SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/index.php)
-   General Development (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/forumdisplay.php?f=86)
-   -   CHICAGO | The 78 Site (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=233449)

Jim in Chicago Jul 17, 2018 3:23 PM

I don't know the details, but someone once wrote up the DP1 situation and how there are multiple overlapping associations. It is something like:

Master association that governs the entire development
Property association (certainly not the name) that governs landscaping, security, etc. (this may be the Master Association)
I believe the Parking Garage(s) are another association.
Then I believe that the high rises are a separate association (or maybe 2) from the townhouses. Again, the "white ones" and the newer ones closer to Roosevelt may be separate as well.

I'd love to see a write up from someone who actually has the true dope.

I don't know whether the retirement home at the corner of Polk and Clark is part of DP1 or not.I don't even know if their condos or rental.

Oh - those newer ones closer to Roosevelt are not prime property. We toured one on our house hunt and we walking away muttering "grim". At least some if not all of them are tow stacked upits, the spaces are smallish and the lower units are dark. I doubt many would shed a tear if those were replaced with the originally planned high rise. At this point the hood could certainly support it.

Mr Downtown Jul 17, 2018 3:55 PM

Dearborn Park Phase I has eight master associations:
  • 801 South Plymouth (which is a master association with Terraces, townhouses, and garage associations within it).
  • 899 South Plymouth highrise (the retail space, currently divided among three tenants, is just a unit like any other)
  • 901 South Plymouth highrise (owns their garage)
  • 1115 South Plymouth midrise
  • 1145 South Plymouth midrise
  • 1169 South Plymouth midrise (each midrise is a master association with two little townhouse groups along State Street).
  • Townhouses of Dearborn Park (144 in seven clusters)
  • Garden Homes of Dearborn Park (the group I described above)
DP1 also includes The Oaks, a senior rental building owned by Draper & Kramer. There is no master association for the whole compound; the security contract is divided up based on a handshake agreement from the 1980s.

Jim in Chicago Jul 17, 2018 4:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 8253559)
Dearborn Park Phase I has eight master associations:
  • 801 South Plymouth (which is a master association with Terraces, townhouses, and garage associations within it).
  • 899 South Plymouth highrise (the retail space, currently divided among three tenants, is just a unit like any other)
  • 901 South Plymouth highrise (owns their garage)
  • 1115 South Plymouth midrise
  • 1145 South Plymouth midrise
  • 1169 South Plymouth midrise (each midrise is a master association with two little townhouse groups along State Street).
  • Townhouses of Dearborn Park (144 in seven clusters)
  • Garden Homes of Dearborn Park (the group I described above)

Thanks for the list. More than I even thought, although I somehow thought there also was a master association, which isn't the case.

So, a hypothetical question, actually a couple:

Let's say there is actually a serious proposal to cut through access from Clark at Taylor. For the purpose of argument it would cut through and eliminate the open space between two townhouse clusters (within an single association) and connect to the existing east/west street that connects to State. How many of the associations would need to give approval? Has that section of street ever been officially closed, or does it still exist as a right of way? Could the city just say "we're doing this?"

Similar question for if a developer had an agreement to buy out the owners of the townhouse cluster at Roosevelt/Plymouth, and they had the required number of votes from that association. Do the other associations have a voice as well?

This could get really gnarly.

Mr Downtown Jul 17, 2018 4:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim in Chicago (Post 8253586)
Let's say there is actually a serious proposal to cut through access from Clark at Taylor. For the purpose of argument it would cut through and eliminate the open space between two townhouse clusters (within an single association) and connect to the existing east/west street that connects to State. How many of the associations would need to give approval?

If you mean at 9th, one—or possibly, none at all. Read on.

Quote:

Has that section of street ever been officially closed, or does it still exist as a right of way?
Ninth Street exists all the way to Clark, but is not currently open to traffic. 11th Place, just north of Roosevelt Park, was closed to vehicular traffic but never vacated. Same with Federal between 11th Pl. and Roosevelt.

The angled part of Park Terrace is technically Taylor St., and south of that, Park Terrace and Clark are actually a single public right-of-way. In 2002, I tried to persuade CDOT to create an opening there as part of the reconstruction of Clark St., but the bid package had already gone out calling for replacing the fence.

Quote:

if a developer had an agreement to buy out the owners of the townhouse cluster at Roosevelt/Plymouth, and they had the required number of votes from that association. Do the other associations have a voice as well?
Legally, no—though of course a savvy alderman might give them one.

