Lafayette Building's top two floors subsiding?

[PQZ]

[quote=McIPor;49291]

At the time, as you stated nothing was public. To the best of MPA's knowledge, there were two development teams competing to develop the building. MPA and Acquest had met with Walt Watkins and Brian Holdwick. Walts response to MPA's plans was, "Great, we don't have to do a feasibility study now."

A few weeks later, Doug McIntosh attended a public meeting where to his surprise, his plans were on the wall for KC. When asked about it, he received no explanation. To the best of his knowledge at the time, KC had not yet done any plans of its own. Plans being copyrighted and protected as intellectual property, MPA had a copyright attorney make one call to inquire about the use of its property without permission. No threats of lawsuits or extortion were ever made.

Interesting to hear you mention retribution taken to "marginalize" the firm though. The lesson of your tip unfortunately is don't ever question the DEGC or you will be marginalized. Not what you would like to see from a public agency.

That second hand version of events does not jibe with my recollection of events that I attended.

Acquest did meet with Holdwick and Watkins in a meeting also attended by Zeiler, Brown and I believe Papapanos. In the meeting is was acknowledged that it was good to see that there were plans showed the floor plates could accommodate hotel functions and still meet code.This confirmation from MPA as well as drawings received from the KC architect prior to the Acquest meeting, along with analysis from two certified architects on DEGC staff, reinforced the notion that the contract with Gensler could be modified and indeed it was. Part of Gensler's contract was to perform an analysis of whether modern hotel rooms could be feasible with the existing floor plates. With the analysis presented by KCs architect, then MPA and concurrent review by DDA architects, Watkins correctly concluded that it was reasonable to conclude that hotel rooms were feasible and that the dollars for architectural analysis could be shifted to the examination of facade delamination which was quickly becoming a cause for great concern.

So yes, MPA played a good role in that it triangulated what the DDA already believed to be true, that hotel rooms were feasible.

IIRC:
The drawings by KC and hanging on the wall at the DDA meeting showed a first floor that blew out all the former retail space, relocated the escalators, had a coffee shop & a high end 2 meal restaurant along Michigan and a three meal restaurant along Washington in the old Motor Bar space.

The MPA drawings showed the double corridor and original retail space intact, the escalators in original position and a bar / lounge at the old Motor Bar space.

On the second floor, KC showed a materially different configuration of the lobby and check in areas than MPA. Both plans showed a public lounge space taking advantage of the double height ceilings along Michigan

The third and fourth floor plans showed the resoration of public spaces, especially ballrooms, restorations that ANY development would be REQUIRED to make to obtain historic tax credits. The similarities on those particular spaces were mandated. That said there were also key differences in how the public space such as small conference and breakout rooms were laid out.

A major differeince was the KC plan which showed an addition with a major ballroom with trap door and lifts large enough for cars. The MPA plan did not show a similar addition.

The KC and MPA plans both contemplated hotel rooms of largely the same dimensions [[as one would expect based on current hotel demands and the confines of the existing columns) but there were key differnces in the mix of hotel rooms [[i.e. suites vs. double vs. kings) and the room count differed by more than 15%. The same thing happened with the condos, similar layouts dictated by the building envelope and columns, but again enough material differences that it would have been impossible to conclude copyright violation.

Doug MacIntosh did indeed protest to DDA staff that his plans had been stolen based on the following argument: Both plans showed hotel and condo mix, the hotel rooms were of similar size and both plans showed substantial renovation of ballrooms and historic space. He also approached the representatives of the Stolar Partnership, legal counsel for KC and, with me as witness and party to the conversation, accused KC of stealing the designs from MPA. He bluntly stated that he was going to pursue legal action against KC and the DDA. He also said he would drop the legal action if MPA were brought on board as sub contractors to the project. His statements to Dick Mersman of the Stolar Partnership was the only time I have ever seen Mersman lose his cool. Mersman is a very talented lawyer who essentially put together the St. Louis / Statler deal and with whom I had been dealing with for more than seven months. Mersman took great offense to the notion that his client stole anything or that it had cut corners with the DDA. He pointed out how he could destroy the suit in a matter of minutes because it was completely baseless. In the next 14 months, I did not see Mersman lose his cool again or become that angry with any other party.

The accusations of copyright infringement were and are baseless. They were so egregious as to be completely offensive to reasonable people. The attempt to shoe horn in or be reimbursed for the drawings was a clumsy attempt at extortion.

Any firm that behaves like that is going to have a very hard time regaining credibility with any public agency or any private party. Given that behavior, yes MPA was viewed with skepticism and suspicion - as MPA would do to any party that pulled a stunt like that with them.

