Can't believe no one has posted about this yet. I guess it was inevitable but still kinda sad because this could have been a very attractive building if restored.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/g...5050135&Ref=PH
Printable View
Can't believe no one has posted about this yet. I guess it was inevitable but still kinda sad because this could have been a very attractive building if restored.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/g...5050135&Ref=PH
I am sure the parking lot that will replace it will mean more revenue and less upkeep for the new owner. :confused:
Illitch needs more parking lots for his taxpayer subsidized "urban redevelopment" moonscape.
All you Ilitch haters, just take a breath. First off, it was owned and demolished by DTE, not Olympia. Second, it was not, in any way, worth saving unless you are interested in preserving the history of sex work and STD transmission in Detroit
There was probably not a more debauched property in the city; it would never have lived that down. Even if totally restored and prettied up, I would not want an apartment in a longtime flop house home to fleas, hookers, pimps, addicts and assorted other nefarious types. We should work to save some buildings; others we should be happy to be rid of. This is in that slot for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by gumby
I know that everyone is certain all Ilitch wants is one arena surrounded by hundreds of thousands of parking spaces, I think you will all be pleasantly surprised in the coming years. While certainly his stadiums require parking, one of the reasons he replaced so many buildings with parking was to have relatively vacant land available for building when the market conditions could support development [[which, by and large, they wouldn't have for the last few decades). Building apartments, hotels, stores or offices on much of that land would have been sure money losers until recently. Now that downtown is desirable and growing, I think quite a few projects, aside from the arena, will sprout in the next five years. No one will know for sure for some time, but I think many will be pleased with the status of many Olympia lots in the near future. In Ilitch's defense: I am not aware that he turned down any viable investors from building on anything he owned. There weren't any.
"Demolition is the last resort of the incompetent"Quote:
Originally Posted by rb336
I never mentioned that family in my post. In America all corporations have an equal opportunity to kick out the poor and develop parking lots for the wealthy.Quote:
Originally Posted by rb336
Bingo. Excellent post.Quote:
Originally Posted by rb336
Two main points:
1). That building has a notorious past which many are glad to see gone,
2). AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, it suggests that NOT all land/buildings in the immediate area of the new arena are owned by the Ilitiches.
What does #2 mean, it means rather than depending on simply one developer, i.e., the Ilitches, we have more individuals or companies who will be in play for developing the area [[and that is a good thing).
Did someone post a while back, that DTE had plans for that area that they needed to build a power station [[or something) there???
This DTE connected might have been footnoted a while back.
One point which was missed is that the article made a 'geographical typo':
72 Temple is certainly west of Woodward, BUT east of the Masonic Temple. :rolleyes:
Only Detroiters would bitch and moan about not saving a god damn whore house... what the hell is wrong with some of you? "ohh no keep detroit weird and cool don't let the greedy billionaires move the city forward"
and this is why our city is the butt end of jokes..
DTE Energy bought it.. is destroying it to build a power station to supply the arena district going up.. chill the f out and move on.. this is not a story
Excellent post.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyinBrooklyn
NO developer develops or redevelops to lose money. Would any developer build a hotel if the occupancy rate in the area was 50%? It would be financial suicide for himself and others.
And development/redevelopment happens when conditions are 'right'. That could mean the cost of land, cost to build [[including the cost of money), expected demand for what is being built or redeveloped, etc. make sense.
In other words: Timing, timing, timing.
Build too soon and one could lose their shirt.
Build too late and others may get there first [[e.g., the cost of land may go up significantly for someone 'late to the party').
Detroit's downtown architecture is [[or was) pretty heavy on the hotels -- they are large, ornate buildings, after all: Madison-Lenox, anyone? The history of the hotels tells an interesting story about the city's expansion. One chapter of that just ended, and another is about to start; so, yes, this is a slightly significant moment in time.
One way to tell that story is: when we ran out of room for new hotels in the central downtown area, development moved to the Cass Corridor. Temple Hotel was surrounded by giant hotels such as the American, Eddystone, and Harbor Light -- nevermind all the smaller ones that we just park on.
And the last operating examples of this hotel district? Yup, Temple Hotel. [[Sure, sure, there's other old hotels in New Center and south of the Fisher. But what's the next closest hotel?)
Also, Houdini died there.
From what I hear they set records by renting the same room 10 times in one day.
