Downtown Construction

[3WC]

Zads; I of course agree that this forum is the place for asserting one's opinion. Whatever they may be. That's all I've been doing just as everyone else.

Your main criteria for a development is that it "fits in with its neighbors" and you want a high rise [[10-15 stories) on the Statler; that's not going to happen, not by VG or any other experienced developer.

So, the question for you is: would you rather the VG project be built as planned, or would you prefer the land be left vacant [[maybe used in the interim as an urban farm) until a developer is found that wants to build a high rise project, however long that may take?

One or the other. Please don't equivocate or assert other alternatives as there really aren't any feasible ones in the foreseeable future.

[southen]

Your defense of VG and the certainty in which you speak is what puts people off in this thread. VG got a great deal on the land and they are playing it safe and cheap by building a "stick" building. You are certain it will be quality, but the mere fact that they are using that particular type of construction on such a high profile property tells me otherwise, as does every aesthetic choice they've made with their current downtown properties.

To answer your question, you wait. Just down Washington Boulevard another developer is proposing development and you are going to see more buildings fill up and new construction proposed. At this point in downtowns turnaround you don't have to settle for something lackluster just because a company is offering. Open up the bidding on that block again and I would bet you see a lot more interest than just a few years ago when they nabbed the rights.

[3WC]

Oh, so to assert a view with "certainty" is offputting? Sorry about that. I'll pussyfoot around in the future.

Anyone with experience in real estate [[or most other undertakings) realizes that there is no such thing as a "great deal" on land or anything else in an arms length transaction. Most people were shocked that the Fisher Building, the parking structure and the Kahn Building sold for $12,500,000. It sold for what it is worth, The properties were auctioned worldwide - exposed to a vast market - for a considerable period of time and bidders - there were twelve of them as I recall - had to put up a substantial deposit for the right to bid. One qualified bidder offered $12,500,000; eleven others thought that was too much. Most of those with little or no experience thought it was shockingly too little. Who's correct?

Anything exposed to the market - especially at a widely respected auction - goes for the highest price possible.

I am mystified that so many supposedly think "stick built" is a derogatory term, a euphemism for low quality. An amazing lack of comprehension. Every $10 million home sold is stick built. The home you live in is stick built. It's a term used for a type of construction and it has no bearing on quality. Of course, stick built construction can be shoddy just as steel and concrete construction can be shoddy. [[Remember the Hancock Tower in Boston where most of the windows blew out in heavy winds? Remember the high rise casino in Vegas where construction was stopped for several months while millions of dollars were spent rebuilding a faulty foundation?) Also, the type of project determines the construction method. The new red wings arena although low rise must be built of steel and concrete, for example. Any architects or construction engineers on the forum could explain it better. Still, some on the forum will not be swayed.

You are not justified in criticizing VG's two other apartments projects in Detroit. VG didn't build those projects but from what I hear they are vastly improved as the result of the expenditure of several million bucks. Southen, what the hell would satisfy you? [[By the way, I went on VG's website and learned what I could about the company. It appears they have built high quality projects around the country.)

Your response to the question I posed is not unreasonable I suppose. And of course, if you owned the land and could legally do so, you could reopen the bidding for the site. That I'm sure would resolve the question and I for one would be very curious to see the result.

Another question - to which there is no right answer at this time - is how many of the current and proposed apartment developments, new or rehabbed, will be profitable in 5 years and/or can be sold at a pre-tax profit?

I just read that Gilbert's First National Building is a financial home run; it was pointed out that he bought it for $8 million and invested $110 million in upgrading it, a $118 million investment. However, it was just appraised at $110 million, so he's at an $8 million loss at this point. [[All of which is pre-tax by the way so it is or probably will be a good investment.)

[southen]

Yes, certainty in guaranteeing the product of a company that you simply looked up on the internet and are hell bent on defending no matter what, despite obvious issues with previous designs they have put forth in this city IS off putting.

Sorry, but 1.5 million for that site is a great deal.

Can you point to any other prominent downtown developments that are stick built? This is supposed to be a major development in the downtown of large city and you want to compare it to suburban mansions? That alone says you don't know what you are talking about. Stick built in this context means cheap. They got the land for practically nothing and they have chosen a design that allows for cheaper construction. If quality was a high priority they would not be building this the way they are with the design they have chosen, it is as simple as that.

I am completely justified in critiquing VG's design choices in their current properties. It doesn't matter that they did not construct the buildings, their choices in rehabbing them are very telling. The exterior lighting on Trolley is garbage just as is the astro turf they attached to the structure. I want to dry heave every time I walk by and see the chandeliers and cheap wood paneling they added to the entry. Same goes for Millender and whatever the hell it is they added to the entryway there. So to answer your question of what would satisfy me... good design. It is obvious that they went cheap and tacky on both of those properties which are among the largest residential properties downtown. Based on that what makes you think their new build is going to be of such high quality? Christ, they made sure that all residents will have a front row seat to the people mover and put up a billboard facing the best feature of the location, Grand Circus Park.

Just because people may like the way you run your properties, which I have read conflicting accounts on anyway, doesn't mean you have a clue about good design. They have come up with something cheap that shows zero awareness for the location in which it will sit. That should not be applauded nor accepted downtown right now.

[swingline]

Swingline: You state above: "Sure, a larger [[10-15) story building on the Statler would be more risk for the developer. The site property demands as much."

Now, Swingline, you sure sound like you know what you're talking about. So, why don't you take that added risk and try to develop the site yourself? VG obviously doesn't know what it's doing. You could join the long line of developers wanting to build high rise on the Statler site in case VG backs out. You could get lucky and make a fortune.

3WC, nice touche' with the "if you're so smart, why don't you do it yourself" argument. Presumably, you either don't ever criticize elected officials or you have gotten yourself elected to public office in order to "do it yourself." Whatever, back to the issues.

The market has improved dramatically since Village Green first proposed its Statler site project. Given that fact, who is to say that there not other developers willing to propose something better for the site? As an example, Bedrock is not settling for stick built on its Capitol Park site.

The Statler site is included in a locally designated historic district and a National Register of Historic Places district in large part because of the urban design brilliance created by the collective architectural statement made by the buildings ringing Grand Circus Park and Washington Blvd. The city should demand adherence to the urban design standards that prompted the historic designations. It's actually kind of pathetic and sad that the DEGC isn't doing this. Doing so would actually serve to add value to the project to the benefit of the developer. The city could also creatively add value to this site by aggressively and quickly working to assist Bedrock [[Book Bldg and Tower), Barbat [[Neudeck Bldg.), and Mr. Keffallinos [[Michigan Bldg. sigh) with high quality residential reuses of their adjacent buildings.

Stick-built projects will have an important role in restoring economic and civic health to Detroit. Located and executed well, they can help create very desirable neighborhoods. Some cities in better economic and physical shape than Detroit are grappling with potential long term issues presented by permitting too many of these buildings, but Detroit is nowhere there yet. http://archplanbaltimore.blogspot.co...erican_27.html

If Village Green doesn't want to make the upgrade to its Statler site proposal, it should take its project to Mr. Ilitch and help him satisfy his development obligations on one of his many vacant Arena neighborhood sites. Detroit's development braintrust should seek better than VG's proposal for a gateway site on Grand Circus Park.

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

All this talk about the Statler site once again makes me mourn the loss of the actual Statler. It would be such a perfect candidate for residential conversion now, and given the success of the Broderick and Whitney, most likely well on its way to a rebirth. Foolish decision to tear it down.

[3WC]

Southen. You don't have to justify your "critiquing" of anything. In my opinion you just have a credibility issue.

Beauty/artchitectural design is in the eye of the beholder. I'm not crazy about Gehry's designs but I'm sure not going to criticize them. I'm not going to criticize the materials he uses although I think they could be much more conventional. By the way, I would be free to criticize them if I wished but I'd be concerned that people who know what they're doing would snicker, as most people seem to fawn over his developments.

Also, what's with the comment about "the way you run your properties?" You don't have the slightest idea about "my properties." I haven't been in the real estate development business for over 25 years. When I was in that business I ran a public company that developed projects in several other states but never anything in Detroit. We didn't "run our properties," as we sold everything when it was built. [[I have been in a far more profitable business than real estate for the past 25 years.)

Swingline: You pose the question: "Who is to say there are not other developers out there willing to propose something better for the site?" Answer: I am.

[Zads07]

So, the question for you is: would you rather the VG project be built as planned, or would you prefer the land be left vacant [[maybe used in the interim as an urban farm) until a developer is found that wants to build a high rise project, however long that may take?

Yes, left vacant until a developer is found for a high-rise. Just because the opportunity is there to build doesn't mean you have to.

[Gistok]

Hehehe.... Frank Gehry.... that reminds me... the other big block that we've still not heard from downtown... the Hudson's block. We were supposted to hear about it by the end of 2015. Interestingly enough the "museum component" of that project has been scrapped. But like so much of financing... these things take time to assemble.

I was just rereading this March 2015 Detroit Freep article about that proposed design [[that's where Gehry comes to mind)... and since as been mentioned on this thread... Detroit can't command the per square foot costs [[only $20 for first class office space, and only $2 for rental residential) that projects in other cities can. I would think that that would preclude something in the "innovative architecture" area that Gehry is known for... but apparently there are funding sources that can be assembled from state and federal sources... such as this article mentioned...

http://www.freep.com/story/money/bus...roit/24474395/

If "stick built" [[thanks by the way 3WC for adding a new term to the DYES vocabulary) can be a lower priced but still quality option for keeping the costs down to make a residential project work... then it begs the question of whether or not innovative architecture, such as that planned for the Hudsons block can make money off a planned residential component? I see a lot of state and federal funding sources mentioned... and wonder if this expensive looking project isn't getting some grief from the the folks with the purse strings?

[3WC]

Gistok, you must be a real estate developer, architect or somebody else that understands real estate financing and economics.

You articulated the issue better than I did.

Of course the first fundamental step is to determine the market for new apartments and the rents projected over a multi-year period.

If one predicts that apartment rents for quality, well located apartments may reach $2.50 per square foot over a period of time, then that income stream at a 90% occupancy rate [[lenders will underwrite based on a vacancy factor) determines how much may be spent per square foot for construction and all other development costs. [[Of course, the more apartments that are built will put downward pressure on the amount of rent that can be charged.)

It's true that when state and local governments take our tax dollars and give them to developers via various abatements and credits it stimulates developers to build projects that wouldn't be feasible financially otherwise. However, they are a two edged sword. Lets say a developer get a 10 year tax abatement, The closer the 10year period approaches, the more the value of the property declines because at the end of the period costs go up significantly [[and appraised value goes down.) Developers have to be great prognosticators to be successful and only the ones with significant experience are. Many of the rest just get lucky.

I'd say design is one of the least important factors in developing projects, at least in comparison with costs. Of course all developers would love to be able to use cutting edge designs to distinguish their projects but economics determine reality.

I heard that the DEGC is giving the land to VG for a dollar [[as it agreed to do with many other developers, including Quicken years ago when it was considering building in Detroit.) Why does one think that is? The answer is that projects on sites such as the Statler and Hudson sites can't be developed without substantial public money. Just like the "projects" built for low income families.

Does anybody besides Gistok on this forum understand that?

Gilbert throws an interesting factor into the mix. I believe that his investments are not based so much on conventional economics like the rest of developers and investors. He has a vision that is laced with altruism and the money to support the vision. I'm sure he expects that eventually he will make some money but I believe that's secondary at this point.

[southen]

Southen. You don't have to justify your "critiquing" of anything. In my opinion you just have a credibility issue.

Beauty/artchitectural design is in the eye of the beholder. I'm not crazy about Gehry's designs but I'm sure not going to criticize them. I'm not going to criticize the materials he uses although I think they could be much more conventional. By the way, I would be free to criticize them if I wished but I'd be concerned that people who know what they're doing would snicker, as most people seem to fawn over his developments.

So you won't critique, then you do critique Gehry? Interesting.

