HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Never Built & Visionary Projects > Cancelled Project Threads Archive


Canyon Ranch Chicago in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • Chicago Skyscraper Diagram
Chicago Projects & Construction Forum

 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #541  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2008, 7:28 AM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
^^^ Yes, lets not forget that Related is completely off the hook. They are so damn good at development, man I want to get an internship with them or Shelbourne!
     
     
  #542  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2008, 7:45 AM
honte honte is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago - every nook and cranny
Posts: 4,628
Even great companies make poor decisions. There is no guarantee that they won't change their minds after the building is gone. They also might be getting pressure from the church to do something.
     
     
  #543  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2008, 3:48 PM
Mojava Mojava is offline
c h i c a g o
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 314
^agreed, related has 2 rather large projects that are struggling right now, this and Peshtigo. Related is a very good company but lets not forget, they developed some big projects during a huge housing boom.
     
     
  #544  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2008, 5:23 PM
stylusx stylusx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 27
Not coming down yet......

Quote:
Originally Posted by honte View Post
Even great companies make poor decisions. There is no guarantee that they won't change their minds after the building is gone. They also might be getting pressure from the church to do something.
Just got off the phone with the Episcopal Diocese of Chicago....and they said that there is NO, repeat NO plan to either close the offices at 65 E. Huron or to begin destruction. Further, the person at the Diocese said that there has been a "delay" in any further plans regarding the Canyon Ranch development.

I would hope that Related would be kept from leaving the church and Chicago with a gaping hole while this construction depression plays out.
     
     
  #545  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2008, 4:20 AM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by stylusx View Post
Just got off the phone with the Episcopal Diocese of Chicago....and they said that there is NO, repeat NO plan to either close the offices at 65 E. Huron or to begin destruction. Further, the person at the Diocese said that there has been a "delay" in any further plans regarding the Canyon Ranch development.

I would hope that Related would be kept from leaving the church and Chicago with a gaping hole while this construction depression plays out.
If thats the case, why do they continue to actively market the building?
     
     
  #546  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2008, 8:09 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,356
Because Related purchased a certain number of ads in the Tribune. The ads have already been paid for, so why not run them? 680 North Rush might be dead, but if it is, you can re-direct interested buyers to your other projects (Parkview West, Peshtigo).
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
     
     
  #547  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2008, 7:01 PM
Jobohimself Jobohimself is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 161
Wow, that is a sexy tower...reminds me a bit of San Francisco's 101 California, but on steroids.
     
     
  #548  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2008, 9:09 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,543
Better Prospects

I think people have turned more negative on this tower's prospects than they probably should. Related has a lot of staying power to easily handle carrying costs through periods of slower sales such as the current market slump. Additionally, they have much more ability than most condo high-rise developers to capitalize on their deep investor relationships to tap into for equity partnerships. I'm not sure if Related Midwest was participating, but recently I think Goldman Sachs injected $1.5 billion into Related to not just refinance but also to continue to fuel growth (equity contribution for projects not yet under construction around the nation). I think Related takes more of a longer-term view than most developers. Furthermore, CRL has the location, branding, amenities and design to successfully differentiate itself from the competition. I'd look for this project to move forward still.

Also, I think some of the negativity recently is at least partially motivated by those that consider the upcoming demolition of the existing building and plaza area to be a major loss. I'm not quite in that camp, and consider the CRL tower to be a marked improvement over what is currently there...
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.

Last edited by SamInTheLoop; Jan 21, 2008 at 10:31 PM.
     
     
  #549  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2008, 10:53 PM
VivaLFuego's Avatar
VivaLFuego VivaLFuego is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Blue Island
Posts: 6,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop View Post
I think people have turned more negative on this tower's prospects than they probably should. Related has a lot of staying power to easily handle carrying costs through periods of slower sales such as the current market slump. Additionally, they have much more ability than most condo high-rise developers to capitalize on their deep investor relationships to tap into for equity partnerships. I'm not sure if Related Midwest was participating, but recently I think Goldman Sachs injected $1.5 billion into Related to not just refinance but also to continue to fuel growth (equity contribution for projects not yet under construction around the nation). I think Related takes more of a longer-term view than most developers. Furthermore, CRL has the location, branding, amenities and design to successfully differentiate itself from the competition. I'd look for this project to move forward still.

Also, I think some of the negativity recently is at least partially motivated by those that consider the upcoming demolition of the existing building and plaza area to be a major loss. I'm not quite in that camp, and consider the CRL tower to be a marked improvement over what is currently there...
As a related question (har har har....), how long does their agreement with the church last? If they have an option to pursue this project anytime over the next say, 7-8 years (i.e. they signed a 10-year option), then it might just be on the backburner temporarily, as you suggest.
     
     
  #550  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2008, 1:36 AM
Deepstar's Avatar
Deepstar Deepstar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,291
Not a bad looking tower.
     
