State Savings Bank in Danger of Demolition

[Richard]

[QUOTE]

Yes, obviously, and what is your point? Since they bought a crappy, low-rent building, they shouldn't try and make it a better building?

Maybe they should not be in the business of buying crappy low rent buildings.

There is not a city in this country where just because you buy a building you receive carta blanch to do what ever it takes to show a profit,there are rules and guidelines if you do not want to follow them do not buy the building,it is quite simple really.

I don't understand what "the city is broke" has to do with this. Are you saying that downtown property owners should just abandon all their buildings and there's no hope?

Re-read what I posted.

I don't even know what this means. Obviously Penobscot didn't originally have dedicated parking; no building built in the 20's had dedicated parking. It wasn't needed then. They didn't have internet either back then either.

The point is that now, every downtown 20's era office building that isn't abandoned, or massively struggling, has dedicated parking. It's an absolute must for your tenants.

So the only place in the entire world that you can find pre 1920s buildings without parking is in the city of Detroit?

Because of the lack of parking the city is in ruins and the little value placed on the buildings is because of lack of parking ?

Ummm okay, glad we know see the real reason behind the past ills of the city,not enough parking lots.

Sometimes I wonder if I'm living in the same planet based on some of these comments. Who would have thunk that law firm partners would want a place to park? In Michigan of all places? What a radical, wacky concept! Who the hell drives a car around these parts?

I can give you some help there maybe,no we are not living on the same planet,I am thinking your planet would resemble a massive parking garage with a big table in the center filled with lawyers crying because they had to walk 6 feet from their car to the elevator.

All in jest though because I had to have some papers drawn up by a lawyer in NYC one time and she seemed to enjoy the 6 block walk from parking to her office as the building was 1920s and quite charming at that,she did mention that she enjoyed the walk because it helped in relieving the stress at the office.

[Jason]

bham has 1,997 posts that demonstrate that he does not live on the same planet as us.

We already had this debate when apop first announced the garage plans. And everyone else dug out the parking numbers and occupancy rate numbers for downtown and showed that he was wrong...

[Bham1982]

Maybe they should not be in the business of buying crappy low rent buildings.

There is not a city in this country where just because you buy a building you receive carta blanch to do what ever it takes to show a profit,there are rules and guidelines if you do not want to follow them do not buy the building,it is quite simple really.

Richard, I don't even understand what any of this has to do with the conversation.

You are against people buying property in downtown Detroit? And what do you mean by "rules and guidelines"? Is there some assertion that they're trying to build parking spaces in some illegal manner?

So the only place in the entire world that you can find pre 1920s buildings without parking is in the city of Detroit?

Again, I don't get it. What does this mean? If there is a 1920's building in Kuala Lumpur, is it relevant whether or not it has parking? We are talking about Detroit.

Because of the lack of parking the city is in ruins and the little value placed on the buildings is because of lack of parking ?

Obviously no, and no one would make such a claim.

I can give you some help there maybe,no we are not living on the same planet,I am thinking your planet would resemble a massive parking garage with a big table in the center filled with lawyers crying because they had to walk 6 feet from their car to the elevator.

No, but "my planet" does have this crazy idea that parking might be a good idea in Michigan of all places. Somehow parking is provided in almost every office building in the U.S. not in NYC.

[Bham1982]

bham has 1,997 posts that demonstrate that he does not live on the same planet as us.

We already had this debate when apop first announced the garage plans. And everyone else dug out the parking numbers and occupancy rate numbers for downtown and showed that he was wrong...

No, you mean to say that you have no argument, so feel like making up stories.

Please show us this fantasy of yours, where "everyone" showed occupancy rates downtown, and somehow proved that office buildings in Detroit don't need parking.

Where are all these successful office buildings without parking? What are all these idiot owners doing with parking spaces? Don't they know the armchair RE experts on DYes have proven this parking need to be a fantasy?

[Jason]

http://www.detroityes.com/mb/showthr...-of-Demolition

You insisted there as you're insisting here that the successful office buildings downtown all have attached parking.

211 west fort street, the ford building, guardian building, and buhl building do not have attached parking. the parking that is very close to the buildings are nowhere near enough for all their workers to park, even for the buildings like 150 west jefferson which have substantial dedicated parking.

Those buildings are all basically doing ok. downtown occupancy rates have been improving despite those building's lack of parking. but the penobscot has gotten even worse since apop bought it.

I'll quote myself from that thread:

The number of office workers will be a range between 100 and 300 square feet per worker, based on the listed area of the building. The parking spaces and building areas are figured out from real estate listings, building databases, and other sites like that.

The Buhl garage has 649 parking spots. 1173-391 workers.
One Woodward Avenue's garage has 42. 3900-1300 workers.
150 West Jefferson has 550 parking spots. 4931-1643 workers.
Guardian Building has no parking spaces. 7500-2500 workers.
One Kennedy Square has 460 parking spaces. 2560-853 workers.
Fort Washington Building [[333 W Fort) 500. 1580-526 workers.
Ford Building, no parking. 2026-675 workers.
Dime Building, 930. 3720-1240 workers.
One Detroit Center, 3165 [[counting both of the garages behind it). 16,747-5582 workers.
Chase Tower, I can't find any number for parking. Whatever parking is there is small. 5050-1683 workers.

Even if the square feet for each worker is high, and the buildings are only half full, there still wouldn't be enough parking in that area for all the workers.

Which according to you means the buildings should all be failing? But they're not, only the penobscot is.

On the planet that you live on all of those other buildings all have generous parking and that's why they're doing fine. And the penobscot is doing bad because it doesn't have parking. The fact that the elevators don't work, the heat doesn't work, it smells like piss, and is owned by an incompetent ......... are just side issues.

On the planet that the rest of us live on, most types of tenants don't need attached parking, and most workers will just walk a few blocks.

On top of that, the new tenants that the penobscot building would get are locating downtown for the sake of being in an urban environment. In other words, they're there because they WANT walking a few blocks in an active downtown to be part of their lifestyle. If they wanted to be in a landscape of parking garages and surface lots, they'd locate in southfield town center.

If apop can't find a reasonably nearby parking garage to make arrangements with, then he can buy an empty lot and build a parking garage on that. Few will mind walking a few blocks.

[rjlj]

Dedicated onsite parking are 1950's ideals that apply to suburban applications and not to downtown urban environments. Yes, parking is a component, but a building does not have to be surrounded by a sea of parking, a la a suburban shopping center. People like Bham1982 are not going to carry Detroit into the next century. That generation is holding the city back while the younger generation is trying to move the city forward. Step outside and see what is really going on, I would not mind showing you.

[noggin]

Love this. WDET found 600,000 parking spots in downtown Detroit alone. How much is enough? http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/T...t/-/index.html

[Huggybear]

Here's the thing, or several:

1. One, on Bham1982's editorial that the people who don't support the demolition do not have a personal financial stake in the game, that is true. But the law defining historic protection regards society's interest in preserving historic and notable structures to be sufficiently important to defeat absolute property rights. The buildings - all of them - were acquired with legal notice that they were in historic districts - essentially the same as taking a property under a deed restriction. I'd submit that the law was designed to prevent short-term economic pressure from wiping out something without a public signoff. That was the point of the hearing HDAB held. In fact, given that this building was designated in 1983, in the midst of a terrible recession, it is clear that keeping it from being flattened is not a new idea.

2. As a side point, what restaurant is active in the building? As of a month ago, the Caucus Club was shut down, and the cafeteria was inactive.

3. If you have seen Kraemer's rendering, you would have seen that it cantilevers over Shelby, which would darken the street [[think Greektown Casino) and block the view of the neoclassical building on the other side of the street. Kraemer acknowledged that the current bank site is actually too small for a conventional parking garage and needs the space. So unless and until the air rights issue is settled [[not to mention any setback/zoning issues), a demolition would create little other than a rubble pile. It wouldn't even create a surface lot due to the slope of the site. Ok, it would lower property taxes.

4. And while we are at it, it's a 19-level structure, which would rate as one of the largest ones ever constructed. The design is 6 levels higher than Greektown almost as tall as the office tower it abuts, would definitely degrade the aesthetics of that building, and would take an hour to empty every night.

5. Note that this is only an 1,100 car garage [[only), which would only cover a fraction of the number of people who would work in 1 million sq feet of office space [[which at a rough calculation could be 5,000 people). The area surrounding the Penobscot would look like downtown Dallas [[all towers, no significant amount of short buildings but tons of parking) before the Penobscot could park everyone.

At the same time, I have some sympathy for the owner in that the Northern Group pretty much ran the Penobscot complex into the ground. Talk to some former tenants about this - erratic building services, strange landlord behavior, and other baloney. Those tenants, by the way, had no problem walking from as far away as the Cobo/JLA complex when the building was better managed.

Now I'm sure he's in a position where in debugging the problem of how to get tenants in, it's either build a garage or put a hundred million or more into the building.

