HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Never Built & Visionary Projects


    Conservatory Tower in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • Chicago Skyscraper Diagram

Map Location
Chicago Projects & Construction Forum

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #121  
Old Posted Jul 6, 2015, 5:49 PM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,418
Anyone can build a building in Chicago if they have the right tenants and financial backers. I know for a fact that the hotel operators are signed on so I'm not worried about who is going to occupy it, I'm worried that the developers apparently don't know their ass from their face when it comes to the development process in Chicago.

That's not insurmountable though, that's just challenging. If you have money and a plan, you can build here, just don't make things unnecessarily harder on yourself by fumbling the entire PR process.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #122  
Old Posted Jul 6, 2015, 7:35 PM
aaron38's Avatar
aaron38 aaron38 is online now
312
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Palatine
Posts: 3,809
Is there a larger version of the rendering that's the thumbnail image for the thread? Where did that come from? All I see is the night rendering and the blueprint.

As for financing, the hotel operator is from Mexico, does that mean they're funding it? We run a pretty hefty trade deficit with Mexico. Money is like electricity, it has to get back to the source to complete the circuit and make another go round, so I wouldn't be at all surprised to see sizeable investments in America made from Mexican companies. Wanda is similar.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #123  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2015, 5:42 PM
ChiTownWonder's Avatar
ChiTownWonder ChiTownWonder is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 544
Just saw on the diagram this was moved to proposed. I like being optimistic and all, and its fun to think of what could be but realistically i don't see it happening. what evidence do we have anyways? one article about it and LVDW's optimism? What other proof do we have?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #124  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2015, 6:07 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright View Post
Anyone can build a building in Chicago if they have the right tenants and financial backers. I know for a fact that the hotel operators are signed on so I'm not worried about who is going to occupy it, I'm worried that the developers apparently don't know their ass from their face when it comes to the development process in Chicago.

That's not insurmountable though, that's just challenging. If you have money and a plan, you can build here, just don't make things unnecessarily harder on yourself by fumbling the entire PR process.

Reasons to be highly skeptical of this have nothing to do with PR - you're just obfuscating there - it's all about the deep track record and financial resources/lending connections etc of the developers - or in this case, as many - lack thereof, and you know it. There's just little-to-no reason to believe it exists here.

I'm sure this is an internet forum faux pas on all kinds of obnoxious levels, but I need to go back and quote myself from earlier in the thread. This is everything and more you need to keep front-of-mind when contemplating the prospects for this 'project' eventuating:



"Yeah, this 'project' is not passing the sniff test for reality.......site needs to change hands in a true market arms-length transaction (really this time) before anything is going to be developed there (unfortunately).........don't get me wrong, as 'proposed' this seems like it would be a fantastic addition to the north end of the Loop.....


The 'announcement' or whatever it was recalls the huge f'up of Wanda Dalian in (was it?) 2013 with their premature press release - but importantly without both the stature/assets/track record of Wanda itself, as well as a very established and capable US development partner for its project....." - SamInTheLoop, June 2015
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #125  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2015, 2:03 PM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,418
^^^ Dude, I'm not saying this will get built, I'm just saying your "absolutely not" attitude is totally absurd. Virtually nothing about this proposal has been effectively announced at this point and saying "well they don't have a development track record" is insane when you don't even know who "they" is yet. I know for a fact that these brands are signed on and that's the only reason for any optimism I have.

IF a brand like Live Aqua really is backing this, it doesn't fucking matter who the development team is because Rahm will bend over backward to get a second marquee international brand to choose Chicago as it's US port of entry. They could be 13 year old prepubescent boys whose only experience is Sim City, but if they have a contract and funding from a hotel chain like that, then Rahm will have someone at city hall just hold their hand through the entire process.I know you just love to over analyze everything, but at this point there is no information to analyze so chill.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #126  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2015, 2:07 PM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,418
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiTownWonder View Post
Just saw on the diagram this was moved to proposed. I like being optimistic and all, and its fun to think of what could be but realistically i don't see it happening. what evidence do we have anyways? one article about it and LVDW's optimism? What other proof do we have?
It's not "LDVW's optimism" it's "LDVW talked to someone who would know and they confirmed this is a real project and both Live Aqua and Dream are signed on". It could still never get built and I don't know how far along in the contract process they are, but Live Aqua wouldn't be publicly announcing this unless their agreement was legally binding. Hotel brands can be notoriously flaky because they are rarely both the owner and the operator, so I wouldn't be surprised at all if the development teams flubs this as Sam is so confident they will, but I know for a fact it is a legitimate "proposal" (whatever that even means) at this point.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #127  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2015, 2:57 PM
r18tdi's Avatar
r18tdi r18tdi is offline
Team Alinghi
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiTownWonder View Post
What other proof do we have?
Zapatan believes in this project. That's all the proof I need!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #128  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2015, 5:08 PM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
Life enthusiast
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Barcelona, NYC, California
Posts: 4,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by r18tdi View Post
Zapatan believes in this project. That's all the proof I need!
I do?

I was really just playing devils advocate/asking Sam why he was being so overtly negative about it when there's not much info, or at least that I've heard which is why I was asking him about the developer's track record etc.