That article mentioned the hotel was "once luxurious" hard to believe that. The place didn't have private baths.Quote:
Originally Posted by gvidas
Actually, it is a good story. ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by SpartanDawg
As simplistic as it may sound, building a power station is a good thing.
In other words, "infrastructure." Building infrastructure is a necessity for development.
The 'hope' that Ilitch will do something positive can be refuted in two words: Madison-Lennox.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyinBrooklyn
He was contacted by numerous developers for the building, refused to speak with anyone. Pulled the old demolition by neglect, then got a nice $750K 'loan' for his parking lot contingent that it have development by a certain point in time. That time has gone by, nothing but a 'landscaped packing lot' and, to the best of my limited knowledge, not a penny paid back on the loan.
Someone that gave two shits would have at least listened to those offering to buy the place for redevelopment. But I'm sure they will have another announcement offering more grand plans that will quietly face away.
One could also make the point although it is bit of a stretch: "The Cass Corridor died" [[or another nail in the coffin of the Cass Corridor, long live Midtown.)Quote:
Originally Posted by gvidas
By your logic, the Milner/Ashley probably isn't worth saving either. And that old porn theatre on Woodward, the Garden -- no one will ever go there, let alone rent the new apartments on the same block.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyinBrooklyn
I once stayed a week at the old Hotel Riverview in Manhattan [[before I moved to NYC, which is before I moved back). Built in the early 1900s, it housed the NY arrivals from the sunken Titanic [[the living ones saved by the Carpathia) back in the day. It was so decrepit, with tiny narrow rooms, dim narrow hallways. It was also considered a "luxury" property when it opened [[because it was a step up from a rooming house). The clerk was behind bulletproof glass, working girls and boys were on the street right outside the hotel pot wafted in and out of windows. When I was very young and poor man, it was fine [[$25/night in the far West Village! A steal!) As I understand it, the Temple was not as nice in it's later days.
Why is 72 Temple being compared to any other building in Detroit?Quote:
Originally Posted by downtownguy
Isn't each building unique? Its own fate?
And what makes this conversation border on the absurd is that the property being discussed isn't owned by Ilitch and is being demolished by DTE for a power sub-station.
That, to me, makes any reference to Ilitch in this thread irrelevant and essentially off topic.
What an absurd comment. What in the world made that building desirable? Its mediocre architecture? its history?Quote:
Originally Posted by MvGuy
Milner/Ashley and the old porn theater have some value aesthetically speaking.Quote:
Originally Posted by downtownguy
Anyone who bitches about the demise of the Temple are simply doing a knee-jerk "demolition bad" reaction, and for some, throw in "especially if it benefits Ilitch."
It's certainly better than the future parking lot/vacant lot. At least it's throughly urban and pedestrian-oriented.Quote:
Originally Posted by rb336
i suspect the sarcasm font is neededQuote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
Let's find some balance here. Tearing down any building that old is sad, and I hate to see it happen. Yes, it has a seedy history, but many historic properties with high value have the same. Still, this is one we probably had to see go, as it stands in the way of the renovation of the whole neighborhood around it, which is almost entirely open land. Perhaps we can focus our preservation efforts on seeing the Eddystone and Park hotel buildings integrated into the new development instead.
1953
It was actually a big beautiful old Victorian home under the hotel add-ons. And, well, I've been inside that building a few times, and there was still a fair amount of extant detail inside, including a beautiful staircase with carved detail work.Quote:
Originally Posted by rb336
I, for one, am sad to see it go every bit as much as I was sad to see so many other once-beautiful and irreplaceable Victorian houses go in the Corridor and Brush Park, no matter what they were more recently used for. A real waste in my view. A crime against our local history and our considerable architectural heritage, and yet another sadly missed opportunity to keep something special rather than replacing it with either more emptiness or something generic.
Compared to the city's other, exceptional Victorians, it was nothing special. "but it was old...detail...blah blah blah. Sorry, even at its best I doubt it was a stunning example of the style. I'd be willing to rethink my position if someone could post historic pictures of it. Hell, you could tell what a beauty Slumpy wasQuote:
Originally Posted by EastsideAl
A pic from its heyday would be perfect...
The Hotel Ansonia has had a very debauched history as well and I'd like to see that saved. Would not even mind having an apartment in that former house of ill repute.
And The Blackstone is all remodelled and gentrified now. Does anybody remember what that place used to be like?
Some of the posters on here must use hand sanitizer every five minutes, I swear...
The house at 72 Temple that became the Temple Hotel was originally 44 Bagg St. It was the longtime residence of Albert G. Boynton, who was, successively, a lawyer, city attorney, judge, and for 25 years the co-owner, vice-president, and political editor of the Detroit Free Press. He was also a trustee of First Unitarian Church and was in charge of the building of their church at Woodward and Edmund Pl. His wife, Frances G. Boynton, was very active in civic and educational affairs. The Boynton school on the southwest side was named for her - a name that subsequently came to be attached to the surrounding neighborhood.
The building date I usually saw given for that house was 1887, but that could have been a renovation or expansion date and the main part of the house may have been much older. City directories show the Boyntons residing at that address as early as 1865.
Yup, I lived in the anonia in the 90s during the days of "short stays" and after hours beers and pints of whiskey being sold after hours. Harry the desk clerk was killed about 7 feet below me and robbed of probably $50.Quote:
Originally Posted by KJ5
I have a nostalgic feel for the Temple, I only entered a few times but living in that area you had to know someone who lived there.
Theres no big revolt against it being torn down but it is a little sad. I had no idea it was being torn down Monday and happened to roll by on my bike and take a pic of it right before being torn down apparently. Ill try and post the pic but Ive been having trouble posting pics straight up and down.
I was pretty bummed when they painted over the cool old BECKS BEER sign on the side of the Ansonia with a poop brown.
Attachment 23433
Uggh, no matter what I do I cannot get this pic to stand up straight. It's not like I haven't done this before. It's straight up in my files.
Attachment 23434
I wrote an article once about 56 Temple. Cool street. Shame to see another building there go down. Who cares if it was once a haven for prostitution and drug use? It's not like it was the building itself is prostitute or drug user, or that it has magic voodoo powers that will turn any future inhabitants into degenerates. At the end of the day, it's just another old building - another piece of Detroit's heritage - destroyed.
Of course, one demolition is no big deal. But it feels like Detroit is at a tipping point. If a concerted effort isn't made to save what's left now, enough won't remain for later generations to have an idea of the magic and importance of Old Detroit.
And how much of Old, Old Detroit was razed to build Old Detroit?Quote:
Originally Posted by nain rouge
[I moved out of southeast MI, a few decades ago [[for D.C.) but I'm in Detroit a couple times per year.]Quote:
Originally Posted by nain rouge
Lest I be wrong, there are PLENTY of nice shells east of Woodward which can or should be saved if the demand develops.
I don't see the blocks between Woodward/Fisher/Cass/MLKjr as being single family residential. I see the blocks EAST of Woodward as being single family residential.
I don't see this as 'one size fits all.' West of Woodward will be more commercial. East of Woodward will be more residential.
Residential West of Woodward [[and South of MLKjr) is more likely to be multi-family or hotels rather than restored single family structures.
What's the problem with that????
"Old Detroit" was built when the area was booming, with boatloads of money and hundreds of thousands people pouring in by the decade. Though some buildings were thrown up with little thought, most of what was built displays a level of craftsmanship and a quality of materials that you almost can't find today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermod
You and I both know "New Detroit" doesn't match those standards. The prefabricated, cheap synthetic materials used now are bland as all get up and won't last. Look at that building on the northwest corner of Warren and Woodward. In thirty years it'll look the Professional Plaza on 3800 Woodward [[the "Hammer building") that you're all clamoring to see torn down.
Now, I get that Detroit shouldn't be a museum. The old must make way for the new. Still, the best cities have a tight integration of old and new, with many blocks that go for almost 100 years or more with nary a disturbance. And, that's a great thing. You want to tear down, tear down, tear down, and for what? So the Temple Hotel plot can be the site of a CVS one day?
People, we have a relentlessly depressing situation in Detroit. We need to stop making lemonade out of rotten lemons. It doesn't go down any easier that way. You think Ilitch's magic arena is going to change everything in the lower Cass Corridor, simply by moving where the Red Wings play up a mile or whatever [[I'm going on a tangent now, but stick with me)? We already have a ballpark and stadium up there, and what do we have to show for it? Rub Pub BBQ, Hockeytown Cafe, and Cheli's Chili? There's almost no new development in Brush Park.
