  Diesel Member Username: Diesel Post Number: 15 Registered: 01-2007 |
I just read in a construction update that the building renovation has been cancelled. I hope this isn't true and I've found that the source isn't always accurate but it's where I get a lot of information. (Source) Mcgraw Hill - Dodge Construction Reports Does anyone have any additional information on this project? The developer was Peebles out of Florida and they were working with KDG on the rehab. This would be horrible news that building is beautiful and would really be an asset to the city if it were to be restored. Hopefully someone else will step in if Peebles really did back out of the deal. | ||
Ndavies Member Username: Ndavies Post Number: 2548 Registered: 10-2003 |
I haven't heard anything definitive. However it wouldn't surprise me. Peebles and the DDA were having a very hard time coming to terms on the development agreement. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3771 Registered: 10-2003 |
If the deal with Peebles has imploded, I am certain that the success of the BC and the Griswold bodes well for the redevelopment of the building. If I were a wagering man, I would bet the DDA senses that and is looking for a better deal. 2 years of negotiations on a 145,000 sf building tells you the parties were not close. Consider the Griswold went from proposal to presale in six to eight months on a more complicated deal with air rights. | ||
E_hemingway Member Username: E_hemingway Post Number: 1152 Registered: 11-2004 |
The plan had been to connect the Lafayette Building to the garage in the Griswold Building via an underground tunnel. Although I heard this (I don't remember where but it was from a couple of reputable sources) well before the Griswold condos concept became public. Would there still be enough room in the Griswold parking garage for Lafayette Building condo owners or did the Griswold condos take that capacity? | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3772 Registered: 10-2003 |
Peebles floated that plan which was completely infeasible because of the massive utility infrastructure underneath Michigan Avenue. They also wanted the City to pay for it. There is no more room in the Griswold garage to support the Lafayette parking. | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 791 Registered: 10-2006 |
"Would there still be enough room in the Griswold parking garage for Lafayette Building condo owners or did the Griswold condos take that capacity?" E_hemingway, someone asked that question on another thread. The word is that there is only room in the parking deck for the Book Cadillac and the Griswold condos. Maybe it isn't too late to add more parking levels to the Griswold, but their plans seem surprisingly pretty far along. | ||
E_hemingway Member Username: E_hemingway Post Number: 1153 Registered: 11-2004 |
Not to harp too much on parking, but is it feasible to do an underground tunnel from the Lafayette Building to the parking garage on the other side of West Lafayette Blvd? If not, does that mean a new parking deck would have to be built to accommodate the parking needs of a condo conversion, say in the empty lot on the other side of Shelby St adjacent to the Esko building, or are there other options, such as retrofitting the basement for underground parking, a la Vinton Building? | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2352 Registered: 10-2003 |
Skulker, please clarify. Would an underground tunnel to connect to a parking garage necessary by code/zoning regs? The costs would seem to be a deal-breaker. | ||
Archy Member Username: Archy Post Number: 35 Registered: 07-2004 |
The tunnel is only "necessary" for the project because the developer doesn't believe the rich folks will walk outside and across the to their beamer/cadillac/ferrari/etc. Its a huge cost and a stupid one considering there are other options...the deck across lafayette and the building itself has capacity to hold more than enough cars. | ||
E_hemingway Member Username: E_hemingway Post Number: 1154 Registered: 11-2004 |
quote: It doesn't seem like it would. The Kales project went ahead with an underground tunnel and has been a success. Then again, I don't know if it was subsidized or not. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3773 Registered: 10-2003 |
No. There are no codes or regs demanding connected parking. Peebles wanted the City to pay for such a tunnel [which was not really technically feasible as there are 48" and 72" water and sewer lines underneath MI Ave.] at one point. The City was not prepared to do that for the deal. Parking formulas are based on a squarefoot formula and can be [and frequently are]modified if the developer shows good cause. Often the city is far more lenient than the banks, which will not underwrite loans if they feel there is not sufficient parking, from their perspective as lenders. This point has been made ad nauseum on this forum. There is adequate, reasonably priced parking within two blocks of the building that any developer could utilize for the project without constructing a new parking deck, including the Financial District Garage. There is no need for a tunnel or skywalk to any parking deck, unless the developer feels it necessary for marketing and is willing to bear the cost themselves. Interior parking is a possibility but costly and removes leaseable space from the building equation, not to mention this solution requires significant structural modification. | ||
Detroitrulez Member Username: Detroitrulez Post Number: 229 Registered: 12-2006 |
jeezus! There is a vacant lot directly to the SW of Lafayette...stretching for several blocks, no? The lots are fronted by the federal building, and, a block further down, by the empty Freep building. Is it really necessary to be spelunking under the streets when the surface lots sit around and count their cash? | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3774 Registered: 10-2003 |
Nope, not really. Especially on the City's dime. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2353 Registered: 10-2003 |
Thanks for the clarification, Skulker. Hopefully, one of these decades, the banks will wake up in the 21st Century and realize that Detroit already has an overabundance of parking. While sacrificing leaseable space for parking isn't the most financially sound idea, it doesn't always require structural modification. Bay sizes of about 20 feet are typically sufficient to accommodate parking. Code design live loads for parking garages are less than for office or high-rise residential, so unless columns are being removed, no structural reinforcement should be necessary. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3775 Registered: 10-2003 |
Well, in this case, structural modification is necessary because of the triangular layout of the building leading to some interesting column spacing. Some column removal is needed to create adequate circulation and ingress / egress for the cars. Which is why I posted that there were significant structural modifications needed. A very talented architectural firm and a talented construction firm have looked at the specifics of this project and yes, modifications are needed. | ||
Supersport Member Username: Supersport Post Number: 11495 Registered: 10-2003 |
Perhaps they could tear down the Freep building, which sits vacant, build a garage there, and sell the air rights above for another condo development? If not the Freep building, there surely must be some other historic buildings that could be torn down and replaced with a parking garage. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2356 Registered: 10-2003 |
^LOL I vote to convert the McNamara Building into a parking garage. | ||
Supersport Member Username: Supersport Post Number: 11496 Registered: 10-2003 |
I realize you aren't from here, so perhaps you aren't up to date. The McNamara Building is occupied, so it would make absolutely NO sense to turn it into a parking garage. | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 4129 Registered: 08-2004 |
Well I'm thinking they should put the Lafayette Parking structure east of the building. Check out the narrow corner of the Lafayette block: http://www.emporis.com/en/il/i m/?id=209328 It is the ugliest part of the Lafayette Building, and yet is the most prominent facade (facing Campus Martius and the heart of the financial district). What should be done with the Lafayette building is to raze all the buildings at the corner, and create a "The Griswold" type building, but turned on its' side. They should put a narrow parking section directly in front of the existing blank wall of the Lafayette Building, and in front of that (towards the triangle corner), they should put luxury condos, one (or two) on each floor. This parking/condos turned on its' side could be as tall as the Lafayette Building, with a curved fancy corner (possibly with balconies). The first floor should be retail (and yes bring back the Lafayette and American Coney Islands!!!). The narrow parking structure between the Lafayette Building and the triangular corner condo annex could be very narrow to just handle the condo owners. They could use one of the elevator type of parking structures, so as to minimize the size of it (no ramps). I am not sure if "elevator" type of parking deck allows the car patrons to remain in their cars. But anyway, with say only 6-10 condo's per floor, one would not need more than 20 parking spaces per floor, hence the smaller parking footprint. And these luxury condo owners would be just a few feet from their condo entrance. And the folks living in the new corner condos could have spectacular views of Campus Martius and the heart of the city. Granted, this type of option would be costly, especially with purchasing the several buildings between the Lafayette Building and the triangular corner of the block. OK.... I'm putting down my crack pipe now....  | ||
Gumby Member Username: Gumby Post Number: 1557 Registered: 11-2003 |
Uhhhh no. That would kill Lafayette and American COney Islands. There would be huge issues with that. | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 4130 Registered: 08-2004 |
Would you rather see the Lafayette Building die a slow death? No restaurant is that sacrosanct, and besides they could be temporarily relocated. I know I am opening a can of worms by that comment. But ever since my father worked for Hygrades Meats in the 1960's, I have avoided the mystery meats of hot dogs. His horror stories swore me off of hot dogs forever... | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2358 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: I realize you assume I'm stupid because I don't live in Detroit. With that said, I used to work in that building way back when you were still doing your book learnin' at CMU, Sport. I know damn well it's occupied. | ||
Dabirch Member Username: Dabirch Post Number: 2242 Registered: 06-2004 |
quote: No, it is actually more because of what you say than where you live... | ||
Kenp Member Username: Kenp Post Number: 424 Registered: 03-2006 |
I would vote for relocation of the coneys. When the Book and the Griswold projects are finished that area is going to change. The two coneys just wont fit in anymore. | ||
Burnsie Member Username: Burnsie Post Number: 942 Registered: 11-2003 |
Could it be that Danindc was merely being sarcastic with his comment about the McNamara Building, since it's ugly? | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3778 Registered: 10-2003 |
Gistok, I don't know how to say this nicely, but that is one of the dumbest ideas I have ever heard. The cost would be enormous, the pinched V would have terrible space utilization, some remaining historic stock would have to be demolished...all when another, easier, cheaper solution already exists. If you are going to demo those, it should be for new retail and residential, not a very inefficient parking deck. | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 4135 Registered: 08-2004 |
Skulker, that was the nicest "non-nice" way you've ever expressed yourself! I can understand you reasoning. And after looking at a few of those buildings closer to the corner, I can agree that there are some very old buildings there... probably even more underneath the modern veneer of some of them. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 5371 Registered: 10-2003 |
I'm still waiting for confirmation that the Lafayette renovation project is dead before I go into my usual armchair quarterbacking. Skulker, thanks for all of the additional information about downtown parking. Though, I must say you're the 'Simon Cowell' of urban enthusiast, and then some. ;) | ||
Rickinatlanta Member Username: Rickinatlanta Post Number: 49 Registered: 07-2006 |
Lafayette Coney Island is a bit of Detroit history and lore. Been there since the early 1920's? With all the commotion on this site about tearing down buildings with a "history" ( I did not say an historic building)doing that to these two institutions would be a disgrace. "Re-locate"? "The two Coney's just won't fit anymore"? They'll fit in real well for those new to that area who haven't had the pleasure of those good ol dogs and chili. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 5373 Registered: 10-2003 |
We don't have to worry about the coney islands going anywhere. As Skulker rightly describe, the site is so incredibly awkward it probably wouldn't ever get built on if the current structures were demolished. This site is even more awkward than the Griswold Capitol Park site. Skulker, where exactly is the Griswold Capitol Park in the approval process? (Message edited by lmichigan on April 16, 2007) | ||
Royce Member Username: Royce Post Number: 2190 Registered: 07-2004 |
Something that seems to be lost here is the fact that once they announced the go ahead for the Griswold development, the Lafayette Building development project was history. If the parking garage was supposed to be used by condo owners in the Lafayette and now there is no parking for them, then how can this project still have the green light? What's the story, Skulker? | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 5378 Registered: 10-2003 |
I don't remember the building of this parking garage ever being for the Lafayette Building, at least not solely, or even mostly. | ||
French777 Member Username: French777 Post Number: 143 Registered: 10-2006 |
Does that sign of the building still work the Layfette building sign?? | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 601 Registered: 01-2005 |
I don't have as lot of time to check out this site any more but I'm glad I picked this thread to read. Dabirch: Ditto re: Danindc. Skulker: I agree with everything you've posted here, and on a couple other threads I've checked out in the last couple of weeks. (Should I be seeing a doctor?) | ||
Archy Member Username: Archy Post Number: 36 Registered: 07-2004 |
For the last time people...the garage next to the Book is not being constructed for the Lafayette Building Rehab (now or in the future). It was to be negoitated a long time ago but the developer and the city never came to terms (increasingly common now with this developer). As for the Griswold the project is moving ahead but is waiting for the garage to finish construction drawings and prepare for bids next month. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3783 Registered: 10-2003 |
Royce: As has been said prior to your post, Lafayette deal can easily go forward utilizing other parking other than the Griswold deck. The two projects were never contingent upon each other. Mutually beneficial, yes, contingent, no. The project is a very "doable" project, it simply won't be done by Peebles as they were unable to come to terms with the City on the specifics of the deal. The terms they asked for were far too generous and would have been a bad deal for the City. I am quite certain someone else will quickly take their place. | ||
E_hemingway Member Username: E_hemingway Post Number: 1157 Registered: 11-2004 |
Is there any way the city can secure it to keep the graffiti dip shits out of it? Every day I walk by it, there seems to be some new spray-paint scrawl in the windows. The building seems locked pretty tight from the street level, but someone is getting in there somehow. If these punks can get in then who knows who else is getting in and vandalizing the place. I'm guessing someone in the city is trying or has tried doing this already, but it just seems like the break ins continue unabated. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 5380 Registered: 10-2003 |
Archy or Skulker, has the city approved the plans for both the garage and the Griswold, one or the other, or neither? I'm trying to find exactly where in the process each parts of this structure are. BTW, it's great that the city can now afford to be more discriminatory in terms of quality of downtown development deals. Not even a few years ago they'd almost take anything they could get. | ||
Urbanize Member Username: Urbanize Post Number: 941 Registered: 02-2007 |
"I would vote for relocation of the coneys. When the Book and the Griswold projects are finished that area is going to change. The two coneys just wont fit in anymore." The Coney's can Fit. Michigan and Griswold Wouldn't be Michigan and riswold without them. They wouldn't look right anywhere else in DD. | ||
Kraemerdesigngroup Member Username: Kraemerdesigngroup Post Number: 62 Registered: 10-2005 |
Lmichigan - The City does not have to approve the garage or the Griswold - both are a "matter of right" uses for the zoning. There were a few easement issues that have long ago been passed. At this time, drawings are being completed by each of the two teams to begin construction shortly. In fact, as soon as the debris is eliminated, underground work will begin. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 1204 Registered: 04-2006 |
Huh? The city does not approve the site plan, or its permits? Isn't this what got the guy with the lofts in hot water last weekend? How could the city shut him down? | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 5382 Registered: 10-2003 |
Kraemer, I'm confused, too. As Detroitplanner asked Doesn't the city have to approve site plans and construction permits and the like, or has this already been done? | ||
Kraemerdesigngroup Member Username: Kraemerdesigngroup Post Number: 63 Registered: 10-2005 |
Lmichigan - most permits have been approved. Traditional construction permits are still needed for the majority of the project. I do believe that the foundation permits have been applied for most likely approved. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 5385 Registered: 10-2003 |
So, that means the site plan and design aspects have been approved then, right? All that is needed, now, is are the actual construction permits. Wow, this all moved very fast. It kind of reminds me how One Kennedy Square went from drawing to construction, and no one in the public really saw it coming. | ||
Buddyinrichmond Member Username: Buddyinrichmond Post Number: 152 Registered: 02-2004 |
If you keep asking maybe KDG can use nomenclature that you understand. | ||
Urbanoutdoors Member Username: Urbanoutdoors Post Number: 265 Registered: 11-2005 |
I was down at lafayette coney and asked if they had heard if any development was taking place, they hadn't but were excited at the possibility, It would be nice to see. I drove past the west side of the building and noticed that there were some new steel beams in a second or third story window what is that all about if they are not going to develop it? | ||
Kenp Member Username: Kenp Post Number: 458 Registered: 03-2006 |
I have a hard time picturing that guy at the counter excited about anything. | ||
Spiritofdetroit Member Username: Spiritofdetroit Post Number: 413 Registered: 11-2006 |
haha, thats what I was thinking | ||
Rhymeswithrawk Member Username: Rhymeswithrawk Post Number: 693 Registered: 11-2005 |
Tear down the Lafayette Coney to save the Lafayette Building? No thanks. | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 4191 Registered: 08-2004 |
Now you're talking with your stomach instead of with your brain... | ||
Peter Member Username: Peter Post Number: 48 Registered: 02-2007 |
Detroit will be lost without Lafayette Coney Island... for all I care we can tear American Coney Island to the ground... but Lafayette must be saved at all costs. | ||
Urbanize Member Username: Urbanize Post Number: 996 Registered: 02-2007 |
^^^WRONG!!!! Lafayette can go in my opinion. They have no type of atmosphere or personality in my opinion. Most of all, I'm not a fan of the hot Dog. It's UNPATRIOTIC to tear down the ACI. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 5424 Registered: 10-2003 |
I have a proposal, let's leave them both up and stop arguing about about grossly high improbabilities? | ||
Urbanize Member Username: Urbanize Post Number: 1003 Registered: 02-2007 |
Fine with me Lmich. Although the ACI is still better (lol). |
