Metropolitan Building

**ghettopalmetto** · March-12-10, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by PQZ

RE: Due Diligence - Larson and the DDA have sunk nearly a million dollars of due diligence, A/E, attempts at stabilization etc with literally dozens of financing scenarios created and analyzed. The owner [[the DDA) has been engaged in due diligence for quite some time and contrary to what some believe, is not making a flippant or lazy decision.

I have no question the developers know what they're doing. It's good to know, though, that they have been conducting due diligence and developing a scope of work. That way, when George Jackson says that the Metropolitan is "structurally unsound" and must be demolished right away, he'll be able to produce a signed-and-sealed report that says so, instead of just making shit up.

**Gsgeorge** · March-12-10, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by Hermod

George, if you and 40 or so of your buddies would each pony up $250,000 to $300,000 up front for a condo in the Met building [[plus $1200 a month or so for maintenance), I am quite sure the building would be renovated

I'll go ahead and get on that right away. Something like the 2010 version of the Detroityes Vinton building?

Just throwing some thoughts out there..l.

**ghettopalmetto** · March-12-10, 10:32 AM

Several times on this thread, it has been commented that the Metropolitan Building has low floor-to-floor heights. PQZ asserted that after HVAC work is completed, we could expect ceiling heights around the code minimum of 6'-8".

The first 12 floors of the Metropolitan rise to a height of 141'-8", or an average floor-to-floor height of 11'-10". I haven't been inside the building or seen drawings to verify this information.

Aside from sheer laziness, though, how do you not fit structure, HVAC, plumbing, electrical, and a finish ceiling in a depth of FIVE feet?

**Dan** · March-12-10, 10:42 AM

That parking issue should fall squarely on the shoulders of the city and the DEGC.

There should be a comprehensive parking plan for downtown. One of the objectives should be designing parking solutions for each block of the CBD, so when a developer come to the table the city can have some viable suggestions on how to tackle the issue.

There may be some part of a plan in existence, I don't know, but obviously its not designed with this problem in mind, otherwise the parking issue would not continually fall on the list of development problems.

The Metro is an amazing building, the penthouse is one of the most unique spaces I have seen downtown.The unique floor plans on the lower floors can also be considered an asset, they are really unusual.

I have heard about the window issue before. The low ceiling issue is a new one, I would think a smart engineer with a good developer could get past this issue.

Thanks for the great info PQZ!

**Dan** · March-12-10, 10:46 AM

Here are some good pictures, compliments of David Kohrman, you can see the issue with the ceiling pretty clearly. Still, if the right plan was in place, I don't think the HVAC would be the deal breaker.

http://www.forgottendetroit.com/metr...an/photos.html

**esp1986** · March-12-10, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by Dan

Here are some good pictures, compliments of David Kohrman, you can see the issue with the ceiling pretty clearly. Still, if the right plan was in place, I don't think the HVAC would be the deal breaker.

http://www.forgottendetroit.com/metr...an/photos.html

It probably wouldn't be a deal breaker, but likely would change the financial outlook for the building... if a person looks at it and it makes them feel trapped, they probably won't want to live there, or if they do, the price they pay will be less than roomier places, and with the likely premium to living in this building, that is not something people are just going to settle for.

**ghettopalmetto** · March-12-10, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by esp1986

It probably wouldn't be a deal breaker, but likely would change the financial outlook for the building... if a person looks at it and it makes them feel trapped, they probably won't want to live there, or if they do, the price they pay will be less than roomier places, and with the likely premium to living in this building, that is not something people are just going to settle for.

A typical residential ceiling is 8'-0" high. Code minimum finish ceiling height is 6'-8".

I've personally worked on buildings that have had less than 9 feet floor-to-floor, and we've managed to fit structural reinforcing, HVAC, electrical, and fire suppression in a depth of less than 2 feet, in order to achieve a 7 ft finish ceiling.

It can be done--it just takes a bit of creativity, an architect who's willing to compromise, and a mechanical engineer who can design something other than a 24"x48" duct.

**esp1986** · March-12-10, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

A typical residential ceiling is 8'-0" high. Code minimum finish ceiling height is 6'-8".

I've personally worked on buildings that have had less than 9 feet floor-to-floor, and we've managed to fit structural reinforcing, HVAC, electrical, and fire suppression in a depth of less than 2 feet, in order to achieve a 7 ft finish ceiling.

It can be done--it just takes a bit of creativity, an architect who's willing to compromise, and a mechanical engineer who can design something other than a 24"x48" duct.

And then we run back into the real problem... cost.

**ghettopalmetto** · March-12-10, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by esp1986

And then we run back into the real problem... cost.

How is good, efficient design a cost issue? You're already paying the design team one way or another. I'm sure you have numerical data to illustrate though. Please, enlighten us.

**esp1986** · March-12-10, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

How is good, efficient design a cost issue? You're already paying the design team one way or another. I'm sure you have numerical data to illustrate though. Please, enlighten us.

Anything that deviates from the norm is going to take extra time. The more work away from the norm for design will cost more. And since you always have all the solutions, maybe you should contact the developer that is trying to renovate this building, because he is clearly having trouble and you have all the solutions for it...

the bottom line is that there are a lot of stumbling blocks with this building and the cost of working around all of those with the current economy downtown could mean this building never gets renovated.

**bailey** · March-12-10, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

How is good, efficient design a cost issue? You're already paying the design team one way or another. I'm sure you have numerical data to illustrate though. Please, enlighten us.

How about you enlighten us on how putting any amount of money into that building makes any sense economically?

**esp1986** · March-12-10, 11:18 AM

Originally Posted by bailey

How about you enlighten us on how putting any amount of money into that building makes any sense economically?

I second that. You can come up with all of the crazy ideas how it can be done... No one is doubting that it can be done, but just enlighten us as the usual problem with buildings downtown... economic viability, how can you make it work with either bargain basement rents or low sale prices of condos.

**ghettopalmetto** · March-12-10, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by esp1986

Anything that deviates from the norm is going to take extra time. The more work away from the norm for design will cost more.

I forgot that you're the expert engineer on this forum, what with all your experience in this realm.

There is NO SUCH THING AS "THE NORM". Every building is unique. But you knew that already, didn't you, what with your years and years of experience.

Economic viability is one thing. But to claim that a different design approach is going to make-or-break the project? You're so full of shit, I can smell you through the tubes of the internets.

**bailey** · March-12-10, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

I forgot that you're the expert engineer on this forum, what with all your experience in this realm.

There is NO SUCH THING AS "THE NORM". Every building is unique. But since you know every God damned thing there is to know about building projects, I'll just go back to flipping burgers.

So I guess that is a "no" on the whole "enlighten us how it can be done" question huh?

Why don't you stop demanding everyone else prove the negative and offer some support for your argument ...other than George Jackson knocks down buildings for fun and profit.

Given what you know...through simple fucking observation and common sense, [[building empty and open to elements for 33 years...weird lot..weird floor plan.....no parking...etc) what is the likelihood that there is any economic incentive to ever renovate this building?

**esp1986** · March-12-10, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

I forgot that you're the expert engineer on this forum, what with all your experience in this realm.

There is NO SUCH THING AS "THE NORM". Every building is unique. But you knew that already, didn't you, what with your years and years of experience.

Economic viability is one thing. But to claim that a different design approach is going to make-or-break the project? You're so full of shit, I can smell you through the tubes of the internets.

Oh, I'm sorry, I just figured, working with designers on a new building for my company and all that they were pretty knowledgeable. Apparently I was wrong. They had me thinking that doing anything but standard ductwork would cost more from a cost standpoint, seeing as most of that ductwork would then have to be custom made, making them unable to use anything that is prefabricated, hense costing more. My bad.

**esp1986** · March-12-10, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by bailey

So I guess that is a "no" on the whole "enlighten us how it can be done" question huh?

Why don't you stop demanding everyone else prove the negative and offer some support for your argument ...other than George Jackson knocks down buildings for fun and profit.

Given what you know...through simple fucking observation and common sense, [[building empty and open to elements for 33 years...weird lot..weird floor plan.....no parking...etc) what is the likelihood that there is any economic incentive to ever renovate this building?

I don't think he understands the word 'economic.' It is all about the engineering. Fuck it, it's only money, nothing a little engineering can't fix.

DC48080 · March-12-10, 12:41 PM

The Metropolitan Building is very beautiful indeed. And notwithstanding the condition of the building however good or bad it may be, one thing that seems to be overlooked here is the fact that three sides of the building look out on an alley. Other than from the John R side, the views are not very desirable. How marketable would lofts be that look out onto alleys and the ugly backsides of other buildings, some of which are also abandoned and crumbling.

In an economy like this development dollars are extremely scarce and not many folks are going to invest them in anything but the best and most marketable projects.

**Hermod** · March-12-10, 01:18 PM

Given that those pictures are from 2000 [[ten years ago), I am not sure that i would want to ever tackle the rehab job there.

It was a beautiful and unique building in its prime. The economic purpose for which it was built [[small offices downtown) has long since evaporated. From the GP engineering standpoint, the building COULD be renovated, but would not support premium rents and the rents it could bring would not even begin to make sense to a renovator.

Calling Adamo, calling Adamo............

PQZ · March-12-10, 01:33 PM

This picture illustrates the issue I raised earlier re: ceiling heights and HVAC / fire suppression systems.

http://www.forgottendetroit.com/metropolitan/17.htm

Its been a while [[3+ years) since I was in the building and witnessed measurements but I recall the structural beams [[as seen in the above image) being approximately 6'10" to 7' feet from the floor.

To meet the code standards one would either have to drill through the beams [[expensive, time consuming, possibly infeasible as one would encounter rebar and potential to weaken the beam) or design a system with only two to four inches of drop from the beam. HVAC systems with that little depth are typically going to be high pressure systems that are more expensive than typical systems.

HAVC / fire can be done at either significantly increased cost or by creating units that do not have the same amenities and desireability of nearby competitive units.

All other things being equal, when given a choice between a unit with a 7'6" ceiling with beams at 7' and HVAC sprinklers at 6'8" or a unit with 12' ceilings and HVAV / fire at 11', folks will opt for the higher ceiling. Simple market dynamics. That places the Metropolitan units at a competitive disadvantage to proximate units inthe downotwn, requiring a lower rent price point. Or extra cash can be spent installing systems with an ultra low profile which lowers the rate of return for the rents received as more has been put in to construction.

Low ceilings do not make the project infeasible in and of themselves. However, the higher cost implications for HVAC / fire systems combined with lowered revenue projections based on being uncompetitive amentiy wise makes a hard building harder.

I watched a numkber of very talented architects, engineers and contractors work through various creative scenarios on how address the issue. All came back to either much higher costs for systems than is typical for area rehabs or an awkward, uncompetitive layout from the renters perspective.

Just one of the pieces of the puzzle but not an insignificant piece.

**rjlj** · March-12-10, 03:11 PM

Since this thread has turned into a design feasibility study for the metropolitan, why not use a Radiant Floor Heating and Cooling System for HVAC? Parking is located two blocks to the south at Hudsons, one block East at the Opera House or one block north at Grand Circus Park. If it is low income, how many people would have a car anyway? Not to mention, there will be a light rail stop about one block away. All units will come with portable fire extinguishers. Alley views? Just be glad you have a window.

**Gsgeorge** · March-12-10, 03:17 PM

Just humor me here. What would be the feasibility & cost of gutting the building & preserving the facade, then basically recreating a new structure that would allow for more spacious units & better views [[demolish the Wurlitzer and build out to the corner, so only one side faces an alley).

Also there is the solution of repaving & landscaping alleys like those being created in Midtown. The DEGC offers facade improvement funds, why not alley improvement.

Light rail is on its way to Grand Circus Park & Campus Martius. It may be attractive to live at the Metro and work at Wayne State or the Med Center.

**esp1986** · March-12-10, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by Gsgeorge

Just humor me here. What would be the feasibility & cost of gutting the building & preserving the facade, then basically recreating a new structure that would allow for more spacious units & better views [[demolish the Wurlitzer and build out to the corner, so only one side faces an alley).

Also there is the solution of repaving & landscaping alleys like those being created in Midtown. The DEGC offers facade improvement funds, why not alley improvement.

Light rail is on its way to Grand Circus Park & Campus Martius. It may be attractive to live at the Metro and work at Wayne State or the Med Center.

Somebody mentioned a facedectomy the other day... I have wondered about that myself... It is one thing for a five or six story like the Fine Arts Building, but you would have to imagine that would cost a fortune for the Metro. And then you would have to have a use for it. The Wurlitzer isn't going anywhere either... the owner is sitting on it, and anything less than $2 million won't do, so rule that out.

**ghettopalmetto** · March-12-10, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by Gsgeorge

Just humor me here. What would be the feasibility & cost of gutting the building & preserving the facade, then basically recreating a new structure that would allow for more spacious units & better views [[demolish the Wurlitzer and build out to the corner, so only one side faces an alley).

I think the feasibility of a facadeomy is even lower than a straight-up renovation. You have to design and erect a temporary structure to support the facade elements, add enormous structural demolition costs, and reconstruction of brand-new structure. To boot, you wouldn't gain much in the floor-to-floor department [[unless there is something seriously bizarre going on, not seen in the photos) as the window openings would remain at the same elevations.

**d.mcc** · March-12-10, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by esp1986

You have to realize though, that these are massive buildings with concrete floors and steel construction... any structural work requires quite a massive undertaking... for example, the sagging floors of the Lafayette, which would have required part of the floor to be removed for the steel frame to be worked on... Anything with a wooden frame, and no floors, are significantly cheaper to repair... these large steel structures are very costly to work on because of the numerous steps involved in the process... an old house, is nothing more than building a new frame or floor, but these old buildings can be very costly to repair and when there is no certainty of tenancy, it makes the undertaking a risk most people aren't willing to take, it is good that they are doing what they can to keep the Metropolitan Building from being the next casualty of a weak downtown real estate market.

Someone paid attention in a lecture...