Quick thread to post updates on Downtown Construction only. Hudson site? Statler site? Restaurants? Retail [[besides restoration hardware/nike)?
Printable View
Quick thread to post updates on Downtown Construction only. Hudson site? Statler site? Restaurants? Retail [[besides restoration hardware/nike)?
Gilbert has made the statement they are ready to make the shift from horizontal [[gathering property everywhere) to vertical [[building) and cranes will be seen around Detroit soon. Not a surprise, but I think everyone has been anticipating this for a while.
When a formal announcement will be made is anyone's guess. Aren't we past the announcement timeline for the Hudson site? Or was it by the end of the year? [[Since they delayed the naming announcement of the M-1 rail, I'm not surprised if they let the other timelines expire as well.)
I think that Hudson's was supposed to be announced by year end.
So he's got about 3 weeks to get it together. I'd guess we will see something Q1 hopefully.
An announcement was to be made this time last year. I think that Gilbert have a lot of ideals but probably is in constant battles with the defunked DEGC and other forces within City Government who for some reasons are giving him a hard time
I read a week or so ago that he was trying to buy the parking garage [[Hudson site) from the city. Maybe his plans are dependent on the acquisition.
Is this a case where development doesn't make sense without the parking?Quote:
Originally Posted by jmarie
That is, whatever he plans to put up needs the parking and he needs the money from that parking so that the development makes sense financially.
I'd say that's a pretty good assumption right there. Considering this is going to be a major development, with retail, housing, entertainment, etc, there is not enough parking in the area to support all of those components without that garage. You could probably argue that even that garage isn't going to be enough, but again, we don't know his full plan for the site.Quote:
Originally Posted by emu steve
I doubt that the details of the garage purchase would hold things up. He owns the rights to development and has had two architecture firms working on plans for well over a year. The thing is going to be built regardless, so it doesn't make sense to delay things over what will amount to peanuts compared to the overall cost of the project.
Im hoping we see something from him in the next two weeks regarding the design and use of the site. It seems like it has be eons since he shared that one rendering.
hopefully construction will begin soon.
http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...rnoon-20151119
This might hold up an announcement, but we can assume that the planning has been on-going.
I wonder how many spots are filled with people on monthly contracts.Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeg19
Regardless, 900 parking spots are definitely not enough. QL employees currently park as far as New Center and are shuttled in. 900 parking spots won't put much of a dent in his current parking problem, much less support a new building.
Whatever happened to that skyscraper that was supposed to begin construction on the Monroe Block this year? Last time I was there it was still a parking lot with the only construction-related things in it being for M-1.
It fell through. Still a parking lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by mtburb
The rights to the Monroe block have reverted back to Gilbert and it was hinted at in a Crain's article that there might be an announcement for the block sometime in early 2016.
There is A LOT of construction going on right now in the city. So much so it's getting hard to keep up.
In Capitol Park alone there's 4 projects around the park , and the Book Tower, and the David Stott.
The top of the Book- Cadillac garage, The Bank building on the corner of Michigan and Lafayette, The M1 Rail, the new arena, the new Apartments on Woodward near Mack, The new apartments along the river, Rehab of the nail and hammer building , the new shopping area at 6 mile and Grand River, the new restaurants on Livernois between 6 & 7 mile. I could go on and on, but I gotta get back to work. Feel free to add anything I over looked to the long list , I'm sure I forgot a lot .
Clark Lofts
Wurlitzer
Metropolitan Building
Vinton
Olde Bldg - 751 Griswold
Just a thought. What all the new apartments and hotels coming online in the next few years.
A smart company/ corporations, would think,
"with the amount of new people moving downtown , I need to get out ahead of this and be first with a grocery store or shop and restaurant"
I know if I had the money and backing that what I would think thinking.
they should be licking their chops thinking of all the new dollars coming into downtown and midtown.
Deal is closer...
http://www.freep.com/story/money/bus...sons/77691540/
Meridian Health was going to build on the Monroe Block, but they wound up partnering with Gilbert to purchase the Compuware Building instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by mtburb
Not to be redundant but what happened to the big addition to the little ceasars/fox theater development announced last year. The Illitches made such a big deal about this development and Ive seen liitle. Did the arena development smother this project?
Freep article on a number of sites and outlook, including problems.
http://www.freep.com/story/money/bus...bert/77747676/
I read the Freep article and it makes me sick. You have to read between the lines to understand that the City Planning Dept, the mayor, the Council and the Detroit Historic Commission place one obstacle after another in front of developers, which have a thousand times more experience in development matters - design, financing, the market, and construction than all the incompetent municipal people put together. They know what they're doing. The city and its minions don't.
It wasn't mentioned in the Freep article but the apartments to be built on the Statler site are apparently still going to be built. That project as I recall was announced with great fanfare by the mayor a couple of years ago with the promise it would be put on the fast track. [[When Duggan starts promising stuff, be careful.) The developer owns and/or manages 44,000 apartments in many states and owns the Millender Center Apts and the Trolley Plaza Apts already. It's a local company that's been around for decades. Very deep pockets I imagine. Yet, my girlfriend was at a Historical Commission hearing last month on another matter before the Commission. She listened for almost an hour while the nitwit [[her word) Commissioners peppered the developer's representatives with some of the dumbest questions she had ever heard. They had great concern over what kind, style and color of the furniture the developer intended to put in the private park for tenants in the middle of the project. Imagine. I think she said that it was the third time they had been before the Commission. If they micromanage every project like that no developer that can spell "quality" will ever build anything here. That appears to be Duggan's idea of fast tracking a deal. It's supposed to be a $45-50 million project by a premier developer and it takes two years to cut through City red tape.
And I see that the CEO of Redico has had to spend months in meetings with the head of the Planning Department to get approval of a multi-million dollar project; the Redico people have forgotten more about quality developments than the City nitwits will ever know.
Why do they do it? There can't possibly be enough potential profits to put up with all the municipal B.S.
Dan Gilbert must be a saint. The city people should bend down every day and kiss his a__, but instead give him a hard time as well.
This city is snakebit and always will be. Stupid people running a dysfunctional city.
Thanx Dan, Sorry to hear about your development woes.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3WC
My take away from the Freep article was different.
"What takes so long? Developers say Detroit presents unusual difficulties for major projects. Rock-bottom real estate values inhibit new projects. City government's financial woes limited the help the city could give to developers."
"And many sites in the city suffer from spotty environmental records."
"Robin Boyle, a longtime professor of urban planning at Wayne State University, said developers on big urban sites need to wait for the correct alignment of an improving economy, rising demand, feasible leasing rates and the security, where possible, of adjacent investments."
"Patience in real estate is not just a virtue, it is often a necessity," Boyle said.
"and obtaining control of land from previous owners. And major economic collapses like the Great Recession can halt development for years."
These quotes fit into 'my narrative' of what happens with development. Great Recession comes along and throws everything into turmoil and takes a number of years to recover, e.g., can't get borrowed money, lack of demand for expensive space, etc.
I feel there is a balance between the "redtape ofcity hall" and the "let developers do what they want" mentalities. While I agree with the frustrations that you perceive to see, Detroit is not simply the wild west and today is land grab day for developers. We are still a city with zoning laws and permits that must be followed, though I will agree a streamlining of processes might be needed.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3WC
And personally, those Statler site apartments suck. Plain and simple. They are underwhelming and completely irregular to that site, despite that lot being already an irregular shape.
As the old saying goes, just because you can doesn't mean you should.
Actually, I'm pretty sure the Statler site delay is because of a lawsuit. Not a 'fast tracking' lie by Duggan.
http://www.metrotimes.com/Blogs/arch...ding-sues-degc
Gotta agree about the Statler block development... it does indeed suck. They want to build on one of the two premier sites downtown [[the other being Hudson's) what can pretty much be built on any site around the metro area. It has all the charm [[and proportions) of a Travel Lodge. There are more significant buildings in Midtown being planned that that ugly thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by dtowncitylover
And facing GCP will be the equivalent of an 8 story LED billboard.... :[[
I'm not sure the Statler project is even delayed.Quote:
Originally Posted by dmike76
When it was announced way back in Spring 2014, the timeline was "construction in 2016": http://detroit.curbed.com/archives/2...atler-site.php
Then last year when they got site plan approval from City Council last March the timeline was still "construction in 2016, opening in 2017": http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/in...ts_to_bri.html
So they're still on track to start construction on their original timeline. If we don't see construction by this fall, I'll start to worry. Otherwise, sounds like the project is on track.
My guess is that the reason they didn't start sooner was that the site was being used for filming a Transformer movie, then for staging for the Whitney renovation. And obviously the "Care" building owner not cooperating/suing them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3WC
Yes, Village Green is a huge apartment developer with lots of experience in many different types of projects. That is why it's unacceptable for VG to shortchange the Statler site with an undersized project. Glad to see that the Historic District Commission is adhering to the standards imposed by state law and local ordinance regarding new construction in a locally designated historic district. Nothing stupid going on there.
As for Redico, if you're referring to its efforts at the State Fairgrounds, then you've identified another project that is attempting to dramatically shortchange an important site. The initial proposal for 1990's big box plus a few garden apartments was insulting. And they wanted to maroon the BRT transit station 500 yards from the buildings. Glad that the Duggan administration has gotten involved. Too bad if Redico and the owners can't make a quick killing on throwaway buildings tossed up on free land. The Fairgrounds is one of the most important sites in the region. It is the most important site in Detroit outside of Downtown/Midtown and Uniroyal. It can be a catalyst for jobs and growth for blocks in all direction. With its central location it can be a transit destination. Nothing stupid on the city's part here either. Reach higher.
If that Statler site building is going to be built... I would rather the parking structure be above ground, and the reason is seen in this image....
At only 5 stories, the building won't even be seen from lower Washington Blvd. or from across GCP, where the park trees will obstruct much of it. With above ground parking that would take the building height to about 10 stories... which is more in fitting with the surrounding buildings.... and they can still have their first floor retail.
But without the Care Building... this project will be a much greater challenge to get off the ground. It would be in the city's best interest to try and settle the court case with the buildings owner, and see if they can come to some reasonable [[non-threatening) terms on buying the property.
Duggan is a bully... and that needs to change to get some momentum on this property.
I read the Complaint posted by Khorasaurus and there is nothing in the Complaint which would have prevented development of the site. It's for damages only resulting from the DEGC's extortion attempt. Besides. I asked my lawyer to check and he said the case has been dismissed.
The original tear-down lawsuit [[of the CARE building) would have done nothing to prevent development of the property.
Finally, my lady friend who attended the Historic Commission hearing said the developer's site plan shows it owns the entire Statler block so the developer has acquired all the land.
Finally, to all those who condemn the plans for the site [[or any site) I suggest you compile $50 million or so, acquire the land , and build what you think is aesthetic. Whatever you want to build will be roundly criticized many people who don't have two dimes to rub together to build anything.
So there.
Ah yes business can do whatever they want simply, because they have the money. That's an original argument. You think Detroit is bad, suburban communities especially the more upscale are even tougher in some respects on you can't your paint house without getting permission. Or do yourself favor and google the controversy over construction a of new tallest building in Traverse City. A building that is a whopping 9 stories tall. No matter a where people live, there is recognition that their is a place for community input with regard to what is built in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3WC
Yup solid argument for a discussion board. Please nobody comment unless they have the means to construct a skyscraper.
It is a crap design and underutilizes an important block just as the market is changing.
Southen: Please try to read my stuff with a little more comprehension or try to be honest.
My comments are not "arguments," but opinions, just like yours. I've spent a lot of my posts correcting errors in other's posts, and providing accurate information.
You purposely [[no other word for it unless you have a comprehension problem) misconstrue my views when you claim nobody should comment "unless they have the means to construct a skyscraper." I assert my views and I don't have such resources. Please feel free to comment away whether you have any facts, training in real estate design, financing, construction or any idea of how the real world works. Join the crowd.
Perhaps you are an architect with experience in multi-family construction projects in a highly competitive urban market environment and the market skills to compliment your technical skills. If so, those creds might convince more people to agree with you. Me, for instance.
By the way, it's not like there's a lot of capable developers lined up competing for the site.
Cheers. Happy New Year.
Actually I read your condescension perfectly, both in the quoted text above and in your last post. My view aligns almost exactly with Gistok on things and my background comes as someone who studied architecture at a university level for some time and photograph it professionally now. Not that any of that matters as it doesn't take an expert to see how woefully lacking the design is for this site.
There was a developer turned away that had grander plans for the site due to the agreement with Village Green. Whether or not anything would come from it we will never know, but if the city sent out an RFP now in this climate I bet you would see a lot more interest and a considerable jump in quality.
Also taking a look at the properties they already own downtown a layman can see this is a company has no idea what it is doing in terms of design and aesthetic. They make some of Dan Gilberts design decisions look brilliant.
No condescension intended. Jeez, don't be so thin skinned.
I think it's a beautiful design. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. [[And I differ with Gistok insofar as having below ground parking is far superior than surface parking.)
Reasonable people differ.
I am pretty familiar with downtown development and there was only one other project "competing" for the site and that proposed developer had no money, had never developed anything, and could never have even come close to developing the site. It had small hotel, parking and another use that I can't remember. He had one financially capable partner who wanted to construct the 700 car parking garage on the site; I know him.
Context of the site should be considered when looking at the design and it is completely lacking in that regard. It will be the shortest building in the vicinity with the largest footprint. No matter how much curb appeal it has that is a poor design for that space.
True, context is very important.
However, here's where we differ, whether by experience, aesthetics or whatever.
The surrounding buildings, those still remaining, were built in a different era when the economics of real estate were vastly different. I imagine the Statler developer is building low rise, stick built apartments because by doing so they can build a quality project at a reasonable cost and make some money in the process. I doubt very much they will make much money, and the longer they wait the more it costs them as a result of rising construction and financing costs. Frankly, although I have far from sufficient information, my guess is that for those reasons the Statler project going foreward is iffy. [[I'm told that the maximum height one can go stick built is 5 or 6 stories and higher than that requires steel and concrete, which makes it economically not feasibible.)
I also believe that new high rise residential construction in this market is not economically feasible. [[In Manhattan, it's booming and the average condo/co-op price is exceeding $20 million. The numbers apparently work there.)
The Statler development [[apparently a very simple development) is taking far, far too long to commence. Time is money and they are losing a lot of both by the time it's taking. Something is awry and only time will tell what it is.
3WC... thanks for the morning laugh.... "stick built" describes that design very well. :)
Maybe that's why the parking will be underground, as opposed to above ground.... where the wood frame above that might not be allowed.
Won't it be about the same height as the Himelhoch and Claridge House across the street?Quote:
Originally Posted by southen
As DetroitYES 'World Headquarters' is cater corner from the site, I'm happy it won't block too much of our 9th floor corner view. :) We will lose our street view of Washington Blvd. however. Oh well.
This has traditionally been the case, but new building systems have extended that height to at least twice that.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3WC
See, for instance,http://www.architectmagazine.com/tec...ning-designs_o
However, these systems are not yet in wide use nor are local codes necessarily updated to allow them, so the fact that they exist isn't necessarily relevant to this issue. More relevant is that, in general I haven't seen a lot of evidence that even with mainstream techniques the per sq ft price of a ten story building is significantly higher than that of a five story building--the estimates I see indicate that it should be a few percent lower, so I'm not sure that is a good explanation of why the developer is building such a relatively short building on that site.
I will agree with you that VG is very much likely going the cheap route with this development to maximize their return. They care very little about design based on this building and the aesthetic choices they have made with their other buildings.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3WC
If you were looking to do a quality development and not just one to simply maximize profit you might consider elevating the residences above the people mover so they don't have to hear that thing right outside their windows. You also might optimize your best asset by creating more apartments overlooking Grand Circus Park and not blocking that few with a billboard.
I look at this from a design standpoint and keeping in mind the importance of the Statler block. You seem to be looking at this economically, which is completely logical, but I feel it means your design standards drop drastically.
VG goes for cheap and uninspired and I remain disappointed the the city gave them the rights to the site knowing what they were going to do with it. It has been empty since the Super Bowl, a few more years of waiting while things like the Arena District, M1, and Hudson's come online would not have hurt things, but would allow a developer with vision to take on the site as it becomes that much more appealing to build there.
IMHO certain signature sites downtown should have minimum height and quality of materials encumbrances to push developers to a sites' highest use. Property around GCP and Campus Maritus should be held to a higher standard to preserve intended aesthetics. Why not break up the lot and build lower on portion facing away from GCP?
No, I cannot fund my pie-in-the-sky musings but I believe common good here is the highest use for the lot, not highest benefit to the lot owner.
Saw this in the Freep today....
http://www.freep.com/story/money/bus...bert/78027012/
If the demand for apartments continues to grow as this article implies... is it in the city's best interest to let a middling low rise apartment be built on the Statler block?
The Hudson, Monroe and Statler blocks are the most prized pieces of empty real estate downtown. Granted they've each [[mostly city owned) been empty for a decade or longer. Are we at a junction now where being choosy is foolish? Or do we allow anything be built... as long as it IS built? :confused:
southern, please don't misquote me. You said you agree with me that "VG is going the cheap route..." I never said nor implied that. What I said was that it chose a construction technique that was less expensive. The quality of construction by VG and must reputable developers with decades of experience will be very high.
Warranite84, there may be some that would want minimum height and quality of materials to "push developers to the highest and best use " of certain sites. However, you propose a solution to a problem that does not exist. Developers always develop to the highest use. The PRICE OF LAND pretty much requires that be done. Land and cost of construction are the primary drivers of project design under permitted uses. Most responsible and successful developers pride themselves on creating quality projects within the parameters established by the market, the municipality and the availability of financing. [[Institutional lenders, generally no dummies, won't finance inferior developments with underfunded, inexperienced developers.)
And, my experience is that the politicians and their appointees who establish the restrictive criteria you feel should be imposed on developers of certain sites haven't got the foggiest idea of what they're doing or the unintended consequences of their regulations.
There are many qualified high rise multi-family developers in the state and nationally. They're all aware of the activity and available land in the City. Why do you think it is that none of them were standing in line to do a high rise project on the Statler or any other downtown site you mentioned. Why do you think that is? Gistok?
Based on what? The garbage they have adorned their other buildings downtown? Again, I have made many points, as have others, in regards to the faults of the design and all you are doing is insisting that it will be quality even though you clearly admit they are going the "less expensive" route. Why the blind faith that this will be any different than their other properties downtown?Quote:
Originally Posted by 3WC
Garbage? If you're talking of VG, I believe the only properties they own in the City are the Trolley Plaza Apts, and Millender Center Apts., neither of which they built [[did they?). I heard they infused a lot of money in them.
I have friends who own three properties [[not in Detroit) that VG manages and they speak highly of the company. My friends were investors in their projects and took them away from the developer when they became distressed in the recent crash; they brought in VG to turn them around, upgrade them and upgrade the tenants.
Anybody live in the Trolley or Millender?
Real estate development, like politics, is the art of the possible. What you seem to be striving for is not economically possible, or marginally so.
Also, don't believe everything the Freep or anybody else says about the market for apartments. There's an old real estate adage: when you have solid market research that says there's a market for 500 units, four developers each go out and immediately start construction on 500 units. I remember in the '80s when there were 60,000 UNSOLD condos in Dade County [[Miami) alone.
Trolley and Millender, now Detroit City Apartments and Renaissance City Apartments, were not built by VG. Both are precast tinker-toyed structures that, I swear, must have been designed by laid-off Soviet apartment block architects. Any lipstick VG may have put on the exterior of those pigs can do little to overcome their near-brutalist designs. RCA recently had its exterior reworked.
Until recently I had an apartment in RCA. I'm not one to give anybody free advertisement, but VG's management and service was outstanding. Fix-it requests were always done in under 24 hours. The premises were sparkling clean. The interior halls, lobby, elevator, outdoor park, new business center, new sky clubhouse [created from a penthouse] were all stylishly and expensively redesigned. From what I have heard the same is true of DCA. VG's reputation is very good and highly rated by tenants across the country.
My only regret is that they didn't acquire the Statler before it was demolished and had a chance to apply their magic on something truly elegant.
Trolley and Millender [[to us they'll always be those names).... were built with massive subsidies from the Feds... back when they had UDAG [[Urban Development Action Grants) during the CAY days... as were Gerald Hines's One Detroit Center [[formerly Comerica Tower), and 150 W. Jefferson... a John Madden development. IIRC... Millender got a $24 million UDAG.
Today that spigot has run dry for the most part... although the state has contributed via the Oil and Gas leases on state land funds... to other more recent projects.
VG bought Millender and Trolley for a fraction of their original costs [[as is the case with virtually all downtown buildings)... and whatever the merits of their design... they are doing a decent job of maintaining them [[no more horror stories about Trolley's elevator system maintenance... or lack thereof).
3WC, I am no expert on business/finance, so I cannot argue any point except from an aesthetic perspective. It would be nice for the VG's Statler plans to get some additional funding sources [[like just about every other development in downtown/midtown)... so that maybe they can increase the mass/height of their project. We'll find out sooner or later what becomes of their plans.
In defense of brutalist architects, even they incorporated ground floor retail and other social amenities into their designs. Witness one of the archetypical examples of the idiom: Neimeyer's Copan building in Sao Paulo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edif%C3%ADcio_Copan. He incorporated a full first floor of retail and an internal pedestrian walkway. Today it is home to several great restaurants, a cafe, and many other convenient services for the neighborhood.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowell
Whoever were the hacks that designed the Millender Center and Trolley Plaza imagined a dystopian car-centric future where no one walked. Witness how they destroyed what was otherwise a pedestrian-friendly human-scaled block: https://goo.gl/maps/bvd7xw6AZ6F2.
And having been multiple times inside both the Millender Center and the Copan, I can attest the Copan is not just much more interesting, but comparatively very kind.
That said, I'm very encouraged to hear Village Green are much better stewards then the original developers seem to have been. Thanks, Lowell, for your first-hand insight.
Bust.... I agree that that section of Times Square is a dead zone.... [[no thanks to the People Mover route)....
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3337...7i13312!8i6656
But even today, with much stricter parking structure zoning regulations... the back side of the Opera House Parking structure... did the same thing to Centre Street near Harmonie Park...
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3363...7i13312!8i6656
.... but in a more "pleasing to the eye" way. Although here too half the street is dead to foot traffic. In their case they got a zoning variance to put all the [[ground floor and above) commercial space on the opposite [[Broadway St.) side of the structure.
Gistok, I do not believe One Detroit Center or 150 West Jefferson were built with UDAG grants. Bothe were economic disasters or the first order.
