DOCSLIB.ORG

Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2020-GC46

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2020-GC46 PRESALE REPORT Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2020-GC46 FEBRUARY 2020 STRUCTURED FINANCE: CMBS Table of Contents Capital Structure 3 Transaction Summary 4 Rating Considerations 5 DBRS Morningstar Credit Characteristics 7 Largest Loan Summary 8 DBRS Morningstar Sample 9 Model Adjustments 12 Transaction Concentrations 13 Loan Structural Features 14 650 Madison 20 1633 Broadway 24 Southcenter Mall 29 Superior Storage 34 CBM Portfolio 42 Staples Headquarters 48 805 3rd Avenue 53 Westin Book Cadillac 58 The Shoppes at Blackstone Valley 62 Brooklyn Multifamily Portfolio 67 Whiteland Town Center 72 White Oak Crossing 76 90 North Campus 81 Transaction Structural Features 85 Methodologies 87 Operational Risk Reviews 87 Surveillance 87 Glossary 88 Definitions 88 Kyle Stein Greg Haddad Vice President Senior Vice President +1 917 438-1450 +1 646 560-4590 [email protected] [email protected] Kevin Mammoser Erin Stafford Managing Director Managing Director +1 312 332-0136 +1 312 332-3291 [email protected] [email protected] Presale Report | CGCMT 2020-GC46 Capital Structure DBRS Morningstar Description Rating Action Balance ($) Subordination (%) Rating Trend Class A-1 New Rating - Provisional 19,967,000 30.000 AAA (sf) Stable Class A-2 New Rating - Provisional 80,787,000 30.000 AAA (sf) Stable Class A-4 New Rating - Provisional 335,000,000 30.000 AAA (sf) Stable Class A-5 New Rating - Provisional 346,855,000 30.000 AAA (sf) Stable Class A-AB New Rating - Provisional 39,232,000 30.000 AAA (sf) Stable Class A-S New Rating - Provisional 139,420,000 18.125 AAA (sf) Stable Class X-A New Rating - Provisional 961,261,000 - AAA (sf) Stable Class B New Rating - Provisional 46,962,000 14.125 AA (high) (sf) Stable Class X-B New Rating - Provisional 92,457,000 - AA (low) (sf) Stable Class C New Rating - Provisional 45,495,000 10.250 A (high) (sf) Stable Class D New Rating - Provisional 30,819,000 7.625 BBB (high) (sf) Stable Class X-D New Rating - Provisional 52,833,000 - BBB (sf) Stable Class E New Rating - Provisional 22,014,000 5.750 BBB (low) (sf) Stable Class X-F New Rating - Provisional 19,078,000 - BBB (low) (sf) Stable Class F New Rating - Provisional 19,078,000 4.125 BB (high) (sf) Stable Class G-RR New Rating - Provisional 11,741,000 3.125 BB (low) (sf) Stable Class J-RR NR 36,689,490 - NR n/a Notes: 1. NR = not rated. 2. The Class X-B, Class X-D, Class X-F, Class D, Class E, Class F, Class G-RR, Class J-RR, Class R, and Combined VRR Interest will be privately placed. 3. The exact initial certificate balances of the Class A-4 and Class A-5 certificates will be determined based on the final pricing of those classes of certificates. The aggregate initial certif icate balance of the Class A-4 and Class A-5 certificates is expected to be approximately $681,855,000, subject to a variance of plus or minus 5%. 4. The notional amount of each class of the Class X Certificates will be equal to the certificate balance or the aggregate of the certificate balances, as applicable, from time to time of the class or classes of the Non-Vertically Retained Principal Balance Certificates identified as such class of Class X Certificates. The notional amount of the Class X-A certificates will be equal to the aggregate balance of the Class A-1, Class A-2, Class A-3, Class A-4, Class A-5, Class A-AB, and Class A-S certificates. The notional amount of the Class X-B certificates will be equal to the aggregate balance of the Class B and Class C certificates. The notional amount of the Class X-D certificates will be equal to the aggregate balance of the Class D and Class E certificates. The notional amount of the Class X-S certificates will be equal to the balance of the Class F certificates. 