  Wschnitt Member Username: Wschnitt Post Number: 13 Registered: 07-2007 |
I was reading on a website that there is a firm, marusich architecture trying to renovate the David Stott Building. http://www.marusicharchitectur e.com/CURRENTPROJECTS.html I have been having trouble finding info about this tower. Is it open or closed and does anyone have a good website for it? | ||
Patrick Member Username: Patrick Post Number: 4752 Registered: 10-2003 |
Go the Burton Collection at the DPL. They have a set of indexes on the south wall I believe near all the state geneology books. In that binder you will look for Donaldson and Meier. The Burton was given all their archives, records, logs and dozens of images of the Stott construction. | ||
Llyn Member Username: Llyn Post Number: 1855 Registered: 06-2004 |
I can believe that building would be luxury condos much sooner than I could the Lafayette. It's a gorgeous building with windows all around. 19 mil doesn't sound like a lot of money, though, for "luxury condos". That's not even close to 200K per unit at 128 units, plus that leaves no money left over for general building renovation. The Broderick is intending what... 32 mil I think? Maybe that 19 mil doesn't include all the build out? | ||
Southen Member Username: Southen Post Number: 249 Registered: 08-2006 |
This could be good in a number of ways. 1. It speeds up the redevelopment of Capitol Park 2. Provides more highrise urban living 3. Depending on how occupied it is, the displaced tenants could be a boost for neighboring office buildings I just hope that the market can take another project like this. The last thing we need is to oversaturate and discourage others from investing money downtown. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 5864 Registered: 10-2003 |
That information on that site could very well be old. In fact, I seem to remember seeing that page quite a few years back. What I imagine is that the owners paid for some conceptualizations of what the tower could become, and that this isn't an imminent proposal. | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 1333 Registered: 10-2006 |
Last time I was at the David Stott, it didn't seem as though the building was in disrepair. I was in there to meet with a person from TRU. The floors themselves weren't very fancy, but put some nice materials in, and you have some pretty nice units. if you think about it, it works out to about $500,000 per floor. The floor plates aren't huge, so if there are two units per floor that would be about $250,000 or so. | ||
Miketoronto Member Username: Miketoronto Post Number: 599 Registered: 07-2004 |
It would be better to keep if office space. Residential is great, but you gotta keep a good supply of office space also, even in older buildings. | ||
Detroit313 Member Username: Detroit313 Post Number: 414 Registered: 02-2006 |
What is the occupancy rate of the build? <313> | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 5867 Registered: 10-2003 |
Mike, that made no sense, at all. If office space is ever needed, it will be built, especially considering most companies, now, like large floor plates, and modern amenities that you can't get in a lot of older buildings. The idea that office space is being pushed out of downtown is ridiculous. The demand isn't there. | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 1336 Registered: 10-2006 |
Nope: http://charlotte.bizjournals.c om/charlotte/stories/2007/07/0 9/daily23.html | ||
Detroit313 Member Username: Detroit313 Post Number: 415 Registered: 02-2006 |
Mich is right. When the demand is high then you will see rates in Downtown rise and more space will be built. Right now Detroit is in the first stages of high-rise living demand. The supply is low therefore most towers are being converted to residential quaters. When more residents return to the city and the demand for more class a/b/c office returns then Detroit will experience another building boom in the central city. History will repeat itself. <313> | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 5868 Registered: 10-2003 |
Charlottepaul, what was the purpose of posting that article, out of curiosity? | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 1338 Registered: 10-2006 |
To help you argue your point: "The city with the highest downtown office vacancy rate was Detroit, at 27 percent." If any city should convert downtown space from office to residential, it should most arguably be Detroit. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 5869 Registered: 10-2003 |
Thanks for connecting that. Yes, downtown Detroit is hardly hurting for office space. Heck, the only way Class-A One Kennedy is gaining occupancy is mostly from stealing other tenants away from other downtown buildings, and it's not that large of an office building (250,000 square feet). Downtown's not going to even have to worry about an office crunch for many years down the road, even with the upturn of downtown. | ||
Wschnitt Member Username: Wschnitt Post Number: 14 Registered: 07-2007 |
I think that when a demand for office space exists is when the Hudson's block will be developed along with many other open lots downtown. | ||
Apbest Member Username: Apbest Post Number: 598 Registered: 03-2006 |
Anyone notice the Woodward/Alfred lofts listed on that site? What is the chance of these projects materializing | ||
Rbdetsport Member Username: Rbdetsport Post Number: 349 Registered: 11-2005 |
I just saw that. Sounds interesting. It looks like this company is also planning to take on the Globe Trading Co. building as well. Is that true? | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 819 Registered: 01-2005 |
There is a glut of office space in Detroit. The reason that the Stott has been foreclosed upon at least twice is that it is not suitable as an office building. The floor plates are only 5000 sq. ft. and there is a central elevator core which is totally impractical for modern offices. Finally, the cost to convert it to modern office space wold be so high that the rates would far exceed the market. It might be convertible to condos (not apts) but you'd have to put two to a floor, at about 2000+ sq ft each, and the cost would be substantial. I doubt if there's a mkt for that many of those sized units in the entire city. My vote -- not a viable condo deal either. The building has an interesting history. It was built on land which the developer did not own; the developer was a ground lessee of a 99 year lease. In the '70's it was owned by partnership consisting of some lawyers from a big Detroit firm and some of their clients. The law firm was hired to do the legal work for the Ren Cen when it was being planned, and not being dummies quickly realized that the Ren Cen would screw up the downtown office market for years (which it did) and they dumped the Stott immediately before the Ren Cen was announced. The new owner obtained a first mortgage to acquire the building which looked like a great bargain at the time (there is no such thing as a bargain in commercial real estate.) The Ren Cen was built and started sucking tenants from most of the major buildings. Those building started sucking tenants from class C buildings such as the Stott. The Stott defaulted on it's mortgage and the lender foreclosed. However, even though the lender had a first mortgage on the building and eventually acquired ownership of it, it was really a second mtg and the lender has to keep paying the ground rent of 8 grand a month. The lender decided that owning a building in Detroit, and especially the Stott, was not a great idea. The net rents wouldn't cover the operating costs and the ground rent so it said to hell with it and deeded the whole mess to the ground lessor (the owner of he land.) I don't know what the parking situation is there now but back then it was lousy. Condo owners want adjacent parking. The building's snake bit. But I wish them well. (If the deal goes fwd, I cant wait to learn the name of the lender. It won't be a local lender, I'll bet on that.) Hope I'm wrong. | ||
Dustin89 Member Username: Dustin89 Post Number: 77 Registered: 07-2006 |
I thought that a very valid point of view was expressed during the media coverage of the story about Wayne Co. moving to the Guardian Building: that the downtown office market is mostly tenants moving from one building to another, and there is very little fresh blood. If residential is what will actually find occupants, then that is what should be built. | ||
Jasoncw Member Username: Jasoncw Post Number: 404 Registered: 07-2005 |
Thanks for the insight 3rdworldcity. I always like reading these types of stories from you. Does anyone know what the building around the David Stott is? I really love the David Stott building. I can't believe that anyone ever thought of demolishing it. Unfortunately its beautiful proportions make it impractical. Hopefully something good happens to it. | ||
Wschnitt Member Username: Wschnitt Post Number: 20 Registered: 07-2007 |
Is the building still open or is it vacant? | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 5873 Registered: 10-2003 |
Yes; it is still open. | ||
Lowell Board Administrator Username: Lowell Post Number: 4027 Registered: 10-2003 |
Thanks 3WC, great stories and analysis as usual from you. Like you say, the floorplates are pretty much useless for the contemporary business solutions. I think there are reasons for optimism about residential conversion if it is marketed correctly. The building has two outstanding assets. First of all it is a work of art --replete with luxurious appointments, a mini Fisher / Guardian Building. Next is it is a stand alone tower with great views in all directions, no significant buildings adjacent to block the views. If the parking could be solved, it could be very enticing, a very posh residence. When Rosa Parks terminal comes on line and Capitol Park can go back to being a park, it will be even more appealing. A revived Cadillac hotel with all its amenities won't hurt either. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 3409 Registered: 02-2005 |
I think the 1001 Woodward garage could hold more resident capacity, but that is just a hunch. I'd say that garage + the building of one more mid-size garage somewhere around lower Grand River would do the trick. | ||
Dougw Member Username: Dougw Post Number: 1832 Registered: 11-2003 |
  (Message edited by Dougw on July 31, 2007) | ||
Rjlj Member Username: Rjlj Post Number: 373 Registered: 11-2003 |
Why did offices work in the David Stott 20 years ago and not now 3WC? Your story is only 50%. | ||
Urbanize Member Username: Urbanize Post Number: 1959 Registered: 02-2007 |
"Why did offices work in the David Stott 20 years ago and not now 3WC? Your story is only 50%." WE're in the Computer/Technological/Glossy Age now. During the 80s, it was still the "in" thing to have a small, plain office suite with a cord phone, and a lamp (if you were lucky, a Fax Machine, a Type Writer or a Apple). Now, people want the biggest, brightest, technology dugout office they could have, and the Stott just isn't cut out for it now. | ||
Apbest Member Username: Apbest Post Number: 599 Registered: 03-2006 |
I find it hard to believe that the stott is not viable as residential or office. I would guarantee that there are buildings with similar dimensions and floor plates in other cities that are being viably used...while the market may not support its redevelopment at the moment, it will certainly be usable sometime soon | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 820 Registered: 01-2005 |
The events I mentioned above - the foreclosure - occurred in 1979, 28 years ago. The building was in decline even then. The then owner in 1979 was a local lawyer (who was foreclosed out) had not only his offices on the top floor, he also had and apartment there. After the foreclosure, the major tenant, a medium sized law firm which had been in the building for years and was expanding slowly, found that the inefficiencies resulting from being on several floors, was costing it too much money and it relocated. Lowell is correct. The Stott is a beautiful building with all-around views which should make it attractive for some use. It's future is governed solely by economics. Larger office tenants (requiring more then 4500 sq ft don't want to be on multiple floors. (Look at the Book Building. It has great views from the upper floors, and large floor plates, and it has been in financial distress for as long as I've been downtown.) To make smaller office suites on the Stott's floor plates would require a substantial loss of rentable space because you'd have to put in corridors, whole new lighting plans and sub-meter the electricity to multiple suites. The cost would require rents well above what the market is or s likely to become. If someone were to give me the building for nothing if I kept it office, I wouldn't take it. I view it not as an asset, but as a liability. But, reasonable people may differ ad I'm a great believer in the "greater fool" theory of survival in the real estate business, so someone with a different view and lots of money may take a flyer. (An example would be the Legal Aid and Defenders Offices' acquisition of their building from Waldridge Aldinger over by MGM for $10,000,000 plus, at what most people say is twice what they should have paid. There had to be political involvement in that deal where so much public money is squandered. It happens.) If someone could figure an economical way to convert the Stott to condo's, that's the best bet. I'd personally love to see it happen. | ||
Jsmyers Member Username: Jsmyers Post Number: 1913 Registered: 12-2003 |
I noticed that the architect has their office in the building: http://www.marusicharchitectur e.com/contact.html More info: http://www.marusicharchitectur e.com/services.html http://www.marusicharchitectur e.com/CREDENTIALS.html It is one of my favorite buildings in the city. I think that it will eventually be turned into condos, and it will likely be related to the securing of spaces in the new "The Griswold" garage, or the new garage with the CVS. Another alternative would be to build garage space around its base somewhere. Does anybody know anything about the building that appears to wrap around both sides of it? Birds eye |
