daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Development News Forums > General Urban Developments > DN Archives



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old July 21st, 2007, 01:10 AM   #241
Sir Isaac Newton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 346
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by ErmDiego View Post
Would it ever get built with out some financial risk? If, as the article indicates, the sales are "about 200" out of 490, that does not seem that good for all the agressive marketing and publicty (pro & con). And is this likely before the contruction loan is granted (possible investor units held that go back on market)?

Many projects, larger and smaller, have started far later and are cruising at a far better pace on sales. Now granted some of these are under construction, but per other sites like Yo, here are some numbers:

Printers Corner 69% U/C
Vetro 53% U/C
Aqua 87% U/C
340 on the Park, Related Midwest's 62-story tower Lakeshore East - 99%
Waterview Tower, which, at 90 stories 60%
550 St. Clair. 85%
One Museum Park -95% Sold U/C
One Museum Park - West Tower - 75% U/C
1400 Museum Park - 88% U/C
Marquee - 1445 S. Michigan - 87% U/C
Six North Michigan - 30% (and they have not yet opened sales center) U/C
Michigan Avenue Tower II - 85% - U/C
Vision on State - sold out - built
2100 South Indiana 15% - sold - launched 6 weeks ago
1600 Museum Park 60%+U/C
Most of these developments have been selling units on the market for a few years; X/O has only been on the market for a few months! Even with higher prices than most of these projects and in a slower real estate market, X/O has sold more units than many of these projects had sold after a few months....especially Vetro and Printers Corner. Vetro is going to be hurting - they have only sold 53% and they just topped out the building!
Sir Isaac Newton no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old July 21st, 2007, 01:42 AM   #242
ErmDiego
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Isaac Newton View Post
Most of these developments have been selling units on the market for a few years; X/O has only been on the market for a few months! Even with higher prices than most of these projects and in a slower real estate market, X/O has sold more units than many of these projects had sold after a few months....especially Vetro and Printers Corner. Vetro is going to be hurting - they have only sold 53% and they just topped out the building!
They have been marketing since August of last year, right after the Plan Commission , not a few months. Sales started in November or December. show they put out the full press. Would be interesting to see the investor hold in such a project; I would bet it is higher than norm.
ErmDiego no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 21st, 2007, 01:58 AM   #243
Sir Isaac Newton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 346
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by ErmDiego View Post
They have been marketing since August of last year, right after the Plan Commission , not a few months. Sales started in November or December. show they put out the full press. Would be interesting to see the investor hold in such a project; I would bet it is higher than norm.
The amount of time since sales have begun is the more appropriate measure; you're talking about sales percentages - well, you can't sell any condos when you are just marketing them and have not begun sales.

Sales began at most 8 months ago for the first tower (which is more than 60% sold, mind you); sales for the second tower began only 2 months ago, and they have already sold over 30% in that tower. There have been faster selling towers in Chicago, no doubt, but this one is definitely selling faster than average.
Sir Isaac Newton no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 21st, 2007, 08:49 AM   #244
BVictor1
Chicago's #1 Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,185
Likes (Received): 880

Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Yawn View Post
Waterview Tower, which, at 90 stories 60%

From what I've heard coming from the grapevine, I question this particular stat.
I question what you've heard, and raise you...

But that's for the Waterview Tower thread...
BVictor1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 26th, 2007, 05:50 AM   #245
Helmet Yawn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 259
Likes (Received): 0

Are they really going to down-zone this site or is it just a recent NIMBY-backed rumor? Word I hear from DPD is a that lot of people are seriously worried right now in the south loop.
Helmet Yawn no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 27th, 2007, 01:20 AM   #246
InTheLoopSam
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 71
Likes (Received): 0

Chicago Journal goes to bat for X/O!!!!!!!!!

Holy Moses!!!!! The previous bastion of NIMBY Propaganda "journalism", Chicago Journal, has an editorial today singing X/O's praises!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Excerpts from, and link to full article follow....

"New architectural structures should not replicate, but compliment the existing buildings."

