 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,226
^ For the "this will block our view" theory to make sense it means that this must have slipped under the radar of the 910 condo board when the tower was originally up for entitlements as it has essentially the same envelope/massing as the approved PD version. (or they did press the issue and it was either not reported on or I just missed it.......or I suppose it's a much different board or residents weirdly had some sort of recent change of heart).

I haven't read the article but if their gripes are mostly about it changing to all rental, that should be a non-starter in terms of the Alderman entertaining them. That's just ridiculous and doesn't deserve a serious response. I don't know what they mean by a transient population, but to be clear the probability of a substantial number of very short-term rentals is probably greater with having a tower of 500+ individually-owned units - you would have a high percentage of investor-owned units rented out according to whatever/whenever length of lease individual owners decide, possibly with many being used as vacation rentals (I realize there would be board with some rules but might end up being very investor owner friendly) - particularly with that larger number of quite small units that were added by the developer while still a condo project, but with the 'standard' units to some extent certainly as well.

With an all rental tower comes professional, institutional management. This is an expensive, high end project and would be not just at the top of the market in the South Loop but would be in the top tier among all Class A buildings downtown. The developer would very likely hire one of the larger very established apartment leasing and management firms to run it - or they would sell to a (likely) institutional or REIT owner that would do the same (either in-house or also third party).

If the gripes are about just overall density of the project, that should clearly be a non-starter of an argument at this location. This is a walk and transit to everything type of location and is obviously supportive of very high density. I wonder what Ald King does here. Her ward just picks up this portion of downtown but primarily covers completely different neighborhoods (granted it's in relative terms a very fast growing section of her ward/gaining market share in terms of constituents represented). She might not be too terribly concerned by the complaints as to move to pander to the NIMBYs here, particularly if she's presented with arguments that this change/densification of the project is necessary to keep it alive given changing market conditions (the developer's previous programmatic/pricing misfire).


On the other hand, perhaps this is the classic kabuki theater between developer and alderman. They could have a unit count in mind, say 625-675, that still might pencil out well for them and that the alderman can get behind amending to once any tussle with the 910 board plays out, and a choreographed compromise is reached.

What would be really sad would be a situation in which the developer didn't make any such approach, they took a chance on this solid boost in density here representing what will truly pencil out for them with not a ton of room for error, and King ends up being persuaded by the NIMBY board on this one and rebuffs the amendment. If that were to happen - following the poor judgement/lack of homework with their initial program......they should probably consider an altogether different line of work.

Would be very curious as to how Mr Downtown sees this one and thinks it's likely to play out and what Ald King is likely to do.
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.

Last edited by SamInTheLoop; Mar 17, 2021 at 11:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1858  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2021, 5:04 PM
Barrelfish Barrelfish is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 161
The NIMBYism here is obviously stupid. But it will be a moot point if this project can't secure new financing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1859  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2021, 6:18 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,225
https://cityobservatory.org/wp-conte...redict_now.jpg

I recently had a lengthy conversation with Ald. King on this, but I didn’t end with a good sense of what she intends to do.

I was quite surprised at how little resistance the 910 building put up back in 2016, but I think their board at the time had been focused on lot-line issues, and once the design pulled back 10 feet from the lot line, they acquiesced. But board leadership, and even residents, change over time. I only heard concerns expressed in the Feb. 22 meeting. A lot of it is Boomers who just can’t comprehend why respectable people would ever rent rather than buy condos; some is Boomers who frequently drive on various errands and therefore just assume more units will mean proportionally more trip generation. They also often feel streets are already saturated, a point of view that puzzles me since it’s pretty rare for me to even have to wait 10 seconds before crossing most South Loop streets.

Ald. King didn’t seem all that receptive to the “but they’re rental units” argument; in fact, her main issue is affordable housing (which the new proposal includes 23 units of). But she’s more receptive to the drive-everywhere crowd and had already made them put more parking stalls in this revised PD. The big question for me is whether the mayor’s office and Commissioner Cox will pressure her to harvest the golden eggs (those affordable units, millions for the Neighborhood Opportunity Fund; more millions in property tax, etc.) right away, or let the site wait a few years for a better design and a more realistic pro forma.

Last edited by Tom In Chicago; Mar 19, 2021 at 9:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Skyscraper & Highrise Construction
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:09 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.