Jim in Chicago Jul 17, 2018 5:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 8253632)
If you mean at 9th, one—or possibly, none at all. Read on.



Ninth Street exists all the way to Clark, but is not currently open to traffic. 11th Place, just north of Roosevelt Park, was closed to vehicular traffic but never vacated. Same with Federal between 11th Pl. and Roosevelt.

The angled part of Park Terrace is technically Taylor St., and south of that, Park Terrace and Clark are actually a single public right-of-way. In 2002, I tried to persuade CDOT to create an opening there as part of the reconstruction of Clark St., but the bid package had already gone out calling for replacing the fence.



Legally, no—though of course a savvy alderman might give them one.

Yeah - I meant 9th street. That will teach me to post without having a map open. So, back to my question. Since 9th street was never vacated, does this mean the city could just open it? Those Town House people would go ape shit.

ardecila Jul 17, 2018 6:18 PM

Sounds like:

Reopening the grid is a political problem only - could (probably) legally reopen barriers at 9th, 11th Place, and 15th tomorrow if the alderman or mayor were willing to steamroll the residents. The 15th one may actually happen if the 78's new Red Line station moves forward. It's not even internal to Dearborn Park and, apparently, our current mayor no longer employs a personal trainer who lives on that block. (What a weird 90s version of Chicago cronyism, Mike Royko would have had a field day)

Redeveloping Dearborn Park to something more intense is a developer problem AND a political problem - convincing the residents of any one Dearborn Park slice to sell out, and convincing the alderman to allow a PD revision/zoning change over the objections of all the other slices. Since it's all in a PD, there is no as-of-right redevelopment option, any changes to the approved plan have to go through City Council.

Mr Downtown Jul 17, 2018 7:06 PM

When the Near South Community Plan proposed mere pedestrian and cycling access through Dearborn Park, some small group of residents went apeshit enough that Ald. Haithcock squelched even a toothless recommendation in a roundly ignored planning document. The number of hostile faxes her office had supposedly received grew with every retelling, until it was higher than attendance at Trump's inaugural.

Technically, yes, CDOT could simply open up 9th, 11th, and 15th. The occupation of 9th by a townhouse playground would require some sort of negotiation, I suppose.

As for redevelopment, I'm not sure the original PD would have to be amended for my scheme, as it allowed 250 units in Subarea F, where the 51 Garden Homes were eventually built instead. (Subarea A, the White Townhouses, only allows the 144 units that exist there now.) Several of the DPII subareas also have unit allowances much higher than what eventually got built.

left of center Jul 18, 2018 2:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 8253435)
Where there's a will, and demand, there's a way.

Right now there is still too much developable land in the South Loop so nothing will happen for the forseeable future. But combine diminishing vacant sites with higher property values, perhaps a new L stop (for the 78), and aging of the Dearborn Park properties to the point where there will be a substantial increase in maintenance costs, and eventually that whole neighborhood will be vanquished.

I'm pretty sure the city will have a lot of leverage with a developer who wants to upzone DP parcels that he plans to develop, one of which would be to force him to reconnect some streets that are currently cul de sac'd or walled off.

The upkeep on those buildings definitely has to be catching up to the residents. Here is a listing to a unit in one of the taller condo buildings along State. The HOA fee is damn near 800/mo! That's double the monthly property tax escrow. While I'm sure it includes things like water, and/or internet and TV service (heat is electric, so that would most likely fall under the owners ComEd bill. Also, no central air!?), it still seems like a crazy amount. No doubt a lot of it is going to maintenance and repairs.

Give it a quarter century. Once every spare lot between Congress and Cermak is spoken for, Dearborn Park is coming down.

SIGSEGV Jul 18, 2018 4:22 AM

After puncturing through 9th and 11th street (and perhaps... shudder... adding a stairway down from Roosevelt to Roosevelt Park), there still remain the RI tracks. Maybe we can get a fancy pedestrian bridge from the Park above the British International School to Clark somehow...

Bonsai Tree Jul 18, 2018 2:55 PM

I think that the biggest catalysts for change in Dearborn Park and the area just south (including the Roosevelt Collection) will not be the usage of all northern lots. The lots to the north of Dearborn Park will take much longer than 25 years to be used up. Most of those lots are more optimally designed for 19th century buildings than 21st century buildings. I'm not saying it won't happen, and I'd love to see some of the clever techniques architects will use in these spaces, but it will take time. The biggest catalysts for change will be Riverline/Southbank (whatever they are calling it now) and the 78. Once these projects are completed and/or near completion there will be huge momentum in the South Loop. Dearborn Park will be steamrolled into submission. :shrug:

Jim in Chicago Jul 18, 2018 3:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by left of center (Post 8254264)
The upkeep on those buildings definitely has to be catching up to the residents. Here is a listing to a unit in one of the taller condo buildings along State. The HOA fee is damn near 800/mo! That's double the monthly property tax escrow. While I'm sure it includes things like water, and/or internet and TV service (heat is electric, so that would most likely fall under the owners ComEd bill. Also, no central air!?), it still seems like a crazy amount. No doubt a lot of it is going to maintenance and repairs.