5. The Class X-A, Class X-B, Class X-D and Class X-F balances are interest-only (IO) certificates that reference Class A-1, Class A-2, Class A-4, Class A-5, Class A-AB, Class A-S, Class B, Class C, Class D, Class E, and Class F. The IO rating mirrors the lowest-rated reference tranche adjusted upward by one notch if senior in the waterfall. February 2020 3 Presale Report | CGCMT 2020-GC46 Transaction Summary POOL CHARACTERISTICS Trust Amount ($) 1,220,059,491 Wtd. Avg. Interest Rate (%) 3.673 Number of Loans 46 Wtd. Avg. Remaining Term 115 Number of Properties 139 Wtd. Avg. Remaining Amortization 355 Average Loan Size ($) 26,523,032 Total DBRS Morningstar Expected Amortization2 5.3 DBRS Morningstar LTV (%)1 55.7 / 76.7 DBRS Morningstar Balloon LTV (%)1 52.1 / 70.2 Appraised LTV (%)1 54.3 / 75.0 Appraised Balloon LTV (%)1 50.8 / 68.5 Wtd. Avg. DBRS Morningstar DSCR1 2.48 / 2.10 Wtd. Avg. Issuer Term DSCR1 2.83 / 2.45 Top Ten Loan Concentration (%) 0.5 Avg. DBRS Morningstar NCF Variance (%) -12.2 1. The second metric excludes shadow-rated and co-op loans. 2. For certain ARD loans, expected amortization may include amortization expected to occur after the ARD but prior to single/major tenant expiry. PARTICIPANTS Depositor Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc. Mortgage Loan Sellers Citi Real Estate Funding Inc. Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company German American Capital Corporation Trustee Wilmington Trust Master Servicer Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank Special Servicer CW Capital Asset Management, LLC Certificate Administrator and Citibank, N.A. Custodian Operating Advisor Park Bridge Lender Services LLC February 2020 4 Presale Report | CGCMT 2020-GC46 Rating Considerations The collateral consists of 46 fixed-rate loans secured by 139 commercial, hospitality, and multifamily properties. The transaction is a sequential-pay pass-through structure. DBRS Morningstar analyzed the conduit pool to determine the provisional ratings, reflecting the long-term probability of loan default within the term and its liquidity at maturity. DBRS Morningstar shadow-rated eight loans, representing 36.2% of the pool, as investment grade. When the cutoff loan balances were measured against the DBRS Morningstar Stabilized NCF and their respective actual constants, five loans, representing 5.1% of the pool, had a DBRS Morningstar Term DSCR below 1.32x, a threshold indicative of a higher likelihood of midterm default. The pool additionally includes 18 loans, representing 28.4% of the pool by allocated loan balance, with issuance LTVs higher than 67.1%, a threshold historically indicative of above-average default frequency. The WA LTV of the pool at issuance was 55.7% and the pool is scheduled to amortize down to a WA LTV of 52.1% at maturity. STRENGTHS – Investment Grade Component: The collateral features eight loans, representing 36.2% of the initial pool balance, that DBRS Morningstar assessed as investment grade: 1633 Broadway, 650 Madison Avenue, Parkmerced, Bellagio Hotel and Casino, 805 Third Avenue, Southcenter Mall, and CBM Portfolio. DBRS Morningstar views the percentage of investment- grade loans in the pool favorably and the proportion of investment-grade loans is higher than other recent conduit/fusion transactions. For more information on these seven loans, please refer to their respective loan summaries. – Urban Market Concentration: The pool benefits from a fairly large amount of loans secured by properties in urban, liquid markets. Loans secured by properties in DBRS Market Ranks 7 and 8 represent 32.2% of the pool, which is higher than many recent conduit transactions. In addition, the weighted average DBRS Market Rank of 4.73 is considered relatively high. – Low Leverage: The pool has a favorable WA DBRS Morningstar LTV of 55.7% at issuance, which amortizes down to a WA DBRS Morningstar Ending LTV of 52.1% at maturity, similar to recent transactions. In addition, the WA DBRS Morningstar DSCR is high at 2.48x, and it remains high at 2.07x when loans that have been shadow-rated investment grade are removed. – Property Quality: Ten sampled loans, representing 39.7% of the pool balance, had Average (+), Above Average, or Excellent property quality. Additionally, no loan had Below Average property quality. Three of the five largest loans in the pool, representing 23.3% of the pool balance, have Above Average property quality. CHALLENGES AND CONSIDERATIONS – Leverage Barbelling: The pool exhibits heavy leverage barbelling. While the pool has 15 loans, comprising 48.3% of the pool balance, with an issuance LTV lower than 59.3%, a threshold historically indicative of