HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21001  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2013, 4:11 PM
Link N. Parker Link N. Parker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo View Post
Not very attractive, but nice to see that intersection get built up finally. Question: that entire building fits on the DD lot? Or are other buildings also being torn down? Seems pretty big.
The project calls for tearing down the buildings that house The Alley, as well as Blue Havana, in addition to the Dunkin Donuts building. The new building will sit on the land that all those buildings are currently on. I will miss the quirky little buildings, but in all, they are old and dilapidated and that parking lot (and dunkin donuts) needs to go.

I also agree with others; the intersection to the south needs to be urbanized. The existing retail there needs to be demolished, and mid-rise apartments need to be built with street-front retail.

Another intersection that needs improvement is the corner of Diversey and Halsted. The KFC needs to go, and something good built on the parking lot to tighten the corner.

Last edited by Link N. Parker; Nov 15, 2013 at 4:14 PM. Reason: Cleaned up my spelling errors
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #21002  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2013, 4:25 PM
Jibba's Avatar
Jibba Jibba is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,915
Quote:
Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen View Post
Proposal for Clark & Belmont has been redesigned (blah):

http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20131...re-traditional
This sucks. Really hard. Why are we looking to the 90s for design inspiration? Grouping and outlining the bays like that to promote the perception of less building stories is one of the most unfortunate design schemes to ever come from an architect's hand. It just makes for really, really weird proportions and perceptual dissonance. I've already had my fill with Loyola University Tower, thanks. The cornices are also ridiculous.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #21003  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2013, 4:40 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,543
^ I agree. I've been having a little internal fight to figure out where I stand on this one, and I'm with you, Jibba. This is a really lame design. The first design was sterile, no doubt and needed work, but this new one, while in some respects an improvement in form, is a loser aesthetically. It recalls that awful period of architecture we suffered through 12, 15 years ago. Just the other day we had this wonderful example of how to do some nicely textured, but yet unabashedly contemporary infill design in the form of Old Town's the Scott Residences.......that is one example of how it's done. This new Dunkin' tower design is pretty hackish, clearly a solid few notches down in quality (as compared with something on the order of the Scott).....needs a definite re-work....
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #21004  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2013, 4:43 PM
Vlajos Vlajos is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Link N. Parker View Post
The project calls for tearing down the buildings that house The Alley, as well as Blue Havana, in addition to the Dunkin Donuts building. The new building will sit on the land that all those buildings are currently on. I will miss the quirky little buildings, but in all, they are old and dilapidated and that parking lot (and dunkin donuts) needs to go.

I also agree with others; the intersection to the south needs to be urbanized. The existing retail there needs to be demolished, and mid-rise apartments need to be built with street-front retail.

Another intersection that needs improvement is the corner of Diversey and Halsted. The KFC needs to go, and something good built on the parking lot to tighten the corner.
The Alley building and the DD are awful and won't be missed. The Blue Havana building is a loss though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #21005  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2013, 5:01 PM
ChiTownCity ChiTownCity is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Chicago, USA
Posts: 1,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright View Post
That'll be the day. There is no chance in hell they are using terracotta on a new construction project or any project where they aren't being forced to for preservation or historic reasons.

Too bad it can't come back into style as a material. It's one of those materials that is really only expensive because it is rarely used. If even one in ten new buildings started using terra cotta again, the price of terra cotta would plummet because it is basically just a fancy glazed brick in terms of how it is produced. I could even see very minimalist terra cotta being used in an an excellent way to introduce fine geometric details to a hyper-modern design.
I'm curious; how much does terracotta go for these days?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #21006  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2013, 5:09 PM
prelude91 prelude91 is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Link N. Parker View Post
The project calls for tearing down the buildings that house The Alley, as well as Blue Havana, in addition to the Dunkin Donuts building. The new building will sit on the land that all those buildings are currently on. I will miss the quirky little buildings, but in all, they are old and dilapidated and that parking lot (and dunkin donuts) needs to go.

I also agree with others; the intersection to the south needs to be urbanized. The existing retail there needs to be demolished, and mid-rise apartments need to be built with street-front retail.

Another intersection that needs improvement is the corner of Diversey and Halsted. The KFC needs to go, and something good built on the parking lot to tighten the corner.
The Alley building isn't being torn down, Taboo Tabou and Blue Havana yes, but Im almost positive The Alley is not apart of this project.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #21007  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2013, 5:56 PM
BWChicago's Avatar
BWChicago BWChicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 486
The Alley building is shown in the rendering and the linked article states "Entrance to parking would be on Clark Street at the most northern point of the property, right next to The Alley, 3228 N. Clark St."

