CHICAGO | St. Regis Chicago (Vista) | 1,191 FT | 101 FLOORS

[harryc]

Sept 4

Chicago | Vista Tower

Chicago | Vista Tower

Chicago | Vista Tower

[vexxed82]

Originally Posted by cozy

hell yeah. one of my favorite spots, glad you captured this view on something better than my iphone 6

There are a lot of great photos ops of Vista from over at Polk Brothers Park. Can't wait until the NW corner is fully enclosed. Hate getting these almost-final photos.

[pilsenarch]

Vista Tower condo buyer sues to scrap $10 million purchase in Chicago’s third-tallest skyscraper

https://www.chicagotribune.com/colum...nqu-story.html

[Skyguy_7]

^I am in the buyer's court here. Vista sales team pitched the 5-star hotel as a selling point to the condo buyers. The absence of the hotel would be a loss of a big amenity for them. He's seeking to recover $1.7 million. Probably reasonable considering the down payment of a $10mm condo.

[RobEss]

This building has got to be one of the biggest disappointments of the last 3 years for me...

[rbt]

Originally Posted by Skyguy_7

^I am in the buyer's court here. Vista sales team pitched the 5-star hotel as a selling point to the condo buyers. The absence of the hotel would be a loss of a big amenity for them. He's seeking to recover $1.7 million. Probably reasonable considering the down payment of a $10mm condo.

Appears awfully easy for Magellan to end the suit; just open a 10 room boutique 5-star hotel (including a small-scale restaurant, etc.) for exclusive use of guests of residents of the building to use until they figure out what they want to do with the space.

Paying ~5 staff for a couple years to provide some approximation of what was promised seems much cheaper than cancelled unit purchases.

[cozy]

Also in the buyer's court on this lawsuit. Very interesting that Magellan allowed it to escalate this far..

[marothisu]

I know the buyer wants it to be a Wanda Hotel although I'm skeptical that it would do better for property values than something more well known like a St. Regis or Mandarin Oriental. My guess is that the buyer was banking on Asian (mainly Chinese) buying up condos if it was legitimately Wanda. The one thing I know about this since my wife and all her family is from China is that the American and European brands like St. Regis are usually held in higher regard in international markets for them versus the Chinese 5 star brands. It is a status symbol there to have certain western brands (GNC is a prime example) over their own. I think if the hotelier was actually something else well known internationally that it would work out better for prices.


Now if it's not going to be a 5 star at all then that's probably another story.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by rbt

Appears awfully easy for Magellan to end the suit; just open a 10 room boutique 5-star hotel (including a small-scale restaurant, etc.) for exclusive use of guests of residents of the building to use until they figure out what they want to do with the space.

This is obviously not gonna work (costs for a hotel including construction cost, staffing, licensing, insurance, etc would easily top the $1.7M that Vogel is suing for).

However, I'm not sure he has ground unless the contract he signed included a guarantee of the hotel opening under a Wanda flag.

It's kind of ridiculous, since Magellan never said the hotel was cancelled, only that Wanda would not be operating it due to their exit from the project. I'm sure Magellan is aggressively courting other hotel flags in a similar luxury level which would offer Mr. Vogel the same level of service. It's not like they're converting that space to apartments or something.

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by Skyguy_7

^I am in the buyer's court here. Vista sales team pitched the 5-star hotel as a selling point to the condo buyers. The absence of the hotel would be a loss of a big amenity for them. He's seeking to recover $1.7 million. Probably reasonable considering the down payment of a $10mm condo.

My neighbor is an executive at Magellan, I just spoke with them about a month ago regarding the hotel, asking if it was still happening, and they told me that it was but pushed back. I think the buyer is just trying to get out of their contract, and using the 'absence of the hotel' is an excuse. Now is not the time to try and finance, build, open a hotel, considering that most extant hotels are suffering because of Covid.

[Kumdogmillionaire]

Originally Posted by sentinel

My neighbor is an executive at Magellan, I just spoke with them about a month ago regarding the hotel, asking if it was still happening, and they told me that it was but pushed back. I think the buyer is just trying to get out of their contract, and using the 'absence of the hotel' is an excuse. Now is not the time to try and finance, build, open a hotel, considering that most extant hotels are suffering because of Covid.

Well, the contract was signed with an understood value of the condo, which it no longer holds. "Just trying to get out of their contract" is an extremely biased position to hold when the original contract may as well not exist. It could be years before a hotel is put there(perhaps a decade if we hit a full-blown depression in the next two years), and without it, they cannot expect to recoup what they paid for. I'm 100% behind the buyer on this.

