Development Projects - Belknap Lookout Area

[thebeerqueer]

[GR_Urbanist]

Holy smokes! A massive gust of wind must have hit the side of the hill, pushed upwards with a lot of force, and just peeled the roof off starting at the overhang over the top floor patios, and tossed it across the street. I am stunned, unless I'm missing something, that no one was in those apartments at the time?

 

No, that is definitely going to have to come down. I cant imagine the repair is worth it seeing how old the complex is, and not exactly the most aesthetic building ever.

 

Some developer is going to get a lottery ticket site for sure. I wouldn't be too shocked if the current landlord has already received some off-the-record calls.

 

 

[ironyisadeadscene]

4 hours ago, MJLO said:

A ten story condo tower would be bad ass there  Though I'm envisioning total emotional collapse by long time Belknap residents (possibly chaining themselves to the structure to prevent it's removal).  Also the HPC will declare it a precious piece of history and forbid it's removal, or altering it's appearance.  ....I kid, i kid.

I couldnt image a better spot for such a thing. It would be very high demand.

[Raildude's dad]

Those block / masonry walls every 2 units are fire breaks. I'll bet a lot of money it gets repaired.

[GR_Urbanist]

View from N. Monroe by the post office.

Edited September 12, 2019 by GR_Urbanist

[GRDadof3]

1 hour ago, Raildude's dad said:

Those block / masonry walls every 2 units are fire breaks. I'll bet a lot of money it gets repaired.

Agreed, there's no way this will be a tear down/rebuild. It will be repaired. The insurance money will pay for the repairs vs spending 10x that amount to tear it down to build something new. 

[GR_Urbanist]

I think that all depends on the landlord.

If he is looking at any potential tennant lawsuits, he may just sell fast to cover potential legal expenses.

Even though you are supposed to have renter's insurance, some of these people clearly have lost all their possessions, and insurance may leave them high, in this case dry, and they may feel the need to call 1800-Call-Sam, or something to make up for what they cant get. Not to mention the house across the street that got whacked by the roof debris will also be looking for something if they get short-changed.

Would it be worth it as a landlord to rebuild this, along with all of the expenses and headaches, when you are fully aware that you have one of the most desirable pieces of property in the DT area, and can be sure to sell it fast? A quick developer could offer to cover some of the likely expenses coming the landlord's way, as well as slide them a tidy profit to grease the palms.

If I was him, I would take that money, get everyone that needs to be, paid off, and bail.

[MJLO]

34 minutes ago, GR_Urbanist said:

I think that all depends on the landlord.

If he is looking at any potential tennant lawsuits, he may just sell fast to cover potential legal expenses.

Even though you are supposed to have renter's insurance, some of these people clearly have lost all their possessions, and insurance may leave them high, in this case dry, and they may feel the need to call 1800-Call-Sam, or something to make up for what they cant get. Not to mention the house across the street that got whacked by the roof debris will also be looking for something if they get short-changed.

Would it be worth it as a landlord to rebuild this, along with all of the expenses and headaches, when you are fully aware that you have one of the most desirable pieces of property in the DT area, and can be sure to sell it fast? A quick developer could offer to cover some of the likely expenses coming the landlord's way, as well as slide them a tidy profit to grease the palms.

If I was him, I would take that money, get everyone that needs to be, paid off, and bail.

Perhaps someone can correct me on my understanding of liability in these types of situations, but I'm fairly certain the type of lawsuits you're talking about would be covered by the underwriting insurance company, and not the property owner themselves.   The reimbursements paid for property damage would be covered under a different section of the policy than the liability portion.  Even then I'd think it's unclear whether a tenant would have much leverage in going after the property management company for a catastrophic failure like this.  Unless they can prove the failure occurred because of negligence.

As I said previously I also find it unlikely that the building would be a total loss.  I do agree that it comes down to whomever owns the property.  I don't know exactly when the structure was built, but my guess is that it was pre-1980s. I'd think it depends on how long it's been owned.  If the current ownership has owned it for a 20+ years, it may be more profitable to take the damage claim and sell the property.  I imagine the land at that corner and the potential view is worth more than the structure itself.  If the ownership is only using it as a cash flow property and isn't intending on significant updates wouldn't it make more sense to sell?

[Allison Slater]

Unless they've tarped it all over already, I can't imagine the current rain will be too kind on the structure and units below in regards to water damage.

[egrguy]

The landlord would need to be negligent to suffer any legal liability towards the tenants. If the tenants had repeatedly complained about roof leaks, need to repair, etc then there could be a case, however, the landlord would still argue it was a tornado/straight line wind event that would have damaged the roof regardless of its condition. 

If there was a time to sell; it would certainly be now as the tenants would all be out regardless (I imagine last night's rain soaked into the first floor tenants living space) and you could cash out and retire.

Edited September 13, 2019 by egrguy
grammar

[GVSUChris]

Here’s the important detail - this building is a part of a large portfolio of rentals owned by Terry Lynn Land’s company. You’d recognize some of their other investments. This isn’t some grandpa investment (I say that because my grandfather used to buy up random little buildings like this in neighborhoods like this) but rather a full scale company that will certainly nuance how they manage this.

[MJLO]

29 minutes ago, GVSUChris said:

Here’s the important detail - this building is a part of a large portfolio of rentals owned by Terry Lynn Land’s company. You’d recognize some of their other investments. This isn’t some grandpa investment (I say that because my grandfather used to buy up random little buildings like this in neighborhoods like this) but rather a full scale company that will certainly nuance how they manage this.

The people behind Land and Co had enough assets to leverage in building a cheesy ass $100 million dollar castle.   If they have any credibility left after that, they have more than enough resources to if nothing else; bring this property to match the current market rate in that neighborhood.   Land and Co isn't exactly known for the visionary way in which they position their properties, this one is no different.  If ever there was a time to bring that property within the market it seems like now would be the time.   It seems stupid not to overhaul the existing structure at this point if they aren't going to start fresh.

[wingbert]

22 hours ago, thebeerqueer said:

One thing’s for sure, whoever lived in the fourth apartment from the left must be a hellacious smoker.  Look at those spaces where pictures hung on the walls.

[Allison Slater]

I'm hearing there are poured concrete floors between each level, so damage including water damage is going to be limited to the upper floor only. From what I'm hearing, they plan to repair/rebuild the upper floor and roof. No demolition, no new building, no land sale.

[joeDowntown]

On the bright side for the owner, the views from this building are amazing. Wonder if when the rebuild/repair, they’ll go for a much higher finish / monthly rent. 

Joe

[kwl]

Can't believe all the cranes downtown made it through the storm. 

[ironyisadeadscene]

Potato quality, but.

 

 

Edited September 14, 2019 by ironyisadeadscene

[GRDadof3]

15 hours ago, kwl said:

Can't believe all the cranes downtown made it through the storm. 

They're reporting that winds got up to 60 - 70 mph, which those cranes can easily withstand.  It's the updrafts/upper pressure that tears buildings apart. They're all engineered for side to side stresses and downward (gravitational) force, not so much for upward forces. 

[d8alterego]

If it was torn down, I wish the city would buy it and turn it into a park. While I am sure that option would not be cheap, more people would be able to enjoy that view. 

[MJLO]

Does it seem odd that after a week they've made no attempts to cover the exposed parts of the structure?  It may not matter given the extensiveness of the damage.  Typically by this time I am used to seeing at least some boards and tarps put up to provide some level of protection from elements.  I have little if any experience in what's supposed to happen in events like this so I don't have a really good barometer.  

[GR_Urbanist]

22 hours ago, MJLO said:

Does it seem odd that after a week they've made no attempts to cover the exposed parts of the structure?  It may not matter given the extensiveness of the damage.  Typically by this time I am used to seeing at least some boards and tarps put up to provide some level of protection from elements.  I have little if any experience in what's supposed to happen in events like this so I don't have a really good barometer.  

Wood is reporting that the building, and the one across the street, have "unfit for habitation" (buildings condemned?) notices from the city on them, and that the fate of either should be known in the next day.

I'm still thinking the big one comes down. A week is a bit does seem like a long time for not even bringing in some tarps if they really are looking to protect what is left. However, the report also showed that the lower floors mostly got by intact, and people were able to move their belongings, so who knows.

[joeDowntown]

3 hours ago, GR_Urbanist said:

Wood is reporting that the building, and the one across the street, have "unfit for habitation" (buildings condemned?) notices from the city on them, and that the fate of either should be known in the next day.

I'm still thinking the big one comes down. A week is a bit does seem like a long time for not even bringing in some tarps if they really are looking to protect what is left. However, the report also showed that the lower floors mostly got by intact, and people were able to move their belongings, so who knows.

I’m rooting for it to come down, honestly. That’s prime real estate for something pretty amazing. 

Not that I like demolition via tornado, but it’s a great spot. Please no Grandville Castle  Part Deux.

Joe 

[JoeSchmo]

1 hour ago, joeDowntown said:

Grandville Castle  Part Deux.

Don't give them ideas!

[organsnyder]

10 minutes ago, JoeSchmo said:

Don't give them ideas!

Any castle of repute must have an outpost to defend against invaders from the North.

[Chester Cheeto]

That's a perfect corner for a scout tower that can light a big bonfire to alert the castle of an incoming invasion.