Jump to content

Klingman's Warehouse


GRDadof3

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply

That corner doesn't look bad. The rest of the exterior is a wreck.

Agreed.  I sat outside the DT Market (eating some excellent tacos) and it looked like a bit of a dip in the center of the building.  Along with the normal wear and tear, it definitely needs some elbow grease.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can see the Northeast corner of the building is adjacent to the gas station. If I'm not mistaken, that same corner is sinking and will require a lot of $$$ to correct. 

 

Joe

 

How far does this parcel extend east--> towards Division?

Does this touch the parcel that the Shell station sits on? 

Just curious if this block will have a total make over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which building is sinking? The building next to the gas station is Spectrum Industries. They paint / print car interior parts.  Like the fake wood grain stuff.

 

The Klingman Building, at the NorthWEST corner. You can see a massive crack in the brick facade on the North side facing Wealthy (as one indicator).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty obvious at that corner just on Google Maps.  The dip I was talking about was along Ionia right under the Klingmans sign.  I bet from standing upstairs at the DT Market you would see it even better. 

 

The settling is so bad that even the Downtown Market had to make sure they didn't have the same soil conditions on their site, in their due diligence, so I hear..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at this building was the first time that I noticed the stitched pictures on Google Streetview. What I first thought was a significant settling problem was actually just two different google pictures stitched together. Beyond the settling on the northwest corner, it it looks like much of the brick and mortar on that face will need reworking. Once a crack allows moisture and freezing, it can quickly cause extensive damage. And it is evident that nature has been at work on this building for a while. 

 

Pretty obvious at that corner just on Google Maps.  The dip I was talking about was along Ionia right under the Klingmans sign.  I bet from standing upstairs at the DT Market you would see it even better. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Historic designation for old furniture factory

 

The Klingman's Warehouse is one step closer to renovation as it now can qualify for Historic Tax Credits.  Interesting History on the building.  It's actually several different buildings combined into one.  At some point in the past a "new" brick facade was applied to the buildings making it look like one building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Historic designation for old furniture factory

 

The Klingman's Warehouse is one step closer to renovation as it now can qualify for Historic Tax Credits.  Interesting History on the building.  It's actually several different buildings combined into one.  At some point in the past a "new" brick facade was applied to the buildings making it look like one building.

 

I wasn't aware of it before, but I met the developer and his company did the renovation of the old State Hospital in Traverse City. He's a huge fan of old historic buildings and seems to have the wherewithall to get things done.

 

If my memory serves me correctly, I believe they were up to 630 hydraulic piers that need to be attached to the foundation columns on the Klingmen's building to shore it up from sinking any further. The piers are driven down until they reach bedrock and then slowly lift the building up. A tricky process I'm sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Work has begun to stabilize the building including the sinking of 600 screwpiles.  The walls of the building have sunk up to two feet in some locations due to the poor soil conditions underneath.  Mike Jacobson said. “What we are doing is basically putting a new foundation under the building.”   Not an easy fix, but it should permanently solve the problem.

 

A 2 level parking deck will also be constructed onsite. The building renovation is expected to be completed in the fall of 2015.

 

Mlive: Developer is preserving 117-year-old Klingman's Furniture warehouse from the ground up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone ever run the numbers on these things?  It's frightening.

 

The total budget for the project is not clear, but no matter what it is, it helps to illustrate the absurdity of projects like this.  The mLive article says $21 million.  The figures earlier in this thread are about $33 million.  Total units are 82, with 15000sf commercial space.  Assuming the commercial space otherwise could have been another 16 units, that makes for about 100 units or unit equivalents.  Even at the low end cost of $21,000,000.00 that amounts to over $210,000.00 per average unit.  At the high cost, it's $330,000 per unit.  Or, $275 to $412 per finished square foot (including any common areas utilized by a particular unit).  Whether that includes initial building acquisition costs, I don't know, but I assume so. 

 

Let's say the average unit rent is at $600, with a good 25% (clearly too low, but..) of that going to maintenance and overhead.  At $5400 operating income per unit per year, at a ridiculously low 6% capitalization rate the average unit is worth maybe $90,000.00.  So taxpayers are basically kicking somewhere from $120,000.00 to $240,000.00 to build this stuff and populate it with low income tenants.  And that is very, very generous.  Using more realistic numbers, taxpayers are kicking in far more. 

 

When you can buy a good, brand new double-wide manufactured house for about $45k to $50k, and have lot rent run from $350 to $500 a month, or even buy a decent used house for $80,000.00, or a decent used double for $25,000.00, use of so much money to rehab these properties for low income housing seems completely insane. We could just give people new, private houses to keep forever for less money, at less cost to the occupants and the taxpayer, and with a far greater sense of independence--nothing beats your own four walls.  And we could do that in areas with decent schools, access to food and shopping, and so forth.  Instead, we are paying a fortune to renovate crap warehouses next to a highway in a non-existent neighborhood located in a food desert (unless you like horribly overpriced veggies and fish at the hipster market). 

 

So remind me again what the purpose of these "low income" projects is?  At best, it is a redevelopment subsidy to urban ares.  At worst, it is a giveaway to developers who wind up with a free building at the end of the day.  In either case, why create a situation with forced discrimination and occupancy restrictions--particularly since at their core these programs seem to have nothing to do with helping the poor, although I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't argue with you that low income housing is a waste of tax dollars but of the 21 million, there will substantially less to build the development once the credits are sold.  then you have to take a hefty cut for the developer, probably several million.  when it's all said and done, it will probably be at a reasonable cost to build.  there is so much profit taking at the expense of the tax payer that those involved should be ashamed.  Of course, if I was smart enough to go into real estate development, I wouldn't be saying that, I'd be too busy cashing checks.

 

the defense of developments like this as opposed to double wides is that this should be a much more durable structure.  Having driven around low income neighborhoods, I suspect that taking away the responsibility of yard work from the tenants will be beneficial to the city as a whole as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't argue with you that low income housing is a waste of tax dollars but of the 21 million, there will substantially less to build the development once the credits are sold.  then you have to take a hefty cut for the developer, probably several million.  when it's all said and done, it will probably be at a reasonable cost to build.  there is so much profit taking at the expense of the tax payer that those involved should be ashamed.  Of course, if I was smart enough to go into real estate development, I wouldn't be saying that, I'd be too busy cashing checks.

 

the defense of developments like this as opposed to double wides is that this should be a much more durable structure.  Having driven around low income neighborhoods, I suspect that taking away the responsibility of yard work from the tenants will be beneficial to the city as a whole as well.

 

There are a few developers who are making boatloads of cash, but most have gone belly up. And that's a nationwide trend.

 

This is why this Klingman's building has sat vacant for so long. If you were to subject it to market forces, the numbers never made sense to do market rate. Only when you do the LIHTC does it make sense. So like Renaissance Zones, they are being subsidized by taxpayer dollars. Are they overall a benefit to the community? Some people say we need more low income housing in the city. Some say we need less, or to spread it around more. Who knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I sort of, almost, kind of agree and it pains me as a preservationist not to agree completely.  This was a complex of five different buildings, some of which had settled a whopping two feet all reskinned to look like one.  It would have been sad to see it go, but not like flattening some of the architectural treasures downtown.  The question for me is whether equivalent square footage could have been built for less than the demolition and reconstruction cost.  I suspect not.  Still, I am not convinced this was the right project, in the right place, at the right time, at the right cost.

 

The silver lining is that the LIHTC program is at least a significant improvement from the former Section 8 program which caught up the Morton and Stuyvesant Apts.  Those buildings are now in need of total gutting and rehab again (and receiving it).  The rents for LIHTC don't appear to be so low/free that they will encourage total neglect and "project like" environment that will necessitate eventual demolition or a re-gut.  Hopefully this will spur some additional investment in the area.  Time will tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Once in a while you plan out your photo taking adventures (instead of just walking down the street and shooting at every building). Captured this from a great vantage point.

 

post-2672-0-74723800-1411912326_thumb.jp

 

I'm really amazed that this building is surviving all of the reconstructive surgery it is being subjected to. 600+ hydraulic helical piers jacking this thing up at every angle? And it looks like quite a bit of masonry was disturbed when they removed windows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's really amazing that this hulk of a sinking ship could be saved, but sinking ships, 35 and 41 S Division could not.  Is it all because of LIHTC?

 

That and Mike Jacobson seems to have very deep resources. He saved the massive old asylum in Traverse City too and redeveloped it.

 

I think too that the Klingman's building was on poor soil but it wasn't in jeopardy of collapsing. 35 and 41 were deemed to be at that point, although one wonders if pressure was put on the city to condemn them so that they could be cleared for a development site. Not that I believe political gamesmanship like that happens in GR... :) (especially from Secchia)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That and Mike Jacobson seems to have very deep resources. He saved the massive old asylum in Traverse City too and redeveloped it.

 

 

 

Oh, that's right.  It's a great spot, we stopped there this past summer.  Now that was/is a massive project.  I think they are getting ready to rehab some of the structures built in the 30's/40's now, concrete and brick buildings with huge windows.  They would make great loft spaces for office or home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.