Crains reports Statler site construction to start this summer:
http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...of-5-apartment
Printable View
Crains reports Statler site construction to start this summer:
http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...of-5-apartment
Looks like they are sticking to the original design, with a few interior updates. :/
Well that is pretty disappointing. I was hopeful with the quality of recent announced developments that the company would put forth a more ambitious and deserving design for that location but I guess it isn't in the cards.
That design is a steaming turd and will look absurd at that location. I'm not one of the people who bitches about architecture much but this proposal is ridiculous.
Definitely sub-par but at this point we need to cut our losses and activate that enormous block. The linkage from Washington Blvd. into Foxtown, in terms of retail and street life, is much needed-- as are 300-500 new downtown residents. The density is not appropriate but perhaps a nice upshot is that sweeping vistas of more impressive buildings like the Book Tower and other future developments will be allotted. Let's just not let this developer get its hands on any other downtown parcels-- their level of ambition in a development is more appropriate for Lafayette Park or the fringes of midtown, not downtown.
I think the downtown core is past the point of "anything is better than nothing." While I don't want this giant lot to sit empty, why should we live with a half-assed proposal for the next 25+ years, when we're starting to see more thoughtful architecture [[Hudson's, LCA, Capitol Park, etc)? This thing belongs in "downtown" Southfield or whatever they are trying to build, not in prime Detroit real estate.
EGrant, I fully agree that this isn't the design I would put there. But, I must remind all, no one posting their dislikes here are the ones who bought the property, designed the project, and are paying for it. The developer has the right to develop as the developer sees fit, provided the building conforms to zoning and codes. Griping incessantly about what other people are doing with their own property and money is at best childish. For so many years anyone could have bought and built the Statler site for a song. But no one did. These developers are the ones who actually took action. Well, if that action is not what we would do in the same situation, then we can enjoy our steaming turd together.
Also, just my opinion, even though a 20-story building would aesthetically be a better fit in my opinion, this building won't at all "look bad" there.
They didn't buy the property, the city owns it. It's one of a few key big downtown sites that the city owns and that the DEGC was marketing [[what is the current status of the DEGC?). It's not a privately owned piece of land being sold at market rate to a developer, it's a key piece of publicly owned land that's being developed for its benefits to downtown beyond just being a single new building.
If it was one of the other Grand Circus Park sites that wouldn't be the case [[although it would still be a bad building for that site).
Jason, I apologize for not knowing it was city owned. Which amazing plans were turned down? If none, we have nothing to complain about. If there were reputable better plans submitted, then any justified anger should be directed at city officials, not the developer.
Just because there are [[maybe) no alternative proposals and we are not personally submitting a proposal does not make the project immune to criticism, especially on an internet forum mostly focused on developments. If we can't offer our opinions on the plans, designs, and results of developments in the city, then what are we even doing here?
The design is bad, especially for this site, and that is my opinion.
My knee-jerk reaction to the project's critics stems not from their apparent dislike of the project, but from the entitled and "how dare they do this!" mentality it betrays. I think many buildings don't fit in either aesthetically or in terms of scale for where they are located. But that does not bring forth an opinion from me that they shouldn't have been allowed to exist because I might not like it. Regardless of how ugly or out-of-place a building may be in my opinion, I don't seek to shut other people's work and opinions down; I also am not personally offended by buildings that I would not personally have built. Many posters here at DY seem to regard anything they don't approve of as the devil incarnate. I don't find people trying to build a building and bring people into our city as anything but positive. And while I realize there is an irrational rejection of the following statement posted several threads above, I still agree with the thought: this project is in every possible way better than what has existed [[decrepit eyesore hotel then wide wasted lot) on the site for decades before it. Alternative realities don't exist. Whatever else one wishes were there, were in fact not there, and there were no plans to put ABCD... developments there. It was a missing tooth in GCP's smile long enough. I'm glad they're going to get started. I'll be even gladder when the residents move in. The people watching in and around GCP will be so fantastic that you'll never notice the 10 extra floors that were never going to be there in the first place.
The problem with your argument is that this tacky suburban style development is not "in every possible way better than what existed". The "decrepit eyesore hotel" most likely would be following in the path of the Broderick, Whitney, Book Cadillac, Wurlitzer, Metropolitan, etc - if it hadn't been needlessly destroyed for a football game
On one hand, great, almost 300 new residences adding people to our city core. On the other hand, the design is ghastly and is enhanced by the high profile nature of that site location. I'm hoping that 5 years from now we can look at it and go "yea it's there but it's not so bad", although I really don't think that'll be the case.
It's such a damn shame the Statler couldn't have held on for 5-6 more years. What an amazing development that building would have been.
I agree with you Mikeyinbrooklyn.
I think it will be a beautiful, functional development. It will result in relatively low costs of operations which means lower rent for tenants. It will have a streetscape of retail businesses, and another restaurant [[just what we need.)
More importantly, I understand it will have two levels of underground parking [[that means out-of-sight, folks.)
In 25 years, when Detroit is well on it's way to another inevitable period of decline and probably bankruptcy, when many high rise, high operating cost residential buildings will be closing because of the economy, this development will be going strong.
This developer owns [[or, owned before he sold out to his partner) the Trolley Plaza and Millender Center apartments or whatever they're called now, which he cleaned up and elevated to first class status when he took them over several years ago.
The guy is a first rate, very smart developer and has developed scores of aesthetic, profitable multi-family developments.
First class status?!? Millender and Trolley Plaza are two of the tackiest looking developments downtown.
Southen: You're just saying that because you don't own 'em. [[You may write back and say "thank God" or similar.)
They're far better places to live than before. The developer of the Statler site bought and renovated them; he didn't build them.
Im not talking about the original designs of each structure, im talking about the tacky furniture and faux plantings that have been attached to each of them. If the units inside are better than before that is great, but their exterior "improvements" are atrocious.
The problem with your argument is that this tacky suburban style development is not "in every possible way better than what existed". The "decrepit eyesore hotel" most likely would be following in the path of the Broderick, Whitney, Book Cadillac, Wurlitzer, Metropolitan, etc - if it hadn't been needlessly destroyed for a football game
DetroiterOnTheWestCoast, your criticism of my comments neglects to mention that the Statler was torn down long before this development was planned [[10-12 years ago, I think?). It's absence has nothing to do the current project. The current project is obviously better than what is there now. I don't think anyone really thinks otherwise. It's just not what some other people would put there if they had anything whatsoever to do with putting things there.
I'm not one of this development's biggest critics. I think it will be great to have people living there. I think the building is yet another uninspired-at-best design, like so many others that have been built in Detroit since the 70's. I think the giant LED sign they were planning to flash ads into the park was atrocious. I think it's great they came to their senses and abandoned that plan [[but let's make sure they really did). And based on the model apartments they used to showcase their renovations of the Millender Center interiors I think their sense of style fits somewhere between cut rate bougie ghetto fab and pseudo russo faux eastern mediterranean wish-it-were bling. I think the "after" photos are barely better than the "before" ones:
https://detroit.curbed.com/2013/11/2...naissance-city
It's their prerogative. It's our right to critique it. It's going to be better than an empty lot.
Former Statler Hotel site development receives $1 million brownfield funds
Quote:
The MEDQ's $750,000 grant and $250,000 loan will help make way for Jonathan Holtzman's City Club Apartments to build the City Club Apartments CBD Detroit residential and retail complex with underground parking. Plans also call for 12,000 square feet of retail and restaurant space. The project includes a green roof and meets National Green Building Standards, the release said
Personally, I'm still hoping something derails this project.
This site deserve something so much better than a 10-story building...
I am 100% with you on that. The market has changed dramatically since this thing was first announced and going taller is no longer the risk it once was. Hell, just skip the expensive underground parking, which will increase the height AND put residents just a little bit further away from the people mover.
This project is the turd in the downtown Detroit punchbowl.
It's a Garbage new building on a pretty sweet piece of property. It sucks, there is a lot of potential on that piece of dirt that is only getting higher like the building should be.
Does anyone know what's the latest with this? Has work started?
Nothing as of last Friday but supposed to be happening any moment now.
While rendering of skyscrapers are being released for the Monroe Block and Hudson site, we're [[hopefully not) stuck with this 6 story turd on Grand Circus...
