Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 3343 Registered: 07-2004
| Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2008 - 11:53 am: | |
Enough parking around there yet? http://tinyurl.com/9bsoqu |
Cman710 Member Username: Cman710
Post Number: 577 Registered: 07-2006
| Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2008 - 5:23 pm: | |
But look at how all the spots are full! (Note sarcasm.) |
Detmsp Member Username: Detmsp
Post Number: 46 Registered: 08-2008
| Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2008 - 5:49 pm: | |
even though i'm all for historic preservation, there is one small point i'd like to make... i always see people talking about how it's just going to get turned into a parking lot and nothing will ever get built there. let's think about this for a moment. Nothing will get built there because there isn't enough demand to make it financially viable. Now consider that rehabing a building in this condition is FAR more expensive than new construction. If new construction isn't financially viable, than rehabing is even LESS financially viable. (and remember every day that it sits vacant the price to rehab keeps going up) So if it's doomed to be a parking lot for decades if we knock it down.... it would be reasonable to assert that it will be a falling apart, abandoned eyesore of a building for even more decades if we let it stand. Now I don't want to see more parking lots in the CBD, but let's get real here. If no one will spend $x to develop it when it's a parking lot, do you really think someone will spend twice, three times, maybe four times as much to rehab it? |
Rhymeswithrawk Member Username: Rhymeswithrawk
Post Number: 1610 Registered: 11-2005
| Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2008 - 6:17 pm: | |
This is already being discussed extensively in the Lafayette Building thread. |
E_hemingway Member Username: E_hemingway
Post Number: 1499 Registered: 11-2004
| Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2008 - 12:20 am: | |
Rehab is not more expensive than building new. Actually, it's much cheaper. You could not have built something new that is comparable to the Book Cadillac or Fort Shelby hotels for the same price it cost to rehab them. |
Danindc Member Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4102 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2008 - 12:46 am: | |
quote:Nothing will get built there because there isn't enough demand to make it financially viable When you have to pay an architect/engineering team to design a completely new building, construct new foundations, buy all new structure, purchase a completely new facade system--yeah, that tends to make things less financially viable.
quote:Now consider that rehabing a building in this condition is FAR more expensive than new construction. If new construction isn't financially viable, than rehabing is even LESS financially viable. How do you figure? See my comment above. For an example that a "lay" person would understand--compare the cost of building your home from scratch versus what it would cost to renovate it. House flippers make money for a reason.... |
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan
Post Number: 3985 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2008 - 1:38 am: | |
Can we get this merged with the existing thread on this building? |
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 3645 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2008 - 11:00 am: | |
What I don't understand is why they think tearing down the building will make it any more attractive for development in this environment? Why DEGC would even try to argue that point? After rehabbing the Book Cadillac, which sits 50 feet away, if you cannot find someone willing to bankroll a renovation of the Lafayette then you won't find someone willing to build brand new on that site. It is destined to become a surface parking lot. |
Danindc Member Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4104 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2008 - 11:24 am: | |
For some reason known only to God (and maybe not even to Him), DEGC finds it necessary to do *something* immediately with every building in their portfolio. "Long-term" is a foreign concept to these folks. |
Digitalvision Member Username: Digitalvision
Post Number: 1317 Registered: 11-2003
| Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2008 - 11:44 am: | |
I can tell you why, Danindc. It's political pressure. Strong pressure. The vast majority of residents and in turn political leaders of the city want to see "progress," because apparently "progress" equals jobs that Detroiters can do (it's a phrase I hear a lot) so for instance demo contractors, parking lot attendants, etc and this is the current definition of "progress." In short, low-skilled or unskilled labor. It's one of the main reasons the city has been so hot on hotels; the hotel and convention industry have tons of jobs you can get like that. I don't know if you pay attention to the Kunstlercast mentioned in another thread (I am forever indebted to GlowBlue for sharing it it) but the thread was "Missing Teeth In The Urban Fabric" but it's just another example of how this is a very American reaction and not in any way unique to Detroit. This is exacerbated here because the majority population has zero cultural tie (if not animosity, which I've heard more than a few times) to these buildings and does not prefer them. You've got a lot of desperate people with an almost 20% unemployment rate. There is a ton of pressure for progress, and things like mothballing look like average folks to not be progress. I've been out with the electorate, and they prefer parking lots over mothballs en masse. |
Sean_of_detroit Member Username: Sean_of_detroit
Post Number: 2183 Registered: 03-2008
| Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2008 - 10:23 pm: | |
^I'm thinking it isn't progress, but is the required maintenance necessary for progress to happen. To many people around here will not do anything but unskilled labor. When there are no unskilled jobs, they just sit back and complain that they can't get a job, or self destruct. |
Detmsp Member Username: Detmsp
Post Number: 47 Registered: 08-2008
| Posted on Thursday, January 01, 2009 - 2:24 pm: | |
A new 400 room Westin at the airport cost $80 million to build. A rennovated 400 room Westin (the Book) cost $180 million. Building new is cheaper! Sure people flip houses... but not houses that are bombed out shells like the lafayette building is. |
Detourdetroit Member Username: Detourdetroit
Post Number: 334 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Thursday, January 01, 2009 - 4:28 pm: | |
detmsp. you're right but dead wrong at the same time. yes, take a rehab project and compare the "cost" to new construction. what you just posted is apples and oranges and is not fair to the lafayette or what it represents. what about: remediation costs? demo costs? environmental costs? cultural costs? costs of reproducing a building of the architectural quality, construction and craftsmanship of the lafayette? we've got our priorities backwards in this region. here's a modest proposal for 2009: would we all agree, even those of detmsp's persuasion, that the demo mentality has not really left the city in a better place? are we really better off? do we thrive in the demo mode? do people point to us and say, "boy, that's a real progressive place!" let's try approaching from a different angle for the new year. |
Alan55 Member Username: Alan55
Post Number: 2497 Registered: 09-2005
| Posted on Thursday, January 01, 2009 - 4:50 pm: | |
Detmsp: "A new 400 room Westin at the airport cost $80 million to build." "A rennovated 400 room Westin (the Book) cost $180 million." - Comparing construction in downtown Detroit to the open spaces of the airport is apples to oranges. Come up with a current price to build a new 400-room hotel in downtown Detroit; your argument may not be as compelling then. |
Gistok Member Username: Gistok
Post Number: 6027 Registered: 08-2004
| Posted on Thursday, January 01, 2009 - 5:31 pm: | |
Also... I'd like to see the ballrooms at airport... and the million dollar condos on top... The "ornate plasterwork" you'll see at the airport hotel is the grout work in the corners of the fiberglass bathtubs... |
French777 Member Username: French777
Post Number: 634 Registered: 10-2006
| Posted on Thursday, January 01, 2009 - 10:25 pm: | |
Well how much did MotorCity Casino Hotel or Greektown Hotel or MGM Detroit Hotel Cost to build? Im sure there is some difference between the 3 Hotels but I bet they cost more than 80 million... . . . |
French777 Member Username: French777
Post Number: 635 Registered: 10-2006
| Posted on Thursday, January 01, 2009 - 10:33 pm: | |
Motor City Casino Hotel cost 300million to build! |
French777 Member Username: French777
Post Number: 636 Registered: 10-2006
| Posted on Thursday, January 01, 2009 - 10:40 pm: | |
Motor City Casino Hotel cost 300million to build! |
Danindc Member Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4106 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Thursday, January 01, 2009 - 11:31 pm: | |
quote:A new 400 room Westin at the airport cost $80 million to build. A rennovated 400 room Westin (the Book) cost $180 million. Building new is cheaper! I'm going to pick one example that supports my pre-ordained conclusion, and apply it universally, even if I know nothing about building construction. You've forgotten a couple things: The Book-Cadillac has 40 more rooms (or 10% more) than the Westin Airport. The Book-Cadillac has 67 *luxury* condominiums. Do you think anyone would purchase one of these if it looked like a Motel 6? Vertical construction is more expensive than building "flat". Why do you think it's so easy to slap strip malls together? The Westin Airport also took advantage of economies of scale, since contractors were already mobilized for the Terminal project. Let's not forget how the price of materials, especially metals, have skyrocketed since the Westin Airport was completed. But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night. |
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan
Post Number: 3992 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Thursday, January 01, 2009 - 11:48 pm: | |
French, comparing the new construction casino hotels won't work as the price of the resorts include the entire complex, which includes both the casino and hotel portions. But, yeah, comparing the B-C to the airport Westin is just ridiculous and the others have already shown why, so I'm not going to belabor that point. |
Digitalvision Member Username: Digitalvision
Post Number: 1318 Registered: 11-2003
| Posted on Friday, January 02, 2009 - 8:13 am: | |
That's sort of liking comparing restoring an old collectible car to mint condition vs. buying a Kia, Detmsp. I'd much rather have a beautifully restored historic vehicle than a Kia. It's all about how you finish it out, your size, etc. This is the mentality that's got us in trouble as a region, however, it's understandable from a - short term, don't care about your communities' sustainability, and don't care that your building has no unique value - business point of view. You know, that hotel by the airport - has the airport. The Book Cadillac has, in part, it's grandeur as it's draw. Redoing the Book Cadillac as a more bare bones hotel would of been a major failure - that's already available across the street (not knocking it, it just serves a different market segment and I'm glad that hotel is across the street). Most people, however, make the choice to go to the outburbs and build a giant DVD player in a former farm field. (Message edited by digitalvision on January 02, 2009) |
Detmsp Member Username: Detmsp
Post Number: 48 Registered: 08-2008
| Posted on Friday, January 02, 2009 - 1:30 pm: | |
you all missed the point. I keep seeing people on these boards say things that essentially boil down to "this building is totally going to get rehabbed in the near future... but if we knock it down it's doomed to be just another parking lot!" That idea is ridiculous. Either there is enough demand to justify investing there or there isn't. I tried to illustrate this in my previous post. I took the assumption that if it gets knocked down it will stay a parking lot as fact. I then explained that if there isn't enough demand to justify building new (which is cheaper than painstakingly restoring a bombed out building), there would also not be enough demand to justify rehabbing the building. I could have just as easily reversed my illustration and started with the assumption that the building is going to get renovated. If there is enough demand to justify spending millions of dollars renovating the building, then there is enough demand to justify building new. So if you think there is a compelling financial reason to rehab it, you also have to think that if it gets knocked down, there is a compelling financial reason to rebuild on the location, meaning you won't have a parking lot like everyone keeps bitching about. Essentially people are making the argument that Detroit is doing so well that it is viable to rehab these buildings, but doing so shitty that no one will build on the land if the building gets knocked down. That's a contradictory statement. Oh, and for the record, I love historic architecture and I think it is something that makes Detroit really special. But renovating buildings has more to do with finance than nostalgia. |
Danindc Member Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4108 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Friday, January 02, 2009 - 1:40 pm: | |
quote:Essentially people are making the argument that Detroit is doing so well that it is viable to rehab these buildings, but doing so shitty that no one will build on the land if the building gets knocked down. That's a contradictory statement. Oh, and for the record, I love historic architecture and I think it is something that makes Detroit really special. But renovating buildings has more to do with finance than nostalgia. I ask this same question of everyone who makes this claim (yet I've to see any kind of response): On what knowledge do you base this claim? Have you worked on any renovation projects to gain this type of expertise? The only real way to make a valid comparison is to develop a scope of work, create a preliminary design, and obtain cost estimates from contractors. With that said, I'm confident that renovation of the Lafayette would be far cheaper than tearing it down and constructing another building in-kind. Have you SEEN the price of steel lately? Yes, all building development is based on finance--which begs the question of why Detroit spends millions of dollars it doesn't have on a demolition spree. |
E_hemingway Member Username: E_hemingway
Post Number: 1503 Registered: 11-2004
| Posted on Friday, January 02, 2009 - 4:06 pm: | |
quote:Either there is enough demand to justify investing there or there isn't. Everything in black and white. All questions have yes and no answers. Everything is a zero-sum game. Blah, blah, blah. We don't know if there is demand to justify investment in the Lafayette yet. The city put out a RFP years ago, which garnered considerable interest. That deal fell through and then the Lafayette was promised to Quicken. Then (out of nowhere) the DEGC quietly let it slip that it plans to raze the building. The DEGC should have put out another RFP on the Lafayette before considering demolition. Only when that happens will we truly know how much demand, if any, there is to invest in the Lafayette. |
Russix Member Username: Russix
Post Number: 168 Registered: 11-2006
| Posted on Saturday, January 03, 2009 - 11:01 am: | |
"Hey man what are you doing tonight?", "I'm going to go hang out in the Parking District!" |
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 3652 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Saturday, January 03, 2009 - 1:57 pm: | |
>Detmsp Your reasoning is flawed in assuming that "demand" is static. For instance, 10 years ago there was not enough "demand" in Detroit to get the Book Cadillac renovated into a functioning hotel. If at that time the powers that be had decided to have it demolished, rather than let it sit empty, then 10 years later there would be no building in that spot for them to have renovated. Because while in 1998, the "demand" wasn't there for the renovation project, it was there by 2006 and by 2008 we have a renovated Book Cadillac. Now say they had torn down the Book Cadillac in 1998 instead of letting it sit empty. How likely is it that something would have currently been standing in its place? I think it is very unlikely. The common theory that Detroit city government employs is that vacant lots make better development opportunities than vacant buildings. But there is no precedent in Detroit to support this claim. To my knowledge, there have been no projects in downtown Detroit during the past 20 years that were newly constructed buildings on vacant lots (stadiums excluded). The majority of the major projects have been either renovations, or building on lots recently demoed for the purpose of building new on that space. Show me an example of where pre-emptive demolition has resulted in a developer coming in to build new. |
Danindc Member Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4110 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Saturday, January 03, 2009 - 1:59 pm: | |
quote: Show me an example of where pre-emptive demolition has resulted in a developer coming in to build new. Does the MGM Grand Casino count? :-) |
Gralr Member Username: Gralr
Post Number: 7 Registered: 12-2008
| Posted on Saturday, January 03, 2009 - 2:03 pm: | |
would someone please go to the city, confiscate the demolition money and use it for building stabilization, roofs, on site caretaker. My goodness it is so backward. |
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 3653 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Saturday, January 03, 2009 - 2:26 pm: | |
>Does the MGM Grand Casino count? :-) I guess if you ignore the building that they left vacant. |
Gistok Member Username: Gistok
Post Number: 6031 Registered: 08-2004
| Posted on Saturday, January 03, 2009 - 3:14 pm: | |
quote:Does the MGM Grand Casino count? :-) Actually 97% of that 25 acre parcel was already a sea of parking lots. Sadly though, the 1876 Fiona Tea House could have been relocated rather than destroyed, ditto for the 6 row houses (a rarity in Detroit). But other than the already mentioned buildings, and a 4 story nondescript apartment building, 23 of the 24 acres of the MGM site was already a sea of gravel parking lots "ready for development". |
Danindc Member Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4113 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Saturday, January 03, 2009 - 5:56 pm: | |
Well, it's a good thing there's a ton of surface parking by the MGM Grand. You know, for all the future spin-off development the casinos will bring. :-) |
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan
Post Number: 3997 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Saturday, January 03, 2009 - 8:28 pm: | |
Please, can we get this merged with the original Lafayette Building thread, already? |
Barebain Member Username: Barebain
Post Number: 21 Registered: 02-2006
| Posted on Sunday, January 04, 2009 - 8:35 am: | |
One thing that has not been mentioned in this debate of new vs. rehab construction costs is the presence of historic and brownfield tax credits. With the new legislation that just passed in the state, historic renovation projects can receive up to 40% of the value of the construction costs back in a combination of state and federal tax credits. Throw in brownfield tax credits, emerging markets tax credits, conservation easements, and that number goes even higher. A project like the book cadillac suddenly finds itself with a tax credit rebate that brings the actual project cost much closer to the hotel out at the airport, and that's still an apples to oranges comparison. Yes, rehabbing old buildings does have more to do with finance than nostalgia, and the fact is that these tax credits actually make historic projects financially viable where a new building of similar scale would not be. These tax credits work to encourage development; not hinder it. As soon as we rip one of these buildings apart, we lose all of the development potential that these tax credits bring. The only real reasons for tearing down a building of this stature are either political, or there is a developer out there who is actively seeking out the site for a potential project. And while I certainly hope the situation is the latter, I'm guessing it is not. The city is making a huge mistake in thinking that demolishing this building will open some magic door for development to walk through. |
French777 Member Username: French777
Post Number: 638 Registered: 10-2006
| Posted on Sunday, January 04, 2009 - 9:46 am: | |
I don't know if this was mentioned already. . . .but can't they just hang a huge banner over the building that reads " New Hotel and Office Building Coming Soon!" or something like that. . . it could fool many visitors |
Retroit Member Username: Retroit
Post Number: 656 Registered: 04-2008
| Posted on Sunday, January 04, 2009 - 11:31 am: | |
Heck, I'd be happy if they just cleaned the graffiti off the windows. Tell Mr. "Ward" to take a hike. He didn't fool me with "This is not here!!!"! |
Gistok Member Username: Gistok
Post Number: 6035 Registered: 08-2004
| Posted on Sunday, January 04, 2009 - 2:57 pm: | |
French777 has the right idea... do like Mike Ilitch did with the United Artists Building... clean up the windows, and hang some giant banners. It may not save the building, but at least for Book Cadillac visitors it will not give the impression of total abandonment. It does appear that the Book Cadillac is the driving force to suddenly get the Lafayette Building taken down. Oh the irony... |
Digitalvision Member Username: Digitalvision
Post Number: 1319 Registered: 11-2003
| Posted on Sunday, January 04, 2009 - 5:53 pm: | |
There's quite a few buildings in NYC (as of a few years ago when I was there last) which are not occupied or partially occupied but people don't think they're empty because of the advertisements - fill up the bottom floor or bottom three, and mothball the rest and use it as a giant billboard. |
Huggybear Member Username: Huggybear
Post Number: 271 Registered: 08-2005
| Posted on Sunday, January 04, 2009 - 6:30 pm: | |
quote:You know, for all the future spin-off development the casinos will bring. :-) Who cares about spinoff if you have a business that caters mostly to non-Detroiters, pulls in hundreds of millions a year, and pays huge taxes? |
Huggybear Member Username: Huggybear
Post Number: 272 Registered: 08-2005
| Posted on Sunday, January 04, 2009 - 6:47 pm: | |
quote:Rehab is not more expensive than building new. Actually, it's much cheaper. You could not have built something new that is comparable to the Book Cadillac or Fort Shelby hotels for the same price it cost to rehab them. I don't think this is always the case. If what you get is space that is out of touch with what the market wants, it's actually just pouring money down the drain. It may only cost half as much, but it you can't rent it, what's the point? |
Danindc Member Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4121 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Sunday, January 04, 2009 - 7:05 pm: | |
quote:Who cares about spinoff if you have a business that caters mostly to non-Detroiters, pulls in hundreds of millions a year, and pays huge taxes? The voters who were suckered into allowing casinos, on the trumped-up premise they would lead to more development, and solve the fiscal woes of the City of Detroit. |
Rjlj Member Username: Rjlj
Post Number: 733 Registered: 11-2003
| Posted on Sunday, January 04, 2009 - 8:42 pm: | |
Re-Development of a historical building is defefintly much more less exspensive than building the same or equivalnet sized building from scratch. Anyone who tells you differently does not have all the facts. The historic state and federal tax credits that are currently available make this possible and many of the re-developed buildings that you see in use today would not be possible without these tax credits. (Message edited by rjlj on January 04, 2009) |
Rhymeswithrawk Member Username: Rhymeswithrawk
Post Number: 1637 Registered: 11-2005
| Posted on Sunday, January 11, 2009 - 2:25 am: | |
There is a meeting at Preservation Wayne at 10 a.m. Tuesday if anyone would like to come brainstorm and discuss ways to save the Lafayette. It's right next to the Hillberry. |
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan
Post Number: 4043 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Sunday, January 11, 2009 - 3:40 am: | |
Has anyone mentioned the Wayne County Land Bank in any of the ideas offered thus far? |
Erikd Member Username: Erikd
Post Number: 622 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Sunday, January 11, 2009 - 6:48 am: | |
quote:Well, it's a good thing there's a ton of surface parking by the MGM Grand. You know, for all the future spin-off development the casinos will bring. MGM Grand built out every inch of ten city blocks, leaving no vacant land or surface parking lots on their property. Most of the adjacent parcels of land are home to the DTE campus. There is very little surface parking around the MGM Grand casino complex. |
Sean_of_detroit Member Username: Sean_of_detroit
Post Number: 2265 Registered: 03-2008
| Posted on Friday, February 13, 2009 - 8:38 pm: | |
Bump |
Busterwmu Member Username: Busterwmu
Post Number: 506 Registered: 09-2004
| Posted on Saturday, February 14, 2009 - 5:47 pm: | |
Hmmm, it seems the new owners of the Free Press Building down the block are working on the lower three floors of the building (1st for retail and the next two for offices), and then they're going to mothball the top floors till further notice. ....kinda sounds familiar. Apparently there is some kind of coalition for reuse or something of the Lafayette. What's all this about? |