relatively low-leverage financing and generally associated with below-average default frequency, there are also 18 loans, comprising 28.4% of the pool balance, with an issuance LTV higher than 67.1%, a threshold historically indicative of relatively high-leverage financing and generally associated with above-average default frequency. The WA Expected Loss of the pool’s investment grade component was approximately 0.8% while the WA Expected Loss of the pool’s conduit component was substantially higher at 2.7%, further illustrating the barbelled nature of the transaction. – The proportion of higher Expected Loss non-shadow rated loans is reflect in the capital structure, as the implied credit enhancement allocated to such loans is quite elevated. – Loan Purpose and Cash Equity: Only 9% of the pool by initial cutoff balance is for the purpose of acquisition, which is much lower than recent transactions. DBRS Morningstar views acquisition loans as more favorable in the context of recent-vintage conduit/fusion transactions. Cash equity infusions from a sponsor in a transaction typically results in a greater alignment of interests between the lender and borrower, especially compared with a refinancing scenario where the sponsor may be withdrawing equity from the transaction.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • PARAMOUNT GROUP, INC. (Exact Name of Registrant As Specified in Its Charter)
    , UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549 FORM 10-K ☒ ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the Fiscal Year Ended: December 31, 2019 OR ☐ TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the transition period from To Commission File Number: 001-36746 PARAMOUNT GROUP, INC. (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) Maryland 32-0439307 (State or other jurisdiction of (IRS Employer incorporation or organization) Identification No.) 1633 Broadway, Suite 1801, New York, NY 10019 (Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code) Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (212) 237-3100 Securities registered pursuant to section 12(b) of the Act: Title of each class Trading Symbol Name of each exchange on which registered Common Stock of Paramount Group, Inc., PGRE New York Stock Exchange $0.01 par value per share Securities registered pursuant to section 12(g) of the Act: Title of each class None Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ☒ No ☐ Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes ☐ No ☒ Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
    [Show full text]
  • Commercial Mortgage Alert
    JANUARY 15, 2016 Buyers Resigned to Holding B-Pieces 10 Years B-piece buyers have concluded that risk-retention regulations will be even more 6 REIT BOOKRUNNER RANKING onerous than initially believed. The rules, which will take effect Dec. 24, impose the requirement that buyers 9 GLOBAL CMBS ISSUANCE hold B-pieces for at least five years. But investors now say that the way the guide- 11 CMBS SPREAD PREDICTIONS lines are written, buyers will typically end up having to retain the bonds for the entire life of a conduit deal — at least 10 years. The realization is making it harder 2 Three Banks Backing SF Office Project for investment managers to attract capital for such purchases, which are vital for the operation of the commercial MBS market. 2 Paramount Eyes Refi at 2nd NY Tower That’s the latest in a series of worries resulting from ongoing analysis by CMBS 2 Mesa West Lends on Chicago Tower issuers and investors about how the long-planned regulations will affect the sector. “As we get closer to the compliance deadline and more people are thinking harder 4 Margin Plan for Agency Loans Dead about how they’re going to deal with risk retention, problems like this are going to See BUYERS on Page 10 4 Conduit Issuers Test Investor Demand 5 Loan on Midtown Tower Split 11 Ways Blackstone Taps 3 Lenders for BioMed Deal 5 Law Firm Not Finished Growing Blackstone has lined up $2 billion of floating-rate financing from three banks for BioMed Realty. 5 Morgan Stanley Seeks DC Office Loan its pending takeover of Citibank and MUFG Union Bank won the mandate for a $1.25 billion loan on 16 6 BofA Takes REIT Crown; Volume Up office and laboratory properties.
