CHICAGO | One Bennett Park | 837 FT | 68 FLOORS

[BVictor1]

^What do you think could help give the area more soul? Curious

[the urban politician]

^ Smaller lots, smaller buildings

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by bcp

Out of the thousands of blocks in Manhattan that was definitely some cherry picking of the strong w-w retail sections...it's overwhelmingly all about the n-s avenues, especially north of Houston ...south of there is just thunderdome.

Yes, because someone on here is going to list the thousands of streets in Manhattan. Come on. I'm not saying there's more retail on the streets than avenues, but to say that the streets have no retail/commercial is pretty much BS. There are definitely streets without it, but there's a lot of streets with them too. Some of the streets I listed don't even have a lot if you bothered to look at all of the links. Some had a lot, others had a little. I have been in Manhattan every week for over the last year and a half and I walk it every single day as I've been able to see a ton of the borough (as well as others like Queens which is where my girlfriend lives).

The point is that thinking there should be no stores on Grand in streeterville, a dense and still growing neighborhood, is completely bullshit and this is the type of thinking that is going to continue make the area boring as hell and set Chicago back in the urban sense.

[pilsenarch]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ To a very large degree, east west running streets in Manhattan tend to not contain commercial space but are either mostly residential or are employed in a service capacity (deliveries, garages, etc) given the city's lack of an alley system.

Again, this is just a generality that applies to the borough uptown from, say Greenwich Village. Obviously that rule of thumb tends to breakdown in Midtown Manhattan, but it's especially true on the upper west and east sides.

Either way, Streeterville is still finding itself and as the residential grows, the retail will follow. I for one really don't see a big deal with there being no retail at the base of this particular building.

It's my understanding that the lack of retail on the EW streets in Manhattan is also based in zoning. Most of the existing retail on those streets is grandfathered in...

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by bcp;7363181

And I lived in Manhattan so only needed to see the links :)...most on the avenues, some on the streets[B

. The funny thing about those is that they tend to have the best feel due to small lots / granularity that large (not the same as tall) buildings are rarely able to pull off - part of the challenge in streeterville.[/B]

Yep, that's what I've been talking about before. The issue in Chicago in areas like Streeterville is that their spaces are too large when they do have retail/commercial. Not always, but tending to. Happens elsewhere too. There's a building near me with a large space, and in the 7 years I've lived in the neighborhood it's only been taken once for a month - for a pop-up art gallery. Then State & Chestnut was built near it, but offered smaller spaces and guess what? A restaurant from NYC already took a space in it within a few months of the building opening - much smaller space at something like 3000 sq ft (the other one not taken is over 8000 sq ft). They offer these huge spaces and then wonder why only chains can afford it and/or why nobody wants to take it. NYC does a way better job of it - it might be expensive, but at least more people can afford a 1000 sq ft space versus a 10,000 sq ft space. It's better for street level experience too.

[the urban politician]

^ Most retail spaces are divisible.

My guess is that street level pedestrian activity is not ample to justify some of the commercial space. This is something that would be rectified over time

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Most retail spaces are divisible.

My guess is that street level pedestrian activity is not ample to justify some of the commercial space. This is something that would be rectified over time

Most are, but sometimes the divisible space is still pretty large. I'm actually constantly surprised at how much street activity there is in Streeterville now in some areas. It's definitely picked up. The thing is though that it's almost a chicken and egg thing. Having these storefronts shouldn't be just about how much activity there is. it should also be about how many people live, work, and stay (tourism) there. There is absolutely no reason why nobody would show up to an eatery or cafe if you put one around 4000 people in a walkable environment (or even a non walkable one). I find it to be a cop out reason completely.

If there is nothing to do (i.e. eat, parks/plazas, etc) outside of where you live/work/stay, then less people are going to stick around on the street level there. If you put things there, you'll see an uptick. Again, this area's residents are not short on cash - otherwise they wouldn't be living there. Put things there, and you'd absolutely see these things pick up. There's absolutely no reason it wouldn't.

[rlw777]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Yes, because someone on here is going to list the thousands of streets in Manhattan. Come on. I'm not saying there's more retail on the streets than avenues, but to say that the streets have no retail/commercial is pretty much BS. There are definitely streets without it, but there's a lot of streets with them too. Some of the streets I listed don't even have a lot if you bothered to look at all of the links. Some had a lot, others had a little. I have been in Manhattan every week for over the last year and a half and I walk it every single day as I've been able to see a ton of the borough (as well as others like Queens which is where my girlfriend lives).

NOBODY ever said there was NO commercial space on streets in Manhattan. As was stated the 1st time this was mentioned... and now for like the 4th time it was a generalization.

Originally Posted by marothisu

The point is that thinking there should be no stores on Grand in streeterville, a dense and still growing neighborhood, is completely bullshit and this is the type of thinking that is going to continue make the area boring as hell and set Chicago back in the urban sense.

Also nobody suggested that there shouldn't be stores on Grand.

I was saying that I think commercial space for THIS tower is a bad idea based on it's location. There are lots of commercial spaces in dense neighborhoods that don't do well for many of the reasons I listed before. Could something commercial survive here? probably... at a very low rent for a very low demand space. Would that be wise for the developer. Probably not.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by rlw777

I was saying that I think commercial space for THIS tower is a bad idea based on it's location. There are lots of commercial spaces in dense neighborhoods that don't do well for many of the reasons I listed before. Could something commercial survive here? probably... at a very low rent for a very low demand space. Would that be wise for the developer. Probably not.

We can agree to disagree. There's more than enough activity and residential in the area to support a store or two there quite easily. I think the tower dropped the ball on what could have been even a small space.

