City Council was going to vote May 18th on if this project was legit..And to give approval on it.. :bash: :bash: :bash:

Go to the Tampa Delevelopment thread.....................

approved.

Sad to say that there are only one tower.

Hey if we get only 1 600' out of this I would be ecstatic..

I love that area of DT it is where I think we could go a lot higher as well in the future..

As already said on the Tampa Thread, it's most likely good for the company to just build one and see what happens. They don't want to spend so much money on 2 towers and sales doesn't do good. They still have the other lot anyways, so anything can happen.

Either way I hope it does not take two years for preconstruction.

Tower might not scrape the sky

The developers need FAA approval to build 630 feet high because the proposed Tampa condo building is in the flight path of two airports.

By MICHAEL VAN SICKLER, Times Staff Writer
Published May 23, 2006

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TAMPA - Hold the ribbon-cutting ceremony for downtown's future tallest building.

It turns out the 630-foot-tall condo tower approved by the Tampa City Council last week is a tad taller than allowed by height limits meant to protect the flight paths of two nearby airports.

How much taller? Try 172 feet.

That could hurt the building's chances of becoming downtown's tallest by vaulting past the yet-to-be-built Trump Tower by 37 feet.

Because the building dubbed Tampa Condo II will be at Washington and Morgan streets on the southern edge of downtown, it'll be in the flight path of Peter O. Knight Airport, a scant 2 miles away on Davis Islands. It will also be about 6 miles from Tampa International Airport.

So even with the necessary zoning approval from the city, the project's Daytona Beach developers, Amon Investments, must seek approval from the Federal Aviation Administration to build a tower that tall.

How often does the FAA allow a building to exceed the cap? Nobody really knows here in Tampa because projects usually stay below the cap, said Nadine Jones, director of planning for the Hillsborough County Aviation Authority.

The 458-foot cap at the project's location isn't final, so the FAA could rule that it's okay to exceed it, said Tony Mantegna, deputy director of the county's aviation authority.

The height limit represents an estimate by local aviation officials of what is suitable for that location, he said. Developers could convince FAA officials that the 51-story tower won't pose a hazard, he said.

But neither Mantegna nor Jones could recall another project that got built at a height above its specific cap. Neither could Ed Cooley, senior director of operations and safety at TIA.

The company, Cooley said, "needs to go through the process, file paperwork with the FAA, and provide information to us so we can review it.''

Amon always intended to do that, said Ron Weaver, an attorney for the project. Developers decided to get city approval first, then try to get FAA approval later.

"It's a chicken or an egg thing,'' Weaver said.

An aviation consultant is analyzing flight patterns to determine if the condo tower would interfere with planes, Weaver said.

FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said the agency has waived height restrictions for buildings, but she didn't know how often developers prevail.

Last year in downtown St. Petersburg, the developer of a condo tower had to reduce its height by 54 feet after the FAA said the building could affect 1 percent of the planes flying in and out of Albert Whitted Airport.

The tower, named after its address, 400 Beach Drive, had to be cut from 370 feet to 316 feet. Its developer, Opus South Corp. of Tampa, eliminated a penthouse.

In Tampa, if the FAA doesn't approve Amon's request, the project might be redrawn - again. When it was announced in December, two towers of 625 feet were planned for 472 units. The plan approved last week was for one building, but the same number of units.

The tower also would include 15,000 square feet of retail space. Condo prices would range from $300,000 to $2-million for the penthouse.

On the north side of downtown, meanwhile, a developer filed papers for a two-tower condo project at Zack Street and Nebraska Avenue.

Union Station Tampa, a Boca Raton company, is listed as the owner. It proposes to build one building at 24 stories and 390 feet with 498 units. The second building is proposed for 28 stories and 350 feet with 353 units.

Company officials couldn't be reached.

Times staff writers Erika Vidal and Steve Huettel contributed to this report. Michael Van Sickler can be reached at 813 226-3402 or mvansickler@sptimes.com

[Last modified May 23, 2006, 08:51:27]

Oh no..... the FAA strikes again. While I'll be rooting for them to allow this project to continue, I can't see them allowing it at this height.

Tower might not scrape the sky

The developers need FAA approval to build 630 feet high because the proposed Tampa condo building is in the flight path of two airports.

By MICHAEL VAN SICKLER, Times Staff Writer
Published May 23, 2006

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TAMPA - Hold the ribbon-cutting ceremony for downtown's future tallest building.

It turns out the 630-foot-tall condo tower approved by the Tampa City Council last week is a tad taller than allowed by height limits meant to protect the flight paths of two nearby airports.

How much taller? Try 172 feet.

That could hurt the building's chances of becoming downtown's tallest by vaulting past the yet-to-be-built Trump Tower by 37 feet.

Because the building dubbed Tampa Condo II will be at Washington and Morgan streets on the southern edge of downtown, it'll be in the flight path of Peter O. Knight Airport, a scant 2 miles away on Davis Islands. It will also be about 6 miles from Tampa International Airport.

So even with the necessary zoning approval from the city, the project's Daytona Beach developers, Amon Investments, must seek approval from the Federal Aviation Administration to build a tower that tall.

How often does the FAA allow a building to exceed the cap? Nobody really knows here in Tampa because projects usually stay below the cap, said Nadine Jones, director of planning for the Hillsborough County Aviation Authority.

The 458-foot cap at the project's location isn't final, so the FAA could rule that it's okay to exceed it, said Tony Mantegna, deputy director of the county's aviation authority.

The height limit represents an estimate by local aviation officials of what is suitable for that location, he said. Developers could convince FAA officials that the 51-story tower won't pose a hazard, he said.

But neither Mantegna nor Jones could recall another project that got built at a height above its specific cap. Neither could Ed Cooley, senior director of operations and safety at TIA.

The company, Cooley said, "needs to go through the process, file paperwork with the FAA, and provide information to us so we can review it.''

Amon always intended to do that, said Ron Weaver, an attorney for the project. Developers decided to get city approval first, then try to get FAA approval later.

"It's a chicken or an egg thing,'' Weaver said.

An aviation consultant is analyzing flight patterns to determine if the condo tower would interfere with planes, Weaver said.

FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said the agency has waived height restrictions for buildings, but she didn't know how often developers prevail.

Last year in downtown St. Petersburg, the developer of a condo tower had to reduce its height by 54 feet after the FAA said the building could affect 1 percent of the planes flying in and out of Albert Whitted Airport.

The tower, named after its address, 400 Beach Drive, had to be cut from 370 feet to 316 feet. Its developer, Opus South Corp. of Tampa, eliminated a penthouse.

In Tampa, if the FAA doesn't approve Amon's request, the project might be redrawn - again. When it was announced in December, two towers of 625 feet were planned for 472 units. The plan approved last week was for one building, but the same number of units.

The tower also would include 15,000 square feet of retail space. Condo prices would range from $300,000 to $2-million for the penthouse.

On the north side of downtown, meanwhile, a developer filed papers for a two-tower condo project at Zack Street and Nebraska Avenue.

Union Station Tampa, a Boca Raton company, is listed as the owner. It proposes to build one building at 24 stories and 390 feet with 498 units. The second building is proposed for 28 stories and 350 feet with 353 units.

Company officials couldn't be reached.

Times staff writers Erika Vidal and Steve Huettel contributed to this report. Michael Van Sickler can be reached at 813 226-3402 or mvansickler@sptimes.com

[Last modified May 23, 2006, 08:51:27]

D**n...D**n...D**n... :bash: I just knew it was too good to be true, but I am still keeping fingers crossed!!

That would be total bullshit if the FAA single handidly killed this project. Does anyone actually fly 630 feet above the "CBD"? Amsouth is 3 blocks away and is only a 46 foot difference. Its times like these that makes me want to crush Peter O' Knight airport, if the project doesn't pass. :bash:

That would be total bullshit if the FAA single handidly killed this project. Does anyone actually fly 630 feet above the "CBD"? Amsouth is 3 blocks away and is only a 46 foot difference. Its times like these that makes me want to crush Peter O' Knight airport, if the project doesn't pass. :bash:
Same thing I was thinking. FAA is just NIMBY'S that can come up with any excuse(aviation including) to f*** up another tower

This was posted days ago... blech, old news.

Consider the source: The Times, who always put a negative spin on Tampa development. Furthermore, every project up for consideration has to go through this review. Whatever uncertainty about the completion of this project you may have shouldn't stem from this article, which is clearly biased, but from the fact that these are pricey units being developed by an unsure developer. This really shouldn't bother anyone - we know the FAA has to approve everything, and the disparity between the FAA limits and the actual height isn't ridiculous.