A few people might not be enthused with the aesthetics of the City Club Apartments - there are always a few random naysayers - but it will have two levels of underground parking and will be a huge economic success and a great addition to the downtown housing market.
I can't quite agree with you 313 or Atticus. I concur that if I had my druthers I would probably build a taller building at the site, and probably a more interesting looking one as well. But I could disagree with just about every building in the city if I wanted to. Very few things are exactly what I would do/ would have done if I were the one doing them. The ones spending the money and taking the risk are the ones calling the shots- as it should be. If we felt strongly enough about building height, we could petition the city to change zoning and design rules for downtown. But you can't rezone retroactively. The developer seems [[to the best of my knowledge) to be planning a building that is within existing legal requirements, so any complaints we might have are just academic. And while the following statement tends to get ridiculed, it is true nonetheless: I think their building will be much better than what is there now.
Its a bad design on a good chunk of land, and we are all within our rights to oppose it and imagine a better future.
1953
Exactly. Cities are not isolated rural lots. They are public spaces created by the dense coexistence of numerous private space. Each private structure has an effect on the public realm around it, and those structures often live well beyond the men and women who "take the risks and call the shots." Those people will be gone or dead, but their crappy building will still be inflicting itself on everyone who uses the streets around it, looks out a window at it, or is missing customers because it made a poor use of the site. Not to mention the aesthetics of Grand Circus Park, which should be one of the top two urban spaces in Detroit.
As everyone has said repeatedly, this is a great building for midtown, or corktown, or the east riverfront. It is not a great building for a premier location seen by virtually every visitor to downtown Detroit. A city government should have the ability and backbone to say that.
I am not saying that anyone isn't within their rights to criticize this or any development. Merely, I am pointing out that the action citizens can take to affect their architectural and development desires is to have the city adopt rules concerning the location, shape, size & function of a structure in building & development codes. This project conforms to the existing allowable criteria. I think it is downright silly for people to complain for years about the withering hotel, then the empty eyesore lot, and pine "oh, I wish someone who do something there." Lo & behold, someone is going to do something there! "That's not what we had in mind!" The complainers had what- 40 years?- to do what they would have liked to do there. Now someone else is actually going to do something there. I'm glad about that.
Do you know this for certain?
If the site held a 232ft and 18 story building before, there's no reason why it can't hold something with at least the same height now.
Furthermore, to respond to the rest of your post, when's the last time the DDA gave any fucks about the desire of citizens in the city? Let's be straight about it, they were desperate for any type of development and were willing to rubber stamp any ol' crap.
I'm not sure there's much actual argument on the latter point. I think we'd all agree that this is better than an empty lot. But it's like a kid bringing home a C- and expecting the parents to be happy he didn't get an F again. Sure, it's better. But it's nothing to be proud of.
The part I never get - and which is hardly unique to your post, Mikey - is the "well why didn't you do anything?" attitude. The obvious reason nobody else did anything is because most people don't have $65 million laying around. Fortunately, we have elected institutions ostensibly designed to represent and safeguard the interests of all city and state residents, whether they happen to have $65 million in their bank account or not. Asking the city government to enforce a higher standard of construction for a few extremely high-visibility, high-traffic lots is pretty much exactly what citizens can and should do. Telling people that they only get a voice in the planning and form of their city if they have $65 million to spare is the same as telling people that they get no voice.
I understand the argument here but as people with interest in how things play out for the city on a BLOG of all things, we have every right to love or hate the things that are going on.
Now logically, yes we've wanted things to be built on empty spaces downtown. We reached that point awhile ago where it was exciting to see things happening.
Now we're at a point in the revitalization of downtown that we can be picky because land will soon be at a premium for new building. Gilbert's already announce the Monroe Block and Hudson's block. He's going vertical. This plan is not good enough for that spot downtown. It needs to be in Midtown or New Center. It just doesn't fit, can't you see that?
