DetNews: Midtown development sparks battles

[Gsgeorge]

http://www.detnews.com/article/20100...sparks-battles

Highlights [[emphasis mine):

About $1.8 billion in public and private investment from 2000 to 2009 has been poured into the six neighborhoods known as Midtown, which starts north of downtown and ends at the New Center area. The steady growth is why Ernie Schaefer, president of Campus Village Communities, has bought properties along Ferry Street near Cass Avenue just across the street from Wayne State University's main campus.

Campus Village already operates several apartment buildings on Ferry, which Schaefer hopes to raze and replace with the 10-story complex on Cass and Ferry.

"Wayne State always says if there were more housing, more students would live in the area," Schaefer said. "We really want to help with that goal."

Schaefer didn't anticipate a roadblock by the University Cultural Center Association, which has spearheaded the effort to have the area declared a historic district. The UCCA has helped create many historic districts in Midtown, including one to save the buildings that are now the Inn on Ferry Street, and proponents consider them a key part of the area's success.

The chances of Schaefer's housing complex coming to fruition are slim if the City Council approves the proposed Woodward-Palmer- Cass-Kirby Historic District.

Traffic Jam pays thousands of dollars a month for the upkeep and mortgage of the parking lot -- including the guard who turns Motor City patrons away after the brewery's seven parking spaces fill up. The Traffic Jam owners say they don't appreciate having to play the bad guy by protecting their property.

"Do you think [[Motor City) has an attendant out there directing people off of our property? Of course not," Howard said.

What troubles Linardos is he struggled financially for years and now that he has had some success and a new partner, the costly battle over the gate and parking has arisen.
"It's just been ... exhausting," Linardos said.

When the Motor City brewery won round one of the legal fight in December 2008, Wayne County Circuit Judge Warfield Moore noted "there was a real concerted effort to shut down Motor City."
Traffic Jam has appealed.

Ironically, the fight hasn't diminished the lure of the Canfield area. Tentative plans are under way to build another microbrewery and other small retail outlets next to the Traffic Jam. No opposition has arisen.

Wow, what to say, another amazing job from Detroit News' Louis Aguilar. Thanks Louis for keeping us up to date on the mostly-hard-to-find information about Midtown development. Consistently good articles & investigations from him.

Well my first thought is: I had no idea there were plans for a 10-story apartment building and new microbrewery in Midtown.

My other thoughts are, as follows:

There is so much vacant land in Midtown, why is Schaefer trying to knock down a [[potential) historic district to build a new building when there are so many other places he can put his building? I welcome any new development, but I must say Ferry Street each side of Woodward is rather unique, and definitely part of what makes Midtown a desirable urban area.

The fight between Motor City & Traffic Jam seems petty and pointless. Motor City should be more willing to pony up some real cash for the rental of the lot. Traffic Jam should loosen up and welcome the new neighbors and let them have free reign of the whole lot for a reasonable price -- their lot is hardly ever full anyway. Why can't the two businesses share the lot, without designating certain areas and spaces? Without Motor City, I would contend that the Traffic Jam would be significantly less busy. The more shops & restaurants there are around them, the busier they will be as a result. It's the basic workings of an urban district. More business neighbors means more people around, and more people around means more business.

Finally--a new microbrewery and other shops in the Canfield/Willis area?! Cool. I would love to hear more about this if anyone has info. Right now I know there is a cured meats place coming soon, Avalon is moving to a bigger space, Goodwill's is expanding, plus there is the possibility of a mid-level grocery store moving in. What else?

[Sarah]

Where is Avalon moving?

[Bearinabox]

Right next to that block Mr. Schaefer wants to flatten is a huge surface parking lot fronting on Woodward, which is jarringly out of place there and a terrible use of that land. I know, I know, the guy doesn't own it and probably couldn't buy it easily or cheaply, but that right there is a huge part of what is wrong with this city. Get a brain, morans.

[canuck]

Good move on the UCCA's part. The big push toward sustainability and most importantly in this case the protection of valuable buildings should direct whatever development happens. If there is to be major development around university and hospital campuses, there should be an obligation to reuse older structures and integrate newer ones to the neighborhood fabric. Here is an example of the kind of brutal replacement to an elegant 1860's terrace in Montreal [[1) in the early 70's. The irony is that the newer Bronfman building [[2) was built with funds from the Seagrams scion Sam Bronfman and
later, his daughter Phyllis Bronfman became a champion for heritage architecture and founded the Canadian Center for Architecture [[3). This old house was restored and enlarged and is now a museum and research facility. It sat empty for decades I think before it was reused...

[leland_palmer]

While I was dining at Roast last month, I overheard the sommelier mention that Jolly Pumpkin was going to open in Midtown. I'm guessing that this is the brewery in question.

[buckster1986]

I understand where the guy is coming from. I wouldn't want to see the buildings torn down. If the University was smart they would work out something with him to take a ground lease on that parking lot.

Do what they did over behind University Towers on Woodward. You have to work with guys who are going to invest around your University which will in turn benefit you.

I bet this guy would love to have built somewhere else without demolition but this is prime real estate for students attending Wayne.

[Bearinabox]

I understand where the guy is coming from. I wouldn't want to see the buildings torn down. If the University was smart they would work out something with him to take a ground lease on that parking lot.

Do what they did over behind University Towers on Woodward. You have to work with guys who are going to invest around your University which will in turn benefit you.

I bet this guy would love to have built somewhere else without demolition but this is prime real estate for students attending Wayne.

...which is why I'm so baffled by this:

Schaefer said he's already spent more than $1 million trying to upgrade the apartment buildings, but he says the result of further spending will still be antiquated, small rental units with no parking.

Aren't "antiquated, small rental units with no parking" exactly what most college students need? Most of us are broke as shit--we don't want a three-bedroom penthouse suite with a motherfucking Jacuzzi, and we certainly don't need to be paying Ernie Schaefer's construction costs through jacked-up rent. It doesn't sound to me like he's trying to attract college students at all.

[Detroitnerd]

Are these the buildings in question?

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=...6.54,,0,-18.32

[Bearinabox]

Are these the buildings in question?

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=...6.54,,0,-18.32

I can't tell from the article if those are involved or not. The buildings in the picture are on Cass between Ferry and Palmer, and the mention of the corner of Cass and Ferry makes me think the Verona is part of it too, but I don't know how far up Ferry it would extend.

[Detroitnerd]

I can't tell from the article if those are involved or not. The buildings in the picture are on Cass between Ferry and Palmer, and the mention of the corner of Cass and Ferry makes me think the Verona is part of it too, but I don't know how far up Ferry it would extend.

I think the description of the buildings on Ferry may have been wrong, because in the photo it looked like he was discussing the Verona.

Honestly, though, I'm glad to see the UCCA get on the preservation bandwagon. We have so many empty lots, there's no reason why we can't have the best building stock of the 20th and 21st centuries cheek-to-jowl. And once the light rail obviates the need for so many Woodward-fronting parking lots ...

[Bearinabox]

I think the description of the buildings on Ferry may have been wrong, because in the photo it looked like he was discussing the Verona.

Theoretically, it could be all of them, I suppose. A map of what Ernie Schaefer does and doesn't own in that area would have been a helpful addition to the article.

[Detroitnerd]

I'll tell a story that I think is a good analogy to some of the problems we have with development in Midtown.

I was walking through Greektown to get to my favorite hole-in-the-wall, and I saw the same old blues busker I always saw, playing on the corner of St. Antoine and Monroe streets. But this time, I notice he wasn't alone; another busker was playing electric guitar catercorner. Well, being a joker, I rolled up to the bluesman and offered him a dollar, saying, "This is for you because I see your competition has gone electric."

