Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown
How would that work in an all-rental building?
At any rate,
“The exterior of the building would remain substantially as previously approved,” Francis Greenburger, chairman and CEO of New York-based Time Equities, added. |
I had this precise thought as I was thinking about this article and specifically that quote a bit more! That doesn't compute. I'm actually going to go ahead and predict changes to the design are likely if they can pull an all rental version together. Think about 111 W Wacker changes in terms of the very broad strokes way in which changes might occur - project density/unit count, floor plans, floor plate, massing, height, etc etc. I would expect from a pure project economics standpoint. None of this is to say that an all rental design by necessity is precluded from being very strong in its own right....in terms of bold design, for height obsessives even (just look to NEMA for inspiration)
Again, the article struck me as reflecting an aspiration.....my read is that the expressed desire to not have substantial changes to the exterior design may be part of that - eg would rather not go back thru the entitlement process/amendments, so hopefully we can just switch to rental within the existing approved envelope......all very hopeful.
Something about this developer team.....I just.....don't know.....never has inspired confidence. As ever would love my skepticism to be proven overdone in the end.
Threaded Mode