Height: Unknown
Floor count: 40, 45
Location:
Construction end:
Architect: Centrum Properties, Inc.
Developer: RTKL Associates Inc., Hirsch & Associates Inc.

Website (http://www.loftsrc.com/)

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/7445/rooseveltcollectionwa7.jpg
http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/2436/rooseveltspendser1fp3.jpg

Rising up along Roosevelt
12-acre project will add high-rise and loft condos, smaller retail spaces in South Loop, where residential development is surging

By Susan Diesenhouse
Tribune staff reporter
Published November 4, 2006

A Chicago developer is set to kick off an approximately $900 million mixed-use project in the South Loop that should accelerate residential development and introduce a new type of retailing to an area where freight railroads and industry once thrived.

On Nov. 16, Centrum Properties Inc. will begin marketing the first phase of the project, called the Roosevelt Collection, which, when finished, will comprise as many as 1,000 condominiums, parking for 1,700 cars, a 2.5-acre park and about 400,000 square feet of retail space.

One industry observer says the development is a "big risk," but Centrum says the project will create a new 12-acre neighborhood of housing and small-shop retailing that will help tie together this submarket on the southern edge of downtown.

"We're going to build a town center for the South Loop," said Solomon Barket, a partner in Centrum. "The retail will be a lifestyle center that caters to families."

The condominiums will be priced from $290,000 to $600,000, and Barket expects the project to draw buyers mostly from other city locations. Shoppers likely will come from Centrum residences downtown and from the suburbs to the west and south.

Early in 2007, the three-year construction project will start on three levels of above-ground parking, topped by an 800-foot-long, 200-foot wide promenade. Some informal dining will run through the walkway's center.

Along the sides will sit two stories of retail filled with about 45 shops selling clothing, accessories and home goods, as well as restaurants and a 16-screen multiplex cinema featuring lounges with waiter service. Rising six stories above the shops will be 360 loft-style condominiums.

On the northern edge of this cluster of homes and shopping will be a 40-story condominium high-rise on a circular piazza that leads to the 2.5-acre park. Farther north will be a 45-story condominium high-rise.

In 1991, before the recent surge in residential development, downtown Chicago had about 48,000 housing units, including about 4,500 in the South Loop. Now, the downtown housing supply has more than doubled, to approximately 100,000, with about 13,500 units in the South Loop.

But by 2009, when construction on the entire Roosevelt Collection is scheduled to be completed, a surge of 6,500 new condominiums will have come onto the South Loop market, said Gail Lissner, a vice president of Appraisal Research Counselors, an appraisal and consulting firm.

While sales competition could be fierce, "Roosevelt should have a [marketing] edge with its lifestyle center," she said.

But by building the first retail center of small shops in a neighborhood blanketed more with so-called big-box stores, Centrum will be pioneering a new retail niche, a move that presents rewards as well as risks, said Dennis Shubert, a real estate economist for Boston-based Portfolio Property Research.

"This is a huge project, and these guys are willing to be aggressive because they probably got the land at a discount, which means significant margins," Shubert said.

Barket declined to say how much Centrum agreed to pay for the site. The company plans to close on the property in the first quarter of 2007.

Barket said Centrum plans to borrow about 80 percent of the total project cost and invest the remainder as equity.

Trying to establish a new retail destination is tricky, said Shubert. "The big risk is being the first kid on the block in an area that still has an element of dead after dark."

But Chicago-based retail broker Jacqueline Hayes is more optimistic. "The whole area is underserved and shoppers will come from farther afield," she said.

Hayes, owner of Jacqueline Hayes & Associates Ltd., added a caveat: "The mix of stores has to be right and the design first-class."

Shubert said another possible obstacle Centrum faces is selling condominiums with today's higher interest rates and Chicago apartment rents that are still relatively low.

"If rents don't pick up, there's no incentive to buy," he said.

Centrum might have room to maneuver. If it did acquire the land at a low price, Schubert said, it might be able to develop a unit for about $185,000 and sell it for perhaps $350,000.

But Barket and his partner, John McLinden, think their 767- to 1,432-square-foot condominiums, most of which are priced at less than $400,000, will sell well among young professionals who work downtown and a few somewhat older suburbanites who want a city hideaway.

Designed by architects RTKL Associates Inc. of Dallas and Hirsch & Associates Inc. of Chicago, the residences will feature 10-foot ceilings, balconies, hardwood floors and views of the city and Lake Michigan.

Centrum has a long track record of residential and mixed-use projects in Chicago, Florida, San Francisco, St. Louis, Boston and Washington, D.C. In Chicago, it is building CityFront Plaza, a $700 million luxury project with 1,000 residential condominiums and a hotel in three towers just east of Michigan Avenue.

Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune

I know the south loop can really use more retail devolopment but this just looks way too subarban for being right downtown.

At first glance, yes. It will be a nice buffer from the high rises to the retail/loft section. It would be hard to make it feel urban because it is surrounded by the river on the west, Dearborn Park I and II to the East/Southeast, and Riverside Park (future?) to the South. There is an inevitable break in the city/grid system at this location with the transition in grades at Roosevelt and cul-de-sacs in Dearborn Park. I think it will be a nice addition all things considered.

I know the south loop can really use more retail devolopment but this just looks way too subarban for being right downtown.

I agree whole heartedly.......while I agree with this projects idea in principle its execution seems way to contrived.

They are going to design a "town center".....wow.....can it get more Disney than that.

Overall I say yuck

Can we say Navy Pier with residences! I think it is terrible! It looks like a MALL!
Why not make the street a usuable street instead of a slow-traffic pedestrian street? A REAL street would feel much more URBAN! A street with meters, curbs, sewages drains and bike lanes that define true city streets!
And the architecture is ugly! I like the modern glass facades much better than the generic brick and mortar facade. I believe they should use the existing ideas of shopping mixed with lofts and towers and change a few things such as the street. The architecture needs to be MODERN and EDGY! Maybe build three towers instead of one. Alternating heights of 10, 20 and 30 to show some drama and depth. And use green roofs and garden terraces. If we are going to build in the South Loop we have to build it to be urban and distinctive, not suburban and bland!

These are popping up everywhere...in the suburbs! I guess the suburbanites are in love with em'

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB114904207386167125-lMyQjAxMDE2NDM5MTAzNDEyWj.html


Here's my main issue with this devolopment...It has devoloper GREED written all over it, talk about trying cash in quick on a cooling market, it just looks so rushed...and fake. Anyone with a little urban planning and design sense can see where this is terribly wrong. Why are both sides perfectly symmetrical?...and what in the world is up with the center court area?...Put in a single row of "lofts" with shops beneath or just build a nasty mall but don't try and push these suburban designed "dowtown centers" shit on city lovers and dwellers. I know some you will jump all over me but the boiling point for me is the fake 1900's brick street... give me a damn tree lined CEMENT street! I love the South Loop and I love it enough to see this devolopment fail especially when an outsider from Centrum declares this his vision of what the "town center for the South Loop," should look like.

Where's Blair when you need him to actually trash something worth while!?

This project totally reeks. It's cheap and bland. I can't believe the city didn't at least say this:

"Okay, okay, looks good. But the facades on those low-rise buildings? How about introducing a bit of variety? Oh, and we don't like that sign that says 'Roosevelt Collection'".

Done. Easy. No developer would run away from those requests. DPD is sleeping on the job.

Let's not kid ourselves - this will not be the downtown of the South Loop. Central Station folk will still hang out along Wabash or Prairie, Printers Row will still hang out along Dearborn Street. These restaurants and lounges will not be a Friday night hangout for anyone who lives here now. The theater will be the only destination place for those in the South Loop other than shops like Trader Joes and Victoria Secrets. I have a feeling you will see the small retail banks, video game resale shops, Borders/Barnes, and cell phone stores. This will offer little to the current residents of the South Loop. What you WILL find there are commuters or people who live in this new neighborhood (Whatever you want to call it - River South?) with 900 S Clark, the Curve building, the 3 Lennar towers, and the Roosevelt Loft collection residents. You will probably find people who live at Roosevelt Square (who dont take advantage of Taylor Street).

Although this development looks like it came out of the burbs, I think it is a great catalyst for the area - the entire area really worked together to come uip with a composite blueprint. The land is considered undesirable and expensive to develop. (buried rails, Roosevelt Road elevated, Dearborn Park, etc.) The Target has been a great amenity to the area as people come from all over. Just down the street you have a little of the same thing - Best Buy, Home Depot, Staples, DSW, Whole Foods. I am just glad it will not look like the North-Clybourn corridor with surface lots.

Why not make the street a usable street instead of a slow-traffic pedestrian street? A REAL street would feel much more URBAN! A street with meters, curbs, sewages drains and bike lanes that define true city streets!

Not clear how you could have a real functioning street 30 feet up in the air. Because Roosevelt Road is elevated, vehicular access at that level pretty much has to be a cul-de-sac. So a bike lane would be all of 400 feet long.

Something cool that's not apparent from the birds-eye rendering is how the north end will be finished off with a sort of "Spanish Steps" arrangement that cascades from the cineplex past some restaurant spaces down into a new park. Since the steps will face north, I don't know how optimistic to be about them in our climate. The big unknown is how much this center can be an actual pedestrian pathway for South Loopers--once Ninth Street goes in--and how much it ends up being a mere retail destination for people driving in off Roosevelt. Off-street retail is really really tough to make work, anywhere in the world.

Another concern is the blank face this will turn to Wells-Wentworth, down on ground level. Centrum/RTKL claimed that they couldn't really do anything better because there was no way to know what might go across the street, on the Cacciatore property south of River City.

Another concern is the blank face this will turn to Wells-Wentworth, down on ground level. Centrum/RTKL claimed that they couldn't really do anything better because there was no way to know what might go across the street, on the Cacciatore property south of River City.

^ I never thought about that. I completely forgot about this development's effect on Wells St.

I agree with your assessment about the cul-de-sac, and I don't have a big problem with that. But lets think about it--1700 parking spaces, poor transit access, and a hell of a lot of retail will all go into this space. And lets not forget about the residential units planned.

All of this in a giant dead-end street. Also, consider that Roosevelt is already so wide, and Southgate Market & other big boxes are going up nearby.

All of this spells some pretty incredible traffic nightmares. Street grids have their uses, and while this development is challenging, I should hope that future developments such as the counterpart neighborhoods planned south of Roosevelt have more than just one connection to the streets around it to help diffuse the traffic congestion.

Not clear how you could have a real functioning street 30 feet up in the air. Because Roosevelt Road is elevated, vehicular access at that level pretty much has to be a cul-de-sac. So a bike lane would be all of 400 feet long.

I didn't know that... but now that I do, I think the road still needs to be fixed to make it look a bit more attractive and urban, however that may be accomplished. Too much Naperville not enought Chicago.

I should hope that future developments such as the counterpart neighborhoods planned south of Roosevelt have more than just one connection to the streets around it to help diffuse the traffic congestion.

The approved PD for Riverside Park is not much better. Wells-Wentworth comes through on the ground level, and there's a loop drive that comes in off Roosevelt in a very similar arrangement to the Centrum project. In addition, there's a "13th Street" connection from Clark over the Metra tracks about 250 feet south of Roosevelt.

The civic groups were all united in asking for additional access at 15th Street, but there's apparently some guy who lives on 15th east of Clark who has the clout to keep it from happening. He's the same guy who prevented 15th from connecting State to Clark. The approved PD shows "parkland" in the area where 15th would connect to Clark, supposedly so the street connection could be made in the future. But we all know that once the first townhouse owners move in and think of that turf as their private dogwalking park, the chances of building a street connection fall to none.

Restoring (or creating) a street grid in the South Loop is extremely difficult, because of the Metra tracks and Roosevelt viaduct. Fifteen years ago both were being rebuilt at the same time, and I tried to get the city to put Roosevelt back at grade level and the Metra tracks up on viaduct, the same arrangement as we have at Harrison or Polk. No chance, because the two projects were being engineered by different people, plus a Dearborn Park "community leader" put out a flyer about how an 18-foot-high railroad viaduct would throw Dearborn Park into permanent shadow. The 30-foot-high Roosevelt viaduct? Oh, that was just good planning that would keep the scummy people waiting for the Roosevelt bus far away from his midrise.

http://www.metroscenetv.com/lofts/photo2.jpg

http://www.metroscenetv.com/lofts/photo3.jpg

http://www.metroscenetv.com/lofts/photo4.jpg

The approved PD for Riverside Park is not much better. Wells-Wentworth comes through on the ground level, and there's a loop drive that comes in off Roosevelt in a very similar arrangement to the Centrum project. In addition, there's a "13th Street" connection from Clark over the Metra tracks about 250 feet south of Roosevelt.

