  Lefty2 Member Username: Lefty2 Post Number: 869 Registered: 07-2007 |
Property Description: The David Stott Building is an Art Deco skyscraper in downtown Detroit, Michigan designed by the architectural firm of Donaldson and Meier. It was built in 1929 at the corner of Griswold Street and State Street (1150 Griswold St.), near Capitol Park. It has 37 floors with three additional floors below street level. The building rises from a reddish granite base and incorporates brick, marble (on the first three floors from the street), and limestone as its surface materials. As with many of the other Detroit buildings of the era it contains architectural sculpture by Corrado Parducci. The David Stott Building neighbours 1001 Woodward to the southeast. Property Description: The David Stott Building is an Art Deco skyscraper in downtown Detroit, Michigan designed by the architectural firm of Donaldson and Meier. It was built in 1929 at the corner of Griswold Street and State Street (1150 Griswold St.), near Capitol Park. It has 37 floors with three additional floors below street level. The building rises from a reddish granite base and incorporates brick, marble (on the first three floors from the street), and limestone as its surface materials. As with many of the other Detroit buildings of the era it contains architectural sculpture by Corrado Parducci. The David Stott Building neighbours 1001 Woodward to the southeast. This is a Development deal! This project is for a developer/investor who have a vision and want to be a part of the redevelopment of downtown Detroit. Please read ALL the attached articles and do further research on Google as to what is currently going on there. This is not a Office Building play.. This is for a investor or developer who has the forsight to take advantage of a great property This property can be bought and developed This property can be bough to sit on for several years as the market starts picking up The property can then be developed into Condo's This property is right across the street to the Boook Cadilac Property Use Type: Investment Primary Type: Office Office Building Building Size: 154,000 SF Building Class: C Price: $6,000,000 Price/SF: $38.96 Year Built: 1929 lefty What strikes me is that this building was bought over a year ago,(for about 15.00psf, now they want $38 psf) they did not do anything with it now they want to sell it but write up that it's building not in play but for development. So they can buy it for 2.5 Million +/- and want to sell it for 6 million, But You can't "put it in play" very hypocritical. Why did not the current owners do something with it when they bought it? What was THEIR plan? link - http://www.loopnet.com/xNet/Ma inSite/Listing/Profile/Profile .aspx?LID=15404754&StepID=101& RecentlyViewed=true&ItemIndex= 1&PgCxtDir=Down | ||
Detroitrise Member Username: Detroitrise Post Number: 1356 Registered: 09-2007 |
First it was the Book, Now it's the Stott. Now how do you guys expect glossy buildings to go up when our standing big horses continue to fall down. | ||
Lefty2 Member Username: Lefty2 Post Number: 871 Registered: 07-2007 |
i guess investors try to make something happen, when they can't they try to turn and make a profit. Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't. The Stott actually would make a good condo/loft conversion one the top floors with the good views. Need Buyers. | ||
Viziondetroit Member Username: Viziondetroit Post Number: 1350 Registered: 11-2003 |
I found this amusing when I read the listing "This property can be bough to sit on for several years as the market starts picking up" | ||
Nainrouge Member Username: Nainrouge Post Number: 596 Registered: 05-2006 |
How can you take an ad like that seriously with all the spelling errors? I am going to fork over 6 Million to a guy who can't spell "Book Cadillac"? | ||
Digitalvision Member Username: Digitalvision Post Number: 494 Registered: 11-2003 |
Very simply one can expect glossy new construction. Most people want new buildings and new construction, and view the Stott, etc. as outdated and outmoded. As to the sale - developers don't give a crap about what we think. They are going to do whatever they think can make the most money, even if that means sit on it. They probably also are starting at six and probably expect 4 or something. Always start higher than you expect. | ||
Viziondetroit Member Username: Viziondetroit Post Number: 1351 Registered: 11-2003 |
Yeah I noticed many spelling and grammatical errors in the listing. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 4305 Registered: 02-2005 |
...residential conversion on the way. It will take the City to assure a developer about the overall course of Capitol Park, though. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 4786 Registered: 10-2004 |
Wasn't that building going for something around $3 to $4 million three years ago? That one investor blog mentioned that all three Davids could possibly be bought in Spring 2007 for under $10 million. (Message edited by Livernoisyard on January 09, 2008) | ||
1953 Member Username: 1953 Post Number: 1511 Registered: 12-2004 |
