Skip to main content

Featured Post

Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park infographics: what's built/what's coming/what's missing, who's responsible, + project FAQ/timeline (pinned post)

As Chinese real estate companies reassess strategy in U.S., Greenland somehow claims no Pacific Park delays

The Wall Street Journal today, in Chinese Developers Reassess U.S. Projects, wrote:
Some Chinese real-estate developers are lowering their profit expectations on U.S. projects or shelving them entirely as frothy prices and rocky partnerships force them to rethink their strategies in the American market.
Swelling supply of high-end New York condominiums could result in losses for some Chinese developers, analysts said. A push to partner with U.S. developers on other projects, meanwhile, has brought unexpected legal spats and other delays.
Meanwhile, the Chinese government is expected to limit the export of investment capital.

The Pacific Park example

But check out this summary:
In Brooklyn, a deal between Shanghai-based, state-owned conglomerate Greenland Holding Group and Forest City Realty Trust on a 22-acre, 15-building mixed-use project in various stages of construction is facing stiff headwinds.
Forest City earlier this month said it took a $307.6 million impairment charge for the project, called Pacific Park Brooklyn, and said it plans “to delay future vertical development.”
“We revised the schedule due to a number of factors, including almost unprecedented concentrations of new rental supply in downtown Brooklyn, which will take time for the market to absorb,” said Forest City CEO David LaRue.
A spokesman for Greenland USA denied there will be delays and said it is “meeting the goals and targets that were established when we invested in 2014.
(Emphasis added)

Denied there will be delays? That does not compute, because, as stated above, the joint venture Greenland Forest City Partners, according to Forest City, plans “to delay future vertical development.”

That quote needed a little more pushback from the WSJ, as in "reality says otherwise."

As for meeting the goals/targets established in 2014, yes, they're building two "100% affordable" buildings. Otherwise, as shown in the 2014 site map I annotated last month, they're way behind.


Comments