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)

Dale May 9, 2014 11:35 AM

Here's hoping that corporations are like college football coaches who issue denials ... just prior to changing teams.

the urban politician May 9, 2014 12:10 PM

Yep, I believe Crains but what is a bit concerning is Walgreens' outright denial, instead of saying "we have no definitive plans, but are reviewing our options". The fact that they are sending letters to their employees outright denying a HQ move suggests that such a move may end up being far less likely.

Onn May 9, 2014 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 6571038)
Yep, I believe Crains but what is a bit concerning is Walgreens' outright denial, instead of saying "we have no definitive plans, but are reviewing our options". The fact that they are sending letters to their employees outright denying a HQ move suggests that such a move may end up being far less likely.

Companies always cover their tracks before making a big decision, like moving their HQ. And there are a million reasons they might deny such a move. Someone at Walgreens thought about the issue. That doesn't mean they're going to do it yet of course...

Onn May 9, 2014 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 6571038)
Yep, I believe Crains but what is a bit concerning is Walgreens' outright denial, instead of saying "we have no definitive plans, but are reviewing our options". The fact that they are sending letters to their employees outright denying a HQ move suggests that such a move may end up being far less likely.

Companies always cover their tracks before making a big decision, like moving their HQ. And there are a million reasons why they might deny such a move. The rumor seems to suggest someone at Walgreens thought about the issue. That doesn't mean they're going to do it yet of course...

LouisVanDerWright May 9, 2014 2:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 6571038)
Yep, I believe Crains but what is a bit concerning is Walgreens' outright denial, instead of saying "we have no definitive plans, but are reviewing our options". The fact that they are sending letters to their employees outright denying a HQ move suggests that such a move may end up being far less likely.

Yeah, companies almost never want their employees to know what is going on until they are ready to make the "big announcement". Rumors have a tendency to spread really fast in an office environment and "we are moving downtown" can quickly turn into "we are moving downtown and laying off 1,000 people". No executive wants stuff like that flying around. So if they haven't finalized everything for a move downtown, then they don't want people whipping up misinformation, they want to be able to make one big statement telling everyone exactly who is moving, when, and where. For an announcement like this it will inevitably done in phases so it is even further complicated. The logical response to a leak like this is to deny deny deny.

Buckman821 May 9, 2014 3:45 PM

It seems to me that the intitial Crains story reads this way "JLL is definitely shopping a 1 mil + SF tenant, and we have a hunch/some reason to believe that it's Walgreens"

In either case, it sounds like somebody huge is looking at the old post office. Walgreens would be great - but I'd be happy with just about anybody. Just because Walgreens is denying it does not mean the entire story is based on nothing, it could always be somebody else.

It is also possible that Walgreens is just in denial. In either case - I think we still have plenty of reason to be excited. Sounds like potentially the biggest news in the downtown office market in a decade.

sentinel May 9, 2014 5:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buckman821 (Post 6571305)
It seems to me that the intitial Crains story reads this way "JLL is definitely shopping a 1 mil + SF tenant, and we have a hunch/some reason to believe that it's Walgreens"....

Wait, I must have missed that, I didn't realize that JLL was involved?? :???:

wierdaaron May 10, 2014 4:23 AM

I met someone today who works for Unilever. They said that Unilever is planning on spending millions of dollars to locate to Deerfield in order to be closer to Walgreens, who they work directly with. It seemed like the entire Chicagoland presence of Unilever was just for sales and logistics support for Walgreens.

So if Walgreens is planning on a move downtown, Unilever would be pretty pissed. That could help explain the denial, or it could help refute the move.

the urban politician May 10, 2014 7:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wierdaaron (Post 6572288)
I met someone today who works for Unilever. They said that Unilever is planning on spending millions of dollars to locate to Deerfield in order to be closer to Walgreens, who they work directly with. It seemed like the entire Chicagoland presence of Unilever was just for sales and logistics support for Walgreens.

So if Walgreens is planning on a move downtown, Unilever would be pretty pissed. That could help explain the denial, or it could help refute the move.