I fully comprehend what you're saying, but I don't agree with your perspective for several reasons. First, "it doesn't fit" is the opinion- however right you might think you are- of a person not involved in the project. It reminds me of when someone doesn't like the color a neighbor painted their house. Fine opinion, perhaps, but entirely irrelevant. Second, most cities- especially older ones- have a wonderful patchwork quality about their buildings and neighborhoods. Go to any major city- including Detroit- and you will see a mishmash of old and new, tall and short, modern and classic. Although looking at it up close one might think that a shorter building, or an all-brick one, or a gothic one, etc might seem out of place, I think that it can make for a more interesting city scape. As I said before, if this project looks just like the renderings, it will look just fine.
Zads07, that you [[and I) would like it to be taller does not mean that it needs to be taller. I prefer brick pavers to asphalt or cement. That doesn't mean that Detroit needs all brick streets.
You're espousing a form of moral relativism. In fact, a building on a key chunk of land in a city's downtown bears an objective relationship to the landscape around it. Its not just our subjective opinion. There are architectural principles at play that say you don't build a one story white castle in lower Manhattan. Same goes for this inappropriately scaled design in Detroit.
Mikey gets it. Many of you don't.
The public had as much input into this development as it wanted. There were multiple public hearings before the DDA, the Historic District Commission [[a totally useless bunch, admittedly), and City Council. Anyone who wanted to voice their opinions were free to do so.
The fact is, the site is oddly shaped, and is partially encircled by the People Mover [[a huge negative) which actually traverses part of the site and requires the developer to build around it. It apparently has environmental problems which have to be remedied at a substantial cost.
A lot of people have $65 million. Most don't keep it lying around. The point is that a developer doesn't need that much in cash to build a major [[for Detroit) project like this one. These projects are heavily financed with borrowed money. Lenders have to approve every aspect of the project before closing the loans. There are at least 20 developers around who are financially capable of building whatever they wanted to on the Statler site. They don't want to.
The current developer is very wealthy and has tremendous borrowing power. He is nationally recognized as one of the smartest multi-family real estate developers and property managers in the country. He and his partners could build whatever they want to build there.
They saw a need for multi-family on that site, location-wise great, but physically a "B" property. They carefully analyzed the long term market for multi-family housing downtown, the types of apartments, the need for parking, every type of construction cost for every type of construction, the project rents for apartments of various kinds over the next 15 years, the availability of capable contractors and labor over the two year construction period, and a 100 other factors. They decided the proposed project is the highest and best use of the site which will enable them to recover their cost, pay off their loans and make a reasonable profit. [[The rumor is that the original general contractor pulled out of the deal at the last minute because it refused to be extorted by the City, which requires that a certain percentage of workers be Detroit residents or the contractor is charged a very large penalty; there aren't sufficient Detroit workers with all the construction going on and the developers [[and ultimately the public) just pay the extortionists in the Mayor's office and chalk it up to the cost of doing business in Detroit. [[Kwame's in jail, why isn't Duggan?)
Did anyone seeing any other developers breaking down the door to develop that site? If it's such a great site, are there any other developers falling all over themselves to buy it from the current developer to develop a high rise [[or any other kind of) project on the site? Nary a one is there?
My guess is that you naysayers don't have an inkling of what makes a real estate project economically feasible. It's wonderful to be able to dream and all that, but reality will bite your dreams in the ass every time.
First, W3C, I know from your posting that you're obviously quite knowledgeable. Much more so than me on these topics. But I don't think this is a question that comes down to understanding the real estate market.
If anyone happens to know the dates of the relevant city council meetings, I'd love to watch the videos on the city council site to see what the content of those discussions was. They have over 1,000 sessions and meetings posted so it's a lot to dig through.
I'm sure that's true. [[Personally I'd advocate tearing down the People Mover, which impinges on other downtown sites besides this one and provides almost no useful transit in exchange for the subsidy it gets.)
My point was that the vast majority of the people who will use this building and the GCP/Washington Blvd area around it over its lifetime - a number easily in the millions - don't have $65 million to personally develop the site [[or, yes, since you want to be pedantic, access to $65 million in financing). This leaves their interests to be represented by City Council or, fingers crossed, taken into consideration by non/quasi-government bodies like the DDA. The question was whether people making critical comments should shut up because "they didn't do anything themselves," not whether there were 20 other developers in SE Michigan with similar access to capital.
