CHICAGO | Waterview Tower | 1,047' Official / 1,035' Roof | 89 FLOORS |NEVER BUILT - Page 140

takascar · #**2781** Posted **May 27, 2009, 7:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by J_M_Tungsten

Wasn't the crane supposed to be down by now???? I haven't been out that way in a while, not sure whats going on with this building anymore, makes me sad

I think one of the things that the city cited them for was that they had to take the crane down if they were going not going to use it "soon" - I don't know what they mean by "soon".

Steely Dan · #**2782** Posted **May 27, 2009, 7:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by takascar

I think one of the things that the city cited them for was that they had to take the crane down if they were going not going to use it "soon" - I don't know what they mean by "soon".

"soon" meant within 90 days of when that citation was issued, which i believe was on march 5th, so the crane will have to be dismantled within the next two weeks, barring some other development.

ltsmotorsport · #**2783** Posted **May 28, 2009, 3:00 AM**

JDRCRASH · #**2784** Posted **May 28, 2009, 4:29 PM**

Sooo...what, if construction doesn't resume within the next 14 days, the crane's coming down? Thats not good.

The developer had better hurry up and quick if they wanna finish this, otherwise we may be screwed.

Tom In Chicago · #**2785** Posted **May 28, 2009, 4:47 PM**

^As has already been discussed - ad nauseum - the crane is coming down. . . please feel free to read the previous posts before asking again. . . thanks in advance. . .

Untitled · #**2786** Posted **Jun 1, 2009, 9:33 AM**

Are there other options than a) take the crane down, and b) start building?

We know that (b) ain't happening anytime soon. But they're obviously reluctant to take the crane down. Maybe they've worked out an extension? Would they flat-out defy the order to bring it down?

chi-arch · #**2787** Posted **Jun 1, 2009, 2:46 PM**

Sure. Pay the fines

JDRCRASH · #**2788** Posted **Jun 1, 2009, 3:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

^As has already been discussed - ad nauseum - the crane is coming down. . . please feel free to read the previous posts before asking again. . . thanks in advance. . .

The only posts i've seen on this page was that it could come down, not that it will come down.

Mojava · #**2789** Posted **Jun 1, 2009, 5:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

The only posts i've seen on this page was that it could come down, not that it will come down.

read back a few pages then...

"The developer has submitted a structural engineer’s report on the building and has agreed to remove the crane if it is not used in 90 days, according to a March 5 order issued by Circuit Court Judge James McGing."

ChicagoChicago · #**2790** Posted **Jun 1, 2009, 6:57 PM**

^^^
I suppose I'm missing something then. How will it come down? Will it be disassembled?

Also, there was supposed to be a hearing on what to do about the structurally deficient slab a few months ago as well.

JDRCRASH · #**2791** Posted **Jun 2, 2009, 3:53 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojava

"The developer has submitted a structural engineer’s report on the building and has agreed to remove the crane if it is not used in 90 days, according to a March 5 order issued by Circuit Court Judge James McGing."

Again, 90 days hasn't passed completely....which is why if I was hopeful this would get built, i'd look for big news this week from the developer.

lawfin · #**2792** Posted **Jun 2, 2009, 6:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

Again, 90 days hasn't passed completely....which is why if I was hopeful this would get built, i'd look for big news this week from the developer.

I doubt it

Mojava · #**2793** Posted **Jun 3, 2009, 1:50 PM**

B of A files foreclosure suit on Waterview Tower

(Crain’s) — Bank of America has filed to foreclose on the unfinished Waterview Tower and Shangri-La Hotel, setting the stage for a potential legal battle with construction firms that worked on the Wacker Drive skyscraper.

http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=34274

Nowhereman1280 · #**2794** Posted **Jun 3, 2009, 2:29 PM**

^^^ I only see that as good news. Someone will probably pick this property up for cheap and may be able to finish it in some capacity now.

trvlr70 · #**2795** Posted **Jun 3, 2009, 2:32 PM**

What are the real possibilities here? The article kinda makes it appear as if the incomplete structure is the worst possible outcome of all of this.

Mojava · #**2796** Posted **Jun 3, 2009, 2:47 PM**

maybe someone with a law background could answer, but do the liens have to be paid off prior to property changing hands to a new owner. why would a potential new owner want any involvement in this project with $80M+ in liens.

lawfin · #**2797** Posted **Jun 3, 2009, 3:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

^^^ I only see that as good news. Someone will probably pick this property up for cheap and may be able to finish it in some capacity now.

Perhaps..but given the state of the RE market and credit markets whatever that "some capacity" may be will overwhelmingly likely be a shell of what was to be a gem on the river.....a real shame

I hope I am wrong

Nowhereman1280 · #**2798** Posted **Jun 3, 2009, 3:35 PM**

^^^ Yes, I agree, it will probably sit empty for at least a while longer, but there are a lot of people with deep pockets out there who have the resources to buy and sit on it until the market recovers and potentially complete all or some of the tower section and make a huge profit...

@ Mojava: They don't necessarily have to be "paid off" but they have to be "released". You are correct that no buyer in their right mind would buy a property where their ownership of that property can be contested by a lien. Most of the time somebody ends up paying the people with the liens, but sometimes, especially in cases of foreclosure, the smaller liens get wiped out by the mortgage lien and ownership is completely reverted to the bank.

Its really a matter of what kind of lien it is, if its a first mortgage, then it will not be wiped out, if the first mortgage gets paid off then the other liens get paid off according to seniority by the proceeds from the sale. For example if a property has 200k in first mortgage, a 50k second mortgage, a 20k HELOC, a tax lien, and a contractors lien, and then is foreclosed and sells for 255k, then the first mortgage gets paid, the second mortgage gets paid, the HELOC will probably get 5k back, and the other liens are wiped out. If there wasn't a mechanism for wiping out the liens in a sheriffs sale or foreclosure then properties in default might never sell.

That said the first lender will often negotiate with the other lien holders (usually the second lender) and make a settlement to get them to go away to save time and effort going through the process of a full blown foreclosure. A lot of Mortgagees in foreclosure will simply try and ask to give the bank a deed in lieu of foreclosure or short sale in which case the bank must negotiate with the other lien holders to get them to release so the deed can transfer without the complicated and expensive legal proceedings of a foreclosure.

ChicagoChicago · #**2799** Posted **Jun 3, 2009, 3:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojava

B of A files foreclosure suit on Waterview Tower

(Crain’s) — Bank of America has filed to foreclose on the unfinished Waterview Tower and Shangri-La Hotel, setting the stage for a potential legal battle with construction firms that worked on the Wacker Drive skyscraper.

http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=34274

Holy Christ, that may be the most depressing article I've read in months!

At least Teng is getting all sorts of bad press for this.

ChicagoChicago · #**2800** Posted **Jun 3, 2009, 3:39 PM**

^^^
After reading the article, it sounds like because Teng did a bridge loan after other subs had signed contracts and started work, BofA is actually not is position of first lienholder. That pits about 30 subcontractors against each other... What a trainwreck.