CHICAGO | Waterview Tower | 1,047' Official / 1,035' Roof | 89 FLOORS |NEVER BUILT - Page 141

Nowhereman1280 · #**2801** Posted **Jun 3, 2009, 3:44 PM**

^^^ Yeah I just saw that too, talk about a shitstorm...

I still have a feeling that someone with deep pockets is going to come in and make an agreement to pay off all the lien holders to like 50% of their claims or something ridiculous like that and in exchange take the deed to the property. If someone had the money they could easily double or triple their investment in a couple years simply by finishing the property to the point that it can at least be used for retail and parking...

BVictor1 · #**2802** Posted **Jun 3, 2009, 5:12 PM**

Ugh!

This has been such a major headache.

There was actually a pick-up truck with Teng signage going down my street yesterday. As he was about to turn, I honked at him and got him to roll his window down and asked, "what the hell was going on with Waterview Tower?". He didn't have an answer, or much knowledge on the situtation.

All I can say is that whatever happens, happens. I'm disappointed that it's come to this, but hopefully it will be completed as envisioned.

zachary78 · #**2803** Posted **Jun 4, 2009, 7:31 PM**

http://www.bestchicagocondos.com/blo...osureWaterview Tower Sinking Under Weight Of Foreclosure
Let us hear your
comments!
June 3, 2009 - Any hope that might have still been floating for the stalled Waterview Tower is probably sinking even faster now that the Bank of America has filed a foreclosure suit for over $20 million. That may be a moot point though, because there are over 30 liens adding up to around $85 million against the failed Chicago real estate project. According to the latest article in Crain’s, the site and 26 story concrete base really has no value at this point with so much owed against it.

Lawyer Scott Fradin who represents one of the contractors with a lien told Crain’s that, “Nobody’s going to get anything out of it because it’s worthless.” He also said that in his opinion, “The property is worth less than it would be if it was vacant. At this point, the dollars are so big and the property has such little value that there’s little reason to fight.”

The bank’s foreclosure suit is coupled with the contractor suits, but the law states that contractors and construction companies who had signed contracts with developer Teng and Associates for work on the Waterview Tower will be paid before the bank can recoup any money. And with so many hands out and no buyers for the project it’s likely that many won’t get paid.

Teng forged ahead with the 90 story high-rise in 2006 before any financing was in place for the project on 111 West Wacker Drive. The $20 million from Bank of American was a bridge loan, but no other lender stepped forward to finance the tower. Teng had further setbacks when a possible $400 million loan from a China bank didn’t materialize and the Shangri-La Hotel chain opted out of their deal to run the hotel portion of the development.

We’ll have to wait and see what becomes of the 26 story shell after all of the legal wrangling is over. Unless another developer comes up with a plan and the money to build Chicago Condos there, it may turn into a very expensive parking garage.

ZZ-II · #**2804** Posted **Jun 4, 2009, 7:49 PM**

, sad to hear

Busy Bee · #**2805** Posted **Jun 4, 2009, 11:29 PM**

More than sad, it's an absolute gut wrenching shame as well as a civic embarassment.

chi-arch · #**2806** Posted **Jun 5, 2009, 12:38 AM**

Master Builder Teng is not.
They basically held out on the construction loan in the early stages of the project,trying to get the best deal and it cost them dearly.

jcchii · #**2807** Posted **Jun 5, 2009, 7:56 AM**

biggest massive flop in a long long time

staybridge also an abomination

TowerGuy37 · #**2808** Posted **Jun 5, 2009, 12:29 PM**

what i can't comprehend here is why no one stepped foward early on. If the condos were 68% sold like said and the Shangrai-La was on board u would of thought finishing is better than what has become of this, now no one wins. It really is too bad, what a gorgeous building. now its a total fiasco and no way out....

cbotnyse · #**2809** Posted **Jun 5, 2009, 12:43 PM**

what a sad, sad story. I walked by this last night just thinking what could have been. I imagine we are going to see the same story happen with the Spire soon as well.

JDRCRASH · #**2810** Posted **Jun 5, 2009, 4:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cbotnyse

I imagine we are going to see the same story happen with the Spire soon as well.

Well, at least you guys got a pretty nice-looking mid-rise out of this.

Tom In Chicago · #**2811** Posted **Jun 5, 2009, 5:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

Well, at least you guys got a pretty nice-looking mid-rise out of this.

Surely you jest. . . please keep your comments to yourself. . . any further attempts to enrage members will result in permanent banning. . .

. . .

harryc · #**2812** Posted **Jun 6, 2009, 2:09 PM**

F1 Tommy · #**2813** Posted **Jun 6, 2009, 3:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TowerGuy37

what i can't comprehend here is why no one stepped foward early on. If the condos were 68% sold like said and the Shangrai-La was on board u would of thought finishing is better than what has become of this, now no one wins. It really is too bad, what a gorgeous building. now its a total fiasco and no way out....