So they're choosing to build this particular design despite their capability to build "whatever they want," presumably because it maximizes their likely return. Right? Can we then ask whether this is the design that best serves the city's interests in addition to bringing the developer a reasonably low-risk profit, or are you assuming this is the only possible design that could bring such a return?
Yes, I'm sure they put a lot of work into this and are very knowledgeable about market conditions. No argument here. My question is whether, given the site's significance, anyone pushed for improvements to the project that would increase its value to the city as a whole. And I'm not saying the city needs to dictate they build an uneconomical 40-story skyscraper. Better facing materials/design, or reconfiguring the same volume of space to put more height facing GCP with a taper moving down Washington, would address most or all of the complaints posted in this thread.
Maybe there were rich discussions on this topic, but after a thorough debate and review it was determined that this is indeed the only possible configuration of the building. I'm not being sarcastic and hope this is the case.
Presumably Duggan's not in jail because coming to a public arrangement with a developer isn't a crime, even if it is exploitative. But this doesn't seem like the main point here anyway.
Is it your estimation that 2017 is the peak of demand for downtown housing and/or office space? Better get what we can while we can, because tomorrow there will be even less interest?
Again, I don't think this is about demands to somehow prevent Holtzman from building on the site or find some other developer willing to build a ridiculous high rise. To put it as directly as I can, maximizing the developer's return and maximizing the interests of city residents and visitors over the multi-decade lifetime of the building aren't the same thing. Is the city doing anything on behalf of the latter interest? For this project, the answer seems to be "no," and, without speaking for anyone else, that's the source of my complaints.
If it's the case that they [[the city government, mainly, but also the DDA or the developers themselves) did take these concerns seriously, but came to the decision that this is the best possible design anyway, then fine. Not every project is going to be ideal.
Big post on "Rumors" with a heavy dose of ideology but a tad short on facts.
Jonathan Holtzman had a very messy divorce from Village Green where he was CEO while this deal was in motion. His investors pretty much told him to get fucked. Issues like those unravel financing and force the process to start at the beginning. All of the above is never anything a GC wants to deal with because it plays havoc with their project windows and the good projects are the ones where everyone gets along. Having village Green melt down was not a good sign that there would be any of that here. So you need a new GC.
As far as seeing anyone fall all over themselves to get a new deal here we would never know. They send the lawyers and closers not PR people. Those deals aren't public, closed door environment.
This deal has been screwed up and now it has outlived its shelf life. Different part of the decade now, things change, what looked okay in 2013 can look underwhelming in 2017
I can't believe any contractor would work for Holtzman on something like this. He is notorious for not paying for completed work and being an overall nightmare to do business with. My guess is these things have something to do with the still empty lot we see today.
It's clear to anyone who knows the ins and outs of the deal, the formation of Village Green, Holtzman's background, and the split, that Better Detroit and K-Slice don't have the foggiest idea of what they're talking about. They hate the project and slander the developer. Pretty transparent.
VG and Holtzman split because of a difference in philosophy; Holtzman's 50% co-owner wanted to solely manage VG's and other's apartments. Holtzman wanted to do that plus build new ones. During the time of joint ownership of VG Holtznan built six major projects under the VG name.
As a result of the split, Holtzman owns all six of the newer developments and many of the apartments and the former co-owner is strictly in the property management business, a business with steady income but little if any upside.
Holtzman, it's true, has a reputation for being litigious but he's only protecting his own interests. I've never heard that he cheated anyone; if either of you two have any facts, lets hear them. We shouldn't hold our collective breath.
I have never heard anyone claim that he doesn't timely pay his subs what they're owed provided they completed the contracts according to their terms. Dan Gilbert does the same thing. Every developer I've know [[and there are plenty) operates the same was. That's how the world works, in every business.
By the way, K-slice, H has worked with hundreds of contractors over the years and the problem he had on this deal was the result of city extortion.
There was litigation with the former VG co-owner after the split but I hear it was over the fact many VG employees wanted to go with Holtzman and jumped from VG.
Construct I hear will start soon, so eat your hearts out.
Mikey, your last post was excellent. Very well stated even though I don't agree 100% with a couple of your comments.
Where are your "facts" and "let's hear them" on "city extortion" on this deal? Your accusations are far more serious in nature than anything k-slice and I have said. You in fact coincided we are correct about Holtzman: "Holtzman, it's true, has a reputation for being litigious" uh... that can slow a project down some.
