NEW YORK | 45 East 45th St (Roosevelt Hotel) | FT | FLOORS

[Crawford]

Double-post.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by BanBrokenChatBots

The lobby & ballroom are some of the nicest in the City if not the country,

Your subjective views aren't shared by most. And that pic hardly does you any favors. Looks like any random city hotel from the 1920's.

I recently stayed at a 1920's hotel in Cincy that had a lobby about 100x nicer.

Thankfully this dump will soon be rubble.

[Mulan]

Landmark status for this building? I think this old hotel will be demolished in the next few years to make way for another tower. Wasn't the application for landmark status rejected here? Or not even applied for it in the first place? I am in favour of the demolition and construction of another possible supertall in New York. New York needs more modern office space, especially in the Grand Central Terminal area (Grand Central Zone).

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Ahoi

Landmark status for this building? I think this old hotel will be demolished in the next few years to make way for another tower. Wasn't the application for landmark status rejected here? Or not even applied for it in the first place? I am in favour of the demolition and construction of another possible supertall in New York. New York needs more modern office space, especially in the Grand Central Terminal area (Grand Central Zone).

Landmarks already rejected this multiple times, so there's no issue.

Some people just want to preserve every single older building. There were people whining about 270 Park's demolition, saying it had to be landmarked. Pretty much any older building in Midtown has something interesting in its past, or something interesting architecturally, so using that logic, nothing should ever be built, anywhere.

I guess the ESB should have never been built, since it replaced the original Waldorf Astoria (which, unlike this dump, was actually really ornate and nice). Or Rockefeller Center should have never been built, since it replaced really nice brownstone blocks and Columbia University's original campus.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Landmarks already rejected this multiple times, so there's no issue.

There is no issue. I don't know why people bother to waste time posting such nonsense. This building is going to be demolished when the partnership with a developer is finalized.

[fadedgrandeur]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Landmarks already rejected this multiple times, so there's no issue.

Some people just want to preserve every single older building. There were people whining about 270 Park's demolition, saying it had to be landmarked. Pretty much any older building in Midtown has something interesting in its past, or something interesting architecturally, so using that logic, nothing should ever be built, anywhere.

I guess the ESB should have never been built, since it replaced the original Waldorf Astoria (which, unlike this dump, was actually really ornate and nice). Or Rockefeller Center should have never been built, since it replaced really nice brownstone blocks and Columbia University's original campus.

Can you actually cite the rejected LPC rulings? I am almost sure the LPC has never made a ruling on this particular building either way.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by fadedgrandeur

Can you actually cite the rejected LPC rulings? I am almost sure the LPC has never made a ruling on this particular building either way.

It's come up multiple times, and the LPC has declined the request.

[NYguy]

This hotel should stand at least for the next few years. But get a good look at it now.


SEPTEMBER 2, 2024

[fadedgrandeur]

Originally Posted by NYguy

It's come up multiple times, and the LPC has declined the request.

Sure, you can just say that, but I was asking specifically for a source.

[streetscaper]

Well I don't agree with Landmark's decision. You guys can whine and get all salty all you want about people merely posting about wanting to preserve this building. I will still state it when the subject comes up. It's obvious that other forumers feel the same way.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by streetscaper

Well I don't agree with Landmark's decision. You guys can whine and get all salty all you want about people merely posting about wanting to preserve this building. I will still state it when the subject comes up. It's obvious that other forumers feel the same way.

Nobody is “whining” about anything. Personally, I just state the facts, no matter who is offended. Anybody who has been following this at least a little bit knows this building isn’t going to be landmarked. And it’s just foolish to suggests that it will or might be. People don’t have to like, or even agree with that fact. But that’s the way of the world. I don’t like to spend a lot of time on “what ifs” and “maybes”, particularly when you know where things are headed. There’s no point, and no sense in getting people’s hopes up, however misguided they may be.

