Jump to content

Condo Prices


twoshort

Recommended Posts

the ja site is a really good spot in my opinion for condos. im personally pining for the rsc as its next to my favorite dt restaurant(san chez)

but honestly if park place does get built it will be a very pleasant surprise and it make one less abandoned bldg dt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I'm honestly starting to wonder if some of these developers are ever serious about what they propose. If it isnt Moch, it's some other pie in the sky guy who always have a good speech and a fancy drawing for the Press who then splashes what amounts to a free ad on the front page of the paper.

This is how developers get their money.

This is how it always works, unless of course you have the backing of a major corporation or are independantly wealthy. You come up with an idea (anyone can do it), flaunt it a bit, and then bring it to banks. If a bank bites (rare in this area) you are golden and you can move along. If the bank does not bite, you may try individule investors and share a piece of the pie. If this does not work, you are sunk.

Early on in this process they stated that the banks were not jumping at it. However, I think a lot of that has to do with downtown residential development. If things are the way they seem, it is almost as if demand is accelerating (additional floors for the Union HS development and quick sales of high cost condos in RH) - in this case, the banks may begin to change their minds.

It is all risk vs. reward in investment. No one is going to bother if the payout is not there, or if the risk level is too high. At this point, there is still a good deal of risk in downtown development. However, I see this changing as we speak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my experience, I think that part of the problem in developers backing out of projects stems from the massive regulations and disrepair on many of these buildings...that and poor media planning (read:"Don't tell us, Dammit, unless you are for sure").

What started as this great idea, becomes not economically fesible to build. I really don't think it is the competition...or the downtown market. Afterall competition drives the price down.

But after unforseen costs and historic regulations (such as height/density), the developer realizes he/she will have to charge so much more than is marketable just to cover his/her own costs. With the suburban housing market being so efficient, cheap and, in my mind, shotty, few want to spend the money for overpriced downtown condos.

I think development will get easier and we can avoid heartbreak as the city grows...especially if density is embraced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember Yen Ching? And how they were bought out by Rockford Construction when work began on the condos? It was said that the owners wanted to retire, but word on the street is that Rockford thought it was cheaper to buy out Yen Ching than to clean up/re-vent the kitchen fumes.

Think the people in Cityview (People's Building) are going to like the new Chinese restaurant going in next door to them...?

Budgie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm honestly starting to wonder if some of these developers are ever serious about what they propose. If it isnt Moch, it's some other pie in the sky guy who always have a good speech and a fancy drawing for the Press who then splashes what amounts to a free ad on the front page of the paper.

Hey, I resemble that remark (kind of)... that is some funny stuff.

Not too far off sadly.

Many / most of the currently announced condo projects will not happen. Top of that list would have to be River House. This is the third significant announcement about "tower two." the JA site? I'm not holding my breath there, either. I'm not sure that's the location which is going to bring $300-$500k condo's.

Take off your 'urbanist' hat and put on your 'real estate marketing' hat. You wanna be on the corner of division and fulton or would you rather be on the river (maybe the forslund bldg) nearer the modern amenities, restaurants etc if you're spending that much ?

Regarding the quote about 'needing to be a devos to get it built' I can see where you think that but it's really not true. Companies with good track record / community support / good completion ratio of previously anounced projects are able to do it repeatedly. Look at Second Story properties. Sam and the boys have never announced a project they didn't complete successfully. DeVries properties, the same way. Rockford Construction, there are others including myself.

Too many people get a building under contract, fall in love with a business plan and just can't keep it in. They tell everyone, call the media and make big announcements. Then the bank finds fault with their pro-forma, and tells them what the collateral requirements are and it's no longer feasible.

People have good ideas, but ideas cost money to develop. Nonetheless, ego and momentum can be powerful opponents.

Joe Moch and his crew are another story. I can almost smell a big developer coming this way from Chicago to buy his "package" and build it on their own. It would be better this way anyhow... he is not loved by previous partners / tenants / communites he's done work in....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take off your 'urbanist' hat and put on your 'real estate  marketing' hat.  You wanna be on the corner of division and fulton or would you rather be on the river (maybe the forslund bldg) nearer the modern amenities, restaurants etc if you're spending that much ?

