  Gmich99 Member Username: Gmich99 Post Number: 262 Registered: 11-2005 |
"Another batch of Detroit riverfront condos is slated to go on sale this fall, according to General Motors Corp., which is orchestrating the development as part of its efforts to help rebuild the long-neglected stretch of land east of the Renaissance Center." http://www.detnews.com/apps/pb cs.dll/article?AID=/20080225/B IZ/802250319/1148 | ||
Rugbyman Member Username: Rugbyman Post Number: 254 Registered: 06-2005 |
Don't know about you, but when I read "housing project" I'm not thinking high-end condos. I'm not usually one for euphemisms, but maybe choosing some other phrase would be nice. "Condo development." "Revitalization project." | ||
Higgs1634 Member Username: Higgs1634 Post Number: 338 Registered: 10-2005 |
quote: So, two other projects are sinking and/or can't get off the ground, yet GM is going ahead on this? Tell me again how developing condos (or moving and renovating the RenCen in the first place) help General Motors sell cars? (Message edited by higgs1634 on February 25, 2008) | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1399 Registered: 11-2003 |
Higgs - I don't think sales are sinking, the banks changed the requirements. When they first announced the Atwater and Watermark the bank required a certain percentage of units sold in order to get started. With the current housing market, they are nervous and have increased the percentage to 60%. I can't speak to if sales are on track or not, but if they had expected to sale a certain amount by a certain time and they now need to sell more, it will obviously delay the start. | ||
Digitalvision Member Username: Digitalvision Post Number: 586 Registered: 11-2003 |
If you're a multi-billion dollar company, you want a nice neighborhood around your HQ. You want a vibrant waterfront... and I'm sure some of it is ego. Every shot of Detroit has their HQ in it. It's the building with the most presence in the region for the company with the most presence here... it's very fitting. I also think it's a thing called corporate responsibility, Higgs. I applaud them for their efforts which have jumpstarted a whole area. I take it, Higgs, that you would rather see GM build a new, giant, two-story facility north of Wixom on vacant land? After all, if we're going to talk about just the bottom line, that's probably the least expensive thing to do. They'd get whatever they want for free, and I'm sure Wixom or whatever wouldn't tax them anything. Heck, for their bottom line, Higgs, I take it you'd like to see the whole tech centre move to Bangalore? After all, India has engineers. Since that's the best for the bottom line (and it's all about the bottom line and not quality in your mind), Higgs, I take it you support that? | ||
Alan55 Member Username: Alan55 Post Number: 1270 Registered: 09-2005 |
GM got a signature facility for $75 million, plus whatever they spent on renovations. One of the architects on this site will have to tell us what the RenCen would cost if built today - 800, 900 million? They got a showcase on the river for 30 or 40 cents on the dollar. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 4463 Registered: 02-2005 |
So hopefully this website will get updated soon? http://www.renshorecondos.com/ | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 6343 Registered: 08-2004 |
Also, GM has had a history of helping out its neighborhood. Back when their HQ was located in New Center, they invested millions in revamping the neighborhood... i.e. New Center Commons. Since when have automakers spent 100% of their resources only in auto related ventures? Probably never. Ford has Fairlane (hotels, office buildings, mall, retail centers), GM has had their HQ neighborhood redevelopments. Now granted that may not help them sell cars, but it keeps them as good corporate citizens. And as Alan55 just mentioned GM got the RenCen at pennies on the dollar. Phase 1 of RenCen cost $500 million, and the additional phase about another $220 million or so, plus the cost of parking structures, et al, and the total original costs was about $750 million. The $75 million purchase of the RenCen by GM was 10 cents on the dollar. | ||
Tiorted Member Username: Tiorted Post Number: 120 Registered: 02-2006 |
quote: former Poletown residents and Michael Moore may disagree | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 6345 Registered: 08-2004 |
Didn't they just tell Coleman Young that they wanted to build a new plant in the city... and the rest was up to Young... | ||
Higgs1634 Member Username: Higgs1634 Post Number: 340 Registered: 10-2005 |
quote: So, what you're saying is the New Center area was unworthy of investment? Just imagine what a BILLION dollars could do there. But, what you are saying is that the GM building... a freaking landmark...was not 'signature' enough and the New Center area wasn't "nice" enough? GM was just being a good corporate citizen by pulling up stakes in New Center? Are you people for real? quote: Uh, no. I advocate no such thing. I ask what exactly was wrong with the GM building and New Center Area? You people are advocating a badly designed, piece of throw away architecture (arent there carbon copies in Atlanta, Dallas and elsewhere?) as a more attractive/ "signature" location for the GM than a stunning Albert Kahn building. Seriously? Frankly the RenCen belongs in Troy and I'm stunned to see it defended. Further, GM has turned over one of the most interesting and significant buildings in Detroit to the State of Michigan. Can't wait for the dropped ceilings and cheap repairs to begin. I would have thought every preservationist on here would be fuming at that. The mere mention of county control of the Guardian sent you all into a tizzy. But as you said, New Center wasn't "nice" enough to benefit from GM's largess. quote: Again, I advocate no such thing. GM's move to the RenCen was pure ego. Ridiculous amounts of money have been poured into that building (no matter how cheap they got it...you ar not taking into account the massive cost of moving) that could have been spent on any number of CAR RELATED issues. Now they are going to spend hundreds of millions more in a condo development that will a) sit empty or in "phase one" for a decade, b) split any proceeds with the developer, and c) poach buyers from the Atwater and Watermark which will result in the waterfront staying as desolate as ever. GM makes cars. Everyone around here seems to forget that. They are not a charity, they are not a development company, and they are not a health care provider or an employment service. GM needs to get back to making cars that people want (or will buy) or we are all screwed. So, yes, it is about the bottom line.. FOR THE F'ing CARS not building swanky condos to feather its nest. | ||
Asbury Member Username: Asbury Post Number: 30 Registered: 10-2007 |
Yes GM wants a nice neighborhood but it is also business. The RenCen stores will do better if there are residents living close by. It really is win-win for GM, nicer neighborhood, easier to attract employees, stores doing well - higher rents and not to mention the PR | ||
Higgs1634 Member Username: Higgs1634 Post Number: 341 Registered: 10-2005 |
quote: I would guess that when Ford, GM, and Cerberus Motors were making those investments they weren't a)mortgaged right up to the blue oval logo, b) teetering on bankruptcy and/or c) owned by a chop shop investment firm. quote: Apparently you missed the thread about Brooks Brothers and Borders closing and the general difficulty of just getting the people who work there to shop in the building, let alone attracting new customers. (Message edited by higgs1634 on February 25, 2008) | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 6347 Registered: 08-2004 |
Higgs, GM could have easily built a new HQ next to their Warren Tech Center (sort of like what Chrysler did with the combined HQ & Tech center in Auburn Hills). While they did make lame excuses for leaving their New Center HQ, at least they stayed in the city. They had already poured millions into making the New Center neighborhood a much nicer place, and are now doing so in Rivertown. The New Center area is still nice, and the State of Michigan has a beautiful Detroit HQ. It is doubtful that you will find any state in the country that has a nicer state office building in their largest (non-capital) city. Only Chicago's soaring State of Illinois Center is a contender. Your complaint about the money being better spent on cars... well yeah... I guess you could make the same complaint about Ford not having spent so much on Fairlane real estate and more on car production... or Chrysler not having spent so much on their Auburn Hill HQ... or the Ford family could have had a better football team had they stayed at the Silverdome and not spent so much on Ford Field... or Mike Ilitch could have more wisely spent money on better sports athletes had he not fixed up the Fox... the list is endless... | ||
Higgs1634 Member Username: Higgs1634 Post Number: 343 Registered: 10-2005 |
The thing you're missing is that GM was not looking to move out of the city. The RenCen was an impulse buy/ego purchase for a segment of GM's leadership. This is pretty well known inside the company. Talk to me in 10 years about the beautiful Detroit State offices. The money spent is a moot point of course. However, there is no point in continuing to throw good money after bad. | ||
Rsa Member Username: Rsa Post Number: 1415 Registered: 10-2003 |
the new center commons project was a project that invested money in improving streetscapes, renovating, and restoring historical homes in the area north of the boulevard. this area was experiencing the same flight and disinvestment that the rest of the city was experiencing at the time. it was mostly done as a stabilization project to keep the neighborhood nice, not to make money off of new development. this argument is mostly moot. if you guys read the article it states: quote:which means that the property was given to hines for an eventual cut of the proceeds. hines will be developing this project, not GM. GM is "investing" the worth of the property for an eventual payout. | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 6349 Registered: 08-2004 |
Well 2 additional points... 1) I would hardly call spending millions on New Center Commons bad. 2) It has always been GM's intention of spending their own money on nearby retail/housing. Just because there are finally "other kids on the block" (where there weren't 20 years ago) in the development game. I don't think that GM should give up on its' HQ neighborhood redevelopment and just leave it up to others to struggle thru the tighter banking hurdles. And just what "bad" money has GM spent? Unless you're a GM shareholder, I don't understand your complaining about our largest corporation continuing to spend money on their home town. In fact you should be complaining why more local business haven't spent money in Detroit rather than bitch about GM. Unless you think that all money spent in Detroit is an effort in futility. | ||
Boynamedsue Member Username: Boynamedsue Post Number: 32 Registered: 03-2005 |
quote: If you're a multi-billion dollar company, you want a nice neighborhood around your HQ. You want a vibrant waterfront... and I'm sure some of it is ego. Every shot of Detroit has their HQ in it. It's the building with the most presence in the region for the company with the most presence here... it's very fitting. So, what you're saying is the New Center area was unworthy of investment? Just imagine what a BILLION dollars could do there. But, what you are saying is that the GM building... a freaking landmark...was not 'signature' enough and the New Center area wasn't "nice" enough? GM was just being a good corporate citizen by pulling up stakes in New Center? Are you people for real? quote: I take it, Higgs, that you would rather see GM build a new, giant, two-story facility north of Wixom on vacant land? After all, if we're going to talk about just the bottom line, that's probably the least expensive thing to do. They'd get whatever they want for free, and I'm sure Wixom or whatever wouldn't tax them anything. Uh, no. I advocate no such thing. I ask what exactly was wrong with the GM building and New Center Area? You people are advocating a badly designed, piece of throw away architecture (arent there carbon copies in Atlanta, Dallas and elsewhere?) as a more attractive/ "signature" location for the GM than a stunning Albert Kahn building. Seriously? Frankly the RenCen belongs in Troy and I'm stunned to see it defended. Further, GM has turned over one of the most interesting and significant buildings in Detroit to the State of Michigan. Can't wait for the dropped ceilings and cheap repairs to begin. I would have thought every preservationist on here would be fuming at that. The mere mention of county control of the Guardian sent you all into a tizzy. But as you said, New Center wasn't "nice" enough to benefit from GM's largess. quote: Heck, for their bottom line, Higgs, I take it you'd like to see the whole tech centre move to Bangalore? After all, India has engineers. Since that's the best for the bottom line (and it's all about the bottom line and not quality in your mind), Higgs, I take it you support that? Again, I advocate no such thing. GM's move to the RenCen was pure ego. Ridiculous amounts of money have been poured into that building (no matter how cheap they got it...you ar not taking into account the massive cost of moving) that could have been spent on any number of CAR RELATED issues. Now they are going to spend hundreds of millions more in a condo development that will a) sit empty or in "phase one" for a decade, b) split any proceeds with the developer, and c) poach buyers from the Atwater and Watermark which will result in the waterfront staying as desolate as ever. GM makes cars. Everyone around here seems to forget that. They are not a charity, they are not a development company, and they are not a health care provider or an employment service. GM needs to get back to making cars that people want (or will buy) or we are all screwed. So, yes, it is about the bottom line.. FOR THE F'ing CARS not building swanky condos to feather its nest. You are re tard ed | ||
Eboyer Member Username: Eboyer Post Number: 80 Registered: 01-2007 |
Are you Higgs? jeez... | ||
Dbest Member Username: Dbest Post Number: 94 Registered: 03-2007 |
Higgs I think you sell the Ren-Cen a little short. Lets not forget at the time it was the largest privately funded building project in U.S. history. Also I think the hotel presents some great views of the city. | ||
Rb336 Member Username: Rb336 Post Number: 5245 Registered: 02-2007 |
Is there also a larger development called river east being developed by Mesirow Stein that is on GM property as well? | ||
Rsa Member Username: Rsa Post Number: 1416 Registered: 10-2003 |
for the record, there are no carbon copies of the ren cen anywhere. the hotel portion has a "twin" in atlanta, the westin peachtree, designed by the same architect (john portman). but it stops there; there is no retail or office portions directly attached. portman has only designed one building in texas, the texan american bank building, which looks nothing like nor is the size of the ren cen. while it has it's problems and has it's negative effects on the city, the ren cen is not a piece of "throw away" architecture. and it's never going to be thrown away, so people just need to deal with it. and, like it or not, it is the signature piece of the detroit skyline due to it's size and location. but again, this argument is moot since GM is not the ones developing the new residential units. quote:http://www.gmrencen.com/About/ RiverfrontLiving/tabid/124/Def ault.aspx (from the GM ren cen website) | ||
Higgs1634 Member Username: Higgs1634 Post Number: 345 Registered: 10-2005 |
\quote "for the record, there are no carbon copies of the ren cen anywhere." http://www.beachcalifornia.com /architect-john-portman.html "Westin Bonaventure Hotel; John Portman & Associates, 1976; largest hotel in Los Angeles is 367 feet (112 meters) tall and has 35 floors. The top floor has a revolving restaurant and observation level. " My bad, L.A. not Dallas. Sounds like a copy to me. So does the Atl one...just sans other towers. Yes, not "carbon copies" but not exactly on par with a one of a kind Kahn? no? (Message edited by higgs1634 on February 25, 2008) | ||
Bits Member Username: Bits Post Number: 20 Registered: 02-2005 |
GM has a big interest in seeing its headquarters, neighborhood and city developed. They have to compete to attract the best educated employees from around the country. During the 90's, they realized they could not compete with other corporations in other cities when trying to attract talent. Their investments in the rencen and on the riverfront are creating a great environment for their workers. The city is much more attractive now, and its all helping to make them a more competitive company 10 years later. For too long, the environmental state of the city was ignored. Lets hope this new trend towards taking an interest in the state of the city is hear to stay, otherwise, Detroit will never be able to compete with other cities like Chicago, NY, LA, Boston, Seattle, etc in attracting young talent and that will be the kiss of death to the auto industry. The old GM building is over 80 years old and was no longer efficient for them. They would have had to do major renovations to stay. Instead, they bought the rencen for $75 million. When it was built in the 70's, it cost over $300 million to build. They've spent $500 million renovating it. I believe they have close to 2 million sf in it. Fabulous riverfront views and a class A complex. | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 6351 Registered: 08-2004 |
Higgs, the LA Bonaventure Hotel is 1/2 the height of the RenCen, and the 4 outer towers are shiny reflective and circular, not octagonal with a dull finish as in Detroit. And in LA they are connected at every floor to the central tower, not just at the base as with the RenCen. If you think that Albert Kahn designed unique buildings, just stand in front of the Kales Building and the Vinton Building... they look pretty similar. There are many examples of similar buildings even by Kahn. Even the Detroit Fox (1928) has a near twin the St. Louis Fox (1929). Only the facade treatment is different (Detroit has an attached office building, St. Louis is just a theatre). They did that to justify the extremely expensive plaster molds... their costs could be recouped by being reused in St. Louis. There are still many architects that design similar buildings... just look at all the "trash compacted" Frank Gehry buildings there are. So John Portman created 3 hotels (Detroit, Atlanta and LA) that anyone can tell apart, and Detroit's happened to include 2.2 million square feet in 4 "detached" octagonal office towers, while Atlanta and LA are single tower (or clustered as a single tower in LA). | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 6352 Registered: 08-2004 |
One other thing... I don't think that there should be any pecking order as to who's project along the riverfront should have priority. If one has deeper pockets than another, then so be it. With the mortgage crunch as it is, I'm actually skeptical that any riverfront condo/apartment project is going to take off any time soon. So if Gerald Hines, who happens to be a world class developer, has deeper pockets (with GM), then God bless them for making a go of it... If it impacts other developers along that stretch, then how is that any different than the planned $150 million (mainly) residential Cadillac Centre on the Monroe Block? |
