● Lafayette Building Demolition

[Danny]

YAY!

More parking lots and less historical depession-era buildings. Tear that LaFayette Building down and let the sunshine in for Michigan Ave, Shelby and Griswold block.

[bailey]

Armchair, my hairy ass. Your all-knowing ego is remiss in that the "armchair preservationists" on this board consist of numerous professionals who have been engaged in many more multi-million dollar renovation projects than you ever will.

But I do live here. Unlike 99% of those "numerous professionals". Why don't you stop lecturing and come back Dan and show us how it's done?

[crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

In Chicago they don't need a dedicated parking lot for every project that is proposed.

Actually they do. Chicago mandates attached parking for basically any type of construction, at any scale, in any neighborhood.

Chicago downtown residential highrises have a mandated 1.5 parking spaces per residential unit.

There are very few places in the U.S. that do not have parking requirements.

[ghettopalmetto]

Originally Posted by crawford

Chicago downtown residential highrises have a mandated 1.5 parking spaces per residential unit.

Is that a MAXIMUM or a MINIMUM?

[Det_ard]

Gp = sod + bsce + pee?

[crawford]

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Is that a MAXIMUM or a MINIMUM?

Minimun is 1.5 per unit. I do not know if there's a maximum, but I think projects are generally built at 1.5.

Also not sure if the type of unit (studio vs. four-bedroom, for example) plays any role in parking requirements.

[ghettopalmetto]

Originally Posted by crawford

Minimun is 1.5 per unit. I do not know if there's a maximum, but I think projects are generally built at 1.5.

Also not sure if the type of unit (studio vs. four-bedroom, for example) plays any role in parking requirements.

http://maps.cityofchicago.org/website/zoning

17-10-0208 Off-Street Parking Schedule 2: Downtown Zoning Districts. Schedule “2” presents off-street parking standards for uses in downtown (D) zoning districts. The off-street parking standards for neighborhood zoning districts (i.e., R, B, C and M) are presented in Sec. 17-10-0207 above.District
Minimum Automobile Parking Ratio
(Per unit or gross floor area)
Maximum Accessory Parking Ratio
(per unit or gross floor area)
Minimum Bike Parking
Residential Uses
D dash 3
1 space per dwelling unit
2.0 per dwelling unit
1 per 2 auto spaces in buildings containing 8 or more units
D dash 5
1 space per unit for first 100 units; 0.60 spaces per unit for all additional units; subsidized units as determined by DZLUP
1.5 per dwelling unit
D dash 7
0.7 spaces per dwelling unit
DC district: 1.1 per dwelling unit DX and DR districts: 1.1 per dwelling unit for dwelling units containing less than 1,600 square feet of floor area; 1.5 per dwelling unit for dwelling units containing 1,600 square feet of floor area or more
D dash 10, 12, 16
0.55 spaces per dwelling unit

[staticstate]

no offense intended as there are a lot of people here with a lot of valuable knowledge of engineering, zoning, and preservation but does each thread need to turn into an argument about it? you're all smart people, but can't we occasionally deal with the topic without it turning into a slugfest?

the building is fenced, the equipment is in place but does anyone nearby see anything going on?

[Rocko]

Fancy expensive facadectomy on the Michigan Avenue and Lafayette sides, similar to the old Fine Arts Building next to the Kales on GCP, anyone?



So long old friend... Your cornice will be missed on Detroit's skyline.

[ghettopalmetto]

Originally Posted by staticstate

no offense intended as there are a lot of people here with a lot of valuable knowledge of engineering, zoning, and preservation but does each thread need to turn into an argument about it? you're all smart people, but can't we occasionally deal with the topic without it turning into a slugfest?

the building is fenced, the equipment is in place but does anyone nearby see anything going on?

If persons with zero practical knowledge of redevelopment would cease insisting they are in a better position to give an expert opinion than those with education and professional experience in these realms, there would be no argument.

[bailey]

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

If persons with zero practical knowledge of redevelopment would cease insisting they are in a better position to give an expert opinion than those with education and professional experience in these realms, there would be no argument.

Ok GP, please enlighten all of us on step #2. By that I mean the one between #1 Dont demolish and #2 profit. You're so quick to reduce every counter argument to pithy one-liners...so, please tell me what Ferchill doesn't know about this golden opportunity. I would like to hear how in DETROIT...not how in DC or NYC or Boston, or where-ever the fuck it would happen, but the reality of doing this project in DETROIT MICHIGAN in 2009.

[ghettopalmetto]

Originally Posted by bailey

Ok GP, please enlighten all of us on step #2. By that I mean the one between #1 Dont demolish and #2 profit. You're so quick to reduce every counter argument to pithy one-liners...so, please tell me what Ferchill doesn't know about this golden opportunity. I would like to hear how in DETROIT...not how in DC or NYC or Boston, or where-ever the fuck it would happen, but the reality of doing this project in DETROIT MICHIGAN in 2009.

Well, for what seems like the one-thousandth time:

If DEGC were interested in making an objective decision, that is to say, conducting life-cycle cost analyses for demolition, redevelopment, and mothballing, they would have had to hire an architect and engineer to conduct a feasibility study of the building. To public knowledge, this was not done. No signed-and-sealed report has been produced as the basis for the decision. Which leads one to believe that the decision to demolish was based on guesswork. Again.

It would be one thing if the streets of Detroit were paved in gold, and Cristal came out of the Ford Fountain. It's quite another when the city is facing a $300 million+ deficit for this year, and is demolishing buildings for zero Return On Investment like there's no tomorrow.

[bailey]

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Well, for what seems like the one-thousandth time:

If DEGC were interested in making an objective decision, that is to say, conducting life-cycle cost analyses for demolition, redevelopment, and mothballing, they would have had to hire an architect and engineer to conduct a feasibility study of the building. To public knowledge, this was not done. No signed-and-sealed report has been produced as the basis for the decision. Which leads one to believe that the decision to demolish was based on guesswork. Again.

It would be one thing if the streets of Detroit were paved in gold, and Cristal came out of the Ford Fountain. It's quite another when the city is facing a $300 million+ deficit for this year, and is demolishing buildings for zero Return On Investment like there's no tomorrow.

Well, and for what also seem to be the one thousandth time... assuming for just one second all that was done (which it may or may not have been; Ferchill seems to claim it was done in 2007...but that is a point I'm not debating) The building gets whatever half assed mothballing job passes for securing a building around here....what then? What is step #2?

[ghettopalmetto]

Originally Posted by bailey

Well, and for what also seem to be the one thousandth time... assuming for just one second all that was done (which it may or may not have been; Ferchill seems to claim it was done in 2007...but that is a point I'm not debating) The building gets whatever half assed mothballing job passes for securing a building around here....what then? What is step #2?

I don't know what Ferchill did. He may have hired his own architect and engineer when he evaluated the building. That work is independent of any diligence expected of the DEGC in making an objective decision.

Step #2 would be that DEGC acknowledges that from a liquidity and qualifications standpoint, we are in the worst credit and lending market in 60 years, and that it can only improve in the future. You take this into consideration of an objective, life-cycle cost analysis. For example, under the demolition scenario, you consider the opportunity costs of lost property tax revenue and lower property values in the surrounding area created by the afterthought skid-row park they plan to "construct".

If, after the objective financial analysis, you can demonstrate that there is a PERMANENT TREND that causes the other options to be forever unviable, as opposed to ONE SINGLE DATA POINT IN TIME, then you make the sad decision to demolish.

Geez, I mean, unemployment was at 25% during the Great Depression. Maybe New York should have demolished the Chrysler and Empire State Buildings as soon as they were constructed.

What DEGC has done is akin to a stock investor predicting his entire future investment success on little more than one day's rise (or fall) in the Dow Jones Index. It's horseshit, and everyone involved knows it. If this decision were objective and robust, DEGC wouldn't be releasing a different excuse every other day, because they wouldn't have to. But what are we supposed to believe, when they can't even get their own story straight amongst themselves?

[bailey]

I don't know what Ferchill did. He may have hired his own architect and engineer when he evaluated the building. That work is independent of any diligence expected of the DEGC in making an objective decision.

Regardless of what the DEGC does, the private sector is going to drive the development. One of the "stars" of this type of rehab and reuse says its never gonna be doable. I'd believe him over george jackson anyway.

Step #2 would be that DEGC acknowledges that from a liquidity and qualifications standpoint, we are in the worst credit and lending market in 60 years, and that it can only improve in the future.

But the building has been empty for 13 and was declining prior to that. It emptied out and was abandoned during what many cite as the longest sustained and greatest economic expansion in the history of our country.

you take this into consideration of an objective, life-cycle cost analysis. For example, under the demolition scenario, you consider the opportunity costs of lost property tax revenue and lower property values in the surrounding area created by the afterthought skid-row park they plan to "construct".

What tax revenue? It's been a blight for at least 15 years.

If, after the objective financial analysis, you can demonstrate that there is a PERMANENT TREND that causes the other options to be forever unviable, as opposed to ONE SINGLE DATA POINT IN TIME, then you make the sad decision to demolish

Again, who is using a single data point in time. It's pushing 15 years of being empty and allowed to decay

Geez, I mean, unemployment was at 25% during the Great Depression. Maybe New York should have demolished the Chrysler and Empire State Buildings as soon as they were constructed.

Again, the Empire and Chrysler were not empty for 15 years and allowed to become blighted.

What DEGC has done is akin to a stock investor predicting his entire future investment success on little more than one day's rise (or fall) in the Dow Jones Index. It's horseshit, and everyone involved knows it. If this decision were objective and robust, DEGC wouldn't be releasing a different excuse every other day, because they wouldn't have to. But what are we supposed to believe, when they can't even get their own story straight amongst themselves?

[/quote]

Again, it's not like the building was shuttered yesterday or last month or last year. It's been a blighted property for well over a decade.
Maybe we're talking past eachother, but I don't see how this is a decision based on a snapshot in time or somethign rash or hurried.

[R8RBOB]

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

I don't know what Ferchill did. He may have hired his own architect and engineer when he evaluated the building. That work is independent of any diligence expected of the DEGC in making an objective decision.

Step #2 would be that DEGC acknowledges that from a liquidity and qualifications standpoint, we are in the worst credit and lending market in 60 years, and that it can only improve in the future. You take this into consideration of an objective, life-cycle cost analysis. For example, under the demolition scenario, you consider the opportunity costs of lost property tax revenue and lower property values in the surrounding area created by the afterthought skid-row park they plan to "construct".

If, after the objective financial analysis, you can demonstrate that there is a PERMANENT TREND that causes the other options to be forever unviable, as opposed to ONE SINGLE DATA POINT IN TIME, then you make the sad decision to demolish.

Geez, I mean, unemployment was at 25% during the Great Depression. Maybe New York should have demolished the Chrysler and Empire State Buildings as soon as they were constructed.

What DEGC has done is akin to a stock investor predicting his entire future investment success on little more than one day's rise (or fall) in the Dow Jones Index. It's horseshit, and everyone involved knows it. If this decision were objective and robust, DEGC wouldn't be releasing a different excuse every other day, because they wouldn't have to. But what are we supposed to believe, when they can't even get their own story straight amongst themselves?

Guy, you are trying to make lemonade out of oranges. You are trying to argue a loser.

Fact: Ferchill admitted they looked into renovating the Lafayette. He also admitted that if he had move to renovate the building, he would have had a 10 million dollar loss.

Fact: The city of Detroit last year offered the property to Quicken Loans for a dollar to use as its new headquarters once they moved to Detroit. No bank would give Quicken financing to renovate the building which would probably cost as much as Book Cadillac, 200 million dollars. Quicken is moving into the Compuware building.

Fact: The Lafayette building has sat empty for 12 years. No one wants this property "as is."

You ranting that DEGC didn't do a study on the building is silly. C'mon!! I know it is Detroit but damn the city isn't that backwards. The Lafayette should fall. It has reached its end-of-life and the city should put it out of its misery.

[Novine]

R8RBOB, I'm doing you a favor. Save this little gem of yours.

"You ranting that DEGC didn't do a study on the building is silly. C'mon!! I know it is Detroit but damn the city isn't that backwards. The _________ should fall. It has reached its end-of-life and the city should put it out of its misery."

Each time Demolition Jackson comes forward with a plan to demolish the next building downtown, you can pull this up and fill in the blank with the name of the building and you've got an instant post. It will save you the time of having to rethink what a great idea it is to demolish buildings and we'll all have the benefit of your wisdom.

I have yet to hear one demolition proponent offer a coherent vision for dealing with all of the vacant historic buildings downtown. None of them, publicly or privately owned, have any short-term prospects of tenants or income. All of the owners face maintenance costs and the private ones also have the burden of paying taxes. Some of them are heading down the same path as the Lafayette. Others may start going that way soon. Yet all we hear from you is that if a building isn't economically viable, it should be demolished. How many of the 48 or more buildings are you ready to let the wrecking ball take down?

[Detroitnerd]

Originally Posted by Novine

How many of the 48 or more buildings are you ready to let the wrecking ball take down?