What I think Kraemer really should have been focused on is adaptively re-using parts of the existing Penobscot complex as parking. The older office towers [[the ones not on Griswold) are probably reaching the end of their useful life as office space [[absent renovations way out of scale with their value) and might be good candidates for adapting into garages [[keeping the exteriors). I don't recall that they are exactly the Sistine Chapel on the inside, either. That surface lot in the "crook" on the south side [[streetview 135 W Congress) could be the site of an elevator complex servicing the parking [[I'm guessing it's too small to house a spiral ramp, but I could be wrong).

In the end, I'm not a big believer in the "must have dedicated parking." First, the Penobscot Building functioned from the end of WWII [[when all but 3 streetcar lines were toast) to at least the late 1960s in an environment where there was far less parking [[back then, you didn't have Millennium, the surface lots near the federal courthouse, the Kennedy Square garage, the DDA deck at the Book Cadillac, or anything - at the same time you had massively higher occupancy downtown). By the way, how did people ever shop at Hudson's? That was 2.5 million square feet of space and 50,000 transactions a day serviced by a rinky-dink four level garage that is part of the current Z Site.

Second, a sufficiently attractive space will attract people without parking. Downtown Birmingham has a ton of businesses that are blocks away from big parking facilities. And people walk big distances [[or take shuttles) from lots to get into the Renaissance Center [[the easternmost GM garage is almost half a mile from the building). People who work in city government routinely park in Lafayette Park or Joe Louis, either of which is an easy half mile from any city agency.

Finally, the presence of [[or construction of) parking does not seem to have saved projects like 1001 Woodward or the Ellington.

At the end of the day, it may also make sense to buy an existing facility like the Millennium Garage [[600 spaces) and run a shuttle. The bonus would be that the structure would generate money during conventions.

HB

[313rd]

Love this. WDET found 600,000 parking spots in downtown Detroit alone. How much is enough? http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/T...t/-/index.html

Is the number of spots really 600,000? I find that hard to believe.

Quick math; Parking Spots 600,000/2,700 spaces at Compuware Garage which is one of the largest = 222 Garages the size of Compuware.

[Gistok]

Is the number of spots really 600,000? I find that hard to believe.

Quick math; Parking Spots 600,000/2,700 spaces at Compuware Garage which is one of the largest = 222 Garages the size of Compuware.

Agreed... someone made that number up... it shows the very large jail site as surface parking... and the only thing parked there are inactive construction equipment.

The largest downtown parking structure is the 10,000 space MGM Grand garage in the NW corner of that map. It would require 60 of those to equal 600,000 spaces, and that would pretty much fill up downtown with 60 MGM sized structures. Probably 100,000-200,000 is more accurate.

That said... I still agree that there are PLENTY of parking spaces downtown...

[Bham1982]

http://www.detroityes.com/mb/showthr...-of-Demolition

You insisted there as you're insisting here that the successful office buildings downtown all have attached parking.

211 west fort street, the ford building, guardian building, and buhl building do not have attached parking. the parking that is very close to the buildings are nowhere near enough for all their workers to park, even for the buildings like 150 west jefferson which have substantial dedicated parking.

You don't know what you're talking about. Every one of these buildings has dedicated parking.

Which according to you means the buildings should all be failing? But they're not, only the penobscot is.

Because the Penobscot is the only one without dedicated parking! And some of those buildings are failing. Dedicated parking does not ensure success, but lack of dedicated parking generally ensures failure.

On the planet that the rest of us live on, most types of tenants don't need attached parking, and most workers will just walk a few blocks.

This isn't true, and not relevant to my point. You're not listening.

I never stated that most workers need attached parking [[though, in Detroit, they do). I never even talked about percentages, or attached parking.

I talked about dedicated parking, and the importance to business owners. You need dedicated parking, or your building will fail. All your tangents about whether or not "most" workers will use the dedicated parking or whether the parking is attached in a garage are irrelevant and probably meant to confuse the issue.

On top of that, the new tenants that the penobscot building would get are locating downtown for the sake of being in an urban environment. In other words, they're there because they WANT walking a few blocks in an active downtown to be part of their lifestyle. If they wanted to be in a landscape of parking garages and surface lots, they'd locate in southfield town center.

If this were true, and "excitement of being in an urban environment" automatically meant no dedicated parking, then why does almost every city in the U.S. not named NYC have dedicated parking in its office buildings?

Are you saying that downtown Chicago is the same as Southfield? Newer office buildings in downtown Chicago generally have dedicated parking. Are the owners all idiots? Maybe they should listen to the armchair real estate geniuses on DYes, who think they know urban markets because they're 26 and moved from Shelby Twp. to Corktown last year?

[Bham1982]

Dedicated onsite parking are 1950's ideals that apply to suburban applications and not to downtown urban environments.

