  Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1989 Registered: 12-2004 |
quote: Fine. You pay for it. I for one am tired of the City of Detroit pissing away its limited money on stupid projects like this and then complaining that they don't have the cash to do anything productive. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4644 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: If you put the money spent on demolitions of: Tuller Hotel YMCA Hudson's Madison-Lenox Statler-Hilton Motown Building Tiger Stadium Lafayette Building and hundreds upon hundreds of houses, in addition to various properties owned by Mike Ilitch... ..you would easily have enough money to complete a full renovation on at least two of those buildings and return them to the tax rolls. Instead, the money (PUBLIC money!) gets pissed away on zero-ROI demolition projects. And now Cockrel wants to use FEDERAL money to demolish a privately-owned property, the Michigan Central Terminal. Where does the madness end? Yet people piss and moan about Detroit's "image problem". No shit. | ||
Kensingtony Member Username: Kensingtony Post Number: 63 Registered: 09-2008 |
KtKeller,well said.If the city fathers the early 19th century had bought into the mothballing scheme,we'd still have the first Ponchartrain Hotel and probably several other buildings on sites that were later developed into what we have now.What the "preservation firsters"seem not to grasp is that no one has indicated any kind of interest in reusing these buildings.You can't keep them all. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1990 Registered: 12-2004 |
quote: Since it usually costs more to demolish a building than to mothball it, all of them. Plus, by keeping historic buildings around, we retain their eligibility for state & federal tax credits when the market is ready for their reuse. Once they're gone, so is access to those funds. | ||
Detourdetroit Member Username: Detourdetroit Post Number: 380 Registered: 10-2003 |
of course you can't keep them all. as an ardent preservationist, i am the first to admit it. while stupid, shortsighted and wasteful cart before the horse, the demos of west of woodward do not reach the level of the stupid, shortsighted and wasteful demolition of vital fabric like the lafayette. the difference between the pontchartrain and the lafayette, is that there was a funded, thought through higher and better use in the first national building coming on the heels of the pontch. here, there is NOTHING proposed. you're relying on a flawed logic. | ||
Busterwmu Member Username: Busterwmu Post Number: 571 Registered: 09-2004 |
Well I just emailed Mayor Cockrel a rather convincing message to prevent the demolition contracts from going out. Here's hoping others are doing the same. Well said about the tax credits, Fnemecek, and you are 100% correct about the lack of a plan, DetourDetroit! | ||
Barebain Member Username: Barebain Post Number: 37 Registered: 02-2006 |
There would also be no Penn Station in New York or empty Hudson’s site right here in Detroit. I, for one, am not an advocate of Preservation at all costs. If there is a developer ready to get their hands on a site currently occupied by an abandoned building (such as the old Commerce Building across the street from the Lafayette), then demolition is a viable option in almost every case. (Prime examples to the contrary, in my opinion, include places like the Acropolis or Michigan Central Terminal. Places where history and monumentality trump the value of a new building) What the Demolition Firsters don’t seem to grasp is the idea that we cannot get these structures back once they’ve been torn down. Simple as that. These buildings are truly unique, and cannot be reproduced. If you doubt this point, please take a quick visit to the Penobscot, Dime, Guardian, and Fisher buildings, or any of the hundreds of historic homes right here in the city. It is true, all the buildings cannot be saved, but can we at least give them a fighting chance? | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4645 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: I think you mean Grand Central Terminal. The original Penn Station was demolished by the struggling Pennsylvania Railroad in order to construct the hideous office building now on the same site. | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 6269 Registered: 08-2004 |
As beautiful as the first Hotel Ponchartrain was, it was doomed by the way it was built. Back at the beginning of the 20th century most hotel rooms did not come with private baths. You had to go down the hall to get to a bathroom at the Ponchartrain. This was one of the death knells for that building. The room sizes were also a consideration. Anyone staying at the Milner over by Harmonie Park will confirm that the rooms are pretty small. Large hotel rooms or suites were rare back then. It would have required a total gutting of all the walls of the interior of the building, as well as redoing all the plumbing. A very expensive undertaking. Instead of the 16 story Ponchartrain Hotel, we now have the 22 story First National Building, a larger structure that is also very attractive. At least there were plans on a building to replace it (as is often the case when older buildings in New York City or Chicago come down). But in Detroit, it seems that buildings only get replaced with parking lots or girder farms. There's a book called LOST CHICAGO... that shows all the wonderful architecture that was lost over the last hundred years, but at least it was replaced by other larger skyscrapers. In the last 50 years this scenario hasn't happened in Detroit that often. Buildings come down... and have not been replaced. So Chicago and New York downtowns have still been growing... while some on this forum are willing to settle for in our downtown... is a version of "Detroit Lite".  | ||
Detourdetroit Member Username: Detourdetroit Post Number: 381 Registered: 10-2003 |
YES! and that fighting chance is a reallocation of demo dollars in this case to a smart plan to stabilize, secure, and mothball, with money left over for making the building pretty to look at while we try figure $h!t out. | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 1301 Registered: 07-2007 |
Look, this is really simple. It looks like the DDA has at least $3 million to burn (going by 3WC's cost estimate, see Professor, I'm giving you some credit). Is the top priority downtown knocking down this building? Or is there a greater need or better way to spend those funds? That's the way the issue should be presented to the Mayor and anyone else who has a say on this. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1991 Registered: 12-2004 |
quote: #1. In the 19th century, Detroit was rapidly growing. Mothballing didn't exist then because there were few vacant structures. #2. Also, because of Detroit's rapid growth in the 19th century, those few buildings that were vacant or underutilized were quickly replaced with other buildings. It's generally accepted that replacing one building with another is fine. The objects come when idiots what to replace a built resource with vacant land. #3. There hasn't been a concerted effort to market the property, therefore, it shouldn't come as a surprise that it no one has expressed an interest in it. If you don't try, you're odds of succeeding aren't very good. #4. No one suggested that we save every building. I'm only interested in the ones that make economic sense. | ||
Dtowncitylover Member Username: Dtowncitylover Post Number: 535 Registered: 02-2008 |
Why should we tear down a building when there is no plan to build another in it's place? I find it appauling that we want to use stimulus money to tear down MCS...didn't Obama say we should use this money for progress? I think progress would be trying to save these architecual gems. Not saying that the stim money should be used towards LB...but if you have the money to tear it (LB) down, wouldn't you rather save it? | ||
Barebain Member Username: Barebain Post Number: 38 Registered: 02-2006 |
Danindc, I did mean Penn Station. My comment was (an admittedly snarky one) in reference to the kind of things that happen when preservation is not considered. See references to both Penn Station and the Hudson Block. | ||
Busterwmu Member Username: Busterwmu Post Number: 573 Registered: 09-2004 |
I think I'm going to repost this as it was buried a ways up there. Hope that's ok, Rawk. Dear friends of the Lafayette Building, Today (yesterday) 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 | ||
Gumby Member Username: Gumby Post Number: 1008 Registered: 11-2003 |
quote: Bullshit | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 1303 Registered: 07-2007 |
The DDA also has funding for preservation/rehabilitation projects. A lot of that was diverted for the Quicken project, which doesn't look like it's going to happen. Ask the Mayor, the DDA and the DEGC to use some of those funds to mothball the building until a prospective use can be found. It's not a matter of the money not being available. It's the DDA choosing not to spend it that way. | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 3827 Registered: 06-2008 |
quote: Novine: I tend to avoid responding to your posts since I often find them lacking in substance by the standards of this forum and because of your sarcastic, condescending tone, but I feel compelled to point out the marvelously flawed logic in the gem quoted above. For your argument to make sense, you'd have to assume that the actions of George Jackson are the only force acting upon downtown property values. This simply isn't so. There are many market forces at work that operate independent of the DDA's actions; cost of financing, availability of financing, liquidity in the RE market, population trends, just to name a few. The flaw in your argument is that you assume that property values would have either stayed flat or increased at a steady rate had the DDA not taken any action. You fail to acknowledge other market forces that affect the demand for downtown property, most of which play a much larger role in determining property values than George Jackson. The effectiveness or ineffectiveness of any investment strategy cannot be measured simply by comparing current values to past values. The proper way to evaluate the strategy's effectiveness is to examine current values relative to where values otherwise would have been had no action been taken. This involves a degree of speculation, but it isn't difficult to form a near consensus among market watchers as to what that trend might have been, and it's not unlikely that most would agree that downtown property values still would have fallen during the time period studied in the report even if the DDA had done nothing. | ||
Kahnman Member Username: Kahnman Post Number: 72 Registered: 02-2006 |
I emailed the mayor and aide. A small voice in the (Washington State) wilderness sent... | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 1304 Registered: 07-2007 |
"I tend to avoid responding to your posts since I often find them lacking in substance by the standards of this forum and because of your sarcastic, condescending tone" You forgot to point out your inability to back up your claims with any kinds of facts or details that would elevate them beyond speculation or guessing. As for the sarcasm, you earned that with you constant repetition of your claims while failing to respond to my questions about the basis of your claims. You're not obligated to respond to my questions but I'm also not obligated to pretend that you can't provide any factual basis for your statements. As I've pointed out several times, it was you who claimed that demolition led to increases in property values in surrounding properties. On what did you base that claim? My comments were directed at the overall trend. The reason that a DDA exists is to stabilize and increase property values within the district. When it fails to do so, that's a good reason to question the effectiveness of the methods being used by the DDA. From the enabling act: "AN ACT to provide for the establishment of a downtown development authority; to prescribe its powers and duties; to correct and prevent deterioration in business districts; to encourage historic preservation; to authorize the acquisition and disposal of interests in real and personal property; to authorize the creation and implementation of development plans in the districts; to promote the economic growth of the districts; to create a board; to prescribe its powers and duties; to authorize the levy and collection of taxes; to authorize the issuance of bonds and other evidences of indebtedness; to authorize the use of tax increment financing; to reimburse downtown development authorities for certain losses of tax increment revenues; and to prescribe the powers and duties of certain state officials." | ||
Kensingtony Member Username: Kensingtony Post Number: 64 Registered: 09-2008 |
All right Gumby,where's the interest?Tell us,who's expressed a REAL interest with a viable,funded, plan in developing the LaFayette Building or one of the other gems in waiting.And IF there's a real,viable,funded,plan why has no project started?It always comes down to a basic question-how long you reasonably hold out for a building's re-use before it becomes a lost cause?It IS a shame that there's no interest in rehabing these old buildings but there comes a time to realize that not all of them can be saved,no matter how much one would like to believe the opposite.The area's population base is,unfortunately,shrinking so there will be even fewer people to need to work downtown or anywhere else in the Metro area.Sad but true.I fear that Michigan soon will be North Dakota with water. | ||
Birdie Member Username: Birdie Post Number: 144 Registered: 04-2007 |
this is the response i to my email to ken cockrel: I understand your concerns. What follows is an excerpt from an e-mail sent to me by George Jackson, Chief Development Officer for the City of Detroit on March 25th. This outlines why this is the only rational course of action here: "The rationale for demolishing the Lafayette Building is that it has been vacant for many years and more important, we have several experienced developers, and DEGC construction professionals that have determined that it is economically not feasible to rehab. We place great emphasis on experienced developers who are required to invest, and find others to invest in properties, then have to make a profit. John Ferchill, Peoples development, Quicken Loans and countless others, have determined that the Lafayette Building should be demolished rather than rehabed. We have offered this building for development since I arrived 7 years ago, and it was obviously available before then. Another reason for demolition is that it is considered urban blight by investors who might want to invest in Downtown Detroit. It makes our marketing and sales pitch harder, it hurts more than it helps. There is also cost associated with this maintaining these structures, which have no possibility of renovation. Demolition remediation is currently underway, and a pre-bid meeting for demolition was held today. We should select a demolition firm shortly." NONONONONONONONONONONONO!!! | ||
Leannam1989 Member Username: Leannam1989 Post Number: 250 Registered: 06-2008 |
Somebody wanna give the building last rights? What a shame. I really don't see why this building is such a detriment to Downtown. I doubt when people drive in Downtown Detroit the Lafayette Building is one they specifically point to and say "Wow Detroit is a dump". I'm not sure an empty lot will be much more aesthetically pleasing. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1992 Registered: 12-2004 |
quote: Brilliant! George Jackson made a half-hearted, utterly clueless attempt to develop the property. Therefore, the City of Detroit needs to spend a few million of its limited dollars to knock it down. The only rationale move at this point is to change who is making the decisions within the City of Detroit. | ||
Rjlj Member Username: Rjlj Post Number: 854 Registered: 11-2003 |
Is it just me but can you tell me who the "Peoples development" group is? It is "Peebles" Development. Glad we have the highest qualified in charge. | ||
Rjlj Member Username: Rjlj Post Number: 855 Registered: 11-2003 |
New Freep article http://www.freep.com/article/2 0090327/NEWS01/90327072/Preser vationists+rally+for+Lafayette +Bldg. | ||
Russix Member Username: Russix Post Number: 224 Registered: 11-2006 |
The money estimated for demolition should be offered as an incentive to a developer to renovate the property. It should be paid out in increments as the building progresses towards completion or used to protect the developer from cost overruns. We're just about to piss all this money away, when we should be trying to invest it. We have too much empty space, this drives the demand for urban density way down and the property values with it. A city is a technology that allows more humans to exist in a space than the raw land itself can handle. The three fundamentals to this technology are: Plumbing, Vertical Construction, Transit. If all the plumbing for some reasons stopped working the city would fall apart(and stink). If the knowledge to safely maintain structures was lost and buildings started failing the city would fail. The legacy transit system was torn apart and replaced with a more cost efficient version of basically the same service. Other cities invested heavily in improving transit technology while we gambled on the suburban concept. The suburbs are essentially "New Detroit" as they fully embrace these concepts by shying away from density and when they actually do build something dense its built almost by rule to provide one parking spot per person. This model is now the basis for redeveloping the city. Without one of the fundamentals of urban density, its quite easy to see and watch it drain away. If there isn't more empasis on developing transit then the formula for a functioning city will remain flawed and this building and many other buildings will not have a purpose. If a light rail line was to roll down Michigan Ave to the airport tomorrow this building would bloom so fast you wouldn't even recognize it. But this concept is alien here, it doesn't fit the "New Detroit" model, even though the functional success of other cities is easily measurable. The DDA needs to start looking into how to drive the value of urban land up, not down by adding more parking lots. | ||
Wpitonya Member Username: Wpitonya Post Number: 96 Registered: 08-2005 |
haha, I was just about to post my response from the Mayor...I thought it was just for me j/k! Russix, I agree 100%...why don't they give the building away, and include the incentive. They could even include only half of the money set aside for demolition. | ||
Rhymeswithrawk Member Username: Rhymeswithrawk Post Number: 1871 Registered: 11-2005 |
Petition to save the Lafayette: http://www.petitiononline.com/ Lafayett/petition.html I got a form letter response from Cockrel (pasted below) that several of my other friends received. from Kenneth Cockrel <kenneth.cockrel@detroitmi.gov> to xxxxxxx <xxxxx@xxxxx.com> date Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 2:50 PM subject Re: Lafayette Building demolition I understand your concerns. What follows is an excerpt from an e-mail sent to me by George Jackson, Chief Development Officer for the City of Detroit on March 25th. This outlines why this is the only rational course of action here: "The rationale for demolishing the Lafayette Building is that it has been vacant for many years and more important, we have several experienced developers, and DEGC construction professionals that have determined that it is economically not feasible to rehab. We place great emphasis on experienced developers who are required to invest, and find others to invest in properties, then have to make a profit. John Ferchill, Peoples development, Quicken Loans and countless others, have determined that the Lafayette Building should be demolished rather than rehabed. We have offered this building for development since I arrived 7 years ago, and it was obviously available before then. Another reason for demolition is that it is considered urban blight by investors who might want to invest in Downtown Detroit. It makes our marketing and sales pitch harder, it hurts more than it helps. There is also cost associated with this maintaining these structures, which have no possibility of renovation. Demolition remediation is currently underway, and a pre-bid meeting for demolition was held today. We should select a demolition firm shortly." | ||
Wpitonya Member Username: Wpitonya Post Number: 97 Registered: 08-2005 |
Done. Now keep this thread at the top so that everyone signs this! |
