City Club Apartments. Taking place of Stalter Hotel

[swingline]

The issue of the building height on the Statler site is NOT some sort of geeky, fantasy-filled debate that only has importance to SimCity fans. Those who think so and promote the libertarian attitude of "let the owner/developer do what he/she wants with their property" clearly understand very little about real estate development, not to mention the larger picture concerning economic development .

An important urban site like Grand Circus Park requires adherence to fundamental street design and placemaking principles. Placemaking attracts capital and creates jobs and wealth. Clashes of building scale and ignorance of building height to street/open space width ratios destroys placemaking potential. If the city allows allows a too short building to be built on that site, it might as well allow the exterior to be finished with concrete block and let the owner target the property to Section 8 tenancy. The economic impact on the neighborhood will be the same.

Some very basic stuff about these design principles can be found at this San Diego-related site. http://sdgreatstreets.org/learn/ We don't have their weather, but can't we keep up with San Diego when it comes to urban design?

The importance of the historic architectural streetwall surrounding the west half of GCP was one of the attributes of the area that justified its listing on the National Register 30 years ago. The tragic loss of the Tuller and Statler hotels should not be permanently perpetuated by allowing lower density structures to replace these buildings. Indeed, the Historic District Commission will have a say in any design proposed for this site. Hopefully they won't screw it up although this kind of large scale and dense new construction in a historic district is a new challenge. I wrote about this when the hotel project was proposed in January:

However, the question of the design of this project raises some very interesting issues for the historic preservation community, not only locally but nationally. As most know, this site is located within the Grand Circus Park Local Historic District. If this project moves forward, it will easily be the largest "new construction" project ever undertaken in a locally designated historic district in Detroit and/or the entire state of Michigan. The project must satisfy architectural elements of design established under city ordinance for the district, and it must adhere to certain federal construction rehabilitation standards established by the National Park Service. The incorporation of completely new buildings into established historic districts has generated endless debate among preservation types nationally. How closely should such buildings resemble historic architectural styles? Mimicry is frowned upon, but how distinct and "modern" should the building appear? If the project moves ahead, the developer will have to obtain the approval of the Historic District Commission for the design. Hopefully the HDC will be up to the task.

[bailey]

The issue of the building height on the Statler site is NOT some sort of geeky, fantasy-filled debate that only has importance to SimCity fans. ......

All of your points are valid... .however none of them are "the" issue. THE issue is that the "money" doesn't give two shits about any of it. They will build the building that they think will maximize their return on the investment.

They are not charities or urban planners. They want to build a building, make money and go off onto another project.

Now, I'm sure their brochures and presentations will talk the talk about "place making"... but that is the sales job. If they thought building it with 40 foot set backs and parking in front would sell ...they would, and they'd present a bunch of studies on how that design is GREAT for downtown.


I think, looking around Downtown...any faith placed in the HDC is pointless. Embrace the suck. It'll be more people downtown on a 24/7 basis. it'll be a massive net gain regardless.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

Everyone willing to fork over the money to develop the site can control the site. Everyone else can either get on with their lives or can be angered by it. But I'm just a libertarian without any sense of urban planning, so I guess I'll just crawl back into my shell. Until the units are rented, when I get my libertarian commission check.

[downtownguy]

Everyone willing to fork over the money to develop the site can control the site. Everyone else can either get on with their lives or can be angered by it. But I'm just a libertarian without any sense of urban planning, so I guess I'll just crawl back into my shell. Until the units are rented, when I get my libertarian commission check.

The DDA will transfer the land for the project for $1.

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...#ixzz2xBNaAQN3

Hey, I've got a dollar. Does that mean I get to build some crappy, out-of-place development there, too? As long as this prime site is being sold for a token amount, I DO think citizens should have some input into what gets built there.

[animatedmartian]

I think people will come to like Statler City Apartments. It may not be the supertall everyone was hoping for, but it's not like it's going to be impossible to see from a distance. I think the renderings, especially the one from Washington, makes the building look smaller than what it will actually be in real life. It's actually kind of surprising that these renderings are so shotty because Village Green has put out a lot better renderings for their other projects.

[bailey]

Hey, I've got a dollar. Does that mean I get to build some crappy, out-of-place development there, too? As long as this prime site is being sold for a token amount, I DO think citizens should have some input into what gets built there.

I don't know... personally, I think the "people" spoke when they didn't patronize the Hilton or Detroit heritage hotel which led to it's abandonment and eventual demise. The "people" had 30 years to give their "input" or demand something be done through their representatives in government. The "people" are a generation too late to the party. But again, there is nothign stopping "the people" from coming together and rebuilding the Statler...brick by brick. just come up with the financing.

