CHICAGO | General Developments - Page 2343

ardecila · #**46841** Posted **Feb 26, 2020, 7:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jc5680

^ aren't elevators required above 4? I can't speak broadly to construction incentives, but elevator costs/maintenance (and more recently a cab replacement) is routinely one of the biggest costs to my building's annual budget.

The 4 then 10+ dichotomy makes even more sense to me if there are large cost considerations at 4 then again ~8 floors.

Elevators aren't a pain point because elevator buildings usually command higher rents than walk-ups. It pays for itself, basically.

On the other hand, nobody will pay a premium to live in a building with 2-hour fire rated walls and a sprinkler system vs a building that doesn't have those things.

KOgc · #**46842** Posted **Feb 26, 2020, 9:07 PM**

I'm not sure what the project is, but the pretty big lot just south of the SoNo towers has a couple of floors of steel framing erected on it's east side.

I think it's a Power Project and I thought I remembered seeing a CallisonRTKL design firm poster on the temp fence - couldn't find anything on their website though.

Nice to infill that big lot!

emathias · #**46843** Posted **Feb 26, 2020, 10:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mark0

Even at 4 floors elevator buildings make sense because the units command a higher price and sell faster. 3 floors is typically the limit most people purchasing want to walk up.

I own the 4th floor of a walk-up. It's not that bad, and I am very happy not to have upstairs neighbors.

SolarWind · #**46844** Posted **Feb 27, 2020, 6:34 AM**

February 24, 2020

spyguy · #**46845** Posted **Feb 29, 2020, 5:51 PM**

932 West Randolph - replacing the bland bank building currently at this corner

1020 West Randolph - replacing the accompanying hideous drive-thru bank

1100 West Randolph - not sure why they had to tear down the existing building for this

ardecila · #**46846** Posted **Feb 29, 2020, 7:20 PM**

Interesting. I've actually grown to like that bank building, though. Nice echoes of Louis Sullivan's jewel boxes and other Chicago Prairie School. Sometimes you have to look beyond the utility brick! Certainly no better or worse than the building planned to replace it. I wonder if this is actually a reclad and expansion onto the north parking lot?

The drive thru, though, good riddance...

harryc · #**46847** Posted **Mar 1, 2020, 3:09 AM**

Feb 25

Chicaqgo 306 W Erie by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr

Chicaqgo 306 W Erie by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr

Getting ready for the next bldg - drilling next door

Chicaqgo 306 W Erie by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr

west-town-brad · #**46848** Posted **Mar 1, 2020, 2:52 PM**

932 West Randolph - replacing the bland bank building currently at this corner

1020 West Randolph - replacing the accompanying hideous drive-thru bank

1100 West Randolph - not sure why they had to tear down the existing building for this

nice but shocking to have such low density next to a major el station that was just built with $50 Mill in tax dollars.

ardecila · #**46849** Posted **Mar 1, 2020, 4:58 PM**

^Blame the landmark district. Randolph is explicitly called out as a lowrise/midrise commercial street. Many of these proposals have to go through landmark review on top of other approvals.

Also as a general matter, retail diversity depends on stumpy lowrise “taxpayer” buildings. This is most clear in Toronto where the taxpayers contain all manner of convenience stores and diverse ethnic-owned businesses. That kind of thing is what helps make a desirable neighborhood - high rise podiums simply cannot attract this kind of tenant except under very unusual circumstances.

jc5680 · #**46850** Posted **Mar 1, 2020, 10:53 PM**

Yeah, the scale is totally fine. The smaller sized retailers that continue to fill in on Randolph have made this area of neighborhood notably more vibrant broadly —not just a work/dining district. It also is more interesting visually; as taller buildings fill in behind along lake and Fulton, you end up with more variety, texture, and depth.

--

1220 Jackson

harryc · #**46851** Posted **Mar 2, 2020, 2:34 AM**

Feb 28

Chicago | 318 N Carpenter by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr

harryc · #**46852** Posted **Mar 2, 2020, 3:06 AM**

Feb 28

Chicago | 320 N Sangamon by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr

SIGSEGV · #**46853** Posted **Mar 2, 2020, 3:32 AM**

Two terrible pictures taken from the bus today:

18th and State

Canal Plaza (Archer and Canal?)

west-town-brad · #**46854** Posted **Mar 2, 2020, 2:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jc5680

Yeah, the scale is totally fine.

