Lafayette Building next on DEGC hit list?

[buildingsofdetroit]

Madison-Lenox Hotel = Parking Garage
Hotel Tuller = Vacant Lot

Mad-Len is a surface lot [[$20 per car courtesy of Ilitch Inc.)
Hotel Tuller is a surface lot [[also courtesy of Ilitch Inc.)

[Fnemecek]

since we all know that this, why dont we do something about it. I think we should write a letter to governor granholm about this. I am sure she would be very interested to find all of this out.

The Governor has nothing to do with whether or not there are any changes made within the DEGC. That decision is up to the Mayor and the City Council.

[Downtown diva]

Mad-Len is a surface lot [[$20 per car courtesy of Ilitch Inc.)
Hotel Tuller is a surface lot [[also courtesy of Ilitch Inc.)

those ilitches....Detroit would be better off without them....sure they are invesitng in the area, but only for thier gain. they really arent trying to help people,

[bailey]

The sad thing Diva, is that a lot of people on here probably agree that the Illitches are bad for Detroit.

[detmich]

those ilitches....Detroit would be better off without them....sure they are invesitng in the area, but only for thier gain. they really arent trying to help people,

What money have you invested in Detroit Double D?

[Detroit Stylin]

Kraig you just killed your own argument.....good job!

[kraig]

Kraig you just killed your own argument.....good job!

Huh? How so?

[leland_palmer]

Council just voted to deny historic designation. Looks for a parking lot soon.

[Detroitnerd]

Yay! More parking!

[heedus]

Yes, it sucks that barring a miracle, Detroit is losing the Lafayette building. It's a shame that we let buildings like that one fall into disrepair and then ultimately get bulldozed. If Detroit was more like Chicago or New York that building propably would not have fallen into disrepair. And if it had, then it likely already would have been rehabilitated by now.

With that said, I am cautiously optimistic about what the demolition means for the city. Yes, the city is losing a landmark, but it is also losing another blighted structure that becomes more than just a blighted structure when viewed by the general public [[especially by the out-of-town/state/country movers and shakers that stay at the Book Cadillac across the street) in an area of the CBD that is really gaining traction.

While the Lafayette could have been a symbol of resurgance and redevelopment like the B-C and the Fort-Shelby, with its painted windows and with trees growing from its roof, it currently stands as a symbol of disrepair, dysfunction, and even criminal activity. Although it's one less gem in a city in need of more gems, it represents one less thing to polish in a city that desperately needs polishing.

[Detroitnerd]

Yes, we're losing a landmark, but we must try not to think of it that way. Think of it as gaining a vacant lot.

[Bearinabox]

Yes, we're losing a landmark, but we must try not to think of it that way. Think of it as gaining a vacant lot.

I'm thinking "urban farm." We could plant coney trees and sell to the Lafayette and American. Who's with me?

[heedus]

It may be difficult to hear this, but the general public -- you know, the one's that actually spend money and make cities thrive -- don't especially like large abandoned buildings with graffitti painted on the windows and trees growing from the roof. Not everyone is as enlightened as those that post on this forum.

I merely am cautiously optimistic b/c this building has sat completely vacant for the past 13 years in an area of town that has seen a decent amount of redevelopment as of late. While I'm sad to see it go, I am hoping that it will help the B-C [[and perhaps the Griswold project and the Gabriel Richard redevelopment) gain a little traction. Given the serious looks by Ferchill and Gilbert, this building may just be a lost cause.

[rjlj]

I merely am cautiously optimistic b/c this building has sat completely vacant for the past 13 years in an area of town that has seen a decent amount of redevelopment as of late. While I'm sad to see it go, I am hoping that it will help the B-C [[and perhaps the Griswold project and the Gabriel Richard redevelopment) gain a little traction. Given the serious looks by Ferchill and Gilbert, this building may just be a lost cause.