    [Show full text]
  • Hudson Yards FGEIS
    TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 8: Shadows ...............................................................................................8-1 A. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................8-1 1. ISSUES.................................................................................................................................8-1 2. PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................................8-1 3. METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................8-2 4. MAXIMUM SHADOW STUDY AREA.....................................................................................8-3 5. CRITERIA AND REGULATIONS ............................................................................................8-3 6. DATA SOURCES ..................................................................................................................8-4 7. SCREENING AND DETAILED ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES .................................................8-4 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS ....................................................................................................8-5 1. STUDY AREA ......................................................................................................................8-5 2. OTHER STUDY AREAS (CORONA YARD) ............................................................................8-5 3. OPEN SPACES – EXISTING CONDITIONS
    [Show full text]
  • C 070245 ZMK – Wythe Avenue Rezoning and Text Amendment
    CITY PLANNING COMMISSION February 16, 2011 / Calendar No. 13 C 070245 ZMK IN THE MATTER OF an application submitted by JBJ, LLC pursuant to Sections 197-c and 201 of the New York City Charter for an amendment of the Zoning Map, Section No. 12d: nd 1. changing from an M3-1 District to an M1-4/R6A District property bounded by South 2 rd Street, Wythe Avenue, South 3 Street, and a line 210 feet northwesterly of Wythe Avenue; and nd 2. establishing a Special Mixed Use District (MX-8) bounded by South 2 Street, Wythe rd Avenue, South 3 Street, and a line 210 feet northwesterly of Wythe Avenue; as shown on a diagram (for illustrative purposes only) dated September 13, 2010 and subject to the conditions of CEQR Declaration E-261, in the Borough of Brooklyn, Community District 1. The application for an amendment to the Zoning Map was filed by JBJ, LLC on December 19, 2006 to change an M3-1 district to an MX8: M1-4/R6A mixed use district to facilitate the construction of a 6-story, 104,000-square-foot mixed use development with 79 dwelling units and ground floor retail located on the eastern half of Block 2415, between South Second and South Third Streets and Kent and Wythe Avenues, in Community District 1, Brooklyn. RELATED ACTIONS In addition to the Zoning Map amendment that is the subject of this report, implementation of the proposed development also requires action by the City Planning Commission on the following application, which is being considered concurrently with this application: N 070246 ZRK Zoning Text amendment relating to the Inclusionary Housing Program.
    [Show full text]
  • Paramount Plaza Project Profile
    Project Profile Paramount Plaza New York, NY One system beyond compromise: Barrett RamTough Elastomeric BUR in a protected Job Size: 2,359,148 sq ft membrane configuration. Barrett’s engineered Building Owner: PGREF materials have dramatically increased BUR’s Roofing Contractor: C & W Roofing performance with Elastomeric Polymer- Modified Bitumens and Spunbond Polyester Reinforcements. These components provide a seamless roof unsurpassed in performance by any other roofing system as acknowledged by In 1992, a major renovation program was an increasing number of roofing consultants conceived by Der Scutt Architect, which included nationwide. the need for a new roof. The building in question— Paramount Plaza, the 670 ft, 48-story skyscraper BUR’s dependability and redundancy combined on Broadway in Midtown Manhattan. with Barrett’s engineered components provide a roofing system that is simply the highest Syneraction, Inc. was retained as the roofing performing, toughest roof available— consultant. Syneraction developed a system The ultimate high-performance option by design. selection procedure as well as specifications, details, and bid documents for the system chosen. The reroofing project presented a challenging array of performance considerations and job conditions: these included unusually high winds, frequent thermal shock loading, asbestos containment of the existing roofing materials, heavy maintenance foot traffic, high levels of environmental pollution among all of the other extremes that high-rise roofs are generally subjected to. RamTough Elastomeric BUR The review of reroofing options included a variety From the roof of 1633 Broadway, twelve other of single-ply sheets, preformed modified bitumen recently completed Barrett projects are visible. sheets, and conventional BUR.
