SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/index.php)
-   Skyscraper & Highrise Construction (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/forumdisplay.php?f=103)
-   -   CHICAGO | 1000M (1000 S. Michigan) | 832 FT | 76 FLOORS (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=218947)

Hourstrooper Dec 4, 2019 9:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1 (Post 8766837)
And I certainly hope that deal has closed.

Teng said back in 2008 (I think it was) that they had a commitment for the Inport/Export Bank of China for Waterview Tower, until they didn't.

Right but that tower it was financed with Chinese dollars this is American money…..and not likely we are not facing another 2008 situation theres a reason that was a great recession. This time is different so back to bananas :skyhighmind::dancing::dancing::dancing:

SamInTheLoop Dec 4, 2019 10:18 PM

Kudos to the development team if in fact they have landed complete project financing. Looking forward to any details of that.

I think it's worth reiterating that this would be the largest (by no. of units - 421) new construction condo tower developed in Chicago since the global financial crisis/great recession. Unless I'm missing any, the only other tower that would remotely approach the number of units here is Vista. This entire cycle, the condo projects that have been successful are primarily super high-end boutique buildings with few - or even very few - units. There may be a small number of exceptions - for example, 1345 S. Wabash is one that comes to mind for not fitting that mold. But those are the exceptions. I mean, the absolute poster child for a successful product this cycle is No. 9 Walton (which of course fits the above mold to a T). I believe that tower (it's not a tiny building, floor area-wise to be sure) has fewer than 70 units!

So, all of this is to state that the 1000m developer making it this far (and certainly if they've landed financing) is quite a significant achievement given the condo market dynamics in Chicago this decade. It remains to be seen of course whether they have landed complete financing, or GS is just a piece of a larger debt package that has not been finalized yet. I'll retain a healthy skepticism here until there's reporting on the financing being closed.

I will be very curious to learn the details of any debt package. Not much to compare it to, so downtown condo developers - and lenders - will be very interested in having a comp up on the board, if you will. Also, have we even heard a solid stat on the % of units sold? I've seen some inferences from the number of units that are being marketed and what not, but I don't recall seeing a firm stat mentioned recently. Same question actually for Vista. My suspicion is that Vista - despite approaching completion - might still be well under 50% sold - but that's just a guess. I still don't know how they will be moving all of those significant numbers of $5-10 mil+ units at that tower. I think that was prefaced on a poorly thought-out thesis that a lot of foreign capital would be streaming into the Chicago condo market.

rgarri4 Dec 4, 2019 11:03 PM

Banana time!
:banana::dancing:
:banana::dancing:
:banana::dancing:

Zapatan Dec 5, 2019 12:45 AM

Quote:

And I certainly hope that deal has closed.

Teng said back in 2008 (I think it was) that they had a commitment for the Inport/Export Bank of China for Waterview Tower, until they didn't.
I'd imagine Goldman Sachs is more legit than whoever was behind the Waterview Tower

bhawk66 Dec 5, 2019 3:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 8767064)
I'd imagine Goldman Sachs is more legit than whoever was behind the Waterview Tower

I'm glad you said you "imagine". Goldman Sachs? Ummm...

SIGSEGV Dec 5, 2019 3:40 AM

Walked past the site a few minutes ago. They're not working through the night. Lame. Probably fake.

Kumdogmillionaire Dec 5, 2019 4:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chisouthside (Post 8766736)
https://www.chicagobusiness.com/resi...ower-get-built

'Oct. 28 update: After this story was published, Francis Greenburger, chairman and CEO of Time Equities, announced that Goldman Sachs has committed to funding the $470 million project, and that construction will start in December.'

You can all thank me and my Marcus account for helping fund this project :notacrook:

chicubs111 Dec 5, 2019 2:13 PM

While obviously this building is going foward its defienlty understandable for people to be a little wary.. Can anyone think of a building of this size where there wasnt a significant article posted that funding has been secured?... beside that little tidbit quote, we are all used to seeing the crains/tribune article once a large loan has been secured (similiar to the one just release for BMO tower) on all projects of this size

pianowizard Dec 5, 2019 4:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop (Post 8766936)
I still don't know how they will be moving all of those significant numbers of $5-10 mil+ units at that tower.

I was Googling around and the most expensive unit I saw was the 5488 sqft penthouse on the highest (71st) floor, for $8,100,000. There are $10 mil+ units?

SamInTheLoop Dec 5, 2019 7:32 PM

^ I think you misread. That wasn't in reference to 1000m.

SamInTheLoop Dec 5, 2019 7:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chicubs111 (Post 8767429)
While obviously this building is going foward its defienlty understandable for people to be a little wary.. Can anyone think of a building of this size where there wasnt a significant article posted that funding has been secured?... beside that little tidbit quote, we are all used to seeing the crains/tribune article once a large loan has been secured (similiar to the one just release for BMO tower) on all projects of this size


While this one certainly appears to be moving forward, caution is in fact warranted. This is a large condo project, they are a rarity this cycle in Chicago, difficult to pull off financing for, pre-sales were believed to be (again, not sure what precise figures are) unspectacular, and there is precedent for large condo towers in Chicago to begin construction without complete financing and then be shelved. I'm cautiously optimistic while we await any reporting on financing.

That stated, it's not unusual for media reporting on financing for large projects being closed a few weeks to a few months following the commencement of foundation construction. It's also not unusual for reporting of such a similar amount of time prior to foundation work beginning.

Zapatan Dec 5, 2019 8:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhawk66 (Post 8767177)
I'm glad you said you "imagine". Goldman Sachs? Ummm...

What do you mean?

SamInTheLoop Dec 5, 2019 11:37 PM

^ Set snark detector to "on".

bhawk66 Dec 6, 2019 12:15 AM

Goldman Sachs admits...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 8767929)
What do you mean?

Isn't that the same Goldman Sachs that we bailed out in 2008 because of all their financial shenanigans? They were one of the poster children of the financial crisis of 2007 if memory serves. I'm sure it's fine. ;)



https://fortune.com/2016/04/11/goldm...oj-settlement/

harryc Dec 7, 2019 12:37 AM

Dec 5

Chicago | 1000 S Michigan by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr


Chicago | 1000 S Michigan by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr

Chicago | 1000 S Michigan by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr

Chicago | 1000 S Michigan by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr

Thickened water.
Chicago | 1000 S Michigan by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr

BuildThemTaller Dec 7, 2019 6:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhawk66 (Post 8768248)
Isn't that the same Goldman Sachs that we bailed out in 2008 because of all their financial shenanigans? They were one of the poster children of the financial crisis of 2007 if memory serves. I'm sure it's fine. ;)



https://fortune.com/2016/04/11/goldm...oj-settlement/

Imagine thinking a company that had more than $36 billion in revenue just last year is a bad investor.

jc5680 Dec 8, 2019 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BuildThemTaller (Post 8769696)
Imagine thinking a company that had more than $36 billion in revenue just last year is a bad investor.

Imagine thinking a year of financial results absolves a company from skepticism over previous predatory practices that helped cause a collapse the country still hasn’t fully recovered from.

pianowizard Dec 8, 2019 5:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop (Post 8767870)
^ I think you misread. That wasn't in reference to 1000m.

Ah yes, I read too fast. You were referring to Vista.

Anyway, I am surprised that it's so hard to find buyers for these $5+ condos, whether at Vista or 1000M. These are prohibitively high price tags for most of us, but reasonably affordable for a sizeable fraction of the population. I am surprised that so few multimillionaires or billionaires are interested in these premium condos, in one of America's greatest cities (IMHO *the* greatest US city). In NYC, comparable condos at these prices would be considered super bargains and would be snagged in no time.

SolarWind Dec 9, 2019 4:21 AM

December 4, 2019


harryc Dec 15, 2019 3:31 AM

Dec 12

Chicago | 1000 S Michigan by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr

Chicago | 1000 S Michigan by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr

Chicago | 1000 S Michigan by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr

Chicago | 1000 S Michigan by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:54 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.