HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #45361  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2019, 4:54 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Libertyville, IL
Posts: 17,006
^ I believe that had already been reported last week
__________________
I drink, therefore I am
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45362  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2019, 4:55 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,879
Fulton East - 215 N Peoria

Posting here as I think it's 11 stories, so might not qualify as a high-rise. This one is about to begin caissons, if it hasn't already - Harry had posted photos in the high-rise thread a few days ago.

Really looking forward to this one. Strong design addition to Fulton Market, and it's an appropriately-scaled office building for the neighborhood...it's a boutique building of around 85,000 sf of rentable office space. From a planning perspective, this makes sense - that there might be a smattering of boutique-type office spaces intermixed with other uses (which should additionally include residential - huge mistake for the city to zone out residential along the Fulton corridor - it made sense to when the area was light industrial, it does not make sense for the new incarnation of the district - which again, should be mixed-use commercial, entertainment, residential). What does not make sense for Fulton from a planning perspective is a concentration of medium to large size office buildings, as the area is not at a nexus of transit (a dense area easily accessible to the broadest possible swath of the region's population).....I know - this is a crazy concept!

Another commercial use for Fulton that is of a type and scale that makes sense is the above mentioned relocation of Herman Miller to the district. That's a fantastic use, and addition for what Fulton should be.
__________________
I lightly engaged in espionage - but it was all very cool and very legal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45363  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2019, 5:02 PM
jc5680's Avatar
jc5680 jc5680 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Chicago—West Loop
Posts: 1,103
It's a Highrise if you consider the rooftop floor. Maybe it is splitting hairs if it is not leasable space, but I think it is more than just elevator core that empties onto the roof.

From the Fulton East developer's site.

Quote:
This $26 million project includes a 12-story core and shell office building featuring ground floor retail space, 3 floors of parking, 8 floors of white core space for lease, and a green roof used as outdoor amenity space.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45364  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2019, 6:37 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 13,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
Harold Ickes Homes 1st phase construction to begin late summer:

https://therealdeal.com/chicago/2019...redevelopment/
This is great news. Hopefully with Lightfoot in charge, we can make some progress on the many long-dormant CHA developments planned for Cabrini, Roosevelt Square and West Haven as well as Ickes.

CHA is sitting on almost a billion dollars in cash reserves and has a waiting list a mile long for housing units, but they've basically been twiddling their thumbs for a decade. The only major CHA project to get off the ground since the recession is Lathrop, plus a few one-off buildings like the Little Italy Library/housing complex.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45365  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2019, 7:22 PM
moorhosj moorhosj is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 441
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
This is great news. Hopefully with Lightfoot in charge, we can make some progress on the many long-dormant CHA developments planned for Cabrini, Roosevelt Square and West Haven as well as Ickes.

CHA is sitting on almost a billion dollars in cash reserves and has a waiting list a mile long for housing units, but they've basically been twiddling their thumbs for a decade. The only major CHA project to get off the ground since the recession is Lathrop, plus a few one-off buildings like the Little Italy Library/housing complex.
Is Atrium Village CHA?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45366  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2019, 7:34 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,047
^No, it's subsidized rather than public housing, under a different FHA program that provided subsidies for nonprofits building such projects. A number of nonprofits, some linked to churches, have such projects on the South Side. The Chicago Dwellings Association was, I think, the largest developer. I think the Marshall Field Town & Garden Apartments were in the 1970s somehow converted into such a project. But I've never looked into the details.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45367  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2019, 9:49 PM
Blahshead Blahshead is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 47


Neat crane at the corner of Astor and Goethe
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45368  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2019, 9:55 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
This is great news. Hopefully with Lightfoot in charge, we can make some progress on the many long-dormant CHA developments planned for Cabrini, Roosevelt Square and West Haven as well as Ickes.

CHA is sitting on almost a billion dollars in cash reserves and has a waiting list a mile long for housing units, but they've basically been twiddling their thumbs for a decade. The only major CHA project to get off the ground since the recession is Lathrop, plus a few one-off buildings like the Little Italy Library/housing complex.
Outrageous that the CHA has just been sitting on projects like this for years while having a lot of money to put to work. Where is the oversight of this agency?
__________________
I lightly engaged in espionage - but it was all very cool and very legal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45369  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2019, 10:10 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 13,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop View Post
Outrageous that the CHA has just been sitting on projects like this for years while having a lot of money to put to work. Where is the oversight of this agency?
The longer version of the story is that CHA's directive, since the time they tore down the highrises, is to build mixed-income developments. This means partnering up with private developers to fund and construct each project.

