HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2015, 5:27 PM
animatedmartian's Avatar
animatedmartian animatedmartian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,945
DETROIT | Crowne Plaza Downtown expansion | 327 FT | 28 FLOORS | ON HOLD

Quote:
Second tower planned for Detroit's Crowne Plaza Pontchartrain
By SHERRI WELCH. June 28, 2015. Crain's Detroit Business.



The owners of the Crowne Plaza Pontchartrain Detroit are considering a second tower on its downtown Detroit site, the Detroit Metro Convention & Visitors Bureau has confirmed.

Construction of a second tower — which experts say would cost in the $30 million-to-$35 million range — could bring the hotel up to 800-850 rooms. That would make it the state's second largest, behind the riverfront Detroit Marriott at the Renaissance Center.

And it could help the city gain an edge in attracting large conferences.

"One of our challenges is we don't have as many hotel rooms that are an easy walk to the convention center like many of our competitors do," said Michael O'Callaghan, executive vice president and COO of the convention bureau.

A second tower at the Pontchartrain would allow the RenCen Marriott and other hotels downtown to "play well together as a group in bringing these conventions to the city," he said.

.....

The owner — Pontchartrain Detroit Hotel LLC, a Mexican and European investors group led by Mexican investor Gabriel Ruiz Huerta — has been discussing a second tower for about the past six months, O'Callaghan said.

Although the idea isn't new — it was part of the hotel's original plan when it opened in 1965 and has been talked about from time to time over the years — "this is a recent plan," O'Callaghan said. "This current group of owners recognizes there's some good potential."

"And from what I've seen, (the) second tower is even bigger than the current one.

The hotel reopened in July 2013 after a $5 million renovation.

The 25-story hotel has 367 guest rooms, including more than 60 suites, as well as an indoor pool, business center, ballroom and 10,000 square feet of meeting space.

Its location directly across Washington Boulevard from Cobo Center makes it an ideal location, O'Callaghan said.

He thinks the demand for an additional 400-450 rooms at the hotel is already there, given interest from groups in bringing larger conventions to Detroit and the demand for rooms from companies moving downtown. And another large hotel will give the city more leverage to attract more large events.

...
http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...-pontchartrain
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Jul 1, 2015, 6:02 AM
The Lurker The Lurker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Great Lakes
Posts: 708
Finally a potential new highrise for Detroit that has a real chance of getting off the ground. I cant wait to see renderings. I wonder if the plan is to repeat the same design.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Jul 1, 2015, 12:24 PM
cityguy's Avatar
cityguy cityguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Windsor
Posts: 752
At last a new tower for Detroit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2018, 8:43 AM
LMich's Avatar
LMich LMich is offline
Midwest Moderator - Editor
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Big Mitten
Posts: 31,745
DETROIT | Crowne Plaza Downtown expansion | 338 FT | 28 FLOORS

Built for expansion, it appears the Crowne Plaza Downtown Detroit Riverfront Hotel is planning for a new 338-foot, 28 floor expansion at its complex across from the convention center.

Quote:

CoStar Group

Crowne Plaza hotel owners plan 28-story second tower downtown

By Kirk Pinho | Crain's Detroit Business

January 11, 2018

The owners of the Crowne Plaza Downtown Detroit Riverfront hotel downtown are planning a 28-story second tower that would rise about 338 feet, taller than the existing 25-story building.

The owner, a Mexican and European investor group called Operadora de Servicio Para Hoteles de Lujo, submitted documents to a Detroit City Council committee saying that the second tower for the hotel formerly known as the Hotel Pontchartrain would have 448,300 square feet with typical floors of about 15,900 square feet.