The civic groups were all united in asking for additional access at 15th Street, but there's apparently some guy who lives on 15th east of Clark who has the clout to keep it from happening. He's the same guy who prevented 15th from connecting State to Clark. The approved PD shows "parkland" in the area where 15th would connect to Clark, supposedly so the street connection could be made in the future. But we all know that once the first townhouse owners move in and think of that turf as their private dogwalking park, the chances of building a street connection fall to none.

Restoring (or creating) a street grid in the South Loop is extremely difficult, because of the Metra tracks and Roosevelt viaduct. Fifteen years ago both were being rebuilt at the same time, and I tried to get the city to put Roosevelt back at grade level and the Metra tracks up on viaduct, the same arrangement as we have at Harrison or Polk. No chance, because the two projects were being engineered by different people, plus a Dearborn Park "community leader" put out a flyer about how an 18-foot-high railroad viaduct would throw Dearborn Park into permanent shadow. The 30-foot-high Roosevelt viaduct? Oh, that was just good planning that would keep the scummy people waiting for the Roosevelt bus far away from his midrise.


^ Thanks for the info. I kind of figured that Dearborn Park clout has largely accounted for the shitty planning in the south loop. Being that they were the only people living south of Roosevelt for a long time, their voices have been quite dominant. As more and more people move into the area, however, I'm guessing that mounting frustration will force DP to concede. After all, I can't imagine a better way to combat NIMBYism than to pit NIMBY vs. NIMBY.

As more and more people move into the area, however, I'm guessing that mounting frustration will force DP to concede. After all, I can't imagine a better way to combat NIMBYism than to pit NIMBY vs. NIMBY.

I don't see your logic. In our era, nothing ever increases street connectivity. No alderman ever left a public meeting vowing to increase outside traffic past his constituents' front yards. As if the broken grid weren't enough, the city is now putting speed humps on cul-de-sacs, like the new ones in front of South Loop School.

..

I don't see your logic. In our era, nothing ever increases street connectivity. No alderman ever left a public meeting vowing to increase outside traffic past his constituents' front yards. As if the broken grid weren't enough, the city is now putting speed humps on cul-de-sacs, like the new ones in front of South Loop School.

^^^^Not only on cul-de-sacs but seemingly any side street that has more than a trickle of activity....they just started putting them on wolcott between Pratt / Touhy

They are all the place in Edgewater....them and the dreaded intersection circle


Ok ...off topic....sorry

Mr. Downtown: How do you rate the future chances of restoring pedestrian access on the Rights of Way through Dearborn Park at Taylor, 9th, and/or 11th?

Not too good, unfortunately. An early draft of the Near South Plan suggested the prospect of bike or ped access across 9th Street, and DPD and the alderman were supposedly buried in angry faxes from Dearborn Park inmates. With each retelling of the story, the number of faxes grows, so now the alderman will tell you it was 3000 faxes and emails she received. I'm guessing it was closer to 20. At any rate, it's the third rail of South Loop planning discussions.

I tried to persuade DPD to open up an outlet from Park Terrace near 1055 S Clark when Clark was being reconstructed (the two public rights of way are adjacent there), but they put the wall back where the balustrade had previously been. Access from Roosevelt down into the playlot raises accessibility issues. The alignment of new 9th Street under the Metra tracks deliberately does not align Dearborn Park's 9th Street, but that's partly to have adequate headroom under the tracks.

My only hope is that someday the stuff on the west side of Clark will be attractive enough to lure Dearborn Park detainees into opening their gates and leaving the compound. But I'm not holding my breath.

I don't see your logic. In our era, nothing ever increases street connectivity. No alderman ever left a public meeting vowing to increase outside traffic past his constituents' front yards. As if the broken grid weren't enough, the city is now putting speed humps on cul-de-sacs, like the new ones in front of South Loop School.

^ What I meant is that mounting frustration with traffic congestion and the total barrier DP represents between the rapidly growing east-south-loop and the future west-south-loop (Roosevelt Collection shopping, etc) may actually force DPers to open the doors. Think about it--people east of State in the south loop have no reason to care about DP's total lack of access to Clark St. And nobody LIVES west of Clark st, so there's nobody there to complain.

But how about 10 years from now, or 20 years from now? I'm some dude who bought a condo in Roosevelt Collection and between Polk and Roosevelt there is a friggin wall between me and Grant Park/the Lakefront etc etc. Guess what, I'll be pretty pissed off and raising some hell. And people east of State? If you're telling me that the only way they can get to Roosevelt Square is to drive (or walk, equally unpleasant) on super-congested Roosevelt (which it will be by then) and into the mega-cul-de-sac, then I'll again be pretty unhappy.

I really think DP can't maintain their death grip on the south loop by virtue of clout forever, because other people's voices will have to be heard

Just got an email announcing the website is open - at least for the lofts

http://www.loftsrc.com/

Not entirely related - but, I noticed a soil-boring truck on Clark just north of Target tonight.

Interesting video tour: http://www.rclofts.com/media/roosevelt_qt.mov

Definitely makes a difference, for better or worse
http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/5564/untitledso0.jpg
http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/3702/2aj7.jpg

Of course you have to keep in mind that there will be more new towers nearby that aren't pictured

I see the steps from the north end to the park have become more ordinary. I thought they would be more Spanish Steps in concept.

Well isn't that a lovely little suburban paradise?

I don't understand why the city hasn't forced this huge area of land (everything east of Clark from Congress to Chinatown) to be developed under the same masterplan concept as Central Station. What a uninspiring project. This is the modern day version of Dearborn Park. YUCK.

Central Station was all under single ownership. The "masterplan" was simply a planned development ordinance.

Chicago doesn't do California-style "specific plans," and has very little use for even "master plans" or "comprehensive plans." Can you name a single thing ever not built in Chicago because it didn't conform to a plan? If it seems like a good idea at the time, the plan is completely forgotten. Even the Old Post Office was built where it would block Burnham's Congress Street axis, so they had to compromise by leaving the hole that the Eisenhower goes through.

god I feel like I just watched logan's run

that is horrible, ickey, insular , banal...it is the neighborhood that is not a neighborhood....I mean was every non-person in that video white?? it looked like it

its is startling in its superficiallity]

why can't they just build a good oled fashioned neighnorhood.....not this elitist shit

Well isn't that a lovely little suburban paradise?

geoff, i would be more inclined to call this type of development something that would occur in a nation that has experienced suburbanization rather than suburbanization itself. What I'm saying is that suburban type of developments merely carried on the growth of the metro area when the city was built up and the growth had to continue outside city limits. If you track that growth over the half century since WWII, you can see it is plainly more urban and more dense than it once was.

Truth is, today in city or suburb, small piecemeal development will not occur on a large piece of land. Something large, unified, and probably under one developer will go up. I believe such action has far less to do with suburbia and more with the times in which we live.

Let me put this one though in your court: you are the developer of a piece of land like the Roosevelt Collection. You have riverfront property and you are adjacent to a major downtown (like ours) in a growing high rise community (like the South Loop). How would you develop that piece of land so that it was profitable and pragmatic, yet truly contributed to the rich urban tapestry??????????

^Yeah but there are or were ways of making this blend with the downtown much better, I don't care if this gets built or not but the city planners better not bring this sterile shit anywhere else, ever again in the direct downtown area.

I also don't see this as being "adjacent" to downtown, four-five years from now this WILL be a major part of downtown as we grow!

VOID

The biggest downside I see is that the mini-downtown will probably end up being overrun with panhandlers from the new Pacific Garden Mission at 14th and Canal. Its going to be a challenge for all the area businesses, but if this place has public benches and parks, they will be drawn to it, since it is on the direct path to the Loop itself.

^ Actually, in a strange sort of way, I see that as a plus side. Anything to make this development seem less insular is a good thing, if you ask me. Bring buses to its doorstep, both on Roosevelt and on 9th St. Make this a part of the city, not apart from it.

^I also agree that having a bit of reality from the big bad city surrounding this place wouldn't be the worst thing. However, I am sure the developer has figured out how to make the entire place private property including the "street" (like a mall), and will not allow any reality to creep in and cause all the recent suburban transplants to be frightened and un-easy.

I like the development too. If you live in the South Loop (not talking about Central Station)... after 8-5 it is very quiet. It is very isolated from the city and many people like how quiet it is there compared to places like River North. Congress really cuts off the South Loop from the loop. I like how this project will not make a huge impact on Printers Row. Building a seperate central area for the large number of condos/apartments built west of Clark will be great.
I think this will really help the development of the eyesore old rail yards become a nice place to live. Most importantly, it will also increase the values of homes down there by bringing more affluent demographics and entice more developers to build there.
Let's be honest - with Dearborn Park 1 and 2, that section of town could not survive all the high rises that everyone wants to see. It would take decades to build out. Any development off of Roosevelt, in my opinion, will be car friendly and feel urban.

Any development off of Roosevelt, in my opinion, will be car friendly and feel urban.

^ A paradox? Do tell..

.....
.......
Let's be honest - with Dearborn Park 1 and 2, that section of town could not survive all the high rises that everyone wants to see. It would take decades to build out. Any development off of Roosevelt, in my opinion, will be car friendly and feel urban.

da.....crush them underfoot like the vermin they are

^I also agree that having a bit of reality from the big bad city surrounding this place wouldn't be the worst thing. However, I am sure the developer has figured out how to make the entire place private property including the "street" (like a mall), and will not allow any reality to creep in and cause all the recent suburban transplants to be frightened and un-easy.

VOID

^^I don't think he's saying panhandlers necassarily enhance the city but are more so the part of the fabric an urban environment; wealthy, middle class, poor, homeless, all form to create the unique urban environment and these arguably "self contained" places like Roosevelt and LSE are are going to have an eerie sense of sterileness to them, meaning they most likely will lack that wide ranging diversity that makes this city so great.

^ A paradox? Do tell..

Ooops... I mean suburban.

Your reply is trash-talk. And not very good trash-talk, either.

Why don't you explain exactly how and why panhandlers enhance city life?

I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. Danthediscoman clarified what I meant pretty well. The last thing I want in my neighborhood is a sterile suburban style shopping center. I am generally glad this project is going to be built, but I feel frustrated that the developer is taking absolutely no architectural risk what so ever. I also feel frustrated that this will essentially be nothing more than a mall, and not a city street with all of it's variety.
Because this will be on private property, the owners can dictate a lot of things including such limitations as to when you can walk down the "street" (it will close at night, you can be sure), or not allowing photography on the "street". You see, it won't really be a street at all, instead it will be a faux street filled with chain stores and will lack any real character. I would rather have a real street and all the good and bad that comes with it, and if that means a few homeless people, then fine.

what you guys lack is perspective,
one thousand years from now, or maybe just a hundred this will be seen
in historical perspective as one of those early 2000 "planned communities" that probably half of it will be intact and some will have sros
and crack or (insert new drug here) BUILDINGS.....

perspective people......

I just mourn the loss what used to be there,
I wouldnt miss the past so much if I had lived there for a while....

..

^^^^^Boy , wong's on a roll tonight...he is either fucked up or as partaked in too much pure O2

..

This is essentially Oak Brook Mall with Condo's on top of it...I hate it. :ohno:

I just mourn the loss what used to be there


You miss the wooden grain elevator? Or the Rock Island team track?

You miss the wooden grain elevator? Or the Rock Island team track?

oh. you meal a rail yard? well, there's always the proviso yard near o'hare for the nostalgic.

I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. Danthediscoman clarified what I meant pretty well. The last thing I want in my neighborhood is a sterile suburban style shopping center. I am generally glad this project is going to be built, but I feel frustrated that the developer is taking absolutely no architectural risk what so ever. I also feel frustrated that this will essentially be nothing more than a mall, and not a city street with all of it's variety.
Because this will be on private property, the owners can dictate a lot of things including such limitations as to when you can walk down the "street" (it will close at night, you can be sure), or not allowing photography on the "street". You see, it won't really be a street at all, instead it will be a faux street filled with chain stores and will lack any real character. I would rather have a real street and all the good and bad that comes with it, and if that means a few homeless people, then fine.

VOID

Two points in response to your post:

1. Unless you live on the near south or near west sides, this isn't really your neighborhood at all. You should familiarize yourself with the site before talking about what can or should be done with it. Make sure you walk the Clark Street viaduct, which nominally connects Roosevelt to the grade-level grid, but in practice functions like a meat clever, so you understand why the cul-de-sac solution is superior.

2. This is a mixed-use development, so your characterization of it as a suburban mall is false. I would have much more of a problem if they were trying to pass this off as a typical Chicago neighborhood, ie, a Roosevelt Square on stilts. There is no attempt to do that, and this has the density to (hopefully) attract public transportation. It looks like it will be a nice place to jog or walk the dog.

And finally, to you and all others adamantly opposed to this project because of the "suburbanization" of the near south and west sides that it represents:

The strip of clothing stores on Roosevelt between Canal and DesPlaines are a real hoot. They are ALL originals. They have TONS of character. They are the final vestiges of old Jew Town. You'll no doubt give lip service to the thousand and one reasons why they mattered on the day of their passing - as you drive past them on your way to Target.

Since you don't know me, #1 could be a fair statement, however I have lived on State Street in the center of the Loop since 2003, and recently decided to make Printers Row my home by signing a contract on a unit at Burnham Point, ten blocks from my current home, and only two blocks away from the Roosevelt Collection. So, I think I know a little bit about the area and have a right to speak about it.

On #2: Roosevelt Collection is nothing but a mall with fake lofts plopped on top. Yes it has underground parking, and yes there will be an urban bend to it, but no matter how much lipstick you put on a pig, it is still a pig.

I don't have any issues with it being a mall with housing above, I actually support the idea of having more mixed use projects. What I take issue with, is the fact that Roosevelt Collection is architecturally bankrupt. This is not just my opinion, there are lots of people that feel this way. This project is about as bland as you can get; and the developer, out of fear of not selling units to suburbanites moving into the city, or retailers fearful of it being too edgy, dumbed the design down to the point of it being pablum for the masses. I also take issue with the fact that this project is being designed almost entirely around the car, and not the street. It will be easy in and easy out for cars, and less focused on pedestrian traffic. They are not building a real city street. It will be a fake one, which will be closed to pedestrians at night, and security will escort you off of their private property if you're not a resident.

That is my issue with Roosevelt Collection. There is a huge opportunity to design a great transit and pedestrian friendly urban destination, but instead, they are going for safe and boring. That is an unfortunate missed opportunity.

That said; will I shop there when I am living on Clark and Polk? Probably, at least on occasion. But, I have always gladly spent my duckets at local businesses first, before going to the national chains, and will always do so. Just like I spend nearly all of my money within the city limits because the suburbs have enough people supporting their tax base, they don't need my money. (Except for the occasional trip to Ikea.)

As for the strip on Roosevelt just west of the Kennedy... Well, I have done business in a few of those shops, and since I don't own a car, it was CTA that carted my ass past Target on my way there.

Since you don't know me, #1 could be a fair statement, however I have lived on State Street in the center of the Loop since 2003, and recently decided to make Printers Row my home by signing a contract on a unit at Burnham Point, ten blocks from my current home, and only two blocks away from the Roosevelt Collection. So, I think I know a little bit about the area and have a right to speak about it.

I too get frustrated with people who make ignorant comments regarding development that is regional and site specific, like in this case since it is so isoloated, and it drives me nuts. Or people who complain about a development because it is not 50 stories tall without merit in the South Loop when they live in Schaumburg or Jefferson Park. I think InTheLoop is getting unfairly attacked here and mislabeled... his posts have been well taken by me.

What a lot of people dont get, is that a centralized area of shopping like North/Clybourn is a good area. While they really mucked up North/Clybourn with it being 75% parking lot, the Roosevelt Collection is a much better designed project as it is laid out. I agree the architectural is bland and could use some improvement, but the people they are marketing the lofts to is driving that.
A lot of ignorant people have been complaining about the fact that the street does not match the grid system. It would be nearly impossible to do. Since Roosevelt is elevated by about 30+', it would have to slope down for over a quarter mile to street level to be considered appropriate for retail (halfway to Polk and it probably could not connect to any streets in that quarter mile). It would look horrible from Clark and Wells and would be a grading nightmare. The way the parking is situated is a great idea. It is completely hidden below Roosevelt and will be a good buffer to the tracks on one side. On the West side, the renderings show a promising nice facade facing the rebuilt Wells Street.
This development is going to do a lot of great things for the South Loop, and I choose to overlook the crappy architecture. Although I first try to support local shops, you will probably catch me going to the theater, maybe some of the stores like Trader Joes (I am hoping they put one there), and some of the other stores near there like DSW, Home Depot, and Best Buy.

They are not building a real city street. It will be a fake one, which will be closed to pedestrians at night, and security will escort you off of their private property if you're not a resident.


Is the street not going to be dedicted to the city? Do you mean cars will not be allowed on the street at night? Has someone told you that it will be for private residents only? I think the retailers would have issue with this. I am pretty sure the street will be dedicted to the city. I know the park is for sure.

Is the street not going to be dedicted to the city? Do you mean cars will not be allowed on the street at night? Has someone told you that it will be for private residents only? I think the retailers would have issue with this. I am pretty sure the street will be dedicted to the city. I know the park is for sure.

As I understand this project, the "street" will be solely owned by the developer, and while it may remain open to "traffic" 24/7, it is subject to the land owners own rules and regs. It would be no different than if you parked your car outside of Old Orchard, and wandered around the mall at 2AM. You will be hassled by security.

The park component may be dedictated to the city, but would close like other parks at 11pm or midnight.

Accomodations would be made for resturaunt and theater patrons leaving late at night, but again, security will be prevelant to ensure you don't "linger".

I don't want folks to think that I have a problem with security providing for safety, I just don't want folks to think that this is a real public street either. On the upside, residents of the faux lofts won't be subjected to young men illegally drumming on buckets.

As I understand this project, the "street" will be solely owned by the developer, and while it may remain open to "traffic" 24/7, it is subject to the land owners own rules and regs. It would be no different than if you parked your car outside of Old Orchard, and wandered around the mall at 2AM. You will be hassled by security.

The park component may be dedictated to the city, but would close like other parks at 11pm or midnight.

Accomodations would be made for resturaunt and theater patrons leaving late at night, but again, security will be prevelant to ensure you don't "linger".

I don't want folks to think that I have a problem with security providing for safety, I just don't want folks to think that this is a real public street either. On the upside, residents of the faux lofts won't be subjected to young men illegally drumming on buckets.

Loop, right in the heart of the city, at North and Clybourn, sits C&B's largest store, surrounded by parking lots as is virtually all the rest of the area, highlighted by the shoppng complex a block over with Whole Foods.

OK, true, Roosevelt Collection promises to be somewhat of a suburban life-style center set up, a relative of the Glen in Glenview, for example, but isn't it also a step up on the North and Clybourn set up? At least there is a real interest in creating a more urban sytle environment, of removing surface parking lots with on-street parking, of placing lofts above stores.

Suburbia is not the enemy and learning from suburbia is not necessarily a negative. An earlier comment on the thread about RC being Oakbrook like gave me reason to pause: what's so negative about Oakbrook? Sure it is surrounded by a sea of parking lots (now well mixed with ramps), but its interior space is attractive and almost unique: shopping in almost a garden like setting with grounds that would look good at the botanic gardens. The developer planned it with care and it is actually shopping outside, city like, where it belongs (as opposed to 900N, WTP, Chgo Pl, No. Bridge).

^ I agree with your point here. RC is a huge step up from other retail centers. It is dense, puts parking beneath grade and is very pedestrian friendly, as well as mixing land uses. All of these are hallmarks of urbanity.

I have also accepted the cul-de-sac as necessary for this site, and perhaps some day in the future this site's layout will be be considered uniquely charming. I'm also betting that some day a future owner, wishing to relieve himself of paying for maintanance of the main "road", will sell or hand it over to the city.

But my one qualm is and continues to be the architecture. It is just bland, monotonous, and horrid.

As I understand this project, the "street" will be solely owned by the developer, and while it may remain open to "traffic" 24/7, it is subject to the land owners own rules and regs. It would be no different than if you parked your car outside of Old Orchard, and wandered around the mall at 2AM. You will be hassled by security.

Accomodations would be made for resturaunt and theater patrons leaving late at night, but again, security will be prevelant to ensure you don't "linger".


I still have a hard time restaurants AND BARS will sign a lease or any type of agreement to have a storefront on a "street" that chases away potential patrons. If it is not dedicated to the city, I wonder if there is an easement established.

This will basically be a destination and nothing else. No different than if I decided to go to Michigan Avenue for shopping, to dine or catch a movie at Loews. The only difference is RC is a purposely created destination on a cul-de-sac where as Mich Ave is a culturally created one on a major avenue. Not to say that RC will have the magnitude or street traffic like MA, but it certainly has comparable aspects. But so do a lot of other things.

You also have to take into account that this area needs a shopping destination badly. The South Loop is incrediably underserved when it comes to major shopping brands and neighborhood destinations.

I feel this is probably the best solution for the area as well. It will stimulate community and retail growth in an area devoid of much. I find that it would be impossible for the developer to just magically create a working street from scratch. Possibly though, the housing portion will help mold it into as much of a working street as it can be... during the day that is. I'm sure there will be a demand for everyday things such as dry cleaners, gyms and salons that will add a little "local" flavor to the corporate retail and restaurant mix.

Hopefully through the years this will become a considerable shopping and entertainment destination for the average Chicagoan and not a generic, sterile plaza filled with the usual Gap, Bath and Body Works and Starbucks.

I still have a hard time restaurants AND BARS will sign a lease or any type of agreement to have a storefront on a "street" that chases away potential patrons. If it is not dedicated to the city, I wonder if there is an easement established.

That is just it PrintersRowBoiler... This isn't a street. It is no different than an outdoor mall with auto access. Think Old Orchard with a driveway running through the center. Bars and Resturaunts will sign leases, because when they close at 2 or 3 (or 4)AM, the whole place will close.

^ II have also accepted the cul-de-sac as necessary for this site, and perhaps some day in the future this site's layout will be be considered uniquely charming.

perhaps the cul de sac was necessary to make the RC roads "on site" as opposed to a through street that might have had to be publically owned.

It is no different than an outdoor mall with auto access.

^ Uhhh, yes it is. People--LOTS of people, will be living there--it will be their home. Not the case with Old Orchard mall.

Think Old Orchard with a driveway running through the center. Bars and Resturaunts will sign leases, because when they close at 2 or 3 (or 4)AM, the whole place will close.

^ I'm not feeling this Old Orchard analogy in the least. If this exact same development didn't have a cul-de-sac, I imagine you wouldn't be criticizing it so heavily. It's dense, walkable, mixed-use, and reasonably accessible (all things considered). Absolutely nothing in common with Old Orchard Mall.

But the architecture is crap

^ Uhhh, yes it is. People--LOTS of people, will be living there--it will be their home. Not the case with Old Orchard mall.



^ I'm not feeling this Old Orchard analogy in the least. If this exact same development didn't have a cul-de-sac, I imagine you wouldn't be criticizing it so heavily. It's dense, walkable, mixed-use, and reasonably accessible (all things considered). Absolutely nothing in common with Old Orchard Mall.

But the architecture is crap

by no means am I suggesting the following holds up to urban design, but Old Orchard is currently undergoing a major renovation along its east (Skokie Blvd.) side that inclues the removal of old department store space (Saks, L&T) with its replacement with a life-style center shopping environment.

It should be interesting to see how Old Orchard pulls this one off. It is by far the most urban suburb that will have the life style concept (as opposed to places like the Glen in Glenview or Deer Park in the nw suburbs).

^ Uhhh, yes it is. People--LOTS of people, will be living there--it will be their home. Not the case with Old Orchard mall.



^ I'm not feeling this Old Orchard analogy in the least. If this exact same development didn't have a cul-de-sac, I imagine you wouldn't be criticizing it so heavily. It's dense, walkable, mixed-use, and reasonably accessible (all things considered). Absolutely nothing in common with Old Orchard Mall.

But the architecture is crap

I hear you. I think the closest I've seen to this is Market Common at Clarendon in Arlington, VA. Of course that's in an actual suburban setting, but a dense, close in suburb, and people definitely flock to the place. I suspect RC will be no different.

That is just it PrintersRowBoiler... This isn't a street. It is no different than an outdoor mall with auto access. Think Old Orchard with a driveway running through the center. Bars and Resturaunts will sign leases, because when they close at 2 or 3 (or 4)AM, the whole place will close.

I don't understand why this is a problem. (I also don't agree with the analogy). If anyone is allowed to hang out there when any store is open, which I assume all restaurants/bars have a 2 am liquor license, why does it bother you that they will not want people who don't live there around after everything is shut down? As long as John Q. Public is allowed to be there during say 6AM when Starbucks opens and 2AM when the bars shut down, what is your issue?

^ I agree with your point here. RC is a huge step up from other retail centers. It is dense, puts parking beneath grade and is very pedestrian friendly, as well as mixing land uses. All of these are hallmarks of urbanity.