    [Show full text]
  • Notice of Completion of the Final Environmental Impact Statement
    DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING CITY OF NEW YORK ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND REVIEW DIVISION Amanda M. Burden, FAICP, Director Department of City Planning May 28, 2010 NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Domino Sugar Rezoning Project Identification Lead Agency CEQR No. 07DCP094K City Planning Commission ULURP Nos. C 100185 ZMK, N 100186 ZRK 22 Reade Street, Room1W C 100187 ZSK, C 100188 ZSK New York, New York 10007 C 100189 ZSK, N 100190 ZAK N 100191 ZCK, N 100192 ZCK SEQRA Classification: Type I Contact Person Robert Dobruskin, AICP, Director (212) 720-3423 Environmental Assessment and Review Division New York City Department of City Planning Pursuant to City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR), Mayoral Executive Order No. 91 of 1977, CEQR Rules of Procedure of 1991 and the regulations of Article 8 of the State Environmental Conservation Law, State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) as found in 6 NYCRR Part 617, a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) has been prepared for the action described below. Copies of the FEIS are available for public inspection at the office of the undersigned. The proposal involves actions by the City Planning Commission and Council of the City of New York pursuant to Uniform Land Use Review Procedures (ULURP). A public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was held on Wednesday, April 28, 2010. Comments were requested on the DEIS and were received and considered by the Lead Agency until Monday, May 10, 2010. This FEIS incorporates responses to the public comments received on the DEIS and additional analysis conducted subsequent to the completion of the DEIS.
    [Show full text]
  • 1981 FINAL REPORT Development of UNDE R CONTRACT: DOT-OS-50233
    DOT/RSPA/DPB/-50/81/19 Planning and JANUA RY 1981 FINAL REPORT Development of UNDE R CONTRACT: DOT-OS-50233 Public Transportation Conference Proceedings Terminals Pre pa red for: Office of University Research Washingt on, D.C. 20590 U.S. Deportment of Transportation S.G.,t.I.u. LtdttARV Research and Special Programs Administration tiJ J :) 3 T,:'1 :I;:))'.''; f ... f\l?;)' NOTICE This document is disseminated tmder the sponsorship of the Department of Trans­ portation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. Technical Report Documentation Page I , Roporr No. 2. GoYe Mt,\~f"'lt At~e!s1on No. J. Rec1p1enf s Cotalog No, DOT/RSPA/DPB-50/81/19 4 . T itle end Subr1de 5. Report D ote Planning and Development of Public Transportation January 1981 Terminals 6. Pe,fo,m,ng 0,9,on, zotion Code 8. Pe,fo,m1ng O,gon110t1on Report ,....,o . I 7. Atori sJ ester A. Hoel, Larry G . Richards UVA/529036/CEBl/107 /i:-nitnr~'l 9. P e ,lorm 1n9Or9on1 1ot 1on Nome ond Address 10. 'Nork Un,t No. (TRAISJ Department of Civil Engineering School of Engineering and Applied Science 11. Controct or G,ont No, Univer sity of Virginia, Thornton Hall DOT-OS-50233 Charlottesville, VA 22901 13. Type of Repo, r ond Period Cove red 12. Sponsoring Agency Nome ond A ddre ss Office of University Research Final Report Research and Special Programs Administration u . S . Department of Transportation 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Washington, D.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 18: Transit and Pedestrians
    Chapter 18: Transit and Pedestrians A. INTRODUCTION This chapter evaluates the potential impacts of the proposed project on transit and pedestrian facilities within the transportation study area. As described in Chapter 1, “Project Description,” the proposed project would result in the development of residential, retail/commercial, community facility uses, and open space along the East River waterfront. It should be noted that subsequent to the publication of the DEIS, the City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual has been updated. To reflect the updated methodologies in the CEQR Technical Manual, the transit analyses in the FEIS have been revised accordingly. Therefore, the detailed transit analyses presented in this chapter are conducted pursuant to the new 2010 CEQR methodologies, using the specific criteria and procedures developed as part of the update. Furthermore, subsequent to the publication of the DEIS, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority-New York City Transit (NYCT) has restructured the bus service in the study area, resulting in changes to the B61and Q59 bus routes. Specifically, the B61 bus route has been replaced by B62 bus route in the study area and the terminus for the Q59 bus route in Brooklyn has been extended to Williamsburg Bridge Plaza instead of the Broadway/Kent Avenue intersection as analyzed in the DEIS. Moreover, due to the reconfiguration of Kent Avenue into a one-way northbound roadway from a two-way north-south roadway (discussed in detail in Chapter 17, “Traffic and Parking”), the Q59 bus route in the study area has been modified by shifting the southbound bus operations from Kent Avenue to Wythe Avenue between Grand Street and Broadway.
