Luben Apartment building fire

**Zacha341** · November-30-10, 01:24 PM

NO, Jimmy Hoffa was in the basement. All evidence had to be removed....!

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

We had to demolish the building so we could investigate why it burned?

**drjeff** · November-30-10, 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by BrushStart

Haven't you seen Detroit 187?

It seems possible that the fire was a ruse to clear the building quickly for a new development. It's also possible that it was burnt down to collect an insurance payout from the owner, like Detroitnerd seems to be suggesting.

What insurance company would issue any policy for a vacant building open to the elements for 20 years [[or however long it's been) and being lived in by bums? And if this was arson, which it almost certainly was, there's no company on the planet who will pay out without a full investigation. I suspect if the owner was negligent enough to leave the building open, he's not getting a dime.

**Planner3357** · November-30-10, 01:49 PM

Originally Posted by Fnemecek

#1. How long a building sits vacant, in and of itself, isn't the issue. The Book-Cadillac Hotel, for example, sat vacant for more than 20 years. I invite you to walk through the place today and argue that it should have been torn down.

#2. Even if a building does have to come down, there is still a right way and a wrong way to do it. Torching a building in the middle of the night falls into the "wrong way" category. City officials collaborating with such an act makes it even worse.

I agree...torching it was not the way to go. But you can't blame the city for wanting to tear down the rest of it. It was a safety hazard.

And you most certainly cannot compare the Book-Cadillac's renovation to the Luben Apartments...seriously. Why don't you just put the Luben in the same category as the Fort Shelby and Kales building?

Those said building were not even close to the horrible condition this place was in.

**Detroitnerd** · November-30-10, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by Planner3357

I agree...torching it was not the way to go. But you can't blame the city for wanting to tear down the rest of it. It was a safety hazard.

So the ends justify the means?

**mauser** · November-30-10, 02:54 PM

It still is a safety hazard, because its still there. Just not the good part, which was no longer on fire.

**mauser** · November-30-10, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by Fnemecek

That doesn't mean anything. When a building is torched, almost all of the accelerant is burned away. Generally speaking, the residue that's left cannot be smelled by a human.

Depends on how professional the fire is. The Soup Kitchen fires were not very professional, and the thing stunk like gasoline afterward.

But I agree - I think these are both arson. Both Eastown fires, and the Luben fire.

**NorthofNormal** · November-30-10, 03:07 PM

If it weren't for the risk to firefighters and others, I'd support a vigilante arsonist torching crumbling eyesores that the city can't or won't tear down.

Augustiner · November-30-10, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by NorthofNormal

If it weren't for the risk to firefighters and others, I'd support a vigilante arsonist torching crumbling eyesores that the city can't or won't tear down.

Except that doesn't solve the problem. Buildings are still crumbling eyesores after they've burned, and still need to be torn down by the city. If anything, you need a vigilante bulldozer.

**drjeff** · November-30-10, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by Augustiner

Except that doesn't solve the problem. Buildings are still crumbling eyesores after they've burned, and still need to be torn down by the city. If anything, you need a vigilante bulldozer.

Yeah. There was a fire a few months ago in a mostly abandoned block of Michigan Ave. [[next to the rent-a-center, I think) and now the empty shell sits there, uglier than before. They even had to block off the sidewalk in front of it.

**NorthofNormal** · November-30-10, 03:33 PM

Alright. My imaginary vigilante arsonist can have a sidekick vigilante bulldozerman. Or possibly a fleet of asbestos-abatement and deconstruction/salvage-and-demo minions. If I ever hit the Powerball, I think I'd employ a bunch of guys in vaguely-official uniforms and send them out over the city repairing street lights and broken sidewalks and taking down burned buildings and whatnot. Wait and see how long it takes anyone at City Hall to notice.

**Fnemecek** · November-30-10, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by Planner3357

I agree...torching it was not the way to go. But you can't blame the city for wanting to tear down the rest of it. It was a safety hazard.