If we are talking credibility where do you lie in all of this? Every time I have brought up specific design choices made by VG that I find legitimately questionable, you come back with numbers. You claim that the site was not a great deal for VG then follow up with saying they bought the land for $1. What do you feel is a great deal if acres of prime downtown land for one dollar doesn't qualify? I asked for other quality developments downtown that are "stick built" but you could not name any.

Beauty of architecture is in fact in the eye of the beholder, but based on your comments regarding architects and design, the fact you state you aren't at all comfortable critiquing architecture, this tells me you aren't someone whose opinion on this is worth hearing.

I'd say design is one of the least important factors in developing projects, at least in comparison with costs.

^^^^ We may differ on what makes good architecture in fact good architecture

[emu steve]

...
Gilbert throws an interesting factor into the mix. I believe that his investments are not based so much on conventional economics like the rest of developers and investors. He has a vision that is laced with altruism and the money to support the vision. I'm sure he expects that eventually he will make some money but I believe that's secondary at this point.

I completely agree with this statement.

People of substantial means have different ways of being altruistic with their money.

In generalities, Gilbert and Bill Gates do their altruism differently.

[3WC]

Southen: we could probably do this for eternity.

I don't agree I was critiquing Gehry. I just gave my personal opinion and did not try to convince anyone of anything [[as you do consistently). I didn't criticize him or his designs. I didn't judge him or his designs.

You claim that, not that you merely don't like VG's work on its two Detroit projects, but you claim they are "legitimately questionable." Questionable by whom? You can question all you want but that doesn't mean anyone has to take you seriously. I don't by the way.

You claim that VG got a good deal whether they got the land for a dollar or paid $1.5 million for it. You just can't comprehend that if adding together the cost of the land, the development and construction costs, the quality of the market etc, a financially viable project can't be developed, then something has to give. The development costs etc are pretty fixed and that means the land cost has to be decreased or eliminated. The City understands that. Developers understand that. Architects understand that. You don't. In fact, that's why the City and State dole out our tax dollars to the developers in addition to free land in order to get something built and eventually on the tax rolls when otherwise they would not get built.

I didn't accept your challenge to give you an example of another stick built project in Detroit because I don't know if there are or aren't such projects. I imagine not. But, why is that remotely relevant? Show me some low rise residential [[multi-family) construction that is constructed of steel and concrete - but it should be recent, to reflect current market costs.

I never claimed my architectural aesthetics are worth listening to. I happen to like the VG project's architecture but I'd never try to argue it one way or the other. What are your qualifications in architecture that would compel anybody to seriously consider your criticisms and efforts to get the City or VG to change their plans? That's why I mentioned your lack of credibility.

Try read this stuff more carefully before responding, please.

Besides, I think we've pretty much worn out our welcome on this thread. There's just not that much more to say.

[southen]

I am not debating the financial viability of a project, i am debating the design of the proposed development. By your logic if VG proposed single family homes on this site the city should accept it because it is what the market dictates. I bring up design flaws and your response continues to be financial analysis.

You don't have to take me seriously but if you want my "credentials" I happen to have two architects in my family, studied architecture at Lawrence Tech on scholarship for several years and currently photograph architecture for both architects and builders... not that any of that matters.

You are right about one thing though, we should end this. Good day.

[3WC]

Amen. Have a good 2016.

[night-timer]

Can someone give me an update on what's happening on that empty block of Downtown land where the old 'Care' [[AAA) building was? It was demo'd in August of 2014.

[mikeg19]

Can someone give me an update on what's happening on that empty block of Downtown land where the old 'Care' [[AAA) building was? It was demo'd in August of 2014.

Current plan is to build a 6 story apartment building on the entire site, to the dismay of most on this board. The design is crap, doesn't properly scale the block, and lends nothing significant to aesthetically please, well, anyone. It was announced last year, with the intentions of the builders gaining approvals and permits and financing in time to begin construction sometime this year I believe. We haven't heard much about it though since then.

[RO_Resident]

Construction on the Griswold Apartments has been temporarily halted. The crane dropped a partial load of I-beams on the construction site at lunchtime on Tuesday.

Wouldn't be surprised if MiOSHA or OSHA is going to do an investigation. I don't think anyone got hurt. You can still see 3 bent beams on the site.