 
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 3383
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 01, 2007 - 3:31 pm: |    |
^^^And that helps Detroit how? |
Oakmangirl
Member
Username: Oakmangirl
Post Number: 451
Registered: 08-2007
| | Posted on Monday, October 01, 2007 - 3:41 pm: | |
Again, instead of attacking one another...does anyone know why the zoning laws are so lax here? I thought businesses partly funded parking, but since we're lacking businesses; who is funding the parking frenzy? |
Track75
Member
Username: Track75
Post Number: 2611
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 01, 2007 - 3:46 pm: | |
Surface parking is currently the highest and best use for those parcels. When that changes you'll see something more valuable there. |
Ndavies
Member
Username: Ndavies
Post Number: 2786
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 01, 2007 - 3:51 pm: | |
quote:^^^And that helps Detroit how?
Don't know, don't care. And neither does 90% of real estate investors. That's where you make the fatal mistake Dan. You keep looking at some mythical reason as to why buildings should be saved. Too much emotion not enough economic realism. The only reason that matters to a successful developer is the profit.
I'll take the money I get out of the pockets of people buying at the currently hot fringe and reinvest it into the next market I think I can make money. At the moment I think I can do that in Detroit. With the money I earn I can buy and tear down useless old buildings in the city. I can also invest in building that can be brought back and made profitable. This can create wealth on both ends.
You can't sell things people aren't willing to buy yet.
Dan it's simple, Buy low, sell high. You can only do that if you buy product that is not currently in demand to sell later when the market conditions change. The challenge comes with being able to pick the product that's about to go from being out of favor into something that is in favor.
(Message edited by ndavies on October 01, 2007) |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 3385
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 01, 2007 - 3:57 pm: | |
Ndavies, thanks for reminding me why I left. I don't expect investors to be altruistic, but WOW!
I'm speechless. I suppose my only question is what kind of magical changes you guys are holding out for in order for the paradigm to shift? Or are you always going to be purely exploitative?
I guess I can't blame you guys. The State of Michigan makes it so that suburban city-killing sprawl is the norm, even if populations are static. |
Oakmangirl
Member
Username: Oakmangirl
Post Number: 452
Registered: 08-2007
| | Posted on Monday, October 01, 2007 - 4:06 pm: | |
"The only reason that matters to a successful developer is the profit."
Look at many other cities; developers have the keen sense and integrity to see profit in preservation. They don't have to be mutually exclusive... |
Ndavies
Member
Username: Ndavies
Post Number: 2787
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 01, 2007 - 4:17 pm: | |
True, But we do not live in those other cities. We live in Detroit. We have people bitching about paying $200 a Sq Ft for loft properties.
I have bad news for them. This is what it costs if the developer needs to make a profit. Developers need to make a profit. The Detroit market is not in a state where it can charge that price so it can absorb all the buildings on the market.
That $200 /Sq.Ft. would be a bargain basement price in any other of those "Many Cities". I couldn't afford to build my loft in any other of those many cities. It would be well out of my price range.
If the market was there to support the rehab of the buildings it would happen. There are plenty of people trying. If the market was there the buildings wouldn't be empty. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 3388
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 01, 2007 - 4:28 pm: | |
Ndavies, I understand the economics behind it. But why is the city spending public money on pointless demolition instead of putting that money toward creating a viable market? It's like taking a shotgun and blasting off your foot because you have a blister on your toe. |
3rdworldcity
Member
Username: 3rdworldcity
Post Number: 929
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 01, 2007 - 4:59 pm: | |
Oakmangirl:You say: "other cities...developers have the keen sense and integrity to see profit in preservation." You're 100% correct (except for the reference to "integrity" which is meaningless in this context.)There's plenty of those people in Detroit, when you imply there aren't. E.G., Ilitch, Forbes and dozens of others who are putting high risk dollars into projects like the B-C, Ft. Shelby, loft buildings galore ad infinitum. I was one of those at one time. Dan, hope you read this.
Dan: I'm one of the biggest Detroit critics around. However, I readily admit that there is much redevelopment going on here and has been for years. True, I'd like to see more developments justifying conventional financing rather than tax sheltered and supported ones, but the point is much is being done here. I think people here know you don't have any idea what's going on and that's why so many of us treat you with disdain.
By the way, I don't know Ndavies or until just now knew he is a developer or has any real estate interests. It's clear he has a good understanding of the business, but one doesn't have to be a real estate developer to understand what he's talking about. It's just plain simple common sense.
You, Dan, state that you don't have to be a real estate developer to have an opinion. Of course not; opinions are like assholes - everybody has them. The point is that your opinions are not only based on a lack of how the real world operates, they aren't supported by any common sense whatsoever.
You state that guys like Track and Ndavies "have it all figured out and that's why Detroit is in the shape it's in." What juvenile nonsense. There are many, many reasons why Detroit today is not what it was 30 years ago. Professorscott is a very bright person based on his posts and he has set forth some reasons above (not that I agree with them - I think they're possible causes among many and I don't agree with all of them.) However, whether one agrees or not, his comments are well thought out and have to respected because common sense tells you that he may very well be correct on each of his points even though I and others may not have the knowledge to specifically refute them.
Finally, Dan, you state that every time someone doesn't agree with you they resort to personal attacks. That's not the reason people attack you. You have to read all these posts with an open mind and figure that out for yourself why that you are not taken seriously. For example, read what Track75 has to say and you should take him seriously. Frankly, I'm guilty of many snide responses, and I apologise. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 3392
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 01, 2007 - 5:24 pm: | |
3rdworld, I know there's quite a bit going on in Detroit compared to even the mid-1990s (I've witnessed it myself), but frankly, the amount of development is VERY limited and miniscule compared to what's happening elsewhere. You're talking an area of what--5 square miles at best? That's a pittance. The city-destroying suburbanization still continues unabated, other than by the sub-prime mortgage crisis.
At some point, the status quo needs to change. People need to step forward to stop the egregious waste of public dollars earmarked toward destroying the city. The plethora of parking everywhere is symptomatic of this failure to look forward.
Maybe you think I'm not living in reality. In your reality, perhaps not. In the national scheme of things, however, Detroit is the exception and not the rule. |
Oakmangirl
Member
Username: Oakmangirl
Post Number: 453
Registered: 08-2007
| | Posted on Monday, October 01, 2007 - 5:52 pm: | |
There's plenty of those people in Detroit, when you imply there aren't. E.G., Ilitch, Forbes and dozens of others who are putting high risk dollars into projects like the B-C, Ft. Shelby, loft buildings galore ad infinitum. I was one of those at one time.
3rdworld,
I didn't mean to imply otherwise; it's truly not all on the shoulders of developers (I value those few key developers' commitment to rehab). It's clearly a mindset here of not valuing the history of our built environment from government down to apathetic citizens. We idolize the automobile at the expense of nearly all else. |
Ndavies
Member
Username: Ndavies
Post Number: 2788
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 01, 2007 - 7:09 pm: | |
quote: But why is the city spending public money on pointless demolition instead of putting that money toward creating a viable market? It's like taking a shotgun and blasting off your foot because you have a blister on your toe.
Well Dan, I guess that's where you and I differ in opinion. I believe demolition is helping create a viable in balance market. It is removing the surplus supply.
Reducing available units makes the remaining gems more valuable.
I believe putting heavy incentives to increase supply actually destroys the businesses already there. Look at the issues the building of the ren-cen caused. Instead of bringing in new business, cannibalized the CBD office market. More recently the Earnst & Young building caused tenant retention issues in neighboring buildings. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 3393
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 01, 2007 - 7:36 pm: | |
I don't totally disagree, but is a property like the Whitney Building actually considered part of the supply if it's sitting there vacant?
In the meantime, the City is simply spending a ton of money on demolishing buildings, with little in the way of results. How much have rents increased in the past ten years under this policy of "decreasing supply"? When was the last time an empty lot was developed because the supply decreased? We were told that demolition of the Hudson's building would spur development. The same thing was reiterated with the Statler-Hilton. I'm convinced the City doesn't truly have a long-range plan for development--they're just going through things willy-nilly. You know as well as I do that guesswork is no basis for creating investment opportunities.
If you've read Jane Jacobs, then you know that a healthy supply of older buildings is always going to be necessary. Why? Because not everyone is looking for Class A space. Yes, at the present moment (one single data point) there is a lack of demand. What can be done to foster more demand, though? I hardly think more parking lots is the answer--Detroit already has two-thirds of its downtown real estate dedicated to automobile usage.
I tend to think the larger problem is that the City of Detroit is economically isolated from the rest of its own metropolitan area. Yes, unemployment in the state is high (skewed by high unemployment rates in the City of Detroit). However, that still means 92.5% of people in Michigan are gainfully employed. More connectivity needs to be established to the areas that are "successful", like the office centers in Troy and Southfield, as well as Ann Arbor. If people in the urban core can get to jobs in these areas, they will have money to spend at potential businesses in their neighborhoods, which would prompt investors to open shop. I argue that it's these inefficiencies that are killing the region.
On the other hand, it's no secret that young people leave Michigan for more vibrant cities. What is Detroit doing to create a more welcoming environment for young professionals? The literature shows that businesses locate where they can find the talent. What's the strategy for retaining talent in Detroit? There are some hardy urban pioneers, as well as life-long residents, but given a choice between living among parking lots, why would a rational person choose to pay a higher cost of living when he could live in the suburbs (or another area altogether)? |
Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw
Post Number: 3723
Registered: 02-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 01, 2007 - 11:08 pm: | |
Danindc's last paragraph is so key. The focus has to be on making Detroit an amazing place to LIVE if this entire region is going to have any sort of prosperity in the future.
Having ample downtown parking is really not a selling point for living in Detroit. |
Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 815
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Monday, October 01, 2007 - 11:59 pm: | |
Danindc made an excellent point, one which we should look at and ponder:
"On the other hand, it's no secret that young people leave Michigan for more vibrant cities."
I was involved in helping with some recreation planning in one of the southeast Michigan counties, and I got to meet one of the professionals who do the typical 150 page documents you have to deal with on these projects.
Let's call it "X County" to be fair. Could be any one of them. This professional was doing a presentation, and one slide had to do with planning recreation for different demographic groups. He pointed out on the slide, no shock, just pointing it out, that (paraphrasing) "we don't have to spend a lot of time and energy planning for the 18 to 34 year old population because as you can see from the chart there are very few people in that age group in X County. They go away to college and don't return."
And he was just pointing out a fact, something obvious that we all already knew. No discussion ensued; it was just a fact.
Based on that: our region is already dead. How do we bring it back to life? |
3rdworldcity
Member
Username: 3rdworldcity
Post Number: 930
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 02, 2007 - 3:44 pm: | |
Danindc: you have stated several times here that the City "is spending tons of money on demolishing buildings." Aside from the abandoned SF home demolition program, give us several (or one) instance of city money going for building demolition; tell us about all you're aware of (project, cost etc.)
You also allege that demolition of buildings by the City (when no development of the site is locked in) is "like taking a shotgun and blasting off your foot because you have a blister on you toe." Terrible analogy. It would be more appropriate to compare the process to removing a life threatening late stage cancer, not a blister.
One of the reasons (among many) there are so few major conventional developments downtown is because there are so many derelict, abandoned buildings, many owned by the City. Those buildings are open and vandalized, occupied by derelicts, eyesores, a hinderance to area development and a prime reducer of property values in the vicinity where they are located. Case in point is the Statler.
No development has been announced on the site because there is no market for it. However, if a market develops, the site will be ready and waiting. No developer is going to wait 18+ months to tear it down once a decision has been made to build downtown.
One of my best friends is the most experienced mortgage banker in the area, and also on the board of a bank specializing in real estate lending. His position is that none of his national lenders will consider Detroit because of the number of vacant, abandoned buildings downtown, and they're not about to risk their money on a project that's within view of such dangerous eyesores. They all should be torn down, if for no other reason than to create pocket parks. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 3402
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 02, 2007 - 4:11 pm: | |
Hudsons, Madison-Lenox, Tuller Hotel, among others. Do I really need to go on with the obvious?
quote:No development has been announced on the site because there is no market for it. However, if a market develops, the site will be ready and waiting. No developer is going to wait 18+ months to tear it down once a decision has been made to build downtown.
Your premise is completely flawed. You presume that demolition is eventually necessary. Where does preservation fall into your plans, if at all? Perhaps that's why Detroit looks like a third world city? Business doesn't look too fondly on places that destroy themselves as havens of sound investment.
Again--I maintain that rampant demolition has failed to produce a healthier market in Detroit over the past ten years, even with historically low interest rates. You have produced ZERO evidence to the contrary. ARE RENTS ANY HIGHER?
quote:One of my best friends is the most experienced mortgage banker in the area, and also on the board of a bank specializing in real estate lending. His position is that none of his national lenders will consider Detroit because of the number of vacant, abandoned buildings downtown, and they're not about to risk their money on a project that's within view of such dangerous eyesores. They all should be torn down, if for no other reason than to create pocket parks.
This is short-sighted -policy at best. Other cities have had fantastic success rebuilding themselves without resorting to failed 1960's-era Urban Removal techniques. Find out what they did, and stop making excuses. Developers found lenders in former hellholes on the East Coast and in Chicago. Maybe you're just talking to bankers who are equally myopic as yourself?
Nobody--especially young people with options (and incomes)--wants to live amongst a sea of asphalt lots. That attitude MUST change. I keep mentioning young people because the middle-aged folks already have the plastic-fantastic Troys and Sterling Heights subdivisions and strip malls they've always dreamed of. The current generation coming-of-age is going to--and must--resuscitate our urban environments to keep our nation competitive.
Your backward methodology has been tried and failed many times over. The abject failure to respond positively to the current scenario is killing Detroit, and the worst part is, you don't even realize it. |
Masterblaster
Member
Username: Masterblaster
Post Number: 90
Registered: 03-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 02, 2007 - 5:01 pm: | |
DaninDC knows whats up!
Detroit needs to retain as much as possible ALL of its old classical buildings that aren't structurally deficient.
This is just one way it can distinguish itself (in a good way) from the booming Sunbelt cities of Dallas, Phoenix, and the like. Unlike those aforementioned cities, when you walk past those beautiful old structures, you have a sense that you are in a place of history, character, and uniqueness.
Alot of people value that. That's why they are moving back to Washington, DC and Saint Louis.
This can be a selling point for Detroit as well!
If you tear down all the old buildings, then you diminish the uniqueness the distinguishes itself from those booming modern cities.
Detroit has enough factors against its revival - the cold weather, the dismal economy, lack of rapid transit.
Its older building stock should be a PLUS. They should be mothballed, secured, every single opening boarded up, security system installed, a new roof put on them. Let them sit until the market improves. The problem is that they are often not secured adequately, thus they are broken into, pillaged, and vandalized. A better effort needs to be undertaken to board them all up adequately and to prevent further decay. |
Eric
Member
Username: Eric
Post Number: 950
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 02, 2007 - 8:23 pm: | |
Ultimately, this issue boils down to the regions lack of effective mass transit. Building owners have little choice ,but to provide parking if they want to compete with suburban office parks for tenants. Those that can't provide parking add to their struggles in an already weak market. With the inflated demand for parking this makes struggling buildings in a easy targets for stronger ones. The Dime Bldg's demolition of the Grand Truck Bldg to expand it's garage is a perfect example. Why renovate a building with little hope for reuse when you can sell for or operate the land as parking?
quote:Again--I maintain that rampant demolition has failed to produce a healthier market in Detroit over the past ten years, even with historically low interest rates. You have produced ZERO evidence to the contrary. ARE RENTS ANY HIGHER?
I can't say I disagree, the problem is you offer few practical solutions. There seems to be barely enough money for these demolitions, let alone for years of mothballing. What recourse is there for the city when it can't afford years of upkeep? Was the city just supposed to let the Statler, Hudson's and Tuller sit around until there's absolutely no hope for reuse? |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 3411
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 02, 2007 - 10:33 pm: | |
Eric, you raise a good point regarding demolishing properties--one that has been discussed on other threads. I'm of the opinion the City should not play a direct role in development. Any properties they've come to own through seizure or forfeiture should be unloaded as quickly as possible. Given the current economic climate, though, it's going to be that much tougher to do than it was just five years ago.
Demolition is still a monstrous expenditure, though, especially when compared to mothballing (or "caretaker" status). What burns me up, though, is an instance where public funds are given to a billionaire like Mike Ilitch to create--more parking! The City loses on two counts, and Ilitch wins on two. How responsible is that?
I know that the massive amount of parking stems directly from a lack of a viable mass transit system. I also know that I've said that until I've been blue in the face, so I don't think I need to go on about that much anymore. At least SEMCOG and Kwame are taking baby steps in the right direction, but they really need to focus on a long-term plan, like the State of Maryland recently released last week with respect to Baltimore and the DC suburbs. I would hope that Detroit would embark on something more ambitious, but you have to start somewhere, I suppose. But hey--if Los Angeles can do it, Detroit *definitely* can.
I think it's important to remember that the provision of parking is a monstrous undertaking that impedes development. When you have to spend $20,000 per space, which will only be occupied for a fraction of the time, that makes projects much less viable from the get-go--especially in a market with relatively high vacancy rates and low land values.
Honestly, I think it would behoove the City of Detroit to look at what Bob Stark and Scott Wolstein are doing with a lot of the parking lots in downtown Cleveland. I'm sure the administration could get a couple/few parties on board for a similar undertaking. |
Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 827
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 03, 2007 - 2:04 am: | |
OK Dan, I'll bite: What are Bob Stark and Scott Wolstein doing with a lot of the parking lots in downtown Cleveland?
Masterblaster, you are glossing over a huge problem. You said:
"Its older building stock should be a PLUS. They should be mothballed, secured, every single opening boarded up, security system installed, a new roof put on them."
You used the passive tense there: "they should be mothballed, they should be secured", etc. Who is the actor in the sentence? Who should mothball and secure these buildings? The broke-ass City or some other person? Name him. We don't have people with sufficient resources and interest to do this. |
Erikd
Member
Username: Erikd
Post Number: 901
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 04, 2007 - 12:10 am: | |
quote:Downtown is one big parking lot because the City of Detroit keeps spending money to demolish buildings and create new parking lots.
Dan,
Your constant claims that the city is spending a ton of money to demolish buildings and create parking lots are wildly exaggerated and have little factual basis.
quote:The City is simply spending a ton of money on demolishing buildings, with little in the way of results. How much have rents increased in the past ten years under this policy of "decreasing supply"? When was the last time an empty lot was developed because the supply decreased? We were told that demolition of the Hudson's building would spur development. The same thing was reiterated with the Statler-Hilton. I'm convinced the City doesn't truly have a long-range plan for development--they're just going through things willy-nilly.
Since the Hudson's demolition, every adjacent block has seen significant redevelopment. The blocks to the southeast and south went from vacant to occupied by Compuware. The block to the southwest had a couple vacant buildings and a vacant lot replaced with the new garage/retail development for the 1001 Woodward building. The blocks to the west and northwest were filled with a row of vacant buildings, and five of them were redeveloped in the Merchant's Row project. There are two other buildings on these blocks also undergoing redevelopment.
The block to the north also had 3 buildings redeveloped into new retail-residential. The block to the northeast was an ugly surface parking lot, and it has been replaced with a fabulous new YMCA. The block to the east is the old Downtown Library, and it was completely restored a few years after the Hudson's demolition.
After demolition, the Hudson block was dug out, and a new underground parking structure was constructed with supports for a new building. The city has been shopping this site to developers, such as Quicken Loans/Rock Financial. |
Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard
Post Number: 4181
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 04, 2007 - 12:30 am: | |
There's a construction engineering firm (based in DC, BTW) that specializes in restoration, among other things. However, I just searched their entire site with the entry Detroit but didn't score any hits. Maybe somebody in DC could convince this firm to enter the Detroit area.
I know that firms like this make their living doing such work on infrastructure--wherever have I heard that term time and time again?, instead of coming up with the necessary funding. So, getting any firms like this to work on a pro bono basis might be a very tough sell.
(Message edited by LivernoisYard on October 04, 2007) |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 3419
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 04, 2007 - 10:43 am: | |
^^^I'm not sure if your post is tongue-in-cheek or what. Would you like me to respond? |
Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard
Post Number: 4184
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 04, 2007 - 2:24 pm: | |
Scott: Stark and Wolstein are developing downtown Cleveland--supposedly big time. Perhaps, they might even be negotiating with one or more general contractors for working on the infrastructure. Who knows? Maybe a firm in VA, perhaps? |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 3421
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 04, 2007 - 2:30 pm: | |
LY,
It's obvious you're trying to be an ass. I have no professional self-interest to promote in either Cleveland or Detroit at this time. My comments on these forums have always reflected my personal opinions and convictions, and do not reflect upon my employer.
Not everyone is as selfish as you'd like to think they are. |
Expatriot
Member
Username: Expatriot
Post Number: 4
Registered: 09-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, October 04, 2007 - 7:05 pm: | |
"Detroit already has two-thirds of its downtown real estate dedicated to automobile usage".
Danindc, is this a casual observation or a hard stat? If the latter, please let me know the source because I'm looking for similar ones regarding the percentage of land utilized for car infrastucture in the city. (Detroit has the most massive new garages I have ever seen) Also, Hornwrecker posted a terrific map for which I would like to know the source of as well. Thanks. |
Hornwrecker
Member
Username: Hornwrecker
Post Number: 1903
Registered: 04-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 04, 2007 - 7:35 pm: | |
It's from a larger resolution map, labelled 1930sWolverinebackCBD.jpeg, that used to be available on the City of Detroit's website (couldn't find it anymore when I just checked it).
I marked all the labelled lots, and cross checked it with other maps I have. I suppose I should add in the parking structure under GCP, but don't know the date of its construction. |
3rdworldcity
Member
Username: 3rdworldcity
Post Number: 935
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Friday, October 05, 2007 - 5:38 pm: | |
Expatriot: Dan/dc says 2/3 of Detroit is dedicated to parking and you ask him if that's a casual observation or a hard stat. It's neither. He just makes this stuff up as he goes along.
Erikd: Thanks for calling Dan/dc on his preposterous "ton of money" BS.
Danindc: I suggested that you let us know how Detroit has spent a "ton of money" on demolishing buildings. You mentioned three, Hudson's, the Tuller Hotel, and the the M-L. Correct on two (tear down at a cost of possibly $20,000,000 during the last 15 years.) Wrong on the M-L because that money was a loan to the Ilitch's. How about giving us some more examples? And, maybe you should quantify what you believe a "ton" of money is.
You claim my premise is flawed. First, you don't understand my "premise" in the first place. You state that I "presume demolition is eventually necessary." Well, when you have buildings such as Hudson's, the S-H, Madison-Lennox and many others sitting vacant and vandalized, unsecured and unsecurable, existing as public nuisances and dangerous to the public (such as the United Artists with bricks cascading down on the sidewalks), for many years, I'd say they should be torn down. All of these buildings had many vocal objectors to demolition, but not enough money between them to buy those gems themselves and rehab them. Most of those buildings were the subject of RFPs for renovation with no takers. Finally they significantly reduced property values in the area. Guys like you who don't live here, sitting in your ivory towers, spout off about your views (totally divorced from reality)about how we should do things. Get real.
You ask: "Where does preservation fall into your plans?" Nowhere. I have been involved in a $2 million dollar historic renovation, but it made sense economically to do so. I think it makes sense for owners of so called "historic" buildings (which are merely old) to consider the various uses to which they may be adapted, and the historic financing available, but if in that owner's view nothing is economical, then they ought to offer to sell them to preservationists to do with what they wish (fat chance of them buying them.) After that, tear them down and build something useful, including a parking lot if there's demand for parking. When's the last time you invested your money in a historic preservation deal? We'll know if you're telling the truth.
You state that "Business doesn't look too fondly on places that destroy themselves as havens of sound investment." That may be the most ridiculous statement you've ever posted. You have proven you know nothing about business or sound investment. At least what constitutes those concepts in Detroit. You obviously believe that businesses prefer to develop next door to places like the S-H, Hudson's, and other junk buildings rather than in the vicinity of other vibrant new developments. You have no clue. It's amazing to me that more people don't smother you with derision for statements like that.
You say "Nobody wants to live among a sea of asphalt lots." Really? Detroit is enjoying an influx of people moving downtown. Talk to any loft/condo/att developer and they will tell you the primary concern of these folks is PARKING. Duh. You think they would prefer to live in the shadow of the the S-H et al. Amazing.
I can't believe I waste so much of my time responding to your nonsensical crap. |
Expatriot
Member
Username: Expatriot
Post Number: 10
Registered: 09-2007
| | Posted on Friday, October 05, 2007 - 8:13 pm: | |
What is the average daily parking rate for commuters in all of these massive new garages that seem to be springing up all over downtown?
Does anyone know what the tallest one is? It seems like I counted a 12 story one on Woodward the last time I visited. If you had to park on the top floor it would probably add 20 minutes to your commute just traversing the ramps. |
Oldoak
Member
Username: Oldoak
Post Number: 23
Registered: 09-2007
| | Posted on Friday, October 05, 2007 - 10:55 pm: | |
Quote:
They all should be torn down, if for no other reason than to create pocket parks.
Comment: How can we make sure they don't turn into car parks? |
Erikd
Member
Username: Erikd
Post Number: 904
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 07, 2007 - 5:31 am: | |
3rdwoldcity,
I strongly disagree with many of the assertions in your last post. To be sure, some of the statements made by DaninDC are off-base and extreme, but he also makes a number of very good points. I think it unwise to completely dismiss every one of his positions, and advocate the absolute opposite. As with most things in life, the real answer lies somewhere in between the two extremes.
quote:You state that "Business doesn't look too fondly on places that destroy themselves as havens of sound investment."....You obviously believe that businesses prefer to develop next door to places like the S-H, Hudson's, and other junk buildings rather than in the vicinity of other vibrant new developments.
This statement showcases everything that is wrong about taking extreme positions on this issue.
Of course, it is not realistic to restore or preserve every single old building in the city. However, it is obvious that many historic buildings are assets, and offer development opportunities that would not exist without them.
It is not realistic to save all the old vacant buildings in Detroit, but it would be stupid to tear them all down.
The Statler and Hudson's buildings were unlikely to ever be redeveloped, mostly due to the layout and scale of the buildings, which made them poor candidates for adaptive re-use. As much as I hate to see them go, it is really the best decision.
The Book Cadillac, Fort Shelby, Kales, and dozens of other long-vacant historic downtown buildings, now restored, stand as absolute proof that there is great value in Detroit's historic buildings.
If the Book Cadillac had been demolished to make way for a parking lot, there no way a five-star hotel and million-dollar condos would happen on that site.
quote:You say "Nobody wants to live among a sea of asphalt lots." Really? Detroit is enjoying an influx of people moving downtown. Talk to any loft/condo/att developer and they will tell you the primary concern of these folks is PARKING. Duh. You think they would prefer to live in the shadow of the the S-H et al. Amazing.
If you interpret the influx of people moving downtown as some kind of tacit approval for asphalt parking lots, you must be delusional. In addition to the large number of asphalt parking lots, downtown Detroit also features a lack of retail, and panhandlers begging for change.
People are not moving downtown because they like asphalt parking lots or panhandlers, they are moving downtown DESPITE these things. If the people moving into downtown Detroit wanted to live in a sea of asphalt parking lots, they could get a similar condo or apartment in the suburbs, and not have to pay the higher taxes and insurance rates.