[streetscaper]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Nobody is “whining” about anything. Personally, I just state the facts, no matter who is offended. Anybody who has been following this at least a little bit knows this building isn’t going to be landmarked. And it’s just foolish to suggests that it will or might be. People don’t have to like, or even agree with that fact. But that’s the way of the world. I don’t like to spend a lot of time on “what ifs” and “maybes”, particularly when you know where things are headed. There’s no point, and no sense in getting people’s hopes up, however misguided they may be.

"I don't know why people bother to waste time posting" their opinion... sounds a bit whine-y to me... but anyway...

Well I don't think it "will" or "might" be landmarked... But I simply think it "should" be. We're all entitled to our opinions however misguided others "feel" they may be (I could feel the same about my opposition's opinion too).

[ChiND]

I agree that this should be landmarked and restored. I have good memories there. (The Sheboygan “wrasslin’” team toured the lobby.)

Anyway, it’s coming down. I hope that its replacement is spectacular.

[SamLYNY]

I think we all have some strong opinions on this building, whether positive or negative. All this means is that when this thing is eventually razed, whatever goes up in its place has to be spectacular.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by streetscaper

"I don't know why people bother to waste time posting" their opinion... sounds a bit whine-y to me... but anyway...

Well I don't think it "will" or "might" be landmarked... But I simply think it "should" be. We're all entitled to our opinions however misguided others "feel" they may be (I could feel the same about my opposition's opinion too).

You can think that it should be. But it's FOOLISH to suggest that it might be, or even may be, given what we know. That is all. If you say that doesn't apply to you, keep it moving.

[streetscaper]

Originally Posted by NYguy

You can think that it should be.

Thank you! All that needs to be said.

[Mulan]

If Peebles has the money together, then I hope that he will also propose his Affirmation Tower here.

[Sky88]

Originally Posted by Ahoi

If Peebles has the money together, then I hope that he will also propose his Affirmation Tower here.

Sorry, but if you are so convinced of this idea of ​​yours, why don't you send an email to Peebles, explaining your project. Who knows, maybe he will find it interesting.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Ahoi

If Peebles has the money together, then I hope that he will also propose his Affirmation Tower here.

Apples and oranges.




https://tribune.com.pk/story/2491595/joint-venture-for-roosevelt-hotel-proposed

Joint venture for Roosevelt Hotel proposed


Shahbaz Rana
August 28, 2024

According to its Transaction Structure report, Pakistan will not have to pay any additional money for the joint venture purposes and its contribution will be in the shape of the value of the land of the hotel.

"Based on pre-marketing, due diligence and analysis of the options, the joint venture structure nets the highest value to the government of Pakistan", the financial adviser has recommended in the Roosevelt Hotel Transaction Structure report.

The report details the pros and cons of the three options – outright sale, joint venture deal and the 99-year lease. The government told the Privatisation Commission (PC) board last week that the report gave the least preference to the outright sale and put its weight behind the joint-venture deal.

"The financial adviser, based on the analysis presented in the transaction structure report and its experience of the New York real estate market, has recommended joint venture as the most suitable transaction structure for maximising the expected proceeds", the PC board was informed.

The information emerged a day before the PC board is scheduled to take up the transaction structure for a second time this week. The board meets on Wednesday (today) amid the government's desire to sell the most sought-after property in the heart of New York under a government-to-government deal.

In the last board meeting, Privatisation Minister Abdul Aleem Khan, also the chairman of the PC board, as well as another official hinted at selling the hotel under a negotiated government-to-government deal, sources said.

In case of the negotiated deal with any Gulf country, according to the sources, the government would not be required to give advertisement in the press and it might not enter into a joint venture.

The finance adviser has presented three options: 100% sale of the Roosevelt Hotel land, joint venture with prospective development partner for future development of multi-storey mixed use skyscraper or giving the hotel at 99-year ground lease with identified developer and investor for future development of mixed use skyscraper.

The financial adviser stated that the joint venture agreement could be structured in a way to allow the government to exit at any stage after the zoning of land use approvals are in place. The government would contribute to the land and the development partner will contribute all remaining costs, including payments to the government and assuming all the risks of the development, according to the proposals.

