Ilitch's Choice: The Eddystone Hotel Lives, Park Avenue Hotel to die

[nain rouge]

Also, any restoration effort of these buildings MUST include a neon "ZOMBIELAND" sign. Maybe with the Little Caesar mascot eating a slice of gold krugerrand pizza next to it. Like a call to prayer, a loudspeaker will announce "PIZZA PIZZA!" whenever "hot & ready" deep dish pizza is available at one of Ilitch's shiny new entertainment plazas.

[Bham1982]

There are no such homeland security rules. That doesn't even make any sense, as if mixed use districts are incompatible with tracking and preventing terrorism. And since when does homeland security review municipal building codes?

He obviously wants to demolish the building, which may or may not be justifiable, but in any case illustrative that he thinks we're all idiots.

[detroitbob]

Interesting read see link below for DHS and stadiums...and like airport security not everything security wise is shared. Imagine someone slowly and methodically storing bomb making materials in their apartment overlooking any stadium and causing mass destruction. Ongoing discussions about which building is or isn't being saved will probably continue but I think attention should turn to the marvelous ALHAMBRA Apt. building at Temple and Park Avenue...this restored bldg. could be a wonderful gateway to the north end of Park Avenue, which will be redeveloped in due course.

https://books.google.com/books?id=rI...curity&f=false

[MSUguy]

It's a load of BS. They said it themselves, Park Avenue doesn't fit with "their vision" for a mid-rise development. That's all their is to it. Whatever else excuse they come up with is just to feed to the city council to get it demolished.

They actually said both might have to go because they were "too tall". But what do you expect from a company when demolishing to the Madison-Lenox that best use of that land was a parking lot?. That they wanted to get rid theses buildings, because they didn't fit in with their vision of creating five "new neighborhoods"; it's pretty clear they plan to treat development in this area as if they were building a subdivision. Where they rather infill it with suburban faux historic buildings than let any actual historic buildings remain.

[Mackinaw]

If all of their past sins get repeated, I am going to be naseous. Post-Fox renovation, Olympia are some of the least ambitious, least creative, and out-and-out harmful developers you could find. Not to mention small-time, cheap and uncontrollably guided by a Disney-Vegas-car culture view of development in spite of proclamations about being city builders.

[Gistok]

The path of historic destruction that the Ilitch's have left for parking lots is a sad testament to some of the buildings in Detroit that could have helped the shortage of downtown living [[and now midtown living).... besides the famous Madison-Lenox fiasco, this was one of the biggest losses downtown.

The Wolverine Hotel, like the Gem/Century Theatres and the Elwood Bar & Grill, were in the way of the "peripheral" area of the stadium footprint. Unfortunately building owner Chuck Forbes couldn't have this 17 story mothballed hotel moved out of harms way, like he did the Gem/Century/Elwood.

So the Wolverine Hotel, which could have supplied about 150 apartments to the downtown mix, kept some high rise density in the Stadia area, as well as had spectacular views of Comerica Park's field next door.... was quietly pounded to rubble so that it could be part of a large parking lot. Just another example of the "lame excuses" for removal for nearby development!

The Park Ave. Hotel is just another example, such as the Wolverine Hotel was to the Ilitch's... just another big old building in the way of progress.

[1953]

Couldn't have said it better myself, thanks for that Wolverine Hotel post.

It seems we mostly agree this is bogus - what can we do about it?

[bailey]

The path of historic destruction that the Ilitch's have left for parking lots is a sad testament to some of the buildings in Detroit that could have helped the shortage of downtown living [[and now midtown living).... besides the famous Madison-Lenox fiasco, this was one of the biggest losses downtown.

The Wolverine Hotel, like the Gem/Century Theatres and the Elwood Bar & Grill, were in the way of the "peripheral" area of the stadium footprint. Unfortunately building owner Chuck Forbes couldn't have this 17 story mothballed hotel moved out of harms way, like he did the Gem/Century/Elwood.

So the Wolverine Hotel, which could have supplied about 150 apartments to the downtown mix, kept some high rise density in the Stadia area, as well as had spectacular views of Comerica Park's field next door.... was quietly pounded to rubble so that it could be part of a large parking lot. Just another example of the "lame excuses" for removal for nearby development!

