Statler site construction to start this summer?

**bassab** · May-03-17, 08:25 AM

Crains reports Statler site construction to start this summer:

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...of-5-apartment

**EGrant** · May-03-17, 08:58 AM

Looks like they are sticking to the original design, with a few interior updates. :/

**southen** · May-03-17, 10:32 AM

Well that is pretty disappointing. I was hopeful with the quality of recent announced developments that the company would put forth a more ambitious and deserving design for that location but I guess it isn't in the cards.

**drjeff** · May-03-17, 11:48 AM

That design is a steaming turd and will look absurd at that location. I'm not one of the people who bitches about architecture much but this proposal is ridiculous.

**Mackinaw** · May-03-17, 12:16 PM

Definitely sub-par but at this point we need to cut our losses and activate that enormous block. The linkage from Washington Blvd. into Foxtown, in terms of retail and street life, is much needed-- as are 300-500 new downtown residents. The density is not appropriate but perhaps a nice upshot is that sweeping vistas of more impressive buildings like the Book Tower and other future developments will be allotted. Let's just not let this developer get its hands on any other downtown parcels-- their level of ambition in a development is more appropriate for Lafayette Park or the fringes of midtown, not downtown.

**EGrant** · May-03-17, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by drjeff

That design is a steaming turd and will look absurd at that location. I'm not one of the people who bitches about architecture much but this proposal is ridiculous.

I think the downtown core is past the point of "anything is better than nothing." While I don't want this giant lot to sit empty, why should we live with a half-assed proposal for the next 25+ years, when we're starting to see more thoughtful architecture [[Hudson's, LCA, Capitol Park, etc)? This thing belongs in "downtown" Southfield or whatever they are trying to build, not in prime Detroit real estate.

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · May-03-17, 02:37 PM

EGrant, I fully agree that this isn't the design I would put there. But, I must remind all, no one posting their dislikes here are the ones who bought the property, designed the project, and are paying for it. The developer has the right to develop as the developer sees fit, provided the building conforms to zoning and codes. Griping incessantly about what other people are doing with their own property and money is at best childish. For so many years anyone could have bought and built the Statler site for a song. But no one did. These developers are the ones who actually took action. Well, if that action is not what we would do in the same situation, then we can enjoy our steaming turd together.

Also, just my opinion, even though a 20-story building would aesthetically be a better fit in my opinion, this building won't at all "look bad" there.

**Jason** · May-03-17, 04:35 PM

They didn't buy the property, the city owns it. It's one of a few key big downtown sites that the city owns and that the DEGC was marketing [[what is the current status of the DEGC?). It's not a privately owned piece of land being sold at market rate to a developer, it's a key piece of publicly owned land that's being developed for its benefits to downtown beyond just being a single new building.

If it was one of the other Grand Circus Park sites that wouldn't be the case [[although it would still be a bad building for that site).

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · May-03-17, 09:05 PM

Jason, I apologize for not knowing it was city owned. Which amazing plans were turned down? If none, we have nothing to complain about. If there were reputable better plans submitted, then any justified anger should be directed at city officials, not the developer.

**EGrant** · May-03-17, 09:53 PM

Just because there are [[maybe) no alternative proposals and we are not personally submitting a proposal does not make the project immune to criticism, especially on an internet forum mostly focused on developments. If we can't offer our opinions on the plans, designs, and results of developments in the city, then what are we even doing here?

The design is bad, especially for this site, and that is my opinion.

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · May-04-17, 12:27 AM

My knee-jerk reaction to the project's critics stems not from their apparent dislike of the project, but from the entitled and "how dare they do this!" mentality it betrays. I think many buildings don't fit in either aesthetically or in terms of scale for where they are located. But that does not bring forth an opinion from me that they shouldn't have been allowed to exist because I might not like it. Regardless of how ugly or out-of-place a building may be in my opinion, I don't seek to shut other people's work and opinions down; I also am not personally offended by buildings that I would not personally have built. Many posters here at DY seem to regard anything they don't approve of as the devil incarnate. I don't find people trying to build a building and bring people into our city as anything but positive. And while I realize there is an irrational rejection of the following statement posted several threads above, I still agree with the thought: this project is in every possible way better than what has existed [[decrepit eyesore hotel then wide wasted lot) on the site for decades before it. Alternative realities don't exist. Whatever else one wishes were there, were in fact not there, and there were no plans to put ABCD... developments there. It was a missing tooth in GCP's smile long enough. I'm glad they're going to get started. I'll be even gladder when the residents move in. The people watching in and around GCP will be so fantastic that you'll never notice the 10 extra floors that were never going to be there in the first place.

**DetroiterOnTheWestCoast** · May-04-17, 07:21 AM

Originally Posted by MikeyinBrooklyn

My knee-jerk reaction to the project's critics stems not from their apparent dislike of the project, but from the entitled and "how dare they do this!" mentality it betrays. I think many buildings don't fit in either aesthetically or in terms of scale for where they are located. But that does not bring forth an opinion from me that they shouldn't have been allowed to exist because I might not like it. Regardless of how ugly or out-of-place a building may be in my opinion, I don't seek to shut other people's work and opinions down; I also am not personally offended by buildings that I would not personally have built. Many posters here at DY seem to regard anything they don't approve of as the devil incarnate. I don't find people trying to build a building and bring people into our city as anything but positive. And while I realize there is an irrational rejection of the following statement posted several threads above, I still agree with the thought: this project is in every possible way better than what has existed [[decrepit eyesore hotel then wide wasted lot) on the site for decades before it. Alternative realities don't exist. Whatever else one wishes were there, were in fact not there, and there were no plans to put ABCD... developments there. It was a missing tooth in GCP's smile long enough. I'm glad they're going to get started. I'll be even gladder when the residents move in. The people watching in and around GCP will be so fantastic that you'll never notice the 10 extra floors that were never going to be there in the first place.

