CHICAGO | General Developments

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by Alliance

Its decent but it too much. Preferably those towers would be half as many and twice as tall. Damn they're long too. I'm not really such a fan of all these uniform megadevelopments.

I'm also not entirely sure how all that grey precast will look in real life. But at least they tried.

Really? I was just going to comment on how I'm glad they are going with dense, mid-rise structures here. The city really needs more 6-10 floor buildings and this is a good place to put them as there really isn't enough critical mass here to justify going highrise.

Also, to see how charcoal precast looks in real life just go look at the Roosevelt Dorm. If this precast looks anywhere near as good as that stuff this building will be awesome looking.

[montasauraus]

Protective scaffolding over the sidewalk is being erected at Congress/Wabash. Looks like that Roosevelt University gymnasium might get under way soon.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Alliance

Its decent but it too much. Preferably those towers would be half as many and twice as tall. Damn they're long too. I'm not really such a fan of all these uniform megadevelopments.

I'm also not entirely sure how all that grey precast will look in real life. But at least they tried.

Probably something like this.


source

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by wrab

Sorry - I spent last Fall off the grid in the wilds of the UP, so I missed your post. I thought that this was news. My bad.

Sorry... I guess it did kinda fall off the map after the initial reveals. It's pretty exciting stuff, especially considering the somewhat boring nature of Daley Bi.

Hopefully your trip was good. I haven't really gotten "off the grid" since I went to Philmont as a scout...

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by k1052

Pretty much all those pedestrians are headed to the Whole Foods. If RC had anchor tenant of the same quality it would be just as busy.

Southgate does have some interior/basement stores that are not street visible. The drawing power of the WF and the ample parking makes the center viable.

Yeah. It may pain many who love smart urban planning and design to hear this, but RC has thus far been a failure in the market because of its horrid timing and highly overleveraged nature of the previous developer more than anything (distinction of its economic failure vs. its design failure, which it definitely fails at being quality urban design). Suburban-style retail crap design in this city sells....see the rest of the roosevelt rd corridor and the entire north/clybourn area. This is where our government needs to come in and have zoning that doesn't allow the suburban style retail crap to be built because of all of the various economic, social, frankly aesthetic, etc externalities that we all don't need to be lectured about, but others certainly do. Incidentally, the new RC owner/developer I think will end up doing very well in the end with the project financially....I'd expect a lot of leasing announcements relatively shortly........they have a new sensible cost basis, I'd assume much lower leverage, and don't forget about the parcel(s) to the north of the retail, where they're planning rental residential tower(s)........let's just all hope that he doesn't hire Antunovich to design those!!

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ I completely disagree. RC is an exceptional failure. This was not something caused by poor timing thought it may have been aggravated by it. RC is a failure because it completely abandons both the proven urban and suburban models for a successful mixed use development. Name one place in the suburbs where they built a 1500' long dead end street with literally only one point of access and it has been successful? There isn't one because it's a fucking stupid idea. Suburban retail developments are marked by maximizing automobile access which is something RC certainly does not do. Urban developments are marked by maximizing pedestrian access which is also something RC does not do. Thus I'm going to go with RC being a failure because of massive access problems. It's not a piece of poor urban design, it's a piece of poor design in general.

Poor auto access, poor pedestrian access, poor visibility for retail tenants, awkward claustrophobic massing, terrible site plan with a long cul du sac off an elevated roadway, etc. The whole thing is a mess and exactly the opposite of what retail tenants are looking for. Sure it was made worse by the poor market timing, but I'll bet you $5 that the new proposal fills up (market occupancy rates) long before RC even reaches 50% occupancy in its retail spaces.

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by montasauraus

Protective scaffolding over the sidewalk is being erected at Congress/Wabash. Looks like that Roosevelt University gymnasium might get under way soon.

Yeah, the building permit was issued Jan. 23.

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by Alliance

Preferably those towers would be half as many and twice as tall. Damn they're long too.

The second rendering is a bit deceptive, it looks like instead of 4 towers on a retail podium it is actually more like a E-shape with an additional prong, like a triple courtyard building, with the Pool/Rooftop being on the backside of the first rendering.

[SamInTheLoop]

^ You couldn't possibly be more wrong on this one. I don't bet, but RC will be 80-90% occupied long before ground is even broken - if in fact it's ever broken - (likely even before demo. on current building(s) on current site begins) - on that new proposal across Canal from Southgate. I'm telling you - granted I admit upfront that this is awful urban design, I don't think anybody who spends time reading these threads would ever actually disagree with that sentiment - that although there are clear access issues - and disclaimer I know all about this stuff (I'm a bit of a cinephile, and RC as soon as it opened has been my - by far - #1 destination for hollywood movies - both by foot and car as far as transport there), and I think for its overall design seemingly too few parking spaces - once they get the right small shops and restaurants in these spaces it will be a success based on customer traffic and retail receipts. And for McCaffery, based on what he was able to purchase it for. You have to think like a retailer - they are actually attracted to the type of configuration here and the proximity to a huge population for which this will be the closest location for one of their outlets (again, always dependent on the right retail mix). The movie theater here almost always has huge traffic - huge. Granted part of this is due to a relative shortage of screens in large parts of the city (just as large swaths of the city have relative shortages of many types of retail, entertainment and dining), but the Icon is clearly doing really enormous business. For the majority of the large group of retail and eating establishments that begin to open I think by late in the 3rd quarter this year I would expect to enjoy similar success.