Believe it or not, urban cities can gentrify without pro sport venues. Hard to believe, but it's really happened. Ask yourself: how did Portland become a new urban mecca when it only has ONE sports team? When Seattle lost its basketball team, how did the city survive? What's keeping cities like Richmond, VA or Greensboro, SC afloat and gentrifying? Where's Austin's pro sports team?
Detroit is nuts, nuts I tell you. Some of you really think the Temple Hotel demolition is part of a magic Ilitch scheme to save Greater Downtown, don't you?
Thank you for posting those photos Django, no matter how cockeyed they came out. With some of the hotel accretions gone, from the angle you took that photo we can really see much better what was lost.
The big round Richardsonian doorway - so characteristic of Detroit buildings of that period - and the rather gothic detailing of the roofline, lead me to re-examine what I stated in my post above. The facade, at least, looks pretty clearly like a Detroit house of the 1880s. Right down to the damaged, but still visible, restrained decorative brickwork. I wonder if Donaldson and Meier may have had a hand in here, since Judge Boynton hired them to design First Unitarian just a few years later. In any event, it's certain that they don't build them like that anymore.
The house may have been expanded forward, with a new facade, from its Civil War-era configuration. Or perhaps there was previously a frame house on that lot that was totally replaced by a new brick one while the Boyntons temporarily stayed elsewhere. The similarities and differences between the house as shown below from the 1884 Sanborn map and the 1897 one could give some credence to the remodeled and "expanded forward" thesis though. Which would mean that we just tore down a rare Detroit surviving 1860s structure [[like the 1864 Munro house at 56 Temple just next door that Nain Rouge wrote about, which also sits vacant, mouldering, and awaiting its date with hockey fan parking lot destiny).
1884
Attachment 23438
1897
Attachment 23439
R.I.P.
Attachment 23440
Not a lot, actually, since Detroit was a boomtown that grew out over previously mostly empty land in successive waves. Other than right downtown, and the "slum clearance" project areas of the 40s and 50s, much of the 19th and early 20th century city was quite intact into the 1960s and 70s.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermod
it was a neat looking building.
What was it like inside. For better or worse [[probably better) I never stepped foot inside there. No reason.
Again. Probably good.
I would have rescued that owl picture.
http://i.imgur.com/Daw9cdZ.png
Can't take credit for the pic
Not many old Victorians around the D anymore, except the few saved in Brush Park, Woodbridge and Corktown. And yes, there are a few in Midtown that are well preserved. The question in My mind, is whether the physical plant of the building could have been saved. If there aren't Too many rats chewing out the walls, if the plumbing hasn't leaked, maybe it could have been saved? Even if it WAS bad, it could have been gut-renovated. The Addison, Eddystone etc., and an 1890 former hourly Hotel on Second Ave, have all been saved/gentrified so why not THIS place? It has architectural significance. See my old post on the 1883 house on 3rd ave. Ilitch and the City only want to make Big Bucks on a new arena that the City does not Need. The Joe is NOT Old!
Well, the cost of moving it would be too high,IMO. The building itself is in the way of progress.Move it, or lose it.It's a shame, but probably inevitable.Rex,where did you find that pic? ;)
The Joe is outdated. It was outdated from the day it opened. Sub-par facility. architectural significance? what architectural significance? It was the closest an old Victorian could get to being a Pulty home.Quote:
Originally Posted by drpoundsign
wait, is that a body in the trunk????Quote:
Originally Posted by rex
Eastside Al thank you for straightening out my pic. Ive never had that problem before.
I took this yesterday. I sure wish I could somehow save that sign when it comes down.
Attachment 23454
Go snag it
I dont think anyone would care.
Well, those big old hotels we speak of, REPLACED Victorians in the Cass Corridor, and then became slums themselves-just as The Jeffries and other PJs became slums and had to be removed. We need to have a sense of History here. See my post on the 1883 house in the Western part of the Corridor being sold for "the value of the land only."
SAD
Sorry if I come across as an idiot, but Detroit has a lot of very nice historic homes in residential areas which can [[and should) be preserved.
But in the area we are talking we are talking of the Temple Hotel and a brand new arena.
A historic house or building seems to make sense within the context of what is around it. The Temple Hotel next to [[let's assume) a new modern office building is kind of like how [[some) guys dressed in the 70s [[checks and stripes, etc. - hard on the eyes).
