City Club Apartments. Taking place of Stalter Hotel

**southen** · April-10-19, 09:33 AM

It really is such a poorly conceived project. I hope that someone with vision takes on the Tuller site and raises the bar for all future development around Grand Circus Park.

**Bham1982** · April-10-19, 09:34 AM

The building is just fine. It's basically the nicest [[to be fair, practically only) new construction residential addition to downtown proper since Millender Center.

**Gistok** · April-10-19, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by southen

It really is such a poorly conceived project. I hope that someone with vision takes on the Tuller site and raises the bar for all future development around Grand Circus Park.

I agree Southen.... only bad thing is that the whole block is owned by Ilitch Holdings. In over 20 years, I cannot recall them ever selling a single property of their over 100 parcels...

I hope City Council goes after them... shaming them doesn't seem to work...

**southen** · April-10-19, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by Gistok

I agree Southen.... only bad thing is that the whole block is owned by Ilitch Holdings. In over 20 years, I cannot recall them ever selling a single property of their over 100 parcels...

I hope City Council goes after them... shaming them doesn't seem to work...

It will take someone with deep pockets like Gilbert buying the site and allowing the Ilitchs to save face and act like they are teaming up with him.

**mwilbert** · April-10-19, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

The building is just fine. It's basically the nicest [[to be fair, practically only) new construction residential addition to downtown proper since Millender Center.

The building is fine. To me, it seems to underutilize that prime site, but as has been noted, there are many other sites. It's not the end of the world.

**drjeff** · April-10-19, 11:43 AM

It looks ridiculously out of scale for that site. How would you feel about 5 story building on the Hudson's site? "Better than nothing?"

They could have been creative and made some feature of the building taller so it meshes with the surrounding buildings better. Instead it's bland, boring, and too small. To me the current design is worse than nothing.

**Dmberko11** · April-10-19, 12:19 PM

Originally Posted by drjeff

It looks ridiculously out of scale for that site. How would you feel about 5 story building on the Hudson's site? "Better than nothing?"

They could have been creative and made some feature of the building taller so it meshes with the surrounding buildings better. Instead it's bland, boring, and too small. To me the current design is worse than nothing.

I agree! They shouldn't have allowed this to be built. Better to have waited for the right developer. Now they'll have this POS for the next 50 years.

**Danny** · April-10-19, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by southen

It really is such a poorly conceived project. I hope that someone with vision takes on the Tuller site and raises the bar for all future development around Grand Circus Park.

That is that way those developers want. To have a fancy expensive apt. complex for Millennials.

**EGrant** · April-10-19, 02:38 PM

Millennials, killing avocados, casual dining, napkins, and now architecture

**cmubryan** · April-10-19, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by drjeff

It looks ridiculously out of scale for that site. How would you feel about 5 story building on the Hudson's site? "Better than nothing?"

They could have been creative and made some feature of the building taller so it meshes with the surrounding buildings better. Instead it's bland, boring, and too small. To me the current design is worse than nothing.

7-8 years ago, I would have been fine with a 5 story building being built where Hudson's was considering we hadn't seen an occupied building in that space for 30 years! It's one thing if occupied high-rises are being torn down for small scale buildings, it's another if there was nothing there in a generation or two to begin with. This isn't Detroit circa 1950, this is a new Detroit with a fraction of the population it once had. Let's be realistic.

**southen** · April-10-19, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by cmubryan

7-8 years ago, I would have been fine with a 5 story building being built where Hudson's was considering we hadn't seen an occupied building in that space for 30 years! It's one thing if occupied high-rises are being torn down for small scale buildings, it's another if there was nothing there in a generation or two to begin with. This isn't Detroit circa 1950, this is a new Detroit with a fraction of the population it once had. Let's be realistic.

Your thinking would have been wrong 7-8 years ago as well. There is being realistic and then there is settling for anything. Some sites downtown require a certain scale of structure, you don't simply plop something awful there just because the site has been empty for a bit over a decade and you are desperate for anything.

**Gistok** · April-10-19, 05:38 PM

I wonder if TCF/Chemical Bank would have jumped at an empty Statler site rather than being shoe horned into that tight spot at Woodward and Elizabeth? I'd hate to be working at their future HQ site at 5PM... when gridlock sets in for all the traffic exiting onto Elizabeth St. A 10-15 story bank HQ on GCP would have been more visible, and given them more options... with cars exiting onto either Washington or Bagley. Plus there would not have been a reason to tear down the Michigan Mutual Annex parking deck and offices on top.

**Gistok** · April-10-19, 05:46 PM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

The building is just fine. It's basically the nicest [[to be fair, practically only) new construction residential addition to downtown proper since Millender Center.

We heard you the first time you mentioned that. Maybe that's because converting existing office towers to residential provides better value for developers with existing tax credits, and for residents better views in tall towers, and having a nicer building.

