Crowne Plaza could add second tower

[Dmberko11]

Looks like the renderings above are the official renderings, according to Kirk Pinho of Crain's.

https://twitter.com/kirkpinhoCDB/sta...40929153683456

Looks good to me! Detroit is on a roll. I normally don't comment on any of the threads but I just gotta say how stoked I am at the comeback. Keep it coming lol

[NSortzi]

Those are the same renderings that were released a month ago.

[Jason]

With the magic of photoshop and 20 minutes...

[EGrant]

WAY better!

[Dexlin]

That's silly. The base has a functional use. It will include thousands of square feet of additional retail, restaurant, conference and other hotel amenity space as well as parking. It looks like the rest of the complex.

[EGrant]

The base looks like a bunker and does nothing for street-level activity.

[Jason]

I checked the drawings again and it looks like the drawings and the renderings are inconsistent. I do think what's shown in the drawings is better, but still not good. http://www.detroitmi.gov/Portals/0/d...-12-163423-763

But anyway the visual base doesn't correspond to anything on the inside. Floors 3-9 are parking garage, and some of those floors are in the base and some of them are in the tower. Floors 1 and 2 are part garage ramp, and part retail and hotel event space. The base is completely contrived for aesthetic purposes, so it doesn't need to look like that, and since it's fugly, it shouldn't.

[swingline]

The CPC special district review memo indicates that the owner plans to operate the new tower addition as a separate hotel from the Crowne Plaza. The new hotel entrance will be on W. Jefferson and the existing hotel entrance will be on W. Larned. First I've heard of that. Seems like kind of an odd arrangement. Does anybody know of a similar project completed elsewhere?

[dtowncitylover]

Crain's is reporting that City Council is holding up the project over some issues with the current Crowne Plaza. Bedbugs being one of them...eek.

[Onthe405]

The CPC special district review memo indicates that the owner plans to operate the new tower addition as a separate hotel from the Crowne Plaza. The new hotel entrance will be on W. Jefferson and the existing hotel entrance will be on W. Larned. First I've heard of that. Seems like kind of an odd arrangement. Does anybody know of a similar project completed elsewhere?

This is becoming quite common in the hotel business, as it allows big chains to market more than one of their products within the context of a single location. Some have separate entrances, some don't.

It is much easier to fill all the rooms if you are aiming toward multiple markets simultaneously [[all-suite, traditional full service, limited service, and so on). Airline analogy: one plane collectively transports economy-minded leisure travelers, first class, business class. All three are necessary to make the load-factor & profitability goals of the airline.

If operated by the same parent company, hotel brands can even leverage the pooling of staff & management if required.

Here's a random example in Chicago's West Loop: Homewood Suites [[apartment-style, limited service, long term stay) and Hampton Inn [[traditional rooms, limited service, budget conscious). Both brands operated by Hilton.

[Dexlin]

Crain's is reporting that City Council is holding up the project over some issues with the current Crowne Plaza. Bedbugs being one of them...eek.

I thought this was a bit of old news. When this went before the City Council earlier this year they sent it back to the Planning Commission. They met with the owners and worked out a plan to deal with the issues raised. Apparently, someone internally must have leaked the information to the council. In any case, all was cleared up and the developer went back to the beginning of the process and resubmitted the plan this month for review. But it sounds like some unionization vote is also an issue with the city council?

For some additional background, there are certain zoning districts [[Public Center, Public Center Adjacent) in and around the financial district which require a "Special Distrisct Review" whenever a developer wants to develop on their property. This property lies within that zoning overlay, which is why you're seeing this extra step required of them. Outside this overlay, if property owner was looking to develop by-right on any property, they'd simply have to get the proper building permits and it wouldn't have to go before city council.

What I found kind of odd was that while I think it's good that they were made to correct any issues with the current hotel on-site, I'm not sure if the new hotel should have been contigent upon fixing these problems with the current Crowne Plaza since Crowne Plaza wouldn't be the operator of the new hotel. I get that the owner will own both hotels properties on-site, but I don't know how you're going to hold thew new franchisee responsible for what would be happening next door.

