DETROIT | Development & Construction: Motown Lowdown

[LMich]

You have incredibly strange tastes in architecture. You griped for days about the fairly moderate redesign of the Hudson site proposal as if it were the end of the world, but this is all right with you? The materials look of low-to-moderate quality and the massing is all wrong, even putting aside the problem of the size of the project.

[The North One]

Well, that's an exaggeration. I didn't like Hudson's redesign at first but it's grown on me, I merely emphasized the fact that the design won't be finalized until 2018.

The renders they released of Statler were kind of low quality so I'm not sure how you can judge the materials like that, it's just not nearly the monstrosity everyone wants to perpetuate, sorry for not contributing to the circlejerk.

There is no parking garage, no setbacks, it has ground floor retail and a cool looking courtyard. I get that it's not ideal for such a site on Grand Circus and Washington Boulevard but god, I'm so fucking sick of hearing people bitch about it. If you wanna start going full NIMBY and protest the project then do what you can, I just want this jarring parking lot to bite the dust.

[Ifactwo]

Amazing city skyscrapers and beautiful place.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by deja vu

Didn't see this coming - apparently Southfield is throwing in for the Ama-zon / zing Race.

^^^Crap like that is how we lost the Volkswagen plant.

[SpartanTom]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

^^^Crap like that is how we lost the Volkswagen plant.

According to the Freep article, all of the Michigan bids will be submitted to the MEDC which will choose the best to submit for consideration so we don't have three competing bids in the state.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by The North One

Well, that's an exaggeration. I didn't like Hudson's redesign at first but it's grown on me, I merely emphasized the fact that the design won't be finalized until 2018.

The renders they released of Statler were kind of low quality so I'm not sure how you can judge the materials like that, it's just not nearly the monstrosity everyone wants to perpetuate, sorry for not contributing to the circlejerk.

There is no parking garage, no setbacks, it has ground floor retail and a cool looking courtyard. I get that it's not ideal for such a site on Grand Circus and Washington Boulevard but god, I'm so fucking sick of hearing people bitch about it. If you wanna start going full NIMBY and protest the project then do what you can, I just want this jarring parking lot to bite the dust.

Why is a parking garage such a bad thing? If it's done right, it can actually make a project far more attractive.

It would be great is Detroit started following the lead of developers in Nashville. The vast majority of their new high rises consist of above-ground parking garages being integrated into the design of the building (which adds several stories of height to the structure). See the new Bridgestone HQ as an example.

EDIT: And I understand your frustration with seeing vacant lots / parking lots. That being said, it's not a good enough reason for us to have such low standards for developments in our city. Ensuring development is symmetrical with the surrounding areas and the scale of the site its built on is far more important than building something for the sake of building something. After all, these mistakes will be with us for a very long time once they're complete (see the Brush Park Condos along Woodward that someone mentioned now seem out of place earlier in the thread). There's no blowing up the town and starting over with a blank slate like on Sim City.

[The North One]

Parking garages are absolutely awful, they're the antithesis of good urbanity. In an ideal world, there should be no above ground parking what-so-ever. I don't care how integrated into the design they could be.

This infatuation with height is absurd, height is meaningless, especially when it's only boosted by an above ground parking garage.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by The North One

Parking garages are absolutely awful, they're the antithesis of good urbanity. In an ideal world, there should be no above ground parking what-so-ever. I don't care how integrated into the design they could be.

This infatuation with height is absurd, height is meaningless, especially when it's only boosted by an above ground parking garage.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[rlw777]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

Why is a parking garage such a bad thing? If it's done right, it can actually make a project far more attractive.

It would be great is Detroit started following the lead of developers in Nashville. The vast majority of their new high rises consist of above-ground parking garages being integrated into the design of the building (which adds several stories of height to the structure). See the new Bridgestone HQ as an example.

EDIT: And I understand your frustration with seeing vacant lots / parking lots. That being said, it's not a good enough reason for us to have such low standards for developments in our city. Ensuring development is symmetrical with the surrounding areas and the scale of the site its built on is far more important than building something for the sake of building something. After all, these mistakes will be with us for a very long time once they're complete (see the Brush Park Condos along Woodward that someone mentioned now seem out of place earlier in the thread). There's no blowing up the town and starting over with a blank slate like on Sim City.

