 |
| Developer Eyeing 1333 S. Wabash for Apartment Building (Image from Curbed Chicago) |
CMK Cos. is stepping into the downtown apartment boom with one leg still knee-deep in the condo market.
The Chicago-based developer plans to build 268 apartments on the site of an aborted South Loop condominium project as it continues to chip away at a big pile of unsold condos in its own high-rise a couple blocks south of the Willis Tower.
CMK is joining the herd of developers jumping into the hot downtown apartment market, attracted by rising occupancies and record rents. The question is whether the firm will be among those to secure a construction loan for its project, a $60-million, 25-story tower at 1333 S. Wabash Ave.The article goes on to also provide an update on two other similar plans that are much further along:
In the South Loop, Chicago-based Golub & Co. plans a long sought 392-unit tower at Ninth and State streets, while Amli Residential, also based here, is getting ready to break ground on a 398-unit apartment complex at Clark and Polk streets.Seems like the good 'ol days in development (which we mean pre-2008). There sure seems to be a lot of talk about new buildings going up in the neighborhood (see post this morning on British School of Chicago).
Anyway, CMK has a long history in the South Loop. They were the developers of The Garden Terraces (1430-40 S. Michigan), 1620 South Michigan, 1720 South Michigan and Michigan Avenue Gardens (1808 S. Michigan).
Finally, we would be remissed if we didn't quickly link to two other projects that were planned for this stretch of South Wabash (granted these were boom time projects). See old renderings below. The first was the infamous Glashaus that was slated for 1327 S. Wabash. Next door would have been 1349 South Wabash, a building designed by See Wong a developer active in Chinatown.
While we're not sure, it sounds like this new proposal would be for both lots?
Nasty loft buildings they do. 1620 and 1720 are horrible nothing but problems, distressed buildings and broke associations. Dont forget about that monstrosity at 235 W Van Buren they still cant sell out. Hope anything but a highrise would go in those lots, but if it must be a highrise please another developer.
ReplyDeleteWow, enough is enough, it is 400 unit after 400 unit. This is will be the most over saturated market. Population density is going to be too much.
ReplyDeleteThe south loop is far from too dense. If anything, all of the surface parking lots are killing the neighborhood property values. Everyone complains here that they want more restaurants, shops, stores, convenience places, groceries, electronics, etc. Well, in order for those businesses to move in and succeed they need residents. This is a rental tower, not a condo tower. Therefore, current property owners won't have to compete with new construction. Sorry your underwater, but the housing bubble could be seen from a mile away. These renters are going to move into the neighborhood and then possibly buy here if they enjoy it enough.
ReplyDeleteI live in a CMK property and am very happy. I think this is a great thing. South Loop is not over saturated , we need more foot traffic and density.
ReplyDeleteApartment developments in West Loop range from 70 to 100 units and South Loop range from 300 to 400 units. In fact from Polk to Roosevelt and Clark to the River there is over 2000 apartment units proposed with 1100 already approved. Too many rentals is usually not a good thing.
ReplyDeleteThose empty lots should be filled but not every needs another 300 to 400 lots, a little moderation is what is needed here.
I really hope its both lots and they reduce the unit count and density and height and use up all the land.
ReplyDeleteAGree with the first poster, CMK builds cheap, fugly stuff that reminds me of mortgaged Section-8 housing, I hope that an open discussion of the latent impact of their product is discussed, so they are required to build a product that does not continue to drag local property values.
ReplyDeleteNothing like replacing one void with another. Putting a high-rise tower here is completely tone-deaf of what's happening on this stretch of Wabash and the surrounding buildings. The Sloop needs more low-rise with some character, especially on this block which could end up further developing into a restaurant district.
ReplyDeleteWhat's needed here is exactly what is being proposed. A high-rise. A modern, very well-designed high-rise. Adding sorely needed density to a neighborhood that desparately needs it. CMK builds fantastic modern designs. Not intended for the uncultured faux-historic red-brick rubes for sure, but something a little more sophisticated. Folks, get your heads in the game - the south loop could literally triple, no - quadraple in density, and it still would not nearly be dense enough. People living in our neighborhood and complaining that a 25-story, 270 unit building is too big and dense really need to move back to Des Plaines, or Schaumburg, or whatever other godforsaken place they're from!! STAT!!
