City Club Apartments. Taking place of Stalter Hotel

[casscorridor]

I'm guessing that they're maxing out the height to which you can build with cheap wood construction [[think DuCharme, the Scott, etc.)

I don't mind the design. It could be taller though. But building from wood is sort of embarrassing for site fronting one of the most important public spaces in the city, right in the center of the city.

[Wesley Mouch]

I'm guessing that they're maxing out the height to which you can build with cheap wood construction [[think DuCharme, the Scott, etc.)

Well of course. Obvious. Most of those 6-storyish buildings are concrete for the first floor [[retail needing better fireproofing I trust) then wood frame.

So the next level question is.... is there not enough demand for more units/building... or is the problem that the demand exists, but there are other limitations. Perhaps banks won't lend downtown? Or the City imposes too many regulations on high-rise? Or is there a shortage of tradespeople at market rate? I'll bet on that last one. [[If you voted for The Bern or other socialists who want to move to Venezuela to enjoy cheap gas and toilet paper, please jump to paragraph "B" and skip next section which requires belief that market distortions cause unintended consequences such as a market preference for low-rise construction. Otherwise continue at "B".)

A: Once you go concrete/steel high-rise you probably have to take on the full union rules burden. Where for low-rise you probably have a much larger pool of contractors with real competition that provide jobs for the average Trump voter. So our market is likely split into low-rise, low-cost construction for the Average Joe, and concrete/steel construction for government, health care, education, and casinos.

B: Have a nice day and enjoy your low-rise buildings downtown. Know that toilet paper and life-saving drugs are affordable at state-set prices in Venezuela. Enjoy your trip.

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

Well of course. Obvious. Most of those 6-storyish buildings are concrete for the first floor [[retail needing better fireproofing I trust) then wood frame.

So the next level question is.... is there not enough demand for more units/building... or is the problem that the demand exists, but there are other limitations. Perhaps banks won't lend downtown? Or the City imposes too many regulations on high-rise? Or is there a shortage of tradespeople at market rate? I'll bet on that last one. [[If you voted for The Bern or other socialists who want to move to Venezuela to enjoy cheap gas and toilet paper, please jump to paragraph "B" and skip next section which requires belief that market distortions cause unintended consequences such as a market preference for low-rise construction. Otherwise continue at "B".)

A: Once you go concrete/steel high-rise you probably have to take on the full union rules burden. Where for low-rise you probably have a much larger pool of contractors with real competition that provide jobs for the average Trump voter. So our market is likely split into low-rise, low-cost construction for the Average Joe, and concrete/steel construction for government, health care, education, and casinos.

B: Have a nice day and enjoy your low-rise buildings downtown. Know that toilet paper and life-saving drugs are affordable at state-set prices in Venezuela. Enjoy your trip.

Yes, I am pretty sure its Bernie's fault. In fact, there is not anything taller than 6 stories in any of those scary, oppressive western European countries plagued by democratic socialism, which, by the way, is not the system in Venezuela. But thanks for playing.

[hybridy]

Ah yes, the only people living downtown are Quicken employees. I know quite a few people who live downtown/midtown and zero of them work for Quicken.

lol...sorry im jaded

[3WC]

EBW: What do you mean by "cheap wood construction?"

Wood construction is economically viable for structures as high as 6 or 7 floors. Higher than that require steel/concrete, much more costly than conventional wood built, and probable would make the development uneconomic.

Well built wooden structures last for many years, often more than a 100 years.

I'll bet your home is wood [[stick built) although it may have a brick exterior.

[swingline]

I don't mind the design. It could be taller though. But building from wood is sort of embarrassing for site fronting one of the most important public spaces in the city, right in the center of the city.

"Embarassing" is far too mild a term for the structure the city is allowing Village Green to build. Allowing stick built construction on this site is like allowing it on Bryant Park in NYC or S. Michigan Ave in Chicago. Of course it would certainly never get approved in those cities.

Village Green has successfully developed dozens of mid/hi rise steel frame projects in other markets. It's too bad that in its home HQ market Village Green won't stretch its risk tolerance limits a little bit to build something more worthy of this marquee historic district site. Instead, Detroit will apparently settle for a "builders grade" product that any of its peer cities would banish to a far less prominent location.

