SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   General Development (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=86)
-   -   CHICAGO | Post Office Redevelopment (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=192697)

Notyrview Aug 6, 2014 8:58 PM

Aw man i'll be so moist if they move downtown. That'd be killer.

The Lurker Aug 7, 2014 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emathias (Post 6682023)
Not to mention that I'm not a big fan of boycotts, but I would personally have stopped using Walgreens if they had inverted. Seeing how little I really care about boycotting places relative to some of the people I know, I'm sure I wouldn't have been alone.

I hope Walgreens and other large companies are listening. I'm not a picketer either but would immediately discontinue my business with them. I know this is trailing off topic but most of this thread has been wild speculation anyway

Notyrview Aug 7, 2014 1:22 AM

#boycottwalgreens was gaining some momentum on the twitter. I'm sure they have some social media liaison/ass pipe who listens. I tweeted that I would drop my boycott, even if they were strong armed into staying. It's a great precedent.

SamInTheLoop Aug 7, 2014 2:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rgolch (Post 6682198)
That may be true for other inversion, but that was absolutely NOT the case in the Walgreens situation. There was ABSOLUTELY a power grab by Stefano Pessina to wrest control of the combined company, and stockholders and investor definitely wanted him to control the entity. If you read any of the recent business news regarding what's be happening, there have been a few recent departures at Walgreens to allow some Alliance people to have representation. They didn't move because they realized it would be a PR nightmare.


While he does come off as some sort of cartoonishly evil archvillain from a comic or movie, there's a difference between everthing you've stated (which I think is mostly true) and an actual physical HQ move for a combined company that derives probably something like 75%+?? of revenues on the ground here in the US......

munchymunch Oct 8, 2014 12:32 PM

Damn, Back to being a dream
 
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/reale...-with-sterling


Quote:

The owner of the vacant Old Main Post Office may seek a sale of the sprawling West Loop property or a new development partner after a joint venture with Sterling Bay Cos. fizzled.

Less than four months ago, British developer Bill Davies and Chicago-based Sterling Bay said they were forming a venture for a $500 million redevelopment of the 2.7 million-square-foot building that straddles Congress Parkway.

The news brought hope that the property, empty since the post office close 18 years ago, finally would be transformed into a new use, likely a combination of office and retail space. But the relationship soon fell apart, and Sterling Bay recently withdrew from the venture after attempting to buy the colossus along the Chicago River for almost $150 million from Mr. Davies' International Property Investors, according to people familiar with the matter.

“Although Sterling Bay was excited and optimistic about developing the old post office with International Property Investors, over the last several months we have not been able to agree on the ultimate vision for the property or who would have primary responsibility to direct its completion,” Sterling Bay Managing Principal Andy Gloor said in a statement. He declined to comment further.

Sterling Bay, which is riding the momentum of several large office leases — including landing Google Inc.'s future Chicago offices — was seen locally as an ideal partner for Mr. Davies, a Liverpool native now based in Monaco. Although he has owned the post office since 2009, he never has completed a development in Chicago and is largely unknown here, while Sterling Bay is known for its nimble dealmaking.

The Chicago firm is not believed to have put any money into the venture but had agreed to invest heavily to gut the building and fill it with tenants.

Mr. Davies' next step is unclear. He is working with London-based real estate firm Savills PLC, known as Savills Studley in the U.S., to explore his options, including a potential sale.

“I don't think (a sale) has been ruled out, but it's not at the forefront,” said Richard Sykes, a London-based consultant for Savills, who answered questions on Mr. Davies' behalf. “We're looking at all the options. First of all, we're looking at what can be built there.”

Mr. Davies bought the post office for $24 million in 2009 and later acquired adjacent land leading up a spectacular announcement in 2011 that he planned 16 million square feet of mixed-use development along the river. The $3.5 billion plan included the existing structure and several new ones, including a 120-story skyscraper, the tallest in the Western Hemisphere.

That vision was scaled back for the venture with Sterling Bay, which focused on landing tenants for the existing structure, including an attempt to lure Deerfield-based Walgreen Co.'s headquarters there.

But tenants and their brokers were said to be wary of dealing with Mr. Davies after years without progress at the site, leading Sterling Bay to attempt to buy the property to gain control over decisionmaking. Its offer was believed to be more than twice Mr. Davies' investment in the property, including the land purchases, taxes and other expenses, industry sources estimate.

Mr. Davies and Savills now are discussing a slightly smaller version of his original plan, including up to 10 million square feet of new construction to accommodate a mix of retail, office, residential and hotel space, though likely without a 120-story skyscraper, Mr. Sykes said.

“I understand it was an amicable understanding reached in the end (with Sterling Bay) that the two parties had slightly different views of how it should move forward,” Mr. Sykes said. “Mr. Davies at that point thought this is perhaps something that needs more global exposure.”

Mr. Davies and Sterling Bay aren't the first developers to take a crack at the post office at 433 W. Van Buren St. Chicago-based Walton Street Capital LLC controlled the site for 11 years but was unable to kick off a mixed-use plan that included office, hotel, residential, retail and data center space. The U.S. Postal Service sold it to Mr. Davies via an auction five years ago.

Unlike Mr. Davies' idea to go even bigger, the previous owners at one point considered razing about 40 percent of the vacant colossus to make way for a public park.

“We were going to cut it down to a reasonable size,” said Rand Diamond, managing principal at Chicago-based GlenStar Properties LLC, whose firm — then known as GVA Williams — was in charge of leasing for the Walton Street venture.
:yuck: Come on really???!!

LouisVanDerWright Oct 8, 2014 1:12 PM

What an idiot. There's no way he'll get this done on his own. Sterling Bay was a first class ticket to success.

SamInTheLoop Oct 8, 2014 1:31 PM

He couldn't have possibly imagined a better scenario for him - having Sterling Bay fall into his lap like that. This was indeed his golden ticket, and he just flushed it down the toilet.

This guy is simply not a real player in real estate development......that of course has been clear since he won the auction.....

k1052 Oct 8, 2014 2:03 PM

Quote:

But tenants and their brokers were said to be wary of dealing with Mr. Davies after years without progress at the site, leading Sterling Bay to attempt to buy the property to gain control over decisionmaking. Its offer was believed to be more than twice Mr. Davies' investment in the property, including the land purchases, taxes and other expenses, industry sources estimate.
:facepalm:

wierdaaron Oct 8, 2014 3:33 PM

This is eternally frustrating. How long until Davies burns the whole thing down for the insurance money?

Loopy Oct 8, 2014 3:40 PM

I don't think he ever intended to develop the property. His motive for entertaining these proposals was simply to create a nice sales brochure.

Swicago Swi Sox Oct 8, 2014 4:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by k1052 (Post 6760466)
:facepalm:

I am just excited that this thread was bumped with actual news, and not someone asking when this tower was going to break ground...

SamInTheLoop Oct 8, 2014 4:34 PM

^^ Most certainly true. He doesn't remotely have what it takes as far as actual development. No track record for large, complex, mixed-use development whatsoever. What's funny is he didn't even have nice renderings - 'sales brochurey stuff' put together. First Booth Hansen (surely they knew what was going on here with this guy - maybe they 'threw' the designs they "threw" together, because they were pretty bad - certainly uncharacteristically bad for that firm), and then Antunovich, which was being, well, "Antunafish" per usual........


People need to forget about the fanciful dreams for the adjacent land parcels and start solely focusing on adaptive re-use of the building itself - the other stuff was just a mis-direct. Sterling Bay's plan offered this necessary focus, credibility, the experience, etc etc necessary to get this done.....but this yahoo screwed his chances....

the urban politician Oct 8, 2014 7:51 PM

^ Yep. Davies needs to go away

Buckman821 Oct 8, 2014 10:06 PM

Wow. Davies is a first class moron. This news has seriously ruined my day.

emathias Oct 8, 2014 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loopy (Post 6760611)
I don't think he ever intended to develop the property. His motive for entertaining these proposals was simply to create a nice sales brochure.

I find that hard to believe if Sterling's offer really was double his investment and likely an opportunity to participate in future development in some way financially. Doubling your money plus upside in five years may not be up there with the best hedge fund returns, but it's certainly not small either. I think it's more likely that he's simply a really rich guy who sees no reason to rush things even though it costs the City of Chicago a fair bit of opportunity cost because maybe he'll fall into an opportunity to actually do something enormous there and get all the credit for it then. I think a lot of unheard-of but fantastically rich people like the idea of using their money just to play with big things at their own pace.

LaSalle.St.Station Oct 9, 2014 6:43 AM

Use eminent domain to transfer this over to a serious developer. Simply based on the fact that this is a deteriorating landmark warrants it. I'd give Davies another year to show intent to develop or sell, and if no, eminent domain his ass.

