CHICAGO | 680 North Rush | 752 FT / 229 M | 64 FLOORS | NEVER BUILT

[Alliance]

I like it too, but I want to translpant it to the suburbs.

[honte]

^ I think you're joking, but moving buildings is one technique that Chicago should explore more often to help preserve precious resources and history while making room for more development. A lot of vacant sites on the South and West sides could receive these buildings, and neighborhoods could be put back together. With all of the beautiful stuff that's been taken down in Lincoln Park over the last decade, you could have filled half of the vacant lots in Bucktown.

This has actually been done a few times recently in Chicago (yes, of course, with 25' buildings, but use your imagination with this one). It costs a small fortune to move a brick and stone building, but that's partly because the experitse isn't readily available, and it's done so rarely. If the process were done more scientifically and more routinely, you might save some great architecture and fewer things would go to the landfill.

[Alliance]

I think it s unrealistic.

Personally, I like the facadectomy approach, but then again buildings to me are more about looks than architecture.

[honte]

It is unrealistic at the present time, clearly. But it need not be for smaller buildings. As I said, precedent does exist.

For a building this large, however, I think it would have to be split into pieces, at which time the costs of reassembly probably would outweigh the benefit.

[the urban politician]

The dudes at the Yo, in a post about a week or 2 ago, said that the sales center reported that only 20 units had sold. Not good...

[Alliance]

I think construction stats has a lot to do with sales in this weaker market.

[Surrealplaces]

Nice looking proposal. I can't believe all the stuff going in in Chicago :tup:

[the urban politician]

I think construction stats has a lot to do with sales in this weaker market.

^ I don't understand what you're saying here

[Alliance]

That with so many condos on the market (despite the fact that these condos have a specialty target market), people will be less likely to put money down on a project that hasn't started yet (ie. may not come to fruition) as opposed to a development which actually is being constructed.

Leat thats my interpretation.

[VivaLFuego]

It is unrealistic at the present time, clearly. But it need not be for smaller buildings. As I said, precedent does exist.

For a building this large, however, I think it would have to be split into pieces, at which time the costs of reassembly probably would outweigh the benefit.

Recent precedent include the stationhouses at the Belmont and Fullerton L stops, which were hoisted up onto rollers and moved in their entirety off the work-site temporarily. Of course these are 1-story structures, but still, the techniques and precedent are there if there was adequate money/desire to do it.

[ardecila]

Recent precedent include the stationhouses at the Belmont and Fullerton L stops, which were hoisted up onto rollers and moved in their entirety off the work-site temporarily. Of course these are 1-story structures, but still, the techniques and precedent are there if there was adequate money/desire to do it.

Hmm... I think it's unrealistic to move large numbers of buildings wholesale, but at least for rowhouses, the basic brick form can be rebuilt using either modern bricks or recycled Chicago common, and then the face bricks and detailing can be applied to the street and alley elevations.

I can't imagine how one would go into business doing this, though. You'd have to match up wealthy buyers or developers with other buyers or developers who are demolishing. You'd have to pay for salvage rights and then find a way to quickly inventory and truck the stuff to its new site or to a warehouse.

The only realistic model I can see would be a specialized developer, who does the salvage himself and then builds speculatively.

[Norsider]

That with so many condos on the market (despite the fact that these condos have a specialty target market), people will be less likely to put money down on a project that hasn't started yet (ie. may not come to fruition) as opposed to a development which actually is being constructed.

Leat thats my interpretation.

Also the spec buying market is pretty much completely evaporated right now.

[Alliance]

Absolutely.

[Jaroslaw]

In Warsaw several buildings were moved along makeshift train tracks in order to widen roads. An 18th century church was moved in 1962:

http://www.warszawa1939.pl/zdjecia/leszno/old/leszno_32_03.jpg

[SlatsGrobnik]

Could we move the "moving buildings" discussion to another thread?

[SamInTheLoop]

^ yes please!

Back to news that's at least tangentially related to CRL Chicago - and I'm sorry it's a possible real downer, but the below sentence is taken from the article "State St. Gets a Bargain" by Sandra Guy in the October 16 edition of the Sun-Times:

"Other possible tenants for Carson's include Whole Foods, Steve & Barry's and Canyon Ranch health resorts, sources said."

I don't know what to make of it - perhaps it's just being considered as a back-up plan at this point, but I can't imagine Canyon Ranch opening two spas in Chicago, that's for sure.....

[trvlr70]

^ yes please!

Back to news that's at least tangentially related to CRL Chicago - and I'm sorry it's a possible real downer, but the below sentence is taken from the article "State St. Gets a Bargain" by Sandra Guy in the October 16 edition of the Sun-Times:

"Other possible tenants for Carson's include Whole Foods, Steve & Barry's and Canyon Ranch health resorts, sources said."

I don't know what to make of it - perhaps it's just being considered as a back-up plan at this point, but I can't imagine Canyon Ranch opening two spas in Chicago, that's for sure.....

I read that the other day and thought the exact same thing. Makes me wonder.

[Dale]

FWIW, a rumor was circulated re: Related's Icon Las Olas in Ft. Lauderdale. Something to the effect of the project floundering. Specific numbers were even given, 'only 11 units sold'.

The rumors were manifestly untrue, it's about 60% sold and will be breaking ground shortly.

[Alliance]

Now we have opposing rumors!

[Dale]

Now we have opposing rumors!

It, meaning Icon Las Olas, just to clarify.

[Alliance]

oh :(

[Marcu]

news?

[SamInTheLoop]

Nothing Major here - just a new full-page ad for the first time in months in Crain's this week. Nice new perspective rendering looks sleeker than ever...

Nice to at least see that active ad spending continues...

[Dr. Taco]

can you post the rendering? maybe spyguy?

[TowerGuy37]

:( I think this is ultimately not going to get built! The market is way too slow and they're just aren't enough buyers intertested in this type of product anymore. I think the only positive side of this is that Related has a much better reputaion than does Palladian for The Mandarin Oriental.

[Alliance]

I can't seem to justify such a negative outlook for this tower.

[Sir Isaac Newton]

I can't seem to justify such a negative outlook for this tower.

I can. I agree with Towerguy - sales for this development have been VERY slow. Not saying that it definitely won't get built, but if I were to guess which of the proposed supertall buildings in Chicago (over 700 feet) is most likely to not get built, it would be this one...(with Park Michigan probably coming in second)

[Chi649]

That would suck if it doesn't get built :( . I love this building, it is perfect imo, and the area that it is proposed in sorely needs it.

[Dale]

Given Related's track record, odds are this gets done.

[Alliance]

I agree. This building is way ahead of Park Michigan and others.

[Sir Isaac Newton]

Given Related's track record, odds are this gets done.

I could be wrong, but wasn't there a post on here a couple months ago that had a link that showed this project's sales progress to date - which was very lackluster?

I don't know the exact prices for units in this building, from prior articles I read, I think I remember thinking that it looked extremely high. From what it seems like, the super-expensive hotel-condos such as 680 Rush, Trump, Waterview, and MO's sales have completely stagnated over the past few months or so. I would say that the weakining market is the main reason for this, but I also wonder if part of it has to do with the fact that there is only a limited number of multimillionaires who live (or want to live) in Chicago an are interested in buying a hotel-condo unit....and most of those multi-millionaires that would be interested in buying a $1 million+ hotel-condo in Chicago have already bought a unit from the numerous expensive hotel-condo highrises that have come on board in Chicago over the past few eyars.

At least for us, Trump and Waterview are already under construction....and MO is at least in halfway decent shape as they have sold almost 60% of their units. But I believe that 680 North Rush started sales a few months after MO, when the market started heading south, so it's possible that they could be the victims of bad timing. Hopefully, Related will be patient with this project, because my guess is that it could be quite some time before they make it to the 50%-60% mark in terms of sales.

I could be wrong, but from the limited preliminary marketing that Park Michigan did, weren't they advertising prices from the $300,000s? While 680 North Rush has more amenities to offer than Park Michigan, I am guessing that units in Park Michigan will be MUCH more affordable.

Also, I would say that Chicago getting the Olympics bodes would bode well for a huge comeback in sales for luxury hotel-condos (as well as more modest condos), as I bet many investors - including international investors, would jump in on the action....so here's hoping to us getting the Olympics!

[SamInTheLoop]

I think Related Midwest certainly has the financial wherewithawal to be patient with the project's carrying costs (hopefully Canyon Ranch sticks with them). For Palladian, not so much - I think they either make MO happen in the next few months or its dead....

[jjk1103]

.......there was a good sized ad in the R/E section of the Trib....unless they are just using up pre-paid advertising dollars....I don't see why they would advertise for something that they didn't think would get off the ground relatively soon ?

[stylusx]

.......there was a good sized ad in the R/E section of the Trib....unless they are just using up pre-paid advertising dollars....I don't see why they would advertise for something that they didn't think would get off the ground relatively soon ?

However, the Trib ad was a black and white, quarter page....very inexpensive placement. Notice that the view represented in the ad is nowhere near the actual proposed site of the building. I think Related is really pulling their punches. This is not serious promotion. This project is being sidelined.

[stylusx]

I could be wrong, but wasn't there a post on here a couple months ago that had a link that showed this project's sales progress to date - which was very lackluster?

I don't know the exact prices for units in this building, from prior articles I read, I think I remember thinking that it looked extremely high. From what it seems like, the super-expensive hotel-condos such as 680 Rush, Trump, Waterview, and MO's sales have completely stagnated over the past few months or so. I would say that the weakining market is the main reason for this, but I also wonder if part of it has to do with the fact that there is only a limited number of multimillionaires who live (or want to live) in Chicago an are interested in buying a hotel-condo unit....and most of those multi-millionaires that would be interested in buying a $1 million+ hotel-condo in Chicago have already bought a unit from the numerous expensive hotel-condo highrises that have come on board in Chicago over the past few eyars.

At least for us, Trump and Waterview are already under construction....and MO is at least in halfway decent shape as they have sold almost 60% of their units. But I believe that 680 North Rush started sales a few months after MO, when the market started heading south, so it's possible that they could be the victims of bad timing. Hopefully, Related will be patient with this project, because my guess is that it could be quite some time before they make it to the 50%-60% mark in terms of sales.

I could be wrong, but from the limited preliminary marketing that Park Michigan did, weren't they advertising prices from the $300,000s? While 680 North Rush has more amenities to offer than Park Michigan, I am guessing that units in Park Michigan will be MUCH more affordable.

Also, I would say that Chicago getting the Olympics bodes would bode well for a huge comeback in sales for luxury hotel-condos (as well as more modest condos), as I bet many investors - including international investors, would jump in on the action....so here's hoping to us getting the Olympics!

You're right about the price structure. Today, the prices start at $810,000 for a condo unit at CRL. Why spend that for a 360 degree view of other buildings when you can get into the Spire for less? The price point in River North has been reset in a big way to the $300,000 level for a 2 BR.

The MO has a tremendous view and sales that go with it.

[jjk1103]

.....there was another full page ad in Chicago Magazine.....

[chicubs111]

I read on the epsicapal diocesee web site that the on the 15th the office will close and demoltion should commence rather quickly after that.

[honte]

^ I would consider that very bad news, given the sales figures so far... last thing we need is a vacant lot 1/2 block from Michigan Avenue.

[simcityaustin]

^^ I agree, but hopefully this actually a good sign.

[SamInTheLoop]

I read on the epsicapal diocesee web site that the on the 15th the office will close and demoltion should commence rather quickly after that.


I think this is more likely to be good news.....if any downtown developer is well-positioned to weather this storm and take a long-view toward conditions when delivering units 2-3 years from now, I'd bet on Related....

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Yes, lets not forget that Related is completely off the hook. They are so damn good at development, man I want to get an internship with them or Shelbourne!

[honte]

Even great companies make poor decisions. There is no guarantee that they won't change their minds after the building is gone. They also might be getting pressure from the church to do something.

[Mojava]

^agreed, related has 2 rather large projects that are struggling right now, this and Peshtigo. Related is a very good company but lets not forget, they developed some big projects during a huge housing boom.

[stylusx]

Even great companies make poor decisions. There is no guarantee that they won't change their minds after the building is gone. They also might be getting pressure from the church to do something.

Just got off the phone with the Episcopal Diocese of Chicago....and they said that there is NO, repeat NO plan to either close the offices at 65 E. Huron or to begin destruction. Further, the person at the Diocese said that there has been a "delay" in any further plans regarding the Canyon Ranch development.

I would hope that Related would be kept from leaving the church and Chicago with a gaping hole while this construction depression plays out.

[Via Chicago]

Just got off the phone with the Episcopal Diocese of Chicago....and they said that there is NO, repeat NO plan to either close the offices at 65 E. Huron or to begin destruction. Further, the person at the Diocese said that there has been a "delay" in any further plans regarding the Canyon Ranch development.

I would hope that Related would be kept from leaving the church and Chicago with a gaping hole while this construction depression plays out.

If thats the case, why do they continue to actively market the building?

[ardecila]

Because Related purchased a certain number of ads in the Tribune. The ads have already been paid for, so why not run them? 680 North Rush might be dead, but if it is, you can re-direct interested buyers to your other projects (Parkview West, Peshtigo).

[Jobohimself]

Wow, that is a sexy tower...reminds me a bit of San Francisco's 101 California, but on steroids.

[SamInTheLoop]

I think people have turned more negative on this tower's prospects than they probably should. Related has a lot of staying power to easily handle carrying costs through periods of slower sales such as the current market slump. Additionally, they have much more ability than most condo high-rise developers to capitalize on their deep investor relationships to tap into for equity partnerships. I'm not sure if Related Midwest was participating, but recently I think Goldman Sachs injected $1.5 billion into Related to not just refinance but also to continue to fuel growth (equity contribution for projects not yet under construction around the nation). I think Related takes more of a longer-term view than most developers. Furthermore, CRL has the location, branding, amenities and design to successfully differentiate itself from the competition. I'd look for this project to move forward still.

Also, I think some of the negativity recently is at least partially motivated by those that consider the upcoming demolition of the existing building and plaza area to be a major loss. I'm not quite in that camp, and consider the CRL tower to be a marked improvement over what is currently there...

[VivaLFuego]

I think people have turned more negative on this tower's prospects than they probably should. Related has a lot of staying power to easily handle carrying costs through periods of slower sales such as the current market slump. Additionally, they have much more ability than most condo high-rise developers to capitalize on their deep investor relationships to tap into for equity partnerships. I'm not sure if Related Midwest was participating, but recently I think Goldman Sachs injected $1.5 billion into Related to not just refinance but also to continue to fuel growth (equity contribution for projects not yet under construction around the nation). I think Related takes more of a longer-term view than most developers. Furthermore, CRL has the location, branding, amenities and design to successfully differentiate itself from the competition. I'd look for this project to move forward still.

Also, I think some of the negativity recently is at least partially motivated by those that consider the upcoming demolition of the existing building and plaza area to be a major loss. I'm not quite in that camp, and consider the CRL tower to be a marked improvement over what is currently there...

As a related question (har har har....), how long does their agreement with the church last? If they have an option to pursue this project anytime over the next say, 7-8 years (i.e. they signed a 10-year option), then it might just be on the backburner temporarily, as you suggest.

[Deepstar]

Not a bad looking tower.

[Chicago2020]

so the same people involved with Clare at Water Tower are also involved with 680 N. Rush???

[Nowhereman1280]

so the same people involved with Clare at Water Tower are also involved with 680 N. Rush???

Huh? The same people who did 340 OTP are doing this, I don't know about Clare, I haven't heard that Related was involved there...

[honte]

^ This is confusion concerning religious enterprises.

The Clare was developed by Loyola, which is owned by Catholics. This project is on the site of an Episcopalian church.

[Chicago2020]

I see :tup:

[ChiPsy]

^ This is confusion concerning religious enterprises.

The Clare was developed by Loyola, which is owned by Catholics. This project is on the site of an Episcopalian church.

Very close, Honte -- it was actually developed by The Franciscan Sisters, who do projects (though usually not high-rises) targeting similar age-groups around the country. Loyola was involved to the extent to which it sold (or leased, I can't remember) the land to the FS and to the extent to which it negotiated rights-of-use for the first few floors as part of that transaction. It also permitted its name to be used, to some extent, in marketing the project.

But your clarification is otherwise correct -- 680 N. Rush is on the site of an Episcopalian church.

