Bloomfield Park - What were they thinking?

**Novine** · December-07-10, 07:49 PM

"In our society the free and open marketplace of supply and demand is the final judge of what is economically feasible."

In case you missed it, this is a classic case of a massive breakdown of "the market". The economy was already tanking when this project started construction. It shouldn't have been financed in the first place.

**Packman41** · December-07-10, 09:44 PM

Originally Posted by Novine

In case you missed it, this is a classic case of a massive breakdown of "the market". The economy was already tanking when this project started construction. It shouldn't have been financed in the first place.

No, I did not miss that part.

In fact, I did say that I [[personally) thought it was a bad idea from the start. Did you miss that part?

And the project was begun in 1998 – WAY before our latest commercial real estate recession/depression.

My point was that this was a project by PRIVATE entities and at least did not involve money from government subsidies or municipal pension funds.

By definition a bad economy will sink projects deemed to be either “good” or “bad.” But it happens after the buildings are constructed. It should not be a government official’s decision to stop a development ahead of time so long as it meets zoning and land use restrictions. No one can see that far into the future.

BTW, I was opposed to Bloomfield Park from the start because I thought Schubiner was pushing way too hard on zoning and land density use issues. But, he got the zoning and the financing he needed so he was off to the races.

**Gistok** · December-07-10, 11:13 PM

Originally Posted by Packman41

BTW, I was opposed to Bloomfield Park from the start because I thought Schubiner was pushing way too hard on zoning and land density use issues. But, he got the zoning and the financing he needed so he was off to the races.

You could say that Schubiner tried pulling a "Matty"...

**DetBill** · December-08-10, 01:25 AM

Hate to say this but my friends,[[ who always ride me for living in the city) and live just down the street from this disaster bragged to me at the time of its construction of how the burbs there are growing and growing and we have such problems in Detroit.. Well, as fate may happen they got there faces slapped on this one, Also, their house that was worth 268,0000 four years ago just appraised for 135,000. Thats even more of a drop than I have experienced percentage wise,,
Guess no one is spared now.

**Novine** · December-08-10, 07:01 AM

"My point was that this was a project by PRIVATE entities and at least did not involve money from government subsidies or municipal pension funds."

I believe that Bloomfield Park was given a Brownfield Development Authority designation that allowed it to tap tax dollars. According to this page, it was over $100 million in tax incentives.

http://www.evergreenvaluation.com/AndrewMcCloskey.htm

The project may have been proposed in 1998 but it didn't start construction until the mid-2000s, at the earliest.

**milt721** · December-08-10, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by Packman41

But at least the capital that was wasted was private capital and did not come from the taxpayers as a subsidy or from some municipal pension fund.

I'd be willing to bet that the next [[cleanup) steps are going to be publicly funded.

**3WC** · December-09-10, 03:48 PM

Schubiner, and his project, are being judged way too harshly on here.

The fact is that when the project was conceived, it was probably economically viable; he did have financing, by the way.

The problem was, Bloomfield Twp., one of the most idiot ridden municipalities in Oakland County [[I used to live there), came to the conclusion that the project would not be economically viable and placed every roadblock possible in the way of development, many illegal. There was much litigation, which as I recall, Schubiner won. The beurocrats in the Twp. couldn't make a dime as real estate developers if their lives depended on it and have no ability whatsoever to judge the economics of such a project; if they did they'd be rich. They screwed Scubiner is what happened and deserve the mess they have now.

Schubiner's problem is that he should have dropped the project as a result of the passage of time and the changing economic conditions. Bloomfield's original objections turned out too be self-fulfilling prophesys. I hope they are stuck with the clean-up bill. Serves them right. The fact is, however, that in 5 years the project may be viable again. [[What I'd like to see is for a HUD developer to step up [gov't fiancing is the only thing available today] and turn the project into HUD/affordable housing. That would provide much needed low-cost housing [admittedly, subsidized] and serve the Twp. right.)

**Novine** · December-09-10, 04:36 PM

The project isn't located in Bloomfield Township, it's in Pontiac, so all of predictions of bad things happening to the township aren't going to happen. As for the project, if he had managed to get the project off the ground earlier, he would have ended up in the same place. The economy still would have tanked and there would be that many more empty buildings on that site. There's plenty of half-built abandoned projects around the suburbs that are testament to the foolishness of the "build it and they will come" mindset.

**ghettopalmetto** · December-09-10, 09:14 PM

So the private investor tried and failed. The bigger question is, what the hell is the City of Pontiac supposed to do with this ghost town???

**3WC** · December-10-10, 08:49 PM

Sorry for the city error. I do recall that during all the manipulating Schubiner induced Pontiac to annex the site. Very clever.

Bloomfield Twp's big argument against the project was it's alleged adverse impact on traffic on Telegraph. Nonsense. Anyway, Bloomfield lost control of the project and will have no say in how the project will be salvaged, who will live there, whether it should be demolished etc.