Rizzo Oct 9, 2014 6:19 PM

Deleted. Wrong thread

wierdaaron Oct 9, 2014 6:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaSalle.St.Station (Post 6761858)
Use eminent domain to transfer this over to a serious developer. Simply based on the fact that this is a deteriorating landmark warrants it. I'd give Davies another year to show intent to develop or sell, and if no, eminent domain his ass.

There is a highway going through it. I bet that would help.

ardecila Oct 9, 2014 7:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaSalle.St.Station (Post 6761858)
Use eminent domain to transfer this over to a serious developer. Simply based on the fact that this is a deteriorating landmark warrants it. I'd give Davies another year to show intent to develop or sell, and if no, eminent domain his ass.

Just where is the city going to come up with $40M to purchase the building?

Admittedly, the city is pursuing eminent domain against General Mediterranean for Riverside Park. But that's a far larger site that demands careful planning and probably demands a thorough public process. The city can also add value by building infrastructure like the Wells-Wentworth Connector and parkland, and maybe even make money on the thing. The Post Office only covers two blocks, not 18, and success or failure there is not crucial.

UPChicago Oct 10, 2014 3:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 6762748)
Just where is the city going to come up with $40M to purchase the building?

Admittedly, the city is pursuing eminent domain against General Mediterranean for Riverside Park. But that's a far larger site that demands careful planning and probably demands a thorough public process. The city can also add value by building infrastructure like the Wells-Wentworth Connector and parkland, and maybe even make money on the thing. The Post Office only covers two blocks, not 18, and success or failure there is not crucial.

might not be crucial but GOD is it a blight!

Ryanrule Oct 10, 2014 5:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 6762748)
Just where is the city going to come up with $40M to purchase the building?

Admittedly, the city is pursuing eminent domain against General Mediterranean for Riverside Park. But that's a far larger site that demands careful planning and probably demands a thorough public process. The city can also add value by building infrastructure like the Wells-Wentworth Connector and parkland, and maybe even make money on the thing. The Post Office only covers two blocks, not 18, and success or failure there is not crucial.

nuts to purchasing. just take it.

ardecila Oct 10, 2014 6:19 PM

Are you aware of how eminent domain works? The government still has to pay the owner.

Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution
Quote:

No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The opportunity for the city to get the building for free died when the Post Office decided to sell it.

wierdaaron Oct 10, 2014 10:52 PM

I think the only hope is continuous media ridicule of Davies until he realizes it's not worth the trouble and sells it. He passed up a 625% return on his investment when Sterling Bay offered $150m for it, so I don't know if he can be reasoned with.

Maybe SB could team up with another developer to raise enough cash to make a deal.

This whole thing makes me angry. Woooo-sahhh.

ardecila Oct 11, 2014 1:09 AM

Sterling Bay was going to put in $150M of capital investment, that wasn't an offer to purchase.

I'm guessing Sterling Bay wanted to do something basic - large floorplate office and parking - and Davies rejected this vision because he still wants to build some kind of futuristic mixed-use arcology.

munchymunch Oct 13, 2014 5:09 PM

At least there trying :haha:

https://www.bidclerk.com/project/1659108.html

wmarczyk333 Oct 13, 2014 6:15 PM

Dead
 
Why are we still talking about this , this project is dead, thread should be remove.

UPChicago Oct 14, 2014 2:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by munchymunch (Post 6766806)

What is this mess? :koko:

SamInTheLoop Oct 14, 2014 6:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 6764671)
Sterling Bay was going to put in $150M of capital investment, that wasn't an offer to purchase.

I'm guessing Sterling Bay wanted to do something basic - large floorplate office and parking - and Davies rejected this vision because he still wants to build some kind of futuristic mixed-use arcology.


The Crain's article, citing sources close to the deal, clearly stated Sterling Bay offered to buy the property from Davies for $150 mil. Are you stating that you know that is not factual?

SamInTheLoop Oct 14, 2014 6:18 PM

At any rate,

Imagine a world in which either the Post Office wasn't auctioned off until the last few couple years, or another in which Sterling Bay had risen to its present prominence as far as visionary W Loop adaptive re-use 5 or 6 years ago. In either world, there is probably a half-decent chance Sterling Bay might now be the present owner of the post office, and we'd have never heard the name of this screwball Davies in Chicago......