Construction would start this fall or winter and be complete in 2021, a document provided to the Detroit City Council's Planning and Economic Development standing committee says. When complete, there would be about 150 permanent workers in the tower.
__________________
Where the trees are the right height
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2018, 1:32 PM
The Lurker The Lurker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Great Lakes
Posts: 708
Happy to see this plan is still alive. I think the time is right to move forward with this one
__________________
Lets go Brandon
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted May 1, 2018, 5:54 PM
seabee1526 seabee1526 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by cityguy View Post
At last a new tower for Detroit.
Has this idea been shelved? What if anything is going on with this project?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted May 1, 2018, 11:58 PM
M. Brown's Avatar
M. Brown M. Brown is offline
The Believer
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Toledo, OH
Posts: 744
Quote:
Originally Posted by seabee1526 View Post
Has this idea been shelved? What if anything is going on with this project?
Construction may start later this year.

https://detroit.curbed.com/2018/1/12...-highland-park
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted May 2, 2018, 10:20 AM
LMich's Avatar
LMich LMich is offline
Midwest Moderator - Editor
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Big Mitten
Posts: 31,745
First, I merged the threads and don't know why the old one was bumped. Also, that Curbed post is literally referencing the article I originally posted on the revival of this concept.

Anyway, because this property is zoned PCA (Public Center Adjacent) there is an extra step in the process this one had to go through: Special District Review. This occured at the March 1 City Planning Commission meeting at which the review was approved, it was then referred back to council who then referred the review to their Planning and Economic Development Committee on March 15.

Suffice it to say, it's going through the proper channels if even the council hasn't signed off on it, yet. Patience. I'd like for this not to have been stuck in committee for a month-and-a-half...but that's the thing, this proposal's only been in the formal process for a month-and-a-half.
__________________
Where the trees are the right height
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted May 5, 2018, 1:19 PM
deja vu's Avatar
deja vu deja vu is offline
somewhere in-between
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: The Zoo, Michigan
Posts: 3,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by LMich View Post
Suffice it to say, it's going through the proper channels if even the council hasn't signed off on it, yet. Patience. I'd like for this not to have been stuck in committee for a month-and-a-half...but that's the thing, this proposal's only been in the formal process for a month-and-a-half.
Good point. And it will be worth the wait.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2018, 1:16 PM
LMich's Avatar
LMich LMich is offline
Midwest Moderator - Editor
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Big Mitten
Posts: 31,745
So, I finally found out what was holding this up. Apparently, someone who doesn't want to see this happen aired the hotel's dirty laundry forcing an inspection of the property, in which they, of course, found violations. The biggest one seems to be bedbugs, which is not an uncommon problem in hotels and multi-family buildings these days.

So that's why the city council ended up sending this one back to the planning commission. They basically told the planning commission that in order for them to approve the Special District Review that the commission would have to consult with the appropriate city departments to get some kind of promise and evidence that the owner of the existing hotel was fixing the problems found during the inspection.

After all of this, it appears that the planning commission, once again, recommended the city approve the Special District Review. The city takes this up, tonight, so I guess we'll find out soon if the city council is statisfied with the evidence and promise of the hotel owner. I'm just kind of surprised that they tied this in with the development of the second tower, and that they made the city planning commission the judges when it's there job to approve or reject things like this, ultimately.
__________________
Where the trees are the right height
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2018, 12:50 AM
animatedmartian's Avatar
animatedmartian animatedmartian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,945
Quote:
Detroit City Council holding up new 500-room hotel at Crowne Plaza
By CHAD LIVENGOOD. Crain's Detroit Business. July 30, 2018



Detroit City Council is holding up construction of a new 28-story 500-bed hotel across from Cobo Center over concerns about the existing Crowne Plaza hotel's customer service, an unsubstantiated bed bug infestation and treatment of employees after a failed unionization vote.

In June, City Council voted down a site plan request from the owners of the Crowne Plaza to build a second 338-foot hotel that would connect to Cobo Center with a pedestrian bridge over Washington Boulevard, sending the project back to committee and delaying the developer's construction schedule.

....
http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...t-crowne-plaza

Disclaimer, one of the city council members was a former union worker who championed for unionization at this hotel around the same time the bed bugs were complained about.