Hines conceived ODC and obtained construction and long term financing from Deutchebank, [[sp?) which subsequently withdrew from the deal. So CAY, a wheeler dealer, coerced Michigan Bell, Detroit Edison and another heavyweight into leasing moist of the unbuilt building at ridiculously high rental rates, and they became, practically speaking, guarantors of the loan through their leases. Of course when the building was completed the market wasn't even close to the actual rental rates they could achieve so they had to sublease all the space they could at about 60-70% of what they were obligated to pay. They possibility incorporated their losses into their electricity and phone rates. [[Probably not.) Anyway, it was a financial disaster from day one.
The guy from Denver who developed 150 Jefferson [[John - forgot his name) lost the building when it was completed. He lost his permanent lender because he couldn't comply with its Loan Commitment, and Lehndorff U.S.A. of Dallas backed out of its deal to buy the building. Another economic disaster. For years it was impossible for a developer to get financing for a major [[or minor) project in Detroit, which had a terrible reputation. By the way, the Detroit Pension funds lost $7 million [[it had a second mortgage) when the construction mortgage was foreclosed. Another ill conceived financial disaster from day one.
Those buildings together with the Ren Cen generated huge losses to the developers and their investors.
You all realize, I hope, that real estate developers have to be half crazy. And architects, who are most interested in building monuments to themselves rather than economical, profitable, utilitarian developments, are just one burden developers have to bear.
Gistok: VG doesn't need additional funding sources in order to build higher etc. If it made sense to do it VG has the resources to do it. It doesn't make sense. That why they're not doing it.
Thanks for the info 3WC.... somewhere I may have some old newspaper clippings on those buildings, memory is not the best about the UDAG projects... although I do remember that CAY was Jimmy Carter's supposedly favorite mayor... and Detroit did get quite a few UDAG grants for some of his projects.... but that would be before Reagan [[1981)... whom CAY called "prune face".
I found the Madden Co.... and yes it was John Madden [[not the NFL John Madden)....
http://www.johnmaddenco.com/about.php
I remember Madden did get quite a scalping here in Detroit. From an old news clipping I found, he is shown holding a model of 150 W. Jefferson. And with the model he had a much smaller 2nd tower model which he was placing at a spot at Griswold & Larned. So although [[like Hines and his never to be built Two Detroit Center)... it was never built. I do believe that the parking structure area behind the People Mover at Griswold was built with the infrastructure to hold up a 2nd [[never built) smaller tower.
And yes.... Henry Ford II found 51 other corporation CEOs to invest [[or is that throw away their money) in Renaissance Center. Henry was certainly an expert at arm twisting.
I agree, the People Mover is part of the problem. Retail is less attractive in its shadow, and its columns disrupt the sidewalk. What a regret -- no what a sad joke -- that the hopeless design of the People Mover has for so long been Detroit's reference example / bogeyman of so-called "mass transit". Even though mass transit it certainly isn't. It's only merit is as an amusement, not a transit option, at least not an efficient one. Even so, it was Trolley Plaza's parking lot, not the People Mover, that sealed that block's fate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gistok
I also agree the trees and wider sidewalk make a big difference on Centre. But I still wish they made space for ground floor retail there.
What are the current parking structure zoning regulations? I did a search and was discouraged I'd quickly find them. Are you able to summarize? I hope they're doing something to address the problem.
That may be their assessment, but time will tell whether their assessment was right. Speaking with only with the interest of Detroit at heart, I wish it were a little taller. As many have said, the location warrants it.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3WC
But there are a lot of things I like about the proposal -- namely, the ground floor retail, the below ground parking structure [[they're ugly, and better hidden, even at the expense of height), the roofdecks, the big windows [[provided there are convenient window treatments for privacy and shade), and the courtyard. And praise be they aren't going with some faux victorian or any other phony historical design.
That said, I abhor the LED billboard. I don't have words strong enough. It would be a travesty. And I'm incredibly discouraged by the ridiculous interior designs they concocted for the Millender Center. They spent money making it look like that, really? I'll give them credit it's not vanilla, but who do they think want a home that looks like that? Vanilla would have been much better. I implore they enlist better interior designers for the Statler site.
Attachment 29140
Attachment 29141
http://detroit.curbed.com/archives/2...sance-city.php
Bust, I can't swear to it but the lady who was at the Historical Commission said she though that the LED billboard has been eliminated from the design. I agree with you that it would have been way out of place.
I am glad that they do a good job for their tenants, but I still believe this is a company that has no clue what good design is.
If COBO can't show advertisements on its LED billboard due to its direct sight line to Woodward, how could this new building have a huge LED screen facing it and be even closer?
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???Quote:
Originally Posted by swingline
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeg19
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeg19
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khorasaurus
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by swingline
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).Quote:
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.
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 :DQuote:
Originally Posted by swingline
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.
Swingline: You state above: "Sure, a larger [[10-15) story building on the Statler would be more risk for the developer. The site property demands as much."
Now, Swingline, you sure sound like you know what you're talking about. So, why don't you take that added risk and try to develop the site yourself? VG obviously doesn't know what it's doing. You could join the long line of developers wanting to build high rise on the Statler site in case VG backs out. You could get lucky and make a fortune.
Khorasauras: Why do you people keep implying VG's construction will be low quality? It will be conventional low rise, stick built, but very high quality based on the thousands of apartments they have built.. There are thousands of times more low-mid rise apartments built in this country than high rise buildings. Most of those projects have been around for decades and still have immense value. Go out and try to buy apartments as an investment today and see what the older projects are bringing, when owners want to sell, which is rare.
Did you see what Somerset Apartments in Troy sold for last year? 2200 low rise apartments [[2 story), the largest project in the state as I recall, for about $100,000/unit. I could be wrong, but check it out.
