  Royce Member Username: Royce Post Number: 1453 Registered: 07-2004 Posted From: 70.236.187.104 |
I was on Atwater Saturday and noticed demolition crews preparing to tear down the cement silo east of Chene Park. When I passed by the site in the evening the silo was down. However, looks like it crashed down on the fence that separated the property. No biggie, just noticed that the silo still appeared intact. Also, I wrote this thread to indicate how fast the silos are coming down. The Lafarge silo, the closest near the RenCen, is gone and the land is clear of debris. The "Medusa Cement" silo, west of Chene Park will soon be gone. Wrecking crews have torn down a large metal shed that was in front of the site. It's just incredible to see something done in Detroit so quickly. Even the Riverwalk rails are now up at the Bates-Atwater location. I guess this Detroit Riverfront Conservancy means business. | ||
Dmart Member Username: Dmart Post Number: 15 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 68.84.183.222 |
Can't they leave one set up as a tribute to Detroit's Industrial past? I mean, it could be a museum, a observation tower, anything. | ||
Nellonfury Member Username: Nellonfury Post Number: 100 Registered: 03-2005 Posted From: 68.43.156.135 |
I was in downtown also but I haven't been around the Chene Park area. THE NEW DETROIT RIVERWALK RULES!!!!!! | ||
Royce Member Username: Royce Post Number: 1454 Registered: 07-2004 Posted From: 70.236.187.104 |
I agree, Dmart. One should have remained as homage to Detroit's past. The smallest one, the one just torn down, could have been the one to keep because it was small compared to the others. However, it's history now. Surprisingly, as much as people tout preservation on this forum, there weren't too many folks complaining about seeing these silos go. Go figure. | ||
Romanized Member Username: Romanized Post Number: 185 Registered: 02-2005 Posted From: 71.4.97.70 |
You want an homage, then build a museum. But for the love of Pete why would you one of those ugly, view-killing silos up? You people will long for old stuff no matter if its complete garbage or not. Are they noy doing something with that land anyway? | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 105 Registered: 10-2004 Posted From: 69.242.223.42 |
So what are they going to name the new gated community, err... fort? Like the early settlers residing among the four dozen French troops garrisoned in the old fortification, the new settlers will require protection for themselves and their vehicles from the natives. | ||
Sharmaal Member Username: Sharmaal Post Number: 738 Registered: 09-2004 Posted From: 69.14.76.187 |
"Can't they leave one set up as a tribute to Detroit's Industrial past? I mean, it could be a museum, a observation tower, anything." You've been eating too much cement. | ||
Detourdetroit Member Username: Detourdetroit Post Number: 161 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.212.208.209 |
Check these links out. Places do it different. Future/Past. What a concept. http://www.we-make-money-not-a rt.com/archives/006945.php http://www.boingboing.net/2005 /09/08/seed_silo_apartments.ht ml http://www.arcspace.com/archit ects/mvrdv/gemini/gemini.html http://www.jjw.dk/sw1339.asp http://www.mvrdv.nl/_v2/projec ts/129_frosilos/index.html http://www.nybolig-projekt.dk/ gemini/ | ||
Royce Member Username: Royce Post Number: 1457 Registered: 07-2004 Posted From: 70.236.187.104 |
That's amazing. Some truly forward thinkers. | ||
Llyn Member Username: Llyn Post Number: 1419 Registered: 06-2004 Posted From: 68.61.197.206 |
Sorry, I gotta go with Romanized on this. Not everything from the past is necessarily worth preserving. The riverfront will look much better without the silos. One man's opinion. | ||
Alexei289 Member Username: Alexei289 Post Number: 1037 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.61.183.223 |
ok.. the warehouses would have been bad ass being preserved.. Im actually really sad to see them go... I have even taken a truckload of bricks from one site after it fell incase i ever built a shed or something... i thought it would be cool.. but the silos??? ... It would look better if we just converted it into a giant penis... | ||
Jimaz Member Username: Jimaz Post Number: 172 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 68.2.191.57 |
Been done. In Ypsi. | ||
Jjaba Member Username: Jjaba Post Number: 3128 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 67.160.138.107 |
The Eastside rises from the ashes. jjaba, Westsider, giving props for progress. | ||
Panson Member Username: Panson Post Number: 786 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 152.163.100.8 |
I'd like to see a couple of the silos remain as well. Not because of "preservation" but because I think it could look pretty cool. Let some vines grow on them, maybe put some neon or some kind of "Riverwalk" signage or something like that. Allow them to be an interesting visual object as oposed to an old abandoned silo. Let it be a landmark. Some day you could say, "Hey meet me with your bike at the silo" and everyone would know exactly what you mean. I think it could work well similar to how sometimes old farm silos or crumbled barns are sometimes left as is on new golf courses. Or Gasworks park in Seattle is a good example were the gas refinery equipment was left behind and the park was built around it. Very interesting, very unique. http://www.seattlephotographs. com/cgi-bin/shopper.cgi?search =action&category=GWKS | ||
Wmuchris Member Username: Wmuchris Post Number: 234 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 141.218.133.123 |
Or like Fundidora Park in Mexico. http://www.pps.org/gps/one?pub lic_place_id=565# | ||
Detourdetroit Member Username: Detourdetroit Post Number: 162 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.212.208.209 |
Now we're talking... like keeping the gantry cranes at Queens West in Long Island City, NY, right across from the UN http://www.forgotten-ny.com/SU BWAYS/bargetransfer/barge.html | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 3198 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.172.95.197 |
Exactly. They make unique, and interesting landmarks. Many cities have saved historic infastructure, if even ugly, because it adds an extra texture to the urban environment. Any city can put condos, and riverwalks on a riverfront. It is only history that can make them unique and intersting. With that said, they are all coming down. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3566 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 64.148.227.247 |
Doing some back of napkin calculations on the silo project in Copenhagen, a developer on such a project in Detroit would need to realize higher per foot sales prices than is currently seen anywhere in metro Detroit. Given the market conditions of the area, the prospects of that happening are minimal. I would rather see something actually get built than to chase off after expensive but cool design with no other product in place. I am not willing to sacrifice more city services to subsidize cool design for a select few. Fundidora Park is nowhere near the water and was a deliberate attempt to reuse land that was far to expensive to remediate, so they put a racecourse on it. Great idea, not the highest value use for prime riverfront real estate. We've got plenty of abandoned land in and around Detroit for that kind of use. Gasworks Park looks like a pretty cool way to get around the remediation issues of such a site, although I note the razor wire fences don't make the most inviting environment. Again, not the best use from prime real estate on the East Riverfront. I wonder how long until deevelopment pressure begins nibbling away at the park. The barge transfer station in New York is neat. Could be a model for Senator Levins park that he wants to build on the west riverfront. Again, not the best use for prime residential real estate on the East Riverfront. There are hundreds of opportunites for this sort of low cost, higher impact use of low value land across Detroit. I simply don't think it is appropriate or economically feasible to have such low revenue return uses in a defined residential district such as the East Riverfront. Detroit is missing high quality public - private, live, work, play space near the river. The east Riverfront district is the only real opportunity to create that space. To sacrifice that for neat parks when there are plenty of other neat park opportunities is irresponsible. Let me stress, I think there is great opportunity for such alternative uses around Detroit and I hope they happen. Unfortunately that is not a viable option for the east Riverfront. | ||
Detourdetroit Member Username: Detourdetroit Post Number: 163 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.212.208.209 |
the point is creative use and integration of (even minimal) historical artifact can ADD value to open space, conversion, new build - and serve to distinguish authentic urban product from green field construction - even if it costs more or requires a more iterative approach during the process. we can't afford to pick and choose. but no use crying over spilled milk. how about that Globe Building? what a great opportunity for a museum of industry, ala Waltham or Baltimore? http://www.crmi.org/index.htm http://www.thebmi.org/ | ||
Broken_main Member Username: Broken_main Post Number: 809 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 69.222.11.226 |
what about the west riverfront. Why is so much attention being given to the east riverfront. has anyone heard of any plans for the riverwalk going towards the Abassador??? | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3568 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.42.168.34 |
I agree with most of your point DTour, however there is a crucial element that seems glossed over here....
The harsh reality is that money does not grow on trees, there ain't any just laying around in Detoit, and everyone seems to think the City should do the heavy lifting to implement their pet project. The Globe would be a great place for something like the museum of industry......I challenge folks to begin the planning process and preliminary fund raising. Efforts that result in features like that are almost exclusively private non-profits and multiple sector collaborations doing the heavy work. Are ther folks here with the vision, talent and tenacity to accomplish something like that? From their website:
Given the fact the City is a little busy trying to keep l;ights on, its pretty clear that something like this needs a push from the cultural and business communities. Have those interested in preservation put together a plan and brought it to the attention of the MDNR and Riverfront Conservancy? Moreover is there room in this market for such a museum with the Henry Ford just down the road a ways? Personally, I'd like to see a combined Dossin and Hydroplane museum. There is only one other Hydroplane museum, way on the other side of the country and I would argue the pieces are here in Detroit to make one that kicks Seattles ass. | ||
Detourdetroit Member Username: Detourdetroit Post Number: 164 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.212.208.209 |
Instead of paying a criminal to knock down our history, I would have used the $1 million or so that "somebody" paid the good fellows at Ferguson Destruction Co. recently, to fund a Globe Building reuse effort. It could have been rationalized for the Super Bowl. It's true that the folks in Mass. had business leaders, but in Baltimore (a city that has definitely seen its share of sad days)...the mayor did step up: http://www.thebmi.org/content/ index.cfm/ContentID/1825/Secti onID/541 Baltimore Museum of Industry History The Baltimore Museum of Industry (BMI) was founded in 1977 as a project of the Mayor's Office of the City of Baltimore to preserve the City's rapidly disappearing industrial heritage. In 1981, it incorporated as a private non-profit educational institution. In May of that year, the BMI moved into the historic Platt Oyster Cannery building (c.1870) in South Baltimore. The Museum launched its first capital campaign in 1989 towards the renovation of the facility to enhance its appearance and create first-rate gallery space for its exhibits. But Glory be, I agree!!! A hyroplane museum at the Globe would be awesome. The Seattle-Detroit boats/early cars and planes connection is VERY VERY interesting. I was at Boeing Field in September and saw an exhibit on hydroplanes that was awesome (and very Detroit-centric). It's a crying shame that we don't properly celebrate (or for the most part even know about) this part of our heritage. While I love the Pacific Northwest for its beaty and generally forward thinking urban centers, I would have no compunction to kick Seattle's ass in this regard... The Globe could even be converted in part to continue the tradition with workshops devoted to design and testing. How cool would that be? Come on Skulker, I feel a non-profit cause for you to get behind... | ||
Rust Member Username: Rust Post Number: 100 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 68.43.180.171 |
Between Skulker and Detourdetroit some great ideas and thoughts have been brought forward. The Globe building is an excellent opportunity waiting to happen. As the Tri-Centennial park is implemented the opportunity and and need to do something great with the Globe building will build. The idea of combining the Dossin Museum with a Hyrdroplane museum is worth exploring. Foot traffic should be better at this location than on Belle Isle. This location has more maritime history than the location on Belle Isle. With the size and space in the Globe building there is a real oppurtunity to expand the scope and scale of the Dossins exhibits. Makes you really wish the Columbia could be salvaged and parked in the slip across from the Globe. If anybody is interested in pursuing this I would be willing to get involved and help. As Skulker correctly states a project like this would have to come from the private sector. (Message edited by rust on February 19, 2006) | ||
Rust Member Username: Rust Post Number: 101 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 68.43.180.171 |
Calling Mr. Penske! Calling Mr. Penske! Or for that matter anybody with the connections to help get this idea started. | ||
Detourdetroit Member Username: Detourdetroit Post Number: 165 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.212.208.209 |
Friends of the Globe - F.O.G. It has a nice ring to it. Roger Penske is chair, Skulker is treasurer... | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3569 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.42.168.34 |
$75,000 a year as salary and a decent board with connections to real cash are what it would take for me to create a thing of beauty at the Globe. Get a board and salary toegther and I could this project pas the moon like I was Chuck Norris. In the mean time, my full time job, my part time job and my roles on a number of boards of directors and committee chairs for those boards leaves me little time. Where is everyone else? | ||
Billybbrew Member Username: Billybbrew Post Number: 123 Registered: 07-2005 Posted From: 152.163.100.8 |
Skulker, What about taking the billboard letters from the top of the Cemex silos and putting them on some sort of berm/stand and lighting them. Include some sort of display that shows the importance that the silos had to the development of Detroit. Most of the concrete in Detroit for roads, buildings, etc. has come from those silos. A giant sign saying "Medusa Cement" with a display telling of the historical significance would be a way to appease both sides. Preserve history, educate, yet allow for developement and better use of riverfront properties. | ||
Rust Member Username: Rust Post Number: 102 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 64.118.136.130 |
This Free Press articles touches on many of the same issues raised and on the Betters Bettis thread: http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs .dll/article?AID=2006602200318 | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1237 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
More silo reuse... http://gallery.timaltman.com/v /journal/2005_06_17/aab.jpg.ht ml Sydney http://www.greensmart.com.au/greensmart_awards_03/development_of_the_year.html http://gazzzzzzz0.tripod.com/garryburtonphotography/id8.html http://www.cpgaustralia.com.au /html2/modules/wara/index.html http://www.tierneyopus.com.au/ projects/02/apartments/apartme nts.html Copenhangen http://www.eri.dk/silo.htm Translation to English:
(Message edited by gogo on February 20, 2006) (Message edited by gogo on February 20, 2006) | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3575 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
Great idea. Go find the moeny to do and put in a proposal. Nice links Gogo. Perhaps you would like to be come a developer and do a couple of the silos up near Eastern Market? I am very curious to see the numbers for any of those projects. All of them appear to be in well established upper income areas, which makes things much easier to do (ie finance). I also note that they are in countries with very strong growth control limits that force very high land prices, making adaptive reuse much more feasible. Anybody have any examples of US market silo conversions? I'd like to see the proformas and data on how they made these happen. I also ask where all these great ideas were during the public input process. | ||
Busterwmu Member Username: Busterwmu Post Number: 203 Registered: 09-2004 Posted From: 24.247.221.241 |
Anyone manage to get ahold of the "Medusa Cement" lettering from atop their Silo? Even if the Silos can't be saved, that would be a neat relic to keep around, similar but smaller than the "GENERAL MOTORS" letters of their old HQ in Midtown. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 6785 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 198.208.251.24 |
Skulker hates silos. He is just using that crazy financial thing as an excuse to knock downm silos that he hates. Now in all honesty. I like forward thinking and the city could probably use some there is a simple matter that the city/state/federal government can't subsidize projects that would be neat. If we wanted to wait on all projects until the market supported the costs to do them how people here want we would see no progress at all and downtown and the surrounding neighborhoods would not be sing any improvements. Dreaming is one thing and I am all for it but to criticize the city and developer for doing what is financially and logistically feasible is a little silly. I could tell everyone they should buy a 500k home. When they say they don't have the money I could just resort to calling them dumb because I think that they should buy the house regardless of the fact they can't afford it. | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1238 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
The idea of adaptive reuse has always been touted by preservationists, it is not a new suggestion. The point is to be creative with what we have, rather than leveling everything and building something that could easily be in Atlanta, LA, or any other prefabbed development that has no sense of place. I have no idea what the costs involved in the silo conversion projects. I would also like to see such information. What concerns me with how Detroit is proceeding with all developments, is that such adaptive reuses aren't even being studied for structures like this. It may very well be financially impossible to do, or structurally impossible to do (although looking at the silo which fell over and still remains in tact, those things appear to be incredibly strong). The unfortunate thing is we'll never know. We continue to think inside the box when it comes to developing Detroit. There are still many opportunities in Detroit, so all is not lost. There never seems to be a cost study on demolition, yet there is always one done to eliminate any adaptive reuses. The public forums to discuss the riverfronts future were nothing more than shams to make people feel like they were involved. The concerns of people regarding Franklin street structures fell on deaf ears. If they can't even imagine structures like those reused, how would they ever listen to reuses of cement silos? The riverfront developers seem to think that saving the Globe building gets them off the hook for looking into any adaptive reuses for any other structure. | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1239 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
Waratah Mills... This is the best I could find for cost:  Sold for $382k Australian = $283k USD Total units: 84 http://dynalite-online.com/case_studies/wmrp/index.htm | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 6794 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 198.208.251.24 |
NOt to be an ass Gogo but is there any info that shows average housing price and cost of living. Without that we can't really compare apples to apples. | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1240 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
The problem with the city is NOT that it rejects ideas which are financially and logistically infeasible. Its that it doesn't even consider them. The city thinks inside the box when it comes to development. It accepts the high costs of demolition and the little value it brings in return, yet challenges the costs of adaptive reuse and the value that it adds. I'm not against the city rejecting aloof ideas that have no chance of fruition. I do, however, reject the idea that demolition is an acceptable way to spend money, while adaptive reuse is not. The formulas used in the city seem to always favor demolition. How much value does a vacant site add? How much value does a converted cement silo into apartments add to a neighborhood? Those types of equations cannot be calculated. | ||
Detourdetroit Member Username: Detourdetroit Post Number: 166 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.212.208.209 |
That's a cool project! I especially like this line... "the seamless blending of the old and the new is a credit to the developer’s ability to creatively meet the needs of an inner-city development, without negatively impacting the area’s history." Can the CoD adopt this language? | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1241 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
Jt1 - I think your google works just like my google. | ||
Detourdetroit Member Username: Detourdetroit Post Number: 167 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.212.208.209 |
"must make parcel clean for developer" "Bobby Ferguson does bang up job" "must make parcel clean for developer" "Bobby Ferguson does bang up job" "must make parcel clean for developer" "Bobby Ferguson does bang up job" "must make parcel clean for developer" "Bobby Ferguson does bang up job" "must make parcel clean for developer" "Bobby Ferguson does bang up job" "must make parcel clean for developer" "Bobby Ferguson does bang up job" ...from notebook found in dumpster next to CAY building... | ||
Jimaz Member Username: Jimaz Post Number: 180 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 68.2.191.57 |
I'd mount a big aircraft engine under the silo and turn it into a stationary skydiving attraction.  | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1242 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
The riverfront already uses this language:
Apparently, this means focusing on one building, rather than a mindset. The city is very good at using this type of language. It has a bigger problem implementing it. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3577 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
Yeah, I SOOOOOO totally agree with you! The City has taken the easy way out on everything! I mean, the Book Cadillac shows absolutely no vision or creativity in financing.... Convincing the National PArk Service to allow the demolition and replacement with a near exact replica of a deal killing building at Merchants Row shows no vision... Helping finance the construction of a tunnel into the side of the GCP deck for Kales, based on a feasibiltiy study perfromed bythe DDA before there was even a Kales RFP shows no vision... Holding the line and sweet talking the NFL in to providing exemptions to their very stringent stadium construction rules that made the retention of the Hudsons warehouse feasible shows no vision.
Bullshit. The City bent over backwards to try to get HRI to do the Statler, but by HRI's own words...."Unless the Mayor wants to make a $40 million grant a civic priority AND Can get it through Council, there is NO way to do this building"...yet some folks want to claim that city does not even consider adaptive reuse. | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1243 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
We can certainly point to a few examples of great success in adaptive reuse. The problem is they are merely examples to put on a pedistal, rather than a mindset. Before ANY developers were even identified, demolition of structures along the riverfront were in progress. Adaptive reuse was clearly not even considered an option outside of the Globe building. This speaks to the mindset which the city adapts. Demolition first. Using projects like Merchants Row, Book Cadillac, etc. which hinge on historic tax credits to be successful can hardly be attributed to the city thinking outside the box. The financing which makes these projects possible is what determined how they were renovated, not the cities creative thinking. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 6795 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 198.208.251.24 |
Yep, but I'm not the one trying to prove that adaptive reuse of the silos is financially feasible. I am pretty confident they are not so I don't really care to run the numbers. | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1244 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
You want people to prove that they are feasible with facts and numbers, yet provide no facts or numbers that they aren't. We have already proven that it is possible. I have even shown what they sell for in US Dollars. $283k doesn't seem out of the realm of possibilities for Detroits market. I'm unsure why it sounds more cost effective to spend money to raze the structures, clear the site and debris, and then rebuild new structures. Whereas it seems not feasible to modify the existing structure to accomodate condos. (Message edited by gogo on February 20, 2006) | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 6797 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 198.208.251.24 |
OK smarty. A quick Google showed this: Average hourly compensation of full-time, adult, non-managerial workers (for 2002) in Australia is 18.91 or 14.00 US. Aussie minimum wage (weekly) is 467.40 or 346 US which is $9/hour. Just for the bottom there is a huge divide and it gets wider in the bell part of the curve. The economies of Michigan and Australia are nowhere near similar. Should I continue to check labor costs as I am guessing Detroit labor costs is higher than Australia, should I check average home prices? What do you want me to post? | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 6798 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 198.208.251.24 |
That is one heck of a stretch. Let's just assume they could rent for Manhattan prices. I'm sure that would make it feasible. Apples and oranges my friend.
How many units are proposed and how many are feasible in the reuse plan. If they have 4-5 story buildings with a larger footprint they will be able to bring in more units but the overall construction cost may not increase at an equivalent rate. Just a few factors to chew on. | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1245 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
Jt1 - you aren't even making sense. you seem more interested in proving that adaptive reuse is infeasible by latching on to tidbits of information. Neither you nor I are going to do a cost study on the structure and the costs involved to convert it to ever find out if it'll work. If you want to compare labor prices and apples to apples, here is a quick estimate for you: What do think the labor hours are involved in demolishing the silos, hauling the debris to clear the site and the rebuilding a new building there would be?? Then compare that to modifying the existing structure? I'd take a guess that reusing the structure would yield less labor hours. | ||
Royce Member Username: Royce Post Number: 1459 Registered: 07-2004 Posted From: 70.236.187.104 |
You go, Gogo. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3578 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
If they are smaller than 1,000 sq feet at that price they are. You also cannot make the assumption that these projects were not heavily subsidized. They may have figured out what the sales price was and subsidized construction costs down until they could be sold. The reality is that the amount of subsidy dollars available in Detroit is very very small and bang for buck and social equity factor very heavily in the equation. And that would be a very irresponsible and ill informed guess. The equation that drives the decision to move forward with adaptive reuse or demo involves many, many variables. That has been shown here forum here ad nauseum. Gogo, you have stated that you will not ever do the math, yet you post away opining that the folks doing the math are wrong wrong wrong wrong? Can't have it both ways. (Message edited by skulker on February 20, 2006) | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1247 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
Cost studies for such an adaptive reuse of the silos was never a consideration, so I am not critizing those who did the math. I'm critizing the fact that such options weren't even considered. If the mathh doesn't work out, so be it. The fact that much of the Riverfront area was razed BEFORE developers were even identified shows the limited vision set forth by those developing the riverfront. You suggest that people get involved: Public forums on the riverfront development were nothing but shams. Concerns regarding adaptive reuse were never taken seriously as evident by the structures razed on Frankline street. The riverfront conservancy says things like "preserve detroits industrial past" yet then proceeds to do just the opposite. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3580 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
I assume then that you attended these forums and raised these very spcific concenrs and can speak from a position of authority that the ideas were rejected outright? From my experience, that is not the case. Many of the buildings that were in the area were deemed to not be suitable for rehab after serious investigation into their conditions, configuration and the utility in advancing the vision for a high density urban walkable village. The building were indeed evaluated by architects, historians and planning professionals. From my perspective, decisions were not made lightly and they were not made from some predetermined ideological stance. In fact the building remaining on Franklin Street was selected through a collabrative process with a community group. This building was the only one out of the ones demoed that showed any real promise for feasible adaptive reuse. It has not been demolished and some basic mothballing has occured there. As far as the reuse of the silos never being considered, it my understanding that convserations were had with the consutling firm and the steering committee and the decsion to not waste time on the concept was reached because of the challenges associated with their reuse. One key challenge among many in reusing the silos would have been the creation of adequate parking space that did not create an isolated compound effect. The parking would have had to been arrayed around the existing floor plates. I am sure a solution that integrated parking while still providing the no set back street oriented retail and restaurant space could have been worked out evnetually, but I am also fairly sure it wouldn't be cheap. Looking at site plans, I would tend to think such a solution would be fairly cost INeffective. Another issue that has not been addressed by those advocating their reuse is the past uses of the silos. I note that many of the silo conversion examples are in silos that were used for organic materials such as food. The silos on the riverfront were used for a variety of industrial purposes including the storage of caustic materials such as lye. A serious challenge would have been whether the silos could have been remediated. You may be aware that cement is permeable and often holds and traps hazardous materials such as PCBs. The debris from the silos is going straight to controlled materials land fills and not to general non-hazardous landfills leading me to belive that part of what drove the district planning committee to not further explore the issue was the likely remededition costs. Recall that if something were to happen with residents getting sick in the future, the City would have borne all the risk and liaibility. | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1248 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
That was a very helpful post. Thanks. Regarding toxins, I'm not familiar with what was in those silos other than cement. I'd think that there is a way to take a sample of the chemicals that are in it, no?
Why wasn't it evaluated by actual developers who would develop proposals for these sites? I'm really not arguing for or against the demolition of these buildings, just that they were done before developers could even present redevelopment as an option. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3582 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
The silos did not hold cement, they held the ingrdients for cement, some of which are caustic and dangerous. Given the fact that the debris is being taken to a controlled land fill, one would assume that the rubble is contaminated. If it is contaminated, there really is no way to leach out the hazardous substances. Its not like running bleach through a sponge to kill salmonella. Given the vast experience of the steering committee with the public side of development (and yes there was a private developer or two including those associated with Stroh Riverplace) I am fully confident the decision was based on sound reasoning. If a steering committee with that kind of experience can't find a reason to salvage the buildings, why waste everyones time and resources with RFPS that will lead nowhere? You also have to weigh whether the now demolished buildings were sutiable for the over all planned land uses. I would argue that very few, if any, were. | ||
Hamtramck_steve Member Username: Hamtramck_steve Post Number: 2735 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.209.191.149 |
"Given the vast experience of the steering committee with the public side of development (and yes there was a private developer or two including those associated with Stroh Riverplace) I am fully confident the decision was based on sound reasoning." Sound reasoning that must always allow for various political considerations to enter into the calculus, too. Funny all of your puffery and "understanding" of various meetings don't leave room for that... | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1249 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
Regarding funding for demolition, where does that come from? I'm assuming its part of the running tally on the detroitriverfront.org website shown on the side bar. Was the same funding used for demolition and clearing sites along the riverfront offered to clean and reuse these same structures? Seems to me that if you are offering up money to clear sites, but not offer that same money for adaptive reuse, that puts adaptive reuse on an uneven playing field with demolition. This would make any arguments against reuse because of costs somewhat misleading if it was not offered the same monies that cleared sites used. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3583 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
The monies available for site clearing would have been available for site remediation as well....when you have perfected a technique for leaching hazardous substances out of concrete without weakening its structural capacity, patent it and make your trillions. The world could use this technology. The process needed is not akin to scraping lead paint or removing asbestos pipe wrap. Any hazardous materials had seeped directly into the concrete over decades and were suffused throughout the concrete. Modern sealants likely would not have adequately protected residents living in the space. The steering committee had very broad respresentation from a broad mix organizations and perspectives that came to group and consensus decisions. Perhaps the real issue for some posters here is that this group, with diverse opinions which included preservationists, developers, community groups, political and governmental figures, reached a consensus that doesn't reflect the posters particular personal views and therefore there must have been something nefarious and underhanded. Clearly if these views were not adopted then the process must have been flawed or rigged. THAT is true ego and delusion and "not leaving room" for understanding... (Message edited by skulker on February 21, 2006) | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1250 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
What the real problem here is that a committee, not developers made these decisions on what is feasible and what is not. The opportunity to redevelope structures was eliminated before any developers could step forward. I find it odd, that these silos supposedly held toxic chemicals which make up concrete, concrete which is then used to build buildings and other structures which people live in. Would those same chemicals ultimately end up in concrete surrounding us in our everyday lives where we are exposed to concrete? The concrete silos were in operation up until recent months. With workers near them everyday, if they were as toxic as suspected, why were they allowed to work there? Why were no hose used to keep the debris down when the silos were demolished? Seems more like a sloppy excuse. I don't really recall hearing of any reports on these sites (silos and Franklin street buildings as well) which resulted in any conclusion regarding their toxicity. (Message edited by gogo on February 21, 2006) | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3584 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
Again there WERE developers on the committee, developers that have worked in the area successfully. Interesting how developers are suddenly the savior of the city and the only ones with vision......surely you are not suggesting the City abdicate all control to developers? I can't belive you are that naive.... Assuming developers have the best intersts of the city and want to convert silos is a bad, bad assumption....The EDC received more proposals from developers who wanted to throw out the District guidelines than wanted to follow them. The majority of the proposals received wanted to build a minimum of 20+ stories in gated communities with no public access to the river and large parking decks fronting Atwater and not retail or pedestrian street presence. If developers felt comfortable enough to flaunt the specifications of the RFP in terms of height, pedestrian access and creating an urban village, why did no choose to propose doing something with one or more of the silos? As far as hazardous chemical exposure the difference is ratios and duration of exposure. Everyday we eat all sorts of things that are good for us in trace amounts, but in high ratios would kill us or make us very sick. Concrete has a number of chemicals used in trace or small amounts to ensure it has all the structural properties needed. In trace amounts, they are not inherently dangerous when they are used as say foundation walls. However, a silo holding large quantities of this material for extended periods will absorb some of these chemicals in quantities that far exceed trace amounts and create long term exposure issues. Think the differing exposure risks for a person receiving an X-ray and the long term exposure risks of an x-ray technician. Speaking of exposure, folks work around hazardous conditions all day long. For example the folks handling hazardous materials coming in and out of silos such as these will have proper safety procedures in place to mitigate exposure. The workers also interact in very different ways with the physical structure than a resident would. A worker rarely has a reason to touch the walls of the silo, but a toddler living in a silo would steady themselves on the wall of the silos with their hands for example. An infant sleeping in a silo would be continually exposed to chemicals slowing leaching back out of the concrete and dissiapting into the breathing air of the room. Parents would brush up their hands up against walls at they turn lightswitches on and off and then touch their children when picking them up or changing diapers. The exposure patterns and path ways and the exposure dureations for residential use is very very different than the exposure for workers in such a situation. Hazardous materials exposure risk was only one of several factors weighing agains the redevelopment of the silos. | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1251 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
Oh god no. That is not what my words were meant to say. I was referring to developers to decide what is feasible to build and sell. From what I understood the public forums for discussing the future of the riverfront were to gage community input and vision for what the riverfront should be. By all indications preservation, density and reuse were many themes expressed by community members when redeveloping the riverfront. Those are the guidelines that should be set forth for developers, and were illustrated in the mission and vision of the riverfront conservancy. My issue is not with this, it is that they took their role one step further and then decided to say what developers could and couldn't do. What is and isn't feasible. What the market will and will not pay for. Those are the jobs of developers. It is often said that those interested in historic preservation should put their money where their mouth is, however, when it comes to the riverfront, it seems their will be little opportunity to put any money where preservation is concerned because decisions about its feasibility where decided before anyone with money could come to the table. Why are these committees making decisions on construction feasibility when that is something best left to those who'd actually develop the sites? This is not to say that developers should be left to do whatever they please. That is what the public forums and riverfront org should set as guidelines, not what they think develoeprs are capable or incapable of doing. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3585 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
You seem to be missing a very big point that has been made a few times already... DEVELOPERS PLAYED KEY ROLES IN THE PLANNING PROCESS! Developers that have done rehab in the immediate surrounding area and have a very good working knowledge of what does and does not work were at the table and lent their expertise. Their voices were heard and these developers did not see much if any adaptive reuse potential in any of the buildings that have demolished. Buildings that have potential have been left in place. The RFP specifically mentioned a building that was left in place and strongly encouraged bidders to develop plans that included the buildings restoration. (Message edited by skulker on February 21, 2006) | ||
Darwinism Member Username: Darwinism Post Number: 423 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 69.209.187.90 |
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, is a whole different breed economically - Can't be compared to Detroit, Michigan, USA. I encourage a visit of Australia, both on the west side of the country such as Perth, and also the major eastern cities such as Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. Trust me, you will all enjoy the experiences. | ||
Hamtramck_steve Member Username: Hamtramck_steve Post Number: 2741 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 136.181.195.65 |
Darwinism, do you get a headache while in Australia, being upside down and all? Does the water go down the drain different than here? | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1252 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
I heard you the first few times. Just because developers on a committee could not see the possibility of reuse for certain structures, doesn't mean every developer does. So if I may summarize how the riverfront development occurred...
So that pretty much summarizes the riverfront development. Here is how it should go...
Just because area developers who are consulted can't make it work, doesn't mean nobody else can. If the desires expressed in the public forums indicated a preference for adaptive reuse and historic preservation, then why would you preclude such developments from occurring before you'd open them for redevelopment proposals? And then people say things like "if you care so much for old buildins why don't you put your money where your mouth is". Only problem is that no such option is being presented. When I moved to Detroit 5 years ago, I couldn't find a single loft for sale downtown. A few for rent downtown but not any available to buy. How can people "put their money where their mouth is" when such options are precluded before hand? If developers weighed the costs and market to reuse vs demo and couldn't make the numbers work, fine. But we at least deserve to make it an option for developers to explore. Not something a small committee decides nobody can do because they can't make it work. Its like a landlord saying that nobody will buy green sweaters because they are too expensive so I won't rent my storefront to any body who sells green sweaters. Even though you hear a lot of people say they want green sweaters, the landlord thinks that green dye is just too expensive to make them sell. As long as they can make the rent, are clean and tidy, isn't that something better left to the retailer and consumers to decide? (Message edited by gogo on February 21, 2006) | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3586 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
Your summary is not quite accurate. The developers were PART of the committee that developed the vision, they were not consulted afterwards as you imply...
True. But given the amount of talent and experience brought to the table by the developers and others, it was hardly a decision bereft of vision and understanding and hardly a decision that was rash or short sighted. While the idea of leaving parcels and buildings in situ for potential redevlopment has a potential upside, i.e. you just may find that needle in the haystack developer that can figure something out, in reality the odds were pretty low that such a developer would step forward and be able to create projects that met the desired densities and uses. The subsidy cost for such projects would be quite high as well. So what is the harm in letting the buildings stay until that very last thread of hope for reuse had been exhausted? 1. Project delays caused by due dilligence - Delaying the demolition of the buildings while the developers complete their due diligence and RFPs are fully sorted through adds several months to the first shovel in the ground as everything is now pushed back time wise. Due diligence on an exisiting building is much lengthier and much more difficult (read expensive) than it is for new build sites. 2. Project delays by the demolition being postponed - If, as was quite likely, the RFPs come back with all new build proposals, the projects are now delayed several months further as the process for securing demolition contracts and carrying out the demolition have again pushed project start dates back again. 3. Increased carrying costs - The City has to spend more money on insuring, mothballing and securing the dangerous sites while developers work through their proformas. If leaving the buildings in place was a value neutral proposition, then the argument could be made that leaving them in palce causes no harm, so why not. Leaving them in place while soliciting potential reuse proposals was value neagtive, it would cost the City money and time delays to do that. Weighing the value negatives against the realistic odds of finding the needle in the haystack developer led to a decision to move forward with demolition. I'm sorry you don't agree with that decision, but it was not a decision taken lightly. Nor was it a decision made by folks without vision. I undertand the desire to salvage old buildings. I truly do. But I also understand that often times it cannot happen. | ||
Toybreaker Member Username: Toybreaker Post Number: 34 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 12.159.57.2 |
 | ||
Ddaydave Member Username: Ddaydave Post Number: 320 Registered: 04-2005 Posted From: 67.149.185.244 |
Toybreaker nice post on your website about those silos in denmark http://toybreaker.net/blog/ and http://www.arcspace.com/archit ects/mvrdv/gemini/gemini.html | ||
Royce Member Username: Royce Post Number: 1494 Registered: 07-2004 Posted From: 70.227.207.76 |
Skulker, I've had time to mull over your comments about living in cement silos and how it can be a health risk. The problem that I have with your argument is that we human beings live and work around cement all the time. Many of the new lofts being built have cement floors. Basements of homes have cement floors and walls, and people spend a great deal of time in their basements. How deep could contaminates penetrate a cement wall? And if these cement walls were washed down or covered up with drywall or painted over, how much of a risk would they still be? With a ventilation system and windows in a silo apartment, how much of these contaminates would a occupant breathe in? Looking at the silos being reused in Copenhagen, they simply built the apartments around the actual silo. The ones in Watamala(sp?), although they were grain silos, have the apartments actually built into the silos. Somehow the developers found a way to make these projects work, and I'm sure they considered contamination issues. Personally, I think the contamination issues are negligible, and if the city had saved some of these silos, living in one would not have been a health risk problem. | ||
Awfavre Member Username: Awfavre Post Number: 32 Registered: 08-2005 Posted From: 69.3.206.177 |
As of 6:30 p.m. on Friday, 3/10/06, the last of the silos (Medusa/Cemex/Southdown) toppled. The dust cloud is still making its way toward the Belle Isle bridge. | ||
Track75 Member Username: Track75 Post Number: 2242 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 12.75.18.191 |
Damn! We were down there from about 5:30 to a little after 6 but the kids were getting hungry so we left to go eat. They had just stopped working with the wrecking ball when we left. Sounds like we just missed it. | ||
Matt_the_deuce Member Username: Matt_the_deuce Post Number: 552 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.14.248.252 |
Taking everything into account concerning Detroit's situation, in which toxic/contamination issues are real and have been considered, I think you cannot compare it to Copenhagen and also to Waratah Mills. Those projects contained grain and flour - not comparable to a caustic material like lye. Also, IMO those projects are not very good looking. A lot of them look like prisons. The first link in Gogo's post 1237 looks not so hot. Copenhagen is especially bleek looking. What's gonna go on ground level? It looks like parking.... even if it was landscaped beautifully, the structure itself looks impenetrable. I understand and agree with preservation, but just proving that you can convert silos from a design perspective does not in itself make it good. The structures seem to be lacking in openness and transparency. In other words - too much concrete! The general shape may make sense for residential conversion, but the end product just ends up looking too like, well.... a concrete silo. You would probably have more success starting from scratch and building a tower that showed hints of a silo in it's design, as a nod to what once stood there, as opposed to using the actual silos for your structure. |