---------
In response to your statement about loft/condo developers needing parking, I completely agree. Nobody wants to buy a downtown condo without a place to park their car, but downtown condo buyers don't want their building surrounded by 10 acres of parking lots either. Fortunately, this doesn't have to be an either-or situation, because there are a number of win-win solutions:
At the Book-Cadillac, the parking will be located in a new building, with retail on the ground floor, and condos above. At the Kales Building, the parking needs were met by connecting the building with the existing city garage located under GCP.
At the Merchant's Row development, a small building on the end of the block was replaced with an innovative elevator/garage structure featuring ground floor retail. The developers of the Vinton Building solved their parking needs by converting the existing basement into a garage, with a car lift and access through the alley.
--------
There are many opportunities for us to overcome the challenges that we face, and I am quite disappointed by the dogmatic attitudes, and total disregard for different viewpoints displayed on this thread. |
Dougw
Member
Username: Dougw
Post Number: 1934
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 07, 2007 - 3:47 pm: | |
I was about to write a longer post, but Erikd pretty much wrote what I was going to say. Well said!
As a property owner in the city (though not downtown), if I were moving into a downtown loft, I'd rather live next to an empty building such as the David Whitney than have it torn down for a surface lot. Depends on the situation, though.
As to Danindc's claim that 2/3 of downtown is devoted to car usage, that sounds a little high but I wouldn't rule it out. You could probably figure it out using a Google map of the CBD and measuring the areas of various parking lots/garages versus other buildings. I'd guess more like 50%. However, if you included roadway in the formula, it would be higher.
On the "bright" side, downtown Toledo has a higher proportion of surface lots than Detroit.  |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 3424
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 07, 2007 - 4:41 pm: | |
quote:"Detroit already has two-thirds of its downtown real estate dedicated to automobile usage".
Danindc, is this a casual observation or a hard stat? If the latter, please let me know the source because I'm looking for similar ones regarding the percentage of land utilized for car infrastucture in the city. (Detroit has the most massive new garages I have ever seen) Also, Hornwrecker posted a terrific map for which I would like to know the source of as well. Thanks.
This is what I've read--I believe in one of Jim Kunstler's books (Geography of Nowhere?). My books are in storage right now, so I can't check. Note, however:
quote:A parking study conducted in California stated that about 59 percent of the ground area in Los Angeles’ central business district (CBD) in 1960 was devoted to streets and parking, with about 35 percent for roads, streets, alleys, and sidewalks, and 24 percent for parking lots and garages not included in buildings with other purposes. During roughly the same period, acreage devoted to streets and parking in other urban cores was similar in scale or slightly less. In Detroit (1953), streets and parking made up 49.5 percent of the central city; in Chicago (1956), 40.7 percent; in Minneapolis (1958), 48.3 percent; Nashville (1959), 39 percent; and in Dallas (1961), 41.4 percent.
http://www.autolife.umd.umich. edu/Environment/E_Casestudy/E_ casestudy2.htm
I hardly think anyone would argue that Detroit is devoting less CBD acreage to automobile usage today than in 1953, so the 2/3 figure doesn't seem far off. |
Expatriot
Member
Username: Expatriot
Post Number: 11
Registered: 09-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 09, 2007 - 8:25 pm: | |
It is unfortunate that all of these new garages are being built with slanted floors. It won't make them easy to convert to anything else one peak oil makes them no longer necessary for automobile storage. |
Rhymeswithrawk
Member
Username: Rhymeswithrawk
Post Number: 961
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 6:15 am: | |
The most outrageous example of this is the simply ridiculously huge surface lot between Monroe and Cadillac Square, where the Kamper-designed Real Estate Exchange Building (aka the Cadillac Square Building) stood. A downtown city center that has a parking lot the size of a football field? Outrageous. The tower never should have been leveled, but I mean COME ON. You're next to Compuware, the First National Bank Building, Compuware, One Kennedy Square, the Penobscot, The Guardian, the frickin' Municipal Building, and amid all of this is an asphalt sea. Blech. |
|
New threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.