  Waymooreland Member Username: Waymooreland Post Number: 48 Registered: 11-2007 |
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pb cs.dll/article?AID=/20080508/B IZ/805080475/1361 Great to hear that more retail should be springing up along Woodward! Also, developers seem to be getting it, moving away from condos in this cold real estate market, but still investing in the city by filling the demand for downtown rentals. | ||
Detroitrise Member Username: Detroitrise Post Number: 2082 Registered: 09-2007 |
Oh poo! I was hoping it had something to do with the Hudson block. Ah well, good news none the less.  | ||
Waymooreland Member Username: Waymooreland Post Number: 49 Registered: 11-2007 |
Nah, we won't be hearing anything about the Hudson's block until November, when Dan Gilbert announces that the new Quicken HQ is being built there! (fingers crossed) | ||
Detroitrise Member Username: Detroitrise Post Number: 2084 Registered: 09-2007 |
No, I'd rather his headuarters go on the statler and his mixed-use building go on the hudson block. I want Quicken's signature building to stand out in the skyline. (Message edited by DetroitRise on May 08, 2008) | ||
Rjlj Member Username: Rjlj Post Number: 521 Registered: 11-2003 |
^^^^ Here we go again. | ||
Viziondetroit Member Username: Viziondetroit Post Number: 1683 Registered: 11-2003 |
I swear... people on dyes and these damn "signature buildings" | ||
Dds Member Username: Dds Post Number: 611 Registered: 10-2006 |
I remember Stroh's Signature. | ||
El_jimbo Member Username: El_jimbo Post Number: 669 Registered: 12-2006 |
I'm glad to see that two fellow Spartans are involved with this development. Between this project and Dan Gilbert, MSU is WELL represented in the current wave of downtown redevelopment. | ||
Wolverine Member Username: Wolverine Post Number: 456 Registered: 04-2004 |
Great news for these buildings! | ||
Ffdfd Member Username: Ffdfd Post Number: 293 Registered: 09-2006 |
No comment on El_jimbo's post, Wolverine? (Message edited by ffdfd on May 08, 2008) | ||
Rb336 Member Username: Rb336 Post Number: 6113 Registered: 02-2007 |
Is Kraemer still working on the project? | ||
Busterwmu Member Username: Busterwmu Post Number: 482 Registered: 09-2004 |
Great news for that part of the lower Woodward corridor. Smaller projects like this will hopefully spur redevelopment of larger buildings like the Whitney and Broderick. | ||
Bearinabox Member Username: Bearinabox Post Number: 635 Registered: 04-2006 |
quote:Is it really "people on dyes," or is it just Detroitrise over and over? Personally, I couldn't care less what our skyline looks like as long as we have a vibrant city at street level. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 3087 Registered: 04-2006 |
Detroit already has a pretty prominent "signature" tower. Name a more recognizable structure than the Ren Cen of any city between NYC and Chicago... | ||
Detroit313 Member Username: Detroit313 Post Number: 655 Registered: 02-2006 |
Ihearthed Your totally right. <313> | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 4753 Registered: 02-2005 |
Prime location rentals. I couldn't be happier. | ||
Dbc Member Username: Dbc Post Number: 121 Registered: 09-2006 |
I'm curious why the owner of the building gave up her effort to rehab the Elliott, which was touted in the News and Modeldmedia and even had a website. Then again, I guess I'm not surprised she bailed, as the News article mentioned she was a New York investor who never considered refurbishing the building and whose family had done nothing with the building since buying it in the 70's. Let's hope this project actually happens and Matt Steigenga is better skilled at business than basketball. (Sorry, but this Spartan expected a bit more out of a Mr. Basketball.) | ||
Fmstack Member Username: Fmstack Post Number: 65 Registered: 06-2007 |
Detroit already has a pretty prominent "signature" tower. Name a more recognizable structure than the Ren Cen of any city between NYC and Chicago... CN Tower. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 4756 Registered: 02-2005 |
^Disagree. There are similar-looking structures in other parts of the world (and even Niagra Falls, ONT). It is attention-grabbing and huge, and you can argue that it's more important architecturally than the RenCen, but the RenCen really defines Detroit. I wouldn't mind another icon on our skyline, but it's hardly a need. There are many needs in this city, and even if we limit our discussion to aesthetics, we need streetwalls and infill more than signatures. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 5999 Registered: 10-2003 |