However, as you know, private developers compete for capital... and with the housing market being so hot, why would investors choose to sign on to a dicey mixed-income development when there's countless juicy market-rate projects to sink their money into?

CHA also wanted the market-rate portion of these developments to be for-sale units... the thought, right or wrong, was that having homeowners in the community instead of 100% renters will lead to better outcomes. But of course, the for-sale market is anemic and has been for over a decade. Millennials aren't as interested in buying a home, and the ones that are interested are often unable to qualify. The limited demand that IS out there is, again, drawn to market-rate developments and not CHA mixed-income communities where there's not much hope of appreciation over time.


CHA has the cash to rebuild 100% public housing, but they're reluctant to do that because the public consensus is still in favor of mixed-income even if such developments are now all but impossible to get off the ground.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45370  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2019, 10:10 PM
ChiPlanner ChiPlanner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: East Lakeview Chicago
Posts: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop View Post
Outrageous that the CHA has just been sitting on projects like this for years while having a lot of money to put to work. Where is the oversight of this agency?
Regardless of their overall performance, they had many of their new developments sort of... ready to go when the recession hit- much of it with high percentage ownership components. That said, when the economy tanked, their plans went out the window due to the shifting economic landscape.

Needless to say it has now taken nearly a decade to get new plans created and projects off the ground.

Are they the most responsible and proactive Housing Authority- not by a long-shot, but at least now we're finally seeing meaningful improvements and developments within their portfolio.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45371  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2019, 11:11 PM
Citizen's Avatar
Citizen Citizen is offline
Flatiron
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: San Francisco, California
Posts: 148
Came across this today on Instagram. Probably just another conceptual/spec proposal for the former spire site? Anyone seen this before?

https://www.instagram.com/p/By1kR9dJ..._web_copy_link
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45372  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2019, 3:23 AM
maru2501's Avatar
maru2501 maru2501 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: chicago
Posts: 1,411
^ I'm sure

but it's cool
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45373  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2019, 7:57 AM
Citizen's Avatar
Citizen Citizen is offline
Flatiron
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: San Francisco, California
Posts: 148
Yeah, thought it best to post here to avoid (SVH) Spire Void Hysteria. :-)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45374  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2019, 3:17 PM
Handro Handro is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
The longer version of the story is that CHA's directive, since the time they tore down the highrises, is to build mixed-income developments. This means partnering up with private developers to fund and construct each project.

However, as you know, private developers compete for capital... and with the housing market being so hot, why would investors choose to sign on to a dicey mixed-income development when there's countless juicy market-rate projects to sink their money into?

CHA also wanted the market-rate portion of these developments to be for-sale units... the thought, right or wrong, was that having homeowners in the community instead of 100% renters will lead to better outcomes. But of course, the for-sale market is anemic and has been for over a decade. Millennials aren't as interested in buying a home, and the ones that are interested are often unable to qualify. The limited demand that IS out there is, again, drawn to market-rate developments and not CHA mixed-income communities where there's not much hope of appreciation over time.


CHA has the cash to rebuild 100% public housing, but they're reluctant to do that because the public consensus is still in favor of mixed-income even if such developments are now all but impossible to get off the ground.
I think it has less to do with lack of interest and more to do with stagnant wages, obscene debt, and rising COL, but I digress.

Couldn't CHA break up some of their larger plots into smaller plots (thinking Cabrini or something like that) and then sell disparate plots to private developers, let them build, and then build 100% affordable to fill in the gaps, thus creating a mixed use community? Do they already do that?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45375  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2019, 3:34 PM
Skyguy_7's Avatar
Skyguy_7 Skyguy_7 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Handro View Post
I think it has less to do with lack of interest and more to do with stagnant wages, obscene debt, and rising COL, but I digress.
Here's a New York Times article to correct what you may have heard. Wage growth has topped 3 percent for at least nine straight months.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/b...h-economy.html
__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problems, government IS our problem." President Reagan
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45376  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2019, 3:51 PM
Handro Handro is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyguy_7 View Post
Here's a New York Times article to correct what you may have heard. Wage growth has topped 3 percent for at least nine straight months.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/b...h-economy.html
Glad the trend of stagnation might be changing. As noted in your article:

Quote:
What took so long?
Many economists were puzzled by the slow pace of pay increases because it looked as if a fundamental relationship had broken down.