Sheesh.

I don't know how anyone could say the Alley building itself is awful - look past the signage, it's an unusually elaborate 1910s theater, Beaux Arts terra cotta.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #21008  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2013, 6:03 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
One thing this development will do is not only hyper urbanize that intersection, but I suspect it will throw rents into a tear and slowly drive out of the hip, quirky businesses. A mixed blessing, but all in all that Dunkin Donuts parking lot needs to go!
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #21009  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2013, 6:47 PM
sentinel's Avatar
sentinel sentinel is offline
Plenary pleasures.
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Monterey CA
Posts: 4,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
One thing this development will do is not only hyper urbanize that intersection, but I suspect it will throw rents into a tear and slowly drive out of the hip, quirky businesses. A mixed blessing, but all in all that Dunkin Donuts parking lot needs to go!
Perhaps, but there's no guarantee that will happen; I personally feel that rents are directly proportional with the distance from the downtown area and will fall in line with most other newer rental units in Lakeview, if not slightly higher than the norm - The further out you are from the central Loop/River North/S. Loop/Streeterville/Gold coast area, the less you can command for a one or two-bedroom rental unit. I doubt that rents will increase that drastically.
__________________
Don't be shy. Step into the light.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #21010  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2013, 6:49 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jibba View Post
This sucks. Really hard. Why are we looking to the 90s for design inspiration? Grouping and outlining the bays like that to promote the perception of less building stories is one of the most unfortunate design schemes to ever come from an architect's hand. It just makes for really, really weird proportions and perceptual dissonance. I've already had my fill with Loyola University Tower, thanks. The cornices are also ridiculous.

Now that my thinking is completely cleared up on this turd, (yes it's better than a Dunkin' Donuts and related parking lot, no replacing a Dunkin' Donuts and related parking lot and good - let along great, let let alone superb - design are hardly mutually exclusive), it's also gotten me thinking about something else quite unfortunate I've noticed - this type of medium scale infill - mid-rise or (on the smaller side) high-rise, either mixed use or residential, seems to be unfortunately very susceptible to design being highly dumbed-down for unsophisticated/rube NIMBY appeasement/aldermanic pandering. And yes - by dumbed-down I'm thinking in no small part made in some way neo-trad-trashy, in the way that the average yokel out in Chicawga's wards quite mistakenly feel is 'blending in', or 'respectful'.......think about it - the Wrigley mixed-use development, North/Clark, this one, some of the proposals we get in Lincoln Park, etc (in some cases pandering alderman nudge or force design changes based on what their constituents think constitutes good design, in other cases it's the developer who foresees the NIMBYs lack of taste - either with initial design, or a pre-planned 'version 2', etc).......there's some really good modern stuff that happens at the smaller scale - a few stories - small enough that it is built as-of-right. And, there's some really good modern stuff that happens at the large scale downtown (and Hyde Park for that matter - actually come to think of it Hyde Park might be the exception in the mid-scale category as far as design quality) - high-rise that's generally PD, but just in part more acceptance for good/great modern design and in part lack of focused NIMBY rubism forces - degree depending on precise location, etc. It's this medium-scale stuff out in the neighborhoods that it's clear to me really suffers from an acute lack of design quality.....and why is this? - here comes that broken record again! - it's in very large part directly due to aldermanic prerogative - it's a really destructive force on our built environment and 'planning' in Chicago.....
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #21011  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2013, 7:23 PM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 7,449
^^^ I don't agree. I think it depends entirely on the neighborhood and audience they are catering to. In the most recent generation it seems the traditional yuppie class has diverged into at least two, if not many, different subsets of yuppies. The main two groups are the yipsters and the bros. The bros are more of the old guard, tasteless, new money type while the yipsters have far more evolved tastes and tend to associate more with hipster culture, while not actually being completely devoted to the hipster lifestyle.

In areas where yipsters prevail (Ukranian Village, Wicker Park, Logan Square, etc) the average design quality is about 1000% better than it is in places where the bros rule (Lincoln Park, Lakeview, etc.). Yipsters also tend to be new urbanists who are much more knowledgeable about design issues and just have generally better knowledge of how cities work. The bros tend to be suburbanites who came to the city to be close to the Chicago Cubs (a true sign of a yipster is that they don't give a shit about sports (and if they do it is something weird like soccer or jai-alai). This is why you get buildings like 1611 W Division built in Wicker Park and neo-trad trash like this proposal in Lakeview (and yes, the bros are gradually driving out the much more design conscious gay community in lakeview).

