But we are talking about ONLY completing ONE low rise development and not yet complete on 2nd project (hotel + apartments) then moving on to a "skyscraper." I wouldn't put my money on that thin experience but guess somehow he got lots of Chinese investors to believe in him. Wonder what he said to get them lined up for his project and passing on projects by developers with dozens of large projects under their belts.

This guy is on SSP and SSC only to attack this one project. His motives aren't clear but it's some sort of vandetta.

Yeah I figured. "Check your facts", is the same type of user name that some NIMBY or anti-development fruitloop would use. Next to the "Children of the shadows" which would make sense for those who are against the 57th Street supertalls.

Big http://www.carvoeiro.com/images/RedFlag.gif

I use to have my email on my signature, and would you imagine I'd get emails from concerned residents and activists asking how I could support such a monstrosity. This being for brooklyn developments. That's why I took it off. :haha:

All developers had to have a "first tower" they developed. Isn't that logical? What exactly is the hub-bub?

By the way, projects rarely acquire all their permits before construction starts. Obviously they hope to receive them all as soon as possible, but that isn't always possible since it's ultimately up to the city's permit office to issue them, and if there's a backlog like there is in my city it can take longer. Furthermore, projects will start the work on the part of the development/construction process that they have the permits for so far. Obviously they can't start work without one or they'd be in violation of city rules. However, they don't need ALL the permits to start on some of the work. For example, even without finish out permits for the interiors they can still pour concrete for those floors for those units and even put in the windows and complete the exterior. And I would never rely on what the media says. Most of the time they jump on a story prematurely simply so they can be the first media outlet to report the story. Developments also almost always have some ceremonial groundbreaking weeks and even months ahead of the actual start of physical site prep and construction. It's a chance for the suits to pose for pictures with the media.

But how often does the Lt Governor (WA Lt Gov Brad Owen) go to China and speak at what appears to be the round 2 fundraising for a project and state that it will be complete "this summer" (2014) when it hasn't even got shoring and grading permit and is just dirt.

Here's the link to his speech. It could have misled a bunch of folks into investing 1/2 Million each

http://www.ltgov.wa.gov/wp-content/u...aTowerEB-5.pdf

:???:

I just read his speech and I am not understanding what you are claiming.

The speech was more to talk about the potential opportunities for investment in Washington State, and the cooperation between China and the state along with the history of the two having economic cooperation when it comes to investing.

How is the speech misleading. I read it 2 times trying to find out if its misleading, and its not. I'm not understanding your logic lol. What is it that you hate about this project. What is your motive...

I could point to many other projects around the nation that do not have time tables as originally planned, but its not stopping them from eventually being built ;even if the delay is a year or two. This project isn't a ponzi scheme to lure venture capitalists and take their money.

It's a personal or business vandetta of some kind, or at least that's the general feeling on SSC. Of course he doesn't say.

(On SSC, his first two accounts got banned, so he started a third...oops, that just got banned too.)

I am just confused as to the facts. I see PCL barriers up and PCL is on city documents as the construction company.

The advertising doesn't say anything about PCL. It claims Turner and cites Turner's world class projects.

Can someone simply answer if you know the reason for this?

Here's one of dozens of examples of the websites for potential Chinese Investors. Every one I've found says Turner, so it's not just one company soliciting investors. It seems to be all of them. Is Turner Construction involved in this project? Yes? Or No? That's a pretty simple question of this group.

http://www.globalvoyage.cn/html/2015...a_0314/55.html

^^^^

Turner is supplying them engineers, but there involvement was mostly during the design phase, and engineering the building. Essentially part of their soft costs if we want to talk involvement.

Thank you for sharing your comments. Turner Construction does not list Potala Tower as a project of theirs.

http://www.skyscrapercenter.com/company/1715

Even if they were involved to a very small degree, or are providing engineers, it amazes me that Turner would allow the use of their branding advertised as "the construction company" for Potala Towers

It is all over the Chinese Advertising for Investors as one of the main attributes.

And PCL or Dargey's own company, AMDO, is never mentioned.

Its of their benefit. They get a cut of the action, and a slice of the profit. Happens all the time with developments. We tend to hear of a developer, and a construction contractor, but with some projects, there's many other elements at work.

Some site activity from Vashon118: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...postcount=3919

Oh, excellent. I see EB5 and his/her/its vast array of sock puppets have invaded this site as well.

It will be interesting to see if the tower gets the "blessings" needed from DPD and then how the public responds to the changes being requested through the Minor Use Permit Application and the Major Use Permit changes.

It sounds like the hotel and things like restaurants are changes to the approved uses.

The way I read it, the permit is for only a residential building and they might have to supply affordable units to be 40 stories. The way I read the only approved MUP, the zoning code seems to indicate the building can only be about half this tall without providing affordables and I see nothing about these in the minor or major MUP changes.

Wonder what others think.

Under Construction

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/382/18...c36b06fa_b.jpg
Potala Tower 2015-06-14 by LB Bryce, on Flickr

No construction potala tower or below grade garage
 

No Construction of Potala Tower or its sub-grade garage.

Checked Seattle's website and there appear to be no approvals and no permits for either a tower or a garage.

There can be no construction of these without city approvals.

Please show your work. As you insist on leading readers to believe your point of view, please provide permit numbers.

Otherwise I believe your comments are misleading and I ask why.

Duplicate

Seattle's DOB regularly purges certain sections. The same pdf's from that site,
used in several Seattle threads, no longer exist, and they consist of either approval or review process.

Its the same way the NYC DOB doesn't always keep data for certain developments.

Permit number 6423129 for 2116 4TH AVE

My point of view? I'm not Bill O'Reilly. The pic conforms with the permit, and it's showing a process of u/c. :haha:

If you're having vision problems or severe glaucoma, Seattle has legal weed. Smoke that, come to the site, and observe. You will notice that its under construction.

===============
http://find.seattle.gov/search?q=cac...&oe=ISO-8859-1

Permit 6423129 - only shoring and excavation
 

Permit 6423129 is not for a tower or garage. It is Shoring and Excavation ONLY. Thank for proving the point. The text also references that 3 additional permits applications are in, but they simply haven't completed the review process and have NOT been issued.

Administrator, please confirm and move this back to Proposed Projects.


It is unclear how long it will take Seattle to finish the two week public comment period, then do their review and then make their decision.

It is also unclear if Seattle's decisions will be appealed or otherwise challenged. Simply stated, the Tower and Garage Construction is not yet happening because it has not been approved at this time.

Its at an advanced state of it which warrants it being u/c. By real world standards it is u/c, and even by SSP standards, it is u/c.

Why is it that you only tend to pick on this project?