CHICAGO | Waterview Tower | 1,047' Official / 1,035' Roof | 89 FLOORS |NEVER BUILT - Page 137

chrslyp · #**2721** Posted **Mar 11, 2009, 12:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

The developer of Grand Pier, Ray Chin was unable to get financing or he defaulted on a loan or something. The tower from what I recall never began marketing, I do remember that Lehman Brothers was involved somehow.

The floorplans and overall design as you mentioned weren't broke, but I don't know if they spent enough promoting/marketing the project either. Most people have no clue about this project.

IDEA: I wonder if it's been considered to drop trying to get a hotel operator on build out the section as rentals?

Just pulling ideas out of my ass here

thanks for the information bvic.

so you don't think enough marketing/promotion was done for this building? i don't live in chicago so i have no idea. you would think that if they were starting construction on this building before securing the construction loan, that they would have spent quite a bit on marketing/promotion. perhaps they thought the construction itself would market the building.

i think the apartment idea in place of the hotel units are a good idea. the only thing i would be concerned about is 1) ceiling height and 2) if changes could be made regarding the floor plans of those hotel/apartment units and how that would affect the floors that are already poured, if it all.

Jaroslaw · #**2722** Posted **Mar 11, 2009, 3:47 PM**

Grand Pier did start marketing... I remember ads in the Tribune, at least. Happier times...

Tom In Chicago · #**2723** Posted **Mar 11, 2009, 5:21 PM**

^Yeah. . . but their marketing effort was a joke. . . their Website looked like it was done by a third grader. . . you can't take anyone seriously when they use poorly rendered animated gifs as an attempt to brighten up their presence on the Web. . .

Jaroslaw · #**2724** Posted **Mar 13, 2009, 2:51 AM**

When was that, at least five years ago... not a long time for old-timers like us, but the web was more basic then. I remember the 55 E Erie website was nothing to write home about either. Still, point taken.

harryc · #**2725** Posted **Mar 14, 2009, 12:37 AM**

jaguar · #**2726** Posted **Mar 14, 2009, 1:42 PM**

Regrettably I just received my deposit from this failed project. My wife and I loved the project and would like to be a part of it if it does get completed.

I just think that opportunities come very few times in your life and if you do not seriously take care of business you could lose everything. The ownership of Teng never expected this to happen and it is truly sad. Also, I think Teng tried to grow up too quickly and when you do not take baby steps these type of failures occur.

I have seen this happen to many developers.

chi-arch · #**2727** Posted **Mar 14, 2009, 3:27 PM**

I'm still communicating with TENG, but my deposit is now in my bank. I wish them well.

budman · #**2728** Posted **Mar 14, 2009, 4:56 PM**

I have had my deposit back for about 3 months now, and I am hoping beyond hope that this tower is resurrected at some point in the future so chi-arch, jaguar and I might all be neighbors.

cbotnyse · #**2729** Posted **Mar 14, 2009, 5:30 PM**

with all of original deposits returned, this project is officially dead, no?

even if they did get financing, they'd have to start marketing and selling units from scratch right?

chi-arch · #**2730** Posted **Mar 14, 2009, 9:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cbotnyse

with all of original deposits returned, this project is officially dead, no?

even if they did get financing, they'd have to start marketing and selling units from scratch right?

The deposits returned to date are voluntary. I am sure there are those who will wait this out even if it takes years.

Rilestone75 · #**2731** Posted **Mar 16, 2009, 3:34 PM**

I would think that this is a sign of the first step in a long process that will allow whomever takes controll of the shell and other property rights, to redesign the building going forward. If all the contracts were still out there, I would think that it would be very difficult, legally speaking, to make changes to either layout of units, square footage, etc... We may see more movement on this tower once the contracts have been released, as a new developer would want a clean slate to work with if possible.

chas · #**2732** Posted **Mar 16, 2009, 8:01 PM**

I have had my deposit in a letter of credit since 2004--the interest balances out the cost of the letter with a bit of profit so that's not so bad but come August when the CD comes due, I will be thinking about backing out. Until then, hope springs finitely.

TowerGuy37 · #**2733** Posted **Mar 19, 2009, 2:55 PM**

not sure if anyone has noticed but the website for Waterview Tower in now under construction again......another crappy sign in think that everything about this just keeps getting more and more tangled....so dissappointing!!

chi-arch · #**2734** Posted **Mar 19, 2009, 5:33 PM**

No surprise. Nothing on that site represented any level of current reality. Why confuse people?

harryc · #**2735** Posted **Mar 24, 2009, 12:02 AM**

harryc · #**2736** Posted **Mar 27, 2009, 10:57 AM**

Mojava · #**2737** Posted **Mar 27, 2009, 5:42 PM**

City sues Waterview developer for code violations

http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.co...ws.pl?id=33477

Steely Dan · #**2738** Posted **Mar 27, 2009, 5:48 PM**

^ finally, some word on the status of the crane, it's gotta come down in 90 days if it's not used. i've said all along that the crane is the last thing that's making us keep this one in the "on hold" category. once the crane comes down in ~3 months, this project is moving to "never built".

spyguy · #**2739** Posted **Mar 27, 2009, 5:48 PM**

^

Quote:

The developer has submitted a structural engineer’s report on the building and has agreed to remove the crane if it is not used in 90 days, according to a March 5 order issued by Circuit Court Judge James McGing.

lawfin · #**2740** Posted **Mar 27, 2009, 6:04 PM**

this just SUCKS