The problem with your argument is that this tacky suburban style development is not "in every possible way better than what existed". The "decrepit eyesore hotel" most likely would be following in the path of the Broderick, Whitney, Book Cadillac, Wurlitzer, Metropolitan, etc - if it hadn't been needlessly destroyed for a football game

**mikeg19** · May-04-17, 07:29 AM

On one hand, great, almost 300 new residences adding people to our city core. On the other hand, the design is ghastly and is enhanced by the high profile nature of that site location. I'm hoping that 5 years from now we can look at it and go "yea it's there but it's not so bad", although I really don't think that'll be the case.

It's such a damn shame the Statler couldn't have held on for 5-6 more years. What an amazing development that building would have been.

**EGrant** · May-04-17, 09:28 AM

Originally Posted by DetroiterOnTheWestCoast

The problem with your argument is that this tacky suburban style development is not "in every possible way better than what existed". The "decrepit eyesore hotel" most likely would be following in the path of the Broderick, Whitney, Book Cadillac, Wurlitzer, Metropolitan, etc - if it hadn't been needlessly destroyed for a football game

That's the cool thing about forums, we CAN and often do play the "what if" and "I wish" game, even if alternate realities do not exist.

**3WC** · May-04-17, 11:14 AM

I agree with you Mikeyinbrooklyn.

I think it will be a beautiful, functional development. It will result in relatively low costs of operations which means lower rent for tenants. It will have a streetscape of retail businesses, and another restaurant [[just what we need.)

More importantly, I understand it will have two levels of underground parking [[that means out-of-sight, folks.)

In 25 years, when Detroit is well on it's way to another inevitable period of decline and probably bankruptcy, when many high rise, high operating cost residential buildings will be closing because of the economy, this development will be going strong.

This developer owns [[or, owned before he sold out to his partner) the Trolley Plaza and Millender Center apartments or whatever they're called now, which he cleaned up and elevated to first class status when he took them over several years ago.

The guy is a first rate, very smart developer and has developed scores of aesthetic, profitable multi-family developments.

**southen** · May-04-17, 11:28 AM

First class status?!? Millender and Trolley Plaza are two of the tackiest looking developments downtown.

**3WC** · May-04-17, 01:25 PM

Southen: You're just saying that because you don't own 'em. [[You may write back and say "thank God" or similar.)

They're far better places to live than before. The developer of the Statler site bought and renovated them; he didn't build them.

**southen** · May-04-17, 03:21 PM

Im not talking about the original designs of each structure, im talking about the tacky furniture and faux plantings that have been attached to each of them. If the units inside are better than before that is great, but their exterior "improvements" are atrocious.

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · May-04-17, 03:29 PM

The problem with your argument is that this tacky suburban style development is not "in every possible way better than what existed". The "decrepit eyesore hotel" most likely would be following in the path of the Broderick, Whitney, Book Cadillac, Wurlitzer, Metropolitan, etc - if it hadn't been needlessly destroyed for a football game

DetroiterOnTheWestCoast, your criticism of my comments neglects to mention that the Statler was torn down long before this development was planned [[10-12 years ago, I think?). It's absence has nothing to do the current project. The current project is obviously better than what is there now. I don't think anyone really thinks otherwise. It's just not what some other people would put there if they had anything whatsoever to do with putting things there.

**bust** · May-04-17, 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by southen

Im not talking about the original designs of each structure, im talking about the tacky furniture and faux plantings that have been attached to each of them. If the units inside are better than before that is great, but their exterior "improvements" are atrocious.

I'm not one of this development's biggest critics. I think it will be great to have people living there. I think the building is yet another uninspired-at-best design, like so many others that have been built in Detroit since the 70's. I think the giant LED sign they were planning to flash ads into the park was atrocious. I think it's great they came to their senses and abandoned that plan [[but let's make sure they really did). And based on the model apartments they used to showcase their renovations of the Millender Center interiors I think their sense of style fits somewhere between cut rate bougie ghetto fab and pseudo russo faux eastern mediterranean wish-it-were bling. I think the "after" photos are barely better than the "before" ones:

https://detroit.curbed.com/2013/11/2...naissance-city

It's their prerogative. It's our right to critique it. It's going to be better than an empty lot.

**EGrant** · May-04-17, 09:55 PM

Originally Posted by bust

It's their prerogative. It's our right to critique it. It's going to be better than an empty lot.

Nailed it.

**hybridy** · June-08-17, 09:53 AM

Former Statler Hotel site development receives $1 million brownfield funds

The MEDQ's $750,000 grant and $250,000 loan will help make way for Jonathan Holtzman's City Club Apartments to build the City Club Apartments CBD Detroit residential and retail complex with underground parking. Plans also call for 12,000 square feet of retail and restaurant space. The project includes a green roof and meets National Green Building Standards, the release said

**313WX** · June-08-17, 10:28 AM

Personally, I'm still hoping something derails this project.

This site deserve something so much better than a 10-story building...

**Rock N Rye** · June-08-17, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by 313WX

Personally, I'm still hoping something derails this project.

This site deserve something so much better than a 10-story building...

I think the tallest part will be only 8 stories. The Statler was 18.

**southen** · June-08-17, 12:38 PM

Originally Posted by 313WX

Personally, I'm still hoping something derails this project.

This site deserve something so much better than a 10-story building...

I am 100% with you on that. The market has changed dramatically since this thing was first announced and going taller is no longer the risk it once was. Hell, just skip the expensive underground parking, which will increase the height AND put residents just a little bit further away from the people mover.