End is nigh for Waterfront Pearl deal
The ill-fated Waterfront Pearl condo monstrosity north of the Broadway Bridge is reportedly in foreclosure. Last summer, the builder, Hoffman Construction, slapped construction liens on the two condo towers. Now comes the news that one of the two main construction lenders is in court seeking foreclosure. A reader writes:
Saw this in [yesterday's] Daily Journal of Commerce... thought you might be interested....To developer Paul Mayer from Vancouver, B.C., we say farewell, and please tell all your condo-building buddies how it went in Portland.MACQUARIE BANK LIMITED vs WATERFRONT PEARL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and GRANCORP HOLDINGS LLC et al, Judicial foreclosure of deed of trust. Relief sought: $18,434,000.
Plaintiffs attorney: Matthew A. Goldberg. Case No. AO902-01727
Comments (17)
Anyone know why there is one construction crane in each of the Pearl & SoWhat?
thanks
JK
Posted by jim karlockj | February 13, 2009 1:19 AM
Anyone know why construction has mostly stopped throughout the state? Don't see those huge tracks of suburbs sprawling out much any more, do you? Wonder why Oregon had the 5th highest foreclosure rate in January? It's not just the condos folks. Its also the sprawl where much more has been built.
Posted by kda | February 13, 2009 8:15 AM
Those are actually nice. Beats the over grown parking lot it replaced.
Posted by Craig | February 13, 2009 8:19 AM
But just because it replaced an ugly prking lot doesn't mean there isn't a better use of the land than plastic condos.
And (wishful thinking here) perhaps a use that doesn't have so much public subsidy given to the developers.
Posted by john rettig | February 13, 2009 8:54 AM
Rettig, do you also include in your wishful thinking of not having $31.5 Million in public subsidy to bring the on again/off again $240M dollar Vestas project to Portland? Then it might only create 600 new jobs?
That $31.5 Million subsidy doesn't include other taxpayer subsidies like Transit Oriented Development(TOD), Workforce Housing, Solar/Environmental/Green, Job Training, etc. subsidies. The few businesses and individual taxpayers left can't afford all these subsidies.
Posted by lw | February 13, 2009 9:39 AM
Those are actually nice.
I hope there is something medical science can do for your impaired senses of sight and taste.
Posted by Jack Bog | February 13, 2009 12:15 PM
Not everything needs be a Victorian house. Nothing wrong with these buildings. Since this website tends to view everything new in Portland in the negative, could you post some designs you find more appealing or appropriate for this development site?
Posted by Craig | February 13, 2009 12:35 PM
Those condos are nice.
In fact, I'm going to talk to my mortgage broker today about putting down some huge money while I can get these things for cheap.
I'm gonna go interest only...check that...negative amortization, with a balloon payment in 1 year.
Then I'll truck in a stainless steel fridge for each unit and sell them a month later for twice the price.
Portland is different than everywhere else on the planet. I'm gonna make millions while chumps like BoJack complain about stuff.
Subsidize me baby.
Reggie.
Posted by Reggie Theus | February 13, 2009 12:42 PM
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Variety makes the world go 'round. Your trash is another's treasure...
Did I exceed the limit?
Posted by mp97303 | February 13, 2009 2:51 PM
lw: ...do you also include in your wishful thinking of not having $31.5 Million in public subsidy to bring the on again/off again $240M dollar Vestas project to Portland
Pork is pork, even if I agree with the idea of getting alternative energy from wind turbines. And this one certainly sounds like pork to me. But I reserve the majority of my vitrol for high end condo subsidies that would probably have been built anyway with or without the subsidy, and that's what Jack's post is about.
Posted by john rettig | February 13, 2009 6:44 PM
How much public money was invested in this project, and how big is the bill we are stuck with? That's the real story!
Posted by MarkDaMan | February 13, 2009 9:19 PM
I'd be shocked if there wasn't some sort of major tax abatement involved.
Posted by Jack Bog | February 14, 2009 2:59 AM
could you post some designs you find more appealing or appropriate for this development site?
Waterfront Park North would have been nice.
Alternatively, it would have been nice if the city hadn't thrown away the concept of stepping heights down to the river, which worked well in the downtown core in the '70s and '80s. But Vera threw that out the window for clowns like Paul Mayer and Hoffman Construction. And so this is what you get. Karma is not always fun.
Posted by Jack Bog | February 14, 2009 3:40 AM
Burning Question:
What happens to the folks who bought a unit there and moved in?
I can imagine several terrible scenarios!
Like upkeep, on and on.
Posted by smeit | February 15, 2009 12:09 AM
Presuming it is legally set up as a condominium association, it would be governed by ORS 100, which IMHO is tilted in favor of the declarant (often the developer) - e.g. the association fees on unfinished units are required to be paid by the developer from the time the first unit sells, but they are allowed to accrue unpaid until the unit is sold.
Which would I suppose just be another unpaid debt that won't get paid, if foreclosure proceeds - I'm not sure the next owner is required to make good on it.
Should make for a wonderful environment to try to sell the unfinished units to saavy buyers.
Posted by john rettig | February 15, 2009 11:07 PM
nice to see one of my classmates has work in this economy. business must be good in bankruptcy law.
Posted by jyah13 | February 15, 2009 11:17 PM
Everything is actually fine over at the Waterfront Pearl. The second lender has bought out the developer and the first lender and paid off the Hoffman lien. It's business as usual over there now.
Posted by John | February 17, 2009 3:17 PM