“The Baby Boomers are buying condos now and they don’t want to downsize too much. They only want a few bedrooms, but they want them to be big and have their own bathrooms because the extra bedrooms may be for visiting kids, a caretaker or an elderly parent. And, the rooms have grown to fit their larger things. Kitchens have bigger appliances and a lot of them. Family rooms and master bedrooms must fit today’s huge TVs.”
– Gopal Ahluwalia, vice president of research at the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), quoted in the Chicago Tribune
A pretty lively conversation raged earlier this week in this discussion thread about whether downtown condo developers are building too many large two- and three-bedroom condos, and neglecting to build one-bedrooms.
Although it deals mostly with suburban buyers, an article in today’s Tribune observes that baby boomers and empty nesters tend to favor large condos, and as a result, condos are growing. According to the NAHB, the average condo size grew 16 percent between 1999 and 2008, from 1,360 to 1,577 square feet. Over that same period, single-family homes grew at a more modest rate of 12 percent.
Again, my point isn’t that developers shouldn’t market units to this demographic.
My point is that developers shouldn’t be coerced into marketing EXCLUSIVELY to this demographic.
The smaller units in the Chicago Spire sold like hotcakes. Smaller units almost always sell like hotcakes (in a good market), and usually to younger individuals.
By pressuring developers to reduce or eliminate one bedroom/studios from their projects, one could make an argument that WLCO is practicing age discrimination.
tup,
Developers aren’t easy to coerce into doing anything they don’t want to do, especially if they see it as not making economic sense.
I very much doubt that WLCO has any ability to coerce developers in any direction.
Aren’t you generally in favor of coercing developers to do what you see as desirable? Isn’t everyone free to attempt coercion in the interests of a desirable outcome? Don’t those competing visions of the city make for a better city?
I actually heard WLCO is opposing developers building smaller unit/studio. Maybe it’s just rumor, i don’t know. To prevent too many investers swarming into the community?
If we look at the west loop and south loop area, there are much fewer studios compared to those in river north, streetville area. Is it a good thing or not?
I live in the South Loop and I can say that its a great thing that there are very few studios in most of our buildings. Studios just aren’t fun to live in no matter how single or how young you are. If you want people to stay grounded in a neighborhood you can’t have them cooped up in a closet.
Joe,
Well, if not giving community support behind a zoning change that requires Aldermanic approval is any indication, WLCO pretty much can dictate to developers what they want to see out of development.
And they do it all the time.
And regarding your second question: no, I don’t think competing visions make for a better city if one of those visions includes supressing density mere blocks away from the nation’s second largest business district while asking the city’s taxpayers to pony up millions of dollars to install an L stop. All to what, serve a bunch of old cranks living alone in 3 bedroom condos (those that are even occupied at all)?
Doesn’t sound like responsible city planning to me. Chicago needs to do something about NIMBY groups–they don’t deserve to have as much say as they do.
tup,
I don’t disagree with you about the role of NIMBY groups. I would question whether WLCO has much influence.
Joe, one suggestion: Why not interview WLCO and see how much power they have in terms of the development in west loop? You know, this can definitely help solve some concerns most people have.
The smaller units in Spire sold like hotcakes because one, that’s all even the rich can afford, and second, a large percentage wanted this to either flip or splurge on a vacation home. I would not use these as analogies. The bulk of buyers of 1Br in the South Loop and most parts of downtown are investors and flippers. Your best investment location for 1BR is always either in Streeterville area, or Lincoln Park. Doctors and Trixies wanting a place rarely go out of style.
You sound just like the “I deserve it now for free” generation. What ever happened to saving, investing, sweat equity, etc? Listen, if you can’t afford where you want, do something about it. How about buying what you can afford?. Or How about buying starter home/condo, improve it, sell it…repeat and build equity over time? Or, here is a nobel idea, cut out frills, and save more money? How about doing research, buy in a gentrifying neighborhood on the edge, and take a chance like most of those people you cry about did and earn it?
“supressing density mere blocks away from the
nation’s second largest business district while
asking the city’s taxpayers to pony up millions
of dollars to install an L stop. All to what, serve
a bunch of old cranks living alone in 3 bedroom
condos (those that are even occupied at all)?”
You might be surprised that these cranks are the ones footing the bill in the form of TIF Funds. They are paying for the infrastructure and schools…I suggest you try becoming a homeowner for one and after you get stuck paying all the hidden fees, taxes, etc. Then come back an talk.
“Doesn’t sound like responsible city planning to me.
Chicago needs to do something about NIMBY
groups–they don’t deserve to have as much say
as they do.”
Yes, those pesky people trying to make their neighborhood better….the horror. Why don’t they just let criminals infest their neighborhood, turn a blind eye, ignore their kids education, spend time being irresponsible? How dare they! It works so well in other parts of Chicago.
And what reason do we have to not to trust City and State officials? Everything is so honest, transparent, and well planned by City Planners and Developers all for the benefit of mankind. Corruption, what corruption? It’s not like anyone would try to sell the city’s parking meters for a Billion below their value or so with no review.
It’s not like someone would put a hold on TIF spending so they could come up with a new “Action Plan” (after they close the Central TIF) to now even port more TIF money to to other parts of the City to fund $15BB in projects, while claiming “a great part of this plan is that we can accelerate much of it for the Olympics”. It’s not as if they would also put the names of people and community groups in the Plan’s Committee list who now claim they have never seen the plan before.
Don’t worry, you will have a chance to buy your 1BR real soon.
