101 S. Division - Apartment renovation

[GaryP]

No spin, just the real deal about 101 SD. The owners of 101 did have a deal with a local brewery/restaurant which after 9months didn't go through. In 2005 they formed a joint venture deal with an out-of-town developer to bring in a mixed use project that ultimately the city and owners felt would not work. The press failed to mention a few other very pertinant facts: the building is also being marketed for lease, and the for sale listing has long been a tool by developers to attract out of town (developers, investors, potential partners/tennants) people looking for more than just some space to lease. And let's not forget the building even though vacant is now producing property tax revenue for the city. Yes the building is an eyesore, but vacant developed buildings don't do anything for the heartside district either. Some (not all) of the same owners of this building have renovated and successfully marketed a nearby Heartside building. While it might appear to be profitateering there is always more to the story!

FYI - 101 is approved for tax credits which does not mean the owners have recieved them or used them... that only happens when the project (in the case of 101 that is when not if) begins.

Don't you think the property would receive more national attention if it were marketed for sale at $165,000 instead of $725,000?

[jdowntown]

Don't you think the property would receive more national attention if it were marketed for sale at $165,000 instead of $725,000?

Outside Michigan - nope - if you're thinking about coming to GR you likely don't see potential in a 40,000 sq foot building priced like a mud hut!

If the owners don't develop they pay a hefty penalty regardless of whether they do or don't sell the building. It is in their (and everyone else's) best interest to develop the property and they are working to do so. A $4M investment to make that building work is nothing to sneeze at!

[GaryP]

Outside Michigan - nope - if you're thinking about coming to GR you likely don't see potential in a 40,000 sq foot building priced like a mud hut!

If the owners don't develop they pay a hefty penalty regardless of whether they do or don't sell the building. It is in their (and everyone else's) best interest to develop the property and they are working to do so. A $4M investment to make that building work is nothing to sneeze at!

You bought the building at the price of a mud-hut; I'm guessing others would be interested as well.

The city's deal came with a clause requiring Bantam to pay an additional $165,000 if the development is not 50 percent finished by the end of 2007. The clause would transfer to a new owner.

is this incorrect reporting? (I guess I wouldn't be surprised either way)

[jdowntown]

You bought the building at the price of a mud-hut; I'm guessing others would be interested as well.

The city's deal came with a clause requiring Bantam to pay an additional $165,000 if the development is not 50 percent finished by the end of 2007. The clause would transfer to a new owner.

is this incorrect reporting? (I guess I wouldn't be surprised either way)

Fair enough. Clause CAN transfer IF buyer/seller/city all agree... point is: everyone would be happier if this project got rolling... it just takes time.

[GaryP]

everyone would be happier if this project got rolling

I agree. Are you still planning on apartments? And if so, what kind of prices to you expect by sf?

[jdowntown]

I agree. Are you still planning on apartments? And if so, what kind of prices to you expect by sf?

Yes! Price depends on finish costs, occupancy trends when project gets started, etc - all the standard considerations.

[mejane]

Thanks for the info, Joedowntown. As is often the case, press articles get written,

and then edited for content and length, and often the facts suffer in the process.

People are often misquoted, or the quote is taken out of context. And, personal

bias by writers factor in, thus 'spin'. This building has potential to be interesting,

the developer has done some cool things downtown, Lott/Metz, or whatever they

are called are really good designers, so let's see where this one goes. I hope

whatever it becomes that it is a positive addition to the Avenue of the Arts concept

of the neighborhood. Too bad about the brewery, that building's first floor is

perfect for a destination restaurant to bring people down to the avenue for

arts and eats.

[Rizzo]

Wait did Joe go Jdowntown or is this another different person? Anyways, welcome jdowntown its always nice ot hear the otherside.

[Prankster]

I'm still a little unclear on why the large markup on the selling price. The way I read the reply, and I'm sure I am wrong, was that by offering it for a higher price you are attracting more out of town investors. So this is a marketing tool to get outside investors interested?

[jdowntown]

Thanks for the info, Joedowntown. As is often the case, press articles get written,

and then edited for content and length, and often the facts suffer in the process.

People are often misquoted, or the quote is taken out of context. And, personal

bias by writers factor in, thus 'spin'. This building has potential to be interesting,

the developer has done some cool things downtown, Lott/Metz, or whatever they

are called are really good designers, so let's see where this one goes. I hope

whatever it becomes that it is a positive addition to the Avenue of the Arts concept

of the neighborhood. Too bad about the brewery, that building's first floor is

perfect for a destination restaurant to bring people down to the avenue for

arts and eats.

No problem... it is jdowntown... I think Joedowntown is someone else... being new I didn't know that I'd have a "cousin" on the blog. The brewery was perfect... and the design by Lott3Metz was cool! I think once some of the development across the street starts coming on the market it will help draw more to the Heartside and 101 will be a great addition to the street... anyone seen the inside of the building next to 101? It has this huge multi-floor opening... very cool just don't know how it could be used.

[mejane]

Oops! See, I told you I don't look at that left hand column closely enough.

My apologies, jdowntown.

[GR_Urbanist]

I'm still a little unclear on why the large markup on the selling price. The way I read the reply, and I'm sure I am wrong, was that by offering it for a higher price you are attracting more out of town investors. So this is a marketing tool to get outside investors interested?

And if it sells, who gets the profits from the sale? For whatever reason they did it, it still looks like these guys took advantage of a generous offer from the city if they take the pocket the profits from this sale.