"A tall and thin structure would add a needed density to the South Loop, attracting more business. And these types of buildings are also some of the most environmentally sustainable types of development, since there is a higher density of people living on a smaller plot of land. Tall and thin developments, like X/O Condominiums, are the future of urban development."


for full article, click:
http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.a...58&TM=65433.43
__________________
In The Loop, 24/7
InTheLoopSam no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 27th, 2007, 01:39 AM   #247
Helmet Yawn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 259
Likes (Received): 0

I'm not so sure the new alderman down there - or the one that replaced Natarus in the 42nd for that matter - read that publication.
Helmet Yawn no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 27th, 2007, 03:53 AM   #248
NearNorthGuy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 502
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Yawn View Post
I'm not so sure the new alderman down there - or the one that replaced Natarus in the 42nd for that matter - read that publication.
On the contrary, I have firsthand knowledge that the past aldermen of the 2nd and 42nd ward took the Chicago Journal very seriously, with the alderman of the 42nd ward specifically taking Skyline very seriously. In fact, those two publications played important roles, simply by reporting the news, in the ousting of those two aldermen. The same thing happened in the 32nd Ward, where the Chicago Journal and the Booster were the main reasons that Matlak's hi-jinx were exposed for all voters to see.
NearNorthGuy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 27th, 2007, 04:16 AM   #249
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

Kudos to the Journal
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 28th, 2007, 04:22 PM   #250
PrintersRowChemist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 43
Likes (Received): 0

I still see this getting built. The developers have reasonable investment-backed expectations for the project. This is still America and we have the right to improve property. Alderman Bob is a lawyer; he knows to stop this project instead of just slow it down would be a huge legal fight.

Basically, he had to appease the NIMBYs by at least putting up some resistance. If it goes on to be built anyway, he can just tell them, "I tried, but it was too late." and just lay blame on Haithcock.

And the rest of the 2nd ward and city will be happy because X/O will be built
PrintersRowChemist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 28th, 2007, 05:49 PM   #251
skobabe8
Registered User
 
skobabe8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 339
Likes (Received): 20

Quote:
Originally Posted by ErmDiego View Post
Would it ever get built with out some financial risk? If, as the article indicates, the sales are "about 200" out of 490, that does not seem that good for all the agressive marketing and publicty (pro & con). And is this likely before the contruction loan is granted (possible investor units held that go back on market)?

Many projects, larger and smaller, have started far later and are cruising at a far better pace on sales. Now granted some of these are under construction, but per other sites like Yo, here are some numbers:

Printers Corner 69% U/C
Vetro 53% U/C
Aqua 87% U/C
340 on the Park, Related Midwest's 62-story tower Lakeshore East - 99%
Waterview Tower, which, at 90 stories 60%
550 St. Clair. 85%
One Museum Park -95% Sold U/C
One Museum Park - West Tower - 75% U/C
1400 Museum Park - 88% U/C
Marquee - 1445 S. Michigan - 87% U/C
Six North Michigan - 30% (and they have not yet opened sales center) U/C
Michigan Avenue Tower II - 85% - U/C
Vision on State - sold out - built
2100 South Indiana 15% - sold - launched 6 weeks ago
1600 Museum Park 60%+U/C
Hey Erm,

Just wondering...where can you find these numbers? I've purchased a unit at 2100 South Indiana and was told the loft structure is about 55% sold and the adjoining condo tower is about 25%. That was 3 weeks ago. I'd like to believe what I was told, but I am skeptical.
skobabe8 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 28th, 2007, 08:13 PM   #252
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrintersRowChemist View Post
The developers have reasonable investment-backed expectations for the project.
That's the test for a "regulatory taking," not a vested right. In Illinois, the vested right test is "a substantial change of position, expenditures or incurrence of obligations made in good faith by an innocent party under a building permit or in reliance upon the probability of its issuance." Holland & Knight have on their website a good overview of the vested rights doctrine in Illinois.

I went yesterday to get a copy of the actual ordinance Fioretti introduced. It simply repeals the PD and restores DX-5 zoning for the parcel. So I'm not sure where the Crain's reporter got the idea of a 225-foot height limit.
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 28th, 2007, 08:30 PM   #253
BVictor1
Chicago's #1 Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,185
Likes (Received): 880

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
That's the test for a "regulatory taking," not a vested right. In Illinois, the vested right test is "a substantial change of position, expenditures or incurrence of obligations made in good faith by an innocent party under a building permit or in reliance upon the probability of its issuance." Holland & Knight have on their website a good overview of the vested rights doctrine in Illinois.