The Park Ave. Hotel is just another example, such as the Wolverine Hotel was to the Ilitch's... just another big old building in the way of progress.

Not to defend anything Illitch did here, but perhaps if it wasn't an empty, dilapidated, derelict, eyesore, it wouldn't have been so easily demo'ed? Wasn't it empty since the mid 80s? Mothballed or not [[and maybe I'm thinking of another place... but I'm thinking it wasn't THAT protected, I remember seeing it with no windows and totally open to the elements) are you really saying that it should have been left empty another 30 years? The Wolverine going down was sad and stupid...but it wouldn't have happened if Forbes wasn't just sitting on it.

[Mackinaw]

Detroitbob, great mention of the Alhambra-- just a beautiful building crying out for reuse.

More on the Wolverine: http://www.historicdetroit.org/build...tel-wolverine/

What's extra galling is the lack of use of the site. The last paragraph of Dan Austin's writeup says it best.

[bailey]

Detroitbob, great mention of the Alhambra-- just a beautiful building crying out for reuse.

More on the Wolverine: http://www.historicdetroit.org/build...tel-wolverine/

What's extra galling is the lack of use of the site. The last paragraph of Dan Austin's writeup says it best.

So Forbes didn't own it? Well, then... Fuck Coleman Young, fuck Dennis Archer, fuck the City Council, and fuck olympia.... Chuck, you're cool.

[Gistok]

OK... my bad... I thought it was one of his properties... he owned so many in the area...

[detroitbob]

OK boys and girls, gather 'round...

We all must remember that other developers have demo's many a building everyone felt should be saved. What of the remains of old Black Bottom, old St. Matthew Episcopal Church and Parish house--the first black Anglo Catholic Episcopal parish, the old YMCA that served the Black community...and where were all of those structures you ask...Well, in the footprint of Ford Field! Operative word FORD. Who demo's the Monroe and Kern/Farmer blocks...just chocked full of historic buildings...well the Downtown Authority and City of Detroit. And the historic building that was Henry Ford's garage was torn down in 1925 for the Michigan Theatre which was demo's into a parking garage, ok, partially demo'd. And what of downtowns only 'atmospheric theatre' the Oriental Theatre back in 1953-after only 26 years to be a parking lot for now over 60 years. And those horrible Webber brothers who demo'd the short lived terracotta dreamy Newcomb Endicott & Co building to build the "Greater Hudson Store"...and what of the heirs of Joseph Crowley for demolishing Partridge and Blackwell---"the store with a heart in the heart of the city"?

My point is that every decade has led to rebuilding, rebirth, renewal and not everyone has ever agreed on every project. And every era has left a mark, some dynamic, some not so. Much has been and we willl see more adaptive reuse--I dare say more of this opportunity still exists in Detroit that almost any other American city. For a sad alternative look at what used to be downtown Tulsa and even closer, Toledo.

Downtown/midtowns potential renewal hasn't seemed this exciting since the 1920's. That's something to celebrate.

[southen]

many buildings have been lost in the past, so letting a billionaire tear down a building whose shape he is semi-responsible for, is somehow justified now? sound logic. tearing down a piece of history for a parking garage is not exciting or something to be celebrated especially when it is someone who could easily save it but is chooses not to.

[bailey]

many buildings have been lost in the past, so letting a billionaire tear down a building whose shape he is semi-responsible for, is somehow justified now? sound logic. tearing down a piece of history for a parking garage is not exciting or something to be celebrated especially when it is someone who could easily save it but is chooses not to.

who bears the greater blame though... the billionaire slum lord or a city government so incompetent and corrupt, the slumlording can go on and on and on...AND to top it all off, the slumlord gets half a billion in public money to build there?

[Mackinaw]

It's clearly engrained in culture and we're finally making strides to eradicate it, with Olympia being one of the last embracers of this facet of our throwaway society. Perhaps a moratorium on demolitions of buildings over 6 stories tall without leave of a special commission for historic preservation [[comprised of experienced professional engineers, architects, and persons who have actually redeveloped buildings) is what we need. The DHDC's ambit is limited to pre-designated historic districts, and its toes were recently stepped on big time when the Duggan administration flouted their court-approved rulings on the Deck Bar. What I am saying is, perhaps we need to set a resolute, new policy and provide a straightfoward review process with an all-powerful body that deems whether a building is truly beyond saving. The City also should activate its eminent domain for blight removal powers more readily-- for purposes of buyout and RFP turnover to new owners [[as opposed to demolition).

