Detroit targets Park Ave. Bldg. for demolition

[Mackinaw]

The record could not be ANY clearer as to what works, and what does not. If the city ruins Park Ave. by taking down its three currently blighted buildings, we can be assured of more of the same.

The Statler block is the ONE demolition parcel that at least has imminent hope of a less-than-spectacular redevelopment, and even that is inching along notwithstanding the Mayor's best efforts. There are just too many well-located development parcels to choose from, and even if downtown/midtown really catch fire and everything goes well, we are talking several decades before we run out of room...perhaps our lifetimes actually. There is no justification to wipe Albert Kahn and Louis Kamper works off the map so that more land can be "freed up" for "redevelopment." It's laughable and it retards our growth and growth potential; a definitive change of course needs to come right now in relation to the Park Ave. Building's fate.

[Mackinaw]

Speak up here:
https://www.change.org/p/city-of-det...venue-building

[animatedmartian]

Park Avenue Building owner Ralph Sachs ordered to board up the building. He has to fix it up to a point that prevents it from further deterioration. He has to make the repairs by November 12th, but no word on what the consequences are if he fails to meet this deadline.

http://detroit.curbed.com/archives/2014/09/ralph.php

[erikd]

Vacant land is often more valuable than vacant crumbling buildings. This is true in any and every city.

This is a blanket generalization that is only generally true because most of the built environment in modern America consists of crappy single-use structures, constructed with cheap materials, which are not well-suited for renovation or re-use.

However, this generalization rarely applies to downtown Detroit. It is obvious that vacant historic buildings in downtown Detroit are far more valuable and attractive to developers than vacant lots are.

The vast majority of the development in downtown Detroit over the last 10 years has happened in existing buildings, many of which sat vacant and run-down for decades. Conversely, the amount of new construction on cleared downtown lots over the same period [[save for a couple massive special-use casino/stadium projects) has been virtually nil.

Everything that we have seen over the last decade proves that buildings like the Park Ave are much more likely to attract development if they are left standing than if they are demolished.

Speculative demolition of historic buildings, based on the misguided hope that the property would be more attractive as an empty lot, has proven to be a total failure in downtown Detroit. It is mind-boggling that anybody familiar with development in downtown Detroit would continue to support this counter-productive process.

[animatedmartian]

This is a blanket generalization that is only generally true because most of the built environment in modern America consists of crappy single-use structures, constructed with cheap materials, which are not well-suited for renovation or re-use.

However, this generalization rarely applies to downtown Detroit. It is obvious that vacant historic buildings in downtown Detroit are far more valuable and attractive to developers than vacant lots are.

The vast majority of the development in downtown Detroit over the last 10 years has happened in existing buildings, many of which sat vacant and run-down for decades. Conversely, the amount of new construction on cleared downtown lots over the same period [[save for a couple massive special-use casino/stadium projects) has been virtually nil.

Everything that we have seen over the last decade proves that buildings like the Park Ave are much more likely to attract development if they are left standing than if they are demolished.

Speculative demolition of historic buildings, based on the misguided hope that the property would be more attractive as an empty lot, has proven to be a total failure in downtown Detroit. It is mind-boggling that anybody familiar with development in downtown Detroit would continue to support this counter-productive process.

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?

[ghettopalmetto]

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?

It's not an either/or game between reuse of existing structures and construction of new structures. That's been the critical flaw in downtown development. The answer: You do both. Otherwise, Detroit ends up looking like a Rust Belt Phoenix, as has been noted above.

The only time there is an *immediate* need to demolish an entire building is when the primary structural systems are in danger of imminent collapse. This kind of determination requires a structural engineer [[licensed and registered Professional Engineer in the State of Michigan). Alas, when was the last time you saw a signed-and-sealed report recommending that a building be demolished due to danger of imminent collapse?

If this is not the case, you're just spending millions of dollars to chase a dragon. Unfortunately, Detroit for years has allowed DEGC and George Jackson to tie the tourniquet while Mike Ilitch and others administer the injection. At this point, the city is enslaved to its demolition monkey, and there's no turning back until the addict hits rock bottom.

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

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?

Why is there new construction if there are older vacant buildings not being utilized? Because as ghettopalmetto said, its not just an "either or game." But clearly there has been much more demand and progress in renovating downtown than in building on cleared land. The Statler Hotel was torn down in 2005. It's now 2014 and there is a proposal for the site. Only 9+ years after demo [[and has anything been built downtown on any land cleared since then?).

The lofts on Woodward stare out at the vacant Hudson site. Kales, Broderick, Whitney all have been reborn at Grand Circus while the Tuller site has sat empty for over 20 years. And btw, while the Whitney will have far fewer residential units than Statler City, the former is also going the be a hotel.

With so much vacant land already available around the arena site, every effort should be made to save structures such as the Eddystone and Park Avenue building so that there is a better mix in the area.

[rjlj]

Strongly agree.

This is a blanket generalization that is only generally true because most of the built environment in modern America consists of crappy single-use structures, constructed with cheap materials, which are not well-suited for renovation or re-use.

However, this generalization rarely applies to downtown Detroit. It is obvious that vacant historic buildings in downtown Detroit are far more valuable and attractive to developers than vacant lots are.

The vast majority of the development in downtown Detroit over the last 10 years has happened in existing buildings, many of which sat vacant and run-down for decades. Conversely, the amount of new construction on cleared downtown lots over the same period [[save for a couple massive special-use casino/stadium projects) has been virtually nil.

Everything that we have seen over the last decade proves that buildings like the Park Ave are much more likely to attract development if they are left standing than if they are demolished.

Speculative demolition of historic buildings, based on the misguided hope that the property would be more attractive as an empty lot, has proven to be a total failure in downtown Detroit. It is mind-boggling that anybody familiar with development in downtown Detroit would continue to support this counter-productive process.

[Danny]

Goodbye Park Ave. Building. Hello parking lot.

[animatedmartian]

It's not an either/or game between reuse of existing structures and construction of new structures. That's been the critical flaw in downtown development. The answer: You do both. Otherwise, Detroit ends up looking like a Rust Belt Phoenix, as has been noted above.

The only time there is an *immediate* need to demolish an entire building is when the primary structural systems are in danger of imminent collapse. This kind of determination requires a structural engineer [[licensed and registered Professional Engineer in the State of Michigan). Alas, when was the last time you saw a signed-and-sealed report recommending that a building be demolished due to danger of imminent collapse?

If this is not the case, you're just spending millions of dollars to chase a dragon. Unfortunately, Detroit for years has allowed DEGC and George Jackson to tie the tourniquet while Mike Ilitch and others administer the injection. At this point, the city is enslaved to its demolition monkey, and there's no turning back until the addict hits rock bottom.

So how many years are we going to wait until all the vacant buildings are reused? There's still a dozen highrise and even more smaller buildings than have yet to see any sort of rehabilitation. At least with vacant land, I don't have to constant look at the same blight for dozens of years only *hoping* someone comes to reuse it. I'm not understand how it's not speculative to expect developers to come in and announce that they're going to renovate these buildings tomorrow when so many buildings [[even when they do get that announcement) still stand vacant. 10 years is 9 years too many for a building to be vacant.

[ghettopalmetto]

So how many years are we going to wait until all the empty lots are occupied? There's still a dozens of lots that have yet to see any sort of proposal. At least with vacant buildings, I don't have to constant look at the same blight for dozens of years only *hoping* someone comes to build on it. I'm not understand how it's not speculative to expect developers to come in and announce that they're going to build on an empty lot tomorrow when so many lots [[even when they do get that announcement) still stand vacant. 10 years is 9 years too many for a lot to be vacant.

See what I did there?

Your completely arbitrary criterium of "1 year" as a limit for vacancy goes against every principle of construction finance. On what do you base this opinion--your vast professional experience?

Empty buildings, as opposed to empty lots, have intrinsic value--hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of materials and man-hours of labor already staring you in the face [[even if some repairs are necessary). Foundations, floor plates, vertical load-bearing members, lateral-load resisting systems...these are things that empty lots don't have, which cost LOTS of $$$ to construct. Thus, when you demolish a building, you're destroying the value of the materials [[which were paid for long ago) and all the man-hours of labor [[again, already paid).

If no one is building on the Hudson's site [[which, IMHO, is *the* prime empty lot downtown, due to its location, and abundance of free on-site parking), then why would someone build new on the Park Avenue site? Even if they did--the White Castle or whatever cheap hunk of shit that does get constructed will in no way even begin to compare to the value that was destroyed.

No city in human history--NONE--has ever thrived as a result of clear-cutting, scorched-earth speculative demolition. Spending money to destroy intrinsic value and achieve negative returns is just stupid at best.

[animatedmartian]

Again, if there's such value in these buildings and the market has fallen below the value of these buildings, then the buildings themselves are already in negative value. When the market is depressed, the city has already lost money and won't gain it back until the market returns to a positive condition either by shrinking the market, waiting for the market to grow, or artificially inflating it. That doesn't take any professional expertise to figure out.

Lets say it cost $150 million today dollars [[exaggerated example) to build Park Avenue in 1915. It's market value in 1915 in $150 Mil, right? By 1980, Detroit's population and businesses decline, the building loses a ton of tenants, and now it's valued at only $50 mil. From 1980 to 2010, there has been no maintenance on the building and while it may be structurally sound, pieces of the facade are coming off, there's water damage everywhere, and there's no electrical or plumbing in the entire building. By 2014, the building is only worth $20 mil.

A developer now has to spend $130 million to bring the building back up to the condition it was in when it was new construction. Then you factor in how much more expensive materials of equivalent quality are in 2014 compared to 1915. The developer could use cost-saving materials, but people don't seem to be happy with that. So he goes with the high-quality materials but now he has to charge high rents for his tenants. Unfortunately, not many people in Detroit can afford this high of a rent. So he gets subsidies to lower the rent. But now people are upset that he's getting subsidies because the city just came out of bankruptcy!

It would have been far easier for the developer to buy a vacant plot of land for $1 million dollars and then build a $40 million dollar development and make money off of that to build bigger and better development later on. Plus, his tenants can now live/work in something they can afford, and while aesthetically it might not be as great, economically it makes more sense. You can't expect a 1930s Detroit in a 2014 economy.

[rjlj]

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?

Again, if there's such value in these buildings and the market has fallen below the value of these buildings, then the buildings themselves are already in negative value. When the market is depressed, the city has already lost money and won't gain it back until the market returns to a positive condition either by shrinking the market, waiting for the market to grow, or artificially inflating it. That doesn't take any professional expertise to figure out.

Lets say it cost $150 million today dollars [[exaggerated example) to build Park Avenue in 1915. It's market value in 1915 in $150 Mil, right? By 1980, Detroit's population and businesses decline, the building loses a ton of tenants, and now it's valued at only $50 mil. From 1980 to 2010, there has been no maintenance on the building and while it may be structurally sound, pieces of the facade are coming off, there's water damage everywhere, and there's no electrical or plumbing in the entire building. By 2014, the building is only worth $20 mil.

A developer now has to spend $130 million to bring the building back up to the condition it was in when it was new construction. Then you factor in how much more expensive materials of equivalent quality are in 2014 compared to 1915. The developer could use cost-saving materials, but people don't seem to be happy with that. So he goes with the high-quality materials but now he has to charge high rents for his tenants. Unfortunately, not many people in Detroit can afford this high of a rent. So he gets subsidies to lower the rent. But now people are upset that he's getting subsidies because the city just came out of bankruptcy!

It would have been far easier for the developer to buy a vacant plot of land for $1 million dollars and then build a $40 million dollar development and make money off of that to build bigger and better development later on. Plus, his tenants can now live/work in something they can afford, and while aesthetically it might not be as great, economically it makes more sense. You can't expect a 1930s Detroit in a 2014 economy.

