CHICAGO | Lincoln Park 2550 | 477 FT | 39 FLOORS | COM

[brian.odonnell20]

every time I see this thread title, I have the tendency to think for a split second that this is 2520 ft tall.

[Nowhereman1280]

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."
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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.

Again, this has nothing to do with what I am saying. I don't give a shit if they use limestone, butter, or gold plate it, it's horrendously ugly because it's a shit design. What I am advocating is a use of glass and contemporary design instead of the "butter sculpture" we are getting or the massive mediocracy that is 15 CPW.

Also, if you wanna get into arguments about cost to build, this thing is going to cost a mere fraction of what CPW cost and that's not because of materials. That's because Chicago is a vastly cheaper city than NYC. Everything is less expensive here, not just the condos. The total construction cost of LP2520 is probably less than $250,000,000 and this building is bigger than CPW. There is no way that the construction materials alone on CPW were $750,000,000 more expensive than those in LP2520.

[tommaso]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Again, this has nothing to do with what I am saying. I don't give a shit if they use limestone, butter, or gold plate it, it's horrendously ugly because it's a shit design. What I am advocating is a use of glass and contemporary design instead of the "butter sculpture" we are getting or the massive mediocracy that is 15 CPW.

Also, if you wanna get into arguments about cost to build, this thing is going to cost a mere fraction of what CPW cost and that's not because of materials. That's because Chicago is a vastly cheaper city than NYC. Everything is less expensive here, not just the condos. The total construction cost of LP2520 is probably less than $250,000,000 and this building is bigger than CPW. There is no way that the construction materials alone on CPW were $750,000,000 more expensive than those in LP2520.

The materials a developer purchases for use in a residential real property construction and their cost exist independently of our opinions regarding the act to purchase materials and develop a property. The expression "the highest quality materials" refers to: the legally appraised value of said materials. The value of this 'personal property' or materials is said to be of a 'high quality' when these materials are either: a) legally appraised at a 'high value' relative to market standards or b) sold at a high value relative to market standards.

This is the formal basis of my argument. I employ no bias in my judgement of Lincoln Park 2520. I simply look at the data available to me, I report my sources and I utilize data and statistics to make a fair judgement as to the quality of materials utilized to construct real property.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by tommaso

The materials a developer purchases for use in a residential real property construction and their cost exist independently of our opinions regarding the act to purchase materials and develop a property. The expression "the highest quality materials" refers to: the legally appraised value of said materials. The value of this 'personal property' or materials is said to be of a 'high quality' when these materials are either: a) legally appraised at a 'high value' relative to market standards or b) sold at a high value relative to market standards.

This is the formal basis of my argument. I employ no bias in my judgement of Lincoln Park 2520. I simply look at the data available to me, I report my sources and I utilize data and statistics to make a fair judgement as to the quality of materials utilized to construct real property.

Except you have no data that supports what you are saying at all. You are saying "CPW is really expensive therefore "the highest quality materials"" without any data other than the fact that CPW cost a lot to build. How do you not see how ridiculous that is?

You are arbitrarily making up definitions to somehow justify what you are saying, but there is absolutely no substance behind it other than pure speculation. As someone who actually deals with construction and development for a living, I can tell you that your conclusions are misguided. The majority of the cost of a building is almost always the labor that goes into it (in the United States at least). Also, the exact portion of the cost that is labor vs materials varies wildly depending on the project. So trying to draw conclusions about the state of one city's housing market vs another's based upon a comparison of the cost of materials of two projects when you don't even know the cost breakdown is ludicrous. No amount of linking to wikipedia articles or trying to lay out arbitrary definitions to terms you are using will change that.

[george]

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ OMG the tophat is STILL growing... UGH Elysian x 2...

[Baronvonellis]

To those that think making it in limestone would help, precast can be really beautiful if done right. I just found out that the Bahai Temple in Wilmette is all white precast concrete with quartz crystals embedded in its surface. That place is beautiful and a landmark building. LP2520 is just designed badly.

[ardecila]

Well, if you think about it, concrete and limestone have a very similar composition. Concrete is largely silica (sand) and lime (cement). Limestone is mostly lime, with some silica.

The biggest difference between the two is that limestone hardens from fossil/organic deposits over millions of years of heating, cooling, and intense pressure. Concrete hardens in a matter of days, or hours even.

But from a chemical perspective, there's no reason precast can't look exactly like natural limestone. We just haven't found the right chemical mixture and casting technique yet.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ There are some mixes of concrete that begin to look more and more like limestone with age. Remember that concrete continues to set for decades or centuries after it's first mixed.

[yaletown_fella]

So many people are hatin on this one eh?
I'd love to see this in Toronto although I admit the modernist condos to the right are overall better from a strict architectural standpoint.
I think this beats a Concord Pacific econ glass box anyday. It could probably do without the silly hat though.

[i_am_hydrogen]

[ardecila]

The perfect way to view LP2520. Tiny, out of the way, and rendered insignificant by natural beauty.

[nomarandlee]

July 10

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen

Nice view!

[seadragon]

Originally Posted by ardecila

The biggest difference between the two is that limestone hardens from fossil/organic deposits over millions of years of heating, cooling, and intense pressure. Concrete hardens in a matter of days, or hours even..

Hello Ardecila.

To further elaborate, regarding temperature and pressure states, is that when heat and pressure are the two primary constituents in rock formation, leading to crystallization of the rock grain, is called metamorphism [1], limestone not being the product of such process. Limestone, along with it's close cousin dolomite, being sedimentary rocks, as such, the act of sedimentary stratification in concurrence with chemical alteration of the rock is the primary means of limestone rock creation [2]. When exhibited to environmental conditions such as high pressure and temperature (below melting) being the primary rock forming process, leads to the creation of marble. Marble, being the metamorphic manifestation of limestone.

[1] Principles of Igneous and Metamorphic Petrology, (Anthony Philpotts, Jay Ague et. al. 2009), [2] Sedimentary Rocks in the Field: A Color Guide (Dorrik A.V. Stow et. al. 2005)

[Rizzo]

hayward

[george]

Nice shot, Hayward.^

[Haworthia]

I love shots like this where you can see layer after layer of city.

[i_am_hydrogen]

Taken on 8/10:

[harryc]

Last weekend - From North ave beach.