^ This has been out for awhile. But like it says in the article...

"How often does the FAA allow a building to exceed the cap? Nobody really knows here in Tampa because projects usually stay below the cap, said Nadine Jones, director of planning for the Hillsborough County Aviation Authority. The 458-foot cap at the project's location isn't final, so the FAA could rule that it's okay to exceed it, said Tony Mantegna, deputy director of the county's aviation authority."

I don't think it's time to give up hope. At least Tampa now has proposed projects willing to challenge the cap. Sounds like the developer was well aware of this potential limit and has had intentions to get FAA review anyway. The fact that the neigboring buildings are almost the same height has to improve the chances of approval.

Just like the FAA, but I would love to see them put the Tampa Tower more towards the NE of Downtown.

Reaching new heights
Thursday, June 1, 2006


This is what the tower would look like.
The Tampa City Council will vote today on a plan to build a 630-foot tower in the heart of downtown.

The tower would not only be the Bay area's tallest building, it would also bring some tall changes to the entire downtown community.

"We're getting to be more of a livable city," urban design manager Wilson Stair said.

The Tampa downtown council reports 600 people called downtown home last year. However, so far, this year only 460 new housing units have been built there. Almost 2,300 more are under construction and 3,300 have been proposed.

"It's booming," mortgage broker associate Morgan Aponte said.

Almost 500 of those units would be at the corner of Washington and Morgan streets. The 51-story building would rise high above the neighboring Verizon and Bank of America buildings. Stair said it could quickly become a landmark.

"I think it's going to be a trend-setter in many ways and it gives us a benchmark for good architecture," Stair said.

It would also serve as a benchmark for residential downtown living.

Aponte said the project would help satisfy the soaring interest of people in the Bay area wanting to move to an urban setting.

"It's that ambiance that people are looking for," Aponte said. "They're looking for people to come back into the urban areas."

Aponte said while the prices of many of the proposed condos may be as steep as the buildings themselves, but people will still be lining up to buy them.

"The market is there," Aponte said. "It is there."

If final approval is granted, the first residents wouldn't move in for at least four years. Daytona beach-based developer Amon Investments is planning the tower. In addition to the condos, its plans include 15,000 square-feet of retail space and almost 900 parking spots.

http://www.baynews9.com/content/36/2006/6/1/161699.html

^^^ Also BTW, there's a pic I haven't seen before if someone wants to post It. I can't or I would.

A more deatailed rendering....

http://www.bn9.com/images/news/2006/6/1/lgtower.jpg

It looks nice, much more like an old classice art-deco tower. :) I still hope it gets built.

I love the look of this building. Is it still set to breakground in 2008 or sooner?

Interesting picture they put the rendering in, no? Looks circa 92, heh.

I like the rendering quite a bit. Flashy and dominating structure. :cheers:

Interesting picture they put the rendering in, no? Looks circa 92, heh.

I like the rendering quite a bit. Flashy and dominating structure. :cheers:

That looks like a model not a picture, hence the distortion on the sides and the perfectly clean white tops of buildings. :cheers: But it does look sweet.

Looks awesome. I wish...

That looks like a model not a picture, hence the distortion on the sides and the perfectly clean white tops of buildings. :cheers: But it does look sweet.

That explains it. I was figuring it was either a model or a postcard / vintage ariel. Look at the Ft. Brooke garage - looks like plastic. :P

Has anybody heard anything yet??

This building is just what Tampa needs, as I have said in my other thread this is where DT Tampa can go higher and if the Central park projects goes as well, this would unite these areas as we could then get clusters of higher buildings as you head towards Ybor City.

Height Rules Loom Over Condo Project

Posted June 01, 2006 at 03:40 PM

By ELLEN GEDALIUS
The Tampa Tribune

TAMPA - A 630-foot condo tower proposed for downtown Tampa is too tall for the corner of Washington and Morgan streets, just miles from the Peter O. Knight Airport on Davis Islands and Tampa International Airport.

“The height is just not feasible,” said Nadine Jones, director of planning for the Hillsborough County Aviation Authority.

City council last month preliminary approved Tampa Condo II, a project that would bring 472 units and 15,000 square feet of retail to downtown. The 51-story condo would replace a surface parking lot.