Oh, I certainly can blame the City for this one. If we follow your line of thinking, every arson scene would be demolished within hours of the fire. Investigators then have no evidence with which to conduct an investigation or prosecute the offender.

What exactly do you think is going to happen if Mayor Bing and Company continue to give blanket immunity to arsonists?

And you most certainly cannot compare the Book-Cadillac's renovation to the Luben Apartments...seriously.

5 years ago, there would've been a whole bunch of folks in this town would've disagreed with you. A lot of people argued that there was no way it could ever be renovated. Others argued that it would likely close shortly after opening.

**Planner3357** · December-01-10, 07:45 AM

Originally Posted by Fnemecek

Oh, I certainly can blame the City for this one. If we follow your line of thinking, every arson scene would be demolished within hours of the fire. Investigators then have no evidence with which to conduct an investigation or prosecute the offender.

What exactly do you think is going to happen if Mayor Bing and Company continue to give blanket immunity to arsonists?

5 years ago, there would've been a whole bunch of folks in this town would've disagreed with you. A lot of people argued that there was no way it could ever be renovated. Others argued that it would likely close shortly after opening.

All I'm saying is that this building was a mess to begin with, it needed to be torn down...even before the fire. The arsonists are doing us a favor. Saves for all the paper pushing to get funding to demo each and every derelict building in town. While I don't promote setting fire....if it happens it's less headache for us to deal with.

Yes it would have been nice to save the front facade...but then that would have required structural reinforcement, etc..plus..from the pictures I saw..the top was already falling apart.

**Detroitnerd** · December-01-10, 10:35 AM

Originally Posted by Planner3357

All I'm saying is that this building was a mess to begin with, it needed to be torn down...even before the fire. The arsonists are doing us a favor. Saves for all the paper pushing to get funding to demo each and every derelict building in town. While I don't promote setting fire....if it happens it's less headache for us to deal with.

This from a guy with a handle that says "planner". Only in Detroit ...

**Planner3357** · December-01-10, 10:41 AM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

This from a guy with a handle that says "planner". Only in Detroit ...

Alright....so what would you have done? What do you think would have made the most economic sense?

**Detroitnerd** · December-01-10, 11:32 AM

Originally Posted by Planner3357

Alright....so what would you have done? What do you think would have made the most economic sense?

If I were an urban planner, I don't think I'd green-light arson as a strategy to fight blight. That is a crime and indefensible. Are you implying that arson makes "economic sense"? Jesus, what kind of "planner" are you?

**Planner3357** · December-01-10, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

If I were an urban planner, I don't think I'd green-light arson as a strategy to fight blight. That is a crime and indefensible. Are you implying that arson makes "economic sense"? Jesus, what kind of "planner" are you?

God NO! I am not implying that at all...I am honestly asking your true opinion. I want to know what you would have done to keep it cost effective.

I never condone arson..all I said is it saves us paperwork... I think you took my statements too seriously.

My original point is that the most economic friendly decision was to demo the building after the fires had been sent.

So..again...what would you have proposed?

**Detroitnerd** · December-01-10, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by Planner3357

All I'm saying is that this building was a mess to begin with, it needed to be torn down...even before the fire. The arsonists are doing us a favor.

Criminals burning down a building are "doing us a favor"? And you're not condoning crime? Give me a break. You need to take a long look at yourself before you start asking other people questions about "what they'd do". Jesus ...

**Planner3357** · December-01-10, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

Criminals burning down a building are "doing us a favor"? And you're not condoning crime? Give me a break. You need to take a long look at yourself before you start asking other people questions about "what they'd do". Jesus ...

I'll just assume you have no idea what would have been an economically feasible way to handle this, other than to demo the remains.

If you think a professional like myself would approve of such things you're wrong. Like I said...I think you took my earlier statements way too seriously. Good grief.

**Detroitnerd** · December-01-10, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by Planner3357

I'll just assume you have no idea what would have been an economically feasible way to handle this, other than to demo the remains.