Detroitbob I agree with your point that we remember the sins of generations past. In terms of volume of historic buildings removed for parking, and the low average life span of turn-of-the-century buildings that were removed, I'd say Detroit has to be top of the list nationwide.

Yet somehow we still have a very atmospheric and elegant downtown. It's because such tall, graceful limestone structures are so hard to find outside of NYC and Chicago, and thankfully we still have most of those. Combine that with other concentrations of historic facades on Merchant's Row and Capital park, and you have something special and unique. Yes, it would be nice to have more of the finer grained continuous historic streetscape, which is super hard to find here yet abundant in many other old cities. Blocks like Woodward, eastside from Congress to Cadillac Sq., are hard to find. They testify to what the city looked like before it even boomed in the 1920s. Even Monroe St. in Greektown isn't a complete block anymore, and it's been messed with big time.

Anyway, the palette is still special and I can't wait to see our gaps filled in-- hopefully with buildings that contribute more architecturally than, say, the Compuware Bldg. Dan Gilbert, time to make us proud.

[southen]

who bears the greater blame though... the billionaire slum lord or a city government so incompetent and corrupt, the slumlording can go on and on and on...AND to top it all off, the slumlord gets half a billion in public money to build there?

you are comparing a city deprived of resources, who definitely deserves some blame, to a billionaire who bought the structures and proceeded with demolition by neglect. on this particular issue im placing most of the blame on the guy who could have easily fixed these buildings with little impact on his bottom line.

the city does need to do a better job enforcing and it looks like with some of these buildings that is starting to happen. it is also encouraging that there is a fight within city government to keep these structures. those two things right there tell me things are beginning to change somewhat.

[Detroit500]

I believe in historic preservation, and would always prefer to have things renovated rather than destroyed, but I think we also have to ask pragmatically, what would the use of the building be? And not in a hypothetical 20 years down the road when things are better time frame, but for the immediate term. One of the scariest things to me standing in the way of Detroit's growth and redevelopment is a lack of cohesive plan for development. The Book-Cadillac to my mind is a huge example of this. What can be done to turn the Tower around as well? The Casinos, why couldn't they all have been built together on a mini-strip? At least Illitch is "theoretically" trying to confront these issues with his creation of these neighborhoods... we will see if he follows through...

[emu steve]

Based on this, hard to say:



The site plan shows the Harbor Light Building, but just as a grey box. Would that end up being more plaza space? Loading docks? Maybe the parking garage will get bigger?

Kinda weird that they designed the whole thing with that building in place, and then decided to get rid of it.

I think that gray box is a TBD box, even though I think I can guess what that means.

Looking at that drawing I'm reminded of the mantra: location, location, location.

That location looks inside the 'perimeter' of the arena complex area [[as I'll call it) looks like the worst possible location for that building to be if it is to survive.

BTW, I assume those three small rectangles in the lower left corner are parcels not owned by the Ilitch folks. I believe I've seen maps of what they do and do not own.

[detroitbob]

Detroit was "lucky" in that the economy had tanked along its reputation more than once in the last 50 years and no one had significant plans to redevelope wide areas of the core downtown area.

[Gistok]

Detroit was "lucky" in that the economy had tanked along its reputation more than once in the last 50 years and no one had significant plans to redevelope wide areas of the core downtown area.

Had that not been the case you could have kissed the downtown movie palaces adieu. Cities such as Philadelphia, Minneapolis and Cincinnati lost almost all their old downtown theatres, due to redevelopment. Chicago and New York both lost some of their best theatres because of it. Now all those cities look back with at least some regret....

[wolverine]

Had that not been the case you could have kissed the downtown movie palaces adieu. Cities such as Philadelphia, Minneapolis and Cincinnati lost almost all their old downtown theatres, due to redevelopment. Chicago and New York both lost some of their best theatres because of it. Now all those cities look back with at least some regret....

