COURTYARD URBANIST · BRONZEVILLE · 9 OCTOBER 2026
Two-pass architectural and development review
Illustrative rents, $275/gross-sf enclosed construction, 65% loan-to-cost, 6.5% interest, 30-year amortization and 5.5% cap rate. Apartment areas are gross; no bay area or architectural-detail premium is priced.
Seven of twelve typical-floor entries had differed from the saved upper entry plan. The 3D model now uses all twelve upper entries at their correct positions, independently of the ten-home ground layout.
A has 60 ft of street frontage. B retains unequal gross corner legs of approximately 88.33 and 84 ft; straight street runs total about 144.05 ft plus a separate 20-ft chamfer. This differs substantially from the 70–80 ft combined-frontage target. C also has about 69.86 ft of straight Indiana frontage plus its south chamfer. A genuinely smaller-building option needs a new core/fire-wall and ground plan, not cosmetic facade divisions.
Twelve upper homes serve three core/entry groups. B2b is a 986-gross-sf three-bedroom target: the requested ensuite, second bath, powder room, study, hall privacy and courtyard kitchen need an explicit fit. If it becomes two bedrooms plus flex, reduce the rent/bedroom schedule together.
Ten ground homes remain tentative. The conservative study FAR is about 1.98 against the saved RM-5 value of 2.0, leaving little headroom under this measurement. Bays are not included in area; determine legal FAR treatment before relying on remaining capacity.
The baseline still has zero affordable homes. Use the separate five-home rounded-up sensitivity for a conservative whole-unit planning comparison; approved allocation and fractional treatment need City confirmation.
Each case starts from the same baseline. Cost targets are investigation thresholds, not contractor savings. “Remaining cost gap” retains the existing 1.20× NOI coverage, cash flow and value-at-cost checks.
| Scenario | Homes | DSCR | Remaining cost gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Construction −10%Enclosed construction rate only; bid target, not assumed savings. | 46 | 0.94× | $3,556,344 |
| Construction −20%Enclosed construction rate only; all other inputs held fixed. | 46 | 1.04× | $1,931,653 |
| Market rents +10%Sensitivity only; needs comparables. Affordable rents stay fixed. | 46 | 0.98× | $3,269,524 |
| Cost −15% + market rents +10%Combined test, not a forecast or contractor quote. | 46 | 1.14× | $832,487 |
| No ground-floor rentGround homes excluded; baseline construction cost retained. This measures income at risk. | 36 | 0.66× | $8,201,577 |
| 10% affordable-home testRounded up to whole homes using existing placeholder rents; mix and City terms unverified. | 46 | 0.82× | $5,682,036 |
At 1.25× coverage of cash flow after replacement reserves and an 80% LTV ceiling, supported debt is $7,905,605. Additional equity or confirmed funding versus the present loan assumption is $3,873,962. This addresses debt sizing; it does not erase the cost-over-value gap or establish an investor return. It is a stabilized-property comparison, not a construction financing commitment.
Complete one repeatable ground and upper dwelling type per entrance group before increasing counts. Trace every home entry through a coat vestibule; bedrooms and the office must open from a real hall/recess. Fit the primary ensuite, smaller bedrooms, required bath count and usable courtyard-facing island kitchen/dining. The model verifies gross allowances, not these room relationships.
Verify independent exits, travel distances, enclosure/fire compartments, stair landings, clear door swings, accessible ground routes and grades. A drawn door is a location reservation; it does not certify a clear opening or a usable accessible route.
Ask a contractor to price a simple repeated structural/wet-stack grid first. Price bays, limestone, terracotta, quoins, cornices and gallery guards as separate alternates. Keep memorable detail at the entrances and corners while repeating ordinary windows and wall panels.
Keep sandbox and picnic tables visible from homes; maintain clear routes to all doors, refuse and alley. Develop drainage, winter maintenance, play surfacing, roots, soil volume and lighting. Furnishing footprints are checked against buildings; accessible maneuvering and continuous finished routes are not yet certified.
Underwrite the RFP affordability obligation and approved rent/utility schedule. Confirm construction-to-permanent financing, interest carry, fees, lease-up, insurance, taxes and reserves. The percentage soft-cost allowance must be replaced with a cost schedule, avoiding double counting.
Use the RFP land price. A discount is not automatic: the RFP describes exceptions tied to additional affordability or substantial public benefit. If considering City assistance, price any associated wage, procurement and participation requirements before counting a net subsidy benefit.
Obtain boundary/topographic survey, geotechnical and environmental information, utility capacities, comparable achieved rents/sales and at least two scoped contractor estimates. Neighboring heights are estimates; winter shadow checks are a design screen, not a certified daylight study.
Study ownership separately with saleable rather than gross area, buyer deposits, construction finance, shared-court easements, legal subdivision, association reserves and completion guarantees. Distinct facade colors do not create independent legal buildings or financeable parcels.
Geometry was checked against saved floor allocations, not a new survey. Ground/upper door schedules, opening ownership, opening collisions, model triangulation, courtyard objects, source assumptions and scenario arithmetic were reviewed. Unit room relationships remain only partially encoded. The existing shadow study retains approximate neighboring heights. Historical drawings and the separate October 7 workbook are snapshots; they do not automatically inherit this revision.