Even the last 2 new downtown residential buildings were towers [[Millender and Trolley Plaza) that offered great views.

The majority of the residents of this new building of 5 residential stories are going to have the squeal of the People Mover turns as it makes the curves around 3 sides of this new building... they'll be able to hear it every 10 minutes. I guess they'll get used to it... as they see it passing by... with the PM riders staring back at them...

**JonWylie** · April-10-19, 05:48 PM

Originally Posted by Gistok

I wonder if TCF/Chemical Bank would have jumped at an empty Statler site rather than being shoe horned into that tight spot at Woodward and Elizabeth? I'd hate to be working at their future HQ site at 5PM... when gridlock sets in for all the traffic exiting onto Elizabeth St. A 10-15 story bank HQ on GCP would have been more visible, and given them more options... with cars exiting onto either Washington or Bagley. Plus there would not have been a reason to tear down the Michigan Mutual Annex parking deck and offices on top.

That's an interesting thought, that would have been a nice addition to GCP. Although I feel like I'd rather have a corporate headquarters front Woodward and put a little life into "Foxtown". Given the footprint of the Statler, we'd probably be looking at a significantly shorter TCF bank headquarters and they probably want a prominent spot for the most viewability.

**cmubryan** · April-10-19, 08:33 PM

Originally Posted by southen

Your thinking would have been wrong 7-8 years ago as well. There is being realistic and then there is settling for anything. Some sites downtown require a certain scale of structure, you don't simply plop something awful there just because the site has been empty for a bit over a decade and you are desperate for anything.

Disagree completely. Again, the last time an occupied building was at Hudson’s was in 1983! The last time an occupied building was at Statler was 1975. I would take a 5 story quality occupied building over a hole any day. Who is to say I am “wrong”?

Sweetie, this isn’t NYC. We have come a long way in 10 years but like it or not, we have a high percentage of surface lots downtown. Once those fill up, we can certainly demand larger scale construction. Until then, midrises taking the place of lots or holes in the ground should be considered a win.

**Burnsie** · April-10-19, 11:39 PM

Technically the last time the Hudson's building was occupied, albeit only a small fraction, was Halloween 1986. The next day, the credit card offices relocated to Northland.

**Dexlin** · April-11-19, 01:53 AM

Some more renderings from their website:

We could go in a circle discussing the appropriateness for the site. For me it's clear that it's a classic waste of a good site, something far more appropriate for Midtown than downtown. That said, for what it is it's definitely a quality product where there will certainly be a waiting list.

Still, with the way things are built, now, I'd be shocked if this lasts 50 years. Heck, you might get a good 20 years out of this thing before land values become so high where it no longer makes sense short of them doing a total reconstruction of it or something.

**EGrant** · April-11-19, 06:20 AM

Originally Posted by cmubryan

Who is to say I am “wrong”?

Well, they didn't build a 5 story building on one of the most prime pieces of real estate in Michigan, and now we're getting 900-foot skyscraper.

**Bham1982** · April-11-19, 06:54 AM

Originally Posted by EGrant

Well, they didn't build a 5 story building on one of the most prime pieces of real estate in Michigan, and now we're getting 900-foot skyscraper.

Actually, you're not, but that's another topic.

**hybridy** · April-11-19, 08:44 AM

Originally Posted by MrMichigan

Thank you for the insight hybridy

No problem

**Worldsgreatest** · April-11-19, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by bham1982

actually, you're not, but that's another propaganda i'm pushing.

ftfy

.....

**southen** · April-11-19, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by cmubryan

Disagree completely. Again, the last time an occupied building was at Hudson’s was in 1983! The last time an occupied building was at Statler was 1975. I would take a 5 story quality occupied building over a hole any day. Who is to say I am “wrong”?

Sweetie, this isn’t NYC. We have come a long way in 10 years but like it or not, we have a high percentage of surface lots downtown. Once those fill up, we can certainly demand larger scale construction. Until then, midrises taking the place of lots or holes in the ground should be considered a win.

Cute. Based on you calling this building quality after looking at those renderings I will happily say that "I" am one to say you are wrong. Just because you are desperate and have questionable taste doesn't mean the rest of us feel the same when it comes to redevelopment.

As another poster mentioned, we waited on Hudson's and now we are getting something massive and appropriate for the site. There are certain plots of land that lend themselves to patience. Having an empty site at Statler for a few more years while waiting on something appropriate wouldn't have killed downtown. It was a missed opportunity, plain and simple, sweetie.

**DetroitGuy423** · April-11-19, 03:07 PM

I'm still of the group that thinks this development is too small for the block and it should be at least 15 stories tall...BUT, it is a LARGE block and given that I work across GCP from this it is nice to have a street wall there again and new life coming in. So, while I would've prefered a redeveloped Statler [[could you imagine that shining and back to life?) or something new with equivalent height, it is what it is and I'm just going to embrace it.