Why should the project be demolished. I predict it will be revived way down the road. Anyway, even if t wanted to, I'm told that Pontiac is broke and has no money to demolish the improvements. Have faith. Some gutsy, clever developer will come up with something. And, what's wrong with public housing?

**Novine** · December-10-10, 10:19 PM

In what fantasy world is anyone going to pay to demo and rebuild on that site? First, it's located in a bankrupt city and there's likely huge costs associated with repaying the brownfield costs associated with cleaning up the site in the first place. Second, it's located in SE Michigan where the economy is poor and when it rebounds, there will be many more desirable locations for development to go first. Third, it's located in an area where there's already large amounts of retail which can't be supported by the population and demographics of the area. Go see Summit Place Mall. Faith is the only thing that would lead one to believe that anything is going to happen on this site in the next 10 - 15 years.

**luckycar** · December-11-10, 08:03 AM

It won't sit idle for 10-15 years.It will get torn down or someone will swoop in with a lot of cash,Dubai,and save it.Yea,right.It never made sense because the Michigan economy was circling the drain as financing was being put together.Anyone with half a brain asked,they would have been shown that there was no pent-up demand for this project.So we here in Pontiac got us another eyesore.How about the new DPD HQ?Its a straight shot down the new Telegraph...

**artds** · December-11-10, 10:01 AM

All investment carries with it a level of risk, especially ambitious projects like this one. People who lack business experience and who are enjoying taking shots at this project now need to try and understand this.

For the few projects like this one that failed, how many similar projects succeeded?

If investors were always deterred when there is a higher than usual risk of a project failing, you would have seen absolutely nothing built in the city proper after the 1970s.

**3WC** · December-11-10, 10:02 AM

Luckyear, you appear to be a very knowledgeable real estate financial expert and wealthy real estate developer. Am I right about that?

**econ expat** · December-11-10, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by artds

All investment carries with it a level of risk, especially ambitious projects like this one. People who lack business experience and who are enjoying taking shots at this project now need to try and understand this.

For the few projects like this one that failed, how many similar projects succeeded?

If investors were always deterred when there is a higher than usual risk of a project failing, you would have seen absolutely nothing built in the city proper after the 1970s.

[[Since Ren Cen was built in the 70's, went through a succession of owners, bonds, mortgages, etc.) When it was foreclosed again in the 90's, GM got a bargain, at a fraction of the new build cost.
At what point was Ren Cen a successful project for the initial investors? The sale price dropped every time it was on the market.

**Novine** · December-11-10, 11:54 AM

"All investment carries with it a level of risk, especially ambitious projects like this one. People who lack business experience and who are enjoying taking shots at this project now need to try and understand this."

I understand very well that there are smooth-talking developers who can separate banks and gullible investors from their money for projects like this that shouldn't have been undertaken in the economic climate and oversaturated retail market in that area. If those fools want to waste their money that way, it's not my problem. But when the failed developer leaves a mess behind and the local communities on the hook for the cost of brownfield clean-ups, etc. that entitles the public at-large to point out the folly of these schemes. There were those of us who were saying this was never going to fly long before it busted. I'm sure there are many in the real estate and development business who had the same doubts which is why they didn't want to touch this project no matter what the potential payoff. No one has ever said "don't build unless there's zero risk". There's always risk. But there's a reasonable amount of risk and there's foolish follies that aren't based in reality. No one here is naive enough to pretend they are the same so why are you?

**luckycar** · December-11-10, 09:40 PM

Originally Posted by 3WC

Luckyear, you appear to be a very knowledgeable real estate financial expert and wealthy real estate developer. Am I right about that?

No,just a used car dealer with some common street sense.

**cramerro** · December-17-10, 09:46 AM

Lowell, I naively wonder if there would be any way to deconstruct the parking decks and reconstruct them somewhere else at a worthwhile cost savings vs a new deck. I do a decent amount of downtown planning and know that parking decks are very expensive.... 10-20k per space... but I don't know how much of that cost is the pieces vs the labor. I know that the Triangle District in Birmingham [[east of Woodward, south of Maple) has plans for one or two publicly funded decks.

**Johnlodge** · December-17-10, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by 3WC

Sorry for the city error. I do recall that during all the manipulating Schubiner induced Pontiac to annex the site. Very clever.

Bloomfield Twp's big argument against the project was it's alleged adverse impact on traffic on Telegraph. Nonsense. Anyway, Bloomfield lost control of the project and will have no say in how the project will be salvaged, who will live there, whether it should be demolished etc.

Why should the project be demolished. I predict it will be revived way down the road. Anyway, even if t wanted to, I'm told that Pontiac is broke and has no money to demolish the improvements. Have faith. Some gutsy, clever developer will come up with something. And, what's wrong with public housing?

An article published earlier this year on this project indicated that because of the state it was left in, the elements have already destroyed it structurally to the point of being unsalvageable. Unfortunately, the story is no longer available for free. The article was linked to from here:

http://www.detroityes.com/mb/showthr...loomfield+park

Very clever.

