The Chicago Boom (Manhattan: for rent, neighborhoods, buy)

[the_pines]

Your not to far off. Its actually Paroxetine. You can build the tallest buildings in the world, and it ain't going to do jack to change the living standards or address the gazillion problems we face as humans and Americans. You think high rises and condo's are the only answers for everything. You block yourselves in so much you live in tiny little niches and labels. I hope im wrong. I hope our future isnt so bleak. Bye.

[M TYPE X]

I used to be bitter about Chicago, but it's possible to enjoy both Chicago and go 'back home' to Detroit and Cleveland whenever.

Not every city can be a global city, but at least we have one in the midwest.

[FastFerrari]

nyc and Chicago are the two cities that i must see

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by Drover

If that's supposed to give me some assurance, it doesn't. Have you seen what's going on in the housing market lately? Prices are falling, interest rates are rising, housing turnover is at a 10-year low, new construction is at a 10-year low, and units are sitting on the market for months unless they are very aggressively priced to move. How many people who are supposedly lined up to buy these things have actually bought them outright? How many are going to walk away from their hold deposits because a bunch of the equity in their current homes that they were counting on to leverage their new purchase has disappeared? Or how many had planned to dip into their investment portfolios before they watched them drop 20% of their value? Or how many who theoretically could afford one of these places are nonetheless going to wait and see while we ride out the current investment and housing turbulence? How many are looking at the market right now and asking, "wait -- is this condo really worth what they're asking for it?" I'm sorry, downtown Chicago has not instantly become THAT big of a residential draw that we all of a sudden need thousands of new units there THIS VERY MINUTE. I just don't see it. I hope I'm wrong, I really do. But I have to tell you, looking at all this makes me shake my head right now.

I totally agree!

[NYrules]

Originally Posted by via chicago

the thing is, most of these are not offices. in fact, the only office buildings are the Riverside Plaza location and 300 LaSalle (as well as the BCBS expansion). All the rest are residential condominiums/hotels. The fact is, there is a demand for these buildings or they woulndt be getting built. The Arquitectonica tower was just revealed a couple months back and theres already a waiting list several hundred people long. Aqua is practically sold out. Downtown has transformed from a place that was strictly somewhere to work, into a place to live. 10-20 years ago not a single person would say they want to live near the loop. It was a businesss district, period. Now look at the demand to live in the west/south loop, and many other areas. The south loop neighborhood didnt even exist 10 years ago. Same with a lot of River North. It was all industrial wasteland. This is how Chicago has avoided a lot of the other problems that have plagued rust belt cities. Its desireable to live downtown again. Also, many of these buildings are introducing brands for the first time into the US, which are already pretty familiar and highly regarded overseas (Mandarin Oriental, and Shangri-La hotel which will be in Waterview).

Now thats not to say there isnt a glut of luxury buildings being built right now. But most buildings won't go ahead with construction until they have a certain amount of presales (with the exception of Chicago Spire, which is being financed differently and being marketed to a compeltely different level of buyers).

There are a couple of reasons why there is such a demand on downtown living. It is nice and all downtown, but from what I have read and seen on TV it really has little to do with all the glamor of the downtown address and hub bub going on outside your door.

First off, more and more people now days are choosing to remain single until later in life, thus in turn not having families at such young ages as our parents and grandparents did, so right there a huge difference in lifestyle is obvious from times past to today. Families with kids want good schools, lots of room for their kids to be able to run around and play, playgrounds, a safe environment (ie. not tons of racing cabs and busses to run thier kids over, gangs, bad influences, etc) so all that alone allows a single person without kids to not let things like heavy traffic and lack of playgrounds factor into his/her locating ideology and be able to move into an area where families are currently rather scarce.

Second, and this one is VERY obvious, is the sheer cost to live out further towards the burbs or in the burbs. Fuel costs are outragous now, yet have salaries went up to compensate for this? NO. Auto insurance keeps going up, parking rates are going up, the cost to maintain a vehicle goes up, the vehicles themselves are going up, tolls have gone up, now CTA is going up, yet starting salaries are still pretty much the same as they were in 1995 causing many youngsters coming out of college seeking those white collar jobs to do something people for the past few generations never would have thought of; leave the car behind and rely on their own feet to get around, or take the bus or train (making the burbs an inconvience).