I have also accepted the cul-de-sac as necessary for this site, and perhaps some day in the future this site's layout will be be considered uniquely charming. I'm also betting that some day a future owner, wishing to relieve himself of paying for maintanance of the main "road", will sell or hand it over to the city.

But my one qualm is and continues to be the architecture. It is just bland, monotonous, and horrid.

VOID

architecture is aesthetics.....aesthetics is not necessarly architecture

architecture is aesthetics.....aesthetics is not necessarly architecture

I completely disagree with your logic here... and Free Radical is right on with his post I think.

An architects job is to design a facility that meets their clients needs and functions. While, part of the job is to come up with how the building looks, it is usually driven by how the owner wants to present it to their market. The market is the people who will PAY the client, not neighbors or kids sitting behind a computer with their blinders on.

A good architect will design a product that is economically feasible, will sell, functions efficiently, and is carried to fruitition (getting past the permitting and constructability hurdles).

Many of the people posting on this website have no clue how much an architect (or engineer) is involved and needs to consider. You should not be confused with good architecture and good asthetics.

The architect on this project is doing a great job.
1. He came up with a solution to hide the parking
2. He was able to come up with a product to market to the retailers to sign leases
3. He was able to design a product that has rather easily been passed through the permit process with few concessions (that I know of) along the way.
4. He has provided a product that has started to sell fairly well (from what I have been told).

Looper - certainly not attacking you here, as PrintersRowBoiler already pointed out your posts have been well articulated and well taken (at least by some). However, I've got to ask the same question as above: where are you getting the information regarding the 'street' being 'private?' Is this just speculation or do you have some tangible evidence that this will be the case?

I agree with every one of your assessments regarding the architectural banality of this project, but, sadly, these decisions are up to the developers and nobody else. And, in all honesty - that's fine with me. It's their money and their asses on the line, so, who are we to tell them how to run their business? The real fault lies with the consumers and the retailers - if the target audience of developments like this was a little more open-minded and the retailers a little more willing to be involved in something risky (again - they're just doing what's best for their business and we can't fault them for that) then we would certainly be getting something a bit more architecturally significant out of this whole thing. The bottom line, however, is that this development (while certainly not perfect) has decent underpinnings and will be a welcome replacement to a huge tract of empty land. I'd rather have something that works (even if it's not necessarily aesthetically noteworthy) than nothing at all.

The bottom line, however, is that this development (while certainly not perfect) has decent underpinnings and will be a welcome replacement to a huge tract of empty land. I'd rather have something that works (even if it's not necessarily aesthetically noteworthy) than nothing at all.

^ Exactly, and that's the same conclusion I've come to. It's still an urban-designed retail center; even while it accommodates the car it certainly doesn't discourage the pedestrian or bus-rider. I'll drink to that :cheers:

regarding the 'street' being 'private?'

I'm quite certain it will be private. It's atop a private parking garage, and I don't think the city has any interest in being responsible for it.

I asked recently for a copy of the PD, but Roosevelt Collection was actually just approved as an amendment to the old LaSalle Park PD, so there was no "public" paperwork on it.

^ According to a video posted a while back, it seems like at least there will be street parking in this development. That's kind of an important 'urbanizing' element, if you ask me

Like most non-practitioners, you seem to confuse aesthetics with architecture...

You've done a survey, then, of "non-practitioners", to determine the percentages that are similarly confused? Or perhaps your sense is merely anecdotal. ;)

You've done a survey, then, of "non-practitioners", to determine the percentages that are similarly confused? Or perhaps your sense is merely anecdotal. ;)

VOID

OK, here's the survey. Its an essay question and you can be the first to take it:

Can a well-designed building be ugly?
On the internet, no one knows if you're a dog...or an architect, or whatever - ya just don't know who the other forumers really are or what they do - so you make points with strength of argument, rather than by asserting credentials, or by disparaging other forumers...and we are now officially off topic. Does your client find it "ugly"? Who is your client and what is the program? Are you getting paid, or is there a hold on the check? ;) My point is that the high tone is rather pissy and adds nothing to the discussion.

Back on topic, I recall that the roads which run through Rockefeller Center are privately owned as well, but continue the grid so as to seemlessly merge with it; its owners must close down the streets for one day each year, so as to prevent public use from converting the private property to public...not sure if this is the case in IL as well?

the roads which run through Rockefeller Center are privately owned as well, but continue the grid so as to seemlessly merge with it

The only private street in Rockefeller Center is Rockefeller Plaza, which cuts the long blocks between Fifth and Sixth Avenues. It intersects the two intervening streets, if that's what you mean by "seamlessly merge."

Merchandise Mart Plaza is a good Chicago example of a Rockefeller Plaza-type private street. A lot of people don't realize that was supposed to be part of a Wacker Drive equivalent along the north bank of the river.

Chicago had a lot of private streets in the Central Manufacturing District (and later CMD developments), but most of those have been taken over by the city in recent years. A more troubling trend has been the city allowing private control of public streets, usually ones that serve one specific industrial operation. A good downtown example is Hubbard east of Desplaines, now controlled by Blommer Chocolate.

its owners must close down the streets for one day each year, so as to prevent public use from converting the private property to public...not sure if this is the case in IL as well?

In Illinois, the period of adverse use (for a prescriptive easement) must be at least twenty (20) years, but does not arise if the owner of the servient estate posts a conspicuous notice on the real estate stating that the use of it is permitted and subject to his/her control. Illinois Code §735-5/13-122. This is why you see little bronze plaques noting the property lines and saying "permission to pass by control of owner" on downtown plazas in Chicago.

The only private street in Rockefeller Center is Rockefeller Plaza, which cuts the long blocks between Fifth and Sixth Avenues. It intersects the two intervening streets, if that's what you mean by "seamlessly merge."
I mean that it is on the grid - not a cul-de-sac - and not otherwise obvious to traffic that it is a private road (until it shuts down :) )
Merchandise Mart Plaza is a good Chicago example of a Rockefeller Plaza-type private street. A lot of people don't realize that was supposed to be part of a Wacker Drive equivalent along the north bank of the river.
Cool!

In Illinois, the period of adverse use (for a prescriptive easement) must be at least twenty (20) years, but does not arise if the owner of the servient estate posts a conspicuous notice on the real estate stating that the use of it is permitted and subject to his/her control. Illinois Code §735-5/13-122. This is why you see little bronze plaques noting the property lines and saying "permission to pass by control of owner" on downtown plazas in Chicago.

That is the open & notorious element of adverse possession. I'm referring to state control. Thanks though for posting it.

I'm not sure what "state control" has to do with it. Rockefeller Center closes its street one day a year so New York's adverse possession period can never be reached.

Can you guys clarify what you are talking about here in regards to 'prescriptive easements' and 'possession periods'?

So tying this all together, can the city of Chicago eventually 'seize' control of the Roosevelt Collection's central road?

I'm not sure what "state control" has to do with it. Rockefeller Center closes its street one day a year so New York's adverse possession period can never be reached.

The adverse possession statute you cite is for a civil action (private citizen v private citizen). States (city, county, state, fed governments) do not adversely possess - they have other constitutional mechanisms at their disposal.

...So tying this all together, can the city of Chicago eventually 'seize' control of the Roosevelt Collection's central road?
Bingo - this is what I'm asking, too. Is there a mechanism here in Chicago, as there is in NYC, for the city to take control? Mr Downtown has helpfully posted a statute above, but not the correct one. Just curious, really - no biggy. :)

Governments normally take control through dedication of streets, done when property is subdivided into smaller parcels. In this case the city would probably decline to accept "South LaSalle Street." It's built atop a private parking garage with complicated cross-easement and maintenance issues, and it doesn't really serve as a thoroughfare.

A city can also condemn property for public use, to create a new street. A good Chicago example would be the extension of Ogden Avenue from Union Park to Lincoln Park in the 1920s. During that same period, hundreds of miles of streets were also widened by condemning property.

In other cases, the public acquires the right to travel on roads through long periods of use not protested by the owner. This right is known as an easement by prescription, and in Illinois requires 20 years uninterrupted and notorious use. A number of Chicago streets are simply shown on the Sidwell's maps as "open on the ground." Ownership of those streets never vests in the city (unless the city sues for possession), but the city nevertheless improves and maintains the streets on behalf of the public. If they chose to protest, utilities and street railway companies could probably avoid paying a franchise tax for using those streets.

It appears that the original downtown streets in the School Section (the area bounded by State, Madison, Halsted, and Roosevelt) were never properly dedicated. So technically the city (and the public) have only an easement to use them rather than a true fee-simple ownership. This came to light when lawyers for First National Bank were discussing with the city the proper fees for building the tunnel to Two First National Plaza. Because First National owned the land under and above the streets, they were able to put tellers in Three First National Plaza in the early 80s without violating the prohibition against branch banking.

On the internet, no one knows if you're a dog...or an architect, or whatever - ya just don't know who the other forumers really are or what they do - so you make points with strength of argument, rather than by asserting credentials, or by disparaging other forumers...

[snip]



VOID

Governments normally take control through dedication of streets, done when property is subdivided into smaller parcels. In this case the city would probably decline to accept "South LaSalle Street." It's built atop a private parking garage with complicated cross-easement and maintenance issues, and it doesn't really serve as a thoroughfare.

A city can also condemn property for public use, to create a new street. A good Chicago example would be the extension of Ogden Avenue from Union Park to Lincoln Park in the 1920s. During that same period, hundreds of miles of streets were also widened by condemning property.

In other cases, the public acquires the right to travel on roads through long periods of use not protested by the owner. This right is known as an easement by prescription, and in Illinois requires 10 years uninterrupted and notorious use. A number of Chicago streets are simply shown on the Sidwell's maps as "open on the ground." Ownership of those streets never vests in the city (unless the city sues for possession), but the city nevertheless improves and maintains the streets on behalf of the public. If they chose to protest, utilities and street railway companies could probably avoid paying a franchise tax for using those streets.

It appears that the original downtown streets in the School Section (the area bounded by State, Madison, Halsted, and Roosevelt) were never properly dedicated. So technically the city (and the public) have only an easement to use them rather than a true fee-simple ownership. This came to light when lawyers for First National Bank were discussing with the city the proper fees for building the tunnel to Two First National Plaza. Because First National owned the land under and above the streets, they were able to put tellers in Three First National Plaza in the early 80s without violating the prohibition against branch banking.


I thought the duration for a prescriptive easement for Illinois was 20 years?

"In Illinois, the period of adverse use must be at least twenty (20) years. This type of easement does not arise if the owner of the servient estate posts a conspicuous notice on the real estate stating that the use of it is permitted and subject to his/her control. Illinois Code §735-5/13-122."

Also, I am pretty sure the city could use the adverse possession mechanism to claim title to the streets.

"In Illinois, the duration of such possession is seven (7) years when made under color of title and twenty (20) years otherwise. Illinois Code §735-5/13 through 101, 107, 109, 110."

Color of title is basically when the actual title or deed for the property was not recorded properly.

Has this been resolved? Obviously the streets are considered right-of-way and are either dedicated to the city or IDOT at this time.

Sorry for the typo on 20 years; I've fixed it.

Has this been resolved? Obviously the streets are considered right-of-way and are either dedicated to the city or IDOT at this time.

No, there's no need for the city to take fee-simple possession or title. The public simply has the right to cross the property of abutting property owners.

IDOT generally owns nothing except the ROW under purpose-built state highways. In Chicago, I can't think of any other than the expressways.

Agreed, Fido...

Woof! :lol:

Okay Mr. Downtown - as often as I find myself disagreeing with you, I have, simply, to applaud your knowledge. It's absolutely baffling. You are quite the resource.

Okay, that's the last nice thing I'm going to say... I promise :P. I do have a reputation to uphold!

So getting back to Roosevelt Collection, the road running through it will likely never be dedicated, but it can become a public right of way by 2027-8 via this 'prescriptive easement'? Is that correct?

If so, that's good enough for me..

So getting back to Roosevelt Collection, the road running through it will likely never be dedicated, but it can become a public right of way by 2027-8 via this 'prescriptive easement'? Is that correct?

No. Centrum will put a plaque in the sidewalk reading "Access Subject to Control of Owner." That satisfies the Illinois statute and protects against adverse possession or prescriptive easements in favor of the public.

^Exactly. You can think of the 20 year period as the statute of limitations for bringing an action in ejectment against trespassers.

IDOT generally owns nothing except the ROW under purpose-built state highways. In Chicago, I can't think of any other than the expressways.

