My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
RM 10-07-94
sbend
>
Public
>
Redevelopment Commission
>
Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1994
>
RM 10-07-94
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/2/2012 3:52:56 PM
Creation date
10/8/2012 10:43:48 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
South Bend Redevelopment Commission <br />Regular Meeting - October 7, 1994 <br />6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) <br />e. continued... <br />building). They would put another three <br />story building on the other corner, creating <br />sizable mass in that area. <br />Mr. Perri stated that Holladay would reduce <br />its contingency requirements and not require <br />any more than the lease from the one major <br />tenant to do the project. Ms. Auburn asked <br />if that meant that he was unsure of the other <br />tenant. Mr. Perri responded that it did not <br />mean that at all. It means that the <br />development would be successful with only <br />the one guaranteed tenant. <br />Ms. Auburn asked how leaving both <br />co developers in a competitive situation for the <br />site would cause them to compete for the <br />project with price more of an issue, since <br />they are already competing with other <br />unknown developers using other sites. Mr. <br />Panzica responded that he feels that cost is <br />not the only issue with this tenant. The site <br />is the best site available in the downtown for <br />this project and they feel it would be chosen <br />even if the overall project had a higher price <br />tag. However, if two projects came forward <br />with this "best" site, the one with the lower <br />price tag would probably be the winner. <br />Ms. Auburn asked if that means the tenant is <br />not sensitive to the quality of the building. <br />Mr. Panzica responded that he did not mean <br />that. The building would still be of high <br />enough quality to meet their requirements, <br />but would not be as permanent as they <br />would like to propose. <br />go <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.