Lafayette Building Demolition

[EastSider]

On the other hand is this article from Crain's:

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...2/SUB/60519043

Detroit ranks fairly high in national rankings on the use of federal historic tax credits. Detroit was among the top 15 cities cited for the financial impact of federal historic credits, according to a report by the National Trust and Rutgers University, with $143.6 million in development from fiscal year 2005 to the present.

So which side of their mouth is the Trust speaking from today?

You don't suppose that the Trust can be as political as the DEGC?

[Novine]

Great article from 2006.

Try answering the question, name one other downtown in America where so many buildings are potential demolition targets.

[EastSider]

Great article from 2006.

Try answering the question, name one other downtown in America where so many buildings are potential demolition targets.

Name one other city in America to go from almost 2 million people to less than 800,000 in 50 years. You need people to support all of that square footage, and Detroit don't got it now and won't have it for years to come. It would be nice if all of them could be kept, but that's not reality.

Hug them while you can, because they won't all be there.

[Novine]

"Name one other city in America to go from almost 2 million people to less than 800,000 in 50 years. You need people to support all of that square footage, and Detroit don't got it now and won't have it for years to come."

Almost every major American city in the NE and Midwest has seen their population fall from their peak population. None of them have gone on the demolition binge that Detroit has. But I'll give you credit for being the first of the pro-demolition crowd to admit that you want to see many more buildings bite the dust.

[EastSider]

"Name one other city in America to go from almost 2 million people to less than 800,000 in 50 years. You need people to support all of that square footage, and Detroit don't got it now and won't have it for years to come."

Almost every major American city in the NE and Midwest has seen their population fall from their peak population. None of them have gone on the demolition binge that Detroit has. But I'll give you credit for being the first of the pro-demolition crowd to admit that you want to see many more buildings bite the dust.

There's a bit of a difference between "population fall" and the 60%-and-growing plummet Detroit is seeing.

As for my wants, I'm not saying whether I want to see them fall or not. I have removed the rose-colored glasses and am only stating what is objective reality.

Detroit can not now or even 5 years in the future support every vacant building downtown. Hug the ones you like, because they might not be there in 5 years.

I don't see much good to come from arguing on a blog about the city's demolition vs. preservation policy. It's more productive to deal with the city directly and try to get mayors and council members elected who might be willing to create a comprehensive redevelopment policy. Get a group who'd be willing to decommission the DEGC and remove the veil of secrecy that surrounds what directly happens to tax dollars.

For that matter, let's debate the existence of TIF districts like the DDA itself. Either in this thread or another one, recently PQZ was explaining how tax credits lead to higher taxes for everyone else.

That's the truth, there's nothing to argue about in that explanation. What about the diversion of tax dollars through TIF districts like the DDA? Doesn't that function the same as a tax credit to push taxes higher on everyone outside of that district? If not, why not? The money the DDA collects would normally go into the general fund.

Is the general city, the neighborhoods, truly served by the activities of the DDA? Or should their budget be cut and if there is a worthy project, it be funded through the city directly?

[iheartthed]

There's a bit of a difference between "population fall" and the 60%-and-growing plummet Detroit is seeing.

As for my wants, I'm not saying whether I want to see them fall or not. I have removed the rose-colored glasses and am only stating what is objective reality.

Detroit can not now or even 5 years in the future support every vacant building downtown. Hug the ones you like, because they might not be there in 5 years.

I don't see much good to come from arguing on a blog about the city's demolition vs. preservation policy. It's more productive to deal with the city directly and try to get mayors and council members elected who might be willing to create a comprehensive redevelopment policy. Get a group who'd be willing to decommission the DEGC and remove the veil of secrecy that surrounds what directly happens to tax dollars.

For that matter, let's debate the existence of TIF districts like the DDA itself. Either in this thread or another one, recently PQZ was explaining how tax credits lead to higher taxes for everyone else.

That's the truth, there's nothing to argue about in that explanation. What about the diversion of tax dollars through TIF districts like the DDA? Doesn't that function the same as a tax credit to push taxes higher on everyone outside of that district? If not, why not? The money the DDA collects would normally go into the general fund.

Is the general city, the neighborhoods, truly served by the activities of the DDA? Or should their budget be cut and if there is a worthy project, it be funded through the city directly?

First, other cities have lost a larger percentage of their peak populations than Detroit, such as Cleveland [[52% off peak), St. Louis [[58% off peak), and Buffalo [[53% off peak). [[NYC is actually the only older industrial major city in the NE or Midwest that has continued to set new peak populations since the 1950s. Most other cities are at least 20% off of their peak -- Chicago included.)

Second, Detroit still isn't that small. Even at 50% of its peak [[not 60%), Detroit is the 3rd largest American city in the eastern time zone. So yeah, if Boston, D.C., Pittsburgh, Atlanta, and Miami, which are all smaller than Detroit, can some how manage to make use of their downtown office buildings without demolishing them, I'm pretty sure that Detroit can do the same. But that would probably require a major urban policy overhaul in Metro Detroit and Michigan...

[Lorax]

You really believe your previous post? If the Lafayette was a "working operational building for all of those years" then it would have never closed, right? C'mon let me see that spin you're good at!!!

First of all, that's not what I said, Einstein.

I never asserted that just because it was a "working operational building for all of those years" that this is the reason it would have never closed?

What planet are you living on?

The reason it closed is immaterial, and was never part of the discussion.

What was, is how it was neglected in it's closed condition. If this Schwartz character had been fined by the city for allowing the building to be broken into, then it would be in better condition today, and a better candidate for restoration.

The failure is the city's, whether or not they ended up owning it.

If the city can crack heads with metermaids, then the can issue citations for exposed vacant buildings, and go to the owner's place of business with an arrest warrant for allowing a building to become dangerous to public safety.

Now it's going to cost taxpayers 1.5 million to demolish.

This isn't rocket science, just common sense.

[R8RBOB]

First of all, that's not what I said, Einstein.

I never asserted that just because it was a "working operational building for all of those years" that this is the reason it would have never closed?

What planet are you living on?

The reason it closed is immaterial, and was never part of the discussion.

What was, is how it was neglected in it's closed condition. If this Schwartz character had been fined by the city for allowing the building to be broken into, then it would be in better condition today, and a better candidate for restoration.

The failure is the city's, whether or not they ended up owning it.

If the city can crack heads with metermaids, then the can issue citations for exposed vacant buildings, and go to the owner's place of business with an arrest warrant for allowing a building to become dangerous to public safety.

Now it's going to cost taxpayers 1.5 million to demolish.

This isn't rocket science, just common sense.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda......

Those are my words for you.

Sincerely,

Mr. Einstein

[kraig]

First of all, that's not what I said, Einstein.

I never asserted that just because it was a "working operational building for all of those years" that this is the reason it would have never closed?

What planet are you living on?

The reason it closed is immaterial, and was never part of the discussion.

What was, is how it was neglected in it's closed condition. If this Schwartz character had been fined by the city for allowing the building to be broken into, then it would be in better condition today, and a better candidate for restoration.

The failure is the city's, whether or not they ended up owning it.

If the city can crack heads with metermaids, then the can issue citations for exposed vacant buildings, and go to the owner's place of business with an arrest warrant for allowing a building to become dangerous to public safety.

Now it's going to cost taxpayers 1.5 million to demolish.

This isn't rocket science, just common sense.

The DEGC doesn't have the luxury of pointing out all of the things that the City of Detroit departments should have done when making their decisions. The DEGC made their decision based on the position that they're in. Not a position that they would have liked to be in.

[EastSider]

But that would probably require a major urban policy overhaul in Metro Detroit and Michigan...

So in other words, you didn't read the second part of my post, did you? You reacted to my comments about the population and typed out a quick reply.

To make it easy for you, I've copied the paragraphs you missed.

I don't see much good to come from arguing on a blog about the city's demolition vs. preservation policy. It's more productive to deal with the city directly and try to get mayors and council members elected who might be willing to create a comprehensive redevelopment policy. Get a group who'd be willing to decommission the DEGC and remove the veil of secrecy that surrounds what directly happens to tax dollars.

For that matter, let's debate the existence of TIF districts like the DDA itself. Either in this thread or another one, recently PQZ was explaining how tax credits lead to higher taxes for everyone else.

That's the truth, there's nothing to argue about in that explanation. What about the diversion of tax dollars through TIF districts like the DDA? Doesn't that function the same as a tax credit to push taxes higher on everyone outside of that district? If not, why not? The money the DDA collects would normally go into the general fund.

Is the general city, the neighborhoods, truly served by the activities of the DDA? Or should their budget be cut and if there is a worthy project, it be funded through the city directly?

[iheartthed]

So in other words, you didn't read the second part of my post, did you? You reacted to my comments about the population and typed out a quick reply.

To make it easy for you, I've copied the paragraphs you missed.

I don't have an opinion on the rest of what you said. The takeaway point is that the beginning of your post was wrong.

[Khartoum]

Drove by late last night and didn't look like they started demo yet.

Was up at the Lafayette today, and the abatement crews were already at work. I asked one how long he thought it would take, and he ignored me. Friendly lad.

Thanks man. I don't live there anymore and I keep returning to this thread for updates.

[McIPor]

This blog and the newspapers are where the "preservationists" vent because they are the only public forums for discussion in the city. The DDA meetings don't allow public comment. The DEGC is private. There is no public forum for hearings on demolition of the Lafayette or any other building the DDA or DEGC decide to demolish unless it goes in front of the Historic commission.

Designating Park Ave a historic district in 1997 helped save those buildings. Perhaps we should declare downtown a historic district?

[crawford]

Second, Detroit still isn't that small. Even at 50% of its peak [[not 60%), Detroit is the 3rd largest American city in the eastern time zone. So yeah, if Boston, D.C., Pittsburgh, Atlanta, and Miami, which are all smaller than Detroit, can some how manage to make use of their downtown office buildings without demolishing them, I'm pretty sure that Detroit can do the same.

Population is irrelevent to this discussion. The issue is demand for space in existing downtown buildings.

Detroit could have a city population of zero but a high demand for downtown office space. Detroit could have 3 million residents and zero demand for downtown office space.

If you do want to look at population, it would be from a metropolitan level only, and to gauge potential demand, rather than existing space utilization. At a metropolitan level, Boston, DC, Atlanta and Miami are all larger than Detroit. Pittsburgh is half the size but it extremely centralized due to extreme geographic circumstances.

And demolition vs. reuse would only be an issue in Pittburgh and maybe Boston. The other cities do not have a large stock of prewar office space.

[iheartthed]

Population is irrelevent to this discussion. The issue is demand for space in existing downtown buildings.

Detroit could have a city population of zero but a high demand for downtown office space. Detroit could have 3 million residents and zero demand for downtown office space.

If you do want to look at population, it would be from a metropolitan level only, and to gauge potential demand, rather than existing space utilization. At a metropolitan level, Boston, DC, Atlanta and Miami are all larger than Detroit. Pittsburgh is half the size but it extremely centralized due to extreme geographic circumstances.

And demolition vs. reuse would only be an issue in Pittburgh and maybe Boston. The other cities do not have a large stock of prewar office space.

I'm not the one who based the argument for whether the buildings should be demolished on the population of the city. I was just pointing out that Detroit is larger than many other cities that have strong downtown districts. But the difference between the size of the Metro Detroit and that of those other metropolitan areas listed is negligible.

[EastSider]

I don't have an opinion on the rest of what you said.

The rest of my post is precisely about the issue of preservation and whether and how the city's policy should be crafted! How can you not have an opinion about that?

You would rather focus on the relatively small issue of whether Detroit has lost 50% of its population or more in the last 50 years?

Are there any more deck chairs we should move, Captain?

If it would help you focus the debate on what really matters, I'm willing to stipulate that Detroit has lost 50% of its population if you're willing to agree that the population continues to decline.

[iheartthed]

The rest of my post is precisely about the issue of preservation and whether and how the city's policy should be crafted! How can you not have an opinion about that?

You would rather focus on the relatively small issue of whether Detroit has lost 50% of its population or more in the last 50 years?

Are there any more deck chairs we should move, Captain?