Regarding the quote about 'needing to be a devos to get it built' I can see where you think that but it's really not true.    Companies with good track record / community support / good completion ratio of previously anounced projects are able to do it repeatedly.  Look at Second Story properties.  Sam and the boys have never announced a project they didn't complete successfully.  DeVries properties, the same way.  Rockford Construction, there are others including myself.

Too many people get a building under contract, fall in love with a business plan and just can't keep it in.  They tell everyone, call the media and make big announcements.  Then the bank finds fault with their pro-forma, and tells them what the collateral requirements are and it's no longer feasible. 

People have good ideas, but ideas cost money to develop.  Nonetheless, ego and momentum can be powerful opponents.

Joe Moch and his crew are another story.  I can almost smell a big developer coming this way from Chicago to buy his "package" and build it on their own.  It would be better this way anyhow...  he is not loved by previous partners / tenants / communites he's done work in....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think projects on Division and Fulton would be pretty close to most DT entertainment venues. However, It would be a tough choice for me on where I would rather be. Should I take the chance on a condo in a still gritty area of the city or go to a more proven area near the river? I'm sure it the same question the banks ask when they have a pile of serious cash riding on the outcome.

Second Story properties, Bazzani Associates, and others are indeed the best. Their projects are more in the realm of the possible, and many times you don't hear about them until there well under way. No drawings, and a free ad in the press, just good solid projects that go way further in improving the city than some developer who doesn't have fuel in his car before he drives it off the lot. I hope it didn't sound like I was taking a swipe at you guys. It was more directed towards Moch style developers whom are big on talk and small on results. :blush:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think projects on Division and Fulton would be pretty close to most DT entertainment venues. However, It would be a tough choice for me on where I would rather be. Should I take the chance on a condo in a still gritty area of the city or go to a more proven area near the river? I'm sure it the same question the banks ask when they have a pile of serious cash riding on the outcome.

Second Story properties, Bazzani Associates, and others are indeed the best. Their projects are more in the realm of the possible, and many times you don't hear about them until there well under way. No drawings, and a free ad in the press, just good solid projects that go way further in improving the city than some developer who doesn't have fuel in his car before he drives it off the lot. I hope it didn't sound like I was taking a swipe at you guys. It was more directed towards Moch style developers whom are big on talk and small on results. :blush:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nope, I understood your intent clearly. I am in full agreement. There is a difference between a highly leveraged developer doing a project vs. one who is out to turn a trick without the benefit of "capacity."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eric,

I'd like to get your opinion on why you think Riverhouse won't happen? I know that Robert Grooters has announced Office tower, Office Tower, Mixed Use, Office Tower, Hotel, Hotel and finally condominiums. That is definitely a lot of announcements over the last ten years, but the condominiums seem to be promising to me. I will admit, you would "barely" be living downtown in these condos as you are separated by expressway and river from the rest of downtown (and even once you get there, you run into the arse end of DeVos Place, the jailhouse-like Post office and an abandoned (yet awesome) old folks home. Oh yeah, and then there is the GR Press and Ford Buildings. :sick: ), but it seems like it has promise to me. Of course, I will celebrate when I see work crews on site, but I do hope this one happens.

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Joe Moch and his crew are another story. I can almost smell a big developer coming this way from Chicago to buy his "package" and build it on their own"

Hmmm. I think someone mentioned something about Chicago developers poking around GR on another thread :whistling:

Speaking of Chicago, Eric, why do you think we have not seen more proposals for projects like these:

6F602E40DD4011D9829F3914049F718D.jpg

70D80130DD4011D9B693F2ED049F718D.jpg

72387B90DD4011D980FE885D049F718D.jpg

739B18D0DD4011D9AC096D88049F718D.jpg

D0EF9D30DD4011D9A49CDBA3049F718D.jpg

I mean even Lansing has a few projects like these in the works for xxxxx's sake.

I know Lighthouse Dave has one going in on Wealthy Street called Uptown Village. And I know Rockford Construction proposed one for the surface lot near the Black Rose in Cherry Street Landing, but who knows where that one stands. But it seems like there would be a market for condo living downtown in something other than a "hotel" style building, where homeowners have their own separate entrances, garages, new construction, etc.

It seems like there are some great little neighborhood centers (Cherry, Wealthy, Fulton, Bridge Street, Leonard, West Side) emerging where these could fill in and really make the areas more exciting. Or maybe the depot site right across the street from you, or the surface lot on Market across from 44 Grandville. Or for instance, there is a site with great potential at Bridge and Alabama by the train tracks, with awesome highway visibility. Fix up the old warehouse on the East side of the street, and build new townhomes on the West side of Alabama......

I think some projects like these, along with at least 3 - 4 skyline-changing buildings, would vault us to a new level B)

What are your (or anyone elses) thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, I understood your intent clearly.  I am in full agreement.  There is a difference between a highly leveraged developer doing a project vs. one who is out to turn a trick without the benefit of "capacity."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I too would like nothing more than to see that plan evolve; I think it's a great use for the site -- high end residential in a first class tower would have a place.

The challenges?

- tower 1 has / controls all the utility infrastructure / lobbies / elevators / ingress= egress for both sites

- owner of tower 1 and Bob's proposed tower 2 are not friends

-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I too would like nothing more than to see that plan evolve; I think it's a great use for the site -- high end residential in a first class tower would have a place.

The challenges?

- tower 1 has / controls all the utility infrastructure / lobbies / elevators / ingress= egress for both sites

- owner of tower 1 and Bob's proposed tower 2 are not friends

-

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ARRGGHH wife's computer.. wasn't done talking...sorry 'bout that.

- the two projects need to work together, not physically possible to do second tower w/o benefit of the first. Parking, utilities, etc.

- common misconception is that Bob still owns Bridgewater, he doesn't. Granger group has a minority ownerhsip interest behind a wealthy investment group and GRanger IS the manager BUT...

The likelihood of Granger and his group making a deal w/ RGDC is low, IMO.

DISCLAIMER: Bob and I are friends. May sound like I'm trashing him here but that's not the intent. He is / was / has been / will be ten times more active as a developer than I'll ever be. Nonetheless, there are several reasons I feel this way w/o getting into more depth and I HOPE HE PROVES ME / US wrong !!

GO BOB !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Joe Moch and his crew are another story.  I can almost smell a big developer coming this way from Chicago to buy his "package" and build it on their own"

Hmmm.  I think someone mentioned something about Chicago developers poking around GR on another thread :whistling:

Speaking of Chicago, Eric, why do you think we have not seen more proposals for projects like these:

6F602E40DD4011D9829F3914049F718D.jpg

70D80130DD4011D9B693F2ED049F718D.jpg

72387B90DD4011D980FE885D049F718D.jpg

739B18D0DD4011D9AC096D88049F718D.jpg

D0EF9D30DD4011D9A49CDBA3049F718D.jpg

I mean even Lansing has a few projects like these in the works for xxxxx's sake.

I know Lighthouse Dave has one going in on Wealthy Street called Uptown Village.  And I know Rockford Construction proposed one for the surface lot near the Black Rose in Cherry Street Landing, but who knows where that one stands.  But it seems like there would be a market for condo living downtown in something other than a "hotel" style building, where homeowners have their own separate entrances, garages, new construction, etc. 

It seems like there are some great little neighborhood centers (Cherry, Wealthy, Fulton, Bridge Street, Leonard, West Side) emerging where these could fill in and really make the areas more exciting.  Or maybe the depot site right across the street from you, or the surface lot on Market across from 44 Grandville.  Or for instance, there is a site with great potential at Bridge and Alabama by the train tracks, with awesome highway visibility.  Fix up the old warehouse on the East side of the street, and build new townhomes on the West side of Alabama......

I think some projects like these, along with at least 3 - 4 skyline-changing buildings, would vault us to a new level B)

What are your (or anyone elses) thoughts?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

GRdad of 3

I like your ideas. Maybe you could adopt me and be GR dad of 4, got some money I could borrow to do this?

Everyone wants to see just that. Problem is that land values DT are high enough now that it's almost impossible to do this because you cannot get enough density (read: economically not feasible) per square foot of land to make the project viable unless you go to a truly 'fringe' area where land values are lower. This has Guy Bazzani written all over it; he is a pioneer.

GVSU really nailed it IMO with their 'row houses' along fulton W. of the river. Similar concept.

If you know how to make it work, tell me. The only way I know is to totally pioneer a new neighborhood; Azzars prop. that you referenced.... well the price he needs is too high. Couldn't possibly get enough rent / condo sale value to support it....

Not that I know what the %^*& I'm talking about but you did ask.. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GRdad of 3

I like your ideas.  Maybe you could adopt me and be GR dad of 4, got some money I could borrow to do this?

Everyone wants to see just that.  Problem is that land values DT are high enough now that it's almost impossible to do this because you cannot get enough density (read: economically not feasible) per square foot of land to make the project viable unless you go to a truly 'fringe' area where land values are lower.  This has Guy Bazzani written all over it; he is a pioneer.

GVSU really nailed it IMO with their 'row houses' along fulton W. of the river.  Similar concept. 

If you know how to make it work, tell me.  The only way I know is to totally pioneer a new neighborhood; Azzars prop. that you referenced.... well the price he needs is too high.  Couldn't possibly get enough rent / condo sale value to support it....

Not that I know what the %^*&  I'm talking about but you did ask.. :-)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Haaaah. 3 is enough, thanks. It is true that a lot of the projects I have seen in Chicago like this were so large that they literally became a new neighborhood, so it didn't matter that the area was fringe. They redefined the area themselves, and then other "sheep" investors followed after the area stabilized. They also tend to be right along a rail line. And the prices for condos like these are WAAAYYY high. Much higher than a 700 sq ft studio in a high rise in River North.

BTW, you are not the oldest guy here. Check the first page of the demographics thread ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

all this talk about Riverhouse, I have a friend who works in Bridgewater for Deloite & Touche, I was under the impression, that Riverhouse, was immenent, from what I was told. This is ofcourse from someone who is often, out of the loop on what's really going on, but likes to pretend like they know what is going on. Also, I thought the Law Firm at the top, who plastered Varnum accross the building owned a stake in the building. That and I had heard at one point that DTE-Michcon owned a stake in it, I know they occupy the 3rd and 4th floor.

But I know now that's not the case. But why other than ego, Is the name "Varnum" tatoo'd on the top of the building, the only thing I can guess is ego.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GRdad of 3

If you know how to make it work, tell me.  The only way I know is to totally pioneer a new neighborhood; Azzars prop. that you referenced.... well the price he needs is too high.  Couldn't possibly get enough rent / condo sale value to support it....

Not that I know what the %^*&  I'm talking about but you did ask.. :-)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

$2,500,000 for Azzar's property on Grandville :blink: Yikes!

http://public.carwm.com/public/carpagerpt....LS=356546&C=&B=

Aren't they asking less than that for the prime lot just South of The Sierra Room? Also, who owns the Horseshoe Bar Building? That is a great little building, but maybe just a tad too far outside of the entertainment district (until your project is finished). I had an idea to do a comedy club in the old firehouse there and call it "Hosers". Make it a tradition to have the emcee slide down the firepole to start the show. I have a lot of these cheesy ideas in my head. It's too bad I am not sitting on a big pile of cash :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  I have a lot of these cheesy ideas in my head.  It's too bad I am not sitting on a big pile of cash :P

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

:rofl: My brother and I often say that in our conversations. So many ideas, so little cash. :unsure:

The firepole is a SWEET idea though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

