"So Long Cass Tech", Bobb says...

[Rocko]

The argument that the building should not be demolished because a suitable use/repair plan has not been brought forth is certainly clear, but only in Detroit would the structure have not been secured properly to prevent such destruction from happening making a reuse such a monumental task. Unbelieveable! And to think only like 5 years ago it was occupied and students were traversing its hallways....

[Lorax]

Ok, here goes:

Every building you listed currently has no building to replace it. I think you are confusing the matter at hand. Cass Technical High School wanted a new building. Because they are a magnet school, they got their new building but they had no plans on what to do with the old building. I'm sure someone had plans to knock it down but there is always some bleeding heart who believes that they can do something with something old.

You are attempting to label me as one of those people who would destroy history. That is not true. I love old buildings. I wish Detroit would have preserve its buildings like Chicago but I'm a realist. It cost money to preserve and Detroit don't have people with deep pockets coming in to preserve anything in this city. I stand by my comment that the old Cass Tech should be torn down because they got a new school building and they discarded the history of the building when doing so. DPS could have and should have rehab the building if it meant so much in regards to history.

So to answer your comment, if all those building you listed had replacments built from the ground up and there was no idea what do with them and they were to stay standing and empty like most buildings in Detroit then yes I would say tear them down. Nothing was worse than to see Tiger Stadium go into decay for 9 years.

So, again, by your metric, a parking lot that generates revenue would then be a sufficent replacement for any vacant building?

Any one of the vacant structures I mentioned would then be better replaced by a revenue generating parking lot, which would certainly bring in more money after one Tiger's game than the vacant tower that sits there now would in a year. You see the dilemma here?

Bring on the dynamite!

[R8RBOB]

So, again, by your metric, a parking lot that generates revenue would then be a sufficent replacement for any vacant building?

Any one of the vacant structures I mentioned would then be better replaced by a revenue generating parking lot, which would certainly bring in more money after one Tiger's game than the vacant tower that sits there now would in a year. You see the dilemma here?

Bring on the dynamite!

My friend, I suppose I should explain myself. I am a logical person. I am big with the logic because I like to see things in a circle, not a box. A box have corners which could bring your thought to a stop but a circle continue on and on. No stopping. It seems you are not carefully reading my comment and reacting with a passionate point of view.

A parking lot is the last thing I would want but you can not build new buildings and leave old buildings to rot and decay. Going back to Cass Tech, the building was deemed too old to renovate therefore a new building was needed to replace the school. I commented on this before and I will state this again because you aren't reading my words. If the building now known as old Cass Tech was an historic building worth preserving, DPS would have spent the millions to do so.

Something to leave you with. Do you know that the football field that was designed for the school was unusable because the dimensions were screwed up because they squeezed the field between the two buildings? Imagine how much could have been available for expansion if they would have done it right the first time. You know knocking down the old building. The Detroit way, I suppose.

[Lorax]

My friend, I suppose I should explain myself. I am a logical person. I am big with the logic because I like to see things in a circle, not a box. A box have corners which could bring your thought to a stop but a circle continue on and on. No stopping. It seems you are not carefully reading my comment and reacting with a passionate point of view.

A parking lot is the last thing I would want but you can not build new buildings and leave old buildings to rot and decay. Going back to Cass Tech, the building was deemed too old to renovate therefore a new building was needed to replace the school. I commented on this before and I will state this again because you aren't reading my words. If the building now known as old Cass Tech was an historic building worth preserving, DPS would have spent the millions to do so.

Something to leave you with. Do you know that the football field that was designed for the school was unusable because the dimensions were screwed up because they squeezed the field between the two buildings? Imagine how much could have been available for expansion if they would have done it right the first time. You know knocking down the old building. The Detroit way, I suppose.

Well, let's back it up a bit, and admit that DPS made a mistake by not renovating old Cass Tech, and building a new building that will no doubt last 20 years or so, and will look like hell before it's torn down as well.

That said, the DPS then should have secured the building and find a buyer willing to turn it into somthing else. That apparently was never done.

Since we can't undo history, and since the building was not secured and was allowed to be ransacked, then the DPS needs to find a buyer, or give the building to a not for profit for future developement.

