CHICAGO | One Bennett Park | 837 FT | 68 FLOORS

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by rlw777

Purely based upon the location of this tower having retail at the base would be nonsense.That being said Streeterville has terrible street level planning for a number or reasons I wouldn't say that the size of the spaces is really a big factor though. If you're going to compare an NYC neighborhood to streeterville or river north I think you would do better to think about common modes of transportation rather than the size of available spaces.

Why would it be nonsense? It's in the middle of a dense neighborhood with 500 N LSD to the east, and a few new residential to the west, along with existing. Why in the world would it be non sense to add commercial/retail to this tower? IMO this is the type of thinking that is going to set Chicago back as a walkable, urban city. If you don't put retail/commercial near there, it's ridiculous. Having another Lakeshore East on our hands in that regard would be an utter fucking disaster. There's a reason I don't live in Streeterville - and in parts, it's because of this.

[ithakas]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Why would it be nonsense? It's in the middle of a dense neighborhood with 500 N LSD to the east, and a few new residential to the west, along with existing. Why in the world would it be non sense to add commercial/retail to this tower? IMO this is the type of thinking that is going to set Chicago back as a walkable, urban city. If you don't put retail/commercial near there, it's ridiculous. Having another Lakeshore East on our hands in that regard would be an utter fucking disaster. There's a reason I don't live in Streeterville - and in parts, it's because of this.

Also a good amount of foot traffic going from Michigan Avenue to Navy Pier. The area isn't simply Navy Pier's cheaper parking lot anymore.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by ithakas

Also a good amount of foot traffic going from Michigan Avenue to Navy Pier. The area isn't simply Navy Pier's cheaper parking lot anymore.

Yeah that's a good point. There is a lot of foot traffic just from Navy Pier alone around there. There's is NO reason why there shouldn't be any retail/commercial spaces in this new building, but then again it's obvious this is an upper east side type of building with none of it - not all buildings in UES have that type of space. It's still a travesty though. Chicago needs to do a better job with it, and also stop offering up 8,000 sq ft spaces that most people don't want to pay for.

[maru2501]

there are newer buildings within blocks that have done well with restaurant spaces

[10023]

The problem guys is that the type of type of retail or restaurants that would appeal to locals and the type that would be targeted at Navy Pier foot traffic are very different. The developers are probably smart NOT to put tourist-centric retail at the bottom of the building as this would reduce its appeal to potential buyers.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Notyrview

The difference is also that nyc towers like this are thinner. The width on this one is just plain obese, as evidenced by that photoshopped skyline view from the planetarium. The outcome is startling.

This isn't really true. It's no bigger at the base than the west tower of 15 CPW.

[ithakas]

Originally Posted by 10023

The problem guys is that the type of type of retail or restaurants that would appeal to locals and the type that would be targeted at Navy Pier foot traffic are very different. The developers are probably smart NOT to put tourist-centric retail at the bottom of the building as this would reduce its appeal to potential buyers.

That's true too, but it could be the type of retail that appeals to building residents and still get the odd Navy Pier visitor. Not everyone who visits Navy Pier is a hokey Midwesterner, even international visitors often go there.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by 10023

The problem guys is that the type of type of retail or restaurants that would appeal to locals and the type that would be targeted at Navy Pier foot traffic are very different. The developers are probably smart NOT to put tourist-centric retail at the bottom of the building as this would reduce its appeal to potential buyers.

No, that's not the issue. There's thousands of people who actually live in the general area. There are already things there that appeal to Navy Pier people like the Chipotles of the world. There are already restaurants in that area that do not appeal to the typical American tourist at all. Not to mention that Navy Pier has been revamping their food options and making them way less "Jimmy Buffett!!!!" There are already new eateries there like Goddess & Grocer which is nothing like what we've seen the last 25+ years at Navy Pier for food. And not everyone who goes to NP is the Midwestern person. Two weekends ago, a friend of mine from Italy was in town and she had some coworkers from France, Italy, Sweden, India, etc with her along with people from NYC, Atlanta, LA, etc and they all wanted to go to Navy Pier and they all did go there. As much as I don't like NP, it is on the list of must visit sites, even for international tourists.

There's also more legitimate restaurants on the two streets north and south of Grand - Ohio and Illinois - east of Michigan Avenue. Niu Japanese, Bombay Wraps, Yolk, Dollop Coffee, Bellwether, Kanela Breakfast Club, Gyu Kaku, Labriola, Tre Soldi, FTW, Emilio's Tapas, Ramen Misoya, Kafenio Lavazza, Sayat Nova, etc are all there and Volare is on Grand. Not everyone walks strictly on Grand to get to NP.

[rlw777]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Why would it be nonsense? It's in the middle of a dense neighborhood with 500 N LSD to the east, and a few new residential to the west, along with existing. Why in the world would it be non sense to add commercial/retail to this tower? IMO this is the type of thinking that is going to set Chicago back as a walkable, urban city. If you don't put retail/commercial near there, it's ridiculous. Having another Lakeshore East on our hands in that regard would be an utter fucking disaster. There's a reason I don't live in Streeterville - and in parts, it's because of this.