Doesn't this sound a little like 31 flavor of ice cream, I mean structures?
Architecture needs to blend and be easy on the eyes. Isn't that one reason for zoning. Who wants a small apartment building on a block with a dozen single family homes????
This is the McMansion issue we have in the D.C. area. Someone will take a rambler and turn it into a 'mansion' and will dwarf a bunch of other ramblers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emu steve
Um, that's super common in historic cities, and there are tons of people - believe it or not - that love streets like that.
I agree. As one example, in Cambridge, MA, which has a wealth of amazing, victorian architecture, it is not entirely uncommon to find a small apartment or condo building on a block with many single family homes. The buildings tend to be on or near major streets and the single family homes as you go away from the major streets, and they do not detract from the single family homes.Quote:
Originally Posted by nain rouge
In 25 years, there will be the exact same posting about our upcoming Illitchville Arena. Illitch Jr. will probably be begging for a half-billion for a fancy new arena promised to revitalize a dead New Center.Quote:
Originally Posted by rb336
Not a big fan of Jane Jacobs, I take it?Quote:
Originally Posted by emu steve
Maybe, but the Joe REALLY WAS outdated the day it was completed.
The press-box was a last-minute add-on [[somehow the architects had forgotten it). The mens-ladies restroom capacity ratio's were geared more towards 1950's fan demographics than 1980's. The concourse area was too narrow, the corporate boxes too high up. Other cities sports venues lapped it in aesthetics and amenities just a few years after it was built.
Hard to imagine how Mr. I and his planners got it so wrong, but they did.
Now, some wonderful hockeyness happened in that dank grey arena. The entire careers of Mr. Yzerman and Mr. Lidstrom come to mind, as well as tidy collection of Lord Stanley's Cups.
I'm not a big fan of the use of taxpayer dollars to subsidize arenas, but as a fan, as well as a season ticket holder, I've been looking forward to a new arena, built in the style of the Olympia, for about twenty years now.
I wouldn't hold out much hope for it to be built in the style of Olympia. Just can't imagine that happening.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheUsualSuspect
There are a lot of streets in Detroit that are mostly single and two family with a 6 to 15 unit apartment or two on them. I would say it's not uncommon at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by cman710
There were at some point renderings which suggested a red-bricked facade with a marquee sign which were intended to at least carry some of the design cue's of the Olympia.Quote:
Originally Posted by softailrider
It's probably too much to hope for that the new arena will carry the Olympia nameplate.
I was a little bummed when Comerica park came out looking so different than Tiger Stadium. But they DID put the flag pole on the playing field, where it stayed for one season. The shortening of the left field wall put the pole back in the visitors bullpen.
I wonder how much it would cost to re-locate the pole BACK onto the playing field. It was a cool head-nod to Tiger Stadium and I always thought we lost a little something when we lost that feature.
Bruce Norris still owned the Red Wings when JLA was built. Typical of the Norris family, he was shopping for the rock-bottom cheapest solution for his team when the Young administration offered him a deal on a new arena.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheUsualSuspect
JLA was thrown up quickly and cheaply on a too-small patch of city-owned land in order to keep the Wings from moving to the suburbs [[which Norris didn't really want to do, since it would mean moving away from a big part of their fan base in Windsor). The main impetus for the "design" [[if you could really call it that) was to shoehorn an NHL size arena on the small parcel [[remember the cliff-like stairs on the southwest side?), and to keep the costs as low as possible. A big driver for the speedy completion of the arena was the city's successful bid to host the 1980 Republican Convention, which was seen as a big coup for Coleman Young and the city itself.
It's ridiculous to say that a new arena can't co-exist closely with historic structures in an urban setting. Right there in D.C. you have a great example with the Verizon Center [[home of the Capitols and the Wizards) set in the middle of one of the most historic neighborhoods in the U.S. A dense, urban area that has become a major entertainment district and has mixed a lot of new development in with many preserved historic structures.Quote:
Originally Posted by emu steve
Old meet New - When Petco Park was built an old building stood on the site...The building was incorporated into the Park.
Attachment 23458
those were the architectural equivalent of fan fictionQuote:
Originally Posted by TheUsualSuspect
Great idea. Innovative idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by SDCC
Didn't Detroit do something similar with a nearby football stadium? :D
Good riddance to that roach motel.
