[quote=McIPor;49036]
Quote Originally Posted by PQZ View Post

Thats interesting. Back in 2002, Acquest Realty did a proposal for the BC with Hilton Hotels, Barton Malow and McIntosh Poris. MPA did plans for the building that were then given to Kimberly Clark as the feasibility study for the building. Acquest didn't decline. They were dismissed. Acquest had done a very similar project in St Louis before that and probably would have carried the project through given the chance. They had the #'s working before some of the additional funding came to light for KC. PQZ, what do you say happened there?
I'll tell you exactly what happened there.

Acquest Realty had been sniffing around the building and had approached the DDA in late 2001 / early 2002 with a financing concept that did not borrow money from private entities, but required the City to issue municipal bonds for the entire cost of the project minus tax credits. Acquest would then charge a fee for developing the property but have none of their own money in the project. Acquest was told bluntly that the City was not going to use that model. The City would NOT jeopardize its only recently above marginal bond rating by issuing the entirety of debt and taking the full responsibility of the debt. If the BC failed, it would impact the City's ability to issue debt. Acquest was told if they wanted to explore a differnt model, the DDA would be delighted to speak wioth them. At the same time KC was proposing a different model and had begun their own work and drawings. Acquest did not know about KC. KC did not know about Acquest. Why? because the confidentiality of both were respected.

When the DDA announced they would hold a required public preliminary hearing around entering into a formal memorandum of understanding with KC, Acquest requested another meeting and presented more advanced drawings and argued, again, for the model they had been told the City would not accept. They were turned down, this time more bluntly.

Acquest showed up at the public meeting and tried to argue their case in front of the board. The weekend prior to the public meeting, MPA and Acquest mislead the Detroit News into running a story that there were two developers trying to rehab the building. It was patently false. Acquest had been told their model was not acceptable nearly a year earlier and it was reiterated again, prior to the story running. It was a nice piece of PR for the two heroic smiling architects with their photos on the front page above the fold though.

Lets be very clear about something. Acquest's numbers worked for Acquest. They did not work for the City. Period. Acquest would have cleared nearly $8 million in developers fees without putting a single cent of their money on the line. Not. A. Penny. ALL the debt would have been on the City side. From an over all debt management strategy and risk managment perspective, that was a very very bad deal for the City. Of course, the architects and other contractors had a vested interest to spin that it was a good deal. They stood to gain in their fees charged. I feel sorry for the firms that may have done work for Acquest on an If-Come basis for them when Acquest already knew the deal structure was a non-starter.

The allegation that MPA documents were given to KC or their contractors is a specious and unsupported lie. KC had their own contracted architects in Chicago working from the digital scans of the building starting in early 2002 before any drawings from MPA made their way to the DDA. There was no need for them or anyone to crib later drawings from MPA or any other contractor.

The attempt by MPA to accuse the DDA of stealing drawings is laughable at best. The MPA drawings had the first floor retail space retained, had a very different layout in terms of check in and had a different layout of public space. in other words, where there was room to play with layout, the plans differed materially.

Where there was not a lot of room for variation, both plans contemplated the restoration of public space as required by historic tax credits and both had a mixture of hotel rooms and condos as dictated by the economics of the project. However, the number of condos & their layouts and the number of hotel rooms & their layouts were different, although the dictates of the building envelope were going to result in vague similarities no matter who drew them.

The kicker was when the representatives of MPA threatened to sue the DDA after the public meeting for the KC MOU if they were not selected as a subcontractor for the project.

Here's a tip for the kids watching at home. Falsely accusing a public body of theft and then attempting extortion is a dangerous stunt that will result in your firm being marginalized.

The basis for the MPA claim was that both plans had condos and hotel rooms and both plans restored the ballrooms - as any plan would. The MPA plan had no plans for the additions that were part of the KC plans and became part of the Ferchill plan and had a very differnt configuration of the first and second floors.