First of all nobody should be following the lead of developers in Nashville on integrating parking structures into buildings because Nashville is leading nobody on that front. Parking has been integrated into building designs since Bertrand Goldberg designed Marina City for Chicago in 1959. While parking can add to the aesthetics of a building as in the case of Marina City it is by far a rare exception.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by rlw777

First of all nobody should be following the lead of developers in Nashville on integrating parking structures into buildings because Nashville is leading nobody on that front. Parking has been integrated into building designs since Bertrand Goldberg designed Marina City for Chicago in 1959. While parking can add to the aesthetics of a building as in the case of Marina City it is by far a rare exception.

I didn't say Nashville invented the concept, but my point was they're at least being creative with the development of their buildings to maximize their scale.

Given the relative dearth of new skyscrapers development over the past few decades (Detroit is the only 5+ million metro area whose skyline has barely changed a lick since the 1990s), Detroit could certainly learn a thing or two from a city 1/3 its size that has 30+ new skyscrapers that were recently built or in the pipeline.

But that's just my opinion. I believe Detroit deserves better and should stop punching below its weight, that's all.

[subterranean]

^Agree with you, SSP17. There is no reason a garage within a well designed building needs to be a negative for urbanity. Not planning for cars is unrealistic, and just because we overbuilt some auto infrastructure and removed/underbuilt transit infrastructure does not mean that automobiles are going anywhere, or the need for us to continue to plan for them. There are very few high income families who are going to buy condos or live in high end apartments without at very least one space, especially in auto-dominated Detroit. Hell, I live in a station community and most households still have two cars. Parking issues are only going to get worse from this point forward in Detroit, too. Ever been downtown with two games going on at the same time?

[skyscraperpage17]

This is all heresy, so take it for what it's worth.

I just read something from an individual who recent ran into Gilbert at an event in NYC. While discussing the Amazon bid, he mentioned the reasons for pushing the Windsor / Canada connection (which is all have discussed quite a bit).

However, he did apparently mention something else that was interesting. Apparently, he understands Amazon wants to work with the automakers to integrate the Alexa technology into vehicle.

Again, take it for what it's worth.

[Docta_Love]

Uptown Southfield?

Foster Financial pays $5.1 million for Central Park Plaza in Southfield

By KURT NAGL
Crain's Detroit Business
September 22, 2017



Real estate developer Foster Financial Co. has acquired Central Park Plaza in Southfield with plans to renovate the 130,000-square-foot office building and market it as an alternative to constricting space in Detroit.

The Grosse Pointe-based developer purchased the six-story building from Detroit-based Sterling Group for $5.1 million in a deal brokered by Michael Valant of Newmark Knight Frank, a New York-based real estate firm with an office in Southfield. The deal closed Sept. 15.

"As Detroit starts to get more and more expensive, there are a lot of companies that won't be able to come downtown," said Bradley Foster, owner of Foster Financial. "We're trying to offer lower cost options for business."

Foster said he plans renovations to the tune of "several hundreds of thousands of dollars," with the goal of making the space turn-key and upper scale.

....

Central Park Plaza is the developer's sixth acquisition in the last two years, Foster said, and it is actively pursuing "major acquisitions" in downtown Detroit.

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...-in-southfield

[skyscraperpage17]

I thought this article about the thirst for Amazon was hilarious! (Detroit is included):

https://www.theringer.com/tech/2017/...rs-competition

That said, a very sage point is made within the article, which is why landing Amazon is so critical:

A fall in the number of economic development deals in recent years means mayors and governors have fewer opportunities to bolster their political standing with shiny new factories or corporate headquarters.

[animatedmartian]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

That said, a very sage point is made within the article, which is why landing Amazon is so critical:

A fall in the number of economic development deals in recent years means mayors and governors have fewer opportunities to bolster their political standing with shiny new factories or corporate headquarters.

You mean to tell me government leaders across the country actually had to deal with the task of balancing budgets, improving infrastructure, and funding schools in order to get their citizens to keep them in office? What a struggle.

I guess we Detroiters have been spoiled with such an inefficient government (across multiple levels) for so long that seeing it come together in hopes of landing a big cash cow is actually kind of heartwarming. At the very least, I hope this Amazon hype will inspire the region towards more lofty goals rather than just being content with being average.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by animatedmartian

You mean to tell me government leaders across the country actually had to deal with the task of balancing budgets, improving infrastructure, and funding schools in order to get their citizens to keep them in office? What a struggle.

