  Chris_rohn Member Username: Chris_rohn Post Number: 141 Registered: 04-2005 Posted From: 71.144.84.66 |
2005-12-07 • Detroiters have debated the fate of the city’s aging…and sometimes abandoned buildings for years. While some have called for their restoration …others see demolition as a sign of progress... http://www.wdetfm.org/article. php?id=728&cat=9 | ||
Darwinism Member Username: Darwinism Post Number: 255 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 69.215.30.34 |
Well, well, well ..... we may have a sequel to this thread: https://www.atdetroit.net/forum/mes sages/50492/58759.html | ||
Bvos Member Username: Bvos Post Number: 1120 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 66.238.170.32 |
"It’s been quite arrogant. I’ll put it that way. Mr. Moe seems quite self-righteous and arrogant." - George Jackson from DET article. Unfortunately Mr. Jackson fails to see that it's a two way street. So both sides will continue to huff and puff and posture and point in oposite directions, failing to see that the goals they are pointing to share a middle ground. This middle ground would accomplish most of what each group wants and this city would move farther along than it has in decades. Reminds me of the abortion debate. | ||
Eric_c Member Username: Eric_c Post Number: 540 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 68.76.202.10 |
I like how the photo of Griswold is labeled as Woodward... | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1313 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 70.225.113.214 |
Unfortunately, Mr. Jackson fails to see a lot of things. Like when he sent a letter to the National Trust protesting Detroit's inclusion; he closed the letter inviting Mr. Moe and members of the Trust's board to visit Detroit to see things for themselves and get his side of the story. Then when his staff calls to schedule a meeting, no one from the DEGC will return their phone calls. Brillant move on his part. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1102 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
Maybe I'm being naive here. I think the Trust is familiar with preservation efforts in all parts of the country. Mr. Jackson is only familiar with what's happening in Detroit. Is it safe to surmise that Mr. Jackson doesn't know what preservation looks like in other cities, and therefore has a very limited point of view from which to speak? The Trust isn't known for including places on its list based on whims. | ||
Dialh4hipster Member Username: Dialh4hipster Post Number: 1205 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.250.205.35 |
How come we get mad when the suburbs try and tell the city what to do, but we don't even get the least bit aggravated when an outstate group butts their head in and tells us everything we are doing wrong? When, in fact, there seem to be a lot of things going right. I will never, ever, understand the pissing and wailing over three demolished buildings (Hudsons, Statler & M-L) because I can look around and see a dozen saved buildings, with more on the way. Not returning a phone call may not be a brilliant PR move. But perhaps Mr. Jackson has more important things to attend to, like actually pulling together the deal to save the Book-Cadillac. And Bvos, Jackson wasn't "huffing and puffing and posturing" until he got dragged into this whole debacle in the first place. I have lost quite a bit of sympathy for the preservation community in Detroit, just from the rantings and policy of "absolutes" I've seen on this board. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1103 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
In certain other cites, ALL of those buildings would have been saved. I get the sense that people in Detroit demolish buildings just because they can. The thing you have to remember is that demolition and preservation are pretty much diametrically opposed to each other. The failure to understand this underlies the City of Detroit's pissiness. It's not like the Trust demo'd anything. Hell, a lot of the demo in downtown Detroit is subsidized. How is that preservation-minded? (Message edited by DaninDC on December 07, 2005) | ||
Darwinism Member Username: Darwinism Post Number: 256 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 69.215.30.34 |
Here we are again. The Dialh4hipster, jsmyers, Lilpup and Skulker posse will be smacking the preservation organizations to a pulp before the day ends. (Message edited by darwinism on December 07, 2005) | ||
The_aram Member Username: The_aram Post Number: 4525 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 141.213.175.233 |
Dialh, the National Trust didn't come in on their own accord and "tell" the city what to do. Both the M-L and the other historical sites (including Tiger Stadium over a decade ago) were NOMINATED by Detroit-based groups. And then were included on the list. Try again, champ. | ||
Rasputin Member Username: Rasputin Post Number: 3372 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 205.188.116.201 |
TEAR THAT SCHITT DOWN! Black-atcha .... | ||
Hornwrecker Member Username: Hornwrecker Post Number: 524 Registered: 04-2005 Posted From: 216.203.223.93 |
I found this on the Detroit Planning website, and put it into a form better suited to this forum. It does need an updating.  This is posted only for educational purposes; please, no wagering or flaming. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1315 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 70.225.113.214 |
#1. If Mr. Jackson had the time to write an 3 page letter complaining to Mr. Moe complaining about the listing and to follow it up with a half dozen or so media interviews about the subject, chances are he or his staff had the time to return the phone call. #2. If he didn't have the time or interest to return a phone call then why offer to host a visit in the first place?
What absolutes? The only absolute I've ever posted on, or seen anyone else post about, is that (a) we absolutely want to the Administration to start complying with the law and (b) we want them to start sharing public records. Both of these things are regarded as automatic anywhere else in the U.S. - something that would be done without the Trust or any other advocacy group having to say or do anything. So, what "absolutes" are you talking about? | ||
Ndavies Member Username: Ndavies Post Number: 1381 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 129.9.163.234 |
BULLSHIT In other cities these building would have been pulled down anyway. They would have been torn down to build newer more efficient buildings. Historic buildings get destroyed every year in Chicago, New York, LA, and overseas. The difference in Detroit is we don't have anything to replace them with yet. An obsolete building is an obsolete building. If it becomes too great a financial burden it is going to be torn down. The Statler would have been torn down 40 years ago if it was in NewYork. It would have been torn down the day it went vacant. it would have been torn down to make room for a more modern, larger structure. Detroit was a city that had quit working. There was virtually no demand for any space of any kind in the CBD. The city is just now finding itself. At one time Detroit was a functioning urban center. At that time it was routine to tear down the old and build new. That is why the CBD is full of tall buildings and not the original log cabins that were origianlly built there. | ||
Jsmyers Member Username: Jsmyers Post Number: 1270 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 209.131.7.68 |
I'd like to see an example of me smacking the preservation organizations. I don't have a beef with them at all. I'm sure the most you can find is debate about specific ideas or actions. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1316 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 70.225.113.214 |
If by "dragged into this whole debacle" you mean becoming President of the DEGC, you are correct. However, if you're refering to the listing of downtown on the 11 Most list, I'm afraid you're simply wrong. Jackson was making comments like this long before Detroit got added to their list. He just directed them at the preservation community in general instead of Mr. Moe in particular. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1317 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 70.225.113.214 |
I believe Dan's comment was to the effect that the three buildings he talked about in particular would've been saved; not every building in the city would've been. Yes, certain historic buildings do need to come down from time to time. It's a fact of life. The question for debate is: what procedure do we use for deciding which buildings get saved and which ones don't? In most American cities, there is an established policy that is followed on a more or less consistent basis. (There's always the ocassional exception, but for the most part - the policy is followed.) In every case though, the City at least follows the law. Unfortunately, that isn't the case in Detroit. (Message edited by fnemecek on December 07, 2005) | ||
Ericdfan Member Username: Ericdfan Post Number: 50 Registered: 08-2005 Posted From: 68.41.117.60 |
you would figure with all this huffing and puffing that these guys would try and get together (three lil pigs style) and blow some down themselves..haha | ||
Ndavies Member Username: Ndavies Post Number: 1382 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 129.9.163.234 |
Fnemecek, Dan's Statement was
It's gross sensationalistic overgeneralizations such as this that cause mainstream people to turn away from both preservation and environmentalist efforts. These buildings would have been torn down. They only have marginal value to today’s modern life. They have out lived their original design intent. They would have been incredibly difficult to repurpose into functioning buildings even in the best of economic circumstances. Under the economic conditions of the foreseeable future, they had no chance of becoming economically feasible. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3241 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
DaninDC said:
The Trust, with the prompting and support of two local groups, said:
Then later we get this nugget:
OK, so where are those articles? The only one I can find is from the Detroit News from October 3, 2004 which reads in part:
Can someone please show me how this article would lead one to conclude that more than 100 buildings were to be demolished before the Superbowl? | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1104 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
The only thing sensational is that the City of Detroit subsidizes demolition of historic structures, then bitches when a preservation group correctly warns of the City's lack of commitment to preservation. Again, demolition is the antithesis of preservation. I'm curious to know how Ndavies determines which buildings are obsolete. I know a few architects that might enjoy the attempts at explanation. | ||
Ndavies Member Username: Ndavies Post Number: 1383 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 129.9.163.234 |
Obsolete is simple. When no one is willing to pay the full price for the upkeep of the building it is obsolete. No one was willing to care for these buildings without large subsidies from the city. The city was not willing to piss away large amounts of money so a developer could make money. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1105 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
No one was willing to demo the buildings without large subsidies from the City and State, either, but I digress. Label everything obsolete for all I care. Demolish it all. Just don't call it preservation. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 6165 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 198.208.251.23 |
Dan - Tell me exactly how the Hudson's building could have been convereted into something useful. Please consider the economic condition of downtown, the design of the building, potential uses and rehab costs. Consider then the effect on downtown if Hudson;w was still around and how much it would have hampered the prospect of Merchant's Row, C-Ware relocating, CM. If you claim any city would have saved Hudson's and further claim that there was a viable business plan you are incorrect or just exaggerating to egg people on. I'm calling bullshit on that one. | ||
Ndavies Member Username: Ndavies Post Number: 1386 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 129.9.163.234 |
I don't see where I ever said demolition was preservation. Obviously it's not. I'm more worried about the City than I am individual buildings. Obsolete buildings have to go. Buildings that can be put back on financially sound footing should be saved. Pouring millions in subidies into dieing buildings, while the city is going bankrupt is stupid. There are real limits on what can and should be saved. (Message edited by ndavies on December 07, 2005) | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1106 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
One could argue that subsidizing empty lots is even stupider. You guys can make all the excuses you want. Just don't bitch when "downtown" isn't much more than parking lots. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 6168 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 198.208.251.23 |
So dan - There is not a comfortable middle between saving everything and demoing everything?
I don't think that anyone on here supports subsidizing lots but the few buildings that were knoced down don't over ride the ones taht have and will be rehabbed. There you go in absolutes again. Waiting to see the succesful business plan that could have saved Hudson's. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1107 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
I'm the one who writes in absolutes, huh? You may have noticed that nowhere did I advocate saving everything. Way to focus on the 2 million square foot Hudson's building, instead of something like the Madison-Lenox, which most certainly could have been saved. Ilitch bulldozed it just because he could. Your tax dollars paid for it. Another piece of history lost. It just depends on what kind of city you want to create. The message Detroit is sending to the world is that it would rather rid itself of its history, heritage, and character, and I, among others, am greatly saddened by this. | ||
Ndavies Member Username: Ndavies Post Number: 1387 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 129.9.163.106 |
Well Dan, I'm not bitching about the parking lots. They are the best economic use of that land at this moment in time. Parking lots can be built on. They will be built on, when the market forces change the economic realities that Detroit is suffering through. Those parking lots are generating way more tax dollars than the abandoned empty buildings that sat on them would have. Detroit's building market is completely out of whack. We have a huge surplus of buildings for the meager demand that is here. Downtown will not prosper until those forces can be brought back in line. One way to bring the building market back in line is to remove the surplus buildings. I've invested a substantial amount of my money helping to save a building. I feel that's much better than bitching and moaning about people tearing buildings down. They own the buildings and I have no control over their decisions. How much is it worth to me to save those buildings? Would I be willing to put my hard earned cash into saving them? If I'm unwilling to pony up the money to help save them, I can't expect anyone else to do it for me. | ||
Machoken Member Username: Machoken Post Number: 1063 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 65.86.12.2 |
Kudos for that Ndavies. Are you willing to say which building? | ||
The_aram Member Username: The_aram Post Number: 4526 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 141.211.210.30 |
Ndavies, you're bringing up some very valid points, but I must take issue with this:
Well, didn't seem like this was the case for the Madison-Lenox. Seemed like there were plenty of folks who wanted to redevelop the building, and were begging Ilitch Holdings for the opportunity to do so. The point that is central to this debate is that there are too many structures that have the viable opportunity to be redeveloped, but landlords, backed by the powers-that-be in city government, refuse to give anybody the time of day when they wish to invest in them. If Detroit really wants to spur investment in its building infrastructure, then why are parties that want to -invest-, not sit on property and speculate, continually given the cold shoulder? | ||
Darwinism Member Username: Darwinism Post Number: 258 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 69.215.30.34 |
As always, the posse of opponents is going off tangent again with rhetoric. Did you all not read what Frank had stated ? ----------------------- (A) Preservationists absolutely want the Administration to start complying with the law. and (B) Preservationists want the Administration to start sharing public records. ----------------------- It seems like some people are just picking out fragments of sentences to take things out of context so that they can criticize the preservation organizations. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 6171 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 198.208.251.23 |
Dan - I agree tearing down the M-L was a disgrace but you specifically stated
I would like to know how the Hudson's could be saved. 'All' seems rather absolute to me
Again, you choose to ignore all of the buildings that can be saved. I wish the Statler and M-L were still standing but that doesn't mean that myslef and the city want to knowck everything down. You seem to have an extreme take on the situation but 'ALL' includes the Hudson building. How could it be used. It is easier to state something should be saved as opposed to coming up with a viable business plan and securing the funding. | ||
Ndavies Member Username: Ndavies Post Number: 1388 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 129.9.163.106 |
The Vinton building. We finalized financing the day before Thanksgiving. As soon as we get the demo and building permits back we'll start the work. I'm hoping that will be shortly after the holidays. | ||
Darwinism Member Username: Darwinism Post Number: 259 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 69.215.30.34 |
Ndavies: Would you tell us which building are you saving with your own money ? Preservation Wayne and FOBC would likely commend your effort and sacrifice to have taken such initiative. Kudos. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 6172 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 198.208.251.23 |
Examples please. The way the M-L was torn down was a disgrace. Beyond that do you have any examples? Ilitch may get away with too much but the city has done a pretty solid job purchasing buildings from the slumlords or clearing title. Sprinkling fairy dust on a building doesn't resolve anything. Should the city go after slumlords much harder? Absolutley. Is the city aiding landlords in refusing offers from investors? Doubtful. | ||
Machoken Member Username: Machoken Post Number: 1065 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 65.86.12.2 |
That's what I thought, from previous posts. Thanks. | ||
The_aram Member Username: The_aram Post Number: 4527 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 141.211.210.30 |
Jt1, by nature of how the Hudson's building was built over the course of literally decades, it would have been possible to demolish parts of it and retain parts of the structure as individual buildings and create a smaller piece of structure to redevelop. In fact, I believe this was proposed. But that would imply a bit of creativity that I don't think the powers-that-be would want to deal with. Same thing with the Madison-Lenox. It would have been very possible, if either the Madison or Lenox were too far gone, to demolish either and redevelop one of the towers. But, again, that implies too much creativity. And makes far too much sense. (cue Skulker to go on an ass-covering rant and start diverting the discussion with the "hit list" rhetoric) | ||
Darwinism Member Username: Darwinism Post Number: 260 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 69.215.30.34 |
Ndavies: Thank you for sharing. The Vinton building was mentioned on this board before as one of the projects undertaken by the Robert Porsche group. I am assuming you are a member of that group. By the way, can someone out there who is interested still contribute and invest in the Vinton project ? | ||
Ndavies Member Username: Ndavies Post Number: 1389 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 129.9.163.106 |
I'm going to start a new Vinton thread and seperate it from this. Please take Vinton Questions there. I believe this thread is important in it's own right and think the Vinton deserves it's own thread. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 6173 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 198.208.251.23 |
Where does the money and business case come from? I agree that preservation is a good thing but damn, do people not understand that there is a business and financial component involved. Partial demo and rehab. That would not be cheap and the rental rates at that time were probably much lower. I applaud the passion and efforts of the preservation community and think it is very vital. I however ask that you take a step back and think about the costs. If there is no business case, developers will not do the work. It is simple as that. The passion is great but you often have to temper it with reality. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3243 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
Anything is "possible"....with enough money. At some point you have to be able to come close to being able to recoup the costs of doing what is "possible" through rent and sales. If rent and sales revenue are not sufficient to cover the cost of doing what is "possible", somebody somewhere has to be willing to lose money or at least not recoup money for a very long time. That difference between what the revenues will generate and what the project will cost is called a "gap". In the example of the Hudsons building the gap would have had to been filled by the City, after all the other incentives were used, was larger in dollar amounts than what was used to help fund Ford Field. The direct cash subsidy of more than $90 MM would never have been recouped and the net outcome would have been about 200 private residences. That, in my opinion, is an unfair and unjust use of public resources. Especially when the developer would have made a large profit while contributing no equity. The proposal that folks refer to as being a "viable" proposal for the Statler was of a similar nature. The people claiming that there was a viable proposal conveniently forget to post the key terms of the proposal which were... * 0% equity form the developer. The developer was not going to put a single dime of their own money in to the project. * Six or seven sources of traditional public subsidy such as hsitoric and brownfield tax credits. Fair enough, those are pretty standard and the City knows how bang those out all day long like they have for Kales, Merchants Row, Book Cadillac, Lofts of Woodward etc etc etc. * $44MM+ in direct cash subsidy taken from the general fund with payback being a 50/50 proposition sometime in 20 years. Folks, we are laying off people left and right in the City, we are struggling to keep solvent and National Trust (through Richard Moe's letters) and local preservation groups are attacking the City for not moving forward with this "viable" proposal? Perhaps Mr. Moe is considered arrogant when he tells the City that they should have met yet again with this "viable" developer. The Trust also had a bit of arrogance in offering to come and show the City how to use historic tax credits to salvage buildings....Huh...thought they would have figured out from the aforementioned projects like Kales that the City already has figured out tax credits. Tell the City something new. Let me get back to my original question and the crux of the WDET story. Where is the 100 building hit list? The preservation groups and the National Trust admsit they have never seen such a list but purport they "know" one exists because of various "newspaper reports". I am challenging any one to produce a newpaper or other media report that specifically or even obliquely references a 100 building demo list. As posted above there is at least one article that references a list of 141 buildings evaluated that noted only 15 came with a recommendation of demolition. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1108 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
The subsidized demolitions of the Madison-Lenox and the Statler-Hilton set a very dangerous precedent. There is essentially nothing to stop anyone from demolishing whatever they please now, hence the uproar from the preservation community. When public money is involved, it's not just a question of a developer coming up with a viable business plan. It becomes an issue that impacts the center of a region of 4.5 million people. A vacant historic building can be reused when economic conditions change. A demolished historic building is irreplaceable. Instead of trying to positively impact the economic climate, the City is giving away money to create empty lots. Decreasing supply is not equivalent to increasing demand, so it is a specious argument to say that demolition will raise land values and spur development. If this were the case, land in Detroit would be worth more than in Manhattan. For those who actually read the Trust article in the first place, recall that the major cause for alarm was that the City has no plan or methodology for preservation. If the City of Detroit really wants to show its commitment to preservation, it will 1) stop giving away money to millionaires to demolish historic structures and 2) develop specific criteria for preserving structures, or even name particular buildings that should be saved, and 3) follow its own laws. Maybe it's just that Detroiters are only familiar with new suburban development, so many people think that large contiguous parcels of "clean and green" land are required to do any kind of development. I don't know--you tell me. Looking at the aerials posted above, though, it's quite obvious that demolition hasn't led to anything resembling redevelopment of Detroit. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3246 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
Huh? As if in the past no City had ever used public dollars to demolish an old building or one that may have been historically designated? I am unclear of what kind of predecedent this sets.
Absolutely. But that brings up some questions - *How long does one have to wait for economic conditions to change? *What if the building is so challenged by some facet (deterioration, awkward design, lies next to an active railyard) that NO reasonable or even very optimistic forecast of economic change would make it viable? *What if the cost the mothball and maintain the building is so signficant that it absorbs scarce resources that could be used to salvage other, smaller, more appropriate buildings? *At what point does a building become dangerous and / or an economic drain on the surrounding properites by being a blighting influence. Just as surely as an abandoned home in a neighborhood has a deletrious effect, so does a vacant building in a downtown. The answers lie in a complex formula of moving variables. The City looks at each and everyone of these variables and makes decisions to move forward to solicit renovation proposals or to move for demolition. In all fairness I think over the last 5 to 8 years the City has done a remarkable job in addressing that complex formula and preserving the buildings that have come into their ownership. Lets look at just the downtown: Fully restored: 1249 Woodward (Merchant's Row) 1267 Woodward (Merchant's Row) 1436 Woodward (Lofts of Woodward) Kales Building Under construction 600 Woodward In final financing stages Book Cadillac Lafer Lafayette Acquired with active facade restorations pending RFPS 1513 Woodward 1520 Woodward In Limbo GAR Building Demolished Statler Hudsons I hardly think that constitutes an anti preservation, pro demolition mindset, especially when the contortions needed to make this projects work are enormous. Why the City even particpated with significant sums to help restore privately held buildings such as the Opera House. If the City didn't "get" it, why are they spending $12 Million in matching facade grant dollars, the majority of which is going to historic buildings and properties? Again it comes down to scale....there seems to be a sky is falling attitude over two buildings when the success and very hard work at many more buildings goes unrecognized. | ||
Eric Member Username: Eric Post Number: 239 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 35.8.141.112 |
The problem I have is the lack of consistancy while the city has done a great job with the buildings it owns in the same breath the DDA hands Ilitch close to a million so he can build a parking lot. Can you honestly tell me the Madison-Lenox went through as rigorous a decison process as the Statler? I don't believe the city is anti-preservation far to many projects have been facilitated by city. However, the process is subject far too much to political pressure the city all but twisted HDC's lawyers arm to not fight demolition. This may be average big city politics, look at Daley and Meigs Field in Chicago, that still doesn't make it right | ||
The_aram Member Username: The_aram Post Number: 4528 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 141.213.175.233 |
Looking at the FOIA documents on the M-L, I can pretty much guarantee you that it didn't. | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 1585 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 4.229.90.171 |
For those who think that the National Trust "Butts their head into Detroit's affairs", DUH! That's their mission! The National Trust is the NATIONAL umbrella organization for historic preservation. They have butted bigger heads than Detroit. They went after CVS, RiteAid and Walgreen's for tearing down historic buildings all across America to put up their big boxes. The drug store chains backed down after the National Trust put them on the 11 Hit List. Many companies, individuals and political entities are savvy enough not to butt heads with the National Trust. But not Ilitch Holdings and not Detroit. So the National Trust turned up the heat. They have no power of enforcement, but they do have the power of "publicity". Their magazine, "National Trust" has a circulation of 675,000. But it has been estimated that the actual readership of those magazines is well over 1 million (many of the magazines get passed around). The National Trust has seen all kinds of "shady" ways to avoid preserving old buildings. But the ML was probably the most blatant "shadiness" seen around here since the CAY/Chene House fiasco over a decade ago. And the city was naiive enough to think that they could get away (with Ilitch complicity) with an emergency demolition. With a property on the CURRENT 11 Hit List, no less!! In the 17 years that the National Trust has had the "11 Most Endangered Historic Sites" list, only 1 building that went on the list has ever been destroyed. And even that one waited until after coming off the list. But no, not Detroit! Maybe city government thought, well we got away with it with the Chene House, maybe we can get away with it again. WRONG! Detroit instantly became the national spotlight "Poster Child for Historic Destruction". And granted, as unfair as that is in many regards, it just showed that no one person, company or political entity is above national scrutiny. P.S. Hudson's and Statler are a completely different matter than the ML. Attempts were made to find developers for them, but the numbers didn't add up. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1318 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 70.227.206.155 |
Hamtrack_steve has our archives of newspaper articles, which are currently packed away after his recent move. If he doesn't chime in soon, I'll spend this weekend at the library and let you know what I find. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1319 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 70.227.206.155 |
I disagree with your definition of obsolete, Ndavies. Since obsolete is your criteria of demolition and demolition is a permenant action then, in my opinion, whatever one uses to as the definition of "obsolete" must also be permenant. I reject your definition because, under your definition, a building could be obsolete one day and not obsolete the next. To illustrate my point, 10 years ago the buildings that make up the Lofts of Merchants Row would have been classified as obsolete under your definition because no one was willing to pay for their upkeep. Today, however, those buildings are fully rehabbed. The same thing applies to the Kales Building and a few dozen other buildings around town. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1320 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 70.227.206.155 |
I haven't read all of Mr. Moe's letters, but from what I have seen it would appear that the criticism has more to do with the fact that: (a) The Administration violated several points of the Local Historic Districts Act and other statues in its application to demolish the Statler; (b) The FoBC filed an appeal with the Circuit Court regarding those violations; (c) The Administration and the FoBC entered into a settlement, whereby all of the violations would be forgiven if the Administration (by & through the DEGC) met with HRI and negotiated with them in good faith to rehab the building; (d) The Administration failed to live-up to its end of the bargain and very blatant about it, with George Jackson saying in published interview with Crain's that he intended to move forward with demolition regardless of how said meeting went. Would HRI returning to the table one more time have yielded a different result? Maybe. Maybe not. Based on conversation I had with them before the December 2004 settlement/meeting, I am reasonably confident that they could have been pursuaded to put together a much more attractive offer than had been previously presented. However, before they moved forward with that, they wanted assurances that if they put forth the time and effort associated with putting together a new proposal that it wouldn't be dismissed out of hand. This is important because, before the DEGC even went to any of the various national conferences in an effort to market the property, Mayor Kilpatrick had already said in a published news article that he favored demolition of the building. Hence, the meeting. When the DEGC blew them off after the settlement, it was dangerous precedent. Every settlement conference, every HDC hearing, everthing that happens in public life is based on a certain element of trust. When the DEGC pulled that stunt last year, it pretty much shattered that trust. The Statler was only one building. Hudons was only only one building. The M-L was only one building Each of the rehabbed buildings you cited above were only one building. Shattering trust, however, sets in motion a series of things that ultimately make preserving every building in Detroit that much more challenging. | ||
The_aram Member Username: The_aram Post Number: 4533 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 141.213.175.233 |
And I'll add to Frank's excellent comments that it doesn't take many "one building" situations to add up to a sizable hole in the skyline. How many more "one building" situations can Detroit endure? Now enter Skulker to continue the whining about the "list" and poo-poo the FOBC to divert the discussion from the real issues at hand. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1321 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 70.227.206.155 |
Continuing the discussion, Skulker's questions are in white and my answers aren't. Absolutely. But that brings up some questions - *How long does one have to wait for economic conditions to change? If one follows the statutory guidelines, and actively offers the property for sale, then the answer is 1 year. Waiting longer before demolition is always nice, but 1 year of active, continous marking of the property is all that's mandated. Please note though that crucial parts to that are active and continuos. A few days here and there don't cut it nor does simply being willing to accept an offer should one arrive in your hands: Issue an RFP that doesn't end after 90 days or hire a professional real estate agent to market the property. Either option fulfills the legal mandate. *What if the building is so challenged by some facet (deterioration, awkward design, lies next to an active railyard) that NO reasonable or even very optimistic forecast of economic change would make it viable? Design or location itself would not prohibit a site from being rehabbed. There are plenty of examples awkwardly designed building being rehabed and I even know of one that got rehabed when it was only about 100 ft from an active railroad. Deterioration, however, is another matter. If a licensed professional engineer inspects a historic building and determines that it is a danger to the public then demolition can begin right away. *What if the cost the mothball and maintain the building is so signficant that it absorbs scarce resources that could be used to salvage other, smaller, more appropriate buildings? Interesting scenario. I'd recommend two things in this situation. First, assuming that the large building isn't something of overwhelming historic value, I'd move resources to the buildings that could be saved. Second, I'd issue an RFP for the building. If you don't have firm redevelopment proposal in hand within a year, demolition is now a legally valid option. *At what point does a building become dangerous and / or an economic drain on the surrounding properites by being a blighting influence. Just as surely as an abandoned home in a neighborhood has a deletrious effect, so does a vacant building in a downtown. The simple fact that a building is vacant, in and of itself, does not harm a community. From personal experience, the house across the street from me was vacant for almost a year after its former resident passed away and until her children sell the property. Nothing happened to my property values as a result nor were there any problems associated with the house. However, if a vacant historic property did have demonstrable negative impact on the surrounding community and there was no developer willing to step in and rehab said resource then there is a procedure for legally demolishing it. Any other questions? | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1322 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 70.227.206.155 |
The_aram: Congrats! Your postings on this thread mean you have now replaced Detour_detroit as the second coolest preservationist on the forum. | ||
Matt_the_deuce Member Username: Matt_the_deuce Post Number: 403 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.14.27.204 |
The real issue is trust according to Fnemecek: "When the DEGC pulled that stunt last year, it pretty much shattered that trust" So lying about the hit list to the world was a justifiable payback? Aram-you cannot dismiss this point. Quit baiting Skulker, he's not biting. So......... How do we rebuild the trust from BOTH sides? | ||
The_aram Member Username: The_aram Post Number: 4534 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 141.213.175.233 |
whoa, whoa, whoa. let's not get ahead of ourselves here... i've got nothing on detour_detroit... but the compliment is well appreciated. i'll see you in a couple weeks. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1323 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 70.227.206.155 |
The list wasn't my idea. I'll defer comment on that one until the folks with the media archive chime in or until I make it to the library.
Time and sharing of information work for me. Anyone else, feel free to chime in with your own ideas. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3247 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.42.176.88 |
What are those specific points of violation? If they were so egregious why then did the Historic District Commission vote to issue a notice to proceed? Why then were the FOBC and others unable to prove their points in court?
Wow. They filed an appeal. Simple filing of an appeal does not necessarily constute validity of the appeal. If the appeal was so solid, why did FOBCs legal counsel advise dropping the appeal? Perhaps their legal counsel realized that FOBC had no reasonable chance of proving their case?
All "violations would be forgiven"? Talk about revisionsism.....There were no violations.... Thats why FOBC dropped the claims at the advice of their legal counsel. They would be unable to prove their specious claims. The DEGC met with the HRI in good faith. They asked HRI if anything from their origianl proposal had changed as FOBC indicated. HRI inidcated their proposal had not changed and in fact the proposal now icluded HIGHER costs for the City. Let me digress for a moment. FOBC is convinced that HRI has a viable proposal. DEGC and the DDA had met wih HRI for more than six months attempting to find a way to salvage the Statler.HRI is the "viable proposal" I have referred to in earlier posts. The reality of the HRI proposal is that they would contribut ZIP ZILCH NADA NOT A SINGLE FUCKING DIME OF EQUITY into the project. Furthermore, they expected the City to donate the land for One Dollar as well as contributing all the standard tax credits and abatenents. After these conditions were applied, HRI expected the City to contribute more than $44MM in cash contribution that would likely never be recovered. Let us be very very very ckear about this. HRI had a plan in which they did not risk a single dollar of their own money, yet wanted the CIty to put more than $44 MM at risk so they could take a $6MM "developers fee". HRI proposed that the City pay them $300,000 to look for "alternative financing sources". When they came back with their "good faith proposal" to the City, the price had gone up to $450,000. BULLSHIT! The FOBC claimed they had a viable proposal and were willing to drop the lawsuit their legal counsel had already advised them to drop if the DEGC and DDA met with HRI. The DEGC and DDA agreed to this graceful exit strategy for FOBC because the FOBC insisited that HRI had a "viable proposal". Hardly. HRIs proposal was even more out of whack from what had been previously proposed to DEGC and was an even gretaer insult to the taxpayers of the City.
Show the article. Show the proof. Or is this more bullshit like the claim that there is a list of 100 buildings to be torn down by the Super Bowl? | ||
Matt_the_deuce Member Username: Matt_the_deuce Post Number: 404 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.14.27.204 |
What project or building is in need of redevelopement that could benefit from both parties participation? I think there needs to be some kind "we can both benefit from this involvement" kind of scenario. Something the city is having a hard time with or is stuck on that the preservation community can offer assistance with. Bringing developers to the table on FOR SURE to be developed buildings... the idea to get dialogue going again between the two entities with the minimum amount of controversy... just some ideas. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3248 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.42.176.88 |
Fnemecek said:
The City of Detroit has owned the Statler through tax reversion since 1976. Since 1976, five different requests for proposal were issued. The last was issued in conjunction with an RFP for the Kales. Not a single response came back for the Statler while more than seven qualified respondents bid for the Kales. The issuance of five distinct RFPS somehow does not fulfill the requirements of active marketing of the site? Please elaborate.
And these examples are in Detroit? Are in a building in which, no matter how it was designed by HRI, still had 70% of the units facing inwards to alleys? Probably not.
Huh. A licensed engineer found the M-L to be a public danger, yet the same folks screaming here will not accept that finding. Apparently the findings of an enginner is only valid if a dilletante says so..... That being said, immediate collapse and public danger is not the only criteria needed by the Historic District Commission to issue a notice to proceed. Undue financial hardship is sufficient. In the case of the Statler that was proved to the satisfaction fo the Historic District Commission, which voted afor and apporved a notice to proceed. Perhaps the lawsuits should have been more approporiately addresssed to the HDC for the alleged violations of their own rules? | ||
Gumby Member Username: Gumby Post Number: 740 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 204.39.224.233 |
Well Milwaukee Park Lofts sits a heck of a lot closer than 100 feet to a railroad line. | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 1586 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 4.229.90.171 |
Skulker, the only point I cannot come to terms with is the fact that if the ML was in such dangerous condition, then why on earth were the demo folks so unconcerned with that potential danger? They went at it with a reckless abandon that tells me that they knew it would never cave in on their demo equipment. With federal and state safety standards so strict, they had to know that there was no imminent danger of a sudden collapse. Therefore I think that there is a good chance that the condemnation of that building was bogus, and the demo folks knew it. | ||
Citylover Member Username: Citylover Post Number: 1425 Registered: 07-2004 Posted From: 4.229.132.141 |
Or political.........i.e. much like getting an "expert" witness to testify in court to bolster a case.I am not saying that is what happened, only that it could have. This is a touchy issue.And to be fair there has been good things happening.I suppose you lose some good one's in the process.And Detroit while having one of the best stock of bldgs does not have ab endless number so any lost is a blow. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3249 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.42.176.88 |
Let me get back to my original question and the crux of the WDET story. Where is the 100 building hit list? The two local preservation groups and the National Trust admit they have never seen such a list but purport they "know" one exists because of various "newspaper reports". I am challenging any one to produce a newpaper or other media report that specifically or even obliquely references a 100 building demo list. As posted above there is at least one article that references a list of 141 buildings that were evaluated. That article notes only 15 came with a recommendation of demolition. | ||
Darwinism Member Username: Darwinism Post Number: 264 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 69.215.30.34 |
I sure see a lot of 2-face BS from a few forumers here when it comes to preservation issues. As fresh as I am to the Detroit area, I have witnessed enough crap to know that people representing the city are so self-righteous about most things when it comes to external opinion. First of all, The NATIONAL Trust watches over historical structures NATIONALLY - they are not a rookie to this arena. Does anybody think that Jackson is any busier than Moe ? Why doesn't Moe pick on a different city in the other states, after all there are thousands of crumbling buildings in the rest of the lower 48, or even Alaska and Hawaii for goodness sake ! Also, I have read hundreds of posts here and it sounds to me like a few people are so pro-preservation and antique-hugging, and passionate about architectural history - but then when Skulker is the one barking BS, these people takes his word like a passage from the Bible. Frank and Francis are not doing all these activist activities to make enemies or to make money. They genuinely care for this city and the people in this city. I am happy to be a part of their organization and continue fighting for these walls that couldn't speak until the day the wrecking ball brings them down to a crash. That's all I've got to say - don't sit on a fence, stand up for something and make your voices heard because you know what ..... a gravel lot can't say very much any more about history and about memories and about past lives. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3250 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.42.176.88 |
Speaking of "barking bs"....has anyone found the articles or the list yet? I would imagine that these should be very easy to access seeing as according to the National Trust the list "in fact" exists.... | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1111 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
skulker, thanks for continuing to support the argument of the article cited at the top of this thread. | ||
Dialh4hipster Member Username: Dialh4hipster Post Number: 1206 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 71.194.8.51 |
There is obviously a continuum between extreme preservation and an extreme pro-development stance, and I think most of us exist closer to the middle than we are coming off in this thread. Clearly, however, I lean more toward a pro-development stance at this point, and here is why. First of all, I get really tired of people marching in an saying how things should be done but bringing no money to the table. There sometimes seems to be a real lack of understanding about what it takes to put something together, and a sense that just because people have *some* money to do stuff means they must have TONS of money. Does anyone here understand how business works, how a net worth is calculated, what cash flow is? Business (development) is not a charity. It is still risky in Detroit, and no one should be expected to throw their money into something that is riskier than they are comfortable with. You think Kales is a great example? Those people watch every DIME, and the fact that the place is fully leased only covers their operating costs until they can condo the place out. For some people, five + years of bank loans and having a large amount of their own money tied up in a risky investment is not an ideal situation. Bottom line, it's easy to tell people what to do when it isn't your money. I also see a lot of examples of the preservation community here being obstructionist and few examples balancing it out with constructive, collaborative work, I wish we would see more pro-active projects coming from that camp. Next, that 100 buildings list does still require (and lack) an explanation. Explanations are always deferred to someone who never shows up with one. If it is a true thing, say it. If not, then just 'fess up and move forward. Who's stonewalling now? And then there is the issue of which structures get chosen to represent our history. On a national level the preservation community is extremely indifferent to saving architecturally significant structures from the mid-century period. A particular aesthetic seems to be a driving factor in this movement, and some amazing buildings from the 50's and 60's have been lost in recent years nationally with nary a peep from preservationists. As a matter of fact, NYC and possibly a few spots in So. Cal. are the only places where there has been any attention paid to this. So I think it is important to be preservation-minded in Detroit. But it is more important to be development-minded because otherwise we are sitting around diddling ourselves in really beautiful, vacant buildings. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1113 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
Hipster, Allow me to respond. First, preservation isn't inherently anti-development as you imply. In fact, preservation and development are hand-in-hand with each other. I think your implication is a real problem in the Detroit community, and that is economic development is associated almost strictly with brand-new suburban-style development on large-empty lots with acres of cheap parking. Detroit must begin to understand that preservation, renovation, and rehabilitation are keys to its future economic success. In my personal opinion, the City of Detroit has no business directly participating in development , as it distorts the free market. Does anyone think City Council or the Mayor know anything about buildings? To wit, the City held onto the Statler for almost 30 years before demolishing it. If a private owner had possession of Tiger Stadium, it may have been renovated by now. In addition, City ownership of these properties removes the land from the tax rolls. Second, to insinuate that only the wealthy should be allowed to comment on the woeful state of preservation in Detroit is insulting. We are talking about an area that belongs to a community of 4.5 million people at minimum, not to mention the history and culture of the United States. Although I am not a wealthy developer, I am a design professional actively working in historic preservation. For you to state that someone like me is not entitled to an opinion because I'm not buying up buildings in Detroit is simply insulting. I'm willing to bet that many of the people poo-poohing the Trust have never been involved with a building project in their lives, let alone historic preservation. Third, many buildings of the immediate post-war era are not being preserved because quite frankly, they are crap buildings constructed of inferior materials. There are some exceptions, but realistically--do you think anyone is going to try to preserve an abandoned Wal Mart 20 years from now? There must be some inherent architectural and historical value in the building to warrant preservation. For the record, I am currently working on an adaptive reuse of a 1950 Chevy dealership, so it can be done. I understand the difficulties facing the current market in Detroit. That doesn't give license to demolish the entire city just because something can't be rehabbed RIGHT NOW. As Skulker has pointed out in his many illustrious examples of successful preservation in Detroit, sometimes it just takes a little time to allow for the market to change in order to justify rehabilitation. Creating empty lots almost never raises property values to create such conditions. Building a attractive urban environment nearby almost always does. | ||
The_aram Member Username: The_aram Post Number: 4536 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 141.213.175.233 |
Have you read anything Frank has posted here? As has been stated, the press archives of the FoBC, in which the article you're likely looking for is probably contained, are currently boxed away in HamSteve's move. Frank has offered to go to the Library to track the article down in the meantime. You can quit diverting the conversation by loudly yelling for the article. In case you didn't notice, since the local newspapers redid their websites, one can no longer get to their archived articles without forking over some change. Thus, we have to rely on hard copies. Which are currently unavailable until Steve moves into his new house. So. Quit screaming for the damn article, it will be found. Meanwhile, skulker, I have to ask: why all the hostility? it seems like both you and Mr. Jackson seem to have an irrational sense of anger when it comes to preservationists, especially Mr. Moe, and several of the extremely vocal folks on this Forum who happen to be very active in the Detroit preservatin movement off-board. Why? Is this the kind of behavior you show potential developers? No wonder folks aren't knocking the door down wanting to redevelop properties if the people calling the shots are too busy with immature and petty hate mongering and bridge-burning to listen. | ||
Eric Member Username: Eric Post Number: 240 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 35.8.131.137 |
Given that stance it'd never be acceptable to demolish because every building would a need a "little" more time. Shouldn't the fact the city has been trying unload the Statler for 30 years be proof enough that enough attempts to save it have been made? The fact is the city's push to find developers right now or demolish has resulted every city owned major city owned building except the Statler finding a developer. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1115 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
The City wasn't trying to unload the Statler--they issued RFPs, which is very different from putting a property up for sale. RFPs have strings attached, and the City must approve a developer's proposal--the same City that squashed the East Riverfront that was beginning to regenerate on its own. This is why Tiger Stadium remains vacant and rotting. Manny Maroun is a different story altogether.... Again, just because something can't be renovated at present doesn't mean a demolition is required. That doesn't mean everything has to be saved. Detroit has lost numerous buildings of architectural merit that will never be replaced, including the Statler and Madison-Lenox. The character of the areas once inhabited by those structures is permanently altered...and for what? Parking lots. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3253 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
Abso-fucking-lutely! That is the ONLY sensible way to do it and protect the city's interest. Its a City owned asset. Just throwing it out for sale would do nothing but put the building in the hands of speculators who would not be beholden to anything. They could demo, they could restore, they could and most likely would, sit on the property waitng for a big fat payday in some distant year. For example, a slumlord offered more than $1.5 million for the Vinton Building. Their intent was to demo the building, use the space for parking and then, once the remainder of the block had been purchased, demo everything up to First National and build a new complex of retail, parking deck and residential on top. The winning bidders offered $600,000 and a plan for rehab. If the City was just "selling" to highest or first bidder and not soliciting RFPs, bye bye Vinton..... If developers were unable to finance and move forward with a deal on the Statler when the City was offering it for $1.00, what makes ANYONE think that simply "selling" the building was a good idea? The notion that the City shoula simply sell property without development agreements is absurd and naive and shows a complete and utter lack of understanding of the REALITY of the Detroit real estate market.
Yeah, in the case of the Statler it is no longer characterized by an obsolete and rotting building that had no hope of ever becoming a viable development. An obsolete and rotting building that would steal precious dollar resources away from other building that can be saved. Keep thet Staler up and there is no money for the the three recent acquistions. All to do what? Mothball a building for another 30 years until the steel had rotted so badly it became a danger? 30 mor years of out of town guests wondering what the hell that building is as they ride around on the People Mover? 30 more years of vagrant breaking in? 30 more years of what???? Apparently 30 more years of squandered opportunity and squandered resources. I love how folks like to say they understand not everything has to or can be saved, yet can never seem to come to terms with that fact when a decision point has been reached. | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1145 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.20 |
I love how folks like to say this, but ignore that the Olde building was torn down, despite its good shape and beauty, without much of a squeek from preservationist. The entire block across from Compuware on woodward was torn down without so much of a peep from preservationists. And 3 buildings torn down in Merchants Row for a parking garage and new building without a sound from preservationists. I think even you know your simplification about what people think about savings buildings is untrue. Many buildings have been torn down in recent years without the obstruction and bitching of preservationists. | ||
Michael Member Username: Michael Post Number: 683 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.73.14.95 |
I don't sense any anger or hostility from Skulker toward Histeric, NDavies or Panson. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3255 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
Huh...I seem to recall a pretty long thread and lots of bitching about the GTRR building when it came down. I seem to recall complaints and bitching here when the block north of 1001 was demoed. The two Merchants Row buildings replaced by the parking deck were late sixties boxes that I think many were happy to see go and were not considered historic building. The third was replaced by a replica that had matching floor plates. The only difference is that there were no law suits in these three cases. Plenty of bitching, but no law suits. | ||
Darwinism Member Username: Darwinism Post Number: 266 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 69.215.30.34 |
Unbelievable !! Frank had done a great job detailing and answering many of the FAQs, but yet people are re-asking the same damn questions. It is clear that we have forumers who are illiterate in this day and age, even on DetroitYes. | ||
The_aram Member Username: The_aram Post Number: 4539 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 141.213.175.233 |
Gogo, there's a difference when someone wants to demolish something and has a definite plan for the site to rebuild. The point of contention in demolishing the M-L and the Statler is that there are no definite plans for either site (and don't try to tell me a "landscaped parking lot" is a viable reuse plan). The Statler is gone. Now what? Hudson's is gone. Now what? The M-L is gone. Now what? The Tuller is gone. Now what? The list goes on and on and on. Clearing a historic property with no plan to rebuild on the site is eliminating possibilities for the site- not creating possibilities. Instead of having the option to use what's already there, a developer is then given the sole option of building new. Why not leave that option open? Why narrow down the possibilities of use for a site? It's clear from the Hudson's demolition that demolishing a building doesn't automatically mean the developers will show up ready and waiting to build new. Here we are, 7 years later, and still nothing but a bunch of puddles, concrete pilings, and pigeon shit. | ||
Darwinism Member Username: Darwinism Post Number: 267 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 69.215.30.34 |
The_aram: "... and pigeon shit" - Apparently, that's how some Detroiters like it. Add to that the possibility of perhaps human waste may well be present sure is a plus for architectural character sake, because according to some individuals, it makes perfect business sense ! | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1116 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
Well, I think Skulker has more than adequately illustrated why downtown Detroit is on the 11 Most Endangered Places List: an arrogant and reckless administration and bureacracy with a haphazard redevelopment and preservation plan and an endless litany of excuses. If Detroit were truly serious about preservation, it would find a way to save its landmarks, instead of subsidizing their demolition. Interesting example from Skulker. A developer can buy a building, and either sit on it, rehabilitate it, or demolish it. Apparently, the CoD wants only buyers who will rehab a building, while the City works on perfecting the "sit on it" and "demolish" options. How is it that the City won out by not selling the Statler to a developer? The worst case scenario is that the new owner does the same damn thing the City did, only with private money instead of public subsidy. I smell hypocrisy. If it's too expensive to renovate, it is going to be far more expensive to demolish and rebuild everything anew. For that reason alone, you won't see more than empty lots pockmarking downtown Detroit for a long time (see: Hudson's). Never mind the sustainability aspect. I'm sure we're all aware that over half the content of landfills is construction waste, but now I'm getting into tree hugger territory.... | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3256 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
Aram: I have been reading that for more than a month on this forum. When pressed, the answer every time seems to be "Look it up yourself" and "its in a box somewhere". I would think that it would not be too hard to find these documents. A quick google netted me the October 3, 2004 Detroit News article that refernces a list of 141 building, 15 of which were recommended for demolition or rehabilitation.
And development rights granted to Redico which is finalizing financing and leasing for a new building to hold 3,500 office workers with ground floor retail. Thats 23 years sooner than a feasible redevelopment of the Statler. Keep in mind the Hudson building sat vacant with no developer for MORE than seven years. Pray tell, what did you have 30 years after the closing of the Statler? Broken windows, falling bricks and piles of pigeon shit. At least now the site will be buildable.
Dan, even though we have our differences of opinion, you usally are somewhat on target with costs and technical issues. However, that statement is so far out from reality as to make me embarrased for you. New build construction is generally cheaper than rehabilitation, depending on the condition of the building. New build also allows the creation of suitable product that purchasers are interest in. The Statler rehab was going to run well into the $290 - $300 per foot range. Are you telling me that new mid market residential construction runs more than that? Hardly. The new build we are seeing in the metro Detroit market is running in the $150- $190 per foot range. Substantially cheaper than the per foot rehab cost on the Statler. Even with demo costs thrown in, new build on the site will be far cheaper with product that will enjoy much higher sales per foot rates with stronger absorption than a rehabbed Statler. You also accuse the City of deliberately sitting on it like a speculator would. Bullshit, the City hustled that building all over the place. In the three years leading up to the decision to demo, more than 25 developers, including Bettis / Betters of Uniroyal fame, Ferchill of BC fame, Mansur of Kales fame and Kimberly Clark toured the building and each and everyone of them politely told the city "No way - Too big, too awkward, too expensive, the gap is too huge. Show me something else." HRI was invirted to look at the building and they said, "We'll do it, but we are not putting in any equity and the City has to gift us $44 MM" Because no developer wanted the building without asking for $44 MM in direct cash subsidy. Thats why it was not sold to a devloper. I don't think anyone thinks the City won out. The City and the current and past adminstration would have LOVED to see somebody, anybody renovate the building at a reasonable subsidy cost. NO-ONE was willing to do that. Little bit of interesting thing here... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200 51208/ap_on_re_us/disappearing _chicago | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3257 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
Dan let me say this very slowly so you get it.... B O O K C A D I L L A C O P E R A H O U S E K A L E S M E R C H A N T S R O W L O F T S O F W O O D W A R D V I N T O N L A F A Y E T T E L A F E R E U R E K A H A R T Z H A R M O N I E P A R K $ 9 M M I N F A C A D E G R A N T S | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1118 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
Skulker, you know as well as I do that your numbers comparison isn't for equivalent buildings. Your "new build" number doesn't include the subsidy for abatement and demolition, so it's misleading. Regardless if the numbers worked or not for the Statler in 2004, it didn't require public subsidy for demolition (if demolition was even necessary). If developers were clamoring for an empty site, why didn't the City sell them the Statler dirt-cheap, and allow the developer to demo and rebuild out of their own pocket? This thread frustrates me to no end, because the City is distorting the market by being a player in it. To me, it doesn't seem there is a predictable methodology of determining which buildings are salvageable, and which are not. It seems very haphazard, as does the "if we build an empty lot, they will come" philosophy. | ||
Darwinism Member Username: Darwinism Post Number: 268 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 69.209.140.3 |
Danindc: This is not the first pile of poop that you have heard from Skulker regarding his numbers game. Put together the Business 101 course that Dialh4hipster is trying to teach us, I am sure we have lurkers and smart forumers who can see through the smoke-screen and the distortion. Hey buddy, don't let it frustrate you to no end. The people of Detroit are still too happy to have the Skulkers around here in Motown, so buildings will be coming down periodically like clock-work, because it makes perfect business sense. | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 733 Registered: 06-2004 Posted From: 66.89.12.30 |
I second this. | ||
Spartacus Member Username: Spartacus Post Number: 61 Registered: 07-2005 Posted From: 209.114.251.65 |
So what is the predictable methodology used to determine whether a building is a landmark worth saving? Can anyone say with a straight face that the M-L was an architecturally significant building with a decent chance of being rehabilitated? Do people really think that there were dozens of viable plans for this building? If so, what is the motive for not rehabilitating it? Do you think Ilitch will make more from a small surface parking lot? Do you think the City would rather have a small surface parking lot than a hotel/apartment building or whatever that building may have become? What is the sinister motivation of these anti-preservationists? I think that one thing that we can all agree on is that the M-L was an eyesore in the middle of a relatively vibrant area. It had to go, especially considering its proximity to Ford Field. I'm not sure that its fair of this board's armchair quarterbacks to criticize Skulker for being argumentative. How would you like someone with naive, impractical ideas and a paucity of actual facts critiquing you? | ||
Dialh4hipster Member Username: Dialh4hipster Post Number: 1207 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 71.194.8.51 |
Danindc:
First of all, I don't think preservation is anti-development, although preservationISTS can be anti NEW development often. There is a balance, however, and when I speak of preservationists and their policy of "absolutes," this is exactly what I am talking about. No room for discussion, when they've got their mind set they are inflexible the same way they accuse others of being inflexible.
If the free market had its way there would be a lot more gravel parking lots downtown. There is STILL only a very, tiny, miniscule market for historic projects that don't get assistance from the city, that weren't brokered by the city. I mean, seriously, how many reno projects are there that were privately owned and financed? Library Lofts, House of Nine building, Small Plates building (I think?). How many? Certainly nothing large scale, and really nothing until the City started pushing things forward down there.
OK, what was that about the private market? Of course you are entitled to an opinion about what happens to buildings, but you know what they say about opinions ...
Ok, that's the exact attitude I am talking about. Totally dismissive of anything that doesn't fit your myopic point-of-view. I was obviously not talking about Wal-Mart architecture, I'm talking about good examples of well-done mid-century architecture. There is a lot of it, believe it or not. I don't think there would be the gnashing of teeth and rending of garments of the preservation community if the NBD/BankOne building were to be torn down, although it is a very well-constructed building, and a great example of the architecture of the period that would never be replicated today (and one I happen to like a lot). Realistically, I'm at a point where I just say, go for it. Do your thing, there's nothing left for me to gain in debating the details at this point. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3258 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.42.176.88 |
Darwinism: When you have played a role in the active or pending restoration of 1.2 MM square feet of historic building space as I have, I will take your comments seriously. So far you have shown nothing that leads me to believe you have done a project or have a firm grasp of the realities of the market to be able to say I am using smoke and mirrors. OK Dan, lets address your issues with facts and figures on the cost comparisons. HRI ran about $295 per foot for rehab of the Statler absent the roughly $4 MM spent on abatement and the additional $3 MM for additional activity that was needed. That adds about $13 to the per foot cost quoted by HRI, so now it stands at $308 per foot. (Comps on per foot condo sales right now are about $230 at the highest in the market. The Book Cadillac is expected to hit about $235 - $245 per foot. Oooops now we have a basic gap of at minimum $65 per foot. Who pays that? BTW these figures do not include the significant costs incurred for dealing with carrying the specified insurances for the People Mover, nor the additional costs for People Mover protection. For example, a sophisticated and expensive vibration monitoring system will need to be installed for any work at the site. Cost estimates for 15 story new build construction on a newbuild site on the Riverfront are coming in at about $165 to $180 per foot. We'll go with the high number for giggles. Add the $4 MM in abatement subsidy and $7 MM in demo subsidy for the site and you are adding about $21 per foot or a total of roughly $201 in cost per foot for new build on the Statler site absent the People Mover costs. For those that are challenged by math, the rehab of the Staler would have cost $107 more per foot. That $21 per foot is the difference between a developer making money and a developer not making money on the site. That is why no developer approached the City asking to take on the liability of a blighted building for demolition and new build. For sake of argument I have rolled all the carry costs, interest, design, legal and other costs into the figures above so they are apples to apples comparisons. According to what you have told us about your professional experience, you should know this very well.
Perhaps the City should not participate in any projects and let the market fend for itself then. If that is what you truly wnat, you can kiss any of the pending projects good bye. The ONLY reason the Book Cadillc is getting done is that the City became proactive. The ONLY reason Merchats Row got done is the City got proactive. Letting the market rule would result in NO projects moving forward because they simply would not work, even if buildings were given away for free by altruistic slumlords. You know that. I know that. The City IS distorting the market. It is forcing developments to happen to jump start the market. You know as well as Darwinism should know that most challenged urban markets need an intervention to move them off the dime. | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 1589 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 4.229.24.3 |
Dialh4hipster, there is some truth to what you say about mid-century architecture not getting the respect it deserves. Back in the 50's and 60's, NEW was all the rage, and old was debunked. Hundred's of movie palaces, office buildings and other structures were remodeled or demolished. Many movie theatres were covered in drapery (the least intrusive way to remodel), with theatre owners saying "look at all the trouble and expense we went thru, so that you won't have to look at all that old stuff anymore". Many Detroit buildings lost their fancy tops due to remodeling, such as the David Whitney, Michigan Mutual, Statler, and others. What has happened in the last 25 years has been a gradual shifting of tastes from modern back to traditional (in architecture and interior decoration). So now the old is back in vogue, while the new is debunked (at least on this forum). I wonder how much of this is the fault of the Architectural community. They were the ones that harshly debunked the old, and in recent years the public (including business owners), have slowly reacted against that (the International Style). The Post Modern style is (as Architects deridingly call it) "Pastiche", or a rehash of old styles. This goes completely against the "less is more" theology of the International Style. But the majority of the general public seems to really like pastiche. Very few houses are built today in a true "modern" style. Most new subdivisions are in traditional and classic styles. Even strip malls have arches, Spanish Tile roofs, broken pendiments, that "oculus" at the top of a gable, and other historic embellishments. Many cities are trying to recapture the small town "Main Street" feel. Historic preservation is a modern phenomenom. It wasn't until the 1970's that it was in its infancy, and it has slowly developed since then. Older architectural styles have been slaughtered wholesale prior to the 1970's. And much has been lost since. But good mid-century architecture has not (at least in Detroit) seen the kind of slaughter that older styles have seen (except for neighborhood theatres, gas stations, and to a lesser degree storefronts). But most of the mid-century office buildings are still intact in Detroit. Good examples of mid-century architecture are the former NBD HQ (the one I like to call the giant cheese grater), One Woodward Ave. Bldg. (former Gas Building), McGregor Conference Center, the NEW Fisher Theatre, and many others. Some that I like are endangered, such as Cobo Arena and Ford Auditorium. I, like many around here prefer older more elaborate styles. And I feel no regret to admit that. However, when it comes to historic preservation, we need a balance. Anyone who has ever picked up a copy of NATIONAL TRUST magazine, will see that not only old historic buildings are mentioned and displayed, but also more modern items (like gas stations, motels, diners, factories, etc). The National Trust cares about historic preservation, regardless of whether it is an 18th century plantation, or a mid 20th century car wash. To say otherwise is just not true. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1324 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 69.212.213.234 |
Skulker: Regarding the FoBC's appeal in the Statler case you asked:
Those points were itemized in the Court filings, in news media accounts, in posts on this Forum and appeared elsewhere on-line. In the interest of clarity, though, I'll repeat them here: (a) Demolishing the Statler violated the National Historic Preservation Act (16 USC 470). The Act, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitating Historic Properties that were authorized by said Act, mandate that for a determination of economic hardship (which is what the Administration argued for in its application) the property must be actively sold for a period of minimum of 1 year. While the City had owned the property for decades, it had only issued an RFP with a 90 deadline for response. That does not comply with the Act and the HDC staff noted such during the hearing. (b) The HDC did not have a valid quorum when considering the application. Only 4 members of the HDC were present at the time the application was considered; 3 of whom had terms of office that expired prior to the hearing. (c) The City failed to consult with the Downtown Citizens District Council prior to submitting its application. Such a consultation is mandated by the Blighted Area Rehabilitation Act (MCL 125.71 et seq).
Actually, we did. The Court held a show cause hearing in order to consider the FoBC's petition for a TRO. At said hearing, the Court was convinced that there was a reasonable chance of the FoBC prevailing on the merits of the case at trial (one of the requirements for a TRO to be issued).
Excuse me??? There were only four people present when the FoBC conferred with its counsel. I was one of them. You weren't. Counsel for the FoBC never advised dropping the appeal. Moving away from the appeal and to the Statler in general:
First off, according to the DDA's application to the HDC for permission to demolish the Statler as well as their testimony before the HDC, there was only one RFP; not five. If you feel the DDA was wrong in what they presented to the HDC, I encourage to discuss that with them. That one RFP does not meet the legal mandate because it was only for a period of 90 days. Regarding the M-L:
Not so. You did not mention the name of your licensed engineer who inspected the M-L or when said inspection ocurred. I'll presume that you're referring to Amru Meah's "inspection" from August 2003, which led him to conclude that the M-L was in eminent danger of collapse. I filed a FOIA request for any rcords or reports that Mr. Meah may have used in reaching his conclusion. In response to said request, the Administration turned over 83 pages of records. Said records showed that (a) the most recent inspection had occurred roughly 9 1/2 years prior to his report and (b) said inspection only concluded that the building was vacant and open to trespass; not that it was in danger of collapse. Obviously, when we had credible proof that Mr. Meah lied about his inspection, we objected to it and shared the FOIAed records with the HDC. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1325 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 69.212.213.234 |
Dialh: You asked in one of your posts above why the various preservation groups don't do more to preserve and protect buildings from the 1950s and 60s. The reason for that is that we are greatly limited in what we can do. The various laws that protect historic structures set forth specific guidelines for what can be considered "historic". One of those rules is that it has to be at least 50 years old in order to be considered historic. Nothing from the 1960s is "historic" under those legal guidelines and only a few things from the 1950s are. Hence, we are forced to spend very little time or resources on them. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1326 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 69.212.213.234 |
Spartacus: Regarding your questions about the M-L:
Yes, it was a contributing structure in a vital, historic part of Detroit. I'm also not the only one who feels that way. (See John Gallagher's column and some discussion of it at http://forum.skyscraperpage.co m/showthread.php?threadid=7669 0)
Crain's reported that there were 47 such offers. The News featured one of them - http://www.detnews.com/2005/bu siness/0502/09/C01-84258.htm
I will not pretend to be psychic or speak for the Ilitches. I refer that question to them. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1327 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 69.212.213.234 |
Skulker: One point that we can agree on is your answer to Danindc regarding the issuance of RFPs vs. selling a property to anyone. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1328 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 69.212.213.234 |
Skulker: Regarding your reply to Gogo about preservation groups not protesting everything:
I have no doubt that there were people complaining about it. The point that I want to make is that there are always going to be people complaining about one thing another - whether you're knocking down a building or passing out free ice cream to impovrished children. I encourage you, however, to differentiate between a random person complaining about something and a preservation organization complaining about it. If the group is opposed to it, you'd see more than just rants on an internet message board. There would be objections raised at HDC hearings and other venues, official statements from the group, officers giving quotes to the news media and so on. I wasn't in a leadership position when GTRR was demoed or any of the other examples that you cited. However, my understanding is that what you heard was simply complaints from random citizens as opposed to anything by any of the historic preservation groups. | ||
Darwinism Member Username: Darwinism Post Number: 270 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 69.209.140.3 |
Frank: It is truly a god-send to see strong characters like yourself, Francis and others in Friends of Book-Cadillac and in Preservation Wayne. It is very frustrating for me, Danindc and you to continue reading the kind of responses coming from Dialh4hipster and from Skulker simply because they can. At this juncture, I can assume that even though you have clearly itemized each item with a straight answer as evidenced in your post for 1313, 1315, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1319, 1320, 1321, 1323, 1324, 1325, 1326 and 1328 ..... Skulker will be back with the same 'rough and tumble' play of words and numbers. Here's my pre-emptive attempt to say what he/she would have said; "Show me the list!" "Look at what we have done with the following trophies of achievements: Book-Cadillac, Opera House, Kales, Merchants Row, Lofts of Woodward, Vinton, Lafayette building, Lafer building, Eureka, and Harmonie Park." "There is no equity commitment from the developers and the gap is unsurmountable." "The FOBC had no basis for legal actions and the appeal had to be dropped." -- Frank's response: "There were only four people present when the FoBC conferred with its counsel. I was one of them. You weren't. Counsel for the FoBC never advised dropping the appeal." Oops ! I guess Frank was there, but Skulker wasn't. Ha ! Ha ! Ha ! More expose' to the credibility of this person's words and numbers. ================================================= Shave Member Username: Shave Post Number: 850 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 207.200.116.134 Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 8:54 pm: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You know what, Lmichigan--I think I am beginning to realize why Royce went the hell off on Skulker a few months back this summer. It's almost a shame that some forumers treat Skulker like some sort of "Detroit Economic God." ================================================= Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3055 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 9:01 am: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- =Excluded excessive unrelated paragraphs= Realistically, FOBC impeded this project more than they helped. Folks who are being suckered into donating cash to them ought to be aware of that. =Excluded excessive unrelated paragraphs= -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3063 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 11:16 am: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- True, not all preservationists are conspiracy theorists. However, I would argue that the effects and impact of FOBC are highly exagerated. While the FOBC has certainly modified their stance in the last six months, their website certainly took a lot of credit for saving the building in the past, the party held at Panacea was a giant self-congratulation, key membership of FOBC makes movies and then credits "a group of volunteers began work to see the hotel reopened. This film tells their story". It further goes to say that there are "public officials who aren’t interested in it". Wow. Talk about self serving (deluding?). Several years ago, FOBC tried to CHARGE a FEE well into the thousands for use of said material to enable the creation of a fund to sue the DDA if they moved for demolition. Some friends. As far as the developer issue goes, several deep pocket developers noticebly cooled to the City after the NTHP nomination. It took several calls and discussions to assure them that there was no list of 100 buildings to be demolished. Their concern was that buildings they were looking at were on that list or that historic character that surrouned some infill sites was to be lost. It took a whole lot of phone calls and whole lot of explaining and the City is just now getting some deals back on track. The 100 building "hit list" claim was a completely irresponsible and counterproductive action. It did more damage than good. Generally when the NTHP makes claims about demo lists, its true and developers take heed. This time it was based on a complete fabrication. The blatant falshehood of the 100 building hit list has created all sorts of head ache. FOBC claims responsibility for garnering the Nomination on their website. If the shoe fits, wear. Even if it is uncomfortable. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ================================================= Wow, "suckered into donating cash to them" - That's quite a slap in the face of Frank and the FOBC right there !! Going back to preservation and demolition ..... Here is what Allan brought up over at UrbanPlanet: http://www.urbanplanet.org/for ums/index.php?showtopic=17839 (Message edited by darwinism on December 09, 2005) | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3260 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.42.176.88 |
The City and the DDA showed that over the span of 30 years, the City and it agencies had issued multiple RFPs. It also showed that while there was not a for sale sign on the building, the City had agressively marketed the building to numerous developers including those that were active in the City as already noted elsewhere on this thread. Taking into consideration the efforts of the Cioty over the last 30 years, the Historic District Commission, acting on new information brought forward in response to HDC staff questions, concluded that the City had made all reasonable efforts to market the building.
Four members present constitutes a quorum. The three members who terms had expired were still duly constituted members with full voting rights. Under City code, if a commissioner term expires and a replacement is not nominated and sworn in, the commisioner whose term has expired stays on as a full commissioner retaining all their rights, priveldges and repsonsibilities. The argument was flawed from the beginning and was shown so in court. Unfortunately FOBC chose counsel with a strong passion and a pretty loud voice. His arguments could be heard many yards away As far as not notifying the CDC, that goes back to the HDC. HDC was directly queried about that during the application process and indicated they had no knowledge of such a requirement, nor do any of their materials reference such a requirement. I do not know if the materials have since been updated. Relying on that the City did not contact the CDC.
If no-one can prove the existance of the list and others have proven the existance of a list that had minimal demolition recommendations, that makes the nominating preservation groups either liars or incompetent. I'll let them decide which they are, but in my book, neither of those are very good options.
Exactly. If the City is agreesively restoring these building on a premeditated "acquire, flip, restore" strategy, how can preservation groups claim that there is a mindset AGAINST preservation and that the City does not value preserv ation. No-one has been able to answer that basic question. The answer I get is people pointing to the Statler and saying "see????" Why do they do that? Because they are unwilling to admit that: That their heralded developer/saviour is not all what it appears to be. There seems to be a complete allergy to the equity discussion and what is a reasonable subsidy and what is not.
I didn't need to be. Their Counsel's voice carried many yards down a tile and marble hall way...casual passerby a good distacne a way were able to hear commentary... I wonder how many people who donated cash or purchased t-shirts thought their money waqs going to help the Book Cadillac, that some how they were directly contributing to the restoration or at least the pre-development. How many knew that their money was instead going to be used on lawsuits for the Statler? Thats why I say suckered. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3261 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.42.176.88 |
BTW..... Anybody found that list or the media articles yet? Thats one way to establish credibility. Its time for the nominating preservation groups to show the evidence of the list or to admit they made an egregious error in claiming its existance. Lets deal with this issue first and then we can go back to the others. | ||
Itsjeff Member Username: Itsjeff Post Number: 5151 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 208.27.111.125 |
This thread needs to lighten up. Hey, Darwinism. Ask Skulker really condescendingly if he's invested any of his own money downtown. I know a dozen people who spewed coffee on their monitors the last time you did it. | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1147 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.20 |
Regretting the loss of a building like the Olde or any other is always subject for discussion on a message board like this. A huge difference between these buildins being torn down and the Hudsons, Statler, Madison-Lenox, is that they were torn down for progress. Something was quickly built in their place. You try to portray preservationists as obstructionists to development, when your impression is not based in reality. When preservation stands in the way of development, preservationists in Detroit have proven that they know when to throw in the towel and let the wheels of progress move forward. When it comes to preservation in Detroit, you hear the loudest noise, when demolition is done without any plan for development. In all three sites I listed, there is not a single plan for development. While you try to oversimplify what preservationist do for the city to justify yourself, you continue to polarize the debate. The issues regarding preservation that have caused you and the city the most headache were for demolitions without a plan for progress for the city. In most cases, where demolition was need for construction of something new for the city, rarely have preservationists got in the way of Detroit moving forward. Lamenting the loss of our architecture on a internet forum, and taking physical action to stop such a loss are hardly comparable. | ||
Darwinism Member Username: Darwinism Post Number: 271 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 69.209.140.3 |
Gogo: Well said. I am guessing that Skulker will be saying the following: "Look at what we have done with the following trophies of achievements: Book-Cadillac, Opera House, Kales, Merchants Row, Lofts of Woodward, Vinton, Lafayette building, Lafer building, Eureka, and Harmonie Park." =as well as= "There is no equity commitment from the developers and the gap is unsurmountable. It just doesn't make any strong business sense." | ||
Rustic Member Username: Rustic Post Number: 1895 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 72.43.25.26 |
itsjeff, ok, ok ... I'll bite ... this thread has me confused ... which side is preservationist and which is pseudo-preservationist .... Skulker et al. ... or Fnemeck et al.? ... seems ya can make arguments for both ...  ... Yay Brian! ... | ||
Darwinism Member Username: Darwinism Post Number: 272 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 69.209.140.3 |
itsjeff: "...I know a dozen people who spewed coffee on their monitors the last time you did it." - Errr ... sure it was me ? I don't recall. Hmmm ... please jog my memory ... (Message edited by darwinism on December 09, 2005) | ||
Itsjeff Member Username: Itsjeff Post Number: 5152 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 208.27.111.125 |
Darwinism Member Username: Darwinism Post Number: 259 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 69.215.30.34 Posted on Wednesday, December 07, 2005 - 2:48 pm: ------------------------------ ------------------------------ -------------------- Ndavies: Would you tell us which building are you saving with your own money ? Preservation Wayne and FOBC would likely commend your effort and sacrifice to have taken such initiative. Kudos. | ||
Jmy8 Member Username: Jmy8 Post Number: 2585 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 12.75.30.251 |
Begs a certain question of Dawinism. . . . | ||
Darwinism Member Username: Darwinism Post Number: 273 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 69.209.140.3 |
itsjeff: Is Skulker and Ndavies the same person ?? Now, I am confused too. Isn't Ndavies the pro snowboarder ? Please help clear this confusion. Why would someone assume two personalities here on DetroitYes ? That's a little bit disturbing, if true. | ||
Jmy8 Member Username: Jmy8 Post Number: 2586 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 12.75.30.251 |
No wonder preservation in Detroit is a shambles. | ||
Ndavies Member Username: Ndavies Post Number: 1397 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 129.9.163.234 |
I am definitely not skulker and he's definitely not me. | ||
Itsjeff Member Username: Itsjeff Post Number: 5153 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 208.27.111.125 |
Rustic, it isn't preservationist vs. anti-preservationist. On this forum it's dumbasses vs. the City of Detroit. FNemecek, Darwin, Aram and DCDan are forming a conga line to call Skulker and his agencies incompetent, totally ignoring of the fact that those agencies hold the fucking cards. Even if Skulker IS Satan (and I have my suspicions) would it kill FOBC to act with a little sophistication? They could have positioned themselves as an asset to the soups. Instead they blow bubbles, file frivolous lawsuits, spread the "100 buildings" lie around the country, etc., then wonder why they don't have a seat at the table when it comes to historic preservation of our buildings. | ||
Darwinism Member Username: Darwinism Post Number: 275 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 69.209.140.3 |
Ndavies: Thanks for the clear-up. I guess there are a dozen people who have trouble reading straight, thereby resulting in people who spewed coffee on their monitors. Such incidents can definitely be prevented if coffee were placed further away from the workstation. itsjeff: "...those agencies hold the fucking cards." - O.K., in that case, you are generally asserting that they are ALWAYS right, ALWAYS making the best decisions, ALWAYS have the best interests of the people of this city, ALWAYS have the best interests of the buildings in this city and ETC. JUST BECAUSE they hold the fucking cards, right ? Well then, the case is rested. | ||
The_aram Member Username: The_aram Post Number: 4541 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 141.213.175.233 |
Now where did anyone say that? | ||
Itsjeff Member Username: Itsjeff Post Number: 5154 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 208.27.111.125 |
Darwin, if you are typical of the historic preservation activists in Detroit, then, yes, it's over. You have neither the tact nor the political savvy to effect policy in Detroit. Not only do you not have the Mayor's ear, you go out of your way to piss him off, like with the slanderous "100 building" lie that you spread nationally. You guys need to get a player on your side. Walt Watkins said that he wouldn't be sticking around much longer. You should be trying to lure him -or someone on his level - to the cause. THEN your agenda would be taken seriously by those who make the decisions. | ||
Itsjeff Member Username: Itsjeff Post Number: 5155 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 208.27.111.125 |
Oh, just to make clear, Skulker isn't Walt Watkins or the Mayor, either. | ||
The_aram Member Username: The_aram Post Number: 4542 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 141.213.175.233 |
Ahem. Skulker becomes the Mayor when he hops in his phone booth. Presto-chango. I don't know who this Darwinism person is, but I'm not sure if he's a part of the FoBC. As for this stuff about us accusing Skulker et. al. with incompetency, that's absolute bullshit and you know it. | ||
Darwinism Member Username: Darwinism Post Number: 276 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 69.209.140.3 |
By the way, I don't even know who this Skulker person is ... never met him/her physically ... or spoken to him/her in person. Certainly do not have a plausible reason to be calling him/her incompetent in his/her job on a personal level. Also, do not know where he/she works or what agencies he/she speaks for. As such, no plausible reason to be calling any specific agencies incompetent either. Although from his/her postings, he/she does always claim his/her opinion as his/her own. Along that line, he/she also often talks about the city's actions or the city's decisions, leading me to the notion that perhaps he/she works for the city in some capacity. All I do is criticize his/her thoughts, his/her opinion, and his/her character. Simply because that's all I know from his/her words. For goodness sake, I don't even know if Skulker is male or female ! | ||
Jmy8 Member Username: Jmy8 Post Number: 2587 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 12.75.51.44 |
At least when Brian posted on these threads, it was a little bit like Kabuki; that is to say, entertaining in a theatrical manner. Fnemecek, aram, darwin, and danindc combined are no Brian, alas. Polite clapping for itsjeff, dialh, and skulker. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 6186 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 198.208.251.24 |
Stop it jmy8 - I want the humor to continue. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1329 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 69.212.59.185 |
I have the transcripts from the Statler hearing in my possession, along with the HDC staff report, everything the City and DDA sent to the HDC and all court records in the case (all available for review by anyone who wants to see them). According to them, there was only 1 RFP issued for the Statler.
I'm not allergic to discussing anything. On the subject of HRI, while they were not contributing equity to the project, they did propose assuming a little over $30 million in new debt. (Source: Appendix A, Memo from George Jackson to the HDC. May 12, 2004.)
You must not have heard it very clearly because he never sugggested dropping the case. There was a discussion about the wording of the settlement agreement in the hallway one day where he advised us that the current offer was the best he could get from the City. However, that is not the same as advising us to drop the case. Our intention from the outset wasn't simply to prevent demolition - it was to see the building brought back on-line. We were willing from day one to negotiate a settlement.
Funds for the Statler appeal came from a seperate fundraiser. Everyone who donated to that fund knew exactly what their money was going to be used for. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1330 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 69.212.59.185 |
Really??? So, insisting that folks comply with the law now makes one a "dumbass"? I'm curious, Itsjeff, is this unique the issue of historic preservation or does asking for compliance with the law in any area make one a "dumbass"?
First, the Blow Bubbles Not Buildings event was organized by Detroit Synergy and not the FoBC. It was a very good way of calling attention to a debate that, at the time, was not getting much attention from the media but let's just be clear about who organized it. Second, the FoBC and Preservation have only been involved in two lawsuits. Which one are you considering "frivolous"? The one where the judge ruled we had a reasonable chance of succeding on the merits of our argument or the one where we could prove that the City blatantly fabricated an inspection? | ||
Itsjeff Member Username: Itsjeff Post Number: 5156 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 208.27.111.125 |
Dude, you're missing the big picture. You could be armed with the Sword of Christ but, still and all, you made yourselves irrelevant. You just don't have the political clout needed to further your agenda and from what I'm seeing, aren't going to anytime soon. FOBC should be a respected asset. You should have a Board with recognizable names, an impressive website and someone on staff with the ability to lobby the right peoples' attention. Until you can do that, you're just gadflys, dependant upon the City's whim as to whether or not to give you the time of day. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1119 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
In any event, a stronger business case needs to be made for preservation in Detroit. Since we are dealing with the inherently emotional topics of architecture and history, it's easy to get carried away. I'll admit that I'm guilty at times. While my firm does a good deal of preservation work, we are starting to involve ourselves more in sustainable design. One of the major challenges is convincing clients that the extra investment is worthwhile, and actually produces larger returns than if more typical means are used. The preservation community in Detroit, unfortunately, is shouting into the wind. It's going to take a lot of work, though, to convince the pure number crunchers like Skulker that preservation is not only worthwhile and noble, but profitable as well. I just hope someone can do it before Detroit looks like Houston. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1332 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 69.212.59.185 |
Itsjeff: Good point. (Message edited by fnemecek on December 09, 2005) | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1333 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 69.212.59.185 |
I disagree with one part of your statement, Danindc. Skulker and I have butted heads on numberous occassions, but he isn't a pure number cruncher. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1120 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
I'll take your word. | ||
Kbkav Member Username: Kbkav Post Number: 214 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.220.62.144 |
i just read through this entire thread hoping that someone from fobc would talk about "the list." what 100 buildings? where did you get those numbers? were you misinterpreting the news article? were you utilizing hyperbole to get attention from the trust? how many times will questions about the list be ignored? and to say that skulker is not a preservationist is so fricking absurd. the difference between skulker and the fobc-ers is that he (there darwin, now you know his gender) actually tries to put together deals to save buildings, sometimes is unable to, and then must come to terms with this in his own fashion (high life, anyone?). do you think he is actually happy when a building is lost? that is inaccurate and insulting. i would argue there are very few folks in this city with better preservation credentials than skulker because you know what, he has played a signifigant role in actually f*cking saving some buildings. which many (if not all) of those criticizing him incessantly cannot say. now, will someone from fobc explain the list of "100 buildings set to be demo-ed?" | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3263 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
Gogo raises a thoughtful and perceptive question.
The argument being made here is predicated on the position that if there is NOT an immediate plan in place for new construction on a historic site, that the building ought to remain in place as is. An unstated but but implied corrallary to this is that the market will "turn around" and the vacant building will become a feasible renovation project. Therefore, no building ought to be demolished without a specific and fully financed, ready to go plan in place. Please correct me if I have incorrectly interpreted this argument. While that argument does carry validity to some degree, it does not take into account some nuances and realities that I have learned through my particpation in the completed, ongoing and pending reclamation of 1.2 MM square feet of historic property in Detroit. These nuances and realities often mitigate the validity of the argument. What are those realities and niuances? Carrying Costs - Buildings need ongoing maintenance and security if they are to be properly mothballed for future redevelopment. Unfortunately, such activity carries pretty high costs that are borne through the General Fund or, in the case of the CBD, the DDA operational funds. In the past the City has not been able to fund those activities without sacrificing other development activities. It is an unfortunate reality that over the last 30 years the City had done a poor job of mothballing the Statler. It is a simple budgetary choice. Cops or old building. Firemen or old building. A full and responsible mothballing of the Hudsons or the Statler would have had to come directly out of General Funds or DDA operations. It is hard to justify that coming form Genral Funds in the CBD, leaving the DDA as the responsible party. These decisions were not made by faceless bureaucrats but ultimately by City Council and the last three mayors. The Hudsons building ALONE was going to run in the neighborhood of $2.5 million a year to properly secure and maintain. In less than five years of mothballing, the entire budget for demolition and clearing of the Hudsons site would have been consumed. Furthermore, the demolition of the Hudsons was paid for from a variety of funding streams including state and county dollars targeted for demolition and site preparation activity, distributing the cost burden to other communites. It seems only fair that the communities that used taxpayer dollars to help construct the malls that led to the closure of the Hudsons share in the burden of dealing with the cost of demolition. So the $13 MM cost was not borne entirely by the City or the DDA. Thus the argument that the demo money could have been used for mothballing is not accurate. It also begs the question of who then pays for the demo if a developer is never found and the fact that the mothballing money was effectively pissed away. Expenditure of that $2.5 MM sum annually for mothaballing would have made funds unavailable for acquisition of the buildings that now comprise Merchants Row and Lofts of Woodward. Money does not grow on trees people. So the net effect of NOT demolishing the Hudsons would have been a very large vacant building and continued decay and vacancies at privately held buildings. Essentially stasis. The Market will "Turn Around" - The argument that the market would "turn around" and using Merchants Row and Lofts of Woodward as support of how it has is fundamentally flawed as neither of those projects would have occured if the funds for them had been used for the mothballing of Hudsons. Futhermore, withut the removal of the Hudsons building, the market turn around we are now seeing simply would not have occured. This is because the investment equation would have been much worse than it is now. It is difficult to envision that Merchants Row and Lofts of Woodward would have enjoyed market response in terms of absorption and rental rates with the Hudsons building looming next to them. They cetainly would have had an even more difficult time accessing bank lending as the bankers would have recognizerd the market drag created by the Hudsons building. The Hudsons demolition freed the block for redevelopment as part of the Campus Martius project and there is currently a pending office redevelopment. The Hudsons demolition freed funds to be able to be used on other acquisition projects and to make projects feasible as already mentioned. The Hudson demolition also made the Kern and Crowley blocks attractive enough for Compuware to build their headquarters. It is no secret that the C-Ware board of directors and Karmanos were unwilling to build on their site as long as the Hudsons building stayed. Demolishing the Hudsons building unblocked stymied development that has now occured. The chicken and the egg here is that demoing the building created a market turn around. The market turn around was not going to occur with the building in situ. Folks no point to the market turn around and say that it is evidence that the City could have kept the building as the market is turning around. The market turn around was impeded by the Hudsons and its removal was a very key catalyst for the turn around. Its not a pleasant thing to hear if one is focused on saving buildings only. But it is reality. Architectrual Obsolence The rgument that the market will turn around and make all projects feasible assumes that all buildings have appropriate scale and design that allows for desireable units that will be absorbed by the market. This is a seriously flawed argument. NOT every building is suitable for redevelopment. The Statler is a perfect case in point. None other than Historic Restorations Inc, the purported "viable" developer told the City that the layout of the building was too convoluted to make decent units. Any redevelopment was going to be costly and result in lower rental rates than the market was currently seeing or could be reaosnbaly predicted to see any time in the next ten years. To redevelop the building would require an unprecedetned and massive City subsidy, something the City was unwilling to contemplate given the enormity of the subsidy and the equity issues involved. I can deatil those in a nother response as to the different nature of the City's financail participation in the Book Cadillac and the very differnt sort of participation that would have been required at the Statler. Back to the architectural obsolecence... The Statler Hilton residential wings were approximately 44 feet wide with a hallway approximately 14 feet wide. If you are using historic tax credits, hallways must maintain their size and configuration. This leaves about 15 feet of space on either side of the hallway for units. The my dorm room in college iswas typical and was about 15 feet wide. So essentially the layout and scale of the units would have been long and narrow. Think three or foor dorm rooms laid end to end with. An awkward and difficult lay out at best. And one with low market demand. Furthermore the hallway would have had units on either side (called "double loaded") This causes all the center wing units to face into the back of the other wings, it casuses all the back units of the Bagley wing and most of the Washington wing to face into the back of the center wing units. The furthest any o fthe units would berom a unit in another wing was 20 feet. Some as close as six feet. It causes all of the units around the light court to face to face into other units as well. More than sixty percent of the units would be effectively facing the interior of the building. These are typically the least desireable and very difficult to lease and they would have foirmed the bulk of the units. Yipes. If the tax credits were to be foregone and the hallway moved to being along the "interior" wall to create a single loaded hallway challenges would have also been encountered. The back end ot he untits would have been approximately 30-32 feet from the relatively smallish windows that existed. The units would have not enjoyed even moderate amount of natural light, agian making them less than desireable. My preceding analysis is paraphrased from the analysis by HRI, the supposed "viable" developer of the building. What does this all add up to? Sometimes buildings are saddled with excessive carrying costs that are greater than their demolition costs and prevent those funds from being used for other building reclamations. Sometimes buildings are sources of continued disinvetment in their neighborhoods and thei removal makes investment much more attractive. Sometimes a building is of such challenged design and layout that an adaptive reuse is simply not feasible in even the most optimistic of future market predictions. When buildings are characteriszed by these conditions, it is prudent and sound public policy to remove them to make development occur. In the case of Statler and Hudsons boith had significant carry costs, the Stalter showed no hope of ever being able to be restored due to its original design and Hudsons was creating a disinvestment drag on the CBD. Even Lowell has noticed that the majority of new investment has come post Hudsons demo. Gievn that the Statler and Hudson have been the only City owned assets demoed in the CBD in the last 5-6 years and how many other projects have moved forward from City owned assets, it is very hard to legitimately claim that the City is favoring demoliton over restoration. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3264 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
I have gone to extraordinary lengths to see projects become profitable because I see the value and nobility in preservation. I have also seen that there are projects that simply cannot be done. No matter how you slice or dice it. They simply won't happen. And that really sucks. AS KBKav noted, it sticks in my craw and I am not happy when such a realization is reached, but at least I have the balls to stand up and shoot Old Yeller and put her out of her misery. For quite sometime I have been trying to no avail to get folks here to realize that. I am not a building hater. I am, at the core, a building hugger. But I have the experience and cajones to make the necessary and hard choices and to live with them. How many of my critics here can say that? Pardon me if I get snarky sometimes....but....until you have walked 32 stories of stairs four times in one day in minus 5 degree weather inside old buildings just to help contractors get a handle on the scope of project....until you have burned the midnight oil and have come up with fiancing schemes that have never been attmepted anywhere in the US before....until then...well don;t be suprised if I throw out the occissional STFU when groups calling themselves preservationists are willing to make up lies for national dissemnination. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 6188 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 198.208.251.24 |
But Skulker - why did you and the Mayors office put together a list of 100 buildings that you will knock down prior to the Superbowl? | ||
Darwinism Member Username: Darwinism Post Number: 278 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 69.209.140.3 |
Skulker: What's your name and your official position again ? | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 6190 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 198.208.251.24 |
Please list your address, W2, social security number, criminal histroy and most recent physical including history of STD. | ||
Darwinism Member Username: Darwinism Post Number: 279 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 69.209.140.3 |
Nah, Jt1, don't think there is a need or desire to know that much ..... otherwise I would have requested for parents name, mother's maiden name, pet(s) name as well as hair color, eye color, height, weight, shoe size and etc. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3265 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
I prefer to keep what little semblance of anonymity I do retain. Unfortunately there are those in the past that make no effort to respect this feature of the Forum. I hope that does not occur in the future as it will have a chilling effect Forum wide in terms of particpation by folks who may have information to share or do not want their opinions confused with being opinins of employers. That is a confusion that is often seen here. | ||
Itsjeff Member Username: Itsjeff Post Number: 5158 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 208.27.111.125 |
Darwinism is making me rethink my position on intelligent design. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1334 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 70.225.112.68 |
Hysterical, Itsjeff. How long did it take you to come up with that one? | ||
Itsjeff Member Username: Itsjeff Post Number: 5159 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.42.168.211 |
It's worse than you think. I didn't even come up with that. Someone e-mailed it to me : ) | ||
Itsjeff Member Username: Itsjeff Post Number: 5160 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.42.168.211 |
Oh, man. Right on cue: http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs .dll/article?AID=/20051209/BUS INESS06/512090442/1122 Hint hint. Nudge nudge. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1335 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 70.236.186.147 |
Oh, geez. | ||
Itsjeff Member Username: Itsjeff Post Number: 5161 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.42.168.211 |
I'm just sayin'. She's polished, knows everyone, and has the respect of the right people. If someone of Beebe's caliber were representing the FoBC, I'd be the first person to write a check. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1337 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 70.236.186.147 |
Hmm... | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3288 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
So I wonder if any one is going to answer Kbkav's question.....
(Message edited by skulker on December 15, 2005) | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 6222 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 198.208.251.23 |
Skulker - I have it in a box in a storage unit in Montana. I am driving out there in May. I'll see if I can dig it up but I know I have it. |
