Brewster-Douglass Projects Demolition Proceeds

**kathy2trips** · November-21-12, 12:40 AM

Wouldn't be difficult to move.

**Bad Brains** · November-21-12, 01:33 AM

Good to see the Federal Government has money to spend on demolishing these structures. The deficit must have been wiped clean

**Hermod** · November-21-12, 05:17 AM

Originally Posted by Bad Brains

Good to see the Federal Government has money to spend on demolishing these structures. The deficit must have been wiped clean

The federal government doesn't have any money, they just own the printing press.

**Richard** · November-21-12, 12:35 PM

Interesting history here http://critical-moment.org/2011/02/1...ster-douglass/ lots of shady objectives going on past and present.

**southofbloor** · November-29-12, 12:08 AM

Ginburg Library in the Free Press, at birth with drawing... [[1916)

https://www.flickr.com/photos/southo...in/photostream

**mallory** · November-29-12, 09:28 AM

Seems to be a lot of land in a strategic location in Detroit. Is it enough land for, say, oh, I don't know, a new hockey stadium?

serpico · December-01-12, 11:29 PM

$50 Detroit City Clowncil blocks the demo.........

**Honky Tonk** · December-02-12, 05:15 AM

Originally Posted by serpico

$50 Detroit City Clowncil blocks the demo.........

As they should. For once let's do something for the citizens living in other parts of the City instead of taking their money and sinking it into Mudtown. There are plenty of derelict structures elsewhere that do create dangerous environments and need to be torn down. The Brewsters can stand a few more years without being a major issue.

JVB · December-02-12, 06:38 PM

Originally Posted by Honky Tonk

As they should. For once let's do something for the citizens living in other parts of the City instead of taking their money and sinking it into Mudtown. There are plenty of derelict structures elsewhere that do create dangerous environments and need to be torn down. The Brewsters can stand a few more years without being a major issue.

Certainly a valid point, but wouldn't it make sense to clear one of the most valuable spots of available land in the city? Tearing down a handful of abandoned structures spread across the city will add nothing to the tax rolls, whereas this land would. The city can't afford to do it all, so it seems like it might make the most sense to focus on the land that will bring it the best return so that it can work on improving services.

Besides, I think they got federal grant money for this demo didn't they?

**syrett4** · December-02-12, 08:58 PM

Originally Posted by JVB

Certainly a valid point, but wouldn't it make sense to clear one of the most valuable spots of available land in the city? Tearing down a handful of abandoned structures spread across the city will add nothing to the tax rolls, whereas this land would. The city can't afford to do it all, so it seems like it might make the most sense to focus on the land that will bring it the best return so that it can work on improving services.

Besides, I think they got federal grant money for this demo didn't they?

Yes, getting valuable land back on the tax rolls at quickly as possible should be the objective. The city council doesn't get that. The council gets their power from their control and they don't want to give it up so they will try to block it.

**Honky Tonk** · December-02-12, 09:24 PM

Originally Posted by syrett4

Yes, getting valuable land back on the tax rolls at quickly as possible should be the objective. The city council doesn't get that. The council gets their power from their control and they don't want to give it up so they will try to block it.

If there is a specific use for the Brewsters, and not just speculation. One of the biggest issues I have with living here, is there never seems to be anything left in the pot for the citizens. I've heard the "This will create jobs and revenue" mantra one times too many. The revenue disapears into an abyss. The second verse of the mantra is "We don't have to money to_______". [[insert City service here). Besides, was that Federal Grant money earmarked especifically for tearing down the Brewsters, or to tear down dangerous structures in general? Because I don't see the Brewsters posing an immediate threat like some structures.

**syrett4** · December-02-12, 09:58 PM

Originally Posted by Honky Tonk

If there is a specific use for the Brewsters, and not just speculation. One of the biggest issues I have with living here, is there never seems to be anything left in the pot for the citizens. I've heard the "This will create jobs and revenue" mantra one times too many. The revenue disapears into an abyss. The second verse of the mantra is "We don't have to money to_______". [[insert City service here). Besides, was that Federal Grant money earmarked especifically for tearing down the Brewsters, or to tear down dangerous structures in general? Because I don't see the Brewsters posing an immediate threat like some structures.