Quote:
Originally Posted by sentinel View Post
Perhaps, but there's no guarantee that will happen; I personally feel that rents are directly proportional with the distance from the downtown area and will fall in line with most other newer rental units in Lakeview, if not slightly higher than the norm - The further out you are from the central Loop/River North/S. Loop/Streeterville/Gold coast area, the less you can command for a one or two-bedroom rental unit. I doubt that rents will increase that drastically.
I think this is patently wrong. It might apply in some scenarios, but to say there is some rule of thumb about rents and distance to the loop is absurd. Lakeview is about as far from downtown as Avondale, East Garfield Park, Little Village, Bridgeport, and Bronzeville, but the rents in these neighborhoods vary wildly. While distance to the loop is a factor, the general level of amenities and development in the immediate neighborhood is MUCH more of a factor. Just look at Logan Square, which is significantly closer than Lakeview. Ten years ago rents were much lower than in Lakeview despite being generally closer to downtown. Now rents are quickly approaching, if not exceeding, those in Lakeview as development and, more importantly, amenities blossom in Logan. Logan has finally reached the critical mass level of development where enough disposable income exists in the neighborhood to drive an explosion of nightlife and service businesses which in turn drives rents up even further. Logan Square hasn't gotten any closer or further from the loop, it has just experienced an increase in amenities making it a more desirable place to live. It has also seen wholesale improvement of properties (both new construction and renovation) which obviously also massively drives up rents.

Given the massive number of new restaurants and bars in Logan, I won't be surprised if rents eventually end up exceeding those of Lakeview if only because the area is developing a nationally recognized cache and reputation.

Last edited by LouisVanDerWright; Nov 15, 2013 at 7:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #21012  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2013, 7:34 PM
marothisu marothisu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,883
Yipster, nice. I guess I found a new term for myself
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #21013  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2013, 7:43 PM
J_M_Tungsten's Avatar
J_M_Tungsten J_M_Tungsten is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,379
Today
The Bulls practice facility looks to be in "site prep" stage.

In the middle and to the right is the construction site.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #21014  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2013, 8:01 PM
marothisu marothisu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,883
^ Will be interested to see how the facility turns out. Also, did you see the progress of the 54 (?) condo development over at Ashland and Warren?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #21015  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2013, 8:10 PM
sentinel's Avatar
sentinel sentinel is offline
Plenary pleasures.
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Monterey CA
Posts: 4,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright View Post
.....

I think this is patently wrong. It might apply in some scenarios, but to say there is some rule of thumb about rents and distance to the loop is absurd. Lakeview is about as far from downtown as Avondale, East Garfield Park, Little Village, Bridgeport, and Bronzeville, but the rents in these neighborhoods vary wildly. While distance to the loop is a factor, the general level of amenities and development in the immediate neighborhood is MUCH more of a factor. Just look at Logan Square, which is significantly closer than Lakeview. Ten years ago rents were much lower than in Lakeview despite being generally closer to downtown. Now rents are quickly approaching, if not exceeding, those in Lakeview as development and, more importantly, amenities blossom in Logan. Logan has finally reached the critical mass level of development where enough disposable income exists in the neighborhood to drive an explosion of nightlife and service businesses which in turn drives rents up even further. Logan Square hasn't gotten any closer or further from the loop, it has just experienced an increase in amenities making it a more desirable place to live. It has also seen wholesale improvement of properties (both new construction and renovation) which obviously also massively drives up rents.

Given the massive number of new restaurants and bars in Logan, I won't be surprised if rents eventually end up exceeding those of Lakeview if only because the area is developing a nationally recognized cache and reputation.
Well, look on a map because your one example, Logan Square is about the same distance from DT as Lakeview. You can't say that it applies in 'some scenarios' when there's a finite amount of possible scenarios. You really DON'T believe that rents are lower in the following scenarios, where the first neighborhood is closer to downtown than the next one??

- West Loop > Garfield Park
- Lincoln Park > Ravenswood > West Rogers Park
- Pilsen > Archer Heights

Even in Hyde Park, which is still 6 miles from the Loop, rents are cheaper than in the South Loop, but most definitely higher than in Chatham, South Chicago or Pullman.

