Statler site construction to start this summer?

[drjeff]

This project is the turd in the downtown Detroit punchbowl.

[ABetterDetroit]

It's a Garbage new building on a pretty sweet piece of property. It sucks, there is a lot of potential on that piece of dirt that is only getting higher like the building should be.

[313WX]

Does anyone know what's the latest with this? Has work started?

[Lowell]

Nothing as of last Friday but supposed to be happening any moment now.

[313WX]

Nothing as of last Friday but supposed to be happening any moment now.

Thanks!

And frankly, no complaints from me if this never happens [[I'm sure others would co-sign).

[K-slice]

While rendering of skyscrapers are being released for the Monroe Block and Hudson site, we're [[hopefully not) stuck with this 6 story turd on Grand Circus...

[3WC]

A few people might not be enthused with the aesthetics of the City Club Apartments - there are always a few random naysayers - but it will have two levels of underground parking and will be a huge economic success and a great addition to the downtown housing market.

[Atticus]

A few people might not be enthused with the aesthetics of the City Club Apartments - there are always a few random naysayers - but it will have two levels of underground parking and will be a huge economic success and a great addition to the downtown housing market.

A suburban style Taco Bell, complete with adjacent surface parking and a drive-thru, would have economic success there too. Even though it may be successful, it doesn't mean that it is the best use of the Statler site.

[313WX]

A suburban style Taco Bell, complete with adjacent surface parking and a drive-thru, would have economic success there too. Even though it may be successful, it doesn't mean that it is the best use of the Statler site.

Very well put.

I'm not against this development itself, just the location. It belongs in Midtown, or an area without a lot of high rises surrounding it.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

I can't quite agree with you 313 or Atticus. I concur that if I had my druthers I would probably build a taller building at the site, and probably a more interesting looking one as well. But I could disagree with just about every building in the city if I wanted to. Very few things are exactly what I would do/ would have done if I were the one doing them. The ones spending the money and taking the risk are the ones calling the shots- as it should be. If we felt strongly enough about building height, we could petition the city to change zoning and design rules for downtown. But you can't rezone retroactively. The developer seems [[to the best of my knowledge) to be planning a building that is within existing legal requirements, so any complaints we might have are just academic. And while the following statement tends to get ridiculed, it is true nonetheless: I think their building will be much better than what is there now.

[1953]

Its a bad design on a good chunk of land, and we are all within our rights to oppose it and imagine a better future.

1953

[Junjie]

Its a bad design on a good chunk of land, and we are all within our rights to oppose it and imagine a better future.

1953

Exactly. Cities are not isolated rural lots. They are public spaces created by the dense coexistence of numerous private space. Each private structure has an effect on the public realm around it, and those structures often live well beyond the men and women who "take the risks and call the shots." Those people will be gone or dead, but their crappy building will still be inflicting itself on everyone who uses the streets around it, looks out a window at it, or is missing customers because it made a poor use of the site. Not to mention the aesthetics of Grand Circus Park, which should be one of the top two urban spaces in Detroit.

As everyone has said repeatedly, this is a great building for midtown, or corktown, or the east riverfront. It is not a great building for a premier location seen by virtually every visitor to downtown Detroit. A city government should have the ability and backbone to say that.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

I am not saying that anyone isn't within their rights to criticize this or any development. Merely, I am pointing out that the action citizens can take to affect their architectural and development desires is to have the city adopt rules concerning the location, shape, size & function of a structure in building & development codes. This project conforms to the existing allowable criteria. I think it is downright silly for people to complain for years about the withering hotel, then the empty eyesore lot, and pine "oh, I wish someone who do something there." Lo & behold, someone is going to do something there! "That's not what we had in mind!" The complainers had what- 40 years?- to do what they would have liked to do there. Now someone else is actually going to do something there. I'm glad about that.

[313WX]

This project conforms to the existing allowable criteria.

Do you know this for certain?

If the site held a 232ft and 18 story building before, there's no reason why it can't hold something with at least the same height now.

Furthermore, to respond to the rest of your post, when's the last time the DDA gave any fucks about the desire of citizens in the city? Let's be straight about it, they were desperate for any type of development and were willing to rubber stamp any ol' crap.

[Junjie]

... I think it is downright silly for people to complain for years about the withering hotel, then the empty eyesore lot, and pine "oh, I wish someone who do something there." Lo & behold, someone is going to do something there! "That's not what we had in mind!" The complainers had what- 40 years?- to do what they would have liked to do there. Now someone else is actually going to do something there. I'm glad about that.

I'm not sure there's much actual argument on the latter point. I think we'd all agree that this is better than an empty lot. But it's like a kid bringing home a C- and expecting the parents to be happy he didn't get an F again. Sure, it's better. But it's nothing to be proud of.

