CHICAGO | Boom rundown - everything over 12 floors. v5 - Page 234

skobabe8 · #**4661** Posted **Dec 2, 2007, 7:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

So under 25% of the condo units and less than 30% of overall units - that's unfortunately pretty discouraging given the time it's been on the market...a construction loan does not look promising...

This development is being run as 2 completely different projects independent of each other, so the overall percentage of units sold is insignificant. The loft building has hit 50% so it is underway. The high rise has always been targeted as being set for completion around a year after. Its in fine shape.

Alliance · #**4662** Posted **Dec 2, 2007, 8:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by laro3

welcome to allure prison,enjoy the stay.

Seriously, why are we wasting market on POSes like this?

the urban politician · #**4663** Posted **Dec 2, 2007, 9:01 PM**

^ Because. They thicken the skyline. It's like stuffing for your Thanksgiving turkey.

Alliance · #**4664** Posted **Dec 2, 2007, 10:31 PM**

I actually like the stuffing more than the turkey...doesn't work for our analogy though.

Cbautz · #**4665** Posted **Dec 2, 2007, 11:40 PM**

As of Sunday 12/02/2007

The clare at Water Tower w/Trump in the distance

The Clare looks like it will pop out over the buildings at Michigan Ave.

The Elysian

Trump

Big John · #**4666** Posted **Dec 3, 2007, 1:11 AM**

K Station development

Two towers at 555 W. Kinzie and 365 N. Jefferson !

I heard nothing on these buildings for awhile.
Commencement of construction should be in october.

Did construction work on the site start?

Anybody?

Austinlee · #**4667** Posted **Dec 3, 2007, 1:23 AM**

geez... when did trump tower get so tall?? they mustve built those higher floors much quicker than the wide base...

aaron38 · #**4668** Posted **Dec 3, 2007, 1:59 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

We do not need misfits like Fioretti thinking his role is to somehow inflate market prices by intentionally slowing down the natural pace of development....again - Fioretti = danger ahead for South Loop development...

I know exactly what you mean. I've been at a Palatine Planning Commission meeting, where it was openly and directly suggested that a condo development scale back the number of units by ~40% to protect the resale value of existing properties.
Which of course, keeps housing from being afordable.

Chicago2020 · #**4669** Posted **Dec 3, 2007, 3:54 AM**

Found this nice shot from Flickr by jpwbee

Question: Does anyone have the same shot, but from the late 90's early 00's

SamInTheLoop · #**4670** Posted **Dec 3, 2007, 5:42 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by skobabe8

This development is being run as 2 completely different projects independent of each other, so the overall percentage of units sold is insignificant. The loft building has hit 50% so it is underway. The high rise has always been targeted as being set for completion around a year after. Its in fine shape.

No, the tower is certainly not in fine shape - 25% sold after 9-10 months of sales is very weak indeed, and nowhere near being financed. If true that these are essentially 2 separate developments financially, do not be surprised at all to find a similar situation as Provence's Chess Records/Aristocrat Tower (later HOM) - adaptive re-use lofts went ahead as sales were apparently sufficient, tower cancelled (or postponed indefinitely) as sales struggled greatly (I believe similar sales performance to the 2100 tower)...

skobabe8 · #**4671** Posted **Dec 3, 2007, 4:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

No, the tower is certainly not in fine shape - 25% sold after 9-10 months of sales is very weak indeed, and nowhere near being financed. If true that these are essentially 2 separate developments financially, do not be surprised at all to find a similar situation as Provence's Chess Records/Aristocrat Tower (later HOM) - adaptive re-use lofts went ahead as sales were apparently sufficient, tower cancelled (or postponed indefinitely) as sales struggled greatly (I believe similar sales performance to the 2100 tower)...

Sam, please forgive my ignorance as I am new to this. Its hard to take some of the info. the people in the sales center tell you, filter thru it, and get to the truth of the matter. The guy I talked to recently said they were 1/3 sold (which puts us around the 50-55 range) on the tower and have only been on the market since the summer (5-6 months). This seems to be accurate because I put my loft money down early in the process and it was around the 4th of July. He also said with the Aristocrat there were some zoning issues that played a role in its demise. What that means, or how accurate that is, I honestly have no idea. But I appreciate your thoughts, as it helps me thru the process!

VivaLFuego · #**4672** Posted **Dec 3, 2007, 5:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

No, the tower is certainly not in fine shape - 25% sold after 9-10 months of sales is very weak indeed, and nowhere near being financed. If true that these are essentially 2 separate developments financially, do not be surprised at all to find a similar situation as Provence's Chess Records/Aristocrat Tower (later HOM) - adaptive re-use lofts went ahead as sales were apparently sufficient, tower cancelled (or postponed indefinitely) as sales struggled greatly (I believe similar sales performance to the 2100 tower)...

