New 50 unit development @ Cass & Canfield

**royce** · June-01-10, 11:08 PM

This project is more in line with the new economic reality: jobs are scarce, jobs are short-lived, and jobs are mobile. Renting makes more sense than buying a condo that you can't sell. Although the rents at Studio One are still high, I think the concept of renting instead of owning is what has made Studio One a success, in addition to the ground floor retail. I think any mixed-use development in Midtown is looking at Studio One as the model for how to get people to move into the area. Now, if we could get a couple of Studio One type developments along Woodward south of Charlotte, instead of parking lots, then that would be a coup.

**wolverine** · June-02-10, 12:20 AM

The design is nice. Just change those cheesy juliet balconies to a solid glass railing and you are good to go.

**Russix** · June-02-10, 02:18 AM

Originally Posted by Warrenite84

I'd like to see this project prepped to handle up to 3 more floors if future developments warrant it. If not, it will still be a welcome addition to the community.

Me too, but we still have room to put another one of these across Cass, one kitty corner to it, two more across the street from Uni Tower, 3 along Forest Ave. between Cass and 2nd, and maybe something where the dead Laundromat is. Every time I walk by that place I realize how absolutely backward it is.

**downtownguy** · June-02-10, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by Gistok

first time I've heard of the Ford Foundation committing any money to ANYTHING in Detroit in recent years.

Actually Ford Foundation has been active in Detroit in recent years including $25 million to the Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan and smaller grants to the DIA, Museum of African American History and Arab American National Museum.

DetroitDad · June-02-10, 06:55 PM

Detroit doesn't need any more super projects. Better to make smaller additions and changes until bugs are worked out, and we are more experienced as a region in building urban buildings and spaces.

Where skyscrapers and high rises seem to work is at transit hubs, like the World Trade Center/Freedom Tower was/is built above a convergence of transit lines in New York City, and like how the Sears Tower is built near many major terminals and transit hubs in Chicago.

Does this all sound accurate from our transit minded forumers?

**English** · June-02-10, 08:44 PM

I lived in UT for four years [[2000-2004). The only reason I moved away is because I graduated. The building looks hilarious from the outside [[I used to mock it when it was being built), but inside, it was surprisingly comfortable. The first manager, Allan, ran a tight ship and his staff knew all of us by name. There was a mix of grads, med students, some undergrads and even a few faculty members. When Allan was there, the elevators and incinerators always worked, and so did all the machines in the laundry room and all of the computers in the lab. The hall carpets were shampooed once per week, and the building was very kept up. It was reasonably secure, and rent was all inclusive except for the phone and cable [[Comcast, yuck).

My rent in Fall 2000 was $515 for a one-bedroom apartment. Today, 10 years later, renting at University Tower will set you back $917 per month for that same place, and over $1000 for two bedrooms. Not sure what's changed in 6 years, but after Allan retired, I know there were increasing maintenance issues [[halls not as clean, repairs not as quick, incinerator rooms unusable) and the number of rowdy younger undergrads increased -- pulling fire alarms a couple of times at night, etc. Even with that, it wasn't absolutely horrible.

Having said that, that area was and is one of the most walkable neighborhoods in the city, and the retail options have only increased within a few blocks' radius. If these developers are charging only $600-700 for one bedroom apartments, there's enough secured parking, and they're willing to pick up even just heat and water, they will have a long waiting list. Young professionals making less than $50K would also be interested in an option like this near the Woodward corridor.

**casscorridor** · June-02-10, 09:29 PM

Originally Posted by DetroitDad

Site of the future Auburn apartment building site in Midtown Detroit [[less than one mile from Downtown Detroit).

Attachment 6299

Attachment 6301

The site is actually the Southeast corner of Cass and Canfield, not the Northeast. That means the former proposed Aco Hardware site, also the site of the "blighted" building where the Banksy graffiti was removed. The main portion of the building will front Cass, directly across from Curl Up & Dye... they should be excited considering 9 new store fronts will be across the street.

As for that site you point out, I'm pretty sure that is being reserved for the next phase of South University Village, which will probably be a building similar in size to Studio One. I wouldn't be surprised if an announcement was made for that soon, considering I think the next phase is slated to begin next year.

DetroitDad · June-03-10, 01:38 AM

Originally Posted by casscorridor

The site is actually the Southeast corner of Cass and Canfield, not the Northeast. That means the former proposed Aco Hardware site, also the site of the "blighted" building where the Banksy graffiti was removed. The main portion of the building will front Cass, directly across from Curl Up & Dye... they should be excited considering 9 new store fronts will be across the street.

As for that site you point out, I'm pretty sure that is being reserved for the next phase of South University Village, which will probably be a building similar in size to Studio One. I wouldn't be surprised if an announcement was made for that soon, considering I think the next phase is slated to begin next year.

Ah, got it! So, it's this corner where the gray building is;
Attachment 6303

Attachment 6304

**Rocko** · June-07-10, 08:43 PM

I think this will be an important contributing development to this part of the city. YES there are historic structures in the area that could be renovated for the same use, rather than new construction. However, the presence of [[and hopefully success of) the new development may likely spur others into action to acquire and renovate the historic properties. the scale of this development seems to generally be in line with the surrounding blocks, so no quarrel there. Are they actually demolishing anything for this project?

**French777** · August-28-10, 08:57 AM

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...FREE/100829903

**wolverine** · August-28-10, 05:56 PM

Good news, but man this just incredibly sad the kind of subsidies it takes to get a freakin apartment built in this city. It's like trying to grow a lawn in the desert.

**kathy2trips** · August-28-10, 07:05 PM

It's ugly! C'mon! Anybody with me here? What's with the gray/yellow sectional scheme? It looks half-finished. It looks like it needs some stone facing, fake block....something! OK, we need it the living spaces but.........blechhh!

Detroit has a quite a bit of what could be called "livable art". OK, maybe not "inhabitable", now. But still. Can it just be a little bit pretty? A little "ooh-ahh" quality? PLEASE?

I'm with English, on this one. Gut the interior if necessary and voila you can have new construction. It's just an old coat. You get the gov't tax breaks, it's environmentally responsible and people get the modern facilities [[kitchens, bathrooms, laundry etc.) that are really at the crux of the new construction argument.

**Gsgeorge** · August-28-10, 07:18 PM

If it's any consolation, the yellow-gray theme appears to be missing in the latest rendering on Crains.

I don't mind the building, and welcome it. Studio One and this development are just the start, the precursors. They are the pioneers. In a shitty economic climate like this, in Detroit, I'll take anything right now. The better buildings & finer construction will come after the first round of these buildings goes through.

**Magnatomicflux** · August-28-10, 07:43 PM

Originally Posted by kathy2trips

It's ugly! C'mon! Anybody with me here? What's with the gray/yellow sectional scheme? It looks half-finished. It looks like it needs some stone facing, fake block....something! OK, we need it the living spaces but.........blechhh!

Detroit has a quite a bit of what could be called "livable art". OK, maybe not "inhabitable", now. But still. Can it just be a little bit pretty? A little "ooh-ahh" quality? PLEASE?

I'm with English, on this one. Gut the interior if necessary and voila you can have new construction. It's just an old coat. You get the gov't tax breaks, it's environmentally responsible and people get the modern facilities [[kitchens, bathrooms, laundry etc.) that are really at the crux of the new construction argument.

I'm with you Kathy. It would look 100 times better if it had some stonework and red brick....just NO STUCCO! The building itself is alright, but it could be sooooo much better.
I also like your "livable art" comment.

**kathy2trips** · September-02-10, 11:50 PM

Originally Posted by Magnatomicflux

I'm with you Kathy. It would look 100 times better if it had some stonework and red brick....just NO STUCCO! The building itself is alright, but it could be sooooo much better.
I also like your "livable art" comment.

Thanks for the complement.

