University Club next to fall?

[PQZ]

There's nothing "whining, bitching, or moaning" about encouraging a responsible, methodical approach for putting buildings like this back to productive use. Time and again, multiple strategies have been proposed, including but not limited to:

*raising the property tax rate for vacant properties

*enforcing building codes and levying fines when the owner maintains the property in a state of disrepair

*using DEGC to work with building owners, advising them of historic preservation tax credits that are available for redevelopment

1. Raising property taxes on vacant properties sounds on the surface to be a reasonable approach. However, the number one complaint and biggest hurdle for business attraction to Detroit is its already excessively high tax rates. How do you define vacant? No tenants in a building? No building on a parcel? Sit back in an asbestos suit and watch a rash of fires not seen since Pompeii if you raise the tax on vacant buildings by an amount substantial enough to be punitive and / or spur action. With no real proven market people will remove the building, not restore it. In other words, the unintended consequences could be staggering.

2. More enforcement = more inspectors. More inspectors = more money. In case one hadn't noticed, the city is cutting positions, not adding. More inspectors in BS&E requires deeper cuts somewhere else. What areas of City government should be cut more deeply to fund more inspectors? I am curious to see what areas folks think are not critical and would not mind seeing either eliminated or severely reduced.

3. That one always makes me chuckle. Perhaps we could gather everyone at Roast or Cliff Bells to have brainstorming session over a few beer on how to encourage the DEGC to understand the value of historic preservation.

About 4 - 5 years ago, all the many and fractured historic preservation groups and activists got together for a big summit to draft a strategy for preservation in the City.

At that time, myself and others in the development and governance spheres repeatedly said the City needed help in identfying the many historic treasures and developing a prioritization / triage policy. With limited funds is it better to save that one huge iconic building or preserve a block of smaller structures? What structures are really really key? What structures should be listed on registers and could the presertvation community systematically work through that process?

A driving factor in this suggestion was that the Historic District Commission staff had no ability to go out and do that sort of work on their own. With only 3 staffers processing all the permits for buildings AND demolitions, they were simply overwhelmed.

The preservation community largely, if not completely, ignored the suggestion. No effort was made identfy and work through a list of the important structures in the City.

I would imagine that the University Club would have been on that list and possibly received designation by now. That would have made the redevelopment process of the building easier and faster and would have given the City significant leverage in preventing a demolition.

So, again, here is a direct, concrete and useful suggestion to the preservation community:

Develop a matrix for identifying the 100 significant buildings that Detroit simply cannot lose, prioritize them, develop volunteer work teams and action item time lines and GET THEM LISTED.

Pretty freaking simple.

[kraig]

There's nothing "whining, bitching, or moaning" about encouraging a responsible, methodical approach for putting buildings like this back to productive use. Time and again, multiple strategies have been proposed, including but not limited to:

*raising the property tax rate for vacant properties

*enforcing building codes and levying fines when the owner maintains the property in a state of disrepair

*using DEGC to work with building owners, advising them of historic preservation tax credits that are available for redevelopment

Look again at post #97. That's whining, bitching and moaning. Just own up to it.

Now, of the three strategies that you've posted. Preservation and Historic Groups aren't authorized to implement any of them. However, there is nothing that prevents them from having a conversation with Albert Ammori, and hopefully, working something out.

[ghettopalmetto]

Let me make sure I understand you properly, PQZ:

The City of Detroit has the staff and money to designate thousands of structures for demolition.

Yet no staff and no money to designate properties that are desired to be preserved?

This really speaks to nothing more than the ass-backward priorities of the City of Detroit. It's governance by neglect, if you ask me. It seems as if the City of Detroit conducts its planning on a day-to-day basis. You will NEVER see a single damned positive thing happen until the powers-that-be start setting some long-term goals other than "hoping" that some of the newly-vacant lots will be redeveloped.

[kraig]

Let me make sure I understand you properly, PQZ:

The City of Detroit has the staff and money to designate thousands of structures for demolition.

Yet no staff and no money to designate properties that are desired to be preserved?

This really speaks to nothing more than the ass-backward priorities of the City of Detroit. It's governance by neglect, if you ask me. It seems as if the City of Detroit conducts its planning on a day-to-day basis. You will NEVER see a single damned positive thing happen until the powers-that-be start setting some long-term goals other than "hoping" that some of the newly-vacant lots will be redeveloped.

Hmmmnnn, what's the higher priority? Demolishing as many of the dangerous buildings where people have been killed in, children have been raped in and where environmental dangers to the entire neighborhood have been allowed to flourish? Or designating a building as a historic structure?

Bear in mind that the city receives far more money to demolish the dangerous buildings than it does to designate buildings as historical. Sorry GP, that dog doesn't hunt.

I'm not saying that historical designation isn't important, because it is. But, with the state that the City is in right now, demolition is a more immediate and higher priority.

[PQZ]

Let me make sure I understand you properly, PQZ:

The City of Detroit has the staff and money to designate thousands of structures for demolition.

Yet no staff and no money to designate properties that are desired to be preserved?

This really speaks to nothing more than the ass-backward priorities of the City of Detroit. It's governance by neglect, if you ask me. It seems as if the City of Detroit conducts its planning on a day-to-day basis. You will NEVER see a single damned positive thing happen until the powers-that-be start setting some long-term goals other than "hoping" that some of the newly-vacant lots will be redeveloped.

That is a willful and deliberate distortion of reality. On one hand you call for greater enforcement of codes - which would result in thousands of homes and buildings being found to be dangerous and in need of demolition. That is not unexpected when more than half of the population leaves. A city will need to remove half of the building stock as result of it being empty. Its just a cold hard fact. You have repeatedly called for greater enforcement and inspections with in the City. Now you complain about the outcomes of even just preserving the amount of inspection staff the city has.

Also note that the City had no money FOR the demolitions and that the pace of demolitions has picked up only because of ARRA dollars received.

Demolition AND redevelopment are necessary and frankly the city doesn't have the funds to do either at a meaningful level - even if they stopped doing the other. The City could halt all demolitions [[and how well would that go over with the neighborhood residents?) and it wouldn't make a meaningful dent in the scale and pace of redevelopment. Or the City could fire the entire HDC staff and hire two of the 150 so inspectors they need.....

Again, this isn't Monopoly money or Sim City. Its real life decisions with real consequences.

[ghettopalmetto]

That is a willful and deliberate distortion of reality. On one hand you call for greater enforcement of codes - which would result in thousands of homes and buildings being found to be dangerous and in need of demolition. That is not unexpected when more than half of the population leaves. A city will need to remove half of the building stock as result of it being empty. Its just a cold hard fact. You have repeatedly called for greater enforcement and inspections with in the City. Now you complain about the outcomes of even just preserving the amount of inspection staff the city has.

Also note that the City had no money FOR the demolitions and that the pace of demolitions has picked up only because of ARRA dollars received.

Demolition AND redevelopment are necessary and frankly the city doesn't have the funds to do either at a meaningful level - even if they stopped doing the other. The City could halt all demolitions [[and how well would that go over with the neighborhood residents?) and it wouldn't make a meaningful dent in the scale and pace of redevelopment. Or the City could fire the entire HDC staff and hire two of the 150 so inspectors they need.....

Again, this isn't Monopoly money or Sim City. Its real life decisions with real consequences.

If this isn't Sim City, then why does the City of Detroit think they can clear cut acres of land and expect redevelopment to magically happen? Why is it acceptable to allow speculative slumlords [[including the City of Detroit itself) to sit on their properties without conducting the slightest bit of maintenance?

I'm not suggesting anything other than what has been done elsewhere. Do you think Detroit's peer cities, like Chicago and Philadelphia, have rebounded because they had acres and acres of open fields available for redevelopment? The first phases of true redevelopment start when individuals take a risk and rehabilitate existing building stock, i.e. single-family homes. This idea that Detroit can wait for a marquee developer to risk hundreds of millions of dollars on a single "inspirational" project before redevelopment can begin is complete fucking hogwash. They've been doing it that way since at least the Renaissance Center and IT. DOESN'T. WORK.

The existing buildings that are classified as "dangerous" have BECOME dangerous for two reasons: a lack of code enforcement, and a lack of police enforcement. Detroit needs to spend money getting people into these homes and rehabilitating them, earning a return on investment. Likewise, if you allow a building like the University Club to be subject to the whims of a speculative slumlord, you've become complicit in allowing one more structure being added to that "dangerous" list. We've seen that this strategy doesn't produce returns for anyone but the demolition contractors. Where's the payoff for the people of Detroit?

I'm not saying that every structure can or should be saved. But Detroit sure as shit has a demolition strategy--why can't they put together a strategy to preserve the resources they have and turn those properties into productive use? What has been done, in practice, is short-sighted, produces no return on investment, and is bankrupting the City. And now the rest of the taxpayers in the United States are complicit in Detroit's self-destruction.

More than anything, Detroit needs to start getting real with itself, and grow a pair of fucking balls, coupled with brains to actually think THROUGH a problem rather than repeatedly applying superficial band-aid approaches. This incessant whining that "everyone else can do it but us because we're just so special and needy" is tiresome.

[PQZ]

Why is it acceptable to allow speculative slumlords [[including the City of Detroit itself) to sit on their properties without conducting the slightest bit of maintenance?

Its not acceptable, but its a fact of life when you are short 150 inspectors.

I'm not suggesting anything other than what has been done elsewhere. Do you think Detroit's peer cities, like Chicago and Philadelphia, have rebounded because they had acres and acres of open fields available for redevelopment?

No, I think their economies were established and far more diverse as a result of two centuries of steady growth and not two decades of explosive unsustainable growth like Detroit. From a purely objective and clinical position, there is no reason that Detroit and the Metro region ever got to the size it did for sustainable economic reasons. It grew far too large far too quick and the model was completely unsustainable. The auto industry left the City after 30 years of explosive growth, leaving behind a population and built environment that had not other economic base to support it. Its not jsut Detroit, its the whole stinking region. There is no rational reason for the metro area to be the size it is. And the chickens are coming home to roost, like a boom town in the old west.

The first phases of true redevelopment start when individuals take a risk and rehabilitate existing building stock, i.e. single-family homes. This idea that Detroit can wait for a marquee developer to risk hundreds of millions of dollars on a single "inspirational" project before redevelopment can begin is complete fucking hogwash. They've been doing it that way since at least the Renaissance Center and IT. DOESN'T. WORK.

That is a Fox News stykle sound bite and exaggeration of the redevelopment pattern of the City. The EDC, DBRA and DDA spend far more of their resources encouraging small scale development than they do marquee developments. Folks are too lazy to look for them and facilely point to stadiums while ignoring the Brush Park redevelopment efforts 200 yeards away.

The existing buildings that are classified as "dangerous" have BECOME dangerous for two reasons: a lack of code enforcement, and a lack of police enforcement.

Lack of enforcement is a direct result of lack of resources to pay for those code and police officers. The tax base plummet began in 1951-1952 resulting in the need for an income tax in 1955 - an income tax dreamed up and implemented by a white, Republican mayor.

Detroit needs to spend money getting people into these homes and rehabilitating them, earning a return on investment.

What fucking money?

Likewise, if you allow a building like the University Club to be subject to the whims of a speculative slumlord, you've become complicit in allowing one more structure being added to that "dangerous" list. We've seen that this strategy doesn't produce returns for anyone but the demolition contractors. Where's the payoff for the people of Detroit?

I agree. It would have been nice to have the property listed. But with not enough moneyy for even code enforcement, there simply aren't resources to do everything the City would like to do. The community partners who could have helped when the City made an outreach ignored the issue.

But Detroit sure as shit has a demolition strategy--why can't they put together a strategy to preserve the resources they have and turn those properties into productive use?

They did have a strateguy and dollars for the downtown, leveraging millions of dollars in redevelopment. That effort of course, earned the City a spot on the endangered list at NTHP.

More than anything, Detroit needs to start getting real with itself, and grow a pair of fucking balls, coupled with brains to actually think THROUGH a problem rather than repeatedly applying superficial band-aid approaches.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...ID=20103180406

[iheartthed]

No, I think their economies were established and far more diverse as a result of two centuries of steady growth and not two decades of explosive unsustainable growth like Detroit. From a purely objective and clinical position, there is no reason that Detroit and the Metro region ever got to the size it did for sustainable economic reasons. It grew far too large far too quick and the model was completely unsustainable. The auto industry left the City after 30 years of explosive growth, leaving behind a population and built environment that had not other economic base to support it. Its not jsut Detroit, its the whole stinking region. There is no rational reason for the metro area to be the size it is. And the chickens are coming home to roost, like a boom town in the old west.

Actually, Chicago's growth rate was more explosive than Detroit. Detroit was larger than Chicago until the mid 19th century. In the 1840 census, Detroit was twice the size of Chicago. In the 1850 census, Detroit was about the same size as Chicago. By the 1860 census, Detroit had doubled, but Chicago had nearly quadrupled, so Detroit was now half the size of Chicago. But both cities had continuous growth until the 1950 census, which is when they both suddenly stopped growing.

Taking into account both cities entire histories, the only difference in the direction of trajectories for the populations of Chicago and Detroit has been seen in the past 30 or so years. Chicago was able to stabilize the inner city, and even post modest growth during the 1990s [[first time since the 1950 census, as was the case with Detroit). Detroit hasn't been able to do that yet.

[Detroitnerd]

Actually, Chicago's growth rate was more explosive than Detroit. Detroit was larger than Chicago until the mid 19th century. In the 1840 census, Detroit was twice the size of Chicago. In the 1850 census, Detroit was about the same size as Chicago. By the 1860 census, Detroit had doubled, but Chicago had nearly quadrupled, so Detroit was now half the size of Chicago. But both cities had continuous growth until the 1950 census, which is when they both suddenly stopped growing.

Taking into account both cities entire histories, the only difference in the direction of trajectories for the populations of Chicago and Detroit has been seen in the past 30 or so years. Chicago was able to stabilize the inner city, and even post modest growth during the 1990s [[first time since the 1950 census, as was the case with Detroit). Detroit hasn't been able to do that yet.

Chicago's growth was faster, but Detroit was your classic boom town. People poured into the city to make money, and, when they were done making that money, they didn't care about the city itself, its institutions or its history. Once they made their bundle, many were happy to go off to the next place to make more money, and never really cared about the city in the first place.

These "realists" I think were often the first people to say, "Never gonna happen" and split. It's always been hard to talk about what motivated people who aren't here anymore. Once they move on to greener pastures, we never got to find out just how little they cared about fixing Detroit's problems.

Luckily, online communities allow the people who gave up on Detroit to keep in touch.

[kraig]

Chicago's growth was faster, but Detroit was your classic boom town. People poured into the city to make money, and, when they were done making that money, they didn't care about the city itself, its institutions or its history. Once they made their bundle, many were happy to go off to the next place to make more money, and never really cared about the city in the first place.

These "realists" I think were often the first people to say, "Never gonna happen" and split. It's always been hard to talk about what motivated people who aren't here anymore. Once they move on to greener pastures, we never got to find out just how little they cared about fixing Detroit's problems.

Luckily, online communities allow the people who gave up on Detroit to keep in touch.

That's kind of a harsh way of viewing some people that moved out of the City. I know a lot of people that have moved to the suburbs or even other states that have a lot of love for the City.

Depending on who they are and/or were they worked, they may have had to keep their opinions to themselves. In which case you're going to get their true perspective on what is/was going on with a lot of things happening in the City.

I've seen a lot of people post uncensored versions of their frustrations on what and who they might have dealt with. But they've quite often shown that they believe in what they were trying to do or what they felt they should have been doing. People have different viewpoints, that's all.

Take this thread for example. As much as we all differ on what strategies should be taken. I think we're all on the same page as to what we would like to happen with the University Club.

[Detroitnerd]

That's kind of a harsh way of viewing some people that moved out of the City.

Oh, never mind. It's just my little way of teasing somebody on this forum.

[PQZ]

Detroit was larger than Chicago until the mid 19th century. In the 1840 census, Detroit was twice the size of Chicago. In the 1850 census, Detroit was about the same size as Chicago. By the 1860 census, Detroit had doubled, but Chicago had nearly quadrupled, so Detroit was now half the size of Chicago.

So by time the 1910 explosion in growth in Detroit. Chicago already had 50 years [[or nearly two and half generations) to establish a robust and diverse economy that grew WITH the industrial revolution - not as an after thought. The significant growth in Detroit took place between 1910 and 1940, not enough time to establish a fully diverse and self sustaining economic base before the contraction began. Under classic economic theory, The Detroit region ought to be about half to two thirds the size it currently is...the ONLY reason it grew larger than that was the automobile boom. Once that began to dry up you had an ever shrinking population and economic base. The reality is that Detroit - and the region - must face the fact that al of beautiful buildings not needed nor will likely be needed any time in the next 50 years.

Sad but true.

[iheartthed]

Chicago's growth was faster, but Detroit was your classic boom town. People poured into the city to make money, and, when they were done making that money, they didn't care about the city itself, its institutions or its history. Once they made their bundle, many were happy to go off to the next place to make more money, and never really cared about the city in the first place.

These "realists" I think were often the first people to say, "Never gonna happen" and split. It's always been hard to talk about what motivated people who aren't here anymore. Once they move on to greener pastures, we never got to find out just how little they cared about fixing Detroit's problems.

Luckily, online communities allow the people who gave up on Detroit to keep in touch.

Well, I always wonder if they were allowed to do that with a bit of help by the political leadership. One thing that differentiates Detroit and Chicago [[or Detroit and New York), is that Chicago [[and New York) is located right on a geopolitical border. Hypothetically, Chicago could have sprawled the same way that Detroit did, but that would have then had Illinois battling with Indiana over business interests. What was stopping Indiana from building its own Troy? It's always been a more "business-friendly" climate than Illinois, right?

Michigan had no such competition. For obvious reasons, Ontario was no threat, and Ohio was a little too far from Detroit to compete for Detroit companies. So if a company suddenly said, "hey, it's cheaper to go to build a tower on a parcel in Southfield than to do so downtown" the state really had no incentive to see them stay downtown. They were getting their cut either way.

[PQZ]

http://www.slideshare.net/ajp/what-i...ment-hierarchy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_place_theory

[kraig]

Well, I always wonder if they were allowed to do that with a bit of help by the political leadership. One thing that differentiates Detroit and Chicago [[or Detroit and New York), is that Chicago [[and New York) is located right on a geopolitical border. Hypothetically, Chicago could have sprawled the same way that Detroit did, but that would have then had Illinois battling with Indiana over business interests. What was stopping Indiana from building its own Troy? It's always been a more "business-friendly" climate than Illinois, right?

Michigan had no such competition. For obvious reasons, Ontario was no threat, and Ohio was a little too far from Detroit to compete for Detroit companies. So if a company suddenly said, "hey, it's cheaper to go to build a tower on a parcel in Southfield than to do so downtown" the state really had no incentive to see them stay downtown. They were getting their cut either way.

Great observation.

[Detroitnerd]

So by time the 1910 explosion in growth in Detroit. Chicago already had 50 years [[or nearly two and half generations) to establish a robust and diverse economy that grew WITH the industrial revolution - not as an after thought. The significant growth in Detroit took place between 1910 and 1940, not enough time to establish a fully diverse and self sustaining economic base before the contraction began. Under classic economic theory, The Detroit region ought to be about half to two thirds the size it currently is...the ONLY reason it grew larger than that was the automobile boom. Once that began to dry up you had an ever shrinking population and economic base. The reality is that Detroit - and the region - must face the fact that al of beautiful buildings not needed nor will likely be needed any time in the next 50 years.

Sad but true.

Was there significant growth in Detroit 1930-1940?