Depends on if I have salvage rights or not.

[R8RBOB]

Originally Posted by Novine

R8RBOB, I'm doing you a favor. Save this little gem of yours.

"You ranting that DEGC didn't do a study on the building is silly. C'mon!! I know it is Detroit but damn the city isn't that backwards. The _________ should fall. It has reached its end-of-life and the city should put it out of its misery."

Each time Demolition Jackson comes forward with a plan to demolish the next building downtown, you can pull this up and fill in the blank with the name of the building and you've got an instant post. It will save you the time of having to rethink what a great idea it is to demolish buildings and we'll all have the benefit of your wisdom.

I have yet to hear one demolition proponent offer a coherent vision for dealing with all of the vacant historic buildings downtown. None of them, publicly or privately owned, have any short-term prospects of tenants or income. All of the owners face maintenance costs and the private ones also have the burden of paying taxes. Some of them are heading down the same path as the Lafayette. Others may start going that way soon. Yet all we hear from you is that if a building isn't economically viable, it should be demolished. How many of the 48 or more buildings are you ready to let the wrecking ball take down?

Just what I love most, a bleeding heart. Dude, people like yourself just love placing a tag of "historic" on a empty shell that was once a building of use in downtown Detroit. It is funny as hell how people want to place a "historic" tag on a building that was abandoned by its previous owners decades ago. You know what I classify as "historic?" A building up in age, still in use. Never abandoned, never left to rot.

Here are some buildings that I would classify as "historic"
Fisher Bldg.
the former GM Bldg.
the Fox Theatre
the Second Baptist Church

I could list more but the point is that these historic buildings are still in use. They deserve to be called historic. If the Lafayette was so historic, we would not be discussing it would we because it would be still in use.

Oh, that snarky remark about me wanting to knock down building. I tell you what!!! You keep it. I will come up with something new.

[Bearinabox]

Originally Posted by R8RBOB

Just what I love most, a bleeding heart. Dude, people like yourself just love placing a tag of "historic" on a empty shell that was once a building of use in downtown Detroit. It is funny as hell how people want to place a "historic" tag on a building that was abandoned by its previous owners decades ago. You know what I classify as "historic?" A building up in age, still in use. Never abandoned, never left to rot.

Here is buildings that I would classify as "historic"
Fisher Bldg.
the former GM Bldg.
the Fox Theatre
the Second Baptist Church

I could list more but the point is that these historic buildings are still in use. They deserve to be called historic. If the Lafayette was so historic, we would not be discussing it would we because it would be still in use.

Oh, that snarky remark about me wanting to knock down building. I tell you what!!! You keep it. I will come up with something new.

I don't think "historic" means what you think it means.

[R8RBOB]

Originally Posted by Bearinabox

I don't think "historic" means what you think it means.

My opinion, bub.... but as the old saying goes; "opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one."

[Bearinabox]

Originally Posted by R8RBOB

My opinion, bub.... but as the old saying goes; "opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one."

It isn't a matter of opinion. You're misusing the word.

[R8RBOB]

Originally Posted by Bearinabox

It isn't a matter of opinion. You're misusing the word.

Damn, dude!! Here is the definition of historic

Having importance in or influence on history

How am I misusing the word?

[Bearinabox]

Originally Posted by R8RBOB

Damn, dude!! Here is the definition of historic

Having importance in or influence on history

How am I misusing the word?

From your previous post:

I could list more but the point is that these historic buildings are still in use. They deserve to be called historic. If the Lafayette was so historic, we would not be discussing it would we because it would be still in use.

Whether or not a building is currently in use has nothing to do with its "importance in or influence on history." The two are completely unrelated. Using "historic" to mean "still in use" is incorrect.

[HazenPingree]

I am stuck in Denver until the 24th. Any updates on potential demo?

[R8RBOB]

Originally Posted by Bearinabox

From your previous post:
Whether or not a building is currently in use has nothing to do with its "importance in or influence on history." The two are completely unrelated. Using "historic" to mean "still in use" is incorrect.

Incredible, that you would ding me like a schoolteacher because I used the word historic to reference buildings that are still in use. My bad.

[Bearinabox]

Originally Posted by R8RBOB

Incredible, that you would ding me like a schoolteacher because I used the word historic to reference buildings that are still in use. My bad.

You made an entire post yelling at other people for calling the Lafayette "historic" because it doesn't fit your made-up definition of the word. In that context, I think it's reasonable to point out that their usage of the word is correct, and yours is not. Speaking of which, a "schoolteacher," in my opinion, is someone who works for a police department arresting criminals. I don't know why you would compare me to one of those.

[R8RBOB]

Originally Posted by Bearinabox

You made an entire post yelling at other people for calling the Lafayette "historic" because it doesn't fit your made-up definition of the word. In that context, I think it's reasonable to point out that their usage of the word is correct, and yours is not. Speaking of which, a "schoolteacher," in my opinion, is someone who works for a police department arresting criminals. I don't know why you would compare me to one of those.

Huh!!!!!!

[Bearinabox]

Originally Posted by R8RBOB

Huh!!!!!!

Redefining words is a slippery slope.

[masterblaster]

R8RBOB,
Was not the Hudson's Building, which was the 2nd largest department store in the country, 19 floors of shopping, of which generations of Detroiters had such fond memories, an historic building?

Was their nothing historic about the Paradise Valley district? But every single building of that district has been demolished?

Is not the Michigan Central Depot, which operated for 75 years before closing in 1989, a historic building?

What about other buildings not yet demolished - like the Grande Ballroom, the United Artist theatre, the former Ford Motor Co. HQ in Highland Park, the Highland Park Public Library, the Packard Plant, Eastown Theater?

[Huggybear]

Wow. The maturity level here hasn't broken, I would estimate, sixth grade. When you have to resort to name-calling ("demolition Jackson," "Ademo," "Detroit Non-Economic Development Corporation," "the hit," being "terra-cotta thirsty"), it's a sure-fire indicator that you've run out of reasoned things to say. The same goes for repetitive arguments that are continually raised - no matter how much they are mooted by the facts. Some people apparently have had no real argument since day one.

Ferchill's comments in Crain's nail this issue: there is and never will be any business case for the Lafayette Building. As recited in the article, the same aggressive engineer that pushed to save the Book Cadillac (despite the doubts of others) concluded that there was structural damage in the Lafayette Building that had to be remedied to redevelop it.* Ferchill pointed out that even when you could get a conservation easement (there estimated to be worth millions of dollars), there was still a $7-8 million gap, even "using every trick we know," i.e., taking every piece of financing, every tax break, and every subsidy that he could wring out of banks and DEGC. Without that easement (or for its reduced value today; it wasn't clear in the article), the gap was more like $11 million. That analysis was done years ago when the BC analysis was done - and credit markets, the local economy, and the Lafayette Building are in no better condition today.

* Today's Aguilar article in the paper has city officials talking about the floors collapsing.

The logical conclusion is that to save the building, it must be worth the "gap" to someone for aesthetics or some other intangible. So who's going to step up and sink $11 million – that they will never recover – into this building (and not one of the other 47 vacant buildings downtown)? Don't everyone volunteer at once. Who will spend millions to "mothball" the building for a future that does not exist? The city has no general funds to do mothballing.** DDA has no money to mothball. And unless there is a future business case, it's just a waste of money. So unless you locate Mr. Irrational Magic Moneybags, the building will be gone. It's only a question of when. It goes down now or literally falls down later.

** And not really mothballing; it would include structural work.

And all of the hand-wringing. Let's just get it out there - you're upset because they are tearing down some old building, not the Lafayette Building. What's so great about it? Nothing famous happened there. It's an unabashed copy of another building. It was outside the core competence of its (managing) architect. The working architect who designed it was an obscure local. It doesn't make any historic registers, and until the local AIA chapter recently took a liking to it, it has been completely unknown. The fact that it is "irreplaceable" in some people's eyes is a vote of no-confidence in Detroit. How can you argue out of one side of your mouth that the economy will rebound someday, yet you don't believe that such a massive rebound*** would justify building several hundred thousand square feet of space on that site? Because the Lafayette Building has a desirable location, right?

*** The rebound that will supposedly justify renovating the Lafayette Building will have to be big enough to fill all of the usable space first in buildings that are better located, better situated for modern office life, and better looking. In the end, although no one can discount the possibility that Detroit will rebound at some point, the chances that there will be a rebound that big in the time frame before the Lafayette Building collapses by itself are not demonstrably very high.

