That's the headline on the Freep front page.
This can't be allowed.
This is the idea of the new owners of the building.
http://www.freep.com/article/2012082...text|FRONTPAGE
That's the headline on the Freep front page.
This can't be allowed.
This is the idea of the new owners of the building.
http://www.freep.com/article/2012082...text|FRONTPAGE
Hell no. Hell no. Hell no.
There is so much space downtown to build a damn garage. Surface lots galore. If they were to let this happen I'd be so pissed and lose so much hope for downtown's future. It would be positively sickening.
Just great.....parking garages as far as the eye can see.
Well... on the bright side it's better than Illitch just bulldozing and doing surface parking...
Soon there will be no reason to head downtown.
Totally stupid to tear down buildings like this for a parking garage.
The Penobscot building has been around nearly 100 years, has parking been an issue for that long?
I liked this guy when I first read about him. No so much anymore. It makes me wonder if he's walked more than a block from the Penobscot. There's plenty of parking nearby, and as stinkytofu says, many surface lots if he really feels a need to build. It sounds to me like he just wants something adjacent to his building. Does anybody have stats on downtown garages? How much of capacity is used?
This is idiotic. One of Downtown's greatest selling points is the historic property. There are tons of parking lots down there that should have parking garages on them. This is ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by stinkytofu
Quote:
“Detroit needs parking,” he said. “If we don’t have parking people won’t come downtown… We tried to bring some tenants downtown and the people are not coming because there is no parking.”
Detroit needs a way for people to go downtown without requiring 3 parking spaces per person.
Sounds like it is going to be very difficult to actually raze the building. Thank God.Quote:
He acknowledged that the bank building is listed on the city, state, and federal registers of historic places. The city designation in particular offers significant protection against demolition.
If it became anything like the Michigan Theatre I'd be super pissed as well. What a disgrace that is.Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasT
Apostolopoulos estimated he would spend $20 million on a parking garage and create “lots of jobs.” -free press
Total BS
I would be amazed if this happens.
Oh wow, just googled and read about that. Awful.Quote:
Originally Posted by stinkytofu
Off the top of my head there are two surface decent size surface parking lots within one block of the Penebscot [[the lot on the northeast and the lot on the northwest intersection of Larned/Shelby). Those seem large enough for a garage. Hell, there is even that little inlet by the salad place on Congress [[though that must be too small for garage).
Maybe this owner should spend a little more money purchasing lots to make his investments worthwhile before he decides to destroy our history.
What is the solution, though? The problem is that there aren't really better alternatives.
Given present market conditions, there are two outcomes- First option is the building is demolished for Penobsot parking, and the Penobscot is a competitive building with a future. Second option is that no parking is added, and the Penobscot continues to wither away.
Downtown Detroit office space needs adjacent [[preferably attached, with direct access) parking. Absent this amenity, the building isn't worth much, and usually eventually abandoned.
Obviously there are ideal situations that would both preserve the old bank building and allow the Penobscot to thrive. The problem is that none of these solutions are within striking distance of present reality.
Walking one block to a structure is likely less walking then someone would do if they worked out in suburbia and had to deal with one of those sprawling corporate parking lots that goes on for ages.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
Hell, build a damn structure on that stupid park they built where the Lafayette Building was. The city already completely f'ed up that whole situation...and that's also only a block from the Penobscot.
Anyone with half a brain and who has been inside the beautiful classic marble interior of this building would be appalled with this idea.
This was designed by famous NYC architect Stanford White [[see famous scandal of 1906) of McKim Mead & White [[who designed NYC Pennsylvania Station and famous buildings around the country) and is downtown Detroit's only commission by that firm. The inside is a spectacular 2 story arched columned marble interior with a glassed in mezzanine along the 2nd story perimeter of the inside... the outside is a classic beauty.
It was built so strongly that a 20 story hotel tower was at one time planned to be built on TOP of it. And one of the reasons was... because the lobby is even more sumptuous than the inside of the Book-Cadillac.
When they brought the 2 solid marble 56,000 pound columns flanking the entrance in by barge in 1900, the weight of the columns collapsed a sewer line underneath it as horsedrawn teams were bringing them to the site.