Give it a quarter century. Once every spare lot between Congress and Cermak is spoken for, Dearborn Park is coming down.

That $800 isn't out of line. Assuming the square footage is correct, that works out to $0.56 per square foot, and that building has door staff. I'm in a sort of similar building without door staff (which is a huge expense) and I'm paying $.54 per square foot, so about the same. That goes to: maintenance of common spaces, interior and exterior, garbage service, RCN 50mpg internet and basic cable, DVR included, payments into a reserve fund. Taxes and insurance on the common spaces, professional management services. Security system and maintenance on 2 elevators. The only special we've had was 10 years ago when we did roof replacement and city-mandated work on the building facade in the same year. The owners pay their own gas and electric - they run under $100 in the cold months, and more in the summer with the AC running.

left of center Jul 18, 2018 5:38 PM

Interesting. My only experience with the association expenses of a large condo building is a friend of mine who used to live at 700 W Van Buren. Similar to your building, no doorman but has several elevators. HOA included internet & cable TV, water (including hot water), garbage, and all other related maintenance and fund replenishment needs. It was $275 for a 950 sqft 2 bed 2 bath unit, or about $0.29/sqft.

I now feel spoiled with my condo building's self managed HOA, which works out to just under $0.08/sqft. Granted, we don't have elevators and it does not include internet. Its also a much smaller building (3 flat) and its self managed, which greatly decreases the cost. The building being fairly new (2006 construction) helps as well, I'm sure.

AMWChicago Sep 14, 2018 6:22 AM

So this thread has been dead for a while, but I walked by the site today and saw some action. A couple cars driving on site and what appears to be large portions of a facade scattered about. All of which I haven't seen on site before. Curious what people on here think of it, and if it means anything lol.

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1900/...5c2b2def_c.jpgIMG_0641 by Andrew W, on Flickr

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1847/...4bc1ed09_c.jpgIMG_6932 by Andrew W, on Flickr

killaviews Sep 14, 2018 6:32 AM

Kinda looks like One Bennett Park parts. It’s a place where Related can store things at no cost.

AMWChicago Sep 14, 2018 8:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by killaviews (Post 8314308)
Kinda looks like One Bennett Park parts. It’s a place where Related can store things at no cost.

Oooo. That's a really interesting theory. Didn't even cross my mind. Would be funny if this were the case lol

the urban politician Sep 14, 2018 1:18 PM

That’s part of the structure for the platform on which the Amazon HQ2 announcement will be made Monday, according to documents that I’m holding in my hand...

Skyguy_7 Sep 14, 2018 3:22 PM

^ Ha Ha you funny guy.

killa probably nailed it. There are a few more floors of facade to go at One Bennett. Makes sense to store here til they sign the deed over to Amazon. :tup:

KWillChicago Sep 14, 2018 4:51 PM

Is this a practice used often? Storage of materials on multiple sites of the same owner? The one that is really going to blow my mind is how and where they will stage for WPS. Isnt it too shallow for a barge?

ardecila Sep 14, 2018 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KWillChicago (Post 8314800)
Is this a practice used often? Storage of materials on multiple sites of the same owner? The one that is really going to blow my mind is how and where they will stage for WPS. Isnt it too shallow for a barge?

Generally the panels at OBP are picked directly off the truck and lifted into position. There's not much room on site to store these enormous panels, and it's much safer to keep them strapped down to the trailer until ready for use. I believe they are starting to rebuild the actual park itself, so the limited room they did have for staging is now getting even smaller.

The framing for the penthouse levels at OBP seems way behind schedule. Possibly the precaster is forcing Lendlease to take delivery of the remaining facade panels for the penthouse level even when they're not ready to install, so Related allowed Lendlease to park the trucks on their enormous piece of vacant downtown land.

PittsburghPA Sep 14, 2018 11:48 PM

I was next to one of these trucks yesterday on its way to OBP on Ohio near Michigan. I was shocked at how thick the panels were.


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:48 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.