City Club Apartments. Taking place of Stalter Hotel

[3WC]

hybrid: I like those Denver developments. So, apparently do the people who count, including the developers who build them, the municipalities who permit/encourage them, the tenants who occupy them, and the lenders who finance them.

Beauty of course [[is this about beauty or providing affordable housing?) is in the eye of the beholder. For every person with your view, however, I say there are several with a contrary view. That's what life, and real estate, is all about.

Personally, I would consider your view more positively if I knew your background: do you understand the multi-family development process? The market analysis, financing options if any, relatively construction costs based on materials, non-revenue producing amenities, land costs, availability of construction labor, confiscatory municipal regulatory environment [[Detroit's is terrible), and a hundred more considerations? If one believes you are knowlegable about those factors one might deem your views more credible.

By the way, I'm told Detroit has ordinances that require developers to hire a certain percentages of skilled and unskilled local residents or pay significant fines. The fact is there is no way for developers to comply with the ordinance requirements, especially when major projects such as the new hockey arena are being built, as there are few such workers available to hire. Therefore developers have to factor the fines into their construction budgets which are of course passed on to the consumer by increased rents, ticket prices etc. It's flat out extortion by the city. Kwame may be in jail but his spirit of corruption is alive and well in city governance. [[Don't claim the ordinance is designed to force skilled trades unions to increase their training programs to target the unskilled people who are supposed to be the beneficiaries of the ordinances. Talk to any developer or union leader and you will understand that they have introduced every possible incentive to get workers to enroll in their worker development programs and there are few if any takers apparently. Welcome to Detroit.)

[Junjie]

^^^ heinous. this caliber of multifamily crap is built all over the country. it'll only take a decade or 2 to turn into the 'new' projects. think of the colossal waste of resources to throw these together and then envision all of that going into a landfill by 2030. the environmental impact will be great

The "projects" were the "projects" in large part because they concentrated lower-income and poor people in huge isolated towers. Shockingly, this didn't create a desirable place to live or good social outcomes. Even if you think these new buildings are aesthetically ugly, you have to recognize that they are built to be the functional opposite of the projects: mixed use, urban form built to the street, and typically with mandates for low-income or "affordable" [[definition depends on your city) housing alongside market rate units. There's little reason to think they will create similar outcomes.

I don't really have any issue with these buildings per se. They can be a bit same-y, but then I find them more attractive to live alongside than pretty much anything built from 1970-1990. I think the valid criticism is that these types of buildings should be filling in neighborhoods, not taking up prime lots on Grand Circus downtown.

[Hypestyles]

when are these apartments available for formal inquiries?

[UofMGuy423]

Nothing will be as good as the original Statler hotel. It's a complete shame that it was torn down as I bet it would already be rehabbed and fully leased out now. But, oh well, whatever goes in its place, I hope it isn't too bland. But, it's a weirdly shaped and large lot, so I have no idea what the cost would be to develop that whole parcel with a 10-15 store building.

[Jason]

hybrid: I like those Denver developments. So, apparently do the people who count, including the developers who build them, the municipalities who permit/encourage them, the tenants who occupy them, and the lenders who finance them.

Beauty of course [[is this about beauty or providing affordable housing?) is in the eye of the beholder. For every person with your view, however, I say there are several with a contrary view. That's what life, and real estate, is all about.

I don't think I have ever met a single person who actually likes those kinds of buildings. They live in them because the units/location/price fit what they need at that point in time. They like "those old buildings" and some of them also like modern architecture.

Architecture firms design buildings that way because the work is already done and they can reuse the same designs and building supplies and details. Developers/investors like them because they're consistent and because there's a billion other buildings exactly like them to use as comparables.

Construction cost doesn't have much to do with it [[in the Statler site specifically it does because urban design considerations would require a more expensive project), it's that having someone actually design something is inconvenient and a variable that they'd rather just not have to think about.

Lafayette Park is a good example. The original budget was lower than usual at the time, and a higher proportion of the budget went towards landscaping so the money spent on the buildings themselves was even lower. Right now they're going for over $300,000, on top of the coop fees that range from $700-1200 a month. Plus the fact that they're coops so it's harder to get a loan for them, and the units aren't big, and they don't have secure parking or most of the amenities associated with higher prices.


Personally what I think would make sense for the Statler site would be to have the ground floor being retail or some other appropriate use, covering the entire site. 1-3 floors [[or maybe more) of parking garage on top of that. And a 10 story or more point tower on the north end of the site. There would be various amenities on the roof of the garage, including a club house/exercise room/whatever which would be built along the Washington side in order to boost the height there a little more. There always seems to be money for parking garages, and the base would block a lot of people mover noise as well as contribute to Washington's street wall. I don't think this is outrageous and I think something like that could happen in the next 10 years.

[expatriate]

More importantly I think is that something is built on this site. There is already an abundance of high-rise apartment options in the pipeline that will hopefully find residents when this restoration boom ends. Paris, one of the world's most beautiful cities contains mostly 6 story apartment buildings. [[OK, that is a stretch, but ...)

[archfan]

More importantly I think is that something is built on this site. There is already an abundance of high-rise apartment options in the pipeline that will hopefully find residents when this restoration boom ends. Paris, one of the world's most beautiful cities contains mostly 6 story apartment buildings. [[OK, that is a stretch, but ...)

I normally wouldn't comment, but I just read about this. Paris built up when 6 stories were the high rises of the day. When the Tour Montparnasse was built in the early '70s, it's height was so out of place, Paris banned anything over 7 stories. They relaxed restrictions somewhat in the 2010s, but you still can't build a 50 story building in the center of Paris.

[3WC]

Jason, you may be correct that in ten years the residential rental market in downtown Detroit may support a project that you describe. However, the economics do not support your vision and the time it takes to POSSIBLY achieve it.

Keep in mind that the city was initially giving the site to a developer for $1.00. [[That may have changed however.) There are at least a dozen developers in the country - actually the Midwest - who are capable of putting together a deal together to develop the site and make a profit.

Only one came forward, a developer with deep pockets, years of multi-family development experience in urban markets [[and many other markets as well), which managed over 43,000 apartments, mostly upscale ones. That developer took on the project to make money but not at the expense of sullying its reputation for developing high end, high quality projects.

Had there been the slightest chance that your view, Jason, would result in a better project, the developer would have done your deal.

[ABetterDetroit]

It is what is getting built.

Hopefully this will be the catalyst for more south of Woodward new devolopment in the Grand Circus Park area like it was intended to be.

[Nero]

I'd rather have a renovated Park Avenue Building and four ten story buildings on the Statler block, Tuller block, Madison block, and Fine Arts site, than one fifty or sixty story building on the Statler block.

Industry analysts are saying that filling in the vacant lots with mid-density walkable development is more important than maximizing density. I'm reading that supply is actually springing additional demand. If they build too much, too tall, too fast, they could end up halting growth.

[Bham1982]

More importantly I think is that something is built on this site. There is already an abundance of high-rise apartment options in the pipeline that will hopefully find residents when this restoration boom ends. Paris, one of the world's most beautiful cities contains mostly 6 story apartment buildings. [[OK, that is a stretch, but ...)

Paris has tons of highrises; probably more than any North American city excepting NYC. It's just that there are few in the core, due to zoning/height limits.

[Armin]

Paris has tons of highrises; probably more than any North American city excepting NYC. It's just that there are few in the core, due to zoning/height limits.

If you want to get technical, Paris [[proper) has very few high rises. All of those big skyscrapers are in La Defense.

[EGrant]

I'd be cool with a shorter to mid-rise building too... if it was more than an uninspired suburban building with design cues taken from an outdoor shopping mall. I digress; we've had this conversation 100 times over the years here. It's going to be built, and we're going to have to deal with it.

[ParisianLesion]

Paris has tons of highrises; probably more than any North American city excepting NYC. It's just that there are few in the core, due to zoning/height limits.

No way, not even close. Toronto, Chicago, Seattle, LA, Houston, if not others, certainly have significantly more high rises than Paris. Although they could creep up the list over time, I understand the height limits in various districts have been loosening.

[Bham1982]

If you want to get technical, Paris [[proper) has very few high rises. All of those big skyscrapers are in La Defense.

Paris proper has hundreds of highrises. They just aren't in the city center, but on the fringe.

Yes, La Defense has the tallest highrises in the region, and is in the suburbs but Paris proper [[and suburbs) have tons of highrises.

Paris proper has 709 highrises per Emporis. And Paris proper is tiny. Obviously the metro area as a whole has many thousands of highrises, given that the suburbs are full of big residentials.

[Bham1982]

No way, not even close. Toronto, Chicago, Seattle, LA, Houston, if not others, certainly have significantly more high rises than Paris. Although they could creep up the list over time, I understand the height limits in various districts have been loosening.

I doubt any of these cities have even half the highrises of Paris. Chicago has, what, like 1,000 highrises?

Again the [[tiny) city proper of Paris has 700 high rises. But like 95%+ of highrises are in [[very urban) adjacent suburbs. There are easily 10,000 highrises in the Paris metro, which would only be surpassed by NYC in North America.

The Paris region, if you really know it [[not just the tourist-laden core) is full of highrises, basically everywhere.

[3WC]

I guess it depends on one's definition of high-rise.

The Paris REGION has 74 buildings 100 or more metres [[300 plus feet and 29 stories) high. 100 metres is considered a high-rise in France. There are 18 buildings in the region 150 metres high [[492 feet)

[Gistok]

Paris is sort of an optical illusion [[but in a nice sort of way). There are more midrise buildings within the historic 20 Arrondissemonts of the city than most people realize, but most of them are in the outer of those 20 districts., and you really don't notice them on the skyline

They have changed the zoning height limits about 7 years ago, but Parisians are still fighting that battle.

When you look out from the observation platforms of the Eiffel Tower, you basically see the Tour Montparnasse [[the building that got Paris to limit city building heights over 40 years ago) and Paris's "downtown" of La Defense in the western burbs. The rest of the city's taller buildings are mainly tucked away towards the edge of the central city, which at only 41 square miles is much smaller than it looks from the Eiffel Tour.

[Nero]

I doubt any of these cities have even half the highrises of Paris. Chicago has, what, like 1,000 highrises?

Again the [[tiny) city proper of Paris has 700 high rises. But like 95%+ of highrises are in [[very urban) adjacent suburbs. There are easily 10,000 highrises in the Paris metro, which would only be surpassed by NYC in North America.

The Paris region, if you really know it [[not just the tourist-laden core) is full of highrises, basically everywhere.

But for some reason the area WITHOUT the high rises is what the people keep talking about. Why do you suppose that is? Perhaps what the masses really want, even if they do not know it, is urbanism?

[Nero]

Paris is sort of an optical illusion [[but in a nice sort of way). There are more midrise buildings within the historic 20 Arrondissemonts of the city than most people realize, but most of them are in the outer of those 20 districts., and you really don't notice them on the skyline

They have changed the zoning height limits about 7 years ago, but Parisians are still fighting that battle.

When you look out from the observation platforms of the Eiffel Tower, you basically see the Tour Montparnasse [[the building that got Paris to limit city building heights over 40 years ago) and Paris's "downtown" of La Defense in the western burbs. The rest of the city's taller buildings are mainly tucked away towards the edge of the central city, which at only 41 square miles is much smaller than it looks from the Eiffel Tour.

So in this Paris, you have the opposite of Detroit? You have skyscrapers being built in the suburbs. Downtown is full of smaller buildings? Interesting. My Rome has been similar. Perhaps we need both, a district allowing high rises and a district for low rise urbanism.

The argument at hand is an interesting one. I like that thee developer has improved the design to better fit the desire of the people for an iconic building. Shall we commend the builder for making such an observation? Perhaps this, together with the building to the south, will be our piece of blasé little Miami architecture, that some will scoff at and others love.

In due time we will see if it becomes as big an eyesore as the naysayers say. In one or half a score both buildings will be up for renovation and remodeling, as their design life often dictates. In that time the case will build, and we will come to see these buildings as assets, or eyesores. I say, let the builders build, and then let the debates resume.

You may agree or you may disagree, but Nero has spoken.

[Dexlin]

Anyway...

Has construction actually started at the site? I know they broke ground this summer, but does anyone actually have any updates on this project? City Club doesn't seem to have anything on their website save for saying it's under construction, but that may have just been the ground-breaking.

Also, anyone know the architect and builder for this one?

[mikeg19]

They were digging out the foundation last time an update was posted on here. As far as progress, not sure how far along they are or if they are pouring cement yet.

[Dexlin]

I mean, I already knew that. I was asking about an update since I don't live down there.

[3WC]

About 85% of the two level underground parking garage has been excavated. No concrete has been poured. That's as of Dec.6th.

The Contractor is Wolverine Group out of Grand Rapids, a very successful, large multi-state contractor.

The developer is a LLC created by Jonathan Holtzman, formerly 50% owner of Village Green Holdings, a very large national multi-family developer and property manager [[44,000 +/- apartments) HQ'd in Farmington.

[Bham1982]

But for some reason the area WITHOUT the high rises is what the people keep talking about. Why do you suppose that is? Perhaps what the masses really want, even if they do not know it, is urbanism?

Yup. Highrises have almost nothing to do with urbanity.

Best urban environments on earth are probably Paris, Barcelona and Manhattan, IMO. And the best neighborhoods in these respective environments have few highrises. Even in Manhattan, the best areas are between Midtown and Lower Manhattan, an area that is full of midrises, but has relatively few towers.

In American cities, especially, modern highrises tend to be bad for walkability and street-level urban feel, because they tend to be monolithic full-block sites with giant parking garages at the base. Visit, say, River North in Chicago, and you see how the American auto-obsession has led to poor urban environments. You have newer towers everywhere but the street-level environment sucks. Places like Dallas, Miami and Atlanta are far worse, even.

Outside of NYC, and a few tiny sections of Philly, SF and Boston, modern American highrise districts tend to be crap.