Detnews Article on Hudson's Site/ Possible Details

The article says more details are coming at Wednesday's DDA meeting. I actually doubt the plan will be too specific, and also think it will not include renderings. Gilbert is still waiting for the state to pass the "brownfield & blighted" legislation. I suppose it is possible that he could release info/renderings for 2 different plans, one with the tax incentives and one without. But I think the legislation in question is shortly to pass the legislature, so I think he will continue to cool his jets until then.

Just my opinion, but I think they have plans 100% done and would be ready to go, but they want that bill to pass before putting a shovel in the ground.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/bus...sday/98177650/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikeyinBrooklyn

Just my opinion, but I think they have plans 100% done and would be ready to go, but they want that bill to pass before putting a shovel in the ground.

---

And that's honestly what kinda pisses me off about this Hudson's situation. He has owned control of the site for several years, he has teased us for several years about renderings and uses for the site, so we are all anticipating something constantly because of the typically breakneck speed this guy works at. Then at the last minute, he is trying to attach the Hudson's and Monroe block developments to brand new legislation that needs to be passed. What gives? You've owned these long enough, why didn't you get the ball rolling years ago? Now we have to sit and wait on a bill that may or may not get passed? Do you think 5-6 years ago had he said that development of Hudson's or any other blank slate property would be tied to the hope future legislation for tax credits would be passed Detroit would have said "yea sure" or to go pound sand? I understand there is something to be said about having leverage in negotiations [[I'll spend a couple billion in downtown if you pass this) but what if it gets voted down again? Then are we going to get a crappy scaled back version of what you promised years ago when we were supposed to get a "architectural dynamo"?

Mikeg, I get frustrated by it, too, although not to the extent that you do. It is annoying that our expectations of what will happen there, and when, have indeed been teased repeatedly. But I try to keep a few things in mind. First, I doubt if Gilbert weren't cooking up something for the huge and high profile site, that anyone else would be. No one got anything done [[except the parking garage) on the spot in the 27 years since Hudson's closed. Second, I think Gilbert got development rights to the block with the thought of putting something nice there. But when downtown really started to boom, he probably started thinking bigger. When the idea of the tax capture* bill was first floated, that seemed to him like a tantalizing way of building even bigger while helping ensure he'd make a good profit on the project. Third, Bedrock has said [[and it is referenced in the article) that there will be some kind of "programmed civic space" in the plan if he gets the tax break, that would have to reconsider if they don't get the tax break. Is that a park, a performance space, something else? I have no idea.

I am not too worried about the whole project. I am rather certain, based on his past, commitment to downtown, and his various statements, that we will not get a "crappy" development on the site. A 7-Eleven and a combo KFC-Taco Bell- surrounded by parking- are not likely to erected by Dan Gilbert there. My guess is that if it looks like the legislation will pass in the foreseeable political future, he will await the tax benefits, and go with Plan A when it's a done deal. If it looks like it won't pass, he'll move on to Plan B, which I bet is still pretty good, if not "knock-your-socks-off." I think it would be both interesting and a bold political tactic if on Wednesday he actually showed off 2 plans for the site: the pretty good one and the outstanding one.

Regardless, I guess we won't know anything about what will go there until we know it. I hope all the hype and buildup is repaid with something truly spectacular.

*I am not a big proponent of tax breaks. I prefer low, flat rates paid by all. That said, it is economic reality that such breaks would lead to some things being done- either at all, or at least to the same extent- which would not otherwise get done. This legislation would probably have a more dramatic impact on smaller communities that have either a brownfield or blighted area than on Detroit. I don't know if this legislation would have bearing on projects underway. If so it could benefit the Packard site tremendously [[I can envision a full build out and clean-up there exceeding $500M). I wonder if any benefits can be attached to the Uniroyal site on the river?