Quote:
Originally Posted by marothisu
I think it's easy to put a blanket statement on things. I also implore you to look at the similarities and differences between the projects and determine whether you are making an appeal to your own emotion or not.
It's like saying because 1000 S Michigan Ave was on hold, that all other high rises in the area going up would go too.
|
I counter that you are being just as 'emotional' (or more so, actually) in your perpetual optimism against the face of reality.
Truth is, rehabs of old theatres are often painstaking, expensive, and very risky. It is appropriate to compare them because they often face the same daunting challenges. Yes, each project is different, but once again--they face the same hurdles.
I've obviously never done a theatre rehab, but I've done rehabs of regular apartment buildings (3, 5, 6 flats, etc) but at the very end I know that I'm just getting apartments and there will at least be SOME sort of market for my product.
Theatre rehabs are totally different, and that's why so many have been delayed/failed/developer gave up over the years.
1. VERY costly. These buildings are often quite ornamented and have unique layouts
2. Likely extremely difficult to finance due to #1 and #3
3. Limited market for an end product. You either need some sort of major production company to sign on to produce regular business at the facility or you have to find a well-financed risk-averse independent end user who has a shot of making such a venue profitable.
So yes, each project is different but, especially in the COVID/post-COVID era, they also share a LOT more in common than to simply claim that each theatre project is an apples to oranges comparison to the other.