[swingline]

I don't know... personally, I think the "people" spoke when they didn't patronize the Hilton or Detroit heritage hotel which led to it's abandonment and eventual demise. The "people" had 30 years to give their "input" or demand something be done through their representatives in government. The "people" are a generation too late to the party. But again, there is nothign stopping "the people" from coming together and rebuilding the Statler...brick by brick. just come up with the financing.

Bailey, you're making no sense with this post. I'm sure you're aware of the massive decade-long community-based effort in the 90's and 00's to bootstrap a viable re-use for the Statler building and prevent its demolition. The "people" you derisively refer to did not sit on their hands. Your idea of only letting the people with the money decide what gets built works just fine if your goal is to produce single-use, automobile oriented, low density development. There's plenty of that in SE Michigan. We don't need to replicate that model in the CBD of Detroit.

How about we look at what works elsewhere? USA Today and the Free Press did just that today. What works elsewhere doesn't resemble the dropping of a 250K sq/ft building on a site that should support something at least twice that size. http://www.freep.com/article/2014032...uburban-growth #Harbor East Baltimore

[cman710]

While I am torn because I would love to see a more grand building built on the Statler site, overall I think that we have to look at the city as organic and dynamic, and not static. Right now, demand does not exist to build a grand building on the site. However, there appears to be demand for this smaller scale development, and I think this development will serve the city better than an empty lot. Consider two factors:

[[1) If parts of downtown contain high-rise urbanism mixed with low-rise urbanism, that could be a positive thing. We all agree that we would like to see a vibrant downtown Detroit. While that will undoubtedly include some rehabbed skyscrapers, the demand will not be there in the next 5 to 10 years to support dense, high-rise development of the sort some would like for the Statler site. Given that, the best hope for a more vibrant downtown in the next 10 years would be for continued rehab of some of the existing building stock combined with some new construction on a smaller scale. This may result in dowtown Detroit becoming more vibrant, more quickly because smaller developments can be quicker to build and easier to fill with tenants.

Moroever, lower-rise urbanism will be easier to sustain throughout downtown Detroit. One of the biggest problems facing downtown is still vacancy. To the extent that the vacancies can be filled with smaller but vibrant developments, that is a great result. Would you prefer one large building on one site or 4 smaller buildings filling vacancies around downtown? Right now, I think I would prefer the latter.

Many vibrant cities, including New York, have low-rise areas that are more authentically urban than what we find in downtown Detroit today.

2. If the land becomes more valuable, this development will eventually be replaced. In thirty years, if the market for land in downtown Detroit is such that this building no longer makes sense, a developer will purchase it, knock it down, and build something much larger. This has occured in just about every major, growing city in the United States, including Detroit in the early 20th century. If the market does not dictate such a move, then this development was probably not a mistake in the first place.

[bailey]

Bailey, you're making no sense with this post. I'm sure you're aware of the massive decade-long community-based effort in the 90's and 00's to bootstrap a viable re-use for the Statler building and prevent its demolition. The "people" you derisively refer to did not sit on their hands. Your idea of only letting the people with the money decide what gets built works just fine if your goal is to produce single-use, automobile oriented, low density development. There's plenty of that in SE Michigan. We don't need to replicate that model in the CBD of Detroit.

How about we look at what works elsewhere? USA Today and the Free Press did just that today. What works elsewhere doesn't resemble the dropping of a 250K sq/ft building on a site that should support something at least twice that size. http://www.freep.com/article/2014032...uburban-growth #Harbor East Baltimore

You're arguing against a straw man. I agree 100% with everything you're saying. I'm saying, if past is prologue...and we have multiple examples construction and/ or demoed in the last decade....it won't mean a tinker's dam when it comes to what gets built on that site....unless those with the money share the same opinion. And unless it increases the potential ROI, its going to be ignored.

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

There is a Curbed article on this development. It has an interesting photo from the GCP area looking towards Washington Blvd. Whatever the merits are of a higher presence on GCP [[and I would like a taller structure fronting GCP), the height of this proposal is really NOT out of line with the structures on Washington. Washington is clearly a mix of tall and not-so-tall buildings. It's not a high rise canyon. That being said, I would really like it if they decided to raise the GCP frontage by even a few floors, keeping the rest of the project at six floors. That might make the whole project a bit more interesting, provide some premium units with better views, and have a nicer presence on the park.

I'd personally prefer to see it shorter but with the parking underground, rather than taller with a couple of floors of parking sandwiched between the retail and apartment levels.

http://detroit.curbed.com/archives/2...atler-site.php



This project, together with the Whitney and the Park Apartments/Briggs House Residence will really liven up that part of downtown.

