Jump to content

101 S. Division - Apartment renovation


GRDadof3

Recommended Posts

We all know how much help Division needs to have the vision of Main Street realized. Do you really think taking something you bought for $160K and selling it 14 months later for +700K is reasonable? As I said, I am a capitalist just like the next guy but if they cannot make the numbers work, how can they expect someone else to be able to make the numbers work with an instant +500K hole to dig themselves out of.

If this announcement were Azzar we'd all be jumping in his crap. Why shouldn't everybody else be held accountable?

Joe

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).

GRGuy,

Go to the very first posts on this board, look for my name, and then ask if I just joined to discuss this. ;)

Joe

Ted may be absent, but we don't know who jdowntown is, who just joined to discuss this
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 156
  • Created
  • Last Reply

GRGuy, Go to the very first posts on this board, look for my name, and then

ask if I just joined to discuss this. ;)Joe

I think you're making the same mistake I did: jdowntown does not = joedowntown

two different people with similar user names

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's one big difference, Joe: Azzar has never developed any of his properties, and has never intended to. Lott/Metz on the other hand have been very instrumental in the Heartside area, including the building where their office is located. Well before it was "cool" to be in that area. I say we cut them some slack, that's all :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have known Ted for over 15 years, dating back to architecture school. He has had the single-minded notion of improving the city, long before it was the hip thing to do. He and his firm continue to do good things for the city of Grand Rapids, incrementally improving it on a building by building basis. There is no reason to think that 101 S. Division will be any different.

The Lott3Metz office is right across the street from this building, Ted sees it every day and certainly realizes that it is an important building to rehab. It is not like he is some out of state developer who has no stake other than money in this venture. He lives what he preaches, as evidenced by his projects, his choice of office location and his choice of residence. He believes in the city.

If more people were of his mind set, this city would be even better.

I think that Ted and his partners have been unfairly portrayed in this instance by both the city and by the press. To fight this battle in the media is not an appropriate action. The mayor has every right to be critical, but to discuss this in the media is just not appropriate.

The city sold this building for the price that they got. It was their deal. No one put a gun to their head to sell. Now that they realize that this area is improving and market value is going up, is it possible that they are upset that they now could get more money for the building? Keep in mind that property taxes are still being paid AND that no one has made any money on this property yet.

And don't even get me started on the press. I have yet to see them get the whole story on anything.

Note that I have no financial stake in this project, I just have known Ted for too long to think that he is just some "capitalist pig" as mentioned earlier. That is not a fair statement based on his history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's amazing how different the story can become when you actually know the individual and his intentions. (i.e. all of my defenses for Dick DeVos in the governor thread!) Just had to throw that in there! ;)

How easy it is for us to be critical. I guess that's what armchair development is all about!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having dealt with these guys when Vertigo was a tenent in the building that is 71 S. Division, My experience is that they are after the almighty dollar. The mere fact that the building at 101 S. division is now for sale for $750,000 reflects that. Based on an agreement with the city to purchase this building with the in intent to develop it at a reduced price(what was it? 150,000?) and now speculating with the whole buzz of the mysterious

project X. This fits well with what they're all about. Find a loophole and exploit it. Here's hoping for Karma.

Greed... know what I mean?

H

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having dealt with these guys when Vertigo was a tenent in the building that is 71 S. Division, My experience is that they are after the almighty dollar. The mere fact that the building at 101 S. division is now for sale for $750,000 reflects that. Based on an agreement with the city to purchase this building with the in intent to develop it at a reduced price(what was it? 150,000?) and now speculating with the whole buzz of the mysterious

project X. This fits well with what they're all about. Find a loophole and exploit it. Here's hoping for Karma.

Greed... know what I mean?

H

It was listed for that price long before Project X was discovered :rolleyes: Those darn business owners thinking about money. Who do they think they are??!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was listed for that price long before Project X was discovered :rolleyes: Those darn business owners thinking about money. Who do they think they are??!!!!

The self-righteousness in this topic is very nearly choking off any rational thought.

Those of you who wish to be critical should probably just pony up and buy the building and preserve it as a shattered, hollowed out core of decrepit urban dissintegration. After all, if all these useless "capitalists" have their way, buildings like this won't exist in Heartside anymore....it will all be pretty, hip rehabbed stuff.

And who wants that????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The self-righteousness in this topic is very nearly choking off any rational thought.

Those of you who wish to be critical should probably just pony up and buy the building and preserve it as a shattered, hollowed out core of decrepit urban dissintegration. After all, if all these useless "capitalists" have their way, buildings like this won't exist in Heartside anymore....it will all be pretty, hip rehabbed stuff.

