SAN FRANCISCO | Oceanwide Center | 910 & 636 FT | 61 & 54 Floors | ON HOLD

[Zapatan]

Oh yay, no more Oceanwide, they've left enough ugliness on several American skylines with half completed buildings.

[MAC123]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Oh yay, no more Oceanwide, they've left enough ugliness of several American skylines with half completed buildings.

Glad they didn't start building 80 in NY lol

[theskysthelimit]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

^^Big plus! The creditors aren't developers. They will want to quickly unload the project if they can at a price that will make them whole (but which should be reasonable for a buyer).

Agree. There was a mention that they were in talks with Boston Properties to do some kind of “partnership”. I really hope and pray Boston Properties takes full control of this property and stay away as far as possible from any Chinese involvement.

[memester]

Originally Posted by theskysthelimit

Agree. There was a mention that they were in talks with Boston Properties to do some kind of “partnership”. I really hope and pray Boston Properties takes full control of this property and stay away as far as possible from any Chinese involvement.

At this point, I don't think Chinese developers or property investment will be anywhere near American projects.

[WonderlandPark2]

Was hoping they would sell this to finish their LA towers. Doesn't bode well for LA.

OTOH I hope this gets built now, in its original form.

[Pedestrian]

I'm now left wondering how the various anti-office ballot props San Francisco has passed will affect this project going forward, if at all. As I posted in the comprehensive thread, there is very little allocatable office space currently available (just 182,856 sq feet) but we are all assuming--me too--that this project was fully entitled and still will be if sold. But for how long? If it isn't sold and sits in suspension for several years, can the office allocation be taken back and given to other projects? Would the Planning Dept. do that?

[mt_climber13]

Hopefully the housing market follows, and quickly!

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by mt_climber13

Hopefully the housing market follows, and quickly!

That’ll depend on if the Board of Supervisors cooperates.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by homebucket

That’ll depend on if the Board of Supervisors cooperates.

Unless most of them are in jail where they belong: https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...05#post9438205

[theskysthelimit]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

I'm now left wondering how the various anti-office ballot props San Francisco has passed will affect this project going forward, if at all. As I posted in the comprehensive thread, there is very little allocatable office space currently available (just 182,856 sq feet) but we are all assuming--me too--that this project was fully entitled and still will be if sold. But for how long? If it isn't sold and sits in suspension for several years, can the office allocation be taken back and given to other projects? Would the Planning Dept. do that?

I believe also this project was fully entitled. Using One Oak as an example, they were entitled back in 2017 and have gotten 3 (?) extensions. I think the creditors will try to sell this project as soon as possible. It will still take 3-4 years to build out this project as entitled. Remember also, Parcel F is going forward even after losing Salesforce as a tenant.

[theskysthelimit]

More back story to this project:

Oceanwide Holdings and Boston Properties planned to form a joint venture to restart construction on Oceanwide Center and wanted to strike the project's hotel component, emails and documents obtained through a public records request show.

So, the JV fell through and the 2 sales to other developers fell through. Now 2 creditors own the project. It sounds like Boston Properties was in full agreement to drop the Hotel portion of the project. I think a Waldorf Astoria would have been a great Hotel for that area.
Let us see if the debt holders move fast with this one. They hold a combined $2.5 Billion across two series of notes.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranci..._XCMdjHT9xsv-3

[gillynova]

[Pedestrian]

SF YIMBY summarizes the status quo:

Oceanwide Center At 50 First Street, SoMa, San Francisco
BY: ANDREW NELSON 5:30 AM ON DECEMBER 23, 2021

. . . City records show the property sold in February of 2015 for $296 million. Building permits were subsequently filed in October 2015, with an estimated construction cost of $520 million. Construction started with groundbreaking in 2019. Foundational piles have been drilled 400 feet below ground, well into the city’s bedrock.

In 2019, the developer suspended plans for 512 Mission Street. Subsequent news suggests the shorter tower could be reconfigured and may not become the full 625-foot tower initially planned. If built alongside Oceanwide and 50 Main Street, 512 Mission would become the 11th tallest building in the city, between One Rincon and The Avery.

Although the development has been overshadowed by trouble for years, the issues in 2021 began in mid-January, when Swinerton and Webcor announced they no longer were the general contractors building Oceanwide Center. The Chinese developer had not paid the contractor for months, eventually incurring approximately $150 million in unpaid work claims.

Reporting by Laura Waxmann revealed that Oceanwide was considering a joint venture with Boston Properties to save the development in September. The project’s originally proposed 625-foot hotel at 512 Mission Street would be replaced with 109 condominiums.

However, in October of 2021, after defaulting on $334 million, China Oceanwide Holdings’ offshore creditors seized control of the stalled skyscraper project. The issues for Oceanwide Center in America also extend to New York, Los Angeles, and Hawaii.

For now, the future of the Oceanwide Center is unclear, even considering the immense capital and manpower already invested in the project. Regardless, it appears the site will be mothballed for the foreseeable future.

https://sfyimby.com/2021/12/number-t...francisco.html

[Zapatan]

^^ tl;dr

For now, the future of the Oceanwide Center is unclear, even considering the immense capital and manpower already invested in the project. Regardless, it appears the site will be mothballed for the foreseeable future.

Well... great

"Forseeable future" is gonna be like 20 years isn't it?

[MyCitySFO]

Hey ! Weirder things have happened. Honestly i dont believe it will be mothballed for an extended period of time. Look at the Atlas project that came out of nowhere. Now we are looking at a 1066 foot proposal. Someone will come along soon and swoop it up a discounted price and make it happen. it may not end up looking the same but that property is still very valuable.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Well... great

"Forseeable future" is gonna be like 20 years isn't it?