Here is a Wiki article on the building...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savoyard_Centre
If I had to rate beautiful downtown lobby spaces... this building's would be #3... after the Guardian and David Whitney Buildings...
Not enough parking in Detroit?? Am I missing something?
The Ford Building doesn't have dedicated parking and it's doing fine. Also, the Buhl Building, The Guardian Building, One Woodward Avenue, 211 West Fort Street, Chase Tower...
They're all managing. And so was the Penobscot Building until the recent management problems.
It's a shame that with the change in attitudes towards downtown that a guy like this is making decisions against the grain like this. It used to be that companies were downtown because they were always downtown and had just never moved. But nowadays, a company leases space in an office building downtown because they want to be downtown, in an urban environment. They choose to locate downtown, and they know that part of the deal is they have to walk a few blocks. I don't think this guy understands the strengths and weaknesses of this building and who he should be advertising it to.
This building is connected to a building across the street by a skybridge. Does he own that one too?
se michigan seems to be stuck with this mentality of, "park my car for free and right through the front door". this is so delusional, and ultimately holding back the region. my company has a transit stipend, which covers most of my bus pass or 30% of monthly parking.
This guy has no connection to Detroit or Pontiac other than to make a quick buck so when potential tenants say they want cheaper rent than they're paying in the burbs and the same adjacent parking he tries any way possible to give it to them.
I'm sure he could negotiate very inexpensive people mover rates for a period of a couple of years as was given to Blue Cross employees. He can certainly get creative if he looks around downtown but is probably doing these deals over the phone from Toronto.
I think every one of those buildings, except maybe for the Guardian [[which is a govt. building, essentially) has dedicated parking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason
I know the Buhl does, as my dad works there. They have a tenant agreement with an adjacent garage. Chase Tower has parking, as does 211 and One Woodward. I would assume the Guardian has some arrangement with a parking operator too.
I'm not saying a building has to have a direct in-house garage. Obviously the prewar buildings didn't have garages, since cars weren't the norm.
Come to think of it, 211 West Fort has like three parking facilities. They have a tenant garage, directly below the building, an on-site surface lot for overflow, and a huge garage across the street.
...so if parking was truly what made real estate in downtown Detroit worthwhile then these buildings that you named should be booming, no?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
I don't get Detroit's fascination with parking garages, especially in downtown Detroit. That's gotta be the absolute worse use of space in a region's core.
I don't think anything is booming in terms of office space anywhere in MI. My point is that owners think that parking is an essential tenant amenity. It's probably fair to assume that owners have a decent idea of tenant preferences.Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
No, there is not. There is no tenant garage below and no on-site surface lot for overflow. That tiny lot is for staff and deliveries. There is a big garage across Washington [[Fort Washington Garage) that most employees use - but that is not an official garage for the building.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
Well the owner should've bought an office park in the suburbs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
The owner is a moron if he bought the Penobscot thinking/knowing he desperately needed additional parking, but having no good plan in place to acquire that parking.Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
Detroit: Cleveland, but without the buildings
I'm not saying I'm for the demolition of this landmark. I agree with others, there are many other options where we can build parking garages WITHOUT tearing down landmarks.Quote:
Originally Posted by rjlj
However, this historical landmark isn't exactly a "reason to go downtown".
The main reasons for going downtown are:
1) You work there
2) Tigers
3) Red Wings
4) Lions
5) Concert\Music\Opera
6) Fireworks
.....
103,934,101) Come take a look at the Detroit State Savings Bank
The great American architect Stanford White, who designed what is now known as the Savoyard Centre, was one of America's most famous architects... and his high society murder in 1906 made headlines across the country....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_White
A downtown filled with a nice collection historical buildings would be a reason to venture downtown if anything else just to enjoy the buildings,this one is a nice addition to that collection.I guess one could say it is a jewel in the crown.Quote:
Originally Posted by 48091
The buildings alone could be a nice little touristy draw.That is the problem ,take one down here ,take one down there over a period of time your standing back and asking why and how?
There are tons of inlets in Manhattan like the one you're referring to on Congress that have parking garages, or parking lifts.Quote:
Originally Posted by stinkytofu
A parking garage IS better than a surface lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
If done right, it can at least protect the street wall [[Greektown garage, Book Cadillac garage, Compuware garage, garage with CVS, etc).
But what other choice do we have? If TPTB in Detroit refuse to build meaningful mass transit and downtown continues to "boom" as people expect it to, we're going to have to make more room for parking.
In fact, I'll narrow down your list further...Quote:
Originally Posted by 48091
As long as the Tigers and Red wings are able to play their games, suburbanites couldn't care less what happens with the rest of Detroit and downtown.
Folks in the neighborhoods who rarely venture downtown [[in fact, more often than not go to the suburbs) also couldn't care less.
Not going to lie, but I never went downtown to look at abandoned buildings.
I never went down there because parking is plentiful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shollin
Sounds like that is our solution. He has a structure strong enough for twenty more stories. Make many of 'em high-density parking, maybe a few a high-end hotel [[to use that spectacular lobby to full effect).Quote:
Originally Posted by Gistok
Plus, they've got a killer vault system in that building.
Well, if you had buildings downtown, you could do a whole lot more than visit Two [[2) Theater Buildings and Three [[3) Stadiums.Quote:
Originally Posted by 48091
Reason 103,934,101 could easily move up to the top 100 if someone decides to put something inside of that historic space.
The fact that the owner can't attract tenants has nothing to do with the building. It has everything to do with poor marketing and appropriate rent prices without that amenity.
I'm willing to acknowledge that some tenants may feel unsafe walking a block or two to their car. Some places staff security personnel to walk employees to their car who feel unsafe. The cost of supplying this service is far less than building and operating a parking garage. Did I mention it creates jobs?
'Scuse me....but having worked in the Penobscot Building for 16 years, it wasn't a huge problem to park on Cobo Roof or at Joe Louis Arena parking garage and walk or take the shuttle or People Mover. I walked, and in fact, because of that, patronized a number of the downtown retail establishments on my walk route to buy newspapers, magazines, coffee, pastries, office supplies, gifts, and cards, and have film developed and printed. Parking at the building where one works means you don't get out and about much.
I know...since that is how it is out here in the 'burbs where the company moved. I have to make a concerted effort to spend my dollars in the community where I work because there are no close-by retail establishments within walking distance.
The Buhl has its own garage. The Chase has underground access to the old Kennedy Square Garage. One Woodward has access to the Ford Auditorium garage. There is a garage across Washington from 211.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason
That being said this is one of my favorite spaces in Detroit's financial district. I am surprised that it is so underutilized.
The only reason Silvers closed was it was bought out by Staples for its customer list. Its obvious that it can't work for a bank or a office supply store anymore though I thought that Julian Scott was a good adaption, even though the company was so undercapitalized it wasn't even funny.
This building is a national landmark. The owner is Canadian and has no idea what he faces with this suggestion from preservation groups, or the dept of the interior. Canada in general has a worse preservation record than Detroit does. Its not an important part of its culture.
Considering the historic designations, the odds of this happening are very low. I am not ruling out a complete miscarriage of rationality here, but the odds are low. Given that, let's make this a teachable moment. I am calling on Mayor Bing or our chief planner to make a public statement saying: 'if our goal is to make a transit oriented downtown, complete with light rail and improved buses, facilitating more parking is simply inconsistent and counterproductive: we will not do it; those days are over.' They could go further. I recommend: 'if our goal is to maintain, nay, enhance the walkability and safety of Detroit, we will preserve historic street walls and find tenants to fill them, rather than create more monstrosities which detract from our character, reduce the beauty of the city, and keep people in their cars, not on the sidewalk.' Detroit 2.0. Let's go.
The City has cut DDOT's budget this year by more than 50 percent. Your goals are not the goals of your leaders. Planners don't control the budget politicos do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mackinaw
211, Chase, and One Woodward do not have significant parking garages. The doors are for service vehicles, and maybe a handful of spaces.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
The Buhl does have the building next door, but even if it was dedicated exclusively to the Buhl, it wouldn't be enough parking. So instead, either the building management itself, or the tenants have deals with various garages downtown, and most people have short walks to the office. This is what you do when you don't have dedicated adjacent parking.
There's not a real parking garage under 211. It's mainly a service area. I think there's a limited amount of parking there [[unlike One Woodward Avenue, which is exclusively a service area). The surface parking outside is only a handful of spots. Across the street is the parking garage base of a separate office building, which 211 could possibly have an agreement with, but even if the entire garage was dedicated to 211 it still wouldn't be enough parking.Quote:
Come to think of it, 211 West Fort has like three parking facilities. They have a tenant garage, directly below the building, an on-site surface lot for overflow, and a huge garage across the street
I wouldn't be opposed if a parking lot somewhere was upgraded to big parking garage [[actually it wouldn't be bad if the garage next to the buhl was extended to the surface lot behind it), but this is different.
I hope the city shows a little sanity considering its the only McKim, Mead and White design in Detroit.
I'm a preservationist. I rarely want to punch anyone in the face. THIS makes me want to punch someone in the face. It's unlikely it would go through and thank God for that. But the very notion of this idea and the fact that someone could be serious about it doesn't exactly speak well for the property owners of landmarks downtown....... I hope both the Free Press and the News run print versions of this story tomorrow.
Well said, Mackinaw, and others!
I just reread the article and realized he just bought the bank THIS month. What a jackass.
There is already plenty of parking in that area, I don't get it. Also, With the obesity problem in this state and city, people could stand to walk a few blocks to get to work. Crazy Americans.
I know right? But it goes extremes in each direction. There's the folks that don't do any walking period, and those who waste their time and life going to a gym to run on a treadmill. Bonus points if they DRIVE to the gym to run a treadmill.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad Brains
You know if people parked their cars in a centralized place downtown, walk to / from bus stops, or even better...lived closer to work it would absolutely change their lives for the better. You wouldn't even think you were exercising just going someplace. America chose its destiny by letting machines take us everywhere we wanted to be. We got fat and lazy. And now we're letting our silly conveniences take out the history that defines our cities.
Great photo post. Shows how nicely the building works to interrupt the upper-story streetwall and allow the movement of air and sun. It enhances the desirability of the tall buildings around it, while maintaining enclosure on the street level. In New York this would be both treasured [[for the above reasons) and reviled [[by developers who can certainly justify something taller based on market demand). Here, there is no in-demand commodity that justifies even considering allowing something this beneficial to be torn down. No need for another tall office building. No need for more parking. And to the extent you say we should in fact building more of either/both, then the answer [[and this should be the answer for probably a good three to five decades) is to build on fallow land and surface parking lots. Or on top of the Cobo Roof, haha.
This is nearly an impossible thing to describe from an urban designer's standpoint without pictures like this. I completely agree. Lowrise structures can assist in framing, composing, and celebrating nearby architecture. They assist with viewsheds that would otherwise be dull and uninteresting if it were a dense forest of skyscrapers, difficult to comprehend from extreme oblique angles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mackinaw
However for lack of height, the lowrise structure must compensate in its architecture. Here that is the case. It also helps if it's a mixture of several buildings, creating a "fine grain streetwall."
This is where the debate heats up in NYC where they recently upzoned buildings heights in Midtown Manhattan. It has huge implications for mass teardowns of the vintage office buildings for boxy glass towers. Could potentially be tragic from an architectural standpoint and lend itself to oppressive scale.
No Crazy Canadians. This ......nozzle is from Toronto.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad Brains
Half my family is from Toronto and all live downtown. One thing I notice there is people actually walk and take mass transit to their jobs. The demolition of a building like this would never happen in Toronto. They even have a law that says the outside of the old Maple Leaf Gardens can't ever be changed [[although they can do whatever they want to the inside).Quote:
Originally Posted by gumby
I have a few friends who work in downtown Detroit but they live in the suburbs for whatever reason. I personally think they are nuts. If I worked downtown I would live downtown and just walk to work. Driving gives me a headache.
Well, there is a bit of hope for it, if anyone read the last paragraph:
Quote:
William Worden, the retired director of the city’s Historic Designation Advisory Board, said under the city ordinance it would be quite difficult for the owner to raze the bank. “One wonders why people buy these things,” he said. “Generally when you buy a piece of property you’re agreeing to live with the conditions that come with it.”
Sadly there's no interior images to be found [[yet). But from when I was there when it was Silver's, the inside is more beautiful than the outside... [[probably due to the fact that the Beaux Arts marble interior never suffered from weathering). But saving just the outside would be an abomination.
Seriously......what that owner said in the article is idiotic.Quote:
Originally Posted by scottn55
I respectfully disagree. It is rare to find older building in the Central Part of Toronto. Something had to go to allow these newer mega building to be built.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad Brains
Now MLG is an icon for all of Canada. Older bank buildings in T.O. are pretty much gone. The only one I can think of was the one that was incorporated into BCE Place [[or whatever its called now) and that too is used for an icon.
Bravo, thank you for your comments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kathleen
She is exactly correct, cities are meant to be walked in. We arent saying that you have to walk 10 blocks to get to your car, but not every building needs to have attached parking.
Downtown is picking up and I agree there is going to be a need for space and parking but dont tear that building down. There are plenty of alternatives close by.
Many great comments above - BUT,
1. Detroit has no mass transit. To get downtown you have to drive. Yes, I know about DDOT and SMART, but they aren't viable alternatives for most people.
2. In order to compete with the suburbs, an office building has to offer competitive parking. To paraphrase Dan Gilbert, or one of his people, when he bought the Chase building AND the parking garage on Larned/Congress down the street from One Detroit Center, "you have to have parking when you buy these buildings."
3. Many of the small surface lots are not for sale. They are cash cows [[emphasis on CASH) for the owner.
4. I love this building too, but does anyone have a viable, financeable use for it? The main floor has been underutilized for decades.
5. I have no solid answers, but I think everyone should be financially realistic in their assessments of the situation. Save the 1st floor and build the parking above it? Can it work at a realistic number?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason
I apprecaite the depth of your knowledge... I'd love to see all the parking studies you have done to determine that certain garages aren't enough parking for entire buildings.
First, a few facts... sitting looking at them from my office. First, One Woodward Ave does have parking underneath... not 10 levels but quite a bit. They make it work with vehicle lifts that allow stacked parking. Second, the Buhl owns the garage next to it, and the same security and management firm take care of it. Third, many people from 211 park in the building base garage across the street - drive up Washington any time of day and it's like a constant game of Frogger across the mid-block. In addition, nobody mentioned the 1/3 block deck built in the last few years across form American/Lafayette Coneys that attaches to the Dime Building, and the base to 555 Jefferson that is full of parking.
Now look at the list of buildings with attached/adjacent [[within 1/2 block) parking within 3 blocks of the Penobscot and compare them to the Penobscot. I'd say without excpetion that all of the buildings with attached/adjacent are doing much better than the Penobscot and even the Ford Building. In fact, they all are new/newer and/or have had major renovations, whereas the Penbscot just managed to repaint the window trim along Congress for the first time in years this week.
Sheesh, I'm not even making a case to tear it down... but damn get a clue!
My disclaimer here is that I am siding with BHam on this one, whereas I usually strongly disagree.
Now as for your statistics, the name of the game is not 'peak demand.' Nobody including the idiot who wants to destroy the beautiful building for a deck claims that he's doing it to satisfy all of the parking needs for his building, but there are a number of types of parkers that are important if you want to have good occupancy and profitable rent. Lawyers, officials, management... they all want parking very close, and will pay whatever price for it [[or pay high rent that comes with a few spots). In addition, many office renters want close/attached parking for thier clients. It is a big deal especially if you have clients in the burbs who drive downtown and want to have a good experience meeting with you - city hustle and bustle isn't for everyone. The Buhl garage is full every day - 8 stories of parking - and there is a steady stream of people in and out of it going to the Buhl, Ford, One Woodward, and Guardian. The Buhl, Guardian, and Ford all have $10 flat rate valet [[which I think the Penobscot does also along Fort Street) to supplement the garage.
Look, there is an element of "you can't have it both ways" here that I can appreciate. And, this one building is a key cog in the City's most dense, historic, intact office district. But let's be realistic about the current state of the Penobscot's offices and shops [[not so great) and the high value that office renters and customers place on conveient parking.
Realistically speaking, he has to go at least a block in any direction to find land to build a sizeable garage [[the small notch between Ford/Penobscot on Congress is too small). There are two quarter blocks at Shelby and Larned, a number on the other side of Lafayette, and one at Fort and Washington.
