wabash wrote:chriss752 wrote: ↑Apr 04, 2021
And when comparing to 100 Above the Park, there's no comparison.
You've walked through both, so would have a better sense, but it doesn't look like "no comparison" to me. There are a lot of eye catching amenities in The Chelsea, but what about the apartments themselves? That 2nd kitchen is tiny, 100's kitchen finishes look a little nicer, 100 has floor-to-ceiling windows in every room, 100 has flooring throughout instead of the carpeting in bedrooms (which I prefer, but may be a matter of preference). 100 also has significantly better views and location.
I think it's a matter of taste and how much one values common amenities alongside their private residence than simply "no comparison".
They might be less playful and eye catching, but IMO 100's common spaces turned out really nicely:
![]()
![]()
![]()
Well, you sort of proved my point there a little bit that I was trying to make, but I’ll clarify it.
When I said “no comparison”, I meant it in the way that the buildings were in different classes and appealed to different people. 100 is for people who want the views, a more minimalist lifestyle, and bragging rights about living in that building. Chelsea is for people who want a very social lifestyle where you go out and spend time in the amenities since the apartments are small, but not too small. Chelsea is also geared towards young professionals and, as crazy as it sounds, college students (evidenced in the price range when compared to 100).
Regarding the apartment units, 100’s varied in size depending on the floor you were on in a tier. Naturally, the smallest units were at the bottom of each tier but included a patio space whereas the top of each tier had the largest units. The studios at 100 were smaller than the studios at Chelsea. Even the appliances were smaller as a result. Bathrooms in both buildings’s apartments were about the same size. Same goes for walk-in closets. I do like the carpet in the bedrooms at Chelsea but, as you said, it’s a matter of preference. I will say that for the studios at Chelsea, the kitchen is a bit large and takes up too much space. It could’ve been shrunk a bit and the island didn’t have to be so big. Shrinking the kitchen would’ve made the unit feel less crowded, which is why the units with the bed that comes down from the ceiling felt larger. The kitchen finishes at both buildings is debatable when it comes down to quality. Both felt sturdy and well built. Appliances were nice at both as well. Countertops at both are quartz, same with the backsplash. But ultimately, the differences come in the colors and what not. So even the kitchens are a matter of personal taste.
So 100 did some things right, and so did Chelsea, but they don’t really compare to each other since they appeal to different people and are in way different price ranges. So, you can compare them, but it just wouldn’t seem that fair.
And those amenity spaces at 100 are smaller in real life. They’re nice, but they’re smaller.