It's nonsense for several reasons.

1) Retail generally does better next to other retail. There is no retail adjacent to this building. The closest other retail location is across grand on the North side of the building. Most retailers want to know foot traffic numbers before they will consider a space.

2) It's not pedestrian friendly. the building sits on a corner with heavy traffic from LSD and all of the buildings around it have multiple curb cuts for parking. There is basically zero pedestrian traffic along Pershing ct. The only people who would easily discover the location and for who this location would be convenient are those people living in the three towers on that corner.

3) History. The river east art center has had a tough time getting retail to survive in a more attractive setting close by.

4) Cost / Benefit of retail vs other uses of the same space.

You should note that NYC doesn't build retail in random places. Generally speaking you find retail along the avenues and not along the streets for similar reasons as those listed above.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by rlw777

1) Retail generally does better next to other retail. There is no retail adjacent to this building. The closest other retail location is across grand on the North side of the building. Most retailers want to know foot traffic numbers before they will consider a space.

Between 500 LSD and this building , there will be hundreds of units right there, not to mention the McClurg building - meaning over 1000 units. There is already spaces near there, they aren't taken sometimes and it makes no sense. Not to mention that if nobody puts retail there, then nobody is going to do it with what you're saying.

I cannot believe you'd actually think that not having any retail around 1000+ units is a bad idea because there's no retail there already. Seriously? And when I say "retail" - I really meant anything from stores, salons, cafes, and restaurants. Not just clothing.

3) History. The river east art center has had a tough time getting retail to survive in a more attractive setting close by.

There's also 3 new buildings going up right there that are residential, so this point is completely moot. Within two years, there will be probably over 1500 more new residents in the area versus today for the three buildings U/C or about to be U/C right there.

You should note that NYC doesn't build retail in random places. Generally speaking you find retail along the avenues and not along the streets for similar reasons as those listed above.

When I say retail, I mean stores in general and yes, in Manhattan there are stores on the streets, not just on the avenues. Anybody who's spent enough time in Manhattan (i.e. me) would know that. If you're talking about UES, then yeah, there are clothing stores mostly on avenues for clothing. When you're talking about lower Manhattan, down in SoHo or TriBeCa, then there's stores on the E-W streets just like there are on the N-S ones. Even in Midtown though, there are clothing stores on streets. Muji Times Square for example - the address lists 8th Ave but that's because the store is part of a big building with that address. The actual entrance is in the middle of 40th Street. I could point you to a shoe store or two on 39th St. between Broadway and 6th for example too

[rlw777]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Between 500 LSD and this building , there will be hundreds of units right there, not to mention the McClurg building - meaning over 1000 units. There is already spaces near there, they aren't taken sometimes and it makes no sense. Not to mention that if nobody puts retail there, then nobody is going to do it with what you're saying.

I cannot believe you'd actually think that not having any retail around 1000+ units is a bad idea because there's no retail there already. Seriously? And when I say "retail" - I really meant anything from stores, salons, cafes, and restaurants. Not just clothing.

There's also 3 new buildings going up right there that are residential, so this point is completely moot. Within two years, there will be probably over 1500 more new residents in the area versus today for the three buildings U/C or about to be U/C right there.

Optima II doesn't matter at all for this location and McClurg barely does. If I am living in the McClurg building 99.9% of the time I won't be looking for goods and services near the lake. There's a good chance I could live there and not discover that there's commercial space at One Bennett Park and if I did there is a good chance I won't frequent that location because I like to do multiple things at once when I'm out and about and I hate extra walking and dealing with traffic. It's just not an attractive location for retailers and not an attractive option for the developer who can use that space for amenities or more tenants.

Originally Posted by marothisu

When I say retail, I mean stores in general and yes, in Manhattan there are stores on the streets, not just on the avenues. Anybody who's spent enough time in Manhattan (i.e. me) would know that. If you're talking about UES, then yeah, there are clothing stores mostly on avenues for clothing. When you're talking about lower Manhattan, down in SoHo or TriBeCa, then there's stores on the E-W streets just like there are on the N-S ones. Even in Midtown though, there are clothing stores on streets. Muji Times Square for example - the address lists 8th Ave but that's because the store is part of a big building with that address. The actual entrance is in the middle of 40th Street. I could point you to a shoe store or two on 39th St. between Broadway and 6th for example too

Notice I said "generally speaking" obviously I'm not saying there are no stores on any streets in Manhattan. No need to get self righteous.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by rlw777

Optima II doesn't matter at all for this location and McClurg barely does. If I am living in the McClurg building 99.9% of the time I won't be looking for goods and services near the lake. There's a good chance I could live there and not discover that there's commercial space at One Bennett Park and if I did there is a good chance I won't frequent that location because I like to do multiple things at once when I'm out and about and I hate extra walking and dealing with traffic. It's just not an attractive location for retailers and not an attractive option for the developer who can use that space for amenities or more tenants.

