Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 3641 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2008 - 11:48 am: | |
Last week, I finally got a chance to see what that area of downtown looks with with a re-opened Book Cadillac Hotel. I personally think that tearing down the Lafayette will make that intersection look more unattractive than it does by leaving it standing empty. I realize that some don't agree with me... but I guess I sort of bring an outsider's perspective. The worst thing that they could do for that area is to level that building for another parking lot. I would support mothballing the building until a viable development plan for that lot is presented that doesn't include another parking lot. |
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 3344 Registered: 07-2004
| Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2008 - 11:54 am: | |
Enough parking around there yet? http://tinyurl.com/9bsoqu |
Digitalvision Member Username: Digitalvision
Post Number: 1314 Registered: 11-2003
| Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2008 - 12:35 pm: | |
Having worked in that district, DN, you wouldn't believe it from the map, but there is not enough parking. Much of that parking is tied up for specific purposes; there are quite a few buildings that are almost on the edge of viability because there isn't sufficient parking. That, and it's too expensive. Not saying tearing down the Lafayette is the way to fix this; it's clearly not, in my opinion. But it's a poor man's fix to show you're doing "something." Most lots in that neighborhood are $10-$35 a day. A crippling hindrance to commerce and investment. |
Gencinjay Member Username: Gencinjay
Post Number: 97 Registered: 03-2008
| Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2008 - 12:54 pm: | |
There isn't a lot or garage near there that is $35 a day or. The most expensive parking in the city is $18.75 for the day. There are 3 garages in the area with room for hundreds more parkers. As far as too expensive, that's a matter of perspective. You can get parking as cheap as $65 in the city if you're willing to walk, $100-$200 in that area if you don't want to walk. |
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 3345 Registered: 07-2004
| Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2008 - 12:56 pm: | |
DV: We all know the answer to that question: There's NEVER enough parking. Here's why: The automobile, in order to move, drive, find a spot, and park, requires about 300 square feet per car. Let's be stingy and say we all drive smaller cars, are excellent at parking, and have no problem using less space. That's still 250 square feet per car. Now, imagine a building that we want to save: It's a skyscraper. It's 30 stories tall. Each floor, at capacity, can hold 200 employees. But, since this is Detroit, let's say it has an occupancy rate of 40 percent. That's still 30 times 80, or 240. Now, in order to have your employees drive in and park, you need 60,000 square feet of parking. That's more than 1-1/3 acres of parking required for a modest, historic office tower. Where's the rub? Skyscrapers, which, I believe, we ostensibly would like to preserve, are the product of high land values, dedicated transit and neighborhood amenities. In other words, the whole justification for this building towering above us is that that land is SUPER-VALUABLE. On the other hand, in order to get that building restored and give people access to it, we have to demolish acres and acres of land around it for parking, as they have it set up in Southfield or Troy. We're trying to build greenfield-type parking lots in our downtown, where the land is supposed to be TOO VALUABLE for that. We have it backwards. Instead of fixing up one towering structure just so we have to knock down everything around it to accommodate cars, we should be restoring the environment that created these hulks. We should be installing streetcars, offering tax breaks for small restaurants and shops downtown, putting police on foot in the neighborhood, helping give the area its original justification for having skyscrapers in the first place. The justification for expanding parking is just like the justification for expanding freeways: Easing congestion is as easy as providing one more lane or one more lot. But it always attracts more cars, so the process has to be repeated. And repeat the process to its logical conclusion and you wind up with big buildings surrounded with huge parking lots. And that is not a downtown at all. That is a downtown-less place like Troy, which is going the way of the Dodo right now. We gots to wake up, people! |
Danindc Member Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4095 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2008 - 1:03 pm: | |
quote:On the other hand, in order to get that building restored and give people access to it, we have to demolish acres and acres of land around it for parking, as they have it set up in Southfield or Troy. We're trying to build greenfield-type parking lots in our downtown, where the land is supposed to be TOO VALUABLE for that. Here's the kicker: local leadership, including folks like George Jackson, look at Southfield and Troy, and consider them to be "successful". "We tried." Sure, look at one blip in time, and extrapolate the single data point to an entire lifetime. Makes sense, right? The City doesn't have enough resources to put toward a renovation, so let's see how many millions they commit to the demolition of the Lafayette. Only an idiot keeps doing the same thing over and over and expects different results. Jackson speaks of all these "new developers"--why aren't they interested in any of the existing empty lots, especially that one with all the parking already constructed underground??? |
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 3346 Registered: 07-2004
| Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2008 - 1:06 pm: | |
Dan: Care to talk about what's happening to DC's "Edge Cities"? If the business model of Troy-Southfield that Jackson loves is such a sure bet, I'm certain Tyson's Corners must be doing business-as-usual and prospering, right? ;) |
Danindc Member Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4096 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2008 - 1:23 pm: | |
quote:I'm certain Tyson's Corners must be doing business-as-usual and prospering, right? ;) Tysons Corner is choked by traffic, and is actually in the early phases of a higher-density, pedestrian-friendly redevelopment plan to coincide with the new Metro extension. People simply won't take jobs in that area (including Yours Truly) because the traffic is so horrendous. As successful as Tysons has been, you don't see DC demolishing historic buildings for new parking lots--even in the 1960s and 1970s, when the District was in much more dire economic straits. |
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 3349 Registered: 07-2004
| Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2008 - 1:35 pm: | |
What? Detroit is embarking again on the development plan that the rest of the country is abandoning? Unbelievable! |
Danindc Member Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4097 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2008 - 1:44 pm: | |
quote:What? Detroit is embarking again on the development plan that the rest of the country is abandoning? Unbelievable! Hey! Detroit's development plan has been working just fine for 60 years. Eventually, everyone else will catch on. Just you wait! |
Novine Member Username: Novine
Post Number: 1009 Registered: 07-2007
| Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2008 - 1:57 pm: | |
Jackson is an idiot and DEGC is a machine of economic destruction, not creation. They've destroyed more than they've created. As Dan asked, where are all of these "new developers"? The man is flat-out lying and it's about time people started calling him on his BS. |
Danindc Member Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4099 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2008 - 2:12 pm: | |
You have to be an idiot to claim that the Lafayette is unattractive for redevelopment, when you have two incredible renovations recently completed within 2 blocks, both of which the City had previously tried to schedule for demolition. I wonder if George Jackson can tell us the difference in property assessments between the Book-Cadillac, Fort-Shelby, Statler, and Madison-Lenox properties. |
Busterwmu Member Username: Busterwmu
Post Number: 461 Registered: 09-2004
| Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2008 - 3:52 pm: | |
MOTHBALL! |
Busterwmu Member Username: Busterwmu
Post Number: 462 Registered: 09-2004
| Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2008 - 5:22 pm: | |
I think this Free Press article is a good thing, the publicity certainly isn't a bad thing. But it is funny how Quicken wasn't even mentioned, nor was the earlier deal with the Peebles Atlantic Development group from 2004 or 2005 or whenever that was. Both prove there IS interest in the structure and that as it is, it may have very real potential. The problem is that not only is Michigan's economy a wreck, but now so is the rest of the country's, so dollars coming from out of state are pretty much gone too. But this is why MOTHBALLING is the best option at this time... when the economy gets better, interest may really return to this structure. We just need to take a responsible step which will stop further destruction and prolong it's life. "Jackson said the DEGC has tried for years without success to put together a redevelopment deal for the Lafayette. And new developers showing interest in the site want a cleared piece of land to build upon, not an old building, he said." >>> Which new developers are these? John's Parking Lot, Inc? Ferchill once said he had his eye on additional properties in the vicinity of the Book Cadillac to rehab in the future. It would make sense that the Lafayette would be one of these, but no one can substantiate which buildings he may be interested in. The article does a good job though of mentioning other preservation efforts which have not been successful (Hudson's, Tuller, Madison-Lennox, Statler), and the lack of progress that has occurred since they have been demolished, many times under the guise of everyone's favorite DEGC. Hopefully, we preservationists can succeed this time around! |
Registeredguest Member Username: Registeredguest
Post Number: 136 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2008 - 5:43 pm: | |
Interesting history, this Mr. Jackson individual has: "Prior to his current position, Jackson was Director of Customer Marketing for DTE Energy, where he worked for 27 years. Areas reporting to the Director of Customer Marketing include Economic Development, Strategic Marketing Processes, Product Development...Jackson is a native Detroiter, and a graduate of Detroit Cooley High School, Oakland University (B.S. Human Resource Development) and Central Michigan University (M.A. Management - Business Management)." Source: http://www.themedc.org/Boards- Committees/Executive-Committee /Detail.aspx?ContentId=abf0a3b 0-ac77-4462-9674-86012a0cb517 Amazing the economic development work he did around the DTE HQ during his tenure. Gravel and chain link galore, at one time. Ironic, isn't it? |
Digitalvision Member Username: Digitalvision
Post Number: 1315 Registered: 11-2003
| Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2008 - 6:52 pm: | |
Why isn't someone with a real estate background and/or entrepreneurship and/or venture capital investment in that position? Working for a utility is like having a license to print money; there's no innovation required. You have a virtual monopoly; you don't have to worry about competition, market forces; you set a price, and everyone has to pay it. No wonder there's no focus on small business or the things that'll actually make a significant difference on the ground and it's all about the big projects. The leadership doesn't know anything else. Those are the things that Detroit needs to focus on, and it seems like Jackson simply doesn't have the perspective to accomplish that. |
Rhymeswithrawk Member Username: Rhymeswithrawk
Post Number: 1611 Registered: 11-2005
| Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2008 - 7:06 pm: | |
I am not voting for Cockrel because of his support of Jackson. |
Patrick Member Username: Patrick
Post Number: 2480 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2008 - 7:23 pm: | |
Sad indeed but what can you do... |
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan
Post Number: 3980 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2008 - 10:46 pm: | |
Rhymes, Do you really think any of the other top tier candidates would abanonded Jackson, and even if they did pick someone more competent? This isn't even political, this is a social sickness that has been with the region going on many decades, now. DEGC needs someone from outside of the region or someone from the local preservation community. As someone said, the DEGC isn't economic development corporation as it has destroyed many more opportunities than its created. It should be the rule, not the exception, that you try everything possible to get a building redeveloped before you demolish it. DEGC has been half-assedly "trying" for years, now. Really, so much has been demolished around the B-C that we're coming up on the point in which it won't even make since to renovate things like the B-C, anymore, because there won't be anything left to visit. The city really needs to sell these properties to a land bank for a $1, and give someone else a chance at getting this thing redeveloped. The DDA needs to let it go, baby. |
E_hemingway Member Username: E_hemingway
Post Number: 1498 Registered: 11-2004
| Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2008 - 12:07 am: | |
DV: There is more than enough parking in that area. If there wasn't the garages and lots would only have room for customers with monthly passes. Large swaths of those lots and garages sit empty pretty much every day. Downtown suffers from a number of things, but a lack of parking isn't one of them. Rhymes: I'm pretty much with you on that one. Cockrell could overrule Jackson but isn't. That action is putting quite a bit of doubt in my mind about whether I can trust him. He says he wants to make sustainability a cornerstone of his administration but he is letting Jackson do one of the most unsustainable things possible by knocking down the Lafayette, and when the city faces a $300 million deficit. Sounds like business as usual from the mayor's office. Say one thing and then do another. I was hoping we were moving past that, but it doesn't look like it. |
Rjlj Member Username: Rjlj
Post Number: 731 Registered: 11-2003
| Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2008 - 12:43 am: | |
Re-development is very much less exspensive and environmentally friendly than demolition and building new. Not to mention, you eliminate another reason to come downtown if you get rid of this building. If you want to see boring modern buildings, you can see them everywhere in the suburbs. More than 60% of the renovation costs can be covered by tax credits for a building like this. Someone needs to educate the short sided people who run this city. If someone had plans to build a nice new modern structure in the place of this building, this would be an entirely different aguement but there are no plans at this time. |
Novine Member Username: Novine
Post Number: 1017 Registered: 07-2007
| Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2008 - 1:54 am: | |
Anyone interested in the nitty-gritty of the funding for the DDA (which is a funding arm of the DEGC) will be interested to read this document which highlights where the DDA gets its money and where it's being spent. No surprise, property values are falling, hurting one of the key funding mechanisms for the DDA, tax increment financing. Knocking down buildings and replacing them with parking lots only helps accelerate that decline. If the DDA/DEGC was adding value to the downtown with its activities, shouldn't that be showing up in at least keeping property values from falling so quickly? http://www.ci.detroit.mi.us/Le gislative/CouncilDivisions/Fis calAnalysis/Reports%202008/DDA %20Propo%20Amend%20to%20Restat ed%20Tax%20Increment%207-2-08. pdf |
Novine Member Username: Novine
Post Number: 1018 Registered: 07-2007
| Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2008 - 2:26 am: | |
A great overview of the DEGC and how it's intertwined with various city agencies. Jackson makes over $200,000 a year and has 6 VPs making $90 - 120,000 a year out of a staff of 42. http://www.ci.detroit.mi.us/le gislative/CouncilDivisions/Fis calAnalysis/BudgetRelatedRepor ts/DEGC%2007-08%20Budget%20Ana lysis.pdf |
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan
Post Number: 3986 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2008 - 2:49 am: | |
Novine, kind of related to your links, exactly why is there a DDA and a DEGC? I know that in my city that our economic development corporation is our DDA. Why the need for both, in Detroit? Anyone know the history behind it? (Message edited by lmichigan on December 31, 2008) |
Gsgeorge Member Username: Gsgeorge
Post Number: 655 Registered: 08-2006
| Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2008 - 3:03 am: | |
just take the silly black marble off and seal the building up good. You can see the original stone underneath and it would eliminate the falling debris problem. It's cheaper than demoing the whole thing. In three years or less we're gonna have someone interested in rehabbing the building since it is right across from the BC. (Message edited by gsgeorge on December 31, 2008) |
Detroitbob Member Username: Detroitbob
Post Number: 1 Registered: 11-2008
| Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2008 - 3:25 am: | |
Goo thing I have great pictures of the Lafeyette that I took a couple years back! |
Digitalvision Member Username: Digitalvision
Post Number: 1316 Registered: 11-2003
| Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2008 - 9:51 am: | |
There is a definite need for both. The DDA's range only encompasses downtown, the DEGC covers the whole city. Many people forget this. I personally think it's important to have two groups that represent some vastly different needs. Also, I am going to take fire for this, but the head of the DEGC should NOT be a preservationist by background. They should be familiar with it, and preferably have an urbanist tilt, but they need to be well-steeped in successful business ventures and leading of successful companies. That's much more important, as we keep seeming to forget the rest of the city needs support too, not just downtown and midtown. As to those salary numbers, they seem in line if not low to attract talent for the kind of work they're doing. BTW: The head of the DEGC is NOT a mayoral appointee. He's elected by his board of directors. Those directors are selected by the mayor and approved by council. A technical point, but wanted to clarify. And one more thing - most business owners and other constituents consider Jackson wildly successful for the projects he's brought in. Most folks have the mentality (and residents too) that anything is good and a miracle in Detroit. Also, as much as I don't always agree with some of his outward policies, I doubt you would see Jackson removed under any current candidate out there for mayor. In some ways, the Book-Cadillac deal gave him the ultimate in credibility; he is well regarded and considered an authority by everyone except the preservationists. |
Gencinjay Member Username: Gencinjay
Post Number: 98 Registered: 03-2008
| Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2008 - 9:53 am: | |
You need to take a look at more than just the marble. There is at least one part of the section above the marble that fell as well. |
Novine Member Username: Novine
Post Number: 1020 Registered: 07-2007
| Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2008 - 2:55 pm: | |
"The DDA's range only encompasses downtown, the DEGC covers the whole city. Many people forget this." In theory but not in function based on most of the projects that DEGC is working on. That's not surprising as most of DEGC's funding is tied to specific areas which limits how much it can spend outside of those areas. "I am going to take fire for this, but the head of the DEGC should NOT be a preservationist by background." Who said they should be? But anyone in that position should have a clue as to how to create a successful downtown. Jackson doesn't seem to have a clue. As for outside downtown and midtown, can you show me any examples of work that DEGC has done that's resulted in a benefit outside those areas? "As to those salary numbers, they seem in line if not low to attract talent for the kind of work they're doing." You'll notice I didn't critique those salaries. My point in highlighting those salaries is that these aren't the work of low-paid, low-level functionaries in the bureaucracy. For that pay, we should have people who are skilled and accountable for their work. "...most business owners and other constituents consider Jackson wildly successful for the projects he's brought in." No kidding! Wouldn't you love to be a Mike Illitch and have a George Jackson out there demolishing your derelict buildings with taxpayer dollars? Wouldn't you love to have the DEGC/DDA acquiring land using taxpayer dollars and eminent domain for the end purpose of turning that land over to you for your projects, land that you couldn't otherwise acquire in the open market? What's not to love? Sure, the guy does the bidding of those in the know. But can we really say that the track record of the DEGC is one that is making the city as a whole better or the downtown thrive? |
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan
Post Number: 3990 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2008 - 8:20 pm: | |
Novine, I was the one that said any future DEGC head should be from outside the region or have a background in preservation, and I don't back down from that for one minute. The business community has had their guy on the inside for some time, now, and its got the city some huge marquee projects, but I don't consider it a gain from what all was lost. It's far past time that the city got someone that sees the long-term simple wisdom in reusing and recycling. The record of the DEGC and DDA is mixed at best, particularly when you put it up to those of quasi-city organizations in other struggling cities. Their record is not one anyone but an apologist (or an employee, Digital?) would be comfortable in defending. |
Gistok Member Username: Gistok
Post Number: 6021 Registered: 08-2004
| Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2008 - 10:08 pm: | |
I have to agree with Lmichigan... Jackson has had mixed results. If anything the Book-Cadillac shows him speaking out of both sides of his mouth... a few years back he was talking about how much of a dinosaur it is and that it must come down... then he changed his tune and we now have another city jewel brought back from certain death. Although I agree with the DECG spending some money trying to restart the Harmonie Park area, I think that they're spending way too much of the scarce redevelopment dollars in that one area. They could have taken a fraction of that money and used it to mothball the Lafayette Building. After all it's cheaper than tearing it down. |
Ray Member Username: Ray
Post Number: 569 Registered: 06-2004
| Posted on Sunday, January 04, 2009 - 6:56 pm: | |
Those historic buildings are the city's major competitive advantage. It's the one thing other cities cannot build or buy. Suicide to tear them down. |
Sean_of_detroit Member Username: Sean_of_detroit
Post Number: 2202 Registered: 03-2008
| Posted on Sunday, January 04, 2009 - 7:32 pm: | |
So, why are there three or four totally separate groups working on this? Do we need multiple people duplicating each others work? The initiative people are taking is great, but I'm thinking (and I might be wrong) that you guys might want to be working together. |
Rjlj Member Username: Rjlj
Post Number: 732 Registered: 11-2003
| Posted on Sunday, January 04, 2009 - 8:32 pm: | |
There is one group that is working on saving this building and that is the Greater Detroit Historic Preservation Coalition (GDHPC). Join the cause Sean_of_Detroit. |
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan
Post Number: 4002 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Sunday, January 04, 2009 - 11:32 pm: | |
Thanks for the quick response, Rjlj. (Message edited by lmichigan on January 05, 2009) |