[downtownguy]

While I am torn because I would love to see a more grand building built on the Statler site, overall I think that we have to look at the city as organic and dynamic, and not static. Right now, demand does not exist to build a grand building on the site. However, there appears to be demand for this smaller scale development, and I think this development will serve the city better than an empty lot...

I moved downtown in 1981 and I was the second tenant to move on to the 25th floor of the then brand-new Trolley Plaza. As I recall, there were more than 300 units in that building and it filled up immediately. Now, more than 30 years later, there is a revived interest in living downtown. I would say there's more interest in downtown living today than when I moved into Trolley. [[Most people thought I should have my head examined for living downtown back then--now it's cool.) With current demand exceeding supply for apartments downtown, I would think that this prime block could well support something more than a six story apartment building.

[DetroitPlanner]

DC seems to be able to do low rise urbanism pretty well. I wish it was taller, but I assume that the developer knows the market better than I do. I am shocked at the 400 sq ft size for an apartment. I would think it would be easier to sell and 800+ sq ft 2 bedroom and share the kitchen etc, but perhaps people don't want to deal with a room mate and are willing to trade it off for a large cracker box.

[Gistok]

I think that when people see the final product... the People Mover tracks being in front of the entire project along GCP and Bagey... may make it seem "less tall"... than it otherwise would be. Only Washington Blvd. will have a facade without tracks.

Also... having the PM tracks crossover diagonally near Clifford... begs the question... how will that part of the property be designed with the PM in the way??

[cman710]

DC seems to be able to do low rise urbanism pretty well. I wish it was taller, but I assume that the developer knows the market better than I do. I am shocked at the 400 sq ft size for an apartment. I would think it would be easier to sell and 800+ sq ft 2 bedroom and share the kitchen etc, but perhaps people don't want to deal with a room mate and are willing to trade it off for a large cracker box.

Five or six years ago, people would have thought this was insane, but perhaps the market has caught up and people would be willing to sacrifice space for location? I guess we will find out.

[animatedmartian]

I moved downtown in 1981 and I was the second tenant to move on to the 25th floor of the then brand-new Trolley Plaza. As I recall, there were more than 300 units in that building and it filled up immediately. Now, more than 30 years later, there is a revived interest in living downtown. I would say there's more interest in downtown living today than when I moved into Trolley. [[Most people thought I should have my head examined for living downtown back then--now it's cool.) With current demand exceeding supply for apartments downtown, I would think that this prime block could well support something more than a six story apartment building.

But then too, after the 2008-9 recession, it seems like developers and lenders are really hesitant to overbuild. People are still kind of leery of building 500 unit developments unless they're 100% sure they'll get their money back on it. Had this project been proposed in 2006, there likely would have been a lot more floors and a lot more units.

It's one thing to say that more people are interested in moving downtown, but it's another thing to have concrete evidence of it.

[Spartan]

That being said, I would really like it if they decided to raise the GCP frontage by even a few floors, keeping the rest of the project at six floors. That might make the whole project a bit more interesting, provide some premium units with better views, and have a nicer presence on the park.

I'd personally prefer to see it shorter but with the parking underground, rather than taller with a couple of floors of parking sandwiched between the retail and apartment levels.

I like this idea, and maybe that's a bit what they were going with by having that video board or whatever on the north side of the building. I think throwing up another 5-10 stories just on the GCP side would be a good way to both fill the site and provide a better presence there. The benefit of doing a sandwich parking is that it handles the People Mover better. How many people are going to want to live on the 2nd and 3rd floor facing Bagley/GCP. People riding the DPM will basically be looking in their window. I wonder how they plan to account for that.

[bailey]

Also... having the PM tracks crossover diagonally near Clifford... begs the question... how will that part of the property be designed with the PM in the way??

Is that part of the "Statler site" though? I mean it didn't affect the Statler...IIRC it was surface parking [[actually, just noticed that according to my 1934 DSR map hanging in my office, that parcel and the entire frontage on Clifford has been surface parking since the 30s)..and really it's barely over the sidewalk. I'd be more concerned about the crumbling wreckage of the AAA building sitting there. Is Peroni selling out now?

[rbdetsport]

no it's definitely not set back... i think from what you're seeing in the first rendering is the island in the middle of the north/southbound lanes of washington blvd. it's the median of the road, not open grass in front of the building... it definitely seems like they got the streetwall concept right with this one.

I am WELL aware of the median on Washington Blvd.... I was referring to the setback from Park Avenue. It looks to me like there is a plaza in front.. In regards to the height argument, most urban parks are designed to be surrounded by high density development, as Grand Circus was. That is the point of green space in a downtown area, to get a more human scale. For those saying this will make "a nice open space for those in the park" you are full of it.. That is exactly what the park is for, to be an open space for pedestrians.

