AUSTIN | Waterline (98 Red River) | 1,022 Feet | 73 Floors | U/C - Page 27

GoldenBoot · #**521** Posted **Aug 11, 2015, 6:58 PM**

I would be pleasantly surprised if Sutton is able to pull this project off in its current form. Even with McCourt Global as a partner, this thing doesn't seem to be moving.

Shall we go as far as saying this site is cursed? This was the same site where Vignette Corporation was planning to build its HQ (three or four towers) in the very early 2000's. That failed to materialize. Then it was Australia-based Constellation Property Group's three building condo/hotel project. Again, nothing. Then here comes Poe Companies with their multi-structure plan for 21c hotel, condos, office and, obviously, a contemporary art museum. That plan - dead.

And now, Waller Park Place's three-tower plan. Its outcome, who knows.

**I know three of the aforementioned projects "failed" because of other forces and not a curse. But, it's funny how so many projects over the past 15 years have been proposed with similar plans and not one has come out of the ground on this site.

Hummmmm...

drummer · #**522** Posted **Aug 12, 2015, 3:02 AM**

A lot of multi-tower plans in cities across the U.S. end up with one tower only. I'd actually be okay with that because I'm not a huge fan of the designs on this one - little to SimCity for me. That could possibly allow for future development around it to bring in some better buildings (my opinion, of course). That said, the development in its current form would still help that area of the city. I do hope for more street interaction in the end.

Tech House · #**523** Posted **Aug 14, 2015, 10:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the Genral

Don't worry, if Waller Park Place doesn't happen, another project will happen...perhaps Millennium Waller.

Honestly, I was expecting encouraging responses, but it doesn't look like anyone has much hope for this right now. If it does end up being Millennium Waller then I'll hold you responsible for planting the idea in their heads.

pscajunguy · #**524** Posted **Aug 14, 2015, 10:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tech House

Honestly, I was expecting encouraging responses, but it doesn't look like anyone has much hope for this right now. If it does end up being Millennium Waller then I'll hold you responsible for planting the idea in their heads.

Just go right ahead and build Millennium Waller. Then we can just fill up Waller Creek with concrete all the way past UT and, voila, no flood plain.

drummer · #**525** Posted **Aug 15, 2015, 1:53 AM**

A really long skate park, perhaps?

ILUVSAT · #**526** Posted **Aug 19, 2015, 5:31 PM**

Another possible bad sign for this project...Frisco's $1.6 billion Wade Park just announced a second luxury boutique hotel for their project. In addition to the Hotel ZaZa, London-based Langham Hotels & Resorts will managing their first property in the southern U.S. in this development. The tower will be 35 stories (25=hotel + 10=condos).

Wade Park does not open until 2017 and the Langham will not come online until 2018. AND, still no word on Waller's hotel component. Hummmm...

wwmiv · #**527** Posted **Aug 19, 2015, 7:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

Another possible bad sign for this project...Frisco's $1.6 billion Wade Park just announced a second luxury boutique hotel for their project. In addition to the Hotel ZaZa, London-based Langham Hotels & Resorts will managing their first property in the southern U.S. in this development. The tower will be 35 stories (25=hotel + 10=condos).

Wade Park does not open until 2017 and the Langham will not come online until 2018. AND, still no word on Waller's hotel component. Hummmm...

And what does this have to do with THIS project either?

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...&postcount=186

ILUVSAT · #**528** Posted **Aug 19, 2015, 10:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwmiv

And what does this have to do with THIS project either?

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...&postcount=186

Guess you need things spelled out for you...

Waller was to have been delivered in 2017. Langham Hotel-Frisco will be delivered about a year later, yet, it HAS been announced.

No word on waller hotel = problems with project?!? We'll see.

Projects which include a hotel component, for the most part, have their hotel partners announced as early on as possible. It helps with marketing the entire development. However, no hotel may mean this project has some financial troubles, as hoteliers do not want to be tied to a failed project. From a PR perspective, it does not look favorably on them (even though a specific hotel is not developing said project - their name is attached to it).

wwmiv · #**529** Posted **Aug 19, 2015, 11:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

Guess you need things spelled out for you...

Waller was to have been delivered in 2017. Langham Hotel-Frisco will be delivered about a year later, yet, it HAS been announced.

No word on waller hotel = problems with project?!? We'll see.