You have made some on point statements heedus but I had to laugh a little about the Griswold project. That is not coming back anytime soon. As for as the Lafayette hindering the B-C, that is highly debatable but I do disagree. That area is going to look awful if the Lafayette disappears. Also, with regards to your comments about Ferchill and Gilbert, we do not know how closely they looked at the re-development of this building. Not to mention, Gilbert is not a developer, he was simply looking for a new office location. Unless you have spoken to them directly or have seen the numbers, all statements about them are speculative.
More Vision, Less Demolition!

[Detroitnerd]

It may be difficult to hear this, but the general public -- you know, the one's that actually spend money and make cities thrive -- don't especially like large abandoned buildings with graffitti painted on the windows and trees growing from the roof. Not everyone is as enlightened as those that post on this forum.

Yes, our general public much prefers vacant lots, so much so that they're willing to provide them at terrific expense. Wouldn't it be a shame if they preferred spending a fraction of the money to clean graffiti and seal off historic buildings? Nothing thrives like a vacant lot. Whee!

[ghettopalmetto]

I merely am cautiously optimistic b/c this building has sat completely vacant for the past 13 years in an area of town that has seen a decent amount of redevelopment as of late. While I'm sad to see it go, I am hoping that it will help the B-C [[and perhaps the Griswold project and the Gabriel Richard redevelopment) gain a little traction. Given the serious looks by Ferchill and Gilbert, this building may just be a lost cause.

Given the current state of financial markets, there isn't ANY project that's going to gain traction in the next two years. For Detroit, that goes double until the auto industry gets their shit together.

The present state of the Lafayette Building is immaterial to whether or not any kind of development is going to happen in the present, so why spend money you don't have to get a negative return on investment?

[Detroitnerd]

The present state of the Lafayette Building is immaterial to whether or not any kind of development is going to happen in the present, so why spend money you don't have to get a negative return on investment?

Well, the possibility of demolition contractors getting a plum contract and kicking back some cash to the decision-makers does provide *some* opportunity for return on investment.

[heedus]

You have made some on point statements heedus but I had to laugh a little about the Griswold project. That is not coming back anytime soon. As for as the Lafayette hindering the B-C, that is highly debatable but I do disagree. That area is going to look awful if the Lafayette disappears. Also, with regards to your comments about Ferchill and Gilbert, we do not know how closely they looked at the re-development of this building. Not to mention, Gilbert is not a developer, he was simply looking for a new office location. Unless you have spoken to them directly or have seen the numbers, all statements about them are speculative.

Without a doubt, I was speculating. I merely was offering my opinion on today's news.

Like I've said before, my love for Detroit and my interests in its redevelopment is well known to my friends and family, who live not only in SE Michigan but also all across the country. Unquestionably, their number one complaint about the CBD is the littany of run-down, abandoned buildings. These are people that spend a good amount of money going to Tigers/Lions/Wings games, drinking and eating at downtown bars and restaurants, and visiting the museums. And I sincerely believe that they would spend more money down here if they felt safe walking around.

Regardless, I will continue my grassroots efforts to get more people downtown no matter how many abandoned buildings remain [[in fact, I recently convinced my sister to have her large wedding at St. Aloysius and then reception at Colony Club next year).

[heedus]

Given the current state of financial markets, there isn't ANY project that's going to gain traction in the next two years. For Detroit, that goes double until the auto industry gets their shit together.

The present state of the Lafayette Building is immaterial to whether or not any kind of development is going to happen in the present, so why spend money you don't have to get a negative return on investment?

Well, wouldn't that be all the more reason to protect the recent redevelopments at the B-C and the Fort-Shelby to make sure that they don't fail? If one of those two were to fail, wouldn't that send a devastating blow to the redevelopment efforts in downtown and potentially stiffle any further redevelopments from happening in the future? Doesn't it make more sense to focus preservation efforts on a few key buildings in downtown while at the same time doing what it takes to make sure that those buildings that have been redeveloped stay developed?

[Detroitnerd]

Like I've said before, my love for Detroit and my interests in its redevelopment is well known to my friends and family, who live not only in SE Michigan but also all across the country. Unquestionably, their number one complaint about the CBD is the littany of run-down, abandoned buildings. These are people that spend a good amount of money going to Tigers/Lions/Wings games, drinking and eating at downtown bars and restaurants, and visiting the museums. And I sincerely believe that they would spend more money down here if they felt safe walking around.