While the cost to live downtown is higher when you look at rents or housing costs, factor in the fact that you will not have a car most likely when living downtown because none is needed and immediately you can wipe out about $600 a month in auto expenses allowing you to put that money into your roof over your head so to say.

Example, you live in lets say Oak Lawn renting a two bedroom apt. for $1000 a month, then add on your utilities and now you're at $1200. Now you haven't gotten to work yet and you work in the loop, so you have a choice; pay for a train ride of which you have to also pay to park in the Metra lot, or pay for a vehicle of which you will have to have anyways because you cannot get around with ease living in the burbs by not having a car. So, add on about another $300 a mo. car payment and $300 a month in gas, next add on the cost for insurance: $100 a mo. and parking fees downtown: $20 a day. Add it all up and your living costs in the burbs are at a minimum of $2300 a mo. Now look at 2 bedroom apts downtown. Surprisingly the rent many times in the high rises will include heat, water, cable, A/C, and in some cases electric for about $2000-$2500 a mo. which to some seems steep at first but look at which way is cheaper or breaks about even. People today are starting to see this and are flocking for the city.

Next and this is a big one, is the sheer time factor involved getting to and from work. Nothing is more aggravating than having to work for 8 hours and then have a 2 hour commute to get home, be it either by being stuck in traffic or on the train of which you will have to walk to, wait in line to get on the thing, wait for it to depart, exit the train, wait in the lot to get out of, and commute home. If you live downtown and work downtown, or if you are really lucky; work in the same building as which you live, you have almost NO commute time of which you are NOT getting paid for anyways giving you between 2-4 hours more free time for you to do whatever you want with.

These three factors are HUGE for people when considering making the move from the burbs back into the city. Ask many of the people that have left suburban life for the urban life as to why they made the move, and in almost all cases, one if not all three of these factors will come up in the conversation. Developers have caught onto this trend and this is the reason you see cranes all over the Loop and South Loop. America way of life is changing.

[via chicago]

as a 23 year old, i agree with all the above. you couldnt pay me to live out in some far off exburb. and i mean that literally. i specifically looked for a job within the city limits, and i waited until i found one. i take a 20 minute train ride to get to work. thats it. i dont own a car, nor do i ever desire to. if i cant get somewhere by public transit, i bike it or walk. the entire world is at my front doorstep. and i can tell you almost all of my peers have a desire to live in the city as well. to be honest, i cant imagine living any other way. i understand kids and schools change things, but i see more people raising kids in the city as well, which i think is great.

everyone else can keep those 2 hour commutes and have their palaces out in the cornfields.

[PAKennedy]

680 N Rush- 752' (proposed)


I absolutely love Rush St. and am a parishioner of Holy Name (that actually huge church that looks dwarfed my that out of place skyscraper in the rendition) and I think this would look atrocious there. I really hope this does not get much further than the proposition.

Other than that the pictures on the first page look awesome and seem like they'll provide some nice new scenery, while others hold on to that classic tall building feel.

[via chicago]

don't look now, but...



Free Article - WSJ.com
Developer Tries Comeback With New Chicago Waldorf
By JENNIFER S. FORSYTH
September 27, 2007; Page B1
.....The Waldorf-Astoria is being built in a partnership with Fordham Co., a Chicago-based high-end residential developer. Preliminary plans call for a 100-floor tower that in no way resembles its Art Deco-style Manhattan namesake. Instead, the project is more akin in style to the Chicago Spire, the 2,000-foot-tall condominium project being built by architect Santiago Calatrava on Lake Shore Drive. "It's a little bit of a tip of the hat to the Spire just down the street, as they are both slender, tall and elegant, but it's different," says Christopher Carley, chairman of Fordham......

[PAKennedy]

I like that last one. That, along with the spire, could really grow to be the new identity of the skyline.

[Milliano]

This may be a really stupid question, but why does Chicago have such an incredible skyline? Especially the recent skyscraper construction?

What I mean is, I'm guessing land values in and near the Loop are high but still far lower than say, SF or Manhattan.

My question is more inverse, really. I don't get why there is so much low/mid-density construction in Manhattan in areas that have very high land values, as well as San Francisco. Wouldn't it be economically sensible to construct many more skyscrapers in Manhattan, San Francisco, or even Brooklyn? Is there some outside force at work causing a stagnation and inhibiting the economy of these places, like NIMBYism and irrational zoning? Or maybe construction costs are a lot lower in Chicago than the super-dense areas of Manhattan for instance?