You also have a obvious position on this development and are throwing whatever you can at the wall and seeing if it will stick. That was clear when you stated the shape of the lot was a problem. When? If your building with Legos?
You and Mikey like this development, others don't care, some think it sucks. So be it. I doubt anyone will lose a nights sleep let alone eat their heart out.
Being litigious is not a bad thing. Most people want what they bargain for and many go to the trouble of enforcing their agreements.
The City is in may opinion an extortionist. I don't have the specifics but the City has an Ordinance that requires developers and their sub-contractors to hire a large percentage of their workers that must be Detroit residents. Failure to do so results in large fines.
On, for example, the new hockey arena, few if any subs were able to hire a sufficient percentage of Detroiters. There just aren't any left who can or are willing to work so the subs just pay the fines.
The City of course knows that there aren't nearly enough Detroiters to fill the jobs, should provide in the Ordinance that fines are waived if the contractor can show it has made a serious effort to hire Detroiters and can't.
That's what a fair, well run City which prizes a reputation as a good place to do business would do. Not Detroit of course.
The money it extorts from fines is in the millions of dollars I'm told on the hockey arena alone.
If that's not extortion, what is? The contractor that pulled out of the VG project rather than be extorted considered the Ordinance extortion.
I don't have a "position" in this project but I know some of the players and have a good handle on what's going on in the real estate business downtown and I clearly think in my opinion that the Duggan Administration is almost as bad as, or will become worse than, Kwame's. Time will tell.
I wish Duggan had a viable opponent so I could donate a lot of money to him/her.
The fines go towards training Detroit residents for jobs for these projects. So when the city gives these people land for pennies on the dollar, like the arena as well as Statler site, they can deal with the "extortion" that comes in the form of resident training.
Funny, in all of this talk of how rough it is for this particular developer there is no mention of how much was paid for the rights to the site. Take the outrage elsewhere.
Southen and EGrant: you both make a couple of great points about tax dollars being used to pay for private projects.
However, a very small portion of the fines go toward training Detroit residents for jobs. And, the City couldn't effectively train a dog to chase its tail.
The unions and contractors have their own training programs. The problem: they can't find enough people to enter the programs.
Citations please.
After saying that the Ilitchs are responsible for the Coney restaurants and convention center surviving downtown I'm slightly more skeptical of your claims.
southern: I don't know why I respond to your email above but I have no idea what you're talking about. Ilitch? Coney restaurants? Convention Center?
3WC my apologies, I confused your name with 313WX while replying. Ignore the second sentence, it has nothing to do with your commenting.
As for the citations I am still interested in knowing how you know so little of the fine money goes to training. I am still having a difficult time feeling bad for a developer that was gifted this property.
By chance Crain's came out today with a lengthy article on this issue, its broken past, efforts to fix and a couple of success stories.
"But in Detroit, the traditional pipelines for skilled trades have been effectively broken for years, as evidenced by the near-death of Randolph Technical High School on the city's west side.
"With a capacity of 700 students, Randolph's enrollment had fallen below 100 students in recent years.
"Mayor Mike Duggan's administration and several Detroit business leaders have recently stepped in to revitalize the program with a $10 million investment in the school's facilities and programming, which will be expanded to adult classes at night.
"There's a business case to do it," said Frank Woods, president of the Detroit Chapter of the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists. "Now that the city is really taking off, they see that in order for them to continue to sustain what they have here, they need to make sure they have the workforce."
southern: I've probably lived a lot longer than you have, and if it's one thing I've learned, there's no such thing as a free lunch, in business or in life.
I agree with the Crain's article, which is what I've been saying all along; there are not enough people of train to fulfill the City's work requirements -- AND THE CITY OBVIOUSLY KNOWS IT. Why then doesn't the city waive the fines if a contractor shows it's tried to comply with the hiring requirements, and can't. Fining contractors when they can't comply is extortion.
I've also heard from more reliable sources than Crain's that the fines on the LC arena are higher than $5 million.