Is it across from the Book Cadillac? Has the building been moved? | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 999 Registered: 01-2005 |
The Stott is not an asset. Basically, it has no value. If one were to give it away conditioned on a developer spending $5 million on renovations converting it to a viable use there would be no takers. That is, no takers who could spell "profit." There do seem to be those few New Yorkers who know little of Detroit but who are mesmerized by the size of the building and its location in a downtown area, and applying NY standards feel an acquisition at, say, $2 million (which the owner would take in a heartbeat) is too good to be true will soon find out he was correct. | ||
Carptrash Member Username: Carptrash Post Number: 1521 Registered: 10-2003 |
and there are a few Parduccis thrown in for good measure. eek | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 2205 Registered: 10-2006 |
I swear we just had this thread like six months ago--a nearly exact replica... (but I don't feel like searching for it now) | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 4309 Registered: 02-2005 |
Perhaps the City should acquire it and then pass it along to a residential developer for $1? 3WC, it really isn't an asset as an office building, but in the grand scheme, it's an asset to the city, because of its historic status and architecture, and an asset because of its immense future value as a place (or perhaps even to work again...far in the future). In anticipation of its future worth and its future as a source of tax revenue, it surely is an asset. | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 1001 Registered: 01-2005 |
The City will eventually acquire it -- for unpaid taxes. Just as it did the Dime Building a few years ago. Big difference between the Dime and the Stott however. (And the estimates I've heard are that BOSC Group, which eventually acquired the Dime and put a ton of money in to it will end up losing $20,000,000 before it's over.) Are you suggesting that the City should BUY the Stott and then give it away to a developer? Please. If it made sense there'd be developers fighting for it now. Mackinaw, I don't understand what you're saying in the second paragraph of your post so I can't comment on it. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 4311 Registered: 02-2005 |
You said it had no value, which is correct in only the strictest sense of the word. You could just acknowledge that it has value because it is an amazing building which, if put to a different use, would be an asset. I don't think that is hard to understand. I generally appreciate your insights but to toss around things like "I heard the Dime owners have lost 20 mil" doesn't really lead me to conclude anything. The Dime was acquired and re-sold more than a few years ago, no? Hmm, developers aren't fighting for it now at this asking price, but one would think they would at $1. I hope the city goes forth with those back-taxes proceedings...it won't guarantee a redevelopment, but it will expedite the process and put a developer in a favorable position for a likely residential conversion. | ||
Jasoncw Member Username: Jasoncw Post Number: 471 Registered: 07-2005 |
What 3WC is saying though, is that if renovated, they wouldn't be able to make their money back. I think that someone with a lot of money and creativity could make it work, but I think for now the way the building is now is fine. | ||
Lowell Board Administrator Username: Lowell Post Number: 4440 Registered: 10-2003 |
I wish I had six million to burn. I love that building. It is like a massive free-standing sculpture, a beautiful work of art. I sometimes wonder why some eccentric wealthy person wouldn't buy a place like that just for their own personal residence, say the top ten floors, instead of paying the same amount for place the Bloomfields. Obviously the expenses would be an issue but there could be some income from the remaining parts. Dream on.  | ||
Lowell Board Administrator Username: Lowell Post Number: 4442 Registered: 10-2003 |
 | ||
Lefty2 Member Username: Lefty2 Post Number: 881 Registered: 07-2007 |
Lowell, I can't agree more, If one person only buys this, even if they offer only 3 or 4 Mill for a place like this, they will be getting the BEST Condo in the World, no question in my mind, for a super cheap deal. They can even own the whole shebang. This is a steal on any scale. look at it. Try buying a even one story condo in New York at this price. | ||
Umcs Member Username: Umcs Post Number: 435 Registered: 06-2007 |
3WC, I'm curious about your background in RE Development and connections with the local/outside development companies. You seem to express your opinion quite confidently. Don't take this the wrong way but your opinions strike me as very mainstream, traditional and conservative with respect to RE development. I did look at the "financials" for that building as published on LoopNet and frankly, the package as put together was laughable and extremely unprofessional. I don't disagree with you that utilizing traditional models for redevelopment of the building renders it a worthless asset but I also don't believe this or any other building like it is best served by using traditional methods of redevelopment. (Message edited by Umcs on January 10, 2008) | ||