Projects which include a hotel component, for the most part, have their hotel partners announced as early on as possible. It helps with marketing the entire development. However, no hotel may mean this project has some financial troubles, as hoteliers do not want to be tied to a failed project. From a PR perspective, it does not look favorably on them (even though a specific hotel is not developing said project - their name is attached to it).

Yeah, except this is absolutely not relevant at all to this project except for some totally non sequitur comparison you're trying to make to gin up controversy.

GoldenBoot · #**530** Posted **Aug 20, 2015, 1:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Yeah, except this is absolutely not relevant at all to this project except for some totally non sequitur comparison you're trying to make to gin up controversy.

I don't believe he was trying to gin up controversy at all. I think the "comparison" is something to consider.

See: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...&postcount=190

KevinFromTexas · #**531** Posted **Aug 20, 2015, 1:28 AM**

I'd really be ok with this project and the Magellan one not happening, at least not in their conceived forms. We could have better designs than these. Maybe i'm being cruel, especially since it's within the dedicated thread for the project, but it just feels too gimmicky for me. And the Magellan one seriously needs go to back to the drawing board.

Take Kevin's advice on it.

• Video Link

ILUVSAT · #**532** Posted **Aug 20, 2015, 2:13 AM**

Thanks Kevin. I 100% agree.

wwmiv · #**533** Posted **Aug 20, 2015, 3:49 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I'd really be ok with this project and the Magellan one not happening, at least not in their conceived forms. We could have better designs than these. Maybe i'm being cruel, especially since it's within the dedicated thread for the project, but it just feels too gimmicky for me. And the Magellan one seriously needs go to back to the drawing board.

Take Kevin's advice on it.

Oh I've said the designs suck from the very beginning. And they've gotten worse as time has gone on, too. 100% agreed.

The ATX · #**534** Posted **Aug 22, 2015, 12:00 AM**

I didn't feel like going through this thread to see if this was posted before, but this project has a website - other than Sutton's and with a 2015 date - with some project info and leasing contacts. ECR is the company to contact for leasing info.

http://wallerparktower.com/

corvairkeith · #**535** Posted **Aug 22, 2015, 6:16 AM**

Yeah that website doesn't exactly instill confidence in a multi million dollar development. About the only thing missing from that site is the "hosted by Angelfire" logo and a few of these.

Urbannizer · #**536** Posted **Sep 1, 2015, 7:24 AM**

http://www.wylieassociates.com/proje...er-park-place/

The ATX · #**537** Posted **Sep 2, 2015, 2:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbannizer

http://www.wylieassociates.com/proje...er-park-place/

We now have at least five Engineering/Developer/Financial Partner websites concerning this project. But I still don't feel real good about it.

GoldenBoot · #**538** Posted **Sep 2, 2015, 4:30 AM**

Technically McCourt is a "financial" partner. However, they are simply an equity partner. We do not know how much actual equity they have in this project and we also know they are not financing construction. Unless they choose to not publicize it, I do not think Sutton/McCourt has secured construction financing as of yet. And that does not surprise me (with Sutton's luck of experience in this scale of project).

My guess McCourt's equity position is not high enough to sway banks into a position of being secure in providing a construction loan facility...for now, at least.

I don't really care how many websites have information about this project. Unless it is financed, it's not going to happen - obviously.

austlar1 · #**539** Posted **Sep 2, 2015, 6:11 AM**

McCourt had to bring in Hines to shore up his Hudson Yards project. I think McCourt's deep pocketed Guggenheim partners only got in bed with him because he retained rights to develop the Chavez Ravine area around Dodger Stadium in LA. Guggenheim probably just wants to protect their LA Dodgers investment and is not terribly interested in bankrolling McCourt. McCourt emerged from owning the Dodgers with a couple of billion bucks, but that does not go far when you are trying to swing a $3 Billion plus construction project in a place like NYC. McCourt may end up getting eaten alive since the Hudson Yard/360 10th Ave project is really his first significant development deal. I hope he knows how to swim with the sharks.

KevinFromTexas · #**540** Posted **Sep 15, 2015, 9:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The ATX

I didn't feel like going through this thread to see if this was posted before, but this project has a website - other than Sutton's and with a 2015 date - with some project info and leasing contacts. ECR is the company to contact for leasing info.

http://wallerparktower.com/

So that website has been taken down, and it's possible that someone who is attached to that project reads this thread.