[Eber Brock Ward]

EBW: What do you mean by "cheap wood construction?"

Wood construction is economically viable for structures as high as 6 or 7 floors. Higher than that require steel/concrete, much more costly than conventional wood built, and probable would make the development uneconomic.

Well built wooden structures last for many years, often more than a 100 years.

I'll bet your home is wood [[stick built) although it may have a brick exterior.

It's a way for developers to max out what they could build on the cheap. Statler site deserves more, IMO, which would cost more, but developer either doesn't have the means or desire to do something more substantial steel or concret. Fine, their block, their right, but my right to complain too.

BTW, you lose your bet. My home was built in 1910 and is triple brick masonry.

[Eber Brock Ward]

"Embarassing" is far too mild a term for the structure the city is allowing Village Green to build. Allowing stick built construction on this site is like allowing it on Bryant Park in NYC or S. Michigan Ave in Chicago. Of course it would certainly never get approved in those cities.

Village Green has successfully developed dozens of mid/hi rise steel frame projects in other markets. It's too bad that in its home HQ market Village Green won't stretch its risk tolerance limits a little bit to build something more worthy of this marquee historic district site. Instead, Detroit will apparently settle for a "builders grade" product that any of its peer cities would banish to a far less prominent location.

This is exactly how I feel, and better stated. Fine for outside of the lodge/75/375 core, IMO, but not so much in it.

[erikd]

So what would the rent rates be to start off with, once construction is complete?

New construction apartments on Grand Circus Park should be able to get at least $2.50 per sqft. and be sold out before construction is even finished.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

I agree with some of the above sentiments in a general sense, but think that some of you are going a little overboard in your level of anger at the planned building. Is it as tall as some [[including me) would like? No. But is it still going to be a nice, attractive building bringing many great things downtown [[construction jobs, residents, tax revenue, foot traffic, etc)? Unquestionably yes. It will be a million times better looking than what has been there since the hotel was knocked down. And it will look just fine on Grand Circus Park. Most cities have a hodge-podge of different building heights in vibrant neighborhoods. Can't wait until it's done!

[313WX]

"Embarassing" is far too mild a term for the structure the city is allowing Village Green to build. Allowing stick built construction on this site is like allowing it on Bryant Park in NYC or S. Michigan Ave in Chicago. Of course it would certainly never get approved in those cities.

Village Green has successfully developed dozens of mid/hi rise steel frame projects in other markets. It's too bad that in its home HQ market Village Green won't stretch its risk tolerance limits a little bit to build something more worthy of this marquee historic district site. Instead, Detroit will apparently settle for a "builders grade" product that any of its peer cities would banish to a far less prominent location.

Agreed on all points.

[jerrytimes]

Reading some of these comments is nauseating. Only in Detroit, where we need things like this, would so many people complain.

[mwilbert]

EBW: What do you mean by "cheap wood construction?"

Wood construction is economically viable for structures as high as 6 or 7 floors. Higher than that require steel/concrete, much more costly than conventional wood built, and probable would make the development uneconomic.

Actually no longer true.
http://www.theguardian.com/cities/20...ld-plyscrapers

Or, if you want dubious proposals unlikely ever to be built:

http://therealdeal.com/2016/04/17/ei...ise-in-london/

but in any case you can build taller wood structures than traditional.

[mwilbert]

Reading some of these comments is nauseating. Only in Detroit, where we need things like this, would so many people complain.

I think you are mistaken about this. Regardless of the merits of this particular project in this particular location in Detroit, many cities have much more rigorous design reviews, with community input, where things like size and construction materials are discussed and loudly objected to. Obviously, a city with a lot of competing developers and potential developments has more leverage in these kinds of negotiations. Detroit has not been, and for the most part still is not, in that kind of position.

[Zads07]

Reading some of these comments is nauseating. Only in Detroit, where we need things like this, would so many people complain.

This has been said before, but it bears repeating. We are at a point in Detroit's resurgence that we can be picky with things that are being built in Detroit. Before, our complaints were picky up until Gilbert began bringing new life into the Downtown area. New buildings and land are now becoming a premium in Downtown Detroit and just by looking at the surrounding structures in GCP, this height does not fit in which is why folks here aren't happy with the height, including myself. This height belongs more in Midtown than it does in Downtown.