Fareastsider Member Username: Fareastsider Post Number: 770 Registered: 08-2006 |
Any one ever been to the top anything cool up there? | ||
Lefty2 Member Username: Lefty2 Post Number: 882 Registered: 07-2007 |
umcs - Thanks for for your interest in me  I guess I am fairly mainstream in terms of liking older buildings and reusing them to keep the old feel of a city. On the other hand I like any kind of architecture if looks appealing, that goes for artwork too. My point being is the current owners are selling it because (I'm assuming, don't know) they saw the cost was too much in this market, but know they want to make a quick profit on a resell. Think about it though. If some super wealthy person bought this whole building as a personal residence, gutted it, and had one big open shell on many floors inside, It would probably be unrivaled in terms of size and cost. | ||
Umcs Member Username: Umcs Post Number: 437 Registered: 06-2007 |
Actually Lefty, I was directing my inquiry towards 3rdWorldCity. He's been fairly consistent in observations on the Book Tower, Eaton Tower, Stott, etc., and I was just curious enough to ask. Not saying your background isn't interesting as well. I admire your creative thinking on the usage of this building but I doubt that a super-wealthy person would be interested in this building for a residence unless they were slightly off-kilter, ala Howard Hughes. Nor do I think that would be the best use of the building since, such a person would eventually die and well, what happens then? | ||
Quinn Member Username: Quinn Post Number: 1557 Registered: 01-2005 |
Fab idea Lowell...You could live in the top 3 floors and have a beautiful terrace, and fix up the rest and rent out... | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 1002 Registered: 01-2005 |
Umcs: You asked about my background. First, I don't profess to be an expert now on anything, but I have a lot of experience in real estate. I was a lawyer specializing in RE and represented several banks and developers in connection with land acquisition, development and construction loans, and subsequently handled tons of distressed property workouts, representing lenders and developers. I have testified as an expert witness in State and Federal lawsuits, and am a AAA arbitrator in connection with real estate disputes. I left the practice of law (and with another forumer) joined a publicly held real estate company, as COO, with a variety of real estate development projects in several states and Puerto Rico. I then became a private real estate investor, but sold my real estate interests 3 or 4 years ago, and am now in a non-real estate business, in another state. I'm told I have a pretty good understanding of real estate finance. I have been involved in several distress property deals in Detroit (mostly office buildings) on behalf of lenders. I haven't been actively involved in the business for some time but have many associates still in the business and I try to keep up because it's very interesting, especially observing what's going on (and not going on) in Detroit. I enjoy many of the threads on detroitYes, especially ones relating to real estate. There are some folks on here who know quite a bit about real estate themselves, and of course a few who don't have the slightest idea of what they're talking about, but who are entertaining. I have learned quite a bit from reading the many real estate related threads as many on here are quite up on what's going on. (Message edited by 3rdworldcity on January 11, 2008) | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 11190 Registered: 10-2003 |
3rd - I appreciate the knowledge and history that you bring to the board. Thanks. | ||
Umcs Member Username: Umcs Post Number: 443 Registered: 06-2007 |
Thanks 3WC. I understand where you are coming from now. Don't worry about not being an expert. One of the few things I do wager on is that anyone professing to be an expert is not while those who have experience have quite a bit of wisdom to share. I at least respect your experience and credentials even if I may disagree with your thoughts some of the time. I know my best asset is the guy across the hall telling me "Well, this might be a problem..." | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 4323 Registered: 02-2005 |
3WC, those first three paragraphs of your story are actually what I want to do. Just an fyi. Thanks for sharing. | ||
Lefty2 Member Username: Lefty2 Post Number: 893 Registered: 07-2007 |
Mackinaw, If you want to become really wealthy and avoid the corporate doldrums. Skip the first two paragraphs and become a legal representative, (or) investor, in a private equity real estate fund(s). Get a piece of the action while making money consulting on OPM. (other peoples money). Learn and earn on distressed real estate. Now is the time to buy in Michigan for a five or seven year holding period for tremendous returns. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 4339 Registered: 02-2005 |
