Discuss Detroit » Archives - July 2007 » Lafayette building to be potentially demolished?? « Previous Next »
Archive through August 19, 2007Gistok30 08-19-07  1:41 am
  ClosedNew threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.        

Top of pageBottom of page

Rhymeswithrawk
Member
Username: Rhymeswithrawk

Post Number: 880
Registered: 11-2005
Posted on Sunday, August 19, 2007 - 3:47 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It's all a matter of infinite procrastination at this point. The Lafayette Building was originally supposed to be renovated or demolished before the Superbowl. I'd really love to see someone save it, but at this point? Good luck.

Hmm... have you been inside it lately, Humanmachinery? Or are you judging a book by its cover? Last time I was in the Lafayette, it was still in decent shape. Granted, that was four years ago and A LOT can happen to a building in that time. The Book-Cadillac, by comparison, looked god awful at that time, but what do you know?
Top of pageBottom of page

Charlottepaul
Member
Username: Charlottepaul

Post Number: 1474
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Sunday, August 19, 2007 - 3:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"The Lafayette Building was originally supposed to be renovated or demolished before the Superbowl. I'd really love to see someone save it, but at this point? Good luck."

Plus, look at the Book Cadillac. That was vacant even longer.
Top of pageBottom of page

Humanmachinery
Member
Username: Humanmachinery

Post Number: 32
Registered: 07-2006
Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 8:27 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hmm... have you been inside it lately, Humanmachinery? Or are you judging a book by its cover? Last time I was in the Lafayette, it was still in decent shape. Granted, that was four years ago and A LOT can happen to a building in that time. The Book-Cadillac, by comparison, looked god awful at that time, but what do you know?

Oh, I'm not talking about the structural integrity or state of the decor, but the city already spent $300 million to get the title and deed to that place cleared. It had a contract with a construction company in place to renovate the building, and now it appears that contract has been dropped. This would mean a search for a NEW developer, necessitating more searching, selling, planning, time, and money. The sheer principle of entropy dictates that it's easier for the city to knock the building down than to fix it, and if you've ever seen a city short on resources...
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 1365
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 8:36 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

$300 million for the contract and deed for a building that they could have used Department of Adminstrative Hearings to clean-up and secure??

I think your numbers are a bit off.
Top of pageBottom of page

Ramcharger
Member
Username: Ramcharger

Post Number: 423
Registered: 05-2006
Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 9:08 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Detroit has lost far too many buildings just because it’s easier to knock them down. Buildings should not be razed unless there are concrete plans to build something in their place or they are in imminent danger of collapse.

Does anybody knows how to use Wikiscanner to find out who edited the wikipedia article?
Top of pageBottom of page

Ndavies
Member
Username: Ndavies

Post Number: 2723
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 10:19 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The deal with Peebles has collapsed. They couldn't reach an agreement with the DEGC. Don't expect anything to happen soon. It will probably have to go back out for RFP again.

(Message edited by ndavies on August 20, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed

Post Number: 1403
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 10:39 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Detroit has lost far too many buildings just because it’s easier to knock them down. Buildings should not be razed unless there are concrete plans to build something in their place or they are in imminent danger of collapse.

But...But...It's better to have vacant lots than abandoned buildings! Vacant lots are more attractive to developers! Just look at all the developers rushing to build on the gazillion vacant lots that already exist around Detroit. Abandoned buildings can host crackheads, and prostitutes... you know things that could be avoided if property owners were required to properly seal their buildings.
Top of pageBottom of page

Ramcharger
Member
Username: Ramcharger

Post Number: 424
Registered: 05-2006
Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 10:44 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

If I were going to hookup with a prostitute it certainly wouldn't be in an abandoned building.
Top of pageBottom of page

Kslice
Member
Username: Kslice

Post Number: 145
Registered: 04-2007
Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 11:08 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Damn straight Ramcharger.

They should just roll a big sign down the side of The MCS "Hobo Hilton, we've got the most attractive rates in town!"
Top of pageBottom of page

Kslice
Member
Username: Kslice

Post Number: 146
Registered: 04-2007
Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 11:08 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Damn straight Ramcharger.

They should just roll a big sign down the side of The MCS "Hobo Hilton, we've got the most attractive rates in town!"
Top of pageBottom of page

Warrenite84
Member
Username: Warrenite84

Post Number: 136
Registered: 01-2007
Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 11:51 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It seems that the Lafyette's best chance at renovation would include a retail/parking/development across the street in front of the court house.

I think it will be renovated once most of the started projects downtown are completed and leased.