A shame.....

Steely Dan Oct 14, 2014 7:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wmarczyk333 (Post 6766878)
Why are we still talking about this , this project is dead, thread should be remove.

the part of this "proposal" that involved fantastical supertall towers was never alive to begin with.

something will eventually be done with the old post office hulk, and this will remain the thread to discuss that eventuality.

ardecila Oct 15, 2014 2:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop (Post 6768029)
The Crain's article, citing sources close to the deal, clearly stated Sterling Bay offered to buy the property from Davies for $150 mil. Are you stating that you know that is not factual?

Nope, just working from a less reputable source than Crain's.

If Crain's says Sterling Bay tried to buy the Post Office outright, I'll believe them.

red-paladin Oct 18, 2014 9:02 AM

Should the supertall in the site's diagram be changed to stale proposal or cancelled?

Steely Dan Oct 18, 2014 2:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by red-paladin (Post 6773238)
Should the supertall in the site's diagram be changed to stale proposal or cancelled?

It should be changed to fantasy, as that's all it ever was.

le_brew Oct 18, 2014 3:23 PM

New York's example makes the most sense for Old Post Office
 
the Moynihan Station. With a boost from stimulus funds, the old Farley Post Office will be redeveloped into a train station in New York City.

http://discoveringurbanism.blogspot....ice-reuse.html

we need that extra rail capacity, desperately!

k1052 Oct 18, 2014 5:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by le_brew (Post 6773355)
the Moynihan Station. With a boost from stimulus funds, the old Farley Post Office will be redeveloped into a train station in New York City.

http://discoveringurbanism.blogspot....ice-reuse.html

we need that extra rail capacity, desperately!

Moynihan isn't adding any extra rail capacity, it gets Amtrak riders/operations out of Penn station.

le_brew Oct 18, 2014 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by k1052 (Post 6773427)
Moynihan isn't adding any extra rail capacity, it gets Amtrak riders/operations out of Penn station.

point is that done correctly, Chicago could.

Skyguy_7 Nov 25, 2014 5:59 PM

As per the usual, this is the only activity we ever see here :( :

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...125-story.html

SamInTheLoop Nov 25, 2014 6:16 PM

^ Plan B?? Or, rather, C....or D??

UPChicago Nov 25, 2014 6:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by le_brew (Post 6773355)
the Moynihan Station. With a boost from stimulus funds, the old Farley Post Office will be redeveloped into a train station in New York City.

http://discoveringurbanism.blogspot....ice-reuse.html

we need that extra rail capacity, desperately!

How would this work with an active freeway under the building? subway?

the urban politician Nov 25, 2014 6:43 PM

I have an idea: turn the damn thing back into a post office

Via Chicago Nov 25, 2014 7:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 6820642)
I have an idea: turn the damn thing back into a post office

would be great if there wasnt a giant modern facility which rendered it obsolete next door

Mr Downtown Nov 25, 2014 11:28 PM

^and which is now mostly vacant as well. No mail processing is taking place in Chicago any more. Some of the space is being used for carrier routes who have moved out of the Loop facility.

UrbanLibertine Nov 26, 2014 2:35 AM

So are we bound to soon have 2 massive, abandon former post offices right next to each other?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 6821064)
^and which is now mostly vacant as well. No mail processing is taking place in Chicago any more. Some of the space is being used for carrier routes who have moved out of the Loop facility.


le_brew Nov 26, 2014 2:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UPChicago (Post 6820603)
How would this work with an active freeway under the building? subway?

same way the PO functioned with the active expressway, quite well. . .

the eisenhower exp. is somewhat elevated. besides there seems to be plenty of space on either side which rail passengers would not necessarily have to straddle the exp; passengers could flow above/below that cut. the tracks (metra/amtrak) are already in place at ground level. the subway of course, is 40 ft. below. . . .

i contacted robert munson of urbanophile, who has much expertise in rail station analysis, and suggested this. he agreed its a great idea to turn the old PO into a transit center though he said he'd look into the actual feasibility of doing so. btw, this is in no way an original concept, it had been proposed as far back as when the new PO opened, and was attached to some type of casino deal, i believe.

besides this building is so large, it could handle multi-purpose re-use and still have space left over. . .