But you know what happened? He refused the dollar. He said, "I can't accept your dollar because you're giving it for the wrong reason. You see, we're not competing. The more buskers down here, the more people come. The more people come, the more money we all make. So keep your money and please understand we're trying to make something bigger than us here."

Boy, was I humbled. I was just trying to make a joke and I got schooled. But the truth is, many of our local "developers" would be better off to understand this gentleman busker's point: It's not about creating your own personal monopoly and just wiping out and harassing the competition just because you're on one corner and there's somebody across the street doing something similar. It's about creating a critical mass. The more the merrier. Ultimately, that's what makes a city: Lots of different players creating something that has plenty of choices, which draws more people, which helps everyone make more money.

But instead of this forward-thinking mentality, why do we still have people who think they must own it all, eliminate competition and buy up every property? It means fewer people doing creative things! And, really, we should be growing up and doing just the opposite.

My 2 cents.

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

This certainly is a thought provoking article for me. Seems like it would be a shame to tear down anything that has already been rehabed, with so much falling down or vacant around the city. I agree with Bear that "antiquated, small rental units with no parking" sort of scream student housing already. Sure would be nice if this project, or something similar, could just be relocated to other underutilized space.

On the other hand, it is refreshing to see that at least in Midtown there is enough interest in projects to have this debate going on - rather than "anything is better than nothing".

[Warrenite84]

Bearinabox, I think the lot along Woodward you are referring to is already spoken for by Wayne State to build the new Business Administration Building according to their Master Plan. I think they are either looking for philanthropic donations to pay for it or it is in a later building phase.

http://www.busadm.wayne.edu/flash/br...Web/index.html

[[click on gallery)

[kraig]

I'll tell a story that I think is a good analogy to some of the problems we have with development in Midtown.

I was walking through Greektown to get to my favorite hole-in-the-wall, and I saw the same old blues busker I always saw, playing on the corner of St. Antoine and Monroe streets. But this time, I notice he wasn't alone; another busker was playing electric guitar catercorner. Well, being a joker, I rolled up to the bluesman and offered him a dollar, saying, "This is for you because I see your competition has gone electric."

But you know what happened? He refused the dollar. He said, "I can't accept your dollar because you're giving it for the wrong reason. You see, we're not competing. The more buskers down here, the more people come. The more people come, the more money we all make. So keep your money and please understand we're trying to make something bigger than us here."

Boy, was I humbled. I was just trying to make a joke and I got schooled. But the truth is, many of our local "developers" would be better off to understand this gentleman busker's point: It's not about creating your own personal monopoly and just wiping out and harassing the competition just because you're on one corner and there's somebody across the street doing something similar. It's about creating a critical mass. The more the merrier. Ultimately, that's what makes a city: Lots of different players creating something that has plenty of choices, which draws more people, which helps everyone make more money.

But instead of this forward-thinking mentality, why do we still have people who think they must own it all, eliminate competition and buy up every property? It means fewer people doing creative things! And, really, we should be growing up and doing just the opposite.

My 2 cents.

But, what do you do when you've paid for the property, own the property, pay the taxes own the property and will be the one taking all of the financial and legal risk with the property, and someone else who is not taking any of the risks, has no financial stake, will more than likely not be a customer, client or tenant of the property decide that they're going to determine what you should do with your own property?

[dcmorrison12]

It seems as if this thread is perfectly designed for me to respond to. I happen to be a WSU Finance major in the School of Business and Administration. Also, I am an employee of campus village at cass avenue.

To respond about the parking lot - indeed this is owned and operated by WSU. it is temporarily being used at parking, however within a few years the new Business school will be constructed on that parcel of land.

As for Ernie and Campus Village.... the company as a whole is a disaster. However, they've done the best they could to invest as little as possible in their Detroit location. the buildings are wonderful and iconic, however Campus Village puts little effort into upkeeping them. The foundations are crumbling/sinking, the majority of the units are sub par, laundry areas are disgusting, un kept and often out of order. It takes the company weeks to fix major repairs [[tenants went 2 weeks without hot water in the Verona - Campus Village didn't even call out a plumber to fix the problem until the end of the 2 weeks).

