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. |
Dearborn Park Phase I has eight master associations:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
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:
|
Quote:
|
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. |
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. |
Quote:
Give it a quarter century. Once every spare lot between Congress and Cermak is spoken for, Dearborn Park is coming down. |
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...
|
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:
|
Quote:
|
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. |
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 |
Kinda looks like One Bennett Park parts. It’s a place where Related can store things at no cost.
|
Quote:
|
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...
|
^ 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: |
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?
|
Quote:
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. |
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 1:00 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.