[ghettopalmetto]

Again, if there's such value in these buildings and the market has fallen below the value of these buildings, then the buildings themselves are already in negative value. When the market is depressed, the city has already lost money and won't gain it back until the market returns to a positive condition either by shrinking the market, waiting for the market to grow, or artificially inflating it. That doesn't take any professional expertise to figure out.

Lets say it cost $150 million today dollars [[exaggerated example) to build Park Avenue in 1915. It's market value in 1915 in $150 Mil, right? By 1980, Detroit's population and businesses decline, the building loses a ton of tenants, and now it's valued at only $50 mil. From 1980 to 2010, there has been no maintenance on the building and while it may be structurally sound, pieces of the facade are coming off, there's water damage everywhere, and there's no electrical or plumbing in the entire building. By 2014, the building is only worth $20 mil.

A developer now has to spend $130 million to bring the building back up to the condition it was in when it was new construction. Then you factor in how much more expensive materials of equivalent quality are in 2014 compared to 1915. The developer could use cost-saving materials, but people don't seem to be happy with that. So he goes with the high-quality materials but now he has to charge high rents for his tenants. Unfortunately, not many people in Detroit can afford this high of a rent. So he gets subsidies to lower the rent. But now people are upset that he's getting subsidies because the city just came out of bankruptcy!

It would have been far easier for the developer to buy a vacant plot of land for $1 million dollars and then build a $40 million dollar development and make money off of that to build bigger and better development later on. Plus, his tenants can now live/work in something they can afford, and while aesthetically it might not be as great, economically it makes more sense. You can't expect a 1930s Detroit in a 2014 economy.

There are only three problems with this line of thinking:

1) You're looking at short-term market fluctuations to make permanent and irreversible decisions.

2) You've made-up dollar figures to "prove" a point, and have completely ignored the revenue side of the equation. A renovated historic building is expected to command higher rents than a suburban-looking piece of plastic crap.

3) Even with made-up figures, you're clearly comparing apples to oranges. At present, no one is stopping a developer from investing $40 million on a scorched-earth empty lot. Demolishing another building isn't going to change that.

Guesswork doesn't dictate demolition, just as it hasn't for the past two decades.

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

Until I started reading this thread, I had no idea that Demolition George Jackson posted on her under the name of "animatedmartian"

[ghettopalmetto]

For the "Demolition = Development" people, here's a renovated mixed-use building in Cleveland that is reopening. Not New York. Not San Francisco. Not Chicago. Cleveland: A peer city of Detroit that some of you like to sneer at. You can't tell me that demolishing this building [[vacant since 1992) would have brought the same value to what is a prominent downtown corner. When was the last time you saw someone put $170 million into an empty lot?

As of a month ago, the apartments were 90% leased. And the first apartments to disappear were the units leasing for $6,000 a month. In Cleveland.

http://www.cleveland.com/business/in...roject_in.html

[SpartanDawg]

For the "Demolition = Development" people, here's a renovated mixed-use building in Cleveland that is reopening. Not New York. Not San Francisco. Not Chicago. Cleveland: A peer city of Detroit that some of you like to sneer at. You can't tell me that demolishing this building [[vacant since 1992) would have brought the same value to what is a prominent downtown corner. When was the last time you saw someone put $170 million into an empty lot?

As of a month ago, the apartments were 90% leased. And the first apartments to disappear were the units leasing for $6,000 a month. In Cleveland.

http://www.cleveland.com/business/in...roject_in.html

i'm honestly shocked people still aren't believers in the renovating process of historic buildings.. detroit has had tremendous success in this.

broderick, david whitney, book cadillac, hell half of gilberts properties were all empty before he bought and renovated them... imagine if we tore all these down in hopes of 'spurring development'

[animatedmartian]

For the "Demolition = Development" people, here's a renovated mixed-use building in Cleveland that is reopening. Not New York. Not San Francisco. Not Chicago. Cleveland: A peer city of Detroit that some of you like to sneer at. You can't tell me that demolishing this building [[vacant since 1992) would have brought the same value to what is a prominent downtown corner. When was the last time you saw someone put $170 million into an empty lot?