If the construction is high quality, then great. I don't know either way. I figured Swingline knew something I didn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3WC
Uh, where's the long line of developers waiting to build a high rise on that site? We've only seen one other proposal, which after it came out, turned out to be nothing more than pie in the sky with no serious financial backing or plan.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3WC
I've amusingly watched this thread from the beginning and 3WC, I've noticed you've defended VG right from the start. There's nothing wrong with that, but I have to ask, if it were another developer on the Statler site, would you be defending them for this six-story proposal?Quote:
Originally Posted by 3WC
From what I've gathered on this entire blog, people want to development in Downtown Detroit, newer buildings. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being picky at this point in time. The Statler site is a prime location on Grand Circus Park and a six-story building would certainly not fit with the surrounding area. The building would be better suited in the Midtown area.
We are at a point in Downtown's resurgence, as noted by the Free Press article I've linked, that we need more residential space, which is being built. There was a time where being picky wasn't an option, take what we could. Now with all the renovations of buildings for office and residential space, there are limited options and we can now have a voice and help shape the future of the city.
I think it would be beneficial to Downtown if VG were to build a complex, but the current size of their proposal on the Statler site should not be built, unless it fits with the area of Grand Circus Park, being at least 10-12 stories or more.
EDIT: I don't think anyone's saying VG shouldn't build on the Statler site. I think what they're saying is, VG shouldn't build THIS 6-story proposal on the Statler site.
http://www.freep.com/story/money/bus...bert/78027012/
hard to tell, but 2 levels of steel are up on the book cadillac garage for 'the griswold'
Attachment 29173
I was wondering if they had started when, a couple of hours later, I received an e-mail from the hotel saying self-parking would no longer be available due to the construction.Quote:
Originally Posted by hybridy
Zads: I'm not defending VG. I am a contrarian with substantial experience in real estate [[and another major business.) I've been involved in a lot of construction. I just hate to see people taking potshots at VG [[or any other developer) based on personal aesthetics while having little or no knowledge of the mechanics of financing, marketing or constructing such developments.
I saw today that Ilitch is planning to build a 200 unit multi-family project adjacent to the new arena; it's going to be 5 stories. There's a new target in town.
This is what a thread is about, debating things about the city we love. I don't believe people are taking shots based on person aesthetics. People are voicing their opinion in order to help shape the future of the city of Detroit. Sure, there are folks out there that don't know the stuff you claim to say you know. I don't know much of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3WC
What I do know is based on the surrounding area, that proposal doesn't fit in with its neighbors.
As for your rebuttal on the Ilitch proposal, I don't think that's a target. Considering the height of the construction there, that sounds like it's going to be on par with other buildings. Next road block?
Zads; I of course agree that this forum is the place for asserting one's opinion. Whatever they may be. That's all I've been doing just as everyone else.
Your main criteria for a development is that it "fits in with its neighbors" and you want a high rise [[10-15 stories) on the Statler; that's not going to happen, not by VG or any other experienced developer.
So, the question for you is: would you rather the VG project be built as planned, or would you prefer the land be left vacant [[maybe used in the interim as an urban farm) until a developer is found that wants to build a high rise project, however long that may take?
One or the other. Please don't equivocate or assert other alternatives as there really aren't any feasible ones in the foreseeable future.
Your defense of VG and the certainty in which you speak is what puts people off in this thread. VG got a great deal on the land and they are playing it safe and cheap by building a "stick" building. You are certain it will be quality, but the mere fact that they are using that particular type of construction on such a high profile property tells me otherwise, as does every aesthetic choice they've made with their current downtown properties.
To answer your question, you wait. Just down Washington Boulevard another developer is proposing development and you are going to see more buildings fill up and new construction proposed. At this point in downtowns turnaround you don't have to settle for something lackluster just because a company is offering. Open up the bidding on that block again and I would bet you see a lot more interest than just a few years ago when they nabbed the rights.
Oh, so to assert a view with "certainty" is offputting? Sorry about that. I'll pussyfoot around in the future.
Anyone with experience in real estate [[or most other undertakings) realizes that there is no such thing as a "great deal" on land or anything else in an arms length transaction. Most people were shocked that the Fisher Building, the parking structure and the Kahn Building sold for $12,500,000. It sold for what it is worth, The properties were auctioned worldwide - exposed to a vast market - for a considerable period of time and bidders - there were twelve of them as I recall - had to put up a substantial deposit for the right to bid. One qualified bidder offered $12,500,000; eleven others thought that was too much. Most of those with little or no experience thought it was shockingly too little. Who's correct?
Anything exposed to the market - especially at a widely respected auction - goes for the highest price possible.
I am mystified that so many supposedly think "stick built" is a derogatory term, a euphemism for low quality. An amazing lack of comprehension. Every $10 million home sold is stick built. The home you live in is stick built. It's a term used for a type of construction and it has no bearing on quality. Of course, stick built construction can be shoddy just as steel and concrete construction can be shoddy. [[Remember the Hancock Tower in Boston where most of the windows blew out in heavy winds? Remember the high rise casino in Vegas where construction was stopped for several months while millions of dollars were spent rebuilding a faulty foundation?) Also, the type of project determines the construction method. The new red wings arena although low rise must be built of steel and concrete, for example. Any architects or construction engineers on the forum could explain it better. Still, some on the forum will not be swayed.
You are not justified in criticizing VG's two other apartments projects in Detroit. VG didn't build those projects but from what I hear they are vastly improved as the result of the expenditure of several million bucks. Southen, what the hell would satisfy you? [[By the way, I went on VG's website and learned what I could about the company. It appears they have built high quality projects around the country.)
Your response to the question I posed is not unreasonable I suppose. And of course, if you owned the land and could legally do so, you could reopen the bidding for the site. That I'm sure would resolve the question and I for one would be very curious to see the result.