The part I never get - and which is hardly unique to your post, Mikey - is the "well why didn't you do anything?" attitude. The obvious reason nobody else did anything is because most people don't have $65 million laying around. Fortunately, we have elected institutions ostensibly designed to represent and safeguard the interests of all city and state residents, whether they happen to have $65 million in their bank account or not. Asking the city government to enforce a higher standard of construction for a few extremely high-visibility, high-traffic lots is pretty much exactly what citizens can and should do. Telling people that they only get a voice in the planning and form of their city if they have $65 million to spare is the same as telling people that they get no voice.

[Zads07]

I am not saying that anyone isn't within their rights to criticize this or any development. Merely, I am pointing out that the action citizens can take to affect their architectural and development desires is to have the city adopt rules concerning the location, shape, size & function of a structure in building & development codes. This project conforms to the existing allowable criteria. I think it is downright silly for people to complain for years about the withering hotel, then the empty eyesore lot, and pine "oh, I wish someone who do something there." Lo & behold, someone is going to do something there! "That's not what we had in mind!" The complainers had what- 40 years?- to do what they would have liked to do there. Now someone else is actually going to do something there. I'm glad about that.

I understand the argument here but as people with interest in how things play out for the city on a BLOG of all things, we have every right to love or hate the things that are going on.

Now logically, yes we've wanted things to be built on empty spaces downtown. We reached that point awhile ago where it was exciting to see things happening.

Now we're at a point in the revitalization of downtown that we can be picky because land will soon be at a premium for new building. Gilbert's already announce the Monroe Block and Hudson's block. He's going vertical. This plan is not good enough for that spot downtown. It needs to be in Midtown or New Center. It just doesn't fit, can't you see that?

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

This plan is not good enough for that spot downtown. It needs to be in Midtown or New Center. It just doesn't fit, can't you see that?

I fully comprehend what you're saying, but I don't agree with your perspective for several reasons. First, "it doesn't fit" is the opinion- however right you might think you are- of a person not involved in the project. It reminds me of when someone doesn't like the color a neighbor painted their house. Fine opinion, perhaps, but entirely irrelevant. Second, most cities- especially older ones- have a wonderful patchwork quality about their buildings and neighborhoods. Go to any major city- including Detroit- and you will see a mishmash of old and new, tall and short, modern and classic. Although looking at it up close one might think that a shorter building, or an all-brick one, or a gothic one, etc might seem out of place, I think that it can make for a more interesting city scape. As I said before, if this project looks just like the renderings, it will look just fine.

[Zads07]

I fully comprehend what you're saying, but I don't agree with your perspective for several reasons. First, "it doesn't fit" is the opinion- however right you might think you are- of a person not involved in the project. It reminds me of when someone doesn't like the color a neighbor painted their house. Fine opinion, perhaps, but entirely irrelevant. Second, most cities- especially older ones- have a wonderful patchwork quality about their buildings and neighborhoods. Go to any major city- including Detroit- and you will see a mishmash of old and new, tall and short, modern and classic. Although looking at it up close one might think that a shorter building, or an all-brick one, or a gothic one, etc might seem out of place, I think that it can make for a more interesting city scape. As I said before, if this project looks just like the renderings, it will look just fine.

I'm not disputing whether or not it will look good. The size is wrong for this spot. It needs to be taller. Plain and simple.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

Zads07, that you [[and I) would like it to be taller does not mean that it needs to be taller. I prefer brick pavers to asphalt or cement. That doesn't mean that Detroit needs all brick streets.

[1953]

You're espousing a form of moral relativism. In fact, a building on a key chunk of land in a city's downtown bears an objective relationship to the landscape around it. Its not just our subjective opinion. There are architectural principles at play that say you don't build a one story white castle in lower Manhattan. Same goes for this inappropriately scaled design in Detroit.

[3WC]

Mikey gets it. Many of you don't.

The public had as much input into this development as it wanted. There were multiple public hearings before the DDA, the Historic District Commission [[a totally useless bunch, admittedly), and City Council. Anyone who wanted to voice their opinions were free to do so.

The fact is, the site is oddly shaped, and is partially encircled by the People Mover [[a huge negative) which actually traverses part of the site and requires the developer to build around it. It apparently has environmental problems which have to be remedied at a substantial cost.

A lot of people have $65 million. Most don't keep it lying around. The point is that a developer doesn't need that much in cash to build a major [[for Detroit) project like this one. These projects are heavily financed with borrowed money. Lenders have to approve every aspect of the project before closing the loans. There are at least 20 developers around who are financially capable of building whatever they wanted to on the Statler site. They don't want to.

The current developer is very wealthy and has tremendous borrowing power. He is nationally recognized as one of the smartest multi-family real estate developers and property managers in the country. He and his partners could build whatever they want to build there.