In the end, this project is held back because of politics which is a little more disappointing than it not getting a redesign.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2018, 9:23 AM
LMich's Avatar
LMich LMich is offline
Midwest Moderator - Editor
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Big Mitten
Posts: 31,745
This one is going to have a tough go, unless the owner can convince the council that he's not interfering in labor issues. I still don't know what to think of this. On one hand, you can't offer the "there they go again" refrain, as this council has basically approved every development project to cross their desk, and usually without saddling conditions. On the other hand, it's always been my understanding that this new hotel, though it would share the site with the existing hotel, will be a seperate franchize, seperately managed. At this point, this is a stand-off; it looks like if the owner is going to get a new hotel, he's going to have to seriously address the labor issues at the current hotel property.


Elizabeth Conley | The Detroit News

Detroit City Council rejects plan for second Crowne Plaza hotel tower

Quote:
Detroit — The City Council for a second time rejected a request from the owners of the Crowne Plaza Hotel to build a second tower.

Opposing council members did not express any issue with the proposed structure itself, but rather room conditions in the existing building, employee pay and the hotel owner’s failure to sign a neutrality agreement acknowledging the workers’ rights to form a union.

Meanwhile, hotel representatives say they’re frustrated but plan to keep fighting to build the 28-story, 500-bed tower at the corner of Washington and Jefferson in the downtown.

“I support employment. I support good customer service…” said Council President Brenda Jones prior to the 2-6 vote. “But what I do not support is problems within a hotel where I receive calls from out-of-state visitors that are here who feel that the hotel is a convention hotel, and that they experience a lot of problems … the rooms inside the hotel. Not with the employment, not with the customer service."
Quote:
Sabbagh noted the hotel owners have not asked for any tax incentives for the $164 million project that is expected to bring 250 permanent jobs.

Among issues the council has raised is how the hotel treated a failed vote to unionize in 2015.

Sheffield said if employees aren’t in favor of the union, there’s nothing that can be done, but she supports an environment of no intimidation from the employer if employees want to form a union.

Nia Winston, president of Local 24 UniteHere!, said Tuesday they are seeking a neutrality agreement with the employer. Winston spoke out against the project.
The article goes in to explain the 2015 unionization vote if anyone wants some context on the major thing blocking this project. It sounds kind of weird. The employees overwhelmingly rejected joining a particular union in the 2015 vote, but the hotel (8 workers) is already represented by Local 324 of the International Union of Operating Engineers. So it sounds like some inter-union fight; something the city shouldn't be using as a factor in denying the owner's request.

I can't say I've ever been particularly a fan of the project, though. I thought they were lazy to simply reuse the existing design for the new tower, which I've never liked the architecture of.
__________________
Where the trees are the right height
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2018, 8:34 PM
animatedmartian's Avatar
animatedmartian animatedmartian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,945
It's not the worst design to come out of the 70s, but I was expecting that if there was ever a double then they'd stick to the angled windows. If the new tower is going to have a separate franchise, they might as well go with a completely separate design. Either way, seems like this project could have been done more creatively.

As far as the other issues, I don't think the city should be in the position of approving or disapproving projects based on customer service reviews or a company's labor management. That's all separate from development and sets a bad precedent for future projects. I also don't like how one of the council members voting on this has a personal interest in this. There's definitely better ways of handling this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2018, 9:10 PM
mousquet's Avatar
mousquet mousquet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Greater Paris, France
Posts: 4,556
I say they should've gone for some heavy refurbishment by remaining true to the green window glass playing with those white curtains.

Look at colors and geometry to the façade. That was a smart stylish idea that would very easily work on a contemporary business hotel, like something rated supposedly 4 stars, for senior executives just quickly spending a couple of days over the place, and some better off tourists who would stay a little longer.

The problem is mullions. They can do better these days, both from an aesthetic and efficiency standpoint.
These are old materials, and not of the most outstanding of the era.

The renovation is lacking faith, then some slight frustration is legitimate.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2018, 10:19 AM
LMich's Avatar
LMich LMich is offline
Midwest Moderator - Editor
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Big Mitten
Posts: 31,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by animatedmartian View Post
As far as the other issues, I don't think the city should be in the position of approving or disapproving projects based on customer service reviews or a company's labor management. That's all separate from development and sets a bad precedent for future projects. I also don't like how one of the council members voting on this has a personal interest in this. There's definitely better ways of handling this.
I assume the city feels that they are within their rights to reject this, especially given as not even the developer has said that what they are doing is illegal. But I think what they are doing may very well be illegal. Literally the only reason this is coming before council, at all - especially since they are not seeking any public subsidies, rezonings, variances, etc. - is because of the specific zoning of few blocks of this part of downtown. I believe I'd discussed this earlier, but this is in the PCA (Public Center Adjacent) zoning district, which requires a "Special District Review." Literally anywhere else in downtown, and they've probably already be working on the foundation of the new tower.

