thatguy

Insurance companies do invest in real estate. Several of the big ones have divisions or dept. that participate in one aspect or another in development. Mutual and Prudential just to name two.

Remember Wilder and the city do not own the stadium. He can not act alone.

Did not mean to pass it off as 100% factual, but it is an interesting take and something that should be considered. Taken at "face value", but lets be honest, the news reported is often void of all the facts why should this be treated any different?

I was just about to mention that...has anyone read Mayorgov Wilder's latest letter to the city? If not I'll post it, it covers the recent events regarding the Braves and why

Here is another reason that we should not cry too loud for the Braves... From WWBT.com "Most of the city schools are in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, despite court orders to remedy the situation. The ADA mandates that schools must make reasonable accommodation for students with disabilities. Parents of disabled children say they have fought a long time for Richmond schools to make the changes. "I'm not asking them to do something that the courts haven't said they need to do, or that the federal government has said they need to do,

Not sure I would call it part of the domino theory... "Poseidon Foundation President Mary C. Doswell gave the same reasons for giving up on the Boulevard project as the Braves -- delay and uncertainty. "It just would take too much time," she said yesterday. The Chesterfield Board of Supervisors approved a rezoning for the sports complex this month, setting the stage for construction to begin as early as June and the project to be complete by the middle of next year. In contrast, Doswell said Richmond's consultant, The Staubach Co., estimated that the development of the Boulevard property would take three to five years." Sounds to me that they needed to move forward , regardless of the Braves

Proposed aquatic center for Boulevard area nixed. Moved to Chesterfield. Poseidon

There is no reason for SB Cox to have the full drawings. They only need to know what to tear down and when. They may be schedule to tear more down later on, but for now it may only be the buildings facing main. They only know what they are fed.

I have been thinking about that and can not find a reason to use part of an existing structure. One the facade is different from the proposed design and if they alter it, it can not qualify for credits. The supporting columns were never designed to support a 30 story building. Any savings in keeping it, would be offset a great deal by the expenses to adapt it to the new structure. We are talking about a project that is over 100 million dollars. Even if they some how get credits to apply, it is based upon the cost of the renovation of that piece not the project. There can not be $500k in its renovation, so at best we are talking about a possible $200k in credits ( $0.40 on the dollar est, which is high since they have to sell off the credit at a reduced rate) On a $100 million that is not even worth the effort, considering the above mentioned issue of blending into the new building. Just makes no sense to me. Any ideas?

Agree. It is a standard move in the industry and nothing new will be presented at the tower. Keep in mind, those buildings have been there a very long time. Stability of the soil is not an issue. If a sub floor is to be excavated, sheet plies will be driven. These babys can handle anything they support...even another building's foundation. Most likely large footings using caissons will be done. Looks like the roof and floors have been removed from the adjoining building's wall and demo of the first building is almost done, as of 1:00 today. By now it could be done.

It looks like they are working the building closest to the law office building. I guess they want to get clear from the attaching wall before full demo takes place.

largest? My guess would be the new state garage near the Monroe building, near the reconciliation statue. That one was around 3 or just a touch over 3. I walked it one day...don't ask...LOL 3 per 1000 is an average and you are correct, the larger footprint is conducive to a higher car per ft ratio. What can surprise you is the number of sqft needed for 500, 750 or 1000 cars...it is huge. Something that one does not realize until the numbers are crunched.

In new garage construction then can get around 3 per 1000 sqf. In the older garages they were around 2 per 1k sqf. That is inclusive of everything: columns, ramps, stairways, elevators, exits etc. Taking all that into account you get the 3 per 1k These are construction averages, not what the code call for based of building space. If the code calls for 1.5 space per residence and you have 200 residences then you need 300 spaces. Based on new construction numbers, you would need 300,000 sqf of garage to accommodate the spaces.

To get the financing, they would need to show they have parking. Which means they would need to have an agreement to buy that lot prior to submitting the loan packet. Do they currently have a LOI on the lot?

Find out who the "subs" are, they are best for info.

What company did they use, I want them on my next job. I have never heard of such an inexpensive abatement for 5-6 buildings. That is a great deal. Assuming the bags did not end up in the river.

I was under the impression that the developer absorbed those cost, as the city does nothing for free. Any pipe repair, hook ups, or splitting the storm water from the sewer lines (as required for new hook-ups) to the facilitate any new development is the responsibility of the developer not the city.

I disagree, the property has MORE value. Abatement has been done, which is a huge cost liability for any new owner and the un-useable building will be removed. All of which a new buyer would have to shell out big money. The fact it is or will be done is very inviting should it go back on the market. Information flow from them to the man on the streets. Behind closed doors there is plenty of info flowing from their management.

The city has demanded that Goodstein demo the buildings? I did not know the building were condemned. Were they occupied before they were purchased? If so, why is the city forcing them to demo. How has this not hit the papers, when everything else does? I was under the impression that Goodstein was taking the buildings down to satisfy doubts in order to gain favor in the lending community. Not to mention the property has more value cleared, so I considered it an investment on Goodstein's behalf. Please explain, you seem to know a ton more than everyone here... That plan was in place when Ukrops owned the building. He wanted to provide a place for non profits to consolidate and save money while offering convenience to the community.

Well I hate to say this, but someone needs to tell Goodstein to stop everything. They just hired a photographer to shoot the interior of the 3 un-owned buildings. They wanted "before shots" done to prevent any lawsuit from false damages as they demo. Why would Goodstein do this if they were "broke" and why would they do this if Jemal owns the project? Even if Jemal bought the project, he can not finance it himself, which means he has to shop the "deal". To do this means he has to do his own proforma and LOI to get the packet done for the lenders. Something he just can't buy as part of the "via lawyers". Also, please do not confuse "no financing" as "broke". Jemal owns some big "projects" that he has bragged that he was going to do something great. I would consider it a slap in the face of Richmond, if he starts something else other than following through on his promises. The CNB has been ready for years, why can he not get this going?

lets be for real. 1) I doubt your claims to his (Jemal's) plans. He has too many big pieces through out the city that he has not developed as promised....CNB for one 2) There is no market for what you say he is going to do. He can build as tall as he wants, but he has to fill it to get the money to do so...the taller it is, the harder to fill. Just because it is the tallest does not mean companies are falling over each other to pay a higher $ per square foot. Many complanies are looking to show restraint not reckless spending. 3) If he can't get the 3 small buildings on 5th and main, how are we to expect him to acquire the historic properties at 5th and cary? 4) From what I hear, they still do not have the financing in place for the Centennial Tower.

You bring up a good point. The city will not approve the project without a solution for parking and it can not claim use of public lots. They must have exclusive use for the parking to get the approval.

Like we have seen recently, demo could begin anytime, but that does not mean the project is a go or that everything is stable. unfortunately jumping the gun is commonfor many reasons. One reason may so it seems stable to the prospective buyers.

If by "Granby Towers" you mean vague or no official financing...I am suspicious too.