Sorry to be O/T.

[honte]

Very close, Honte -- it was actually developed by The Franciscan Sisters, who do projects (though usually not high-rises) targeting similar age-groups around the country. Loyola was involved to the extent to which it sold (or leased, I can't remember) the land to the FS and to the extent to which it negotiated rights-of-use for the first few floors as part of that transaction. It also permitted its name to be used, to some extent, in marketing the project.

But your clarification is otherwise correct -- 680 N. Rush is on the site of an Episcopalian church.

Sorry to be O/T.

Right you are - sorry I botched the details, and thanks for the correction.

By the way, I was told that John Ronan said yesterday the existing building on the site is one of his Chicago favorites.

[SamInTheLoop]

As a related question (har har har....), how long does their agreement with the church last? If they have an option to pursue this project anytime over the next say, 7-8 years (i.e. they signed a 10-year option), then it might just be on the backburner temporarily, as you suggest.


Actually, I wasn't really even thinking on the backburner at all - I was talking about a delay from the original schedule measured in months (or perhaps around a year at most), as opposed to several years. This project, I think, has the competitive advantages necessary to be one of the few ultra-high end condo towers to break ground in the second half of 2008/first half of 2009, given the slow overall market. It's one of the strongest projects by one of the strongest companies in this challenging sales environment, and that's what it will take to be one of the relatively few survivors among high-end towers that have yet to secure financing but will in the next year or so. My overall point in stressing the importance of the sturdy financial position of Related is that many over-leveraged and otherwise weaker developers would not be able to successfully navigate and sustain their projects through a period of slower absorption of units as Related would presumably have the ability to do. Active marketing continues - another round of online ads just restarted this week on Crain's. Also, just today the project showed up again on Bidclerk.com with a new projected construction start date of September 2008 - this would be consistent with the currently planned completion in 2011...

[dvidler]

There was a large ad in the weekend edition of the WSJ, looks as though it is much different from their past ads. So hope remains on this project...

[stylusx]

There was a large ad in the weekend edition of the WSJ, looks as though it is much different from their past ads. So hope remains on this project...

Noticed the ad as well...it still shows the 'cutout' in the tower. Has the design been changed back to the original, or is this just an old already in the can advertising piece?

[honte]

^ That would be nice. Perhaps now that Natarus is safely packaged away in Sandburg Village, they felt comfortable going back to the better version of the building.

[i_am_hydrogen]

Thanks for sharing. I'd love to the see the void return.

[Alliance]

I think either way, this tower is a successful concept.

[aaron38]

I went back through the thread looking for the older renders. Is this the design that was in the WSJ, or something different?

http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/6310/632465easthuronux7.jpg http://img419.imageshack.us/img419/8451/65east5bf.png

[Mojava]

Just an FYI, the add in this weeks Crains depicts the top of the building like the render on page 1 of this thread. No void.

[Chicago3rd]

Just an FYI, the add in this weeks Crains depicts the top of the building like the render on page 1 of this thread. No void.

NOTE he said: "I went back through the thread looking for the older renders."

So FYI....we know that the void was removed, painfully, a few years ago.

[Mojava]

There was a large ad in the weekend edition of the WSJ, looks as though it is much different from their past ads. So hope remains on this project...

Noticed the ad as well...it still shows the 'cutout' in the tower. Has the design been changed back to the original, or is this just an old already in the can advertising piece?

Chicago3rd, This is what I was referencing. I'm assuming the WSJ and Crains ad were the same. Sorry for the confusion

[dagobert]

To dispel the confusion, here is the wsj ad from this weekend. I don't quite understand the message that the ad is trying to convey with a guy in a pinstripe suite holding raddishes. I'm not a very artistically creative person, but still I think I should get what an ad is trying to communicate. Just my 2 cents.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2059/2259046235_8432d52f18_b.jpg

[JV_325i]

^The "soul" of Canyon Ranch being the radishes, possibly having to do with the "earthy" ethos of the company. The suit being the "heart" of Chicago i.e. business and corporate office world. Or something.

[aaron38]

That's really odd. A metrosexual radish farmer likes the kitchen, so you will too? What demographic is that aimed at?

[honte]

^ [edit] Ha Aaron, we must be on to it.