I was talking to my friends here in Chicago about that same thing the other day. There was an old 1960's visionary plan for the North Loop which showed total demolition for new towers and malls. "So glad that didn't happ....oh wait it did actually happen." At least Howard C Crain's historic theater facades are still standing, and of course the Chicago theater. but the rest of the North loop got replaced with lots of glass and steel.

[emu steve]

What makes this arena project different than most in downtowns [[or in this case adjacent), is that other than the two buildings in question, one within arena zone perimeter, and one adjacent, is that this area was desolate and devoid of anything.

The arena is not a building which needs to fit into the mosaic of existing structures, rather it is a large new development which happens to run close to two existing buildings.

Once beyond the perimeter of the arena, I'd hope that abandoned hotels, etc. near Temple/Cass can be saved. They fit with the Masonic, etc.

[stinkytofu]

I feel the thread title is incorrect. Clearly Ilitch's choice is to demo them both, but this might be the compromise they have to deal with.

[Mackinaw]

A couple of urban planning quips:

Detroit500, I get your concern and wish it were that easy. On the other hand, master plans often lead to cities getting bogged down in trying to find developers willing and able to provide exactly what the master plan calls for. Yet a master plan is often just some schematic of an idealized city that an urban planner hired by the mayor draws up. I am quite sure that more master plans have been drawn up and discarded than drawn up and followed. At certain moments in a city's history, especially when there is a massive land-use change [[i.e. industrial to residential) pondered or there is no clear vision to inspire the developers, a master plan can be great. But I think in Downtown Detroit's case it isn't really needed. In many cases, proceeding piecemeal and organically is best, and government stepping aside [[though still enforcing basic land use/height protocols) is the best way to make it happen. In the example you cited, I don't think there would be any justification for the City holding up the Book-Cadillac renovation to try and secure commitments for the Book Tower. It would not be wise, and we'd probably still be looking at an empty Book-Cadillac.

Emu Steve, I see your point, but there is still a common thread with recent arena projects involved tearing down a bunch of occupied buildings [[as in Brooklyn and Newark, e.g.). The issue that's common to all of these scenarios is where to draw the line for the wrecking ball? How big does the arena footprint need to be? What sort of use justifies removing extant buildings beyond the footprint? If you want your arena surrounded by a vibrant urban district, should you leave or remove the extant structures? If removal is the answer, shouldn't there be a distinct plan and commitment to replace it with something productive, rather than some amorphous promise that result in surface parking or excess "plaza?"

Interestingly, in Brooklyn and Newark the government stepped in and took properties that were occupied or worth saving [[which isn't even legal in the state of Michigan post-Poletown). In Detroit, the government is at least talking about stepping in and SAVING properties that are in much worse condition. That's a very positive thing. It's a testament to the sound logic of the historic preservation movement in a city that has lost too much as it is and a testament to the city that knows better having been tricked by Olympia before. Now's lets follow through an actually save them!

[bailey]

Interestingly, in Brooklyn and Newark the government stepped in and took properties that were occupied or worth saving [[which isn't even legal in the state of Michigan post-Poletown). In Detroit, the government is at least talking about stepping in and SAVING properties that are in much worse condition. That's a very positive thing. It's a testament to the sound logic of the historic preservation movement in a city that has lost too much as it is and a testament to the city that knows better having been tricked by Olympia before. Now's lets follow through an actually save them!

They could still seize them through ID, but it has to be for a public use and for the "just compensation"...which I'm sure would take 20 years of litigation to resolve.

What can't happen is taking the property to give to a private entity[[like GM in Poletown) without getting over a few more hurdles. Hathcock still permits condemnations that transfer property to private parties in three situations: public necessity of the extreme sort, situations where the public retains some control over the condemned property, and cases where condemnation is justified by facts of independent public significance rather than by the new owners' planned use for the property.So, so long as the property is not totally in private hands, theoretically the city could seize them.

Once Illtich extracted a ransom from the city or county, perhaps this one would pass muster as it's removing blighted, slums for redevelopment and really the Development Authority is going to technically own the stadium.

But, of course, we all know what happens to property when the CoD owns it and we know what happens when land speculators have a piece of blight that falls within a development zone...so would it really be a better choice?