Lafayette Building Demolition

[Danny]

YAY!

More parking lots and less historical depession-era buildings. Tear that LaFayette Building down and let the sunshine in for Michigan Ave, Shelby and Griswold block.

[bailey]

Armchair, my hairy ass. Your all-knowing ego is remiss in that the "armchair preservationists" on this board consist of numerous professionals who have been engaged in many more multi-million dollar renovation projects than you ever will.

But I do live here. Unlike 99% of those "numerous professionals". Why don't you stop lecturing and come back Dan and show us how it's done?

[crawford]

In Chicago they don't need a dedicated parking lot for every project that is proposed.

Actually they do. Chicago mandates attached parking for basically any type of construction, at any scale, in any neighborhood.

Chicago downtown residential highrises have a mandated 1.5 parking spaces per residential unit.

There are very few places in the U.S. that do not have parking requirements.

[ghettopalmetto]

Chicago downtown residential highrises have a mandated 1.5 parking spaces per residential unit.

Is that a MAXIMUM or a MINIMUM?

[Det_ard]

Gp = sod + bsce + pee?

[crawford]

Is that a MAXIMUM or a MINIMUM?

Minimun is 1.5 per unit. I do not know if there's a maximum, but I think projects are generally built at 1.5.

Also not sure if the type of unit [[studio vs. four-bedroom, for example) plays any role in parking requirements.

[ghettopalmetto]

Minimun is 1.5 per unit. I do not know if there's a maximum, but I think projects are generally built at 1.5.

Also not sure if the type of unit [[studio vs. four-bedroom, for example) plays any role in parking requirements.

http://maps.cityofchicago.org/website/zoning

17-10-0208 Off-Street Parking Schedule 2: Downtown Zoning Districts. Schedule “2� presents off-street parking standards for uses in downtown [[D) zoning districts. The off-street parking standards for neighborhood zoning districts [[i.e., R, B, C and M) are presented in Sec. 17-10-0207 above.District
Minimum Automobile Parking Ratio
[[Per unit or gross floor area)
Maximum Accessory Parking Ratio
[[per unit or gross floor area)
Minimum Bike Parking
Residential Uses
D dash 3
1 space per dwelling unit
2.0 per dwelling unit
1 per 2 auto spaces in buildings containing 8 or more units
D dash 5
1 space per unit for first 100 units; 0.60 spaces per unit for all additional units; subsidized units as determined by DZLUP
1.5 per dwelling unit
D dash 7
0.7 spaces per dwelling unit
DC district: 1.1 per dwelling unit DX and DR districts: 1.1 per dwelling unit for dwelling units containing less than 1,600 square feet of floor area; 1.5 per dwelling unit for dwelling units containing 1,600 square feet of floor area or more
D dash 10, 12, 16
0.55 spaces per dwelling unit

[staticstate]

no offense intended as there are a lot of people here with a lot of valuable knowledge of engineering, zoning, and preservation but does each thread need to turn into an argument about it? you're all smart people, but can't we occasionally deal with the topic without it turning into a slugfest?

the building is fenced, the equipment is in place but does anyone nearby see anything going on?

[Rocko]

Fancy expensive facadectomy on the Michigan Avenue and Lafayette sides, similar to the old Fine Arts Building next to the Kales on GCP, anyone?

Attachment 2749

So long old friend... Your cornice will be missed on Detroit's skyline.

[ghettopalmetto]

no offense intended as there are a lot of people here with a lot of valuable knowledge of engineering, zoning, and preservation but does each thread need to turn into an argument about it? you're all smart people, but can't we occasionally deal with the topic without it turning into a slugfest?

the building is fenced, the equipment is in place but does anyone nearby see anything going on?

If persons with zero practical knowledge of redevelopment would cease insisting they are in a better position to give an expert opinion than those with education and professional experience in these realms, there would be no argument.

[bailey]

If persons with zero practical knowledge of redevelopment would cease insisting they are in a better position to give an expert opinion than those with education and professional experience in these realms, there would be no argument.