100% sale

Under scenario 1, which is not recommended by the adviser, the land valuation will be determined now assuming the full land potential but the transaction will be closed in 2027. The buyer will deposit the initial price and will give the remaining amount in 2027 after securing approvals for the high-rise building. "This option has the lowest risk with lowest net proceeds to the government of Pakistan", says the report.

Joint Venture

The financial adviser said that under the joint venture scenario, the government would contribute 100% of the land value to the joint venture partner and the land value will be determined on the basis of full land potential, including the 32-storey building. Both parties will sign the contribution agreement immediately but the joint venture agreement will be signed in 2027.

The development partner will make two initial deposits in this fiscal year and then in 2027 and the balance sale price will be paid in 2033. "This option has the highest risk with the highest net proceeds to Pakistan," said the adviser.

99-year lease deal

Under this model, the land value will be determined now by assuming the full potential of the property. In this scenario, Pakistan will sign the contribution agreement and the ground lease agreement in 2027. Pakistan will get fixed payments over the period of next 99 years. The government will retain the ownership of the land and the time to achieve the sale proceeds is the highest.

In order to maximise the gains, there will be a need for a strong development partner for planning and design, negotiations with the unions and the LandMark Commission, zoning approvals related to additional air rights, negotiations and acquisitions, according to the adviser.

The financial adviser has recommended the selection of a strong development partner, having a strong balance sheet, strong market reputation and experience in managing complex zoning permissions.

[NYguy]

In the last board meeting, Privatisation Minister Abdul Aleem Khan, also the chairman of the PC board, as well as another official hinted at selling the hotel under a negotiated government-to-government deal, sources said.

In case of the negotiated deal with any Gulf country, according to the sources, the government would not be required to give advertisement in the press and it might not enter into a joint venture.

So, it seems its not just the developers in the US who have their eyes on the prize. That seems to be the holdup here...


https://tribune.com.pk/story/2492159/no-decision-on-roosevelt-sale-model

No decision on Roosevelt sale model
PC board discusses giving hotel on lease or developing it as joint venture

August 30, 2024

There was also no consensus whether to privatise the hotel through a competitive bidding process or through a government-to-government deal. Roosevelt Hotel is located in the heart of New York and part of the 1% most sought-after land of the metropolitan city. Federal Minister for Privatisation Abdul Aleem Khan presided over the meeting of PC board. It was for the second time in 10 days when the board met but could not approve a transaction model for final endorsement by the Cabinet Committee on Privatisation.

"Federal Minister Abdul Aleem Khan observed that in light of the recommendations of the Privatisation Commission board, final decision will be taken by the Cabinet Committee on Privatisation," said a statement issued by the Ministry of Privatisation.

A majority of the board members were of the view that the government should enter into a 99-year lease agreement. Some others, including the privatisation minister, emphasised that the hotel should be developed as a joint venture and a government-to-government deal should be struck.

Proponents of the lease agreement were of the view that Pakistan needed money and that was possible by entering into a lease agreement, which would be a constant source of earning without selling land. Under the lease model, the land value will be determined now by assuming the full potential of the property. In this scenario, Pakistan will sign a contribution agreement and a ground lease agreement in 2027.

However, some members were of the view that the hotel should be developed under a joint venture but through a negotiated government-to-government deal.

Surprisingly though, the financial adviser told the board that there were chances of cartelisation in the case of open bidding.

The adviser said that under the joint venture scenario, the government would contribute 100% of the land value to the joint venture partner and the land value would be determined on the basis of full land potential, including the 32-storey building. Both parties will sign a contribution agreement immediately but the joint venture agreement will be signed in 2027.

.....some members argued that the joint venture would take time and Pakistan needed funds to pay off some of the PIA liabilities parked in a holding company. Roosevelt Hotel is the property of PIA.

The adviser recommended the selection of a strong development partner, having a strong balance sheet, strong market reputation and experience in managing complex zoning permissions.