CHICAGO | Boom rundown - everything over 12 floors. v5 - Page 196

BVictor1 · #**3901** Posted **Oct 25, 2007, 4:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taft

WTF, I thought Fioretti met with CBP and seemed pretty reasonable. Is this a departure from his campaign promises?

Taft

He never said he was backing down on X/O. We'll just have to continue to fight him.

harryc · #**3902** Posted **Oct 25, 2007, 4:52 PM**

Finishing up the inside.

Steely Dan · #**3903** Posted **Oct 25, 2007, 4:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taft

WTF, I thought Fioretti met with CBP and seemed pretty reasonable.

Fioretti is a politician.

there is no such thing as a reasonable politician.

therefore, Fioretti = not reasonable.

EDIT: *many posts deleted*

this is a drama-free zone folks. take your petty squabbles to wherever the hell petty squabbles are allowed because they sure as hell aren't allowed here.

SkokieSwift · #**3904** Posted **Oct 25, 2007, 7:02 PM**

When the hell is 1000 S. Michigan going to start?

Steely Dan · #**3905** Posted **Oct 25, 2007, 7:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkokieSwift

When the hell is 1000 S. Michigan going to start?

probably on the 5th of Never.

seriously though, i have no idea. we've been talking about that one going all the way back to when i was a new member on this forum (aka the stone age of internet skyscraper message boards). apparently nobody wants to live at 1000 s. michigan. my solution: rename the project 990 s. michigan and watch the units sell like hotcakes.

BVictor1 · #**3906** Posted **Oct 25, 2007, 7:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Fioretti is a politician.

there is no such thing as a reasonable politician.

therefore, Fioretti = not reasonable.

EDIT: *many posts deleted*

this is a drama-free zone folks. take your petty squabbles to wherever the hell petty squabbles are allowed because they sure as hell aren't allowed here.

Agreed.

Also, to let you all know, the project was deferred by Foretti and will more than likely be coming up at the November 20th meeting.

Look for the perverbial shit to hit the fan.

And i'm not saying that It won't be built, but I think there will be some fireworks.

SkokieSwift · #**3907** Posted **Oct 25, 2007, 9:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

probably on the 5th of Never.

seriously though, i have no idea. we've been talking about that one going all the way back to when i was a new member on this forum (aka the stone age of internet skyscraper message boards). apparently nobody wants to live at 1000 s. michigan. my solution: rename the project 990 s. michigan and watch the units sell like hotcakes.

Brilliant!

SamInTheLoop · #**3908** Posted **Oct 25, 2007, 10:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10023

We're not allowed to link to Crain's, right?

So take my word for it that an article appeared several days ago saying that BP is looking at three potential sites to consolidate its Midwest operations:

601-625 West Monroe (the Fifield site)
645 West Madison
240 West Randolph (where the random Walgreen's and parking lot is in the northwest Loop - Buck has an option to purchase the property)

They're laying off or relocating 3,300 employees in Naperville and Lisle and the positions that aren't eliminated will be moved downtown.

May or may not mean a tall tower. They need 350-400,000 square feet with at least 50,000 square foot floorplates. So let's call it 8 floors, plus a lobby (2 floors) and probably 4-5 levels of parking. So it looks like something at least 15 stories high, but depending on the economics (i.e. how many extra floors does it pay for to have 8 leased floors guaranteed), maybe a 30 story tower as good as built and whatever else the developer feels like betting on?

There will be other sites they look at (the RFP hasn't even been issued yet). You can go ahead an virtually eliminate 645 W. Madison right now - the developers' lack of experience on large-scale commercial projects will cause them to come up short on this one (especially in today's capital markets environment, deep experience in a particular type of development is a must-have, and BP wouldn't take a gamble on a small-time developer that may struggle to land financing).

Also, you're right that the possiblity does exist that this could be a single-tenant build-to-suit type project, but I think it's fairly unlikely. The model that works right now, as Buck and Hines continue to abundantly demonstrate, is to land an anchor tenant to occupy 25-40% of the project, then lease-up to smaller tenants at big rents, and very big rents for the highest "view" floors....

I think my preference might even be for a new BP-anchored tower to kick off Hines/Habitat's Wolf Point project....as Honte mentioned, it's not like Buck will have trouble snagging some other firm to anchor 240 Randolph, and for me personally - I don't care much for Fifield or most of the West Loop for that matter....

SamInTheLoop · #**3909** Posted **Oct 25, 2007, 11:24 PM**

Seen the other day in Bidclerk.com - boutique hotel on 11,700 sf site. Est. start Oct. 2008

Not sure what project, but if I had to guess I would go for the South Loop Aloft project from ECD - I think they call it "Aloft Millennium Park"

anyone have other guesses??...

