Downtown Construction

[bust]

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.

In defense of brutalist architects, even they incorporated ground floor retail and other social amenities into their designs. Witness one of the archetypical examples of the idiom: Neimeyer's Copan building in Sao Paulo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edif%C3%ADcio_Copan. He incorporated a full first floor of retail and an internal pedestrian walkway. Today it is home to several great restaurants, a cafe, and many other convenient services for the neighborhood.

Whoever were the hacks that designed the Millender Center and Trolley Plaza imagined a dystopian car-centric future where no one walked. Witness how they destroyed what was otherwise a pedestrian-friendly human-scaled block: https://goo.gl/maps/bvd7xw6AZ6F2.

And having been multiple times inside both the Millender Center and the Copan, I can attest the Copan is not just much more interesting, but comparatively very kind.

That said, I'm very encouraged to hear Village Green are much better stewards then the original developers seem to have been. Thanks, Lowell, for your first-hand insight.

[Gistok]

Bust.... I agree that that section of Times Square is a dead zone.... [[no thanks to the People Mover route)....
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3337...7i13312!8i6656

But even today, with much stricter parking structure zoning regulations... the back side of the Opera House Parking structure... did the same thing to Centre Street near Harmonie Park...
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3363...7i13312!8i6656

.... but in a more "pleasing to the eye" way. Although here too half the street is dead to foot traffic. In their case they got a zoning variance to put all the [[ground floor and above) commercial space on the opposite [[Broadway St.) side of the structure.

[3WC]

Gistok, I do not believe One Detroit Center or 150 West Jefferson were built with UDAG grants. Bothe were economic disasters or the first order.

Hines conceived ODC and obtained construction and long term financing from Deutchebank, [[sp?) which subsequently withdrew from the deal. So CAY, a wheeler dealer, coerced Michigan Bell, Detroit Edison and another heavyweight into leasing moist of the unbuilt building at ridiculously high rental rates, and they became, practically speaking, guarantors of the loan through their leases. Of course when the building was completed the market wasn't even close to the actual rental rates they could achieve so they had to sublease all the space they could at about 60-70% of what they were obligated to pay. They possibility incorporated their losses into their electricity and phone rates. [[Probably not.) Anyway, it was a financial disaster from day one.

The guy from Denver who developed 150 Jefferson [[John - forgot his name) lost the building when it was completed. He lost his permanent lender because he couldn't comply with its Loan Commitment, and Lehndorff U.S.A. of Dallas backed out of its deal to buy the building. Another economic disaster. For years it was impossible for a developer to get financing for a major [[or minor) project in Detroit, which had a terrible reputation. By the way, the Detroit Pension funds lost $7 million [[it had a second mortgage) when the construction mortgage was foreclosed. Another ill conceived financial disaster from day one.

Those buildings together with the Ren Cen generated huge losses to the developers and their investors.

You all realize, I hope, that real estate developers have to be half crazy. And architects, who are most interested in building monuments to themselves rather than economical, profitable, utilitarian developments, are just one burden developers have to bear.

[3WC]

Gistok: VG doesn't need additional funding sources in order to build higher etc. If it made sense to do it VG has the resources to do it. It doesn't make sense. That why they're not doing it.

[Gistok]

Thanks for the info 3WC.... somewhere I may have some old newspaper clippings on those buildings, memory is not the best about the UDAG projects... although I do remember that CAY was Jimmy Carter's supposedly favorite mayor... and Detroit did get quite a few UDAG grants for some of his projects.... but that would be before Reagan [[1981)... whom CAY called "prune face".

I found the Madden Co.... and yes it was John Madden [[not the NFL John Madden)....
http://www.johnmaddenco.com/about.php

I remember Madden did get quite a scalping here in Detroit. From an old news clipping I found, he is shown holding a model of 150 W. Jefferson. And with the model he had a much smaller 2nd tower model which he was placing at a spot at Griswold & Larned. So although [[like Hines and his never to be built Two Detroit Center)... it was never built. I do believe that the parking structure area behind the People Mover at Griswold was built with the infrastructure to hold up a 2nd [[never built) smaller tower.

And yes.... Henry Ford II found 51 other corporation CEOs to invest [[or is that throw away their money) in Renaissance Center. Henry was certainly an expert at arm twisting.

[bust]

Bust.... I agree that that section of Times Square is a dead zone.... [[no thanks to the People Mover route)....
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3337...7i13312!8i6656

But even today, with much stricter parking structure zoning regulations... the back side of the Opera House Parking structure... did the same thing to Centre Street near Harmonie Park...
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3363...7i13312!8i6656

.... but in a more "pleasing to the eye" way. Although here too half the street is dead to foot traffic. In their case they got a zoning variance to put all the [[ground floor and above) commercial space on the opposite [[Broadway St.) side of the structure.