[hybridy]

I'm not sure if the new hotel should have been contigent upon fixing these problems with the current Crowne Plaza since Crowne Plaza wouldn't be the operator of the new hotel.

changing the flag doesn't change the management.

if the first place isn't run properly now, why would an 'expanded' place run better?

ex:
La Dulce closed

Top of Pontch closed

[swingline]

This is becoming quite common in the hotel business, as it allows big chains to market more than one of their products within the context of a single location. Some have separate entrances, some don't.

It is much easier to fill all the rooms if you are aiming toward multiple markets simultaneously [[all-suite, traditional full service, limited service, and so on). Airline analogy: one plane collectively transports economy-minded leisure travelers, first class, business class. All three are necessary to make the load-factor & profitability goals of the airline.

If operated by the same parent company, hotel brands can even leverage the pooling of staff & management if required.

Here's a random example in Chicago's West Loop: Homewood Suites [[apartment-style, limited service, long term stay) and Hampton Inn [[traditional rooms, limited service, budget conscious). Both brands operated by Hilton.

Interesting. Thanks for the information.

[Atticus]

This delay has the appearance of “kickback” issues written all over it. It seems like someone on city council wasn’t getting their kickback.

I really hope that isn’t the case. Whatever you think of the whole EM situation a few years past, one very important side benefit was that it ended a lot of the council corruption that plagued the city for years. It would be a real shame if those issues are starting to return again.

[mikeg19]

This delay has the appearance of “kickback” issues written all over it. It seems like someone on city council wasn’t getting their kickback.

I really hope that isn’t the case. Whatever you think of the whole EM situation a few years past, one very important side benefit was that it ended a lot of the council corruption that plagued the city for years. It would be a real shame if those issues are starting to return again.

Does that tinfoil hat you have on come in only 1 size?

How does this have kickback written all over it? That has to be one of the most absurd loads of crap I've heard in awhile.

[Towne Cluber]

Does that tinfoil hat you have on come in only 1 size?

How does this have kickback written all over it? That has to be one of the most absurd loads of crap I've heard in awhile.

Seriously? Councilman Gabe Leland is under investigation for this very sort of thing right now.

[mikeg19]

Seriously? Councilman Gabe Leland is under investigation for this very sort of thing right now.

Getting kickbacks in the form of Vodka Tonics and chicken wings is a bit different then concerns over hotel practices and bed bug infestations holding up a vote with the entire council. I just think this is a little too big for the whole "corruption/kickbacks/Kwame 2.0" garbage to start surfacing on this project.

[Towne Cluber]

Getting kickbacks in the form of Vodka Tonics and chicken wings is a bit different then concerns over hotel practices and bed bug infestations holding up a vote with the entire council. I just think this is a little too big for the whole "corruption/kickbacks/Kwame 2.0" garbage to start surfacing on this project.

You “forgot” to mention thousands of dollars in kickbacks/bribes. The FBI doesn’t do investigations over food and drinks.

[mikeg19]

You “forgot” to mention thousands of dollars in kickbacks/bribes. The FBI doesn’t do investigations over food and drinks.

Thousands of dollars in chicken wings and vodka as bribes. Better?

[Towne Cluber]

Thousands of dollars in chicken wings and vodka as bribes. Better?

Does the ‘g’ in your name stand for Gabe?

[mikeg19]

When it comes out that Gabe Leland is the sole reason that the 2nd tower is being held up because he is trying to extort tens of thousands of dollars from a Mexican businessman, I will admit that you and the original poster are correct in your assertion that this holdup "has kickbacks written all over it."

On a similar note, council is vetting out the process and owner. To me, they are doing exactly what they should be doing, ensuring that this investment group is erecting a building that fits into the core downtown plan as well as providing an exceptional product that provides the basic amenities and cleanliness that guests deserve. But your immediate response to them basically doing their job is "it's kickbacks holding it up. Something is wrong." Why? Should they green light every proposal that comes across their committee? You would think people would be happy around here that we seemingly finally have a competent city council [[Gabe's issues withstanding) doing what they are supposed to do. I guess not.

[Towne Cluber]

When it comes out that Gabe Leland is the sole reason that the 2nd tower is being held up because he is trying to extort tens of thousands of dollars from a Mexican businessman, I will admit that you and the original poster are correct in your assertion that this holdup "has kickbacks written all over it."