Yeah, just where were those corporate boxes at Olympia?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheUsualSuspect
That sucks. I'd rather have the old dilapidated building there than a parking lot. I love old infested buildings.Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner
Tongue in cheek?Quote:
Originally Posted by jerrytimes
That said, DTE is going to build a power station there to support the arena district.
It will be neither [[parking lot or old infested building).
Quote:
Originally Posted by masterblaster
with the exception of the last shot [[tyler st.) I find little interesting about these buildings
Seems like too silly a question to even respond to, but here goes:Quote:
Originally Posted by downtownguy
There weren't any.
Course, Ford built mustangs without airbags in the 60's. Doesn't mean you don't add them when you build mustangs in 2014.
Time moves on and certain amenities become must-haves. You don't build arena's today without large revenue corporate boxes.
It also doesn't mean you have to forget your heritage. A red-bricked facade with a marquee sign wouldn't get up the coolness factor of a new hockey arena in Detroit?
That was a serious question eh?
I have fond memories of the Temple. Back in the day my buddy knew the owner and we used to smoke doobies with him in the caged off office. Saw many of Detroits finest residents come through there and a few of the best looking women. Saw the longest pair of nipples I've seen to date. I tried to avoid the ladies on crack, but the few who weren't really knew how to have a good time.
Are these more aesthetically pleasing?Quote:
Originally Posted by rb336
https://www.google.com/maps/place/20...d1ee2b!6m1!1e1
https://www.google.com/maps/place/12...090f07!6m1!1e1
https://www.google.com/maps/place/36...5ddb78a0f45614
The point was to show that there were many streets in Detroit, especially on the
westside, where apartment buildings were built on blocks with single-family houses.
by a mile, MasterBlaster. I wish some would expend the energy they do on a homely Victorian on finding ways to save these sort of buildings
they should move these building epically the one in the hoods, that aren't gonna come back, and create a little district , maybe move them to bursh park and make they condos/co ops.
Also move some of those churches that are in the abandoned hoods,
And Ilitch had the Old Unitarian Church torched Last Week
I don't believe that church was owned by Ilitch. And the owner has been rumored to have been frustrated that he couldn't get rid of the property.Quote:
Originally Posted by drpoundsign
He caused the '67 riots, too. He knew it would drive down property values in the long run, making it cheaper to build his hockey arena half a century later. Any coincidence that hockey is just one letter off from "honkey"?Quote:
Originally Posted by drpoundsign
Not all these buildings are worth saving, this is obviously one of them....I can't think of anyone that would want to live in a building like this. It reminds me of the New Jackson Hotel here in Chicago, the inside of the place from what I've been told [[never been in there and never will go in there) that it looks like the setting of a horror movie. Detroit needs new development and saving some old buildings is fine but from the looks of it this building wasn't worth saving. What's the problem with it becoming a parking lot? That doesn't mean that it's always going to be a parking lot, it'll probably just be used as one until a developer comes along with a plan for the property.
They don't build sports arenas the same way today as they did in the 70's so I disagree that there will be the exact same posting in 25 years. The arena's they build today are a lot better than anything built in the 70's that's for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
Ilitch had nothing to do with building the Joe, he didn't even own the Red Wings yet when the Joe was opened.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheUsualSuspect
Quote:
Originally Posted by emu steve
Yes, it did, the construction crew torn parts of the old Hudson's Dept. Store warehouse building as part of the east south end foundation and future office building for Ford Field. Bodman Office is still there along with other tech companies. They get free or reduce access to all Ford Field games.
I've always wondered about that, Too. I DO know that the Downtown was somewhat built up by 1803, but THEN the whole thing burned like Chicago three generations later. Then it was redesigned with the streets radiating like wheel spokes, as in DC and Paris. There were probably less than ten thousand living there at the time. What caused the City to Explode in Growth was really the Erie Canal further East [[which opened up the Great Lakes to the Ocean) and the railroads. By 1900, Cigars, pharmaceuticals, railway cars, stoves and carriages [[which paved the way for the horseless carriage) were being manufactured, and the City had 400,000 people in it. It absorbed nearby communities, forests and farms and the City Limits expanded-not unlike Los Angeles. The Auto Industry, and lack of a Subway System, caused it to Over Expand-it Quadrupled in population between 1910-1930 to about 1.8 million people.