  623kraw Member Username: 623kraw Post Number: 741 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.41.224.200 |
Look at the history that has been and is being destroyed for the one week event that will destroy centuries of our irreplaceable precious architecture and history. What a pathetic narrow minded waste at an astronomical expense. The money could have been used to restore or at least secure the buildings versus tearing them down. Get a clue and place you ego in the back seat, Detroit. Plan for the future, not just ahead one week. Who cares what outsiders think. Their image of Detroit ain't gonna change anyway. The revival of Detroit happens when the city starts thinking ahead for a change. | ||
Naturalsister Member Username: Naturalsister Post Number: 428 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.42.169.65 |
Right- on!!! later - naturalsister | ||
Supersport Member Username: Supersport Post Number: 9755 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.246.37.236 |
623kraw, What's the big deal? They could either tear them down now, or spread it out over the next 5 years. Either way, the schitt would get torn down. If it pisses you off so bad, pony up the cash to save these white elephants. | ||
Urban_shocker Member Username: Urban_shocker Post Number: 247 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 68.248.7.192 |
Right, because a city resident doesn't have a right to be pissed about the sorry state of concern for our streetscape, architectural marvels, and civic treasures unless he has phat cash in the bank. Good try on making some principled pseudo-free market argument when it comes to things that should be governed by anything but. | ||
Dialh4hipster Member Username: Dialh4hipster Post Number: 1313 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.61.187.234 |
The issue that everyone should be worked up about is how many of these things are privately held but are being (or will be ... 'cause you know there's more on the way) demolished with public money. There's your zoo money right there. "Free market"-atcha. | ||
Eric_c Member Username: Eric_c Post Number: 595 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 68.73.52.22 |
...though the structures in question exist soley as a result of our 'pseudo-free' market to begin with. | ||
Mw2gs Member Username: Mw2gs Post Number: 136 Registered: 03-2005 Posted From: 69.216.104.79 |
The real issue is where were all you preservationist types before the hype machine started rolling and all of your "precious" buildings and such were just sitting here rotting away. Tear That Shitt Down....In the words of Helmut Hendrix......NOW!!!!!!!!! NOW!!!!!!! NOW!!!!!!!!! NOW!!!!!!!!! | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1442 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 70.227.85.192 |
SS: So using tax dollars to demolish a historic building is acceptable but using them to save one isn't? Care to explain your thinking? | ||
Supersport Member Username: Supersport Post Number: 9756 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.246.37.236 |
Who said using tax money to save them isn't acceptable? Who said residents or even non-residents don't have a right to be pissed off about it? Also, the cost of demolision wouldn't be but a drop in the bucket to restore these places. Do I feel our tax money should be burned in order to tear these down in time for the super bowl? Hell no! But thats the way things work around here, it's nothing new, so what's the sense in getting worked up about it because they want the work completed by super bowl instead of over a 5-10 year span? Again, if you wanna save them, come up with the money to buy them, because in this city you basically have no say unless you own the place. Word on the street is that the Motown building will likely fall today. Where was the outcry leading up to this day? Where were the rallies? Where was the time and effort put in to save it? I sure didn't see it, instead people just come to an internet site to complain about it and act as though its the firt tim the city has torn down something old or significant. | ||
Ray1936 Member Username: Ray1936 Post Number: 197 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 207.200.116.139 |
Just because a building is old does not make it historic. And if an old, non-historic building cannot make economic sense in restoration, it's got to go. Simple as that. mw2gs is right. | ||
Royce Member Username: Royce Post Number: 1404 Registered: 07-2004 Posted From: 69.212.228.68 |
Supersport, I don't think there was much time to protest the demolition of the Motown buildings. I think that most people believed that they would be a part of the much talked about Motown Center. The news that they would be torn down only surfaced a week or two ago. I am shocked and dismayed that the owner of these buildings would choose to demolish the building to make a fast buck off of the Super Bowl. He could have torn down the buildings years ago to make room for parking for Tigers games and made tons of money by now. Supersport, this rush job to demolition just comes across as wrong. It's like a husband remarrying three months after his wife dies. Just doesn't seem right. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 6445 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 216.203.223.76 |
well people, ya better hurry. That schitt is coming down fast. First 2 floors are bare. | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 180 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 64.53.238.2 |
Is there an uglier buiilding than the "Motown Center" around today? Less "historic"? Now that the S-H is gone? I think not. | ||
Alexei289 Member Username: Alexei289 Post Number: 993 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.61.183.223 |
... If you look at the city of Detroit... pics from 1910 or even 1930... NONE of those buildings are still there today.... Its just Detroit tradition | ||
Psip Member Username: Psip Post Number: 841 Registered: 04-2005 Posted From: 69.246.13.131 |
/parody on News Flash, The City of Detroit’s Building and Safety director, Amru Meah, has deemed Ford Field in danger of imminent collapse. The super bowl committee is busy making arrangements to relocate the game to Tiger Stadium. When asked about his involvement in the purchase of all the parking lots about Tiger Stadium Meah replied "its pure rubbish, I only have a 30 day lease on them”. Detroit’s mayor Killpatrick said “damm, it’s going to be cold, that place don’t warm up until July”. The driving force behind Detroits bid for the super bowl, Roger Penske was asked about using the Silver Dome for the game. He said, "Detroit has worked long and hard on tearing down eyesores, F Pontiac". /parody off (Message edited by Psip on January 14, 2006) | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 2504 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 70.229.46.148 |
Alexei289 Sometimes you might do a little research before you post, you missed a few things such as Detroit has one of the largest collection of pre-depression skyscrapers in the nation (pre 1930's, Indian Village was established starting in 1893, County Building 1889, my house was built 1907, etc. I enjoy your energy, but you give away your youthful impatience by not bothering with checking facts. | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 2505 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 70.229.46.148 |
Just as an aside, we're still dealing with ugly facades on classic buildings because of the mindset of the sixties, when "new was better" and "cover up that old shit and make it look "modern". | ||
Gdub Member Username: Gdub Post Number: 951 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.248.15.192 |
No doubt, Jams. And look at how long that look was considered "modern". By the 70's the "new" look was more dated than the original. That 60's crap is the real eyesore. How about tearing that schitt down? | ||
Corktownmark Member Username: Corktownmark Post Number: 145 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 68.61.194.191 |
tear that fasade down? | ||
Hornwrecker Member Username: Hornwrecker Post Number: 715 Registered: 04-2005 Posted From: 66.19.16.55 |
Tears down the S in Corktownmark's fasade (sic) and replaces it with the original C /recovering grammar/spelling nazi | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 1140 Registered: 02-2005 Posted From: 141.213.173.94 |
Even as one who almost always sides with the preservationists, I am willing to trade a handful of old buildings for real economic development seen in new retail, office spaces, and residential demand downtown, in addition to a slow changing of attitudes about Detroit that will come with this. Big ticket events help immensely in creating incentives and spurring on this development. In theory, we could have improved downtown without tearing down the M-L, Statler, and soon Motown Bldg. Unfortunately, some people need to see the old come crashing down in order to be convinced that the city is ready for new development. Let's not forget the many preservation success we've seen and will continue to see, and let's not overlook the fact that Detroit still has one of the top stocks of fine old buildings downtown among all American cities. No city's architectural heritage can be kept completely intact for all time. | ||
Smogboy Member Username: Smogboy Post Number: 1558 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.84.183.189 |
Methinks Mackinaw speaks the truth here. There has to be a fine line to be towed between preservation and growth. Some people just need to see something new erected in order to believe in a city's vitality- but who determines what's worthwhile is always tricky. It's almost like determining what's good art and what's not- it's subjective. One architectect may be renowned and another may not be, but again- who annoints what's good & bad? One person's idea of an architectural gem may not be anothers. It's tricky line that we've got to walk in determining the balance between growth & stagnation. | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 1759 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 4.229.81.140 |
Few buildings have been modernized as mercilessly as the Boulevard Building on Woodward & Grand Blvd. Albert Kahn would be appalled if he saw what they did to his design. | ||
Itsjeff Member Username: Itsjeff Post Number: 5365 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.42.168.211 |
Remember the Freud building? Its front doors are just about where the entrance to the new CVS is.  | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1160 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 63.240.133.93 |
Itsjeff - I don't recall a big fuss being made over the Freud building by many preservationists. While some like to make out preservationists to equate to obstructionists, nothing is further from the truth. In Detroit, when it comes to tearing down buildings for new developments, rarely have preservationists got in the way. Preservationists have made the biggeset fuss over demolition for demolitions sake. For parking, for no development plan after the demolition has happened. For short sighted planning. The Olde Building, the Freud Building, the buildings of merchants row. All beautiful historic buildings torn down without any obstruction from preservationists because they were done to enable new development. The Statler, Madison Lenox, and now the Motown Buildings have been torn down without any development plan in place. Contrary to what some may like to think, Detroits preservationists are not here to hender new development. | ||
E_hemingway Member Username: E_hemingway Post Number: 450 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.42.176.123 |
Gotta agree with Gogo. I think if you're going to tear something down you better have a plan for building something on the property other than a landscaped parking lot or a decorative sidewalk. I don't think Washington Blvd. is better off with a grassy field there now. However, I'm willing to let go of the Commerce Building if it saves the Book Caddilac and Lafayette Building by letting an attractive parking deck (and by that term I serve up the Opera House and 1003 Woodward examples) go up in its place. | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 1762 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 207.69.137.40 |
I agree with Gogo as well. Although, if the old B. Siegal Building hadn't been destroyed in a fire about 15 years ago, I think a lot of preservationists would have made a big deal over that building coming down for this parking deck. B. Siegel's was a cast iron facade "Second Empire" confection, which was only 1 or 2 buildings north of the Freud Building. B. Siegel's was just about the most ornate 19th century commercial building on Woodward Ave. A great loss. | ||
Psip Member Username: Psip Post Number: 869 Registered: 04-2005 Posted From: 69.246.13.131 |
Hopeing I would get a chance to use this. Thanks Gistok.  LOC | ||
Psip Member Username: Psip Post Number: 870 Registered: 04-2005 Posted From: 69.246.13.131 |
My grandmother worked at B. Siegal as a seamstress in the late 50's. I was a very little tyke and remember the elevators being really creepy. She went on to work at Siegels at Eastland when that store opened. | ||
Dialh4hipster Member Username: Dialh4hipster Post Number: 1317 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.61.187.234 |
I thought there was no obstruction from preservationists because they didn't have a plan. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3392 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
What specific buildings are you referring to? Why is there no mention of the efforts by the City to preserve and restore buildings such as the Book Cadillac, Kales, Opera House, Lofts of Woodward, Lafayette? As an example of the fact skewing in posts above this one, two non-historic buildings and one historic building were demolkished for Merchants Row. A much more efficient facsimile of the historic building was built while six historic buildings were restored. Can we get a global and more realisyic perspective here please? | ||
Merchantgander Member Username: Merchantgander Post Number: 1463 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 150.198.164.127 |
Skulker, stop with your propaganda everyone knows the city’s goal is to tear down every building becoming one the worlds largest parking lot for the casinos and stadiums. Please stop with your lies of developments you keep talking about. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1447 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 70.236.165.104 |
Skulker: I agree that everyone does have to keep perspective on these things. The fact of the matter, though, is that lossing the Motown Buildings wouldn't be so bad if we were getting something other than yet another parking lot out of the deal. | ||
Damon Member Username: Damon Post Number: 643 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 141.215.16.121 |
Our heritage and history continues to be systmatically destroyed year after year and it is disgraceful! | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3397 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
And at what point is the decision reached to demolish a building with no economic value and with little to no hope of restoration / renovation? A tipping point is eventually reached where the building cannot and will not be salvaged. At that point, why is it so horrible to remove the building even if there is no immediate replacement plan? There are definite benefits from the removal of buildings that have gone past the tipping point but have no immediate redevelopment plans for their site. - Removal of dangerous conditions and threats to human safety - Removal of visual blight that artificially depresses real estate markets - Removal of a harbor for illegal activities (search the archives for stories about illegal activity at the Motown and Sanders buildings. - Creation of a development ready site that can quickly react to changing market conditions without delay of the the removal of the building. Whether the Motown and Sanders buildings had reached that point, I cannot say as I had not been inside them. From the exterior though, they looked beyond salvage, which I freely admit is a highly subjective and wild haired guess. I will also wager that there are few, if any posters, that have been in the buildings that could opine with some legitiamcy on their redevelopment potential. The same cannot be said for many of the buildings, such as the Statler, that are likely the subject of the ill defined rants by some of the posters here. There the tipping point had been reached 10 years ago. | ||
Detourdetroit Member Username: Detourdetroit Post Number: 151 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.213.205.102 |
a tipping point analysis for salvageable vs not is pretty sliding scale and subjective. much more based on vision, resources and will. two out of three ain't bad here. but to wit: - how many humans have been threatened by buildings like the donovan? - visual blight is to some what soho was to planners and developers 30 years ago. - of course proper mothballing and code enforcement are key, but as much illegal activity occurs (if not more) in buildings that are occupied. - how many more development-ready sites do we need in the COD? If public money is expended (which I still can't figure out in this case...), and significant structures are like Donovan are threatened, then a reasonable path would seem to be that demo is not allowed until a development plan is put in place...it is the case in other great cities. With the demo of the Donovan, we now officially know were downtown ends. It could have been an anchor for urban redevelopment and gateway - and would seem to be a no brainer for great residential views (a sister of our friend Vinton). It's all very Super Dooper | ||
Darwinism Member Username: Darwinism Post Number: 327 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 69.215.30.34 |
Some of you here in this post better not get on Skulker's wrong side here regarding demo vs. preservation. Before long, y'all be sorry for making him crunch those numbers and spit them back at ya' regarding the costs benefits and economic sense of demo vs. preservation. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3399 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
Not to a lender.
I'm glad some can be glib about falling debris endangering human lives (ask the folks at the Michiagn Building about debris spalling from the face of the UA.) or the continual release of friable asbestos into the atmosphere and continual leaking of PCBs as is common at building like the Donovan. I certainly can't.
Soho was not planned, and developers did not choose Soho for its aesthetics. It was developed because of immense development pressure and skyrocketing land values in Manhattan. The conditions of demand volume and land pricing in Manhattan that made Soho possible do not exist anywhere in metro Detroit and will not exist in the next 25 years absent some miraculous economic turnaround of the region.
Agreed. Unfortunately the mothballing costs for a period of five to ten years tend to be much higher than the cost of demolition. In the stewardship of very scant public dollars (remember: Detroit has a massive budget deficit), perhaps the "splitting the baby" of demolishing select buildings and using the money that would be used for mothballing can then be used to restore other buildings. To whit: The direct cash subsidy for the conversion of the Hudson Building into 300 units would have been more than quadruple the cost of the demolition. The expenditure of such funds have made the Kales, Merchants Row and the Book Cadillac undoable. Who is to blame for the ten years or so of footdragging at City Council on acting on the DAH and other initiaives that would have made enforcement meaningful?
There are no public monies in the demo that I know of. I don't agree that a private owner possessing a building with no economic value that continues to cost significant sums for securing should not be allowed to demo a building until there is a "development plan" in place. For historically designated buildings, yes, they need to show that all due effort was expended. Even state legislation has a clause that allows building owners to demolish a historic resource if the resource creates an undue financial burden and all potential remedies, including sale, have been exhausted. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 6451 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.20 |
I have video of the demo. One picture shows Skulker swinging from the crane hollering 'tear this schitt down' A later video documents Skulker running the wrecking ball while laughing hysterically while saying, "F*** You preservation Wayne." followed up by a song of 100 Vacant buildings in the D Supply a loan, knock one down 99 Vacant buildings in the d repeat. Very disturbing stuff. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3400 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
Yeah, I'd hate to advocate for sensible use of scarce fiscal resources in a time of budget deficits. I'd hate to waken dreamers from their reverie and make them smell the coffee SO THEY COULD PUT TOEGTHER SENSIBLE PLANS THAT HAVE A SHOT AT BECOMING REAL....and actually accomplish something. | ||
Susanarosa Member Username: Susanarosa Post Number: 674 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 208.39.170.90 |
I think Skulker needs a vacation... | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 1765 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 207.69.139.145 |
What exactly is "friable" asbestos? Is that the airborn variety? Glad they had the water hoses turned on to capture 100% of it as the Madison-Lenox was pounded to rubble in haste. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1453 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 70.236.165.104 |
Skulker: I don't think Detourdetroit's comments were meant to be glib. I think it was more of him asking a question about whether or not there was a danger to human and safety. I haven't heard about falling debris or any chemical threats at these buildings. Of course, with 200+ historic resources in the city - no one person can keep track of all of them so it's entirely possible that those threats did happen. If they did happen, just say so and I'll shut up about it. Regarding your comment about a scale not be slidding for a lender, I have to (partially) disagree with you. 10 years ago, no lender on the planet would've given a penny for the Lofts at Merchants Row. Today, it's not the case. If a building has to sit dormant for few years, so be it. | ||
Ndavies Member Username: Ndavies Post Number: 1559 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 129.9.163.105 |
The Sanders had issues with Falling pieces of facade last summer. They attempted to put orange snow fence around the buildings to keep people back. The fences only lasted a few weeks before they were trampled over. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1455 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 70.236.165.104 |
Thank you for the information. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3401 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
My comments were adressed to older, blighted buildings in general, in response to the generalized angst and complaints about demolition of buildings. ANY vintage building with broken or missing windows is at high risk to have exposed friable asbestos being transported by wind gusts, pigeons and idiots who go tramping through the old buildings without appropriate protective gear. ANY vintage building that has had electricity turned off and no regular (i.e semi-annual) inspection and maintenance of transformers and other machinery like elevator winches is at high risk for decomposing lubricants and oils to break down into PCBs, leak through rotted seals and then soak into soils and cement, creating hazardous conditions that are very expensive to remediate. Failure to understand these simple facts and conditions about vintage buildings is a failure to be able to fully grasp what it takes cost wise to restore a building. I know of know vintage building restoration in Detroit that has not had to deal with these issues in some way, shape or form.
And why did they lend to Merchants Row recently? Partially because the project was more viable with the Hudson Building removed and the announcement of the Compuware project. It was also made feasible because the project did not try to restore every single resource but made wise use of what could be reasonably salavaged....(see the complaints above from other posters about the removal of buildings for the project)...it was also made possible by the hard work and vision of the developer and the City of Detroit an its various agencies and departments. Here's the bad news: It is currently bleeding cash hoping for a healthy condo sales market to recoup the current losses. Even the Kales struggled to get more then 60% LTV, which is a pretty poor response by bankers. Movement from anaverage 45% LTV ten years ago to a 60% LTV today is useful, but not a sign of a truly on fire market ala the Soho excample above. And certainly not a sign of a market that will sustain the 35% LTV that was offered on the Statler. This is predicated on the assumption that all markets will eventually rebound and all buildings will be viable. This is simply not the case. To believe so is to delude oneself and is at the crux of my arguments here on this forum now and in the past. Some buildings simply will have to go. | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1161 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.251.24 |
This argument is not owned by you exclusively, but shared by almost every preservationists I know of. That is why not every single building that is torn down has been slapped with a lawsuit or building hug and other media coverage. As I've already stated, Detroits preservation community is not here to hinder development. They are not here to save every single building. Regarding falling debris from buildings - that is a Buildings & Safety department issue and they should get off their arses and do their job. Site negligent building owners and have them secure their properties as a first resort. It should not be at the point where buildins are about to topple that the city gets involved with demolition. | ||
Darwinism Member Username: Darwinism Post Number: 328 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 69.208.124.80 |
Skulker: Gogo asked a good question regarding the path that these buildings traveled towards the state of hopelessness. Buildings don't just end up being in a state of hazardous due to age. More often than not, it is more due to neglect. You have always made an argument for demolition because that is the only course of action as the cost to rehab is unsurmountable. Well, such tough decisions would not have been necessary if the buildings are kept up to code and maintained minimally at the very least. Has the city done that sufficiently ? And made sure that private owners are held responsible ? Are we seeing more pro-active and pre-emptive measures being taken lately, Skulker ? | ||
Ndavies Member Username: Ndavies Post Number: 1564 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 129.9.163.105 |
I think Skulker already covered Gogo's question with this statement.
| ||
Darwinism Member Username: Darwinism Post Number: 329 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 69.208.124.80 |
Thanks, Ndavies. Must have over-read that part. | ||
J_stone Member Username: J_stone Post Number: 261 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 63.77.247.130 |
What? Are you saying Rasputin is to blame?? Throw me a bone here.. | ||
Swingline Member Username: Swingline Post Number: 387 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 172.168.120.106 |
The condition of the structures isn't what doomed the Sanders/Donvan buildings. The biggest problem was their site. The site, located on a three-block stretch practically devoid of other structures and fronting Woodward Avenue which is at least NINE lanes wide at that point, contributes absolutely no urban or pedestrian scale. Successful urban re-use projects rely heavily on unique attributes of their locations. What good is an urban apartment if a potential resident can't see him or herself ever spending time outside on the sidewalk because the street outside looks like I-275? I've noticed a lot of For Sale signs across the street at Crosswinds' Brush Park townhomes fronting on Woodward. I bet some of these issues figure into those residents' decisions to move. The Sanders/Donovan site and the adjacent blocks on the west side of Woodward at the Fisher are in sore need of some creative planning or else that location will sit fallow for generations. I think a solution would be to narrow Woodward Ave. by at least one-third its current width for at least the first four blocks north of the Fisher. 24 hour curb parking should be promoted. These two actions (and perhaps some other "street-diet" tricks familiar to the planner types) would slow traffic and help create some much needed urban scale. Skulker's beloved "cleared site" development scenario will never occur without something like this. Maybe instead of pulling out the stops to find demo money, the City and the DEGC can find some road money to make this happen. Give the road Nazis at SEMCOG a call. With Woodward Ave narrowed, this site is perfect for a market rate mixed-use center with significant densities ala Mizner Park (West Palm Beach) or Bethesda Row (Bethesda, MD) but with the retail going somewhat downscale from the fancy stores those places support. This is a fabulous gateway site. Can our charismatic mayor and his crack development staff make a project happen? I think it's possible. | ||
Psip Member Username: Psip Post Number: 873 Registered: 04-2005 Posted From: 69.246.13.131 |
I agree with the narrowing of Woodward, but feel that it should be a boulevard. It should also have a rail line down the center, either elevated or at grade. With the clear cutting of so many buildings facing Woodward already, it may be possible to widen it further to make the median more park like. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3403 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
Easy there hoss, there is no City or DEGC money in the demo of the two Motown buildings that I know of.... If you recall, the City has pulled out all the stops on the Book Cadillac and other projects. Again, there is a complete lack of perspective on the efforts of the City towards preservation. Overall the money spent by the City on preservation in the CBD far far more than has been spent on demolition. I find it curious in this thread that no-one mentions the 20 or so historic buildings in the CBD that have received GRANTS for facade improvements. The naysayers don't seem able to recognize the work that HAS been done to preserve buildings, instead focusing on the negative only.
Yes code enforcement has not been optimal in the past four decades for a number of reasons. - Budget constraints not allowing for hiring of a sufficient number of inspectors to regularly inspect all buildings. Modern technology could make the wrok load of those that we can afford much easier and far more effective. Imagine hand held PDA like devises that could be instantly updated with new citations and instant cancellation of citiations upon inspection of repairs. It could also streamline the internal processing, allowing inspectors more time on the street and less time processing paperwork. Problem is we have a massive deficit and no money for technology upgrades. Perhaps some well meaning folks here could help find ways to defray the costs of such a technology roll out. Its been on BSED wish list for six years. - Previous citation systems dumped the tickets into the black hole of the court system where overworked judges took the promises of building owners to repair their buildings at face value and let repeat offenders go again and again and again. There were no meaningful punishments and this was completely out of the control of the City. This has been addressed by the creation of the Department of Administrative Hearings, an idea 20 years over due that had been stalled more than once at City Council. This is NOT an insignificant development. - The core belief by many in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s that the market was "just around the corner" (sound familiar? The Market will rebound and the Statler will be saved!) and that any day now, people were going to come flooding back into the City...many of the vintage buildings were owned by folks with good intentions and no money. As a result, heavy fining and citation writing would have forced them into selling properties to the dreaded speculators. Because of this, there was a certain amount of footdragging in pressing citations on certain buildings, especially in the Young administration, hoping that as the economy of the City rebounded, the little guy getting squeezed would be able to survive. Better to let a broken window or two slide on a "friendly" owner than to see the building lost to a speculator, or worse lost to someone who would strip the building of anything of value and then walk away from it letting ot go into tax foreclosure. (Hudsons anyone?) - If you pressed citations in the CBD, you had to be pressing citations city wide which lead you to fining little old widow ladies who cannot afford to fix a leaky roof, let alone fix a leaky roof AND pay a fine. Tweaks to legislation and some legal precedents in the past 10 years now allow cities to designate areas of interest for stepped up code enforcement and prevent building owners from suing for uneven enforcement and harrassment as was the case before. (Recall the lack of budget for tight enforment across the City) - What happens when a City agressively enforces codes on buildings with no economic value? Typically the owner walks away and stops paying taxes, leaving the City with decreased tax revenue and a building they now have to pony up the cash to mothball, maintain and insure. Kinda hard to find the money to do those three things when nobody is paying taxes. Let's be very clear. From 1950 to 1990, kept in constant dollars, the City of Detroit lost nearly 83% of its tax base. 83% That means alot of programs and a lot of activities have to be sacrificed. And now people want to sit in the comfort of 2006 and pass judgement on the very real and very tough decisions that had to be made back then without crystal balls to see the future we now look back upon??? What do I mena by tough decisions? ...code enforcement vs. police enforcement ...fire protection vs. historic protection Its not an optimal situation, but is the situation we face as a City. Foot stamping and throwing barbs at folks who had to make tougher decisions than we want to face today does no good. The question is, who is willing to stand up, do the hard work and make the hard decisions NOW and who is going to sit on the sidelines complaining? | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1162 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.251.24 |
Tearing things down for an artificial deadline is not a tough decision. Making a long term plan for development and obtaining the input and will of businesses, residence and all those interested in Detroit is the hard work. Its interesting that you critize people for not standing up and doing something. But then also critize those who do stand up and do something like FOBC who have put their money where their mouth is and sought legal action where necessary. It seems standing up and doing something means sitting down and shutting up. | ||
Darwinism Member Username: Darwinism Post Number: 330 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 69.215.30.34 |
Gogo, we have argued with Skulker forever on issues relating to preservation and demolition. At the end of the day, he will always have the final word and the upper hand because he is in control. Frank, the_aram, myself, danindc, royce, brian and many others have had many, many run-ins with him, but at the end of the day, he is still the one in the position of authority. So, I guess, Gogo ..... just let things be ..... you are absolutely right, it all comes down to sitting down and shutting up because whether it is FOBC or Preservation Wayne or whatever ..... the city of Detroit is still the one higher up in the food chain. Sad but nonetheless, a reality. Another thing I notice is that Skulker puts down people who are new to the forum, exerts his position of power, and yet have many supporters here on DetroitYes - I am too tired to get into another debate with no support whatsoever just because Skulker is heralded as a deity here. | ||
Rustic Member Username: Rustic Post Number: 1948 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 130.132.177.245 |
Darwinism, position of power? Don't kid yerself. On this forum Skulker is just another doofus typing away no different than any of the rest of us. Apparently he has a day job (as do most of us), but so what? This is an open forum -- post away --- have at him. Sure occasionally he tries to play his authority/expertise card based on his apparent real world credentials but big deal, if you've been reading this forum for the last few years and followed skulker's posts you've read imo fairly dramatic shifts in his positions on a few projects. (Lately I have noticed he has taken a much more pragmatic world-weary approach to explaining projects than he has in the past.) IMO he has also recently rather convincingly "won" a few arguments with a few of your aforementioned forumers (i.e. yer FoBC moonies and danindc on a couple of points). Either way so what have at him! Don't give up, type read listen learn. I have learned a hell of a lot reading this forum. Darwinism, also don't let the bullying of a few of his, I assume, real world friends/associates deter you either. Hey maybe you are full of shit, maybe not but enjoy, post away ... perhaps the more viciously one is attacked on this forum the more likely one is to have struck a nerve? That said, FTR, I pretty much agree with most of what skulker has posted on this thread ... | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3406 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
Depsite all the sturm and drang up in here, there has not been a SINGLE building that has been demo'ed prematurely or irresponsibly because of the Superbowl. One can question the motives on the M-L and the administrations dealings with Olympia and the timing of the demolition. HOWEVER, the Statler and AAA buildings were torn down because the buildings had no economic value and no chance at being redeveloped. No other reason. The Donovan and Sanders buildings were announced as demolition projects over two years ago as they were unsuitable for redevelopment into the planned Motown Center. All potential redevelopments of the Statler had been exhausted. It had no hope. Why leave it up as an eyesore and waste the opportunity to use state dollars for the demo? The timeline was driven by the availability of state dollars, not the Superbowl. The Superbowl in no way influenced their demise nor were redevelopment possibilities excluded or ignored because of the Superbowl. Removing the Donovan and Sanders now removes yet another blighted building that outsiders can point to and laugh about during the Superbowl. Their fate was sealed a long time ago, why leave them up any longer than need be? The Superbowl in no way influenced their demise, only the timing of their demise, nor were redevelopment possibilities excluded or ignored because of the Superbowl.
I do not criticize the FOBC for being active and engaged. I criticize their tactics which are largely inneffectual, polarizing and wasteful. I have offered criticism of those tactics on this forum combined with suggestions on how to be more effective and to challenge them to take the very tough steps needed to be effective in reaching their goals. If you go back and carefully read, I challenge people to do the HARD work and make HARD decisions. So far I haven't seen much of that from anybody.
You ascribe way too much power and influence to me in that statement, Darwinism, and insult other forumers as well. I have reiterated time and time again that the opinions I post here are my own opinions based on my observations, training and professional experience and not that of any other organization, the City or persons that folks like you to try to construe. I am hardly heralded as a diety here. Perhaps you are not getting any support on your arguments because they are not good arguments........ | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 6465 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.20 |
Skulker hates buildings. | ||
Gumby Member Username: Gumby Post Number: 787 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 141.216.1.4 |
Booooo buildings. | ||
Ndavies Member Username: Ndavies Post Number: 1566 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 129.9.163.105 |
Yes, Skulker would happily live in a tent. as long as it had an F1 race track on one side and a hydroplane lake on the other. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 6466 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.20 |
Skulker hates tents as they are temporary buildings. Skulker hates anything with a roof and wants to knock them all down. I heard that he knocked down the tent town that was someone's house in front of the MCS. It was heard that he was rumblings "No roofs in Detroit, no sir" | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3408 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
BUILDINGS SUCK! | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1456 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 69.212.229.100 |
Ndavies: Congrats! I darn near fell out of my chair from laughing so hard after that last post. | ||
Rustic Member Username: Rustic Post Number: 1949 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 130.132.94.180 |
Darwinism, see what I'm saying? have at 'em! | ||
Darwinism Member Username: Darwinism Post Number: 331 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 69.215.30.34 |
Rustic: I have had my fill taking shots at Skulker, and after a while, as danindc, Royce, Brian and a number of others had witnessed ..... it is just not worth the time and the finger muscle to type a whole lot for nothing.
Well ..... it seems that around here, nobody else's arguments are any good because it sure ain't danindc's, mine's, Royce's, Brian's or anybody for that matter. So be it, if you say so, it must be true. | ||
Rasputin Member Username: Rasputin Post Number: 3409 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.73.192.149 |
TEAR THAT SCHITT DOWN!! Black-atcha ..... | ||
Gravitymachine Member Username: Gravitymachine Post Number: 761 Registered: 05-2005 Posted From: 198.208.159.18 |
super bowl waste = stupid football bridge spanning the great divide that is telegraph rd. | ||
Audible_nectar Member Username: Audible_nectar Post Number: 32 Registered: 11-2005 Posted From: 12.214.103.152 |
OK - I've got to make sure I see this edifice. I've heard so much about this "football bridge" and it's ugliness, I've GOT to see it now  You all have made me curious! | ||
Gravitymachine Member Username: Gravitymachine Post Number: 762 Registered: 05-2005 Posted From: 198.208.159.18 |
i've been over it 4 times in the last week, everytime, no matter who was with, everyone commented on how utterly stupid looking, and useless it was. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1462 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 69.212.214.49 |
Gravitymachine: You need a better class of friends. The former Motown buildings had a utilitarian design to them because, if memory serves me correctly, they were originally built as government offices. However, there's a huge difference between utilitarian and "utterly stupid looking and useless." I recommend you take your friends to see the "football bridge" over Telegraph Rd. so they may better understand what stupid looking looks like. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1463 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 69.212.214.49 |
I disagree with you, in part, Skulker. First, no one is arguing that aren't some buildings that will have to go. I also agree with you that not all markets will rebound automatically nor will all building become economically viable. However, I don't believe that demolishing a structurally sound, historic resource is a good idea. Regarding markets themselves, Mayor Kilpatrick, the DEGC and others are actively trying to recruit new businesses and residents to downtown. As long as a historic resource is still standing, every brick in it represents a significant amount of state and federal money that can be used to redevelop it. Once the resource is gone, 100% of the construction costs must now be paid for by the developer and/or the City. This, in my opinion, is hardly a prudent course of action for a cash-strapped city. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3426 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
So what happens with buildings that may not be on the verge of collapse but have NO reasonable (or even unreasonable) hope of ever becoming economically viable? Is the City to continue paying for the upkeep as vacant momentos to the past while strangling the redevelopment (and subsequent tax base generation)of the parcel on which they sit? To do so is to squander funds that can be used for other viable historic projects. Is it a prudent course of action for a cash strapped city to continually pay for insurance, maintenance and mothballing on buildings that will not become economically viable in even the most optimistic scenarios? To do so is to squander funds that can be used for other viable historic projects. For example - Was the Statler decayed to the point of imminent collapse where it could be called structurally "unsound"? No. Was it to a point where substantial structural repair was needed to meet code and make the building suitable for occupancy. Definitely. Add the costs for the structural repairs to the other issues surrounding the building and it was eminently unviable as a rehabilitation project now and in the foreseeable future, even in the rosiest of scenarios. Its continued maintance/mothballing costs would drain limited resources away from the actual rehabilitation of other historic buildings. Even developers who received awards from the local preservation community (Mansur / Kales) for their vision and execution ran screaming from the building and the massive financial gaps. Yes, historic buildings have some economic resources that can be brought to bear through tax credits....but if those resources bring only what is effectively 15% to 18% of the project cost when retaining the historic resource adds 30% to 50% more cost than demolishing and building new, the City must subsidize an even higher amount.
I don't know a single "structurally sound" building that had a reasonable shot at being acheiving economic viability that has been demolished or is currently planned for demolition with the possible exception of the M - L. I make the exception on the M - L as I have not seen enough data on that building to make that call. There have been a few people who have run around claiming there were "viable proposals" but having seen what they consider "viable proposals", I treat those claims with a very healthy dose of skepticism. I also treat Ilitchs claims with a healthy dose of skepticism. What it boils down to in my opinion is there seems to be a lot of panic amongst posters here that viable buildings are being indiscriminately torn down and that opportunities are being squandered, that the current administration doesn't get it and hates old things and that there is no respect for history. Given the oft repeated list of renovation successes, given the commitment the City has exhibited to the Book Cadillac and other projects, given that there ISN'T an orgy of frenzied building demo (still waiting to see the phantom "hit list"), I am at a loss to see how people arrive at that conclusion. | ||
Gravitymachine Member Username: Gravitymachine Post Number: 766 Registered: 05-2005 Posted From: 68.255.242.100 |
DEAR FNEMECEK, Dunno if your being facetious, or just didn't thoroughly read both of my posts immediatley above yours...if the latter is the case please do so, you'll be pleasantly suprised. edit: as far as the donovan and its neigboring building are concerned, I have no opinion of the buildings being taken down...other than I'm not looking forward to seeing yet another empty block in that stretch of woodward and I did like how someone scrawled "consumer whores" in one of the windows facing hockeytown... (Message edited by gravitymachine on January 19, 2006) | ||
Mw2gs Member Username: Mw2gs Post Number: 138 Registered: 03-2005 Posted From: 69.216.104.79 |
Detroit's history was abandoned a long time ago. They should keep one of those buildings up and market it as a city abandonment museum. Tear it down!!!!!!! | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1465 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 68.255.166.225 |
Gravitymachine: Feel free to smack me later for not reading closely enough. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1466 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 68.255.166.225 |
In cases like that the Local Historic Districts Act contains provisions for dealing with a building that poses an economic hardship to its owner. Follow those rules and I'm a happy camper.
Actually, I was thinking about the M-L. The building needed some work, but was still structurally sound (let me know if you ever want to see the records I eventually got from a FOIA to B&SE). We've debated the Statler ad nausium. I believe it could've been made into viable project. You don't. I could debate that one again, but the whole subject is a moot issue at this point and I'd prefer not to. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1467 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 68.255.166.225 |
Mw2gs: Bite me. | ||
Mw2gs Member Username: Mw2gs Post Number: 139 Registered: 03-2005 Posted From: 69.216.104.79 |
I dont like bologna | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1469 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 69.215.247.150 |
Whatever. | ||
Bunny Member Username: Bunny Post Number: 1 Registered: 01-2006 Posted From: 69.215.202.130 |
OK, I will probably be crucified by all you experts, but after reading this thread (and many others on this forum) I have this opinion; Wouldn't the simple solution (and I am being facetious about simple) be for the City of Detroit to come up with a Master Plan? Sure there are plenty of neglected buildings that should be saved but won't be, and there is far too much blight and empty space to impress visitors to this fair city, but it seems to be that to approach the rebuilding of the city with such a willy-nilly attitude; the result will be an ugly mess that won't be any better than what we have now. I am a huge preservationist but I understand that a city needs to evolve. Looking at aerial photos from the 40's and comparing them to recent ones really drives that home; things change. The key is to make the changes an IMPROVEMENT and not simply a step backwards. I am so glad I found this forum. Despite the occasional outburst of viciousness I am impressed by the knowledge and access to historic photos shown here. It is facinating! | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 6487 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.20 |
Bunny - A masterplan would be a great idea but one of the bigger issues facing downtown and the surrounding areas are slumlords/speculators. Beside fining them and ticketing them if they are not upto code the city has little recourse. I believe a ruling that was influenced by the poletown debacle has made it much harder for a city to use emminent (imminent?) domain to aquire buildings and land. With the number of speculators I think the city should fine the hell out of the people but ultimately they are owned buildings that the city has little say over. Master plans are great if building owners are willing to cooperate or if there is a ton of open land to build but Detroit doesn't always have that luxury. I do think, however that the city has some docuemntation on their website in regards to plans for development/improvements in each planning cluster. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 6488 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.20 |
Here is a link to the city's info on master planning: http://www.ci.detroit.mi.us/pl andevl/advplanning/pdfs/MPlan/ MPlan_2004/default.htm | ||
Bunny Member Username: Bunny Post Number: 2 Registered: 01-2006 Posted From: 69.208.56.194 |
"Master plans are great if building owners are willing to cooperate or if there is a ton of open land to build but Detroit doesn't always have that luxury." At this point I think Detroit has plenty of open land. But it returns to an economic issue, I know. Why doesn't the city fine the hell out of negligent building owners? And I don't mean the little old ladies, I mean Ilitch and the like. Maybe that would be a source of income for the city! | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 6490 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.20 |
I have wondered that myself for a long time. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1470 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 69.215.247.150 |
They've kind of, sort of done that. However, they need to do a lot more of it. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3428 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
Actions like earn you all sorts of nasty lawsuits and headaches. Fining parties like Olympia and not other parties, whether they are little old ladies or not, who have similar violations is a form of harassment and is patently illegal. Recent legislation and court rulings have allowed partial crackdowns in areas that are deemed to have some extraordinary importance and allow for differential levels of enforcement compared to other areas of the City. Surely anyone can see the dangers in allowing cities to arbitrarily decise who they want to crack down on and who they don't. Such a system would be ripe for abuse and violate the equal protection clauses of the US Constitution. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1472 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 69.215.247.150 |
The easiest way around that legal headache is to crackdown on all code violators, instead of simply high-profile ones. Arguing a violation of the equal protect clause if all violators are being fined equally. (Non-profits can step in to help the little old ladies). Or, if you want another way around it - prosecute for demolition by neglect when the offending target is a historic resource, instead of using the standard building code. Certified local governments have more latitude in those cases. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3429 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
In no way shape or form is that the "easiest answer". I think this was addressed earlier when the following was posted about the challenges facing the City....