What about all the state highways? Lake Shore Drive, North Avenue, Irving Park Road, etc? (And I am pretty sure parts of Wacker Drive are IDOT too).
My understanding is the roads belong to IDOT but there is an agreement in place that roads other than the interstates are maintained by the city.

What about all the state highways? Lake Shore Drive, North Avenue, Irving Park Road, etc?

Preexisting city streets that became part of the state highway network. The state gives money to maintain them and may even handle some of the construction, but the actual ROW is owned by the city.

I won't swear that there are no odd parcels near Dunning or Ford City owned by IDOT, but for the most part the state highways in Chicago are simply numeric designations given preexisting city streets.

Expressways, of course, required condemnation of existing lots, and ownership of most of those went to IDOT. I don't know for sure about the Eisenhower, though, which was built in part by the city and Cook County. And a really wild case is the Skyway, built entirely by the city. Since federal regulations never contemplated city ownership of an Interstate highway, a few years ago CDOT had to change the signs from "I-90" to read "TO I-90."

http://www.suntimes.com/classifieds/homes/homelife/188875,HOF-News-digest29.article

Some areas hot even as market cools

December 29, 2006
BY BILL CUNNIFF Real Estate Reporter

Roosevelt Collection

For example, about 1,000 lofts and high-rise condos are planned at the Roosevelt Collection, a $900 million mixed-use residential and retail enclave planned on the north side of Roosevelt, just east of Wells in the South Loop.

The first residential phase of the project consists of 342 loft-style condominiums planned above retail shops at 150 W. Roosevelt. Base prices range from the upper $200,000s to the $600,000s. Later, two 40-story high-rise condominium towers are planned.

Including the Target Store, which already is open, the new neighborhood would have 400,000 square feet of retail space patterned after the North Avenue Corridor, which Centrum Properties developed in Lincoln Park.

"There will be more than 40 high-end retailers when complete," said Jennifer Arons, senior vice president of Centrum Properties. At the north end of the development, plans call for a two-acre park. Call (866) 606-0267, or visit the Web site, www.loftsrc.com.

"Sales on the Near South Side are picking up because buyers are getting increasingly comfortable with the area as retailers move in and as development continues," said Becky Thomson of Remax Vision II in Chicago.

"The interest in residential property as far south as 18th Street has grown noticeably in the last year," she said. "For example, investors who have sold properties in the area near Roosevelt Road are now reinvesting six or eight blocks farther south, and because inventory on the market in the area is substantial, they are getting good deals from developers."

http://www.nearwestgazette.com/Archive/0107/newsstory0107a.htm

Roosevelt’s rising: New development will put street in shopper’s maps

By Jennifer Geiger

The long vacant land on Roosevelt Road at Wells Street that continues north to 9th Street soon will have a new name and bustle with more retail activity than the South Loop has ever seen.

In March, Centrum Properties will break ground on the Roosevelt Collection, filling the 12-acre plot at 150 W. Roosevelt Rd. with what developers hope will be a viable community of lofts, stores, and parks—a development they said this corner of the South Loop needs badly.

The land previously was zoned for 20 million square feet of office space. The Roosevelt Collection will use 12 acres of it for 1,000 lofts and condos on top of an approximately 1,500-space underground parking garage surrounded by a 2.5-acre park, which architects envision being used for concerts, outdoor movies, and farmers' markets.

What sets this development apart from the many buildings replacing the South Loop’s surface parking lots is a “mixed-use urban marketplace” Centrum plans for below the lofts.

“You find mixed use developments like this sometimes in the suburbs of major cities, but to have it in the heart of a real densely populated urban area like this is… unique,” said Lisa Balis, Centrum’s vice president of retail development.

The plans include 400,000 square feet for 40-plus dining, apparel, grocery, and entertainment retailers, including a 16-screen movie theater, a bowling alley, and a health club. The neighborhood has lacked a movie theater since the Village Theater near 9th and State Streets closed two years ago.

These stores will join a growing list of new and future Roosevelt Road merchants such as Target, Whole Foods, DSW Shoes, and Home Depot.

“Roosevelt Road is really starting to emerge as the retail corridor for the South Side of Chicago and the South Loop," Balis said, noting the similarity "to how North Avenue and Clybourn Avenue have emerged over the last decade on the North Side.”

The Roosevelt Collection adds to a sea of new residential buildings in a community divided about many of them. Many residents oppose new condos planned for Polk and Clark Streets and a proposed 80-story condo building that will tower over Grant Park’s southwestern border. Centrum is betting neighbors will accept the Roosevelt Collection, however.

“What’s fantastic about it is that you have an opportunity to live, shop, and pretty much do everything you do on a day-to-day basis right at your fingertips,” said Jordan Cooper, the development’s sales manager.

Centrum estimates the Roosevelt Collection will cost around $900 million to build; it will offer studio and one- and two-bedroom lofts. Limited-time pre-construction studio prices start at $379,000. One-bedrooms are pre-construction priced starting at $269,000 and two-bedrooms begin at $402,000.

Phase one, directly west of Target, will consist of 324 lofts in mid-rise buildings plus retail space below and a pedestrian shopping plaza. North of phase one and bordering 9th Street, phase two consists of a 40-story tower with 676 condos leading out to the proposed park. While units will be mostly one-bedrooms, Cooper expects not just young single professionals will be interested.

“The market is wide open," Cooper said. "This is a…unique product that appeals to a wide variety of people from first-time homeowners, to people who want to move to the city from the suburbs, to people who already live in the South Loop and want a place to shop and meet.”

Many of those South Loop residents were on hand last month for a grand opening reception attended by more than 500 people. Based on the turnout, it appears the development does not need to go far very far to get community approval. Sales figures tell a similar story, with 20% of phase one sold already.

“So far everyone seems really happy and excited about it," Cooper said. "The location is…unique. We’re not blocking any views; we’re surrounded by the river. I think that we’re going to be a true added value to the overall community.”

http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/1007/newsstakr0.jpg

Can we say Navy Pier with residences! I think it is terrible! It looks like a MALL!
Why not make the street a usuable street instead of a slow-traffic pedestrian street? A REAL street would feel much more URBAN! A street with meters, curbs, sewages drains and bike lanes that define true city streets!
And the architecture is ugly! I like the modern glass facades much better than the generic brick and mortar facade. I believe they should use the existing ideas of shopping mixed with lofts and towers and change a few things such as the street. The architecture needs to be MODERN and EDGY! Maybe build three towers instead of one. Alternating heights of 10, 20 and 30 to show some drama and depth. And use green roofs and garden terraces. If we are going to build in the South Loop we have to build it to be urban and distinctive, not suburban and bland!

I could not agree more.

They should tear down the island in the middle and replace it with the world's largest ice rink.:lol:

What could be put there could be cool and feel like a bit of a ped santuarary (like N.Rush) instead I fear that the single use low rise retail there will be the biggest architectural detriment especially since I feel they are going to go cheep.

I think the idea is to have restaurants in the center to help animate the space.

^But it looks like a suburban pad site.

And they keep repeating this, which I hate:
“You find mixed use developments like this sometimes in the suburbs of major cities, but to have it in the heart of a real densely populated urban area like this is… unique,” said Lisa Balis, Centrum’s vice president of retail development.

People need to stop with this "lets create a real street" BS. It's essentially a street that intersects with itself. It will have street parking, sidewalks, and I'm guessing some bike racks will be provided.

We all know that the particulars of this site don't make a through street in the least bit close to possible. So lets just let that argument go. The architecture leaves much to be desired, but I actually don't mind how the development looks in the picture of the model below.

I think over time this will become a valued development, esp as it sparks development around it. And it's NOTHING like the strip malls and shopping malls of yesteryear. Everybody keeps forgetting that people will be living here, it's pedestrian-oriented, and for pedestrians at least it's not really a cul-de-sac.

Wow I can't believe how much my opinion has changed about this development, but I think the positives add up way more than the negatives about it do.

..

People need to stop with this "lets create a real street" BS. It's essentially a street that intersects with itself. It will have street parking, sidewalks, and I'm guessing some bike racks will be provided.

We all know that the particulars of this site don't make a through street in the least bit close to possible. So lets just let that argument go. The architecture leaves much to be desired, but I actually don't mind how the development looks in the picture of the model below.

I think over time this will become a valued development, esp as it sparks development around it. And it's NOTHING like the strip malls and shopping malls of yesteryear. Everybody keeps forgetting that people will be living here, it's pedestrian-oriented, and for pedestrians at least it's not really a cul-de-sac.

Wow I can't believe how much my opinion has changed about this development, but I think the positives add up way more than the negatives about it do.
Well said TUP!

TUP - I couldnt agree with you more.

If any of you guys complaining about this lived in the South Loop, you would be grateful that someone is building it. If you knew anything about this parcel and the challenges to build it (the grade difference, the market, the rail yards), you would realize that it is a shock that something will ever be built here. I have to go to the East Side AMC (E Illinois St) to catch a movie! We need a centralized park here. We need more retail. This will start the domino effect for more development to come on these empty parcels that have sit barren throughout the development of the city. Who are you to say that this is not good enough for the South Loop?

There has been a lot of mention here about disliking the suburban nature of Roosevelt Collection and its fake, almost disneyesque, nature.

Those are legitamite criticism. But architecture is a product of its times. and it is roosevelt collections that is popping up - both large and small - in our cities and suburbs today.

For those who agree with the above RC observations, if you were an architect, how would you design such a large scale residential and retail project in a prime downtown waterfront location? How would you cut new ground, avoid the plastic look, and not try to recreate pre-WWII America in a sanitized and stereotypic fashion?

I have a request for Mr. Downtown, PRB, et al....

Can I get a site plan for the Roosevelt Collection? I'm working on doing massing models of all the current South Loop developments for Google Earth's 3D Buildings set, and the Roosevelt Collection is one of the last major pieces. (A site plan for 900 South Clark wouldn't hurt, either...)

Thanks in advance.

I realize that the major discussion of this development was a couple weeks ago, but I just wanted to mention that as a South Loop resident, I overwhelming support this proposed development....should be great for the neighborhood!

Here's what I have from the original site plan. The flyaround video showed some things, particularly the steps at the north end, differently.

http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/2900/rooseveltcollectionplan2zo.png

Great! One thing I noticed, though - this site plan does not include the Taylor Street Extension or Bridge, which would form the northern boundary of the Roosevelt Collection site?

A new Taylor street would only extend east to Wells--and it may be 20 years before anything is done on a bridge. The Metra embankment is too low to get under and too high to go over. The LaSalle Park PD doesn't include any provision for Taylor Street.

Damn, it'd be nice if we could get Taylor to go though to Clark. The corridor is intact (as gardens) all the way to Plymouth Ct in Dearborn Park.

As for crossing the viaduct - I've seen examples in Milwaukee of underpasses where the rail is above ground by a yard or two and the road dips a few yards beneath it. You just have to give trucks alternate routes because the clearance for vehicles is low. I'm sure there are some in Chicago somewhere, but I can't recall any. I'm sure it's possible to cross the viaduct, just costly.

Hopefully we can get a traffic survey on Taylor justifying further construction. Of course, once more area residents get angry at having to go up to Harrison or down to Roosevelt to cross the river, we'll get a bridge just for political reasons.

From what I think someone at Roosevelt Collection told me, the 9th street continuation will go all the way from Clark to Wells, and will connect under the Metra Tracks. Looking at this map, it looks as if the street stops just short of the Metra tracks on both sides?

Also, from talking to someone at RC, the parking garage will be lined with a few street-side stores on Wells, which should be nice....much, much more inviting than just a wall.

What are you showing just east of the Paper Place? Is that a proposed development by Centrum?

Damn, it'd be nice if we could get Taylor to go though to Clark. The corridor is intact (as gardens) all the way to Plymouth Ct in Dearborn Park.

As for crossing the viaduct - I've seen examples in Milwaukee of underpasses where the rail is above ground by a yard or two and the road dips a few yards beneath it. You just have to give trucks alternate routes because the clearance for vehicles is low. I'm sure there are some in Chicago somewhere, but I can't recall any. I'm sure it's possible to cross the viaduct, just costly.

Hopefully we can get a traffic survey on Taylor justifying further construction. Of course, once more area residents get angry at having to go up to Harrison or down to Roosevelt to cross the river, we'll get a bridge just for political reasons.

I've always thought that having a bridge at Polk would be better than Taylor since Polk actually goes all the way through. If you take Taylor to Wells, it would be a bunch of zig-zagging to get back on the street grid. What would you think about a pedestrian bridge across the river?

Hmm.... tough question. First of all, Polk is vacated between Canal and the river. However, it has an full sidewalk, for reasons unknown.

The reason a bridge is preferred at Taylor is because Polk stops at the UIC campus on the west. Taylor is continuous out to Western (but it downgrades to a neighborhood street at Morgan).

