CHICAGO | Wolf Point - West Tower | 493 FT | 48 FLOORS - Page 83

builder8 · #**1641** Posted **Oct 11, 2014, 11:18 PM**

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-g...M/s640/065.JPG

Notyrview · #**1642** Posted **Oct 20, 2014, 3:28 AM**

http://instagram.com/p/uVyp2MuaRN/ via ferchort

george · #**1643** Posted **Oct 20, 2014, 3:34 PM**

View from the fogged windows of the Kemper Building penthouse.

Notyrview · #**1644** Posted **Oct 20, 2014, 3:50 PM**

Excellent. This doesn't even look like it's going to block that much of river bend and it's going to be a nice juxtaposition with it.

SamInTheLoop · #**1645** Posted **Oct 20, 2014, 5:39 PM**

^ Yeah, unfortunately we need to wait for the South Tower to completely block all of Riverbend's Eastward views

Bummer.......but, we'll get there!

Chi-Sky21 · #**1646** Posted **Oct 20, 2014, 5:50 PM**

I am in no hurry to block their views, but i will glad when my view of Apparel Center is blocked!!

Skyguy_7 · #**1647** Posted **Oct 20, 2014, 5:56 PM**

^There are some who have been waiting for that day since the Apparel Center broke ground! And although the West Tower wont entirely hide the eyesore, it will, at least, detract the eye enough so that we may forget about the building forever.

Ryanrule · #**1648** Posted **Oct 20, 2014, 6:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

^ Yeah, unfortunately we need to wait for the South Tower to completely block all of Riverbend's Eastward views

Bummer.......but, we'll get there!

i cant believe they are putting a stupid office tower in the spot with the absolute best views.

SamInTheLoop · #**1649** Posted **Oct 20, 2014, 6:13 PM**

^ Nobody said it's office for certain.

In fact, as I've been saying for quite some time now, to my mind the most likely scenario is that the South tower, being the tallest, goes residential + hotel (probably very high-end, all-around, and condos for resi component). For various reasons, the market in general is not very big on mixed-use with office. It's preferential that office be stand-alone. Therefore, the east tower could be just office. It makes sense from a height perspective as well - what is the east tower entitled for - some 750' or so? That would be your avg height for a 50-55 story office tower.........this makes a lot of sense, form the perspective of planning out the site and maximizing value for what Hines is entitled for....

wierdaaron · #**1650** Posted **Oct 20, 2014, 6:19 PM**

Office tenants are known to be willing to pay through the nose for views, especially as younger workers are increasingly picky about workplace amenities. I'd guess the most revenue you could get out of views are office and hotels. I don't know much about the economics of condo buildings though. It's a good thought exercise though: if you had a location with unbeatable views, what's the best way to pull a profit out of it based on that alone?

The south tower is the biggest of them, and could very well contain condos, offices, and a hotel.

A Chicago River Museum would be nice, come to think of it. Maybe WP could garner some goodwill by throwing one of those in there. It's the perfect spot for one, and it'd be a way to motivate foot traffic thattaway. I know McCormick Bridgehouse has one but from what I remember it's mainly about bridges, and not very widely-known.

SamInTheLoop · #**1651** Posted **Oct 20, 2014, 8:06 PM**

^ In a healthily functioning new construction luxury condo market, condos would generally trump office in terms of perceived return from view for a location that is considered more-or-less equally attractive as an office and luxury for-sale residential site. Hotels are at the bottom of the totem pole. All of those luxury hotel/condo proposals from the 2000s - or Trump, for instance - have condos above the hotel for a reason. For the view value pecking order absent office, take a look at Aqua - which gets it right. From bottom to top, you have hotel, then rental residential, then for-sale residential. Where would office fit in? Likely between apartments and condos. However, again, I can't stress enough that the odds are very much against mixed-use towers with major office components....there are some significant perception/psychological and also practical headwinds working against them. Not so with residential and hotel. Ask yourself: When is the last time Chicago has seen an office/hotel, or office /residential, or office/hotel/residential tower built?

Now, how about hotel/residential? Yep, we sure have seen those in recent years!

