Detroit targets Park Ave. Bldg. for demolition

**ghettopalmetto** · August-15-14, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by 313WX

I would assume there's some protocol [[though maybe not as extreme as outright forfeiture) in place to target property owners who aren't keeping their buildings up to code.

The problem with Detroit is that, because it's been so broke and dysfunctional for so long, it hasn't actually been enforcing these codes like it should. These owners are well aware that they can get away with not maintaining their properties, at least for a long time.

And even if these code violations were eventually taken to court, there's the risk of wasting a lot of money on litigation just to ultimately inherit a relatively undesirable and worthless property the city itself can't afford to take care of.

But seizing and demolishing the property of a private entity...that won't involve any litigation whatsoever, will it?

**Mackinaw** · August-15-14, 03:36 PM

Guys, this much I do know: it would be a slam dunk case of condemnation due to blight. No factfinder would disagree that this is blighted. The whole divide between the U.S. Supreme Court and the Michigan Supreme Court [[and now legislation) is about taking land solely for "redevelopment," as with the Poletown Cadillac Plant. Under the federal view, that's still cool, under Michigan's view, never again. But in all of the 50 states a government entity can take property that is blighted.

They must then pay reasonable compensation to the owner to complete the process. While the city could certainly try and settle this matter out of court [[in which case the owner can reject the settlement offer in the ordinary course), ultimately the Court will have the final say so, to which Sachs would have no answer [[short of appealing to the higher courts). At a trial on compensation [[a fairly straightforward affair) the value may well hinge on what the city's plans are. My view is that if the city wants to RFP it for rehab, the value is actually pretty close to zero. [[I think, but I will defer to Michigan attorneys at this point, that there might be an auction procedure, too-- not sure). But again, what would this get in an auction? Tough call, as even the Packard Plant raised money...but it won't be a lot. If the city said "our plan is to demo it and let Illitch develop a tchotchke store or Olive Garden there....well then that would probably result in Sachs getting more money.

At this point I really need a Michigan attorney to step in and help. If the City seeks a simple order of demolition [[as the paper says it is doing), I assume it still has to pay just compensation to Sachs, correct? Would that not be a taking? What statue is the City proceeding under?

Bottom line, there are costs in either scenario, but it seems the tear down cost is higher for multiple reasons [[cost of demo, plus cost of compensation to owner, plus cost to our urban fabric, which cannot be quantified), and moreover [[and this is really the whole point of this post), it is NOT complicated to go the displace-Sachs-and-RFP route. In fact, it seems to me it's a minor twist on the proceeding that has started. And again, proving blight is a slam dunk and the City won't be indefinitely held up by Sachs [[to answer your concern, animatedmartian).

**Mackinaw** · August-15-14, 03:40 PM

P.S. what crap about building a park to 'anchor' an imaginary new 'district.' This is CLASSIC municipal urban redevelopment b.s. talk meant to move a plan along through courts of law and public opinion. I have seen it too many times. I am not saying I don't think that Illitch is going to build several things other than the arena, but there is NOTHING-- except pretty pictures-- to assure us that west-of-Fox will be a 'district' of any type. The only sure thing is what we have now, and what we have now just happens to be a historic building with appropriate height for the area, designed by an architectural giant. I would like to go with the sure thing-- our extant buildings-- and let the district sprout up around them. The district is more likely to be successful and desirable, and will likely be developed more quickly, if we leave the old buildings alone.

**ABetterDetroit** · August-15-14, 05:21 PM

I will weigh in with common sense on this one, what's the rush? All you have to do is walk around downtown now and you can see that renavations on older buildings have not only started but are happening all around town. I thought all available demo dollars were going to neighborhoods? Stabilize the ones that are fighting dangerous blight, clearing out half burned out housing around schools and blocks with residents etc... Downtown is on a decent roll lately, let it roll and see what happens in a few years, demolition can always be an option anytime but with so much happening wait this one out a bit. Where is Duggan on this particular demo? In the meantime just like the blight report says, Michigan needs better blight laws with some teeth in them, what do you think Govener Snyder? It's about time.