A pedestrian bridge at Polk would do wonders. Due to heavy postal traffic, I don't think an auto bridge will be built there any time soon, though.

..

..

Also: Was there ever a bridge at Taylor? In Google Earth, there appear to be remnants of bridge on both sides of the river at Taylor. Polk too, but lesser so.

Long story. Before 1929, there were bridges on both streets. Back in those days, the whole Riverside Park/LaSalle Park was railyards, with alternating blocks of warehouses. Both streets led from the west directly into the railyards to access freight areas, warehouses, etc. and all the way east to State.

In 1929, they straightened a long bend in the river from Polk to 18th, digging a new straight channel for the river and then filling in the old one with what they dug out. The Taylor Street bridge had to be torn down to dig the new channel, and it was never replaced.

The Polk Street bridge was just to the north of the straightening project, and it survived intact. However, it was an ancient, unsafe swing bridge, with a pylon in the middle that obstructed river traffic. Soon, it was also removed, but the viaducts leading up to it remained on the east side until the demolition of Grand Central Station in 1971, and on the west side until the demolition of the Marshall Field's River Warehouse/construction of the new Post Office in 1993.

[/storytime]

The site plan looks like shit.

How am I supposed to make any sense of it? All I see are curvy buildings, driveways, inward-oriented cul-de-sacs, and excessively large setbacks from the street. Is this my Dearborn Park nightmare revisited?

Who's the douchebag behind this horrendous joke of a plan?

Remember that a new 9th Street will go under the Metra tracks, probably in the next couple of years. In early permutations of the LaSalle Park plan a Taylor Street crossing was anticipated, but the problems with getting under the Metra tracks forced a 9th Street undercrossing instead. I agree it's a shame it won't line up with anything east or west.

Polk Street had a bridge until 1967. I believe it was the city's last center-pivot swing bridge (for autos).

The Taylor Street bridge history is more intriguing. When the river was rechanneled in 1927-29, a new Taylor Street bridge was planned. But I can find no evidence it was ever built, and a 1984 Tribune story says it was not. Newspaper stories from the 1930s discuss PWA grants for the bridge, but 1938 aerials show only the counterweight pits still visible in aerials today. My best guess is that those were dug, either as part of the river rechanneling or as the first phase of a PWA project, and the project was put aside and never resumed.

I'm not sure how long ago this work was done, but there is about 50 feet or so of what I assume would be part of the proposed Taylor Street Bridge already constructed....just east of Canal and just north of the newly constructed Southgate Market.

urb,

this is LA type development,
great for LA, strange for chicago.

..

Thanks for posting the site plans. Looks like they forgot Burnhan Pointe next to Folio Square.

Are the townhomes shown behind 900 S Clark blocking the parking garage still planned? I thought those were omitted.

..

- edit

Wow, this could be incredible for the south loop, but the way this thing is designed is a traffic nightmare. However, people will just need to stop driving their cars all the time, so this negative point I just brought up could end up being a good thing. I can't see Bon-ton on the other side of roosevelt, that makes no sense economically- unless another large development goes up there.

For the past few days, there have been a few things of machinery on the RC site, including a backhoe that has started digging up some stuff...not sure if this is related to the construction of Roosevelt Collection at all or if it is related to something else?

..

I'm going on old info, but it doesn't seem like they sold many units in their first phase, which seems kind of odd since people will have access to lots of shopping right outside their door.

I'm going on old info, but it doesn't seem like they sold many units in their first phase, which seems kind of odd since people will have access to lots of shopping right outside their door.

I could be mistaken, but I think that 1-bedrooms are starting in the $300's? If that's the case, that could be part of the reason why their sales haven't been stellar, as their prices are pretty pricey for the South Loop.

^ exactly, why would someone pay that for a one bedroom when they could pay that for a one bedroom, parking, and great lake views at other developments (central station, marquee, 1720..etc.) Not to mention the amount of hectic mayhem people living in RC will have to deal with. There are simply more attractive places to live for the same price.

The places at RC are top of the line with its standard amenities. Plus, they have the large windows and high ceilings that are hard to come by. I know they sold 65 units within the first week after their grand opening party... although that is probably a drop in the bucket. Based on previous posts (Carsons posts), it sounds like they have all of their retail lined up, which might be enough to secure the loans to break ground. Once this is complete, I have a good feeling that people will catch on. I had heard at one point that they would break ground in MARCH. It is a short work to the CBOT and plenty of other downtown offices and I believe they are trying to lure the yuppies (in fact in their rendering, it is funny cuz the CBOT stands out more than any other building in the background).

The places at RC are top of the line with its standard amenities. Plus, they have the large windows and high ceilings that are hard to come by. I know they sold 65 units within the first week after their grand opening party... although that is probably a drop in the bucket. Based on previous posts (Carsons posts), it sounds like they have all of their retail lined up, which might be enough to secure the loans to break ground. Once this is complete, I have a good feeling that people will catch on. I had heard at one point that they would break ground in MARCH. It is a short work to the CBOT and plenty of other downtown offices and I believe they are trying to lure the yuppies (in fact in their rendering, it is funny cuz the CBOT stands out more than any other building in the background).

I agree. I do think that RC has a lot to offer for someone looking for a condo. I guess that given that they do have so much to offer, spyguy was curious why the condos haven't sold at a blistering pace like they have at 1720 South Michigan or some Museum Park buildings....my guess was that the higher prices make the deal a little less sweet.

While their sales won't break any records, it still seems like they are still selling a decent amount of condos...and like you mentioned, with all of the retail that they may have lined up, given that they are a mixed-use development, my guess is that they may not need to sell as many residential units to secure a loan.

Regardless, I am definitely excited about this development...it will bring a lot of amenities to the neighborhood that are greatly needed, not to mention it will be transorming an enormous area of wasteland into an area that should be a vibrant part of the neighborhood!

..

We are relocating a 30" gas line and some MCI fiber.

..

Welcome, Centrum. Are you representing the firm with same name?

Welcome, Centrum. Are you representing the firm with same name?

yes

Welcome to the forum Centrum!

This project holds a lot of interest for many of us here. I hope that you will check in frequently and participate. Remember to check the "South Loop Development" thread as well as this one for Roosevelt Collection commentaries and inquiries.

So, when will we see some dirt getting pushed around?

Very soon. We will start with tunnel grouting and then test piles.

Centrum - our new inside guy! Well thanks for participating and welcome to the forum.

..

You've got lots of tunnels under and adjacent to the site. Do you have grout them all?

Please tell us about the procedure too. Do you need to run grout lines throughout the tunnel and pump it in? Or do you just bore a hole and pour it in? Do you need to create bulkheads first?

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/162/mappz7.jpg

We have about 1000' to grout, and we are not grouting all of the them - just the ones that are close to the piles, of which we have about 3000. We need to construct bulkheads and we drill several holes to pump grout in. We also need to construct a permanent access shaft.

We are going to start that work around April 30th.

I'll try to stay current on questions, but I have limited time.

Drew

We have about 1000' to grout, and we are not grouting all of the them - just the ones that are close to the piles, of which we have about 3000. We need to construct bulkheads and we drill several holes to pump grout in. We also need to construct a permanent access shaft.

We are going to start that work around April 30th.

I'll try to stay current on questions, but I have limited time.

Drew

Centrum, you rock. Thanks for the info; I love the fact that these forums attract other professions, who work, breathe construction in addition to all of the skyscraper fans who just love great buildings. Good luck and keep us posted. :)

We have about 1000' to grout, and we are not grouting all of the them - just the ones that are close to the piles, of which we have about 3000. We need to construct bulkheads and we drill several holes to pump grout in. We also need to construct a permanent access shaft.

We are going to start that work around April 30th.

I'll try to stay current on questions, but I have limited time.

Drew

Looking out my window a little while ago, it looks like Centrum and his coworkers may have started that work...

Centrum, you rock. Thanks for the info; I love the fact that these forums attract other professions, who work, breathe construction in addition to all of the skyscraper fans who just love great buildings. Good luck and keep us posted. :)

I'll second that. Thanks for giving us your insider's perspective on this project. Drop by any time and let us know what's happening.

Yes - we started pot holing yesterday and tunnel work started wednesday. The test pile rig will show up Saturday from Burnham Point - Walsh is moving it over.

Centrum, could you possibly please post renderings of the two high-rise towers that are attached to this development? Thanks in advance if it's a possibility.

Roosevelt Collection looking north on Wells - Fencing all up

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2767.jpg

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2765.jpg

Looks like the cassions are comming soon
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2766.jpg

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2764.jpg

Crane being assembled on site
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2763.jpg
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2762.jpg

Centrum I thought you guys had all the land along Wells? This lot look good size and it buts up against the existing 801 S. Wells Loft. What have you heard?
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2768.jpg

^ Wow, so it's finally about to start. Great news

TUP: I couldn't believe what I saw when I rode over there. The length of this project along wells is unbelievable. Before today I only look at it from Roosevelt looking North.

TUP: I couldn't believe what I saw when I rode over there. The length of this project along wells is unbelievable. Before today I only look at it from Roosevelt looking North.

In response to your question about the lot for sale at 801 South Wells....I could be mistaken, but I believe that RC only goes from Roosevelt to where 9th street would be. There is a separate lot between Polk and 9th, along Wells.

That is correct, except that there is a loft building at the corner of Polk & Wells (801).

The vacant lot in question is not part of the development. Like the sign says, it's for sale (at a largely prohibitive price).

What was that building U/C in the background?

What was that building U/C in the background?

900 South Clark

What was that building U/C in the background?

900 S. Clark. It's an SCB design, although they don't feature on their website. Development is by AMLI, so it will be all rental residences with maybe some retail. I pulled this small rendering from their website:

http://www.amli.com/static/images/CommunityPhotos/900-cam-414x307-building01.jpg

Targeted to be LEED Silver, and it is getting permit under the Chicago Green Permit program. It is flying up.

we only go to 9th street on the west side. We go all the way to Polk on the east side.

We've started to drill grout shafts to fill the tunnel. The steel shaft you see is for an tunnel access shaft.

Test piles should start today (Monday). We are off and running.

..

Centrum, could you possibly please post renderings of the two high-rise towers that are attached to this development? Thanks in advance if it's a possibility.

I have no way of linking the pdfs.

^^ Maybe you could do a screenshot, save it as an image, and post it. Just an idea

I have no way of linking the pdfs.

www.yousendit.com

Just upload your file (send it to your own email address), and it will stay available for 7 days. The website will provide you with a link that you can post here.

Thanks for the efforts, and all the great information.

Centrum

I was wondering how many Tower Cranes you guys are going to have up when you start building the midrises? 2, 3, 4? This is going to look great:banana: :banana:

Centrum

I was wondering how many Tower Cranes you guys are going to have up when you start building the midrises? 2, 3, 4? This is going to look great:banana: :banana:

3 pile rigs and 3 tower cranes.

Wow! Centrum, at this point can you share any of the retailers slated to set up shop at the Roosevelt Collection?

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/DSCN2803.jpg

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/DSCN2804.jpg

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/DSCN2805.jpg

Awesome photos Tom. Great job.

Wow! Centrum, at this point can you share any of the retailers slated to set up shop at the Roosevelt Collection?

Kerasotes Theater is signed - 90,000sf.
We have several other leases in the works - I can't disclose the names until the leases are signed.

We've sold about 137 residential units out of 342.

Kerasotes Theater is signed - 90,000sf.
We have several other leases in the works - I can't disclose the names until the leases are signed.

We've sold about 137 residential units out of 342.

Thanks! If youd don't mind me asking, how does the financing part of the project work since it is such a unique configuration of a living center? Typically, you see lenders wanting to see 50% sales before they extend a loan. In this case, how do you secure a loan with less than 40% sold and with only one lease? Do you have letters of intent from the potential tenants to help underwrite the project?

...

Kerasotes Theater is signed - 90,000sf.
We have several other leases in the works - I can't disclose the names until the leases are signed.

We've sold about 137 residential units out of 342.


That will be a welcome amenity in this nieghborhood!:banana:
Please tell us a Trader Joe's is going in there! (When you can)

I've had my eye of this one since the begining. I think the development is good for the city and should be welcomed but my question to you Centrum, will your company change to exterior look of this project? From an aesthetic point of view this project is far from the potential it can have. As I mention before I like the project, not happy with the look. If the exterior can be changed, the potential for this project to be a tourist destination is finaminal. I think a MORE modern or glassier look would help. Bilbao and Millinium Park has shown that a bold vision can spark world-wide attention. And world-wide attention mean easy marketing and easy sells. I'm not saying redo the whole thing, I am saying is a diffent look would really help this project transform from a city project to a world renown location.

