Quote Originally Posted by corktownyuppie View Post
Easier said than done. The up-front cost to rehabilitate a building for residential vs. commercial use are pretty staggering. For one, just think about the effort to fill the space with rent-paying tenants. Managing a building with 200 apartments means you need 200 different people to sign leases. Managing a building with 200 offices you can rent by with one stroke of the pen.
Um... I don't think that besides the BCBS and DTE campuses [[and the Fox Building)... that many downtown office buildings have "1 tenant". And if they did have a single leasing tenant... that is often much riskier than getting 200 apartments.... if the tenant leaves... the buildings empty... with residential, there's always coming and going with little change in the percentage once it's full.

This happened to 211 W. Fort when Compuware moved to the Comerica Tower, 211 was literally empty.

I agree that converting to lofts may not be easy [[plumbing, etc.)... but I doubt it would cost that much more than office space renovations. It's more dependent on how bad the building is and how much gutting has to be done. Gutting down to the bare walls or supports makes residential conversion easier, while renovating existing office space that's in good shape would be easier for offices.

That may be Gilbert's strategy... buildings like First National, Chase, Madison, Dime and Federal Reserve buildings [[which are in decent shape) into commercial space... and maybe get buildings like the United Artists [[where the floors have been gutted) for residential space.