Take a hard, hard look at the Lafayette Building, and it's an ugly, cheaply constructed building whose sole decoration consists of three stone carvings, some unimaginative limestone slabs, and the odd fleur-de-lis on the top. It has no grand facade - in fact, it is so utilitarian that you would have a hard time figuring out what side was supposed to be the front. Its original purpose was to make money off the Federal Courthouse, not to be a great architectural achievement. Tear off the ugly granite facing (well, nature is taking care of that), and you'll see ugly precast decorative elements that in no way go with the plan-Jane brickwork (1940s style) that gets you to the mass-produced terra cotta crown. If you think this type and quality of a building is a loss, I hope you were protesting up on 8 Mile when Southfield was tearing out all of the 1960s buildings of similar economic purpose (and for their day, finish levels).

This whole discussion has done nothing to disabuse me of the suspicion (now confirmed with facts from PQZ and Ferchill) that the Lafayette Building is, to put it simply, not worth it to anyone who knows what he would be getting into.

The response from the so-called "preservationists" has been taunting, name-calling, and attempting to deflect the result with regard to one (or a few) properties into a problem with "the system" and accusations of corruption.**** Yet even with a mindset worthy of a 70s conspiracy film, there is no real investigation and no real action. I don't see anyone filing FOIA requests. I don't see any actual letters being written (let's put it this way - emails are hideously ineffective means of communication). I don't see anyone speaking out on these issues in public. No one is attempting to attend meetings. Nothing is going to happen in response to things posted anonymously on an online forum.

**** Those who believe the city is in cahouts with demo contractors ought to investigate how many demo contracts end - in court. And those who accuse DDA/DEGC people of accepting bribes should put their money where their mouth is and report such to the FBI.

No one wants to see a building demolished for no reason. But at the same time, no one should become such a crackpot with a losing cause that he taints the concept of building preservation. I don't personally like the idea of tearing down the Lafayette Building - but at the same time, I don't want to see Washington Boulevard devastated because the Lafayette Building's advocates made people in power think that everyone who is into preservation is wild-eyed.

[ghettopalmetto]

Again, Ferchill's study only considered *current* economic conditions. Ferchill concluded he couldn't make money on it at this time, and passed. That is his prerogative.

The motivation to make a *permanent* decision must consider long-term factors--not just the current blip in time. DEGC failed (yet again) to do this diligence on behalf of the taxpayers. Trying to equate the owner's MO with the MO of one developer at one point in time is tragically naive.

For what it's worth, I live in a historic building--nothing particularly fancy, mind you--that had sat vacant for over 20 years until 2006. It is over 90% occupied. Across the street is a new hotel that had also sat vacant for over 20 years. If my community had a leadership group as visionary as the DEGC, these two profitable and taxpaying properties would currently be empty lots.

[ghettopalmetto]

As a service, I have decided to compile a list of excuse, er reasons, why buildings must be demolished RIGHT NOW. Please refer to this list in future threads. Add your own as you see fit.

1. It's blocking out the sunlight.
2. It's impeding redevelopment.
3. It's too big.
4. It's too expensive.
5. It's too old.
6. We need more parking downtown.
7. It's unsafe.
8. Mike Ilitch asked for public money for demolition.
9. We HAVE to spend state and/or federal money on demolition or else they'll take the money away.
10. It'll look bad for the tourists and/or journalists in-town for XXXX (particular one-weekend-long event).

Simply apply any or all of these criteria to any empty building downtown and voila! You too can have George Jackson's job!

[R8RBOB]

Originally Posted by masterblaster

R8RBOB,
Was not the Hudson's Building, which was the 2nd largest department store in the country, 19 floors of shopping, of which generations of Detroiters had such fond memories, an historic building?

Was their nothing historic about the Paradise Valley district? But every single building of that district has been demolished?

Is not the Michigan Central Depot, which operated for 75 years before closing in 1989, a historic building?

What about other buildings not yet demolished - like the Grande Ballroom, the United Artist theatre, the former Ford Motor Co. HQ in Highland Park, the Highland Park Public Library, the Packard Plant, Eastown Theater?

I had to think about this response. I have been challenged on what is deemed historic. I am ready to answer.

I could sit here and list out point after point about what is historic and what is not and somehow one of you will claim that a gutted out shell of a building that has not been occupied in decades should be called historic yet when I named buildings that are "old" and could be classified as historic buildings I had someone say I used the word historic incorrectly because the buildings are still in use therefore they should not be historic.

[ghettopalmetto]

Originally Posted by R8RBOB

...yet when I named buildings that are "old" and could be classified as historic buildings I had someone say I used the word historic incorrectly because the buildings are still in use therefore they should not be historic.

