Lafayette Building next on DEGC hit list?

[bailey]

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.

What are those vacancy rates again? You think that having hulking, vacant, vandalized, and deteriorating properties has NO effect?

Some who have posted on this thread act as if vacant buildings downtown are a brand-new phenomenon.

Too many on this board act as if the volume of vacant buildings downtown is normal or has no negative effects.

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.

Well, there is this from March of this year.....

Detroit’s Hotel Doldrums

by Joe Brancatelli | See Archive
The Motor City’s top hotels have gotten a much-needed overhaul in recent years, but the downward spiral of the auto industry helps keep occupancy rates down....

More than half of Detroit's estimated 40,000 guestrooms are empty, and PKF Hospitality Research says lodging demand will fall further this year. The St. Regis is in receivership. The Riverside has been picketed by employees who say they haven't been paid, and the Detroit News says the hotel owes almost $700,000 in back taxes. One of the casinos is in bankruptcy and another is for sale. Only a handful of buyers have closed on the dozens of pricey condos atop the Book Cadillac. The Fort Shelby's new rental apartments are mostly empty too. And Detroit's revpar [[revenue per available room), the key measure of financial health in the lodging industry, is one-third lower than the national average.

"The statistics are scary," admits Shannon Dunavent, general manager of the Doubletree Guest Suites hotel that was lovingly carved out of the carcass of the Fort Shelby. "I've been working in Michigan for 20 years and I won't lie to you. There's no new business in the market. We're all trying to steal from the other guy to survive."
....
"This has always been about urban renewal and politics more than market forces," one hotel executive told me last week. "You can admire the drive and the commitment to rebuild Detroit, but there was a lot of 'If we build it, they will come,' thinking. We built. Guests haven't come."
...
And Farmery [GM of RenCen Marriot] believes Detroit can wake from its lodging nightmare. He thinks the city can profit from the AIG Effect that has forced major corporations to cancel pricey meetings in eyebrow-raising resorts like Las Vegas and Hawaii.

"Our product is terrific and our rates are low," he says. "And nobody will criticize you if you hold a meeting in Detroit."

http://www.portfolio.com/business-tr...?page=2#page=2

Please come here, we're cheap and your shareholders wont revolt!?! THAT is the marketing strategy?

[Novine]

"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. "

Get out and about my friend. The scariest parts of town don't have large abandoned buildings, they have abandoned homes turned to crack dens and vacant lots. Vacant lots send a message to visitors that this is an area not to visit.

[Novine]

"What are those vacancy rates again? You think that having hulking, vacant, vandalized, and deteriorating properties has NO effect?"

Wake up bailey. Come out to the suburbs and see the uncompleted subdivisions, the empty office parks, the never-leased spec buildings and the half-empty strip malls filled with leasing signs.

[bailey]

Wake up bailey. Come out to the suburbs and see the uncompleted subdivisions, the empty office parks, the never-leased spec buildings and the half-empty strip malls filled with leasing signs

I'm not blind to that, but which do you think will come back first...if there is a recovery at all, that is.... a generic office park on Big Beaver or the Layfayette?

[heedus]

"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. "

Get out and about my friend. The scariest parts of town don't have large abandoned buildings, they have abandoned homes turned to crack dens and vacant lots. Vacant lots send a message to visitors that this is an area not to visit.

Oh give me a break. It's not like I'm new to Detroit and have never been out and about. I'm well aware of the ills that plague this city.

I merely was conveying that my friends and family, roughly representative of the general public in this area, don't feel particularly safe when they visit the CBD and the primary reason that they cite is the large inventory of decrepit, vacant buildings. A vacant lot on the corner of Michigan and Lafayette would not "send a message to visitors that this is an area not to visit."

[ghettopalmetto]

I merely was conveying that my friends and family, roughly representative of the general public in this area, don't feel particularly safe when they visit the CBD and the primary reason that they cite is the large inventory large, vacant buildings. A vacant lot on the corner of Michigan and Lafayette would not "send a message to visitors that this is an area not to visit."

Well, I don't feel safe when I'm in Alabama. So there.

[heedus]

A vacant lot would not improve image. It would take away from the urban fabric and take away of the historic feel of the neighborhood.

A vacant lot will contribute more to blight once it is overgrown, or left with gravel. Not a pretty sight.

Look at the area around Cass & Columbia... that is a scary area. Why? No buildings, just lots... perception NO ONE is there so it is quite in fact a scary aea

Really? So, the other three vacant lots next to this one completely filled with cars everyday is scary. Yes, I completely agree that it takes away from the urban fabric and historic feel of the neighborhood, but it would not be a scary place to visit. It'd just be another parking lot for the B-C and the Federal Courthouse. It's not optimal, but it wouldn't further deter the general public from spending money in the CBD.

No doubt, a comprehensive vision and plan are needed. Instead of fighting all of these battles, why not focus on winning the war by pushing Mayor Bing, Council President Cockrel, and George Jackson for a comprehensive plan.

[bailey]

No doubt, a comprehensive vision and plan are needed. Instead of fighting all of these battles, why not focus on winning the war by pushing Mayor Bing, Council President Cockrel, and George Jackson for a comprehensive plan.

because that would require something more than internet pontification from afar.

[Detroitnerd]

Top 5 reasons why vacant buildings in Detroit must go:

1) They depress property values. [[Correlative and anecdotal. Any place with a vacant building probably is in an area with low property values, hence it is impossible to prove that the vacant building is depressing land values. Many, many anecdotal claims that the building is "bumming them out" do not a factual claim make.)

2) They are hindering development. [[Mostly false. Most buildings in Detroit are knocked down with no plan for development, often with no hope for development, often when business conditions are so desperate that nobody is planning on building for some time.)

3) They make people feel unsafe. [[Specious claim. A vacant office tower, when competently sealed, does not attract crime.)

4) They can never be rehabilitated. [[Specious claim that is difficult to prove. Whose crystal ball can see into the future? Who knows what the business climate will be like in 10 years? In 20 years? If the prime movers behind demolition were interested in whether or not a building can be rehabbed, why don't they do any serious investigations of the building? The non-answer is pretty damning.)

5) Nobody wants to use those buildings anymore. [[Specious claim. New York City is filled with buildings that are older than Detroit, and somehow they don't rampage along Park Avenue South with the wrecking ball. They haven't done it since they learned their lesson in the 1960s. One such neighborhood, which was to be knocked down for an expressway, was the now glittering, wealthy Soho neighborhood.)

[bailey]

Again, you keep willfully misstating the issue and the discussion. the issue is not ALL buildings. The issue is the Layfayette building.

Top 5 reasons why vacant buildings in Detroit must go:

1) They depress property values. [[Correlative and anecdotal. Any place with a vacant building probably is in an area with low property values, hence it is impossible to prove that the vacant building is depressing land values. Many, many anecdotal claims that the building is "bumming them out" do not a factual claim make.)

But a building empty for 13 years enhances the area? Let's follow your circular logic in your parenthetical. The Layfayette is a vacant building. Vacant buildings are in depressed areas. the area is depressed because there are empty buildings. The Layfayette is a vacant building.

Gosh, I wonder what would break that circle?

2) They are hindering development. [[Mostly false. Most buildings in Detroit are knocked down with no plan for development, often with no hope for development, often when business conditions are so desperate that nobody is planning on building for some time.)

And most buildings empty in the CBD have been so for over a decade. Some as long as 35 years. What about anything here would indicate they are ALL candidates for adaptive re-use?

3) They make people feel unsafe. [[Specious claim. A vacant office tower, when competently sealed, does not attract crime.)

Negating a specious claim with another doesnt really work, no does it? What building has the CoD EVER competently sealed? The modus operandi around here is slap some plywood on it. there are multple posters here and int he past who have bragged about their B&E and scrapping of city property prowess.

4) They can never be rehabilitated. [[Specious claim that is difficult to prove. Whose crystal ball can see into the future? Who knows what the business climate will be like in 10 years? In 20 years? If the prime movers behind demolition were interested in whether or not a building can be rehabbed, why don't they do any serious investigations of the building? The non-answer is pretty damning.)

What about the last 20 prevented the rehab of the building by now? Assuming a complete economic recover to the say...1999 ish national boom time, what will be different this time around? But of course, that question never gets answered around here.

5) Nobody wants to use those buildings anymore. [[Specious claim. New York City is filled with buildings that are older than Detroit, and somehow they don't rampage along Park Avenue South with the wrecking ball. They haven't done it since they learned their lesson in the 1960s. One such neighborhood, which was to be knocked down for an expressway, was the now glittering, wealthy Soho neighborhood.)

No one is saying "nobody anywhere wants old buildings" what is being said is not every empty, old one HERE..in DETROIT...is salvageable. Ignoring the other side's argument doesn't make it go away.

That and it is just the sad reality that Detroit is not now, nor will be new york. A 1700 sqr foot apartment in Detroit does not sell for 2.5 million dollars...ever [[barring 3rd world style inflation that is). The economic factors that saved SoHo [[and the gheys to make it trendy, lol) aren't at work here.

[rjlj]

That and it is just the sad reality that Detroit is not now, nor will be new york. A 700 sqr foot apartment in Detroit does not sell for 2.5 million dollars...ever [[barring 3rd world style inflation that is). The economic factors that saved SoHo [[and the gheys to make it trendy, lol) aren't at work here.

Create value by re-developing buildings and enhancing the area and property values will increase. This is pretty much what has happened with desirable cites like NYC. Maybe by doing this property values may begin to increase rather than head to zero.


Does a vacant Lafayette lot increase the value of the Book Cadillac and all other properties around it or decrease it? Would a mothballed Lafayette stabilize the property values around the Book or decrease it?

[Detroitnerd]

Again, you keep willfully misstating the issue and the discussion. the issue is not ALL buildings. The issue is the Layfayette building.

At issue is any damn thing I feel like talking about. Which means I'm not misstating anything. It's called opening up the discussion to talk about the larger debate. I apologize if it makes you uncomfortable, but that's what happens sometimes.

But a building empty for 13 years enhances the area? Let's follow your circular logic in your parenthetical. The Layfayette is a vacant building. Vacant buildings are in depressed areas. the area is depressed because there are empty buildings. The Layfayette is a vacant building.

Gosh, I wonder what would break that circle?

That's a garden variety misstatement of my position. I'll say it again, that vacant buildings and low real estate values are correlative. Anyway, the circular argument that you have hallucinated into existence cannot be broken with a wrecking ball. We have tried that for 50-plus years now.

And most buildings empty in the CBD have been so for over a decade. Some as long as 35 years. What about anything here would indicate they are ALL candidates for adaptive re-use?

Wow, here's another misstatement. You really go out for bush-league debating techniques don't you? Where did I say all buildings are candidates for rehab? I didn't. What I am interested in is engineers inspecting them, testing them, and coming up with plans, some of which may include demolition. How sound are they? Can we cheaply seal this up? At what point do we spend more to save it than to demolish it? Engineers and mothballing experts can produce sound estimates of what can be done. And they're not a part of the discussion, as far as I can tell.

Negating a specious claim with another doesnt really work, no does it? What building has the CoD EVER competently sealed? The modus operandi around here is slap some plywood on it. there are multple posters here and int he past who have bragged about their B&E and scrapping of city property prowess.

Oh, sure, negating a specious claim with a specious claim doesn't work. [[Not that it has prevented it from being done on this board all the time. ) But to argue against sealing buildings off properly because we have never sealed off buildings properly doesn't make sense.

What about the last 20 prevented the rehab of the building by now? Assuming a complete economic recover to the say...1999 ish national boom time, what will be different this time around? But of course, that question never gets answered around here.

No one is saying "nobody anywhere wants old buildings" what is being said is not every empty, old one HERE..in DETROIT...is salvageable. Ignoring the other side's argument doesn't make it go away.

Well, if people feel free to bring up the anecdotal ramblings of "all their friends" in this discussion, I am going to summarize their "anecdotal wisdom" and debunk it. Sounds to me like you agree with me. So why leap to the conclusion that I am 100 percent in the other direction? Feeling defensive?

That and it is just the sad reality that Detroit is not now, nor will be new york. A 700 sqr foot apartment in Detroit does not sell for 2.5 million dollars...ever [[barring 3rd world style inflation that is). The economic factors that saved SoHo [[and the gheys to make it trendy, lol) aren't at work here.

Oh, I see. So I shall simply listen to the grimmest, saddest, most pessimistic people that, since we are not New York, we shouldn't dare to have vision for what we want our city to look like in 20 or 30 years? I see. Your crystal ball works better than everyone else's. I wonder: When you look into it, do you see a depressing, barren, abandoned city in 30 years? If so, take courage, because it could be because of the very plans you champion to save it.

The fact is, we don't know what's going to happen in this country in 30 years. Detroit sits on a navigable waterway, surrounded by fresh, potable water, has multiple rail links, and retains many of its "bones" -- those old streets and historic structures that a new city can coalesce around and grow. If we hold off on demoing every building George Jackson wants to, maybe it won't work. Who knows? But there are a few silver linings:

Sealing a building properly leaves you with a structure that can be shined up, providing historical continuity.

You preserve the streetwall, which makes walking an enjoyable experience.

You have something that can produce tax revenue in the future.

You do not need to use the raw materials and precious energy to build a new building; it's already there.

Most importantly, mothballing is much less expensive than demolition. When we're strapped for cash and running a deficit every year, I find it insane that we propose spending this precious money on destroying buildings, when there are scads of much more dangerous and relatively worthless bungalows filled with criminals and addicts. Now there are some demolitions I can get behind.

Anyway, I honestly don't believe you will be convinced. You sound like you've made up your mind. And that's fine. You have done me a service: You have illustrated to the conscientious readers of this board how poor a grasp some of the anti-Lafayette posters have of logic and critical thinking.

[ghettopalmetto]

Where did I say all buildings are candidates for rehab? I didn't. What I am interested in is engineers inspecting them, testing them, and coming up with plans, some of which may include demolition. How sound are they? Can we cheaply seal this up? At what point do we spend more to save it than to demolish it? Engineers and mothballing experts can produce sound estimates of what can be done. And they're not a part of the discussion, as far as I can tell.

This alone would be an incredible step. I think that's all the preservation community is asking, is for the DEGC to establish some sort of independent, objective basis on which they take action. As it stands, George Jackson is just running around willy-nilly, using public money to fund the manifestation of his own uneducated personal opinion. This is stupidity at its finest, folks, and I'm shocked at how many people go along with it.

George Jackson is not a licensed Professional Engineer in the State of Michigan. I know this because I looked, and there are no "George Jackson"s registered in Michigan. When he tells you that a building is "structurally unsound" or that "too many repairs" are required, he's full of shit--unless, of course, he can show you the signed and sealed report that says as much.

[iheartthed]

I just still can't understand how anybody can advocate that a vacant lot would be better for downtown Detroit than a vacant historical structure. Visitors aren't scared off by abandoned buildings, they are scared off by vacant, un-kept lots. And trust me, it's the vacant lots that do more to make Detroit look so shitty, not the buildings. [[Compare the stretch of Woodward south of the Fisher Fwy to that just north of it for point to be proven.) Plus, most of those abandoned buildings downtown can be sealed and cleaned up for a lot less money than it would cost to demolish them. So I just don't understand how anyone could be pro-demolition at this point, when there are no plans for redevelopment. It does.not.make.sense!

[bailey]

I'm done with this discussion for a couple of reasons... but mostly because it's moot. but, I did want to respond to one statement you made...

I wonder: When you look into it, do you see a depressing, barren, abandoned city in 30 years? .

Who needs a crystal ball and thirty years?

[heedus]

I just still can't understand how anybody can advocate that a vacant lot would be better for downtown Detroit than a vacant historical structure. Visitors aren't scared off by abandoned buildings, they are scared off by vacant, un-kept lots. And trust me, it's the vacant lots that do more to make Detroit look so shitty, not the buildings. [[Compare the stretch of Woodward south of the Fisher Fwy to that just north of it for point to be proven.) Plus, most of those abandoned buildings downtown can be sealed and cleaned up for a lot less money than it would cost to demolish them. So I just don't understand how anyone could be pro-demolition at this point, when there are no plans for redevelopment. It does.not.make.sense!

Yes, I agree that a vacant historical structure that is sealed and cleaned up would be better than a vacant lot. I have never heard anyone seriously complain about the State of Michigan buildings across from the Most Holy Trinity Church [[lining the Lodge) being scary or significantly detracting from downtown.

But, I have had heard countless people complain about the Lafayette Building and how they don't like walking by it, and how it looks cracked out, how it detracts from an otherwise decent area of downtown, etc., etc. This comes from numerous personal observations from working downtown very near the Lafayette [[w/in a stone's throw) and frequenting businesses around the Lafayette with visitors, downtown workers, and even a couple downtown residents.

Most of you have tried to twist my comments [[and that of bailey's) to make it look like I'm pro-demolition. Not at all. I'm all for sealing up buildings and properly preserving them. I'm also completely in favor of the City developing a plan for all the abandoned buildings downtown.

When I heard that the City Council voted to reject the historical status by an 8-1 margin, I merely tried to put a silver lining on this news by pointing out that some good can from the Lafayette's demise, including, perhaps a little less fear for those staying at the Book Cadillac, Holiday Inn, and Fort-Shelby or eating at their respective dining establishments. In addition, I also wanted to point out that from my completely speculative point of view, the Lafayette may have been a lost cause and that the preservation community perhaps should be focusing on winning the war against demolition, especially given all of the wounded soldiers in and around downtown.

[Bearinabox]

Engineers and mothballing experts can produce sound estimates of what can be done. And they're not a part of the discussion, as far as I can tell.

Not only are they not part of the discussion, there is no discussion. George Jackson does what he wants, City Hall rubber-stamps it, a few people bitch about it on the Internet, and that's that. For those of us who plan on being here a while, it's kind of disconcerting, to say the least.

[artds]

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

The DetNews article mentioned Quicken's option on the LB and that Quicken did not oppose the planned demolition.

I hate to perpetuate a conspiracy theory, but does anyone recall the Quicken headquarters renderingss that got pulled from the Rossetti website about a year and a half ago? At least one of those renderings was of a building that was shaped like it was on an angular lot, and it looked similar to the way the LB looks when you're looking at it from the west.

Just sayin'.... : )

[Novine]

"Most of you have tried to twist my comments [[and that of bailey's) to make it look like I'm pro-demolition. Not at all."

Heedus, the reason that people don't accept your approach is that no urban center in the US has succeeded by trying to be a watered-down version of a city that is "safe" to suburbanites. You'll never get enough people coming from the suburbs to downtown to keep restaurants, maintain a retail base or generate enough economic activity to keep buildings occupied. The people who make downtowns thrive, those who want to live in an urban environment, aren't going to be drawn to a Detroit downtown of parking lots and vacant weed strewn lots. If you're so confident of your approach, tell us where the Disney downtown experience has worked.

[Irvine Laird]

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...FREE/906239995

As you know, DEGC approached both John Ferchill [[of Book-Cadillac Hotel fame) and Dan Gilbert about the Lafayette Building. Gilbert did not object to demolition and Ferchill couldn't come up with a development option.