My point- making two mistakes doesn't correct the first one. With the waste and fraud in the DPS, there is certainly money to mothball the building at the least. If money can be found to demolish it, then less money can mothball it. It should be taken away from the DPS on principle alone for what they have allowed it to become.

Old Cass Tech was for some reason spared when the new one was built, and since economics apparently had no say in the matter- the building is still standing, then there is no logical reason to remove it, unless the argument can be made that a building of greater size and value is replacing it, which we know is not the case, or, as I mentioned before, a parking lot replaces it, which could be income producing, whereas the old Cass Tech is not income producing. Short of this happening, then preserving the building in stasis makes the most sense, and costs nothing more than blocking up the windows.

It looks to me like my version of logic is a helluva lot more circular and less confined to a box than yours.

[R8RBOB]

Well, let's back it up a bit, and admit that DPS made a mistake by not renovating old Cass Tech, and building a new building that will no doubt last 20 years or so, and will look like hell before it's torn down as well.

That said, the DPS then should have secured the building and find a buyer willing to turn it into somthing else. That apparently was never done.

Since we can't undo history, and since the building was not secured and was allowed to be ransacked, then the DPS needs to find a buyer, or give the building to a not for profit for future developement.

My point- making two mistakes doesn't correct the first one. With the waste and fraud in the DPS, there is certainly money to mothball the building at the least. If money can be found to demolish it, then less money can mothball it. It should be taken away from the DPS on principle alone for what they have allowed it to become.

Old Cass Tech was for some reason spared when the new one was built, and since economics apparently had no say in the matter- the building is still standing, then there is no logical reason to remove it, unless the argument can be made that a building of greater size and value is replacing it, which we know is not the case, or, as I mentioned before, a parking lot replaces it, which could be income producing, whereas the old Cass Tech is not income producing. Short of this happening, then preserving the building in stasis makes the most sense, and costs nothing more than blocking up the windows.

It looks to me like my version of logic is a helluva lot more circular and less confined to a box than yours.

Dude, you are so funny. I'm done explaining logic to you. It's time to be silly.

Using your words.

Well, let's back it up a bit, and admit that DPS made a mistake by not renovating old Cass Tech, and building a new building that will no doubt last 20 years or so, and will look like hell before it's torn down as well.
Making a mistake not renovating CT!!! According to Wikipedia, the school was founded in 1861. Don't you think it was time for a change?

That said, the DPS then should have secured the building and find a buyer willing to turn it into somthing else. That apparently was never done.
Yeah, if this was a Star Trek or a Star Wars universe, someone could have built a shield generator to prevent looters from destroying the building.

Since we can't undo history, and since the building was not secured and was allowed to be ransacked, then the DPS needs to find a buyer, or give the building to a not for profit for future developement.
Find a buyer for a building located between a freeway and a new school. I could imagine all the offers that DPS got for the building. As for giving away property, be serious. Detroit have acres to give away. What makes that property so special?

My point- making two mistakes doesn't correct the first one. With the waste and fraud in the DPS, there is certainly money to mothball the building at the least. If money can be found to demolish it, then less money can mothball it. It should be taken away from the DPS on principle alone for what they have allowed it to become.
Didn't they mothball the building when the school moved out? As for taking it away, to whom it should be given to?

Old Cass Tech was for some reason spared when the new one was built, and since economics apparently had no say in the matter- the building is still standing, then there is no logical reason to remove it, unless the argument can be made that a building of greater size and value is replacing it, which we know is not the case, or, as I mentioned before, a parking lot replaces it, which could be income producing, whereas the old Cass Tech is not income producing. Short of this happening, then preserving the building in stasis makes the most sense, and costs nothing more than blocking up the windows.
Old Cass Tech still stands because in Detroit that is the norm. We have too many empty buildings standing and Cass Tech is just another but the difference is that Cass Tech is empty because DPS built the school a new building.

It looks to me like my version of logic is a helluva lot more circular and less confined to a box than yours.
Your logic make you sound like a bleeding heart. You cry for this building's demise yet not acknowledging that there many school buildings in Detroit empty. Do you live in the city? Are you aware that the Red sits empty? How about we do something with Redford. What about that?

[EastSider]

Thats ok as well, to close a school is one thing but I think to tear down a structure of the magnitude of CT more voices need to be heard.

I look at this a little like Tiger stadium, look at the end of the day maybe it needs to come down but I would like to hear a few more voices before it happens. Tiger stadium did at least get a hearing from the community, some trial balloons were put out there , nothing panned out so its coming down. I would at least like for CT to get the same kind of hearing.

The topic has "heard voices" for the last few years. What we haven't heard enough of is the jingle-jangle of dollars and cents from any group to redevelop it.

[Patrick]

According to Wikipedia, the school was founded in 1861. Don't you think it was time for a change?

Hey genius, the building was built in the 1920s.

[Lorax]

Using your words.

Making a mistake not renovating CT!!! According to Wikipedia, the school was founded in 1861. Don't you think it was time for a change?
Sorry, "Dude" but CT is about 90 years old, max. This is building #2 we're talking about- and even if it were 148 years old, it would be even worthier of saving, so, what's your point??

Yeah, if this was a Star Trek or a Star Wars universe, someone could have built a shield generator to prevent looters from destroying the building.
Or hired a competent security service to monitor it, and block in the windows on the lower two or three floors, which would have been cheaper than the costs now incurred due to stripping and neglect.

Find a buyer for a building located between a freeway and a new school. I could imagine all the offers that DPS got for the building. As for giving away property, be serious. Detroit have acres to give away. What makes that property so special? Did they even try? Do any of us know? Jury's still out on that one.

Didn't they mothball the building when the school moved out? As for taking it away, to whom it should be given to? No, obviously it wasn't mothballed. It should be given to a not-for-profit, or sold to private enterprise with historic tax credits and property tax abatements, which would have no negative effect on the city, since it's been off the tax rolls since it was built anyway.

Old Cass Tech still stands because in Detroit that is the norm. We have too many empty buildings standing and Cass Tech is just another but the difference is that Cass Tech is empty because DPS built the school a new building. If they had the funds to build such a school, then they could have mothballed the structure for future use. Secondly, as for vacant buildings being the "norm" as you term it, does that make it OK to have it sit there vandalized? I guess you can justify just about anything based on what you see around you. With that attitude we'd still be living in caves.

Your logic make you sound like a bleeding heart. You cry for this building's demise yet not acknowledging that there many school buildings in Detroit empty. Do you live in the city? Are you aware that the Red sits empty? How about we do something with Redford. What about that? Bleeding heart? "Dude", you really don't know me very well. I would have kicked the ass of the bureaucrat who advised building a new anything in a school district that has been bankrupt for years, and would have mandated restoration and enlargement of the existing building as a first resort. Redford High has a special place for me personally, and should be preserved at all costs, not to mention it's a fine example of it's architectural vernacular.

[R8RBOB]

Hey genius, the building was built in the 1920s.

Hey genius I said founded not built.

Such a flamer, but I forgive you for overstepping.

[R8RBOB]

Using your words.
I would have kicked the ass of the bureaucrat who advised building a new anything in a school district that has been bankrupt for years, and would have mandated restoration and enlargement of the existing building as a first resort. Redford High has a special place for me personally, and should be preserved at all costs, not to mention it's a fine example of it's architectural vernacular.

Hmm, mandated restoration. You think it is that easy? I worked for a time for DPS and I had to go into a number of schools thoughtout the city. Buildings that date back to WWI. These buildings have reached their end of life. I believe most if not all of the older buildings should be replace with new structures. Cass Tech was one of those WWI era buildings that was not economically viable to renovate. Remember these words: Nothing last forever.

You say: It should be given to a not-for-profit, or sold to private enterprise with historic tax credits and property tax abatements, which would have no negative effect on the city, since it's been off the tax rolls since it was built anyway. I say who would take the property knowing they would have to spend between 100 and 200 million dollars to restore the building? If you're a business and DPS offered you the building and discover that the pricetag for restoring the building cost be 200 million dollars, would you take it?

Two more things and I am done with this subject because there is nothing left to say.

One: We have many empty structures throughtout this city. From the north end to the westside to the southwest side to the eastside there are empty building all over the place. I hate it but is the price this city will pay when businesses move out and there is nothing to replace them. Cass Tech is another building in a long list of buildings that are empty and vandalized. The building in its current state spoils the new building because it is in decay.

Two: I drove pass the old CT building today and it needs to be knocked down. It looks like shit but it will remain standing because this is Detroit. There will be a last minute hail mary and the building will be saved because this is Detroit. For every Book Cadillac, you have the Michigan Central Depot.

[Lorax]

Likewise this will be my last post on this subject, since there really is no fighting a defeatist attitude.

Mothball the building, if it takes 50 years, it's still better than an empty lot.

Obviously your solution is acres of vacant land for new development that will never come.

The built environment has a much better chance of getting the best and highest use of the property as it exists now, since anything replacing what is standing now will never measure up aesthetically.

Look at the piece of crap DPS built to replace Northwestern High, it's 30 years old and falling apart- old Northwestern would have stood a thousand years with proper maintenance the way it was built, and would have saved DPS millions, but of course, graft always plays apart in any decision in Detroit, and the kickbacks were too tempting. Call it Demo for Dollars.

You have no argument that holds water, and the reason Detroit has the mind set of a demolition derby is due precisely to people like you who can't see an asset for what it can be. Chicago saw the importance in preserving it's scholastic architecture, and has retrofitted dozens of old schools, some over a century old, and in the worst neighborhoods. You'd have been cheerleading the demolition of Penn Station and Detroit's old city hall, no doubt, since we are so much better off as a city when quality buildings in our community are erased.

[szla]

the university of detroit high school [[seven mile between livernois and wyoming) did a stunning rehad of a similar age building a couple years before the new cass tech at a fraction of the cost for the new cass tech. i dont think the size of the student bodies is that disimilar. historic rehad can be cheaper. private vs public. sure that's some of the difference. but isn't that the way the light rail is going to be built.

[EastSider]

Mothball the building, if it takes 50 years, it's still better than an empty lot.

Who's going to pay to maintain the building in that mothballed state for the next 50 years? You?

I should as hell wouldn't want the district or the city to waste money like that.

[JVLIVS]

I'm glad that a decision was finally made with that old relic. I used to work at the old CT in 1996. Despite its dilapidated condition, it was one of the best schools I've worked in. I've yet to work inside of the new one let alone see the actual inside of it.

Here are some pics I've taken of both schools from '07. Hope you like 'em!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/theblac...io/1089205875/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/theblac...io/1090052728/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/theblac...io/1089207127/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/theblac...io/1090044970/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/theblac...io/1057843374/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/theblac...io/1089186551/

[jerrytimes]

I love our thinking. Here we have an unused vacant building. There are absolutely no plans for it. Lets keep it! Nothing like another rotting vacant building in a city that has thousands of them.

[Lorax]

Who's going to pay to maintain the building in that mothballed state for the next 50 years? You?

I should as hell wouldn't want the district or the city to waste money like that.

So keeping a mothballed building standing costs how much? Next to nothing other than a security guard.

So, in your world it's better to spend several million to demolish Cass Tech for an empty lot, then to spend much less, and keep it for future development. I really don't get the demolition derby mentality I'm seeing here, since it's more expensive, and gives us empty land. I will never understand the stupidity.

[LeannaM]

Sad to see it go, but I can understand why.

Still, I hate to see another empty lot because a building is dangerous.

[EastSider]

So keeping a mothballed building standing costs how much? Next to nothing other than a security guard.

Maintaining the roof costs money. Maintaining the exterior to at least a minimum standard to keep water out costs money. Repairing the damage caused by "urban explorers" when they trespass costs money.

There's no such thing a free lunch.

[Lorax]

Maintaining the roof costs money. Maintaining the exterior to at least a minimum standard to keep water out costs money. Repairing the damage caused by "urban explorers" when they trespass costs money.

There's no such thing a free lunch.

Like I've stated numerous times, the cost of a security guard. The roof can be repaired by the next owner. How many of Detroit's currently vacant buildings, some of which have been shuttered for decades have had roofs repaired. Let me guess- zero.