[ghettopalmetto]

PQZ, I understand the need to be able to obtain financing to make the project work and to generate positive cash flow when completed. What I do not understand, and what DEGC fails to make clear, is how they can take conditions *at this one moment in time* and extrapolate that infinitely into the future to arrive at a conclusion of demolition. It's like saying, "Well, I don't have a date tonight, so I'm never going to get married. I might as well get that vasectomy."

The beef is not with making the numbers work [[now or in the future). The beef is that there is no clear, OBJECTIVE manner in which these decisions are made. No one is forcing DEGC's hand to demolish the Lafayette Building, just as their hand was unforced in the Tiger Stadium demolition.

[kraig]

PQZ, I understand the need to be able to obtain financing to make the project work and to generate positive cash flow when completed. What I do not understand, and what DEGC fails to make clear, is how they can take conditions *at this one moment in time* and extrapolate that infinitely into the future to arrive at a conclusion of demolition. It's like saying, "Well, I don't have a date tonight, so I'm never going to get married. I might as well get that vasectomy."

The beef is not with making the numbers work [[now or in the future). The beef is that there is no clear, OBJECTIVE manner in which these decisions are made. No one is forcing DEGC's hand to demolish the Lafayette Building, just as their hand was unforced in the Tiger Stadium demolition.

I once commented on a thread [[something about downtown businesses), that no matter how many times something is explained to you, you're not going to understand it.

You've proven that point a few times over on this thread.

By the way, stop using analogies. The ones that you're coming up with are beyond ridiculous.

[ghettopalmetto]

I once commented on a thread [[something about downtown businesses), that no matter how many times something is explained to you, you're not going to understand it.

You've proven that point a few times over on this thread.

By the way, stop using analogies. The ones that you're coming up with are beyond ridiculous.

Well gee, since you've put things in such concise, vague terms, and you obviously have tons more experience in renovating buildings than I do, I guess I'll just shut up, huh?

[Detroitnerd]

kraig is just being a bit defensive. I just think he's surprised that anybody has the commitment and tenacity to keep on debating him. Guess he's used to people just knuckling under after a while. But I'm enjoying the back and forth nonetheless.

So, where do I get the independent structural analysis of the Lafayette Building again?

[kraig]

kraig is just being a bit defensive. I just think he's surprised that anybody has the commitment and tenacity to keep on debating him. Guess he's used to people just knuckling under after a while. But I'm enjoying the back and forth nonetheless.

So, where do I get the independent structural analysis of the Lafayette Building again?

Any information that the DEGC has on the Lafayette building can be obtained through a Freedom Of Information Act request. Although, you may want to just call the DEGC and ask for it first.

Ghettopalmetto isn't really debating. He's just asking the same questions over and over and not understanding the answers. I wasn't even referring to me. I was referring to PQZ's responses, which have been extremely informative and detailed. If you read Ghettopalmetto's responses, it's quite clear that he either is incapable of understanding the responses or just refuses to acknowledge them.

Subsequently, he melts down into analogies that don't even come close to matching the situation or subjects that he's commenting on.

[kraig]

Well gee, since you've put things in such concise, vague terms, and you obviously have tons more experience in renovating buildings than I do, I guess I'll just shut up, huh?

I just have tons more experience in making sense, that's all. Please, keep posting, I can use a good laugh. And unlike Detroitnerd, you can be funny without even trying all the time.

[ghettopalmetto]

DEGC doesn't even have the Lafayette Building listed on its "Current Projects" or "RFP" pages on its website. Frankly, I'm not even sure if that should be construed as a positive or a negative for preservation of the building.

[PQZ]

Because the state enabling legislation does not allow private non-profits to collect and expend public tax revenues. DDA can and are tightly reguilated by the state.

The DEGC is a private non-profit whose activities are limited to attraction and retention activities i.e. marketing. They can go to a trade show and recruit a business. They can discuss private matters with the business such as the firms financial records, the firms future investment plans and even proprietary information such as patents. All of this is done to protect the confidentiality of the company. Otherwise, if a software maker met with a public body and shared their plans for new software as a justification for asking for a tax abatement to build a new HQ, those software plans become public record.

The flip sideof the coin is that the DEGC cannot commit ANY public dollars. That can only be done by public agencies like the DDA, EDC, DBRA, TIFA or NDC. All of their investments are public, are discussed in public meetings and approved by City Counil. Often they need state approval as well. DEGC will meet with and vet the developer / client /investor and then direct them to the appropriate agency for support if viable.This way, the public investment is public and proprietary information is kept confidential. This structure is ubiquitous across the country at the state, regional, county and municipal level.