There is nothing left because agencies and people like the library, school board, ex-mayors and ex-city council people are all skimming off the top and serving themselves and friends and not the city. Plus they keep trying to provide the same services with more and more abandoned houses that don't generate the tax revenue. This is the basis behind Bing's effort to get people to move into more condensed areas.

This won't really create jobs other than some short-term construction jobs, but will generate tax dollars once is it privately developed from a property that is generating 0 dollars right now.

Detroit won't be fixed with this one project. It needs a combination of cutting down the size of the city council, the citizens need to stop electing crooks and they need to take the most valuable land and get it back on the revenue stream. This will get this land back adding to the tax base so maybe they can fix 10 street lights, or pay an extra police officer.

The security guy at the front desk will pay city income tax, the couple of coffee shops/bars/retail will pay sales tax and the people that live in the codos would pay property taxes. None of that activity is going on now and won't until those buildings are down.

I'm also not sure if the Federal grant was targeted or not, but I think it was.

**Honky Tonk** · December-02-12, 10:13 PM

"None of that activity is going on now and won't until those buildings are down."

Until something taxable is in place. I live in a highly condensed area. We're very taxable, in fact, I'd say we contribute our fair share to the COD. [[the area as a whole, not just myself or our structure). I would think the COD would provide better services then what they're currently doing. My concern is that this isn't some kind of legacy thing with Bing.

**syrett4** · December-02-12, 11:36 PM

Originally Posted by Honky Tonk

"None of that activity is going on now and won't until those buildings are down."

Until something taxable is in place. I live in a highly condensed area. We're very taxable, in fact, I'd say we contribute our fair share to the COD. [[the area as a whole, not just myself or our structure). I would think the COD would provide better services then what they're currently doing. My concern is that this isn't some kind of legacy thing with Bing.

It may be. From his recent comments, I'm not even sure he is going to run for re-election. The next mayor needs to be someone with Bing's vision, that can find ways to work with the city council the way it is currently constructed. Ideally the city council would be completely revamped. Should be an interesting election.

**Dexlin** · December-03-12, 01:33 AM

You know, I support the demolitions if only because the city won't be spending its own money on them, and it's high time for them to come down. But, could we stop with this "valuable land" crap? If the land was really that valuable, a developer would have been beating down the door to knock those things down, themselves. And this idea that the value of the land will be so great after the demolition as to attract developers would be a valid point if not for all of the other huge empty lots on both sides of Woodward in that area in Brush and Cass Parks.

Truth is, that even if something were to be developed a year or two after their demolition, the best we can hope for is some more overpriced apartments, maybe some condos, and a strip-mall or two, and you know that on top of that whatever is built with have to be partially subsidized by the city.

So, yeah, I see both sides of this. Obviously, they need to come down, but people should be awfully skeptical about the future of these sites. What's been built on the site of the old Motown Building, the Madison Lenox...hell, the Hudson lot is still empty and that's got to be some of the most valuable land in the city. And, the crap that does get built is usually but a shadow [[in both density and value) of what was once on the site.

JVB · December-03-12, 09:56 AM

Originally Posted by Dexlin

But, could we stop with this "valuable land" crap? If the land was really that valuable, a developer would have been beating down the door to knock those things down, themselves.

Developers have inquired on it in the past, but any development in Detroit is speculative in nature due to the shape the city is in, so to minimize risk they don't want to front the money for demo. If they can save $6-$10 million, why wouldn't they?

As to why that land is valuable, I think you're right to the extent that some condo's and a strip mall wouldn't exactly do a whole lot. That's my concern, I'd like to see some sort of an attraction in that area to increase foot traffic and bridge the gap between downtown, Eastern Market and the Medical Center. I don't think mixed residential does that, and that's probably what it'll be.

