Judge signs order to demolish Charlevoix Hotel

**Gistok** · January-15-13, 10:35 AM

Wow... that is pretty bad... and one would think it was beyond repair...

That's what I thought when I went inside the Grand Circus Theatre in 1991... 1st image...

But if there's money... then miracles can be done... [[now Detroit Opera House) 2nd image...

It's just that there's no money....

Shollin · January-15-13, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by ismoakrack

Oh Shollin, you never cease to embarrass yourself on this forum

It's pretty simple. Smaller population means smaller city. How can a city lose 60% of it's population and over 1 million people and still be considered a large city? If there was demand for these buildings they wouldn't be vacant. The population declines every day.

**roadking** · January-15-13, 12:49 PM

If the Charlevoix does get demolished, and very possibly the Eddystone for the new arena, it will be a terrible and unnecessary loss that the city will soon regret.

**neavling** · January-15-13, 07:17 PM

Originally Posted by Honky Tonk

Good photos. What a mess and very sad. Top row, right photo, what is that metal looking grate door behind the deteriorating plaster? Is that an elevator? Thanx.

That's a good question. I'll go through my photos and see if I can get a better look at it.

**nain rouge** · January-15-13, 07:40 PM

Personally, I don't necessarily mind that this building is being torn down. For one, rest assured - the city still has plenty of vacant buildings in the downtown area. Two, I'm not a big fan of what happened to downtown in the 1920s and 1960s, when livable, human scale 2- to 4-story buildings where knocked down in favor of massive skyscrapers that only have a level or two open to the public.

Honestly, if you ask me, from an average pedestrian's perspective, buildings like the Fisher were/are just glorified "proto"-malls, enclosed areas for shopping and small offices. The rest of the floors are generally inaccessible and just offices, anyway. If more of downtown still looked like Greektown, it would probably be a much more viable place. Instead, we fight perpetual battles regarding the "lack" of parking for the beloved behemoths, and the poverty of evening foot traffic such buildings tend to create.

Even Brooklyn has this problem. The central businesses district is a spooky ghost town at night. Everything that's happening is in the neighborhoods, which were built to human scale. Funny. Imagine that.

**p69rrh51** · January-15-13, 07:47 PM

Originally Posted by nain rouge

Personally, I don't necessarily mind that this building is being torn down. For one, rest assured - the city still has plenty of vacant buildings in the downtown area. Two, I'm not a big fan of what happened to downtown in the 1920s and 1960s, when livable, human scale 2- to 4-story buildings where knocked down in favor of massive skyscrapers that only have a level or two open to the public.

Honestly, if you ask me, from an average pedestrian's perspective, buildings like the Fisher were/are just glorified "proto"-malls, enclosed areas for shopping and small offices. The rest of the floors are generally inaccessible and just offices, anyway. If more of downtown still looked like Greektown, it would probably be a much more viable place. Instead, we fight perpetual battles regarding the "lack" of parking for the beloved behemoths, and the poverty of evening foot traffic such buildings tend to create.

Even Brooklyn has this problem. The central businesses district is a spooky ghost town at night. Everything that's happening is in the neighborhoods, which were built to human scale. Funny. Imagine that.

Interesting observation NR but the Charlevoix was built 15 years before your timeline in 1905 and was an apartment hotel[[creating exactly what you want foot traffic). I am not sure what the building replaced but I have a feeling a single family home.

**nain rouge** · January-15-13, 08:02 PM

Originally Posted by p69rrh51

Interesting observation NR but the Charlevoix was built 15 years before your timeline in 1905 and was an apartment hotel[[creating exactly what you want foot traffic).

Well, sure, but it was part of that whole skyscraper sentiment that I don't think did too many American cities much good in the long run. Only ridiculously dense cities like Manhattan or San Francisco can handle that kind of excess. Yes, in a bigger city, you do need some skyscrapers and/or high-rises, but too often skyscrapers were built more to show off than for strictly practical reasons.

Hotel Charlevoix in and of itself is not excessive. But surrounded by so much excess, it's now unnecessary.

