As readers have noted in recent months, a large portion of the units in two of CMK Companies‘ large high-rise developments, 235 Van Buren and 1720 South Michigan, are rumored to be rented or destined for rental. While I can’t verify or deny those claims, I can say with some certainty that there are still plenty of units available in each of those buildings.
When I think of these developments, I usually think of cramped, narrow and dark one-bedroom units, and while there are plenty of those in each building, there are also a number of decent-looking floor plans available. Take these two-bedroom corner units, for example. Both of them are located above the 30th floor, so they’ve probably got pretty decent views, and they both have small, inset balconies.
At 1,292 square feet, the 235 Van Buren unit (at left) is a bit larger than the unit in 1720 South Michigan (at right), which has 1,100 square feet. However, the prices don’t reflect the size difference, as both units are listed in the $440s on the MLS (the 235 Van Buren unit is priced at $445,900, and the 1720 S Michigan unit is listed at $449,899).
In terms of layout, both units have their quirks. I can’t see why the second bedroom in the 235 Van Buren unit has a partial-height wall, because it ought to get natural light from those two windows. (Do some buyers prefer a partial-height wall in the bedroom?) Also, 10-10″ x 11-5″ is a pretty small master bedroom. In fact, it’s quite a bit smaller than the second bedroom in the same unit, although the walls in the master appear to reach the ceiling.
In the 1720 South Michigan unit, the placement of the second bathroom at the end of that long corridor unit is a bit odd, and having the front door open into the laundry room could be difficult to manage.
For my money, I’d much prefer to step over some dirty laundry on my way into the 1720 South Michigan unit than to squeeze into a tiny bedroom or live with partial-height walls at 235 Van Buren. However, at $345 per square foot, the 235 Van Buren turns out to me a much better bargain than the 1720 South Michigan unit, which costs about $408 per square foot.
– Rate and review 235 Van Buren at NewHomeNotebook.com.
– Rate and review 1720 South Michigan at NewHomeNotebook.com.
I really dislike partial height walls. I know sometimes there’s no way around it but whenever there are enough windows the architects should avoid the partial height walls. I was wondering if you could have opperable windows above the partial height wall. This would let in light and vent and I don’t see why it wouldn’t meet code but I have never seen it done.
I met with a sales agent for 235 Van Buren a while back (long before the sales center opened) and I think he said they had to have the partial height wall for some code reason. I don’t know if it had to do with the street that the window faces or its proximity to a neighboring building or something, but I think those windows don’t meet the requirement to call that a bedroom.
After looking at all of the terrible floor plans, I told the agent I was really disappointed with the options. I don’t understand the point in having a bedroom with a partial height wall. Why not just have guests sleep in a tent in your living room? They’d get about the same amount of privacy and peace and quiet while you watch TV or get up early to grind coffee beans. I also went to see the architectural model for this place recently and it looks like they’re not doing the white balconies any more, which completely changes the look of the building. I really think the white balconies were key to the cool, blocky look of the building.
The reason for partial height wall is that all bedrooms are required to have 8% light and 4% vent of the total area of the bedroom. The build the wall partial height to allow light and vent over the wall because there is no window to the exterior.
I was suggesting that they could build a partial height wall and put operable windows at the top of this partial height wall. This would block sound and make the room feel like a bedroom while still allowing light and vent.
I’m sure from the developers end it becomes a cost issue. Doing a second window for sound would get expensive quick. I know there are other conditions you have to need as far as how high the head (top)_of the window is (a couple others I can’t recall)… but technically you are right, you would not be borrowing the light from the window above the partial height wall… City Hall may think otherwise.