Reading the criteria for the review, the spirit of the review is that it's an architectural/design review; it's not supposed to be going outside of its purview to include other issues. There are 18 different factors the city must consider; I don't read one that would include labor issues as a factor. Here is the spirit of the district in the description of the review process:

Quote:
The exterior design, appearance, and location of any proposed building, or exterioralteration of any existing building, structure, or premises, or part thereof, and the locationand design of any proposed sign, parking facilities or loading and unloading areas, shall bereviewed by the Planning and Development Department and by the City Planning Commission for consistency with the spirit, purpose, and intent of this district. In each case,the City Council shall approve, disapprove, or adjust said recommendation by resolution. Advertising signs shall not be permitted in the PCA district.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/97823044/...ning-Ordinance
The criteria is the section right below the description of the review process. If someone can show me a creative reading of how the council could include the labor situation in the existing hotel as a means for rejection of this proposal, I'm all ears. I really think the developer might have a lawsuit on his hands if he wants to go that route to get this approved. I have to say, though, that I'm much less concerned that Ayers is voting on this solely because given that this was a 2-6 vote or some such split, she isn't the deciding voting.

Quite frankly, I think this specific zoning district probably doesn't even need to exist. In a code that already micro-manages things, this is a whole other level of micro-managing.
__________________
Where the trees are the right height
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2018, 6:54 PM
animatedmartian's Avatar
animatedmartian animatedmartian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,945
http://www.crainsdetroit.com/real-es...nd-hotel-tower

Well, the project is now indefinitely on-hold. The investment money saved up for this project will now be used in investments in other cities. The owners aren't pulling out of Detroit completely but are willing to wait for more favorable conditions.

It's disappointing to say the least but such is politics. Even if the council might have had good intentions, this method of execution is very sloppy and paints them in a really bad light. It's not quite corruption like council of old, but it's dangerously close in that direction.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2018, 9:21 AM
LMich's Avatar
LMich LMich is offline
Midwest Moderator - Editor
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Big Mitten
Posts: 31,745
I feel like that word gets tossed around, a lot. No one in the decision-making process is personally benefitting from the denial of the approval for the Special Design Review. Corruption is using one's power on a public body to personally get something of value in return; that is not what happened here, it's not even close to what happened.

I think it can be see as a bad and disappointing decision without having to toss "corruption" charges onto it.

Anyway, looks like the mayor was particularly supportive of the project either, we learn. They were right to pull this with opposition from the mayor on down. Hopefully, they property owner and employees can work out whatever they need to work out, and then they can try this again given that this seems to have literally been the only reason for the denial of approval. The council was very clear that they did not deny approval because of architecture, size, etc.

I am still completely unclear how this is legal, however, and I'm kind of surprised no one has asked exactly which criterium they are using to deny the approval.

Quote:

(1) The proposed development should reflect applicable policies stated in the DetroitMaster Plan;

(2) Scale, form, massing and density should be appropriate to the nature of theproject and relate well to surrounding development;

(3) The proposed development should be compatible with surrounding developmentin terms of land use, general appearance and function and should not adversely affect the value of adjacent properties;

(4) Vehicular and pedestrian circulation facilities should be adequately designed tomeet expected demands; disruption of traffic flow in surrounding areas should beminimized; truck traffic should be carefully planned and controlled;

(5) Adequate vehicular off-street parking and loading should be provided, whereappropriate;

(6) Adequate public and private open space should be provided for light and air,landscaping, and, where appropriate, for passive and active recreation;

(7) Adequate rights-of-way, easements and dedications should be provided whereappropriate for trafficways, utilities and community facilities;