Latoso · #**3910** Posted **Oct 25, 2007, 11:57 PM**

Fioretti is a smart lawyer and a good politician. Good meaning sleazy and pandering at times. But he wouldn't have passed the bar if he actually beleived that X|O could be downzoned. PDNA on the other hand is actually stupid enough to believe that Fioretti is looking out for their self-serving interests and therefore they would be willing to support him for reelection even though he probably thinks they are morons. This of course is my own opinion and speculation from the few times I've met the man. But I am most likely right and there is no point in disputing my logic which has decades of south side experiences more surreal than this to back me up. Frankel & Giles will threaten to sue, the city will back down, and PDNA will think they won a moral victory for having brought it up.

Dr. Taco · #**3911** Posted **Oct 26, 2007, 12:03 AM**

latoso, you are brilliant

SamInTheLoop · #**3912** Posted **Oct 26, 2007, 12:07 AM**

- Has anyone here been by the Museum Park Place South site in recent weeks? Has site prep begun? If it hasn't, I have a feeling it will very shortly...

- What about Glasshaus? I take it demolition is complete. Any sign of caisson equipment yet on site?

- Finally, what is the deal with the foundation work at One Museum Park West? It's taking them way too long to wrap up the caissons (much like 353 Clark earlier this year) I know - it's a difficult site, there's unexpected tunnels, etc etc etc.... I think someone on this board previously said something like it would be easier to just excavate the entire footprint of the building down to bedrock and fill the entire hole with concrete for the world's largest ever single caisson, and frankly I'm beginning to agree!...

Mr Downtown · #**3913** Posted **Oct 26, 2007, 12:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Latoso

Frankel & Giles will threaten to sue, the city will back down

Can you cite any example where the city has ever backed down? The Law Dept didn't back down on the New York, nor on 1360 N Lake Shore. They fought to the death for whatever the city council had passed.

forumly_chgoman · #**3914** Posted **Oct 26, 2007, 12:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Can you cite any example where the city has ever backed down? The Law Dept didn't back down on the New York, nor on 1360 N Lake Shore. They fought to the death for whatever the city council had passed.

I am not intimately familiar w/ the facts of those cases are they directly on point?

forumly_chgoman · #**3915** Posted **Oct 26, 2007, 12:51 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

Seen the other day in Bidclerk.com - boutique hotel on 11,700 sf site. Est. start Oct. 2008

Not sure what project, but if I had to guess I would go for the South Loop Aloft project from ECD - I think they call it "Aloft Millennium Park"

anyone have other guesses??...

It wouldn't be that 50 story hotel proposal on mich ave mentioned a few months ago?

SamInTheLoop · #**3916** Posted **Oct 26, 2007, 12:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Can you cite any example where the city has ever backed down? The Law Dept didn't back down on the New York, nor on 1360 N Lake Shore. They fought to the death for whatever the city council had passed.

Were those approved plan developments the year before and did the developers spend several million before, during and after the approval process?

Ever obsessed with precedent are we (and the outdated south loop plan - read: guidelines - of course!)?

Alliance · #**3917** Posted **Oct 26, 2007, 1:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Latoso

Fioretti is a smart lawyer and a good politician. Good meaning sleazy and pandering at times. But he wouldn't have passed the bar if he actually beleived that X|O could be downzoned. PDNA on the other hand is actually stupid enough to believe that Fioretti is looking out for their self-serving interests and therefore they would be willing to support him for reelection even though he probably thinks they are morons. This of course is my own opinion and speculation from the few times I've met the man. But I am most likely right and there is no point in disputing my logic which has decades of south side experiences more surreal than this to back me up. Frankel & Giles will threaten to sue, the city will back down, and PDNA will think they won a moral victory for having brought it up.

Hey, if Fioretti can get the PDNA on his ship, that will be batter for his future, and maybe ours to.

Did anyone ever think that Fioretti might expect to lose this case, giving him the win-win of getting the project and the support of Nimbys? Or are we to busy being ignorant about politics to consider that this might be a big power play with an already decided ending?

BVictor1 · #**3918** Posted **Oct 26, 2007, 1:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alliance

Hey, if Fioretti can get the PDNA on his ship, that will be batter for his future, and maybe ours to.

Did anyone ever think that Fioretti might expect to lose this case, giving him the win-win of getting the project and the support of Nimbys? Or are we to busy being ignorant about politics to consider that this might be a big power play with an already decided ending?

No, we've assumed this, but it's still annoying as hell

Latoso · #**3919** Posted **Oct 26, 2007, 1:13 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Can you cite any example where the city has ever backed down? The Law Dept didn't back down on the New York, nor on 1360 N Lake Shore. They fought to the death for whatever the city council had passed.

You are correct on both counts. This city's law department did fight on those 2 occasions. Luckily for me, I was referring to X|O. With the upcomming budget crisis the city is facing they would be commiting political suicide to fight this losing battle costing taxpayers millions. As far as citing an example, i'll do so in a couple of weeks when X|O is my example.

Alliance · #**3920** Posted **Oct 26, 2007, 1:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

No, we've assumed this, but it's still annoying as hell

If it geives Fioretti clout to convince NIMBY's to accept later projects, its a long term gain for us.

Speaking of which the "not in my backyard" was used to day in an article about the possibility of building *gasp* a 12 story building in Madison, WI (which is also referred to as a "highrise"

)