Ok GP, please enlighten all of us on step #2. By that I mean the one between #1 Dont demolish and #2 profit. You're so quick to reduce every counter argument to pithy one-liners...so, please tell me what Ferchill doesn't know about this golden opportunity. I would like to hear how in DETROIT...not how in DC or NYC or Boston, or where-ever the fuck it would happen, but the reality of doing this project in DETROIT MICHIGAN in 2009.

[ghettopalmetto]

Ok GP, please enlighten all of us on step #2. By that I mean the one between #1 Dont demolish and #2 profit. You're so quick to reduce every counter argument to pithy one-liners...so, please tell me what Ferchill doesn't know about this golden opportunity. I would like to hear how in DETROIT...not how in DC or NYC or Boston, or where-ever the fuck it would happen, but the reality of doing this project in DETROIT MICHIGAN in 2009.

Well, for what seems like the one-thousandth time:

If DEGC were interested in making an objective decision, that is to say, conducting life-cycle cost analyses for demolition, redevelopment, and mothballing, they would have had to hire an architect and engineer to conduct a feasibility study of the building. To public knowledge, this was not done. No signed-and-sealed report has been produced as the basis for the decision. Which leads one to believe that the decision to demolish was based on guesswork. Again.

It would be one thing if the streets of Detroit were paved in gold, and Cristal came out of the Ford Fountain. It's quite another when the city is facing a $300 million+ deficit for this year, and is demolishing buildings for zero Return On Investment like there's no tomorrow.

[bailey]

Well, for what seems like the one-thousandth time:

If DEGC were interested in making an objective decision, that is to say, conducting life-cycle cost analyses for demolition, redevelopment, and mothballing, they would have had to hire an architect and engineer to conduct a feasibility study of the building. To public knowledge, this was not done. No signed-and-sealed report has been produced as the basis for the decision. Which leads one to believe that the decision to demolish was based on guesswork. Again.

It would be one thing if the streets of Detroit were paved in gold, and Cristal came out of the Ford Fountain. It's quite another when the city is facing a $300 million+ deficit for this year, and is demolishing buildings for zero Return On Investment like there's no tomorrow.

Well, and for what also seem to be the one thousandth time... assuming for just one second all that was done [[which it may or may not have been; Ferchill seems to claim it was done in 2007...but that is a point I'm not debating) The building gets whatever half assed mothballing job passes for securing a building around here....what then? What is step #2?

[ghettopalmetto]

Well, and for what also seem to be the one thousandth time... assuming for just one second all that was done [[which it may or may not have been; Ferchill seems to claim it was done in 2007...but that is a point I'm not debating) The building gets whatever half assed mothballing job passes for securing a building around here....what then? What is step #2?

I don't know what Ferchill did. He may have hired his own architect and engineer when he evaluated the building. That work is independent of any diligence expected of the DEGC in making an objective decision.

Step #2 would be that DEGC acknowledges that from a liquidity and qualifications standpoint, we are in the worst credit and lending market in 60 years, and that it can only improve in the future. You take this into consideration of an objective, life-cycle cost analysis. For example, under the demolition scenario, you consider the opportunity costs of lost property tax revenue and lower property values in the surrounding area created by the afterthought skid-row park they plan to "construct".

If, after the objective financial analysis, you can demonstrate that there is a PERMANENT TREND that causes the other options to be forever unviable, as opposed to ONE SINGLE DATA POINT IN TIME, then you make the sad decision to demolish.

Geez, I mean, unemployment was at 25% during the Great Depression. Maybe New York should have demolished the Chrysler and Empire State Buildings as soon as they were constructed.

What DEGC has done is akin to a stock investor predicting his entire future investment success on little more than one day's rise [[or fall) in the Dow Jones Index. It's horseshit, and everyone involved knows it. If this decision were objective and robust, DEGC wouldn't be releasing a different excuse every other day, because they wouldn't have to. But what are we supposed to believe, when they can't even get their own story straight amongst themselves?

[bailey]

I don't know what Ferchill did. He may have hired his own architect and engineer when he evaluated the building. That work is independent of any diligence expected of the DEGC in making an objective decision.

Regardless of what the DEGC does, the private sector is going to drive the development. One of the "stars" of this type of rehab and reuse says its never gonna be doable. I'd believe him over george jackson anyway.

Step #2 would be that DEGC acknowledges that from a liquidity and qualifications standpoint, we are in the worst credit and lending market in 60 years, and that it can only improve in the future.

But the building has been empty for 13 and was declining prior to that. It emptied out and was abandoned during what many cite as the longest sustained and greatest economic expansion in the history of our country.

you take this into consideration of an objective, life-cycle cost analysis. For example, under the demolition scenario, you consider the opportunity costs of lost property tax revenue and lower property values in the surrounding area created by the afterthought skid-row park they plan to "construct".

What tax revenue? It's been a blight for at least 15 years.

If, after the objective financial analysis, you can demonstrate that there is a PERMANENT TREND that causes the other options to be forever unviable, as opposed to ONE SINGLE DATA POINT IN TIME, then you make the sad decision to demolish

Again, who is using a single data point in time. It's pushing 15 years of being empty and allowed to decay

Geez, I mean, unemployment was at 25% during the Great Depression. Maybe New York should have demolished the Chrysler and Empire State Buildings as soon as they were constructed.

Again, the Empire and Chrysler were not empty for 15 years and allowed to become blighted.

What DEGC has done is akin to a stock investor predicting his entire future investment success on little more than one day's rise [[or fall) in the Dow Jones Index. It's horseshit, and everyone involved knows it. If this decision were objective and robust, DEGC wouldn't be releasing a different excuse every other day, because they wouldn't have to. But what are we supposed to believe, when they can't even get their own story straight amongst themselves?

[/quote]

Again, it's not like the building was shuttered yesterday or last month or last year. It's been a blighted property for well over a decade.
Maybe we're talking past eachother, but I don't see how this is a decision based on a snapshot in time or somethign rash or hurried.

[R8RBOB]

I don't know what Ferchill did. He may have hired his own architect and engineer when he evaluated the building. That work is independent of any diligence expected of the DEGC in making an objective decision.

Step #2 would be that DEGC acknowledges that from a liquidity and qualifications standpoint, we are in the worst credit and lending market in 60 years, and that it can only improve in the future. You take this into consideration of an objective, life-cycle cost analysis. For example, under the demolition scenario, you consider the opportunity costs of lost property tax revenue and lower property values in the surrounding area created by the afterthought skid-row park they plan to "construct".

If, after the objective financial analysis, you can demonstrate that there is a PERMANENT TREND that causes the other options to be forever unviable, as opposed to ONE SINGLE DATA POINT IN TIME, then you make the sad decision to demolish.

Geez, I mean, unemployment was at 25% during the Great Depression. Maybe New York should have demolished the Chrysler and Empire State Buildings as soon as they were constructed.

What DEGC has done is akin to a stock investor predicting his entire future investment success on little more than one day's rise [[or fall) in the Dow Jones Index. It's horseshit, and everyone involved knows it. If this decision were objective and robust, DEGC wouldn't be releasing a different excuse every other day, because they wouldn't have to. But what are we supposed to believe, when they can't even get their own story straight amongst themselves?

Guy, you are trying to make lemonade out of oranges. You are trying to argue a loser.

Fact: Ferchill admitted they looked into renovating the Lafayette. He also admitted that if he had move to renovate the building, he would have had a 10 million dollar loss.

Fact: The city of Detroit last year offered the property to Quicken Loans for a dollar to use as its new headquarters once they moved to Detroit. No bank would give Quicken financing to renovate the building which would probably cost as much as Book Cadillac, 200 million dollars. Quicken is moving into the Compuware building.

Fact: The Lafayette building has sat empty for 12 years. No one wants this property "as is."

You ranting that DEGC didn't do a study on the building is silly. C'mon!! I know it is Detroit but damn the city isn't that backwards. The Lafayette should fall. It has reached its end-of-life and the city should put it out of its misery.

[Novine]

R8RBOB, I'm doing you a favor. Save this little gem of yours.

"You ranting that DEGC didn't do a study on the building is silly. C'mon!! I know it is Detroit but damn the city isn't that backwards. The _________ should fall. It has reached its end-of-life and the city should put it out of its misery."

Each time Demolition Jackson comes forward with a plan to demolish the next building downtown, you can pull this up and fill in the blank with the name of the building and you've got an instant post. It will save you the time of having to rethink what a great idea it is to demolish buildings and we'll all have the benefit of your wisdom.

