I’ve told versions of this story before, but I was reminded of it again today.

When I was in grad school studying both architecture and real estate, I used to walk back and forth across campus and jump between two very different kinds of academic experiences. On the one side of campus, it was taboo to talk about money. And on the other end, the only important thing to talk about was money. (I am exaggerating in both cases, but I think only slightly.)

Given that I was studying and genuinely interested in both, this always felt like a weird false dichotomy. I mean, why not care about, you know, multiple things? But that’s generally not the way it was. Talking about money tainted the purity of design. And talking about things like design and beauty felt out of place and less serious in a room where cap rates were being debated and serious financial models were being honed.

This is not to say that nobody was thinking across disciplines. I was in a joint program, after all. I can also remember attending a lunch & learn where a student asked a seasoned real estate executive what he should study in addition to finance. The response he got was something along the lines of, “the furthest thing from finance. Study something that will give you a different perspective on real estate.”

I remember this really resonating with me — probably because I was searching for breadcrumbs to make me feel like less of an outsider at Wharton. Still, this came across as a unique perspective at the time.

Knowing how money stuff works is absolutely fundamental. (We need to teach more of it in schools to young people.) And as a developer, it all starts with managing risk, executing (i.e. doing what we said we would do), and being an honest steward of other people’s money. Don’t do this, and you likely won’t be a developer for very long.

But then, what else? What unique insights can we bring to the assumptions that feed a finely honed model? Fast forward to today and this is now the basis for how the Globizen team aims to look at real estate opportunities. We want to cover all ends of campus. And that means we are more than okay talking about unserious things like design and beauty.

Fascinatingly, buildings are always a product of their time.

Detroit's Book Tower, for example, started construction in 1916. This is right around the time that Detroit became the 4th largest city in the US (after New York, Chicago, and Philadelphia). From 1910 to 1920, the city's population grew by about 113% to nearly a million people (more people than the city has today).

Because this was the time, the tower was obviously grand. It totalled almost half a million square feet of office space (483,973 sf to be exact, according to Wikipedia). It had a large 3-story atrium with an ornate glass dome. And up until the 1970s, it seems that it remained a desirable office address on Washington Boulevard.

But as we all know, things changed for Detroit. Grand and ornate no longe made economic sense. And so the owners at the time, whoever they were, covered up the ornate dome, filled in the floors of the atrium, and presumably did whatever they could to eek out as much leasable square footage as possible. Necessity trumped grandeur.

Then in 2007, the then-landlord filed for Chapter 11 protection. And in 2009, the last tenant left the building, leaving it 100% vacant -- or "unencumbered by tenants" as we like to say in the business.

Thankfully in 2015, Dan Gilbert of Bedrock came along to do what he does, and acquired the building for a reported $30 million. This works out to about $61 psf for what was once the tallest building in Detroit and one of its most prestigious office addresses. Things change.

But what Bedrock has done since is work to return the building to what architect Louis Kamper had originally created nearly a century ago. The atrium is back. The ornate glass dome is back. And there are now 229 apartments, 117 extended-stay hotel rooms, 3 food and beverage concepts, and about 40,000 sf of office space. Official website, here.

What an awesome way to say, "Detroit is back!"

Photos: Rebekah Witt via Fast Company

Here is another great video from About Here talking about how breaking certain rules could make for better apartment buildings.

The basis for the video is a design competition put on by Urbanarium, called Decoding Density, which asked participants to propose creative solutions for "six-story plus apartment forms in Metro Vancouver."

More specifically, the competition asked: How might Vancouver intensify its single-family neighborhoods with small-scale wood-frame apartments?

The About Here video covers some of the common themes from the submissions and, not surprisingly, the first is single-stair buildings. Requiring only a single point of egress can really unlock small sites.

Some of the other ideas are, perhaps, a bit more adventurous; but these are valuable exercises. Many rules are dumb. So it's important that we continually question them and search for better ways.