[Lorax]

Sad to see it go, but I can understand why.

Still, I hate to see another empty lot because a building is dangerous.

I can't. It makes no sense. When it's gone, it's gone forever. A vacant building isn't dangerous if no one is allowed to ransack it.

Detroit is unique among US cities with this problem of allowing grand scale scrapping and intrusion into it's vacant buildings. Here it's an epidemic, since the police don't respond to property crime calls. No other city I'm aware of has this kind of problem.

Enforcing the law, making police respond to property crime calls would be a start. The problem isn't the vacant buildings, it's the people who administer them, and the lack of a police presence. If a billionaire like the Matted Moron can't, or won't secure his vacant buildings, then the problem is in the culture, nothing else.

When I am in cities like Toledo, St. Louis, Cleveland, even Chicago, when a building is obviously vacant, it's not hanging out there with all of it's windows blown out, innards spilling onto the streets. Examples on the scale of the MCS, Lee Plaza, Broderick, even Cass Tech are not the norm in other cities. It wouldn't be tolerated. Not to say, as I'm sure I'll get piled on be the either/or crowd, that these cities don't have vacant buildings, just not the preponderance of unsecured vacant buildings that Detroit does. Take a drive down Robinwood east of Woodward and you'll see what I mean.

[EastSider]

Like I've stated numerous times, the cost of a security guard. The roof can be repaired by the next owner. How many of Detroit's currently vacant buildings, some of which have been shuttered for decades have had roofs repaired. Let me guess- zero.

Gee, the guidelines issued by the National Park Service state that more than "just a security guard" is needed to properly mothball a building.

What do you say we review the list! That would be fun and educational at the same time!

http://www.historichomeworks.com/hhw...the%20building.

The actual mothballing effort involves controlling the long-term deterioration of the building while it is unoccupied as well as finding methods to protect it from sudden loss by fire or vandalism. This requires securing the building from unwanted entry, providing adequate ventilation to the interior, and shutting down or modifying existing utilities. Once the building is de-activated or secured, the long-term success will depend on periodic maintenance and surveillance monitoring.

Stabilization as part of a mothballing project involves correcting deficiencies to slow down the deterioration of the building while it is vacant. Weakened structural members that might fail altogether in the forthcoming years must be braced or reinforced; insects and other pests removed and discouraged from returning; and the building protected from moisture damage both by weatherizing the exterior envelope and by handling water run-off on the site. Even if a modified use or caretaker services can eventually be found for the building, the following steps should be addressed. .

While bracing may have been required to make the building temporarily safe for inspection, the condition assessment may reveal areas of hidden structural damage. Roofs, foundations, walls, interior framing, porches and dormers all have structural components that may need added reinforcement. Structural stabilization by a qualified contractor should be done under the direction of a structural engineer or a preservation specialist to ensure that the added weight of the reinforcement can be sustained by the building and that the new members do not harm historic finishes [[see fig. 6). Any major vertical post added during the stabilization should be properly supported and, if necessary, taken to the ground and underpinned..

If the building is in a northern climate, then the roof framing must be able to hold substantial snow loads..

Controlling pests. Pests can be numerous and include squirrels, raccoons, bats, mice, rats, snakes, termites, moths, beetles, ants, bees and wasps, pigeons, and other birds. Termites, beetles, and carpenter ants destroy wood. Mice, too, gnaw wood as well as plaster, insulation, and electrical wires. Pigeon and bat droppings not only damage wood finishes but create a serious and sometimes deadly health hazard. .

If the property is infested with animals or insects, it is important to get them out and to seal off their access to the building. If necessary, exterminate and remove any nests or hatching colonies. Chimney flues may be closed off with exterior grade plywood caps, properly ventilated, or protected with framed wire screens. Existing vents, grills, and louvers in attics and crawl spaces should be screened with bug mesh or heavy duty wire, depending on the type of pest being controlled. It may be advantageous to have damp or infected wood treated with insecticides [[as permitted by each state) or preservatives, such as borate, to slow the rate of deterioration during the time that the building is not in use.

