  True_blue Member Username: True_blue Post Number: 38 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 152.163.100.8 |
Does anyone know what that building is at the Statler Hotel site and why it is still standing? It looks to be far beyond any attempts at renovation. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 6681 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 198.208.251.24 |
And Ndavies in 3...2.... I know that there has been a decent amount of talk about it in past threads. Anyone know of the thread? A search may be difficult as Satler will come up in way too many searches. | ||
Hornwrecker Member Username: Hornwrecker Post Number: 800 Registered: 04-2005 Posted From: 216.203.223.115 |
This one?  No idea. | ||
Andrew69 Member Username: Andrew69 Post Number: 13 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 198.111.39.17 |
In the case that no one finds the tread where this was discussed, I'll add this: As far as I know, this building is under separate ownership from the rest of the buildings that were on that block. The condition of the building is due to a fire that broke out on at least the sixth floor during the Statler's demolition. Before that, the building appeared to be in relatively good condition...as long as it wasn't like the fine arts building with its stable looking outside and crumbling interior. | ||
Barnesfoto Member Username: Barnesfoto Post Number: 1679 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 66.2.148.124 |
it is the building in the pic, I believe. Why would such a building be still standing?? No windows, no roof. It must be owned by Matty Maroun, bigtime (white, suburban) contributor to Kwame's Kampain. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3508 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.42.168.34 |
The building is onwned by Bagley Acquisition Corp., the same folks that own the Michigan Building (you know, the one with the parking deck cut into the old theater). The site formerly occupied by the Statler is owned by the City of Detroit. The formerly occupied by the AAA building and the assocaited parking lot off Bagley are owned by the DDA. | ||
623kraw Member Username: 623kraw Post Number: 765 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.41.224.200 |
It was in good shape before the Statler destruction:  | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 200 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 69.214.190.1 |
I know the owner of the building, who's out of town. I've discussed this w/ him before, and as I recall, there's a major lawsuit going. Apparently, the contractor was grossly negligent and did not satisfy the conditions of the contract w/ the State to protect the adjoinging building (although the City took extraordinary steps to prevent damage to the People Mover.) The City, DEGC, DDA etc all monitered the progress of demolition and held weekly meetings with the contractor, but cavalierly refrained from even making the contractor take the necessary and customary steps to protect the building. Maybe they wanted it to burn down. The last I heard was that the owner is going to repair and rebuild the building. | ||
Matt_the_deuce Member Username: Matt_the_deuce Post Number: 488 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.14.248.252 |
Translation - put minimal amount of money in so it looks like he is rebuilding and when he is approached to sell - he can claim he is heavily invested and thus hold out for top dollar. This is all within his right of coarse. Remember that building with orange paneling behind the Fox that was going to be a hotel? As soon as the stadium site got switched to the East side of woodward, all work stopped on the hotel... 3rdworld - do you really think he is going to renovate/keep the building? | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3509 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
Interesting take. Neither DEGC or DDA "monitored" or had any sort of oversight capability with respect to the demolition contract. All authority to "intervene" or otherwise direct the contractor rested with the State. From what I understand DDA / DEGC were present at meetings merely to keep tabs on the project in order to be informed of timelines and other issues that would impact the eventual reuse of the site. The courts agreed to remove the DDA and DEGC from the lawsuit. As a side note, the DFD arson investigation unit, the inusrance investigators for AAA, MDEQ and Homrich are unable to pinpoint a source or cause of the fire. It will be interesting to see what comes out of this. | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 201 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 69.214.190.1 |
Skulker: I think you're wrong about a couple of things but I have to check them out. You are right about one thing and that is, it's going to be interesting to see what comes out of this. (I'll bet, a very nice building, for one thing.) Matt_the_deuce: My guess is, yes it will be rebuilt. That's what the owner says, or told me the last time we discussed it, and he seemed pretty serious about it. He's got the dough and really wants that part of town to be revitalized. He's said before, like a lot of other people, the S-H site will end up as a parking lot for a few years, or worse, fallow like the Tuller site. We'll see. | ||
Rustic Member Username: Rustic Post Number: 2035 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 130.132.177.245 |
if the owners play their cards right they might get the building moved, lol! | ||
Rjlj Member Username: Rjlj Post Number: 37 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 63.171.81.135 |
This building will be razed. The owner will receive a nice payment for it. This building an the United Artist building do not fit in with everything that is going on around them. It is too bad but they will be gone. If the owner has the money to do something with the building, it would have been done a long time ago. | ||
Bibs Member Username: Bibs Post Number: 452 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 152.163.100.8 |
Let's hope that a developer is found for the site. The owner of this small parcel sells for a reasonable amount so the site is more marketable and the site is graced by a new office building or what ever. | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 202 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 69.214.190.1 |
Skulker: Here's the facts from the owner's assistant: The DDA was never a defendant in the suit. The DEGC was and the judge did NOT let it out of the suit. However, The owner did eventually, but can bring it back any time. She says you're wrong about the nature and extent of the DDA/DEGC involvement in weekly meetings regarding the demolition progress; they exerted influence over various demolition related matters. And the City shut down the job on a couple of occasions for various reasons. The City (a defendant) exerted major influenec on street safety, noise, vibrations, dust etc.)The State did NOT have sole control over the process. The DFD determined that it saw no evidence of arson. However, the results are not in yet on the other "cause and origin" investigations. What is known is that the contractor dropped several freshly cut..red hot...steel beams thru the roof which penetrated into the building. I'm told there will be 50 witnesses who will testify that sparks from steel beam cutting torches were constantly falling on the roof of the building, in violation of the demo contract w/ the state. Numerous photos of these things happening. Also, she claims it doesn't matter how it started because neither the owner nor the tenant even had access to the site. They relinquished access and permitted the contractor to turn off all utilities to the site on the assurances of George Jackson (Dir of the DDA or DEGC[?]), who promised them that the City would take all necessary steps to protect the building during the demo process. They apparently believed him and relied on his assurances. Dumb. No one but the contractor, the State people, subs etc. could get thru the locked gates w/o being accompanied by the contractor's security people. Anyway, she has been very involved in the litigation and I believe what she told me. And, she says the building will be rebuilt, and the reason neither the owner nor tenant did any upgrading to the building for years is that no one in their right mind would pay much rent to be sited next to the derelict S-H hotel. I've said that forever; those buildings are like a cancer, destroying everything around them. It will be VERY interesting to see how this plays out. I'm told the owner will not settle and will go to trial. Knowing him, she may be right. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3512 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.255.242.233 |
Well, my sources say the assistant is wrong about the level of particpation that the DEGC/DDA had in influencing the project. My sources also say she is wrong even about the frequency of the meetings..... Of course other agencies such as Buildings and Safety, Detroit People Mover, Department of Environemtal Affairs etc are going to be involved...they have to issue the permits to allow the work to occur. The question is whether they were somehow negligent and whether their somehow negligence resulted in the fire or did not prevent the fire. Thats a real big stretch. Then explain the 100% occupancy rate at the Kales Building. | ||
Itsjeff Member Username: Itsjeff Post Number: 5506 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.42.168.211 |
I have a copy of the complaint in .pdf format. If anyone can host it, I'll e-mail it. (For the record, the original defendants were "The Auto Club Group," Homrich Wrecking, the City of Detroit, the Detroit Economic Growth Group and the State of Michigan. | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 203 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 64.53.238.2 |
Itsjeff: After having read the Complaint, does it appear to you the claims are valid? Was it difficult to get a copy? | ||
Itsjeff Member Username: Itsjeff Post Number: 5507 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.42.168.211 |
I honestly don't have an opinion as to the validity of the claims. In fact, I'm almost loathe to post the complaint, since I'm not able to post any of the defendants' responses. But keeping in mind that a complaint is only an allegation, here y'all go: http://www.snweb.org/temp/stat lerlawsuit.pdf Longtime forumites will get a chuckle out of this: Many thanks to TSM for scanning the complaint and to Neo for hosting it for us. | ||
623kraw Member Username: 623kraw Post Number: 766 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.41.224.200 |
See what results from demolishing an historical building? Nothing good, just all BULLSCHITT. Tear the AAA down for yet another gravel lot. WOW, it's a bit bigger than the Tuller piece 'o schitt that no one ever uses. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3517 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
I see the voice of reason and balance hjas weighed in.... | ||
Velma Member Username: Velma Post Number: 2812 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.78.185.190 |
It seems odd to me that after witnessing smoldering debris and ash fall from the sky during SH demolition, there's no proof that the demolition led to the fire. Are the fire inspectors on crack or something? | ||
Aiw Member Username: Aiw Post Number: 5288 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 209.216.150.127 |
Jeff, could you e-mail it to me? The assclown Neo has me "banned" from accessing his site. This is what I see... Lowell too for that matter. | ||
The_rock Member Username: The_rock Post Number: 1009 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 66.74.53.248 |
I have a fair share of memories with this building and am sad that it, apparently, is destined for the wrecker's ball. My dad had his executive office in that building with the Auto Club, I delivered mail to that location (and the UA) building with my summer job in high school, the travel dept. and the road service depts were both located on the lobby floor, and they did a great business with the walk- in traffic with people working down town and coming in and ordering their maps, reservations, trip-tix etc. | ||
56packman Member Username: 56packman Post Number: 56 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 129.9.163.234 |
AAA moved their headquarters to the United Artists building, and by the early 70's occupied much of that building. They conducted the DuMochelle auction that stripped the UA of it's acuterments. Shame, because until that time the theatre had damn near every piece of furniture and lighting equipment since new. The procenium arch had been cut away (widened) and a gold-draped monstrosity installed for the new curved, wide screen. The interior had been bomb painted white, which made the interior rather plain. But everything was there. We got the Genarco spotlight for the Redford theatre, and it is still in use there. The auction was in January '75. Not long after that they moved to the concrete tinker-toy building in Dearborn, and I've often wondered if they sold out the contents of the UA just to milk a little more money out of the building. | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 204 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 69.214.190.1 |
Itsjeff: Thanks for posting the link to the complaint. However, my computer won't open it. So, I'm going to get a copy faxed to me. The_rock: Don't mourn the loss of the building yet. It will be rebuilt. | ||
Mikem Member Username: Mikem Post Number: 2394 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.43.15.105 |
Who is Neo? | ||
Aiw Member Username: Aiw Post Number: 5289 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 70.48.211.242 |
Neo was the pimply faced little 12 year old fat kid who stole Mauser's pictures and passed them off as his own. He caused a mess of problems, and was one of the reasons registration came about.... If you can't remember him consider yourself lucky. | ||
623kraw Member Username: 623kraw Post Number: 771 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.41.224.200 |
Click here to see it. That brat stole a bunch of my pix too... | ||
Goat Member Username: Goat Post Number: 8121 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.71.66.191 |
Velma, correlation does not equal causation so every avenue (especially for a buliding that was abandoned and neglected)must be investigated. If the DFD does not they too could be sued for damages by other parties. ...don't you just love red tape in todays sue crazy society. : ) | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 205 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 69.214.190.1 |
623kraw: thanks for posting the link to the complaint. Goat: You're wrong. The building was not "abandoned and neglected" as you allege. The tenant was paying rent and the building was heated and secured. It was not occupied but that's a far cry from abandonment. I'm told that attempts tp sublet the building were fruitless, primarily because no wanted to locate next to the S-H in it's then condition, and because of rumors for years that the S-H would be demolished, who in their right mind would go to the expense of moving in there and spending money for tenant improvments when the building might be inaccessible during the demolition. Had it been sublet, or occupied by the tenant, then the S-H would not have been demolished before the city acquired the building. That may never have happened. Neither the owner nor the tenant should have cooperated w/ the City and State (and, DEGC) in connection w/ the demolition. See where that got them. Live and learn. | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 1798 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 4.229.81.13 |
If this building is owned by the same folks as the Michigan Building, then the principal owner would be Anthony Pieroni. I met Mr. Pieroni about 6 years ago, a decent businessman. He mentioned that he went to a lot of expense to get the great arched false window above the former Michigan Theatre entrance fixed up and rewired the false half chandelier inside, so that it and the window once again light up. But to his lament, no one noticed! |
