What is going on at Red Wings arena site?

[EL Jimbo]

Yeah, but if the design element is "no buildings allowed nearby", DHS should be laughed out of the room. And, honestly, who cares what they recommend? Have we been suffering a string of stadium-related safety crises or terrorist attacks? If Washington DC has a hockey/basketball arena [[Verizon Center) totally surrounded by other buildings with no "buffer" at all, I bet Detroit can manage to do whatever works for Detroit.

I fail to see the relevance of your argument. Construction of the Verizon Center [[then known as the MCI Center) broke ground 7 years before the Department of Homeland Security even existed and 6 years before 9/11. I'm sure DHS has issues with the Verizon Center's design from a security perspective, but they also realize that the adjacent property is likely owned by other entities than those that own the arena so their ability to change them is limited.

However, in the case of a brand new construction where the arena owner also owns the adjacent property in question, DHS can and does become more insistent in having their security concerns addressed in the design.

Also, don't forget that the new Wings Arena is a different concept with an open air concourse. In theory, a lone gunman or someone with an RPG in one of the top floors could wreak havoc on a crowded concourse during an intermission before police could get up to him.

[Mackinaw]

Also, don't forget that the new Wings Arena is a different concept with an open air concourse. In theory, a lone gunman or someone with an RPG in one of the top floors could wreak havoc on a crowded concourse during an intermission before police could get up to him.

Accordingly, it's insane that the arena can be designed in a way that allows this potential to arise, while a building across the street cannot be redeveloped for similar uses, due to "security." You get my drift on the internal inconsistencies here?

Don't buy whatever Olympia is selling on this matter.

[Junjie]

I fail to see the relevance of your argument. Construction of the Verizon Center [[then known as the MCI Center) broke ground 7 years before the Department of Homeland Security even existed and 6 years before 9/11. I'm sure DHS has issues with the Verizon Center's design from a security perspective, but they also realize that the adjacent property is likely owned by other entities than those that own the arena so their ability to change them is limited.

However, in the case of a brand new construction where the arena owner also owns the adjacent property in question, DHS can and does become more insistent in having their security concerns addressed in the design.

Also, don't forget that the new Wings Arena is a different concept with an open air concourse. In theory, a lone gunman or someone with an RPG in one of the top floors could wreak havoc on a crowded concourse during an intermission before police could get up to him.

This is absolutely ridiculous. Someone could walk into downtown Detroit today with an RPG and shoot it anywhere they wanted. Better tear down every other building so nobody can get an angle down into a crowded office! Install an Iron Dome system near Campus Martius! Play Tigers games in a TV studio!

Why is 9/11 relevant? Will tearing down the Park Avenue Hotel prevent another 9/11? Will we ever be allowed to build buildings next to other buildings again?

Forgive all the snark but the absolutely unthinking nature of the "security" lobby in this country continually harms our public spaces and provides no public benefit.

I think it's much more likely that DHS has some arcane guideline about a "security perimeter", no authority to enforce it, and Olympia has latched onto that as cover for tearing down a building they want gone.

[EL Jimbo]

This is absolutely ridiculous. Someone could walk into downtown Detroit today with an RPG and shoot it anywhere they wanted. Better tear down every other building so nobody can get an angle down into a crowded office! Install an Iron Dome system near Campus Martius! Play Tigers games in a TV studio!

Why is 9/11 relevant? Will tearing down the Park Avenue Hotel prevent another 9/11? Will we ever be allowed to build buildings next to other buildings again?

Forgive all the snark but the absolutely unthinking nature of the "security" lobby in this country continually harms our public spaces and provides no public benefit.

I think it's much more likely that DHS has some arcane guideline about a "security perimeter", no authority to enforce it, and Olympia has latched onto that as cover for tearing down a building they want gone.

perhaps if you turned off the snark and turned on your brain you would see the relevance of 9/11 to a discussion on event security. I'm not sure what rock you've been living under for the past 14 years, but the rest of us noticed that security issues have taken on greater importance since those attacks happened. Arenas built prior to 9/11 [[like the Verizon Center) didn't have the same security precautions built into them that post 9/11 construction is more likely to have.

Heck, the Department of Homeland Security wouldn't even exist if not for 9/11. If you can't understand the impact and relevance 9/11 had on the security concerns of the design of public or other gathering spaces then there is really no point continuing a discussion with you as you lack the required knowledge to have a worthwhile debate on the issue.

[mwilbert]

perhaps if you turned off the snark and turned on your brain you would see the relevance of 9/11 to a discussion on event security. I'm not sure what rock you've been living under for the past 14 years, but the rest of us noticed that security issues have taken on greater importance since those attacks happened. Arenas built prior to 9/11 [[like the Verizon Center) didn't have the same security precautions built into them that post 9/11 construction is more likely to have.

Heck, the Department of Homeland Security wouldn't even exist if not for 9/11. If you can't understand the impact and relevance 9/11 had on the security concerns of the design of public or other gathering spaces then there is really no point continuing a discussion with you as you lack the required knowledge to have a worthwhile debate on the issue.

I can't speak for Junjie, but it seems to me that one can understand the "impact and relevance of 9/11" without thinking it should be a dominant factor in the design of urban spaces. In a country filled with soft targets, worrying about hardening a few specific gathering places seems kind of silly. No doubt there are specific locations that are such attractive targets symbolically that they should get special attention, but I don't see why a random arena would meet that criterion.