The term "historic" is irrelevant to whether or not the building is currently occupied. That is from where your misuse of the term is derived.

[R8RBOB]

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

The term "historic" is irrelevant to whether or not the building is currently occupied. That is from where your misuse of the term is derived.

So tell me my friend, what is so "historic" about the Lafayette Building?

[ghettopalmetto]

Originally Posted by R8RBOB

So tell me my friend, what is so "historic" about the Lafayette Building?

http://www.preservationnation.org/ma...-demolish.html

[R8RBOB]

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

http://www.preservationnation.org/ma...-demolish.html

My friend, I asked YOU to tell me why the Lafayette building is a "historic" building, not point me to a website. Pointing me to a fluff piece on a website is kinda lame.

[ghettopalmetto]

Originally Posted by R8RBOB

My friend, I asked YOU to tell me why the Lafayette building is a "historic" building, not point me to a website. Pointing me to a fluff piece on a website is kinda lame.

Fluff? The National Trust hardly writes fluff. Biased much?

[R8RBOB]

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Fluff? The National Trust hardly writes fluff. Biased much?

It's all good. I didn't expect you to list any reason why the Lafayette should be classified as a historic building because you can't. Hell, I can't think of one thing that would make me believe that the building is historic. You see the year 1924 and assume "hey it's old so it should be historic." Using that said reason then the Edsel should be classified as a historic automobile.

[Bearinabox]

Originally Posted by R8RBOB

Using that said reason then the Edsel should be classified as a historic automobile.

Um, the Edsel is a historic automobile. Why wouldn't it be?

[detmsp]

Originally Posted by Bearinabox

Um, the Edsel is a historic automobile. Why wouldn't it be?

i think his point is that just because something is old doesn't make it historic, it also has to be significant for other reasons.

[R8RBOB]

Originally Posted by detmsp

i think his point is that just because something is old doesn't make it historic, it also has to be significant for other reasons.

Thank you "d" I knew someone would get the point.

[Novine]

"DDA has no money to mothball."

This is not true. The DDA chooses not to spend its money that way. But to claim it doesn't have the money for those activities is not true.

I'm still waiting to hear one proponent of demolition articulate a vision for dealing with all of the vacant historic (or for our slow friend R8RBOB, "old") buildings downtown. The Huggybear/Kraig/PQZ faction have argued the following points:

1. There's no demand for filling those buildings with office, residential, retail or restaurant uses.
2. There's no private financing available for rehabbing these buildings based on #1.
3. There's no public money available for mothballing those buildings (I don't agree but we'll list it for the sake of discussion).
4. The prospects of economic conditions changing significantly in the next 5 - 10 years to change #1 - 3 are remote.

If one accepts these points to be true and the Huggybear/Kraig/PQZ faction have obsessively pounded on these points, it raises this scenario. The collection of vacant historic buildings will continue to suffer from willful neglect and lack of upkeep under public and private ownership. Absent any change in public policy, these buildings will all eventually reach the state of the Lafayette, giving demolition advocates the ammunition they need to justify tearing these buildings down. The question to the Huggybear/Kraig/PQZ faction is if they believe the above points to be true, are they willing to support the demolition of many or all of the vacant historic buildings downtown in the next 5 to 10 years?

[R8RBOB]

Originally Posted by Novine

"DDA has no money to mothball."

This is not true. The DDA chooses not to spend its money that way. But to claim it doesn't have the money for those activities is not true.

I'm still waiting to hear one proponent of demolition articulate a vision for dealing with all of the vacant historic (or for our slow friend R8RBOB, "old") buildings downtown. The Huggybear/Kraig/PQZ faction have argued the following points:

1. There's no demand for filling those buildings with office, residential, retail or restaurant uses.
2. There's no private financing available for rehabbing these buildings based on #1.
3. There's no public money available for mothballing those buildings (I don't agree but we'll list it for the sake of discussion).
4. The prospects of economic conditions changing significantly in the next 5 - 10 years to change #1 - 3 are remote.

If one accepts these points to be true and the Huggybear/Kraig/PQZ faction have obsessively pounded on these points, it raises this scenario. The collection of vacant historic buildings will continue to suffer from willful neglect and lack of upkeep under public and private ownership. Absent any change in public policy, these buildings will all eventually reach the state of the Lafayette, giving demolition advocates the ammunition they need to justify tearing these buildings down. The question to the Huggybear/Kraig/PQZ faction is if they believe the above points to be true, are they willing to support the demolition of many or all of the vacant historic buildings downtown in the next 5 to 10 years?

