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)

Steely Dan Jul 15, 2014 6:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BraveNewWorld (Post 6655776)
I don't know, Sterling spoke about the expansion plans and said they would probably come after the redevelopment. The 300m expansion might be under actual consideration, and more then a pipe dream.

if anything ever comes from those plans, then we can have that conversation 10 or 20 or however many years from now.

in the meantime, this is currently a project to renovate and reopen the old abandoned post office structure.

we can put the talk of a 2,000' tall adjacent skyscraper to bed for a good long while, perhaps forever.

ChiTownWonder Jul 16, 2014 4:59 AM

I honestly don't care what goes there anymore (to an extent), as long as it gets developed. This is a huge piece of land near the famous loop that is totally underutilized. develop the area and maybe it can be the start of a new neighborhood, River South:tup:

EDIT: I don't feel the same about the Chicago Spire site, that is a very special piece of land, and something very special should be done there

munchymunch Aug 6, 2014 2:32 AM

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/2...ess/140809223/


from the article
Quote:

Walgreen executives talked with staffers from Gov. Pat Quinn's office about making the Old Main Post Office site in Chicago's Loop its new headquarters, but the discussions have not gone any further, said a source who asked to remain anonymous. Tax incentives were not yet on the table, the source told the Daily Herald in May.

Walgreen, which has about 3,500 workers here, already is in the state's Edge tax credit program after officials signed a deal a couple of years ago to invest about $75 million to expand its Deerfield campus and add about 500 workers.

Walgreen spokesman Michael Polzin said in May that the company had no plans to move, but added: "We are always conducting due diligence on our corporate footprint and have done studies in the past. But we are not engaged with developers on any new locations for our corporate headquarters as part of that due process."

Busy Bee Aug 6, 2014 2:48 AM

At this point I think there's a 1/3 chance they move downtown, a 1/3 chance they stay in Deerfield and a 1/3 chance they move to Switzerland to avoid paying taxes.

ChiTownWonder Aug 6, 2014 3:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee (Post 6681722)
At this point I think there's a 1/3 chance they move downtown, a 1/3 chance they stay in Deerfield and a 1/3 chance they move to Switzerland to avoid paying taxes.

I hope they move to Chicago. it would be nice to have more large well known company HQ's in the city. there are too many company HQ's in the suburbs. not only that but it might make for a potential supertall on the site?

XIII Aug 6, 2014 6:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee (Post 6681722)
At this point I think there's a 1/3 chance they move downtown, a 1/3 chance they stay in Deerfield and a 1/3 chance they move to Switzerland to avoid paying taxes.

I wouldn't go putting your money on that Swiss move.
News Story

Its looking like Deerfield or downtown for them. A REALLY smart move as 25% of their income comes from US public health programs.

SamInTheLoop Aug 6, 2014 1:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee (Post 6681722)
At this point I think there's a 1/3 chance they move downtown, a 1/3 chance they stay in Deerfield and a 1/3 chance they move to Switzerland to avoid paying taxes.



I can tell there is still confusion about what these corporate tax inversions are about - this was not a potential operational HQ move - it was essentially little more than a prospective move on paper strictly for tax purposes - not a move that really impacts real estate decisions of its operational HQ (the HQ that actually employees thousands of employees and occupies probably one million sq ft + of real estate.......what I'm saying is there was a 40% chance of them inverting, a 2/3 chance of them moving downtown and a 1/3 chance of them staying in the suburbs.....(these are not supposed to add up to 100%!)

Moot now, but I think they made the smart decision as well (although has nothing to do with where their operational HQ will be 4 years from now)......

emathias Aug 6, 2014 2:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XIII (Post 6681867)
...
Its looking like Deerfield or downtown for them. A REALLY smart move as 25% of their income comes from US public health programs.

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.

rgolch Aug 6, 2014 4:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop (Post 6681946)
I can tell there is still confusion about what these corporate tax inversions are about - this was not a potential operational HQ move - it was essentially little more than a prospective move on paper strictly for tax purposes - not a move that really impacts real estate decisions of its operational HQ.

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.

LouisVanDerWright Aug 6, 2014 7:42 PM

Yeah, at this point who knows where Walgreen ends up, but I can certainly see the appeal of the Old Post Office. It's probably pretty much 50/50 at this point. Hopefully there will be an announcement soon.

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.


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:38 PM.

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