Well how about Unilever and Walgreens both move downtown? Come on Rahm, deal of the century here! Make it rain, baby

LouisVanDerWright May 10, 2014 8:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 6572683)
Well how about Unilever and Walgreens both move downtown? Come on Rahm, deal of the century here! Make it rain, baby

Trust me, if Walgreen moves downtown, then there will be a flood of other businesses following them. Half the non-Walgreen office space in the Deerfield market is leased to companies catering to Walgreen. There are a crap ton of vendors who have sales offices in that market specifically to cater to Walgreen. They would all relocate either immediately or over time if Walgreen were to migrate South.

denizen467 May 10, 2014 9:01 PM

^ Very interesting, it makes sense but I had no idea of that; was it common knowledge? Anyway it's all the more reason for that quick but narrowly-worded (and hopefully temporary) denial by Wag's.

BraveNewWorld May 11, 2014 7:06 PM

I've been gone for quite some time, has this proposal become more then a pipe dream?

the urban politician May 11, 2014 7:23 PM

^. No

Randomguy34 May 11, 2014 8:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BraveNewWorld (Post 6573421)
I've been gone for quite some time, has this proposal become more then a pipe dream?

Just refer back to page 17 to be caught up on all that has happened.

Perklol May 11, 2014 10:42 PM

So now we're relying on rumors/absurd speculation? :???:

Zapatan May 11, 2014 11:44 PM

I suppose, or if something ever did get built it would be scaled down immensely.

Even Chicago Spire would be built before this thing :haha:

bnk May 12, 2014 1:34 AM

I would tend to think that a giant company like that would like to have its own signature building like Kirkland and Ellis did leasing at 300 North LaSalle.

K&E used 650,000 feet at 300 moving from the Aon Building all in the same building. I would think Wallgreens would want to be all in one building and not spread out across the city. I wonder if they would keep some operations in Deerfield or make the complete move but The PO is ideal for the Metra commuters. I just wonder about the building and the current owner holding out for more than what the building is worth.

Chi-Sky21 May 12, 2014 1:42 PM

They should move to the new Buck building on Franklin and Lake since its replacing an old Walgreens anyways.

Michael12374 May 26, 2014 5:06 AM

I think it would be okay to consider this project to be a, "stale proposal" at this point :dead:

munchymunch Jun 18, 2014 11:11 PM

Teaming up
 
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/reale...ld-post-office


Quote:

Five years after buying the empty Old Main Post Office, British developer Bill Davies has formed a joint venture with Sterling Bay Cos. in an effort to kick-start a $500 million redevelopment of the hulking West Loop structure.
The Chicago-based developer said it is teaming up on the project with Mr. Davies, who will contribute the building as his investment in the joint venture.
An office and retail redevelopment of the 2.7-million-square-foot structure is likely to cost about $500 million, said Sterling Bay Managing Principal Andy Gloor, who did not disclose financial terms. A spokeswoman for Mr. Davies declined to comment.


As Crain's reported last month, Walgreen Co. has looked at the site as it considers a potential move of its headquarters from north suburban Deerfield. But Mr. Davies, who bought the vacant building and adjacent land for $24 million in 2009, has yet to sign any tenants for the highly visible building, which straddles the Congress Parkway.
The joint venture gives Mr. Davies, who rarely travels to Chicago, a well-known local partner that has pulled off some high-profile office leases in Chicago in recent years.
It would be the biggest development yet for Sterling Bay, which landed Google Inc.'s future Chicago offices in the former Fulton Market Cold Storage Building west of downtown. A few blocks away, it plans a major redevelopment of Oprah Winfrey's Harpo Studios campus.
Sterling Bay, led by Scott Goodman and Mr. Gloor, also has scored two major headquarters relocations to the West Loop from the suburbs: Sara Lee Corp. spinoff Hillshire Brands Co. to a former warehouse at 400 S. Jefferson St. and in-flight wireless provider Gogo Inc. to a vintage office building at 111 N. Canal St.
Sterling Bay is believed to be focusing on several potential office tenants, with Walgreen remaining one possibility.


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:57 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.