**313WX** · August-15-14, 05:30 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

But seizing and demolishing the property of a private entity...that won't involve any litigation whatsoever, will it?

I'm not sure how the exact litigation process will play out, but according to the article, the city is taking "legal action" to seize and demolish this property [[which included a court case filing in the Wayne County Circuit Court).

**Mackinaw** · August-15-14, 07:43 PM

Indeed, what IS the rush to tear down a building that anchors Grand Circus Park? We really want another missing piece that bad? We want to have a clear view from Woodward out to Illitchville parking paradise-- because that's what this demo promises. The prospect is disturbing. Even more disturbing is the possibility [[probability?) that the same logic will be applied to 3-4 other buildings along Park, headed into the core of the arena district. Apparently this is all disposable to our leaders. I guess they want to be the leaders of a cold, rust belt version of Phoenix.

BTW, the city is citing some fairly superficial things as proof of 'structural' problems. Loose bricks and fire escape, for example. I understand how that warrants immediate condemnation and seizure because of safety concerns and because this meets the blight definition, but fit to be torn down? Show me more… [[and even then, I don't think they can establish that this is beyond repair).

**Mackinaw** · August-15-14, 08:47 PM

Also, found this older Crain's article, after which Joe Barbat, developer of the building next door, makes comments about the Park Ave. Bldg. http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...name-building#

From his comments you cannot tell whether he was specifically in support of demo…you'd think he'd want his neighborhood preserved and would not want to risk his building getting hurt. But he definitely championed, rightly, the city taking some action. Interesting.

**emu steve** · August-16-14, 09:22 AM

Originally Posted by animatedmartian

Can't really blame the city either. It all falls on the dumbass landlord who either didn't decide to maintain the building or sell it to someone who would. At some point, these guys gotta realize that a bucket full of money isn't going to fall out of the sky for them so what's the use on keeping ownership of the building?

Maybe our buddy, Gistok, can help explain how this building/property fit into the 'landscape' of a possible [[now dead) plan to put up an arena behind the Fox.

As I remember it, the assumed location was Park/Clifford/W. Elizabeth/W. Montcalm.

This building is on the periphery of that 'arena district'.

Was the 'long game' to hold that property until that area was hot? That would have been some pretty valuable property - anything near the arena should be valuable.

Now that area is 'not hot' - it is an area which might not develop for say 10 years out and might be lower density. [[as I and others have mentioned, that area Park/W. Grand River/W. Adams and the 75 Service Drive would have been ripe for development.).

**Wesley Mouch** · August-16-14, 09:38 AM

Me? I'm happy to see the City starting to behave responsibly. I'm also sure this is the result of efforts by neighbours including everyone's favourite pizza guy. But isn't that the idea? Neighbours involved in fixing their 'hood, to their best interest?

If others were so concerned, they've had years to push their vision and demand code enforcement in the interest of preservation of this gem. But they did not. Now the neighbors are pushing their way. Good for them. Bad we'll lose a gem.

**Gistok** · August-16-14, 12:21 PM

Hiya.... I don't really have much to add... except that the buildings along Park Ave. were not part of arena footprint, when the West Foxtown was considered as the site of a new arena.

But what I do find interesting is the fact that this building was not part of the Historic District along Park Ave. [[neither was the Charlevoix Building)....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Av...oit,_Michigan)

I look at this not so much as an attempt to tear down the building... but more as an attempt to have the owner sell to someone who will fix it up. The city is trying to get the building owner to sell... because charging him with tearing it down will make his investment less attractive if he has just an empty lot.... than trying to sell an empty building that could be restored.

I think that the city is playing hardball with downtown property owners... as they are with 139 Bagley.... and it appears that Judge Colombo is on the city's side...

**emu steve** · August-16-14, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by Gistok

...I look at this not so much as an attempt to tear down the building... but more as an attempt to have the owner sell to someone who will fix it up. The city is trying to get the building owner to sell... because charging him with tearing it down will make his investment less attractive if he has just an empty lot.... than trying to sell an empty building that could be restored.

I think that the city is playing hardball with downtown property owners... as they are with 139 Bagley.... and it appears that Judge Colombo is on the city's side...

Interesting and in one post you have completely re-orientated this thread, i.e., instead of the dumb city, it is apparently a 'speak softly but carry a big stick' approach.

Hope you are right. Time for some 's*it or get off the pot' for these property owners.

**Novine** · August-16-14, 03:49 PM

What I got from the articles is that there's a $40 million incentive for Duggan to push for demolition. This sounds less about saving this building by playing hardball and more about clearing the way for a development next door.

**Gistok** · August-16-14, 06:03 PM

Novine, are you talking about the Park Ave. Apartments next door? Or some other development in the area?

I would think that the Park Ave. Apts. would benefit more with 2 buildings on that corner...

**Mackinaw** · August-18-14, 10:00 AM

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...ename-building#

Must be, Gistok. Like you, I am not sure how the new development would benefit from an empty lot next door. Unless the developer plans to cut out window holes on the east side of the building?? Plus any replacement development would be years away and the new residents of building next door would need to deal with the dust and noise. Rehabilitation of the Park Ave. Building would seemingly be the best outcome for the developments next door.

**motz** · August-18-14, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by Gistok

Novine, are you talking about the Park Ave. Apartments next door? Or some other development in the area?

I would think that the Park Ave. Apts. would benefit more with 2 buildings on that corner...

I think he is referring to the AAA building they are supposed to start demolition on today.

It'd be awesome to see the building restored, yeah, but this appears to be one of those situations where this needs to happen now. I am 100% for preservation, but we also need to make sure that these things actually move. Even if it was just the owners mothballing the structure, the city needs to take these actions to make sure property is preserved and taken care of. Might seem a bit heavy handed, but I think it will have the effect where other property owners take note at least give some semblance of effort in keeping the buildings from rotting.

**ghettopalmetto** · August-18-14, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by Mackinaw

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...ename-building#

Must be, Gistok. Like you, I am not sure how the new development would benefit from an empty lot next door. Unless the developer plans to cut out window holes on the east side of the building?? Plus any replacement development would be years away and the new residents of building next door would need to deal with the dust and noise. Rehabilitation of the Park Ave. Building would seemingly be the best outcome for the developments next door.

But if you don't demolish the building, where are residents of the redeveloped Park Apartments going to park their cars? Something about Detroit isn't New York, people want to drive everywhere, crime, yadda yadda yadda.

**emu steve** · August-18-14, 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

But if you don't demolish the building, where are residents of the redeveloped Park Apartments going to park their cars? Something about Detroit isn't New York, people want to drive everywhere, crime, yadda yadda yadda.

Don't need to worry about parking:

I guess there are three [[3) types of parking depending on the city and the area and the dynamics [[e.g., the value of land).

1). Underground. E.g., D.C. - downtown is almost exclusively underground parking. Surface lots aren't common and other than at Nationals Park, above ground parking garages are rare.

2). Parking garages - Where there is a need for a lot of parking in a small geographic area and vacant land isn't plentiful and cheap.

3). Surface parking - when vacant land is plentiful and cheap.

D.C. used to have a LOT of surface parking in the 'old' downtown [[east of 14th street) before development took off late in the 20th century. Now developers build underground parking as part of their buildings.

Detroit, I'm pretty sure will see a fair number of parking garages near Comerica Park, the new arena, etc. as there is a real need for parking for sporting events and some of the existing surface lots will be used for other purposes [[e.g., arena, development, etc.).

Right now most of the land we discuss [[e.g., behind the Fox) has little development value today [[no one is begging Ilitch to sell land so they can put up a 10 story office building back there) so it is surface parking.

As all of that land becomes less plentiful and development 'arrives' there, surface parking will decrease.

I saw it in D.C. and it should happen in Detroit within say 10 years... But the arena needs to eat up all of that surface parking on Woodward, the lots in front of Comerica has to be developed, etc. needs to 'start the ball moving'.