I don't quite understand the message that the ad is trying to convey with a guy in a pinstripe suite holding raddishes. I'm not a very artistically creative person, but still I think I should get what an ad is trying to communicate.

Dude, he's a rich gardener who only eats organic and waxes his chest hair. Don't you know that's their target market?

[SlatsGrobnik]

For Pete's sake, CRL is marketing to wealthy people who are health obsessed. The ad is obviously geared to that audience. Can we get back to the building, please?

[honte]

^ I think we get that. It's just a poorly conceived campaign. "I'd live there." Who the hell cares? Can't they think of a better line? Even if they had real people saying "I will be living there." Not, "I might live, but... well, I like my beet farm better." What are they implying?

Between this and the Peshtigo campaign, I'd say Related needs to find some advertising people who can make their developments sing. A different spin is good, but this is silly.

Besides, there is nothing to say concerning the building right now. What do you want?

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Maybe they are marketing this building to "silly" people?

[Beck4ABigChicago]

but still I think I should get what an ad is trying to communicate. Just my 2 cents.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2059/2259046235_8432d52f18_b.jpg

Don't know, but to me its doesn't seem like they're going after an international crowd...I live in Chicago and it makes me feel like they are putting up an extravagant building in the middle of some sort of backwood farming community. Nice work, Canyons, Ranches, beets....so errrr, North Carolina.

[Dallas]

:banaride: I don't have much to contribute to this thread other than to say that you all are totally cracking me up. "Metrosexual Radish Farmer" .... Now that was some really funny commentary.

[JV_325i]

Yeah I agree that it's frustrating to anticipate hearing some positive news on the project only to stumble upon people discussing an ad for it in the paper, but I think the discussion is worthwhile (beyond the jokey tone it has had thus far). I mean, if we want this building to have as many potential buyers as possible and their ad just plain sucks (which I think it does), then it is certainly worth talking about. And like honte said, there isn't anything else going on right now.

[trvlr70]

I like the ad....it's quite avant garde. With so many high end properties on the market, it's not a bad idea to be a little different.

[jc5680]

The ad isn't very avant-garde at all. It look to me like an internal job with a concept that is a bit of a stretch. My guess is that with the name 'Canyon Ranch' the designer was trying to find imagery of an urban rancher/farmer. A pair that is inherently visually opposite. I see what was trying to be done, but don't think it got there.

It also has a weird informational hierarchy. 'Demonstration Kitchen' is the most prominent feature pulled from the list. Maybe I just don't know why this is so great but it seems to be a weird item to highlight as the most important feature. Usually price, location, or views are solid leading sales points.

...and don't even get me started on the center aligned type at the bottom.

-its not bad, just not great either.

I still think this is a great building though...so I hope to see more of these ads. They at least keep hopes up until actual work happens.

[Dr. Taco]

hey, all things considered, its better than

- a ho-hum ad
- no ad at all

this building is very interesting, and has a lot of potential if it gets pulled off

[photoLith]

This is one of my favorite buildings out of all of the ones from this boom that are going up/may go up. I really do like that small black building and the small park on that lot, but this building is just too cool, so I can forfit that little black building.

[Juan_M2118]

OK, so many things just dont go in my head, are they going to build this building or not??????

[Norsider]

OK, so many things just dont go in my head, are they going to build this building or not??????

The answer is written on the underside of a rock hidden in the Lincoln Park lagoon. Go and find it, grasshopper.

[rgolch]

OK, so many things just dont go in my head, are they going to build this building or not??????

Well, it's a definite maybe. :)

[spyguy]

http://chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/mag/article.pl?articleId=29353

Tower builder tie-up?
By Thomas A. Corfman and Eddie Baeb
March 03, 2008

Powerhouse New York developer Related Cos. is in advanced negotiations to acquire a stake in Chicago residential high-rise developer Magellan Development Group LLC, which would take over Related's faltering Chicago office.

...Meanwhile, in a sign of the weakening downtown condo market, Related has decided to stop marketing its proposed Canyon Ranch Living tower at Rush and Huron streets, east of St. James Episcopal Cathedral, sources say.

[Dale]

Not surprising. Related has floundered just about everywhere outside of South Florida. And they've seriously pulled back there.