I agree, the People Mover is part of the problem. Retail is less attractive in its shadow, and its columns disrupt the sidewalk. What a regret -- no what a sad joke -- that the hopeless design of the People Mover has for so long been Detroit's reference example / bogeyman of so-called "mass transit". Even though mass transit it certainly isn't. It's only merit is as an amusement, not a transit option, at least not an efficient one. Even so, it was Trolley Plaza's parking lot, not the People Mover, that sealed that block's fate.

I also agree the trees and wider sidewalk make a big difference on Centre. But I still wish they made space for ground floor retail there.

What are the current parking structure zoning regulations? I did a search and was discouraged I'd quickly find them. Are you able to summarize? I hope they're doing something to address the problem.

[bust]

Gistok: VG doesn't need additional funding sources in order to build higher etc. If it made sense to do it VG has the resources to do it. It doesn't make sense. That why they're not doing it.

That may be their assessment, but time will tell whether their assessment was right. Speaking with only with the interest of Detroit at heart, I wish it were a little taller. As many have said, the location warrants it.

But there are a lot of things I like about the proposal -- namely, the ground floor retail, the below ground parking structure [[they're ugly, and better hidden, even at the expense of height), the roofdecks, the big windows [[provided there are convenient window treatments for privacy and shade), and the courtyard. And praise be they aren't going with some faux victorian or any other phony historical design.

That said, I abhor the LED billboard. I don't have words strong enough. It would be a travesty. And I'm incredibly discouraged by the ridiculous interior designs they concocted for the Millender Center. They spent money making it look like that, really? I'll give them credit it's not vanilla, but who do they think want a home that looks like that? Vanilla would have been much better. I implore they enlist better interior designers for the Statler site.




http://detroit.curbed.com/archives/2...sance-city.php

[3WC]

Bust, I can't swear to it but the lady who was at the Historical Commission said she though that the LED billboard has been eliminated from the design. I agree with you that it would have been way out of place.

[southen]

I am glad that they do a good job for their tenants, but I still believe this is a company that has no clue what good design is.

[mikeg19]

If COBO can't show advertisements on its LED billboard due to its direct sight line to Woodward, how could this new building have a huge LED screen facing it and be even closer?

[swingline]

http://www.freep.com/story/money/bus...roit/78371892/
It's hard to reconcile Mr. Gilbert's statements about the super-heated demand for downtown property with the City and DEGC settling for a six story stick-built apartment building on the second most prominent vacant CBD parcel.

[mikeg19]

http://www.freep.com/story/money/bus...roit/78371892/
It's hard to reconcile Mr. Gilbert's statements about the super-heated demand for downtown property with the City and DEGC settling for a six story stick-built apartment building on the second most prominent vacant CBD parcel.

So the city and DEGC are supposed to only approve building proposals of what, 40 stories and more???

I also don't see how his comments are off base on his CBD market analysis. The CBD is running out of room. Almost all of the previously abandoned/under utilized buildings downtown are either redeveloped/in redevelopment/or are in the planning stages.

Just because the CBD is running out of available space doesn't mean developers are going to run in and start building 60 story skyscrapers. The price per foot doesn't justify that kind of construction yet, but it's close. Developers are going to test the waters with 5-10 story developments before they jump in and propose anything massive.

[Khorasaurus]

So the city and DEGC are supposed to only approve building proposals of what, 40 stories and more???

I also don't see how his comments are off base on his CBD market analysis. The CBD is running out of room. Almost all of the previously abandoned/under utilized buildings downtown are either redeveloped/in redevelopment/or are in the planning stages.

Just because the CBD is running out of available space doesn't mean developers are going to run in and start building 60 story skyscrapers. The price per foot doesn't justify that kind of construction yet, but it's close. Developers are going to test the waters with 5-10 story developments before they jump in and propose anything massive.

Agree. The developer sees a market for 200 units on this site, and they have a large footprint to work with. They could either build them in a 6-story building that covers the entire site, or they could do something like build a tall tower right on the park and cover the rest of the site with a parking garage and unneccessary "green space." We spent decades doing the latter, and it doesn't work.

A smaller building that covers entire blocks of Washington, Clifford, Bagley, and Park with a continuously active streetwall is much more important to the vibrancy of the neighborhood that a tall tower that might look cool from I-75.

[swingline]

So the city and DEGC are supposed to only approve building proposals of what, 40 stories and more???

I also don't see how his comments are off base on his CBD market analysis. The CBD is running out of room. Almost all of the previously abandoned/under utilized buildings downtown are either redeveloped/in redevelopment/or are in the planning stages.

Just because the CBD is running out of available space doesn't mean developers are going to run in and start building 60 story skyscrapers. The price per foot doesn't justify that kind of construction yet, but it's close. Developers are going to test the waters with 5-10 story developments before they jump in and propose anything massive.

Mike, you're using a strawman argument. Nobody is demanding a skyscraper on the site. But when the developer is enjoying subsidized land acquisition and other public financing for its project, the public should get a building that contributes to its site equally as much as the building previously located there. A six-story stick built on that site violates too many urban design principles to count.

Additionally, Type III construction buildings like this are commoditized products with relatively short useful life spans. Such buildings are usually limited to rentals because many lenders will not finance these buildings as condos. They don't hold value.

No other peer city in the country has such a building on such a prominent site. Why should we be any different, especially on a publicly-owned site? Would you be ok with the same kind of six-story product on the Hudson's site? A developer could make a fortune on such a deal.

Sure, a larger [[10-15 stories) building on the Statler would be more risk for a developer. The site properly demands as much.

[southen]

A smaller building that covers entire blocks of Washington, Clifford, Bagley, and Park with a continuously active streetwall is much more important to the vibrancy of the neighborhood that a tall tower that might look cool from I-75.

Site context is just as important. Im not advocating a taller building so it can be seen from I75, in fact I would just like to see something the size of the Statler building. Parking across the site outside of the tower doesn't have to kill street activity anymore. The city requires ground floor retail on parking structures and the Z-garage is a perfect example of how a parking structure can promote street activity and add to the urban environment.

I am still holding out hope that Gilbert will be teaming up with VG if for nothing more than to increase the amount of parking on the site for the Book Tower.

[Khorasaurus]

Additionally, Type III construction buildings like this are commoditized products with relatively short useful life spans. Such buildings are usually limited to rentals because many lenders will not finance these buildings as condos. They don't hold value.

I agree with this and hope they opt for higher quality construction, even if the size of the building stays the same. I think there's a chance they will, as the market has improved since they first announced the project and the rents they can expect are higher.

Site context is just as important. Im not advocating a taller building so it can be seen from I75, in fact I would just like to see something the size of the Statler building. Parking across the site outside of the tower doesn't have to kill street activity anymore. The city requires ground floor retail on parking structures and the Z-garage is a perfect example of how a parking structure can promote street activity and add to the urban environment.

While I'm not as worried about the height as you are, I do agree that the design really doesn't address Grand Circus Park. A six-story facade could be sufficient, but not if it looks like the side of the building rather than the front, and certainly not if it has an LED billboard [[hopefully that has been removed).

[mikeg19]

Mike, you're using a strawman argument. Nobody is demanding a skyscraper on the site. But when the developer is enjoying subsidized land acquisition and other public financing for its project, the public should get a building that contributes to its site equally as much as the building previously located there. A six-story stick built on that site violates too many urban design principles to count.

Additionally, Type III construction buildings like this are commoditized products with relatively short useful life spans. Such buildings are usually limited to rentals because many lenders will not finance these buildings as condos. They don't hold value.

No other peer city in the country has such a building on such a prominent site. Why should we be any different, especially on a publicly-owned site? Would you be ok with the same kind of six-story product on the Hudson's site? A developer could make a fortune on such a deal.

Sure, a larger [[10-15 stories) building on the Statler would be more risk for a developer. The site properly demands as much.

First, thank you for taking me back to college. I haven't heard "strawman argument" since a sophomore Logic class. Maybe I need to revisit and change my argument

Secondly, from the start of the proposed building announcement, I've denounced the design and have called for a more robust building to be built there, if you'd like to call it that. So were on the same page with that 100%. That design sucks, period.

My argument was more so in response to the posters statement the Dan Gilbert was off base in saying downtown is not showing signs of incredible demand in real estate due to the "city settling for a 6 story building" on the spot. The land has been on the market for almost a decade with no takers. We are finally coming to a point where new construction may start making sense now, and yes, perhaps if they waited a few more years, a better, bigger building proposal would come along. But to this point, it was the most viable/financially secure proposal we are aware of that was floated on the property, and the city, seeing an opportunity to develop the entire site and add 200 sorely needed residences, hopped on it. Maybe the city should have had different requirements in its RFP that would have had a more prominent building put there. I don't know.

[3WC]

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.

Khorasauras: Why do you people keep implying VG's construction will be low quality? It will be conventional low rise, stick built, but very high quality based on the thousands of apartments they have built.. There are thousands of times more low-mid rise apartments built in this country than high rise buildings. Most of those projects have been around for decades and still have immense value. Go out and try to buy apartments as an investment today and see what the older projects are bringing, when owners want to sell, which is rare.

Did you see what Somerset Apartments in Troy sold for last year? 2200 low rise apartments [[2 story), the largest project in the state as I recall, for about $100,000/unit. I could be wrong, but check it out.

[Khorasaurus]

Khorasauras: Why do you people keep implying VG's construction will be low quality? It will be conventional low rise, stick built, but very high quality based on the thousands of apartments they have built.. There are thousands of times more low-mid rise apartments built in this country than high rise buildings. Most of those projects have been around for decades and still have immense value. Go out and try to buy apartments as an investment today and see what the older projects are bringing, when owners want to sell, which is rare.

If the construction is high quality, then great. I don't know either way. I figured Swingline knew something I didn't.

[mikeg19]

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.

Uh, where's the long line of developers waiting to build a high rise on that site? We've only seen one other proposal, which after it came out, turned out to be nothing more than pie in the sky with no serious financial backing or plan.

[Zads07]

Khorasauras: Why do you people keep implying VG's construction will be low quality? It will be conventional low rise, stick built, but very high quality based on the thousands of apartments they have built.. There are thousands of times more low-mid rise apartments built in this country than high rise buildings. Most of those projects have been around for decades and still have immense value. Go out and try to buy apartments as an investment today and see what the older projects are bringing, when owners want to sell, which is rare.

Did you see what Somerset Apartments in Troy sold for last year? 2200 low rise apartments [[2 story), the largest project in the state as I recall, for about $100,000/unit. I could be wrong, but check it out.

I've amusingly watched this thread from the beginning and 3WC, I've noticed you've defended VG right from the start. There's nothing wrong with that, but I have to ask, if it were another developer on the Statler site, would you be defending them for this six-story proposal?

From what I've gathered on this entire blog, people want to development in Downtown Detroit, newer buildings. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being picky at this point in time. The Statler site is a prime location on Grand Circus Park and a six-story building would certainly not fit with the surrounding area. The building would be better suited in the Midtown area.

We are at a point in Downtown's resurgence, as noted by the Free Press article I've linked, that we need more residential space, which is being built. There was a time where being picky wasn't an option, take what we could. Now with all the renovations of buildings for office and residential space, there are limited options and we can now have a voice and help shape the future of the city.

I think it would be beneficial to Downtown if VG were to build a complex, but the current size of their proposal on the Statler site should not be built, unless it fits with the area of Grand Circus Park, being at least 10-12 stories or more.

EDIT: I don't think anyone's saying VG shouldn't build on the Statler site. I think what they're saying is, VG shouldn't build THIS 6-story proposal on the Statler site.

http://www.freep.com/story/money/bus...bert/78027012/

[hybridy]

hard to tell, but 2 levels of steel are up on the book cadillac garage for 'the griswold'

[401don]

hard to tell, but 2 levels of steel are up on the book cadillac garage for 'the griswold'

I was wondering if they had started when, a couple of hours later, I received an e-mail from the hotel saying self-parking would no longer be available due to the construction.

[3WC]

Zads: I'm not defending VG. I am a contrarian with substantial experience in real estate [[and another major business.) I've been involved in a lot of construction. I just hate to see people taking potshots at VG [[or any other developer) based on personal aesthetics while having little or no knowledge of the mechanics of financing, marketing or constructing such developments.

I saw today that Ilitch is planning to build a 200 unit multi-family project adjacent to the new arena; it's going to be 5 stories. There's a new target in town.

[Zads07]

Zads: I'm not defending VG. I am a contrarian with substantial experience in real estate [[and another major business.) I've been involved in a lot of construction. I just hate to see people taking potshots at VG [[or any other developer) based on personal aesthetics while having little or no knowledge of the mechanics of financing, marketing or constructing such developments.

I saw today that Ilitch is planning to build a 200 unit multi-family project adjacent to the new arena; it's going to be 5 stories. There's a new target in town.

This is what a thread is about, debating things about the city we love. I don't believe people are taking shots based on person aesthetics. People are voicing their opinion in order to help shape the future of the city of Detroit. Sure, there are folks out there that don't know the stuff you claim to say you know. I don't know much of that.

What I do know is based on the surrounding area, that proposal doesn't fit in with its neighbors.

As for your rebuttal on the Ilitch proposal, I don't think that's a target. Considering the height of the construction there, that sounds like it's going to be on par with other buildings. Next road block?