If you are fond of triangular shaped buildings the G.A.R. building in Detroit sold in 2011 for only $220,000. After rehabilitation it sold for considerably more recently.
https://www.freep.com/story/money/business/michigan/2023/02/...
A VC bought the Flatiron Building and didn’t pay for it
41–50 of 56 posts
Re: A VC bought the Flatiron Building and didn’t pay for it
#42Just visited Flatiron building a few days ago. There’s scaffolding covering the front and sides, are those renovations being done by the existing owner?
Do you recall whether the scaffolding went all the way up? My understanding is lots of NYC buildings have 1 level of scaffolding about the sidewalk as there is a law requiring regular checks against bits of the facade falling off and the scaffolding is a "temporary" alternative that allows them to avoid that expense.
I had always just assumed there was no such thing as a scaffolding warehouse and scaffolding just stayed where it was until it was needed elsewhere.
Re: A VC bought the Flatiron Building and didn’t pay for it
#43If you like triangular buildings, the original Apple HQ was: 5300 Stevens Creek Blvd San Jose, CA 95129 Until around the early 1990's, it had the multicolored Apple II logo on the side facing I-280. Accolade with Peter Harris was a tenant at one point.
I'm curious what the floorplan was like?
Re: A VC bought the Flatiron Building and didn’t pay for it
#44The title here is editorialized (maybe by the moderators, because the original, "Some guy" bought the building, is baity). But it's probably worth saying that he doesn't seem like a VC in the sense we think about; he manages a multi-family office that does PE and venture and isn't tech-focused. "An investor" would be maybe a better description.
VC doesn’t have to be tech.
Re: A VC bought the Flatiron Building and didn’t pay for it
#45The title here is editorialized (maybe by the moderators, because the original, "Some guy" bought the building, is baity). But it's probably worth saying that he doesn't seem like a VC in the sense we think about; he manages a multi-family office that does PE and venture and isn't tech-focused. "An investor" would be maybe a better description.
VC doesn’t have to be tech.
No, it doesn't, but subtextually on HN a reference to VC implies that. Either way: it's not the title.
Re: A VC bought the Flatiron Building and didn’t pay for it
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? no business is to be conducted there, so it should be okay
In theory, but it did seem like a fair amount of business was conducted there...
But that's only been over a couple of nights. How long had the hotel been running before the dog was killed? Over the course of time, it probably has a 99.999% uptime
Re: A VC bought the Flatiron Building and didn’t pay for it
#47Sounds like what VCs do most of the time. I've seen countless term sheets signed and never paid.
"Conspiracy to commit fraud: the defendant devised a scheme in which the defendant repeatedly made promises of payment, which he had no intention to uphold, in order to obtain common shares in various corporations"
Make it wire fraud if they used signed PDFs sent over email.
Re: A VC bought the Flatiron Building and didn’t pay for it
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
In theory, but it did seem like a fair amount of business was conducted there...
But that's only been over a couple of nights. How long had the hotel been running before the dog was killed? Over the course of time, it probably has a 99.999% uptime
Well sure but we also don't know how frequently business was being conducted in the Continental. It certainly happened often enough to where they have a direct protocol on what to do when business is being conducted there.
Re: A VC bought the Flatiron Building and didn’t pay for it
#49Re: A VC bought the Flatiron Building and didn’t pay for it
#50> ...venture fund managing partner Jacob Garlick... placed a $190 million bid on the historic Flatiron Building... > ...you'd think the building would go to the second-highest bidder—but, dear reader, think again, because that guy doesn't even want the building. "I was kind of shocked, to tell you the truth," that bidder, former Flatiron co-owner Jeff Gural, told NY1 after Garlick outbid him. "I never thought someone…
> About 0.3% less? ...Why is he shocked somebody else would pay basically the same amount he himself bid? I am so confused. Mr. Gural's bid is complicated, because he's already 75% owner of the building; he's really bidding that he'd rather spend $47.5M for the other 25% of the building, than accept $142.5M for his part. But if Mr. Garlick isn't following through on the bid, it's not surprising that Mr. Gural would r…
The dynamics of the offer and potential reauction are interesting.
Since the top bidder was essentially going to pay the 2nd bidders highest price (we can’t know what the top bidders price would have been), it’s very strange that they tried to extend an offer to purchase at the 2nd bidders highest price. I would have expected them to extend at the first increment above the 3rd highest bid, as this would have been the result without the first bidder. (And then presumably they could sue the highest bidder for the difference in damages.)
Doing a reauction will be strange, and it creates a weird kind of arbitrage opportunity. Why would other (legitimate) bidders show up when they already know Mr Gural’s bid will be higher? Perhaps there will be only spiteful bids from competitors to ensure that he doesn’t get a deal. Perhaps it doesn’t matter, as they would presumably be able to sue for damages for any difference here as well.