I'm just saying now is a good time to build anything in Chicago because a boom is coming, but if the developer is not legitimate then that obviously puts a damper on things.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #129  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2015, 5:09 AM
The Lurker The Lurker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Great Lakes
Posts: 575
If only we could start wagering bets on these projects. Imagine the money that would have been made by betting on the spire or River Point. Or Waterview. Ha just a fun thought. I'll throw fifty in the pot. Perhaps I'll raise when more solid info comes along...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #130  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2015, 5:51 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 13,884
I mean, a big marquee hotel, even a international brand, is certainly no guarantee. See how well that worked out for Shangri-La and Mandarin Oriental...
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #131  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2015, 5:46 PM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,418
Of course it isn't, I have repeated that this might not get done ad nauseum, but no one would claim Madarin Oriental or Waterview weren't legitimate proposals which is the comment I was responding too. Who knows whether this will happen, but the odds are significantly higher than the 0% chance that Sam and others would have you believe...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #132  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2015, 8:13 AM
ChiTownWonder's Avatar
ChiTownWonder ChiTownWonder is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 544
Ok i give it 2% chance then as of now. Lets just see if there is any future info released.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #133  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2015, 3:18 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,056
0% does seem harsh. I'm at 1.68% right now.............it's true, more unexpected things have happened....
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #134  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2015, 8:23 PM
Stained's Avatar
Stained Stained is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: The Loop
Posts: 64
Agreed, it seems quite unlikely at the moment. I would love to see something here though. The current building is not very attractive, given its neighbors. I would have a perfect view of the construction site, so I might be cheering for this one for very selfish reasons.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #135  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2015, 2:08 AM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
Life enthusiast
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Barcelona, NYC, California
Posts: 4,003
Okay well assuming most Chicago forumers know more about the building than I do and think it's not getting built probably means it isn't. Regardless, they should scrap this design and some new, better developer put something even taller here because the location is awesome.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #136  
Old Posted Jul 28, 2015, 10:56 PM
munchymunch's Avatar
munchymunch munchymunch is offline
MPLSXCHI
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Omicron Persei 8
Posts: 1,049
__________________
"I don't want to be interesting. I want to be good." -Ludwig Mies van der Rohe
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #137  
Old Posted Jul 29, 2015, 12:16 AM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,418
^^^ Interesting. The most notable tidbit in there is the involvement of the American Invesco crew. That's relevant because:

A. American Invesco has a track record of getting fairly large projects done.

and

B. American Invesco has royally fucked up just about every project they've been involved in. (See their condo conversions at 200 N Dearborn and River City both of which melted down hard in the recession).

and

C. Unsurprisingly the legal action on this seems to have been triggered by a series of unscrupulous ball-kicks to tenants meted out by the guys running the show.


So the point is that people who were once with the largest condo converter in the last boom which did billions worth of project are running the show here. They aren't exactly inexperienced, but they also have a track record of crash and burn. At the same time it seems that the litigation has been settled out for the most part so, if this thing is going to move forward, I'd expect to hear some noise on it sooner rather than later. You'd think they'd be jonesing to get their zoning app in before the new affordable law kicks in.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #138  
Old Posted Aug 4, 2015, 3:34 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,056
^ What in the world are you talking about? American Invsco's involvement (and/or 'shadow involvement') here is perhaps the single most persuasive reason to not expect anything to come of a current proposal. They don't have a track record of actually developing jack. They are a converter, nothing more......with a reputation that, uh, precedes them.....everywhere they go....
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #139  
Old Posted Aug 4, 2015, 6:07 PM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,418
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop View Post
^ What in the world are you talking about? American Invsco's involvement (and/or 'shadow involvement') here is perhaps the single most persuasive reason to not expect anything to come of a current proposal. They don't have a track record of actually developing jack. They are a converter, nothing more......with a reputation that, uh, precedes them.....everywhere they go....
You obviously didn't read what I said, more than half of my comment is devoted to talking about how they were the biggest converter in the boom and also one of the biggest implosions. What the involvement of some of their team (namely the CFO) does indicate is that they are not completely inexperienced in development. Let me quote myself so maybe you'll read it this time:

Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright View Post
B. American Invesco has royally fucked up just about every project they've been involved in. (See their condo conversions at 200 N Dearborn and River City both of which melted down hard in the recession).
and

Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright View Post
So the point is that people who were once with the largest condo converter in the last boom which did billions worth of project are running the show here. They aren't exactly inexperienced, but they also have a track record of crash and burn. .
Developers go down in flames all the time and then turn around a raise money a few years later. My comment about it being interesting is merely that the people involved aren't total noobs. Fuckups yes, but even you can't say they have no experience raising money for highrise projects. Again, I know they didn't really do new construction, but if you can raise money to purchase and convert tens of thousands of highrise residential units, then you can raise money to build one new construction highrise.

Let me repeat myself again so maybe you'll actually read it this time, I'm not saying they are an all star team that's going to hit this out of the park, I'm saying they are competent enough that they could potentially pull this off. Again again, I am also saying they screwed the pooch hard in the last boom too, so they might fuck it up again here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #140  
Old Posted Aug 4, 2015, 8:54 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,056
^ Again, wtf. Nothing in your original comments would lead one to believe that you know they are not a ground-up developer at all.

Instead of trying to get the last word in every time, sometimes just yield, as in "Thanks for the info, Sam. I didn't realize that, but now I know better."

Just try it out once - you never know, you might like the way it feels.....
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Never Built & Visionary Projects
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:38 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.