And who wants that????

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with my sarcasm localtalent? :huh:

I'm just sensing a strong anti-business, anti-developer mood lately on the forum. We're in the midst of one of the largest building/renovation booms in Grand Rapids history (in all corners of downtown), and yet it's still not enough for people. 101 S. Division was for sale to ANYONE who wanted to buy it for $175,000 14 months ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with my sarcasm localtalent? :huh:

I'm just sensing a strong anti-business, anti-developer mood lately on the forum. We're in the midst of one of the largest building/renovation booms in Grand Rapids history (in all corners of downtown), and yet it's still not enough for people. 101 S. Division was for sale to ANYONE who wanted to buy it for $175,000 14 months ago.

If that was for sale to anyone, I don't see any reason to complain about this. I didn't know that it was.

If the building were for sale to anyone I don't think you could even fault them for speculating on the property and it doesn't even sound like they are doing that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't feel like I was being anti-business, anti-developer in any way. We have mocked Moch since the beginning. Mocked Azzar because he buys properties then inflates the price to a point that people can't feasibly buy them and renovate.

Dennis Sturtevent (sp?) himself said that the building was priced out of his reach. The man largely responsible for the rebirth of Division can't even buy the property, and Dwelling place has all kinds of incentives, credits etc. available to them because they are a non-profit.

My whole point is simple. How can you justify buying a building, doing nothing sigfnificant structurally, then turn around and put it on the market for 4 times the original cost?

Lott3-Metz has done a great job on their building, I am not disputing that. But if this were J. Moch, we'd all be screaming for his head.

If Grand Rapids is going to be truly grand, I think every project should be scrutinized and questioned. Yes, they own the property and can do whatever they want with it but I think it is well within our right to question it.

Joe

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with my sarcasm localtalent? :huh:

I'm just sensing a strong anti-business, anti-developer mood lately on the forum. We're in the midst of one of the largest building/renovation booms in Grand Rapids history (in all corners of downtown), and yet it's still not enough for people. 101 S. Division was for sale to ANYONE who wanted to buy it for $175,000 14 months ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Grand Rapids is going to be truly grand, I think every project should be scrutinized and questioned. Yes, they own the property and can do whatever they want with it but I think it is well within our right to question it.

Joe

Fair enough. I can agree with that :)

Jeff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

$750,000 for a burned out shell. The asking price for 101 S. Division doesn't seem that unreasonable now.

Above is a cross post from the 138 Commerce thread.

The 138 Commerce building, which is only a shell, sold for $750,000. It is a block off from Division and in arguably worse condition. While it is a really great building and has great potential, the 101 S. Division building is also a great building, maybe better, and has better potential because of size, the ability to be a real mixed-use building and a better location.

The $750,000 figure is now an established value for the area, it is what the free market bore as an acceptable price. With that in mind, the asking price for 101 S. Division does not seem that out of line. In fact, it may be a bargain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that I want to continue this thread, but I bet the shell of 138 Commerce is much less of an issue from a renovation standpoint than 101 S. Division because it is just that: a shell. 101 S. Division is 4 (or 5) stories and is still intact, though I would imagine it has tons of damage due to water over the years. I would take bets that the Post Office would be a breeze compared to 101 S.D.

Joe

Above is a cross post from the 138 Commerce thread.

The 138 Commerce building, which is only a shell, sold for $750,000. It is a block off from Division and in arguably worse condition. While it is a really great building and has great potential, the 101 S. Division building is also a great building, maybe better, and has better potential because of size, the ability to be a real mixed-use building and a better location.

The $750,000 figure is now an established value for the area, it is what the free market bore as an acceptable price. With that in mind, the asking price for 101 S. Division does not seem that out of line. In fact, it may be a bargain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
  • 5 months later...

It looks like, per the City Commission minutes, that the owners are looking to sell this building to Dwelling Place.

Anyone worried about the poor being displaced by gentrification, should rest easy with how much work Dwelling Place is putting into the Heartside District for low income housing. Actually, there are only 2 developments in Heartside that are market rate - Tannery Row and 71 S. Division. It seems everything else falls under the low income/restricted income catagory.

I'm not saying this is good or bad, but just an observation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks like, per the City Commission minutes, that the owners are looking to sell this building to Dwelling Place.

Anyone worried about the poor being displaced by gentrification, should rest easy with how much work Dwelling Place is putting into the Heartside District for low income housing. Actually, there are only 2 developments in Heartside that are market rate - Tannery Row and 71 S. Division. It seems everything else falls under the low income/restricted income catagory.

I'm not saying this is good or bad, but just an observation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
  • 1 month later...

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.