CHICAGO | Waterview Tower | 1,047' Official / 1,035' Roof | 89 FLOORS |NEVER BUILT - Page 10

Alliance · #**181** Posted **Mar 16, 2007, 5:26 AM**

Wow. Thanks BVic.

chi-arch · #**182** Posted **Mar 16, 2007, 1:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by budman

And what side of the building is being shown here? Cant see the bottom where it shows the elevation.

That appears to be the North Elevation(Wacker), Budman.

budman · #**183** Posted **Mar 16, 2007, 6:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chi-arch

That appears to be the North Elevation(Wacker), Budman.

^Thanks Chi, that's what I thought, but the diagram doesn't look symetrical (like the front - north elevation - of the building will be), so I was confused.

Nowhereman1280 · #**184** Posted **Mar 16, 2007, 6:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by budman

^Thanks Chi, that's what I thought, but the diagram doesn't look symetrical (like the front - north elevation - of the building will be), so I was confused.

Its not symmetrical from the north, its kinda symmetrical on a diagonal, though not actually symmetrical. This building becomes an odd sorta triangular shape above the 20 somethingith floor where the base ends... Look at the rendering from the northwest, it clearly shows this...

budman · #**185** Posted **Mar 16, 2007, 7:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Its not symmetrical from the north, its kinda symmetrical on a diagonal, though not actually symmetrical. This building becomes an odd sorta triangular shape above the 20 somethingith floor where the base ends... Look at the rendering from the northwest, it clearly shows this...

^I see. I meant that the very front is symmetrical (ie, the front facade), not the actual view from the north, which would include, from a 3-D standpoint, the parts of the building that can be seen from the north, but are really behind the facade. ..and now I see that the diagram includes this three-dimensional view, and would be assymetrical (as you can tell, I am no architect

). Thanks for pointing that out for me. And Shawn, I think you are probably right about the 13th floor being skipped in the finished building, which would make the 28th floor in the diagram the 29th floor in the finished building (and the same thing for the 87th floor).

chi-arch · #**186** Posted **Mar 16, 2007, 8:52 PM**

We're going to turn you into an architect yet, Budman. Elevations can be tricky to read at times. You're doing fine and I think you have the floor thing figured out as well.

budman · #**187** Posted **Mar 17, 2007, 1:01 AM**

Thanks Chi. I am taking baby steps

LoyolaBeachView · #**188** Posted **Mar 20, 2007, 1:58 AM**

SamInTheLoop · #**189** Posted **Mar 20, 2007, 11:51 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

From what I understand, there is about 7' of material that needs to be removed. I've heard that they would like to be finished with the excavation within the next week or 2.

Also, if anyone has noticed, the alley south of the site is settling quite a bit. In fact I've heard that it's settled nearly 1 foot.

BVic, or anyone else: Have you heard anything about how large/when the big concrete pour will be? (I'm assuming there will be a thick mat covering all or most of the site...)

SolarWind · #**190** Posted **Mar 21, 2007, 12:49 AM**

March 20, 2007

^ not much new to report

BVictor1 · #**191** Posted **Mar 21, 2007, 9:32 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

BVic, or anyone else: Have you heard anything about how large/when the big concrete pour will be? (I'm assuming there will be a thick mat covering all or most of the site...)

The big concrete pour for the core was back in October of last year. The mat from what I know is only for the core. They will pour gravel down there and grade it smooth, then add a few layers of rebar and pour the basement floor. I suppose you could call that a mat in a sense, but it's not what they did before.

I wonder how deep this excavation is compared to the Shangri-La Tower in Vancouver?

dvidler · #**192** Posted **Mar 21, 2007, 1:26 PM**

Shangri-La Hotel developer gets $20-million loan

By Alby Gallun
March 21, 2007

A year after breaking ground, the developer of the Waterview Tower & Shangri-La Hotel has finally secured a $20-million loan, a step in the right direction but not enough to finance the entire 90-story condominium-hotel project on West Wacker Drive.

Rendering of Waterview Tower & Shangri-La Hotel (center building)

Chicago-based Teng & Associates Inc. surprised many observers in January 2006, when it broke ground on the high-rise at 111 W. Wacker Drive without first securing a construction loan. Months passed without news of a loan, fueling doubts about the project even as construction continued, albeit slowly.

The recent $20-million loan from Chicago-based LaSalle Bank N.A. won’t quell those doubts, considering the project is expected to cost more than $400 million. Construction loans for similar projects usually account for 70% to 80% of costs.