At Thursday’s council meeting, however, urban planner Heather Lamboy told council members that the tower might need to be shortened and redesigned.
The aviation authority’s height limit in that area is 358 feet, though the authority is seeking federal approval for a 458 ceiling. Either way, 630 feet is too tall, Jones said.

Land-use consultants and attorneys for Amon Investments, the development company pitching the project, now must work with the aviation authority on the issue. David Smith, a land-use consultant for the developer, said he doesn’t know yet whether the project will be redesigned.

If the project is significantly reconfigured, the council would have to rehear the zoning case.

Reporter Ellen Gedalius can be reached at (813) 259-7679 or egedalius@tampatrib.com

http://tboblogs.com/index.php/newswire/comments/height_rules_loom_over_condo_project

I knew it, a smaller one just won't get me as excited. I was hoping for the tallest in Tampa.

Well, I just emailed Ellen and asked if he ever gets the chance to talk to anyone one of them, ask them why would a plane be flying in the center of Tampa when you have the Bank of America building a couple blocks from this proposed project.

That sucks i also was hoping tampa would get a nice better than trump tallest and now that looks very unlikely and with the real estate market the way it is i dont think that we are going to get a new tallest for a while.

Here's a question for the group:

What if they moved the building from the south fo the downtown core to north of the core -- not far from the Sam Gibbons building... How much height would they be allowed then?

I think that our best chance for a taller building will be for us to build more towards the highway.

Here's a question for the group:

What if they moved the building from the south fo the downtown core to north of the core -- not far from the Sam Gibbons building... How much height would they be allowed then?

That would be dandy if Amon owned land that way. But you lose bay views...

These high-end projects will continue to sell no matter what the market does, there is no zoned land left for luxury high-rises on harbour island and bayshore...which both sell even in the worst of times. Even with the 30% dive in existing home sales over last year, we are still on record paces...it is slowing down, not crashing. This trend is reported all around Florida due to the current situation of the insurance crisis...and will not be fixed until the state fixes it.

With average rent rates shooting past 800 dollars for a one-bedroom in the immediate Tampa area(Pinellas/Hillsborough), it is making less sense for these people to live in apartments(if they can find one in the core) and is causing these same people to move farther into the outskirts, either to rent the new apartment complexes lining the parkway in Pasco/Hernando,I-75 in northern Manatee, and just Polk in general, or to buy what is still a deal in these same counties....a new home. This is a real trend in the Tampa Bay area and other parts of Florida now.

I think that the land around the Court Houseis actually CBD- 1.

If you google map tampa, you will see that the flight line of one of the runways goes straight past the intersection proposed only a couple blocks away. This sucks! I'm sure something can be done though, but the options have planes flying low over ships and such. When you look at the layout of the runways, it seems growth was never considered?

I think that flight plans should change to allow a city to grow. I mean its not like plans HAVE to fly that path.

I know right.

I think that flight plans should change to allow a city to grow. I mean its not like plans HAVE to fly that path.
The problem is I don't think it works that way.

Does anyone notice a trend on two words that are dominating this page of the thread? ... And is it irking anyone else as much as me? :p

Does anyone notice a trend on two words that are dominating this page of the thread? ... And is it irking anyone else as much as me? :p
is it "I think" for 500 Bob?

I really hope that they get their head out of their asses and notice that they are making no sense at all

Don't make me turn this thread into an anti-orlando party

Wow we really do not need that.

These high-end projects will continue to sell no matter what the market does, there is no zoned land left for luxury high-rises on harbour island and bayshore...

That's not entirely accurate... Bayshore has several parcels left which can and will be redeveloped in the coming years.

Don't make me turn this thread into an anti-orlando party
Please no.

I've had more than enough of that shit from everyone here, including the loyal oldtimers.

It really pisses me off that a little tiny airport (Peter O Knight ) is stopping Tampa from becoming a really hot city..

We all want taller buildings and this airport gets in Tampa's way..

I say blow it up (sorry DI people ) and put mid rises all along the bay at the south end of DI..

I agree Peter O Knight is a thorn in the azz(Tampa). Isn't there anywhere else they could go to fly?

Lets be realistic here -- what limits Tampa from being a "really hot city" are multiple issues such as transit, education, the infighting between the city and the county, sprawl, etc.

Tall buildings alone does not a "hot city" make.

And conversely -- if planners and developers really wanted super tall structures, why haven't they shifted focus to northern downtown or the west side of the river (to the west of U of T)? It's not like they are handcuffed in where they can build. They just lack a desire to build it, much like local businesses have a sore lack of desire to see changes in local poltiics (more educational investment, mass transit, etc).