“yoho said:
Joe, one suggestion: Why not interview WLCO and see how much power they have in terms of the development in west loop? You know, this can definitely help solve some concerns most people have”
LOL! Yes, then the Internet geeks spending 12 hours per day on the web posting articles about skyscrapers, crying about NIMBY’s, and how they can’t afford neighborhoods, can finally get some sleep or possibly a career.
yoho,
I don’t think that asking any community organization how much influence it has is a good way to get a fix on its influence.
I think you can learn a lot about the WLCO by examining the size of the turnout at its membership events. Draw your own conclusions.
Jeff,
I appreciate your post, but my complaints aren’t economical in nature.
In my line of work I shouldn’t have a problem buying a larger condo–so you see, this isn’t personal. My issue has more to do with general demographics and population densities and how they relate to city services. I could care less if those 1 bedrooms costed $899k versus $199k; you are reading my arguments wrong.
But the point stands. You may look at the WLCO as an impediment, but i would say you need to look at their body of work, as well as some of the terrific development there.
Is there some shortage of 1BR size – yes?. But at the same time, that makes it better in the long run when you do find something. There may be more 1BR Stock in the SLoop, but it is an afterthought and in many cases poorly planned.
I love the South Loop, for some good reasons, but from a development, character, commercial development standpoint, and building complexity, the West Loop is heads & shoulders over the South Loop. The South Loop has proximity and other large benefits, but it did or does not really have to compete with the huge gentrification issues that faced block by block in the West Loop. The South Loop was a blank slate in most areas, which led to a few good high-rises and a few good low density developments, but also, as a result of the developers running amok, aiming low in a few cases, it lacks the cohesion general quality of the West Loop.
I think having some sound, consistent community input and expectations is a big part of that. In the South Loop, you had two chamber of commerce type organizations, related and integrated, rubber stamping anything because their own proprietors stand to gain – where is the urban planning challenge in that?
As an example, the loft selection in the WL is outstanding because, the development plan and review has challenged for quality over pure price point. Even in WL loft conversions, you see careful attention detail and actual architectural planning influence to give new life to these buildings; some great unique spaces integrating modern touches to old buildings.
In the South Loop, loft conversion means clean it up, keep the stuff as is, and stick a for sale sign on it. Boring and crappy.
Enjoy the West Loop for what it is…everything you talk of wanting is already in Streeterville and in some parts River East. Why fight it?
Jeff,
I still do not see how the WL somehow has had better “cohesion” or “consistence”.
I guess it’s a matter of taste, and I can certainly respect that there are going to be people who value things differently than I.
The South Loop is indeed more of a “blank slate”, but I actually don’t see the development of the past 10 years as poorly planned. Central Station seemed to have very good master planning, and it looks as if Roosevelt Collection and its future counterpart to the south of Roosevelt will certainly require a lot of planning and community input. A cohesive plan will also allow more retail to be focused along State, Michigian Ave, etc in the south loop and for a wall of highrises to properly cap the southern end of Grant Park. South Loopers have also been much more reasonable about highrise development, ie they don’t have a carpet ban on all things greater than X stories tall, which to me is the most stubborn & intransigent way one could approach city planning.
To the contrary, the West Loop still doesn’t have a de facto “commercial spine” (besides Randolph, which is really more of a restaurant row than a real community retail center), and it’s kind of hard to have that if 1) you have low population densities and thus low pedestrian counts, 2) you have too many large developments with ample parking nearby, thus most people will simply drive and do their shopping instead of walk to the local shop, and 3) individual developers have variably put blank walls and garage doors along supposed “commercial” streets, while placing commercial spaces along side streets, etc. In other words, what’s happening in the WL is really just a hodge podge, which would be fine if this were 1889 and people neither had cars nor demanded so much space, but since it’s 2009 these buildings waste a lot of space in automobile storage and with extra large units that, frankly, sit half empty.
In order to rectify the above problem while still giving 2009’ers what they want (space and a parking spot), the only way to achieve desirable densities that attract retail and put pedestrians on the street is to build vertically.
I have visited the WL both in the day and at night. In April 2006 (1 week after our wedding) I took my wife to the West Loop to eat at a restaurant on Randolph St. This was a Saturday evening, mind you, and after dinner we walked south towards other streets in the West Loop, must have been no later than 9pm. Not a soul in sight, it was so eerily quiet that we actually did not feel safe–we luckily found a cab passing through and scurried away.
Is this what WL residents want? Empty sidewalks at night, that creepy, empty feeling? Emptiness is NOT a good thing in cities–it’s scary and ultimately damaging to a neighborhood’s reputation, IMO.
Anyhow, sorry for the long post, but those are my observations and my thoughts, and until something changes I don’t see the WLCO doing its neighborhood any good by trying to block denser development.
Just as a caveat to the above, I would also like to add that the only exception to what I view to be better planning in the south loop is Dearborn Park.
In my opinion, the short-sighted planning behind Dearborn Park is among the worst in recent times.
TUP, I agree with you that there are not many people walking on the street at nights in West Loop. And the retail is still in initial development phase.
But you can not attribute this to WLCO’s fault.
As I said earlier, it’s city’s plan that there shouldn’t be too many high-rises built in west loop, especially the area west of kennedey.
Talking about ‘adding L stop to morgan street’, it actually is the only transportation tool planned or to be planned in the west loop according to city’s central area plan of next 12 years. How sad it is for west loopers! So stop wining about it!
Also, in terms of retail development, blame it on bad economy. If it were not for that, the retail block at jackson/aberdee should already be built!!