Then why do office buildings, built in the current day, in markets far more urban than Detroit, have dedicated parking for offices?

I visit 71 South Wacker, in Chicago, quite often, for business. It was built just a few years ago, and has a parking garage in the building. Every time, we park in one of the parking spaces reserved for the company we're visiting.

Note that, for Chicago standards, 71 South Wacker couldn't be more central, urban, or transit, oriented. It sits near multiple L Stops, and is a short walk to the two main suburban rail terminals.

So why does 71 South Wacker have parking? Why does practically every new office building [[again, excepting NYC) have parking? Are the owners are idiots living "1950's ideals", as you claim?

You want to compare car ownership rates in the 50's compared to today? I think you'll find that car ownership rates are far higher today, and the need for parking is far more acute.

[Bham1982]

Here's the thing, or several:

1. One, on Bham1982's editorial that the people who don't support the demolition do not have a personal financial stake in the game, that is true. But the law defining historic protection regards society's interest in preserving historic and notable structures to be sufficiently important to defeat absolute property rights. The buildings - all of them - were acquired with legal notice that they were in historic districts - essentially the same as taking a property under a deed restriction. I'd submit that the law was designed to prevent short-term economic pressure from wiping out something without a public signoff. That was the point of the hearing HDAB held. In fact, given that this building was designated in 1983, in the midst of a terrible recession, it is clear that keeping it from being flattened is not a new idea.

Note that I am not advocating for the destruction of a historic structure, nor am I making any judgment on the owners.

I'm just saying that there needs to be some sort of dedicated parking, or the building will not get leases signed.

[wolverine]

Then why do office buildings, built in the current day, in markets far more urban than Detroit, have dedicated parking for offices?

I visit 71 South Wacker, in Chicago, quite often, for business. It was built just a few years ago, and has a parking garage in the building. Every time, we park in one of the parking spaces reserved for the company we're visiting.

Note that, for Chicago standards, 71 South Wacker couldn't be more central, urban, or transit, oriented. It sits near multiple L Stops, and is a short walk to the two main suburban rail terminals.

So why does 71 South Wacker have parking? Why does practically every new office building [[again, excepting NYC) have parking? Are the owners are idiots living "1950's ideals", as you claim?

You want to compare car ownership rates in the 50's compared to today? I think you'll find that car ownership rates are far higher today, and the need for parking is far more acute.

Because the Hyatt Ctr is a class A trophy building and would never in any market attract a different level of tenants more suited for vintage buildings. I explained this in my earlier post. The new office skyscrapers proposed in Chicago will have very limited parking and will probably be open for public parking . Large centralized garages pick up the slack for parking demands in downtown Chicago....the way it should be. Also most Chicago buildings internalize their parking. They don't need to build some hulking ancillary garage on a second block.

Unless you are disabled or some super important exec., most people should get used to walking a block or two to work. It's healthy and a great way to start your day.

[canuck]

The need for mass-transit will make sense to people when there's no more cheap parking downtown and when that expensive parking becomes scarce. I remember years ago when there were "express" busses along Gratiot. If you had parking at the State Fairgrounds that was cheap and then used express busses to get those who parked there to a few stops like New Center, Wayne State, Grand Circus Park, Campus Martius Park, and the CAY Municipal building, you might convince people to "park and ride." For that matter, I have always envisioned a transit stop at Woodward and I-696. A park and ride there might convince Oakland County and some Macomb County residents to ditch their cars and take a SMART "express bus" to downtown Detroit.

This kind of "incentivizing" of ridership exists in many metro areas now, but I wonder about your comment on the lack of parking in downtown Detroit. It seems to me when you look at all the parking facilities both multi-storey and ground lots that they are not lacking.

Detroit doesnt need more parking, it needs more pedestrians coming in from all points; tourists, suburbanites and Detroiters.

The key is in what you proposed; "transitizing" the city in a way that will put to shame older schemes in other cities. Only Detroit with its large metro can pull it off since it is a high GDP, and transitless metro as is, in need of a big bang to revive it.

Then you need a coupla extry ad campaigns by savvy operators to "pure Meshugganize Detroyed by lassooing southwestern cowgirls into Great Lakes water territory. No more yeller lawns, welcome to the land O' lakes times twelve. Make babies and spread industriousness from within Mi. once again.

[Bham1982]

Because the Hyatt Ctr is a class A trophy building and would never in any market attract a different level of tenants more suited for vintage buildings. I explained this in my earlier post.

But, again, the point is that office buildings need some degree of dedicated parking. That's my only point. With few exceptions in the U.S., any new office building needs parking. The building doesn't have parking because it's a trophy building, it has parking because it's good business sense.