Lets be realistic here -- what limits Tampa from being a "really hot city" are multiple issues such as transit, education, the infighting between the city and the county, sprawl, etc.

Tall buildings alone does not a "hot city" make.

And conversely -- if planners and developers really wanted super tall structures, why haven't they shifted focus to northern downtown or the west side of the river (to the west of U of T)? It's not like they are handcuffed in where they can build. They just lack a desire to build it, much like local businesses have a sore lack of desire to see changes in local poltiics (more educational investment, mass transit, etc).
I know that tall buildings alone wont make Tampa hot, in reality it will be a very neat cosmopolitan city and already is.. I love what's going on but I agree if we had better planners Tampa could be doing it better in many of our opinions..

I wish we could go west of the river..

I wish that we had a voice in the planning , I could only dream though.. :cheers:

I think building North would be awesome.Imagine driving through Tampa with towers on both side. Offices on the North side and Residential and Hotel on the South side. Not that Atlanta was laid out like that, but I liked that the highway went through the city.

Lets be realistic here -- what limits Tampa from being a "really hot city" are multiple issues such as transit, education, the infighting between the city and the county, sprawl, etc.

Tall buildings alone does not a "hot city" make.

And conversely -- if planners and developers really wanted super tall structures, why haven't they shifted focus to northern downtown or the west side of the river (to the west of U of T)? It's not like they are handcuffed in where they can build. They just lack a desire to build it, much like local businesses have a sore lack of desire to see changes in local poltiics (more educational investment, mass transit, etc).

Frankly, the north side of downtown - the 275 area - will not become the new hot spot or the core of activity thanks to 1. lack of water views 2. the Ghetto. The area boasts views of THREE housing projects and a massive interstate. Of course, redevelopment projects and a lack of available land will force the development entirely to the north in time... But does it surprise anyone the focus remains towards Harbour Island/CBD/

Frankly, the north side of downtown - the 275 area - will not become the new hot spot or the core of activity thanks to 1. lack of water views 2. the Ghetto. The area boasts views of THREE housing projects and a massive interstate. Of course, redevelopment projects and a lack of available land will force the development entirely to the north in time... But does it surprise anyone the focus remains towards Harbour Island/CBD/
that's why I said put office buildings to the north and condos and hotels to the south. I think people have more things to care about then the view when working, like working.

Frankly, the north side of downtown - the 275 area - will not become the new hot spot or the core of activity thanks to 1. lack of water views 2. the Ghetto.

First off, as I already said, developement (specifically supertalls that you guys ache for) does NOT make anything HOT.

Secondly, your reasoning is porrous, at best. The water can be looked at as a legit reason -- for a lack of high class, out-of-our-reach type developments in the area. Most people can't afford waterfront homes anyway -- let alone 20+ stories up.

And your "ghetto" statement is ridiculous. Have you ever heard of the concept of redevelopment? It takes vision, a hell of a lot of money and support but it can happen.


The area boasts views of THREE housing projects and a massive interstate. Of course, redevelopment projects and a lack of available land will force the development entirely to the north in time... But does it surprise anyone the focus remains towards Harbour Island/CBD/

Yeah, because as I already said -- they aren't handcuffed to remain in the region. You haven't explained why there hasn't been more redevelopment (oooh, there's that word again) plans for west of the Hillsborough river (which is in sight of the bay and the river).

I thought all along that Tampa's height limit in DT was 625 feet. Any location that a developer picks, there will be a problem. It's like the HAA & FAA just makes up the rules as they go. It's almost like they knitpick every block/acre in downtown. To the north will be a problem, to the west of the river will be a problem. I thought there would not be a problem with Amon in that location (Washington-Whiting-Morgan). So I guess they will have to build 20 story (30 story max) buildings in that area on the south side of DT.

About the San Diego argument, I have been to SD and it's awesome IPO. Yes, the buildings have a height restriction but it does'nt matter. There are still a lot of cool buildings in SD, mostly 20 to 30 floors. Sometimes being 60 floors up isn't all it's cracked up to be. In Tampa 20 floors up or 30 isn't all that bad.

Yes, I would still like a building in Tampa that's at least 625'. I still hate Peter O'knight. It's what's F**king up Tampa.

