Subscribe: 
The South Loop’s slew of high-rises has turned history into a selling point. A case in point: Kargil Development’s new Prairie District Lofts, yet another loft-conversion project profiled by Dana Dubriwny in the February issue of New Homes Magazine.
“We found that the appeal of something that has history, something with exposed brick and timber, has more of an urban experience,” says Brian Giles, senior vice president of Kargil Development. “More so than the new construction, which can be found anywhere. These types of buildings are 100 years old and older, and you don’t get that everywhere.”
Read the rest of this sponsored article here.
No related posts.
{ 15 comments }
Potential buyers should really do their homework on this developer’s loft history & product quality at turnover (i.e. talk to people that live there). Also, as reported by tenants, the developer is performing little improvements or upgrades to this building, unlike the type of building upgrades that typical West Loop Lofts developers perform. This is essentially an as-is rental conversion.
I would also be concerned about plans for the retail space in the basement; this is a recipe for problem neighbors.
Renters talk of sound transfer issues; not good for a a few walls just getting a fresh coat of paint. See some of their own information at:
http://www.pdl-tenants.com/conversion-agenda1.pdf
$150K for masonary? Any Vegas bets that this will be much higher when association takes over?
Jeff,
Given that the building was substantially renovated not that long ago when it became a rental, is it fair to compare this to conversions from other uses or vacant status?
According to the link you provided the masonry estimate is from a recent engineering study. Your reason to believe that study was inaccurate is … ?
I note whoever prepared the doc you link is math-challenged. One percent of $350k is not $35k as stated.
It is a great example of adaptive re-use. Do I need to define that for some folks?
paulj,
Let’s not make it out to be something it is not. This is not a great example of adaptive re-use as there was never intent to tear-down, modify, or change use of the building. This is an as-is (inside and out) conversion of an existing apartment building into a condo, except for the proverbial fresh coat of paint in the hallway.
Great examples of adaptive re-use include restoration of vacant buildings, while replicating material history to strict detail; or, it is cleverly re-using a hospital as a loft building (Trevi Square), or taking a place like the Marshall Field Jr Mansion, restoring it with impeccable detail into quality condominiums. For good examples, go take a look at the creative adaptation of a place like the Odyssey lofts.
Ok Jeff, you are 100% right. Adapting a warehouse to residential is not adaptive re-use. Sure thing.
Odyssey lofts? That warehouse building with the horrendous early 90’s style curved shed addition on the top? Was that a warehouse adapted to re-use as residential? Sorry for the confusion.
I think what our better PaulJ is suggesting is that the building in question was a warehouse BEFORE being converted into apartments.
I dunno. Looks like an old warehouse to me, but I could be wrong. I don’t have an encyclopedic knowledge of all prior uses of every building in the city.
Enlighten us PaulJ and then the light of your knowledge guide us through the bleak existence we call life.
You might actually be correct for once.
We should just get the IPpy dozer out and take er down just to avoid conflict and hard feelings.(not to mention IPpy’s got the Irish mafia looking for me..)
Jeff,
This dedication, goes out to you. (OK, it is from Wikipedia, but that don’t make it bad)
“Adaptive reuse is the process of adapting old structures for new purposes.
When the original use of a structure changes or is no longer required, as with older buildings (or Jeff’s noggin, see example below) from the industrial revolution, architects have the opportunity to change the primary function of the structure, while often retaining some of the existing architectural details that make the building unique. In local communities, unused schools or Post Office buildings (and the empty cavity in Jeff’s skull) have been adapted for reuse as retail stores or offices.
Example, the inside of Jeff’s big noggin is empty. Since it is no longer being used for its original purpose (thinking, having thoughts, using good judgement) an example of adaptive re-use would be to use it as a bud vase or, perhaps a chew toy for a pet.”
1. Please explain the merit of your point about ‘Adaptive Reuse’ to this discussion; it is not germaine to the conversation? There never was any discussion about an alternate re-use of a building already in use for apartments, the adaptive re-use was relavent 10 years ago, so what is your point?
At issue is the quality of the conversion, and quality of the product to the buyers and neighborhood when completed. Not sure about the West Loop, but it is well documented that certain projects in the South Loop are having problems with delivering product that does not need millions of dollars to correct poor conversion and/or contruction.
2. Where in my post did I lay any personal attacks on you? If you want to critique comments, theory, thoughts fine. But as to your other comments, some are fully capable of putting their money where mouth is, some are not.
3. Additional Project Variables – This project also has other issues not being reported that will impact the buyer, such as uncertain parking configuration, etc.
I’m confused, does this conversation mean that to convert to condo you have to gut the building even if it was a recent ‘re-purposing’?
Sheridan B,
A condo conversion doesn’t necessarily involve any physical changes to the building – it can be as simple as completing and filing a lot of paperwork.
Joe, so what was Jeff’s fit about exactly, then?
Sheridan B,
I obviously can’t speak for Jeff, but here’s my take on his take.
Jeff has an ongoing concern about the quality of the work that he sees being done in the South Loop. To a certain extent Jeff serves a valuable role in alerting people to some of the problems that he’s seen and experienced. People should be knowledgeable about what they’re buying into, and Jeff is trying to make them more alert to recurring issues.
That said, Jeff seems to me to be unwilling to deal with the way the system works. Properties are sold with known – and in some cases unknowable – defects or simply things that are less optimal than they might be. Those factors are often built into the pricing structure. Jeff seems to think that people should be able to buy what they want or what Jeff thinks they should get rather than what they were sold – i.e., that developers have obligations beyond what they agree to incur or what the law imposes on them.
As I read Jeff his opinion is that everyone should be given a new car with no mechanical defects when they purchase a used one, and should only have to pay the used-car price.
I think that’s a fair summary of what Jeff has often expressed here.
Let’s hear from Jeff.
No Sheridan B it does not require a gut; but do not assume everything in the property report is accurate or full discolsure.
Joe, I realize it is difficult in quantifying issues of legality and integrity. New condo associations rarely have the resources to address these legal issues.
Let’s say hypothetically, you as a developer convert or re-adapt a building into lofts through re-architecture of the building, structural changes, new roof, facade repairs, etc. and then the building has structural defects and facade problems (code or quality) after you have altered such structure or facade, and then you as a developer fail to make such repairs whole, then it is possible people may want to claim you lack integrity and are a dirtbag (regardless of the legal process). On top of that, let’s say you were given $2-3MM in public TIF dollars for your project, and you still refuse to make whole the repairs, people have the right to question your integrity. When you buy the building, you are buying it’s history.
Now of course, previously you have made your point that as an attorney, regardless of integrity or responsibility, you would recommend to your client to drag it out considering the cost vs. benefit ratio of settling as you client may actually save some money. And legally, you may be 100% correct, but that does not change the perceived integrity of the parties involved.
If, as a developer you then tout those projects on your resume with unquestioned success, you are open to public rebuttal for the issues of that work or information you are not disclosing.
Just urging people to do their homework on any developer before buying; consider not only the problems, but the manner in which the developer dealt with them. A difficulty though is that getting access to the host of non-disclosure settlement agreements for developers previous projects, may be limited.
Jeff,
If, as a developer, I did what I agreed to do and someone wanted to call me a dirtbag for not doing what they wanted done, fair-minded people of any maturity aren’t going to side with the name-caller.
I haven’t said what I would recommend as an attorney since I no longer practice law. What I stated in the video you’re apparently referring to is what frequently happened in the law firm I was with and what’s possible in Cook County. I wasn’t a litigator and left those recommendations to the litigators.
Your suggedstions foro buyers are good ones.
Comments on this entry are closed.