[iheartthed]

So by time the 1910 explosion in growth in Detroit. Chicago already had 50 years [[or nearly two and half generations) to establish a robust and diverse economy that grew WITH the industrial revolution - not as an after thought. The significant growth in Detroit took place between 1910 and 1940, not enough time to establish a fully diverse and self sustaining economic base before the contraction began. Under classic economic theory, The Detroit region ought to be about half to two thirds the size it currently is...the ONLY reason it grew larger than that was the automobile boom. Once that began to dry up you had an ever shrinking population and economic base. The reality is that Detroit - and the region - must face the fact that al of beautiful buildings not needed nor will likely be needed any time in the next 50 years.

Sad but true.

Detroit's growth rate was actually lower in the 1910 - 1940 period than over the previous century. The average growth rate of Detroit from the 1820 census to the 1900 census was a little over 100%. The average growth rate from the 1910 through 1940 census was 60%. For good measure, the average growth rate from 1910 through 1950 was 50% [[the 1950 census was the last time Detroit posted any population growth). That's a pretty good growth rate, but not exactly trailblazing for a major American city during that era.

Chicago, on the other hand, had a growth rate that was twice Detroit's rate over the 1820 - 1910 period, but the Chicago growth rate had dropped substantially in the 1910 - 1950 period to half that of Detroit's. So if anything, Detroit's growth during its own coming of age was much more steady than Chicago's.

[PQZ]

Detroit's growth rate was actually lower in the 1910 - 1940 period than over the previous century. The average growth rate of Detroit from the 1820 census to the 1900 census was a little over 100%. The average growth rate from the 1910 through 1940 census was 60%. For good measure, the average growth rate from 1910 through 1950 was 50% [[the 1950 census was the last time Detroit posted any population growth). That's a pretty good growth rate, but not exactly trailblazing for a major American city during that era.

Chicago, on the other hand, had a growth rate that was twice Detroit's rate over the 1820 - 1910 period, but the Chicago growth rate had dropped substantially in the 1910 - 1950 period to half that of Detroit's. So if anything, Detroit's growth during its own coming of age was much more steady than Chicago's.

The impacts of growth is one thing when going from 25,000 to 50,000. Its quite another thing when going from 1,000,000 to 1,6000,000.

[iheartthed]

The impacts of growth is one thing when going from 25,000 to 50,000. Its quite another thing when going from 1,000,000 to 1,6000,000.

True. And Chicago had several decades in which it added 600,000 or more residents, while Detroit only had one.

[Huggybear]

If you are not going to write a letter to Council requesting an interim historic district [[which should take all of 10 minutes and a 44 cent stamp), don't bitch that this thing is gone in 6 months. After all, you apparently had the commitment to complain and bemoan here but not to lift a finger, right?

Here are the criteria for historic designation under Ordinance 161-H of 1976:

1. Sites, buildings, structures, or archeological sites where cultural, social, spiritual, economic, political, or architectural history of the community, city, state or nation is particularly reflected or exemplified.
2. Sites, buildings, structures, or archeological sites which are identified with historic personages or with important events in community, city, state or national history.
3. Buildings or structures which embody the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural specimen, inherently valuable as a representation of a period, style or method of construction.
4. Notable works of a master designer or architect whose individual genius influenced his or her age.

Write your letters to:

City Council [Member or council c/o City Clerk Janice Winfrey]
Coleman A. Young Municipal Center
2 Woodward Avenue
Detroit MI 48226

Copy to:
Historic Designation Advisory Board
[Same address, suite 204]

These are typically considered in the order of receipt by Council, but I'm sure that if 100 of these arrived concerning the same property, they might move faster.

Good luck and report what you hear on this thread.

[Huggybear]

Your famous people for #4 are Dexter Ferry and Albert Russell.

[Huggybear]

Your famous architect is William Kapp of Smith Hinchman Grylls.

[Huggybear]

And this is one of the few pieces of collegiate gothic architecture left in Detroit.

[DetroitDad]

We need to go at him with the offer of money for architecture. If he leaves the lobby open for the public, we could do some business.

BUSINESS!

I'm assuming you guys are willing to put in on your goals.

[PQZ]

Great information Huggybear. I would have thought one of the more vocal preservationists would have posted such information...either now or in the past.