Ken Cockrel said that's like the country's "leading heart surgeon" saying the "patient can't be saved."

My bet is off the table for the Lafayette's future.

[ghettopalmetto]

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...FREE/906239995

As you know, DEGC approached both John Ferchill [[of Book-Cadillac Hotel fame) and Dan Gilbert about the Lafayette Building. Gilbert did not object to demolition and Ferchill couldn't come up with a development option.

Ken Cockrel said that's like the country's "leading heart surgeon" saying the "patient can't be saved."

My bet is off the table for the Lafayette's future.

Sure! Invite one business owner with no construction background, and one developer who's already in the inner circle, and see what they think. Who needs to issue cumbersome Requests For Proposals when you can make a much quicker decision to demo using George Jackson's unique procurement process?

The way things *should* happen is as follows:

1. DEGC hires an architect and engineering team to evaluate the present condition of the building and document the work needed to bring the building to an operating condition under current building codes.

2. DEGC uses the report from the A/E team to obtain cost estimates for said work.

3. DEGC solicits RFPs from the development community, making available the reports from the A/E team.

4. DEGC selects a developer proposal and helps them obtain financing through tax credits, grants, and the like.

You don't just have a couple buddies come over for beers and decide the project is "unworkable", at least not if you're truly interested in economic development.

But what do I know? It's not like I've done this before or anything....

[Fnemecek]

I ask one question: if the Lafayette Bldg. is such a bad deal, why would the DEGC be so opposed to allowing the preservation community to send independent experts into the building to do an engineering study at the preservationists expense?

What could the DEGC possibly have to lose by that if the building really in such bad condition?



Of course, back in 2004/05, the DEGC told everyone who would listen that they had a developer lined up to the Statler Hilton site; a mid-rise office/residential complex would rise just as soon as the historic hotel came down.

Prior to that, they told everyone that B&SE had inspected the Madison-Lenox and found that it was structurally unsound. When I FOIAed the records from B&SE, I was able to show that the only inspection of the building ocurred 9 1/2 years earlier and that it did not show that the building was structurally unsound.

http://fobc.igorfilms.com/Testimony.Madison-Lennox.html

I have to ask: how many times does someone have to lie to you before you stop blindly accepting everything that they say?

[xD_Brklyn]

It's amazing how much power the DEGC and other quasi-public organizations have over city property. No matter who is in power, they always seem to end up dictating what the city should be doing.

Don't trust them no matter what city you find them in. How can anyone defend these organizations that handle tax payer money/property but don't have to answer to anyone is beyond me.

[ghettopalmetto]

I ask one question: if the Lafayette Bldg. is such a bad deal, why would the DEGC be so opposed to allowing the preservation community to send independent experts into the building to do an engineering study at the preservationists expense?

What could the DEGC possibly have to lose by that if the building really in such bad condition?



Of course, back in 2004/05, the DEGC told everyone who would listen that they had a developer lined up to the Statler Hilton site; a mid-rise office/residential complex would rise just as soon as the historic hotel came down.

Prior to that, they told everyone that B&SE had inspected the Madison-Lenox and found that it was structurally unsound. When I FOIAed the records from B&SE, I was able to show that the only inspection of the building ocurred 9 1/2 years earlier and that it did not show that the building was structurally unsound.

http://fobc.igorfilms.com/Testimony.Madison-Lennox.html

I have to ask: how many times does someone have to lie to you before you stop blindly accepting everything that they say?

I'm not an attorney, but such false claims regarding the structural integrity of a building, made by someone who is not a licensed Professional Engineer in the state, violate the provisions of state law that govern the licensure and practice of Professional Engineers. I would think there would be grounds for a lawsuit for malpractice.

[Fnemecek]

Actually, I filed a complaint with the State of Michigan. Long story short: it's illegal for them to lie regarding a construction project, but the same law doesn't cover demolition.

Unless, they lie about its condition in a sworn affidavit or something about that nature then they're protected by that legal loop hole.