$2,500,000 for Azzar's property on Grandville :blink: Yikes!

http://public.carwm.com/public/carpagerpt....LS=356546&C=&B=

Aren't they asking less than that for the prime lot just South of The Sierra Room?  Also, who owns the Horseshoe Bar Building?  That is a great little building, but maybe just a tad too far outside of the entertainment district (until your project is finished).  I had an idea to do a comedy club in the old firehouse there and call it "Hosers".  Make it a tradition to have the emcee slide down the firepole to start the show.  I have a lot of these cheesy ideas in my head.  It's too bad I am not sitting on a big pile of cash :P

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you buy that one, buy this one too! :D

http://public.carwm.com/public/carpagerpt....LS=353938&C=&B=

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you buy that one, buy this one too!  :D

http://public.carwm.com/public/carpagerpt....LS=353938&C=&B=

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Haha. Like that building looks anything like that picture. He should have had the artist draw in boarded up windows :lol: $750,000 though for 15,000 square feet, probably at least $100,000 - $250,000 into remodeling, 2 - 3 residential units per floor, you might be onto something. Right next to the soon to be renovated Civic Theatre and the Children's museum, bus route, Monroe Center. "Hi Dad, can I borrow a couple of bucks...?"

I can't believe it's still there. Wow! Built in 1877. Do I hear historic preservation tax credits?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha.  Like that building looks anything like that picture.  He should have had the artist draw in boarded up windows :lol:  $750,000 though for 15,000 square feet, probably at least $100,000 - $250,000 into remodeling, 2 - 3 residential units per floor, you might be onto something.  Right next to the soon to be renovated Civic Theatre and the Children's museum, bus route, Monroe Center.  "Hi Dad, can I borrow a couple of bucks...?"

I can't believe it's still there.  Wow!  Built in 1877.  Do I hear historic preservation tax credits?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My estimates have come up closer to the 250k per floor on that building. You've also got a parking issue to deal with so residential doesn't make a lot of sense in that building. However there is a horse carriage unloading easement in the back, so it's got that going for it. :P

As far as the tax credits go, I've already looked into it. It doesn't look promising. The building is just outside of the Heartside district and would have to be listed as a single building on the National Register in order to take the 20% Federal credit. Other then being nice architecturally there is nothing historically significant about the building. So single listing on the National Register has about a snowball's chance of happening. Now, if the City would get motivated and someone could shut Ray Kisor up we may be able to move forward with the other historic district that they've been talking about for a couple of years now.

My most recent conversation with the SHPO was that he'd rather see another historic district encompass the rest of the downtown area then list anymore buildings singally on the National Register. Then all the significant buildings downtown could take advantage of the tax credits.

Think of how much development that would spur.

Nitro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question:

Why doesn't national designation as a historic landmark automatically place a building on the city's landmark list?

B.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, that's an interesting question. My take on it is that the Federal "supercedes" over the city's designation.

The city's list doesn't carry much weight with it other then having to go before the HPC before doing anything to the building and some shelter from wanton demolition that you don't get with the National Register. I would have to think that any landmark that is worthy of being on the National Register would already be on the city's list.

The whole dynamic of the National Register has changed a lot in the last few years. Look at the buildings that were placed on the register 25 years ago. They were all extremely important buildings worthy of being on a nationally recognized list of historic buildings. Since the federal tax credits have come along there is a lot of psudo-historic buildings that have been placed on the list so some schmoe can collect his tax credits.

I'm a preservationist at heart but just because something is old doesn't necessarily mean it's worth keeping around for posterity. Preservation for preservation's sake isn't necessarily right. Ala Uptown Cleaners.

Nitro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that Uptown Cleaners is a bad excuse for historic preservation.

And why is the downtown area not so designated like Heritage Hill and Heartside?

This so does not make sense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's been proposed and talked about several times. There's always one or two "heavy hitters" that balk and the whole thing goes into remission for awhile.

Having another historic district would make my life a lot simpler.

Nitro

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.