**Bad Brains** · January-16-13, 01:11 AM

Originally Posted by roadking

it will be a terrible and unnecessary loss that the city will soon regret.

To be honest, I highly doubt this is something the city will "soon regret." People were saying that about Hudson's, Tuller, Statler, Madison-Lennox, Tiger Stadium, etc. This won't change anything. Most of the young professionals and hipsters flocking into certain parts of the city don't even know what most of these buildings are/were.

**Richard** · January-16-13, 01:28 AM

Originally Posted by Bad Brains

To be honest, I highly doubt this is something the city will "soon regret." People were saying that about Hudson's, Tuller, Statler, Madison-Lennox, Tiger Stadium, etc. This won't change anything. Most of the young professionals and hipsters flocking into certain parts of the city don't even know what most of these buildings are/were.

So are they flocking there because they prefer the suburbs?

**Hermod** · January-16-13, 05:26 AM

Originally Posted by Richard

So are they flocking there because they prefer the suburbs?

1. There may be a "center of mass" of fellow hipsters that they want to be close to.

2. They may work downtown and want a short commute.

3. They may need to be close to Wayne State.

4. A slow dribble isn't "flocking".

**softailrider** · January-16-13, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by wolverine

I have to say I agree. I mean I worked on some renos that were pretty bad. The Charlevoix is steel frame with vaulted clay tile. Structure and infill block is probably fine but the facade would need to be overhauled. In any city renovating this would be a walk in the park. But no offense to Detroit in that I'm not sure you could get a big enough return converting to condos.

A walk in the park to renovate that place? My hat's off to you then, you must be a really great contractor.

**finster** · January-16-13, 06:12 PM

Those pictures are pretty gruesome. Probably a good idea to take it down and remove at least one blight from the landscape than let it rot for another twenty years.

Better yet, make one last call to a man named Gilbert and see if he wants it cheap.

**Honky Tonk** · January-16-13, 06:29 PM

Originally Posted by finster

Those pictures are pretty gruesome. Probably a good idea to take it down and remove at least one blight from the landscape than let it rot for another twenty years.

Better yet, make one last call to a man named Gilbert and see if he wants it cheap.

That is a seriously good idea.

**313WX** · January-16-13, 06:36 PM

Originally Posted by nain rouge

Personally, I don't necessarily mind that this building is being torn down. For one, rest assured - the city still has plenty of vacant buildings in the downtown area. Two, I'm not a big fan of what happened to downtown in the 1920s and 1960s, when livable, human scale 2- to 4-story buildings where knocked down in favor of massive skyscrapers that only have a level or two open to the public.

Honestly, if you ask me, from an average pedestrian's perspective, buildings like the Fisher were/are just glorified "proto"-malls, enclosed areas for shopping and small offices. The rest of the floors are generally inaccessible and just offices, anyway. If more of downtown still looked like Greektown, it would probably be a much more viable place. Instead, we fight perpetual battles regarding the "lack" of parking for the beloved behemoths, and the poverty of evening foot traffic such buildings tend to create.

Even Brooklyn has this problem. The central businesses district is a spooky ghost town at night. Everything that's happening is in the neighborhoods, which were built to human scale. Funny. Imagine that.

How do you explain Manhattan and Chicago's loop, which is what downtown was poised to mimic until the Great Depression?

**nain rouge** · January-17-13, 01:16 AM

It can work in extreme cases such as Manhattan, Chicago's Loop, and San Francisco, when you have enough coinciding apartment complexes, INSANE demand, and enough wealthy people to afford it all. Detroit's downtown had few residential complexes and the city's max density of roughly 13,000 per sq. mile [[and almost all were "working" middle class) was JUST enough to support the office buildings and glorified malls, and perhaps only because of the successful high density developments in nearby areas such as the Cass Corridor. However, the rest of the city was [[to quote Jane Jacobs) "low density failure", and once the few high density neighborhoods began to falter, the death knell was quickly sounded for downtown Detroit.