Im sure Teng didn't want to give up control. They will now. Getting to this point is what held everything up, along with the credit markets. I bet who ever buys it will complete it close to the original plans. It might take a couple of years

NDPhilly · #**2814** Posted **Jun 6, 2009, 4:29 PM**

Wow at the rate this project is going we wont see tenants in it until 2012

Rizzo · #**2815** Posted **Jun 6, 2009, 7:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

More than sad, it's an absolute gut wrenching shame as well as a civic embarassment.

I feel the same way. It's difficult to cover this one up, especially in such a prominent place.

Pizzuti · #**2816** Posted **Jun 7, 2009, 4:31 AM**

This seems like such a failure of capitalism. You'd think that everyone would have a better chance of being paid off if the tower were built and completed as planned; but now with everybody in a frenzy to get as much of his or her investment back as possible, everybody is gonna run off with a chunk and let the project crumble.

After all is said and done could the bank that forecloses on the project sell it to a developer who has the intention of finishing it? That seems like what should happen - don't reward the people at fault but allow the project to continue, for the good of the city.

Or if they do end up just putting a tarp over the thing and mothballing it... how long is it feasible to leave a building in suspended animation? Would parts of it start to break down or corrode since they're uncompleted?

BrownTown · #**2817** Posted **Jun 7, 2009, 5:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pizzuti

This seems like such a failure of capitalism. You'd think that everyone would have a better chance of being paid off if the tower were built and completed as planned; but now with everybody in a frenzy to get as much of his or her investment back as possible, everybody is gonna run off with a chunk and let the project crumble.

After all is said and done could the bank that forecloses on the project sell it to a developer who has the intention of finishing it? That seems like what should happen - don't reward the people at fault but allow the project to continue, for the good of the city.

Or if they do end up just putting a tarp over the thing and mothballing it... how long is it feasible to leave a building in suspended animation? Would parts of it start to break down or corrode since they're uncompleted?

I would say this is more a success of capitalism as opposed to a failure. This building was not economical and therefore no additional resources will be wasted to attempt to construct it. How would it be any better to waste hundreds of millions of dollars to complete it and then have it mostly vacant and never be able to pay off the loans? I mean I know we all like tall buildings here, but people need to realize the difference between the USA and some of these other countries. Here we will only build a tall building if it can make money whereas oversees many are built simply for pride and will never make back their investment. Were simply not gonna get very many buildings of this height built in this country because they are NOT economical. I mean the only one of these three big Chicago project to get up was the Trump tower, and is that even making money, or was it just built because of Trumps Ego?

Pizzuti · #**2818** Posted **Jun 7, 2009, 6:23 PM**

If a building that doesn't get built is an argument for a success of capitalism, then I'd say capitalism should have succeeded in stopping the plan before it broke ground and became a huge liability and waste of resources. I think that any situation in which you have a foreclosure that drastically reduces the value of an asset is a failure of capitalism. The bank will NOT make as much on this as it is "worth."

And you know that if, by miracle, some hypothetical entity (public, private, foreign... it doesn't matter) were to swoop in with an extra 400 million dollars to complete the project, they could see a profit in less than 10 years - which is the most productive use of the materials and space. Even if it had to go partially unoccupied for a time, it would eventually fill and eventually turn a profit. I guarantee you that if they demolish this thing or mothball it, they won't see it turning a profit in 10 years. I don't see anything swooping in and doing that, but that would be capitalism doing its job.

I think there gets to a point where you've put so much money into something that even if it's going to be a loss overall, finishing it and earning income to minimize that loss is still more efficient than stopping halfway with a greater loss.

We'll see what happens. After everybody dukes it out and gets their piece, somebody's gonna be left with the shell, and could sell it to someone who could do something with it. It would be stupid to waste the resources.

ChicagoChicago · #**2819** Posted **Jun 7, 2009, 10:08 PM**

$85 million in liens, minus the $32 million Teng itself filed on the project, equals $53 million. I say they foreclose on the property, sell it to a developer with deep pockets for $53 million (a bargain, really), pay off all the liens (excluding Teng) and watch this fucker be built. That would be justice.

Rilestone75 · #**2820** Posted **Jun 8, 2009, 4:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChicagoChicago

$85 million in liens, minus the $32 million Teng itself filed on the project, equals $53 million. I say they foreclose on the property, sell it to a developer with deep pockets for $53 million (a bargain, really), pay off all the liens (excluding Teng) and watch this fucker be built. That would be justice.

I think that is a great idea.

Only one problem, how the hell is a new developer going to secure $400M in financing for a real estate deal