Thank you for that advice. I would like to avoid the corporate doldrums; on the other hand, I'm signed up for law school, so at least part of the beginning of that story will be fulfilled. I will learn about private equity real estate funds. | ||
Lefty2 Member Username: Lefty2 Post Number: 896 Registered: 07-2007 |
cool, best wishes on that. take a deep breath and enjoy. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 4340 Registered: 02-2005 |
I plan on it! | ||
Expatriot Member Username: Expatriot Post Number: 24 Registered: 09-2007 |
37 luxury apartments, one for each floor plate. 360 degree views. Incredibly cool building on one of the potentially nicest little squares downtown. In any other "city" this would be a gold mine, but Detroit has always been just a "big small town", preferring single family homes on fenced lots. They never really got into apartment living. | ||
E_hemingway Member Username: E_hemingway Post Number: 1535 Registered: 11-2004 |
There was a plan for such a development that originated with posters on this board a few years ago. It would have mirrored the same development plan that is being used to renovate the Vinton Building today and would have been headed up by the same people. Sadly, the plan never materialized. | ||
Andylinn Member Username: Andylinn Post Number: 697 Registered: 04-2006 |
Mackinaw, are you going to wayne state law? my girlfriend is starting in the fall. any tips? | ||
Royce Member Username: Royce Post Number: 2538 Registered: 07-2004 |
There are two buildings that surround the lower portion of the Stott Building. Both of these buildings are vacant. One advertises that it is for sale. The space that these two buildings take up seems ideal for a parking structure that would be used by the residents or tenants of the Stott. | ||
Jasoncw Member Username: Jasoncw Post Number: 483 Registered: 07-2005 |
It's actually one building. But I think that would be a horrible spot for a parking garage. I think Griswold needs something pedestrian friendly there, like a nice building with some shops. Otherwise that spot would be: 1 Kennedy Square, that funny white modern building, the Griswold parking garage, the vacant Olde Building (short neo-classical one), the garage next to it, and that huge road intersection. None of those are very pedestrian friendly. And it has a funny shape. It would also be adjacent to the 1001 garage and the griswold garage, and really close to the Dime Building's garage, and that's just too much garage in one spot. I think what was once there would be good for the spot. That ugly building on Griswold is actually a modernized art deco building, though I can't find any photos of it. The part on State Street wasn't modernized, but is taller than the part on Griswold. I can't find any photos of that either though. The funny white modern building is also a modernization. Here's a photo of it: http://dlxs.lib.wayne.edu/cgi/ i/image/image-idx?rgn1=vmc_all;op2=And;rgn2=vmc_all;med=1;q1 =stott;size=20;c=vmc;back=back 1202573600;subview=detail;resn um=3;view=entry;lastview=thumb nail;cc=vmc;entryid=x-37004;vi ewid=37004 | ||
Jasoncw Member Username: Jasoncw Post Number: 484 Registered: 07-2005 |
The coney islands are also modernizations of some buildings built in the 1800s. There was a thread about it here a while ago. | ||
Lefty2 Member Username: Lefty2 Post Number: 1108 Registered: 07-2007 |
Implode the Stott and make parking, excellent idea. | ||
Royce Member Username: Royce Post Number: 2539 Registered: 07-2004 |
Lefty2, where did you get the idea that someone suggested that the Stott Building be imploded to put up a parking structure? Jasoncw, here's another idea. Instead of tearing down the two smaller buildings for parking structures, how about building a pedestrian bridge from the 1001 parking garage through the smaller building on State and connect that to the Stott. They did that with the school in Greektown in order to connect the casino to the parking garage. Maybe it could work here. Personally, I think that any of the public parking garages should lease some spaces for the businesses or residences near by. The public can always find parking, and if it's not close to their destination, the People Mover can get them there. I don't feel that Grand Circus Park's underground parking, for example, should be made available for public parking(Tiger games in particular) if redeveloping the Whitney and Broderick buildings depends on having adjacent parking. Lease part or all of the remaining parking to those buildings, like they did for the Kales Building, and redevelopment might happen sooner. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 4420 Registered: 02-2005 |
I agree with Royce about how to use public parking. Andylinn, I just noticed your question. I just got into Wayne, and I'm mulling it over right. I might just be in class with your gf, but I can't be sure just yet. The problem is that all the schools I'm into in/around NY are terrific for my fields of interest. | ||