[GRDadof3]

This is just like buying a home out of foreclosure and then asking more than you paid. There is nothing unethical or illegal about it, as long as you don't take the tax credits and pocket them. The city wanted to unload it because they just spent thousands fixing a caved in roof. Now the developers would like to invest in renovating it IF they can find a commercial tenant to make the numbers work. If the developers have gotten appraisals or advice from a commercial broker telling them that they can now resell it at a higher price.

[Prankster]

This is just like buying a home out of foreclosure and then asking more than you paid. There is nothing unethical or illegal about it, as long as you don't take the tax credits and pocket them. The city wanted to unload it because they just spent thousands fixing a caved in roof. Now the developers would like to invest in renovating it IF they can find a commercial tenant to make the numbers work. If the developers have gotten appraisals or advice from a commercial broker telling them that they can now resell it at a higher price

But all the while, the building sits empty, detracting from the progress going on around it. With the attitude stated above, what would differentiate them from the Azzars of the world?

[joeDowntown]

I disagree GRDad.

While you could look at it as simply flipping properties to make a quick buck, Lott3-Metz bills themselves as part of the solution in rehabbing old buildings, not the problem. If they are sitting on properties just to turn a quick buck, how does that make them any different than Azzar (who is part of the problem)? There is a difference between being a capitalist and a capitalist pig, and for this little stunt, Ted Lott falls into the latter in my humble opinion.

Joe

[Rizzo]

Mr. Lott seems to be absent from this discussion, yes?

[Prankster]

I disagree GRDad.

While you could look at it as simply flipping properties to make a quick buck, Lott3-Metz bills themselves as part of the solution in rehabbing old buildings, not the problem. If they are sitting on properties just to turn a quick buck, how does that make them any different than Azzar (who is part of the problem)? There is a difference between being a capitalist and a capitalist pig, and for this little stunt, Ted Lott falls into the latter in my humble opinion.

Joe

Wow, I didn't go quite that far, but ironic that we both thought of Azzar in response to GRDad's post.

[GRguy]

Ted may be absent, but we don't know who jdowntown is, who just joined to discuss this

[Rizzo]

I would hate to have this blackball Ted, but man this is just really weird. If your absent on the advice from council, then thats great, but if you want you should state your side. If its not worth it to clear some air, the I would hate for The Press to get away with more "crap" if this situation wasn't correctly reported. Know what I mean?

[GRDadof3]

Wow! You guys are pretty harsh. They just bought this property 14 months ago, not twenty years ago. Heartwell is just mad because when they sold it, nothing was going on with Division and the property was just taking up space on their "to do" list at the Commission Meetings. Now that the area is appreciating in value, he's mad because he didn't hold onto his investment.

As was stated here by Ted and in the article, their intention is to renovate it still if they can make it work. They need to have a list price though in case someone comes in with a tenant and a plan and wants to do it all.

BTW: When did flipping properties become "part of the problem" Joe? Thousands of properties in GR get renovated every year due to the hard work of "flippers".

I got a message from Ted that he will not be fighting this media battle here (I don't blame him).

[mejane]

I won't pretend to know much about the development game, and therefore

won't pass judgement on these things - so don't judge me too harshly if I

appear naive in these matters.

But, if Project X didn't appear with the potential for properity prices to soar

in those neighborhoods, this would still look like a crappy-run-down-high-risk-

expensive-rehab-building that may or may not be successfully developed.

It appears to me that Lott3Metz, and Ted in particular, is more parts

smart/visionary/risk-taker than capitalist pig.

[Prankster]

Wow! You guys are pretty harsh. They just bought this property 14 months ago, not twenty years ago. Heartwell is just mad because when they sold it, nothing was going on with Division and the property was just taking up space on their "to do" list at the Commission Meetings. Now that the area is appreciating in value, he's mad because he didn't hold onto his investment.

As was stated here by Ted and in the article, their intention is to renovate it still if they can make it work. They need to have a list price though in case someone comes in with a tenant and a plan and wants to do it all.

BTW: When did flipping properties become "part of the problem" Joe? Thousands of properties in GR get renovated every year due to the hard work of "flippers".

I got a message from Ted that he will not be fighting this media battle here (I don't blame him).

Please do not lump me into the "personal attack" column. You know me better than to attack a fellow forumer. I simply stated that saying that trying to "flip" a building for a far larger amount than what it was bought for, while it detracts from the rehabilitation work going on around it, sounds like something Azzar would do.

By the way, how 'bout those Lions? Go, Joey, go!!!!!!!!

[GRDadof3]

Please do not lump me into the "personal attack" column. You know me better than to attack a fellow forumer. I simply stated that saying that trying to "flip" a building for a far larger amount than what it was bought for, while it detracts from the rehabilitation work going on around it, sounds like something Azzar would do.

By the way, how 'bout those Lions? Go, Joey, go!!!!!!!!

When do I get that beer?

[Nitro]

There is a difference between being a capitalist and a capitalist pig, and for this little stunt, Ted Lott falls into the latter in my humble opinion.

Allright, just wait a dang minute. Let's look at the facts here folks. A) the building hasn't sold and no one has profited a penny. B) Ted, et. al. have a lot of time and money invested in this project. They aren't going to walk away from it now. C) Ted did have the brewery deal lined up for this project that fell apart at the last minute.

Everyone likes to play armchair developer on this board. Development is not a linear process. Very rarely do you go from step A to B to C to D. More then likely its A to B back to A to B to B to C to A, etc. etc. etc.

Cut them a little frickin slack............

[Rizzo]

After Ted does some fighitng at the Press, I would love to hear his side. I don't trust The Press to report his fight, so I have to go right to the source...