ChicagoDowntown / Loop

Demolition complete at Division Street apartment site

by Joe Zekas on 6/10/14

A year ago Crain’s Chicago Real Estate Daily reported that Portland-based Gerding Edlen Development planned to break ground by last November on a 19-story, 240-unit apartment tower at 625 W Division St.

The existing buildings on the south end of the site have been demolished and site clearance is nearly complete. Building permits have yet to issue for the start of construction.

We’re still categorizing the project as “Proposed” in our at-a-glance list of new downtown apartment projects. We’re also wondering whether this project has the weakest location of any of the Near North Side developments.

Share:
  • Facebook
  • Google Buzz
  • Digg
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Live
  • Posterous
  • Reddit
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr
  • email

Related posts:

  1. Demolition underway for Chicago and LaSalle apartments
  2. River North sites slated for demolition
  3. A bird’s eye view of the 200 North Michigan demolition
  4. Demolition nearing completion at 200 North Michigan

{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }

Doug June 18, 2014 at 7:22 PM

Do you call this reporting? Try reaching out to someone at the developer, architect or contractor before arbitrarily classifying this as “the weakest location” on the north side.

Reply

Joe Zekas June 18, 2014 at 7:31 PM

I call it opinion, Doug, which is what “wondering whether” clearly indicates to anyone who’s achieved any degree of literacy.

The suggestion that I contact a developer, architect or contractor to ask whether they have the weakest site in the area is beyond ridiculous.

Reply

Doug June 18, 2014 at 10:42 PM

That’s good Joe, blast your readers for disagreeing with you. All I’m suggesting is that in the future, you spend more time researching facts than publishing pure conjecture. If that suggestion offends you, you’re in the wrong business my friend.

Reply

Joe Zekas June 18, 2014 at 10:54 PM

You didn’t disagree with me.

You ignored what I did report, took a cheap shot, followed it with a mind-numbingly stupid suggestion and slunk away without offering anything to counter my opinion on the quality of this location.

You deserve a blast.

Reply

Doug June 19, 2014 at 8:29 AM

You can’t call linking an outdated Crain’s article and doing a search on the city permit site reporting. You’ve found nothing new not already known to the public.

Do yourself a favor, look at and understand CHA’s redevelopment plan for the Cabrini Green area:

In a matter of a few years, this site will be within one half of a mile of countless restaurants, retail, and a brand new brown line stop at Division.

This site is near the center of this redevelopment zone. If you turn 180 degrees from the picture on this article, you’ll see a beautiful view of the skyline. Based on the plan above, that view is going nowhere; the half-mile area to the south will all be low and mid rise buildings.

All things considered, I would say this might be a raw area now but the developer is getting in on the ground floor in what will be a very desirable area in the near future.

Reply

Joe Zekas June 19, 2014 at 9:08 AM

Doug,

What do you call visiting the site and providing a recent look at it? Oh wait, that’s not reporting in your book.

I’ve read and understood the CHA plan and am familiar with the extensive history of delays in CHA plans.

Try to understand what I actually said: “this project has the weakest location of any of the Near North Side developments.” You’re ignoring that, and haven’t supplied any information to counter it.

I’ve linked to a list of Near North Side developments – which of them has a weaker location?

Reply

Doug June 19, 2014 at 9:45 AM

I call it a picture of something anybody can drive past and see with their own eyes.

Delays on CHA plans in the past would be relevant if CHA were developing the sites. With regard to the larger planned developments, they’re not. They simply sign off on private developers’ plans to ensure it follows their blueprint for the area.

I directly addressed your opinion by providing fact showing what will be in the immediate vicinity in a short timeframe.

As for which sites are weaker, it’s a matter of perspective. My turn for an opinion: from an investment perspective, this site is superior to all other near north side locations because you don’t pay a premium for the land that you’d pay in an established neighborhood. Areas with established residential and commercial characteristics are inherently more expensive to acquire and develop because they’re in immediate demand. At worst, the surrounding area takes a little longer than planned to develop. It will still develop.

Reply

Doug June 19, 2014 at 9:48 AM

Not to mention the views I already addressed as a factor that makes this a good site.

Reply

Joe Zekas June 19, 2014 at 4:19 PM

Repeat: “this project has the weakest location of any of the Near North Side developments.”

The CHA’s timetable for its properties in the area has a substantial impact on what happens over the next few years.

I look at this from the standpoint of prospective new residents. You’ve made my point for me by conceding this isn’t in an established neighborhood. Renters, who will have choices in the neighborhood, aren’t likely to base their decisions on a property’s long-term investment value to the developer.

Got some news for you: most of the people who visit this site aren’t driving down Division Street very often.

As for the views – I published pictures of the views from a nearby site several days ago.

I haven’t in any way suggested that the area isn’t going to change for the better in coming years. It will. The investment value can be argued from a lot of perspectives – there’s a reason why most developers pay the premium for more desirable locations.

Do you have a relationship with this site that you should have disclosed?

Reply

Doug June 20, 2014 at 7:00 AM

Right, the CHA’s timetable for its properties. It neither currently nor ever has owned all the land in the area, like this site for instance.

You look at it from a resident standpoint, I look at it from an investment standpoint. Agree to disagree.

No, I am not related to this site in any way. I’m an MBA student in the city and have flipped 6 houses, so I look at location from an investment perspective. If I were related to this site in some way, why would that need to be disclosed anyway? It’s not like a pump and dump scheme on a stock.

Reply

Joe Zekas June 20, 2014 at 8:17 AM

Familiarize yourself with the Federal Trade Commission guidelines on endorsements and you’ll learn why it’s necessary to disclose any relationship.

Reply

Doug June 21, 2014 at 7:30 PM

Thanks but I’m not related to the property and I’m not endorsing it to potential residents. I’m just saying it’s a good investment location

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous Post:

Next Post: