HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2501  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2008, 3:18 AM
cbotnyse cbotnyse is offline
Chicago Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: River North, Chicago
Posts: 1,620
The Parkhomes at Lakeshore East look awesome....are those sold out? what did they go for?

I also wanted to say I stopped in the Roosevelt Collection sales center in the south loop. It really looks to be a nice development. I didnt get any pictures, but they have a really nice model of the development and model condo.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2502  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2008, 3:32 AM
SolarWind's Avatar
SolarWind SolarWind is offline
Chicago
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,886
January 24, 2008

The Parkhomes at Lakeshore East


One11 West Illinois
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2503  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2008, 3:49 AM
EarlyBuyer's Avatar
EarlyBuyer EarlyBuyer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 885
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbotnyse View Post
The Parkhomes at Lakeshore East look awesome....are those sold out? what did they go for?
cbotnyse: several of The Parkhomes remain available. They're priced from $1.5 million to $2.3 million. Considering their square footage and high end finishes and appliances; they're really a pretty good bang-for-the-buck (for those that can afford that price point range...and I'm definitely not one of those people)...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2504  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2008, 4:06 AM
cbotnyse cbotnyse is offline
Chicago Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: River North, Chicago
Posts: 1,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by EarlyBuyer View Post
cbotnyse: several of The Parkhomes remain available. They're priced from $1.5 million to $2.3 million. Considering their square footage and high end finishes and appliances; they're really a pretty good bang-for-the-buck (for those that can afford that price point range...and I'm definitely not one of those people)...
It would be a tough decision for anyone with that amount to spend on real estate in the city right now.

High floor condo at Trump
...................... at OMP
...................... at Waterview
.......................at Spire
a 2-story town home in lakeshore east

tough choices right now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2505  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2008, 5:01 AM
EarlyBuyer's Avatar
EarlyBuyer EarlyBuyer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 885


Good one cbotnyse!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2506  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2008, 5:21 AM
alex1's Avatar
alex1 alex1 is offline
~
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: www.priggish.com
Posts: 3,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by honte View Post
^ The neighborhoods are surprisingly consistent, even though people bash the lack of zoning all the time, and they didn't have a huge teardown trend like Chicago.
i left houston in '98 and at that time, teardowns were a big problem. What part of houston did you live in? while I spent most of the time up in the north suburbs, I did live in the Heights for a while. I thought Houston had little consistency. Not that I have ever thought that to be a problem.
__________________
n+y+c = nyc
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2507  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2008, 2:39 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,718
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician;3309740
What we're seeing here is just the typical city-wide reaction against new development, the usual whining that never stops, and the Tribune appears to have sided with NIMBY's. I agree with its criticism of Aldermanic prerogative, but for a different reason. They criticize Aldermanic prerogative because Alderman are cozy with developers; I criticize it because it allows small numbers of outspoken individuals to overpower the people who [I
should[/I] be overseeing development: the Planning Dept.


I had a very similar reaction when reading the article - I was cringing the entire time, as it became clear the slant the reporters had taken. It seemed as though they had a premise that planning should be stronger, but then mostly brushed this aside (although there were a few quotes thrown in by Brent Ryan - who frankly I'm glad has left Chicago as I disagreed with his planning policy positions probably 80% of the time) in favor of NIMBY's should have more sway.......

Also, I'll have to go back and re-read the article, but how many examples did the reporters used of very worthy developments (from a planning perspective - for example, numerous TOD proposals) that were killed because of aldermanic prerogative? I think there were very few or none at all. This just demonstrates what a slanted, one-sided, biased view the reporters chose to look at this issue from....lousy journalism if you ask me....
__________________
Post-Modern is Post-Mortem - Deal with it
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2508  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2008, 4:18 PM
VivaLFuego's Avatar
VivaLFuego VivaLFuego is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Dupont
Posts: 6,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrabbit View Post
Ultimate (penultimate?) laissez-faire city would be Houston - very little zoning there.
Yes and no; and either way, the Houston situation isn't very comparable to Chicago. Houston has a very high off-street minimum parking requirement (1.33 spaces per bedroom, I believe), very high minimum lot sizes until recently (5000 sq ft I think), and a road network consisting of a bunch of 6-lane arterials. Of course, since developers can generally build as many units as they want, supply easily meets demand and housing in Houston is CHEAP (think brand new 2000 sq ft townhouse a mile from downtown for $300K).

Eliminate the density/bulk regulations from Chicago's zoning code, and the incentive for developers to find a legal way to bribe politicians would just about disappear, and housing costs would go down commensurately.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2509  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2008, 7:01 PM
i_am_hydrogen i_am_hydrogen is offline
tilted & shifted
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,515
Grant Park among city's endangered landmarks, group says

By E.A. Torriero | Tribune reporter
10:46 AM CST, January 28, 2008


Preservation Chicago Monday unveiled its annual list of "Chicago's Seven Most Endangered Buildings" but this year, it has a twist. It included a city landmark that is neither a building, a bridge nor a neighborhood: Grant Park.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,6495342.story
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2510  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2008, 7:07 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,533
Seriously? You think the difference between Houston housing costs and Chicago housing costs is that the Chicago market is artificially restricted by zoning? Cheap nonunion labor, less strict building codes, year-round construction, no need for basements--none of that's a factor?

