Detroit State Savings Bank Owner Wants to Demolish Historic Structure, Build Parking

[wolverine]

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.

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.

[gumby]

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.

No Crazy Canadians. This ......nozzle is from Toronto.

[Bad Brains]

No Crazy Canadians. This ......nozzle is from Toronto.

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).

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.

[rb336]

Well, there is a bit of hope for it, if anyone read the last paragraph:

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.”

[Gistok]

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.

[mikefmich]

Not enough parking in Detroit?? Am I missing something?

Seriously......what that owner said in the article is idiotic.

[DetroitPlanner]

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.

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.

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.

[kenp]

. 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.
.

Bravo, thank you for your comments.
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.

[GPCharles]

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?

[cramerro]

211, Chase, and One Woodward do not have significant parking garages. The doors are for service vehicles, and maybe a handful of spaces.

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.


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 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.

[Bham1982]

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.

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.

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.

[stinkytofu]

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.

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.

The Ft. Washington Garage is what most folks use.

[GPCharles]

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.

[dawgbone]

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)?

[iheartthed]

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.

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.

[antongast]

city hustle and bustle isn't for everyone.

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.

[GPCharles]

The question should be, how do you bring more people downtown with less cars [[and so, less need for parking)?

Easy, build a subway system. Anyone have $20 billion sitting around?

[iheartthed]

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.

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.

[313WX]

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.

But then we'll be back to whining about the fact that no one comes downtown.

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?

[antongast]

But then we'll be back to whining about the fact that no one comes downtown.

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.

[cramerro]

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.

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.

[313WX]

Cry me a fucking river.

How well was Detroit doing with that attitude under Coleman Young?

[swingline]

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.

[antongast]

How well was Detroit doing with that attitude under Coleman Young?

How well is Detroit doing now with our current attitude?

[313WX]

How well is Detroit doing now with our current attitude?

Detroit is "coming back", just under the rules of those who have the gold [[suburbanites).

What that means is only the assets of Detroit that are relevant to them will be revived.