Yeah. Fucking brilliant.

**rb336** · December-17-10, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by cramerro

Lowell, I naively wonder if there would be any way to deconstruct the parking decks and reconstruct them somewhere else at a worthwhile cost savings vs a new deck. I do a decent amount of downtown planning and know that parking decks are very expensive.... 10-20k per space... but I don't know how much of that cost is the pieces vs the labor. I know that the Triangle District in Birmingham [[east of Woodward, south of Maple) has plans for one or two publicly funded decks.

are the decks pre-cast/stressed or not? it may have been possible at one time, but, as jl pointed out, I wouldn't trust their stability

**fryar** · December-17-10, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by Johnlodge

An article published earlier this year on this project indicated that because of the state it was left in, the elements have already destroyed it structurally to the point of being unsalvageable. Unfortunately, the story is no longer available for free. The article was linked to from here:

http://www.detroityes.com/mb/showthr...loomfield+park

Yeah. Fucking brilliant.

That's a shame. Another opportunity wasted.

The entire context within which this project makes sense in 1998 and fails now is flawed. Oh, look, they built another Packard in SE Mich. What else is new?

While I risk opening yet another rehash of that all-time DY favorite topic, the 50's were over by 1998, Seinfeld, Friends, Law & Order and city living were "in", environmentalism and sustainability were relevant, the domestic car industry did not appear to be on the verge of a massive rebound, and so on. Let's not act like all this "structural" stuff - Chicago envy, say - started in 2005 or something. I have been to your city and region and seen it with my own eyes, and this sh*t is not a fluke that occurred in September 2008 as Lehman Bros closed its doors, it is the product of a sustained effort and a particularly striking form of what must pass as par for the course.

1998? Was that the year they blew up Hudsons?

**Detroit500** · December-22-10, 07:14 PM

I'm confused... didn't fountain walk open in Novi and isn't it successful?

DetroitDad · January-05-11, 11:27 PM

I found both Bloomfield Park and the Fountain Walk to be very interesting when they were announced. It was the early 2000's, and downtowns were where it was at, and where it was going to be. National retail developers were hailing the next big thing being shopping in downtowns again, while Las Vegas had begun it's monumental City Center Project.

Downtown Detroit was being heavily invested in, with developers banking on big projects that would lead to a new Downtown Detroit. Various suburbs and suburban developers were scrambling to build fake and/or mini downtowns, such as the Plymouth Corridor beautification project in Livonia, the Fountain Walk in Novi, and the biggest of them all, Bloomfield Park in the Bloomfield/Pontiac area. On DetroitYES, many laughed that our region was putting as much money in suburban downtowns, as in the original regional downtown.

Of course, in the end the entire market was over developed, Las Vegas City Center basically bankrupted MGM Mirage [[monumental failure), Detroit's suburban downtowns never were successfully completed as planned, and Downtown Detroit's rebirth ended up being just another failed renaissance.

Has the public interest and perceived necessity of mixed use downtowns proved to be just a fad, or will it all be a continuing trend of development? Will development as we have known in, ever return in the foreseeable future? Or, is this it? Will we all be stuck making due with what we have already built? I guess only time will tell.

Press Release for Bloomfield Park: [url]http://www.dpz.com/project.aspx?Project_Number=9904&Project_Name=Bloo mfield+Park[/url

...Shops, restaurants, and services will complement and complete the neighborhood. Bloomfi eld Park will have a pedestrian-friendly environment and encourage interaction between its various components. Residents, tenants, and visitors will be able to shop, dine, exercise, and attend to business all within the confi nes of a single trip. Bloomfi eld Park is destined to become the premier business, residential, hotel, and health club address in Michigan.

The entire property may be explored on foot. Instead of fi ghting traffi c, searching for parking spaces and constantly getting in and out of their cars, visitors will valet or conveniently selfpark and then take easy, pleasant walks to their various de

The convenience and safety of this pedestrian-friendly environment is an essential element of the design. Once parked, all aspects of Bloomfi eld Park will be easily accessible on foot....

DetroitDad · January-05-11, 11:31 PM

Originally Posted by Detroit500

I'm confused... didn't fountain walk open in Novi and isn't it successful?

No...

Click here for a archive of Fountain Walk discussion.

**Gistok** · January-06-11, 12:23 AM

Originally Posted by Johnlodge

An article published earlier this year on this project indicated that because of the state it was left in, the elements have already destroyed it structurally to the point of being unsalvageable. Unfortunately, the story is no longer available for free. The article was linked to from here:

http://www.detroityes.com/mb/showthr...loomfield+park

Yeah. Fucking brilliant.

Johnlodge... I was trying to find where it mentions that the elements have already destroyed this structurally. I couldn't find it.

It looks like at least some parts of this complex could survive for several seasons open to the elements [[I know... not good in our freeze/thaw cycle)... just look at many of the abandoned buildings that are rehab-able in downtown Detroit... such as the United Artists Building, which has been without heat and partly open to the elements since 1974.

Just wondering....