[Wesley Mouch]

This has been said before, but it bears repeating. We are at a point in Detroit's resurgence that we can be picky with things that are being built in Detroit. Before, our complaints were picky up until Gilbert began bringing new life into the Downtown area. New buildings and land are now becoming a premium in Downtown Detroit and just by looking at the surrounding structures in GCP, this height does not fit in which is why folks here aren't happy with the height, including myself. This height belongs more in Midtown than it does in Downtown.

We certainly can be picky, but it wouldn't be so wise. The best cities in America [[and the world, in my experience) are those who were the least planned. And some of the most interesting urban neighborhoods are those that developed organically.

Sometimes we'll get things that might not be what we want. And only later do we realize it wasn't so bad.

I didn't like the old NBD building, nor the Michcon Yamisaki building. In my youth, I disliked most modern architecture. I know now I was wrong. It would have been wrong of me to impose my ideas on others.

We would be wise to avoid micromanaging development. It will goes ways not intended -- but often with good results we would never have anticipated.

[SammyS]

Just a thought. Does Village Green own the land here? If so, than this "proposal" [[ehem, cough, HEDGE) could be nothing more than a speculative bet on future site appreciation. In other words, land banking. Why not?

[Gistok]

Just a thought. Does Village Green own the land here? If so, than this "proposal" [[ehem, cough, HEDGE) could be nothing more than a speculative bet on future site appreciation. In other words, land banking. Why not?

The city is not going to relinquish ownership of this block just to let a buyer sit on the site. One would hope they are not going to repeat any mistakes that they might have made with the National Theatre site, which is in litigation for getting that site back for a Gilbert development on the 2nd Monroe Block.

[3WC]

I was in Detroit last month and drove past the site a couple of times. An engineering firm was conducting what looked like deep soil boring tests over the site and a day or two later they had earth moving equipment on site digging and refilling pits throughout the site. Apparently work is progressing towards construction so the City must have sold the property.

[MSUguy]

Reading some of these comments is nauseating. Only in Detroit, where we need things like this, would so many people complain.

It's called having an opinion. Get over it.

[hybridy]

Holtzman moves on after break with Village Green

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...-village-green

Holtzman said in emailed responses to questions from Crain's that the June 3 sale of his ownership interests in Village Green's fee-based companies — which do not own any of the real estate that is controlled by separate corporate entities — was the result of differing visions for the partnership between him and Compatriot Capital, the real estate division of Sammons Enterprises Inc., which has $71 billion in assets.
"Due to differing strategic objectives and vision, including my desire to acquire and develop in downtown Detroit, the parties mutually agreed that it would be [in the] best interest of both groups to dissolve the partnership," he said."They proposed buying me out of the operating companies, to which I agreed. I proposed buying them out of the real estate portfolio and development pipeline to which they agreed and the deal got done."


Locally, one of the first in City Club Apartments pipeline is the Statler City Apartments project. Holtzman declined to discuss development cost, but previous city of Detroit press announcements say it's a $35 million to $40 million development. It's planned for Washington Boulevard and Park Avenue on the site of the former Statler Hilton Hotel at Grand Circus Park.
With a planned 284 units and about 12,000 square feet of restaurant and retail space, it would be the first new ground-up apartment building construction in the central business district in recent memory.
Holtzman said the project, site plan approval for which the Detroit City Council gave in March last year, is "moving full speed ahead."

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

This is an interesting corporate development, but I think it does not appear to have a bearing on the Statler site project.

[Eber Brock Ward]

Duggan spoke yesterday at the DDP stakeholders meeting and said that they are wrapping up financing and that the project is on track.

[ABetterDetroit]

Two and a half years ago this proposed apartment building seemed kinda short, but now with the demand huge and the fact that a shovel still hasn't been put in the ground it seems just weak to keep it so short on that block.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

Two and a half years ago this proposed apartment building seemed kinda short, but now with the demand huge and the fact that a shovel still hasn't been put in the ground it seems just weak to keep it so short on that block.

While I would build taller with a lot more units, were I the developer, what is proposed for the Statler site building I still think will be nice, look good, and bring a whole lot more people than the nothing the empty lot and empty hotel before that brought downtown.