As a side note, the DEGC employs a staff that they then subcontract on a project by project basis to the various authorities.

An engineer may be hired by DEGC but the employee will work solely on DDA and EDC projects, so the entirely of their work is public record as the DEGC is being reimbursed for the wages by a line item in the project budgets. This is a very effective way to reduce staffing costs for the agencies. For example, the DDA had huge staffing needs for two years prior to the Superbowl for engineers and project managers to complete the streetscapes. Instead of overpaying for a private firm to do the work or hiring then terminating engineers, the DEGC was able to reassign engineering / project staff to the DDA projects from EDC projects that were wrapping up. Once the DDA Superbowl projects wrapped up, some of that staff began working on the East Riverfront.

Its perfectly legal, perfectly ethical and quite a clever way to reduce staff and overhead costs for projects while maintaining continuity. Its not nefarious, its not murky. Its effecient and straightforward.

[ghettopalmetto]

Because the state enabling legislation does not allow private non-profits to collect and expend public tax revenues. DDA can and are tightly reguilated by the state.

The DEGC is a private non-profit whose activities are limited to attraction and retention activities i.e. marketing. They can go to a trade show and recruit a business. They can discuss private matters with the business such as the firms financial records, the firms future investment plans and even proprietary information such as patents. All of this is done to protect the confidentiality of the company. Otherwise, if a software maker met with a public body and shared their plans for new software as a justification for asking for a tax abatement to build a new HQ, those software plans become public record.

The flip sideof the coin is that the DEGC cannot commit ANY public dollars. That can only be done by public agencies like the DDA, EDC, DBRA, TIFA or NDC. All of their investments are public, are discussed in public meetings and approved by City Counil. Often they need state approval as well. DEGC will meet with and vet the developer / client /investor and then direct them to the appropriate agency for support if viable.This way, the public investment is public and proprietary information is kept confidential. This structure is ubiquitous across the country at the state, regional, county and municipal level.

As a side note, the DEGC employs a staff that they then subcontract on a project by project basis to the various authorities.

An engineer may be hired by DEGC but the employee will work solely on DDA and EDC projects, so the entirely of their work is public record as the DEGC is being reimbursed for the wages by a line item in the project budgets. This is a very effective way to reduce staffing costs for the agencies. For example, the DDA had huge staffing needs for two years prior to the Superbowl for engineers and project managers to complete the streetscapes. Instead of overpaying for a private firm to do the work or hiring then terminating engineers, the DEGC was able to reassign engineering / project staff to the DDA projects from EDC projects that were wrapping up. Once the DDA Superbowl projects wrapped up, some of that staff began working on the East Riverfront.

Its perfectly legal, perfectly ethical and quite a clever way to reduce staff and overhead costs for projects while maintaining continuity. Its not nefarious, its not murky. Its effecient and straightforward.

My question was not whether or not DEGC is legitimate. My question was why these functions can't simply be handled by a publicly accountable agency like the DDA. It seems like you're telling us that DDA puts up the money, and DEGC handles everything else. Is this correct?

There is a reason to have a non-profit, quasi-public, unaccountable DEGC and it's not out of functional necessity. Maybe you would like to share that reason with us all.

[gnome]

PQZ- I have an unconnected to the thread question, but you seem to be in the know on the Book Cadillac.

There was another thread on long buried/covered streams. One poster SludgeDaddy mentioned that part of Savoyard Creek can still be found near the intersection of Michigan and Washington. I seem to remember that in the sub, sub basement of the B/C there was a water source found, but it couldn't be capped. The soultion was install a sump pit.

My question to you, is that water source in the sub, sub basement of the B/C an existing part of the Savoyard?

[PQZ]

PQZ- I have an unconnected to the thread question, but you seem to be in the know on the Book Cadillac.

There was another thread on long buried/covered streams. One poster SludgeDaddy mentioned that part of Savoyard Creek can still be found near the intersection of Michigan and Washington. I seem to remember that in the sub, sub basement of the B/C there was a water source found, but it couldn't be capped. The soultion was install a sump pit.

My question to you, is that water source in the sub, sub basement of the B/C an existing part of the Savoyard?

Detroit soil, especially the closer you get to the river, is nearly of a slurry consistency, that is - its clayish with a very high water content. The deeper you dig the more water will seep through concrete and foundation seams and cracks. At some point, it is worthless to dig any deeper because the water just cannot be stopped. I am not aware of the Savoyard Creek intersecting the building anywhere, but if was in the genreal area, say 100-200 feet, the creek has likely been filled in and the water diffuses through the soil, saturating everything around it rather than running in a specific channel.

[Gistok]

"Gnome: - I have an unconnected to the thread question, but you seem to be in the know on the Book Cadillac.

There was another thread on long buried/covered streams. One poster SludgeDaddy mentioned that part of Savoyard Creek can still be found near the intersection of Michigan and Washington. I seem to remember that in the sub, sub basement of the B/C there was a water source found, but it couldn't be capped. The soultion was install a sump pit.

My question to you, is that water source in the sub, sub basement of the B/C an existing part of the Savoyard? "

Detroit soil, especially the closer you get to the river, is nearly of a slurry consistency, that is - its clayish with a very high water content. The deeper you dig the more water will seep through concrete and foundation seams and cracks. At some point, it is worthless to dig any deeper because the water just cannot be stopped. I am not aware of the Savoyard Creek intersecting the building anywhere, but if was in the genreal area, say 100-200 feet, the creek has likely been filled in and the water diffuses through the soil, saturating everything around it rather than running in a specific channel.

Gnome, when I had a private tour of the former Michigan Theatre basement, which is mostly a separate structure from the Michigan Building itself... I inquired about the electricity that still services that area, and was told that it was for the continuously running sump pump in the sub-basement.... without which it would start filling with water.

As PQZ alluded to, this appears to be a common problem with many downtown buildings [[due to soil and drainage), and explains the flooded basement conditions of abandoned or power shut-off downtown buildings.

I bet that explains the piano swimming in the orchestra pit of the formerly abandoned Grand Circus [[formerly Capitol) Theatre before it was restored as the Detroit Opera House.

[Novine]

"That may stick in some people's craw, but I challenge anyone to point out a redevelopment in the downtown that was not assisted by the DDA in some fashion. Just one. Only one."

Do you pay attention to what anyone here is saying besides yourself [[and Kraig)? The beef people have with Geo. Jackson and the DDA/DEGC isn't that they spend public money on projects. It's how that public money is being spent. They don't want it being spent on demolition that's unneeded and adds nothing to the downtown [[and has a lot of long-term negatives). All of the other areas where DDA money is being spent doesn't change the fact that the demolitions that they have funded have largely been unneeded, unwarranted, wasteful, in some cases promoting the interests of private property owners at public expense [[Ilitch) and have done little to create actual development in downtown. You can continue to defend those wasteful ways but no one here is being distracted by your efforts to divert attention from that central fact.

[kraig]

"That may stick in some people's craw, but I challenge anyone to point out a redevelopment in the downtown that was not assisted by the DDA in some fashion. Just one. Only one."

Do you pay attention to what anyone here is saying besides yourself [[and Kraig)? The beef people have with Geo. Jackson and the DDA/DEGC isn't that they spend public money on projects. It's how that public money is being spent. They don't want it being spent on demolition that's unneeded and adds nothing to the downtown [[and has a lot of long-term negatives). All of the other areas where DDA money is being spent doesn't change the fact that the demolitions that they have funded have largely been unneeded, unwarranted, wasteful, in some cases promoting the interests of private property owners at public expense [[Ilitch) and have done little to create actual development in downtown. You can continue to defend those wasteful ways but no one here is being distracted by your efforts to divert attention from that central fact.

Like I said, deflection.

[gnome]

PQZ- Good posts, let me say it's nice having an informed voice chime in on these issues. It is my hope, you'll take the passion exhibited on this Board as; one, a frustration with our collective history of destruction and demo; two, that destruction being decided behind some smokey curtains [[the Madison Lenox is a particular sore spot followed closely by the Donovan); three, and maybe the most important, a genuine concern to bring the City back from the brink.

I'd say that last point is one of common interest. Everyone would like to see the City move forward in a productive fashion. Preservation is part of that.

Now, you have mentioned your group has held public hearings and that folks just don't show up. Could you point me to a source where the schedule for your meetings are posted? Beside trolling the Legal News, or the Classified Pages of the FreePress or News ... where is your schedule posted?

[PQZ]

PQZ- Good posts, let me say it's nice having an informed voice chime in on these issues. It is my hope, you'll take the passion exhibited on this Board as; one, a frustration with our collective history of destruction and demo; two, that destruction being decided behind some smokey curtains [[the Madison Lenox is a particular sore spot followed closely by the Donovan); three, and maybe the most important, a genuine concern to bring the City back from the brink.

I'd say that last point is one of common interest. Everyone would like to see the City move forward in a productive fashion. Preservation is part of that.

Now, you have mentioned your group has held public hearings and that folks just don't show up. Could you point me to a source where the schedule for your meetings are posted? Beside trolling the Legal News, or the Classified Pages of the FreePress or News ... where is your schedule posted?

Not my "group". I haven't lived in the state for 18 months. Call DEGC and ask for the receptionist for the regularly scheduled meetings. They should also have a way for you to be notified.

I understand people being frustrated, but it also is mind boggling how people are unable to look at the enitrety of the picture.

Like it or not, the private market has collapsed in Detroit. The only way anything gets done is with public subsidy. Its a fact, plain and simple. If the arm chair developers are pointing out that this project or the other has been done and the DEGC / DDA doesn't 'get it', they are completely missing the fact that their case study only happened because of the DDA / DEGC. So yes. The DDA gets it. The arm chair mud slingers don't.

That may stick in some people's craw, but I challenge anyone to point out a redevelopment in the downtown that was not assisted by the DDA in some fashion. Just one. Only one.

[kraig]

Not my "group". I haven't lived in the state for 18 months. Call DEGC and ask for the receptionist for the regularly scheduled meetings. They should also have a way for you to be notified.

I understand people being frustrated, but it also is mind boggling how people are unable to look at the enitrety of the picture.

Like it or not, the private market has collapsed in Detroit. The only way anything gets done is with public subsidy. Its a fact, plain and simple. If the arm chair developers are pointing out that this project or the other has been done and the DEGC / DDA doesn't 'get it', they are completely missing the fact that their case study only happened because of the DDA / DEGC. So yes. The DDA gets it. The arm chair mud slingers don't.

That may stick in some people's craw, but I challenge anyone to point out a redevelopment in the downtown that was not assisted by the DDA in some fashion. Just one. Only one.

Excellent posts. Get ready for a lot of responses that deflect from the challenge.

[PQZ]

Excellent posts. Get ready for a lot of responses that deflect from the challenge.

Allow me to amend that to DDA / DBRA.

[Pam]

What is the significance [[historical or architectural) of the Lafayette Building

http://www.detroit1701.org/Lafayette%20Building.html

[Novine]

"Does the city have much better uses for the more than $1.4 million it would spend to mothball the Lafayette Building?"

Of course it does. It's equally true of spending that money being spent on demolition. There's 1000 things that the money should be spend on instead of demolition. Can you acknowledge that?

If the decision is between spending $1.4 million on demolition or $1.4 million plus some additional cost for mothballing, there's no doubt that the additional cost for mothballing is a better use of the money. Demolition adds zero value to downtown. It creates more vacant property, which downtown doesn't need, and which adds zero value to the surrounding properties. Mothballing the building reduces the long-term maintenance and rehabilitation costs when the building is rehabbed. As has been noted by others, the DDAs failure to maintain its buildings has resulted in millions of additional costs for those rehabilitating those buildings. If spending an extra $500,000 saves millions in future development costs, it's money well-spent.

[kraig]

"Does the city have much better uses for the more than $1.4 million it would spend to mothball the Lafayette Building?"

Of course it does. It's equally true of spending that money being spent on demolition. There's 1000 things that the money should be spend on instead of demolition. Can you acknowledge that?

If the decision is between spending $1.4 million on demolition or $1.4 million plus some additional cost for mothballing, there's no doubt that the additional cost for mothballing is a better use of the money. Demolition adds zero value to downtown. It creates more vacant property, which downtown doesn't need, and which adds zero value to the surrounding properties. Mothballing the building reduces the long-term maintenance and rehabilitation costs when the building is rehabbed. As has been noted by others, the DDAs failure to maintain its buildings has resulted in millions of additional costs for those rehabilitating those buildings. If spending an extra $500,000 saves millions in future development costs, it's money well-spent.

Are you interested in buying the Belle Isle Bridge from me?

[Detroitnerd]

Are you interested in buying the Belle Isle Bridge from me?

C'mon, kraig. That chestnut is so old Granpappy Detroitnerd could have used it.

[davewindsor]

Are you interested in buying the Belle Isle Bridge from me?

No, but if you could figure out a way to get legal title, I'm sure Matty Mouran would give you a bundle for it.

[kraig]

Hey Detroitnerd, you can't blame a guy for trying. If Novine believes that all it will take to repair the Lafayette Building is an additional $500,000.00, well, like they say, a fool and his money is soon parted.