LouisVanDerWright Nov 26, 2014 3:49 PM

After all that talk about how Novak should have been nailed harder for knocking down that cottage without permits, it's really situations like this which the city should save it's penalties for. The city should massively fine Davies for this fire breaking out. Leaving buildings sit empty is a massive drag on the rest of the city not only in terms of the broken window effect, but also in terms of city resources. He should have to pay for every dime the Fire Department and emergency services spent responding to this fire and then be assessed a fat fine on top of it. Same goes for other landmarked white elephant buildings around the city like the Uptown Theater. If you are going to squat on a historically valuable property and allow it to decompose, then you should be massively fined for any incidents that occur while it is under your watch.

Hopefully this would have a "shit or get off the pot" effect on some of these land bankers.

the urban politician Nov 26, 2014 4:22 PM

^ Nah. The city abuses property owners enough as it is. I think our out of proportion high property taxes are enough

UPChicago Nov 26, 2014 4:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright (Post 6821779)
After all that talk about how Novak should have been nailed harder for knocking down that cottage without permits, it's really situations like this which the city should save it's penalties for. The city should massively fine Davies for this fire breaking out. Leaving buildings sit empty is a massive drag on the rest of the city not only in terms of the broken window effect, but also in terms of city resources. He should have to pay for every dime the Fire Department and emergency services spent responding to this fire and then be assessed a fat fine on top of it. Same goes for other landmarked white elephant buildings around the city like the Uptown Theater. If you are going to squat on a historically valuable property and allow it to decompose, then you should be massively fined for any incidents that occur while it is under your watch.

Hopefully this would have a "shit or get off the pot" effect on some of these land bankers.

I can kinda sorta see your point of view on the Post Office seeing as the Sterling Bay deal should have happened and was a squandered opportunity.

With Uptown Theater I don't because there was no funded viable plan put forth put forth to renovate it. I live in Uptown and I personally think in time it will happen but its just not its time yet. All the momentum is in the right direction.

In general, not just talking about mega developers, but property owners in general (because laws are for everyone) if you start enacting some type of penalty for vacancy these properties will eventually go ownerless and eventually meet the wrecking ball, on taxpayer's dime or more likely sit vacant and continue dilapidate due to lack of funds for demolition.

No one is going to pay penalties on properties that aren't making them money, I think a vacancy tax/fine/penalty is a misguided policy and would not have the intended result. Also regardless if the property is vacant Davies pays taxes on it and those taxes pay for the fire service that every taxpayer is entitled to.

orulz Nov 26, 2014 5:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UPChicago (Post 6821831)
I can kinda sorta see your point of view on the Post Office seeing as the Sterling Bay deal should have happened and was a squandered opportunity.

With Uptown Theater I don't because there was no funded viable plan put forth put forth to renovate it. I live in Uptown and I personally think in time it will happen but its just not its time yet. All the momentum is in the right direction.

In general, not just talking about mega developers, but property owners in general (because laws are for everyone) if you start enacting some type of penalty for vacancy these properties will eventually go ownerless and eventually meet the wrecking ball, on taxpayer's dime or more likely sit vacant and continue dilapidate due to lack of funds for demolition.

No one is going to pay penalties on properties that aren't making them money, I think a vacancy tax/fine/penalty is a misguided policy and would not have the intended result. Also regardless if the property is vacant Davies pays taxes on it and those taxes pay for the fire service that every taxpayer is entitled to.

True, but a penalty for having a non-functional standpipes in an enormous building in such a built-up area should be severe enough to spur action and get the building's fire suppression systems at least functional, or else this is a disaster waiting to happen.

UPChicago Nov 26, 2014 5:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orulz (Post 6821878)
True, but a penalty for having a non-functional standpipes in an enormous building in such a built-up area should be severe enough to spur action and get the building's fire suppression systems at least functional, or else this is a disaster waiting to happen.

This I can support maybe a penalty depended on the size of the building if there was a fire code violation. I can even, although barely, support there being a responsibility to pay the Fire Department's expenses or a fee if there was a fire code violation withstanding.

sentinel Dec 4, 2014 2:54 PM

Crain's is reporting today that Davies is putting the building up for sale, having hired a London-based broker - the article claimed that they don't know how much he'll be asking for it, but apparently, he rejected a $150 million offer earlier this year.

This guy is a total POS - he got the building at auction, for less than half of his winning bid and he thinks he can get $150M?? It's gonna cost that much just to fix all of the massive issues within the building, let alone develop it into something worthwhile.


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:14 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.