You missed the point.

The chart below (linked in the article I posted) does a better job of showing my point:



(BTW, Conway Data really loosened their definition for US facilities and expansions after 2008, so the numbers post-2008 seem much better than they actually are).

Companies are engaging in very little capital investment these days. Capital investment translates into increased tax revenue and jobs. If government officials can't generate sufficient tax revenue to provide servies and attract a sufficient number of jobs for the citizens in their jurisdiction to support themselves, then the citizens they represent will vote them out.

Thus when these increasingly few and far between spurts of capital investment occur, you're seeing governments trip all over themselves to ensure it happens in their backyard.

[animatedmartian]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

You missed the point.

The chart below (linked in the article I posted) does a better job of showing my point:


(BTW, Conway Data really loosened their definition for US facilities and expansions after 2008, so the numbers post-2008 seem much better than they actually are).

Companies are engaging in very little capital investment these days. Capital investment translates into increased tax revenue and jobs. If government officials can't generate sufficient tax revenue to provide servies and attract a sufficient number of jobs for the citizens in their jurisdiction to support themselves, then the citizens they represent will vote them out.

Thus when these increasingly few and far between spurts of capital investment occur, you're seeing governments trip all over themselves to ensure it happens in their backyard.

No I got the point. But there's a big difference between a city that welcomes big projects to add to growth and cities that only rely on big projects to generate growth.

The way the original statement was worded made it sound like most of the cities in contention were struggling for growth and Amazon was going to turn things around for them. Or like, voters would overlook other issues in a city just because of winning Amazon.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by animatedmartian

No I got the point. But there's a big difference between a city that welcomes big projects to add to growth and cities that only rely on big projects to generate growth.

The way the original statement was worded made it sound like most of the cities in contention were struggling for growth and Amazon was going to turn things around for them. Or like, voters would overlook other issues in a city just because of winning Amazon.

I wouldn't say those cities are struggling for growth, but it's true that the growth is occurring at a much slower rate than they would like (before the Great Recession).

BTW, my point is just welcoming something that's barely happening in the first place isn't enough in today's world.

[Docta_Love]

Gilbert eyes Uniroyal site redevelopment on Detroit riverfront

By KIRK PINHO
Crain's Detroit Busines
September 25, 2017

Dan Gilbert's team has been quietly working on a deal for one of the most perplexing and environmentally challenging properties available for redevelopment in Detroit: the city-owned former Uniroyal Tire Co. factory site on the east riverfront.

Five sources familiar with the negotiations who were not allowed to speak publicly about them confirmed the discussions to Crain's. A sixth, Steve Hoin, senior geologist with the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, said he met with Gilbert representatives this spring to discuss the site.

"The discussion focused on site issues that might impede development and their interest in that issue," Hoin said.

There is no deal finalized, sources said. But if Gilbert strikes one for the Uniroyal property, the site across from Belle Isle would easily be the most daunting — and largest — he and his team have added to their development pipeline during the real estate and mortgage mogul's seven-year buying and building spree in and around downtown Detroit. It would also plant a large development flag farther outside downtown than his efforts have previously ventured.

....

One of the sources said a mixed-use development is envisioned for the site, while another said it's in line with the 2,000 residential-unit plan envisioned by the Pittsburgh-based development group tapped 13 years ago during the Kwame Kilpatrick administration to build on the property.

....

Only a little more than one-third of the site has been cleared of contaminants resulting from more than a century of industrial use. Most recently, 1941-78, it was home to a Uniroyal tire manufacturing plant and a Michigan Consolidated Gas Co. coal-gasification plant. The city bought the land from Uniroyal in 1981 for $5 million and spent $3.6 million more razing structures and clearing the site.

Remediation of just the western 15-acre parcel cost Detroit-based DTE Energy Co., which now owns MichCon; E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.; and Michelin USA Inc. around $35 million. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality assigned the cleanup cost to DTE, Michelin, du Pont and London-based Enodis plc in 2006.

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...oit-riverfront

[LMich]

Interesting. I don't know why I thought Bettis/Betters actually owned the site; I guess they were only given development rights. Glad to hear the city still owns the land.