SkyscraperPage Forum

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

Tcmetro Jul 15, 2018 6:15 PM

Wow. I hadn't quite realized the scale of the towers along Clark. If the actual construction resembles this model at all, South Loop will really start to form it's own ecosystem and become less of an appendage of the Loop.

the urban politician Jul 15, 2018 6:27 PM

^ Yeah, and they will make Dearborn Park seem ever more out of place. Which is good, since DP sucks and needs to go

Kumdogmillionaire Jul 15, 2018 8:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 8251313)
Um, you know those are mere placeholders, right? No building will ever be built that looks like any of the ones in the renderings we've seen so far (with the possible exception of the Discovery Partners Institute, which may be far enough along in design that something real was included).

Let the man have his fun...

I think it looks great, and gives a great idea of what we will be looking at very soon, even though the buildings will be somewhat different in the end

SIGSEGV Jul 15, 2018 9:11 PM

DP wouldn't be so bad if they opened up some of the gates for through traffic.

Jim in Chicago Jul 16, 2018 2:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 8251693)
^ Yeah, and they will make Dearborn Park seem ever more out of place. Which is good, since DP sucks and needs to go

Yeah. We get it. You hate DP. Never mind that if that hadn't come first we'd still have a bunch of abandoned railway tracks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV (Post 8251801)
DP wouldn't be so bad if they opened up some of the gates for through traffic.

I think the odds of that happening are about as great as pigs growing wings and taking to flight.

DP, which I join those who hate those walls, gives a bit of much needed green space in the midst of all that development. Remember the "park" on top of the British school? Well, um yeah. DP1 has not one but two parks, one right behind the station that is packed at all times, and another at the corner of Roosevelt and Clark that is used for all sorts of park-ish things, the tennis courts are busy, etc.

Busy Bee Jul 16, 2018 2:36 PM

The only thing that's going to change Dearborn Park is GREEN. Not trees, but cash money buyouts by a real estate company with deep pockets. The process would take years with the process of so many units and obligatory hold-outs. That said, I honestly don't see the market supporting such an action for at least 25 years, if well ever.

Suiram Jul 16, 2018 3:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee (Post 8252389)
The only thing that's going to change Dearborn Park is GREEN. Not trees, but cash money buyouts by a real estate company with deep pockets. The process would take years with the process of so many units and obligatory hold-outs. That said, I honestly don't see the market supporting such an action for at least 25 years, if well ever.

I wish you saw Japanese style acquisitions but sadly we are not Tokyo for density and values.

The big Tokyo developers will spend 20-30 years acquiring blocks piecemeal, turning them into surface parking in the interim. They will face hold outs and simply wait for the next generation.

left of center Jul 16, 2018 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim in Chicago (Post 8252377)
Yeah. We get it. You hate DP. Never mind that if that hadn't come first we'd still have a bunch of abandoned railway tracks.

I think the odds of that happening are about as great as pigs growing wings and taking to flight.

DP, which I join those who hate those walls, gives a bit of much needed green space in the midst of all that development. Remember the "park" on top of the British school? Well, um yeah. DP1 has not one but two parks, one right behind the station that is packed at all times, and another at the corner of Roosevelt and Clark that is used for all sorts of park-ish things, the tennis courts are busy, etc.

Are you suggesting that anything that would replace Dearborn Park would not have proposed parkland as a part of the development? It would be pretty inconceivable to think that the residents and alderman would accept such a plan without some thought given to public space.

Green space aside, the problem with Dearborn Park is the development's utter contempt for its surroundings. It cuts off all through streets, walls itself from the surrounding neighborhoods, and is designed as a private gated subdivision in the center of the city.

No one here is saying that DP isn't a product of its times. Yes, it brought vitality to the South Loop at a time when the city was on a hard downhill decline, but its time is up. It needs to be opened up to the rest of the city, or redeveloped entirely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee (Post 8252389)
The only thing that's going to change Dearborn Park is GREEN. Not trees, but cash money buyouts by a real estate company with deep pockets. The process would take years with the process of so many units and obligatory hold-outs. That said, I honestly don't see the market supporting such an action for at least 25 years, if well ever.

In due time, once all the available land in the South Loop is eaten up, DP1 will be seen as a ripe target for redevelopment. I believe Illinois law stipulates that an entire development can be bought outright if something like 60% of all the members of an HOA agree to a buyout. (The percentage may be a bit off, but I believe its in that ballpark). 20-25 years out sounds about right. Saying that it might never will be redeveloped is taking a very negative approach to the future desirability and vitality of central Chicago.

Freefall Jul 16, 2018 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by left of center (Post 8252890)
I believe Illinois law stipulates that an entire development can be bought outright if something like 60% of all the members of an HOA agree to a buyout. (The percentage may be a bit off, but I believe its in that ballpark).

Uh, no. The percentage and logic are both off. It's not a giant condo building. It's individual homes.

left of center Jul 16, 2018 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freefall (Post 8252918)
Uh, no. The percentage and logic are both off. It's not a giant condo building. It's individual homes.

They are not fee simple individual homes, but a part of a land subdivision regulated by a home owners association.

And actually, some of the properties in DP1 are indeed large condo buildings...

VKChaz Jul 17, 2018 1:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by left of center (Post 8252890)
....