(8) Public access should be provided where appropriate, including provision of adequate right-of-way for the continuous pedestrian/bicycle pathway being developed along the Detroit River;

(9) Appropriate buffering and screening of service, loading, refuse collection,mechanical and electrical equipment and parking areas should be provided;

(10) Careful consideration should be given to orientation for solar access to both theproposed project and surrounding development;

(11) Signage and graphics should be tastefully designed to be visually appealing and incharacter with surrounding development; they should provide neededinformation, direction and orientation in a clear and concise manner;

(12) Security considerations, especially avoidance of visually isolated public spaces,should be a major element of the design program;

(13) Barrier-free access and public safety features should be carefully planned;

(14) Preservation/restoration of buildings having architectural or historic value shouldbe considered a primary objective;

(15) Urban design elements of form and character should be carefully considered;such elements include, but are not limited to: richness/ interest of public areasthrough the provision of storefronts, window displays, landscaping, and artwork;color, texture and quality of structural materials; enclosure of public spaces; variations in scale; squares, plazas and/or "vest pocket parks" where appropriate;continuity of experience, visual activity and interest; articulation and highlighting of important visual features; preservation/enhancement of important views and vistas;

(16) Special attention should be given to amenity and comfort considerations such asprovision for outdoor seating, restrooms for public use, bicycle storage,convenience of access points and protection from harsh weather through suchfeatures as enclosed walkways and arcaded pedestrian areas;

(17) Careful attention should be given to ease of maintenance of the completed project; snow removal, mowing, cleaning, and other maintenance and repair operations should be considered;

(18) Phasing, staging and interim circulation patterns should be well-planned so as tominimize disruption during the construction period.
Maybe #17 could apply to the current hotel operations apart from the labor issues?
__________________
Where the trees are the right height
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2018, 7:52 PM
animatedmartian's Avatar
animatedmartian animatedmartian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by LMich View Post
I feel like that word gets tossed around, a lot. No one in the decision-making process is personally benefitting from the denial of the approval for the Special Design Review. Corruption is using one's power on a public body to personally get something of value in return; that is not what happened here, it's not even close to what happened.

I think it can be see as a bad and disappointing decision without having to toss "corruption" charges onto it.

Anyway, looks like the mayor was particularly supportive of the project either, we learn. They were right to pull this with opposition from the mayor on down. Hopefully, they property owner and employees can work out whatever they need to work out, and then they can try this again given that this seems to have literally been the only reason for the denial of approval. The council was very clear that they did not deny approval because of architecture, size, etc.

I am still completely unclear how this is legal, however, and I'm kind of surprised no one has asked exactly which criterium they are using to deny the approval.



Maybe #17 could apply to the current hotel operations apart from the labor issues?

Dude, the council wanted the owners to sign an agreement to be "neutral on labor unionization", disregarding the fact that some of the hotel workers are already apart of a union. On top of that, it's been three years. The hotel is still operating and still getting business otherwise you would see it struggling and there wouldn't be a need for a second tower.

Then, like I've been saying, Ayers had former connections to a specific union that wants to represent these specific hotel workers. So does every new hotel project need this particular union to be involved in order to be approved? That's not fishy? That's not using one's power on a public body to personally get something of value in return?

I mean, they didn't get it which is why it's not corruption, but if the hotel owners agreed to signing a special condition in order to get their hotel built (that no other hotel has had to sign), that'd raise a lot of red flags. And again, do future hotels or any future development now have to sign this agreement to get approval?

Of course, Detroit has the Community Benefits Ordinance, but that only applies to projects that use city money. Makes sense. But this hotel project didn't ask for any city money. So then is the goal for the city to forcibly become involved in micromanaging every project regardless of if public money is used or not? That's a bit of a strong-arm government isn't it?

If not corruption then its just really shitty of city council to do that and I'd have higher expectations on how they treat all developers. Detroit isn't in the position to shut out anybody lest all we can depend on is wealthy billionaires and big corporations.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2021, 6:52 AM
Blocky858's Avatar
Blocky858 Blocky858 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Detroit
Posts: 75
Assuming this is dead?
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:17 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.