Many of their other properties in the suburban communities are new and shiny [[however the ownership still sucks). This is what I;ve heard from other employees who visit the Detroit location now and then.

Corporate cares very little about the Detroit location and I will be amazed if they ever put any money into the location - let alone build new

[tahleel]

But, what do you do when you've paid for the property, own the property, pay the taxes own the property and will be the one taking all of the financial and legal risk with the property, and someone else who is not taking any of the risks, has no financial stake, will more than likely not be a customer, client or tenant of the property decide that they're going to determine what you should do with your own property?

My thoughts exactly.

-Tahleel

[Detroitnerd]

But, what do you do when you've paid for the property, own the property, pay the taxes own the property and will be the one taking all of the financial and legal risk with the property, and someone else who is not taking any of the risks, has no financial stake, will more than likely not be a customer, client or tenant of the property decide that they're going to determine what you should do with your own property?

Oh, geez, just cut a deal instead of having a four-year six-figure legal battle already.

To a certain extent, yes, there's a logical legal issue at stake in that situation. But there are two ways to handle that: One can honor easements and negotiate in good faith, or one can bring all his legal and political resources to bear in a nasty battle royale that does nobody any good.

This is not a game of Monopoly. It's a city. You can't just knock the board off the table because it gets complicated.

[kraig]

Oh, Jesus whining on the cross, just cut a deal instead of having a four-year six-figure legal battle already.

To a certain extent, yes, there's a logical legal issue at stake in that situation. But there are two ways to handle that: One can honor easements and negotiate in good faith, or one can bring all his legal and political resources to bear in a nasty battle royale that does nobody any good.


This is not a game of Monopoly. It's a city. You can't just knock the board off the table because it gets complicated.

Let me clarify. I'm speaking of the apartment building situation, not the two restaurants that would fit your analogy. I agree with you there, it would be nice if the two of them worked it out.

But, for the apartment building owner, it's going to be difficult to work out getting blocked.

[Bearinabox]

Let me clarify. I'm speaking of the apartment building situation, not the two restaurants that would fit your analogy. I agree with you there, it would be nice if the two of them worked it out.

But, for the apartment building owner, it's going to be difficult to work out getting blocked.

Do I need to break out the world's smallest violin for this guy?

[Detroitnerd]

"But, what do you do when you've paid for the property, own the property, pay the taxes own the property and will be the one taking all of the financial and legal risk with the property, and someone else who is not taking any of the risks, has no financial stake, will more than likely not be a customer, client or tenant of the property decide that they're going to determine what you should do with your own property?"

Let me clarify. I'm speaking of the apartment building situation, not the two restaurants that would fit your analogy. I agree with you there, it would be nice if the two of them worked it out.

But, for the apartment building owner, it's going to be difficult to work out getting blocked.

Well, as I see it, they're not telling him what to do with his property; the issue will likely be what he cannot do with his property. A fine point, I grant you, but let's clarify it before we dive in.

Also, I wonder if you can say that the neighborhood has "no financial stake" in what he does with his property. Let me give you a little example. Last week, some of the new Bangladeshi neighbors who moved in across the alley decided to cut down part of a tree that shaded their property. They did an awful job. They left several stumpy branches, the tree looks horribly lopsided, and I think the whole tree is now more likely to get diseased or get carpenter ants or have other problems. It looks ugly as hell.

Now, I sure wish I could have spoken to the neighbors before they did that. To me, it is the wanton destruction of a neighborhood asset. I would have had a chance to explain that a lot of the perceived value of our homes comes from our mature shade trees. I would have had a chance to suggest a professional arborist, or to perhaps call the city and get some resources to help them address whatever problem they thought they were having.

Sorry to go on like that about a personal anecdote, but my point is that somebody's actions have an effect on the value of the whole neighborhood. And if they can have historic districts in other cities and in Europe where they demand what you may do right down to the windows on your house, surely we can have a much milder do-not-knock-down kind of list.