If it would help you focus the debate on what really matters, I'm willing to stipulate that Detroit has lost 50% of its population if you're willing to agree that the population continues to decline.

See this is where the disconnect is... I'm not debating you. I just corrected you, based on the facts as we know it. Yes, I'm in favor of preservation, and no, I still don't have an opinion on what you added to the discussion.

[EastSider]

See this is where the disconnect is... I'm not debating you. I just corrected you, based on the facts as we know it. Yes, I'm in favor of preservation, and no, I still don't have an opinion on what you added to the discussion.

So do you support TIF districts or not?
Should the DEGC continue to be allowed to direct the expenditure of tax dollars without being subject to the Open Meeting Act, FOIA and other "open government laws?"
What about tax breaks for development in the city?

If you really do "heart the d" you have at least a seedling of an opinion. It may not be fully developed, but something's there.

[iheartthed]

So do you support TIF districts or not?
Should the DEGC continue to be allowed to direct the expenditure of tax dollars without being subject to the Open Meeting Act, FOIA and other "open government laws?"
What about tax breaks for development in the city?

If you really do "heart the d" you have at least a seedling of an opinion. It may not be fully developed, but something's there.

My opinion is that I'm in favor of the preservation of as many "historic" structures in Detroit as can be saved. I think that these structures will play a prominent role in Detroit's revival, if Detroit has a revival. I do not believe that empty lots, parking lots, or "pocket parks" will make Detroit a more attractive place. I also do not know whether or not your proposed method of saving these structures is a good method, because I don't know of any precedent to compare it against. That is why I have no opinion about what you proposed.

I do not know whether the DDA should or shouldn't exist in any capacity, but re-development in Detroit has been dismal compared to what has gone on in some other large formerly industrial cities in the U.S. over the past 20 years. So I have little faith that the DDA, as it exists now, even has a clue of what is necessary for a thriving urban core. But they do seem to be very successful at is demolishing old buildings. So maybe that is their intended purpose... The controlled demolition of downtown Detroit.

[Novine]

So do you support TIF districts or not?
No.

Should the DEGC continue to be allowed to direct the expenditure of tax dollars without being subject to the Open Meeting Act, FOIA and other "open government laws?"
No.

What about tax breaks for development in the city?
No without some system that ties the tax breaks to true public benefit. Lining Mike Ilitch's pockets with more money isn't a true public benefit.

[Adam101]

What annoys me is they will end up demoing this building and not take out any of the artifacts in it. Um, last time I knew; the building business listing sign was still in it..... will they preserve that? or the marble wall tile? prob not..... and they wont preserve other things like that. I would love to save that from the landfill but Det as usual will skrew that up. Btw Hello all, I'm new to the forum

[Lorax]

Perhaps saving the cornice as well would be a good idea. Where's Habitat for Humanity? Plenty of usable materials, bricks, etc.

[buildingsofdetroit]

What annoys me is they will end up demoing this building and not take out any of the artifacts in it. Um, last time I knew; the building business listing sign was still in it..... will they preserve that? or the marble wall tile? prob not..... and they wont preserve other things like that. I would love to save that from the landfill but Det as usual will skrew that up. Btw Hello all, I'm new to the forum

I talked to a guy who "harvests" artifacts from to-be-razed buildings [[I bought an old wooden phonebooth from the YMCA from him) about it. He said he went and looked at the Lafayette. He said the building directory is cast iron painted bronze and must weigh a ton, which is probably why it wasn't swiped by now. Marble is a difficult thing to reuse, though not impossible.

[REL]

A "harvester" of artifacts? You mean a looter.

[Lorax]

The DEGC doesn't have the luxury of pointing out all of the things that the City of Detroit departments should have done when making their decisions. The DEGC made their decision based on the position that they're in. Not a position that they would have liked to be in.

Where did anyone say it was the DEGC's responsibility?

It doesn't change the fact that the city is ultimately responsible for the building's current condition. They had the opportunity to fine, lien, and prosecute the building's owners.

Failing those attempts, they had an obligation as new owners of a foreclosed building to secure it for future marketing- it's destroying what could have been an asset that the taxpayers took back from private enterprise- so the city failed in it's fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers- the real oweners of this foreclosed building.