Look at you dude, trying to challenge people opinions with your virtual world ideas. I can understand you spend all your time in Second Life and in your virtual world, old ruins stay standing for eternity but in the real world, nothing last forever. Historic, don't make laugh. You making the word sound like "death panels"

[MIRepublic]

WTF?! @ the whole argument about "historic". Historic in architectural terms quite literally means an "old building;" whether it is historically significant or historically insignificant is a whole other debate. The Lafayette is, indeed, historic by any mainstream definition of the word. You can debate its significance, but the arguments being made by some about the meaning of "historic" are just plain silly and largely irrelevant.

[mcsdetroitfriend]

seems like any time this building comes up on this forum it becomes silly and irrelevant. Get off your computers and take it to the street if you have a problem. stand up in front of the building and voice your concerns, frankly some of us just want the facts not heated passionate rants about politics, personal feelings, and grudges

[masterblaster]

Comment and question for Huggy Bear,

Comment: the Lafayette Building is one of the few downtown that has its original cornice lining the roof (as opposed to the David Whitney and that 20-story building on Grand Circus Park). Also, didn't alot of those old buildings have precast concrete panels like the Lafayette? They look sweet to me!

Question: anyone who has been inside of the building - how architecturally significant/unique was the 3-story retail arcade?

[Huggybear]

Hi Master:

It is a cornice but not in the "pinned-on, fall off" nature of the metal and wood ones that went away in the 1950s. Looks like it is just built on like masonry would be. If there were a reason to replicate it today (if you didn't just save what was already there), there are plenty of modern ways to replicate that if you have one good piece as a model. You would be shocked at the amount of "stone" around downtown that is either expanded foam, fiberglass, or cement.

The precast near the ground floor is interesting (if ugly); where you can see it, it isn't even installed consistently. You can see that one piece does not butt up evenly to the next. I thought for a minute that it might be sheet metal, but there's no way that it would have held up all these years without pulling off under the weight of the nasty stone panels. The thing that's a little weird about it is that it appears to be smaller (from inside to outside) than the brick above. I doubt very much that a restored building would keep that surface intact. They would probably tear it out and replace it with something historically consistent (like the Garfield Building, which was taken down to the beams).

If you go around the corner to the BC's new building, you can see where they constructed something that looks very much like the style of the Lafayette Building. It doesn't have the detail work on the top, but it does show that you can build a modern building that fits with the character of the neighborhood. I think that a 3-5 story brick building would be a much better fit for the site (and the rental market). An open multistory arcade would actually be cool.

But I also think that whatever happens, the two coney islands should eventually be relocated and the rest of the block mowed down. Aside from the fact that we all love the Lafayette coney dogs (more than the American ones), those are nasty looking buildings that since the beginning have inhibited the design of the Lafayette Building (or what would replace it). The Arcade Bar building looks like it may be held together only by the hundreds of coats of paint on the outside!

Originally Posted by masterblaster

Comment and question for Huggy Bear,

Comment: the Lafayette Building is one of the few downtown that has its original cornice lining the roof (as opposed to the David Whitney and that 20-story building on Grand Circus Park). Also, didn't alot of those old buildings have precast concrete panels like the Lafayette? They look sweet to me!

Question: anyone who has been inside of the building - how architecturally significant/unique was the 3-story retail arcade?

[bailey]

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Again, Ferchill's study only considered *current* economic conditions. Ferchill concluded he couldn't make money on it at this time, and passed. That is his prerogative.

The motivation to make a *permanent* decision must consider long-term factors--not just the current blip in time. DEGC failed (yet again) to do this diligence on behalf of the taxpayers. Trying to equate the owner's MO with the MO of one developer at one point in time is tragically naive.

For what it's worth, I live in a historic building--nothing particularly fancy, mind you--that had sat vacant for over 20 years until 2006. It is over 90% occupied. Across the street is a new hotel that had also sat vacant for over 20 years. If my community had a leadership group as visionary as the DEGC, these two profitable and taxpaying properties would currently be empty lots.

You still haven't answered the most basic questions. What is your #2? What is the business case for mothball/rehab in Detroit at this time? Ferchill wont touch it (and he did his eval in 2007) . Quicken wont touch it. Umm...and I guess that is about it for interest in the building, so I'd basically just like to know when is the LB demo proper? 20 years? 30?