Extell Shoots for a $4.4B Sellout with the Nordstrom Tower, the Most Expensive Ever

May 14, 2015

Image: the Nordstrom Tower penthouse

Extell has plenty to brag about, from claiming fame to the city’s top two most expensive sales to being credited with starting the whole superluxury supertall tower boom. But according to the Wall Street Journal, the development company’s head honcho and mastermind Gary Barnett is vying for another record, aiming to make his next skyscraping creation, the Nordstrom Tower, the most expensive building ever sold at $4.4 billion.

The Journal caught wind of the news this week when the figure was revealed in filings—which interestingly have renamed the building the “Central Park Tower”—on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange where the developer issued $300 million in debt. Of the $4.4 billion, $400 million is expected to come from the sale of the base of the tower to retailer Nordstrom, while the condos would account for $4 billion. Currently the General Motors building holds the title as the most expensive sellout at $2.8 billion.

Whether or not the market will support such a price is, however, another story, particularly as a wealth of new luxury units come to the market. As we previously reportednew development sales in Manhattan condos will total $27.6-$33.6+ billion over the next five years with just five towers accounting for one-third (roughly $10 billion) of this total. At the top of this list is 220 Central Park South which is expected to bring its developer $3.1 billion, while 432 Park Avenue is looking at $3.1 billion. But if Extell is able to hit its mark, they should expect a tidy profit. The company expects to rake in over $2 billion, versus One57 which has brought in $1 billion. Extell also holds 87 percent ownership of the Central Park Tower site, compared to just 12 percent in One57 with the rest owned by investors from Abu Dhabi.

The tower also made news earlier this week when rumor hit that the supertall would surpass the height of 1 World Trade Center, but that was later debunked by Barnett.

[Via WSJ]


Interested in similar content?

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *