 
Rocket_city
Member
Username: Rocket_city
Post Number: 500
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 7:57 pm: |    |
Wow! I never thought I'd live to see this one. That was the first building on Broadway that I noticed had a major issue w/ a masking. I'll have to swing by tomorrow. Thanks for bringing this to attention!  |
Dan
Member
Username: Dan
Post Number: 1474
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 8:19 pm: | |
I think it is safe to say that the reason this type of "modernization" was so prevalent was a combination of both Skulker's economic argument and danindc's modernization argument.
Don't forget this was done across the country, so it’s not just a Detroit economic issue, though I am sure that similar economic woes can be applied to many other cities.
I have personally worked on a building that was covered in this manner, and had marble ornamentation that was smashed off flush with the brick to get the aluminum wrap over the facade. Upon inspection I do not believe there was any pig iron used, it was strictly a masonry installation. So in that case the building was covered for the sake of "modernization."
That stretch of Broadway has some awesome architecture, its great to see another cool façade joining the pack. I often wondered what was behind that metal.
Does anyone know if this is a result of one of the city’s façade grants? |
Charlottepaul
Member
Username: Charlottepaul
Post Number: 2129
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 8:28 pm: | |
Seems to me that the top level (3) was bigger than the second level. Does it run over into the next building to the right? |
Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok
Post Number: 5880
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 9:56 pm: | |
Thanks for the additional info Dan and Dan!
As has been stated... this is not a Detroit only phenomenon.
...now just wondering what other aluminum facades around the city are hiding some hidden gems. I bet that the block with the American and National Coney Islands has some beauties hidden under all that metal... |
Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner
Post Number: 1474
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 11:10 pm: | |
The National Coney Island??? You're showing your 'burb'ness! |
Diesel
Member
Username: Diesel
Post Number: 40
Registered: 01-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 11:42 pm: | |
I wonder if the facade work had anything to do with the renovation to the Lafer Building across the street? I know Mercier Development received funding to restore the facade of that building.
Either way this was one that bothered me for a while and is sure to look 100 times better without that nasty siding. |
Buddyinrichmond
Member
Username: Buddyinrichmond
Post Number: 256
Registered: 02-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 9:11 am: | |
Look like scrappers to me... |
Skulker
Member
Username: Skulker
Post Number: 3852
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 11:00 am: | |
quote:Lack of will to maintain one's property--especially when life and limb are at stake--is not a good excuse.
Will does not equal cash. That is a fact of life that seems to be conveniently forgotten when assessing others actions with old buildings.
I'd like to see the folks who complain about building owners have the "will" to leave their jobs and go buy the buildings and do it themselves. Where there's a will theres a way right? |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 3812
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 11:07 am: | |
quote:Will does not equal cash. That is a fact of life that seems to be conveniently forgotten when assessing others actions with old buildings.
I'd like to see the folks who complain about building owners have the "will" to leave their jobs and go buy the buildings and do it themselves. Where there's a will theres a way right?
If building owners don't have the cash to properly maintain their buildings, then they shouldn't own the building, plain and simple. There's such a thing as managing one's resources, and then there's public safety. Of course, it doesn't help when the City implicitly condones neglect by refusing to enforce building codes. Is it cheaper to maintain the building, or to get hit with a wrongful death lawsuit?
I'm sure glad Detroit has fine public servants like Skulker willing to risk the lives of its citizenry just so millionaire building owners can effectively practice their slumlording. |
Rjlj
Member
Username: Rjlj
Post Number: 437
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 11:12 am: | |
^^^ Agreed Skulker. |
Sturge
Member
Username: Sturge
Post Number: 174
Registered: 05-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 11:22 am: | |
How do you post pics anyway? There's no help page for these forums that I can find. |
Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 2358
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 11:22 am: | |
quote:Continue to sit your fat lazy michigan azz in front of your suburban computer
I'm really LOLin now. That comment was classic! |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 3813
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 11:24 am: | |
quote:How do you post pics anyway? There's no help page for these forums that I can find.
Go up to the menu bar above this thread, and click on the "help" button at the right end. |
Dialh4hipster
Member
Username: Dialh4hipster
Post Number: 2234
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 11:26 am: | |
Oh DaninDC, STFU. "Risk the lives of their citizenry," "millionaire slumlords." Whatever.
For anyone who doesn't feel like arguing about whether or not people should post pictures, or who thinks there might possibly have been multiple reasons why these facades were covered up, here is an update from earlier today.
For the record, I believe that building had a for sale sign on it not too long ago. I don't remember for sure if that was the one along there, but it's possible there are new owners. I don't think it had anything to do with the building across the street being renovated.
|
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 3814
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 11:33 am: | |
quote:Oh DaninDC, STFU. "Risk the lives of their citizenry," "millionaire slumlords." Whatever.
Maybe you'd prefer to forward that comment to the families of people who have been killed by facade elements falling from derelict buildings. I mean, building owners can't be bothered with nonsensical bullshit like building maintenance, right? If, God forbid, something ever hits you on the head, I'll be sure to tell you to "STFU".
I know a building owner who spent over $2 million the past 2 years because there was a very real danger of bricks falling off the facade and endangering pedestrians. Mind you, this building is only 30 years old. Were they happy about spending the money? No. Was the work necessary? Absolutely. |
Dialh4hipster
Member
Username: Dialh4hipster
Post Number: 2235
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 11:37 am: | |
Yep, all those people who have been killed.
To all normal people who care, I was chatting with my landlady and it appears this is the result of a facade improvement grant. And that building does not appear to be for sale although the owner has his eye on building next door.
Allegedly. |
Jfried
Member
Username: Jfried
Post Number: 1089
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 12:02 pm: | |
Dialh - the bldg had been for sale for a while. I looked into it a few weeks ago, but found that it just went under contract. Based on the listing price, I'm fairly certain whomever purchased the bldg got an amazing deal.
DaninDC - you need to get a clue. Skulkers whole point was that with limited resources this treatment is often the only option to "safely" maintain a facade. Where in the bldg code does it say anything about preservation of historic elements? It doesn't. Unfortunately, here in the USofA we have a thing called property rights. Unless a bldg is in a designated historic district a facade can be finished as the owner sees fit, as long as it meets code. Of course we would like to see every facade restored to it's original glory, but it's not always possible - if it was, there would be no blighted bldgs....anywhere. Not every bldg owner is a millionare, and most are doing their best with the limited resources they are working with. |
Skulker
Member
Username: Skulker
Post Number: 3853
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 12:10 pm: | |
quote:If building owners don't have the cash to properly maintain their buildings, then they shouldn't own the building, plain and simple.
That seems sensible. If a building owner does not have the cash on hand sufficient to keep a building in a pristine historic condition....because global economic forces larger than them are forcing rents down and aging structures have ever rising maintenance costs. They ought to sell the building at a significant loss (assuming they can find a buyer) or simply hand it to the City to deal with.
That seems like a great idea...oh but wait, where does the City get the money to maintain the building when the private market is unable? Oh I know! The magical money mine beneath the salt mines!
The reality is that many people don't have $2 million to restore the front of buildings and were forced into bad situations that resulted in the covering of the falling structural elements..as that was the only way to accomplish safety on their limited budgets. The other options were to sell to slumlords who would allow things to continue to crumble, or dump it on a cash strapped city through tax foreclosure.
Oh, and for those that live out of state, they might like to know that after nearly two decades of lobbying, the City Council finally relented and allowed the City to create its own blight court instead of relying on an overburdened county court system.
Their very real fear was that aggressive code enforcement could force marginal households into bankruptcy as tickets were issued for detached gutters etc. The nuance has been to try to go after the worst offenders without being sued for prejudicial persecution.
Interesting to see that the City, that obviously has no clue about the urban environment and certainly doesn't care about restoring buildings, is now helping to fund the renovation of yet another historic facade. This will be the 52nd historic facade repaired or improved through the DDA's facade improvement program in the last 36 months. Clearly, the City has no vision on this issue... |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 3815
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 12:12 pm: | |
quote:Skulkers whole point was that with limited resources this treatment is often the only option to "safely" maintain a facade. Where in the bldg code does it say anything about preservation of historic elements? It doesn't. Unfortunately, here in the USofA we have a thing called property rights. Unless a bldg is in a designated historic district a facade can be finished as the owner sees fit, as long as it meets code. Of course we would like to see every facade restored to it's original glory, but it's not always possible - if it was, there would be no blighted bldgs....anywhere. Not every bldg owner is a millionare, and most are doing their best with the limited resources they are working with.
Let's re-read Skulker's earlier comment:
quote:Or getting of the holier than thou soap box ,one would know that starting in the late 1950's and early 1960's, many 1920's and 1930's vintage buildings had significant issues with facade pieces falling off. (Water gets in behind the stone and facade work, and without proper weep holes and drainage the pig iron anchors oxidize and swell to two to five times their orginal diameter at a force of several hundred pounds per inch, popping facade elements off) They were a danger and City code enforcement dictated "fix it or cover it". Many building owners in the 1960 could not afford to repair and chose the less expensive way....cover.
Does that sound like "fixing" to you?
I'm amazed at how willing some of you are to show such callous neglect toward life safety, and the responsibility of building maintenance. No one is lobbying for gold-plating, and historic preservation and proper maintenance are not necessarily the same thing.
Yes, there are such things as property rights, but there is also an attached responsibility to prevent your building from harming or killing other persons or damaging the property of others. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 3816
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 12:21 pm: | |
quote:That seems sensible. If a building owner does not have the cash on hand sufficient to keep a building in a pristine historic condition....because global economic forces larger than them are forcing rents down and aging structures have ever rising maintenance costs. They ought to sell the building at a significant loss (assuming they can find a buyer) or simply hand it to the City to deal with.
I knew I could count on you to overexaggerate, Skulker.
No one is talking about "pristine historic condition" except you. My point is about keeping the building SAFE. Just like a car or any other piece of "equipment", you can't expect to buy something and not perform regular maintenance on it. It's foolish and naive to think otherwise.
In my opinion, safety is a much larger concern than whether or not a building owner loses money. Does lack of accountability not concern you one iota? You would rather let a slumlord sit on a building until it's about to collapse, so you can hand them public dollars to turn it into a parking lot. |
Dds
Member
Username: Dds
Post Number: 476
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 12:31 pm: | |
quote:In my opinion, safety is a much larger concern than whether or not a building owner loses money.
Which is why you are an urban planner and not a businessman. |
Jonnyfive
Member
Username: Jonnyfive
Post Number: 88
Registered: 03-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 12:52 pm: | |
"Which is why you are an urban planner and not a businessman."
And thank god businesses in this country don't get the same free reign to make safety decisions that they used to. |
Eric
Member
Username: Eric
Post Number: 1034
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 1:08 pm: | |
quote:Yes, there are such things as property rights, but there is also an attached responsibility to prevent your building from harming or killing other persons or damaging the property of others.
Which is why, like it's been said before, some facades were sadly covered up. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 3817
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 1:38 pm: | |
quote:Which is why you are an urban planner and not a businessman.
1. I'm not an urban planner.
2. It's not the City's place to worry about the ledgers of PRIVATE building owners. It's the City's responsibility to enact and enforce laws that protect the life and property of others. |
1953
Member
Username: 1953
Post Number: 1496
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 2:01 pm: | |
Can we get back to the business at hand...what the heck is planned for this building?! |
Wschnitt
Member
Username: Wschnitt
Post Number: 45
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 2:21 pm: | |
I am glad that is gone/going.
What does the TEXT say? |
Chris_rohn
Member
Username: Chris_rohn
Post Number: 361
Registered: 04-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 4:33 pm: | |
|
Southen
Member
Username: Southen
Post Number: 364
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 4:41 pm: | |
Very nice building, hopefully they plan on restoring the cornice. |
Dialh4hipster
Member
Username: Dialh4hipster
Post Number: 2237
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 4:48 pm: | |
LOL |
Sturge
Member
Username: Sturge
Post Number: 177
Registered: 05-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 4:49 pm: | |
quote:Go up to the menu bar above this thread, and click on the "help" button at the right end.
Ah I needed to be in frames. However the answer were in the FAQ link and not Help. |
Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok
Post Number: 5882
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 5:06 pm: | |
Thanks for the old pic Chris_rohn.
Based on the old signage, that is indeed the building that housed "Display Creations", a company that specialized in store and office window displays, and (based on the old photo) appears to have been the main tenant for many decades. So unless someone comes up with an original building name, it is the Display Creations Building.
Its' aluminum skin predates the early 1970's when I visited there. |
Crew
Member
Username: Crew
Post Number: 1387
Registered: 02-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 5:11 pm: | |
Is that a woody? ;) |
Charlottepaul
Member
Username: Charlottepaul
Post Number: 2133
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 9:55 pm: | |
"Based on the old signage, that is indeed the building that housed "Display Creations", a company that specialized in store and office window displays, and (based on the old photo) appears to have been the main tenant for many decades."
LOL, and now it houses Detroit Display and Design. Guess some things do stay the same through the decades. Wonder if the guy that runs it now was related to the original owner or company. |
Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok
Post Number: 5885
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 10:10 pm: | |
It seems almost too coincidental for them to be different companies. They may have undergone a name change or under new management (or both). |
Chris_rohn
Member
Username: Chris_rohn
Post Number: 362
Registered: 04-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 14, 2007 - 8:25 am: | |
Have they ripped the blue brick off the party store yet? |
E_hemingway
Member
Username: E_hemingway
Post Number: 1456
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 14, 2007 - 10:37 am: | |
Walked past it last night. There is only one section, lower left hand side, of the aluminum siding left. Even though the old facade is pretty dirty and run down, it still looks better than the siding that was covering it. |
Busterwmu
Member
Username: Busterwmu
Post Number: 408
Registered: 09-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 19, 2007 - 6:18 pm: | |
I went by on the People Mover today and I must say, this "new" old facade is one of the best on the street. Great to see the modern stuff being taken off. |
Billk
Member
Username: Billk
Post Number: 187
Registered: 09-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, December 20, 2007 - 3:02 pm: | |
It looks like they only removed half the facade. The part with the 'liquor store' sign is still there. |
Andylinn
Member
Username: Andylinn
Post Number: 664
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, December 20, 2007 - 3:07 pm: | |
dialh - thanks, that's awesome. |
Yooper
Member
Username: Yooper
Post Number: 106
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, December 20, 2007 - 3:10 pm: | |
Pics? |
7_and_kelly_kid
Member
Username: 7_and_kelly_kid
Post Number: 37
Registered: 12-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, December 20, 2007 - 3:40 pm: | |
yooper...............where up there.......I'm a transplanted Escanabian......... |
Yooper
Member
Username: Yooper
Post Number: 107
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Friday, December 21, 2007 - 8:40 am: | |
Hey Kelly Kid! I'm just a transplant doing a four year stint at MTU. |
D_mcc
Member
Username: D_mcc
Post Number: 20
Registered: 12-2007
| | Posted on Friday, December 21, 2007 - 9:56 am: | |
I just saw some old pictures of Briggs Stadium...it would be very interesting to see whats underneath all those aluminum panelling |
New threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.