CHICAGO | Lincoln Park 2550 | 477 FT | 39 FLOORS | COM - Page 11

photoLith · #**201** Posted **Jun 30, 2011, 11:49 PM**

Yuck... thats pretty tacky looking. Why is it that the vast majority of condos and such going up north of the Chicago River in the past decade have been beige precast schlock like this? I hope this faux historic style dies pretty soon. I had high hopes for this tower but after seeing those last photos, all hope is lost.

Rizzo · #**202** Posted **Jun 30, 2011, 11:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by colemonkee

Yikes. The backside of this tower is pretty bad.

The back is a total disaster. It looks like a late 1990's casino in vegas

tommaso · #**203** Posted **Jul 1, 2011, 3:52 AM**

Did you think you were going to get 15 Central Park West here? Come on! Be happy with what you've got. Your expectations for Chicago are unrealistic. No one is going to pay 1.5 or 3 mil for a tiny unit and 10 to 40 mil for a better sized one. Yeah, materials will be compromised and so will everything else, finishes, you name it. Chicago is a great city, but you have to lower your expectations here. Developers are here to make money, so the materials they use will reflect the prices these units will be sold at. We're not talking 3+ mil for a 1 bedroom.

Nowhereman1280 · #**204** Posted **Jul 1, 2011, 3:04 PM**

^^^ Modern design is no more expensive than le olde Hausmann towere design. I do have expectations for Chicago; that it should have nothing but the best new designs as it is historically the greatest collection of architecture the world has ever seen. I expect nothing less than Sullivans, Wrights, Goldbergs, Mies, Weeses, etc., not Lagrangian monstrosities. This period of schlocky design is the exception and not the norm for Chicago...

george · #**205** Posted **Jul 2, 2011, 1:02 AM**

6-29

tommaso · #**206** Posted **Jul 2, 2011, 5:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

^^^ Modern design is no more expensive than le olde Hausmann towere design. I do have expectations for Chicago; that it should have nothing but the best new designs as it is historically the greatest collection of architecture the world has ever seen. I expect nothing less than Sullivans, Wrights, Goldbergs, Mies, Weeses, etc., not Lagrangian monstrosities. This period of schlocky design is the exception and not the norm for Chicago...

It's plain and simple. Developers only use the top materials when they can fetch top dollars, a real return on their investment, and we're talking about the deepest pocketed investors here. It is obvious, materials will be compromised in a market where you can't command enough of a return to afford the top materials.

BnaBreaker · #**207** Posted **Jul 2, 2011, 7:12 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommaso

Did you think you were going to get 15 Central Park West here? Come on! Be happy with what you've got. Your expectations for Chicago are unrealistic. No one is going to pay 1.5 or 3 mil for a tiny unit and 10 to 40 mil for a better sized one. Yeah, materials will be compromised and so will everything else, finishes, you name it. Chicago is a great city, but you have to lower your expectations here. Developers are here to make money, so the materials they use will reflect the prices these units will be sold at. We're not talking 3+ mil for a 1 bedroom.

Nobody is asking for cutting-edge trend-setting design in every tower. But there is a huge gray area between that and bland, cheap, mass produced crap.

Nowhereman1280 · #**208** Posted **Jul 2, 2011, 1:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommaso

It's plain and simple. Developers only use the top materials when they can fetch top dollars, a real return on their investment, and we're talking about the deepest pocketed investors here. It is obvious, materials will be compromised in a market where you can't command enough of a return to afford the top materials.

Since when are glass and steel "top materials"? The entire reason modernism became so popular is that it is significantly cheaper to build than just about any other style.

These condo towers (Elysian, Ritz, LP2520) are at no lower price points than Aqua, 235 W Van Buren, Legacy, or any of the other well designed, modern towers of the boom. In fact, Ritz and Elysian are at much much higher price points. So your theory is completely bunk because there is absolutely no correlation between the price of the condo and whether or not they can "afford top materials like glass"...

Also don't forget that most buildings constructed in NYC are absolute shit too. They probably have a higher proportion of banal concrete boxes and crappy ill proportioned experiments gone wrong than Chicago does. It's not as if this is a phenomenon only unique to Chicago. Also, though real estate prices are lower in Chicago, the prices of just about everything else including, most importantly, labor are much much lower.

patriotizzy · #**209** Posted **Jul 2, 2011, 7:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by george

6-29

From that far the facade looks quite pretty.

tommaso · #**210** Posted **Jul 3, 2011, 7:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Since when are glass and steel "top materials"? The entire reason modernism became so popular is that it is significantly cheaper to build than just about any other style.

These condo towers (Elysian, Ritz, LP2520) are at no lower price points than Aqua, 235 W Van Buren, Legacy, or any of the other well designed, modern towers of the boom. In fact, Ritz and Elysian are at much much higher price points. So your theory is completely bunk because there is absolutely no correlation between the price of the condo and whether or not they can "afford top materials like glass"...

Also don't forget that most buildings constructed in NYC are absolute shit too. They probably have a higher proportion of banal concrete boxes and crappy ill proportioned experiments gone wrong than Chicago does. It's not as if this is a phenomenon only unique to Chicago. Also, though real estate prices are lower in Chicago, the prices of just about everything else including, most importantly, labor are much much lower.