It's simple logic that the further away you are from the densest urban core of a city like Chicago, the less you are on AVERAGE going to pay for a rental apartment. Why? There's a number of factors: access to and number of public transportation options, existing rental housing stock, neighborhood safety/security, dining/entertainment options, etc, etc, etc. Granted, some neighborhoods on the North side, along the Lake might not follow this pattern, but even then, there is still some consistency between:

Lincoln Park > Lakeview > Uptown > West Rogers Park, and even then, rent will still be cheaper in Rogers Park, regardless of Loyola, than in East Lakeview.

I still stand by my assertion that even with new construction in Lakeview, at Clark & Belmont, you're not going to be able to command Streeterville prices for a 1 or 2 bedroom unit.
__________________
Don't be shy. Step into the light.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #21016  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2013, 8:58 PM
emathias emathias is offline
Adoptive Chicagoan
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: River North, Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 5,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by sentinel View Post
...
I still stand by my assertion that even with new construction in Lakeview, at Clark & Belmont, you're not going to be able to command Streeterville prices for a 1 or 2 bedroom unit.
There are essentially three major pulls in Chicago - the Loop, for jobs, the Lake, for recreation, Michigan Ave/River North, for shopping and entertainment. Streeterville and the southern edge of River North have the highest prices because they're the closest to a balance of those three pulls.

There are, however, smaller pulls, too, and Boystown/East Lakeview is definitely one of them, as is the the part of Lincoln Park near Halsted, Wicker Park near Damen/North, 'L' stations in non-high-crime-areas, etc.

I would venture to say that apartments on the Clark/Belmont intersection won't get Streeterville prices, but they will probably be able to pull in prices comparable to units in River West or the west part of River North or the West Loop.

Last edited by emathias; Nov 15, 2013 at 9:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #21017  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2013, 9:13 PM
Jibba's Avatar
Jibba Jibba is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,915
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop View Post
Now that my thinking is completely cleared up on this turd, (yes it's better than a Dunkin' Donuts and related parking lot, no replacing a Dunkin' Donuts and related parking lot and good - let along great, let let alone superb - design are hardly mutually exclusive), it's also gotten me thinking about something else quite unfortunate I've noticed - this type of medium scale infill - mid-rise or (on the smaller side) high-rise, either mixed use or residential, seems to be unfortunately very susceptible to design being highly dumbed-down for unsophisticated/rube NIMBY appeasement/aldermanic pandering. And yes - by dumbed-down I'm thinking in no small part made in some way neo-trad-trashy, in the way that the average yokel out in Chicawga's wards quite mistakenly feel is 'blending in', or 'respectful'.......think about it - the Wrigley mixed-use development, North/Clark, this one, some of the proposals we get in Lincoln Park, etc (in some cases pandering alderman nudge or force design changes based on what their constituents think constitutes good design, in other cases it's the developer who foresees the NIMBYs lack of taste - either with initial design, or a pre-planned 'version 2', etc).......there's some really good modern stuff that happens at the smaller scale - a few stories - small enough that it is built as-of-right. And, there's some really good modern stuff that happens at the large scale downtown (and Hyde Park for that matter - actually come to think of it Hyde Park might be the exception in the mid-scale category as far as design quality) - high-rise that's generally PD, but just in part more acceptance for good/great modern design and in part lack of focused NIMBY rubism forces - degree depending on precise location, etc. It's this medium-scale stuff out in the neighborhoods that it's clear to me really suffers from an acute lack of design quality.....and why is this? - here comes that broken record again! - it's in very large part directly due to aldermanic prerogative - it's a really destructive force on our built environment and 'planning' in Chicago.....
It really is an unfortunate phenomenon. I sent a message to Bennett at the 44th Ward office and asked him to inform me where the next "Community Directed Development Council" meeting will be that will have this project on the agenda. Provided he informs me of where and when it is, I will be offering a counterpoint to the usual reactionary dogma. I know I'm reiterating an all-too-common gripe of the forumers here, but the fact that so much of the design deliberation occurs for meetings set up between the alderman and "neighborhood groups" is preposterous; developments don't exist in a vacuum, and they certainly don't exist in just the pocket of the city that the neighborhood group's constituents live in. They affect the entire city, because people exist in Lakeview that don't reside there. They may work there, visit friends there, shop there, traverse it on their way elsewhere, et cetera. And to some effect, developments can set precedents for future developments elsewhere in different parts of the city. The designs they always settle on are overly mitigated duds that pander to those least comfortable with progress. The resultant designs, as in the case of the Belmont/Clark proposal, have their issues then, when trying to be "contextual" and "fit in".

The problem with the latest iteration of the Belmont/Clark building and others like it that are new buildings with historic allusions is that they are false compromises. Tunney mentioned that taller projects work "as long as there is some homage to neighborhood buildings, as long as you're not trying to duplicate them", but that concept doesn't deliver. The value of the neighboring buildings (or any building, for that matter) is indivisible; you can't take an attribute or a piece of design vocabulary, appropriate it, and expect it's value to translate proportionally--the gestalt from the building's entirety, the most valuable part, gets left behind.

The old buildings that comprise (a shrinking part of) Chicago's urban fabric are valued not just because of the inherent and visually perceivable qualities that they possess; there are emotional attributes ascribed to them that are culturally and historically contextual. Maybe some value them for the nostalgia they provide of being from a bygone time, or maybe some value the sense of security they provide by virtue of their longevity and feel of permanence. Whatever the reason, a large portion of the value of a historic building comes from the fact that it's actually old. You can't just single out terra cotta and presume that it's value will wholly transfer when applied to a new building, because its value as part of an old building is historically cast and also contingent upon the entire composition of that building.

A building is either old or it's new--there is no in between. [There are those buildings that exactly replicate the materials and proportions of old buildings, but they are an exception because they actually create a completely successful illusion of age, and with that illusion and subsequent (false) perception of old age come all of the aforementioned contextual qualities that viewers will associate with it (nostalgia, longevity, etc.).] You can't have a hybrid of old and new styles and have the resulting product retain the proportional value from both influences, because they are close to worthless once they are diluted. And there is an irony in making an homage to existing historic buildings by creating a hybrid style: the building actually assimilates less successfully into the environment than a wholly modern building would because its presence is more jarring. There is an unsatisfying dissonance between the intent of the design and the actual perceptions and feelings that it provokes. It (sort of) looks like a duck but doesn't quack like a duck...so what the hell is it?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #21018  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2013, 10:23 PM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 7,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by sentinel View Post
Well, look on a map because your one example, Logan Square is about the same distance from DT as Lakeview.
First of all, no it is not the same distance, second of all, you never addressed the fact that rents have changed radically in Logan Square while they haven't changed that much in Lakeview. By your logic the changing rents in Logan Square indicate that it has somehow moved closer to downtown which is just nutty.

Logan Square begins at Armitage and Western and Ends at Diversey. Lakeview begins at Diversey and ends at Irving Park. Even when you take into account the fact that Logan Square is at more of a "diagonal" from the loop, it doesn't make up for the difference. The distance as the crow flies does not matter anyhow because no one is flying to work. Measure travel times. There are 4 stations between the first Logan Square station (Western) and Clark and Lake. There are 6 or 7 stations (depending on Brown or Red line) between the first Lakeview station and Lake.


Quote:
You can't say that it applies in 'some scenarios' when there's a finite amount of possible scenarios. You really DON'T believe that rents are lower in the following scenarios, where the first neighborhood is closer to downtown than the next one??

- West Loop > Garfield Park
- Lincoln Park > Ravenswood > West Rogers Park
- Pilsen > Archer Heights
Just because something is SOMETIMES the case doesn't mean it is ALWAYS the case. Like I said numerous times in my post, yes proximity to downtown is a factor, but your are insane if you think it is the primary factor. For example, why is Oak Park FAR pricier than Austin? Why is Hyde Park pricier than Bronzeville? Why are rents in Englewood far lower than just about anywhere south of there? Why are rents in Uptown much much lower than in Edgewater which is in turn much higher than in Rogers Park which is in turn much lower than Evanston? Why is it more expensive to rent in West Ridge than Rogers Park despite the fact that West Ridge is much further from any kind of public transport to downtown? Why is Andersonville much more expensive than the rest of Edgewater despite being further from the train? Why is Old Irving Park more expensive than Avondale? Why is Beverly more expensive than the vast majority of Chicago neighborhoods desipite being way off in a corner of the city? Why does the same apply to Norridge Park?

No matter how much nonsense you want to make up, what you are saying is simply a gross oversimplification to the point of absurdity. Distance to the loop simply IS NOT the main factor for rent or land prices. It IS a factor, but it is nowhere near the primary factor. Crime rates, redevelopment, sociology, amenities, and even the population density of cops and firemen are all vastly more relevant to rent levels and land value than "distance to the loop". Assuming all other factors are equal, then yes, distance to the loop does matter.