Loan documents filed last month with the Cook County Recorder say little about the terms of the loan, which probably is a form of stop-gap financing until Teng can secure a larger construction loan. A Teng affiliate did not borrow money to finance its $10-million purchase of the property in 2000.

Teng President and CEO Ivan J. Dvorak did not return phone calls for comment, and a LaSalle spokesman declined to comment.

One potential lender is California-based Fremont Investment & Loan, which has had discussions with Teng.

“We are interested in the deal provided we can find suitable co-lenders,” says Scott Manlin, vice-president and regional manager at Fremont. “We believe in the deal. We like the deal.”

Yet sales of the project’s hotel units have been slow. Teng is selling rooms and suites in the Shangri-La to individual investors, much like it is with its residential condos. Condo-hotel owners are able to occupy the hotel units when they want and have the units rented out when they’re away.

The concept, however, has received a lukewarm reception in Chicago. Teng began marketing its 200 hotel units in October 2005, but buyers had signed contracts for just 70, or 35%, in January, the same number as in October 2006, according to Appraisal Research Counselors, a Chicago-based real estate consulting firm.

Teng and other condo-hotel developers have also attracted the attention of state regulators, who have been investigating allegations that the developers violated state securities laws by touting the investment potential of their rooms. A state securities official was not immediately available for comment.

Related story: Condo-hotels draw scrutiny

Teng has had more success selling residential condos in the project. Of 233 residential units, 150, or 64%, were under contract in January, according to Appraisal Research.

Meanwhile, construction on Waterview Tower has moved slowly. More than 13 months after Teng’s groundbreaking ceremony, the building’s concrete core is barely above street level. A construction crane on the site sat still Tuesday afternoon, and a worker pushing a broom was the only activity visible to a sidewalk observer.

trvlr70 · #**193** Posted **Mar 21, 2007, 1:43 PM**

^^^^^^^^^^^
Does this make anyone else nervous?

chicubs111 · #**194** Posted **Mar 21, 2007, 2:04 PM**

umm makes me a little nervous...but still confident..I mean we all know construction is on pace...those idiot columunist dont know the amount of excavating that needs to be done for the site before it starts rising...I cant see a bank not lending money for a project that is already practically underway and has a substantial of amount of contracts signed.

budman · #**195** Posted **Mar 21, 2007, 2:19 PM**

^Yes, it makes me a little nervous too. Not so much because of the pace of the construction, but because: 1.They began construction over a year ago, and thus far have only secured a $20 million loan; 2. The Fremont representative is only committed so long as a co-lender can be found (and no such co-lender was identified in the article); and 3. The condo-hotel units are not selling all that well. Obviously there are things going on behind the scenes to which we are not privy, but those things could be either good or bad. However, Teng is a great company, and I have tremendous faith in their ability to make this thing happen.

trvlr70 · #**196** Posted **Mar 21, 2007, 2:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by budman

^Yes, it makes me a little nervous too. Not so much because of the pace of the construction, but because: 1.They began construction over a year ago, and thus far have only secured a $20 million loan; 2. The Fremont representative is only committed so long as a co-lender can be found (and no such co-lender was identified in the article); and 3. The condo-hotel units are not selling all that well. Obviously there are things going on behind the scenes to which we are not privy, but those things could be either good or bad. However, Teng is a great company, and I have tremendous faith in their ability to make this thing happen.

Perhaps since you're going to be a condo owner, you could get some answers for us.

chi-arch · #**197** Posted **Mar 21, 2007, 2:35 PM**

Why do writers write shit like this? That was me out there with the broom trying to move it along...and no I'm not worried.

chicubs111 · #**198** Posted **Mar 21, 2007, 2:51 PM**

I remember vic saying awhile back during his waterview tower upadtes that we would be hearing news about a loan for this project...now i dont know if this is the news he meant we were going to hear of if he meant something more substantial will be released....Vic can you help me with this one?

Rocket1 · #**199** Posted **Mar 21, 2007, 2:59 PM**

It seems like the hotel-condo aspect is potentially the major stumbling point in this whole deal.

Is there any indication that a buildings like the Waterview might financially sound with a combination of a traditional hotel and residential condos, rather than a hotel-condo and residential condo combination?

Jaroslaw · #**200** Posted **Mar 21, 2007, 4:16 PM**

I love the building, but I've been grumbling and worrying about this situation for a year now... I don't like these things: Teng has no previous experience with highrises; apparently MO is not putting in a great deal of equity; the 64% sold is for the number of condos: assuming that the larger and higher units sell more slowly, the money value might be even lower, and that's the number that counts. I hope I can provoke some good news here somehow...