As of a month ago, the apartments were 90% leased. And the first apartments to disappear were the units leasing for $6,000 a month. In Cleveland.

http://www.cleveland.com/business/in...roject_in.html

And that's good, but that doesn't stop all the current vacant buildings in Detroit from being vacant. Redevelopment that is already occurring is not the same as redevelopment that has not yet occurred. There's still no announcements on redevelopments of United Artists, Hotel Eddystone, David Stott, etc. How long must we wait?

[animatedmartian]

There are only three problems with this line of thinking:

1) You're looking at short-term market fluctuations to make permanent and irreversible decisions.

2) You've made-up dollar figures to "prove" a point, and have completely ignored the revenue side of the equation. A renovated historic building is expected to command higher rents than a suburban-looking piece of plastic crap.

3) Even with made-up figures, you're clearly comparing apples to oranges. At present, no one is stopping a developer from investing $40 million on a scorched-earth empty lot. Demolishing another building isn't going to change that.

Guesswork doesn't dictate demolition, just as it hasn't for the past two decades.

2 or 3 decades is not short-term. At what point in those last 2 or 3 decades, assuming every possible vacant building was saved, would have they be reused? How many buildings would have sat vacant today if the city didn't demolish any after any period of time? Who would be happy in an environment where every building on a corner is sitting vacant and empty? People don't live in cities on historical value alone. That's a fact. You need more than that.

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

Its truly a testament to the quality of these old buildings that they can still be rehabbed, after 20, 30 or even 40 years of abandonment. Wasn't the Ft Shelby closed in the mid 70's and eventually had trees growing on it?

[animatedmartian]

Until I started reading this thread, I had no idea that Demolition George Jackson posted on her under the name of "animatedmartian"

I'm just saying. It's no use getting upset over the loss of building that people have had decades to try and preserve. If some of them get saved, great! I'm all for renovation. But from the time that the building is vacant and from the time someone actually decides to put work into it, how long is it going to sit? How long is it going to be an eyesore or be featured as ruin porn for the world?

[Hypestyles]

the ultra-incremental pace of [[theoretically) rehabbing abandoned 'historic' buildings is beyond frustrating. meanwhile, residential neighborhood blight is also beyond frustrating. City leaders should be doing national and international searches for investors and developers. There's no excuse not to.

[ghettopalmetto]

And that's good, but that doesn't stop all the current vacant buildings in Detroit from being vacant. Redevelopment that is already occurring is not the same as redevelopment that has not yet occurred.

The latter is a prerequisite for the former, is it not?

What's your idea--continue spending millions of public dollars to bulldoze every building as soon as it becomes empty? That hasn't exactly worked in Detroit, has it? Two decades is a blip in the life of a building that can last for hundreds of years.

[ghettopalmetto]

I'm just saying. It's no use getting upset over the loss of building that people have had decades to try and preserve. If some of them get saved, great! I'm all for renovation. But from the time that the building is vacant and from the time someone actually decides to put work into it, how long is it going to sit? How long is it going to be an eyesore or be featured as ruin porn for the world?

Who's "trying to preserve"? Every time a building is slated for demolition, people like you come out of the woodwork to say, "Oh well, we tried". How?

You're not for preservation if you advocate off-the-cuff for demolition. The two are mutually exclusive. Show me an empty lot that hasn't sat vacant for decades, and I might start to take you seriously. Detroit doesn't have the money to clear-cut and pray. It's that simple.

[animatedmartian]

Who's "trying to preserve"? Every time a building is slated for demolition, people like you come out of the woodwork to say, "Oh well, we tried". How?

You're not for preservation if you advocate off-the-cuff for demolition. The two are mutually exclusive. Show me an empty lot that hasn't sat vacant for decades, and I might start to take you seriously. Detroit doesn't have the money to clear-cut and pray. It's that simple.

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. When the city tries to force the current owners into fixing up the building and they resist, that is an attempt being made. The city offers tax credits for restoration developments, and yet that is still not enough to quickly spur developers and owners into action. Demolition is then the last resort and unfortunately that's what it comes down to.

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?