Here's a little math assignment for you. Take a residential high rise where the developer can command prices of 3 to 40+ million dollars per unit. Now stack that residence up against a building where each unit will only fetch between 400,000 and 6 million dollars. Which building is more likely to use higher materials in its construction? Well, when factoring price per square foot and competition at that price point, the 3 to 40+ million dollar units will use higher quality materials because: a) the selling point is much higher and b) the initial investment on higher quality materials will command a far greater return on their investment when looking at the higher margin of profit. Case in point. You only use the top materials when you will command top dollar. Top dollar return, the highest yield investments are only possible in markets where units sell at the highest prices. The day $1000 per square foot becomes the norm in Chicago and 5 to $10,000 square foot properties don't turn heads, we can reopen this conversation. Because that's precisely what would have to happen in order for those enormous profit margins to exist and the developer would then choose the highest materials.

spyguy · #**211** Posted **Jul 4, 2011, 6:30 PM**

Sunrise Over 2520 Lakeview by blipsman, on Flickr

tommaso · #**212** Posted **Jul 5, 2011, 7:15 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy

Sunrise Over 2520 Lakeview by blipsman, on Flickr

Damn! I would pay 40 mil for this view! I don't care interior finished or unfinished. If you're a Chicagoan, you want to own this view! When you're unobstructed, you're truly unobstructed! Yeah, you guys can talk all you want about how this building is or isn't your favorite style, but you can't take away that view! That view is priceless and if you're an urban altitude kinda guy, you are gonna want to own this view day and night! Happy 4th to Chicago and happy 4th of July to every American out there! God bless America, land of the free

Chicagoguy · #**213** Posted **Jul 5, 2011, 1:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommaso

Damn! I would pay 40 mil for this view! I don't care interior finished or unfinished. If you're a Chicagoan, you want to own this view! When you're unobstructed, you're truly unobstructed! Yeah, you guys can talk all you want about how this building is or isn't your favorite style, but you can't take away that view! That view is priceless and if you're an urban altitude kinda guy, you are gonna want to own this view day and night! Happy 4th to Chicago and happy 4th of July to every American out there! God bless America, land of the free

So I am curious, I know originally when this building started a few years ago the penthouses were priced around 13 million and there was still an unlisted unit that could go on the market for around 40 million. Did that change or is that still the case?

Nowhereman1280 · #**214** Posted **Jul 5, 2011, 2:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommaso

Here's a little math assignment for you. Take a residential high rise where the developer can command prices of 3 to 40+ million dollars per unit. Now stack that residence up against a building where each unit will only fetch between 400,000 and 6 million dollars. Which building is more likely to use higher materials in its construction? Well, when factoring price per square foot and competition at that price point, the 3 to 40+ million dollar units will use higher quality materials because: a) the selling point is much higher and b) the initial investment on higher quality materials will command a far greater return on their investment when looking at the higher margin of profit. Case in point. You only use the top materials when you will command top dollar. Top dollar return, the highest yield investments are only possible in markets where units sell at the highest prices. The day $1000 per square foot becomes the norm in Chicago and 5 to $10,000 square foot properties don't turn heads, we can reopen this conversation. Because that's precisely what would have to happen in order for those enormous profit margins to exist and the developer would then choose the highest materials.

What you are saying doesn't matter because you are ignoring the fundamental point: GLASS IS NOT A "HIGHER QUALITY" MATERIAL. Modern design is no more expensive to build than this shit. You can do math all day about how you make more money when you sell units for more (no shit sherlock), but that is completely irrelevant when your argument relies on the presumption that glass is somehow a premium finish which simply isn't true.

That's not to say that there aren't glass curtain walls that are more expensive or precast systems that are less expensive, but the general rule is that modern design became popular among developers because it is so much cheaper and easier to build than more detailed, complex, styles.

We can "reopen this conversation" once you realize that.

tommaso · #**215** Posted **Jul 6, 2011, 12:18 AM**

"Did you think you were going to get 15 Central Park West here? Come on! Be happy with what you've got. Your expectations for Chicago are unrealistic. No one is going to pay 1.5 or 3 mil for a tiny unit and 10 to 40 mil for a better sized one. Yeah, materials will be compromised and so will everything else, finishes, you name it. Chicago is a great city, but you have to lower your expectations here. Developers are here to make money, so the materials they use will reflect the prices these units will be sold at. We're not talking 3+ mil for a 1 bedroom."
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_Central_Park_West

Follow this link and you shall find the cost of construction for 15 Central Park West. It is 950 million dollars.

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmo...gross-edition/

15 Central Park West has 201 units and rises as much as 35 stories

15 Central Park West cost a good $1 billion to build

15 Central Park West, where the apartments ended up selling for a total of $2 billion

http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2010/1...quare_foot.php
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

My analysis is purely objective. I am simply reporting facts and figures, deals that the developers, buyers and Realtors secured.

KevinFromTexas · #**216** Posted **Jul 6, 2011, 12:49 AM**

^How is all this related to the topic?

tommaso · #**217** Posted **Jul 6, 2011, 12:59 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

^How is all this related to the topic?

There was a complaint about the developer's choice of materials here and I explained academically why this developer simply cannot afford the highest quality materials. The projected return does not render the purchase of the top materials financially profitable to the investors here.