**nain rouge** · January-17-13, 01:22 AM

I still maintain that cities like Detroit, St. Louis, Cleveland, and etc. would've been better off having less vertical cores. But each wanted to be the best, the next Manhattan or Chicago, and the ultimate result was that cores of those cities flamed out - almost as soon as the finishing touches were put on the glorious skylines that yuppies can't stop drooling over.

**Richard** · January-17-13, 08:05 AM

The core can only support so much until you need the density of the surrounding neighborhoods to support it.

In the past the flight to the suburbs started in the surrounding neighborhoods which in turn brought the core down,which is probably why in currant studies they have found that no matter what they do to the core if they neglect the outer rings there comes a point where it all stalls,if you clear everything out from the outer rings it makes it that much harder to add the needed support to the core.

Historic buildings whether you like them or not add ambiance to their surroundings which is a selling point and for the most part portray a view in their design which is very expensive to replicate,who wants to live in a city that looks like the suburbs?Might as well live in the suburbs and let them enjoy your added tax base.

Today it looks ugly and needs to be torn down,tomorrow is another day and one by one today you remove what is there then tomorrow you end up with prairie land and wonder why nobody wants to rebuild,if you remove the foundations of a neighborhood what is left to build on?

But I guess that is the way of this country these days,what can you do for me today because I will worry about tomorrow when it comes,real estate has always been based on long term thought patterns when you only look at today you get bubbles in the system and they break,we do not learn.

**swingline** · January-24-13, 02:57 PM

The Hotel Charlevoix is coming down because after a brief and cursory "walk-thru" inspection by a Detroit BS&E engineer, the building was deemed "structurally unsound" thereby enabling an end run around the Historic District Commission's refusal to grant a demolition permit. Tomorrow, Ken Salazar, the U.S. Sec. of the Interior, Sen. Carl Levin, Brian Conway who is the Michigan State Historic Preservation Officer and others will participate in a program highlighting the federal historic preservation tax incentive program that has existed for over twenty years and has assisted in the restoration of countless buildings around the country. The meeting will be held at the Odd Fellows Hall in SW Detroit, a formerly "structurally unsound" building. http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...text|FRONTPAGE

**Hypestyles** · February-19-13, 04:25 PM

http://detroit2020.com/2013/02/19/de...ithin-45-days/

curious. Were there any bids to renovate the building in recent years?

**wolverine** · February-19-13, 07:31 PM

Be nice if the city could just go eminent domain on the land after the owner pays for the demolition himself. Public taking for reasons of public safety or transfer to another private owner for economic development.

Seems fair.

**DetroitArtSeen** · February-20-13, 10:24 AM

"Detroit's rich history is captured in its buildings. Preservation cannot happen without successful re-use of these buildings, and that's where the federal historic tax credit program plays a vital role," Levin said.

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...#ixzz2LSA9IVv7

**rex** · February-20-13, 10:31 AM

Good riddence. Phaps it will be freed up for another parking lot. We need more beautiful parking lots downtown

**rex** · February-20-13, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by Bad Brains

By admitting to trespassing, you're letting everyone know you're part of the problem and part of why this building is being torn down. Good job at contributing to the destruction of our architectural history.

By giving a shit what neavling does your letting everyone know you're probably a lot of fun to be around and part of why I hate talking to strangers.
Way to be!!!

**buckster1986** · March-09-13, 07:58 PM

Took a few final pictures today...

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?...1&l=a5e9541015

**Rocko** · March-09-13, 11:28 PM

The sad things is, available apartments in the Kales, Fyfe, and other locations on and close to Grand Circus have waiting lists. This area, near Capitol Park, the stadiums and right on the downtown-to-midtown corridor, will likely see tremendous development in the next 5 years. It seems as if it could contribute favorably to the stock of apartment residences growing in this area, and help maintain an important streetwall piece of the historic building stock surrounding Grand Circus, a stock that is slowly disappearing. Thanks for the photos. Another nearly solid block of surface parking here we come!