     
  #551  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2008, 2:45 AM
Chicago2020's Avatar
Chicago2020 Chicago2020 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: AZ
Posts: 1,324
so the same people involved with Clare at Water Tower are also involved with 680 N. Rush???
__________________
Sorry Chin, but my late night host is Conan O'Brien!
     
     
  #552  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2008, 5:08 AM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago2020 View Post
so the same people involved with Clare at Water Tower are also involved with 680 N. Rush???
Huh? The same people who did 340 OTP are doing this, I don't know about Clare, I haven't heard that Related was involved there...
     
     
  #553  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2008, 5:36 AM
honte honte is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago - every nook and cranny
Posts: 4,628
^ This is confusion concerning religious enterprises.

The Clare was developed by Loyola, which is owned by Catholics. This project is on the site of an Episcopalian church.
     
     
  #554  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2008, 6:16 PM
Chicago2020's Avatar
Chicago2020 Chicago2020 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: AZ
Posts: 1,324
I see
__________________
Sorry Chin, but my late night host is Conan O'Brien!
     
     
  #555  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2008, 9:04 PM
ChiPsy's Avatar
ChiPsy ChiPsy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 443
Quote:
Originally Posted by honte View Post
^ This is confusion concerning religious enterprises.

The Clare was developed by Loyola, which is owned by Catholics. This project is on the site of an Episcopalian church.
Very close, Honte -- it was actually developed by The Franciscan Sisters, who do projects (though usually not high-rises) targeting similar age-groups around the country. Loyola was involved to the extent to which it sold (or leased, I can't remember) the land to the FS and to the extent to which it negotiated rights-of-use for the first few floors as part of that transaction. It also permitted its name to be used, to some extent, in marketing the project.

But your clarification is otherwise correct -- 680 N. Rush is on the site of an Episcopalian church.

Sorry to be O/T.
     
     
  #556  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2008, 5:03 AM
honte honte is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago - every nook and cranny
Posts: 4,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiPsy View Post
Very close, Honte -- it was actually developed by The Franciscan Sisters, who do projects (though usually not high-rises) targeting similar age-groups around the country. Loyola was involved to the extent to which it sold (or leased, I can't remember) the land to the FS and to the extent to which it negotiated rights-of-use for the first few floors as part of that transaction. It also permitted its name to be used, to some extent, in marketing the project.

But your clarification is otherwise correct -- 680 N. Rush is on the site of an Episcopalian church.

Sorry to be O/T.
Right you are - sorry I botched the details, and thanks for the correction.

By the way, I was told that John Ronan said yesterday the existing building on the site is one of his Chicago favorites.
     
     
  #557  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2008, 5:39 AM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,543
On Bidclerk.com - new projected construction start Sept 2008

Quote:
Originally Posted by VivaLFuego View Post
As a related question (har har har....), how long does their agreement with the church last? If they have an option to pursue this project anytime over the next say, 7-8 years (i.e. they signed a 10-year option), then it might just be on the backburner temporarily, as you suggest.

Actually, I wasn't really even thinking on the backburner at all - I was talking about a delay from the original schedule measured in months (or perhaps around a year at most), as opposed to several years. This project, I think, has the competitive advantages necessary to be one of the few ultra-high end condo towers to break ground in the second half of 2008/first half of 2009, given the slow overall market. It's one of the strongest projects by one of the strongest companies in this challenging sales environment, and that's what it will take to be one of the relatively few survivors among high-end towers that have yet to secure financing but will in the next year or so. My overall point in stressing the importance of the sturdy financial position of Related is that many over-leveraged and otherwise weaker developers would not be able to successfully navigate and sustain their projects through a period of slower absorption of units as Related would presumably have the ability to do. Active marketing continues - another round of online ads just restarted this week on Crain's. Also, just today the project showed up again on Bidclerk.com with a new projected construction start date of September 2008 - this would be consistent with the currently planned completion in 2011...
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.

Last edited by i_am_hydrogen; Jan 28, 2008 at 9:20 PM.
     
     
  #558  
Old Posted Feb 10, 2008, 2:40 AM
dvidler dvidler is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 313
There was a large ad in the weekend edition of the WSJ, looks as though it is much different from their past ads. So hope remains on this project...
     
     
  #559  
Old Posted Feb 10, 2008, 2:01 PM
stylusx stylusx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 27
New Ad

Quote:
Originally Posted by dvidler View Post
There was a large ad in the weekend edition of the WSJ, looks as though it is much different from their past ads. So hope remains on this project...
Noticed the ad as well...it still shows the 'cutout' in the tower. Has the design been changed back to the original, or is this just an old already in the can advertising piece?
     
     
  #560  
Old Posted Feb 10, 2008, 4:58 PM
honte honte is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago - every nook and cranny
Posts: 4,628
^ That would be nice. Perhaps now that Natarus is safely packaged away in Sandburg Village, they felt comfortable going back to the better version of the building.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
 

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Never Built & Visionary Projects > Cancelled Project Threads Archive
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:05 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.