Yeah, that spray stucco is offensive. We have yet to see how that will look in 80 years. It's all over new construction in the urban Southwest. Million dollar homes encased in that stuff....awful!

**Mackinaw** · September-03-10, 10:26 AM

Good news...also good to see [[in that Crain's article) that a rehab of the Book house at Jefferson-Burns will be happening.

Wolverine: to me it is not entirely clear whether developers need or want the subsidies. Either way, they are making it a condition to development as you say. But I would not rule out the possibility that they are simply trying to get whatever they can get, and they know that there are people, agencies, and commissions who will help to bankroll an inner city development. Those agencies etc. serve a purpose, though, without a doubt. Just not sure if this is it.

**Detroitnerd** · September-03-10, 10:55 AM

Do they intend to knock down any buildings to build this?

**JJD** · September-03-10, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

Do they intend to knock down any buildings to build this?

Yes, but they are vacant and cinderblock, nothing that will be missed.

**emu steve** · September-04-10, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by wolverine

Good news, but man this just incredibly sad the kind of subsidies it takes to get a freakin apartment built in this city. It's like trying to grow a lawn in the desert.

I think folks should try to avoid myopicness on these issues.

I don't see this as just a small apartment complex, viewed in isolation.

Light rail is coming along Woodward not far from that proposed structure.

A sports arena could be [[plenty of threads on this) along Woodward in the area south of Temple.

WSU put up rental apartments on Woodward a few years ago.

This would be a continuation of improvement in the mid-town area.

I'd long said any quality development north of the Fisher or south of WSU until the two come together is huge for the city. [[that's why I favor a new arena on Woodward between the Fisher and Temple).

Anything which is buit in the mid-town area close to Woodward has to be considered another building block in the vitalization of the area.

**emu steve** · September-04-10, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by Rocko

I think this will be an important contributing development to this part of the city. YES there are historic structures in the area that could be renovated for the same use, rather than new construction. However, the presence of [[and hopefully success of) the new development may likely spur others into action to acquire and renovate the historic properties. the scale of this development seems to generally be in line with the surrounding blocks, so no quarrel there. Are they actually demolishing anything for this project?

I'm with Rocko on this.

I consider these new construction developments as 'seeds' for revitalizaton of an area.

**rbdetsport** · September-04-10, 03:16 PM

I agree with the new building theory. When people from outside the city limits drive within, they notice new buildings and automatically think the city is regaining steam. Seeing old buildings that are in use. People assume they should already be that way.

DetroitDad · September-04-10, 03:30 PM

Originally Posted by rbdetsport

I agree with the new building theory. When people from outside the city limits drive within, they notice new buildings and automatically think the city is regaining steam. Seeing old buildings that are in use. People assume they should already be that way.

I concur!!

**emu steve** · September-04-10, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by rbdetsport

I agree with the new building theory. When people from outside the city limits drive within, they notice new buildings and automatically think the city is regaining steam. Seeing old buildings that are in use. People assume they should already be that way.

That's why I favor using judicious tax breaks for these type of new buildings.

To put a new building [[with tax breaks) in some some obscure location the 'seed' value isn't there.

Put a new building in an area 'ripe' for revitalization then folks feel the 'energy'.

It also faciliates redevelopment by defining the cost of new construction, thereby helping define the redevelopment market, i.e., if something cost 50M to build new then one can use that amount to do a cost/benefit of doing a rehab.

**English** · September-04-10, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by emu steve

I'd long said any quality development north of the Fisher or south of WSU until the two come together is huge for the city. [[that's why I favor a new arena on Woodward between the Fisher and Temple).

Anything which is buit in the mid-town area close to Woodward has to be considered another building block in the vitalization of the area.

Totally agreed with you. It would be wonderful if we could somehow resurrect Brush Park as well.

**detroitbob** · September-04-10, 06:10 PM

Agree with the recent comments...I disagree with prior sentiments on the design...the last thng this area needs is a red brick and stone trimmed 1920's wanna-be building. This design will brighten up this stretch of Cass Ave.