On a similar note, council is vetting out the process and owner. To me, they are doing exactly what they should be doing, ensuring that this investment group is erecting a building that fits into the core downtown plan as well as providing an exceptional product that provides the basic amenities and cleanliness that guests deserve. But your immediate response to them basically doing their job is "it's kickbacks holding it up. Something is wrong." Why? Should they green light every proposal that comes across their committee? You would think people would be happy around here that we seemingly finally have a competent city council [[Gabe's issues withstanding) doing what they are supposed to do. I guess not.

Is there a reason that you think city corruption magically ended with Kilpatrick and/or that big projects would somehow be immune to corruption?

Is city council holding up the project purely for vetting purposes? Maybe.

Could corruption be playing a role in city council holding up this hotel project? Also maybe.

[mikeg19]

Is there a reason that you think city corruption magically ended with Kilpatrick and/or that big projects would somehow be immune to corruption?

Is city council holding up the project purely for vetting purposes? Maybe.

Could corruption be playing a role in city council holding up this hotel project? Also maybe.

No, not at all. Just look at what's going on in Macomb County right now. I just don't see the correlation here.

And yes, in the grand scheme, I agree with you. It could be vetting, it could be corruption. But in my opinion, I just don't see where the corruption possibility is equal to or greater than the vetting/actual issues possibility. For the original poster to say it has corruption written over it, to me, is far fetched.

[Atticus]

No, not at all. Just look at what's going on in Macomb County right now. I just don't see the correlation here.

And yes, in the grand scheme, I agree with you. It could be vetting, it could be corruption. But in my opinion, I just don't see where the corruption possibility is equal to or greater than the vetting/actual issues possibility. For the original poster to say it has corruption written over it, to me, is far fetched.

The reasons provided for not approving are 1) bed bugs and 2) unionization of the workers and working conditions.

In regards to bed bugs, that should be handled by the health department. I would hate to think that the Westin, Marriott, etc. are all immune from bed bug reprimands because they aren’t building a second tower to their hotels. Point being, if there is a bed bug issue that should be independent of the building permit, and subject to enforcement by the health department.

In regards to unionization, unless there is a local ordinance or law requiring unionization, then the council has no say. You can’t say, “oh because you are not Union I feel like you cant build this” unless there is a rule on the books. The workers voted and chose not to unionize. The council members can have their own personal feelings on that issue, but the decision by the workers to not unionize has to be honored until ordinance says otherwise.

Either way, neither issue should have anything to do with a building permit. Bed bugs and non-unionization has no bearing on the engineering, architecture, or construction of how the the second tower is built. Yet the tower is in fact being held up by some unrelated reason.

If council would have said they are not approving because of traffic, bad design, incompatible architecture, etc...,, those are all legitimate reasons to prevent a project. But because they are holding the project up for no relevant reason.... it makes me suspicious.

[dtowncitylover]

The reasons provided for not approving are 1) bed bugs and 2) unionization of the workers and working conditions.

In regards to bed bugs, that should be handled by the health department. I would hate to think that the Westin, Marriott, etc. are all immune from bed bug reprimands because they aren’t building a second tower to their hotels. Point being, if there is a bed bug issue that should be independent of the building permit, and subject to enforcement by the health department.

In regards to unionization, unless there is a local ordinance or law requiring unionization, then the council has no say. You can’t say, “oh because you are not Union I feel like you cant build this” unless there is a rule on the books. The workers voted and chose not to unionize. The council members can have their own personal feelings on that issue, but the decision by the workers to not unionize has to be honored until ordinance says otherwise.

Either way, neither issue should have anything to do with a building permit. Bed bugs and non-unionization has no bearing on the engineering, architecture, or construction of how the the second tower is built. Yet the tower is in fact being held up by some unrelated reason.

If council would have said they are not approving because of traffic, bad design, incompatible architecture, etc...,, those are all legitimate reasons to prevent a project. But because they are holding the project up for no relevant reason.... it makes me suspicious.

If you can't control the bed bug problem in one building, why should you be allowed to build another?

And it doesn't seem to be about voting down the unionization, it was about the treatment of those workers that probably voted yes and if there was any reprimand for them doing so.