There is most definitely a 211 W. Fort Garage, directly underneath the building. And there's definitely an adjacent surface parking lot, part of the building site.Quote:
Originally Posted by stinkytofu
I don't find it particularly "tiny" and I have no idea who parks there, but the fact is that there are two on-site parking facilities, and you were claiming that there is no on-site parking.
And, of course, there's the large garage across the street. I never claimed that a building had to have an underground garage. Underground parking is quite rare, because land costs downtown are cheap, so buildings usually have an adjacent surface garage, no different from the Fort Washington garage.
You are 100% dead wrong. There is no garage underneath 211 W. Fort. There are probably spots for literally three or four cars in the delivery area - that's it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
The Ft. Washington Garage is what most folks use.
One Woodward Ave. basement parks less than 100 cars, even stacked two high. When I worked there, our entire firm had to park in the Ford Underground Garage.
I worked in the Penobscot Building for about six years. Our employer offered subsidized [[I think it was even free... this was the 90s) parking at Joe Louis Arena. Most people walked to and fro, but there was a pretty great shuttle service that others used that was quick and easy.
There are many many more options than to tear down a classic, centuries old building designed by one of the most prestigious firms in the history of architecture. For instance, why not use some of the $20 million to tear it down and build a parking garage, and use it to add to others efforts of increasing public transit.
The question should be, how do you bring more people downtown with less cars [[and so, less need for parking)?
I used to work in the area that was rezoned around GCT and they are already starting to move forward with plans to raze some of those buildings. The ad agency Young & Rubicam announced last December that they are moving from their building on Madison Ave where they've been for 85 years last December [[ironically, just days before that exec was crushed to death in the elevator). I believe their building is slated to be razed for a new building on that site.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolverine
If it's not for you then stay the fuck out of the city. You won't catch me up in Auburn Hills demanding that the entire city be demolished and rebuilt to suit my transportation and land use preferences.Quote:
Originally Posted by cramerro
Easy, build a subway system. Anyone have $20 billion sitting around?Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
Haha, exactly. I can't believe Detroit is still trying to play the game of out-suburbing the suburb. You will never sell downtown because it has convenient parking. By nature, that's just not ever going to be one of downtown's strengths! Not in Detroit or any other major city in America.Quote:
Originally Posted by antongast
But then we'll be back to whining about the fact that no one comes downtown.Quote:
Originally Posted by antongast
Part of the reason suburbanites don't come to Detroit is because they feel they're not welcome. What makes you think they're going to come if it's not on their own terms?
Cry me a fucking river.Quote:
Originally Posted by 313WX
Quote:
Originally Posted by antongast
Funny, stay out is exactly what plenty of office tenants are doing. And, read the other 98% of the posts on this board re: demanding suburbs be redeveloped with urban character and form... but I digress.
I'll say again, I'm not for tearing this building down, but to say that he should put $20M toward funding light rail instead [[as one post suggested) aren't being realistic or logical. To pick on that one misinformed comment, giving $20M or even hell paying the full $150M to build light rail from Congress to Grand Blvd ain't casting your net very wide as far as office renters or thier cleintele goes. Office tenants want some parking for thier big wigs and some clients... this is not an unreasonable request. THe way it has been done leaves a lot to be desired.
How well was Detroit doing with that attitude under Coleman Young?Quote:
Originally Posted by antongast
The DEGC controls at least 1000 available spaces in the garages at NW corner of Mich Ave/Griswold, the old Hudson Bldg. site, and Woodward/State Street. These sites are 3 blocks distant or less from the Penobscot. These garages were all constructed within the last decade precisely to serve downtown buildings lacking dedicated parking. It's preposterous to think that another building would be lost to alleged parking needs.
Regardless, the local historic designation should be strong enough prevent demolition. The statute is designed exactly to prevent just this kind of demolition rationalization. Hopefully, the DEGC is not supporting this owner. Sometimes though you never know with that organization.
How well is Detroit doing now with our current attitude?Quote:
Originally Posted by 313WX
Detroit is "coming back", just under the rules of those who have the gold [[suburbanites).Quote:
Originally Posted by antongast
What that means is only the assets of Detroit that are relevant to them will be revived.
It's been many years since I parked there, but I don't think there was room for even 50 cars down there.Quote:
Originally Posted by GPCharles
...to be honest, Detroit was arguably healthier under Coleman Young. Certainly not worse off than it is now. Detroit didn't lose 25% of its population in a single decade while Coleman was mayor. The city did manage to at least get a portion of a transit system built and did it under far stronger opposition from suburban leadership than exists today. But most importantly, the city was not effectively bankrupt under Coleman. Granted, his tenure as mayor did not occur in a vacuum, so the effects of his leadership are still in Detroit today. But Detroit also went into sustained decline well before he became mayor.Quote:
Originally Posted by 313WX
Coleman Young was never the villain most on this board make him out to be. He presided over a time when the city was shrinking and going though tough demographic changes [[white flight, increases in the poor). He was not the start of these issues and he was very pragmatic when it came to doing the right thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by 313WX
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
The point is the folks who controlled all of Detroit's capital for whatever reason got fed up with feeling completely alienated by TPTB in Detroit under Young's tenure, and as a result fled the city. By the early 1990s, what was left of inner-city Detroit was a post-apocalyptic hellhole and many of the formerly stable neighborhoods had begun their slow/sad decline. The effects from that loss of capital of course just weren't in our face until a decade or two later.Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner
This town has never been one for compromise. It's a town where the folks want it their way or the highway.
If we want to see a Detroit come back, it's going to have to be under the terms of those who hold all the money/capital.
Okay, so the overwhelming majority of the city is irrelevant to "them," but us irrelevant folk are obligated to make "them" feel welcome in Detroit, lest "they" decide not to grace us with their downtown parking garages?Quote:
Originally Posted by 313WX
In 2013 or 2014, vote folks like Bing and Snyder out of office then.Quote:
Originally Posted by antongast
That'll be a start.
Otherwise, get used to the way things will be in Detroit from here on out. I don't like it, but I can't control it.
I didn't vote for either of them, and I'm certainly not planning to start now. But then, I'm pretty irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by 313WX
I know you mean well but you're deluding yourself if you think Coleman Young was the reason why Detroit was abandoned. Read up on U.S. housing policy during the postwar period, the practice of blockbusting, redlining, etc., if you want to know why Detroit is now a failed city.Quote:
Originally Posted by 313WX
I'm not saying he was THE reason why.Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
But that was the perspective people had under his tenure. When they think back to how rough the 1970s and 1980s were in the city, the first person that comes to mind is Coleman Young. His outspoken voice for social justice didn't help things either.
I don't think Coleman Young was a bad mayor either personally.
Well unfortunately it is what it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by antongast
More people in Metro Detroit/Michigan agree on a different perspective than you do, and the majority rule.
There was a post on here a few weeks/months ago about a person who contacted a real estate subsidiary of Dan Gilbert's corporation [[Rockbridge?) and when trying to inquire about the property value of a home in one of Detroit's neighborhoods. The woman on the other end passive-aggressively said they only deal with downtown and have no interest in the neighborhoods.
Even if that's true, I don't think it's helpful to pander to people with such misguided opinions. If they aren't intelligent enough to understand that CAY is not the single reason Detroit imploded then 1) why even give a crap about their opinion since they are clearly unreasonable, and more importantly 2) why are we talking about tearing down buildings so that some hypothetical idiot from the suburbs, with such a shallow understanding of history, can park his car closer to the Guardian Building?Quote:
Originally Posted by 313WX
But consider the people you're referencing.Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
It doesn't matter how you feel about them and their perspective. Fact of the matter is they still run the show.
Because hypothetical idiots from the suburbs are more important than actual city residents. Anyone who does not politely and deferentially accept this state of affairs is being unnecessarily combative and contributing to the decline of Detroit.Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
Curbed Detroit thinking they are funny.
https://www.facebook.com/MichiganNeedsMoreParking
Puhleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease! So that's what's been keeping people away from downtown all these years? No adjacent parking???Quote:
Originally Posted by 313WX
Many people are adding comments here about the availability or lack thereof of parking downtown. Earlier in this thread, I asked if anyone had current stats of utilization of parking garages downtown. Other than anectodal comments, I've yet to see stats. I think that would give us all a clearer picture of why the Penobscot owner feels a need to add a garage. So, I ask again. Does anybody have current stats?
Another concern I have is whether these folks have the wherewithall to follow through on their plans. We saw how the Northern Group came to town and snatched up the Penobscot, First National and Lafayette Towers, as they teased us with a new $150 million development on Cadillac Square. How did that turn out?