Tubby's lot

(Message edited by Warrenite84 on August 20, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Billk
Member
Username: Billk

Post Number: 95
Registered: 09-2005
Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 1:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Some guy named Ward is rehabbing the Lafayette. So far he has removed some of the windows, and painted others. Destruction by vagrants to follow...
Top of pageBottom of page

Scottr
Member
Username: Scottr

Post Number: 717
Registered: 07-2006
Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 9:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Along similar lines, the following was added to the Penobscot Building article today. I added a request for citation, since this seems baseless.
quote:

Plans are being formulated for the demolition of the Penobscot Building, dependent upon its long-term viability.


Anyone know anything about this?
Top of pageBottom of page

Apbest
Member
Username: Apbest

Post Number: 614
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 9:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

that is clearly intentionally off-base, probably done by someone on this forum to show the sometimes shaky nature of Wikipedia's accuracy
Top of pageBottom of page

Oakmangirl
Member
Username: Oakmangirl

Post Number: 113
Registered: 08-2007
Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 9:23 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Scottr,

If you can't substantiate what you read with at least three other supporting sources, you've wasted your time. BTW, I'm a Librarian, so I have a bit of expertise here.
Top of pageBottom of page

Scottr
Member
Username: Scottr

Post Number: 718
Registered: 07-2006
Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 10:04 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I'm not stating it as any kind of fact. I'm just looking to see if anyone else has heard anything other than the anonymous editor that added it to Wikipedia. Perhaps it was inside info, perhaps it was speculation, perhaps it was complete BS. I lean towards the latter, personally, but i'm looking for something more than the complete lack of citations that exists now. If none do exist, I'll remove that portion entirely. But I'm not ignoring the possibility that something is happening that I'm not aware of.
Top of pageBottom of page

Oakmangirl
Member
Username: Oakmangirl

Post Number: 114
Registered: 08-2007
Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 10:24 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Scottr,

I came across as a bit snooty; I didn't mean to imply you didn't know what you were doing. Wikipedia can be a useful source.

Anyway, did you delete that demolish bit? I just looked and couldn't spot your quote. At the very least, I would point out that info as unsubstantiated at this time.
Top of pageBottom of page

Scottr
Member
Username: Scottr

Post Number: 719
Registered: 07-2006
Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 10:58 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

That's okay, I understand. :-)

I do know enough to question things like that on WP. It is a great source, but it's important to consider the sources used for the 'facts' stated. Also, it's good to look at the history, to see which 'facts' have been added recently and which are in dispute.

I didn't delete it, but another anonymous editor did.
Top of pageBottom of page

Wolverine
Member
Username: Wolverine

Post Number: 359
Registered: 04-2004
Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 11:50 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I did not edit the Penobscot entry FYI despite my threats earlier regarding the Lafayette.
Top of pageBottom of page

Apbest
Member
Username: Apbest

Post Number: 615
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - 12:02 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I edited the Penobscot article
Top of pageBottom of page

Scottr
Member
Username: Scottr

Post Number: 720
Registered: 07-2006
Posted on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - 12:08 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I figured it was someone here, Apbest! :-)
Top of pageBottom of page

Apbest
Member
Username: Apbest

Post Number: 616
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - 12:22 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

by edit the penobscot article I meant I deleted the claim about its demolishing, not authored it originally
Top of pageBottom of page

Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok

Post Number: 5146
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - 1:03 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I would like to see what is behind those newer facades of the buildings on the rest of the Lafayette block. There could be some real gems there, based on some old original photos by Hornwrecker and others.
Top of pageBottom of page

Royce
Member
Username: Royce

Post Number: 2358
Registered: 07-2004
Posted on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - 1:59 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It would be a coup if the Holiday Inn Express and the developer of the Lafayette Building could share in the cost of building a parking deck on the lot in front of the court house. From what I've heard from someone on this forum is that the U.S Courthouse is holding up any possible parking structure being built across from it. Too bad, that surface parking lot begs for a deck to make use for more parking spaces.
Top of pageBottom of page

Dnvn522
Member
Username: Dnvn522

Post Number: 266
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - 10:44 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

But they can really cram the cars in next to the Lafayette....



Top of pageBottom of page

Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed

Post Number: 1412
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - 10:54 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Doesn't the Penobscot have one of the highest occupancy rates in the city?
Top of pageBottom of page

Rbdetsport
Member
Username: Rbdetsport

Post Number: 375
Registered: 11-2005
Posted on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - 12:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I don't want any garages built until any garage developer and the city can realize how successful the Griswold is. Inorder for the Lafayette to be developed and to give more parking available to the Court House and Holiday Inn Express, I would like to see a 6-story Garage covering the entire open area of the block and 14-stories of residential on top. But that would be built after the Griswold and BC are complete so that we get a top quality project.

