Room Without A View
A Serious Investment
I have been writing recently about the less than mediocre plans and buildings that have been popping up almost overnight in our city and our neighborhood. Architects choose from an assortment of in stock, ready made buildings from a program and plug in relevant data, push the print button and voila'. Ink jet printed architecture. They can do this from the comfort of their ergonomically designed swivel chair and never, ever have to leave the office to inspect the neighborhood or visit the site that this building will occupy.
This is what I expected to see last night at the meeting to review the new proposal for the building at 7015 North Sheridan Road. But it wasn't. When the development team was presented, I realized that this was not going to be a meeting where the "deer in the headlights" unseasoned architect blurts out the truth and the poor developer gets pulled into the hallway to be read the riot act by Mr. Land. No, neighbors, this was well connected and expensive help and it showed.
The building design was so seriously considered and bold in it's concept, it was almost shocking. The detailing was incomplete but what was obvious, was the commitment of capital, invested time and the desire to make a design statement right there on Sheridan Road and right here in Rogers Park.
I found myself fighting my desire to like it. A rooftop, glass enclosed greenhouse restaurant with an offset roof perched on top of a minimalist styled 2 tone faced building with 4 residential units and covered parking. What's not to like? Well, the height, I reminded myself again and again. It's the height and the fact that if this building gets approved, it will require a zoning variance that voids a provision in the Lakefront Protection Act which is unacceptable in my view.
This proposal represents a significant investment of risk capital and a genuine desire , in my opinion, by Connie Abels to create a legacy in Rogers Park. I appreciate her willingness to take this gamble because that's exactly what it is, a gamble. Her architect is proposing a "statement" building that will put north Rogers Park on the investement map again and hopefully encourage investment further north.
A Committee of Public Opinion
Having said all that, there are serious flaws in the mixed use concept and financial risk department that make me a little concerned about Connie Abels retirement plan. As her new financial planner, I think the overwhelming speculative nature of this proposal would not allow her to live her retirement in the lifestyle she is accustomed.
If you were fortunate to be seriously looking at one of those 4 condominum units, would you want to live below the restaurant or above the parking garage? Noise above you until 11pm every night and honking horns below. Not a good choice is
it? Are there separate entrances and elevators to the restaurant or will you be sharing those with customers. With proposed retail shops below, there is only a limited amount of space for doorways and something has to give.
Because the restaurant is located on the roof, a large portion of the interior core of the building is taken up by the elevator shafts removing valuable condominium square footage. And in this plan, the only guaranteed income are the 4 condominiums, and those are questionable sales. The restaurant is not leased, nor are the retail spaces at ground level. Those are mighty big ifs in my opinion.
The 26 parking spaces not reserved for the condo owners are to be rented. But I believe any experienced restaurant investment group would demand those spaces as a requirement for the success of the restaurant considering how difficult it is to park in that area. So that parking income is also questionable.
I was walking someone home from the meeting last night with all these conflicted thoughts in my head I kept thinking about the view, the view, the view that was whole pretext for the height of the building . So I turned towards the lake to see............................................................nothing! It was 9pm, which would be the middle of the dinner rush and there was nothing to see. It was pitch black. I think this might be an issue.
A Serious Investment
I have been writing recently about the less than mediocre plans and buildings that have been popping up almost overnight in our city and our neighborhood. Architects choose from an assortment of in stock, ready made buildings from a program and plug in relevant data, push the print button and voila'. Ink jet printed architecture. They can do this from the comfort of their ergonomically designed swivel chair and never, ever have to leave the office to inspect the neighborhood or visit the site that this building will occupy.
This is what I expected to see last night at the meeting to review the new proposal for the building at 7015 North Sheridan Road. But it wasn't. When the development team was presented, I realized that this was not going to be a meeting where the "deer in the headlights" unseasoned architect blurts out the truth and the poor developer gets pulled into the hallway to be read the riot act by Mr. Land. No, neighbors, this was well connected and expensive help and it showed.
The building design was so seriously considered and bold in it's concept, it was almost shocking. The detailing was incomplete but what was obvious, was the commitment of capital, invested time and the desire to make a design statement right there on Sheridan Road and right here in Rogers Park.
I found myself fighting my desire to like it. A rooftop, glass enclosed greenhouse restaurant with an offset roof perched on top of a minimalist styled 2 tone faced building with 4 residential units and covered parking. What's not to like? Well, the height, I reminded myself again and again. It's the height and the fact that if this building gets approved, it will require a zoning variance that voids a provision in the Lakefront Protection Act which is unacceptable in my view.
This proposal represents a significant investment of risk capital and a genuine desire , in my opinion, by Connie Abels to create a legacy in Rogers Park. I appreciate her willingness to take this gamble because that's exactly what it is, a gamble. Her architect is proposing a "statement" building that will put north Rogers Park on the investement map again and hopefully encourage investment further north.
A Committee of Public Opinion
Having said all that, there are serious flaws in the mixed use concept and financial risk department that make me a little concerned about Connie Abels retirement plan. As her new financial planner, I think the overwhelming speculative nature of this proposal would not allow her to live her retirement in the lifestyle she is accustomed.
