The alderman's town hall meeting was weeks ago. This was a PDNA meeting to inform their members, not a plebiscite.

Open to out of towners as well? I would love to drive in one day and speak in favor of high density developments like these and against developments like Dearborn park in such proximity to The Loop. I may just be a tourist here but I avoid the South Loop at all costs. That should say something. That type of crap belongs on the other side of the River. And i mean the Des Plaines River.

Seeing as I was eventually called on, I suppose my skills are more skillful and superior than you assume.

Hilarious.

:haha:

Persistence always wins in the end.

Absolutely! There are plenty of locations in Chicagoland with this esthetic and sustainably so. Chicago will only become more and more urban with each passing generation because it is what the global image of prosperity or change is. Imagine what developers could do with projects if they weren't spending money pouring so much damn concrete just for a 2 -3 cars per unit. Its valueless architecture for an urban environment. Eventually the tide will turn. Its quaint to have a 2-3 floor flat building adjacent to a city center but the desire to live in these locations will not permanently allow high rises to build around pockets of hold out neighborhoods without historic value or urban connective charm.

DT Chicago has become increasingly ridiculous to traverse in car, even as much as I want to see downtown it takes a lot of time to negotiate the traffic from all the increased development of the last decade. The solution to this is not of course to have more parking. The solution will require a major transportation style shift from outside the south loop as much as within it which is exactly why you want outsiders coming to these meetings and voicing opinions. These outsiders want to visit your neighborhood, spend money, and potentially buy there.

These same suburban development issues play out in any city of every size in the U.S. save for a very lucky few. In my city with subsidized housing they don't even want new urbanism even if there is a 20 floor building across the street. They instead want ranch homes and 3 car garages on cul-de-sacs, context be damned.

I want to say that I heard the price of this tower will be $400,000,000.

There will be studios, one bedrooms, two bedrooms, three bedrooms, and I believe some four bedrooms too.

^ Yeah, think I heard the same number as to the cost of the project.....

Hey, if this issue concerns you so much, they can always start doing an id and proof-of-address check at the door......something tells me they will not be instituting such, however....

:haha:



Well done.

Developers should build parking spaces with alternative uses in mind.

Typically, the parking spaces are on sloping concrete decks (the ramp and the garage are one and the same), but if they build flat decks they can reuse that space 20 years from now when very few cars are being stored there.

The high-rise at Illinois and Columbus (with the Whole Foods) has a number of loft condos occupying what was intended to be garage space, if I am not mistaken.

^Ceiling height is sometimes an issue. Even if the garage has eight-foot ceilings, that looks cramped when retrofitted with ductwork and piping.

That's what im getting at. When i visit Chicago i bring my money with me and use it to support businesses from Hyde Park to Wicker Park and from Streeterville to Wrigleyville but seldom anywhere near Roosevelt.

Bringing an automobile into downtown is a terrible idea so I don't do it. I walk. I enjoy walking. Ill walk from the West Loop to Lincoln Park but I'd be more likely to take a bus to the Museum Campus.

That being said I'll get back on topic by saying the parking ratio for this particular building is quite painful.

/end of debate

Zing!

One thing I'll add here was that (and this wasn't a surprise to me, and shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who understands who the developer is here, ie this is an urban residential developer that is hq'd in Miami of all places) it was definitely my impression from listening to the Crescent Heights exec speak that what they really desire to do is condos. (that's their main business model)
If their assessment was that the market was now supportive, this would be an all-condo building. If the market changes very favorably, this building could definitely switch to partial or all condos over the next couple years, undoubtedly. If not, it should certainly be viewed as a candidate for condo conversion at some point after completion. Something tells me that Crescent Heights might not be that comfortable with doing buildings that are partially rental, and partially condo, otherwise I don't see why they wouldn't test the new condo development waters here by maybe making 15%-25% of the units condo here - something to the tune that Related Midwest is doing with its Stern ShitBomb. Of course it's a bit more complicated to do both condos and apartments, as opposed to only one or the other, but with a building of this size, it's easily workable (uhh - Aqua). The exec mentioned that they see the future building at the corner of Michigan and Roosevelt as condo (of course, they would see everything at some point in the future as condo, as that's their real business model)......to me, I might actually prefer the opposite, with the rental building being the Michigan corner, and the condo on the Indiana corner....but oh well - again, they may very well both end-up being condo, at least at some point. Also, although it certainly seems that Crescent Heights right now has every intention of developing all phases themselves - who knows, maybe a scenario might arise at some point in which they accept an offer for the Michigan corner parcel from another developer, or go JV or something, and that phase might turn out different and more architecturally/programmatically ambitious from today's placeholder??......

Yeah November seems like the biggest planning commission meeting since the spire.(skyscraper wise) With this and I believe Wanda both going up for approval.

reason you dont see more mixed rental/condo buildings is because acquiring traditional financing becomes difficult when the rental amount gets to certain percentages, I know FHA for one has a cut off of 50%, not sure about the rules for conventional or jumbo loans but I would imagine that they are more stringent.

^ Are you sure that applies when the rental component is owned by a single institutional entity (which is of course what I'm talking about here, eg Aqua apartments, owned by JP Morgan Asset Management)? If it does, it probably should not. The intent certainly with the FHA reg %s almost certainly is to limit financing/make financing more expensive in condominium buildings where a certain % of (the individually-owned) condo units are rented-out/not owner-occupied.......

https://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a...D720/ry%3D480/

I just can't stop looking at this and thinking: ugh, can they tear down the three pieces of shit on either side while they're at it??? :yuck:

Because what's better than 2 Vinoly towers? Uh, 5 :cool:

We're only 5 years into the 10s, and they already look disgustingly dated. That heinous "brick" thing is one of the absolute worst things in existence.

I love One Museum Park.....