Securing the exterior envelope from moisture penetration. It is important to protect the exterior envelope from moisture penetration before securing the building. Leaks from deteriorated or damaged roofing, from around windows and doors, or through deteriorated materials, as well as ground moisture from improper site run-off or rising damp at foundations, can cause long-term damage to interior finishes and structural systems. Any serious deficiencies on the exterior, identified in the condition assessment, should be addressed.

Roofs are often the most vulnerable elements on the building exterior and yet in some ways they are the easiest element to stabilize for the long term, if done correctly. "Quick fix" solutions, such as tar patches on slate roofs, should be avoided as they will generally fail within a year or so and may accelerate damage by trapping moisture. They are difficult to undo later when more permanent repairs are undertaken. Use of a tarpaulin over a leaking roof should be thought of only as a very temporary emergency repair because it is often blown off by the wind in a subsequent storm.

Providing adequate ventilation to the interior. Once the exterior has been made weathertight and secure, it is essential to provide adequate air exchange throughout the building. Without adequate air exchange, humidity may rise to unsafe levels, and mold, rot, and insect infestation are likely to thrive [[see fig. 18). The needs of each historic resource must be individually evaluated because there are so many variables that affect the performance of each interior space once the building has been secured. A mechanical engineer or a specialist in interior climates should be consulted, particularly for buildings with intact and significant interiors. In some circumstances, providing heat during the winter, even at a minimal 45° F [[7°C), and utilizing forced-fan ventilation in summer will be recommended and will require retaining electrical service. For masonry buildings it is often helpful to keep the interior temperature above the spring dew point to avoid damaging condensation. In most buildings it is the need for summer ventilation that outweighs the winter requirements.

Golly gee, that sure sounds like a lot of expenses!

[LeannaM]

When I am in cities like Toledo, St. Louis, Cleveland, even Chicago, when a building is obviously vacant, it's not hanging out there with all of it's windows blown out, innards spilling onto the streets. Examples on the scale of the MCS, Lee Plaza, Broderick, even Cass Tech are not the norm in other cities. It wouldn't be tolerated. Not to say, as I'm sure I'll get piled on be the either/or crowd, that these cities don't have vacant buildings, just not the preponderance of unsecured vacant buildings that Detroit does. Take a drive down Robinwood east of Woodward and you'll see what I mean.

I'm pretty familiar with St. Louis. It does have vacant buildings. Quite a few houses on the North Side, and a few larger buildings scattered around the city. But you're right, not many of the larger buildings have blown out windows. The Arcade building has a few right now, I think. The former developers, Pyramid, went bankrupt and left a couple windows out and the interior partially demo'd. But plans are to renovate it as well. A lot of the smaller houses will have blown out windows, especially on the North Side. Most Paul McKee properties you will see in North St. Louis have no windows. He does that to speed decay, so he can get an emergency demolition permit. He has plans to repopulate and redevelop North City. I hope it goes through, but many of his obligations in the past he has not lived up to.

Powell Square has no windows at all, but plans are to renovate it into "an interactive arts center called The Artery"
http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlou...9/focus13.html
http://media.photobucket.com/image/P...5Image0089.jpg
The plan: http://images7.fotki.com/v158/photos...lSquare-vi.jpg

And there are other abandoned buildings: The building near the MyBlueSpace condominiums. It takes up a block and is currently vacant. There's the Globe Drug Store Warehouse, which I think is still in use, but the building attached to it doesn't appear to be. The Kiel Opera House is in the process of being renovated by Blues own Dave Checketts. Carr School, the Clemens Mansion, Cass Avenue Bank, the Avalon Theater are still empty. The San Luis apartments are being demolished as we speak [[for a parking lot, of course). There are some abandoned buildings along the north riverfront. The Jefferson Arms Apartment [[formerly Hotel Jefferson) was taken back by Pyramid [[who filed for bankruptcy). The roof has been repaired, and Pyramid's lenders [[the new owners) are looking for a tenant to renovate it, probably as apartments. The Ford Apartments are empty. The former owner went to prison. The new owners are looking to make new apartments out of it. Mercantile Exchange [[Dillard's) and the St. Louis Centre are still empty as well. Renovation was planned for both by Pyramid. They don't appear to be in immediate danger, but they're not currently under renovation. Copia Urban Winery was open in a renovated building, but it was destroyed by arson [[by an employee) in 2007. I'm not sure what's going to happen to it now. Curlee Building was a Pyramid property, nothing going on with it right now.
http://builtstlouis.net/crumble00.html
http://builtstlouis.net/washington/18b.html