Virtually all of Chicago is zoned for a density much higher than actually exists, even on the North Side. Remember that the 2003 zoning code just proposed some in-between district designations; the remapping has never occurred. Many thousands of lots in the city are entirely empty, and anyone proposing a three-flat there would be met by the alderman and the planning department with champagne glasses.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2511  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2008, 7:16 PM
Chicago Shawn's Avatar
Chicago Shawn Chicago Shawn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,766
My response to some of the ignorance on the tribune boards:
Quote:
"david-0-selznick"]This is exactly what happened to 5440 N Sheridan Road. Mary Ann Smith lied to the community when she proposed a downsizing of Sheridan south of Hollywood, maximum 6 stories high. Then a developer came in, contributed several thousand to her campaign fund, and received the zoning to put up ANOTHER highrise, some 18 stories tall. Over 1000 residents signed a petition to stop the exemption, but Mary Ann, using her rubber-stamp Land Use and Zoning Committee ignored the desires of the neighbors.

So, you get to live in a Sheridan Road high-rise, but no new people can? Quite selfish. The new zoning code has become more restrictive since 2004, and thus causes more requests for zoning changes. Often times in the past, a zoning change was not needed to build the types of structures the tribune mentioned. The reason as to why areas stayed the same for so long is because people fled the city for the suburbs and the population plumitited by over 900,000.

Our city was far more densely populated in 1950, with 3.621 million calling it home when areas out near Midway Airport were still farms. The infrastructure can take additional loads in many places and this is a major reason why the CTA is always in fiscal crises, because the density is not high enough to justify service levels in many areas of the city.

The city needs to evolve overtime to remain viable. If context never changed, then we would all be living in dear skin tepees and wood shacks beside a prairie stream too sluggish to clean itself. This is how the city grew. Just look at all the 3 flats and courtyard apartment buildings that went up in the 1920's. We cherish these as part of our vintage city, but these were often "out of context" when they were built. We also need density to sustain the walkable street front retail most of us love.

If neighbors want to preserve a block's scale push for landmarking. Too many great opportunities are squandered by complaining NIMBYs who have not the slightest clue about what living in a city really means, and should really move out to the suburbs where they can have all the open sky and sunlight they want. This is why developers have to "bribe". Loosen the restrictions, and you will see less grease on the wheels of politics.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2512  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2008, 7:31 PM
VivaLFuego's Avatar
VivaLFuego VivaLFuego is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Dupont
Posts: 6,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Virtually all of Chicago is zoned for a density much higher than actually exists, even on the North Side.
Are you serious? Almost the whole northside pre-war housing stock in the "hot" neighborhoods is non-conforming under the new zoning code, in terms of off-street parking requirement, minimum average unit size, maximum units per lot area, etc. Under the new zoning R3 zones can generally have only a single family house unless the lot is unusually large, and R4 can at best have a 3-flat. With the exception of a narrow sliver along the lake of R5 and R6 (the latter being the only true high-density zoning left), most of the northside is R3 and R4. In a very select few locations of R4 zoning, the areas could be fully redeveloped for a modest increase in unit density, but these are few and far between as R4 zones typically already have pretty high density.

Nothing resembling the current unit density of Wicker Park, Bucktown, Lincoln Park, Lakeview could be built under current zoning (I'll be nice and won't even bring up Pilsen with its 2-buildings-per-standard-lot). These neighborhoods are full of non-conforming uses, and if every lot were developed to their maximum allowable density, at least on the residential streets, the unit density would decrease. Before the new zoning went into effect in 2004, I would have mostly agreed with you, but definitely not now. And of course, Chicago housing/buildings/land out in the neighborhoods was much more affordable even as recently as 2002-2003...because now the price of building to market demand has to include the legal and political costs of an upzoning, or the opportunity cost of building fewer units than the market could otherwise absorb, and the problem is then further compounded now that any upzoning has to include an abusrdly high payment to the "affordable housing" slush fund.

The problem is also compounded by our incredible oversupply of business/commercial zoning, mandating first-floor retail spaces even where they aren't economically viable, so of course this further distorts the supply/demand equation for housing as the wasted retail space must be paid for through residential costs. Definitely there is room for increased residential density on our business/commercially zoned streets, but until the zoning eases up on use restrictions then the cost of developing these lots will be artificially inflated.

Quote:
Many thousands of lots in the city are entirely empty, and anyone proposing a three-flat there would be met by the alderman and the planning department with champagne glasses.
That's right. These are the only lots for which the factors you cite, especially the inflated labor costs, affect buildability and affordability (there's year-round construction here, after all). For the developer's cost of construction plus contingency/margin, people simply don't want to live in these neighborhoods, so nothing gets built without a subsidy. But in regards to the hot neighborhoods, the vast majority of our price inflation is the difficulty with which supply can meet demand.