Back on topic, I too wonder what happened to Aizer's plan to redevelop the Elliott? I guess it was the housing market. The plan back in 2005 called for 16 condos and ground floor retail/office space. They are now talking rental and 70 units between the two buildings. It's good to see the projects finally going forward. It's going on something like three years , now, since the buildings were bought by the DDA with plans for redevelopment. | ||
Sean_of_detroit Member Username: Sean_of_detroit Post Number: 295 Registered: 03-2008 |
This is great news. This means no more vacant buildings on that block. Just for fun, besides the Broderick, Whitney, and The 1001 buildings what is left? Going South on the West side of Woodward from the Whitney you have; 1. Heimilch Apartments - Occupied. The first floor retail arcade is vacant. 2. 1525 Woodward - Vacant, except for one retail tenant. 3. Unknown vacant building 4. Unknown vacant building - Clifford Street - 5. 1459 Woodward. One retail tenant (Tall Eez Shoes). Is the rest vacant? Is this under renovation? 6. 1447 Woodward. Merchant's Row Apartments with one retail tenant. 7. Merchant's Row Apartments. One Retail tenant. 8. Pepper's Shoes Building, mentioned above. 9. Elliott Building, mentioned above. -Grand River Avenue- 10. Merchant's Row Parking Garage with retail tenant. 11. Merchant's Row, vacant retail. 12. Merchant's Row, vacant retail. 13. Merchant's Row Leasing Office. 14. Merchant's Row, one retail tenant. 15. Twelve-25 Condos, expected completion 2009 16. Unknown Building, under construction? 17. Unknown Building, under construction? -State Avenue- Going South on the East side of Woodward from the Broderick you have; 18. Vacant Shop 19. Vacant Shop (owned by Cosmos?) 20. Bleu with a vacant retail space. 21. Unknown vacant building. 22. Unknown vacant building. 23. Unknown vacant building (construction going on). 24. Wright Kay Building, vacant/for sale. 25. Oslo's Building. Two retail tenants only? 26. Lofts @ Woodward Center (apartments). Vacant retail. 27. Lofts @ Woodward Center. Retail occupied (Athlete's Foot). 28. Lofts @ Woodward Center? Retail Occupied (Nike Store). 29. Unknown vacant building (construction going on?) 30. Unknown vacant building (construction going on?) 31. Unknown vacant building (for sale) 32. Unknown Building, one retail tenant only. -East Grand River- 33. Hudson space one. 34. Hudson space two. -Gratiot- Sound right? Can anyone fill in the blanks or make corrections? | ||
Detroitrise Member Username: Detroitrise Post Number: 2090 Registered: 09-2007 |
Well I really don't care what you guys think. It's sorta odd an American city Detroit's size doesn't have a stand-alone high rise taller than 50 stories, where as cities half our size have several of them. Heck, I'd say we've had taller building go up during the 70s (with decreasing in-fill) than ever! | ||
Bearinabox Member Username: Bearinabox Post Number: 637 Registered: 04-2006 |
Here's my question: How does having taller buildings make a city a nicer place to spend time? The urban experience is created at street level. It doesn't matter if the buildings are two stories or 200--if the storefronts are filled and the sidewalks are crowded, the city is vibrant. In Europe, where they know a thing or two about building vibrant downtowns, skyscrapers are extremely rare, and most buildings in central cities are under 10 stories. Tall buildings are fine when the market demands them, and that is why landmark buildings were built in Detroit in the 1910s and 20s--the city was booming, and space downtown was in high demand. Today, though, half the existing buildings downtown sit empty because there is not sufficient demand for the space. Building another tall building would just empty out more of the buildings already there. And for what--so some newsstand at Metro Airport can sell pretty skyline postcards at 25 cents a pop? So we can win some stupid, arbitrarily-defined pissing contest against Cleveland? I don't get it. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 6000 Registered: 10-2003 |
Please, let's stop taking stories off topic to beat the dead-horse discussion of signature towers. Please. This is about the Valpey (Pepper's Shoes) and Elliott renovations. Stop feeding the trolls. | ||
Bearinabox Member Username: Bearinabox Post Number: 638 Registered: 04-2006 |
Sorry. I'll stop now. | ||
Royce Member Username: Royce Post Number: 2620 Registered: 07-2004 |
The Elliot Building has always been one of my favorite lower Woodward buildings, aesthetically speaking. I thought the 16 condos originally planned were too many for this building. The building cries out for only one or two residences per floor. I can't speak for the Pepper Building, but 70 apartments between the two buildings does seem to me to be a bit much. However, something going on in those two building is a better than nothing going on in those two buildings. I hope it works out. (Message edited by royce on May 09, 2008) | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 6001 Registered: 10-2003 |
Two a floor only works if they can get those prices. If 3 or so was too few a floor for the market, than two definitely is. That the building is going rental demands more units per floor. Land values would have to be incredibly high to have such a small building support so few units. | ||
Royce Member Username: Royce Post Number: 2621 Registered: 07-2004 |
Chopping the buildings into apartments may get more people in them, and paying more rents, but there would be many tiny units that would have little access to natural light(windows). Remember, only three sides of these building have windows and the apartments that face the alley would have small windows and offer very little natural light and very little to look at. Maybe the reason the Elliot did not find many takers was because of the way the 16 units for the condos were configured. Consider this scenario. If you divide each floor of the Elliot into four equal units( five floors above the ground floor times four units, you get 20 units), one apartment gets a Woodward and Grand River view(the best choice). One apartment gets just a Woodward view(second best choice). One apartment gets a Grand River and maybe alley view(third best choice). The final apartment only gets the alley view(worst choice). Fifteen apartment dwellers out of 20 would be happy and that's not bad, but try and divide the Elliot into more units and I don't think you're going to have a lot of takers of these units. However, if you can get five people willing to live in a building with only an alley view, then you might get more takers. I just don't see it. (Message edited by royce on May 09, 2008) (Message edited by royce on May 09, 2008) | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 6002 Registered: 10-2003 |
Does anyone know what's happened to 1520 Woodward (old Lane Bryant Building)? It's the art moderne building a block north and on the other side of the street I remember hearing was under renovation. | ||
Rsa Member Username: Rsa Post Number: 1472 Registered: 10-2003 |
70 units doesn't sound very plausible. the elliot building is 6000 sq.ft. per floor, 6 floors. the pepper building is 4000 sq.ft. per floor, 8 floors. assuming 10% for circulation, we're looking at about 61,200 sq.ft. that's 874 sq.ft. per unit averaging 4-5 units per floor. and the above mentioned fact that there are only windows on two or three sides of this building. those are going to be a lot of really long narrow studios. weird. | ||
Gannon Member Username: Gannon Post Number: 12741 Registered: 12-2003 |
We need to look behind this now, given the state of this current administration and the way they've skimmed their take off of any and every deal that has gone down during their time in office. Who has the demolition, cleanup, and white boxing contract for this job? Who has the garbage contract? Security? In what way were McNamara, Cheeks, and Kilpatrick cronies installed within the workings of this project IN ORDER TO GET IT APPROVED? Where is the skim...how is it funneled back to the crooks? (Edited for spelling error) (Message edited by Gannon on May 09, 2008) | ||
Andylinn Member Username: Andylinn Post Number: 847 Registered: 04-2006 |
it was once a (failed) condo project... http://www.modeldmedia.com/dev elopmentnews/elliott.aspx | ||
Jasoncw Member Username: Jasoncw Post Number: 499 Registered: 07-2005 |
The back of the building has one bay's worth of windows. It has balconies on another bay. The final bay on the back of the building is blank, but that corner already has windows anyway. Also, I don't think there is a building behind it, so those windows wouldn't look onto an alley, they'd look onto the corner of Grand River and Washington Boulevard. I can't say anything about the unit arrangements, but other buildings on Woodward are about the same size but only have windows on Woodward, and on the back truly face an alley. | ||
Royce Member Username: Royce Post Number: 2622 Registered: 07-2004 |
RSA, thanks for doing the math. When I heard 70 units between the two buildings I thought to myself that that seemed to be too many apartments and that some units would be very small. I can't speak about the Pepper Building, but the Elliot Building, being on the corner, has that extra side of windows and should have always been a more appealing building for some type of residential development. The Elliot, with that corner advantage, reminds me of the Wright Kay Building in this sense. The Wright Kay Building is on a corner and each floor above the ground floor is offered as one office or residential unit. Why couldn't the Elliot have been offered in the same way? The appeal of the Elliot is that it has lots of windows and is a corner building that faces two of Detroit's most famous streets: Woodward and Grand River. One floor offered at 6000 square feet for one residential unit, if marketed right, is a great space for a millionnaire-type. Appealing to five millionnaire-types might have been all the Elliot needed to become a successful condo developement. Fifteen to eighteen condo units just didn't do this building right in my opinion. Again, maybe that is why the condo development failed. Breaking the space into more than two residential units per floor doesn't sound like the route to go with the Elliot, but that's just how I feel about the new development plan. | ||
Sean_of_detroit Member Username: Sean_of_detroit Post Number: 315 Registered: 03-2008 |
Actually, units that small might be genius. What buildings around Downtown have this size of apartments? More importantly, what buildings with small studios are located so prominently in the CBD? Young professionals entering the work force will love to show family and friends their new place on Woodward (even if it's tiny) after a ball game or concert. It means they are doing good, and not at all crazy for moving to Detroit. Plus, if it is cheap, it will out price the competition. Even if they charged a premium, it worked at Kales. Either way they do it, this project could be a win. Hopefully there is plenty of demand for small studios. If not it will simply steel the business from it's competition. Furthermore, this project is reflecting a developer taking advantage of the current economy. There is PLENTY of people who want to move to Detroit's CBD. They just haven't been able to afford it. Even if they can, they are often stuck with some pretty crummy locations. Those college kids and recent graduates don't have tons of money. They want a little status, but haven't put in the work to achieve it yet. They also want friends and family to come and visit them without driving through a blighted area located in a sea of poverty and parking lots. I think they are on to something. Plus, if the market continues to get worse, this project will still be OK. It will be the less desirable competition (rent can always be lowered) who losses residents. | ||
Mdoyle Member Username: Mdoyle Post Number: 388 Registered: 10-2006 |
I think this will be a great idea. The trend of smaller more affordable apartments is the way to got to move toward a more dense residential population in the CBD. Many people that are looking to move into the city are young people just out of school who are getting on their feet financially. A friend of mine just got his first place @ the Fyfe which seems to have a perfect mix of units ranging from studios to 2-3 bedroom units. The rent is affordable and the building seems to be attracting alot of young people. On the next rung up is the Kales with affordable loft living and condos. We just need a more balanced mix downtown to help fill in. Once there is an established residential population you'll begin to see more apartment to condo conversions and higher levels of gentrification but for the time being the CBD is a residential shell that needs to be brought along slowly. I would say that just about any building owner in the CBD could put a few bucks into a halfway decent renovation of their upper floors and rent out apartments. It sure beats waiting for that big ticket retailer to buy out you ground floor. | ||
Gannon Member Username: Gannon Post Number: 12764 Registered: 12-2003 |
Smaller places will also get tonnage of solvent suburbanite investment...especially as the cool and comfortable factors sink in as time goes by. Not unlike the old days, there'll be town homes and country estates as people realize they'd rather just BE here than ride the freeways back to their farburb mansions...wasting gasoline and risking DUIs. In Chicago, I've known MANY a folk who collaborate on these rentals and share them for these weekend crash parties...whoever happens to be downtown uses the place. Up to ten guys have gone in on a share concept...with one taking the responsiblity for lease or mortgage. Used to be the bigwig corporate type would do it and write it off as an office, too. LOTS of reasons the small cheaper units could fill up very quickly. Cheers | ||
El_jimbo Member Username: El_jimbo Post Number: 683 Registered: 12-2006 |
Gannon, Your concept sounds a GREAT spot to put up the mistress! |