I've had my eye of this one since the begining. I think the development is good for the city and should be welcomed but my question to you Centrum, will your company change to exterior look of this project? From an aesthetic point of view this project is far from the potential it can have. As I mention before I like the project, not happy with the look. If the exterior can be changed, the potential for this project to be a tourist destination is finaminal. I think a MORE modern or glassier look would help. Bilbao and Millinium Park has shown that a bold vision can spark world-wide attention. And world-wide attention mean easy marketing and easy sells. I'm not saying redo the whole thing, I am saying is a diffent look would really help this project transform from a city project to a world renown location.

Centum- I have to agree with RW55. Much of the early discussion on RC was how suburban the design was. I can't imaging that your changing it give that fact that your well along the way. But from a design perspective I think that the tread would liked something more. I would like to hear what the design teams thoughts were.

Is that tower in the back still a part of the plan?

True that any major change maybe quite late but I still think a cosmetic change is still likely. Using Glass and steel as oppose to brik my improve the aesthetics of it all.

I also wish there was no crime, no pollution, and that the world was perfect. I'm happy just to have something like this in the south loop, and I think we shouldn't be so picky all the time about something like this that will influence the development of many great highrises in the future. This thing isn't meant to be an architectural wonder- it's meant to create more activity in the local economy and act as a catalyst for more future development. The housing market is cooling even here, but when this thing really gets going, I guarantee we'll see a lot more development than even most of us optimistic high rise nerds expect. This thing will have a greater impact than I think any of us could possibly anticipate. I'm excited not only for this to be completed, but to see what other projects will emerge because of the addition of all this retail and other services.:cheers:

As I've metioned before, I welcome economic activity to the South Loop but that does not mean we should settle for mediocre architecture. After all this is Chicago, a city well known as the mecca of modern architecture. When Trump revealed this first tower design, the city spoke against it for being bulking and bland. We all can agree that the current design is much better. The Chicago Spire has changed repeatable base of public opinion. If RC only was in a small parcel of land, I'd honestly would not care so much, but the fact is RC take a very parcel of space and it's presence will be felt. There is nothing wrong with voicing ones opinion on the aesthetics of a project, since it has been done so often here and in SP site. While I favor development in the South Loop we should not bite our tongue for asking for better aesthetics. We can all agree that the South Loop need MORE development and development that will compliment the city and the rest of the Loop and not be an island it itself.

Thanks! If youd don't mind me asking, how does the financing part of the project work since it is such a unique configuration of a living center? Typically, you see lenders wanting to see 50% sales before they extend a loan. In this case, how do you secure a loan with less than 40% sold and with only one lease? Do you have letters of intent from the potential tenants to help underwrite the project?

Basically, there is debt and equity and different pieces come in at different times based on certain requirements. I unfortunately cannot get into the details. The normal requirements to open a pure condo project are different on a mixed use project.

Is that tower in the back still a part of the plan?

Yes - but it will be phased.

I've had my eye of this one since the begining. I think the development is good for the city and should be welcomed but my question to you Centrum, will your company change to exterior look of this project? From an aesthetic point of view this project is far from the potential it can have. As I mention before I like the project, not happy with the look. If the exterior can be changed, the potential for this project to be a tourist destination is finaminal. I think a MORE modern or glassier look would help. Bilbao and Millinium Park has shown that a bold vision can spark world-wide attention. And world-wide attention mean easy marketing and easy sells. I'm not saying redo the whole thing, I am saying is a diffent look would really help this project transform from a city project to a world renown location.

I am happy to repond to questions surrounding the facts of the project. I appreciate your opinions, however, I want to avoid debating them on this forum.

Thx,

Centrum-
My point was to never debate.
We all want your project to succeed, my point was the cosmetic aspect of it. Which can be change without adding cost to the construction (metal Vs. brick---------unless you already ordered those bricks)
Example: a modern look with glass and steel would be easier and more quicker to place , clean and mantain then brick. Look at the Federal plaza or the Inland Steel builing, it is it's simplicity that makes it more. There are also engineering ways that require less foundation thus lowering the cost. There were ways to lower the cost of this project and give you an optimal profit line. Centrum, I'm not trying to debate you or put your company down, it has made many fine projects. I'm just trying to be your Muse here and giving you a little friendly neighborhood advise.

Centrum-
My point was to never debate.
We all want your project to succeed, my point was the cosmetic aspect of it. Which can be change without adding cost to the construction (metal Vs. brick---------unless you already ordered those bricks)
Example: a modern look with glass and steel would be easier and more quicker to place , clean and mantain then brick. Look at the Federal plaza or the Inland Steel builing, it is it's simplicity that makes it more. There are also engineering ways that require less foundation thus lowering the cost. There were ways to lower the cost of this project and give you an optimal profit line. Centrum, I'm not trying to debate you or put your company down, it has made many fine projects. I'm just trying to be your Muse here and giving you a little friendly neighborhood advise.

Changing building materials, on any project, after it has been designed and permitted is not easy and usually does not save money. Additional design fees, schedule delays, and permit revisions usually soak up any cost savings.

thank you for your answer Centrum.

Centrum, I was hoping you might be able to answer the question as to why there is always the one tower shown on the renderings, when I thought that originally there were two high-rise towers planned for this site? Or am I just imagining things - also, where is the second tower relative to the large one which is always shown on the renderings?

Thanks!

..

I know you weren't asking me, but allow me to try to answer this.

I believe the second tower idea came from another Centrum/Walsh project that was being studied at Financial and 9th. I've looked back at the older posts, and I can't figure out where we got this idea of a two-tower Roosevelt Collection, except from this mistake. I was curious about this too, and that was the best answer I could arrive at.

Thanks Loopy, but I do remember seeing two separate renderings for the highrise towers, and they were distinct from one another; one was also taller than the other. That is why I had asked Centrum awhile ago if he/she had any of those renderings again. Am I imagining things?? Does anyone else remember the renderings that were posted perhaps even on SSP??

..

Go ahead. Give yourself a headache:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=8721738#post8721738

I knew I wasn't going "loopy" :)

Thanks!

Centrum, I was hoping you might be able to answer the question as to why there is always the one tower shown on the renderings, when I thought that originally there were two high-rise towers planned for this site? Or am I just imagining things - also, where is the second tower relative to the large one which is always shown on the renderings?

Thanks!

we only show 1 tower b/ that is all we have site plan approval for. The north parcel, bound by polk, Metra, 9th and New Financial Place will need site plan approval. The entitlements, however, are in place.

^ Great thanks! Hope you get approval for the second tower soon.

we only show 1 tower b/ that is all we have site plan approval for. The north parcel, bound by polk, Metra, 9th and New Financial Place will need site plan approval. The entitlements, however, are in place.

How tall is that tower? I don't recall the height. It's great to have Centrum's giving us an insight on RC. :okay: Question for Centrum, what's going on in the Cityfront Plaza? BTW, post your reply in the other dedicated thread, not this one.

How tall is that tower? I don't recall the height. It's great to have Centrum's giving us an insight on RC. :okay: Question for Centrum, what's going on in the Cityfront Plaza? BTW, post your reply in the other dedicated thread, not this one.

It will be approximately 500' tall.

Cityfront is going well. There is a lot of demand for our second tower.

Centrum-

On the second tower, would you consider employing a similar strategy that the Blue Cross / Blue Shield did with vertical expansion. Since you could vertically expand your building as oppose to finding and buying new additional land. Having people living inside a building under additional construction is not un heard of. Trump Tower's hotel section will be open while construction continues. Vertical expansion offers future marketing advantage since additional floors would only offer better views and no need for land purchase, or foundation work.

According to Centrum, RC has leased out 80% of the retail so far....

http://chicagorealestatedaily.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=25389

June 20, 2007

Centrum-led venture gets South Loop site for $32 million
By Alby Gallun


A joint venture led by Centrum Properties Inc. has paid $32 million for a South Loop property where it plans to build a mixed-use development with a 400,000-square-foot shopping center and as many as 1,000 condominiums.


Rendering of proposed Roosevelt Collection

The joint venture between Chicago-based Centrum and its longtime partner, Angelo Gordon Co. of New York, has also taken out a $25.2-million loan from LaSalle Bank N.A. to finance the early stages of the project on Roosevelt Road, according to a loan document filed with the Cook County Recorder.

LaSalle has agreed to lend more than $280 million to the developers, who will put in about $70 million of equity, or 20% of the $350 million the project is expected to cost, says Centrum partner Sol Barket.

Called the Roosevelt Collection, the 12-acre development will be the largest mixed-use project in the fast-growing South Loop. Anchored by a 16-screen Kerasotes Showplace Theatre, the project will sit just west of the Target at Roosevelt Road and Clark Street and stretch north to Polk Street. Construction crews have been preparing the site for the past two months.

Buyers have signed contracts for almost half of the 342 condos in the project’s first phase, and retailers have signed leases or letters of intent for about 80% of its retail space, Mr. Barket says. He declines to identify the retailers.

The Centrum joint venture acquired the land from an investor group led by Matthew and Daniel Walsh, principals of the Walsh Group construction firm. At about $61 a square foot, the price is low compared with other recent land sales in the neighborhood that have exceeded $100 a square foot. D2 Realty Services Inc. paid about $94 a square foot for an adjacent property in October.

“It seems like a good price on a square foot basis” and based on what the property’s zoning allows, says Daniel Hyman, president of Millennium Properties R/E Inc., a Chicago-based brokerage.

The Centrum joint venture will turn over almost three acres to the city for a park, one reason for the relatively low price. And it’s an especially challenging site because the developers must build a roughly 30-foot high platform so cars can enter from Roosevelt Road, which is elevated along the property.

A Walsh executive declines to comment on the transaction, which closed May 23, according to deeds filed with the county recorder.

Interesting that the transaction closed May 23, but Centrum started work on the property May 3.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=407268&page=8

......what are you suggesting...?

we started the project before we owned the land. Our agreement with Clark/Taylor allowed for certain work to start early.

Centrum-

On the second tower, would you consider employing a similar strategy that the Blue Cross / Blue Shield did with vertical expansion. Since you could vertically expand your building as oppose to finding and buying new additional land. Having people living inside a building under additional construction is not un heard of. Trump Tower's hotel section will be open while construction continues. Vertical expansion offers future marketing advantage since additional floors would only offer better views and no need for land purchase, or foundation work.

Not a lot of people can afford to do this. It's very expensive to carry all that added expense w/ no revenue. Plus, a bank will not lend on those expenses.

Thanks for patiently answering our questions. We really appreciate all the insider information we receive on this board.

Mr./Ms. Centrum, please tell us all that the residential tower design shown in the renderings is just a placeholder at this point.

Has Centrum considered using someone other than Howard Hirsch & Associates for this tower design, or possibly hiring an exterior envelope architect for a reskinning a-la Jeanne Gang on Lowenberg's Aqua...?

that is not the current design. we use a number of resi architects. Howard is not the only one. We probably won't break out the skin, but I've done that before.

Hey Centrum what do you do over there? Before I moved out of Chicago last month I worked for the company that does all the printing for this project and others from your company. Just wondering if I have ever talked to you.

Hey Centrum what do you do over there? Before I moved out of Chicago last month I worked for the company that does all the printing for this project and others from your company. Just wondering if I have ever talked to you.

Cushing?

^^ yeah how did you know?

Any Pics of the site? Also Whats the Curve look like lately? I am out of town

Any Pics of the site? Also Whats the Curve look like lately? I am out of town

The Curve has been scrapped - at least for the time being. 900 South Clark is in the middle of construction though - I believe they are on the 15th floor right now.

The Curve has been scrapped - at least for the time being.

^ Where did you hear that? There have been conflicting reports about this

^ Where did you hear that? There have been conflicting reports about this

I read it on one of the posts either here or on SSP, maybe 2-3 months ago. Since my knowledge of the Curve's status is only second hand, I could definitely be wrong. What conflicting reports have you heard that point toward the Curve still being planned to be built?

I read it on one of the posts either here or on SSP, maybe 2-3 months ago. Since my knowledge of the Curve's status is only second hand, I could definitely be wrong. What conflicting reports have you heard that point toward the Curve still being planned to be built?

^ I read that post as well, but later on somebody said that this claim was untrue. At this point, I have no idea what's going on with that project

Any Pics of the site?
This morning:

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/834/rooscoll02jul07zw6.jpg


Also Whats the Curve look like lately?
Just looks like a piece of dirt. Bonnie Sanchez-Carlson reported at the last Near South Planning Board meeting that D2 had decided not to proceed at this time. However, it's still on D2's website:

http://www.d2realty.com/projects.html

but so is 250 South Wacker, which D2 sold in May to AEW.

