CHICAGO | Boom rundown - everything over 12 floors. v5 - Page 249

Alliance · #**4961** Posted **Dec 19, 2007, 5:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Isaac Newton

That also seems promising in that if Walton on the Park was able to get a construction loan after only selling 43% of the units in one tower (and not even beginning to sell units in the other tower) then X/O's chances of securing a loan should be fairly good as well.

Did we ever have any stats on how much was sold? Were they selling both towers at once or one and the the other?

VivaLFuego · #**4962** Posted **Dec 19, 2007, 6:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Isaac Newton

That also seems promising in that if Walton on the Park was able to get a construction loan after only selling 43% of the units in one tower (and not even beginning to sell units in the other tower) then X/O's chances of securing a loan should be fairly good as well.

Depends how much equity the Giles folks can kick in....it said Mesirow is laying $50 mil on the line for the Walton project, so between that and the sales contracts, the bank probably feels their loan-to-value ratio is pretty safe (well under 80% for sure). If the developer weren't putting in that much private equity, in this credit market I'd be surprised if even 50% sales would be enough for financing.

SamInTheLoop · #**4963** Posted **Dec 19, 2007, 11:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

Depends how much equity the Giles folks can kick in....it said Mesirow is laying $50 mil on the line for the Walton project, so between that and the sales contracts, the bank probably feels their loan-to-value ratio is pretty safe (well under 80% for sure). If the developer weren't putting in that much private equity, in this credit market I'd be surprised if even 50% sales would be enough for financing.

Precisely. This is the first thing I thought of while reading the article. It's a good measure of just how much required equity has increased this year. Mesirow-Enterprise's financing seems in-line with what I've been hearing: Rough ballpark, we're talking equity requirements of around 30% (there's always a range, of course depending on developer record, pre-sales, project-specific characteristics, etc). Let's put it this way, about a year ago, required equity was probably more like 10%, or 15% at most. At 30%, there are many developers who just won't be able to come up with that kind of cash, or who lack the deep relationships with potential partner investors that can. Puts some of today's financing challenges into perspective - for example, it would seem that Palladian would need to come up with (in the general neighborhood of) at least $150 million or so in cash to get a loan for Mandarin...daunting to say the least to attract that type of equity for highly opportunistic real estate investment....not that it can't be done, mind you...

SamInTheLoop · #**4964** Posted **Dec 20, 2007, 12:18 AM**

I know there's been talk of it over in the W-A thread, but I wanted to bring it over here. It's a substantial rental tower. Overall, I like it, and am glad the developer seems to have a pretty aggressive schedule as far as getting it underway. I also love situations (as someone over in the W-A thread mentioned this was) in which no zoning amendments are necessary! (I know I'm a real sicko - who wouldn't love endless community meetings and hearings and input and debates and time for Reilly to weigh the situation?

)

One thing I am so sick of, though, is people who have no concept whatsoever of the economics of development clamoring for underground parking (disclosure: for the record, I don't like cars, don't own one, walk as a primary means of transportation, public transit and cabs as secondary means, am a fan of the urban pedestrian experience, etc etc etc). Yes, there are certain developments for which the economics allow for underground parking in Chicago, but this for the foreseeable future will be the clear exception.

Back to 319 Illinois, the only thing I think should be improved is the "back" side of the parking's cladding - it seems like it could easily be designed more like the other sides, with more glass in addition to the cladding system they're using....

SamInTheLoop · #**4965** Posted **Dec 20, 2007, 12:40 AM**

Here's a random question: anybody know if they are finally finished with foundation work for OMPW? You'd think they were building a supertall on the site, at the rate they moved with the caisson job (yeah, yeah I know - all sorts of special subterreanean considerations, secant piles, yada yada yada). Bottom line, this one's on a slow track thus far, just like 353 Clark...

cbotnyse · #**4966** Posted **Dec 20, 2007, 2:41 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

Here's a random question: anybody know if they are finally finished with foundation work for OMPW? You'd think they were building a supertall on the site, at the rate they moved with the caisson job (yeah, yeah I know - all sorts of special subterreanean considerations, secant piles, yada yada yada). Bottom line, this one's on a slow track thus far, just like 353 Clark...

yes you're right, those have been very slow. Maybe others have just gone fast?

300 N. has came out of nowhere, that thing is flying.

SolarWind · #**4967** Posted **Dec 20, 2007, 2:49 AM**

December 19, 2007

R+D659

Trio

Allure at K Station

Clinton-Kinzie

^ Most of the asphalt parking lot east of Allure at K Station has been removed

harryc · #**4968** Posted **Dec 20, 2007, 3:40 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolarWind

December 19, 2007
d

I appreciate the rendering and then the live shot from the same vantage point and angle.