I have yet to hear one demolition proponent offer a coherent vision for dealing with all of the vacant historic buildings downtown. None of them, publicly or privately owned, have any short-term prospects of tenants or income. All of the owners face maintenance costs and the private ones also have the burden of paying taxes. Some of them are heading down the same path as the Lafayette. Others may start going that way soon. Yet all we hear from you is that if a building isn't economically viable, it should be demolished. How many of the 48 or more buildings are you ready to let the wrecking ball take down?

[Detroitnerd]

How many of the 48 or more buildings are you ready to let the wrecking ball take down?

Depends on if I have salvage rights or not.

[R8RBOB]

R8RBOB, I'm doing you a favor. Save this little gem of yours.

"You ranting that DEGC didn't do a study on the building is silly. C'mon!! I know it is Detroit but damn the city isn't that backwards. The _________ should fall. It has reached its end-of-life and the city should put it out of its misery."

Each time Demolition Jackson comes forward with a plan to demolish the next building downtown, you can pull this up and fill in the blank with the name of the building and you've got an instant post. It will save you the time of having to rethink what a great idea it is to demolish buildings and we'll all have the benefit of your wisdom.

I have yet to hear one demolition proponent offer a coherent vision for dealing with all of the vacant historic buildings downtown. None of them, publicly or privately owned, have any short-term prospects of tenants or income. All of the owners face maintenance costs and the private ones also have the burden of paying taxes. Some of them are heading down the same path as the Lafayette. Others may start going that way soon. Yet all we hear from you is that if a building isn't economically viable, it should be demolished. How many of the 48 or more buildings are you ready to let the wrecking ball take down?

Just what I love most, a bleeding heart. Dude, people like yourself just love placing a tag of "historic" on a empty shell that was once a building of use in downtown Detroit. It is funny as hell how people want to place a "historic" tag on a building that was abandoned by its previous owners decades ago. You know what I classify as "historic?" A building up in age, still in use. Never abandoned, never left to rot.

Here are some buildings that I would classify as "historic"
Fisher Bldg.
the former GM Bldg.
the Fox Theatre
the Second Baptist Church

I could list more but the point is that these historic buildings are still in use. They deserve to be called historic. If the Lafayette was so historic, we would not be discussing it would we because it would be still in use.

Oh, that snarky remark about me wanting to knock down building. I tell you what!!! You keep it. I will come up with something new.

[Bearinabox]

Just what I love most, a bleeding heart. Dude, people like yourself just love placing a tag of "historic" on a empty shell that was once a building of use in downtown Detroit. It is funny as hell how people want to place a "historic" tag on a building that was abandoned by its previous owners decades ago. You know what I classify as "historic?" A building up in age, still in use. Never abandoned, never left to rot.

Here is buildings that I would classify as "historic"
Fisher Bldg.
the former GM Bldg.
the Fox Theatre
the Second Baptist Church

I could list more but the point is that these historic buildings are still in use. They deserve to be called historic. If the Lafayette was so historic, we would not be discussing it would we because it would be still in use.

Oh, that snarky remark about me wanting to knock down building. I tell you what!!! You keep it. I will come up with something new.

I don't think "historic" means what you think it means.

[R8RBOB]

I don't think "historic" means what you think it means.

My opinion, bub.... but as the old saying goes; "opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one."

[Bearinabox]

My opinion, bub.... but as the old saying goes; "opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one."

It isn't a matter of opinion. You're misusing the word.

[R8RBOB]

It isn't a matter of opinion. You're misusing the word.

Damn, dude!! Here is the definition of historic

Having importance in or influence on history

How am I misusing the word?

[Bearinabox]

Damn, dude!! Here is the definition of historic

Having importance in or influence on history

How am I misusing the word?

From your previous post:

I could list more but the point is that these historic buildings are still in use. They deserve to be called historic. If the Lafayette was so historic, we would not be discussing it would we because it would be still in use.

Whether or not a building is currently in use has nothing to do with its "importance in or influence on history." The two are completely unrelated. Using "historic" to mean "still in use" is incorrect.

[HazenPingree]

I am stuck in Denver until the 24th. Any updates on potential demo?