I feel he's especially unlucky to just now learn that these rules would apply to him, though. I don't like his business plan, knocking down student housing to build what sound like luxury units, but he's not that far from many other Detroit developers in that regard, and I feel for him. Still, when new rules go into effect, they're always going to catch somebody in the lurch. Perhaps he should get some tax breaks or something for his troubles, or some sort of settlement if he chooses to scuttle his plans and sell those buildings.

Don't get me wrong: A certain amount of rubbish-clearing is always necessary in any city. Not all old buildings are wonderful. But in an area with so much vacant land, surely we can find space for the new next to the old.

[kraig]

Do I need to break out the world's smallest violin for this guy?

He wants to tear down some old buildings that don't fit his purposes and build a new one that does. It's not as though he's planning on abandoning the property or using the property in a different capacity than it's being used now.

It's his property and his money. What's the problem?

[kraig]

Well, as I see it, they're not telling him what to do with his property; the issue will likely be what he cannot do with his property. A fine point, I grant you, but let's clarify it before we dive in.

Also, I wonder if you can say that the neighborhood has "no financial stake" in what he does with his property. Let me give you a little example. Last week, some of the new Bangladeshi neighbors who moved in across the alley decided to cut down part of a tree that shaded their property. They did an awful job. They left several stumpy branches, the tree looks horribly lopsided, and I think the whole tree is now more likely to get diseased or get carpenter ants or have other problems. It looks ugly as hell.

Now, I sure wish I could have spoken to the neighbors before they did that. To me, it is the wanton destruction of a neighborhood asset. I would have had a chance to explain that a lot of the perceived value of our homes comes from our mature shade trees. I would have had a chance to suggest a professional arborist, or to perhaps call the city and get some resources to help them address whatever problem they thought they were having.

Sorry to go on like that about a personal anecdote, but my point is that somebody's actions have an effect on the value of the whole neighborhood. And if they can have historic districts in other cities and in Europe where they demand what you may do right down to the windows on your house, surely we can have a much milder do-not-knock-down kind of list.

I feel he's especially unlucky to just now learn that these rules would apply to him, though. I don't like his business plan, knocking down student housing to build what sound like luxury units, but he's not that far from many other Detroit developers in that regard, and I feel for him. Still, when new rules go into effect, they're always going to catch somebody in the lurch. Perhaps he should get some tax breaks or something for his troubles, or some sort of settlement if he chooses to scuttle his plans and sell those buildings.

Don't get me wrong: A certain amount of rubbish-clearing is always necessary in any city. Not all old buildings are wonderful. But in an area with so much vacant land, surely we can find space for the new next to the old.

Why should he have to buy new land when he already owns land that suits his purposes? It would be one thing if he had bought the property when it was declared historical and was doing this. But, the group is looking to have the land declared historical in response to his plans. That's blocking and obstructing.

[Bearinabox]

He wants to tear down some old buildings that don't fit his purposes and build a new one that does. It's not as though he's planning on abandoning the property or using the property in a different capacity than it's being used now.

It's his property and his money. What's the problem?

I guess the problem is that letting property owners do whatever they want is not conducive to having a pleasant, livable city. He has a stake and an interest in what goes on at that corner, but so does the community. UCCA is doing exactly what it's supposed to do here--looking out for the interests of the community, and making sure that any changes made to the character of the community are compatible with those interests. If you're suggesting that the owner should be compensated for anything he's already invested in making this happen, I'm not opposed to that, but the notion that owning a piece of property gives you free rein to do anything you feel like with it is utterly absurd in the context of contemporary urban America.

[Hermod]

I guess the problem is that letting property owners do whatever they want is not conducive to having a pleasant, livable city.

I would maintain that having the Detroit municipal government in charge for the last fifty years has done much more to make Detroit an unpleasant, unlivable city.