[Swicago Swi Sox]

Originally Posted by marothisu

We can agree to disagree. There's more than enough activity and residential in the area to support a store or two there quite easily. I think the tower dropped the ball on what could have been even a small space.

This tower is giving us a revamped urban pocket park, that hopefully can be a better activated space than the previous park. There is long stretches of retail on Illinois and Grand directly adjacent to the park that is under utilized. If that park is better used by residents and Navy Pier travelers, then those retail spaces can thrive, and this tower has helped the general commerce in the area.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

For a building like this, it's not about the demand in the neighborhood. It's about what you think will appeal to buyers at this price point. Seldom does that mean retail, unfortunately. Folks who buy in buildings like this don't want to think there's some grubby shopkeeper who has access to their lobby, or some restaurant that might attract rats and needs early morning deliveries.

There are a few notable exceptions, but expensive buildings seldom have anything other than a dry cleaners. On Manhattan's Upper East Side, you'll see high-end buildings that have retail spaces on the avenue—but the residential entrance and address are from the crosstown street.

This. It's relevant to have the discussion about NYC because Stern is not only based in that city, but he literally wrote the book on the history of NY architecture and One Bennett Park is very clearly based on NY precedents.

If you look at the most luxury buildings in New York, on 5th Avenue, CPW, Park Avenue, etc they often have no retail. This is a historical thing, as Mr. D points out - apartment house living in NYC was a direct replacement for mansion living and sought to attract the same residents. Just as the idea of a shop at the base of your mansion is weird and kinda distasteful, it's the same for a luxury apartment house. Historically, the people who live above shops are shopkeepers, not the aristocracy. We obviously don't have true aristocracy in a legal sense in America, but wealthy Americans have always emulated foreign and especially British aristocracy.

I don't think Stern ever seriously considered retail for the base of this tower, and I'm sure he urged Related not to consider it either.

I'm not gonna shed a tear about the lack of retail space in this building. If anything, it just adds residents to support the existing (and vacant) retail spaces in the neighborhood.

[marothisu]

^ In the UES, that's true there are buildings that have no business space (already mentioned that), but there are also many luxury buildings around that do have it, or have it very, very close by.

[r18tdi]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I'm not gonna shed a tear about the lack of retail space in this building. If anything, it just adds residents to support the existing (and vacant) retail spaces in the neighborhood.

Agreed. The current Streeterville retail scene is catered towards hospital folk and it's a sleepy ghost town by 7:00 PM. The answer isn't adding more square footage.

[vandelay]

The most expensive apartment in the US has retail on the ground floor, and it happens to be a Stern design.

[maru2501]

anything toward the hospitals fades out fast

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by vandelay

The most expensive apartment in the US has retail on the ground floor, and it happens to be a Stern design.

Assuming you're talking about 15CPW, that's true. Stern does work for developers, after all, and they saw money to be made putting retail on Broadway which is already a bustling retail street. But the residential entrance is about as far away as Stern could put it, off of 61st and then at the end of a motor court. Entrances are entirely segregated.

The east building does NOT have retail, like the rest of the buildings on Central Park West.

[spyguy]

While there are plenty of historical (and a few modern) examples to support what you guys are talking about, it's hard to buy into the idea that luxury buyers are totally against living above retail or in mixed-use developments today.

The buildings with the most expensive units are (in no order) Trump, Aqua, Park Tower, Waldorf, 900 N Michigan, Water Tower Place, etc. Wanda will continue this trend. Obviously each building is different when it comes to setup and whether there's shared or separated entrances/lobbies/amenities etc. but residents are not completely isolated either.

If you want more "pure" residential examples, take a look at 9 Walton, 4 East Elm, 400 W Huron, Ritz Carlton Residences, 340 on the Park, 50 E Chestnut, Legacy.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by spyguy

While there are plenty of historical (and a few modern) examples to support what you guys are talking about, it's hard to buy into the idea that luxury buyers are totally against living above retail or in mixed-use developments today.

The buildings with the most expensive units are (in no order) Trump, Aqua, Park Tower, Waldorf, 900 N Michigan, Water Tower Place, etc. Wanda will continue this trend. Obviously each building is different when it comes to setup and whether there's shared or separated entrances/lobbies/amenities etc. but residents are not completely isolated either.

If you want more "pure" residential examples, take a look at 9 Walton, 4 East Elm, 400 W Huron, Ritz Carlton Residences, 340 on the Park, 50 E Chestnut, Legacy.

Both of these have retail/commercial components to them actually. 4 E Elm isn't done yet, but there's a few spaces on the ground floor available and 50 E Chestnut has a big space available though it's only been taken once for about a month for an art gallery popup (most likely due to high prices).

The thing is that in this day and age, when you have $1M+ to spend, you can live pretty much anywhere in the world and anywhere in the Chicago area. There's a reason why people pay to be in areas like downtown. Because there's stuff to do, it's walkable, etc. You could easily buy a quiet place where nobody goes near your area in another part of town in a suburb. Buying downtown though? It comes with the territory - nobody expects to be isolated.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by bcp

Not knowing what you do...but have you considered opening something nearby?

I've considered opening a lot of places, though the idea I've been hung up on lately wouldn't work downtown anywhere.

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by vandelay

The most expensive apartment in the US has retail on the ground floor, and it happens to be a Stern design.

Not true - One57 overtook 15CPW last year as most expensive (in terms of avg ppsf and highest chunk price and highest ppsf).....One57 will likely be overtaken shortly by one of the even newer towers just completing/still under construction.

I do happen to agree with your point though - as others have also made - that (high-end, of course) retail/restaurant at base isn't a deterrent for the most part (of course for certain individuals it may be, but on the whole, I don't think having it is a significant issue for moving these units........