<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Comment of the day: high-rise maintenance</title>
	<atom:link href="http://yochicago.com/comment-of-the-day-high-rise-maintenance/6936/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://yochicago.com/comment-of-the-day-high-rise-maintenance/6936/</link>
	<description>New homes, apartments and condos for sale and rent in Chicago</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2010 23:53:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Joe Zekas</title>
		<link>http://yochicago.com/comment-of-the-day-high-rise-maintenance/6936/comment-page-1/#comment-39498</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe Zekas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Apr 2008 18:16:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://yochicago.com/comment-of-the-day/comment-of-the-day-high-rise-maintenance_6936/#comment-39498</guid>
		<description>Danny,

These buildingsi are going to evolve in unpredictable ways, but their location will always ensure some sort of market for them.

The history of similar buildings is that they&#039;ve lagged on appreciation. Whether that will happen here remains to be seen.

Sandburg Village is a good case study of undistinguished buildings built at the low end but that have done fairly well over the years.

In the near term the most important consideration, I think, is the percentage of the building that winds up being owner-occupied. A high percentage augurs well. A low percentage can mean lots of trouble over a 5- to 10-year (or longer) period.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Danny,</p>
<p>These buildingsi are going to evolve in unpredictable ways, but their location will always ensure some sort of market for them.</p>
<p>The history of similar buildings is that they&#8217;ve lagged on appreciation. Whether that will happen here remains to be seen.</p>
<p>Sandburg Village is a good case study of undistinguished buildings built at the low end but that have done fairly well over the years.</p>
<p>In the near term the most important consideration, I think, is the percentage of the building that winds up being owner-occupied. A high percentage augurs well. A low percentage can mean lots of trouble over a 5- to 10-year (or longer) period.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Danny</title>
		<link>http://yochicago.com/comment-of-the-day-high-rise-maintenance/6936/comment-page-1/#comment-39497</link>
		<dc:creator>Danny</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Apr 2008 17:33:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://yochicago.com/comment-of-the-day/comment-of-the-day-high-rise-maintenance_6936/#comment-39497</guid>
		<description>A lot of the concrete high-rises built in the 50s, 60s, and 70s are now the most affordable condos on the northside in terms of price per square foot, but I think this issue of maintenance costs and long-term outlooks for the buildings is something a lot of buyers need to be more informed about before they buy. I&#039;m curious to know what anyone reading this thinks about buildings like 3033 north sheridan. When I look at the bottom line pricing, it doesn&#039;t seem like a great bargain to me. Are any buildings like this going to be architectural treasures 50 years from now? What about a more iconic building (or pair of buildings) like Marina City? I always see the two big problems with these buildings being the low ceilings and the lack of central air. Nobody wants ugly wall-unit air conditioners that are hard to replace when they die. But is the joke really on any long-term buyers paying top dollar for new high rises in the south loop and river north? Are we just too close to see that in a few decades these buildings are going to be the tired, dated looking dumps that those soviet-looking concrete boxes are today? Or are do improvements in construction methods and materials make this an apples and oranges comparison?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A lot of the concrete high-rises built in the 50s, 60s, and 70s are now the most affordable condos on the northside in terms of price per square foot, but I think this issue of maintenance costs and long-term outlooks for the buildings is something a lot of buyers need to be more informed about before they buy. I&#8217;m curious to know what anyone reading this thinks about buildings like 3033 north sheridan. When I look at the bottom line pricing, it doesn&#8217;t seem like a great bargain to me. Are any buildings like this going to be architectural treasures 50 years from now? What about a more iconic building (or pair of buildings) like Marina City? I always see the two big problems with these buildings being the low ceilings and the lack of central air. Nobody wants ugly wall-unit air conditioners that are hard to replace when they die. But is the joke really on any long-term buyers paying top dollar for new high rises in the south loop and river north? Are we just too close to see that in a few decades these buildings are going to be the tired, dated looking dumps that those soviet-looking concrete boxes are today? Or are do improvements in construction methods and materials make this an apples and oranges comparison?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