    [Show full text]
  • Use It Or Lose It
    INSIDE A Sbarro trades Including The Downtown News, Carroll Gardens-Cobble Hill Paper and Fort Greene-Clinton Hill Paper BROOKLYN ’S WEEKLY pizza for steak NEWSPAPER Published weekly by Brooklyn Paper Publications Inc, 26 Court St., Brooklyn 11242 Phone 718-834-9350 AD fax 718-834-1713 • N EWS fax 718-834-9278 © 2002 Brooklyn Paper Publications • 14 pages CROOKED JUDGE including GO BROOKLYN • Vol.25, No. 43 BWN, DTG, PSG, MID YASSKY W • November 4, 2002 ARNS BROOKL • FREE GETS NO MERCY YN BRIDGE P Use it or lose ARKit By Patrick Gallahue The Brooklyn Papers Brooklyn Heights City Councilman David Yassky said this week that with the city facing its toughest fiscal crisis in decades the developers of the planned Brooklyn Bridge Park could lose some or all of $10.8 million set aside for the project that has not yet been allocated. “I’m very concerned that time is passing and the city has not yet figured out specifically which part of the park they want to move forward with first,” Yassky told The Brooklyn Papers. “We’re in danger of seeing the project slip behind sched- ule if the city doesn’t focus on this pretty soon.” The city allocated the $10.8 million for Fiscal Year 2003, which runs through June 2003, for the construction of greenspace north of the Pur- chase Building and the demolition or truncation of the building itself. The city’s office of Emergency Management Former judge Victor Barron (left) listens to his attorney Barry Kamins on Monday after being sen- (OEM), which had been housed in the World tenced to three to nine years for soliciting a bribe.
    [Show full text]
  • Raymond C. Andrew President's Message
    RFUF RETIRED FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, INC. January 2008 Volume 32, Number 2 Board of Directors 2007-2008 President’s Message Raymond C. Andrew t is hard to believe that our fall RFUF programs have ended. Time sure PRESIDENT I flies! Program Chair and President-Elect Robert Mansell has maintained the RFUF tradition of selecting outstanding speakers for programs. The Robert Mansell attendance has been good, with a high of 95. PRESIDENT ELECT Treasurer William Van Dyke informs me that we now have 250 members for John L. Foltz the 2007-08 year. Even though we have had an increase in membership and SECRETARY members attending our Wednesday programs, there is still space for more members and new members to attend. The facilities of the Harn Museum William Van Dyke, Jr. Chandler Auditorium are excellent for RFUF programs. I would like for TREASURER each member to consider inviting persons eligible for membership in RFUF to be your guest at a meeting. Bring them to coffee and donuts before the Charles E. Taylor meeting. This will give them an opportunity to look at RFUF and perhaps PAST PRESIDENT become active members. Nothing beats the personal touch. Roy J. Bolduc Some of our members may not be aware of the time and energy that Madelyn Robert F. Lanzillotti Lockhart uses in getting out our RFUF Newsletter twice a year. I have Robert A. Levitt received many compliments on the contents of the last Newsletter. Let Jacqueline Orlando Madelyn know if you like the newsletter. Arnold C. Penland Ann P. Smith Besides the Newsletter, Madelyn has made many contributions to RFUF.