If dedicated parking is considered important in the Loop, it's reasonable to say that dedicated parking is important in Downtown Detroit. Vintage office buildings almost always have parking arrangements for dedicated parking.

Unless you are disabled or some super important exec., most people should get used to walking a block or two to work. It's healthy and a great way to start your day.

I agree, but it still doesn't mean dedicated parking isn't needed. "Most" isn't "all", and you need something for those who work there and want to drive, and, especially, for visitors/clients.

[Gorath]

Dedicated parking in any big city downtown is something that should not exist. An office building is typically occupied 8-5/M-F. Sporting events, concerts, etc. are usually at night and on weekends. It makes no sense to set aside one ramp [[or surface lot) for one type of user, and duplicate it in another location for another user, when the same facility can accommodate both.

Actually the same kind of mind boggling land use occurs out in suburbia too. For example, muti-screen movie theaters are almost always surrounded by a sea of parking, set aside for the movie theater only. The parking lot does get filled up, but only on Friday nights, weekends & holidays. 8-5/M-F the lot is half full at most. Why don't developers surround this lot with office buildings to use half that parking lot during the day on weekdays? I'm sure there is an idiotic minimum parking zoning ordinance that prevents them from doing this though.

[wolverine]

Those clients and visitors and other important folks have no problem parking in a central garage somewhere nearby. We have reps come in all the time that park in a garage a couple blocks away. They don't mind at all.

Again, no building needs its own dedicated parking. This resource can be shared. Your claim is complete nonesense to me since its obvious you haven't worked in a downtown where plenty of full leased buildings don't have on site parking.

Point is the Penobscot needs to do more than boost their parking arrangements. It's only part of the story.

But, again, the point is that office buildings need some degree of dedicated parking. That's my only point. With few exceptions in the U.S., any new office building needs parking. The building doesn't have parking because it's a trophy building, it has parking because it's good business sense.

If dedicated parking is considered important in the Loop, it's reasonable to say that dedicated parking is important in Downtown Detroit. Vintage office buildings almost always have parking arrangements for dedicated parking.



I agree, but it still doesn't mean dedicated parking isn't needed. "Most" isn't "all", and you need something for those who work there and want to drive, and, especially, for visitors/clients.

[Richard]

The city really needs to be building its own parking decks and take control of it,that way it removes the incentive of speculative parking.

The added revenue probably would not hurt the city coffers either.

[motz]

The city really needs to be building its own parking decks and take control of it,that way it removes the incentive of speculative parking.

The added revenue probably would not hurt the city coffers either.

Make all garages in Downtown 24/7, automated from, say, 10pm-6am. Its really annoying to only really be able to use a handful of the tons of garages down there because they close at, say, 11pm. I know friends whose cars have been locked in the garages due to this GREAT idea.

[downtownguy]

Love this. WDET found 600,000 parking spots in downtown Detroit alone. How much is enough? http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/T...t/-/index.html

Sloppy reporting, and I would note that it comes from WDIV and not WDET. They refer to a study done by Data Driven Detroit but are short on specifics. Even after visiting the Data Driven Detroit website, I could find no narrative behind the conclusion that there are 600,000 parking spots downtown. However, when one looks at the map they created using orange and red to denote garages and surface lots respectively, it does appear as though downtown is swimming with parking options.

http://www.freep.com/assets/freep/gr...4194541912.JPG

[Armin]

Looks like he decided on taking out the small 3 story building at 201 Michigan instead of the State Savings Bank?

http://detroit.curbed.com/archives/2...best-thing.php

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

Then why do office buildings, built in the current day, in markets far more urban than Detroit, have dedicated parking for offices?

I visit 71 South Wacker, in Chicago, quite often, for business. It was built just a few years ago, and has a parking garage in the building. Every time, we park in one of the parking spaces reserved for the company we're visiting.

Note that, for Chicago standards, 71 South Wacker couldn't be more central, urban, or transit, oriented. It sits near multiple L Stops, and is a short walk to the two main suburban rail terminals.

So why does 71 South Wacker have parking? Why does practically every new office building [[again, excepting NYC) have parking? Are the owners are idiots living "1950's ideals", as you claim?

You want to compare car ownership rates in the 50's compared to today? I think you'll find that car ownership rates are far higher today, and the need for parking is far more acute.

Not only do new office buildings in San Francisco not have dedicated parking, new condos have limited spaces. Its not uncommon for new luxury condo buildings to have one space for a two bedroom unit and no space for a one bedroom unit. Its not "just NYC"