Another question - to which there is no right answer at this time - is how many of the current and proposed apartment developments, new or rehabbed, will be profitable in 5 years and/or can be sold at a pre-tax profit?
I just read that Gilbert's First National Building is a financial home run; it was pointed out that he bought it for $8 million and invested $110 million in upgrading it, a $118 million investment. However, it was just appraised at $110 million, so he's at an $8 million loss at this point. [[All of which is pre-tax by the way so it is or probably will be a good investment.)
Yes, certainty in guaranteeing the product of a company that you simply looked up on the internet and are hell bent on defending no matter what, despite obvious issues with previous designs they have put forth in this city IS off putting.
Sorry, but 1.5 million for that site is a great deal.
Can you point to any other prominent downtown developments that are stick built? This is supposed to be a major development in the downtown of large city and you want to compare it to suburban mansions? That alone says you don't know what you are talking about. Stick built in this context means cheap. They got the land for practically nothing and they have chosen a design that allows for cheaper construction. If quality was a high priority they would not be building this the way they are with the design they have chosen, it is as simple as that.
I am completely justified in critiquing VG's design choices in their current properties. It doesn't matter that they did not construct the buildings, their choices in rehabbing them are very telling. The exterior lighting on Trolley is garbage just as is the astro turf they attached to the structure. I want to dry heave every time I walk by and see the chandeliers and cheap wood paneling they added to the entry. Same goes for Millender and whatever the hell it is they added to the entryway there. So to answer your question of what would satisfy me... good design. It is obvious that they went cheap and tacky on both of those properties which are among the largest residential properties downtown. Based on that what makes you think their new build is going to be of such high quality? Christ, they made sure that all residents will have a front row seat to the people mover and put up a billboard facing the best feature of the location, Grand Circus Park.
Just because people may like the way you run your properties, which I have read conflicting accounts on anyway, doesn't mean you have a clue about good design. They have come up with something cheap that shows zero awareness for the location in which it will sit. That should not be applauded nor accepted downtown right now.
3WC, nice touche' with the "if you're so smart, why don't you do it yourself" argument. Presumably, you either don't ever criticize elected officials or you have gotten yourself elected to public office in order to "do it yourself." Whatever, back to the issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3WC
The market has improved dramatically since Village Green first proposed its Statler site project. Given that fact, who is to say that there not other developers willing to propose something better for the site? As an example, Bedrock is not settling for stick built on its Capitol Park site.
The Statler site is included in a locally designated historic district and a National Register of Historic Places district in large part because of the urban design brilliance created by the collective architectural statement made by the buildings ringing Grand Circus Park and Washington Blvd. The city should demand adherence to the urban design standards that prompted the historic designations. It's actually kind of pathetic and sad that the DEGC isn't doing this. Doing so would actually serve to add value to the project to the benefit of the developer. The city could also creatively add value to this site by aggressively and quickly working to assist Bedrock [[Book Bldg and Tower), Barbat [[Neudeck Bldg.), and Mr. Keffallinos [[Michigan Bldg. sigh) with high quality residential reuses of their adjacent buildings.
Stick-built projects will have an important role in restoring economic and civic health to Detroit. Located and executed well, they can help create very desirable neighborhoods. Some cities in better economic and physical shape than Detroit are grappling with potential long term issues presented by permitting too many of these buildings, but Detroit is nowhere there yet. http://archplanbaltimore.blogspot.co...erican_27.html
If Village Green doesn't want to make the upgrade to its Statler site proposal, it should take its project to Mr. Ilitch and help him satisfy his development obligations on one of his many vacant Arena neighborhood sites. Detroit's development braintrust should seek better than VG's proposal for a gateway site on Grand Circus Park.
All this talk about the Statler site once again makes me mourn the loss of the actual Statler. It would be such a perfect candidate for residential conversion now, and given the success of the Broderick and Whitney, most likely well on its way to a rebirth. Foolish decision to tear it down.
Southen. You don't have to justify your "critiquing" of anything. In my opinion you just have a credibility issue.
Beauty/artchitectural design is in the eye of the beholder. I'm not crazy about Gehry's designs but I'm sure not going to criticize them. I'm not going to criticize the materials he uses although I think they could be much more conventional. By the way, I would be free to criticize them if I wished but I'd be concerned that people who know what they're doing would snicker, as most people seem to fawn over his developments.
Also, what's with the comment about "the way you run your properties?" You don't have the slightest idea about "my properties." I haven't been in the real estate development business for over 25 years. When I was in that business I ran a public company that developed projects in several other states but never anything in Detroit. We didn't "run our properties," as we sold everything when it was built. [[I have been in a far more profitable business than real estate for the past 25 years.)
Swingline: You pose the question: "Who is to say there are not other developers out there willing to propose something better for the site?" Answer: I am.
Yes, left vacant until a developer is found for a high-rise. Just because the opportunity is there to build doesn't mean you have to.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3WC
Hehehe.... Frank Gehry.... that reminds me... the other big block that we've still not heard from downtown... the Hudson's block. We were supposted to hear about it by the end of 2015. Interestingly enough the "museum component" of that project has been scrapped. But like so much of financing... these things take time to assemble.
I was just rereading this March 2015 Detroit Freep article about that proposed design [[that's where Gehry comes to mind)... and since as been mentioned on this thread... Detroit can't command the per square foot costs [[only $20 for first class office space, and only $2 for rental residential) that projects in other cities can. I would think that that would preclude something in the "innovative architecture" area that Gehry is known for... but apparently there are funding sources that can be assembled from state and federal sources... such as this article mentioned...
http://www.freep.com/story/money/bus...roit/24474395/
If "stick built" [[thanks by the way 3WC for adding a new term to the DYES vocabulary) can be a lower priced but still quality option for keeping the costs down to make a residential project work... then it begs the question of whether or not innovative architecture, such as that planned for the Hudsons block can make money off a planned residential component? I see a lot of state and federal funding sources mentioned... and wonder if this expensive looking project isn't getting some grief from the the folks with the purse strings? :confused:
Gistok, you must be a real estate developer, architect or somebody else that understands real estate financing and economics.