ReplyDeleteMany of the posters thus far appear to be living in some sort of alternate universe. The South Loop in fact needs much greater density, and no - the West Loop is not any kind of model to look toward. The Sloop has far too many low-rise and mid-rise residential buildings already. What we need far more of are high-rises that each house hundreds of residents - we need 3, 4, 5, and yes 6 dozen more.....we need 20 storey, 30 storey, 40 storey, 50 storey, and yes 60 storey buildings. And a lot - a lot - more rental buildings. The third poster nails it on the head - everybody wants livlier street activity and retail, etc, but half the people here don't seem to understand the much greater population density that is required to support it. And, yes, we need larger buildings, and a lot of single-and double-occupied units - most of them rental - not this ideal image some people have of larger owner-occupied units and families. This is the urban core, afterall. And finally, CMK is a great developer. Look at the quality of the architecture of their buildings compared to the vast sampling of schlock that you see in the William Warman work in the neighborhood, the Marquee, both Michigan Ave towers, the buildings on State around 15th, etc, the first few goofy neo-classical nonsensical stuff in Museum Park, a lot of the early low-rise stuff in Central Station, on an on. CMK and architect Brininstooly and Lynch, by contrast, have left a much better built design legacy in our neihborhood.
ReplyDeleteI agree. CMK buildings are some of the worst looking.
ReplyDeleteWho the hell would WANT density? Is it such a bad thing to want an urban community and not a bunch of sterile towers on top of each other? Some of the most active areas (pedestrians, retail, commercial) in Chicago have almost no high-rises and the streets are bustling with activity.
ReplyDelete^ False. CMK's buildings are among the best-designed in the neighborhood. Others at the very top of the aesthetic ranks include 1401 S. State and One Museum Park West, and presumably the resurrected glashaus will soon join this list. What I sense are a large number of underwater Sloop homeowners looking for someone else to blame for their really bad personal financial decision-making, as well as an outlet to express their trashy tastes for poor, faux-yesteryear design.
ReplyDeleteThese are attractive? Ick.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cmkcompanies.com/condos/
I agree, we still have a long way to go.. what are people going to say when they are start building on the biggest piece of land left in Chicago (Riverside District - west of Clark/South of Roosevelt)? Keep building!! Bring in more residents with the focus on connecting Printers Row, South Loop, Chinatown (Wentworth/Wells connector) and Motor Row/McCormick.
ReplyDeleteInteresting discussion!
ReplyDeleteHow does the population density in South Loop compare to "hot" neighborhoods like Lincoln Park or Wicker Park? We surely have enough people living here to sustain the same type of retail/restaurant scene as the other hoods, but I fear the demographic (too many car-centric families?) and high rents counteract this.
But I feel very positive about our neighborhood (so much has changed in the past 10 years!) and this little stretch of South Wabash has already established itself as seed for future restaurants/retail/nightlife. Regardless of what will be built, it will be an improvement over the current eyesore lot.
Not good news for all of us who live at 1400 S. Michigan with north facing windows - there goes our view of downtown! I was hoping they would put up a couple of 6 story buildings to not only be aesthetically pleasing but also save our view. This appears to be in the infant stages of development so I am not too worried about it. However, in addition to a gaudy 25 story building, what do you suppose their plan is to build it? Shut down Wasbash Ave everyday for a year for their trucks/equipment/supplies? This would be a nightmare.
ReplyDeleteCMK buildings are modern and sophisticated? Are you confusing buildings? They are cheap builds and style from the late 90's. Would be nice if this block continued to develop into a dining/entertainment district. Putting a highrise here now will be a mess. Even though residents and common sense appose this plan, im sure CMK will grease the right hands to pollute the area with more cheap, sure to be in distress buildings. We still havent recovered from there last round of bad development and already getting hit with another blow.
ReplyDeleteThis is not some sort of new plan. This plan is actually already approved. The foundations for this tower are actually already in-place. It's just a new developer has stepped in and taken over, people. This site was always targeted for a high-rise. Also, yes, CMK-built properties in the neighborhood are easily better, design-wise, than 90% of the other residential buildings built in the last 20 years in the Sloop. I've got to really question the taste level of several of the posters here.....perhaps this 'mouth-breathing' aesthetic sense among a not insignificant portion of the Chicago populace (suburban transpants?) is what has really caused our city to fall behind some other major global and domestic cities on the architecture scene. We need to step it up several notches, and Brininstool + Lynch will help Chicago and the South Loop do that. Also, a high-rise in the 1300 block of S. Wabash will not somehow impede on a burgeoning restaurant and bar scene.... rather it will complement it fully. In fact, the plan I believe is for a decent amount of restaurant/retail space in the first floor or two of the project, to further enhance this scene on Wabash. Great news all-around. Huge win coming for the neighborhood, folks!!
