  Rhymeswithrawk Member Username: Rhymeswithrawk Post Number: 1874 Registered: 11-2005 |
It's a long shot push, but with the election coming up, who knows. I replied to Cockrel's form letter asking him to look at the facts and make his OWN decision instead of trusting Jackson, who has had daggers for this building for years. We'll see. | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 3828 Registered: 06-2008 |
I've been looking a bit more at this whole issue and no longer consider myself an outright advocate of the demolition camp. Upon closer inspection, there is some decent 20s-era architecture underneath all that disgusting graffiti. Some of the ideas that have been floated are interesting, such as using some of the demo money to either clean and secure the building or to offer it as an incentive to a potential developer. If the numbers make sense and the building could be cleaned up and secured like what was done with the UA building, I would be all for leaving it standing. But if the numbers really did make sense, it still begs the question as to why the DDA rejected both of these alternatives in the first place, which leaves me wondering whether they would be viable options. Also, I think the comparisons that people have made to the BC are misplaced. The LB is not in the same league as the BC in terms of its architecture, history and viability as a future development of some sort. Furthermore, it took a miracle just get the financing together for the BC and the jury is still out as to whether the investors will ultimately make or lose money. The Fort Shelby rehab, however, does seem to be an accurate case study to reference in determining the viability of a future rehab of the LB and that project produced pretty favorable results. But again, time will tell whether or not the FS rehab was ultimately a wise investment. | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 6270 Registered: 08-2004 |
Views fron Campus Martius looking west.... Downtown...  Downtown "lite"...  | ||
Leannam1989 Member Username: Leannam1989 Post Number: 251 Registered: 06-2008 |
Nice Photoshop. Wow. | ||
Rhymeswithrawk Member Username: Rhymeswithrawk Post Number: 1877 Registered: 11-2005 |
Write Cockrel an e-mail! Sign the petition! Not that it'll do any good for sure, but we've got little other chance. | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 6271 Registered: 08-2004 |
Thejesus, I give you a lot of credit for standing back and rethinking things. That takes spunk!  | ||
Detourdetroit Member Username: Detourdetroit Post Number: 382 Registered: 10-2003 |
i agree with you gistok...and appreciate Thejesus and his questioning of religion. no seriously. | ||
Rhymeswithrawk Member Username: Rhymeswithrawk Post Number: 1878 Registered: 11-2005 |
Now let's see if Thejesus saves. Poll on the freep article similar to the Tiger Stadium polls: pro-demo. Then again, most of the comments on freep.com are anti-Detroiters who want the whole city razed. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 3757 Registered: 07-2004 |
Can you blow up the image of the streetscape as a visual aid? That would raise a lot of eyebrows at a meeting or hearing. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 4430 Registered: 02-2005 |
Dear Mayor Cockrel, Please exercise your authority to stop the DDA/DEGC from demolishing the Lafayette Bldg., a truly unique Crane-designed building, a monument to our proud history, and an opportunity for unique future development. Please direct the DDA to spend its monies more wisely: secure and mothball this amazing building, rather than giving downtown yet another parking lot. Once a building is gone, we can never have it back. As a law student looking forward to owning property in Detroit soon, I believe that the future of the city rests in channeling vigorous economic development in a manner which keeps the city true to itself and to its history: this puts a premium on preservation, which has made New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago the distinctive places that they are today. Detroit has a unique urban makeup which is eroded each time a historic building is lost. I want to live in Detroit sometime soon, but I want it to be a restored version of the Detroit I grew up with, not a place devoid of the character and distinctiveness which makes it Detroit. I hope that you will continue your admirable work as our new mayor by making a bold but necessary decision on the Lafayette Building. Sincerely, .... | ||
Rhymeswithrawk Member Username: Rhymeswithrawk Post Number: 1879 Registered: 11-2005 |
Mackinaw, Did you e-mail it to Cockrel? Don't forget to sign the petition: http://www.petitiononline.com/ Lafayett/petition.html | ||
Busterwmu Member Username: Busterwmu Post Number: 575 Registered: 09-2004 |
Here is the reply I received to my email to the mayor. It seems to be the reply everyone is getting... 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." - - - - - - - So, here is my reply to this message. We all know George Jackson's stand on this. Mayor Cockrel, I understand George Jackson's position. It is one of his responsibilities, after all, to make such decisions. However, it is one of YOUR responsibilities to step in and change the course when necessary and responsible, and I feel that this is one such time. The story would be different if there was a plan for this site. If the demolition was to occur so that, for example, Quicken Loans could build their own headquarters structure on this very site, then by all means, let's do what's best for the city and make that happen. But Mr. Jackson has no such plan, to the best of my knowledge. How is that justifiable? We shall end up with another vacant empty lot, which will eventually become strewn with garbage. No developer has stepped forward to build a new structure on this site. We have seen no numbers to compel us to believe that the cost of stabilizing and sealing up the Lafayette Building drastically exceeds demolition. In fact, in most cases, the cost to do undertake such measures are but a fraction of the total abatement and demolition expenditures. If Mr. Jackson has such numbers which compel him to this decision, then they should be released, considering the building is essentially owned by the taxpayers. The DDA's current methodology of demolishing without presenting all the facts is simply irresponsible. This is where you, as Mayor of Detroit, have the power to make a change. Request from Mr. Jackson the total amount to stabilize and then seal up the building, regardless of if he says it is not feasible to rehab. The numbers should already be tabulated. If not, then not all options have been considered, and his rationale that it is infeasible to rehab is incomplete. I look forward to your response. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 4431 Registered: 02-2005 |
Yes on both counts, Rhymes. I will forward the petition. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 4433 Registered: 02-2005 |
BUMP 91 signatures is all DYes can provide? http://www.petitiononline.com/ Lafayett/petition.html You don't even have to move, just type. | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 1309 Registered: 07-2007 |
Someone asked about FOIA requests for documents. The rest of the e-mail from Mr. Jackson could provide some additional details into the decision to allow demolition to proceed. It's a public document and the Mayor stated what he shared was just a portion of it. "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." | ||
Reddog289 Member Username: Reddog289 Post Number: 1016 Registered: 08-2007 |
If I ain't said it before I will say it now.The real eyesores in this city are the houses/buildings that are half burned down,the garbage filled lots, burned out boats lying in abandoned factories. Those are eyesores to me.From reading this,"If the trees growing on the roof make it look bad cut them down", "If broken windows look bad, cover them up and Secure the building so it don't happen again". Slumpy was a cool building back in the day, Yet look where that went. In my opinion it does seem that alot of buildings are being torn down lately, While a group of Highly Educated People sing and whine about someone "Stealing Cobo out from under them" There are many great things in this city,New buildings, Old one's that got a make over, Old ones that could use one, and then we got the burned out crack houses that everyone from the outside loves to look at. Tear that shit down first,then work from there. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 4434 Registered: 02-2005 |
Well, the Lafayette is not half-burned and it's definitely not a boat. I agree, structures that are damaged/decayed to the point of being un-savable, like many houses (for awhile these were rare to see because KK was such an agressive destroyer of vacant homes, but last week in driving downtown on Charlevoix I saw a lot of newly burnt-out houses), should be torn down. It adds to the urban prairie, but, if it's burnt and half-gone, it's not coming back, at least in this city. I think a downtown landmark is a different issue, though. | ||
Pcm Member Username: Pcm Post Number: 34 Registered: 01-2009 |
bump! | ||
Bragaboutme Member Username: Bragaboutme Post Number: 646 Registered: 02-2008 |
I'm not changing my mind on this issue, but I have considered signing the petition. I'm no hater, and won't miss any sleep over it being demo'ed but I can support a good effort. I just don't see this as a bad thing, but I do see that George Jackson is in a position to produce action on this building for the Final Four and that is wrong IMHO. I think it needs to be demo'ed for the right reasons, ie. it being a hazard, and others(eye sore included). From the reply that I read from post above were only excuses to demo the LB. The DDA needs to make better efforts instead of excuses. I also think the presevationist need to present better arguments to support the case, ie. actual numbers and independant studies. That I believe will be a better argument than pictures, I know they're worth a 1000 words, but not in this case. I think the perception of downtown has changed because of the demo of many historic structures that failed to secure and retain tenants. The fact remains we have seen a positive change in downtown because these building were torn down. Another fact that has to be faced is, if no developer wants to develop these structurs then they have to be demo'ed. I want to know what company wishes they didn't demo any of the historic buildings that were so they could've re-developed it, or that was the reason they haven't re-located to Detroit?.....none? | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4648 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: The problem with that is, the City of Detroit doesn't commission feasibility studies for buildings it demolishes. If there were a report somewhere from an architect and structural engineer enumerating the work required for renovation, and a cost estimate provided by a general contractor, there wouldn't be so much of an argument. George Jackson isn't making an objective decision--he's GUESSING. AGAIN. The preservationists aren't able to conduct their own study because 1) they don't have access to the building and 2) it's not their responsibility in the first place. quote: That's not a fact. That's your opinion. To use one example, most of the housing stock in Philadelphia pre-dates the 1940s. If Philadelphia had demolished all of those buildings "because they're vacant", then that City would not be in a position to realize the redevelopment that it has seen in the past 10 years. quote: I'm gonna go on a limb and say John Ferchill is pretty happy the City never demolished the Book-Cadillac, like it intended to do so many times. | ||
Huggybear Member Username: Huggybear Post Number: 287 Registered: 08-2005 |
quote:How does he feel about the Lafayette Building? | ||
Bragaboutme Member Username: Bragaboutme Post Number: 648 Registered: 02-2008 |
Dan, the Book was never demolished, I asking about the ones that were. Philly isn't a good example their downtown hasn't been competing for their tenants in its own region, Detroit has. Also they and many other cities have demo'ed many of their historic structures. The first one I'm just asking for clarification. I would think that would be the thing to demand for presevation. I'm pretty sure Presevation Wayne has more resources to get information on historic buidlings they're trying to save. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4649 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Let's put it this way: If the Book-Cadillac had been demolished in the 1980s like Coleman Young wanted to do, you don't have a hotel and condos on that corner today. End of story. quote: You're right. Only Detroit is part of a much larger metropolitan area. Everywhere else has just been "lucky". quote: If you're considering the entire post-WWII period, I would agree. The difference is that most other cities have learned from past mistakes. Detroit has not. | ||
Bragaboutme Member Username: Bragaboutme Post Number: 649 Registered: 02-2008 |
If, if was a fif we'd all be drunk. Not lucky, just smart. Why do you consider these demo's as mistakes? Why not see them for what they are rotting buildings that have major problems being developed? | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4652 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: I thought this had been explained ad nauseum, but in summary: 1. It's cheaper to renovate a building than to demolish and build new. 2. These historic buildings are part of Detroit's history and culture. Demolition of them erases the "Detroit" in Detroit. 3. No demolition in Detroit has ever caused an increase in demand or property values, contrary to what the City elite spew. I would argue it reduces demand, as the feasibility of achieving an attractive urban center becomes less so with every vacant lot produced. 4. There is no good reason, in this economy, to spend limited public money on demolition. The DEGC has put forth a straw-man argument. No one ANYWHERE is developing buildings right now. The DEGC knows this (and if they don't, they need to find a new line of work). It's a convenient time for them to say that "nothing is feasible except demolition". All a demolition will do is make work for demolition contractors, and spend money the City doesn't have. 5. The Lafayette Building has been vacant for 20 years. Properly maintained (which it has NOT been), it could easily last until the real estate market rebounds, making a project more viable. 6. Demolition in the CBD creates a suburban environment similar to Southfield--a scattering of tall buildings, separated by use, unwalkable, and completely surrounded by parking lots. This pattern of development in downtown Detroit eliminates any competitive advantage the City retains over its own suburbs. The case for demolition is a disingenuous argument, and tenuous at best. People can rah-rah the demolition of the Lafayette all they want--it's not going to improve a God damned thing, aside from the bottom-lines of demolition contractors. | ||
Rjlj Member Username: Rjlj Post Number: 856 Registered: 11-2003 |
I think the main problems are that the majority of people lack vision. People do not see what could be and only see what is. People wanted the Book Cadillac torn down and but now they consider is a gem. Also, Detroit in general does not understand the general concept of creating value. You increase property values by investing in your property and maintaining them. Getting rid of them altogether does nothing to create value. | ||
Staticstate Member Username: Staticstate Post Number: 36 Registered: 07-2008 |
sounds like it's time to focus on saving the Book Tower before it ends up in the same shape as the Lafayette building and knocked down. | ||
Retroit Member Username: Retroit Post Number: 1086 Registered: 04-2008 |
This is a no-brainer in my opinion: the building should be saved. Therefore, I'm not going to waste my time arguing the matter. I think Swingline's recent history of the building reveals the root of the problem: owners that are not committed to restoration, but are merely using buildings as bargaining chips or for "flipping", i.e. buying in the hope of quickly reselling to another "investor". Add to that a dysfunctional city government that apparently has no authority to hold owners accountable, nor any power to affect positive growth and revitalization. (What the hell are they there for?) The reuse of the building has been talked about in the abstract, but I think if we could get pro-demolitionists to image the possibilities of reuse, it might help the cause. The V-shape does pose an interesting challenge. I think apartments, condos, or a hotel would pose some privacy issues, unless you put the hallway along the V. The whole V opening could be turned into a giant atrium, with a glass wall along Shelby. It would give the historic building a modern face-lift. Not exactly my preference, but it may add to the appeal for those that find glass walls attractive. Is the blank wall that faces Campus Martius an elevator wall? That would pretty much seal off construction in that direction. It could be used for advertizing, as was already mentioned. How about a Times Square style digital billboard. Too gaudy? I know I'm fantasizing a bit given the current economic situation and the current city "leadership", but I think we need to broaden the choices beyond a wrecking ball or a mothball. | ||
Russix Member Username: Russix Post Number: 228 Registered: 11-2006 |
The blank wall leads me to believe that a taller corner building was anticipated. Maybe something like the Flat Iron Building? | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 6275 Registered: 08-2004 |
Retroit and Russix your are correct. Many buildings downtown had blank walls because the density of Downtown was expected to get even higher (such as in NYC). That's why the Cadillac Tower has blank walls on 2 sides of the building. Even the side of the United Artists Building facing GCP originally had blank walls (there was a gap of about 40 ft. between it and the former Tuller Hotel. But after the depression, when it became apparent that downtown Detroit had already reached its maximum density, windows were punched into that GCP facing wall of the UA Building, and that explains why that side of the building doesn't match the sides facing Bagley or Clifford. In my own fantasy... I had always envisioned that the rest of the triangle were razed (horrors for all those Coney lovers!), and a Flatiron type parking structure, but with car elevators instead of ramps, built to accommodate Lafayette residential units (imagine that, taking a car elevator up to your own floor!), with ground floor retail (Coney's?). And at the front of each floor (at the tip) a single residential unit were built with spectacular views of Campus Martius (think Roxbury Luxury Condos, but turned on its' side)...  You gotta admit, that would add much more to the Campus Martius streetwall view than this...  |