Sorry, pal. The onus is not on me to do anything. The onus is on you to up your game and not say such stupid shit. Try deflecting if you think it will make you look any smarter. [[Hint: It doesn't.)

Originally Posted by Planner3357

If you think a professional like myself would approve of such things you're wrong. Like I said...I think you took my earlier statements way too seriously. Good grief.

If you're a professional, smarten up and stop endorsing crime, fool.

**Planner3357** · December-01-10, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

Sorry, pal. The onus is not on me to do anything. The onus is on you to up your game and not say such stupid shit. Try deflecting if you think it will make you look any smarter. [[Hint: It doesn't.)

If you're a professional, smarten up and stop endorsing crime, fool.

One thing's for sure...you and I disagree. And...I never have, nor will I ever endorse crime.

**kahnman** · December-01-10, 01:43 PM

Sorry Planner, but you did shoot yourself in the foot by saying "The arsonists are doing us a favor."

Even if you believe the "ends justify the means" shtick, the act of arson goes WAY beyond an "acceptable" method of dealing with blight.

**Fnemecek** · December-01-10, 02:39 PM

I have to agree with Kahnman on this one.

Planner3357: You can't say "the arsonists are doing us a favor" and then, in your next breath, say that you don't endorse crime. Those two statements are logically inconsistent.

As for what should have happened with this building, and every other vacant building in Detroit, is for the City of Detroit to stop trying to reinvent the wheel. There are established procedures that have proven to work in other industrial cities of our size [[e.g., Indianapolis, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, etc.).

For starters, since this was in a designated historic district and the building in question was designated as a contributing structure for said district, the fact that the owner hasn't maintained the building constitutes demolition by neglect.

In most cities throughout the U.S., the local authorities respond to demolition by neglect on a proactive basis before it becomes a major problem. In Detroit, however, we do nothing for years and then essentially give the arsonists a license to torch the building.

In the case of Luben Apartments, it would appear that the City's involvement was even more direct than that given the speed with which it was demolished.

We as a community essentially have a choice to make.

Do we continue to follow the same strategy that Planner3357 advocates, even though it has failed time and time again?
Or do we learn from other communities and adopt strategies that work?

Personally, I'm ready to see some things happen in Detroit other than arson. For anyone else who is interested, here is an overview of how demolition by neglect works in New Orleans. It's fairly typical of what most cities throughout the U.S. do.

http://www.cityofno.com/pg-99-20-dem...y-neglect.aspx

**Fnemecek** · December-02-10, 11:48 AM

BTW - continuing with the question of what should happen with properties like the Luben - the U.S. Conference of Mayors did a survey of how other American cities are dealing with these problems. The consistent theme in each city is being proactive with code enforcement.

None of the other cities advocated arson as a solution, as Planner does above.

Arson is a problem; not a solution.

Full report @ http://www.usmayors.org/bestpractice...operties09.pdf

**Planner3357** · December-02-10, 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by Fnemecek

BTW - continuing with the question of what should happen with properties like the Luben - the U.S. Conference of Mayors did a survey of how other American cities are dealing with these problems. The consistent theme in each city is being proactive with code enforcement.

None of the other cities advocated arson as a solution, as Planner does above.

Arson is a problem; not a solution.

Full report @ http://www.usmayors.org/bestpractice...operties09.pdf

Nom, nom, nom....Hear that? That's me eating my words...My statements were taken out of context, obviously.
I have and never will endorse arson...I work daily with demo plans...all I said is that is saves us paperwork...and I meant that sarcastically.

**Leptin Deficient** · December-02-10, 03:02 PM

It would be interesting to look into the demo contractor. There is incentive to burn off as much as possible in order to dispose of less upon demolition. I suspect they are paid by the job, not the amount they hull away.

There have been many suspicious fires, and even more suspicious rapid demolitions post burn.

While the homeless are easy targets, whole buildings don't typically go ablaze all at once, engulfing all 3 floors and burning across brick structural walls when lit accidentally.