Also, as a matter of fact, I certainly can "say that it applies in 'some scenarios'" because that statement is simply a fact.


Quote:
Even in Hyde Park, which is still 6 miles from the Loop, rents are cheaper than in the South Loop, but most definitely higher than in Chatham, South Chicago or Pullman.
You are conveniently ignoring the fact that Kenwood, Washington Park, Englewood, Pilsen, Bridgeport, etc all exist, are much closer to downtown, and have lower rents than Hyde Park. Hilarious cherry picking you've got there.

Quote:
It's simple logic that the further away you are from the densest urban core of a city like Chicago, the less you are on AVERAGE going to pay for a rental apartment.
"Simple logic" is often wrong as it is in this case. Of course distance from downtown IS a factor (again, as I said probably half a dozen times in my first post), but it is basically completely overshadowed by numerous other factors. Another great factor I just remembered is this: how do you even define as the "center" of the city?

All parts of downtown, if we assume that includes Everything between Hancock and Sears, are not equal. Rents vary even downtown. Rents in the South Loop are lower than in Streeterville, explain that to me when they are both equidistant to the loop. Rents in Gold Coast crush rents in the South loop, but they are pretty much mirror images of each other. The fact is you are claiming that agglomeration economies apply evenly across the city which is absurd. The only reason agglomeration economies even exist is because the very cycle of development and increasing amenities that I described above. If it were all based upon "how close am I to my job" then the loop would have developed with a mix of office and residential uses, but it didn't. Instead the loop is devoid of amenities while places like Gold Coast developed them and became huge population centers and equally expensive. No one moves to Lincoln Park just because it is "close to the loop", they move there because it is a nice place to live and it's relative proximity to the loop is a small fraction of the reason why Lincoln Park is desirable.

Quote:
Lincoln Park > Lakeview > Uptown > West Rogers Park, and even then, rent will still be cheaper in Rogers Park, regardless of Loyola, than in East Lakeview.
Again, you insist on ignoring all of the situations in which you are wrong. Did Edgewater just suddenly cease to exist? And actually, rent is now probably more expensive in much of Rogers Park around Loyola than it is anywhere in the Eastern half of Uptown with a few exceptions.

Quote:
I still stand by my assertion that even with new construction in Lakeview, at Clark & Belmont, you're not going to be able to command Streeterville prices for a 1 or 2 bedroom unit.
And here's the dagger, you actually can command very close to Streeterville prices in the neighborhoods if you provide the right amenities. Just look at 1611 W Division, starting at $1500 for a 550 SF studio. One bedrooms in 1611 W Division start at $1795.

Guess what one bedrooms in Optima Streeterville start at? $1,800/month... Please explain to me again how you account for the fact that they have virtually the same pricing, yet are several miles difference from downtown? I am willing to bet the developers of the project in Lakeview are assuming they can get similar rents to 1611 W Division.

Trust me, I do this whole "real estate" thing for a living. Most people are concerned with what amenities they get and not so concerned with how close to downtown they are. As long as it is within about a 30-40 min commute, most people don't care how far from the office they are.

Sorry for the long rant, I'll stop now since I have to go down to Aqua to tour a condo I am helping a friend look at renting there. Guess why he is interested in Aqua despite the fact that 1 BR's fetch about $2400/mo there (way more than Optima)? Because he wants the full suite of amenities Aqua has (spa, outdoor pool, access to all the hotel benefits, etc) which a place like Optima does not have. This is a micro example of what I am talking about. Aqua is just down the street from Optima, but is 20% more expensive. Why? Because it has more amenities. The same thing applies with neighborhoods. People don't just blindly choose to live places based on proximity to downtown, they choose to live places because they are good places to live!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #21019  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2013, 10:30 PM
J_M_Tungsten's Avatar
J_M_Tungsten J_M_Tungsten is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,379
Quote:
Originally Posted by marothisu View Post
^ Will be interested to see how the facility turns out. Also, did you see the progress of the 54 (?) condo development over at Ashland and Warren?
I didn't know that was even happening! I'll have to take a new route to work and snap a pic.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #21020  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2013, 11:16 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
Wow, a whole discussion from a misunderstanding of my post. I was talking commercial rents, not apartment rents
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:53 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.