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by Kumdogmillionaire

Well, the contract was signed with an understood value of the condo, which it no longer holds. "Just trying to get out of their contract" is an extremely biased position to hold when the original contract may as well not exist. It could be years before a hotel is put there(perhaps a decade if we hit a full-blown depression in the next two years), and without it, they cannot expect to recoup what they paid for. I'm 100% behind the buyer on this.

How is it biased?

[Kumdogmillionaire]

Originally Posted by sentinel

How is it biased?

Your source is painting an ownership friendly POV. "Pushed back" is bs. It's literally cancelled

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Kumdogmillionaire

Your source is painting an ownership friendly POV. "Pushed back" is bs. It's literally cancelled

Source?

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by Kumdogmillionaire

Your source is painting an ownership friendly POV. "Pushed back" is bs. It's literally cancelled

How is it bs? Where are you getting your information? If you have something that refutes what I said, by all means, please share because it's news to me.

Additionally, as I mentioned earlier, how can you possibly believe that any hotels, especially what is supposed to be a five-star hotel would be under construction now when we're dealing with a major global depression due to a major global pandemic? Even if Magellan had all of the funding in place to fully build it out, whether their own money or already secured loans, completing a hotel now while all hotels around the world are suffering financially makes sense to you???

[chris08876]

Chicago Downtown and Navy Pier by Saikrishna Tipparapu, on Flickr

[Bombardier]

Originally Posted by sentinel

How is it bs? Where are you getting your information? If you have something that refutes what I said, by all means, please share because it's news to me.

Additionally, as I mentioned earlier, how can you possibly believe that any hotels, especially what is supposed to be a five-star hotel would be under construction now when we're dealing with a major global depression due to a major global pandemic? Even if Magellan had all of the funding in place to fully build it out, whether their own money or already secured loans, completing a hotel now while all hotels around the world are suffering financially makes sense to you???

Magellan (along with Sterling Bay) literally just broke ground on another project that is part hotel just a few blocks away at 300 N Michigan. Try again.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Kumdogmillionaire

Well, the contract was signed with an understood value of the condo, which it no longer holds. "Just trying to get out of their contract" is an extremely biased position to hold when the original contract may as well not exist. It could be years before a hotel is put there(perhaps a decade if we hit a full-blown depression in the next two years), and without it, they cannot expect to recoup what they paid for. I'm 100% behind the buyer on this.

Lol a contract has no implicit guarantee of the future value or any value of the property. That's insane.

In fact, a contract is itself an indicator of value. Value is the price someone is willing to pay for something. If this guy was willing to pay $10 mil at signing, it was worth $10 mil, just because he has now decided it is worth less and wants out doesn't mean he can break his contract or what is the point of having contracts?

This guy just sold Boat Holdings (i.e. Bennington Pontoon, the BMW of watercraft) for $805 million, I don't feel bad for him in the slightest.

The argument he is making is that the developer basically fraudulently got him to agree to the contract by promising Wanda would be there. The issue he will have is that Wanda was going to be there and the only reason they are not is because a authoritarian surveillance state decided to force them to sell their stake. All Magellan will have to do is demonstrate they are still working on a similar 5 star brand and his case will call apart.

[rbt]

Originally Posted by ardecila

This is obviously not gonna work (costs for a hotel including construction cost, staffing, licensing, insurance, etc would easily top the $1.7M that Vogel is suing for).

If one person successfully sues for a 17% price reduction over common elements, then every single other unit will file the exact same type of lawsuit; they'd be silly not to. So it's closer to a potential $150M loss, not $1.7M.

The lawsuit needs to be crushed hard as even a settlement for 5% of the unit value would be a non-trivial hit.

However, I'm not sure he has ground unless the contract he signed included a guarantee of the hotel opening under a Wanda flag.

I'm assuming the contract does state resident use of the hotel facilities (not uncommon in mixed-use buildings) which sets a timeline for availability and potentially service level (laundered towels available for pool use, etc), and it sounds like marketing strongly sold a specific quality level of those facilities. While not part of the contract, marketing material needs to have some amount of truth.

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by Bombardier

Magellan (along with Sterling Bay) literally just broke ground on another project that is part hotel just a few blocks away at 300 N Michigan. Try again.

Your're absolutely right....a hotel that won't open for another 2-3 years at the earliest. Try again.