In this area of Detroit I see parking garages as underground parking, as someone commented, is pretty expensive.

**illwill** · August-19-14, 09:03 AM

I'm pretty sure this is being spearheaded by the Illich family. They most likely already have this done as part of the agreement to expand Illichtown. If they want this building torn down to do what they want then it's going to happen. I expect more to follow.

**Mackinaw** · August-19-14, 09:09 AM

Originally Posted by illwill

I'm pretty sure this is being spearheaded by the Illich family. They most likely already have this done as part of the agreement to expand Illichtown. If they want this building torn down to do what they want then it's going to happen. I expect more to follow.

Quite possibly. Where are the Detroit newspapers and the investigative journalists [[the Muckracker?) on this? GET ON IT! Asking some f'ing questions, both as to who is pushing for this, and not to mention, why the City is not seeking remedies that don't involve destruction.

**ghettopalmetto** · August-19-14, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by Mackinaw

Quite possibly. Where are the Detroit newspapers and the investigative journalists [[the Muckracker?) on this? GET ON IT! Asking some f'ing questions, both as to who is pushing for this, and not to mention, why the City is not seeking remedies that don't involve destruction.

Because that's all the City of Detroit knows:

1. Demolition
2. Fairy Dust Magic
3. Redevelopment!

Empirical evidence to the contrary be damned.

**Mackinaw** · August-19-14, 09:39 AM

The City might only be swayed if a united front of central city stakeholders spoke up on this. The nature of this controversy is not going to start more than a spattering out outrage among citizens, but that does not make it okay, nor does it express their approval.

Preservation Detroit [[where are they?!?)
Midtown Detroit Inc.
Bedrock/Dan Gilbert
Detroit Historical District Commission [[or at they all compelled to remain silent?)
Opportunity Detroit [[its stated mission is "Placemaking")
Detroit 300 Conservancy [[managing Grand Circus Park)

And what are some prominent outside groups that could raise a stink?

Editorial from Freep plus op-ed by John Ferchill? Bottom line is, not just as to the Park Ave Building but as to the City's course of action going forward, the City needs to know that people are watching its actions.

**Bham1982** · August-19-14, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by emu steve

I saw it in D.C. and it should happen in Detroit within say 10 years... But the arena needs to eat up all of that surface parking on Woodward, the lots in front of Comerica has to be developed, etc. needs to 'start the ball moving'.

Downtown DC, even 20 years ago, never had much surface parking or above-ground garage parking. I doubt there was any point in its history when it had much of either.

**Mackinaw** · August-19-14, 01:33 PM

Here's a 24 year old Crain's article documenting a darker time in Detroit. It discusses Sachs' then-neglectful, speculative ownership of the Park Ave. Bldg. and Charlevoix, and it also discusses the woeful status of the Fort-Shelby and Tobin Buildings, which have since been beautifully renovated, among others. http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...urvey-shows-46

Goes to show that the Park Ave. Bldg. is not too far gone...it just has the wrong owner.

**Mackinaw** · August-21-14, 08:40 AM

And here's a current article documenting the rapid improvement re: downtown's vacant buildings. http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...roit-buildings

Suggests that there would be developer interest in Park Ave Bldg. if control could be wrested from Sachs, which I believe it easily could.

Perhaps Gilbert wants to add an epic preservation success story to his portfolio....

**ghettopalmetto** · August-21-14, 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by Mackinaw

And here's a current article documenting the rapid improvement re: downtown's vacant buildings. http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...roit-buildings

Suggests that there would be developer interest in Park Ave Bldg. if control could be wrested from Sachs, which I believe it easily could.

Perhaps Gilbert wants to add an epic preservation success story to his portfolio....

Gee, I'm sure glad that Hudsons, the Lafayette, and the Madison-Lenox [[among others) have been demolished to spur redevelopment! It's so thrilling to see brand new buildings go up on those sites, just like George Jackson promised!