Not typically. Usually it's a few years. In this case, the issue is complicated by the Chinese ownership and it's hard for Americans to foresee how that might play out. If the Chinese government pushes the owner to dump foreign assets, it could speed up the process. If not, they could slow it down.

There's also the whole question of office space in the tech world. For the first time in a very long time SF seems to have an excess of office space but a new tech boom could absorb it quickly or new owners of this project could seek to convert much of it to housing which would mean restarting the entitlement process and that does take several years.

But in no case I can foresee is it likely to be 20 years.

[theskysthelimit]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Not typically. Usually it's a few years. In this case, the issue is complicated by the Chinese ownership and it's hard for Americans to foresee how that might play out. If the Chinese government pushes the owner to dump foreign assets, it could speed up the process. If not, they could slow it down.

This project is no longer owned by Oceanwide but by 2 creditors, Haitong International Financial Services’ Singaporean unit and an entity named Spring Progress Investment Solutions. They are an investment company and not developers. Holders of the notes can appoint receivers over the pledged assets, and can file litigation or sell the assets. The Chinese Government will not have much say in this issue as both investment institutions are outside China.

When this shakes out, this project will no longer be called Oceanwide.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by theskysthelimit

This project is no longer owned by Oceanwide but by 2 creditors, Haitong International Financial Services’ Singaporean unit and an entity named Spring Progress Investment Solutions. They are an investment company and not developers. Holders of the notes can appoint receivers over the pledged assets, and can file litigation or sell the assets. The Chinese Government will not have much say in this issue as both investment institutions are outside China.

When this shakes out, this project will no longer be called Oceanwide.

Hating is in Singapore but as near as I can figure out, because I don't read Chinese, Spring Progress Investment is in Hong Kong which, as the Chinese government has made clear recently, is part of China. Hence the Chinese government may still have something to say. Do you know the specific address of Spring Progress and that it's "outside China"? That would certainly make a resolution of the situation easier.

Of course it won't be called Oceanwide since the one thing we know for certain is that Oceanwide Holdings doesn't own it anymore.

[theskysthelimit]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Hating is in Singapore but as near as I can figure out, because I don't read Chinese, Spring Progress Investment is in Hong Kong which, as the Chinese government has made clear recently, is part of China. Hence the Chinese government may still have something to say. Do you know the specific address of Spring Progress and that it's "outside China"? That would certainly make a resolution of the situation easier.

Of course it won't be called Oceanwide since the one thing we know for certain is that Oceanwide Holdings doesn't own it anymore.

Yes, that is kind of what I said. The Chinese Government wants all their companies to retreat from vanity projects in the West. Some major Chinese companies that pulled back were Wanda purchase of AMC Theaters, Anabang corp purchase of major Hotels in the US and Oceanwide, with major projects in New York, LA and SF.

Oceanwide purchased the SF site from TMG partners for $296 million in 2015. These two creditors own two notes for $320 million and I am sure they will not let them go below that amount . It is highly unlikely another Chinese developer will step in, one has already tried but dropped out. Boston property is the best fit for this project, IMO, but the current economic environment is less than ideal. Boston tried to do a JV with Oceanwide and wanted to drop the Hotel portion and focus on real estate . It will be a few years before we se anything starting on this project.

[Pedestrian]

This probably no longer matters for the San Francisco project which no longer belongs to Oceanwide, but their troubles continue:

China Oceanwide's Lender Demands Immediate $165M Payment After Default On Seaport Supertall Site
January 12, 2022 Dan Rabb, Bisnow Data Centers Reporter

China Oceanwide Holdings has defaulted on its loan for a major development site in Lower Manhattan, another in a line of problems the Beijing-based developer has faced with its U.S. holdings.

The struggling Chinese developer is in default on a $175M loan against 80 South Street, its stalled mixed-use skyscraper project in New York’s South Street Seaport, documents filed with Hong Kong regulatory authorities show. Monday, lender DW Partners delivered Oceanwide a note demanding immediate payment of the $165M outstanding on the loan.

China Oceanwide has been attempting to unload the property, even at a significant loss, for the better part of three years. The notice of default comes after Oceanwide missed a payment of around $1.3M that was due in January. Its debt on the property matured in November.

A development subsidiary of Oceanwide purchased the site of 80 South Street from Howard Hughes Co. for $390M in 2016, part of a $3.5B spending spree on U.S.-based real estate assets. Its plans for the site — which currently houses a six-story office building — involved a mixed-use skyscraper that would be among the tallest in lower Manhattan.

But those plans quickly languished, as did a number of Oceanwide’s other U.S. development projects that stalled or otherwise failed to come to fruition. By 2019, the company was marketing the site at an asking price of close to $300M, The Real Deal reported.

In October, Oceanwide put a new asking price on the property as its situation became more dire: just $200M. Colliers is marketing the site for sale.

Oceanwide took out the $175M loan against 80 South Street in 2019, even as the company was trying to sell the property, documents filed with the city show. The loan had an original maturity date of May 2021, but DW Partners granted the developer a six-month extension, according to city property records. The loan appears to be the only debt against the property.

While Oceanwide’s Hong Kong filing states that the company is exploring its legal options following the default, the company has already had one of its premier U.S. properties seized by creditors. Lenders took over the company’s stalled and semi-completed project in the heart of San Francisco, Bloomberg reported in October. The so-called Oceanwide Center was supposed to be the city’s second-tallest skyscraper, but it currently sits as an abandoned construction site.

Oceanwide’s projects in Los Angeles and Hawaii also appear to be in trouble, with attempts to refinance both projects falling through, according to Bloomberg.

Neither DW Partners nor the Colliers team representing China Oceanwide responded to requests for comment.

https://www.bisnow.com/new-york/news...m_medium=email