Great shots as usual.

harryc · #**4969** Posted **Dec 20, 2007, 12:40 PM**

The core in the morning

Overview of East end ( coated re-bar, and slanting floor - parking )

Forgot a caisson ? saw this rig come in yesterday, couldn't figure it out until later

The carpenters built this nice frame, leaving the snow in the column untouched.

Many more bars to go

Curiouser and Curiouser

Checking the ends for leaks ( pump rig is off frame on the left )

Some sort of catch basin - but not hooked into the sewer system, and going down below the level of the (nearby) river.

Good neighbors

TowerGuy37 · #**4970** Posted **Dec 20, 2007, 2:19 PM**

Lets not forget to paint this puke beige in a month now to match all of the other beautiful architecture that looks the same!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It really isn't a bad looking building and even has a bit of a presence on the skyline if your driving in from the Kennedy! Why not be bold and pick a color that stands out and still looks attractive!!!!!! How come no one will do or try that???????????

Complex01 · #**4971** Posted **Dec 20, 2007, 2:59 PM**

Nice pics Solar. All these projects just like so good, i could walk around all day...

BVictor1 · #**4972** Posted **Dec 20, 2007, 3:47 PM**

Unbuilt Chicago - Willing to Dream
Thursday, January 3 at 12:15 PM

Lee Bey, executive director of the Chicago Central Area Committee, presents an engaging look at a century of downtown skyscrapers and urban schemes that never made it off the drawing board. The presentation provides an alternate view of Daniel Burnham's "make no little plans" dictum, and shows the heights to which Chicago has been willing to dream. The presentation will be held at the Chicago Cultural Center, located at 78 East Washington Street, in the 5th Floor Millennium Room. For more information, visit www.friendsofdowntown.org/index.html

aaron38 · #**4973** Posted **Dec 20, 2007, 3:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by harryc

Some sort of catch basin - but not hooked into the sewer system, and going down below the level of the (nearby) river.

A lot of communities, especially in the burbs are now requiring and/or giving bonuses for on site retention of storm water runoff, to prevent flash flooding.

Has Chicago been doing that? Did they get a FAR bonus for puting in storm water retention?

Eventually...Chicago · #**4974** Posted **Dec 20, 2007, 6:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaron38

A lot of communities, especially in the burbs are now requiring and/or giving bonuses for on site retention of storm water runoff, to prevent flash flooding.

Has Chicago been doing that? Did they get a FAR bonus for puting in storm water retention?

Actually, the burbs have been pathetically slow to adopt new techniques of storm water retention. The metropolitan water reclaimation district (MWRD, governs Lake, Cook(but not the city) and Dupage, i think) still does not recognize a green roof as a means to reduce the rate and volume of stormwater. The city has been much, much better at allowing alternative means of stormwater treatment. The whole stormwater retention for FAR bonuses doesn't really work for the suburbs since they don't really have control over their stormwater management. Besides, i might argue that denser projects should have relaxed stormwater requirements because they will cause less run off than a sprawling, glory-to-walmart project.

There is nothing in the chicago zoning ordinance (to my knowledge) that gives FAR bonuses based on storm water retention. Being able to retain water on site is more of a bargaining chip when asking for more density as part of a variance or special use. Besides, i read that all new projects in the city, over 30,000 sq.ft. will be required to retain 1" stormwater on site beginning Jan 1.

Also, SamInTheLoop, check out the OMP thread, we were talking about what is going MPW in there a bit.

aaron38 · #**4975** Posted **Dec 20, 2007, 8:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eventually...Chicago

Besides, i read that all new projects in the city, over 30,000 sq.ft. will be required to retain 1" stormwater on site beginning Jan 1.

That's what I was wondering, thanks.

Chicago Shawn · #**4976** Posted **Dec 21, 2007, 1:13 AM**

The Fairbanks

Still chugging along like the little engine that could...

Chicago Shawn · #**4977** Posted **Dec 21, 2007, 2:17 AM**

From the steps of the MCA...

SolarWind · #**4978** Posted **Dec 21, 2007, 4:34 AM**

December 19, 2007

Streeter Place

Parkview West

353 North Clark

honte · #**4979** Posted **Dec 21, 2007, 4:36 AM**

I think the Fairbanks turned out ok, considering it was a "save" of another plan altogether, by a different architect. It definitely looks better than the hotel it was supposed to be.

Does anyone know the story behind why the base of the building has had two different facades? The only thing I can guess is that the present developer had decided to execute the original plan before revising it to what we see today. Even though I like this version better overall, if I recall, I liked the cladding on the base better in the first iteration.

aaron38 · #**4980** Posted **Dec 21, 2007, 3:23 PM**

In Solar's last pic of 353 N Clark above, are they pouring the slab with the raker beams still in place? It looks like they've become part of the rebar mat. Interesting technique, although you'd think that a beam that large in the slab would weaken it.