Jasoncw Member Username: Jasoncw Post Number: 485 Registered: 07-2005 |
I wonder how necessary it is to physically connect them, since it's only a short walk around the corner on the sidewalk. But doing a connection across the small building would probably work, and the small building probably wouldn't be very expensive. It could also be renovated, with amenities (fitness center, etc.) going there, where the floor is bigger and more open, going in there. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 5092 Registered: 10-2004 |
Lefty's comment was obviously sarcasm--OBVIOUSLY. There's little evidence that much of anything will happen downtown, and even less of what might work. Most of the recent Detroit's condo building projects are dead or dying. The planned new FBI building plans were scrapped. A firm like Quicken Loans doesn't have anything firm in mind for Detroit (although it keeps talking the talk, albeit much less of that too recently), and apparently some of QL's allied companies will go elsewhere, such as in Chicago--for one. I reckon that kind of development talk was done to assist QL's public relations and to instill confidence in its continuing to stay in business. The owner of the Penobscot--the Northern Group--wants to recapitalize (i.e., get out in all or part) the Penobscot. This is the very firm that set a strangely iffy and long 46-month time-line for that high-rise project by Campus Martius. And this firm bought some other Detroit buildings last year. I suspect that those might be flipped or hung onto for a while. That Cadillac block of proposed building will be vacant land for the foreseeable future. One national real-estate investor last May wrote in his newsletter that the 1001 Building was the canary in Detroit's coal mine. If that fails (which it did, BTW), the Book-Cadillac will ultimately also fail, according to his May 2007 newsletter. We'll see. The BC for its earliest target date (not KC's) mentioned April 2008. Later, it was pushed back to October, and now it's supposed to open in November? | ||
Bob Member Username: Bob Post Number: 1667 Registered: 11-2003 |
Is the Stott vacant or is anybody have offices in there currently? | ||
Wazootyman Member Username: Wazootyman Post Number: 311 Registered: 02-2006 |
LY - What's your source on the Quicken Loans & Chicago speculation? That's the first I've heard of it. I think it's too early to say the revitalization has collapsed. Condo projects have been scrapped nation-wide; it's hardly an indicator of Detroit's future alone. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 5094 Registered: 10-2004 |
Not QL proper but one of its allied companies that was cited to follow QL to downtown Detroit. According to Chicago (and DY) rumors, at least. See if you might be able to scope that one yourself. I won't mention the company--just to increase the degree of difficulty a notch... I might do some Web searching on that myself if I get some things done over the weekend. | ||
Miketoronto Member Username: Miketoronto Post Number: 776 Registered: 07-2004 |
That is such a steal for a skyscraper. I wish I had $6 million floating around I can't even get a vacant three story old bank building in Toronto for $6 million. They are asking $10 million I think there is just not enough vision. I don't care how old it is, the Stott can be reused and be a great building again. Not everyone needs a glass box office(yes I said office. Enough with the condos. Bring economic activity and jobs back to the CBD). You just need someone who can really lead and get that tower back on its feet so to speak. | ||
Wazootyman Member Username: Wazootyman Post Number: 312 Registered: 02-2006 |
I'm not sure why this is a game, but are you speaking of ePrize? I guess other than the fact that someone identified a satellite office in Chicago, I haven't seen anything solid to back up re-location. http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs .dll/article?AID=/20080205/COL 06/802050398/1002/BUSINESS As an aside, I spend a little time over at UrbanPlanet, and if I noticed one thing - it's that the Grand Rapids forum tends to be a lot more upbeat than we are about Detroit. Granted, there are good things going on in GR, but I would also say they are facing a lot of the same hardships we are. So why is it that we focus on the negative so heavily? I see new developments and progress on a daily basis - lots worth discussing. When I first came to this site, I was drawn to it by the seemingly endless 'insider information'. Now we're surrounded by negativity, and "do you remember" threads. (Message edited by wazootyman on February 09, 2008) | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 5095 Registered: 10-2004 |
Yup! ePrize is the one. And as the QL: way too many ifs in its plans and time-line. That's why I also put little value in the Northern Group's project. Besides, Kilpatrick claims the credit for both QL and Cadillac, even though he had nothing to do about them, other than simply being mayor. But anything involving Kilpatrick in the least must now be scrutinized very closely, obviously. |