[simcityaustin]

So does this mean it's dead, on hold, or what?

[rgolch]

^With the current condo market, and a lot of competition, it say it's probably dead.

I guess given the times, it not surprising that this one, the Mandarin Oriental, and Park Michigan are either dead, or longshots for happening anytime soon.

[SlatsGrobnik]

Damn.

Unfortunately, I think this is the start of a trend. My bet is that this forum is going to be posting delays and cancellations for months, then silence for a couple of years at least, before we start seeing new proposals and old proposals being resurrected.

We all knew this was coming. The surprise is that the boom lasted as long as it did.

[chicubs111]

yea...well if the canyon ranch project is actuall dead in the water it would be our firsta majore cancellation that actually had units for sale unlike park michigan which was still just very much a proposal

[cbotnyse]

I think these were priced way too high. Starting prices were about the same as the Spire.

[the urban politician]

Less competition for the Spire is always good news.

Of course, I always did like this project. Perhaps it will be resurrected once the market rebounds?

[aaron38]

Well this is the kind of soft landing the market needs. Better to have it canceled at this stage, rather than having an empty building, or worse, a half built building.

This way the CR sales go to help existing projects sell out. And the lot's not going anywhere. This can be resurected in a couple years.

[Chicago Shawn]

Damn! Of all the developers to acquire a quality producing developer like Related (LR), its going to be Low-end-burg's Megellan Group. This is a major loss for us, way beyond just a possible cancellation of 680 Rush.

[honte]

Damn! Of all the developers to acquire a quality producing developer like Related (LR), its going to be Low-end-burg's Megellan Group. This is a major loss for us, way beyond just a possible cancellation of 680 Rush.

Yeah, I don't think anyone saw that coming.

But, I remain hopeful. I think that Related wanted them for their local marketing know-how and knowledge in the market. I think they might retain a good deal of control on the actual product and design. So, I am hopeful that this instead might eliminate some bad Loewenberg buildings? I think we call can agree that 340 OTP turned out FAR better than anything we'd seen from Magellan prior.

Personally, I would far rather see the Peshtigo move forward than this tower (you all know my position!), so I hope that one can be continued.

[rgolch]

Less competition for the Spire is always good news.

Of course, I always did like this project. Perhaps it will be resurrected once the market rebounds?

I liked it too. But honestly, the only project that I am really attached to it the Spire. And if the Waldolf-Astoria could get started, I'd be pretty psyched. This one is more of a shrug your shoulders and move on.

[BVictor1]

Damn! Of all the developers to acquire a quality producing developer like Related (LR), its going to be Low-end-burg's Megellan Group. This is a major loss for us, way beyond just a possible cancellation of 680 Rush.

Did you read the article?

It said that Related Construction was in talks to acquire a stake in Magellan Development which could actually be a good thing. Where as Magellan has $$, Related has architectural taste, and If they can get their foot in the door VIA Lake Shore East, this could be good.

Lets all just wait and see what happens. I remember a few years ago when the condo market slowed down, It didn't last forever.

[Alliance]

THANK YOU.

The article makes it clear that this was a setback, not a cancellation. I agree, if Magellan could lend a hand, Related could end up in a stronger position in Chicago.

[nomarandlee]

http://www.suntimes.com/business/867627,CST-FIN-canyon29WEB.article

Condo tower planned for St. James site scrapped
REAL ESTATE | Building would have housed high-end spa, hotel

March 29, 2008Recommend

BY DAVID ROEDER Business Reporter/droeder@suntimes.com

A planned condominium and hotel high-rise in Streeterville promised to cater to the wellness needs of the wealthy, but it couldn't withstand the virus in the real estate market.

Developer Related Midwest said Friday it has scrapped plans to build the 67-story building at 65 E. Huron. With condos and for-sale hotel rooms plus a high-end Canyon Ranch spa, the building would have replaced offices owned by the Episcopal Diocese of Chicago..............

[chicubs111]

damn damn damn....well chicago this is our first significant tower that has been officially canclled...its been a good run!

[Chi_Coruscant]

That suck. I have a high hope for this beautiful building.

Canyon Ranch should not abandon Chicago but try again in the future.