Again, between all of the residential around there, there are hundreds if not a few thousand units. You honestly think that there's no need for any commercial or retail? Seriously...

Notice I said "generally speaking" obviously I'm not saying there are no stores on any streets in Manhattan. No need to get self righteous.

There's nothing self righteous about what I'm saying. It's the truth. There are stores and shops all over Manhattan whether they're streets or Avenues. The thought that most of the stores and restaurants/eateries are on the Avenues, but not streets is complete and utter bullshit. Now, if you were talking about Queens, then it would be more true Queens in this regard is more similar to Chicago than Manhattan is.

[spyguy]

There probably would be retail if they didn't have to (or want to) cram in all of those separate motor courts, lobbies, loading docks/parking garage entrances. A small upscale cafe/bakery probably would have done well next to the redeveloped park.

[rlw777]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Again, between all of the residential around there, there are hundreds if not a few thousand units. You honestly think that there's no need for any commercial or retail? Seriously...

I think the developer probably weighed the possibility of charging a little bit more to several hundred residents for an amenity against the rent or lack there of from a troublesome commercial location.

Originally Posted by marothisu

There's nothing self righteous about what I'm saying. It's the truth. There are stores and shops all over Manhattan whether they're streets or Avenues. The thought that most of the stores and restaurants/eateries are on the Avenues, but not streets is complete and utter bullshit. Now, if you were talking about Queens, then it would be more true Queens in this regard is more similar to Chicago than Manhattan is.

When you're implying that someone isn't as qualified as you to make an assertion without knowing anything about them I call that self righteous. And it's no secret that in the upper east side, upper west side, harlem, hells kitchen, chelsea, and other neighborhoods that commercial space is concentrated on the Avenues.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by rlw777

When you're implying that someone isn't as qualified as you to make an assertion without knowing anything about them I call that self righteous. And it's no secret that in the upper east side, upper west side, harlem, hells kitchen, chelsea, and other neighborhoods that commercial space is concentrated on the Avenues.

There are definitely some areas where some streets are very residential in Manhattan on the streets, but there are many streets (E-W) that run in a variety of neighborhoods in Manhattan with their fare share of commercial/retail in them. Here's some examples from various neighborhoods:

.
St. Mark's Pl between 2nd and 3rd Ave (East Village): https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7294...8i6656!6m1!1e1

28th between Lex and Park (Kips Bay):
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7427...8i6656!6m1!1e1

36th Street between 5th and 6th Avenue (near Koreatown): https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7500...8i6656!6m1!1e1


52nd Street between 8th and 9th Avenue (essentially Hell's Kitchen): https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7641...8i6656!6m1!1e1

18th between 6th and 7th avenue (Chelsea)
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7404...7i13312!8i6656

Christopher St between 7th Ave and 6th Ave (West Village):
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7336...7i13312!8i6656

Bleecker St east of 6th Ave (SoHo):
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7285...7i13312!8i6656

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by spyguy

There probably would be retail if they didn't have to (or want to) cram in all of those separate motor courts, lobbies, loading docks/parking garage entrances. A small upscale cafe/bakery probably would have done well next to the redeveloped park.

I agree. Seriously, this is a neighborhood that thousands of people live in. Some little corner neighborhood establishment could thrive there.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by HomrQT

I agree. Seriously, this is a neighborhood that thousands of people live in. Some little corner neighborhood establishment could thrive there.

Exactly. And actually, both streets to the north and south - Ohio Street and Illinois Street - have a good amount of restaurants and places to eat east of Michigan Ave. There's no reason why Grand shouldn't either.

Here are the two census block groups right there:
* http://www.usa.com/IL0310814033.html
* http://www.usa.com/IL0310814023.html

Just that block alone and the south side of Ohio St have just under 2800 people living in them as of 2010. This isn't counting buildings that were completed after like 500 N Lake Shore Drive, which is 500 units. There's easily over 3000 people there right now. Not to mention 545 N McClurg finishing this year (490 units), and Optima Tower (400 units). In the matter of 2 years from now, there will be probably close to or over 4000 residents right there. By the time this building is completed in 3 years, you can add another multiple hundred to that and who knows what else going up in the general area. And there's a thought that Grand can't handle retail/commercial (even though Illinois and Ohio St kind of do)? Get the fuck out of here with that thinking. The people coming to live here have enough money to spend - these aren't cheap places to live at. People live downtown for a reason, not to live in an area where there's no stores or restaurants. If they wanted to do that, they could live in another part of town or a suburb.

[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.

[BVictor1]

Get over the lack of retail people.

Move on...

It's pretty much a non-issue that folks are dwelling on.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by marothisu

There's nothing self righteous about what I'm saying. It's the truth. There are stores and shops all over Manhattan whether they're streets or Avenues. The thought that most of the stores and restaurants/eateries are on the Avenues, but not streets is complete and utter bullshit. Now, if you were talking about Queens, then it would be more true Queens in this regard is more similar to Chicago than Manhattan is.

^ 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.