There's another interesting fact regarding large mixed-use developments that's sort of a sobering one for many of us - I don't care whether you're talking about in Chicago, or any other major US city....the initial rate of financial failure for the developer is really quite high - these projects are just difficult to pull off....from extreme examples such as infamous Block 37s and Santana Rows (San Jose, CA) of the world to the more mundane, our ideal world of dense mixed use projects present very high risk for developers and and equity and debt financiers - just fortunate that some of them still have the appetite for such risks....

[jdcpamba]

Scaffolding going up at corner of Wabash and Congress. Also workers surveying site. Don't know if the planned exercise facilities there are going forward.

lol, looks like others were posting the same news at the same time.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

and disclaimer I know all about this stuff (I'm a bit of a cinephile, and RC as soon as it opened has been my - by far - #1 destination for hollywood movies - both by foot and car as far as transport there),

Disclaimer: I'm a bit of a commercial real estate broker and I know all about this stuff.

I know what it means to try to market a tough property and this is definitely a tough property. I can tell you right away that if ground breaks on this new project RC isn't going to be getting any premium tenants because they will all go directly to this proposal, not the backward ass RC. The only tenants RC will be able to secure will probably be crappy discounter retailers. That's not to mention the negative reputation RC has in the marketplace now which is giving it a case of "dead mall syndrome" where no one wants to be the first to take the plunge and sign a lease in a mostly empty building. This is the same thing that's going on at B37 (though the lender further complicated that).

The primary concern for retail tenants is not price or quality of the building, it's location, access, and visibility. This building has NONE of those. I could end up eating crow and should know better than to bet against McCaffery, but I see the retail at RC going nowhere fast.

[ardecila]

McCaffery has already made the right decisions, though. They demolished the restaurant spaces and opened up views to the rear. They (well, actually Centrum) converted the residential to rentals to fill it up fast, so there are on-site residents guaranteed to patroniz the businesses while they get off the ground, in addition to the movie traffic.

It will be a very long time before McCaffery leases the retail space along Wells, but the upper level should attract people pretty soon.

Also - what's the problem with discounters? Obviously they might demand lower rents but lower rent is better than no rent. It's not like we're talking about Dollar Tree and Rogans Shoes here. So long as the two end tenants facing Roosevelt present the right semi-upscale image, the remaining spaces should be priced to sell, even if that means discount retailers.

The other option is to drop rents precipitously and try to attract independent businesses. I could see a Ragstock here, an indie coffee shop, etc..

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Demolishing those buildings only does a little bit to rectify the considerable problems here.

Having apartments doesn't do anything to "guarantee" any customers. The amount of residences here is nowhere near enough to sustain any of the retail this was designed to attract. What are they going to do? Fill it up with 35 coffee shops?

There is no problem with discount retailers except the fact that they don't attract other tenants and demand lower rents. Big lots isn't exactly a destination tenant.

If they drop rents to rock bottom prices they aren't going to attract local businesses, they are going to attract discount retailers. This building isn't designed to be optimal for mom and pop shops and rents will never be low enough that a small business will be able to afford to build out class A raw retail space. Building out raw space already costs a minimum of $50/SF which means that a 2,500 SF space would require at least $125,000 to build out and probably more because it is such a small space and would still need to be hooked up to all the building systems (the biggest build out cost) that a larger space would have to be connected to. For perspective this means it would cost $10/SF/YR simply to cover the build out costs on a 5 year lease and that's without considering NPV which would make it considerably higher. Additionally, small businesses don't have the credit profile to lease in a Class A building and McCaffrey would be foolish to sign 7 year (you'd need at least a 7 year lease to justify building out raw space) leases with unproven local businesses with no assets to go after if they default.

People don't seem to understand that leasing out commercial space is not the same as leasing apartments. Leasing retail space is about as different from leasing an apartment as leasing an apartment is from buying a house.

[richb]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

^^^
If they drop rents to rock bottom prices they aren't going to attract local businesses, they are going to attract discount retailers. This building isn't designed to be optimal for mom and pop shops and rents will never be low enough that a small business will be able to afford to build out class A raw retail space. Building out raw space already costs a minimum of $50/SF which means that a 2,500 SF space would require at least $125,000 to build out and probably more because it is such a small space and would still need to be hooked up to all the building systems (the biggest build out cost) that a larger space would have to be connected to. For perspective this means it would cost $10/SF/YR simply to cover the build out costs on a 5 year lease and that's without considering NPV which would make it considerably higher. Additionally, small businesses don't have the credit profile to lease in a Class A building and McCaffrey would be foolish to sign 7 year (you'd need at least a 7 year lease to justify building out raw space) leases with unproven local businesses with no assets to go after if they default.