[313WX]

Some folks are still missing the point.

It's not the project itself that's the problem, but the location. I can think of 100 other vacant sites in which this development would fit perfectly. The Statler site is not one of those sites.

You're telling me there was no one that could have convinced this developer to build their project elsewhere in the city?

[SpartanDawg]

Some folks are still missing the point.

It's not the project itself that's the problem, but the location. I can think of 100 other vacant sites in which this development would fit perfectly. The Statler site is not one of those sites.

You're telling me there was no one that could have convinced this developer to build their project elsewhere in the city?

well this group [[village green) has the money now, and has their own choice of which parcel to build and spend on. Grand Circus Park, once [[if) Detroit recovers is going to be an INCREDIBLE area. Beautiful park, proximity to stadiums, obviously prime real estate. They have the money, who wouldn't want to build in this space.

It's Detroits biggest park space in the downtown area, and has potential to be even more bustling than what campus martius has to offer. There's still other empty parcels that surround the park that will hopefully someday be taken up by people with more ambitious projects, until then, this is what we'll get

[iheartthed]

Corktownyuppie, actually it wasn't a fire that caused Paris's transformation... it was Baron Haussman, the Prefect [[pitbull) for Emperor Napoleon III who between the 1840s and 1860s destroyed 40% of medieval Paris in order to build the broad boulevards that make Paris so beautiful. All the poor people who used to live in all those squalid medieval tenements... they got transported to the suburbs of Paris... where they still are today... you have to have money in order to live in the city today.

Actually, the areas outside of the Peripherique did not develop until the 20th century. What Baron Hausman did was slum clearing but Paris proper didn't become saturated with rich people until post WW2 era.

Fun fact about Paris vs Detroit is that the entire city of Paris could roughly within Detroit's Grand Blvd loop. Paris proper has also declined dramatically in population since the early 20th century, when it had nearly 1 million more residents than it does today...

[bailey]

...Fun fact about Paris vs Detroit is that the entire city of Paris could roughly within Detroit's Grand Blvd loop....

It does seem that Detroit's sheer size is always surprising to people not from here...or even those who live here. Goes a long way to getting people to understand the challenges when they understand insanely large empty spaces.

[animatedmartian]

well this group [[village green) has the money now, and has their own choice of which parcel to build and spend on. Grand Circus Park, once [[if) Detroit recovers is going to be an INCREDIBLE area. Beautiful park, proximity to stadiums, obviously prime real estate. They have the money, who wouldn't want to build in this space.

It's Detroits biggest park space in the downtown area, and has potential to be even more bustling than what campus martius has to offer. There's still other empty parcels that surround the park that will hopefully someday be taken up by people with more ambitious projects, until then, this is what we'll get

Though that brings me intrigue. Village Green owns the next door Trolley Plaza and Millender Apartments. They've renovated both buildings and I'm pretty sure they have high occupancy rates. Wouldn't they have a bit more confidence in being able to build something a bit bigger than the current proposal?

But at this point, I don't really care if it was bigger, I'm just glad something is being built and it'll actually bring better vibrancy to the street than either Trolley Plaza or Millender ever did.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

I did note earlier that property owned by the city is a proper issue for public input; my condemnation of the naysayers was more general than specific to this case. But I would point out just 2 things: the public and public officials have had years to offer input and propose restrictions/requirements for the site; the people who have the most say- and the final say- are the ones footing the bill [[the developers). Everyone who has different ideas of what should be there has had plenty of time to make their voices heard and/or to raise money to build something there. No one did. These guys came up with a plan and got their ducks in a row. It's their's to build. And for what it's worth, it is an attractive development, compared with what is there now, in just about everyone's honest estimation.

If you read through almost all threads on this site pertaining to proposed developments, we all know better than the developers. We don't like designs, we have better uses for the old building or vacant lot. We know how to fix the neighborhood. But guess what? We're typing our thoughts in our little cyber neighborhood, while someone else is doing the work to develop a property in a real neighborhood.

This reminds me of when a new homeowner paints their house a color the neighbors don't like. The neighbors could have passed the zoning rules about house colors before the new guy moved in; or they could buy the house themselves and paint it any color they want. If those two steps aren't taken, they need to learn to let go of their control issues and accept the pink house.

[Gistok]

Mikey... you need to remember that this is a HISTORIC DISTRICT... different rules apply than elsewhere. Granted those may be overruled... but you cannot expect someone who wants to build just whatever they want in such a district should always get the right to do so...