    [Show full text]
  • Williamsburg (Bklyn), NY Williamsburg (Brooklyn), New York 11249 Northside Piers Retail East River North 5Th Street RD
    Northside Piers Retail Williamsburg (Bklyn), NY Williamsburg (Brooklyn), New York 11249 Northside Piers Retail East River North 5th Street RD 20 North 5th Street Condominium & Kent Avenue Tower 2 3 pt Condominium Condominium Tower 1 Tower 3 venue NoNorrtthh 4th StreeStreett ent A K East River Location: Exciting ground floor retail opportunity at Northside Piers residential and retail complex located at 20 North 5th Street (just off Kent Avenue) in Williamsburg (Brooklyn), NY 11249. Demographics 1 mile 3 mile 5 mile Type: Ground Floor Retail GLA: 22,345 sf Population Availability: 2,585 sf (Space B1) 2020 (estimate) 149,868 1.3 M 3.08 M 2025 (projection) 144,622 1.26 M 3 M Accessibility: • Car: Private parking garage plus street side parking • Subway: Bedford Avenue station on the L train and 2010 (census) 122,881 1.15 M 2.86 M Marcy Avenue station on the J/M/Z trains Number of HH • Bus: B39, B61, Q59 2020 (estimate) 66,150 619,835 1.42 M • Water Taxi Service to and from Manhattan 2025 (projection) 65,958 618,254 1.42 M Vital Statistics: • 960 condominium units and 4 townhouses within the Northside Piers complex 2010 (census) 50,910 524,293 1.26 M • The Population within a five mile radius is in excess of 3.08 Million people, Average HH Income with an Average Household Income of $141,281 2020 (estimate) $102,293 $143,732 $141,281 • Over 4,000 residential units within 6 blocks of the site 2025 (projection) $127,840 $184,490 $180,160 Major Tenants: Duane Reade 2010 (census) $61,821 $103,473 $101,337 RD Management LLC Median Age Darren Sasso 2020 (estimate) 34.0 35.6 36.5 212-265-6600 x354 [email protected] Daytime Population 810 Seventh Avenue, 10th floor Information furnished is from sources deemed reliable, but is not guaranteed by RD Management and is 2020 (estimate) 71,336 2.14 M 3.38 M New York, NY 10019 subject to change in price, corrections, errors and omissions, prior sales or withdrawal without notice.
    [Show full text]
  • Tallest Buildings Constructed in 1970-1980
    This PDF was downloaded from The Skyscraper Center on 2018/01/11 UTC For the most up to date version, please visit http://skyscrapercenter.com Building List All Regions, All Companies, 200m+, 1970-1980 Completed Architecturally Topped Structurally Topped Under On Never Proposed Vision Demolished Out Out Construction Hold Completed # Building Name City Height (m) Height (ft) Floors Completed Material Use 1 Willis Tower Chicago 442.1 1,451 108 1974 steel office 2 Aon Center Chicago 346.3 1,136 83 1973 steel office 3 First Canadian Place Toronto 298.1 978 72 1975 steel office 4 601 Lexington New York City 278.9 915 63 1977 steel office 5 Water Tower Place Chicago 261.9 859 74 1976 concrete residential / hotel / retail 6 Aon Center Los Angeles 261.5 858 62 1974 steel office 7 Transamerica Pyramid Center San Francisco 260 853 48 1972 composite office 8 U.S. Steel Tower Pittsburgh 256.3 841 64 1970 steel office 9 IDS Center Minneapolis 241.4 792 55 1973 composite office 10 200 Clarendon Boston 240.8 790 62 1976 steel office 11 Sunshine 60 Tower Tokyo 240 787 60 1978 composite office 12 Commerce Court West Toronto 239 784 57 1973 composite office 13 Enterprise Plaza Houston 230.4 756 55 1980 composite office 14 One Penn Plaza New York City 228.6 750 57 1972 steel office 15 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York City 228.6 750 54 1972 steel office 16 MLC Centre Sydney 228 748 60 1977 concrete office 17 One Astor Plaza New York City 227.1 745 54 1972 composite office 18 One Liberty Plaza New York City 226.5 743 54 1972 steel office 19 Parque Central
    [Show full text]