Steely Dan · #**1652** Posted **Oct 20, 2014, 8:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

Ask yourself: When is the last time Chicago has seen an office/hotel, or office residential, or office/hotel/residential tower built?

i'm wracking my brain here, was it 900 N michigan way back in '89?

Chi-Sky21 · #**1653** Posted **Oct 20, 2014, 8:26 PM**

IBM building was CONVERTED to hotel office. I know that is not what you are going for though.

wierdaaron · #**1654** Posted **Oct 20, 2014, 8:28 PM**

Hancock has office/condo, and IBM building (AMA building?) has a hotel and offices now. Both I'd say are a factor of the location or prestige of the building. There haven't been many towers lately that come with that kind of prestige except Trump.

It's weird to think that condos would be the most profitable, because it's a one-time sale. For the life of the building, as values go up, the only money you'll see after the first sale is assessments, right? Seems like with office and hotel you could adjust the rates as values go up. I'm not arguing, since I have no first hand knowledge.

If that is the case, River Point should make its top floor a bigass penthouse condo and charge $50M for it.

LouisVanDerWright · #**1655** Posted **Oct 20, 2014, 9:06 PM**

Developers love condos because you get in and out so fast. Developers don't like to hold real estate, institutional money does. Notice how all the developers dump their apartment towers and office buildings as soon as they get a good offer? Condos are the best for developers because they can slap em up and then run like hell before the market gets a chance to implode (which usually happens in short order once you start seeing big condo towers deliver their units). Developers make their money by getting in, creating value, and the getting the fuck out before something bad happens.

#1 rule of development: Always use someone else's money
#2 rule of development: When there is money on the table, take it

That's how we avoid getting screwed, mmmmmkay?

Ryanrule · #**1656** Posted **Oct 20, 2014, 9:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wierdaaron

Hancock has office/condo, and IBM building (AMA building?) has a hotel and offices now. Both I'd say are a factor of the location or prestige of the building. There haven't been many towers lately that come with that kind of prestige except Trump.

It's weird to think that condos would be the most profitable, because it's a one-time sale. For the life of the building, as values go up, the only money you'll see after the first sale is assessments, right? Seems like with office and hotel you could adjust the rates as values go up. I'm not arguing, since I have no first hand knowledge.

If that is the case, River Point should make its top floor a bigass penthouse condo and charge $50M for it.

real estate is about being predatory and slimy. you want to scam yourself up a big bunch of investment dollars, build something, and then cash out quick before it can go to hell.

long term steady growth isnt cool.

Chicago Shawn · #**1657** Posted **Oct 20, 2014, 9:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

^ In a healthily functioning new construction luxury condo market, condos would generally trump office in terms of perceived return from view for a location that is considered more-or-less equally attractive as an office and luxury for-sale residential site. Hotels are at the bottom of the totem pole. All of those luxury hotel/condo proposals from the 2000s - or Trump, for instance - have condos above the hotel for a reason. For the view value pecking order absent office, take a look at Aqua - which gets it right. From bottom to top, you have hotel, then rental residential, then for-sale residential. Where would office fit in? Likely between apartments and condos. However, again, I can't stress enough that the odds are very much against mixed-use towers with major office components....there are some significant perception/psychological and also practical headwinds working against them. Not so with residential and hotel. Ask yourself: When is the last time Chicago has seen an office/hotel, or office /residential, or office/hotel/residential tower built?

Now, how about hotel/residential? Yep, we sure have seen those in recent years!

Aqua does have a small amount of office; its on the east end of the podium behind the retail and lobbies. Its a couple of floors, mostly occupied by BKL's studio and Magallen's corporate offices.

Detroit1995 · #**1658** Posted **Oct 20, 2014, 9:40 PM**

Wow I went to photograph the construction site on Oct. 4 and man have they been working fast on this.

UrbanLibertine · #**1659** Posted **Oct 22, 2014, 1:56 AM**

Do all of you guys (that post regularly on this site) live downtown?

Rizzo · #**1660** Posted **Oct 22, 2014, 4:18 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i'm wracking my brain here, was it 900 N michigan way back in '89?

And it also didn't work out so well by design. At least a third of the office space was later converted to residential. There's also 1 mag mile which has about half as office.