ReplyDeleteI also agree with those that think CMK's towers are much better than the average dreck from the boom years polluting the south loop.
ReplyDeleteAnon @ 11;16
ReplyDeleteI have to question *your* taste, as such an obviously eloquent and sophisticated individual, when you chose to label the opinion of a stranger on a public blog as "mouth breathing?"
Just because someone has a different opinion than you does not make them less intelligent. In fact, it makes you sound like an egotistical *#@%. But I'll give it a try:
We sir/madam, I believe your position that a CMK residential building will THRUST Chicago into the forefront of the global and domestic architectural scene is both asinine and irrational. I bet the Chicago architectural tour will make this building it's last stop to really Wow the crowd as the Grand Finale.
Eh, not what I expected. Being tough online isn't what it's cracked up to be.
^ Yet the more you write, the more evidence you support for my positions.
ReplyDeleteShut down Wabash because of a private residential high-rise project? Seriously?
Also, nice try putting words in my mouth. My position is that a Brinsinstool and Lynch-designed, CMK developed tower here is a step in the right direction, design-wise for Chicago - no, a single tower - even if great - will not make up for all the design damage to this town developers and architects - such as Russland Capital and Pappageorge Haymes in the case of Michigan Avenue Towers I and II (yes, your building) have enacted over the past 15-20 years.....yet it's a positive - a good step, one in the right direction, etc. Still we have much further to go and need to get much more innovative and modern. Hope is not lost, for example - Pappageorge Haymes somewhat redeemed themselves after designing 1400 Michigan's nuevo deco hackiness with their nice work at One Museum Park West. One other point, and then I'll let you catch your breath (through your mouth I presume) Opinions, just like taste are wildly unequal. Some are inherantly much superior to others. Sensibilities, facts, data - these things do have actual proper, defensible biases (it's not "one side says the earth is an oblate spheroid, another thinks it's flat"). Suburban transplant residents of the Sloop - go back, or go buy yourself an Architectural Record today! ;)
"Some (opinions) are inherantly much superior to others."
ReplyDeleteWhat a sadly narcissistic and overall pathetic statement to make. And usually made by people who are, in reality, weak and insecure. Hidden behind anonymity and the safety of their home, people like you act bold online to try and restore confidence. Sound familiar?
I am actually embarrassed at myself for even responding the first time. I guarantee you're the type who has to have the last word as well so this will be my last post. Do your best!
If you don't want density or the urban experience that comes with living just south of the second largest business district in the country, please pick up and move to Plainfield already. I hope they make this building even taller than planned. Also, according to the Illinois Supreme Court, views from your residence are NEVER protected. If there is an empty lot, parking lot, or dumpy building next to you, eventually it is going to be built on and more than likely it will be a highrise. Choose your residential views wisely.
ReplyDeleteAh yes, the old "high rises bring density" canard. What a crock of stuff only favored by drag queens. Interesting that Lincoln Park and near north side seem to have plenty of density without uber-high rises, Same for many European cities.
ReplyDeleteThe south loop needs to let the lots develop with smaller high quality stuff to keep or create momentum, and worry about the high rise stuff later.
"Nasty loft buildings they do. 1620 and 1720 are horrible nothing but problems, distressed buildings and broke associations."
ReplyDelete1720 is not broke, we have close to two million in reserves.
Yoda nothing you know.
Our population density is very small compared to other large world cities. We could use more people! The more people, the more business, the better transit system, better market. If you don't want a densely populated city, go live comfortable in the burbs. I don't want this city to be held back on the account people are afraid to walk down the street with a couple extra bodies.
ReplyDeleteSouth Loop businesses keep opening and closing because there are not enough people to sustain their business. We need lots and lots of more people.
ReplyDeleteWe are in the middle of one of the largest cities in the US, the number of people isn't an issue. We have had so many closings due to poor management, model, service, quality, financial sketchiness, ARSON, etc.
