  Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 1294 Registered: 07-2007 |
"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." Yes, we know what you "think". How about backing up your thinking with some numbers. I thought I asked two simple questions. 1. Show some numbers that justify your claim that a vacant lot is of greater benefit an area than an abandoned building. 2. Provide a list of demolition sites that have been redeveloped in downtown Detroit. Bonus points if you can break out the Ilitch sites for Professor 3worldcity. | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 3820 Registered: 06-2008 |
"So, if the DEGC shares your view then both of you MUST be right. Glad we cleard this one up! " No, I'm simply point out that the alternative view exists whether you want it to or not and that we can have a civilized discussion about these differing views without resorting to insults and hostile language. Up until I posted in this thread, it was a completely one-sided discussion. Nobody was representing the other side of the coin. (Message edited by thejesus on March 26, 2009) | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 1295 Registered: 07-2007 |
Just to show that the stupidity is not just Detroit. Another example of self-inflicted destruction and the end result. http://allthingsbuffalo.wnymed ia.net/blogs/2009/03/13/busine ss-friendly/ (Message edited by Novine on March 26, 2009) | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 3887 Registered: 04-2006 |
I bet that they build a parking lot on the site. Detroit doesn't know how to do anything other than demolish buildings and turn them into parking lots or parking structures. Detroit is as good of an example as any of why government should not be in the real estate business. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1987 Registered: 12-2004 |
For the past 50 years, every Mayor of Detroit has pointed to one particular building that "has to come down". We're yet to see such a demolition turn into anything productive. quote: | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4624 Registered: 10-2003 |
Looks like I'm gonna have to make a special trip to pour a can of Vernors on the ground in front of Lafayette Coney Island. | ||
Rhymeswithrawk Member Username: Rhymeswithrawk Post Number: 1862 Registered: 11-2005 |
The Lafayette Coney won't be razed, Danindc, just the Lafayette. | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 3821 Registered: 06-2008 |
"For the past 50 years, every Mayor of Detroit has pointed to one particular building that "has to come down". We're yet to see such a demolition turn into anything productive. " It sure makes the area more pleasant though. Boarded up windows, graffiti and broken glass are all major turnoffs. Even more so than a vacant lot. You disagree, I know. But the point is, not everyone feels the way you do, and there is strong support for the opposing viewpoint. | ||
Kensingtony Member Username: Kensingtony Post Number: 62 Registered: 09-2008 |
Here we go again.Whining about saving a building for which there is no apparent desire on the part of anyone to use.Realisticly,how long of a waiting time should there be for presentation of redevelopement plans before something is done with a building?One year?Two years?Five?Ten?At some point some action needs to be taken.Remember,not every "architectural gem" can be saved. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4625 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Develop an objective, measurable criterium first. quote: That doesn't mean there aren't ANY buildings worth saving. Again, what's your measure? Remember, not every "temporary parking lot" can be filled. (Message edited by DaninDC on March 26, 2009) | ||
D_mcc Member Username: D_mcc Post Number: 1787 Registered: 12-2007 |
TJ...you're a moron if you think a parking lot full of broken bottles and syringes, trash bags, and other debris is better than a mothballed building that has high potential to be brought back to life... | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4626 Registered: 10-2003 |
Well, at least there will be more space for the tent cities. | ||
Dtowncitylover Member Username: Dtowncitylover Post Number: 532 Registered: 02-2008 |
Why must anything be done to a building that doesn't NEED to be torn down? The Lafayette Building is a decent building that can easily be secured from urban explorers and thieves. It's such an awesome building. It may not be used, but it sure isn't an eyesore. I for one would rather look at the LB than ANOTHER STUPID PARKING LOT!...that Detroit doesn't need. If we do tear this down, down the line we will regret this. As someone else said above, we are tearing down Detroit one building at a time. That is a tragedy. | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 3823 Registered: 06-2008 |
Que the personal insults....now! quote: Sheesh. Maybe I should have let this thread remain a one-sided discussion and just left everybody to wonder what the other viewpoint was. | ||
Birdie Member Username: Birdie Post Number: 143 Registered: 04-2007 |
thejesus, where do you live? i'm not asking in an antagonistic way; i'm just curious to help me better understand where you are coming from. | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 6263 Registered: 08-2004 |
quote: C. Howard Crane's 1924 Lafayette Building:  Albert Kahn's 1920 General Motors Headquarters, which C. Howard Crane (a friend of fellow architect Kahn) used as his inspiration for the 1924 Lafayette Building:  Washington DC has many noble government buildings inspired by classic Greek designs (as have the Lafayette and former GM Buildings). Here is part of the Federal Triangle that shows many of the classic characteristics used at the top of both the Lafayette and GM Buildings:  Thejesus, I know you're very knowledgeable in the field of law. But unfortunately not on what constitutes good architecture... | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4629 Registered: 10-2003 |
Even if it's not great architecture, it's a perfectly useable building. | ||
Eastsideal Member Username: Eastsideal Post Number: 436 Registered: 10-2007 |
Like so many other decisions taken in Detroit in recent years, this one is totally short-sighted and stupid. Tearing down the Lafayette Building at this moment will mean nothing but an empty lot on the site for years to come. It will serve only to add to the desolation of our city, to make the redevelopment of downtown less likely, and the renovation of that particular building impossible forever. Before we tear down another of the buildings that make downtown Detroit special - indeed that make it a "downtown" at all - in the name of some nebulous possible new "development" to come (of which we've seen almost none), perhaps we should stop and think about what exactly would or could replace these buildings in that long-delayed future. And then consider why any possible outcome of this demolition, and other demolitions of structurally-sound historic buildings downtown, would be preferable to securing and mothballing the buildings as is. To do this in the hope of rehabilitating and reusing the irreplacable structures that are already there seems, in reality, at least as viable at this time as the totally pie-in-the-sky promise of some unknown development yet to come. Certainly better than the dubious "achievement" of creating yet another open field. In the meantime, the most exciting thing to happen downtown in many years has been the redevelopment of the Book Cadillac and Fort Shelby hotels, both buildings that sat empty for over a decade. I think though that Russix had it pretty much right above. Much of this phantom "redevelopment" talk seems predicated on a kind of tragically misguided suburban paradigm - tear down the old buildings and something like Troy will appear. But this is not, and should not be, the model for reinvigorating a historic central city like Detroit's. Instead we should look towards other cities that have saved and revitalized much of their older building stock, and mixed it in well with fill-in newer buildings to recreate and hold onto the density that makes a downtown what it is. There is a deep lack of urban imagination in this town, which is yet another thing that makes it seem like a place stuck in a time warp straight out of the '60s and '70s. But we really have to start rethinking it now, before it's too late. Far too many good buildings, and too much of the city's history and identity, have already been lost. How could we not have learned some sort of lesson from all of the vacant lots that have remained and marred downtown for decades, from the Kern Block to the Statler site? For a better future for all of us we need to hold onto what is left while we still can. | ||
Rhymeswithrawk Member Username: Rhymeswithrawk Post Number: 1864 Registered: 11-2005 |
"Sheesh. Maybe I should have let this thread remain a one-sided discussion and just left everybody to wonder what the other viewpoint was." I welcome TheJesus' dissenting views. I don't agree with him, but I'm glad to see the other side of the argument. Don't listen to the "Moron" schitt, TheJesus. I don't agree with you, but you certainly have the right here to say it. I also don't think anything that he has said is "moronic." The fact is: The Lafayette Building IS an eyesore right now. But for a FRACTION of the cost of a total demolition (remember, they'll have to go brick by brick, floor by floor like they did on the Statler as to not damage the other buildings) the DDA could clean the graffiti off the windows, secure the cornice and, god forbid, secure the damn thing. That would seem to alleviate the concerns of TheJesus and many, many other people downtown. I'm hard-core pro-saving the Lafayette, but I also realize that compared with the general populous' opinion on saving it, I'm in the minority. | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 3825 Registered: 06-2008 |
"Thejesus, I know you're very knowledgeable in the field of law. But unfortunately not on what constitutes good architecture..." I never claimed to be an expert. I'm speaking from my personal feelings and nothing more, and I find the LB to be aesthetically unpleasing and wouldn't miss it. Either way, nothing in your post really counters my argument. | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 3826 Registered: 06-2008 |
"the DDA could clean the graffiti off the windows, secure the cornice and, god forbid, secure the damn thing. That would seem to alleviate the concerns of TheJesus and many, many other people downtown. " I see what you're saying, but it begs the question that if it were that simple to secure (and clean) without losing the perceived benefits of just knocking the thing down, then why wouldn't it have already been done? | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4630 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: You're allowed to feel how you want, but should your emotions be allowed to trump good economic sense? I think that's the disconnect here. The pro-preservationists haven't seen an economic case in favor of demolition. Furthermore, limited public monies are being spent by a completely unaccountable agency to impose it's irrational will on a very public cityscape. If the DDA were to come out with numbers showing that there would never be a reasonable chance in hell of the Lafayette Building becoming a profitable (and taxable) property again, that would be one thing. They haven't. This is just George Jackson with his famous, "Oh well, we half-ass tried. Time to give up." In case you haven't noticed, there are a lot of people not willing to give up on Detroit. None of them happen to be on the City Council or the DDA, though. Put a power-washer on the Lafayette, and it'll look a hell of a lot better for 1000 bucks. | ||
Rhymeswithrawk Member Username: Rhymeswithrawk Post Number: 1865 Registered: 11-2005 |
It needs more than a power washing (cuz you can't power wash broken windows). The cornice is falling. The roof trees need a lumberjack. The roof is leaking. Still, such improvements would cost a fraction of the demo costs, which have to be at least $5 million if not more (especially when you factor in asbestos abatement). | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 1296 Registered: 07-2007 |
"Either way, nothing in your post really counters my argument." Let's skip all of the "my personal feelings" talk and get to dollars and cents. It's going to cost at least a million dollars to take the building down based on other demos downtown. Anyone care to provide a more accurate number? That's a million dollars for your view of a parking lot. For that million dollars, what does the city get? Is there any development proposal in the wings waiting to build on the site? No. Is there any massive increase in surrounding property values that will make up for that million dollars? None that anyone has been able to show. Is there some other benefit that will accrue that will justify spending that amount of money? No. A million dollars buys a parking lot. That's it. Nothing more. So the question to you, Thejesus, is setting aside your personal feelings, is that the best way for the city of Detroit to spend a million dollars? | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4635 Registered: 10-2003 |
All I know, is a million bucks could buy a lot of coneys. | ||
Bragaboutme Member Username: Bragaboutme Post Number: 642 Registered: 02-2008 |
Where is all this high potential at? I don't see any developers lining up to redo the Lafeyette. I see a building that is a crumbling eye sore period. It is a hazard, and it needs to come down. I don't regret them tearing down the hudson building, I don't regret them tearing down the buildings that sat where the stadiums sit, I don't regret the motown building, madison-lennex, buildings that were torn down for the renaisance center, buildings that were torn down for Hart Plaza, and the list goes on. If it needs to go it needs to go bottom line. If it can be redeveloped then let it happen. I BRAGABOUTPROGRESS, which Detroit has seen alot of especially in the last ten years. I think people just get in an uproar for the wrong reasons. There is no valid reason for keeping this structure standing in the condition it is in, just an excuse "for future development". The fact that it has to be fenced off so falling debris won't hit people walking by should be a valid enough reason for it to be taken down. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4637 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Developers aren't going to waste their time running numbers on a building that the You know, people once said the exact same thing about the Book-Cadillac. And as much as y'all like to make fun of Ohioans, it was a Clevelander (not preservation guru Mike Ilitch--go figure!) who stepped up to save the project and make the numbers work. | ||
Leannam1989 Member Username: Leannam1989 Post Number: 246 Registered: 06-2008 |
Sometimes it takes an outside developer to see the potential in a building. | ||
Bragaboutme Member Username: Bragaboutme Post Number: 643 Registered: 02-2008 |
So you agree that it is a crumblimg eye sore? | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 3745 Registered: 07-2004 |
You too can learn to debate online with the CCBatson Online Debate Correspondence Course.  |
