Downtown Construction

[mikeg19]

http://www.freep.com/story/money/bus...roit/78371892/
It's hard to reconcile Mr. Gilbert's statements about the super-heated demand for downtown property with the City and DEGC settling for a six story stick-built apartment building on the second most prominent vacant CBD parcel.

So the city and DEGC are supposed to only approve building proposals of what, 40 stories and more???

I also don't see how his comments are off base on his CBD market analysis. The CBD is running out of room. Almost all of the previously abandoned/under utilized buildings downtown are either redeveloped/in redevelopment/or are in the planning stages.

Just because the CBD is running out of available space doesn't mean developers are going to run in and start building 60 story skyscrapers. The price per foot doesn't justify that kind of construction yet, but it's close. Developers are going to test the waters with 5-10 story developments before they jump in and propose anything massive.

[Khorasaurus]

So the city and DEGC are supposed to only approve building proposals of what, 40 stories and more???

I also don't see how his comments are off base on his CBD market analysis. The CBD is running out of room. Almost all of the previously abandoned/under utilized buildings downtown are either redeveloped/in redevelopment/or are in the planning stages.

Just because the CBD is running out of available space doesn't mean developers are going to run in and start building 60 story skyscrapers. The price per foot doesn't justify that kind of construction yet, but it's close. Developers are going to test the waters with 5-10 story developments before they jump in and propose anything massive.

Agree. The developer sees a market for 200 units on this site, and they have a large footprint to work with. They could either build them in a 6-story building that covers the entire site, or they could do something like build a tall tower right on the park and cover the rest of the site with a parking garage and unneccessary "green space." We spent decades doing the latter, and it doesn't work.

A smaller building that covers entire blocks of Washington, Clifford, Bagley, and Park with a continuously active streetwall is much more important to the vibrancy of the neighborhood that a tall tower that might look cool from I-75.

[southen]

A smaller building that covers entire blocks of Washington, Clifford, Bagley, and Park with a continuously active streetwall is much more important to the vibrancy of the neighborhood that a tall tower that might look cool from I-75.

Site context is just as important. Im not advocating a taller building so it can be seen from I75, in fact I would just like to see something the size of the Statler building. Parking across the site outside of the tower doesn't have to kill street activity anymore. The city requires ground floor retail on parking structures and the Z-garage is a perfect example of how a parking structure can promote street activity and add to the urban environment.

I am still holding out hope that Gilbert will be teaming up with VG if for nothing more than to increase the amount of parking on the site for the Book Tower.

[swingline]

So the city and DEGC are supposed to only approve building proposals of what, 40 stories and more???

I also don't see how his comments are off base on his CBD market analysis. The CBD is running out of room. Almost all of the previously abandoned/under utilized buildings downtown are either redeveloped/in redevelopment/or are in the planning stages.

Just because the CBD is running out of available space doesn't mean developers are going to run in and start building 60 story skyscrapers. The price per foot doesn't justify that kind of construction yet, but it's close. Developers are going to test the waters with 5-10 story developments before they jump in and propose anything massive.

Mike, you're using a strawman argument. Nobody is demanding a skyscraper on the site. But when the developer is enjoying subsidized land acquisition and other public financing for its project, the public should get a building that contributes to its site equally as much as the building previously located there. A six-story stick built on that site violates too many urban design principles to count.

Additionally, Type III construction buildings like this are commoditized products with relatively short useful life spans. Such buildings are usually limited to rentals because many lenders will not finance these buildings as condos. They don't hold value.

No other peer city in the country has such a building on such a prominent site. Why should we be any different, especially on a publicly-owned site? Would you be ok with the same kind of six-story product on the Hudson's site? A developer could make a fortune on such a deal.

Sure, a larger [[10-15 stories) building on the Statler would be more risk for a developer. The site properly demands as much.

[Khorasaurus]

Additionally, Type III construction buildings like this are commoditized products with relatively short useful life spans. Such buildings are usually limited to rentals because many lenders will not finance these buildings as condos. They don't hold value.

I agree with this and hope they opt for higher quality construction, even if the size of the building stays the same. I think there's a chance they will, as the market has improved since they first announced the project and the rents they can expect are higher.

Site context is just as important. Im not advocating a taller building so it can be seen from I75, in fact I would just like to see something the size of the Statler building. Parking across the site outside of the tower doesn't have to kill street activity anymore. The city requires ground floor retail on parking structures and the Z-garage is a perfect example of how a parking structure can promote street activity and add to the urban environment.

While I'm not as worried about the height as you are, I do agree that the design really doesn't address Grand Circus Park. A six-story facade could be sufficient, but not if it looks like the side of the building rather than the front, and certainly not if it has an LED billboard [[hopefully that has been removed).

[mikeg19]

Mike, you're using a strawman argument. Nobody is demanding a skyscraper on the site. But when the developer is enjoying subsidized land acquisition and other public financing for its project, the public should get a building that contributes to its site equally as much as the building previously located there. A six-story stick built on that site violates too many urban design principles to count.

Additionally, Type III construction buildings like this are commoditized products with relatively short useful life spans. Such buildings are usually limited to rentals because many lenders will not finance these buildings as condos. They don't hold value.

No other peer city in the country has such a building on such a prominent site. Why should we be any different, especially on a publicly-owned site? Would you be ok with the same kind of six-story product on the Hudson's site? A developer could make a fortune on such a deal.

Sure, a larger [[10-15 stories) building on the Statler would be more risk for a developer. The site properly demands as much.

First, thank you for taking me back to college. I haven't heard "strawman argument" since a sophomore Logic class. Maybe I need to revisit and change my argument

Secondly, from the start of the proposed building announcement, I've denounced the design and have called for a more robust building to be built there, if you'd like to call it that. So were on the same page with that 100%. That design sucks, period.

My argument was more so in response to the posters statement the Dan Gilbert was off base in saying downtown is not showing signs of incredible demand in real estate due to the "city settling for a 6 story building" on the spot. The land has been on the market for almost a decade with no takers. We are finally coming to a point where new construction may start making sense now, and yes, perhaps if they waited a few more years, a better, bigger building proposal would come along. But to this point, it was the most viable/financially secure proposal we are aware of that was floated on the property, and the city, seeing an opportunity to develop the entire site and add 200 sorely needed residences, hopped on it. Maybe the city should have had different requirements in its RFP that would have had a more prominent building put there. I don't know.