 
Billk
Member
Username: Billk
Post Number: 134
Registered: 09-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 16, 2007 - 12:51 pm: |    |
In regards to the tanked real estate market, what goes down will go up. This too shall pass. What I find interesting is that 1001 was sold on a land contract. From my understanding a land contract is usually used to sell vacant land, a contract between 2 individuals with no bank or loan involved. |
Umcs
Member
Username: Umcs
Post Number: 172
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 16, 2007 - 2:15 pm: | |
Maybe the developer got bogged down trying to fund other developments like subdivisions in Macomb County? There are myriad reasons why a developer could have problems. Normally, one domino falling is a sign others are going to fall too. |
Mike
Member
Username: Mike
Post Number: 1013
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 16, 2007 - 2:39 pm: | |
glad to hear that the e and y building is leased out.
the market in the D let alone in Downtown is much different than the burbs right now. Heck, its even better than the burbs.
the residents interested in downtown and midtown projects make far more that their typical suburban counter parts make anyhow. don't ask me to quote it, but this was in the detnews.com a few weeks ago.
Detroit is still on the rise, unlike its suburbs who in my opinon are somewhat failing. I said it before and I will say it again, the furture of Michigan lies in Detroit and especially its urban core. Until the rest of the region acknowledges that no matter how much they "dog" the city, it will always be the "face" of Michigan and especially the face of SE MI. |
Patrick
Member
Username: Patrick
Post Number: 5060
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 16, 2007 - 2:43 pm: | |
Detroit is still on the rise? What have you been snorting? |
Detroitrise
Member
Username: Detroitrise
Post Number: 263
Registered: 09-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 16, 2007 - 2:51 pm: | |
"Detroit is still on the rise? What have you been snorting?"
True, I wouldn't call Detroit "rising." However, we know for sure that it's not going anywhere. There has been at least slow growth in downtown and the immediate surrounding areas. Otherwise, everywhere else in Detroit hasn't experienced any growth or even a downtrend in the overall view of the area. |
Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard
Post Number: 4354
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 16, 2007 - 3:15 pm: | |
quote:the market in the D let alone in Downtown is much different than the burbs right now. Heck, its even better than the burbs.
the residents interested in downtown and midtown projects make far more that their typical suburban counter parts make anyhow. don't ask me to quote it, but this was in the detnews.com a few weeks ago.
Detroit is still on the rise, unlike its suburbs who in my opinon are somewhat failing. I said it before and I will say it again, the furture of Michigan lies in Detroit and especially its urban core. Until the rest of the region acknowledges that no matter how much they "dog" the city, it will always be the "face" of Michigan and especially the face of SE MI.
Just why is it that Detroit, city of, is so important to SE Michigan? It has virtually no industry and much of its former businesses are leaving or, at least, not expanding much. It took over a decade to get one of the three permanent casinos up and running. When was the last time that QL was given consideration, even on DY--one of its avid support groups? The Book-Cadillac is still about a year off, so is that project progressing on budget?
Remember, the BC started out as a $147 million project with K-C (with some $52 million of empowerment funds) four to five years ago. Now, its a $180+ million project. What happens if there are overruns? Its finances are undoubtedly cobbled together much more fragilely than the 1001.
How do we know that the BC and other projects are not having problems or spending too much, anyways? It's a zero-sum game in metro Detroit (maybe not even, considering the overall economy), and there's only some much pent-up demand for housing nationally, and especially here in Detroit, region of. If the BC falters for Westin as it did for K-C, are the taxpayers going to cough up funding, abatements, or other credits?
(Message edited by LivernoisYard on October 16, 2007) |
Umcs
Member
Username: Umcs
Post Number: 174
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 16, 2007 - 3:38 pm: | |
The importance of Detroit, as a city, is psychological. There is no requirement that Detroit must flourish for the rest of Michigan to flourish. That's pure nonsense from a numbers perspective.
However, for Michigan to start to dig itself out of the malaise that affects it and to get beyond it's gritty, post-industrial, crime-ridden image, the success and redevelopment of Detroit is a psychological hurdle that we've all been facing for 40 years.
In the minds of many out-of-staters, Detroit is Michigan and Michigan is Detroit. If you doubt that, ask yourself what New York is? Boston? Atlanta? Chicago? Denver? Seattle? The cities are tied to the state's, whether it is rational or not. That is why Detroit is important to SE Michigan. |
Viziondetroit
Member
Username: Viziondetroit
Post Number: 1211
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 16, 2007 - 5:43 pm: | |
^I could not have said it better. |
Viziondetroit
Member
Username: Viziondetroit
Post Number: 1212
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 16, 2007 - 6:11 pm: | |
If you put retail,grocery shopping and decent schools in the area... you can command that kind of money for the views and location etc. |
Spiritofdetroit
Member
Username: Spiritofdetroit
Post Number: 653
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 16, 2007 - 6:13 pm: | |
I have heard nothing but horror stories regarding the developers of the 1001 building. Numerous people have talked about the problems they had communicating with the developer - and these were people who had already placed a downpayment on a unit. No wonder it failed. However, this building is in a great location, and while some disagree it is a fairly attractive modern building, and I think that it certainly has the potential to prosper |
Swimmaven
Member
Username: Swimmaven
Post Number: 12
Registered: 05-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 16, 2007 - 6:38 pm: | |
Do I remember correctly? Wasn't there a Calder sculpture crammed into a small space in front of this building? Where is that sculpture? |
Ndavies
Member
Username: Ndavies
Post Number: 2808
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 16, 2007 - 7:14 pm: | |
No, the sculpture's in front of the SBC building.
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/b u/?id=sbcbuildingaddition-detr oit-mi-usa |
Rhymeswithrawk
Member
Username: Rhymeswithrawk
Post Number: 954
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 5:22 am: | |
Sure makes you wish we still had the Majestic Building instead, don't it?
http://animoto.com/play/3584ee 785389f6aeb30b426678f177e3 |
Ndavies
Member
Username: Ndavies
Post Number: 2809
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 8:51 am: | |
Why? It would just be another vacant crumbling building. |
E_hemingway
Member
Username: E_hemingway
Post Number: 1375
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 9:03 am: | |
quote:Why? It would just be another vacant crumbling building.
Well, to use your own logic the Majestic would stand a better chance of being a successful condo conversion.
quote:People are willing to pay the $250 a Sq/Ft for a rehab of an old building. They are willing to pay for new construction with balconies and opening windows. They are not willing to pay that price to go into a relatively modern office building with no balconies and no opening windows.
It's a crippled building. It lacks the ambiance of a historic building or the amenities of a new building. It's also competing against the potential of new construction on the riverfront. |
Ndavies
Member
Username: Ndavies
Post Number: 2810
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 9:42 am: | |
quote:Well, to use your own logic the Majestic would stand a better chance of being a successful condo conversion.
What like the Broderick, the Lafayette, Whitney, National Theater, Lawyers building, Elliot, Farwell, Eddystone, Oddfellow, United Artist, Fine Arts, Gar, Metropolitan, 1 woodward, Stott, Book tower? The market is already saturated with elegant old buildings that could be renovated into lofts. Unfortunately they are not rare in Detroit.
While the market is improving, I'm not sure there will ever be enough demand to absorb all of them. We'd be much better off tearing it down and removing some of that excess supply. Rarity drives prices. Too much supply threatens the entire market. |
E_hemingway
Member
Username: E_hemingway
Post Number: 1376
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 10:32 am: | |
Who says they have to be turned into for-sale condos? Why not turn them into apartments or live/work spaces for entrepreneurs? Also, many of those buildings you listed are owned by a couple of landlords who have a poor track record for restoring buildings. How much of that inaction is due to the market and how much of it is due to uninspired ownership? One last thing, downtown's hearty stock of historic structures is a big part of what sets it apart from other urban areas. Tearing down more of those will only take away from a big part of what makes downtown special.
(Message edited by E_hemingway on October 17, 2007) |
Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 1893
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 10:38 am: | |
Tearing down more of those will only take away from a big part of what makes downtown special.
And probably kill most outside interest in Detroit. |
B2b76
Member
Username: B2b76
Post Number: 4
Registered: 04-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 11:09 am: | |
I'm pointing my finger at the owner. This building still has a ton of vacant commercial space that was not being converted into condos (9 of 21 were to be converted). As a whole downtown has an 84% occupancy rate. How can it fail so bad in the condo, commercial and parking garage markets???? OWNERSHIP
http://www.modeldmedia.com/dev elopmentnews/211wfort11607.asp x |
Swingline
Member
Username: Swingline
Post Number: 921
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 11:18 am: | |
Ndavies, are you feeling ok today? quote:We'd be much better off tearing it down and removing some of that excess supply.
You know, on second thought, maybe you're on to something here. With all the vacant spaces we could create from all the demolition of those surplus properties, we could build some fabulous green spaces. Maybe a few lots next to occupied buildings could be made into attractive landscaped parking lots. That way, those remaining occupied buildings could become that much more valuable. Urban places need lots of green space and parking, don't they? |
Rsa
Member
Username: Rsa
Post Number: 1291
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 11:40 am: | |
no, he's just interested in improving the value of a certain building on woodward by making it more rare!  [just kidding, just kidding!] |
Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 1896
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 11:54 am: | |
^I wonder why Al Roker Entertainment is setting up shop in Detroit (per model media link posted above)?
The only new tenant from out-of-town, Al Roker Entertainment, entered into a short-term lease in the building for a production office. |
Billk
Member
Username: Billk
Post Number: 136
Registered: 09-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 1:31 pm: | |
http://www.alrokerproductions. com/main/index.htm |
Hybridy
Member
Username: Hybridy
Post Number: 173
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 1:48 pm: | |
when model d says the downtown occupancy rate is 84%, are they only considering class A office space? if so, this number becomes somewhat insignificant. whats the actual overall occupancy rate for all classes of office space in the cbd? |
3rdworldcity
Member
Username: 3rdworldcity
Post Number: 942
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 4:11 pm: | |
Occupancy rate doesn't come close to 84% downtown, in any "class."
I wouldn't get on the developers too hard because of the failure of 1001. They at least tried, and I'm sure lost a bunch of money in the process.
Most/many people believed it would not work from the beginning. The building was owned jointly by the Operating Engineers Union and the Carpenter's Union (and/or their pension funds.) The Carpenters bailed out early on, and for good reason it appears. The Operating Engineers is the land contract seller to the developer. (It was a land contract deal because no bank would loan the purchase money to the developer, regardless of who it was.
The building is a very nice building in my opinion. It's not burdened by all the historical stuff.
One of the problems is it's a very large project (# of units) in a limited (but somewhat vibrant) market, the renovation costs are high, and the mortgage market has changed drastically for the worse since the inception of the deal. The latter is the killer. If buyers were lined up, who's going to loan them the money? Condos, regardless of where they are or how much they cost, are the hardest residential housing to finance, by far. Most lenders have pre-sale requirements (say 65% of the units) before they will fund the first one.
Not many people are surprised that it failed but it's a shame it did.
Things will probably change in 3 or 4 years and someone else will take a shot at it.
One wonders how many of the B-C condos will close. Don't hold your breath. (If they don't close at a profit we the taxpayers will lose $6 million thru the (basically unsecured) MSHDA 3rd mortgage.) |
Detroitrise
Member
Username: Detroitrise
Post Number: 279
Registered: 09-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 5:43 pm: | |
Last I heard, many of the B-C condos have been sold. |
3rdworldcity
Member
Username: 3rdworldcity
Post Number: 945
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 6:38 pm: | |
Sold yes. The closings are to come.It's probable that many units went to speculators betting on a profitable flip and some were inevitably "purchased" by insiders who wanted the numbers to look good and to evidence a demand. I think many sold units will never close. Happens every time. Let's just wait and see.
The upside is that the renovations are probably funded and on a worse case basis they'll end up w/ a fully renovated but largely empty building. The equity (minimal) will be wiped out as will be the junior lenders, and any taxpayer upside. New people will take it over at a substantial loss to everyone but will be able to reduce condo prices and rental rates. The main thing is that they complete the renovations. |
Atwater
Member
Username: Atwater
Post Number: 46
Registered: 09-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 7:01 pm: | |
Ok, personally, I don't like the 1001 building. I don't think it's the most attractive building, and as has been mentioned, it's windows don't open, making it less-than-ideal for condo conversion.
Furthermore, on the ground level, there is no walk-in-off-the-street retail space, and that building borders Campus Martius of all places- the center of downtown! I assume that any new building built in the area would be required to have such retail spaces, but, that leads to my point.
What if the 1001 building was torn down and another building, much like the B-C garage with ground floor retail and condos on top, was built in its place? |
Southen
Member
Username: Southen
Post Number: 321
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 7:08 pm: | |
Thats one of the dumbest things Ive heard. That building is absolutely fine. And why would they tear it down to put a parking garage with residential on top when they built a parking garage to service this building already? You complain that 1001 is fronting CMP without any ground floor retail, which btw is false, there is a bank and barber shop last I checked, but you would rather have a parking garage fronting CMP? Nothing needs to be torn down. 1001 is a fine building that adds architectural diversity to downtown and can be used in different ways if it were to get a competent developer. |
Atwater
Member
Username: Atwater
Post Number: 47
Registered: 09-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 7:16 pm: | |
Well, I've never been inside the building. And I am aware that there is some retail in the building, but, it's not the type that's going to draw anyone in. I'm not referring to the types of businesses, but rather to the fact that one would have to enter the building and only then find the retailers inside, like they would in a mall. And that's *if* they even knew they were there. I knew there was retail space in the building, but I didn't even know if it was filled or not! Where is the sign for the barbershop on the outside of the building, at street level, in view for pedestrians?
As for the type of building I was suggesting, I didn't mean to imply that I thought it should have any parking in it at all. I referenced the B-C garage just because it's a new building being built with ground floor retail and condos above, and so it came to mind.
Also, speaking of the ground floor retail situation of that building, I think the streetscape looks completely UNinviting, even *if I did* know there was a barbershop *in* there (as it's not really at the street). The place looks fortress-like. It does nothing for the pedestrian experience, which, at Campus Martius, is very, very important.
(Message edited by Atwater on October 17, 2007) |
Southen
Member
Username: Southen
Post Number: 322
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 7:50 pm: | |
Retail in the Ren Cen isnt easily accessible from the street, you have to go inside there. Compuware has some stores that can only be accessed from the inside as well. I dont think that should be a knock on the building as many buildings have retail layed out that way. Ever been in the Guardian building? If retail is there and in demand people will find it.
I think the building can be very successful either as office or residential or a combination of the two. It may not be your favorite design, but it provides a great contrast to its surroundings and can be a real asset to the city and area. |
Darwinism
Member
Username: Darwinism
Post Number: 674
Registered: 06-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 11:20 pm: | |
3rdworldcity is right on about inflated "sold" units at most of these developments. This doesn't just happen in Detroit. It often happens in Royal Oak, Ferndale, and so on too. Truthfully, there are somewhat more speculative investors in the condo/loft conversion market than actual homestead buyers. I think we all know that reality in the back of our minds, but refuse to acknowledge it. In other words, many of us choose to be in denial. 1001 Woodward is not the first, nor will it be the last of such failures. Let's hope the other properties in development avoid the same fate. |
Lowell
Board Administrator
Username: Lowell
Post Number: 4247
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 18, 2007 - 12:27 am: | |
I have never been a fan of 1001 for both aesthetic and functional reasons, many of them discussed in this excellent thread.
My word for it is "forbidding". It has always been a cold slab stuck in concrete, a tomb-like hermetically sealed exterior dooming dwellers to all year climate control, no open windows / decks. The commercially best corner of it was long occupied by an oversized bank space with no entry from the corner, an important function but hardly the bringer of street and night life. It was more of an obstacle than a destination.
It always left me with a feeling that the designers wanted to keep people off the street. Its main attraction was as a corner cutting walkway to warm up in the winter.
Its saving features are the views looking down on Campus Martius that have to be sensational. Its location in the heart of downtown can't be beat.
Somehow I feel it will eventually work, but with the pall of the auto malaise hanging over us, we will have to once again wait.
Side Note: further up: "From my understanding a land contract is usually used to sell vacant land, a contract between 2 individuals with no bank or loan involved."
They are use a lot to buy houses, I bought my Highland Park house on a land contract. 3WC put it well, "...was a land contract deal because no bank would loan the purchase money to the developer, regardless of who it was."
That my case when buying my house. No would lend money in financially redlined HP. [I had no credit standing either]. Land contract is a great law. The inner city would have been a lot worse off without that ability transact property outside the banks' monopolies. Caveat Emptor! Risks to the buyer can be merciless if you miss payment and the seller is a Simon Legree. |
Atwater
Member
Username: Atwater
Post Number: 48
Registered: 09-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, October 18, 2007 - 1:14 am: | |
Lowell, you express exactly what I mean about its relationship to the street.
You note that "its saving features are the views looking down on Campus Martius that have to be sensational. Its location in the heart of downtown can't be beat."
Yes, very true. But neither of those elements are actually about the building itself! Any future building in that space would have these same two "saving features", *plus* could be wonderfully integrated in with the street, bringing pedestrian traffic and street life and fulfilling its role as the building at the corner of Woodward and Michigan avenues! Though, I realize this idea is just a dream..
A question though: I really don't know if this is feasible or not, but.. would it be possible to ever reconstruct the street level of this building, to build out new retail spaces with doors right to the street, and thereby rectify the problems Lowell and I and others have pointed out?
(Message edited by Atwater on October 18, 2007) |
Digitalvision
Member
Username: Digitalvision
Post Number: 422
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 18, 2007 - 1:32 am: | |
I can vouch that the views out of the building are awesome. Completely urban and reminiscent of my time in New York City. From up there, especially in key places, it's the urban view dream.
The building is not crap structurally, and for the most part, would take very little work to get it where it needs to be - and I think, with it's attached parking, would make an excellent Quicken HQ, depending on their size needs, as well as place them right on Campus Martius.
Why build new and wait? Save money and move in there. They'd probably get a killer deal, too. |
Artistic
Member
Username: Artistic
Post Number: 58
Registered: 09-2006
| | Posted on Friday, October 19, 2007 - 8:43 am: | |
Here is the latest from Crains on 1001 Woodward
1001 Woodward land contract ordered forfeited
By Robert Ankeny
The land contract on 1001 Woodward, the former First Federal Building, was ordered forfeited Thursday by 36th District Court Judge Nancy Blount, after the limited liability company that bought it in July 2004 failed to make payments totaling nearly $5.4 million in principal and interest.
The company, 1001 Woodward Office L.L.C., is controlled by Warren-based developer Lorenzo Cavaliere. It now has 90 days to redeem the property by paying in full to the company set up by the Operating Engineers Local 324 Pension Trust Fund, which sold the building.
Meanwhile, Cavaliere also faces other litigation in Wayne County Circuit Court. Those lawsuits include Charter One Bank and other lenders, as well as contractors, suing for failure to pay what’s due on loans and construction costs for the 12-story parking garage built adjacent to 1001 Woodward. |
Lefty2
Member
Username: Lefty2
Post Number: 442
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Friday, October 19, 2007 - 6:22 pm: | |
I'd like to see what it goes when the creditors dump it. It might make sense if sold cheap enough. Lowell's description is funny because now that i think about it is what i thought when looking at it. |
New threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.