CHICAGO | General Developments - Page 755

Buckman821 · #**15081** Posted **Mar 20, 2012, 9:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by untitledreality

Drove by last night on the way to dinner and it looks like there are three six flats going up in that location, all being marketed by Sergio Banks.

*** just google'd Sergio Banks and on their front page they have a blurb about this row of development. Three six flats, with 3/4 bed - 2 bath units, starting just a touch under $260K. http://www.sergioandbanks.com/video-...-killer-price/

Interesting, this Noah Properties guy really seems to be filling a development void out there. The number of active developers seems to have really shrunk but those that are out there appear to be doing well with quick sales (see also the Smart Tech homes http://smartchicagohomes.com/homes/p...2002-03-12.pdf)

Even though these noah properties are often a little quirky stylistically (I'm alright with that) it's nice to see developers making new construction work again.

untitledreality · #**15082** Posted **Mar 20, 2012, 9:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buckman821

Even though these noah properties are often a little quirky stylistically (I'm alright with that) it's nice to see developers making new construction work again.

Especially since these are more often than not being built on already vacant lots.

I greatly prefer the looks of their six flats (you can see a few on Ashland South of Division) and the SmartTech homes compared to the regurgitated brick/limestone/front porch garbage that is still filling LV and LP... usually taking the place of beautiful two flats.

untitledreality · #**15083** Posted **Mar 20, 2012, 11:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

There aren't many swaths of open land big enough to support such buildings outside of those areas. Even the lots by California and Western are measly.

I was curious how many sites (vacant/surface lot/underused) were in these two areas that are of similar size to the 1601 W. Ashland site (which is 15,000SF) ...so off to Google Earth I went.

So really each node has only two vacant/surface lots of adequate size, while there are a total of five that are grossly underused (Walgreens, Bank, McD, KFC, Blockbuster). It doesn't seem like much, but Western in particular could do some serious bulking up without deviating from the main intersection.

ardecila · #**15084** Posted **Mar 21, 2012, 3:01 AM**

The big Bond Cos. retail/apartment project at Canal/Roosevelt has been introduced in City Council. Designer is Gensler. It looks like it will have really great street presence if built.

denizen467 · #**15085** Posted **Mar 21, 2012, 3:22 AM**

^ Awesome!

-----------------

Could somebody who is subscribed to Crain's fill us in on what the following article (one of today's "Most Viewed") is about:

Total wreck: Allstate opts to raze vacated suburban building
I think the link is:
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...UE01/303179981

Rizzo · #**15086** Posted **Mar 21, 2012, 3:38 AM**

It appears they intend to expand their existing campus (visible from the Tri-State) and demolish an office building across the street for future use.

Here is the doomed building
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=2700+S...87.66,,0,-5.83

ardecila · #**15087** Posted **Mar 21, 2012, 3:38 AM**

You can read the free version at GlobeSt.

http://www.globest.com/news/12_310/c...wn-319745.html

Essentially Allstate has been unsuccessful trying to sell their South Barrington campus, so they're gonna tear it down in hopes that a cleared site will be more attractive to potential buyers. The nearby intersection of Higgins/59 has really exploded in the last few years with two huge retail developments, so this area has some potential. Unfortunately those retail developments cannot fill their spaces and office vacancy in the NW corridor is at 28%.

The campus is actually fairly attractive, with handsome modernist brick buildings. I hope Allstate can find a buyer. If the buildings are torn down, it will likely remain empty just like the massive Sutton Crossing property across the street. In the long run, I hope any new office development can be constrained to Prairie Stone... it's well-planned with sidewalks, landscaping, etc and it's set up on a loop so it can easily be served by buses and connected to Metra/CTA. If - God forbid - the STAR Line is ever built, communities should work to centralize employment at dense nodes around the stations.

Rizzo · #**15088** Posted **Mar 21, 2012, 3:44 AM**

Oh damn, then I wonder whats the deal with the other info I heard.

ardecila · #**15089** Posted **Mar 21, 2012, 3:50 AM**

Game of telephone, I guess? Never trust info from the grapevine 100%.