People don't seem to understand that leasing out commercial space is not the same as leasing apartments. Leasing retail space is about as different from leasing an apartment as leasing an apartment is from buying a house.

$50 per square foot would be a very low number for a commercial build out in Chicago. Building out commercial is closer to a minimum of $200+ per sq. ft.

Combine that cost with the rent, real estate taxes, and maintenance that shop is costing a minimum of $20,000 a month just to have the space. You got to be doing a lot of business just to cover the cost of space.

[Tom Servo]

UGH! That's annoying. Why does something that looks really good end up in no-mans-land when the Northside is littered with shit? Ugh, oh well, hopefully this is the catalyst for better development around that Canal / Roosevelt area...

[Alliance]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Really? I was just going to comment on how I'm glad they are going with dense, mid-rise structures here. The city really needs more 6-10 floor buildings and this is a good place to put them as there really isn't enough critical mass here to justify going highrise.

Also, to see how charcoal precast looks in real life just go look at the Roosevelt Dorm. If this precast looks anywhere near as good as that stuff this building will be awesome looking.

Maybe I'm just biased because I stare at Stuyville all day. Obviously I'm pro development and pro-density. I do like a good mix of densities, but visually, I don't like repetition. I'd much rather have a plan in the mold of Hyde Park City (or whatever they're calling it now) with a mix of high and mid-rise. That's a big podium and a LOT of space/market that this building is gonna take up for 4 buildings that are really massive anyway. Just an aesthetic wish. Not sure if its feasible.

I did stop by Roosevelt in its younger days. The precast was fine but I wasn't blown away by the quality. Hopefully its more like the commercial towers ardecila posted.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

^^^ I completely disagree. RC is an exceptional failure. This was not something caused by poor timing thought it may have been aggravated by it. RC is a failure because it completely abandons both the proven urban and suburban models for a successful mixed use development. Name one place in the suburbs where they built a 1500' long dead end street with literally only one point of access and it has been successful? There isn't one because it's a fucking stupid idea. Suburban retail developments are marked by maximizing automobile access which is something RC certainly does not do. Urban developments are marked by maximizing pedestrian access which is also something RC does not do. Thus I'm going to go with RC being a failure because of massive access problems. It's not a piece of poor urban design, it's a piece of poor design in general.

Poor auto access, poor pedestrian access, poor visibility for retail tenants, awkward claustrophobic massing, terrible site plan with a long cul du sac off an elevated roadway, etc. The whole thing is a mess and exactly the opposite of what retail tenants are looking for. Sure it was made worse by the poor market timing, but I'll bet you $5 that the new proposal fills up (market occupancy rates) long before RC even reaches 50% occupancy in its retail spaces.

RC also has a garage access off of Wells. People who frequent the movie theater know about it.

Based on what I'm hearing Mcaffery is going to announce actual tenants for the bulk of the vacant space in the very near future.

[Mr Downtown]

Over the last few years, I've had a lot of opportunity to ponder the Roosevelt Collection from an urban design and development standpoint. I can't agree that failure was inevitable.

It was conceived as a lifestyle center, when those were pretty good bets. Centrum had reason to assume there would be lots of affluent new residents around them soon, and a similar big lifestyle center across Roosevelt. The idea that new central area residents would drive to restaurants and fashion & furnishings retailers wasn't totally bizarre, and there were precedents such as Burr Ridge Town Center, The Glen, or even Streets of Woodfield. Instead, they were caught by a perfect storm: an epic retail recession coupled with a real estate crash that set back surrounding development by a decade.

It was a unique scheme on a difficult site. For one thing, they had to build it all at once. I do think they made some poor decisions: the poor pedestrian connection to the north—which still might be corrected—and the pastiche architecture of the storefronts. But I certainly don't think it's fair to say "any idiot could have seen that it would never work."

[Rizzo]

I remember inquiring about living at Roosevelt Collection nearly 3 years ago. I had a unit picked out that I wanted to rent and everything. I liked that there was parking, brand new units, and the possibility of retail. I was ready to commit if faxed a lease and everything.

I was blown off by their sales team. Put on hold forever until they eventually hung up. The second time, they just hung up.

It's got to be the only time I'm glad I was treated with awful customer service. I can't imagine living in that mess. What was I thinking then? I have no sympathy for this development's failures.

Oh yeah, and then the first time I visited I got yelled at for taking a photo of the skyline from the back of the complex. Since photography is my hobby, I'm 2X glad I didn't move there.

[J_M_Tungsten]

^that's the sweet smell of victory there