For instance, JLA needs a new home, but all indications are Illitch has most of the land he needs on Woodward for that. Maybe Wayne State could build a new satellite in urban farming research or something. I don't know, but if the right thing goes in that spot it turns 3 islands of activity in the city into one large swath of activity and that's why I think it's so valuable - more so for the future of the city than the developer even.

**Dexlin** · December-03-12, 10:26 AM

I don't disagree that the land is important, if only because of its future potential, but developers [[read: money) aren't going to look that far down the road. Again, there are already massive amounts of contiguous land behind Foxtown, West of Woodward in the great Cass Park Area, and now Brewster. Developers aren't beating down the door to develop the lost west of Woodward, or behind Foxtown. Even in Brush Park which is considered continued progress and a work in progress, you have very slow going with smallish developments.

Again, Fredrick Douglass needs to go if only for public safety reasons, and the land will appreciate slightly in value with the removal of these rotting buildings, but this particular plot of land is no more valuable than the continguous lots in the Cass Park Area and certainly not more valuable than the empty lots that remain behind Foxtown. There is no reason to expect these not to sit for just as long.

**Onthe405** · December-03-12, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitdave

We had something similar in LA, but they were redone like this http://www.parklabrea.com/templates/...p?w=parklabrea
I'm not sure this can be done with the Brewsters, but if anyone knows that area that area it changed that area completely .
It was also near LA's farmers market [[our eastern market) and they built the grove ,http://www.thegrovela.com/, right across from it and now it's the hottest area in the city , crowded but busy .
So it can be done I've seen it any thoughts ?

Dave, no comparison between Brewster and Park La Brea. While the appearance is somewhat reminiscent of a "housing project" PLB was never public housing. It was simply a massive apartment complex. Even during its "low point" [[80s-90s) it was never a slum--nor was the neighborhood [[even at its "low point") as undesirable. The unit amenities just weren't updated & competitive with other housing surrounding it. Tenants were mostly seniors who had been living in rent-controlled units since they moved in 1950s-1970s. In the 80s, I had a friend whose Mom lived there. The unit was huge. Dated and needed some work--but it was a bargain, since she had lived there for 20+ years. As housing on the nearby Westside drifted completely out of control in the 90s & 00s and seniors died off, it became a no-brainer for a developer to attempt to yuppify the place.

**Sehv313** · December-12-12, 02:08 AM

Originally Posted by Honky Tonk

As they should. For once let's do something for the citizens living in other parts of the City instead of taking their money and sinking it into Mudtown. There are plenty of derelict structures elsewhere that do create dangerous environments and need to be torn down. The Brewsters can stand a few more years without being a major issue.

Exactly! best post I've read so far. my parents lived here up until '07 when they moved everyone out [[I left in '05), these towers shouldnt have been abandoned in the first place, everything was fine for us, they claimed it was cheaper to tear them down than to keep them running. It makes no sense how the city itself can create an eye-sorer & 4 years later get funds to tear it down when there are houses north 94 that have been blighted for 15+ years leave many without a place to live. RIP

serpico · January-19-13, 09:31 PM

Well it looks like these nasty vacant buildings will continue to compliment the Detroit skyline for 2013......
Dave Bing's definition of "within the year" [[last year) clearly is on a different time schedule as others.....But hey.. it's Detroit... what's the rush

**Richard** · January-20-13, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by Honky Tonk

If there is a specific use for the Brewsters, and not just speculation. One of the biggest issues I have with living here, is there never seems to be anything left in the pot for the citizens. I've heard the "This will create jobs and revenue" mantra one times too many. The revenue disapears into an abyss. The second verse of the mantra is "We don't have to money to_______". [[insert City service here). Besides, was that Federal Grant money earmarked especifically for tearing down the Brewsters, or to tear down dangerous structures in general? Because I don't see the Brewsters posing an immediate threat like some structures.

I agree with ,but the demo monies are coming from HUD which is part of their across the country"no projects left standing initiative" they had to have played some role in them in the past otherwise it would have not qualified,and as usual there is a time stamp on the availability depending on HUD funding at the senate level.

