Report: Amid Cost-cutting Spree, GM Looked at Unloading Its Global HQ

by Steph Willems

Published: May 21st, 2019

report amid cost cutting spree gm looked at unloading its global hq

General Motors’ Renaissance Center headquarters dominates the Detroit skyline, announcing America to Canadians even before they reach Windsor. A symbol of industrial might and the big business of autos, the 5.5 million-square-foot complex has been home to the biggest of the Big Three since GM acquired the property in 1996.

According to a new report, GM’s recent streamlining push saw company brass attempt to sell the property.

Automotive News, citing four sources familiar with the matter, claims the automaker looked at flipping the property to businessman and Detroit property owner extraordinaire Dan Gilbert last year.

Talks apparently didn’t get too far, with the building’s aging HVAC system reportedly serving as a sticking point. The building, which has already undergone numerous renovations, is in need of further upgrades.

Ford Motor Company, the building’s original tenant, launched construction on the sprawling complex in 1971, with the first phase opening five years later. When finished, the complex included a central 73-storey hotel and four 39-storey towers containing numerous shops and restaurants, plus a long list of corporate tenants. Ford sold the complex to an investor group in the early 1980s.

As GM can’t hope to occupy all space in the complex, and with the need for further upgrades, the thinking was that the company could free up cash by downsizing its HQ. According to one source, this could still happen, though another said a sale is now off the table.

“As a downtown Detroit-based company, we have regular discussions with other leaders and organizations about the city’s ongoing development,” GM said in a statement sent to AN. “We won’t share the details of those conversations or comment on speculation about specific discussions.”

Through its cost-cutting efforts, which include the mothballing of several North American plants, the elimination of several vehicle models, and a significant workforce reduction, GM hopes to save $6 billion in annual spending by the target year of 2020.

[Image: General Motors]

#Cost-cutting #Detroit #GeneralMotors #GM #RenaissanceCenter

Steph Willems

More by Steph Willems

Comments

Join the conversation

2 of 24 comments

Jeff S on May 22, 2019

@civicjohn--Unfortunately my father sold it when I went away to college. My 2 older brothers and I drove it thru high school and I drove it the first year of college when I was a commuter student. My father custom ordered it with a red interior, Power-glide, AM radio, I-6, padded dash, and no air. I kept that Chevy II up and waxed it every couple of months to where it was so shinny you could see yourself on the paint. I fixed the headliner and put happy faces on it--it actually looked good. Not sure what happened to the Sears we went to since I no longer live in Houston but the Sears in the mall in Florence, KY near where I now live remains empty. I miss the old Chevies of the past. I do currently have a 99 S-10 I-4 extended cab with a 5 speed manual which I have had since new which still looks and drives like new. Use the water less car detailing cleaner and wax on it (also poly seal it once a year) and it maintains a great shine on it (pewter color). Love that old S-10 it has been very reliable. That truck is eventually going to my nephew.

Like Reply
DeadWeight on May 24, 2019

"According to a new report, GM’s recent streamlining push saw company brass attempt to sell [their Headquarters, the Renaissance Center, a f'cked up maze of a building with windows that spontaneously fallout, and energy efficiency levels right out of the 1950s, to Dan Gilbert]. Automotive News, citing four sources familiar with the matter, claims the automaker looked at flipping the property to businessman and Detroit property owner extraordinaire Dan Gilbert last year. Talks apparently didn’t get too far, with the building’s aging HVAC system reportedly serving as a sticking point. The building, which has already undergone numerous renovations, is in need of further upgrades." LMFAO: "GUANGZHOU-GUADALAJARA MOTORS, OUR GLOBAL HEADQUARTERS HAS BETTER, ONLY BY RELATIVE STANDARDS, YET STILL ATROCIOUS, BUILD QUALITY AND RELIABILITY. MARK OF EXERENCE. SHI SHI." Maybe Guangzhou-Guadalajara Motors can try and flip their armpit of an HQ in an armpit of a city, to a naive Chinese investor real estate limited liability partnership!

Like Reply

Recent Comments

W Conrad I'm not afraid of them, but they aren't needed for everyone or everywhere. Long haul and highway driving sure, but in the city, nope.
Jalop1991 In a manner similar to PHEV being the correct answer, I declare RPVs to be the correct answer here.We're doing it with certain aircraft; why not with cars on the ground, using hardware and tools like Telsa's "FSD" or GM's "SuperCruise" as the base?Take the local Uber driver out of the car, and put him in a professional centralized environment from where he drives me around. The system and the individual car can have awareness as well as gates, but he's responsible for the driving.Put the tech into my car, and let me buy it as needed. I need someone else to drive me home; hit the button and voila, I've hired a driver for the moment. I don't want to drive 11 hours to my vacation spot; hire the remote pilot for that. When I get there, I have my car and he's still at his normal location, piloting cars for other people.The system would allow for driver rest period, like what's required for truckers, so I might end up with multiple people driving me to the coast. I don't care. And they don't have to be physically with me, therefore they can be way cheaper.Charge taxi-type per-mile rates. For long drives, offer per-trip rates. Offer subscriptions, including miles/hours. Whatever.(And for grins, dress the remote pilots all as Johnnie.)Start this out with big rigs. Take the trucker away from the long haul driving, and let him be there for emergencies and the short haul parts of the trip.And in a manner similar to PHEVs being discredited, I fully expect to be razzed for this brilliant idea (not unlike how Alan Kay wasn't recognized until many many years later for his Dynabook vision).
B-BodyBuick84 Not afraid of AV's as I highly doubt they will ever be %100 viable for our roads. Stop-and-go downtown city or rush hour highway traffic? I can see that, but otherwise there's simply too many variables. Bad weather conditions, faded road lines or markings, reflective surfaces with glare, etc. There's also the issue of cultural norms. About a decade ago there was actually an online test called 'The Morality Machine' one could do online where you were in control of an AV and choose what action to take when a crash was inevitable. I think something like 2.5 million people across the world participated? For example, do you hit and most likely kill the elderly couple strolling across the crosswalk or crash the vehicle into a cement barrier and almost certainly cause the death of the vehicle occupants? What if it's a parent and child? In N. America 98% of people choose to hit the elderly couple and save themselves while in Asia, the exact opposite happened where 98% choose to hit the parent and child. Why? Cultural differences. Asia puts a lot of emphasis on respecting their elderly while N. America has a culture of 'save/ protect the children'. Are these AV's going to respect that culture? Is a VW Jetta or Buick Envision AV going to have different programming depending on whether it's sold in Canada or Taiwan? how's that going to effect legislation and legal battles when a crash inevitibly does happen? These are the true barriers to mass AV adoption, and in the 10 years since that test came out, there has been zero answers or progress on this matter. So no, I'm not afraid of AV's simply because with the exception of a few specific situations, most avenues are going to prove to be a dead-end for automakers.
Mike Bradley Autonomous cars were developed in Silicon Valley. For new products there, the standard business plan is to put a barely-functioning product on the market right away and wait for the early-adopter customers to find the flaws. That's exactly what's happened. Detroit's plan is pretty much the opposite, but Detroit isn't developing this product. That's why dealers, for instance, haven't been trained in the cars.
Dartman https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-fighter-jets-air-force-6a1100c96a73ca9b7f41cbd6a2753fdaAutonomous/Ai is here now. The question is implementation and acceptance.