I thought all along that Tampa's height limit in DT was 625 feet. Any location that a developer picks, there will be a problem. It's like the HAA & FAA just makes up the rules as they go. It's almost like they knitpick every block/acre in downtown. To the north will be a problem, to the west of the river will be a problem. I thought there would not be a problem with Amon in that location (Washington-Whiting-Morgan). So I guess they will have to build 20 story (30 story max) buildings in that area on the south side of DT.

About the San Diego argument, I have been to SD and it's awesome IPO. Yes, the buildings have a height restriction but it does'nt matter. There are still a lot of cool buildings in SD, mostly 20 to 30 floors. Sometimes being 60 floors up isn't all it's cracked up to be. In Tampa 20 floors up or 30 isn't all that bad.

Yes, I would still like a building in Tampa that's at least 625'. I still hate Peter O'knight. It's what's F**king up Tampa.

Orlando will most likely be the San Diego of the East.. While Tampa-St Pete is more of the San Francisco-Oakland and Miami is the Los Angeles of Florida.

But as many posters have said , one day Tampa could get some office building's reaching those height levels..

What are the chances Tampa Tower will come off of the 635' and go 10 floors lower??.. Maybe a 41 story building?? 535'

I have no problem with Tampa being more like SF. I love SF's sheer density. I would love to have the distinct districts like San Diego has (East Village, Core, Columbia, Marina, Ballpark District, etc.). I think Tampa needs to have time to fit into itself.

I find it interesting that the Amon Investments website now only shows the Tampa Towers 2 & 4 projects as the current projects they are working on.

^It's been like that for a while.

On Amon's website it show the Tampa Towers are now at 608 feet tall and still 51 floors.
Just wondering if anyone heard anything about this?

http://www.amoninvestments.com/

Probably because it was rejected at 625, but it's not like the project is going to make any progress for a while anyway. Amon is probably just trying to sell the project/design and such.

You know, this popped in my mind today. I don't know why, but it did.

It seems unrealistic for them to be serious now than ever. I always liked the design though. Thought it was one of the best I saw at the time. It certainly seems like the design gives off more of a hotel oriented project than residential though

It would be great for these to be built, I love the design, but I think it is at least a few years out due to the current market and inventory in DT already.

Steve

How many projects has Amon ever finalized anyway?

In this market, there is little chance thsi gets built... And with Amon's track record, that chance slips down to Zero. heck, if SimDag can't get financing, there is no chance Amon could get it.

That's the only ill comparison I can draw between these (Tampa Tower 2 and Tampa Tower 4) and TTT. Every design Amon has put up has been a sight better than trump... Simply because the location lets them play more with the design - you can contrast the glass with stone there (or have another glass tower), unlike the river location where it should be complimentary to the other towers as well as the river.

You know I never really payed attention to the Tampa Tower developments before today because it always seemed that everyone thought these were dead in the water. These would be right in what I call the downtown parking lot wasteland. What a shame, that area needs development ASAP! I say it is back to the drawing boards for Amon. Shave the height and change the use designation!

Has anyone heard of this project? Its listed on emporis as tampa tower. I have never seen this rendering.Looks nice. Any information?
<br>http://i27.tinypic.com/nlzthz.jpg

Has anyone heard of this project? Its listed on emporis as tampa tower. I have never seen this rendering.Looks nice. Any information?
<br>http://i27.tinypic.com/nlzthz.jpg
It was another design for this project I believe. We have had, I believe, 3 different renders on what this would look like.

More than three, NPR, more than three.

They are, and have been, throwing designs at the wall to see what sticks. That's why I did speak not entirely flatteringly about Amon. They've never gotten a project off the gorund but they are ambitious in their attempts to do so, I can give them that.

^That's exactly what we all figured when this all started however many years ago it was... They're just throwing shit around, and when it sticks, they capitalize on it. Nothing wrong with that, really, as then they can just sell the land as a 'turn-key' project, all zoned up and ready to go.

Sounds like a new show for the DIY network or HGTV; "Turn Key Commercial Realty"

Tampa Condo 2 files for bankruptcy protection
Tuesday, March 25, 2008 - 11:39 AM EDT
Tampa Bay Business Journal - by Michael Hinman Staff Writer

A project that was expected to give downtown Tampa its tallest condominium tower is now seeking Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

Tampa Condo 2 LLC, the developer behind The Tampa Tower 2 -- a proposed 51-story, 472-unit condominium tower -- filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court's Middle District of Florida last week citing assets of between $10 million and $50 million and liabilities in the same range.