More people should go into skilled trades than liberal arts, from a financial standpoint [[I've hired a lot of skilled tradespeople in my time and onow what they charge.) Here's a nice story to make my point:
Plumber gets called to a large Grosse Point house. He works 6 hours and completes the job that evening. He hands the homeowner his bill.
Homeowner: "My God, I'm a corporate lawyer at a big downtown firm and I don't make that much money."
Plumber: "Neither did I when I practiced law."
You probably have, but all of this is anecdotal without actual proof that the city wouldn't use the money as it says. That is your opinion and Lowell then provided an article showing that the city is actually trying to train more people.
It isn't extortion when the two developers in question received their land for nothing and in one case they received $300+ million of taxpayer dollars to float it. That money is then being used to directly help Detroiters which is a good thing.
No, look, it isn't extortion because the contractors knew what the requirements were up front and what the fines were if they couldn't comply when they put their bid in for the project. These type of Contracting practices are not unusual for there to be some type of retainage or give back based on certain metrics during constructing a building or providing some other type of service. In every major trade industry in the Detroit area everyone knows that there's a major shortage of skilled Labour more so in some particular Industries than others. This is not a surprise to anyone. I guarantee you that the contractors who put their bids in knew that there was a high probability of risk that they were not going to be able to comply with the Detroit residency requirements and thus built said risk into their price. I doubt anybody is even really losing here other than the citizens of Detroit who don't have the skills to be employed.
The 300+ Million the developer and exclusive operator of the LCA received from the City of Detroit sure would buy a shit load of free lunch.
Why in Gods name would you think the City should waive the contractual agreements the developer agreed to with them on the LCA deal?
"Being litigious is not a bad thing. Most people want what they bargain for and many go to the trouble of enforcing their agreements." -You post #55
"More people should go into skilled trades"-You post #63 uhhh... That is the goal of these fines is making sure that these apprenticeships in the trades are open to Detroiters who need the jobs. Breaking the friends and family only union hiring practices in the trades. Is that not a good thing? Especially to a conservative Republican like yourself? Everything is a contradiction with you until it can't even be understood beyond: Rich people Good! Poor people Bad!
I don't have a problem with the labor rules that developers voluntarily agree to play by [[fines and such), but I think it should be pointed out that the "taxpayers money" is money provided by a locality to help subsidize an otherwise upside-down deal. The argument would be that Ilitch/Olympia received money from the city to cover the financing gap that exists between what it costs to build an arena and what the market would bear, because the city wants the arena built. So, in that way, the developer received no free money, but, rather, buy-in from a municipal partner. In this way, its hard to argue the developer should be on the hook for gobs and gobs of kickbacks -- if the city doesn't want to build an arena, all they have to do is not buy into the deal in the first place.
And so it begins with two porta-potties and a front loader. Shot from Sept. 20, 2017. Construction of Detroit City Apartments begins on the site of the former Statler Hotel on Grand Circus Park in Downtown Detroit.
Attachment 34222
I saw PLA removing light poles a few weeks ago and about 10 men on site this morning with excavators starting to dig. I think this is the real thing now.
How fitting a day after Gilbert announces were going vertical that this uninspiring stumpy project starts. This is a great block getting a lousy building. I just hope that whatever eventually goes up on the Tuller site puts this thing to shame.
:[[ After the last few announcements.. I hate this project. Before I was willing to deal with it given that it was at least the height of the average building along Washington Blvd.. But this is a prime site for a development of the same scale as the Monroe Block and Hudsons Block.
They better have some serious soundproofing in the windows. The People Mover is not exactly quiet.
Attachment 34223
A quick reminder of the innovative, game-changing architecture going up at this prime location.
Barf. If they were smart they would add additional parking above grade to add height to the project as well as cash in on future shortages in parking once more surface lots disappear. I still can't believe they will be putting residents right up against the people mover.
Day 2 the crane builders arrive. Unfortunately this may likely be my last day of this view. DetroitYES world headquarters is moving to TechTown.
Attachment 34230
Grand Circus Park was not always surrounded by skyscrapers. The park opened in 1867. The Statler was built in 1915, 48 years later. Most of the other buildings surrounding the park were built after 1900. Grand Circus Park was a nice place to display a skyscraper, rather than a group of skyscrapers that featured a nice park.