You articulated the issue better than I did.
Of course the first fundamental step is to determine the market for new apartments and the rents projected over a multi-year period.
If one predicts that apartment rents for quality, well located apartments may reach $2.50 per square foot over a period of time, then that income stream at a 90% occupancy rate [[lenders will underwrite based on a vacancy factor) determines how much may be spent per square foot for construction and all other development costs. [[Of course, the more apartments that are built will put downward pressure on the amount of rent that can be charged.)
It's true that when state and local governments take our tax dollars and give them to developers via various abatements and credits it stimulates developers to build projects that wouldn't be feasible financially otherwise. However, they are a two edged sword. Lets say a developer get a 10 year tax abatement, The closer the 10year period approaches, the more the value of the property declines because at the end of the period costs go up significantly [[and appraised value goes down.) Developers have to be great prognosticators to be successful and only the ones with significant experience are. Many of the rest just get lucky.
I'd say design is one of the least important factors in developing projects, at least in comparison with costs. Of course all developers would love to be able to use cutting edge designs to distinguish their projects but economics determine reality.
I heard that the DEGC is giving the land to VG for a dollar [[as it agreed to do with many other developers, including Quicken years ago when it was considering building in Detroit.) Why does one think that is? The answer is that projects on sites such as the Statler and Hudson sites can't be developed without substantial public money. Just like the "projects" built for low income families.
Does anybody besides Gistok on this forum understand that?
Gilbert throws an interesting factor into the mix. I believe that his investments are not based so much on conventional economics like the rest of developers and investors. He has a vision that is laced with altruism and the money to support the vision. I'm sure he expects that eventually he will make some money but I believe that's secondary at this point.
So you won't critique, then you do critique Gehry? Interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3WC
If we are talking credibility where do you lie in all of this? Every time I have brought up specific design choices made by VG that I find legitimately questionable, you come back with numbers. You claim that the site was not a great deal for VG then follow up with saying they bought the land for $1. What do you feel is a great deal if acres of prime downtown land for one dollar doesn't qualify? I asked for other quality developments downtown that are "stick built" but you could not name any.
Beauty of architecture is in fact in the eye of the beholder, but based on your comments regarding architects and design, the fact you state you aren't at all comfortable critiquing architecture, this tells me you aren't someone whose opinion on this is worth hearing.
^^^^ We may differ on what makes good architecture in fact good architecture :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by 3WC
I completely agree with this statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3WC
People of substantial means have different ways of being altruistic with their money.
In generalities, Gilbert and Bill Gates do their altruism differently.
Southen: we could probably do this for eternity.
I don't agree I was critiquing Gehry. I just gave my personal opinion and did not try to convince anyone of anything [[as you do consistently). I didn't criticize him or his designs. I didn't judge him or his designs.
You claim that, not that you merely don't like VG's work on its two Detroit projects, but you claim they are "legitimately questionable." Questionable by whom? You can question all you want but that doesn't mean anyone has to take you seriously. I don't by the way.
You claim that VG got a good deal whether they got the land for a dollar or paid $1.5 million for it. You just can't comprehend that if adding together the cost of the land, the development and construction costs, the quality of the market etc, a financially viable project can't be developed, then something has to give. The development costs etc are pretty fixed and that means the land cost has to be decreased or eliminated. The City understands that. Developers understand that. Architects understand that. You don't. In fact, that's why the City and State dole out our tax dollars to the developers in addition to free land in order to get something built and eventually on the tax rolls when otherwise they would not get built.
I didn't accept your challenge to give you an example of another stick built project in Detroit because I don't know if there are or aren't such projects. I imagine not. But, why is that remotely relevant? Show me some low rise residential [[multi-family) construction that is constructed of steel and concrete - but it should be recent, to reflect current market costs.
I never claimed my architectural aesthetics are worth listening to. I happen to like the VG project's architecture but I'd never try to argue it one way or the other. What are your qualifications in architecture that would compel anybody to seriously consider your criticisms and efforts to get the City or VG to change their plans? That's why I mentioned your lack of credibility.
Try read this stuff more carefully before responding, please.
Besides, I think we've pretty much worn out our welcome on this thread. There's just not that much more to say.
I am not debating the financial viability of a project, i am debating the design of the proposed development. By your logic if VG proposed single family homes on this site the city should accept it because it is what the market dictates. I bring up design flaws and your response continues to be financial analysis.
You don't have to take me seriously but if you want my "credentials" I happen to have two architects in my family, studied architecture at Lawrence Tech on scholarship for several years and currently photograph architecture for both architects and builders... not that any of that matters.
You are right about one thing though, we should end this. Good day.
Amen. Have a good 2016.
Can someone give me an update on what's happening on that empty block of Downtown land where the old 'Care' [[AAA) building was? It was demo'd in August of 2014.
Current plan is to build a 6 story apartment building on the entire site, to the dismay of most on this board. The design is crap, doesn't properly scale the block, and lends nothing significant to aesthetically please, well, anyone. It was announced last year, with the intentions of the builders gaining approvals and permits and financing in time to begin construction sometime this year I believe. We haven't heard much about it though since then.Quote:
Originally Posted by night-timer
Construction on the Griswold Apartments has been temporarily halted. The crane dropped a partial load of I-beams on the construction site at lunchtime on Tuesday.
Wouldn't be surprised if MiOSHA or OSHA is going to do an investigation. I don't think anyone got hurt. You can still see 3 bent beams on the site.