[Dan_the_man]

perhaps if you turned off the snark and turned on your brain you would see the relevance of 9/11 to a discussion on event security. I'm not sure what rock you've been living under for the past 14 years, but the rest of us noticed that security issues have taken on greater importance since those attacks happened. Arenas built prior to 9/11 [[like the Verizon Center) didn't have the same security precautions built into them that post 9/11 construction is more likely to have.

Heck, the Department of Homeland Security wouldn't even exist if not for 9/11. If you can't understand the impact and relevance 9/11 had on the security concerns of the design of public or other gathering spaces then there is really no point continuing a discussion with you as you lack the required knowledge to have a worthwhile debate on the issue.

Fine. How about a more relevant example then...

The Consol Energy Center in Pittsburgh broke ground it 2008. It has a church and a hotel right next to it, as well as an intact city block across the street. It's been open for 5 years and has yet to be RPG'ed.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/CO...ac0eb9c25713ab

[Mackinaw]

Fine. How about a more relevant example then...

The Consol Energy Center in Pittsburgh broke ground it 2008. It has a church and a hotel right next to it, as well as an intact city block across the street. It's been open for 5 years and has yet to be RPG'ed.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/CO...ac0eb9c25713ab

Good example. I like that they even allowed a little 2-3 story standing-alone historic building to stay standing about 30 feet behind the east end of the area. Such presence of insigificant history jamming up prime patron parking would never stand in an Olympia joint.

Another example, the new Prudential Center in Newark. A high-rise Hotel Indigo [[formerly abandoned!!) right outside, a new Marriot right behind its VIP garage, and a row of bars with lofts above surrounding its main [[north) entrance along Edison and Market Streets.
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=indig...,0.006968&z=18

[wolverine]

perhaps if you turned off the snark and turned on your brain you would see the relevance of 9/11 to a discussion on event security. I'm not sure what rock you've been living under for the past 14 years, but the rest of us noticed that security issues have taken on greater importance since those attacks happened. Arenas built prior to 9/11 [[like the Verizon Center) didn't have the same security precautions built into them that post 9/11 construction is more likely to have.

Heck, the Department of Homeland Security wouldn't even exist if not for 9/11. If you can't understand the impact and relevance 9/11 had on the security concerns of the design of public or other gathering spaces then there is really no point continuing a discussion with you as you lack the required knowledge to have a worthwhile debate on the issue.

Relevance? Your argument lacks practicality. What do you find reasonable? 150' buffers around every proposed public structure from here on out? Just a reminder that cities are made up of buildings that tend to be close together. The historic structures were here first. The architects and engineers are the professionals that should make them safe considering no such law or policy actually requires removal of the building. This is an excuse.

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

Relevance? Your argument lacks practicality. What do you find reasonable? 150' buffers around every proposed public structure from here on out? Just a reminder that cities are made up of buildings that tend to be close together. The historic structures were here first. The architects and engineers are the professionals that should make them safe considering no such law or policy actually requires removal of the building. This is an excuse.

But but but....you don't live enough in fear! The homeland security apparatus/lobby/industry will not be happy with that!

[rb336]

Relevance? Your argument lacks practicality. What do you find reasonable? 150' buffers around every proposed public structure from here on out? Just a reminder that cities are made up of buildings that tend to be close together. The historic structures were here first. The architects and engineers are the professionals that should make them safe considering no such law or policy actually requires removal of the building. This is an excuse.

excuse. reason. whatever. I don't think the Park Avenue is such a great building that it will be missed horribly when it's gone. It had a nice street front facade, but that's about it. I don't think it was ever considered a "gem" even in its hay-day. But go ahead, get worked up about it if it makes you happy

[Junjie]

perhaps if you turned off the snark and turned on your brain you would see the relevance of 9/11 to a discussion on event security. I'm not sure what rock you've been living under for the past 14 years, but the rest of us noticed that security issues have taken on greater importance since those attacks happened. Arenas built prior to 9/11 [[like the Verizon Center) didn't have the same security precautions built into them that post 9/11 construction is more likely to have.

Heck, the Department of Homeland Security wouldn't even exist if not for 9/11. If you can't understand the impact and relevance 9/11 had on the security concerns of the design of public or other gathering spaces then there is really no point continuing a discussion with you as you lack the required knowledge to have a worthwhile debate on the issue.

Wow, missed this doozy of a post. The point, which apparently flew over your head, was that the precautions you want to unquestioningly accept do nothing to make anyone safer. Since they don't make you safer, but they can be used as an excuse to make our cities worse for the people who actually live in them, we shouldn't support them just because somebody in Washington said so. And most especially not when the Illitches are using it in a self-serving way just to get what they want.

Yes, I know that 9/11 caused people to lose their shit, set up DHS, create silly rules just to appear to be "doing something to keep us safe". I was here too. That doesn't mean that tearing down the Park Avenue will make the Red Wings' new arena safer. A terrorist intent on killing people could simply shoot everyone standing in line to get their bags checked at security, today or in the future, without climbing up the Park Avenue. But tearing that building down will definitely replace a potentially reusable historic building with a loading dock. Given that your position has no benefit but a significant cost, I'll oppose it regardless of what some bureaucrat at DHS says.