If you were fortunate to be seriously looking at one of those 4 condominum units, would you want to live below the restaurant or above the parking garage? Noise above you until 11pm every night and honking horns below. Not a good choice is
it? Are there separate entrances and elevators to the restaurant or will you be sharing those with customers. With proposed retail shops below, there is only a limited amount of space for doorways and something has to give.
Because the restaurant is located on the roof, a large portion of the interior core of the building is taken up by the elevator shafts removing valuable condominium square footage. And in this plan, the only guaranteed income are the 4 condominiums, and those are questionable sales. The restaurant is not leased, nor are the retail spaces at ground level. Those are mighty big ifs in my opinion.
The 26 parking spaces not reserved for the condo owners are to be rented. But I believe any experienced restaurant investment group would demand those spaces as a requirement for the success of the restaurant considering how difficult it is to park in that area. So that parking income is also questionable.
I was walking someone home from the meeting last night with all these conflicted thoughts in my head I kept thinking about the view, the view, the view that was whole pretext for the height of the building . So I turned towards the lake to see............................................................nothing! It was 9pm, which would be the middle of the dinner rush and there was nothing to see. It was pitch black. I think this might be an issue.
6 Comments:
> ... commitment of capital ...
> I appreciate her willingness to take this gamble because that's exactly what it is, a gamble.
These conclusions are not supported by the evidence presented. No information on the financing of this project was shared. The pro formas were not distributed. No figures on the mix of personal and investor capital were given. It is not at all clear that this project is risky. If anything, the architect stated that the project would provide for Ms. Abels in her retirement, traditionally the most risk-averse of investment goals. Do you have additional information?
Please be careful not to accidentally take up the developer's rhetoric unexamined. These projects are always presented to us as risky, but without showing us the respect of sharing the financial details.
> The restaurant is not leased, nor are the retail spaces at ground level. Those are mighty big ifs in my opinion. The 26 parking spaces not reserved for the condo owners are to be rented.
Here again I believe a healthy skepticism is in order. Developers like to present themselves as brave heroes risking their all to strive against the forces of blight. Our zoning laws and the planned development process make no distinction between building to sell and building to rent. At no point will the developers commit to leasing the restaurant, retail space, or parking spaces. The developers are making no binding, long-term commitment to a management role in this building. The developers will be able to control their risk going forward by selling the parking spaces and the commercial spaces as commercial condos. Worse case scenario, the glass roof-top restaurant could be removed, or the penthouse and the ground floor could be converted to condos. At any point of their choosing the developers can tap out of this project. Remember, since the deregulation of our zoning laws in 2004, we as neighbors have no way to REQUIRE retail in a project.
The restaurant bothers me. I wouldn't want to live under it, even if there were really good soundproofing in the floors.
I'm not sure I would want to live near it, expecially if it becomes a happenin' place. Crowds. Parking. Delivery trucks.
You'd have to keep your windows closed. Heck, even folks with central air conditioning like to have outside air once in a while! What if the new tennant's a vegetarian, and the main dish at the restaurant is steak. Great smell to come home to, huh?
One regret about that meeting was that I didn't hear any comments from people who live near Suron Cafe. I would like to hear how they've been imacted since that place opened. How's parking? Congestion? Sanitation issues.
Ditto for people who live near The Heartland.
Sure I'd like another restaurant...on Morse, or Devon, or even Howard.
don-
i agree with you. i wish we had heard from impacted neighbors also and howard street could use almost anything type of service business at this point.
hugh-
thanx for pointing out those issues. i usually sit with anything i am writing about but i didn't in this case. this whole examination of the presentation and information we were given could have been written by anyone attending that meeting.
some of the points are reasonable and some are not, but this was what i came away from the meeting thinking, unedited. the only truth i know is the lpo should not be touched.
everything else is assumption and it is a fundamental problem with the process. all of us come away with different assumptions when we are not given the facts.
and don's point is part of the issue too. there needs to be a more comprehensive, inclusive process that allows us all to understand the lttle picture inside the big picture.
welcome-
i wish your views were better represented at the meeting. i have a pretty active imagination, welcome and i can visualize the issues you are concerned about at that location because i lived in n.y. and chicago in retail dense neighborhoods. unfortunately there is always a tradeoff between needed services and impact on people in the area.
would you consider organizing your concerned neighbors who were unable to attend the meeting to voice those concerns?
what do you envision for that site?
welcome-
i left 10 minutes early. some might disagree that restaurants aren't a needed service but we can set that aside for now.
my expectation, was that your concerns were going to be vocalized by many, many more people and unfortunately for you and your neighbors, it wasn't imho.
you can continue your posts on the blogs and try and gain support for your cause, you can draw up a petition, circulate it and gather as many signatures as you can and write the alderman a letter.he will respond. he might not tell you exactly what you want to hear, but you are participating in the process. the zoning review for this project is feb. 21.
i also write on the 24/7 howardwatchers and you can read letters and responses i've received from him.
if you are as unhappy about this whole disenfranchising process as i am, you might want to read the post "stop the development. we need a plan". and tell me what you think
Post a Comment
<< Home