Comment of the day: high-rise maintenance
Posted 4/17/2008 by Mark Boyer"Uptown and Edgewater are definitely having a problem with high-rise low-income housing broken up into small units. The only thing that will EVENTUALLY start to limit this type of housing stock is that these types of buildings are VERY expensive to maintain in the long run. You can see what high-rise condos and co-ops charge for monthly assessments, and all of the Low Income Housing Tax Credits and HUD subsidies can't keep up. The buildings will eventually deteriorate, become a public hazard, and be raised, though it will take decades. In fact, that Gill Park Cooperative in Lakeview looks like it may be ending it's useful life without a multi-million dollar re-hab soon. That building is a firetrap nightmare with a crumbling facade. Most condo buildings can't even keep up with those types of repairs without socking their owners with huge special assessments."
–UptownR, identifying some inauspicious trends in the North Side housing stock
Comments
4/17/08
Danny said:
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'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'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?
Joe Zekas said:
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'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.