Discuss Detroit » DISCUSS DETROIT! » Lafayette Building appears doomed » Archive through March 26, 2009 « Previous Next »
Top of pageBottom of page

Gsgeorge
Member
Username: Gsgeorge

Post Number: 783
Registered: 08-2006
Posted on Thursday, March 26, 2009 - 12:40 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Wow Brag, you just opened up a whole new can of worms. Tiger Stadium & MCS will "not be missed"? Try talking to some people who actually live in Detroit (I am guessing you don't since you once "stayed at the Book"). These are our city's treasures. Many people have poured their sweat and blood into saving structures like the Tiger Stadium & MCS. It's idiots like you who think they "won't be missed" that are part of the reason Detroit looks the way it does today.

I am not sure you can say the construction of the YMCA, new lofts, and Compuware building were a direct result of the Hudson's demolition. How exactly do you connect the dots here? I am guessing those renovations took place because some smart people understood the value in a vibrant and historic downtown, despite the loss of the Hudson's building...
Top of pageBottom of page

Gencinjay
Member
Username: Gencinjay

Post Number: 115
Registered: 03-2008
Posted on Thursday, March 26, 2009 - 12:43 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"If the Lafayette goes, that's 5 parking lots and 1 garage in a 2 block radius in the CBD. What is this, "Foxtown"?"

Actually, there are 4 garages in a 2 block radius.
Top of pageBottom of page

Registeredguest
Member
Username: Registeredguest

Post Number: 162
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Thursday, March 26, 2009 - 12:54 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Assuming that the Lafayette will become a parking lot, and taking this tidbit of news into account (http://www.freep.com/article/2 0090326/BUSINESS06/90326048), maybe the DDA should change its name to municipal parking authority. Better yet, merge and get rid of some bureaucrats.
Top of pageBottom of page

Busterwmu
Member
Username: Busterwmu

Post Number: 569
Registered: 09-2004
Posted on Thursday, March 26, 2009 - 12:59 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hey Brag, don't hate, it's not Lafayette's fault it shaped like a triangle (even thought it's really a trapezoid). Blame it on our friend Augustus Woodward who laid out the street plan 200 years ago! If the Lafayette is demoed, the ensuing empty lot will have the same footprint, as will the parking lot that will follow it, as probably will the new parking garage built there in 2025 because nothing will have been done with it by then...."Come dock your hovercraft at our uniquely shaped trapezoidal parking garage..."

This is a C. Howard Crane landmark, it is unique in it's footprint, and it retains its original cornice line, unlike many other high rise structures in the city. The Peebles plan should be proof that someone WAS in fact interested in rehabbing this historic structure. Unlike some other structures that have never had a second chance, the renovation of the B-C probably could provide more oomph to make it happen.

Go get 'em, preservation Wayne!

(Hey GSGeorge, great photos!)
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 4619
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Thursday, March 26, 2009 - 1:03 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Urbanfisherman, you'll note that Thejesus wrote the following:

quote:

The area will look better, the value of buildings in the area will increase, out of towners who stay at the BC will have a more pleasant experience to tell people about, and if something else is to ever get built there, this will only make it happen sooner.



All of these statements are speculative opinion. Not a single one of them is rooted or substantiated in economics or any other kind of objective measure. He's just guessing what other people will think. To call that "making shit up" is hardly an ad hominem attack.

quote:

There is no practical use for the Lafeyette building outside of ideas.



What's your basis for this conclusion, Bragaboutme? I don't see any reason it can't be offices, apartments, condos, or hotel space. Others have argued in the past that old office buildings do not lend themselves to modern uses, due to the floor plate dimensions. I currently live in a 1903 building that had been office space for 80 years. It is now 70 apartments, with office space on the second floor, and a bank at ground level.

quote:

Since 98, when the hudson building came down, that whole area witnessed change. The new Y.M.C.A., new lofts, Compuware, and the list goes on.



Are you proposing that the Hudson's demolition was the direct impetus for all of these projects, that somehow, the demolition of Hudson's suddenly made these other projects economically feasible? Conversely, if Hudsons were still standing, does this mean Comerica Park and Compuware could have never been built?

quote:

The V-shape is what is killing any chance of it being redeveloped into anything that would be profitable



Ever go to Washington, DC? DC has hundreds, if not thousands of triangular lots, due to its street grid. Most of them are not populated with vacant lots. This is a relatively new building on a lot far more awkward than the Lafayette site:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N ational_Association_of_Realtor s

A good architect can make the existing Lafayette building functional. This is just the same old litany of excuses from people who have their heads stuck in the 1950s and 60s. Get out more, and see that other cities are way beyond the stage of making excuses.

I honestly don't know how Detroit has so much money to demolish buildings, given the state of its budget.
Top of pageBottom of page

Novine
Member
Username: Novine

Post Number: 1293
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Thursday, March 26, 2009 - 1:06 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"Once again DaninDC sticks his head in to make another ad hominem pronouncement about someone who has a different viewpoint than he does."

I've asked Thejesus to back up the claims with some numbers. It should be fairly easy to show how demolition in Detroit has benefited the surrounding properties (compare increase in value of existing properties adjacent to abandoned buildings versus parking lots) and to provide a list of sites where demolition has led directly to new development (still waiting on 3rdworldcity's list of Ilitch demolitions that lead to development, perhaps the two can work on the list together.)
Top of pageBottom of page

Detourdetroit
Member
Username: Detourdetroit

Post Number: 377
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Thursday, March 26, 2009 - 1:06 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

because we've let our quasi public private stealth organizations have their own pool of public money, so they can choose for themselves how our tax dollars are wasted.
Top of pageBottom of page

Bragaboutme
Member
Username: Bragaboutme

Post Number: 640
Registered: 02-2008
Posted on Thursday, March 26, 2009 - 1:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I understand that people put Blood, sweat, and tears into saving these structures. Their efforts are understood by me and so many others. I do live in the city, and I have stayed at the Book and other hotels just to give support. Where are the numbers, Gsgeorge? How can funding be secured for the redevelopement in this economy? How can this building be turned into a "Green space"? These are the questions that need to be asked. If there is no viable solution some of these structures need to be taken down, plain and simple.

City treasures should be worth money I don't think the Lafeyette has the same worth as a Book, or Guardian, or Penobscott. Some buildings are worth more down than up.

I'm no idiot, Detroit looks the way it does because of the failing auto-industry and the perception Detroit has in its own region. The small resurgence has been within the last 10 years in downtown and mid-town only because that perception has slowly changed. It comes a time when certain building have to be looked at for what they are. If this assesment is not made when funds are available then the window will close and we'll still be here arguing about structures that are standing in the way of progress. I'm all for keeping a buildings that can be used for the future, but these aren't those types of structures.
Top of pageBottom of page

Busterwmu
Member
Username: Busterwmu

Post Number: 570
Registered: 09-2004
Posted on Thursday, March 26, 2009 - 1:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Here's the text of today's Free Press article:

Bids sought to demolish Lafayette Building in Detroit

By JOHN GALLAGHER • FREE PRESS BUSINESS WRITER • March 26, 2009


Another downtown office building appears headed for the history books.

Detroit’s Downtown Development Authority is seeking bids to demolish the Lafayette Building, a vacant 1920s-era office building adjacent to the newly remade Westin Book Cadillac Hotel.

The 14-story building, designed by famed theater architect C. Howard Crane, once held Michigan Supreme Court offices and many other functions. But it has been vacant for more than a decade and is marred by graffiti and trees growing from the roof.

Bids for the demolition work are due by early April.

George Jackson, president of the Detroit Economic Growth Corp., a quasi-public arm of the city that performs staff work for the DDA, said several attempts to redevelop the Lafayette Building had failed.

“I don’t think we have a choice,” he said today after a DDA meeting. “I’ve been here over seven years and we’ve talked to several developers. The project just doesn’t financially and economically pencil out. We are very confident that this is, in this case, the best alternative.”

Preservation Wayne, a nonprofit group that seeks to save historic buildings, has been working to prevent demolition. Karen Nagher, president of the group, was scheduled to appear before City Council today urging Council to save the city-owned structure.

Asked about those preservation efforts, Jackson said, “I wish they had come up with some great solutions that were feasible and realistic over the last seven years that I’ve been here.”

The building is at 132-144 W. Lafayette Boulevard. It occupies a triangular lot, bordered by Michigan Avenue, West Lafayette Boulevard, and Shelby Street.

Contact JOHN GALLAGHER at 313-222-5173 or gallagher@freepress.com.



Dear George Jackson - the choice is, you can spend funds on demolition, or you could spend the same funds on securing the building and repairing the facade until things turn around and you have a building that you can market. So shut up already... that's the CHOICE.
Top of pageBottom of page

Thejesus
Member
Username: Thejesus

Post Number: 3817
Registered: 06-2008
Posted on Thursday, March 26, 2009 - 1:20 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

...not to mention a canvas for brilliant artists who take advantage of its windows for some of the most impressive paintings in the city. I feel like this is a good temporary solution to turning an "eyesore" into an art gallery. While we are waiting for redevelopment, the city should seal the building & preserve its bizarre window art, maybe even let more artists in to do their own window art. It is certainly an eye-catcher and coversation piece for out of town visitors...



Good god. If this is a typical Detroiter's attitude toward graffiti and vandalism, then it's no wonder why so many of the city's buildings remain in a perpetual state of depression.
Top of pageBottom of page

Rjlj
Member
Username: Rjlj

Post Number: 849
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Thursday, March 26, 2009 - 1:30 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"The V-shape is what is killing any chance of it being redeveloped into anything that would be profitable, lofts no, hotel no, office space no, apartments no, it has to go. "


The claim that the shape of this building does not allow it to be redeveloped is tiresome and false. Go you New York City or D.C. as Danindc mentioned and you will see many buildings similar in shape to this. Ever hear of one of the most famous building in NYC called the Flat Iron Building?

Might as well get rid of the Metropolitan Building and the David Whitney building’s as well. The city may get better deals if they order up demolitions in bulk. Detroit’s worst enemy is itself.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 4620
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Thursday, March 26, 2009 - 1:31 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

How can funding be secured for the redevelopement in this economy?



Now you're going to blame the economy? Remember--there isn't a mandate to DO SOMETHING, ANYTHING with the Lafayette Building right now. Most cities mothball their historic structures until the economic conditions are ripe. To go on a limb, though, I'd suggest that the demolition money the DdA is willing to put forward might be good seed money for redevelopment.

And what of all the structures that were demolished during the economic boom that preceded this collapse?

quote:

If there is no viable solution some of these structures need to be taken down, plain and simple.



And that's precisely the problem. The DdA doesn't look for solutions--they look for money to tear down "eyesores". Has anyone seen a feasibility study completeda by the DdA? Of course not. They're just guessing.

quote:

If this assesment is not made when funds are available then the window will close and we'll still be here arguing about structures that are standing in the way of progress.



Detroit has plenty of empty lots that aren't "standing in the way of progress". Nice of you to recycle that argument from 1998, though. How's the redevelopment of the Hudson's site coming along, anyway?

quote:

I'm all for keeping a buildings that can be used for the future, but these aren't those types of structures.



How did you reach this decision? Are you an engineer or architect that has walked the building and performed a feasibility study?
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitred
Member
Username: Detroitred

Post Number: 28
Registered: 02-2009
Posted on Thursday, March 26, 2009 - 1:32 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I think they should just blow up the Lafayette and let it crash down on top of the Coney Islands. If people want "progress" and "development" they can't let history stand in the way.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detourdetroit
Member
Username: Detourdetroit

Post Number: 378
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Thursday, March 26, 2009 - 1:33 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

demolishing the lafayette is an act of wasteful, shortsighted destruction. since there is no redevelopment plan for this prime urban parcel, as much blight will be created through the building's demo as is being removed. the burden of proof is as much on DEGC as the building huggers...'nuff said IMHO.

...makes city lovers like me look to remove themselves from the entrenched sickness that undermines big picture thinking in dear old d at every turn.

Ani sez, "the ghosts of old buildings haunt parking lots..." and i'm feeling mighty spooked.

(Message edited by detourdetroit on March 26, 2009)
Top of pageBottom of page

Urbanoutdoors
Member
Username: Urbanoutdoors

Post Number: 1140
Registered: 11-2005
Posted on Thursday, March 26, 2009 - 1:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/a rticle/20090326/FREE/903269988
Top of pageBottom of page

Dcmorrison12
Member
Username: Dcmorrison12

Post Number: 132
Registered: 02-2009
Posted on Thursday, March 26, 2009 - 1:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I definitely e-mail the mayor about this one
Top of pageBottom of page

Mama_jackson
Member
Username: Mama_jackson

Post Number: 509
Registered: 06-2006
Posted on Thursday, March 26, 2009 - 1:58 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It seems so sad. Everytime a beautiful building is torn down and replaced with a parking lot, we are saying we will never be what we once where and have no sign post to show where we were.
Top of pageBottom of page

Rhymeswithrawk
Member
Username: Rhymeswithrawk

Post Number: 1859
Registered: 11-2005
Posted on Thursday, March 26, 2009 - 2:04 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"The date is unclear Today is thursday March 26. Andy was talking about Thursday March 27. So is the meeting today or tomorrow?"

The meeting was this morning. The gist of it is this: The Council has absolutely ZERO power to stop the DDA. The ONLY thing that will save the Lafayette is if Cockrel tells Jackson to stop. That's a Hail Mary pass, but it's worth flooding Cockrel's office with e-mails and phone calls to urge him to revisit the issue.
It's unreal that this quasi-public arm can do whatever it wants with a building owned by the people of the City of Detroit. How can the fate of a building owned by the people be razed without input from the council elected to represent the people?
Top of pageBottom of page

Bragaboutme
Member
Username: Bragaboutme

Post Number: 641
Registered: 02-2008
Posted on Thursday, March 26, 2009 - 2:04 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Those buildings that are mentioned are not V shaped, and those cities differ from Detroit in some many ways. The main point is there has been no activity at that sight, and please explain the growth that occurred before the Hudson building came down?, ok I rest my case. The only reason to argue for these structures is to argue and nothing more. The solution would be to come up with a viable plan, if not then it has to go. Wait for change and change will never happen, plain and simple. The right plan needs to be put in place. The constant comparisons to other cities holds no weight IMHO because those cities don't have its region competing against itself for its downtown activity. Detroit has had so many cities in its own area competing against Detroit for their gain instead of it being a central downtown so don't go there.

If it is so prime, why is it sitting empty?
Top of pageBottom of page

Thejesus
Member
Username: Thejesus

Post Number: 3818
Registered: 06-2008
Posted on Thursday, March 26, 2009 - 2:05 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"Detroit has plenty of empty lots that aren't "standing in the way of progress". Nice of you to recycle that argument from 1998, though. How's the redevelopment of the Hudson's site coming along, anyway?"

The argument for knocking it down is not that there is a lack of vacant lots in the city, Dan. Rather, its the eyesore depresses the whole area.

Nothing has been built on the Hudson lot but consider the development that has gone up around it. It shouldn't be hard to imagine why the residents of the LAMR would be turned off by having have a gigantic boarded up building with graffiti all over it right outside their front door, not to mention the investors who created that development to begin with.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 4621
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Thursday, March 26, 2009 - 2:16 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

The argument for knocking it down is not that there is a lack of vacant lots in the city, Dan. Rather, its the eyesore depresses the whole area.



If you apply this line of reasoning to every building in Detroit, eventually, you'll have a downtown of nothing but parking lots, and neighborhoods full of open fields. I suspect that's not a desired outcome for anyone.

Once an "eyesore" is demolished, what happens? How attractive is a site to a potential owner or tenant if there isn't anything around there? And if I want to lease space in a building surrounded by parking lots, why shouldn't I just lease in the suburbs, where the rents are a hell of a lot cheaper?

Detroit isn't the first city to face the problem of eyesores, but it's certainly one of a very few that thinks it can demolish it's problems away.
Top of pageBottom of page

Russix
Member
Username: Russix

Post Number: 222
Registered: 11-2006
Posted on Thursday, March 26, 2009 - 2:19 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Its revitialization is entirely modeled after the process of suburbanization.
Top of pageBottom of page

Thejesus
Member
Username: Thejesus

Post Number: 3819
Registered: 06-2008
Posted on Thursday, March 26, 2009 - 2:26 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"If you apply this line of reasoning to every building in Detroit, eventually, you'll have a downtown of nothing but parking lots, and neighborhoods full of open fields."

Many of those vacant building have great architecture and better prospects for being rehabbed, which to me outweighs the harm they cause from being eyesores. The LB doesn't fit in that category in my opinion, which is why I say good riddance.

"How attractive is a site to a potential owner or tenant if there isn't anything around there?"

Personally, I'd be far less likely to buy land or lease space in that area with that eyesore sitting there than I would if it were gone. Many people share my view, including the DEGC.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 4622
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Thursday, March 26, 2009 - 2:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

If we use the logic that Thejesus (and people like 3rdworldcity) presents, then every city on the East Coast should have been completely flattened in the 1970s. Well, that, and Houston would be a modern urban utopia.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detourdetroit
Member
Username: Detourdetroit

Post Number: 379
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Thursday, March 26, 2009 - 2:30 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

bragabout...

the logic of your posts are not so worth braggin about...

Freep sez:

[GEORGE JACKSON] “I don’t think we have a choice,” he said today after a DDA meeting. “I’ve been here over seven years and we’ve talked to several developers. The project just doesn’t financially and economically pencil out. We are very confident that this is, in this case, the best alternative.”

[^^^NO WONDER THAT'S HIS CONCLUSION IN THE WORST ECONOMIC CLIMATE IN A CENTURY IN THE MOST DEPRESSED CITY IN AMERICA. KEEP IN MIND THE BC WAS VACANT FOR 20 YEARS. NICE TO "WAIT" ON THAT STRUCTURE.]

Waiting on the BC resulted in a $180 INVESTMENT in the building. Meanwhile, Tuller site- almost 20 years of nothing $? million sinkhole; Hudson's site- 10 years of nothing, $50+ million sinkhole; Statler site- nearly 4 years of nothing, $15+ million sinkhole; Mad-Len site 4 years of nothing, $1.5 million sinkhole.

Let us reorient our energy and dollars to FILL the vacant spaces before we destroy what little is left.

Bragabout... mothballing worthy buildings for future development and the worthy desire to want change are ideals that can happily coexist in the same central business district.
Top of pageBottom of page

Rhymeswithrawk
Member
Username: Rhymeswithrawk

Post Number: 1860
Registered: 11-2005
Posted on Thursday, March 26, 2009 - 2:43 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I'm almost tempted to start a new thread so this isn't buried, but ... from the Lafayette Facebook page:

Dear friends of the Lafayette Building,
Today the head of Preservation Wayne, Andy Linn and an executive at Bank of America spoke before a City Council committee urging intervention to stop the demolition by the Downtown Development Authority. We learned that the ONLY person who can issue a stay of execution is Mayor Ken Cockrel Jr. - and he must stop the DDA BEFORE April 2, a week from today.
Please, if you haven't already, send an e-mail to Mayor Cockrel urging him to have the DDA clean up and secure the Lafayette for future redevelopment at a fraction of the cost of a demolition.
PLEASE send a quick e-mail or letter to Cockrel below urging him to intervene. This is our last chance.

The Honorable Mayor Ken Cockrel
Executive Office
Coleman A. Young Municipal Center
2 Woodward Ave., Ste. 1126
Detroit, MI 48226
kenneth.cockrel@detroitmi.gov

Or you can reach his aide Thelma Brown at:
thelma.brown@detroitmi.gov
Top of pageBottom of page

Sciencefair
Member
Username: Sciencefair

Post Number: 162
Registered: 10-2007
Posted on Thursday, March 26, 2009 - 2:46 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

So, if the DEGC shares your view then both of you MUST be right. Glad we cleard this one up!

Please tell me, do you really think the LB is deterring developers from building downtown more so than the critically depressed economy?
If so, who wants to take bets on how long that lot will sit vacant (surface parking not included) after the building comes down?
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 4623
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Thursday, March 26, 2009 - 2:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Does anyone know what the Book-Cadillac Hotel is paying in taxes to the City of Detroit?
Top of pageBottom of page

Leannam1989
Member
Username: Leannam1989

Post Number: 245
Registered: 06-2008
Posted on Thursday, March 26, 2009 - 3:00 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I don't see any reason to demo this building. Yeah, the economy is bad. But it won't last forever. In 2011 or 2012 people may be looking back on this as "what were thinking?"

I know in St. Louis there are two dozen renovation projects completed in the last 10 years. Yes, they are different cities, but any of you who have seen Escape From New York know that the city was not in great shape in 1981. But the Statler got rehabbed, and the Lennox across the street. Lucas Lofts was rehabbed in 2005 (the same year a local paper called it "a dilapidated monstrosity".) Banker's Lofts, Dorsa Lofts, Bee Hat Lofts, Merchandise Mart Apartments, Vanguard Lofts, Meridian, Rudman on the Park (looked like this at one time: http://www.builtstlouis.net/wa shington/images/rudman01.jpg , Fashion Square, Knickerbocker Lofts, Garment Row, Syndicate-Trust, Paul Brown Building, Lofts @ 315, Marquette, Haggerty Building, Roberts Lofts on the Plaza, The Monkey Building (now home to Wind Energy Group, despite a 2007 roof collapse), Cupples Station Loft Apartments, International Fur Exchange (saved after demo had begun), Ely Walker, Railway Lofts, Ventana, Cupples Station Loft Apartments, King Bee, and Tudor Lofts have all been rehabbed Downtown since 2000.

Obviously, they're different cities, but if St. Louis can catch the rehab bug, why not Detroit? Yes, we got a new baseball stadium in 2006 (half-way into the rehab spree), but you guys did too in 2000.

I just don't see the rationale for tearing down the Lafayette Building. Why not leave it there and wait for economic conditions to get better? It could still be rehabbed. How long did the Book-Cadillac sit empty?

Sure, later new buildings could be built Downtown, but you hear of cities like Boston being renowned for their 19th-20th century architecture. I just don't see the point in tearing down a Historic building for absolutely no reason.
Top of pageBottom of page

D_mcc
Member
Username: D_mcc

Post Number: 1786
Registered: 12-2007
Posted on Thursday, March 26, 2009 - 3:00 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Dan and I were talking, we both feel our downtown stadiums are vacant too much...lets tear them down...