In due time, once all the available land in the South Loop is eaten up, DP1 will be seen as a ripe target for redevelopment. I believe Illinois law stipulates that an entire development can be bought outright if something like 60% of all the members of an HOA agree to a buyout. (The percentage may be a bit off, but I believe its in that ballpark). 20-25 years out sounds about right. Saying that it might never will be redeveloped is taking a very negative approach to the future desirability and vitality of central Chicago.

75% generally for large condo deconversions, but IIANM the State is looking to increase to 85%. Not sure if a different percentage would apply here. This kind of offer can be a tough sell. For example, I could envision families with children in local schools reluctant to sell even at a very high premium. I suppose there are always ways around challenges such as guaranteeing to make the homes available as rentals for a period of time. But I would hesitate to put any kind of timeline on a change happening in that area.

SIGSEGV Jul 17, 2018 1:43 AM

I don't really have a problem with DP's form... it's relatively dense and Plymouth is a nice quiet walk in between Printer's Row and Roosevelt, but they really need an entrance on Clark! And Having an entrace at State and 11th would be nice too. And maybe some retail spaces on State somehow? That side of the street is so dead.

ardecila Jul 17, 2018 3:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by left of center (Post 8252928)
They are not fee simple individual homes, but a part of a land subdivision regulated by a home owners association.

And actually, some of the properties in DP1 are indeed large condo buildings...

Do you know that for a fact? You can still have fee-simple townhouses subject to a HOA declaration. You just have to set it up right, with the proper access easements and party wall agreements, etc. The rules regarding the buyout of a condominium would not apply.

I think unless you can persuade 100% of owners to sell, you'd have to do a hostile takeover and tear down all but the holdout houses, tear out the landscaping, stop shoveling snow, etc. Just utterly destroy the resale value of the holdout homes.

left of center Jul 17, 2018 4:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 8253182)
Do you know that for a fact? You can still have fee-simple townhouses subject to a HOA declaration. You just have to set it up right, with the proper access easements and party wall agreements, etc. The rules regarding the buyout of a condominium would not apply.

I think unless you can persuade 100% of owners to sell, you'd have to do a hostile takeover and tear down all but the holdout houses, tear out the landscaping, stop shoveling snow, etc. Just utterly destroy the resale value of the holdout homes.

I do not know that for a fact, but I would imagine that since fee simple subdivisions do not appear to be the prevailing condition for most subdivided properties, the case would be similar for the DP1 town homes. I only know of one instance of a fee simple town home, one that a friend of mine owns along Grand in West Town; his realtor told him that its the only of that type he has ever come across. Its not outside the realm of possibility, but it appears to be a highly unlikely situation.

The majority of the units in DP1 would fall under the denser condo buildings along Clark and Polk, and along State from Polk to Roosevelt. I would imagine typical deconversion rules would apply to these.

In either case, all of this would be decades out at best. By then, with the age of the buildings, its not hard to imagine that a good majority of owners would rather accept a buyout than a crippling special assessment for major repairs. The property values would most likely have risen to the point that many owners might be happy to simply sell and move on.

There's no right or wrong answers, its all conjecture and fantasy at this point.

ardecila Jul 17, 2018 4:52 AM

^ I agree that the multifamily are a little bit easier than the townhomes. I know fee-simple is the standard practice for any townhomes built by Belgravia (including the ticky-tacky Via Como on Grand, if that's the one...) It's not uncommon for other developers to build townhomes this way either.

Khantilever Jul 17, 2018 4:57 AM

Why can’t the redevelopment of DP be done in a piecemeal fashion, the same as any neighborhood? Of course the blessing of the HOA is required, but if that’s granted—admittedly, a big “if”—you don’t need to buy everyone out.

left of center Jul 17, 2018 5:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khantilever (Post 8253249)
Why can’t the redevelopment of DP be done in a piecemeal fashion, the same as any neighborhood? Of course the blessing of the HOA is required, but if that’s granted—admittedly, a big “if”—you don’t need to buy everyone out.

Piecemeal wont work if our goal is to reintegrate the street grid. The way that DP is currently set up is inward facing, walling off the surrounding city. Right now, no streets go through DP1, with the only entrance at 9th & State.

Mr Downtown Jul 17, 2018 2:09 PM

All the "white townhomes" of DP1 (144 units in seven clusters) are a single condominium association. That would be a tough, tough deconversion. That association also controls all access along Clark. I'd hoped the Target would lure them to unlock the Clark Street gate; instead they put another lock on it so you need the code to get out as well as in.

Lowest-hanging densification fruit is the "Garden Homes," the vaguely PoMo townhouses near Plymouth and Roosevelt, with the garages next to Roosevelt. That site was to have held DP1's third highrise until it became clear circa 1984 that was an unrealistic dream. You'd have the smallest number of units to purchase; I don't think they've aged/weathered particularly well; the site is suitable for a highrise especially if it has vehicular access from Roosevelt, and the PD wouldn't even have to be amended.

You'd have to wear an asbestos suit to any public meetings, though . . .

Busy Bee Jul 17, 2018 2:23 PM

But asbestos is good now right?:koko:

the urban politician Jul 17, 2018 2:26 PM

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.


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

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