Decades ago, economists observed that when unemployment falls, wages tend to rise, as companies are forced to offer higher pay to attract workers. Yet even as the unemployment rate fell from 10 percent in 2009 to less than 5 percent in 2016, wages rose slowly. Even now, with the unemployment rate near multidecade lows, wages are not rising as quickly as standard models suggest they should be.
3% wage growth for a couple of years isn't enough to change a decade+ trend that has led to the current lack of major purchases by 25-35 year olds. And is that slight wage growth enough to keep pace with rising costs of just about everything?

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/ans...-years-ago.asp

Quote:
The Bottom Line
Taken together, these figures indicate that, while the average person is still making the same amount of money when accounting for inflation, prices for many of the daily necessities have gone up considerably, which means that each dollar earned does, in fact, buy less than it did 20 years ago.
But again, I digress, wrong thread for this. I'm sure we're both right by some metric.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45377  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2019, 5:13 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
The longer version of the story is that CHA's directive, since the time they tore down the highrises, is to build mixed-income developments. This means partnering up with private developers to fund and construct each project.

However, as you know, private developers compete for capital... and with the housing market being so hot, why would investors choose to sign on to a dicey mixed-income development when there's countless juicy market-rate projects to sink their money into?

CHA also wanted the market-rate portion of these developments to be for-sale units... the thought, right or wrong, was that having homeowners in the community instead of 100% renters will lead to better outcomes. But of course, the for-sale market is anemic and has been for over a decade. Millennials aren't as interested in buying a home, and the ones that are interested are often unable to qualify. The limited demand that IS out there is, again, drawn to market-rate developments and not CHA mixed-income communities where there's not much hope of appreciation over time.


CHA has the cash to rebuild 100% public housing, but they're reluctant to do that because the public consensus is still in favor of mixed-income even if such developments are now all but impossible to get off the ground.

What was the track record I wonder in terms of the market component of the earlier 00s/pre-recession mixed income CHA developments (I suppose mostly concentrated in the former Cabrini area)? Has the CHA been resistant to tinkering with the for-sale percentages of its model new mixed-income developments/adding larger market for-rent components? There should have been some flexibility built-in for a variety of market changes. We'll likely be in the next market downturn (which will undoubtedly differ in ways from the last) - or nearing it - by the time the next projects are finally underway.

More broadly, my view on the relatively anemic for-sale new construction market is that it is actually more of (or at least, in roughly equal parts) a supply issue as opposed to a fundamental underlying demand issue. There's no question that millennial lifestyle preferences are a component on the demand side...not arguing against that fyi.....but I do think there is existing for-sale demand that is not currently being met on the new supply side.
__________________
I lightly engaged in espionage - but it was all very cool and very legal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45378  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2019, 5:15 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyguy_7 View Post
Here's a New York Times article to correct what you may have heard. Wage growth has topped 3 percent for at least nine straight months.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/b...h-economy.html

That's merely a recent bump - and very much remains to be seen if it can be sustained. The point is that nominal and real wage growth this decade has vastly underperformed that seen in previous decades.
__________________
I lightly engaged in espionage - but it was all very cool and very legal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45379  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2019, 6:22 PM
ChiPlanner ChiPlanner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: East Lakeview Chicago
Posts: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop View Post
What was the track record I wonder in terms of the market component of the earlier 00s/pre-recession mixed income CHA developments (I suppose mostly concentrated in the former Cabrini area)? Has the CHA been resistant to tinkering with the for-sale percentages of its model new mixed-income developments/adding larger market for-rent components? There should have been some flexibility built-in for a variety of market changes. We'll likely be in the next market downturn (which will undoubtedly differ in ways from the last) - or nearing it - by the time the next projects are finally underway.

More broadly, my view on the relatively anemic for-sale new construction market is that it is actually more of (or at least, in roughly equal parts) a supply issue as opposed to a fundamental underlying demand issue. There's no question that millennial lifestyle preferences are a component on the demand side...not arguing against that fyi.....but I do think there is existing for-sale demand that is not currently being met on the new supply side.
I can't recall where I was reading about it lately, but an article was addressing CHA's development around Cabrini from the '00s and how much of it was owner occupied vs. rentals. Needless to say it was referencing how risky it was and all but said it proved to not be the best investment of funds.

That said, hindsight is 20:20.

Anyone heard about when Cabrini will get its first new tower?

https://chicago.curbed.com/2019/3/22...rabee-clybourn
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45380  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2019, 6:22 PM
Rizzo Rizzo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,893
Looks like a TOD project for 3347 N Southport. Will be discussed next Wednesday at WLVN meeting.



https://chicago.legistar.com/View.as...0-39FFB9720CDE
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 6:16 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.