Tampa Condo 2 is a subsidiary of Amon Investments LLC of Daytona Beach, which also is building Station Square in Clearwater and had plans to build The Tampa Tower 4 downtown near the proposed Tampa Tower 2. It is unclear how the bankruptcy filing would affect these projects, if at all.

Among its unsecured creditor claims, Tampa Condo 2 owes Downtown Tampa Investments $5.2 million as well as a total of $1.2 million to Amon Investments, Tampa 4 LLC and Lady Godiva 2 LLC. Tampa 4 also is a subsidiary of Amon Investments, according to state corporate records, while Lady Godiva 2 is a company managed by Mark Nagrani of New Smyrna Beach, who also is personally listed as an unsecured creditor owed $295,000.

Tampa Condo 2 has another $7.4 million in secured claims, bringing its total liabilities to $14.1 million. Its assets -- which are primarily listed real property -- are $25 million for its land at 507 E. Washington St., 501 E. Washington St. and 102 N. Morgan St.

The subsidiary reported net losses of $46,000 in 2005 and $2.7 million in 2006.

This is the third high-profile bankruptcy filed this year for projects downtown. Chapter 11 filings were made for The Towers of Channelside and Key Developers Group LLC's The Place at Channelside.

Last August, Amon Investments managing member Felix Amon told the Tampa Bay Business Journal that Tampa Condo 2 was looking for a joint-venture partner in order to proceed with its project.

"We are configuring it to include less residential," Amon said at the time. That was to include more office and retail space as well as more rental apartments that would replace much of the original for-sale residential product originally planned.

Tampa Condo 2 paid $8.9 million, or $200 per square foot, for its property back in December 2005, according to Hillsborough County property records.

http://tampabay.bizjournals.com/tampabay/stories/2008/03/24/daily15.html?surround=lfn

Well that's a new one, declaring bankruptcy before anything actually happened.

Tampa Tower 2 LLC? Guess they are a spin off of amon...

Atleast they declared bankruptcy before they started construction............

They voted for the war before they voted against it!


hahaha


ok seriously, how in the hell do you go bankrupt, while just sitting on land? Oh right, pay yourself a salary, yet produce nothing as a result.

^ Yep, it sure stinks of just trying to get out of having to pay debts.

Slump stalls Tampa's tallest condo tower
By By James Thorner, Times Staff Writer
Published Tuesday, March 25, 2008 10:01 PM


TAMPA — Felix Amon dreamed of building taller than Trump, but now finds himself hammered by the slump.

Poor sales and tighter credit have forced Amon, based in Daytona Beach, to seek Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection for his Tampa Tower 2 project.

The 608-foot, 51-story condo skyscraper would have reached higher than any building in the region. Tapered at its top and crowned by an antenna, the $350-million tower would have resembled a stumpier version of the Empire State Building.

Amon bought the downtown lot at Washington and Morgan streets two years ago and had fallen behind in repaying $7.4-million to TransAtlantic Bank. The Miami lender had initiated foreclosure proceedings, and Amon plans to use bankruptcy reorganization to block the bank from seizing the property.

"We'll definitely keep the project and keep moving forward. We just want to freeze the process to protect our asset," the Austrian-born Amon told the St. Petersburg Times Tuesday.

Amon's is the third Tampa condo project to declare bankruptcy this year. The Towers of Channelside and the Place at Channelside filed for Chapter 11 in January and February, respectively. Both were largely completed but were hit hard when buyers bailed from contracts.

Even the best-known local condo project, Trump Tower Tampa, has threatened bankruptcy should its financing efforts fail. The 52-story building, licensing its name from New York tycoon Donald Trump, has yet to get off the ground,

"Just remember what's happened to Trump Tower, and all the other projects," Amon said. "All the buyers ran for the hills."

Amon said the bankruptcy filing doesn't apply to another of his local condo buildings, Clearwater's Station Square. The downtown redevelopment project on Cleveland Street offers 126 units and a rooftop pool. "Station Square is just about finished," he said. "Luckily that was sold before the crisis started."

James Thorner can be reached at thorner@sptimes.com or

(813) 226-3313.

[Last modified Wednesday, March 26, 2008 9:38 AM]

http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/realestate/article431465.ece