They saw a need for multi-family on that site, location-wise great, but physically a "B" property. They carefully analyzed the long term market for multi-family housing downtown, the types of apartments, the need for parking, every type of construction cost for every type of construction, the project rents for apartments of various kinds over the next 15 years, the availability of capable contractors and labor over the two year construction period, and a 100 other factors. They decided the proposed project is the highest and best use of the site which will enable them to recover their cost, pay off their loans and make a reasonable profit. [[The rumor is that the original general contractor pulled out of the deal at the last minute because it refused to be extorted by the City, which requires that a certain percentage of workers be Detroit residents or the contractor is charged a very large penalty; there aren't sufficient Detroit workers with all the construction going on and the developers [[and ultimately the public) just pay the extortionists in the Mayor's office and chalk it up to the cost of doing business in Detroit. [[Kwame's in jail, why isn't Duggan?)

Did anyone seeing any other developers breaking down the door to develop that site? If it's such a great site, are there any other developers falling all over themselves to buy it from the current developer to develop a high rise [[or any other kind of) project on the site? Nary a one is there?

My guess is that you naysayers don't have an inkling of what makes a real estate project economically feasible. It's wonderful to be able to dream and all that, but reality will bite your dreams in the ass every time.

[Honky Tonk]

[[Kwame's in jail, why isn't Duggan?)

Because Duggan didn't steal $90 million from the City treasury and extort money from hired contractors.

[Junjie]

First, W3C, I know from your posting that you're obviously quite knowledgeable. Much more so than me on these topics. But I don't think this is a question that comes down to understanding the real estate market.

Mikey gets it. Many of you don't.

The public had as much input into this development as it wanted. There were multiple public hearings before the DDA, the Historic District Commission [[a totally useless bunch, admittedly), and City Council. Anyone who wanted to voice their opinions were free to do so.

If anyone happens to know the dates of the relevant city council meetings, I'd love to watch the videos on the city council site to see what the content of those discussions was. They have over 1,000 sessions and meetings posted so it's a lot to dig through.

The fact is, the site is oddly shaped, and is partially encircled by the People Mover [[a huge negative) which actually traverses part of the site and requires the developer to build around it. It apparently has environmental problems which have to be remedied at a substantial cost.

I'm sure that's true. [[Personally I'd advocate tearing down the People Mover, which impinges on other downtown sites besides this one and provides almost no useful transit in exchange for the subsidy it gets.)

A lot of people have $65 million. Most don't keep it lying around. The point is that a developer doesn't need that much in cash to build a major [[for Detroit) project like this one. These projects are heavily financed with borrowed money. Lenders have to approve every aspect of the project before closing the loans. There are at least 20 developers around who are financially capable of building whatever they wanted to on the Statler site. They don't want to.

My point was that the vast majority of the people who will use this building and the GCP/Washington Blvd area around it over its lifetime - a number easily in the millions - don't have $65 million to personally develop the site [[or, yes, since you want to be pedantic, access to $65 million in financing). This leaves their interests to be represented by City Council or, fingers crossed, taken into consideration by non/quasi-government bodies like the DDA. The question was whether people making critical comments should shut up because "they didn't do anything themselves," not whether there were 20 other developers in SE Michigan with similar access to capital.

The current developer is very wealthy and has tremendous borrowing power. He is nationally recognized as one of the smartest multi-family real estate developers and property managers in the country. He and his partners could build whatever they want to build there.

So they're choosing to build this particular design despite their capability to build "whatever they want," presumably because it maximizes their likely return. Right? Can we then ask whether this is the design that best serves the city's interests in addition to bringing the developer a reasonably low-risk profit, or are you assuming this is the only possible design that could bring such a return?

They saw a need for multi-family on that site, location-wise great, but physically a "B" property. They carefully analyzed the long term market for multi-family housing downtown, the types of apartments, the need for parking, every type of construction cost for every type of construction, the project rents for apartments of various kinds over the next 15 years, the availability of capable contractors and labor over the two year construction period, and a 100 other factors. They decided the proposed project is the highest and best use of the site which will enable them to recover their cost, pay off their loans and make a reasonable profit.

Yes, I'm sure they put a lot of work into this and are very knowledgeable about market conditions. No argument here. My question is whether, given the site's significance, anyone pushed for improvements to the project that would increase its value to the city as a whole. And I'm not saying the city needs to dictate they build an uneconomical 40-story skyscraper. Better facing materials/design, or reconfiguring the same volume of space to put more height facing GCP with a taper moving down Washington, would address most or all of the complaints posted in this thread.

Maybe there were rich discussions on this topic, but after a thorough debate and review it was determined that this is indeed the only possible configuration of the building. I'm not being sarcastic and hope this is the case.