ReplyDeleteMark Chicago is always wrong about everything....why is this?
ReplyDeleteTo ANON 12:31 AM and 10:18 AM.
ReplyDeleteThat's exactly the point. No one is arguing against more density, we are arguing on the best ways to achieve density. There are many places in our city and elsewhere that proove that density in general and density that supports good neighborhood business enviroment does not require every building to be high rises. Places like Lincoln Park do fine with a variety of development size. The focus in the South Loop should be on quality development, with quality material, and good design.
To say that you need high-rises to have density is a falicy created by drag-queens and developers holding the land. It also stunts infill of vacant land, and completion of the neighborhood because once one highrise goes up, now all the other vacant lot owners jack up the land value and hold out for 5,10,15, or 20 years to sell their property for more residential development.
As to the CMK stuff, one just needs to take a look at how hard they got hit with foreclosures, etc. What drag-queens call cutting edge design translates to skimped development with super cheap material, windows, or dumb design decisions.
For example, what Architect would be dumb enough to put Air intake or discharge vents on Michigan Ave for all to see and hear? Or who puts garage entrances on Michigan Ave? Or what Architect puts cheap windows on lower floors, so the entire street and neighborhood can see the belongings of your entire appartment from the street.
Not sure, but he's definitely wrong if he thinks the sloop has anywhere close to enough and/or enough high-rises. That would be an absolutely ludicrous position. We have so much more filling in - and filling up - ahead of us in the next few decades that things are looking UP indeed. I also agree with those who find CMK's to be among the best recent architectural additions in the Sloop. The best of the best is Ralph Johnson's brilliant work at 235 W. Van Buren. Simply put, a gem.
ReplyDeleteAnons are brilliant.
ReplyDeleteHere's some high-rise, population density porn for you.
[url]http://imgur.com/a/ixxhg[/url] (SFW)
The Sloop Anons can only dream...
235 VAN BURAN is beautiful.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I too am sick and tired of MarkChicago's tired diatribes.
Mark you think anyone cares about your opinions?
235 W Van Buren units are horrible with the exception of a couple very well done or should I say redone penthouse units. The smaller units one beds and one bed plus open closet they call 2 bedroom units I cant imagine how they were able to sell out, oh wait they still havent. These are low quality cookie cutter concrete, not brick, loft style units. Architecture? comical. There are two arguements here. 1) good or bad idea for highrise and 2) opinion of CMK. Density of course must increase and high-rise building will come, I do agree this lot and block would be nice to keep the same theme going and keep it dining. As to CMK you know they are gonna put some more cheap low cost mass production cookie cutter building up, no one should support that.
ReplyDelete@Anon 3:56pm
ReplyDeleteTired of your irony.
Anon at 1:42 and 4:35 seem relatively clueless about issues related to quality urban planning and architecture. Nobody is even remotely saying that every building in the sloop needs to be a high-rise. That's ridiculous. Clearly that's not the case as the neighborhood is today primarily low-and mid-rise. In fact, Dearborn Park II by itself unfortunately is a vast low-rise wasteland. We could build 50 new residential high-rises this decade of more than 30 stories in the sloop, and it would still overall be largely low and mid-rise. We need to dramatically change the mix by turbocharging development of towers of at least 25-35 stories, with several eclipsing 45-60 or so stories. Further, to cite neighborhoods in the city that are mainly 3,4,5+ miles from the Loop as comparable or a model is absured. The heart of the sloop is around 1-1.5 miles from the Central Loop, and very proximate to the lakefront, Lake Shore Drive, arterials of Michigan, State and Roosevelt - the sloop is perfectly tailored in every regard for much more high-rise focus in development. Finally, the characters here that think architecture and design is all about preference in material selection, and littel functional elements, or inexplicably confusing 'cost' with 'transparency level' of glass, etc crack me up. You're too much! Seriously, get educated, informed and enlightened about architecture and design and develop a higher taste level and aesthetic sense already....
ReplyDeleteI agree, and also find it funny how some of these goofs start talking about unit layouts and finishes in response to posts about building architecture......step it up a few levels, people.....
ReplyDeletenobody cares about building architecture. Its about value of property.
ReplyDeleteThankfully, I lot of people care about building architecture.....to be sure, unfortunately not as many as should, but still, your comment was rather silly....
ReplyDelete