So now I'm wondering how another supposedly savvy investor buys a building so sorely in need of adjacent parking without getting that worked out in advance. Maybe he had an option on the Savings Bank Building at that time and only exercised it recently. But if he did his due diligence, didn't know the hurdles he was going to have in his way to destroy one of the most beautiful and historic buildings downtown?
And, finally, to those that say he needs adjacent parking to attract high caliber tenants, then why does his business plan call for offering rents well below the going rate downtown? The WSJ quoted Steve Apostolopoulos as intending to lower rents from $15 a square foot to $10 a square foot. And this is no small building, so he's going to need a lot of money to renovate it in addition to the $20 for the parking structure.
Maybe the numbers work. I admit, I'm no real estate developer. But I'd feel a lot better about these folks if I didn't have so many questions about their intentions.
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by downtownguy
What's been keeping folks from coming downtown all of these years is the fact that the folks that we want to come downtown [[those with money, suburbanites) until now couldn't have things their way.
You bring more people downtown with less cars by building places for them to live downtown and provinding them easy and affordable public transit. The central business district does not have a lot of places to live and poor public transit. Until that changes, buidings like this will continually be endangered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by rjlj
And you can't really have one without the other. Mass transit requires a critical mass [[high density) to be "successful" and high density requires an environment that doesn't have to cater only to the automobile.
Are you saying that white people find it extremely hard to live in an environment they don't control? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by 313WX
Seems to me that this on its own is enough to save the building. The ability to put 200,000 or more extra square feet on top of it makes it more valuable as is than it would be in if the building could not be expanded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gistok
There are certainly other options. It will be interesting to learn how the DEGC is involved with any of this. Hopefully they are working to help the Penobscot owners find a way to improve their parking situation that doesn't involve tearing down a great building with a lot of potential and just as much history [[not to mention beauty).
If Detroit really needs more parking [[not just more information about parking or more street life to making walking more acceptable), then it seems that the lot behind the Detroit Club and the Free Press Building [[Fort@Washington) would be a great place to build a really sizable garage. It is only one block further.
If I owned the Penobscot buildings [[there are three, and I think they are all owned by the same group), I'd be looking to active that great lobby, even if it mean tearing some openings through it to connect it to the neighboring Penobscot Building [[1905) and Penobscot Annex [[1913). Tenants of the tower would then be able to walk inside to within a block of that parking [[or a number of other spaces).
At the same time, I'd imagine that some of the floors might be more appropriate to convert into residential. The parking demand [[spaces per assignable square feet) would be lower, and the residential is probably a little better right now.
I'd love to see some interior shots to get an idea of what it might look like used.
I was speaking tongue-in-cheek about the hypothetical idiot coming downtown. The truth is that he is not coming downtown, except for a Tigers or Lions game. Don't waste your time and advocate destroying Detroit's competitive edge trying to attract him downtown. Detroit will be saved by people who are not jaded by rivalries from 40 years ago. It will be saved by people who love the city for the sake of loving cities.Quote:
Originally Posted by 313WX
BTW, are the stock photo samples you see when you do a google image search of "Detroit 'Julian Scott'" this building?
The "value" is imaginary. There is no demand for any more office/hotel/residential or retail space. That is demonstrated by crushing vacancy rates and abandonment rate of buildings in the CBD.Quote:
Originally Posted by jsmyers
Yes. That is it.Quote:
Originally Posted by jsmyers
Yet these same folks go to cities like NY, Chicago, Boston, SF, etc., and say they wish Detroit were more walkable like them. Much of this attitude comes from the older generation [[a generation I reluctantly admit I'm part of).Quote:
Originally Posted by 313WX
When I first moved downtown 30 years ago, I could see my generation [[at that time) was still carrying too much baggage from white flight, bigotry and their parent's attitudes about Detroit as its demographic changed. I began to accept that it would take a full generation for those attitudes to get washed away and see any real progress on downtown Detroit's comeback.
Thanks to folks like Gilbert, Karmanos and others, many of the new workers and residents downtown are younger. Rather than chase a generation of folks that are not likely to change, I'd rather see we develop Detroit to appeal to the demographic that will support it.