Dozens have been renovated, though.
http://builtstlouis.net/return00.html
http://builtstlouis.net/washington/18b.html

Of course, quite a few have been lost, like the Century Building [[demolished 2002), the Ambassador Building [[demolished 1996), a couple churches, as well as entire city blocks in some cases [[urban renewal, even recently). So, Detroit is not the only city that has suffered shortsighted leadership.
http://builtstlouis.net/vanish00.html

I haven't seen many large abandoned buildings in St. Louis with blownout windows. There were probably more in the 1990s, but I think since the Downtown loft conversion boom started, I think even the vacant buildings appear better taken care of. Rudman on the Park has been renovated, but this is what it looked like the 90s.
http://builtstlouis.net/washington/10d.html
Vanguard Lofts was nasty as well, up until 2002
http://builtstlouis.net/washington/8a.html

I can't speak for Cleveland or Chicago, though.

Of course, St. Louis, Cleveland and Detroit are 3 different cities. All 3 have seen decay in the past. Again, I don't know much about Cleveland, but the 3 cities are different, and maybe in slightly different situations currently. Chicago is in a league of its own.

I think most cities saw dark days in the times of urban renewal. Some have stopped demolishing for the most part, others are still demolishing fairly often. Probably most are in between.

[Lorax]

So, Eastsider, I guess everyone who has ever "mothballed" a building has adheared to the the guidelines in doing so?

Gee, I guess the owners of the Farwell Building, Broderick Tower, David Whitney Building, Free Press Building, Stott Tower, etc, have found this really valuable advice.

It's expensive only if you decide to make it such. Sealing up a building isn't rocket science, and it need not be expensive, and is ALWAYS less expensive than demolition.

Wow, I think the Book Cadillac was an unsecured, scrapped building for how long? Over 23 years, I think? Imagine how much less damage would have happened had the city spent a few bucks on a security guard all those years.

The Statler Hotel was vacant over thirty years, and with minimal sealing up and security would have lasted longer. It was even salvagable at the point of it's demolition. The evidence is all around, so don't try and make the case for demolishing buildings with millions in taxpayer dollars when the simple, much less expensive solutions are all around us.

[EastSider]

Hi, my name is Lorax, and I don't care what sort of facts you present, I have my fingers in my ears and my head up my butt and I'm not going to listen! Ain't gonna do it, no how, no way!

That's quite the list of respectable building owners there. Too bad the majority of those buildings aren't even close to being mothballed. The Whitney's glass ceiling in the atrium is shattered by how many office chairs dropped from upper floors? It wouldn't surprise me if most of the marble is gone now, too.

Michael Higgins...hmmmm...yes, everyone should follow his method. Beal should charge an admission fee for all the urban explorers who are still to this day making the trip to the top of the Broderick.

The Book Cadillac did in fact have electrical service and a security guard after it was shuttered.

And your contention that the Statler was "salvageable" is misleading. Any building can be rebuilt. The issue is whether the activities needed to "save" the building will ultimately produce positive returns.

Using that analysis, which is the only analysis available for economic decisions, still leaves the feasibility of the Book's reopening uncertain.

[ndavies]

So keeping a mothballed building standing costs how much? Next to nothing other than a security guard.

And what does it cost to provide a security guard? It will cost you at least $150,000 a year to provide 24 hour security to this building. It requires at least 5 full time guards to provide one person on site for 24 hour security. That's about $20,000 per guard even if you only pay them mimimum wage. On top of that you need to provide supervision, accounting and government mandated services [[such as unemployment insurance) for these guards.

There are 8760 hours in a year. A full time employee works 2000. That's 5 people to cover 1 years worth of hours. At $10 per hour that's almost $90,000 in just guard wages.

Most security firms are going to charge you $20000 per month to provide one on site 24 hour guard protection. The cost is not negligible.