I went yesterday to get a copy of the actual ordinance Fioretti introduced. It simply repeals the PD and restores DX-5 zoning for the parcel. So I'm not sure where the Crain's reporter got the idea of a 225-foot height limit.
Wasn't it upped to DX-7 due to bonuses? The contribution the developer stated he'd be giving to Glessner House and Affordable Housing will now be reduced.
BVictor1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 28th, 2007, 09:19 PM   #254
PrintersRowChemist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 43
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
That's the test for a "regulatory taking," not a vested right. In Illinois, the vested right test is "a substantial change of position, expenditures or incurrence of obligations made in good faith by an innocent party under a building permit or in reliance upon the probability of its issuance." Holland & Knight have on their website a good overview of the vested rights doctrine in Illinois.

I went yesterday to get a copy of the actual ordinance Fioretti introduced. It simply repeals the PD and restores DX-5 zoning for the parcel. So I'm not sure where the Crain's reporter got the idea of a 225-foot height limit.
Well-stated. The key issue is vested right. An argument could be made, however, that the dissolution of the PD constitutes a regularory taking. It probably wouldn't stick, but if this ends up in court you can bet the developers will file a claim for regulatory taking.

Setting that aside, it seems the developers of X/O complaints would pass the test for a vested right claim. They reasonably relied to their detriment on the previous ordinance: millions in sales have already been agreed upon as well as large sums in soft costs.

My larger point - Fioretti understands all this. I believe his opposition is political move, and a savvy one at that.
PrintersRowChemist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 28th, 2007, 09:23 PM   #255
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

I don't understand the question. The Adopt-a-Landmark and Affordable Housing contributions were offered to get an increase in density under the PD. They can't be used as-of-right.
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 29th, 2007, 12:04 AM   #256
BVictor1
Chicago's #1 Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,185
Likes (Received): 880

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
I don't understand the question. The Adopt-a-Landmark and Affordable Housing contributions were offered to get an increase in density under the PD. They can't be used as-of-right.

That's my point. If this property is forceably downzowned to the DX-5 zoning, then the developers within their right could pull all that funding that was going to support Adopt-a-Landmark and Affordable Housing. Those 2 entities will suffer. I'm just wondering if people have thought about that.

Last edited by BVictor1; July 29th, 2007 at 12:27 AM.
BVictor1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 29th, 2007, 12:25 AM   #257
Chicago Shawn
Registered User
 
Chicago Shawn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Chicago IL
Posts: 361
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
I don't understand the question. The Adopt-a-Landmark and Affordable Housing contributions were offered to get an increase in density under the PD. They can't be used as-of-right.
No they can't, but that was put into the PD. $699,899 will be given each to Affordable Housing and the Glesner House in excahnge for the FAR increase to a 7. It should be noted that the property in question was originally zoned DX-7 while Frankel and Giles was in negotations to purchase the property, but it was downzoned by Heithcock, likley for NIMBY pandering. So, in actuality X/O was NOT an increase in the original zoning, but rather what it has been since the zoning re-write become official in November 2004. Its the same FAR, but instead the city will be recieving two cash payments to bring the zoning back to what it originally was.
Chicago Shawn no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 29th, 2007, 03:03 AM   #258
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

I understand Glessner House is in desperate financial straits. It wouldn't surprise me to see Fioretti pressured with claims that it won't survive unless Kargil is allowed to buy an indulgence.
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 29th, 2007, 04:45 AM   #259
Loopy
Chicago, USA
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 777
Likes (Received): 0

..

Last edited by Loopy; June 18th, 2010 at 12:17 AM. Reason: speling
Loopy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 29th, 2007, 06:58 AM   #260
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

Pressured by Kargil. You don't think they'll spread panic over this issue?

I guess I've never heard anyone from PDNA mention views. Can you offer a citation?
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 10:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu