Detroit targets Park Ave. Bldg. for demolition

[ghettopalmetto]

How are the demolitions off-the-cuff? If there is someone actively trying to acquire a building and it is demolished, then that is off-the-cuff.

I'm saying that your avid support of demolition is off-the-cuff. We don't have any facts on this building. No one does. There is no condition assessment, no scope of repair, no cost estimates, nothing. The decision to demolish is pure guesswork, just as it has been with every single demolition in downtown Detroit in the past 20 years.

Demolition is then the last resort and unfortunately that's what it comes down to.

You're damn right, demolition should be a last resort. Considering that buildings can outlive humans by hundreds of years, I fail to see the impetus to *do something--anything--RIGHT FREAKING NOW*. There's no imperative at work here. Relax.

You say demolition hasn't worked but then aren't the remaining buildings more likely to be reused if there's now less of them needing costly renovations?

No. For the simple reason that nobody wants to renovate a historic building if it sits in a sea of empty lots. Tenants for those properties want to be in a context, not an isolated box. Developers know this. Real estate brokers know this. The only people who don't are 1) George Jackson and 2) the pitchfork-wielding pro-demolition crowd.

I'm sure glad that you're able to sleep, boiling down complex construction projects to a simple linear equation from the first lecture of Econ 101. But that's just not reality. Developers are looking for that all-important context--an urban, high-density, walkable mixed-use environment. They're not looking for isolated stand-alone towers that they could easily find in Southfield. Once you start demolishing, you chip away at that context in small increments until you have a moonscape that nobody wants.

Your crude application of elastic supply-and-demand just isn't applicable to an inelastic supply of buildings.

[rjlj]

Still waiting for animatedmartian to respond.

How many buildings are being re-developed in the central business district today? How many brand new buildings are being built in the central business district today?

[Huggybear]

GP, you have to consider the effect market economics - and that is the difference between restoring an old structure, building a new structure in its place, and having a vacant lot.

For developers, buildings have to have return on investment. Older buildings typically require a lot of repair [[not just to get them going but on an ongoing basis to prevent small problems from becoming big ones). They also have higher operating costs [[because in 1910, apparently, fuel oil was free, insulation was unnecessary, and elevators worked by magic).

Every dollar an older structure costs [[short- and long-term) over a new one is only justifiable in intangibles. And these intangibles [[particularly architecture) mean little to most developers, property managers, and tenants - and that's exactly why for all the "intrinsic value," most businesses in our area are housed in faceless office parks. When it comes to these rehab projects, you have to be able to make up the gap with other things. That's not always easy, particularly with changes the state has made to the tax credit setup.

So what happens to the hapless building? The owner won't rent it at all until he thinks the rent will make the ROI acceptable [[this seems like a nonsensical approach for commercial landlords, but that's how they do it). The property tax bills pile up. The building goes to hell [[not immediately in a structural sense, but it doesn't take much time for the architecturally-distinctive part - the facade and curtain wall - to start failing), and the financing gap for rehab keeps growing. It is not surprising that things get torn down to mitigate the tax situation or to take advantage of the fact that surface parking appears to recover more psf than habitable space.

I don't agree that there is some shadow government of demolitionists. The real issues are irrational owner behavior, a property tax regime that favors demolition, the ability of landowners to demolish by right, and a soft real estate market. If M1 rail raises Midtown rents sufficiently, we may have an influx of people into downtown properties [[which are cheaper), and that will help stem the building losses.

HB

[animatedmartian]

Still waiting for animatedmartian to respond.

How many buildings are being re-developed in the central business district today? How many brand new buildings are being built in the central business district today?

Buildings that were previously vacant that are right now being in the process of being reused would be the David Whitney Building, the Metropolitan Building, and a dozen or so buildings around Capitol Park, 4 of which I think were completely vacant [[including a couple of them that even made the news for having dangerous debris falling and owners being sent to court repeated times). David Stott and the Free Press building are supposedly going to have renovations, but I'm not aware of any current activity.

New construction buildings starting soon include The Grisworld [[on top of the parking deck), Statler City apartments, and whatever apartments Illitch has planned next door to Comerica Park.

[animatedmartian]

I'm saying that your avid support of demolition is off-the-cuff. We don't have any facts on this building. No one does. There is no condition assessment, no scope of repair, no cost estimates, nothing. The decision to demolish is pure guesswork, just as it has been with every single demolition in downtown Detroit in the past 20 years.

I'm pretty sure the city would know the condition of these buildings and that's the reason the send blight violations to the owners.

You're damn right, demolition should be a last resort. Considering that buildings can outlive humans by hundreds of years, I fail to see the impetus to *do something--anything--RIGHT FREAKING NOW*. There's no imperative at work here. Relax.

If the city is having court battles with the owners for a number of years, then at that point that's when the last resort measure is taken. Court battles still cost the city money. So at some point they have to put a stop to it if the owners constantly resist.

No. For the simple reason that nobody wants to renovate a historic building if it sits in a sea of empty lots. Tenants for those properties want to be in a context, not an isolated box. Developers know this. Real estate brokers know this. The only people who don't are 1) George Jackson and 2) the pitchfork-wielding pro-demolition crowd.

Now see, that doesn't make any sense. A historic building is a historic building right? So what are you saying the parking lots around it need to be developed before developers go for the historic building? Or that the historic building will join the sea of parking lots through demolition?

I'm sure glad that you're able to sleep, boiling down complex construction projects to a simple linear equation from the first lecture of Econ 101. But that's just not reality. Developers are looking for that all-important context--an urban, high-density, walkable mixed-use environment. They're not looking for isolated stand-alone towers that they could easily find in Southfield. Once you start demolishing, you chip away at that context in small increments until you have a moonscape that nobody wants.

Your crude application of elastic supply-and-demand just isn't applicable to an inelastic supply of buildings.

Developers can build whatever they want, it's the people who will be living/working in those developments which determines how much money the developer will make. The "urban, high-density, walkable mixed-use environment" is generally aimed at yuppies and DINKys, which honestly is only a small fraction in the whole of market buyers. You can still build an office building with 10 parking garages around it and people will still use it if their job is there. Or even a strip-mall in the middle of downtown, people will still shop there. Whether it would still attract that narrow demographic of high income yuppies, I don't know, but it's not as black-and-white as you make it out to be.

[ghettopalmetto]

I'm pretty sure the city would know the condition of these buildings and that's the reason the send blight violations to the owners.

Okay, so let's see the written Condition Assessment by the Architect/Engineer team that the City hired. We can't make decisions without all the facts in front of us, can we?

Developers can build whatever they want, it's the people who will be living/working in those developments which determines how much money the developer will make.

Actually, no they can't. Developers are restricted by zoning regulations and lending requirements. But that aside, a developer looking to renovate an existing building can't exactly do so if they've all been torn down "just because".

The "urban, high-density, walkable mixed-use environment" is generally aimed at yuppies and DINKys, which honestly is only a small fraction in the whole of market buyers. You can still build an office building with 10 parking garages around it and people will still use it if their job is there. Or even a strip-mall in the middle of downtown, people will still shop there. Whether it would still attract that narrow demographic of high income yuppies, I don't know, but it's not as black-and-white as you make it out to be.

So you expect to distort the real estate market [[based on a profound lack of information), and employ a "Take it or leave it" approach? Just because you're too married to your ideology, or the City is too lazy to conduct objective analysis? Yeah, I think the people have already spoken...they're leaving.

I don't know what you think, but the rents that poor folks can afford to pay aren't going to cover the costs of construction--WHETHER THAT IS NEW OR RENOVATION. And frankly, Detroit needs more higher-income folks living and working in the city.

I think it's pretty crass and simplistic of you, though, to assume that everyone who isn't a "yuppie" or "DINK" wants to live in a plastic house and drive five miles for a loaf of bread. All evidence points to the 7-decade-long suburban experiment is coming to an end. In other words: Detroit-as-theme-park will be uncompetitive; it behooves the City of Detroit to start rebuilding its urbanity now if it wants to survive to its 400th birthday. If you thought the recent bankruptcy was fun, that's really just the beginning.

[DetroitPlanner]

Park Ave would be an awful site for a Target. Not many building left there to demolish except for that pile of crap at Adams.

[animatedmartian]

Okay, so let's see the written Condition Assessment by the Architect/Engineer team that the City hired. We can't make decisions without all the facts in front of us, can we?

It's the city's decision to make and if they find that the building needs to be demolished, then they will do so. It seems like you're trying to argue that the city needs approval from citizens on demolitions.

Actually, no they can't. Developers are restricted by zoning regulations and lending requirements. But that aside, a developer looking to renovate an existing building can't exactly do so if they've all been torn down "just because".

Again, why does that make a difference if the end goal is still going to be a usable development? If it's vacant land, or a vacant building, they'll use what they've got. My argument this whole time is that a vacant dilapidated building already has a set cost that is very hard to avoid. If real estate prices are depressed, then it makes renovating a dilapidated building less profitable if at all.

So you expect to distort the real estate market [[based on a profound lack of information), and employ a "Take it or leave it" approach? Just because you're too married to your ideology, or the City is too lazy to conduct objective analysis? Yeah, I think the people have already spoken...they're leaving.

It's news to me if people are leaving Detroit because of it's lack of historical architecture. I was under the impression Detroit still had plenty of historical architecture, only that many still were dilapidated and too costly to repair.

I don't know what you think, but the rents that poor folks can afford to pay aren't going to cover the costs of construction--WHETHER THAT IS NEW OR RENOVATION. And frankly, Detroit needs more higher-income folks living and working in the city.

Even with new construction, it can be built specifically for low-income folks. Of course, it won't be as aesthetically significant. My point is that a renovation is pretty much always guaranteed to need high rents to cover the costs of renovation save for the use of subsidies.

I think it's pretty crass and simplistic of you, though, to assume that everyone who isn't a "yuppie" or "DINK" wants to live in a plastic house and drive five miles for a loaf of bread. All evidence points to the 7-decade-long suburban experiment is coming to an end. In other words: Detroit-as-theme-park will be uncompetitive; it behooves the City of Detroit to start rebuilding its urbanity now if it wants to survive to its 400th birthday. If you thought the recent bankruptcy was fun, that's really just the beginning.

This seems just outright hyperbolic.

[ghettopalmetto]

It's the city's decision to make and if they find that the building needs to be demolished, then they will do so. It seems like you're trying to argue that the city needs approval from citizens on demolitions.

Obviously not, or the City would not have filed a court motion, would they? My problem is, the City sensationalizes its opinion in order to fall in-line with the pre-ordained goal of demolition. A few loose bricks, or a loose fire escape, do not warrant "immediate demolition" of an entire building. The City has a history of playing fast and loose with what they consider "structurally unsound". They are not known to hire licensed and registered Professional Engineers to make such determinations, but rather rely on the personal [[and untrained) opinion of George Jackson--which is worth less than the paper on which it's printed. Make no mistake--this is flat-out overly-aggressive behavior toward a private property owner.

Again, why does that make a difference if the end goal is still going to be a usable development? If it's vacant land, or a vacant building, they'll use what they've got. My argument this whole time is that a vacant dilapidated building already has a set cost that is very hard to avoid. If real estate prices are depressed, then it makes renovating a dilapidated building less profitable if at all.

Okay, so let's see some objective analysis, then. If the City is pressing for demolition in court, they have to make a convincing, objective case based on FACTS, do they not?

Even with new construction, it can be built specifically for low-income folks. Of course, it won't be as aesthetically significant. My point is that a renovation is pretty much always guaranteed to need high rents to cover the costs of renovation save for the use of subsidies.

And you know this how? Because you've ever renovated a building? Aesthetics are actually very low marginal cost items in a new building.

[animatedmartian]

Obviously not, or the City would not have filed a court motion, would they? My problem is, the City sensationalizes its opinion in order to fall in-line with the pre-ordained goal of demolition. A few loose bricks, or a loose fire escape, do not warrant "immediate demolition" of an entire building. The City has a history of playing fast and loose with what they consider "structurally unsound". They are not known to hire licensed and registered Professional Engineers to make such determinations, but rather rely on the personal [[and untrained) opinion of George Jackson--which is worth less than the paper on which it's printed. Make no mistake--this is flat-out overly-aggressive behavior toward a private property owner.

Are you serious? All it takes is a single brick from the top of a highrise to fall and kill someone walking by below. That is a public hazard and isn't something that can be tolerated for any length of time. There's some pretty serious issues going on if a building gets to that point which usually tends to indicate that the building is close to being unsound.

Okay, so let's see some objective analysis, then. If the City is pressing for demolition in court, they have to make a convincing, objective case based on FACTS, do they not?

Judging by your first paragraph, I don't even think facts would be enough.

And you know this how? Because you've ever renovated a building? Aesthetics are actually very low marginal cost items in a new building.

I can't tell if you're serious when you've constantly complained that new buildings look like cheap plastic.

[ghettopalmetto]

Yes, I'm perfectly serious. I didn't say that loose bricks weren't dangerous. I said that they do not warrant an immediate demolition of a building, as the City of Detroit is claiming in court. Loose facade elements [[and loose fire escapes) can be repaired. They are not load-bearing in buildings of this type, and their condition has no bearing on the integrity of the primary structural system.

If the City of Detroit had actually hired an engineer to make this determination, this is exactly what they would be told. But since they're so hellbent on demolition, they don't exactly have an interest in hearing factual information, do they?

[Gistok]

Here's a snippet from Historic Detroit.org.... and I remember when this happened, because that 1 block stretch of Clifford Ave between Bagley and Middle St. was closed for over a year.

"In February 1983, the United Artists joined the National Register of Historic Places as part of the Grand Circus Park Historic District. But as time has shown in Detroit, such a designation does not always bring protection. On Nov. 2, 1987, a shower of hundreds of bricks fell from the 13th floor of the UA’s tower onto Clifford between Bagley and Middle Street, crushing Detroiter Barbara Simons’ 1984 Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera. “At first the police were telling me they couldn’t make an accident report because this was an act of God,” she told the Detroit News at the time. While no one was injured, it was at least the second time a car had been destroyed by bricks falling off the UA; Kevin Moloney of Detroit said his 1972 Cutlass Supreme was hit in the same spot in August 1984. Apparently, the United Artists Building had a thing against Oldsmobiles. The UA’s owner at the time, Whitney Management Co. of Montreal, said it would shore up the wayward bricks and continued to try to sell the crumbling landmark."

http://www.historicdetroit.org/building/united-artists-theatre/

Well those bricks started falling off the SW side of the UA Building 30 years ago.... and if there was even the REMOTEST chance that the building was still not structurally sound... that "Demolition Mike" Ilitch would NEVER have spent millions to put a new roof on the UA Building and Theatre about 3 years ago, when they cleaned all the debris out of it, cleaned up the windows, removed the decrepit theatre marquee, removed additional loose bricks from the exterior, and even installed some drywall inside... all to mothball the building for potential sale or use....

[Hypestyles]

something has to be done immediately, one way or another.

[animatedmartian]

Yes, I'm perfectly serious. I didn't say that loose bricks weren't dangerous. I said that they do not warrant an immediate demolition of a building, as the City of Detroit is claiming in court. Loose facade elements [[and loose fire escapes) can be repaired. They are not load-bearing in buildings of this type, and their condition has no bearing on the integrity of the primary structural system.

If the City of Detroit had actually hired an engineer to make this determination, this is exactly what they would be told. But since they're so hellbent on demolition, they don't exactly have an interest in hearing factual information, do they?

Okay so if it doesn't need to be demolished, it just needs still more costly renovation that we still need to wait years for before someone decides to spend money on it. Again, we're back to just waiting for this building to become un-vacant.

[ghettopalmetto]

Okay so if it doesn't need to be demolished, it just needs still more costly renovation that we still need to wait years for before someone decides to spend money on it. Again, we're back to just waiting for this building to become un-vacant.

Which sounds to me like a continuation of the status quo. So the condition of the building remains unchanged, but somehow an impetus to Do Something Right Now has developed. Since you have clearly decided that, all of a sudden, this building MUST be demolished, what happened to change your motivation? Do you know something we don't? Or are you just hitting the Panic Button?

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

Okay so if it doesn't need to be demolished, it just needs still more costly renovation that we still need to wait years for before someone decides to spend money on it. Again, we're back to just waiting for this building to become un-vacant.

I guess I just have a totally different perspective. I'd rather wait "x" number of years for certain vacant buildings to become "unvacant" than "x" number of years for a plot of land to become "unvacant", on the assumption that the "unvacant" building would be far superior to whatever replaced it.

There are quite a few buildings that have been brought back from the dead in the CBD, including ones that a few years ago only the most optimistic thought could be saved. Its unfortunate that many of these sat empty for 20, 30 or 40 years. But that being the case, its wonderful that some of these have in fact come back to life. Does anyone seriously think that if the Book Cadillac or the Broderick or the Whitney, for example, and fallen to the wrecking ball there would be anything better on those sites?

If the number of vacant or underutilized buildings is actually falling, why on earth would anyone favor demolishing any more of them [[assuming they are structurally sound), absent some specific proposal for the site?

[animatedmartian]

My view is just that of more logic than emotion. I feel that there aren't many options outside of demolition if the city isn't growing at a fast enough pace. If these buildings are going to be preserved and avoid demolition, why aren't more people buying them or even making an attempt to? What is going on that is allowing so many buildings to still decay?

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

My view is just that of more logic than emotion. I feel that there aren't many options outside of demolition if the city isn't growing at a fast enough pace. If these buildings are going to be preserved and avoid demolition, why aren't more people buying them or even making an attempt to? What is going on that is allowing so many buildings to still decay?

Its all a matter of perception. From my point of view, we have turned the corner on these grand old buildings. The stock of them is shrinking, so why not old on to all that we can?

[erikd]

And yet the condos in Brush Park were built long before anyone touched Hotel Eddystone or Park Avenue Hotel.

I'm not saying the vacant buildings should be demolished on speculation, but that the buildings will remain vacant until the market supports the costs of redeveloping them to a satisfactory condition. Unless you want them to be renovated into public housing projects then they'll get renovated tomorrow with minimal restoration if any at all. But if people want the "grandeur" and quality that the buildings used to have, then Detroit's luxury market will have to greatly expand for developers to get a reasonable ROI for that quality. Who knows how long we'd be waiting for that point all the while the building still isn't being maintained and sits vacant. In the mean time, developers can build whatever the current market supports on vacant land and get a reasonable ROI.

Much like how there's a current proposal for 250 apartments in the new Statler City project and yet only 105 apartments with the renovation of David Whitney next door. DW's renovation costs $85 million compared to Statler City's new construction of $45 million. All the while, Park Avenue, Cadillac Tower, David Stott, United Artists, and the Wulitzer all still sit vacant with undetermined futures. Why is there new construction at all if these older vacant buildings aren't being utilized?

Your assertions are so off the mark and lacking validity it boggles my mind.

We are talking about the Park Ave building, which sits on Grand Circus Park, Next to the Kales, and across the park from the David Whitney and Broderick Towers, all of which have been renovated into very expensive and successful developments.

It is insane to look at the success of the building renovations on Grand Circus Park, and say "unless you want them to be renovated into public housing projects then they'll get renovated tomorrow with minimal restoration if any at all."
---------------------------------

"Much like how there's a current proposal for 250 apartments in the new Statler City project and yet only 105 apartments with the renovation of David Whitney next door. DW's renovation costs $85 million compared to Statler City's new construction of $45 million. All the while, Park Avenue, Cadillac Tower, David Stott, United Artists, and the Wulitzer all still sit vacant with undetermined futures. Why is there new construction at all if these older vacant buildings aren't being utilized?"

When the Statler project goes from a proposal to an actual development, I will recognize and credit it.

For a moment, let's put aside the generally accepted theory of redevelopment and look at how the reality has played out. Grand Circus Park was ringed with buildings that were vacant for decades, and we have seen the results of demolition vs preservation.

The Adams Theater, Kales, Park Ave, Tuller, United Artists, Statler, David Whitney, and Broderick Tower all went vacant and sat empty for decades.

The Adams, Tuller, and Statler were demolished years ago, which the hope that their destruction would lead to development. They have all been sitting as undeveloped, blighted, vacant eyesore lots filled with weeds and garbage in all the years since. The Kales, David Whitney, and Broderick Tower also sat vacant for decades, but have recently been beautifully renovated, and restored back into thriving and productive buildings.

The fate of the United Artists and Park Ave buildings is yet to be determined, but it would seem to be obvious that we should go with the 3 for 3 success of leaving the old vacant buildings up for redevelopment, vs the 0 for 3 failure of tearing them down and hoping that destroying irreplaceable buildings to create even more vacant lots in Detroit will somehow beat the odds and bring the investment dollars pouring in.

[ghettopalmetto]

My view is just that of more logic than emotion. I feel that there aren't many options outside of demolition if the city isn't growing at a fast enough pace. If these buildings are going to be preserved and avoid demolition, why aren't more people buying them or even making an attempt to? What is going on that is allowing so many buildings to still decay?

If you--and by extension, the City of Detroit--are operating on logic, then where is the OBJECTIVE CONDITION ASSESSMENT conducted by a licensed and registered Professional Engineer?

No structural engineer would recommend demolishing an entire building based strictly on a couple loose masonry units and a loose fire escape. You *can't* claim logical high ground when there are ZERO objective facts supporting your OPINION. You're only fooling yourself.

[Wesley Mouch]

Its all a matter of perception. From my point of view, we have turned the corner on these grand old buildings. The stock of them is shrinking, so why not [h]old on to all that we can?

Because the decision isn't ours to make. It is the building owners.

The city and state should not have an opinion on this. They should only be regulating in the public interest -- not in the interest of people with certain development agendas -- preservation or new or otherwise.

[ghettopalmetto]

Because the decision isn't ours to make. It is the building owners.

The city and state should not have an opinion on this. They should only be regulating in the public interest -- not in the interest of people with certain development agendas -- preservation or new or otherwise.

A couple small corrections:

1. The City is the party seeking to demolish the building. They have filed a motion in court seeking a demolition order.

2. If the building owner did want to demolish the structure, he would have to obtain a demolition permit from the City to do so. Just as any new structures are required to obtain a building permit, and undergo scrutiny by any zoning or architectural review boards that may have jurisdiction. So yes, it is a very public decision.

[Mackinaw]

It is indeed a completely public decision. One alternative motion [[or cause of action, technically) that the city could also be making is to simply seize it via the condemnation of blight power that rests with it under the power of eminent domain. That is not a difficult case to make here. It is blighted and the owner has basically never taken corrective measures. Upon obtaining title, the city can do what it does all day and has done in the past for blighted parcels-- RFP it to a new owner under obligations to secure and eventually restore it.

Sounds like one heck of a great middle road to take here.

[ghettopalmetto]

It is indeed a completely public decision. One alternative motion [[or cause of action, technically) that the city could also be making is to simply seize it via the condemnation of blight power that rests with it under the power of eminent domain. That is not a difficult case to make here. It is blighted and the owner has basically never taken corrective measures. Upon obtaining title, the city can do what it does all day and has done in the past for blighted parcels-- RFP it to a new owner under obligations to secure and eventually restore it.

Sounds like one heck of a great middle road to take here.

RFP? Restoration? What are those? Everyone knows the way to revitalize an area involves lots and lots of scorched-earth demolition.

[downtownguy]

It is indeed a completely public decision. One alternative motion [[or cause of action, technically) that the city could also be making is to simply seize it via the condemnation of blight power that rests with it under the power of eminent domain. That is not a difficult case to make here. It is blighted and the owner has basically never taken corrective measures. Upon obtaining title, the city can do what it does all day and has done in the past for blighted parcels-- RFP it to a new owner under obligations to secure and eventually restore it.

Sounds like one heck of a great middle road to take here.

Seems like such an easy decision. Why is it so hard for the powers-that-be to understand?