Of course they could not do what they are doing where I am at and take the similar situation and rehabilitating and adding a shopping center and really nice small business buildings with more apartments on top. Actually embracing the heritage of the center other then trying to erase it. It is coming out nice and will have a huge impact on the area when it is done.

Something about making lemons out of lemonade by using the same amount or an added additional to actually improve through reuse verses tear it down and they will come fantasy.

**Brian1979** · January-24-13, 09:46 AM

Wouldn't it make more sense to start redeveloping some of the neighborhoods away from downtown and midtown? I look at neighborhood's like Detroit's North End and Brightmoor and think that the city has done nothing to redevelop these areas. All the redevelopment is going on downtown and midtown, there is at least another 135 square miles to Detroit than those two parts of town. Take for example zip code 48205 and look at the condition it is in, 48205 is the extreme northeast part of the city that includes Gratiot Avenue.

I live in Chicago and am plenty happy with the development they have here that is away from downtown. In Chicago you have the South Loop, Lincoln Park, Lakeview, Albany Park, Bridgeport, West Loop, River North and so on. Of course some of these areas are real close to downtown like the South and West Loops and River North but the rest of them are away from downtown and doing just fine. It's too bad Detroit can't get their act together and rebuild the city properly. Downtown doesn't need anymore attention, the rest of the city is in terrible shape.

**Honky Tonk** · January-24-13, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by Brian1979

Wouldn't it make more sense to start redeveloping some of the neighborhoods away from downtown and midtown? I look at neighborhood's like Detroit's North End and Brightmoor and think that the city has done nothing to redevelop these areas. All the redevelopment is going on downtown and midtown, there is at least another 135 square miles to Detroit than those two parts of town. Take for example zip code 48205 and look at the condition it is in, 48205 is the extreme northeast part of the city that includes Gratiot Avenue.

I live in Chicago and am plenty happy with the development they have here that is away from downtown. In Chicago you have the South Loop, Lincoln Park, Lakeview, Albany Park, Bridgeport, West Loop, River North and so on. Of course some of these areas are real close to downtown like the South and West Loops and River North but the rest of them are away from downtown and doing just fine. It's too bad Detroit can't get their act together and rebuild the city properly. Downtown doesn't need anymore attention, the rest of the city is in terrible shape.

Thank you.......

ArmDetroit · January-24-13, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by Brian1979

Wouldn't it make more sense to start redeveloping some of the neighborhoods away from downtown and midtown? I look at neighborhood's like Detroit's North End and Brightmoor and think that the city has done nothing to redevelop these areas. All the redevelopment is going on downtown and midtown, there is at least another 135 square miles to Detroit than those two parts of town. Take for example zip code 48205 and look at the condition it is in, 48205 is the extreme northeast part of the city that includes Gratiot Avenue.

The city hasn't done much to redevelop anything. The majority of the redevelopment downtown/midtown is being done by private investors. While I agree that the rest of the city needs attention, the fact that downtown/midtown are among the "safest" areas in the city is partially why you see redevelopment happening there. If you want to see redevelopment elsewhere in the city you'll have to wait until the city can provide adequate police/fire services to areas other than Woodward Ave.

**cman710** · January-24-13, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by Brian1979

Wouldn't it make more sense to start redeveloping some of the neighborhoods away from downtown and midtown? I look at neighborhood's like Detroit's North End and Brightmoor and think that the city has done nothing to redevelop these areas. All the redevelopment is going on downtown and midtown, there is at least another 135 square miles to Detroit than those two parts of town. Take for example zip code 48205 and look at the condition it is in, 48205 is the extreme northeast part of the city that includes Gratiot Avenue.

At least in Brightmoor, there has been some redevelopment in the last decade. See the site for Brightmoor Neighborhood Redevelopment, which has built about 180 homes and rehabbed a smaller number of homes in the past decade. Given the momentum in the downtown and midtown areas, and the inefficiency of having new development spread out, though, I doubt we will see a concerted government effort to redevelop these areas.