Downtown Construction

[dmike76]

Actually, I'm pretty sure the Statler site delay is because of a lawsuit. Not a 'fast tracking' lie by Duggan.

http://www.metrotimes.com/Blogs/arch...ding-sues-degc

[Gistok]

I feel there is a balance between the "redtape ofcity hall" and the "let developers do what they want" mentalities. While I agree with the frustrations that you perceive to see, Detroit is not simply the wild west and today is land grab day for developers. We are still a city with zoning laws and permits that must be followed, though I will agree a streamlining of processes might be needed.

And personally, those Statler site apartments suck. Plain and simple. They are underwhelming and completely irregular to that site, despite that lot being already an irregular shape.

As the old saying goes, just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Gotta agree about the Statler block development... it does indeed suck. They want to build on one of the two premier sites downtown [[the other being Hudson's) what can pretty much be built on any site around the metro area. It has all the charm [[and proportions) of a Travel Lodge. There are more significant buildings in Midtown being planned that that ugly thing.

And facing GCP will be the equivalent of an 8 story LED billboard....

[Khorasaurus]

Actually, I'm pretty sure the Statler site delay is because of a lawsuit. Not a 'fast tracking' lie by Duggan.

http://www.metrotimes.com/Blogs/arch...ding-sues-degc

I'm not sure the Statler project is even delayed.

When it was announced way back in Spring 2014, the timeline was "construction in 2016": http://detroit.curbed.com/archives/2...atler-site.php

Then last year when they got site plan approval from City Council last March the timeline was still "construction in 2016, opening in 2017": http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/in...ts_to_bri.html

So they're still on track to start construction on their original timeline. If we don't see construction by this fall, I'll start to worry. Otherwise, sounds like the project is on track.

My guess is that the reason they didn't start sooner was that the site was being used for filming a Transformer movie, then for staging for the Whitney renovation. And obviously the "Care" building owner not cooperating/suing them.

[swingline]

I read the Freep article and it makes me sick. You have to read between the lines to understand that the City Planning Dept, the mayor, the Council and the Detroit Historic Commission place one obstacle after another in front of developers, which have a thousand times more experience in development matters - design, financing, the market, and construction than all the incompetent municipal people put together. They know what they're doing. The city and its minions don't.

It wasn't mentioned in the Freep article but the apartments to be built on the Statler site are apparently still going to be built. That project as I recall was announced with great fanfare by the mayor a couple of years ago with the promise it would be put on the fast track. [[When Duggan starts promising stuff, be careful.) The developer owns and/or manages 44,000 apartments in many states and owns the Millender Center Apts and the Trolley Plaza Apts already. It's a local company that's been around for decades. Very deep pockets I imagine. Yet, my girlfriend was at a Historical Commission hearing last month on another matter before the Commission. She listened for almost an hour while the nitwit [[her word) Commissioners peppered the developer's representatives with some of the dumbest questions she had ever heard. They had great concern over what kind, style and color of the furniture the developer intended to put in the private park for tenants in the middle of the project. Imagine. I think she said that it was the third time they had been before the Commission. If they micromanage every project like that no developer that can spell "quality" will ever build anything here. That appears to be Duggan's idea of fast tracking a deal. It's supposed to be a $45-50 million project by a premier developer and it takes two years to cut through City red tape.

And I see that the CEO of Redico has had to spend months in meetings with the head of the Planning Department to get approval of a multi-million dollar project; the Redico people have forgotten more about quality developments than the City nitwits will ever know.

Why do they do it? There can't possibly be enough potential profits to put up with all the municipal B.S.

Dan Gilbert must be a saint. The city people should bend down every day and kiss his a__, but instead give him a hard time as well.

This city is snakebit and always will be. Stupid people running a dysfunctional city.

Yes, Village Green is a huge apartment developer with lots of experience in many different types of projects. That is why it's unacceptable for VG to shortchange the Statler site with an undersized project. Glad to see that the Historic District Commission is adhering to the standards imposed by state law and local ordinance regarding new construction in a locally designated historic district. Nothing stupid going on there.

As for Redico, if you're referring to its efforts at the State Fairgrounds, then you've identified another project that is attempting to dramatically shortchange an important site. The initial proposal for 1990's big box plus a few garden apartments was insulting. And they wanted to maroon the BRT transit station 500 yards from the buildings. Glad that the Duggan administration has gotten involved. Too bad if Redico and the owners can't make a quick killing on throwaway buildings tossed up on free land. The Fairgrounds is one of the most important sites in the region. It is the most important site in Detroit outside of Downtown/Midtown and Uniroyal. It can be a catalyst for jobs and growth for blocks in all direction. With its central location it can be a transit destination. Nothing stupid on the city's part here either. Reach higher.

[Gistok]

If that Statler site building is going to be built... I would rather the parking structure be above ground, and the reason is seen in this image....

At only 5 stories, the building won't even be seen from lower Washington Blvd. or from across GCP, where the park trees will obstruct much of it. With above ground parking that would take the building height to about 10 stories... which is more in fitting with the surrounding buildings.... and they can still have their first floor retail.

But without the Care Building... this project will be a much greater challenge to get off the ground. It would be in the city's best interest to try and settle the court case with the buildings owner, and see if they can come to some reasonable [[non-threatening) terms on buying the property.

Duggan is a bully... and that needs to change to get some momentum on this property.

[3WC]

I read the Complaint posted by Khorasaurus and there is nothing in the Complaint which would have prevented development of the site. It's for damages only resulting from the DEGC's extortion attempt. Besides. I asked my lawyer to check and he said the case has been dismissed.

The original tear-down lawsuit [[of the CARE building) would have done nothing to prevent development of the property.

Finally, my lady friend who attended the Historic Commission hearing said the developer's site plan shows it owns the entire Statler block so the developer has acquired all the land.

Finally, to all those who condemn the plans for the site [[or any site) I suggest you compile $50 million or so, acquire the land , and build what you think is aesthetic. Whatever you want to build will be roundly criticized many people who don't have two dimes to rub together to build anything.

So there.

[MSUguy]

Finally, to all those who condemn the plans for the site [[or any site) I suggest you compile $50 million or so, acquire the land , and build what you think is aesthetic. Whatever you want to build will be roundly criticized many people who don't have two dimes to rub together to build anything.

So there.

Ah yes business can do whatever they want simply, because they have the money. That's an original argument. You think Detroit is bad, suburban communities especially the more upscale are even tougher in some respects on you can't your paint house without getting permission. Or do yourself favor and google the controversy over construction a of new tallest building in Traverse City. A building that is a whopping 9 stories tall. No matter a where people live, there is recognition that their is a place for community input with regard to what is built in it.

[southen]

Yup solid argument for a discussion board. Please nobody comment unless they have the means to construct a skyscraper.

It is a crap design and underutilizes an important block just as the market is changing.

[3WC]

Southen: Please try to read my stuff with a little more comprehension or try to be honest.

My comments are not "arguments," but opinions, just like yours. I've spent a lot of my posts correcting errors in other's posts, and providing accurate information.

You purposely [[no other word for it unless you have a comprehension problem) misconstrue my views when you claim nobody should comment "unless they have the means to construct a skyscraper." I assert my views and I don't have such resources. Please feel free to comment away whether you have any facts, training in real estate design, financing, construction or any idea of how the real world works. Join the crowd.

Perhaps you are an architect with experience in multi-family construction projects in a highly competitive urban market environment and the market skills to compliment your technical skills. If so, those creds might convince more people to agree with you. Me, for instance.

By the way, it's not like there's a lot of capable developers lined up competing for the site.

Cheers. Happy New Year.

[southen]

Actually I read your condescension perfectly, both in the quoted text above and in your last post. My view aligns almost exactly with Gistok on things and my background comes as someone who studied architecture at a university level for some time and photograph it professionally now. Not that any of that matters as it doesn't take an expert to see how woefully lacking the design is for this site.

There was a developer turned away that had grander plans for the site due to the agreement with Village Green. Whether or not anything would come from it we will never know, but if the city sent out an RFP now in this climate I bet you would see a lot more interest and a considerable jump in quality.

Also taking a look at the properties they already own downtown a layman can see this is a company has no idea what it is doing in terms of design and aesthetic. They make some of Dan Gilberts design decisions look brilliant.

[3WC]

No condescension intended. Jeez, don't be so thin skinned.

I think it's a beautiful design. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. [[And I differ with Gistok insofar as having below ground parking is far superior than surface parking.)

Reasonable people differ.

I am pretty familiar with downtown development and there was only one other project "competing" for the site and that proposed developer had no money, had never developed anything, and could never have even come close to developing the site. It had small hotel, parking and another use that I can't remember. He had one financially capable partner who wanted to construct the 700 car parking garage on the site; I know him.

[southen]

Context of the site should be considered when looking at the design and it is completely lacking in that regard. It will be the shortest building in the vicinity with the largest footprint. No matter how much curb appeal it has that is a poor design for that space.

[3WC]

True, context is very important.

However, here's where we differ, whether by experience, aesthetics or whatever.

The surrounding buildings, those still remaining, were built in a different era when the economics of real estate were vastly different. I imagine the Statler developer is building low rise, stick built apartments because by doing so they can build a quality project at a reasonable cost and make some money in the process. I doubt very much they will make much money, and the longer they wait the more it costs them as a result of rising construction and financing costs. Frankly, although I have far from sufficient information, my guess is that for those reasons the Statler project going foreward is iffy. [[I'm told that the maximum height one can go stick built is 5 or 6 stories and higher than that requires steel and concrete, which makes it economically not feasibible.)

I also believe that new high rise residential construction in this market is not economically feasible. [[In Manhattan, it's booming and the average condo/co-op price is exceeding $20 million. The numbers apparently work there.)

The Statler development [[apparently a very simple development) is taking far, far too long to commence. Time is money and they are losing a lot of both by the time it's taking. Something is awry and only time will tell what it is.

[Gistok]

3WC... thanks for the morning laugh.... "stick built" describes that design very well.

Maybe that's why the parking will be underground, as opposed to above ground.... where the wood frame above that might not be allowed.

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

Context of the site should be considered when looking at the design and it is completely lacking in that regard. It will be the shortest building in the vicinity with the largest footprint. No matter how much curb appeal it has that is a poor design for that space.

Won't it be about the same height as the Himelhoch and Claridge House across the street?

[Lowell]

As DetroitYES 'World Headquarters' is cater corner from the site, I'm happy it won't block too much of our 9th floor corner view. We will lose our street view of Washington Blvd. however. Oh well.

[mwilbert]

[[I'm told that the maximum height one can go stick built is 5 or 6 stories and higher than that requires steel and concrete, which makes it economically not feasible.)

This has traditionally been the case, but new building systems have extended that height to at least twice that.

See, for instance,http://www.architectmagazine.com/tec...ning-designs_o

However, these systems are not yet in wide use nor are local codes necessarily updated to allow them, so the fact that they exist isn't necessarily relevant to this issue. More relevant is that, in general I haven't seen a lot of evidence that even with mainstream techniques the per sq ft price of a ten story building is significantly higher than that of a five story building--the estimates I see indicate that it should be a few percent lower, so I'm not sure that is a good explanation of why the developer is building such a relatively short building on that site.

[southen]

True, context is very important.

However, here's where we differ, whether by experience, aesthetics or whatever.

The surrounding buildings, those still remaining, were built in a different era when the economics of real estate were vastly different. I imagine the Statler developer is building low rise, stick built apartments because by doing so they can build a quality project at a reasonable cost and make some money in the process. I doubt very much they will make much money, and the longer they wait the more it costs them as a result of rising construction and financing costs. Frankly, although I have far from sufficient information, my guess is that for those reasons the Statler project going foreward is iffy. [[I'm told that the maximum height one can go stick built is 5 or 6 stories and higher than that requires steel and concrete, which makes it economically not feasibible.)

I also believe that new high rise residential construction in this market is not economically feasible. [[In Manhattan, it's booming and the average condo/co-op price is exceeding $20 million. The numbers apparently work there.)

The Statler development [[apparently a very simple development) is taking far, far too long to commence. Time is money and they are losing a lot of both by the time it's taking. Something is awry and only time will tell what it is.

I will agree with you that VG is very much likely going the cheap route with this development to maximize their return. They care very little about design based on this building and the aesthetic choices they have made with their other buildings.

If you were looking to do a quality development and not just one to simply maximize profit you might consider elevating the residences above the people mover so they don't have to hear that thing right outside their windows. You also might optimize your best asset by creating more apartments overlooking Grand Circus Park and not blocking that few with a billboard.

I look at this from a design standpoint and keeping in mind the importance of the Statler block. You seem to be looking at this economically, which is completely logical, but I feel it means your design standards drop drastically.

VG goes for cheap and uninspired and I remain disappointed the the city gave them the rights to the site knowing what they were going to do with it. It has been empty since the Super Bowl, a few more years of waiting while things like the Arena District, M1, and Hudson's come online would not have hurt things, but would allow a developer with vision to take on the site as it becomes that much more appealing to build there.

[Warrenite84]

IMHO certain signature sites downtown should have minimum height and quality of materials encumbrances to push developers to a sites' highest use. Property around GCP and Campus Maritus should be held to a higher standard to preserve intended aesthetics. Why not break up the lot and build lower on portion facing away from GCP?

No, I cannot fund my pie-in-the-sky musings but I believe common good here is the highest use for the lot, not highest benefit to the lot owner.

[Gistok]

Saw this in the Freep today....
http://www.freep.com/story/money/bus...bert/78027012/

If the demand for apartments continues to grow as this article implies... is it in the city's best interest to let a middling low rise apartment be built on the Statler block?