Attachment 34231
Attachment 34232
Attachment 34233
I got these pictures from here: https://www.detroityes.com/mb/showth...k-in-its-prime
Grand Circus Park will look just fine with mid-rise buildings. Detroit should not be building skyscrapers it doesn't need just so it can feel like its part of some imaginary club of skyscraper cities. Every skyscraper that is currently proposed could have been spread out in much smaller urban buildings stretching out over many blocks.
Some plots of land demand buildings of a certain scale. Yes, GCP started lined with homes but as technology progressed and population grew those grand boulevards and streets leading to the park lent themselves to taller and more substantial buildings. The Statler and Tuller took that into account and were at the perfect scale for their surroundings. The size of the block and scale of surrounding buildings demand something better than a sprawled out development that would be better suited in a surrounding neighborhood vs. downtown.
I disagree. It looks like it was designed with iconic central buildings in mind. The scale of smaller buildings and church steeples looks even better than the boxy skyscrapers that later surrounded it. It'd be nice if we could fill in that area and the parking lots to the north with buildings like that.
I'd rather we build like Paris than New York. Those vanity skyscrapers there are ridiculous.
Well mercifully that will never happen... the land is too valuable. Here's what East GCP at E. Adams and Witherell looked like.... no thank you!
Who is asking for a vanity skyscraper? Something the size of the Statler qualifies as a vanity skyscraper to you?
I'd rather see all those empty lots in Northwest downtown built on before we get new skyscrapers.
Are we building it because the market dictates a need for it, or are we building it because we think it would look better?
Given the numbers for occupancy with apartment rentals the market dictates we need more units downtown. The problem is the city committed the land for nothing to a developer who is committed to doing the project cheaply. If an RFP was sent out now for this site you'd see vastly different proposals for this plot of land.
If you cleaned up the streetscape, the scale and ornamentation on those buildings would be just fine.
Do you guys really feel the Madison, Adams Building [[facade) and Opera House look bad because they are not skyscrapers? The building proposed is tall enough to be above the tree line and have a commanding presence on the park.
The Madison and Adams are sandwiched between or adjacent to taller buildings. If they were all that height it would be underwhelming given the other buildings fronting the park.
The Opera House frontage of the park is pretty disappointing to be honest. I understand the limitations given that they need a loading zone, but the blank facade adds very little to the area. I give it a pass because it is a cultural institution, not a cheaply made apartment building.
The fact that you think two story structures fronting the park would be just fine might be my cue to stop discussing this with you. It is the downtown of a major US city, there is nothing wrong with having higher expectations for certain parts of the city. We are past the point of having to settle for crap.
The block North of East Adams looks great.
My point was to backup the previous poster who implied the obsession with height is a personal preference. The park seems to do fine as long as the street wall is maintained and the buildings "fit".
Skyscrapers are too hard to renovate, distort what area infrastructure exists, suck resources and tenants from smaller developments, and end up being intimidating to their surroundings. Skyscrapers are unnecessary in an area that is bordered by block upon block of vacant lots. We should be focusing on filling the holes, not building towers.
Filling holes for the sake of filling holes is just as detrimental as building some 100 story behemoth on the park. Nobody is asking for some giant building, what many want is a modern replacement of the Statler, which would not be considered a skyscraper in most big cities.
I agree that the Opera House "stage house" and loading dock are very bland. Those large gray panels are begging for some kind of decoration. A Pewabic tile mural [[like in some of the People Mover stations) would jazz it up quite a bit. But that area is a pedestrian dead zone... which could not be helped... due to the configuration of the 1922 built Capitol Theatre.
In no way is this building "settling", other than for a lack of ornamentation.
One Kennedy Square [[Ernst and Young) is about the same height, and that fits in just fine. The problem with One Kennedy is that it didn't connect well with the street. The new Statler site building seems to fix that with hanging gardens and open cafe space facing the park. As far as function and programing goes, it is pretty good. It also matches the architecture of some of the other surrounding buildings on Washington and Bagley.
One Kennedy also allows for views from Campus Martius of two of Detroit's most celebrated structures, the Dime Building and Penobscot. I don't think too many people would be upset if something taller on the Statler site overshadowing Trolly Plaza.