Discuss Detroit » Archives - Beginning January 2006 » Lafayette Building News « Previous Next »
Top of pageBottom of page

1953
Member
Username: 1953

Post Number: 634
Registered: 12-2004
Posted From: 209.104.146.146
Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 7:40 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Lafayette Building closer to development?

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/c gi-bin/news.pl?newsId=7553
Top of pageBottom of page

The_nerd
Member
Username: The_nerd

Post Number: 274
Registered: 12-2003
Posted From: 192.5.109.49
Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 7:49 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

^ So which historic building will have to go to provide 750 parking spaces for the 125 units.
Top of pageBottom of page

Motorcitymayor2026
Member
Username: Motorcitymayor2026

Post Number: 262
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 71.10.63.140
Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 7:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

an abandoned one
Top of pageBottom of page

Rsa
Member
Username: Rsa

Post Number: 714
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 70.227.84.69
Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 7:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

the people's outfitting building. another historic building lost for the almighty automobile...

people's outfitting building

check out this site: people's outfitting

(Message edited by rsa on December 15, 2005)

(Message edited by rsa on December 15, 2005)
Top of pageBottom of page

E_hemingway
Member
Username: E_hemingway

Post Number: 395
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.42.176.123
Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 7:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I'm trying to picture where that parking garage will go. Would it be the vacant lot right behind the new Holiday Inn or will they have to tear down a building to do it?
Top of pageBottom of page

Huggybear
Member
Username: Huggybear

Post Number: 101
Registered: 08-2005
Posted From: 192.217.12.254
Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 7:57 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

My guess is on the vacant lot that is at Michigan and Griswold - the one that had an old building on it until it was torn down to be a 30-car parking lot for CM and CW construction.
Top of pageBottom of page

E_hemingway
Member
Username: E_hemingway

Post Number: 396
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.42.176.123
Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 7:58 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Could they be talking about the gravel lot adjacent to that building? That could make sense if were connected by underground tunnels.
Top of pageBottom of page

The_nerd
Member
Username: The_nerd

Post Number: 276
Registered: 12-2003
Posted From: 192.5.109.49
Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 7:59 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Wow RSA, that building looks like it's still in good shape. Plus the large windows are ideal for lofts. God, when will people ever stop thinking with a "parking first" mentality.
Top of pageBottom of page

Rsa
Member
Username: Rsa

Post Number: 715
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 70.227.84.69
Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 8:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

it is in fairly good shape. i just updated my post to includ a link with interior pix.
Top of pageBottom of page

E_hemingway
Member
Username: E_hemingway

Post Number: 397
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.42.176.123
Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 8:03 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The story describes the spot as "east of shelby," which leads me to believe that it's the vacant lot. If they planned on tearing down that building it probably would have said at the northeast corner of Michigan and Shelby and then probably would have eluded to tearing the building down in some way.
Top of pageBottom of page

Rsa
Member
Username: Rsa

Post Number: 717
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 70.227.84.69
Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 8:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

while i appreciate your enthusiasm e_hemingway, you have to tend to read between the lines with these type of announcements.


quote:

Jackson said that city plans to include enough parking spots to accommodate condo resident in a garage to be built to serve the restored Book Cadillac Hotel. That garage is planned on the north side of Michigan east of Shelby, and could be connected to the Lafayette Building with an underpass, he said.




1.) to serve the book cadillac hotel. this usually means attached to by some means.
2.) while this area is exempt from the code in regards to parking spaces, the rule of thumb is usually 1.5 spaces per unit. 125 units lafayette building +~78 units in BC x 1.5 = 305 spaces. plus however many the'd need for hotel guests and visitors. wouldn't fit on half a block economically.
3.) the owner of this building has been hell-bent on tearing it down for years. he was the one that tore down the old (ginsels drug store was it?) on the corner of michigan and griswold shortly after the taco bell closed [even tho it was in good shape].

i'd like to get bitter about this, but it begs the question: is it worth it to tear down one historical building to save another? what really burns me up is that there are so many vacant lots around that area already AND the fact they just tore down the grand trunk building across the way for a horrendous parking structure.
Top of pageBottom of page

Dialh4hipster
Member
Username: Dialh4hipster

Post Number: 1228
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.61.187.234
Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 8:59 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I suppose technically if this were to happen this is the loss of one building to save two, since it will serve BC and the Lafayette Building. Plus who knows if there will be another building that could get parking in there and be renovated for residential.
Top of pageBottom of page

Psip
Member
Username: Psip

Post Number: 652
Registered: 04-2005
Posted From: 69.246.13.131
Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 9:10 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

With parking being a major problem going on for almost 100 years, why is it, that it has not been proposed to build an underground lot under Washington Blvd?
That space is huge, and centrally located. I bet with 3 levels, you could fit 5000 spaces. It could also contain an underground arcade.
Maybe it makes too much sense for Detroit.
Top of pageBottom of page

Supersport
Member
Username: Supersport

Post Number: 9589
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 69.246.37.236
Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 9:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

the people's outfitting building. another historic building lost for the almighty automobile...




Yay automobile.....oh yeah, and TEAR THAT SCHITT DOWN!!!
Top of pageBottom of page

E_hemingway
Member
Username: E_hemingway

Post Number: 398
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.42.176.123
Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 9:32 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I understand what you're saying about reading between the lines. Trust me, in my job that's an everyday requirement. Quite honestly the cynic in me sees it coming down, soon. However, the reasoning for tearing down the building seems inadequate. Why not just build parking on the empty lot adjacent to the BC on Washington Blvd.? Why not put the tunnel through the basement of the building to the new parking garage in the empty lot? I'm pretty certain guests at the hotel would rather look out their window and see office building rather than parking garage. Why doesn't the Lafayette building utilize the huge parking deck on the other side of Lafayette? Why doesn't everything I wish for magically happen? I'm sure someone on this forum has the answers to these questions.
Top of pageBottom of page

Dialh4hipster
Member
Username: Dialh4hipster

Post Number: 1232
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.61.187.234
Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 9:55 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"Why doesn't everything I wish for magically happen?"

E_Hemingway, you are my new hero for saying that!
Top of pageBottom of page

Skulker
Member
Username: Skulker

Post Number: 3292
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 68.42.176.88
Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 10:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

Why not just build parking on the empty lot adjacent to the BC on Washington Blvd.?



Waaaaaaay too small.

quote:

Why not put the tunnel through the basement of the building to the new parking garage in the empty lot?



The empty lot is waaaaaay to small.

quote:

I'm pretty certain guests at the hotel would rather look out their window and see office building rather than parking garage.



Actually I'm not sure that hotel guests would prefer looking at an abandoned building.

quote:

Why doesn't the Lafayette building utilize the huge parking deck on the other side of Lafayette?


Insufficient space it the "huge" Financial District garage as the deck is almost at full capacity.


quote:

With parking being a major problem going on for almost 100 years, why is it, that it has not been proposed to build an underground lot under Washington Blvd?
That space is huge, and centrally located. I bet with 3 levels, you could fit 5000 spaces. It could also contain an underground arcade.
Maybe it makes too much sense for Detroit.



No, it costs waaaaaay too much for Detroit. An undeground deck runs about $35,000 per spot. An above grade deck runs about $18,000 per spot. Do the math.
Add in the traffic circulation issues trying to accomodate a deck like that in an area you are trying to keep pedestrian friendly and these two goals do not mesh.



The better question would be why not build a parking deck directly west on the parking lot servicing the Federal Courthouse? The answer lies in that the feds control that parking lot and are looking long term at a new courthouse and other federal offices there. The lot is unavailable for purchase.
Top of pageBottom of page

Supersport
Member
Username: Supersport

Post Number: 9591
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 69.246.37.236
Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 11:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Since the Book Cadillac is sitting vacant, why not convert it and its Grand Ballroom into a parking garage a la Michigan Theatre? Then when "8 Mile II" comes out they could record a rap scene in there. How cool would that be?
Top of pageBottom of page

Psip
Member
Username: Psip

Post Number: 655
Registered: 04-2005
Posted From: 69.246.13.131
Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 11:16 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

^^I think someone has been spending too much time over at hotfudge.
Top of pageBottom of page

Supersport
Member
Username: Supersport

Post Number: 9594
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 69.246.37.236
Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 11:21 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Nah, too far outside their jurisdiction.
Top of pageBottom of page

Alexei289
Member
Username: Alexei289

Post Number: 911
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.61.183.223
Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 11:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

any pics of the layfayette building?

I know where it is and what it looks like... but id like to see what this could do for the surrounding landscape...
Top of pageBottom of page

Kraemerdesigngroup
Member
Username: Kraemerdesigngroup

Post Number: 19
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 69.216.113.44
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 12:11 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The garage is planned for 150 Michigan. The planned garage for the Book Cadillac would be made larger to accomodate the Lafayette Building needs. A comprehensive study was done to put a garage inside the Lafayette - tough but physically do-able. Way too costly.
Top of pageBottom of page

Kraemerdesigngroup
Member
Username: Kraemerdesigngroup

Post Number: 20
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 69.216.113.44
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 12:30 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The official press release:

R. DONAHUE PEEBLES ESTABLISHES VISION FOR DETROIT WITH $40 MILLION
> RENOVATION OF HISTORIC LAFAYETTE BUILDING
>
> MIAMI (Dec. 15, 2005) - Real estate mogul R. Donahue Peebles announced
> this week that he is in the final stages of negotiations for renovating
> the historic Lafayette Building in downtown Detroit. A testament to the
> momentum of Detroit's downtown revitalization, Peebles plans to convert
> the 14-story building into one of the region's premier, residential
> condominium. An anticipated investment of over $40 million will serve
> to ensure so. In his words, "the Peebles brand of elegance is a perfect
> match for the sophistication of Detroit's residents. The city led the
> way into the Industrial Age and promises to reemerge in the Information
> Age. Once I have given new life to the Lafayette, it will cater to the
> creative class of people whom will lead this reemergence."
>
> Designed by renowned architect C. Howard Crane (who also designed
> Detroit's Fox Theatre), the Lafayette Building was originally
> constructed in 1924. The historic building's ornate 1920's architecture
> will returned to its original grandeur while the interiors infused with
> ample modern luxuries to cater to Detroit's smart set.
>
> Peebles' plans call for 125 stately one- and two-bedroom residences with
> upscale amenities, flowing layouts and high-tech wiring. The building's
> amenities, including wireless hot spots and a comprehensive fitness
> center, will cater to affluent urbanite residents. A culture of
> convenience will extend throughout the building, with ground floor
> commercial space designed to attract quality retailers.
>
> With widely regarded historic renovations, Peebles has gained a
> reputation as a visionary developer who is enhancing cities across the
> U.S. He has spearheaded the preservation of such national landmark
> properties as The Royal Palm Hotel, one of South Beach's largest hotels
> and The Residences at the Bath Club.
>
> The illustrious Bath Club opens this month to wide acclaim as the most
> luxurious residential enclave to ever grace Miami Beach. Its financial
> results have been record setting in a market known for lofty real estate
> prices. The property's highlight is undoubtedly the rebirth of the
> iconic 75-year-old Clubhouse, the southeast's first private and social
> bathing club that once counted Herbert Hoover, John Knight of
> Knight-Ridder, and Nancy Jean Davis of MacArthur Farms as members.
> Residences at this exclusive property have ranged from $1.1 million to
> over $10 million.
>
> Established in 1987, Peebles' company is a nationally recognized
> full-service real estate development company specializing in luxury
> resort, residential and office properties. The company's portfolio is
> currently estimated at approximately $1 billion. Peebles' is poised to
> unveil a new corporate identity on Jan. 1, 2006, when his company is
> formally renamed "Peebles Corporation."
>
> For more information on Peebles, visit www.padcorp.com
> <http://www.padcorp.com/>; .
Top of pageBottom of page

Eric
Member
Username: Eric

Post Number: 249
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 35.8.141.111
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 12:38 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

How is the lot behind the BC too small didn't the original deal have the parking going in that spot?

As for the lot next to People's Outfitting build a Merchant's Row style garage.
Top of pageBottom of page

Burnsie
Member
Username: Burnsie

Post Number: 371
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 35.9.3.92
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 1:05 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I also don't see how that lot behind the BC is too small. Everything up until now has stated that the garage would go there.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mind_field
Member
Username: Mind_field

Post Number: 441
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 209.240.205.61
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 1:49 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I feel all warm and fuzzy inside after reading stuff like this. I wonder how much condos will start at? Interesting, I'm assuming Peebles won't use historic tax credits on this building since it's going straight to condo.
Top of pageBottom of page

Sknutson
Member
Username: Sknutson

Post Number: 402
Registered: 03-2004
Posted From: 64.139.1.36
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 2:03 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

it will cater to the creative class of people whom will lead this reemergence




OK, where are the grammar police?
Top of pageBottom of page

Broken_main
Member
Username: Broken_main

Post Number: 522
Registered: 06-2005
Posted From: 198.109.44.2
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 2:18 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I can tell by looking at his website that this man is really geared toward creating a very classy living space. I believe that this would be quite an investment for him and a excellent addition to the downtown cityscape.
Top of pageBottom of page

623kraw
Member
Username: 623kraw

Post Number: 716
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 68.41.224.200
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 6:55 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Click here for a hefty Lafayette shot.
Top of pageBottom of page

E_hemingway
Member
Username: E_hemingway

Post Number: 399
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.42.176.123
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 8:43 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Skulker: I have my doubts about the empty lots I mentioned being "waaaay to (attention grammar police!) small." Check out the proportion of the area of those lots on mapdetroit.com. The empty lot on 130 Michigan is twice as big as the Commerce Building and the empty lot adjacent to the Book Cadillac is nearly half that block. It seems building tall enough parking structures on both empty lots would take care of the parking needs withough sacrificing the Commerce Building.
Both empty lots appear to be big enough to accommodate a parking structure the size of the 1003 Woodward (CVS Pharmacy site), from what I see on map Detroit. I don't know the raw numbers of how it works, but an eyeball examination seems that tearing down the Commerce Building is unnecessary.

Once again, I'm more than happy to do the very easy work. :-)
Top of pageBottom of page

Skulker
Member
Username: Skulker

Post Number: 3294
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.103.104.93
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 12:57 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

OK - Todays design lesson - Parking decks are not just square footage. There are very real circulation issues that eat a ton of space and can cause severe inefficiencies.

For example, there needs to be enough travel lane space for two vehicles to pass each other and enough space for them to make full turns.

Imagine a standard parking deck where there is head in parking on both sides of the travel lanes that coils on top of itself.

If P = Parking and T = Travel lane, an efficient deck looks like this from the top:

P T T P P T T P.

If a lot is not wide enough, it may have to be designed something like this....

P T T P T T P

Or 25% of the parking capacity on each floor removed. That means the 25% parking has to be replaced somewhere else, i.e. adding another floor if the deck was only going to be a four floor deck. That adds substantial costs per parking space.

The lot north of the BC will hold three floors of new ballroom and ancillary space including a pool / fitness center. A parking deck would need to go on top of these facilities making their construction costly and inefficient as now they need to be modified to allow the traffic to get above these uses as well as the engineering necessary to shield the ballroms form the vibration, noise and deflection caused by continual automotive traffic.

Because of the configuation of the north lot, there are a number of traffic inefficiencies that would require the deck to be at minimum 9 stories tall, on top of the additional 3 stories.

A parking deck tacked on to the first 12 stories of the BC will block views and sun light for guests on the those floors facing the interior of the building making them very undesireable rooms. It will also make the building awkward and ungainly looking to have such a thing appended to the side.

Not insignificantly constructing a deck on the north lot would also void the historic easement tax credit and punch a huge hole into the financing.

It would also provide no parking for the Lafayette.

As it stands we have three vacant buildings. One listed, two not. We can salvage the best looking ones if we have a good parking solution. The best parking solution at this point requires the demolition of the least attractive of the three buildings.

Option A - Lafayette and BC restored. 150 gone with a first floor retail deck.

Option B - Lafayette. BC, 150 Michigan vacant.

I'll take A.
Top of pageBottom of page

Rsa
Member
Username: Rsa

Post Number: 719
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 69.212.44.96
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 1:21 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

to add onto skulk's parking garage lesson: on a severely space limited site you could construt a garage with level floors, one-way horizontal circulation, and pull the vertical circulation away from the parking componant (much like the circular ramp up to cobo roof parking). to utilize the above diagram, it would look like this (simplistically):

VT
P-HT-PP-HT-P

[VT=vertical travel, HT=one-way horizontal travel]

i still think there is an option c out there.
Top of pageBottom of page

E_hemingway
Member
Username: E_hemingway

Post Number: 400
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.42.176.123
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 1:31 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

How many stories will there be in the parking deck being proposed for the Michigan/Shelby deck with the commerce building gone?
Top of pageBottom of page

E_hemingway
Member
Username: E_hemingway

Post Number: 401
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.42.176.123
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 1:32 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

RSA: Much line the deck attached to merchants row, right?
Top of pageBottom of page

Jsmyers
Member
Username: Jsmyers

Post Number: 1299
Registered: 12-2003
Posted From: 209.131.7.68
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 1:34 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Skulker,

Given the constraints and assumptions that these developments are operating under, I agree with your last post. (BTW - I like your PTTPP etc diagram.)

However,

I think it is a shame that plan are to demolish this building. I think it points to a lack of vision somewhere. (Not necessarily from the insides of the deals, but definitely at SEMCOG, probably at the banks, and elsewhere.)

I think you'll agree that with solid transit, not nearly as many spaces would be needed. Solid transit may be as simple as guaranteed 24 hour people mover service (with of site parking garages).

So my question is why aren’t DDP, DEGC, DVCB, Detroit Ren., and other organizations like them working to build transit.

I'm sure that you are right about many surrounding garages being at capacity -- in terms of leased spaces. But I believe that for the most part, downtown has horrible parking demand management. There is NO signage pointing to garages with spaces. This creates a situation where most of the garages want to keep some spaces open at all times. I understand that the city's parking department is a huge hurdle, but many garages are not under their control. It would be in the DVCB's best interest to help with parking way-finding and demand management.

I also believe that there is no reason that all of the parking be so close to the rooms and units. For example, many BC hotel patrons will use a valet service. They should be putting those cars up by Bagely or past the Federal building on Michigan.

Similarly, not every condo owner in the BC or the Lafayette will use a parking space, nor will they all care if it is so close. (I'll admit that many do, but not nearly all.)

Given the choice to save money by finding their own parking, or having a designated space a few blocks away, many will save money.

I doubt that the planning for these buildings takes either of into account. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I'm also irritated because I wrote a paper last year about how the lack of transit limits density in downtown Detroit, causing viable buildings to be demolished to put up parking garages. My professor like the paper overall, but told me that buildings being demolished are "decrepit." Well this may be true for the ML or the Statler, but I think this proves him wrong.

We definitely have a planning climate with a short-term vision, and as good as that vision is (I think it is great), it will not get anywhere in the future without some action now towards a long-term vision.

There is simply NO way that Detroit can have a lively 24 hour (or even 18 hour) downtown without regional transit. If we continue down the path that we have been on so far, downtown might not have any vacant structures, but it will still be at half the density of what it should be, because of all the parking garages needed.

If our city's and region's leaders can't see that, than we are doomed to perpetual mediocrity.

I'm not blaming you, or Peebles, Kraemer, or any of the other foot solders. I'm blaming Kwame, Archer, DeRoche, Tait, Patterson, Mahaffey, CAY, and a number of other officials that have and continue to fail us.
Top of pageBottom of page

Skulker
Member
Username: Skulker

Post Number: 3296
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.103.104.93
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 1:36 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yes, it is technically feasible to build a deck on the north lot....at a very great expense and with the sacrificing the easement tax credits making the BC project dead in the water as well as severely compromising the design of the BC public space additions and the quality of the rooms.
Top of pageBottom of page

Fnemecek
Member
Username: Fnemecek

Post Number: 1378
Registered: 12-2004
Posted From: 69.213.81.185
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 1:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

i'd like to get bitter about this, but it begs the question: is it worth it to tear down one historical building to save another?



My counterparts in St. Louis and Chicago debate this question ad nausem. I think the consensus amoung the majority of folks on the preservation side is that it's ideal to save every historic resource, but it's acceptable to sacrifice one in order to save another.

As far as whether or not there is a viable alternative to parking that doesn't involve demolishing another historic structure - an option c, if you will - I'll defer that question to the architects.
Top of pageBottom of page

Skulker
Member
Username: Skulker

Post Number: 3298
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.103.104.93
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 1:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Well, in this case there's a two-fer....so I guess we're ahead of Chitown and St. Looey.

Anything is possible, but what is affordable and reachable? Cost structures have been sliced and diced a hundred different ways and there is no feasible Option C.
Top of pageBottom of page

J_stone
Member
Username: J_stone

Post Number: 244
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 63.77.247.130
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 1:50 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Skulker - I'm confident your logic is sound. Regardless, it sucks-bad to tear down such an attractive looking building. It looks to be in good shape, unlike the ML or MCS. Seems like a perfect size and great location to be converted into lofts. (like the Vinton)

Oh well, I just won't watch and pretend it's not happening.

(like a lot of things that happen in the city)
Top of pageBottom of page

Jsmyers
Member
Username: Jsmyers

Post Number: 1300
Registered: 12-2003
Posted From: 209.131.7.68
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 1:51 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I don't care a lot about historic structures.

My problem is that we are trading a downtown that is half vacant for a downtown that is half parking.

I don't see much improvement in that.
Top of pageBottom of page

Fnemecek
Member
Username: Fnemecek

Post Number: 1381
Registered: 12-2004
Posted From: 69.213.81.185
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 1:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jsmyers:
I do see an improvement in going from vacant to parking. Parking supports a multitude of economic and social activity. Vacant, however, supports nothing.
Top of pageBottom of page

E_hemingway
Member
Username: E_hemingway

Post Number: 402
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.42.176.123
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 1:57 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Skulker: Just out of curiousity, why isn't an option C deck (the one RSA alluded to or what is used at Merchants Row) feasible for just the 130 Michigan lot? Maybe I'm just dense, but I still don't understand why a 10- or 12-story parking deck there won't be able to meet the parking needs for the BC and Lafayette while still preserving the Commerce Building? If it is too expensive to build such a thing, what forces the cost overun? Is it the elevator for such a deck, its height or something else?
Top of pageBottom of page

Jsmyers
Member
Username: Jsmyers

Post Number: 1301
Registered: 12-2003
Posted From: 209.131.7.68
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 2:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Notice I wrote "much."

But I think we are going from a place where people walk or ride past a vacant building to a place where we drive right to the same doorstep we always went to.

I'm also certain it isn't necessary (at least to the extent it is happening.) If have of the surface parking lots inside the freeway loop where turned into parking garages, we'd have enough parking to renovate all of the vacant buildings. If we had transit, it'd be easier.

The preservation community, the corporate community, the social welfare community, the cool-cities community, as well as the property and small business owners ALL have a lot to gain from better transit. Why are they virtually all ignoring it?
Top of pageBottom of page

Skulker
Member
Username: Skulker

Post Number: 3299
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.103.104.93
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 2:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

If it is too expensive to build such a thing, what forces the cost overun?




Lot size, lot configuration, ingress and egress issues...all add significantly to the cost through inefficiencies. The lot is not very deep from Michigan to Alley, so getting four rows of parking in becomes slightly problematic. It would likely only be able to hold three rows of parking. The lot is also not very wide from Griswold to side of 150 Michigan causing issues as there is not a lot of spots left in the three rows after space is taken out for turning radii, elevators, stairwells etc. This causes a 130 Michigan only solution to be very tall. The higher you build, the higher the per foot costs.

A three story deck does not cost the same per foot to build as an eight story deck and a 12 story deck is even more costly per foot than a eight story deck.

Why?

Because footers have to be deeper and have to be stronger to carry the extra weight adding costs...

Once you get above a certain height, keeping water pressure in fire suppression systems requires booster pumps, adding to costs...

The higher a building goes, the more it is exposed to wind forces, causing the need for more robust structural systems, adding to costs....

The list goes on and on...

Keep in mind, the issue here isn't the developer earns more money by knocking down 150 and is a Scrooge trying to maximize profit at the expense of history....He's working to SAVE a building fer crissakes. This is simply a function of the fact that every peeny has been found, every piggy bank has been broken into, every couch cushion overturned and there is only a certain sized pot of funds to work with...It's getting the best you can with the money you have....
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroit_stylin
Member
Username: Detroit_stylin

Post Number: 2122
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 66.202.227.12
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 2:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Now I have a question...has parking historically been an issue in the City?
Top of pageBottom of page

Jsmyers
Member
Username: Jsmyers

Post Number: 1302
Registered: 12-2003
Posted From: 209.131.7.68
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 2:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Does anybody know how many spaces this garage will have?

What about other spaces needed by employees, for valet, etc that will be affiliated with either of the projects?
Top of pageBottom of page

Rsa
Member
Username: Rsa

Post Number: 722
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 69.212.44.96
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 2:49 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

let's take a look at a map of the area for a better understanding:

context

i have color coded different areas; orange is new parking garages (keep in mind the map crops many of the extents of the garages), green is surface lots to be built on, and blue are surface lots to remain surface lots. [this really gives an good visual as to how much space is already dedicated to parking is such close proximity.]

quick clarification for e_hemingway: the merchants row garage is yet another option that utilizes a car elevator. i was talking about a circular ramp servicing level parking floors (instead of slanted floors with ramps integrated into them). but you bring up a good point - what makes the merchant's row option feasable for that location and not this one?

ok, now onto my idea: close off shelby st. between michigan and state (shaded in grey). it's closed off next to capitol park and is in between two other major streets; not really needed. that way, you could gain a streets width of space and the empty lot behind the P.O.Bldg.. you could also leave the street for half the block as overfill waiting space for the entrance and exit to the garage. you could build a garage the first two levels (the retail and lobby spaces of the bc) + one subterranean, then build the third and fourth (maybe fifth) above it as the required extra ballroom space, pool, fitness center, etc. eh? eh?

disclaimer; i know all involved have the best intentions and have worked very hard towards this deal. my intention is not to disrespect anybody or to complain. i just thought a little brainstorming might lead to an option c.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jsmyers
Member
Username: Jsmyers

Post Number: 1304
Registered: 12-2003
Posted From: 209.131.7.68
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 2:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

Now I have a question...has parking historically been an issue in the City?




No, but that doesn't mean that people don't compain anyway.
Top of pageBottom of page

Hornwrecker
Member
Username: Hornwrecker

Post Number: 550
Registered: 04-2005
Posted From: 216.203.223.75
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 3:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Here's a map that I did for another thread, CBD parking from the 1930s.

Surface lots in red
Parking garages in purple

Top of pageBottom of page

Sknutson
Member
Username: Sknutson

Post Number: 403
Registered: 03-2004
Posted From: 67.114.23.202
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 3:12 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I too would be very sorry to see the Commerce Building go, as to my admittedly non-expert eye it looks like a good loft/apt candidate. And it is one of those types of survivors that makes Detroit have its soul. However, if enough of these projects become successful, perhaps future funding will enable the currently "too expensive" parking options to become feasible, and buildings such as the Commerce to become too valuable as redevelopment candidates to sacrifice.

I like to take a positive look at things, I guess.
Sounds like a high quality project, to be sure, and it sure would be nice to see a utilized Lafayette and BC keeping each other company.

Would that parking be able to support anything in Capital Park? Its been so long since I've been in that area, the distances are a bit hazy to me.
Top of pageBottom of page

Skulker
Member
Username: Skulker

Post Number: 3300
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.103.104.93
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 3:37 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

I think you'll agree that with solid transit, not nearly as many spaces would be needed. Solid transit may be as simple as guaranteed 24 hour people mover service (with of site parking garages)



Sure, but how can the BC / Lafayette force SEMCOG to change? These projects have to work with the hands they have been dealt.


quote:

I also believe that there is no reason that all of the parking be so close to the rooms and units. For example, many BC hotel patrons will use a valet service. They should be putting those cars up by Bagely or past the Federal building on Michigan.



There are expense and efficiency issues there. Ask the valets at Penobscot.


quote:

Similarly, not every condo owner in the BC or the Lafayette will use a parking space, nor will they all care if it is so close.



I completely disagree. Many will require two spaces and would like to have proximate parking for guests and visitors.

RSA:
Your solutions are solutions that have been looked at and analyzed a dozen different ways. Unfortunately there are some pretty huge variables getting in the way.

1. The northern lot will be used for 3 stories of ancillary uses like ballroms, catering kitchens, fitness center, etc. Parking would have to go on top of these uses. Their scope and scale and efficiency would be be severely impacted by having to build access ramps on the lot to put a parking deck above. It would also add significant costs to engineer ballroms not subject to vibration from automobile traffic. Alternatively those use could be on top, insulating them from vibration. Placing these uses 9-14 stories in the air destroys internal circulation.

2. The financing of the BC is done in large part through historic easement tax creits. A 9 -12 story parking deck would void the easements punching a huge hole in the financing.

These two parameters are forcing the solution that has been proposed. This isn't simply a matter of developers / architects not being creative enough.
Top of pageBottom of page

Corktownmark
Member
Username: Corktownmark

Post Number: 124
Registered: 12-2004
Posted From: 68.42.79.14
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 3:49 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

RSA you are a flippin' genius. One other thought on closing shelby. In AA they have parking structures that go over the street. We would only lose the retail space the width of the street.
Top of pageBottom of page

E_hemingway
Member
Username: E_hemingway

Post Number: 403
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.42.176.123
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 3:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Since another monster parking deck seems like a forgone conclusion, although I'm not sold that is the only option, what will it look like? Can we expect to see something as nice as the Opera House deck, which looks better than some buildings downtown, or are we sentenced to another Lafayette Ave. monstrosity? Or perhaps is this going to be something in between, such as the deck behind 1001 Woodward?
Top of pageBottom of page

Kazooexplorer
Member
Username: Kazooexplorer

Post Number: 959
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 155.79.138.253
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 3:55 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Ooooh oooh crazy idea time! What if the new parking structure was built "through" 150 Michigan? By demolishing the lower floors and carefully replacing the old structure of the People's Outfitting Building with the structure for the new parking deck you could save half of the building. With some creative facade work it could still look like two separate buildings side by side. The upper floors of the existing 150 Building would be preserved with ample connected parking and two and half buildings would be saved at the expense of only a half.

Obviously this would result in an enormous time delay but I'm not sure how much more expensive it would be. There would clearly be an added expense but if it would be mitigated by the retained liveable/workeable space of 150 Michigan. . . well that just isn't math that I can do. I like it as an idea though.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jsmyers
Member
Username: Jsmyers

Post Number: 1307
Registered: 12-2003
Posted From: 209.131.7.68
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 3:58 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

Sure, but how can the BC / Lafayette force SEMCOG to change? These projects have to work with the hands they have been dealt.




I agree, but the DEGC, DDP, et al should put that pressure on. It'll save them time trying to find empty blocks to build parking garages in the future. Instead they are working really hard (and effectively) to get things like these deals done...in the short term. Great short term work, good medium term vision, NO long term vision. I'm sure it is not the staff's fault, but the leadership.


quote:

I completely disagree. Many will require two spaces and would like to have proximate parking for guests and visitors.




Guest and visitors almost completely come after business hours, when all of those existing spaces nearby aren't physically full. The ones that come during business hours can use the spaces left by those who work outside of the CBD.


quote:

There are expense and efficiency issues there.




Give 'em bikes. Problem 90% solved. Part of the reason to have valet is so that you don't have to walk from your parking space. If you put that space on top of where you want to go, the advantage disappears.
Top of pageBottom of page

E_hemingway
Member
Username: E_hemingway

Post Number: 404
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.42.176.123
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 4:06 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

With Kzoo's idea the demo costs and money saved from building less parking deck, i.e. pouring longer footings, could be put toward retrofitting the Commerce Building.
Top of pageBottom of page

Dnvn522
Member
Username: Dnvn522

Post Number: 76
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 204.24.64.25
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 4:26 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The footprint for the existing surface lot at 130 Michigan can hold 34 cars per floor. To hold 305 cars, the structure would have to be 9 floors. Skulker is correct that a proposed structure there would only be able to hold 3 rows of parking.

Incorporating the footprint of 150 Michigan would hold 61 spots per floor. Which is equal to 5 floors for 305 spots.

(Message edited by dnvn522 on December 16, 2005)
Top of pageBottom of page

Rsa
Member
Username: Rsa

Post Number: 724
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 69.212.44.96
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 4:34 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

thanx corktownmark! that's why they call me RSA (well...ok. i call myself that, but it's besides the point :-)

now my turn; kazooexplorer that is a flippin' genius idea! it could satisfy everyone's criteria! it would probably cost a lot more and require some pretty inventive engineering, but it could be done! it would be interesting to see the cost comparison of this idea vs. total demolition and new construction. the engineering has been done before-it's primarily a matter of building new footings and foundations within the existing structure, shoring up the existing structure, demo'ing the old structure, and replacing it with a new one.

an idea that i've seen in several cities-that i thought was a really good idea-was demo'ing a structure but leaving the street-front facade. the facade can be held up with relatively little structure, preserves the streetscape and some history, and the owner get's their surface lot.
Top of pageBottom of page

Skulker
Member
Username: Skulker

Post Number: 3301
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.103.104.93
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 4:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Kazoo - The cost is pretty damn high and this is a project that is running very tight already. The time delays costs and the activity costs would sink the BC project.

Corktownmark - Shelby will already be closed for a plaza like connection and some cantilevering over of the new deck.

E_hemingway - Sorry I can't assuage your concerns and fears about a "monster deck" and saving the Commerce Building, but the finishes on the deck will be of a quality the Book Cadillac deserves from an ancillary building.

JSMyers - Bikes are not usable 4-5 months out of the year. Valet parking needs to be with a reasonable distance so the valets can get back and forth qucikly and efficiently. Once you get beyond 2 blocks (as your proposals do) it becomes very expensive to maintain a slow service. The Financial District Garage is the only other proximate garage and is not open 24/7 as you would need for guest parking.

To fault leadership of DDP and DEGC for a presumed lack of vision on pushing mass transit is really misplaced. Mass transit is a regional issue requiring regional cooperation. It is my experience that nearly every person (the exceptions being a couple Council members)in a leadership position in the CIty of Detroit "gets" it about transit. But what can folks at DDP and DEGC do in the face of Livonia opting out of SMART, in the face of some City Council members adopting a confrontational tone, in the face of Craig DeRoche pushing for more state spending on freeway exits in Novi, in the face of L. Brooks Patterson sinking any and all proposals, in the face of intransigent unions at DDOT?

Regional transportation planning is not the job of DEGC or DDP. Their leaders get it and want it, but they are not the appropraite agencies for pushing it.
Top of pageBottom of page

E_hemingway
Member
Username: E_hemingway

Post Number: 405
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.42.176.123
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 5:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Skulker: Phrases like "but the finishes on the deck will be of a quality the Book Cadillac deserves from an ancillary building" remind me of other descriptions, such as "lanscaped surface lot" or "decorative sidewalk." However, they have more credibility when they come from you. Can you elaborate on the finishes? Will they have the detailed character of an opera house deck or just try to blend in with surrounding architecture, a la the 1001 Woodward deck?

(Message edited by E_hemingway on December 16, 2005)
Top of pageBottom of page

Jsmyers
Member
Username: Jsmyers

Post Number: 1309
Registered: 12-2003
Posted From: 209.131.7.68
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 5:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

Bikes are not usable 4-5 months out of the year.




- Bull. They just aren't as pretty or fun during those months. People bike all winter.

I understand what groups like DDP, Detroit Renaissance, and the like are up against. I didn't say it would be easy or quick. The fact remains that without transit, there is no there there.

It is a regional issue, but without the downtown community's input, the region could bypass downtown.
Top of pageBottom of page

Chow
Member
Username: Chow

Post Number: 228
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 65.29.96.205
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 6:06 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"...so I guess we're ahead of Chitown and St. Looey."

Not so much, St. Louis saved their Statler...
Top of pageBottom of page

Skulker
Member
Username: Skulker

Post Number: 3302
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.103.104.93
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 6:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

E_Hem:

quote:

With Kzoo's idea the demo costs and money saved from building less parking deck, i.e. pouring longer footings, could be put toward retrofitting the Commerce Building.



Assuming this means a facadectomy, the reengineering costs (stablizing the facade during demo and construction, modifying standard construction efficiciences to match floor etc )more than offset the cost savings. The developer, architect and DDA already explored that option.

I don't want to comment on the finishes as they are still being finalized, but what I have seen will not disappoint.

JSmyers:
Bull. Bikes as a means of rapid (re)transit back to pick up/drop off points for valets is impractical to begin with and even more so when valet traffic is highest in a heavy snow like yesterdays.

At this point, there is no input anywhere about meaningful transit except at DARTA, which has its offices downtown and includes many of the pople you are implying on its advisory panels. I recognize that you see this as a regional issue, but you seem fixated on feeling that DEGC/DDP aren't doing enough, which I don't understand.

Chow:
St. Looey never had a Book Cadillac or a C. Howard Crane like the Lafayette. Their Statler is effectively their Book Cadillac and Guardian all wrapped up into one. Too bad they don't have their own homegrown iconic buildings like we do...

Amazing how this thread is beginning to devolve from a celebration of the restoration of C. Howard Crane's ONLY office building into complaints about the Statler again....
Top of pageBottom of page

Kazooexplorer
Member
Username: Kazooexplorer

Post Number: 960
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 155.79.138.253
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 6:46 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Wait, so you're saying that you guys looked into my idea? Sweet! I feel so smart. Too bad it's too cost-prohibitive.
Top of pageBottom of page

Corktownmark
Member
Username: Corktownmark

Post Number: 125
Registered: 12-2004
Posted From: 68.42.79.14
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 6:55 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Skulker, lets take a moment and celebrate. I can think of many suburban and city folk would really love to live in the Lafayette. I hope the coney and the arcade will still be there. What great news. Thanks for the reminder. We really do need to celebrate this!!!
Top of pageBottom of page

E_hemingway
Member
Username: E_hemingway

Post Number: 407
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.42.176.123
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 7:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yeah, Corktownmark has a point. Two major buildings are being saved at the cost of one. It's usually the other way around in Detroit. Plus of those three buildings, the commerce building is the easiest to let go of. However, that doesn't make us happy about it.

BTW, are there any plans for the rooms above those coneys and other buildings at the point of that block. I always thought those would be easy renovations.
Top of pageBottom of page

Skulker
Member
Username: Skulker

Post Number: 3303
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.103.104.93
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 7:05 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Just think what that corner will be like in 2 & 1/2 years....a restored Book Cadillac with hundreds of guests a day along with weddings and mitzvahs and charity balls and corporate events along with 125 new residential units and (hopefully) active retail along the north side of Mich Ave.....all just yards away from C-Mart....it really is great news about a City owned property that will join the ever growing list of reclaimed buildings....

(Message edited by skulker on December 16, 2005)
Top of pageBottom of page

Swingline
Member
Username: Swingline

Post Number: 378
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 172.169.171.254
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 7:25 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

There's no complaining from this poster (sheesh, that Statler bug up Skulker's ass sure has made him sensitive). Putting the lights back on in the B-C and Lafayette and adding some street level retail on both sides of Michigan Ave in the 100 block will more than compensate for the loss of People's Outfitters building IMHO. Getting these projects on line will also vastly improve the prospects for Capitol Park buildings such as the Farwell and the David Stott.

It's all about capable and competent placemaking in the CBD. Continued steady progress on new residential projects will ultimately produce a tipping point when it comes to office demand. On the other side of this tipping point, office tenants will be drawn to the location that is attracting the professional and creative types as a place to live. When a place can provide a quality of life for both the home and workplace, it will thrive. In the long term, the CBD needs several thousand more office workers.

Caveat: I know that this viewpoint of CBD development sounds pretty elitist. But it's the elites that have the money to make things happen to improve our built environment. They also pay a shitload of taxes that help pay for municipal services that we non-elites enjoy. If planned well, they also make urban places that I can enjoy. I can't afford to live in the urban cores of places like Boston, D.C., Beverly Hills or even Birmingham, MI for that matter. But I sure like spending time in those places, so I too get a benefit.

People's Outfitters is a necessary sacrifice.
Top of pageBottom of page

Rsa
Member
Username: Rsa

Post Number: 725
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 69.212.44.96
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 7:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

fo' shizzle. let's hope this new garage will at least have ground floor retail (can't let go of all of my cynicism!).

i'm a little confused at the levels of the addition to the b/c. i think the current proposal is vastly different from the one i saw a year ago. ok; b/c: first floor retail, second floor lobby, third floor mezz and service, fourth floor ballroom space, fifth floor mezz and service, sixth and above hotel + residences. wouldn't they put the future conference and service spaces on the ballroom floor? couldn't the pool be on the roof of this new space? wouldn't the fitness center, etc. be better served closer to the hotel area? couldn't this leave room for a parking structure below it?

again, i know this is much more intricate than meets the eye and i'm just curious. the above questions stem from a previous proposal. another question: would attached parking at all void the historic tax credits? [if so, all my above questions would be moot]
Top of pageBottom of page

Jsmyers
Member
Username: Jsmyers

Post Number: 1313
Registered: 12-2003
Posted From: 209.131.7.68
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 7:32 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

I recognize that you see this as a regional issue, but you seem fixated on feeling that DEGC/DDP aren't doing enough, which I don't understand.




Actually, I'm more concerned about corporate groups like the Detroit Renaissance. DDP comes second, then DEGC.

The way I see things, transportation infrastructure is an economic development tool.

But you are right that DEGC has bigger fish to fry.

And if I haven't said so. Thank you for the hard work that is going into both the BC and the Lafayette. Even if I'm an armchair quarterback, I recognize that what is being done was considered impossible a few short years ago.
Top of pageBottom of page

Eric
Member
Username: Eric

Post Number: 251
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 69.136.144.196
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 7:32 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

To hold 305 cars, the structure would have to be 9 floors. Skulker is correct that a proposed structure there would only be able to hold 3 rows of parking.

Incorporating the footprint of 150 Michigan would hold 61 spots per floor. Which is equal to 5 floors for 305 spots.




So build a 9 story automated garage at 130 the 8 story Merchants Row is on a even smaller lot. This is close enough to the BC that valet can have quick turn around times and what you save in demo cost probably makes up for the addtional cost
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 2768
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.172.95.197
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 8:03 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Eric has a point. It seems as if we've become less creative in how to fit parking into an urban environment, or have not even considered creative ways because they are more difficult. There really is not good reason outside of cost (which I know is the end all/be all of redevelop these days in downtown Detroit) to have to have the Commerce Building razed.
Top of pageBottom of page

Skulker
Member
Username: Skulker

Post Number: 3305
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 68.42.176.88
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 8:06 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Eric:

quote:

So build a 9 story automated garage at 130 the 8 story Merchants Row is on a even smaller lot.



So, cough up the extra 35% or so needed to do that.

The parking deck is going to hold more than 305 cars. It will be closer to 550 from what I understand.

RSA:
You must have been looking at a much older design. As it stands now, the first floor of the orginal building will be restaurant and very limited retail with the addition to the north having back of house functions like trash disposal and delivery.
The second floor will be lobby and check-in in the original building with more back of house / fitness center type things in the addition.
The third and fourth floors of the original building will be restored ball rooms and conference space. The addition will hold MORE ballroom and conference space with catering kitchens.

The finsihed product will wind up with significantly more ballroom / evenet space thena the building ever had. The plan currently calls for a pretty massive high end ballroom with real pre-event space. If you have been to an event with more than 400 people at the Ritz Carlton, you know what I am talking about. Currently the only major space in the CBD for a 500 person plus event is either the ballrooms at Ren Cen or Cobo. This will capture an entire set of business not currently seen in Detroit as it usually winds up at the Ritz Carlton which is an awkward space to have pre-functions.

Singline: You and I are in complete agreement on this.
Top of pageBottom of page

Dtwphoenix
Member
Username: Dtwphoenix

Post Number: 36
Registered: 12-2004
Posted From: 63.163.143.242
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 8:42 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

""Incorporating the footprint of 150 Michigan would hold 61 spots per floor. Which is equal to 5 floors for 305 spots.""

Hopefully the garage will be made with as many floors as it can practically and efficiently have. That way there would be sufficient spare parking capacity that could be used for future building developments in the immediate area.

That way one building can be sacrificed for 3, 4, or maybe even 5 buildings. Maybe it could save yet another nearby building from being torn down for more parking.
Top of pageBottom of page

Eric
Member
Username: Eric

Post Number: 252
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 69.136.144.196
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 9:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Well cost is the end all be all everywhere this a business. Given that to do what I like cost 35%(much more that I thought it would) and kills any chance for all the buildings taking out 150 is a no brainer

I have to second jsmeyers the city has done an amazing job the last years with these buildings
Top of pageBottom of page

Goat
Member
Username: Goat

Post Number: 7911
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 64.228.194.46
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 9:21 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

IF only the Detroit area would get out of the "car only" mentality and frick'in walk like most cities on this planet.

But I have to agree with Skulker. The cards are dealt and that's the hand you play. Two buildings are better than one.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jasoncw
Member
Username: Jasoncw

Post Number: 61
Registered: 07-2005
Posted From: 67.149.141.170
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 10:19 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

If money wasn't so tight I'd say to make the parking deck bigger than neccecary for future use.

What would be really cool is if the parking deck had two or three floors of high-end retail underneath it, but that would be a project in itself.

Whatever the case, the outcome is going to be good.
Top of pageBottom of page

Dan
Member
Username: Dan

Post Number: 1156
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 69.47.194.247
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 11:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"Just think what that corner will be like in 2 & 1/2 years...."


I agree. It is very exciting to see.

I hope the trend continues.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detourdetroit
Member
Username: Detourdetroit

Post Number: 142
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 64.12.116.195
Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 3:32 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

ugh ugh ugh. I suppose kudos are in order to all those involved in getting the BC and Lafayette buildings back online. I’ll say it right off the bat and in all seriousness, we pseudo-preservationistas salute you and yours, from the heart and with admiration. You are doing more good for downtown than has been done in many, many years. Thank you.

…but now…and yay yay yay...and shits n'giggles n'shit…it makes me sicker and sicker with every structurally sound historically significant landmark that is lost for really no good reason...other than to facilitate a turning radius or curb cut or get to 1.25 or increase the LOS for the I-75 widening rationale. We should know better. We can do better.

If it's the DEGC's only fundamental charge to land the deal, follow the deal, and git them economic development wheels a turnin', then god bless them. Great wondrous titans of workin’ it, squeezing that penny and figuring out that multi-source financing package that mere mortals are too thick headed to possibly comprehend. God bless them for saving those they could. We are so very grateful.

Ugh ugh and ugh. We're heading quickly towards a day where we'll have a dedicated parking structure for every single building downtown. What an incredible and supremely visionary place. Several intersections downtown already have three of the four corners devoted to our most hallowed of uses. Even Detroit's urban victory of late, CMP has THOUSANDS of parking spaces located just a block away. UUUGGGHHH. What an amazing habitat for 21st century American culture and relevance. Don’t you feel proud?

Take a look around you. In Detroit, the case is made over and over and over and over and over again to facilitate the deal at any and all costs (and this is with more incentives for development than were ever available). Investment is no doubt improving the landscape, yet the "market" in Detroit is a complete fabrication of dealmaking and incentivizing.

And parking drives every equation. Projects are made to work in spite of the urban grid and often in conflict with our city’s fabric. The vast majority of space that is created is done so expressly for mobility, for arrival and for departure. The space that is lost, while often fallow, was supremely designed for human density and interaction—the DNA of imagination and, more importantly, re-imagination.

Ground floor service is mitigated by multi-storied dead zones on top of one another that do nothing to captivate, create or propel us. So instead of capitalizing on a nascent human landscape we are capitulating to the deal and to the car and to our lesser denominators and to a lower standard that exults in a false convenience over a deeper meaning.

Happy are those who are called to its table... I bow unto thee my four wheeled chariot. My manna and my means. I go to work to afford a car so I can go to work to afford...

Whilst it is not the DEGC's express charge to change the broken politics of SEMCOG, could it be their inspiration to put out a press release every time a historic structure has to fall because we do not have decent transit?

In following that deal down every dark crevice and nearing precipice, could the bright lights at the DEGC pursue creative alternates to urbanicide, where targeted, open lots or existing structures are utilized as shared resource?

Could the millions it costs to whack Peoples (remember friends, cities are made for “Peoples”, not autos), be leveraged in a pilot program to pursue a parking alternative?

Could a multi-faceted intra-disciplinary task force (a real "transformation" team) be created to figure out some of these issues that just may have other, more urban solutions?

Who in leadership really understands this or speaks up about the ongoing erasure of Detroit’s urbanism? Help us Janie you’re our only hope!
Top of pageBottom of page

Mike
Member
Username: Mike

Post Number: 521
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 68.41.109.36
Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 3:51 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Parking lots are so much easier to build than Mass Transit
Top of pageBottom of page

623kraw
Member
Username: 623kraw

Post Number: 718
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 68.41.224.200
Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 7:58 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Wny Not?
Top of pageBottom of page

Dan
Member
Username: Dan

Post Number: 1158
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 69.47.194.247
Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 11:22 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Well said Detour.
Top of pageBottom of page

Huggybear
Member
Username: Huggybear

Post Number: 102
Registered: 08-2005
Posted From: 68.251.24.115
Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 11:57 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Detourdetroit, go lobby the banks who won't finance without parking.
Top of pageBottom of page

Kraemerdesigngroup
Member
Username: Kraemerdesigngroup

Post Number: 21
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 69.216.125.171
Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 12:34 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Better yet, go find 125 families who will buy great quality condos with no place to park their car.

The reason buildings like the Stott are suffering.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jmy8
Member
Username: Jmy8

Post Number: 2608
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 12.75.52.109
Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 12:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

Whilst it is not the DEGC's express charge to change the broken politics of SEMCOG, could it be their inspiration to put out a press release every time a historic structure has to fall because we do not have decent transit?




Isn't something like this the charge of groups like Preservation Wayne and the UCCA?


quote:

In following that deal down every dark crevice and nearing precipice, could the bright lights at the DEGC pursue creative alternates to urbanicide, where targeted, open lots or existing structures are utilized as shared resource?




What did the bright lights at Preservation Wayne do when WSU tore down Chatsworth Annex? The corner of Third and Warren?

Yer killin' me, DetourDetroit. Killin' me.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mike
Member
Username: Mike

Post Number: 522
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 68.41.109.36
Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 12:56 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I am currently looking for a place to live in Downtown, and quite honestly, I have turned down some places because of their parking situation. Its cold out, I want safe, secure, nearby parking, preferably garaged so I do not have to clean the snow off. I will most likely have to work farther than walking distance (suburbs) so parking is important. Its not like we can just hop on a train or bus and get to work real easily.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detourdetroit
Member
Username: Detourdetroit

Post Number: 143
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 69.215.246.124
Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 1:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

We pseudo-preservationists sit on boards of transit ridership groups and include transit language in all communications.

We, the multipronged army of PW dropped the ball on the WSU Masterplanned Chatsworth incident while tilting at other windmills downtown.

There was no staff during Third and Warren and little warning. We were lost in the wilderness and needed your help Jmy8.

I'm preacing ethos. God bless the DEGC!
Top of pageBottom of page

Royce
Member
Username: Royce

Post Number: 1364
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 71.144.89.81
Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 2:07 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Mike, it's attitudes like yours that make converting downtown office buildings into buildings for people to live in problematic. I'm not jumping on you, Mike, because I would have that same attitude if I lived downtown.

The problem with this attitude is that it's a "have your cake and eat it too" attitude that any one wanting to live downtown should not have. If one chooses to live downtown, then one accepts some risks and inconveniences that go with making that decision.

Many of the people who live in Manhattan don't even own cars. They get around on foot or use public transportation. Downtown Detroit residents can't do the same? Oh, right. Downtown Detroit doesn't have all the amenities(stores, shops, restaurants, and office buildings where people actually work) for people living downtown. They still need their cars to get around. Therefore, they need places to park their cars.

I'm pissed at the prospect that a decent vacant building(Commerce Building) is being sacrificed(torn down for an f'ing parking structure at that) so that two more prominent vacant buildings can gain new life. If the Lafayette Building and the Book Cadillac were being renovated to function strictly the way they were intended to, then there wouldn't be this need to tear down the Commerce Building for a parking structure.

Having downtown with more residents is a cool thing, but not at the sacrifice of converting every building that used to be used for officeworkers or stores. What happens(by miracle mostly) if businesses want to come back to downtown? Where will they go if all the available office buildings are filled with residents? Won't they have to stay in the burbs since they'll be no room for them downtown? And as a result, residents living downtown will still need the use of a car to get to their jobs in the burbs and therefore still need places to park their cars when they come home.

I'm sure architects and developers in New York City and Chicago would have a problem with the idea of tearing down a decent vacant building in their downtown to put up a parking structure. "Blaspheme" would probably be the first word coming out of their mouths if someone suggested the idea in their cities. However, in Detroit we get, "better to save two out of three instead of having none at all." Yep, that's what makes Detroit so unique and backwards.

(Message edited by royce on December 17, 2005)
Top of pageBottom of page

Jmy8
Member
Username: Jmy8

Post Number: 2609
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 12.75.52.82
Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 2:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

We pseudo-preservationists sit on boards of transit ridership groups and include transit language in all communications.




So why would DEGC's "transit language" be any more effective than yours?
Top of pageBottom of page

Motorcitymayor2026
Member
Username: Motorcitymayor2026

Post Number: 266
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 69.218.157.241
Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 3:36 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

roycee, i wouldnt worry about that. There are plenty more abandoned buildings for businesses to choose from, and plenty of vacant land to build new office buildings. give me a break. its not like downtown is full of residents...didnt the last update say there were only about 6000 residents downtown
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 2777
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.172.95.197
Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 4:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Royce, you've got to be kidding me. There is countless empty lots downtown and vacant buildings to fit the new business that will surely follow residential development and redevelopment. This is never a problem in ANY city.
Top of pageBottom of page

Royce
Member
Username: Royce

Post Number: 1365
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 71.144.89.81
Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 6:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I believe Skulker commented that the federal government owns the parking lot that 623kraw and others have pointed out as the logical spot to put the parking structure for the Lafayette Building condos. The feds are supposedly not willing to sell that property. I wonder if anyone in the Lafayette/BC/Commerce deal approached the feds and mentioned to them that they have many other options for parking.

This is what I have noticed about parking for the feds downtown. They have a huge lot along Michigan Avenue just west of the McNamara Building. Surely, they could build a parking structure next to the McNamara. Also, once the MGM Grand Casino vacates its temporary facility, there will remain the MGM's parking structures. These structures are next to the IRS building. The Feds could buy these parking structures as well as the temporary casino(which is the old IRS building) and connect them to the IRS building.

These two parking options would give the feds a huge number of parking spaces, freeing up the surface parking lot north of the federal courthouse for use as a parking structure for the Lafayette Building.

I know it's all a moot point at this point. I just wonder if any had considered what I just proposed because it just seems wrong to tear down a decent vacant building( the Commerce Bldg.) for a parking structure.

BTW, it's too bad that an underground garage underneath the renovated Washington Boulevard could not have been constructed. Skulker says it's too expensive, but it could have solved a lot of the parking problems around the BC.

(Message edited by royce on December 17, 2005)
Top of pageBottom of page

Darwinism
Member
Username: Darwinism

Post Number: 290
Registered: 06-2005
Posted From: 70.226.98.176
Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 6:57 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Royce: "Yep, that's what makes Detroit so unique and backwards." - You and I have heard this countless times. In all honesty, the people of Detroit and the people who makes decisions in Detroit likes being unique and different from other cities, even if it means being backwards and even if it means unpopular and even if it means doing things that are short-sighted.
Top of pageBottom of page

Itsjeff
Member
Username: Itsjeff

Post Number: 5204
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 68.42.168.211
Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 7:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The government doesn't actually own the lot across the street from the courthouse. It's just interested in keeping that land available for an annex if the funding and need ever arise. (In theory, the owner could sell the land to any interested party. Then the government would try to seize it by eminent domain.)
Top of pageBottom of page

Royce
Member
Username: Royce

Post Number: 1366
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 71.144.89.81
Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 7:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"Royce you've got to be kidding me. There is countless empty lots downtown and vacant buildings to fit the new business that will surely follow residential development and redevelopment..." Lmichigan 12/17/05

Lmichigan, you've got to be kidding me. All of a sudden downtown has countless empty lots and vacant buildings. However, on the MGM Casino thread you moaned and groaned about MGM taking up valuable CBD land. Since there's countless empty lots downtown, Lmichigan, why complain about MGM Casino taking up some of that countless land to build their permanent casino? There is surely enough land in the CBD to build your "urban village."
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 2781
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.172.95.197
Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 7:59 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

That is a GIANT piece of downtown land, but there are still countless smaller lots in the downtown area that could fit retail. Retail doesn't need as much space as office or residential, and you should know that.
Top of pageBottom of page

Psip
Member
Username: Psip

Post Number: 669
Registered: 04-2005
Posted From: 69.246.13.131
Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 11:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I think the parking issue downtown is as old as time itself.
WSU
P&R
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitduo
Member
Username: Detroitduo

Post Number: 389
Registered: 06-2005
Posted From: 69.212.63.213
Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 9:33 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Personally, I look forward to the days in Detroit when Parking structures are converted into Lofts. :-)
Top of pageBottom of page

Dnvn522
Member
Username: Dnvn522

Post Number: 79
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 204.24.64.25
Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 12:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Boy those feds sure know how to park efficiently.
;)

parking

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.