The campus along the Tri-State is the company headquarters. If they were going to raze it, they would have identified a new headquarters and that would have been MAJOR news, whether the company was moving to the city or out-of-state. Aon got weeks of press for their symbolic decision to move the HQ, even though virtually all the employees are staying here.

Rizzo · #**15090** Posted **Mar 21, 2012, 3:51 AM**

No, they weren't going to raze the headquarters, but an empty building across the street from their campus.

SamInTheLoop · #**15091** Posted **Mar 21, 2012, 4:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy

Ulta (the cosmetics shop) showed up in BidClerk a few days ago, so I assume an announcement is forthcoming. I might be reading too much into this, but Roosevelt Collection's FB page includes a number of "Likes" for specific stores, including the aforementioned Ulta, H&M, Apple, Homegoods, Aveda, Jos. A Bank, Anthropologie, Z Gallerie, Ann Taylor, Bath & Body Works, LEYE restaurants, FFC gym. Not saying that these will end up opening on Roosevelt but I do remember hearing rumors about a few of them in the past.

In any case, here's a webcam showing the work being done on the plaza.

Had also seen something about Ulta, and I too am expecting an announcement of a first large group of tenants within the next few weeks at most. The group of tenants you mention above from Facebook are precisely the types of tenants that this was always supposed to house, and I believe will still be the general mix that opens (there was some talk here a couple months ago I think with some posters expecting it to be much more value-oriented, and I didn't understand that then, and still don't, as that wouldn't be the right merchandising/entertainment strategy for the project).....

SamInTheLoop · #**15092** Posted **Mar 21, 2012, 4:50 PM**

So AMLI has quickly become one of the downtown developers I loathe the most.....I assume I'm in some pretty good company here as there's plenty of cause.

Real estate newletter Bisnow Chicago had some coverage last week of a multifamily summit they held downtown. I found it very interesting that they included a bit on Greg Putz - er, correction - Mutz, Chairman of AMLI's take on retail space in multifamily buildings. He has an unfavorable view, surprise, surprise. Excert from Bisnow:

"And from the sound of it, Greg has had his fill of urban planners, often besotted with the streetscapes of the livelier cities of Europe, forcing multifamily developers to include retail that cannot and does not work at the site. The retailers, he said, might as well bring a bankruptcy lawyer to the lease signing."

Lovely. That's his (their) attitude. We already know AMLI doesn't give a flying fu*k about quality architecture downtown, about smart site design, parking issues, etc, and now this seeming outright hostility to incorporating streetfront retail into their properties is just the blossoming colony of bubonic plague bacteria hidden in AMLI's steaming pile of horsesh*t. Just how anti-urban do they feel they need to be and just how anti-urban will Chicago's politicians and planners (read: politicians) allow them to get? Something to look forward to , as they have one POS under construction in River North, a planned POS in design in the South Loop, and who knows what subsequently.....

ardecila · #**15093** Posted **Mar 21, 2012, 4:58 PM**

^^ I was trying to say that McCaffery should lower rents if they're not getting any interest from retailers. The carrying costs of such a massive property have to be huge, so any rental income at all is better than none, and a development filled with discounters is better for the city than an empty one.

It depends what the problem is, really. If high-end retailers believe the South Loop market is saturated relative to population, they're not gonna move in regardless of the rent or the physical layout. If the economy is the problem, then it's good that RC was transferred to an owner with deeper pockets who can wait out the recession. If the design is the problem - do whatever is feasible to alter it.

Rizzo · #**15094** Posted **Mar 21, 2012, 6:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

So AMLI has quickly become one of the downtown developers I loathe the most.....I assume I'm in some pretty good company here as there's plenty of cause.

Real estate newletter Bisnow Chicago had some coverage last week of a multifamily summit they held downtown. I found it very interesting that they included a bit on Greg Putz - er, correction - Mutz, Chairman of AMLI's take on retail space in multifamily buildings. He has an unfavorable view, surprise, surprise. Excert from Bisnow:

"And from the sound of it, Greg has had his fill of urban planners, often besotted with the streetscapes of the livelier cities of Europe, forcing multifamily developers to include retail that cannot and does not work at the site. The retailers, he said, might as well bring a bankruptcy lawyer to the lease signing."

Lovely. That's his (their) attitude. We already know AMLI doesn't give a flying fu*k about quality architecture downtown, about smart site design, parking issues, etc, and now this seeming outright hostility to incorporating streetfront retail into their properties is just the blossoming colony of bubonic plague bacteria hidden in AMLI's steaming pile of horsesh*t. Just how anti-urban do they feel they need to be and just how anti-urban will Chicago's politicians and planners (read: politicians) allow them to get? Something to look forward to , as they have one POS under construction in River North, a planned POS in design in the South Loop, and who knows what subsequently.....

It is something to keep in mind now isn't it...

Mr Downtown · #**15095** Posted **Mar 21, 2012, 8:25 PM**

^But while the previous developer (Avalon Bay) proposing two 40-story towers would not agree to include any retail, AMLI's much-criticized midrise propsal for Clark & Polk has 9,000 sq ft of street-level retail and a good broker already on board.

ardecila · #**15096** Posted **Mar 21, 2012, 9:13 PM**

I don't know how the AMLI River North project could possibly claim that retail space would be difficult to lease. That whole area is possibly the hottest area in the city for clubs/bars, restaurants, or high-end furnishings. If the city demands retail space at that location, that demand is in no way unreasonable. The Clark/Polk project also has proximity to a somewhat successful retail area running down Polk from State.

AMLI 900, on the other hand, is on a particularly barren stretch of Clark St with little pedestrian traffic. I don't think they should be forced to put in retail there. The only way it would work is if the retail was auto-oriented with significant parking provided.

What other projects has AMLI done in the downtown area?

Buckman821 · #**15097** Posted **Mar 21, 2012, 9:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

I don't know how the AMLI River North project could possibly claim that retail space would be difficult to lease. That whole area is possibly the hottest area in the city for clubs/bars, restaurants, or high-end furnishings. If the city demands retail space at that location, that demand is in no way unreasonable. The Clark/Polk project also has proximity to a somewhat successful retail area running down Polk from State.

AMLI 900, on the other hand, is on a particularly barren stretch of Clark St with little pedestrian traffic. I don't think they should be forced to put in retail there. The only way it would work is if the retail was auto-oriented with significant parking provided.

What other projects has AMLI done in the downtown area?

While I mostly agree with you regarding the feasibility of retail space, 353 N Clark sure is having a rough go with theirs. Seriously, what could be taking them so long?

Anyway, I don't find much to dislike about the River North project from an urban design perspective. Habitat's is much worse.

Rizzo · #**15098** Posted **Mar 21, 2012, 10:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

I don't know how the AMLI River North project could possibly claim that retail space would be difficult to lease. That whole area is possibly the hottest area in the city for clubs/bars, restaurants, or high-end furnishings. If the city demands retail space at that location, that demand is in no way unreasonable. The Clark/Polk project also has proximity to a somewhat successful retail area running down Polk from State.

AMLI 900, on the other hand, is on a particularly barren stretch of Clark St with little pedestrian traffic. I don't think they should be forced to put in retail there. The only way it would work is if the retail was auto-oriented with significant parking provided.

What other projects has AMLI done in the downtown area?

Providing retail is no sweat for the developer of these projects. It won't bankrupt them so why should they care. Solution? Low rents. It might....just might encourage some retail that isn't part of the super chains that crowd up downtown and drive up rents. Technically any place is in the city can support a business. It's the cost of doing business that keeps these places empty.

Rizzo · #**15099** Posted **Mar 22, 2012, 2:16 AM**

Uhhhh ohhhhh!

the urban politician · #**15100** Posted **Mar 22, 2012, 2:32 AM**

^ Donde esta?