Last edited by VivaLFuego; Jan 28, 2008 at 7:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2513  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2008, 7:38 PM
Chicago Shawn's Avatar
Chicago Shawn Chicago Shawn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivaLFuego View Post
Are you serious? Almost the whole northside pre-war housing stock is non-conforming under the new zoning code, in terms of off-street parking requirement, minimum average unit size, maximum units per lot area, etc. Under the new zoning R3 zones can generally have only a single family house unless the lot is unusually large, and R4 can have a 3-flat.
I actually just talked with a mortgage broker this weekend who helped finance a 20 unit condo conversion in a vintage apartment building from the 1920s. She complained of all the headaches involved in dealing with a non-conforming structure as the underlying zoning is RS-3. Even though its an EXISTING building, she still had to consult zoning lawyers and crawl through every inch of zoning code to find what grandfathered rights have been included to allow the renovation and conversion to move forward, all the while increasing the cost of the project.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2514  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2008, 11:45 PM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,786
Wednesday Meeting Focuses on Fort Dearborn Station

The United States Postal Service is holding an open meeting to discuss a proposed plan for a new Fort Dearborn station. The meeting will be held on Wednesday, January 30, 6pm, at the current location, 540 North Dearborn, 2nd floor. Fort Dearborn serves Streeterville residents through its expanded hours and special services, such as bulk mail. Please call Marla Larsen-Williams at (630) 295-6289 if you have any questions. Let her know you're a SOAR resident, please.
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2515  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2008, 12:12 AM
2PRUROCKS!'s Avatar
2PRUROCKS! 2PRUROCKS! is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Chicago area
Posts: 448
Grant Park Advisory Council and Grant Park Conservancy public meeting

Monday, February 11, 2008 - 6:30 p.m. (location TBA but on Grant Park)

Parkitecture 2008

Grant Park's rapidly-changing Michigan Avenue Streetwall (Historic Michigan Boulevard District)

We will have a thorough presentation about the streetwall and the many new plans and changes as well as the progress of those projects under construction. We will include new Wabash Avenue high-rises as well.



Six years ago next month, the City of Chicago designated Grant Park's Michigan Avenue streetwall a Chicago Landmark. It comprises buildings designed by such great architects as: Adler & Sullivan, Burnham, Holabird & Roche, Marshall & Fox, Cobb, Beman, Graham, Anderson, Probst & White, and Shepley, Rutan & Coolidge. It is one of the world's most-recognized architecture walls framing the increasingly rejuvenated and world-class Grant Park .



There have been many positive changes to the streetwall but there are also deteriorating buildings or those not realizing their potential, even an empty lot and a large, but closed, historic theater. What can we do to encourage and support more adaptive re-use and other development in this slower real estate market to create a more lively, energized district and thus Grant Park?


Thank you for your interest and participation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2516  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2008, 12:33 AM
cbotnyse cbotnyse is offline
Chicago Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: River North, Chicago
Posts: 1,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1 View Post
Wednesday Meeting Focuses on Fort Dearborn Station

The United States Postal Service is holding an open meeting to discuss a proposed plan for a new Fort Dearborn station. The meeting will be held on Wednesday, January 30, 6pm, at the current location, 540 North Dearborn, 2nd floor. Fort Dearborn serves Streeterville residents through its expanded hours and special services, such as bulk mail. Please call Marla Larsen-Williams at (630) 295-6289 if you have any questions. Let her know you're a SOAR resident, please.
can anybody attend? are there any preliminary plans or rumors for the site?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2517  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2008, 12:36 AM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbotnyse View Post
can anybody attend? are there any preliminary plans or rumors for the site?
You'll have to call and see. The plans are possibly tearing down the post office and replacing it with a park.
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2518  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2008, 2:16 AM
aaron38's Avatar
aaron38 aaron38 is offline
312
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Palatine
Posts: 3,205
Quote:
Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen View Post
Grant Park among city's endangered landmarks, group says
By E.A. Torriero | Tribune reporter
10:46 AM CST, January 28, 2008

Preservation Chicago Monday unveiled its annual list of "Chicago's Seven Most Endangered Buildings" but this year, it has a twist. It included a city landmark that is neither a building, a bridge nor a neighborhood: Grant Park.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,6495342.story
I saw this on NBC 5 when I was at the gym, but didn't have any sound. I was going to ask what they were talking about.

I see the Daily News building is on the list. Does that mean a fight is brewing over the plaza?
__________________
All we ever see of stars are their old photographs
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2519  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2008, 6:14 AM
honte honte is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago - every nook and cranny
Posts: 4,628
^ "It blends into the park and the greenery," said Jim Law, vice president for planning and external affairs at the museum. "We look at this as an adaptive reuse of the park."

This has to be the most inane comment I've heard all year. Adaptive reuse of a park?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2520  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2008, 7:59 AM
Ch.G, Ch.G's Avatar
Ch.G, Ch.G Ch.G, Ch.G is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolarWind View Post
January 24, 2008

The Parkhomes at Lakeshore East
That geodesic dome... is awesome.
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 6:23 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.