It's worth pointing out that the percent of contracts on units isn't exactly what the banks are looking for, but rather are looking at how much equity the developer is putting in. This is why the Spire is under construction without any units sold; the developer is putting down 30% equity of his own money. For many of these other highrises, the developer may only be kicking in 0-10% private equity, and thus depends on sales contracts to allow a loan-to-value ratio that the bank thinks is safe. 50% sales of course doesn't mean 50% equity, as you only have the cash (equity) in the bank after the unit closes, but the contract alone still has substantially value as far as the banks are concerned in their financing decisions.
For example, for this project, if the lofts completely sold out, the developer could apply some of that equity to get things moving on the highrise portion (assuming his investors are content to have their money used in such a manner and dont just want to cash out).

Marcu · #**4673** Posted **Dec 3, 2007, 10:46 PM**

Northbrook firm strikes deal for Lake Shore Athletic building
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=27316

Seniors housing developer to redevelop 80-year-old structure

(Crain’s) — A little-known Northbrook development firm that specializes in high-end, senior housing has a deal to acquire the Lake Shore Athletic Club building, possibly ending months of controversy over a proposal to demolish the structure to make way for a condominium tower.

honte · #**4674** Posted **Dec 3, 2007, 10:52 PM**

^ Phew. Preserve one nice building and avoid a LaGrange disaster. Sounds good to me!

Norsider · #**4675** Posted **Dec 3, 2007, 10:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by honte

^ Phew. Preserve one nice building and avoid a LaGrange disaster. Sounds good to me!

High end senior housing seems like the perfect use for this building.

SamInTheLoop · #**4676** Posted **Dec 3, 2007, 11:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by honte

^ Phew. Preserve one nice building and avoid a LaGrange disaster. Sounds good to me!

me too - a win-win for all

SamInTheLoop · #**4677** Posted **Dec 3, 2007, 11:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

It's worth pointing out that the percent of contracts on units isn't exactly what the banks are looking for, but rather are looking at how much equity the developer is putting in. This is why the Spire is under construction without any units sold; the developer is putting down 30% equity of his own money. For many of these other highrises, the developer may only be kicking in 0-10% private equity, and thus depends on sales contracts to allow a loan-to-value ratio that the bank thinks is safe. 50% sales of course doesn't mean 50% equity, as you only have the cash (equity) in the bank after the unit closes, but the contract alone still has substantially value as far as the banks are concerned in their financing decisions.
For example, for this project, if the lofts completely sold out, the developer could apply some of that equity to get things moving on the highrise portion (assuming his investors are content to have their money used in such a manner and dont just want to cash out).

No doubt about it (the increased importance of late for developers to show up with lots of cash in their own pockets) - I've made similar comments stressing this recently.

Not to get too off-topic but I would say The Spire's financing right now is as big a question mark as the tower itself (yes Kelleher claimed in the past to be putting 30% down, but he certainly doesn't have overall financing locked up and as of right now all he's paying for is the foundation, other underground work, ramps, etc (not chump change, but I'd assume far less than 10% of total project costs)

Back to 2100 - As to the point about moving equity from the loft portion to the tower financing, if the developer did that, you could essentially go back to looking at 2100 as one project (overall % of units sold, etc), but even if he sold alll of the lofts, that would only bring the overall percent of units sold to around 40%. But back to your point, this could all be moot, as I have no idea how much equity Rokas and/or partners are prepared to put in (but I certainly suspect not enough)...

Neuman · #**4678** Posted **Dec 3, 2007, 11:40 PM**

Another story in the Trib about the LSAC.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-1204lakeshore-story,0,2001918.story

Sound like they intend to rip out most of the existing structure and just save the facade...

the urban politician · #**4679** Posted **Dec 4, 2007, 2:37 AM**

Adjustments being made to south wall of Grant Park

By Marie Balice Ward

At a meeting of the Greater South Loop Association (GSLA), Tim Desmond, president of Central Station Development LLC, called the four towers constituting the South Wall-Central Station, as “the southern bookend” for Grant Park. This was the developer’s fourth community group presentation concerning the South Wall project.

South Wall-Central Station is bounded by Roosevelt Rd. on the north, 14th St. on the south, Columbus Dr. on the east, and Michigan Ave. on the west. Its four towers are One Museum East, One Museum West, Grant Park Tower III, and Grant Park Tower IV.

The highest, Grant Park Tower IV, would rise 900 feet tall and the lowest at 720 feet, for an average of 757 feet. The development was designed to balance the north end of Grant Park, where buildings range 650 to 1,136 feet high, for an average height of 866 feet.

(Full article at link):

http://www.nearwestgazette.com/Archive/1207/News1207d.htm

Nowhereman1280 · #**4680** Posted **Dec 4, 2007, 2:42 AM**

^^^ Good, glad to see the height increase is final.

Also from that article:

"Sales at the South Wall-Central Station are brisk, Desmond noted, with the first tower 92% sold and Grant Park II 70% sold. The first of the towers has been topped off, he added."

In other words, this article says OMP is topped out... Maybe it is going to be all ornamental steel from here on up?

Good news on those sales figures, 20% or so more on OMPW and they should be starting on selling GP3!