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. Land has been corrected to the RFP target.
The old live scenario used $0 land. The new starting scenario includes the RFP target of $258,427.27 (p. 17). Previously saved scenarios retain their saved inputs; reset or edit land before comparing them.
The retained 14-ft ground floor plus three 12-ft upper floors is 50 ft to the modeled roof. The RFP recommends a building-height approach of 45 ft or less for exterior secondary egress (p. 9). Compare a coordinated 12-ft ground + three 10.5-ft upper concept (43.5 ft before final roof details), adjusting openings, structure and stairs together; no shortened-height geometry or savings is represented as completed here.
At the existing 14-ft first floor, the 18 × 10-ft exterior reservation yields about 10.91-in treads against the study’s 11-in target. The discrepancy is about 1 in of total run. Coordinate height, run, landing and finished clear width; do not shave the landing to hide it.
Each Evans front is 50 ft; the street bar is 40 ft deep and the returns 30 ft wide. The central arched street portal serves both fronts. Refined glazed leaves and handles now make that entrance and the individual gallery doors legible.
The RFP area is 12,500 sf versus about 12,306 sf in the GIS reference. The conservative study FAR is 2.00 on the RFP area and about 2.03 on the GIS area. Survey and official FAR interpretation are decisive; do not assume the 2.5-ft bays add free saleable/rentable area.
The base carries a separate $161,160 hard fit-out/access allowance plus soft cost and contingency. If the all-floor $275/gross-sf rate already includes that exact work, removing the duplicate yields a $206,285 total-cost difference; it does not by itself solve feasibility.
The preserved rent mix contains zero affordable homes. The review tests three whole affordable homes at placeholder rents; approved ARO treatment and rents remain unresolved.
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. | 22 | 0.83× | $2,458,051 |
| Construction −20%Enclosed construction rate only; all other inputs held fixed. | 22 | 0.92× | $1,685,059 |
| Market rents +10%Sensitivity only; needs comparables. Affordable rents stay fixed. | 22 | 0.88× | $2,375,488 |
| Cost −15% + market rents +10%Combined test, not a forecast or contractor quote. | 22 | 1.01× | $1,216,000 |
| No ground-floor rentGround homes excluded; baseline construction cost retained. This measures income at risk. | 18 | 0.60× | $4,400,722 |
| 10% affordable-home testRounded up to whole homes using existing placeholder rents; mix and City terms unverified. | 22 | 0.72× | $3,520,082 |
| Fit-out scope included in base bidRemove the separate fit-out allowance only if a contractor confirms that the base rate includes it. | 22 | 0.78× | $3,024,758 |
At 1.25× coverage of cash flow after replacement reserves and an 80% LTV ceiling, supported debt is $3,418,619. Additional equity or confirmed funding versus the present loan assumption is $2,327,219. 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.