Full release follows:
Showing posts with label Hines. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hines. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
300 North LaSalle Gets Environmental Status
Full release follows:
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Chicago River Tower May Be Scaled Back
Plans for a new skyscraper on one of the last remaining patches of Chicago Riverfront aren't working out. Crain's Chicago Business reports that Hines, the Houston developer of the project has come to an agreement to terminate the lease of its anchor tenant.
The skyscraper would have been located across from Wolf Point, on the west bank of where the main channel of the Chicago River meets the North and South branches. Architecture observers were eager to see how the tower would be designed to fit the tight space available, possibly with some suspension over the Amtrak and Metra rail lines running through the site.
This appears to be an example of a good plan killed by a bad economy. Hines had two anchors lined up to take space in the 52-story tower, and agreements covering far more space than is usually needed to begin construction. But the banks, in spite of the TRILLION dollars in taxpayer money they've been given by congress in order to start lending money again, refused to lend money to Hines -- a company with a proven track record in America and abroad for developing winning towers.
So, what's next for the project? According to Crain's, Hines may downsize the tower which would be a real shame considering its prominent location. Even at its original planned height, it wasn't all that tall. 52 stories may buy you some cachet down in the Bayou City, but up here it's not even the median height of a Chicago skyscraper.
The location is a rare opportunity to build another terminating tower like the Chicago Board of Trade building at the end of LaSalle Street. The Hines building would have capped the Chicago River in an iconic fashion. Anything less than spectacular is undeserving of the location.
The skyscraper would have been located across from Wolf Point, on the west bank of where the main channel of the Chicago River meets the North and South branches. Architecture observers were eager to see how the tower would be designed to fit the tight space available, possibly with some suspension over the Amtrak and Metra rail lines running through the site.
This appears to be an example of a good plan killed by a bad economy. Hines had two anchors lined up to take space in the 52-story tower, and agreements covering far more space than is usually needed to begin construction. But the banks, in spite of the TRILLION dollars in taxpayer money they've been given by congress in order to start lending money again, refused to lend money to Hines -- a company with a proven track record in America and abroad for developing winning towers.
So, what's next for the project? According to Crain's, Hines may downsize the tower which would be a real shame considering its prominent location. Even at its original planned height, it wasn't all that tall. 52 stories may buy you some cachet down in the Bayou City, but up here it's not even the median height of a Chicago skyscraper.
The location is a rare opportunity to build another terminating tower like the Chicago Board of Trade building at the end of LaSalle Street. The Hines building would have capped the Chicago River in an iconic fashion. Anything less than spectacular is undeserving of the location.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
One Hines Done, Another Hines May Not Happen
If you've scanned the Chicago skyline lately, you've probably noticed that the Hines tower at 300 North LaSalle is pretty close to done. Just about. Almost. But another Hines project a few blocks away at 414 West Lake is in jeopardy.
For months we though that the big shiny tower that Hines was planning to build along the Amtrak tracks next to the Riverbend Condominiums was cancelled. Now we learn from Crain's Chicago Business that it's not dead, it's just pining for the fjords.
The article says that Hines is having a hard time getting banks to lend it the half-billion dollars is needs to make the 52-story project a reality, even though it already has two anchor tenants lined up.
Of course, in these tough economic times banks are reluctant to lend money to anyone, so it's not necessarily Hines' fault. But it does illustrate why America is falling farther and farther behind in the skyscraper race. In pretty much every country in Asia and the Middle East, if you have a big company and want to build a skyscraper, you go out and build it, paying for it up front and reaping the rewards on the back end.
In America and Europe, companies borrow money to build skyscrapers, build them with someone else's money, then hope to make enough money on the back end to pay off the debt plus interest. So in essence, the developer (Hines, or whomever) hasn't built a skyscraper -- the bank has. But the developer takes the credit.
It's that kind of deeply engrained house of cards mentality that caused the current economic crisis. There's a mantra in American real estate which states, "Never build with your money, you build with someone else's." Such a thought shows that these companies have no pride in what they're doing, or faith that their projects will work since they just shift the risk onto the bank. It would be unthinkable to do such a thing in other cultures that value personal responsibility.
If your company doesn't have the money to build a skyscraper, then it's not all that big a company, is it? All those brochures with pictures of shiny buildings -- they all belong to someone else, don't they? So, what's the point of having your company at all? Why not just deal with the banks? Well, that's the way it seems to be going once again.
In the 40's and 50's and 60's, it was banks and insurance companies that built skyscrapers (the John Hancock Center , for example). Then it went to developers. Now the banks are getting back into the game -- cutting out the middle man.
That's why in ten years the ten tallest buildings in the world are not going to be in America. But real estate people will keep telling themselves that it's better to build with someone else's money.
How's that working out for you, Hines?
For months we though that the big shiny tower that Hines was planning to build along the Amtrak tracks next to the Riverbend Condominiums was cancelled. Now we learn from Crain's Chicago Business that it's not dead, it's just pining for the fjords.
The article says that Hines is having a hard time getting banks to lend it the half-billion dollars is needs to make the 52-story project a reality, even though it already has two anchor tenants lined up.
Of course, in these tough economic times banks are reluctant to lend money to anyone, so it's not necessarily Hines' fault. But it does illustrate why America is falling farther and farther behind in the skyscraper race. In pretty much every country in Asia and the Middle East, if you have a big company and want to build a skyscraper, you go out and build it, paying for it up front and reaping the rewards on the back end.
In America and Europe, companies borrow money to build skyscrapers, build them with someone else's money, then hope to make enough money on the back end to pay off the debt plus interest. So in essence, the developer (Hines, or whomever) hasn't built a skyscraper -- the bank has. But the developer takes the credit.
It's that kind of deeply engrained house of cards mentality that caused the current economic crisis. There's a mantra in American real estate which states, "Never build with your money, you build with someone else's." Such a thought shows that these companies have no pride in what they're doing, or faith that their projects will work since they just shift the risk onto the bank. It would be unthinkable to do such a thing in other cultures that value personal responsibility.
If your company doesn't have the money to build a skyscraper, then it's not all that big a company, is it? All those brochures with pictures of shiny buildings -- they all belong to someone else, don't they? So, what's the point of having your company at all? Why not just deal with the banks? Well, that's the way it seems to be going once again.
In the 40's and 50's and 60's, it was banks and insurance companies that built skyscrapers (the John Hancock Center , for example). Then it went to developers. Now the banks are getting back into the game -- cutting out the middle man.
That's why in ten years the ten tallest buildings in the world are not going to be in America. But real estate people will keep telling themselves that it's better to build with someone else's money.
How's that working out for you, Hines?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)