Two Modern, Mixed-Use Buildings Close to Landing in Midtown

**stinkytofu** · July-30-14, 02:44 PM

Per Curbed...great news. These types of smalls scale projects will continue to improve the neighborhood. Better yet...don't see any tax incentives listed which would be huge. Midtown is taking off.

http://detroit.curbed.com/archives/2...dtown.php#more

**Gistok** · July-30-14, 04:36 PM

Gotta love this comment...

"According to Lars, the design "consciously omitted exuberant or expensive details in order to maximize the building's efficiency, the quality of construction, and longevity." Basically, these are high-end structures built to last. The renderings make the facade look like its covered in wallpaper from Ikea, but plans call for a baked, grey-colored brick. The result will be a classy, natural-looking texture."

That's like saying... "we've spared no expense... except on the facade"....

**wolverine** · July-30-14, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by Gistok

Gotta love this comment...

"According to Lars, the design "consciously omitted exuberant or expensive details in order to maximize the building's efficiency, the quality of construction, and longevity." Basically, these are high-end structures built to last. The renderings make the facade look like its covered in wallpaper from Ikea, but plans call for a baked, grey-colored brick. The result will be a classy, natural-looking texture."

That's like saying... "we've spared no expense... except on the facade"....

I know right?

Also, very bad for an architect to make a statement of longetivity. That's for the contractors and manufacturers to guarantee. Don't want to stand near that statement if the masonry facade were to effloresce which I see sometimes more than I should in some newer buildings.

**Dbest** · July-30-14, 05:48 PM

What would you expect when this line was towards the end of the article:

"According to Lars, the goal is to keep the cost of each building around $750K."

Do you end up with anything substantial at that price?.. He would have to be the first to admit this will be built CHEAPLY...

**animatedmartian** · July-30-14, 06:34 PM

It's cheap, but it's all private money. This is the size of a project that can be built with no subsidies.

**Mackinaw** · July-30-14, 07:21 PM

This is great news, though if you were to force me to lodge a complaint, it would be the small footprint of the buildings relative to their lots.

**animatedmartian** · July-30-14, 08:48 PM

Originally Posted by Mackinaw

This is great news, though if you were to force me to lodge a complaint, it would be the small footprint of the buildings relative to their lots.

I think both building are being built within parking lot being used by the adjacent building on the corner. I wonder then what was the deal that allowed them to develop only small sections of the parking lot? Usually it seems like when parking lots are built over, they're usually either standalone lots or the building that is on the same lot is vacant. However, this seems to be neither case.

**Huggybear** · July-30-14, 09:08 PM

6,000 sq feet for $750K is $125k/sq ft, which is not peanuts for a low-rise building. If anything, it shows you the lousy economies of scale you get by doing tiny projects.

I wouldn't read too much into the lack of discussion of subsidies. Unless they are getting $24 psf/year, it wouldn't be breaking even for new construction [[or so the newspapers have said), and we are probably years from when a 1,000 sf place in that area can command $2,000+ a month [[n.b. that this assumes that the retail can command as much money as the residential portion). So unless this is a philanthropic or wildly speculative project, it's probably safe to assume that this has some kind of other money, incentives, or credits in it somewhere.

That's not to say it wouldn't be a welcome addition to the neighborhood. Definitely has the vibe of San Fransciso or Montreal to it.

HB

**mwilbert** · July-30-14, 09:56 PM

Originally Posted by Huggybear

6,000 sq feet for $750K is $125k/sq ft, which is not peanuts for a low-rise building. If anything, it shows you the lousy economies of scale you get by doing tiny projects.

I wouldn't read too much into the lack of discussion of subsidies. Unless they are getting $24 psf/year, it wouldn't be breaking even for new construction [[or so the newspapers have said), and we are probably years from when a 1,000 sf place in that area can command $2,000+ a month [[n.b. that this assumes that the retail can command as much money as the residential portion). So unless this is a philanthropic or wildly speculative project, it's probably safe to assume that this has some kind of other money, incentives, or credits in it somewhere.

That's not to say it wouldn't be a welcome addition to the neighborhood. Definitely has the vibe of San Fransciso or Montreal to it.

HB

I don't know what sort of incentives there may be, but $24/sqft for breakeven is high for a building that cost $1.25/sqft. The cap rate on a new building like that in midtown shouldn't be more than 9%, maybe less, which means about $1/sqft/month, plus expenses. Even if they didn't get any discount on their property taxes, which is unlikely, I don't think you could get the breakeven rent up anywhere near $24. The $2/sqft assumes a higher construction cost [[$125/sqft is not high).

**DetroiterOnTheWestCoast** · July-31-14, 11:20 AM

If you enlarge the pics on Curbed, its easier to see the fact that they are proposing brick facades. I actually think gray brick will be a nice change from some of the other new construction in the area. With all of the gaping wholes in midtown, a couple of buildings going up on parking lots is a welcome addition.

**rex** · July-31-14, 11:26 AM

Artist renderings of Caucasians hanging around and ugly T shaped building in Midtown Detroit

**Jason** · July-31-14, 03:18 PM

I think the statement about the facade is saying that the facade was kept flat and simple [[rather than have strange shapes, protrusions, etc.) to save money to ensure higher quality materials in the first place. I think this is the right way to go.

The curbed article says "baked" bricks, which since all bricks are baked I'm assuming the bricks are clinker bricks which are a higher quality brick. But even if they're just regular bricks, assuming that the facade is well-detailed [[not marred with expansion joints or cut bricks all over), which I think it would be, this would probably be the highest quality facade out of any of the recent residential projects.

**motz** · August-01-14, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by Jason

I think the statement about the facade is saying that the facade was kept flat and simple [[rather than have strange shapes, protrusions, etc.) to save money to ensure higher quality materials in the first place. I think this is the right way to go.

The curbed article says "baked" bricks, which since all bricks are baked I'm assuming the bricks are clinker bricks which are a higher quality brick. But even if they're just regular bricks, assuming that the facade is well-detailed [[not marred with expansion joints or cut bricks all over), which I think it would be, this would probably be the highest quality facade out of any of the recent residential projects.

I would hope everyone would agree, I'd rather have a not-flashy building with a very sound structure and built using quality materials than something flashy that will fall apart in 20-30 years. I am glad to see the developer focus on quality instead of flashiness, we want buildings that will stick around instead of patchwork stuff that may or may not fall apart in a few years.

**mwilbert** · August-01-14, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by motz

I would hope everyone would agree, I'd rather have a not-flashy building with a very sound structure and built using quality materials than something flashy that will fall apart in 20-30 years. I am glad to see the developer focus on quality instead of flashiness, we want buildings that will stick around instead of patchwork stuff that may or may not fall apart in a few years.

Well, I'm not going to argue for poor construction, but in an optimistic scenario, those buildings would be too short for that location in 30 years, and get replaced. [[Not a prediction.)