That of course was followed by some trivial comment about losing 83% of the tax base....stupid numbers, like they mean something... This is a perfect example of what I mean about HARD decisions and HARD work needing to be made. The glib comment of "crack down on all code violators" is facile and ignores a very real budget problem and the fact that there are not nearly enough resources in the non-profit community to help even half of the little old ladies in the City... You know what I think is the easist solution for the abandonment issue facing Detroit's historic treasures is? Given the budget constraints of the City and the severe underfunding and understaffing of the HDC, the local preservation community should put together a capital campaign and a memorandum of understanding with the Mayors office to help chase after and prosecute the demolition by neglect cases. That would be an example of a proactive and positive action by the local preservation community. Warning: It won't be nearly as easy making up stories about "100 building" hit lists, but it will actually accomplish something. | ||
Bunny Member Username: Bunny Post Number: 3 Registered: 01-2006 Posted From: 69.208.56.194 |
I understand the dangers, Skulker, and I also agree with Fnemecek; there must be a fair solution. In this day and age of giving up our civil rights for "safety", we definitely don't want to lose any more! But we also are all tired of losing good, viable buildings to neglect and eventually to parking lots. I am curious, though, to know if anyone in City offices reads these ideas, and cares. | ||
Merchantgander Member Username: Merchantgander Post Number: 1485 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 68.42.168.234 |
To answer your question Bunny yes and no. Merchantgander FOHSL President Merchantgander is all about preservationist. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1179 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
So, I'm reading through this thread and see a lot of the same things repeated over again. As I read, I find that I learned something rather uncanny today. We had a lunchtime chat, where one of our principals talked about some of the projects our New York office is currently working on. One of particular interest to this thread is a building in Memphis, Tennessee. Memphis, as you might know, has seen a level of devastation pretty darn near equal that of Detroit. This particular project involved a building that was a copy of the Woolworth building in New York (but 2/3 the size, since the lot was 2/3 the area), and a couple associated warehouse buildings. These buildings in downtown Memphis have been vacant for 25 years. EVERY SINGLE engineer in Memphis had decided that none of the buildings could be saved. Our firm had a different opinion, and was hired by the potential developer. Interestingly enough, one of the aspects that kept the buildings salvageable was that all the windows had been blown out years ago, allowing the buildings to ventilate and prevent the growth of mold, which would make the building uninhabitable. The City of Memphis sold the three buildings to the developer for $1, and plans for renovation into apartments are underway. Selective demolition and removal of debris has already begun. To me, that's a lot more productive than creation of another empty lot. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 6496 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.20 |
Now what do you do when the business case still doesn't make sense when the building is 100% free or only $1? There are different scenarios and I would love every building to be restored and think the M-L and others should have been. The Statler, with the building being free from all accounts could still nto be supported with a viable business plan. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3430 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
Interestingly, when it came to the Statler engineers, developers and architects from Chicago, New York, New Orleans, Cleveland, Houston, San Francisco and London (including the ones working on the Book Cadillac, the ones that redeveloped the Kales and Opera House) all studied the building and came remarkably close to the same conclusions in terms of costs. No-one said it couldn't be done, they all recognized how much it would cost and therein lies the rub. Sorry, try again Dan. Detroit is not backwoods, backwater, visionless place with no understanding of engineering and architectural issues you seem to think it is.
And release friable asbestos into the air outside the building, no doubt. Hey, great way to save on abatement costs. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 6497 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.20 |
Skulker hates buildings. | ||
Rustic Member Username: Rustic Post Number: 1957 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.163.181.81 |
danindc, perhaps more appropos what with the Motown (nee Donovan) building about to get Statlered, on NPR this evening there was a story about a historic recording studio that was just leveled for a parking lot, (Nashville, not Memphis but anyway) ... win some lose some I guess ... it is a big world and there are lotsa anecdotes ... | ||
Royce Member Username: Royce Post Number: 1412 Registered: 07-2004 Posted From: 69.213.204.173 |
Skulker's response to fining every building code violator as "unrealistic" because of budget contraints is sad. It's sad because it says that Detroit, despite its best efforts, has to keep putting up with crap from "scum lords." If I was Mayor Kilpatrick, I would urge Lansing to pass some kind of legislation giving the city more power to force these building owners, who won't maintain their properties in a timely and sincere manner, to maintain them or sell them. I refuse to believe that the city's hands are tied. With ownership of any property, dog, car, or building, the owner is responsible for making sure his property doesn't endanger the public. We can't get these bastards for endangering my eyes from having to see their hideous eyesores. "Your honor the sight of their buildings is making me physically ill. They should pay me for my pain and suffering." | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1474 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 69.213.204.121 |
This would require serious cooperation from the City since the relevant statues do explicitly require them to be the ones initiating legal action. However, if Mayor Kilpatrick is willing to play ball, we can makes something happen. I'll send over a formal proposal off-line next week. I'll let everyone on the forum know what kind of a response we get. | ||
Darwinism Member Username: Darwinism Post Number: 334 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 69.209.187.90 |
Frank, please keep us informed every step of the way ..... if Skulker suggested it - It must be THE best course of action, as we all already know. (Message edited by darwinism on January 21, 2006) | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1180 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
Hey, I wasn't "trying" anything other than relating an anecdote. It's not always a case of "rehab or demolish". Granted, the financing for the particular project of which I spoke was damn tough, and at a particular point in time, a project might not be feasible. I was merely pointing out that despite the coincidence of opinions of several professionals, doesn't necessarily mean they are all correct. The business case isn't always there to save a building at a given point in time. Demolition for demolition's sake, IMO, is a waste of money, especially if that money is public. Skulker, I've posted my e-mail address before. If you have a personal beef with me, use it as Jt1 has. Otherwise, keep it to yourself. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1477 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 70.236.177.60 |
FYI: I drafted a proposal and sent it to a bunch folks on the preservation side for review & comment. I'll send it to the Mayor in a couple of days and post a copy of it here after that. |
