CHICAGO | River Point | 730 FT | 52 FLOORS

[ardecila]

EDIT: Yeah, this was the wrong building. My sleep-fogged brain thought this was about the plaza at 444 West Lake, especially when I heard talk of city financing.

[the urban politician]

^ This is in the wrong thread, probably why it was deleted

[Tom In Chicago]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Was my earlier post deleted? This is the appropriate thread for it...

Anyway, copied from the Boom Rundown thread:

The article you posted is referencing a park that is planned for the lots adjacent to 155 North Wacker Drive. . . you're posting this article in a thread for a building planned for 444 West Lake Street. . . which is across the river a few blocks away. . .

. . .

[spyguy]

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-b...rticleId=31060

Riverfront tower stymied
By: Thomas A. Corfman and Eddie Baeb December 08, 2008

Hines Interests L.P. is struggling to finance a $536-million skyscraper proposed for a site along the Chicago River, as the credit crisis delays one of the city's biggest developments and saps potential profits on the 52-story tower.

..."There is not a chance that Hines is going to go back to their tenants and say, 'We're not going to proceed,' " says Bruce Cohen, CEO of Chicago-based real estate investment firm Wrightwood Capital LLC, which isn't involved in the project. "But they will have to get an equity investor who doesn't think like everybody else, who is going to think long term."

[Dr. Taco]

well, that's pretty sucky. I would say this tower's proceeding is an arbitrary must

[VivaLFuego]

Hmm. There's still equity out there to be found, if you can convince they big players that it's a good long-term deal. Witness the $1.1. billion Chicago just got from Morgan Stanley for its parking meters. Best wishes to Hines that they can convince an equity source that this tower has a solid ROI - and with 60% leased in a good location, they're in a decent position, but it will require some faith that the overall demand for Chicago office space will come back sooner rather than late.

It's a substantial setback, but this tower could still proceed according to schedule.

[the urban politician]

I would be very disappointed if this project didn't go through.

But I think they'll pull it off (which means jack shit, but whatever..)

[honte]

Can't read the article yet (I refuse to pay for both print and internet editions), so does the article state why the price per SF is so much higher for 444 than Buck's latest box? I'm curious how much this has to do with site, interior specs, rising prices, or just the overall design of the building... probably a combo of all the above. It is interesting, however, to note the very different prices considering the fact that 444's architectural impact isn't wildly different than a Buck tower.

It's also interesting to note that the park's cost is roughly 12% of the total budget - I'd say that's a pretty hefty public investment and I support the city subsidy here, vs. the Buck tear-down-and-pave-over plaza.

[Jaroslaw]

The construction budget will have to come down. Both rents and construction costs should be lower now than 18 months ago. And I wonder if the curved shape of the building has a lot to do with its cost--the box is more efficient. They're not planning on underground parking, are they?

[sammyg]

In addition to the shape, I think a lot of the cost has to do with all the railroad tracks around the site.

[denizen467]

The article is publicly viewable on Crain's now.
It would be great if the article was really a leak / plant to give Hines ammunition to go back to their contractors and negotiate downwards.

[Taft]

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=32114

Basically, Hines is having trouble getting financing and is seeking private equity investors. Both Hines and their signed tenants seem optimistic, though.

If anything, I think this signals how bad the market is getting. Even a "sure-thing" office development with high-profile, committed tenants is having trouble. This doesn't bode well for the next few years.

Taft

[cbotnyse]

^^ not too suprising, but I think that will get done. The fed is pumping 100s of billions in the system and it has to trickle down to projects like this eventually.

The market in general has to turn sometime too, maybe a year or two, but it will. This will get done.

[MrLakepoint]

edit

[WestLoopResident]

Thank God that this ill-conceived development will most likely fall apart. As those of us that live in the "neighborhood" have thought for so long, putting a 50-story office tower smack dab in the middle of a budding residential community is a mistake of epic proportions. It's not that we are anti-development, rather we think it makes more sense to build residential/retail on this site instead of another glass office tower that does nothing to enhance the area. In the day time it adds to traffic congestion (as some of you have already noted) while at night the streets remain vacant as all the occupants head back to suburbia.

Given the state of financial markets there is no way this gets done in the next year. And that means that the pre-leased tenants will have to make other arrangements given their need to vacate existing premises. I know I will take a lot of grief on these thoughts but anyone that has even a smidgen of urban planning sense should know that this was a bad idea from the start.

[Tom In Chicago]

^Welcome to the forum, but you're joking right? Residential neighborhood??? Oh I get it. . . you must be one of the newbies that moved in a few years ago and decided that you didn't want your views blocked. . . sorry to burst your bubble, but as you already know this building is significantly pre-leased and is very likely to be built. . . CONDOLENCES!

. . .

[Nowhereman1280]

^


Haha, you do realize you are going to get ripped apart right now by everyone on this board, especially when you say ridiculous things like:

A. calling the river corridor a "residential Neighborhood" when this building is literally 500 feet from the second largest central business district in the country.

B. calling this building "another glass office tower that does nothing to enhance the area" when there is a huge park and boathouse attached to this project, not to mention the reworking of the jumbled streets in the area that will occur.

C. Coming to a forum full of architects and urban planners and pretending to know more about urban planning than us... "but anyone that has even a smidgen of urban planning sense should know"....


Anyhow, welcome to the forum, I look forward to seeing if you are willing to stick around and defend your ideas.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by WestLoopResident

but anyone that has even a smidgen of urban planning sense should know that this was a bad idea from the start.

what grade-A bullshit. there are craploads of people on this forum who clearly have FAR more urban planning sense than your who find this development to be completely reasonable and appropriate for its location (mere blocks away from two of the largest commuter rail stations on the continent of north america!). residential neighborhood my ass!

nice try, NIMBY amateur. i'm so sorry that your view of the river is about to be obliterated, enjoy it while it lasts.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Now Steely, lets not chase him away! Be nice! Perhaps we shouldn't label him a NIMBY and bring out the torches and pitchforks just yet! Everyone is entitled to their own opinion... even if its wrong...

[spyguy]

Proximity to the major train stations and the second largest CBD in the country. You're absolutely right, an office tower makes no sense here...