I guess it will end up looking like Oak Street which is fine.

Other than the landmark district, I don't see why these buildings couldn't have been 6-8 level TOD with the same type of retail at the base. The new train station investment should be unlocking TOD.

emathias · #**46855** Posted **Mar 2, 2020, 3:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

^Blame the landmark district. Randolph is explicitly called out as a lowrise/midrise commercial street. Many of these proposals have to go through landmark review on top of other approvals.

Also as a general matter, retail diversity depends on stumpy lowrise “taxpayer” buildings. This is most clear in Toronto where the taxpayers contain all manner of convenience stores and diverse ethnic-owned businesses. That kind of thing is what helps make a desirable neighborhood - high rise podiums simply cannot attract this kind of tenant except under very unusual circumstances.

I think it's more a matter than landlords in those buildings want tenants that can pay at the high end of market and sign long leases and have a long, stellar credit history to back the lease. If landlords wanted convenience stores and diverse, ethnic tenants, they could easily get them if they accepted the terms those tenants seek.

And speaking of Toronto, I still remember the first time I flew into that city, seeing the city from the air and observing that I could pretty much draw the transit map just from that aerial view because the subway stations all had lumps of taller buildings. You don't see that in Chicago, at least nowhere nearly as obvious.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/0e/b2...bdbd4f2875.jpg

ardecila · #**46856** Posted **Mar 2, 2020, 7:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by emathias

I think it's more a matter than landlords in those buildings want tenants that can pay at the high end of market and sign long leases and have a long, stellar credit history to back the lease. If landlords wanted convenience stores and diverse, ethnic tenants, they could easily get them if they accepted the terms those tenants seek.

Yeah, that's the longer answer... but those standards are often imposed by the banks even if the developer is flexible. In some cases, the developer is explicitly aiming to build and flip to a REIT or institutional investor, so then they want a national credit retailer as well.

Small retail buildings just don't exist in the same market space and don't have the same restrictions on retail tenants that large mixed-use buildings do. A neighborhood that features both kinds of buildings (as well as older buildings) will have the greatest diversity of retail businesses.

Dasylirion · #**46857** Posted **Mar 3, 2020, 3:43 PM**

Anyone know anything about the demolition going on along the Inner Drive near Waveland? Nice old building biting the dust...

VivaLFuego · #**46858** Posted **Mar 3, 2020, 3:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

Also as a general matter, retail diversity depends on stumpy lowrise “taxpayer” buildings. This is most clear in Toronto where the taxpayers contain all manner of convenience stores and diverse ethnic-owned businesses. That kind of thing is what helps make a desirable neighborhood - high rise podiums simply cannot attract this kind of tenant except under very unusual circumstances.

Age of the building matters - I haven't been up there in a while, but when I lived up in Old Town I liked that the parking podium base for the building on the north side of Division between LaSalle and Wells (I believe dating from the 1980s?) was notably getting more textured, with the space getting sliced into irregular and small units for rent and attracting a curious mix of independent and chain stuff.

ardecila · #**46859** Posted **Mar 3, 2020, 4:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

Age of the building matters - I haven't been up there in a while, but when I lived up in Old Town I liked that the parking podium base for the building on the north side of Division between LaSalle and Wells (I believe dating from the 1980s?) was notably getting more textured, with the space getting sliced into irregular and small units for rent and attracting a curious mix of independent and chain stuff.

Looks like that building is condo, so there may be an Association (and their broker) approving the retail tenants rather than an institutional investor. I'm sure they are motivated to keep the retail spaces leased up, to keep the assessments on condo owners relatively low.

It's rare that condo buildings include retail space. The general consensus among developers is that condo buyers won't pay top dollar to live in a building where the unwashed masses are getting takeout pizza and Monster Energy drinks on the ground floor. Then there are the practical considerations of running ventilation for restaurants, etc.

ChiPlanner · #**46860** Posted **Mar 3, 2020, 5:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dasylirion

Anyone know anything about the demolition going on along the Inner Drive near Waveland? Nice old building biting the dust...

This was discussed somewhere back in the thread- the building had facade issues that ended up being structural issues. There's a proposal on Cappleman's website. 36 units- 3726-28 N. Lake Shore Drive