Quote Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto View Post
You're completely missing the point, Kraig. Here's why:

1. An empty lot is *guaranteed* to make zero money for the city in the long-term, and the proposed landscaping will in fact cost money. I'm not talking about "mothballing". I'm talking about the lost potential for development once this building is demolished.

2. There are no "knowns" telling the DEGC demolish. Good science demands a null hypothesis. To what have they compared the cost of demolition? Where's the benefit/cost analysis? There is no established objective basis for comparison at this time. By refusing to perform the due diligence necessary to reach an objective and fact-based decision, the DEGC has, in effect, made a completely emotional decision to demolish the Lafayette Building.

3. An engineer wouldn't be engaged to suggest means of mothballing. Joe Contractor off the street can do that much cheaper. An engineer would be hired to conduct a feasibility study and define a scope of repair to ensure stability and sound condition of the structure--which is necessary should a renovation be undertaken. If it takes two engineers one week to conduct the investigation, you're looking at about $10,000, or 0.7% the cost of demolition. That's not much money to pay to obtain an objective answer, especially when one considers the cost of constructing a new building on the site, and any subsidies that would be required to do so.

What the "pro-demolition" argument is missing is that the Lafayette Building has been paid off for quite some time. Instead of recovering those sunk costs, the DEGC has voted to spend money to reintroduce those costs, in that new design work, foundations, and structure would need to be erected for any new building on the site.

4. Yes, repairs would likely cost more than the cost of demolition. But if the building is repaired and renovated, it would be returned to the tax rolls and contribute to the city's economic well-being. This is known as a "long-term" approach, as opposed to the "Holy Shit the Economy Sucks at this One Little Blip In Time Fucking Bulldoze Everything!" approach.

5. The only reason the Lafayette Building would HAVE to be demolished RIGHT NOW is if its existence were an immediate danger to life and property. Again, the DEGC cares enough to not hire an engineer to make this determination.

But hey, this is just my opinion. Feel free to support yet another giant moonscaped hole in the middle of downtown Detroit if you think that's gonna help anything.


The question did say repair as well, I see you conveniently didn't answer that part of the question.

I don't support the building coming down. As I've stated before, I'm all for the DEGC letting developers take a look at it. They don't have anything to lose. But I understand where the DEGC is coming from on this one. Having a building, owned by the City, with pipes hanging out of windows and trees growing in and out of it, makes it that much more difficult to market downtown. If you are a developer with no interest in the Lafayette Building or its preservation. Why in the world would you want to do business around it? The BC had the benefit of the Federal Government providing some upkeep while they were using the building back in the 90's. The Lafayette is too far gone to simply hold on to. If someone is ready to try to rehab the building and use it, fine,if not, reality has to take over.