The Hudson, Monroe and Statler blocks are the most prized pieces of empty real estate downtown. Granted they've each [[mostly city owned) been empty for a decade or longer. Are we at a junction now where being choosy is foolish? Or do we allow anything be built... as long as it IS built?

[3WC]

southern, please don't misquote me. You said you agree with me that "VG is going the cheap route..." I never said nor implied that. What I said was that it chose a construction technique that was less expensive. The quality of construction by VG and must reputable developers with decades of experience will be very high.

Warranite84, there may be some that would want minimum height and quality of materials to "push developers to the highest and best use " of certain sites. However, you propose a solution to a problem that does not exist. Developers always develop to the highest use. The PRICE OF LAND pretty much requires that be done. Land and cost of construction are the primary drivers of project design under permitted uses. Most responsible and successful developers pride themselves on creating quality projects within the parameters established by the market, the municipality and the availability of financing. [[Institutional lenders, generally no dummies, won't finance inferior developments with underfunded, inexperienced developers.)

And, my experience is that the politicians and their appointees who establish the restrictive criteria you feel should be imposed on developers of certain sites haven't got the foggiest idea of what they're doing or the unintended consequences of their regulations.

There are many qualified high rise multi-family developers in the state and nationally. They're all aware of the activity and available land in the City. Why do you think it is that none of them were standing in line to do a high rise project on the Statler or any other downtown site you mentioned. Why do you think that is? Gistok?

[southen]

southern, please don't misquote me. You said you agree with me that "VG is going the cheap route..." I never said nor implied that. What I said was that it chose a construction technique that was less expensive. The quality of construction by VG and must reputable developers with decades of experience will be very high.

Based on what? The garbage they have adorned their other buildings downtown? Again, I have made many points, as have others, in regards to the faults of the design and all you are doing is insisting that it will be quality even though you clearly admit they are going the "less expensive" route. Why the blind faith that this will be any different than their other properties downtown?

[3WC]

Garbage? If you're talking of VG, I believe the only properties they own in the City are the Trolley Plaza Apts, and Millender Center Apts., neither of which they built [[did they?). I heard they infused a lot of money in them.

I have friends who own three properties [[not in Detroit) that VG manages and they speak highly of the company. My friends were investors in their projects and took them away from the developer when they became distressed in the recent crash; they brought in VG to turn them around, upgrade them and upgrade the tenants.

Anybody live in the Trolley or Millender?

Real estate development, like politics, is the art of the possible. What you seem to be striving for is not economically possible, or marginally so.

Also, don't believe everything the Freep or anybody else says about the market for apartments. There's an old real estate adage: when you have solid market research that says there's a market for 500 units, four developers each go out and immediately start construction on 500 units. I remember in the '80s when there were 60,000 UNSOLD condos in Dade County [[Miami) alone.

[Lowell]

Trolley and Millender, now Detroit City Apartments and Renaissance City Apartments, were not built by VG. Both are precast tinker-toyed structures that, I swear, must have been designed by laid-off Soviet apartment block architects. Any lipstick VG may have put on the exterior of those pigs can do little to overcome their near-brutalist designs. RCA recently had its exterior reworked.

Until recently I had an apartment in RCA. I'm not one to give anybody free advertisement, but VG's management and service was outstanding. Fix-it requests were always done in under 24 hours. The premises were sparkling clean. The interior halls, lobby, elevator, outdoor park, new business center, new sky clubhouse [created from a penthouse] were all stylishly and expensively redesigned. From what I have heard the same is true of DCA. VG's reputation is very good and highly rated by tenants across the country.

My only regret is that they didn't acquire the Statler before it was demolished and had a chance to apply their magic on something truly elegant.

[Gistok]

Trolley and Millender [[to us they'll always be those names).... were built with massive subsidies from the Feds... back when they had UDAG [[Urban Development Action Grants) during the CAY days... as were Gerald Hines's One Detroit Center [[formerly Comerica Tower), and 150 W. Jefferson... a John Madden development. IIRC... Millender got a $24 million UDAG.

Today that spigot has run dry for the most part... although the state has contributed via the Oil and Gas leases on state land funds... to other more recent projects.

VG bought Millender and Trolley for a fraction of their original costs [[as is the case with virtually all downtown buildings)... and whatever the merits of their design... they are doing a decent job of maintaining them [[no more horror stories about Trolley's elevator system maintenance... or lack thereof).

3WC, I am no expert on business/finance, so I cannot argue any point except from an aesthetic perspective. It would be nice for the VG's Statler plans to get some additional funding sources [[like just about every other development in downtown/midtown)... so that maybe they can increase the mass/height of their project. We'll find out sooner or later what becomes of their plans.