So, some of the people who come down here are made to feel "unsafe" by abandoned buildings? And that's the rationale for knocking them down? Pffft. No way.

[Detroitnerd]

Well, wouldn't that be all the more reason to protect the recent redevelopments at the B-C and the Fort-Shelby to make sure that they don't fail? If one of those two were to fail, wouldn't that send a devastating blow to the redevelopment efforts in downtown and potentially stiffle any further redevelopments from happening in the future? Doesn't it make more sense to focus preservation efforts on a few key buildings in downtown while at the same time doing what it takes to make sure that those buildings that have been redeveloped stay developed?

Yeah, except that there is no proof that a building that has been redeveloped is imperiled by a vacant building nearby. And we have no way to know how they'd feel about a secured, cleaned and mothballed building next door. All we're doing is running a whole system of demolition and destruction based upon anecdotal evidence, hearsay, conjecture and wishful thinking, nary a plan or a fact in sight! That is insane.

[heedus]

Why do you think that Ferchill, a man who has dedicated his life to rehabbing abandoned buildings [[albeit, presumably, at a nice profit), wants the Lafayette torn down?

And yes, my friends and family feel unsafe walking by large abandoned buildings in a city plagued by crime. It's not like I've heard this once or twice. I literally have heard this hundreds of times.

Listen, I am not pro-demolition. In fact, I'm rather the opposite. But at some point, we have to draw the line.

[ghettopalmetto]

Well, wouldn't that be all the more reason to protect the recent redevelopments at the B-C and the Fort-Shelby to make sure that they don't fail? If one of those two were to fail, wouldn't that send a devastating blow to the redevelopment efforts in downtown and potentially stiffle any further redevelopments from happening in the future? Doesn't it make more sense to focus preservation efforts on a few key buildings in downtown while at the same time doing what it takes to make sure that those buildings that have been redeveloped stay developed?

Threatening? Is the Lafayette Building engaging the Book-Cadillac in verbal taunts across Michigan Avenue?

If your theory held any water, then the existing vacant buildings downtown would have been sufficient to discourage occupancy in the Renaissance Center, Comerica Tower, First National Building, Compuware, and just about every other major building in the Central Busines District. Some who have posted on this thread act as if vacant buildings downtown are a brand-new phenomenon.

Is there any evidence that the Book-Cadillac or Fort-Shelby are failing? Bear in mind that the economy SUCKS right now, most acutely in Detroit, and those two buildings haven't yet closed-up shop. I take that as a positive sign.

Where does Ferchill say he wants to tear down a building that he doesn't even own? Implicit in your statement is that he wants the Lafayette demolished so he can erect a new structure. Where is this on the record?

[Detroitnerd]

Why do you think that Ferchill, a man who has dedicated his life to rehabbing abandoned buildings [[albeit, presumably, at a nice profit), wants the Lafayette torn down?

And yes, my friends and family feel unsafe walking by large abandoned buildings in a city plagued by crime. It's not like I've heard this once or twice. I literally have heard this hundreds of times.

Listen, I am not pro-demolition. In fact, I'm rather the opposite. But at some point, we have to draw the line.

In a way, I can understand the "knock 'em all down" people much better than folks like you, H: Apparently smarter folks who nevertheless make their peace with all this expensive destruction. What a puzzle to see people jettison logic in the face of thousands of anecdotal stories from people who don't know any better, then use it to justify the extravagant, devastating failures we go through year after year.

And, yeah, at some point we have to draw the line -- on viewpoints like yours ...

You may return now to your state of nuanced detente with the wrecking ball.

[Bearinabox]

Listen, I am not pro-demolition. In fact, I'm rather the opposite. But at some point, we have to draw the line.

I'm not entirely anti-demolition, either. I just think that there should be some sort of logic behind what we keep and don't keep, instead of George Jackson just knocking things down because he's tired of looking at them. Put together a comprehensive vision for downtown redevelopment that involves diligent analysis of each building and what should be done about it, and then sell it to the public using facts and logic. What we're doing now makes no sense.