[[The rumor is that the original general contractor pulled out of the deal at the last minute because it refused to be extorted by the City, which requires that a certain percentage of workers be Detroit residents or the contractor is charged a very large penalty; there aren't sufficient Detroit workers with all the construction going on and the developers [[and ultimately the public) just pay the extortionists in the Mayor's office and chalk it up to the cost of doing business in Detroit. [[Kwame's in jail, why isn't Duggan?)

Presumably Duggan's not in jail because coming to a public arrangement with a developer isn't a crime, even if it is exploitative. But this doesn't seem like the main point here anyway.

Did anyone seeing any other developers breaking down the door to develop that site? If it's such a great site, are there any other developers falling all over themselves to buy it from the current developer to develop a high rise [[or any other kind of) project on the site? Nary a one is there?

Is it your estimation that 2017 is the peak of demand for downtown housing and/or office space? Better get what we can while we can, because tomorrow there will be even less interest?

My guess is that you naysayers don't have an inkling of what makes a real estate project economically feasible. It's wonderful to be able to dream and all that, but reality will bite your dreams in the ass every time.

Again, I don't think this is about demands to somehow prevent Holtzman from building on the site or find some other developer willing to build a ridiculous high rise. To put it as directly as I can, maximizing the developer's return and maximizing the interests of city residents and visitors over the multi-decade lifetime of the building aren't the same thing. Is the city doing anything on behalf of the latter interest? For this project, the answer seems to be "no," and, without speaking for anyone else, that's the source of my complaints.

If it's the case that they [[the city government, mainly, but also the DDA or the developers themselves) did take these concerns seriously, but came to the decision that this is the best possible design anyway, then fine. Not every project is going to be ideal.

[ABetterDetroit]

Mikey gets it. Many of you don't.

The public had as much input into this development as it wanted. There were multiple public hearings before the DDA, the Historic District Commission [[a totally useless bunch, admittedly), and City Council. Anyone who wanted to voice their opinions were free to do so.

The fact is, the site is oddly shaped, and is partially encircled by the People Mover [[a huge negative) which actually traverses part of the site and requires the developer to build around it. It apparently has environmental problems which have to be remedied at a substantial cost.

A lot of people have $65 million. Most don't keep it lying around. The point is that a developer doesn't need that much in cash to build a major [[for Detroit) project like this one. These projects are heavily financed with borrowed money. Lenders have to approve every aspect of the project before closing the loans. There are at least 20 developers around who are financially capable of building whatever they wanted to on the Statler site. They don't want to.

The current developer is very wealthy and has tremendous borrowing power. He is nationally recognized as one of the smartest multi-family real estate developers and property managers in the country. He and his partners could build whatever they want to build there.

They saw a need for multi-family on that site, location-wise great, but physically a "B" property. They carefully analyzed the long term market for multi-family housing downtown, the types of apartments, the need for parking, every type of construction cost for every type of construction, the project rents for apartments of various kinds over the next 15 years, the availability of capable contractors and labor over the two year construction period, and a 100 other factors. They decided the proposed project is the highest and best use of the site which will enable them to recover their cost, pay off their loans and make a reasonable profit. [[The rumor is that the original general contractor pulled out of the deal at the last minute because it refused to be extorted by the City, which requires that a certain percentage of workers be Detroit residents or the contractor is charged a very large penalty; there aren't sufficient Detroit workers with all the construction going on and the developers [[and ultimately the public) just pay the extortionists in the Mayor's office and chalk it up to the cost of doing business in Detroit. [[Kwame's in jail, why isn't Duggan?)

Did anyone seeing any other developers breaking down the door to develop that site? If it's such a great site, are there any other developers falling all over themselves to buy it from the current developer to develop a high rise [[or any other kind of) project on the site? Nary a one is there?

My guess is that you naysayers don't have an inkling of what makes a real estate project economically feasible. It's wonderful to be able to dream and all that, but reality will bite your dreams in the ass every time.

Big post on "Rumors" with a heavy dose of ideology but a tad short on facts.

Jonathan Holtzman had a very messy divorce from Village Green where he was CEO while this deal was in motion. His investors pretty much told him to get fucked. Issues like those unravel financing and force the process to start at the beginning. All of the above is never anything a GC wants to deal with because it plays havoc with their project windows and the good projects are the ones where everyone gets along. Having village Green melt down was not a good sign that there would be any of that here. So you need a new GC.

As far as seeing anyone fall all over themselves to get a new deal here we would never know. They send the lawyers and closers not PR people. Those deals aren't public, closed door environment.

This deal has been screwed up and now it has outlived its shelf life. Different part of the decade now, things change, what looked okay in 2013 can look underwhelming in 2017

[K-slice]

I can't believe any contractor would work for Holtzman on something like this. He is notorious for not paying for completed work and being an overall nightmare to do business with. My guess is these things have something to do with the still empty lot we see today.