So from what it sounds like, D2 hasn't scrapped the Curve - at least not yet....but perhaps may just be waiting a year or two to start construction (or perhaps even longer), until they feel that conditions are more favorable?

We have no idea what D2 plans. We're all just reading goat entrails at this point.

Thanks Mr. DT for the RC pic. The site looks very active. looking forward to progress pics.

I guess I forgot the name of the building that is currently U/C south of Polk on Clark. What is that ones name? Looks like the Curve is going to go between it and Target. I was looking for a pic and some details on the one that is U/C.

Folks - The Curve is alive and well, as mentioned in a Crain's article just 4 weeks ago (long after the rumors of its demise were spread). Kleiman of D2 - this part was certainly inferred by the article - probably wants to give Roosevelt Collection a head start so it has time to open before The Curve opens, which will obviously be a plus for initial leasing. Also, I'm sure he wants to to give AMLI 900 some time to stabilize first as well.....the article stated groundbreaking will be later this year....

But since "Mr. Downtown" can't confirm this, I guess it's just a big question mark.....

Folks - The Curve is alive and well, as mentioned in a Crain's article just 4 weeks ago (long after the rumors of its demise were spread). Kleiman of D2 - this part was certainly inferred by the article - probably wants to give Roosevelt Collection a head start so it has time to open before The Curve opens, which will obviously be a plus for initial leasing. Also, I'm sure he wants to to give AMLI 900 some time to stabilize first as well.....the article stated groundbreaking will be later this year....

But since "Mr. Downtown" can't confirm this, I guess it's just a big question mark.....

That definitely seems like a sound decision on D2's part, and it is great to hear that the Curve may still start construction later on this year :)

I guess I forgot the name of the building that is currently U/C south of Polk on Clark. What is that ones name?

Amli900
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=14054422&postcount=679

I am the project manager for the entire development for Centrum. I also oversee other mixed use projects managed by other developers in our office.

Edit... I tried to respond to an earlier question about what I do.

http://www.suntimes.com/business/456423,CST-FIN-food05.article

A Whole new ballgame
Whole Foods brings rivalry to growing markets

July 5, 2007
BY SANDRA GUY

The Southgate Market shopping center sits amid an explosive retail scene. Home Depot sits a block to the west, while a Roosevelt Collection condo-and-retail center is planned next to the Target store at Roosevelt and Clark. The Roosevelt Collection, just west of the Target store, will house specialty retailers, six or seven restaurants, a high-end coffee shop and, reportedly, retailers such as Victoria's Secret and Banana Republic.

Hmm.. I wonder who the high-end coffee shop is? Argo Tea and Intelligentsia come to mind, as high-end shops interested in downtown locations. Starbucks and Caribou wouldn't be referred to as high-end, probably.

Centrum - I don't expect a response to the previous question about the coffee shop, but can you explain why the stairway at the northern end was reduced in scale? Mr. Downtown described the original plans as a "Spanish Steps" sort of thing, but the only renderings I have seen show a rather narrow, unceremonious staircase. Isn't this kind of short-sighted, considering the growth in the LaSalle Park area and in downtown generally?

The next Friends of Downtown Brown Bag presentation

Thursday, July 26th at 12.15 pm note change of date
Chicago Cultural Center
Millennium Room, 5th floor east

The Roosevelt Collection

This large mixed-use development in the South Loop combines 400,000 square feet of retail, restaurants, and a 16-screen movie theater with more than 350 loft and 300 highrise residential units. Keith Campbell and Ryan Sommers of RTKL Architects will discuss the design on a challenging site promises to become one of Chicago's most striking retail centers as well as a dynamic residential community.

Hmm.. I wonder who the high-end coffee shop is? Argo Tea and Intelligentsia come to mind, as high-end shops interested in downtown locations. Starbucks and Caribou wouldn't be referred to as high-end, probably.

Centrum - I don't expect a response to the previous question about the coffee shop, but can you explain why the stairway at the northern end was reduced in scale? Mr. Downtown described the original plans as a "Spanish Steps" sort of thing, but the only renderings I have seen show a rather narrow, unceremonious staircase. Isn't this kind of short-sighted, considering the growth in the LaSalle Park area and in downtown generally?

The width of the stair had to be reduced b/ CDOT is installing an 8' sewer on the western edge of the stair. We cannot build over it. You might have seen an older design. I think our new design is very attractive and more grand.

Thanks, Centrum.

Could you perhaps post a rendering or drawing that shows the most recent design for the stairs?

www.imageshack.us - takes 10 seconds to upload an image.

Taken today (with AMLI 900 at right)
http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/2039/rooseveltcollectionjo0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Centrum has asked RTKL not to make the long-scheduled presentation on the Roosevelt Collection at Thursday's Friends of Downtown Brown Bag Luncheon.

A substitute program has been arranged. Nathan Mason, of the city's Department of Cultural Affairs, will speak on Public Art Downtown. (http://www.friendsofdowntown.org/index.html)

does anyone know why this development wasn't designed to make use of the waterfront? seems like tweaking its location a bit could have put a lot of the retail and entertainment activity right smack on the river.

does anyone know why this development wasn't designed to make use of the waterfront?

You mean other than the fact that they have no water frontage?

The river was moved west of Wells Street in 1929.

You mean other than the fact that they have no water frontage?

The river was moved west of Wells Street in 1929.

that i didn't realize. i thought their property line went up to the riverfront.

does anyone know why this development wasn't designed to make use of the waterfront? seems like tweaking its location a bit could have put a lot of the retail and entertainment activity right smack on the river.

I would hope that the city has in mind to increase the height of the area around the river south of the loop significantly. It's a ripe spot for a supertall, and the river view could demand a good $. Not to mention, we have to maintain our pride in Chicago and keep the city that invented the skyscraper and the architectural capital of the world alive with respect to both.

In short, I would like to see something tall and beautiful along the river south of the loop.

I would hope that the city has in mind to increase the height of the area around the river south of the loop significantly. It's a ripe spot for a supertall, and the river view could demand a good $. Not to mention, we have to maintain our pride in Chicago and keep the city that invented the skyscraper and the architectural capital of the world alive with respect to both.

In short, I would like to see something tall and beautiful along the river south of the loop.

Supposedly, one of the buildings in the multi-building development on Harrison/Wells just north of River City could be 80 stories. I know that an article on this possible development was posted on one of these threads maybe 2-3 weeks ago.

Supposedly, one of the buildings in the multi-building development on Harrison/Wells just north of River City could be 80 stories.

Actually, the Near South Community Plan sets a limit of 440 feet for the Franklin Point district.

..

Actually, the Near South Community Plan sets a limit of 440 feet for the Franklin Point district.


Do you already need another lecture on what a guideline is and how this particular guideline is outdated? Really, what are you out to prove?

That height limit is needed, to reduce the morning shade on the river and the evening shade in Dearborn Park.

That height limit is needed, to reduce the morning shade on the river and the evening shade in Dearborn Park.

Shade on the river? Is that a problem?

Actually, the Near South Community Plan sets a limit of 440 feet for the Franklin Point district.

WHY!!?!??!!?!

That height limit is needed, to reduce the morning shade on the river and the evening shade in Dearborn Park.


Are you serious or just putting us on? (of course sometimes sarcasm - which I hope you were trying to express - does not translate so well online)

Are you serious or just putting us on? (of course sometimes sarcasm - which I hope you were trying to express - does not translate so well online)

I think he was being sarcastic, pretty much making a "shade" comment along the lines of something that Mr. Downtown would say.

...sarcasm - which I hope you were trying to express - does not translate so well online...

Agreed, but I figured the pure insanity of the actual statement would be enough of a clue for most people. (I have a personal aversion to emoticons and using 'lol'). I can't think of any 'real' reasons why height should be limited along the river. It works so well for the east and near south branches, and I'm hoping it will continue south down to 18th street.

Perhaps the moderators would be willing to create a "Franklin Point Development News" thread and move the last several posts, as this has nothing to do with the Roosevelt Collection. Presumably we will have Franklin Point news to discuss in the next few weeks.

On the second tower, would you consider employing a similar strategy that the Blue Cross / Blue Shield did with vertical expansion. Since you could vertically expand your building as oppose to finding and buying new additional land.

Not economical.

Think about it: the foundation and lower floors of the building will need to be engineered and built to sufficiently hold up of the "complete" building. That puts a lot of costs upfront, with zero guarantee of return during this lifetime -- look how long it's taken to put the tower atop Union Station. Meanwhile, you still have to compete with the guys next door on price, even though your building cost twice as much to build (per square foot).

BCBS could afford those upfront, long-term costs since they, as an owner occupant, did not have high-interest, short-term construction loans (of the variety that condo developers are utterly dependent on) to pay off.

In addition, the liability risk of sending a wayward I-beam through a condo owner's bedroom is much higher than sending one into a hotel room that you own and manage.

Plus, we've proven many times that Chicago's zoning is more of a gentle suggestion than a requirement, so finding additional land is easy. Any parcel, anywhere, can sprout a building of whatever size needed.

Short term gain vs. long term again. It really depends on the developers and their assets and overall goals. Many of your view points hold true on the short term gain. But each developers are different. But most I gather will perer to fallow he former rather then the later. It was a long time since I last posted that, surprise it received a reply. I was surprised to discover the change to the stairs on this project, but I can understand the reasoning behind it.

Hmmm Zoning may not be as easy with new alderman and the occasional NIMBY neighbors.

I looked at the website and now there is a controllable webcam available.

http://www.rclofts.com/constructionCam.html

It's also useful to see the progress of other South Loop projects.

Crane was erected yesterday.

Construction financing has been secured:

http://chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?post_date=2007-10-25&id=26899

What ever happened to Centrum? If your out there lurking we all could use some inside updates?

Post a question and maybe he'll answer. Nothing is going on in this thread except typical gum-flapping about the pros and cons of the NSCP.

that i didn't realize. i thought their property line went up to the riverfront.

we don't own the land between wells and the river.

Post a question and maybe he'll answer. Nothing is going on in this thread except typical gum-flapping about the pros and cons of the NSCP.

Our project has 42 miles of steel piles, more piles than any project in the history of the city of chicago. We are getting ready to pound the 42nd mile next wednesday. We've been pounding piles with three rigs straight since May of 2007. Our third tower crane should be up in a month. First elevated slab will get poured in a week or so.

We've sold 50% of the loft units and leased 50% on the retail space. The project is going great.

Financing closed on the first phase in the face of a tough credit market. There were 6 banks in the syndicate.

Other than that, no new news to report.

..

Centrum, is this future development on Financial Place considered part of Roosevelt Collection, or is it separate?

Is there anything you can tell us about this tower?

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/2436/rooseveltspendser1fp3.jpg


We own that land and is part of our development. That rendering is one plan that we came up with. We are entitled for 600 units. We want to start construction of our first tower before we do anything with that north parcel.

..

http://www.heartlandrebusiness.com/articles/OCT07/highlight1.html

Chicago Retail Market
Edward Zifkin and Greg Moyer

Centrum Properties, with partner Angelo Gordon, is also dealing with the vexing problems of grade and infrastructure with the development of Roosevelt Collection. The project is located just west of the two-story Target at Roosevelt and Clark. The 400,000-square-foot retail component will be anchored by 90,000-square-foot Kerasotes Showplace Theater, Urban Outfitters and H&M.

Another H&M? Really? I suppose it makes sense with all of the college students around, but given the H&M on State and Mich Ave, coupled with the (2) Forever 21s and new Charlotte Russe, it'd be nice to put a minor halt on these types of shops.

Heck, I like to save a dollar or two, but at the same time, can't we get more unique retailers aside from the same discount chain? I know Zara is coming to Mich Ave, but I'd love to see them close by. Zara's received rave reviews for its phenom quick turnaround when it comes to trends and even had a Harvard business case written up about them.

Last tidbit: given the amount of families and new couples moving in to the area, I'd hope to see stores like Ann Taylor, GAP, etc.

I think a north side location for a third H&M would make way more sense. i could imagine it fitting well into the area around belmont, diversey, clark, and broadway ish, which is an established shopping destination, and where there are already a lot of national chains.

Last tidbit: given the amount of families and new couples moving in to the area, I'd hope to see stores like Ann Taylor, GAP, etc.

^ Eh?

You just mentioned getting more unique retailers, yet in the very next paragraph you asked for Ann Taylor and Gap...

Confused..

Thanks. Have you finalized the design of the tower at Roosevelt Collection proper yet? Are there any renderings yet?

We have some plans but they are not 100% final.