(Message edited by rbdetsport on August 21, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Mdoyle
Member
Username: Mdoyle

Post Number: 180
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - 12:37 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Gistok, I also wonder if there are any remains of the old facades behind the horrid slabs of granite that were meant to "modernize" the buildings.
Top of pageBottom of page

Kenp
Member
Username: Kenp

Post Number: 727
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - 12:58 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Top of pageBottom of page

Charlottepaul
Member
Username: Charlottepaul

Post Number: 1484
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - 1:12 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yikes! Looks like ground pavers stuck over the real facade of the building!
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 3066
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - 1:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I think I just threw up a little in my mouth!
Top of pageBottom of page

Danny
Member
Username: Danny

Post Number: 6371
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - 1:34 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The Lafayette Building is NOT in the demo list yet. It's still in its PREMIER DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY list.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok

Post Number: 5148
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - 6:19 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thanks for the pic Kenp. That looks like a slab on the lower facade of the Lafayette Building itself, which indicates that the modernization done on those floors is more of an "add on" instead of a "rip out and replace" type of modernization... the kind that is reversible.

I'm hoping that the other buildings on the triangular corner of the block (the ones that look modernized) have similar "add ons".
Top of pageBottom of page

Billk
Member
Username: Billk

Post Number: 103
Registered: 09-2005
Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 12:57 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I would guess that the original facade is not in too good shape, that is why they covered it up.
Top of pageBottom of page

Kenp
Member
Username: Kenp

Post Number: 731
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 1:00 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I think the original facade was fine at the time of the change. It was an effort to change the look. Many other buildings had similar changes.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok

Post Number: 5155
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 2:26 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

You're right Kenp... the United Artists is another example of such a modernization. The lower floors of that building once had Roman arched windows over the 2nd floor, with Corinthian Column pilasters along the front. They did a similar treatment to the lower floors of the UA that they did to the Lafayette Building... both ironically C. Howard Crane designed buildings.

In a similar vein many movie palaces were modernized in later decades, the Adams Theatre auditorium being one example (luckily it was the least ornate of the downtown palaces).

Theatre owners across the country used to proudly boast back in the 1950's... "look at all the trouble we went thru so you won't have to look at all that old stuff anymore!"

The least destructive theatre modernizations involved adding drapery... preservationist's preferred method. But that was not always the case. Sometimes modernization (such as the Fisher) was a complete transformation that removed the entire old plaster shell of a theatre and replaced it with a modern installation.

And it looks like the least intrusive building exterior modernization appears to be what they did to the Lafayette Building (new materials layered over old). It's hard to say what's under the United Artists remodeling.

In some cases building remodeling were much more destructive of old facades. One that comes to mind is the Boulevard Building on the NE corner of Woodward and E. Grand Blvd. The original Albert Kahn facade appears to have been stripped off. At least parts of it were, since the original had tall windows spaced apart from each other with white terra cotta, while since the modernization the windows are long continuous bands of shorter windows.

Some other downtown buildings had their exteriors changed. The David Whitney and Michigan Mutual (former Stroh HQ) on GCP had a lot of building ornament removed and quite a bit of exterior remodeling done (whereas on the UA and Lafayette the remodeling was limited to the first few floors).

The David Whitney and Michigan Mutual Buildings look much different today than they did in the 1920's. It explains why people who see the more modern David Whitney exterior are then so surprised by the ornate 4 story (unmodernized) grand lobby.

The change were less drastic on the Broderick, where mainly the very top of the building had its' cornice and pendiment removed (it shows that something is lacking at the top).

Even the former Statler had the classic Grecian Urns and balustrade removed along the roofline decades before it closed in the 1970's.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 3070
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 2:32 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thanks for the elaboration, Gistok! Well done!

It's worthwhile to note that a lot of these types of "improvements" happened all throughout the U.S. in the postwar era. At the time, the thinking was that ornamentation and formality were "old" concepts that had no place in a modern and streamlined society. The facade overlays were a misguided attempt to make the urban buildings resemble the look of the new-fangled and *modern* suburban strip malls.
Top of pageBottom of page

Charlottepaul
Member
Username: Charlottepaul

Post Number: 1488
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 9:25 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Some visual examples:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/s nweb/119154683/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/s nweb/205317734/
Top of pageBottom of page

Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok

Post Number: 5160
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 1:52 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thanks Dan. Yes the quantity of buildings that were modernized nationwide is long and heartbreaking, and as you said "misguided". Many fine older buildings are now a hodgepodge of styles.

One of the ironies here is that many of the building updates appear more "dated" than the originals, had they remained unchanged.

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.