Lafayette Building's top two floors subsiding?

[Sebastian]

As I said, watch any video of WTC 7 collapsing. And if you still believe it was not deliberately imploded, then I have nothing else to say. But buildings that collapse do not fall straight down in a few seconds.

And as for the other poster, the 'small office fires' I referred to were in WTC #7, if you had read my post carefully. Also, I'm sure you're aware that the jet fuel from the twin tower crashes burned off in a few minutes, leaving only office fires, which are not hot enough to deform steel. And no fire or ordinary collapse is capable of pulverizing concrete. Seriously, just look at the videos, while the towers are allegedly 'collapsing'. Compare the towers to a steel-and-concrete building that collapses in an earthquake. Then look at videos of imploded buildings. Do some research. You really shouldn't believe everything the government tells you.

[Novine]

Do we really have to have the 9/11 crazy conspiracy theorists debate here? Aren't there a million places on the web where you can talk to the fellow nuttos about how we can prove that the WTC collapse was deliberate?

[Sebastian]

The terms 'crazy' and 'nutto' are very prejudicial. I have only stated facts. Until you have examined all the evidence, you should keep an open mind.

But as I said, watch the videos with a skeptical eye, then believe what you want to believe. I'll go back to lurking now, and you fine folks can go back to talking about more current demolition of buildings. Have a nice day in Detroit :-)

[Meddle]

And no fire or ordinary collapse is capable of pulverizing concrete.

Of course there is. It happens all the time in large fires. Ask the families of any of the firefighters killed every year in building collapses. Or ask any highway department that has to replace sections of roadway after tanker fires.

But this thread is about a building falling in on itself due to age and poor maintenance.

[PQZ]

"In other words, you couldn't come up with any."

I'm not familiar enough with all of the buildings the City/DDA has owned over the years to give you a definitive answer. What is the answer?

But more on point, using your math [[and the math used by Geo. Jackson), almost every building that the DDA/DEGC owns or controls will be a candidate for demolition because in every case, running the numbers for demolition versus maintaining a building for future use is always going to be biased towards demolition. That means that every building that the DDA/DEGC has an interest in should automatically be considered under threat of demolition. The actions of the DDA/DEGC have demonstrated that to be true and your explanation of the logic behind it shows how narrow-minded and short-sighted the thinking of those at the DDA/DEGC is in on this issue.

I would like to point out that the DDA pursued the acquisition of the Book Cadillac for more than five years to get it out of bankruptcy and pursed a development deal for more than six years, spending close to $800,000 on on analysis and engineering to get the deal done.

I will also refer you to the Kales as a DDA owned building prior to its restoration after a competitive RFP process.

I will refer you to the Merchant's Row poject in which three of the buildings were owned by the DDA prior to a deal to restore them.

I will refer you to the Lofts of Woodward project where a building owned by the DDA was transferred to Farbman at substantially below value to make the deal work.

I will refer you to the stalled Vinton project in which the DDA sold the building for redevelopment for a sum much lower than they were offered by Karl Kado who wished to demolish the Vinton for a parking lot while he worked to finsih acquiring the block so he could demo everything, including the Grand Trunk / Forans building.

I will refer you to the $11 million in direct grants that provided people like Jerry Balanger with the funds to restore Cliff Bell's and create Park Bar.

Given the fact that the DDA has direct investment and participation in more than $500 million worth of historic renovations in downtown Detroit in the last eight years, I would argue that that the staff at DEGC knows the market and issues better than any other entity in the region.

Its true that they do not have an overall policy of 'preservation first' or a strategy that has identifed specific buildings to target. But they also know deal making inside out and are very skilled at taking projects of little to no hope and getting them done.

What psoters here need to realize is that not every building will make sense and int he face of limited resources, sometimes hard decisions have to be made.

The sad part is that the professional and competent preservationists out there have to fight an uphill battle to avoid being lumped together with liars and idiots who gnash their teeth and rend their shirts and call for George Jackson to be fired - when the man saved your precious Book Cadillac.

[Detroitnerd]

The sad part is that the professional and competent preservationists out there have to fight an uphill battle to avoid being lumped together with liars and idiots who gnash their teeth and rend their shirts and call for George Jackson to be fired - when the man saved your precious Book Cadillac.

Haha. Get back to work, George.

[kraig]

Haha. Get back to work, George.

I know that you like to provide comic relief. But sometimes you just need to leave some of the more informative posts alone.

This type of joke was already stale. You need some new material.

[Detroitnerd]

Fair enough, but I'd argue it's the SOS crowd that really needs some new material...

[Novine]

"The sad part is that the professional and competent preservationists out there have to fight an uphill battle to avoid being lumped together with liars and idiots who gnash their teeth and rend their shirts and call for George Jackson to be fired - when the man saved your precious Book Cadillac."

The same "professionals" who you want us to fall over in praise over can't tell the difference between the two groups? You should have stopped while you were ahead but you just couldn't stop yourself from going over the top. As for Jackson and his staff, they are well compensated to do their job. That's what they should be doing. As you admitted, DDA/DEGC has no kind of policy for historic preservation even though by state law, it's one of their responsibilities.

As for your list of projects, the question isn't whether DDA/DEGC has had a role in projects that have helped protect or rehab historic buildings. One would hope they didn't squander every last tax dollar on demolition. It's the point that every last building is threatened by demolition by DDA/DEGC. Until Geo. Jackson gets off his bulldozer and develops a plan and policies that outline what DDA/DEGC will save and what they will not, every building under DDA control is under threat of demolition.

[rajdet]

Nothing to chime in on this except I am running a photo essay on the building for the next few days my blog.

[ghettopalmetto]

And until a man named John Ferchill entered the picture, the Book-Cadillac had been slated for demolition as well.

Frankly, I find terrifying PQZ's assertion that George Jackson and the DEGC would not be able to discern between the serious and not-quite-so-serious in the preservation community. That doesn't speak well to the mental acuity of those charged with demolition, er, redevelopment of the City of Detroit.

[PQZ]

As for your list of projects, the question isn't whether DDA/DEGC has had a role in projects that have helped protect or rehab historic buildings. One would hope they didn't squander every last tax dollar on demolition. It's the point that every last building is threatened by demolition by DDA/DEGC. Until Geo. Jackson gets off his bulldozer and develops a plan and policies that outline what DDA/DEGC will save and what they will not, every building under DDA control is under threat of demolition.

So the DDA has gone to extraordinary lengths to promote the redevelopment of far more buildings then they have demolished and, frankly, have established a reasonable track record, yet you are hysterical that every building is endangered.

Here's a differnt way to look at it. The DDA's purpose is to promote growth and redevelopment in the most effective ways possible. They have sunk considerably more resources into preservation than they have demolition.

Perhaps the selective demolitions are a result of those minority of buildings being a very inefficient way to promote development.

The DDA / DEGC leadership is judged on how much development they create. If they spend their time looking for irrational demolition opportunities, they won't be able to promote growth. Do you really think they are that stupid or that deranged they would actually do that? And if so, how do explain the much longer list of rehabs vs. the much shorter list of demos?

Here's a hint, if your theory or position relies on outlandish and completely irrational behavior, its propbably not a good theory.

[ghettopalmetto]

So the DDA has gone to extraordinary lengths to promote the redevelopment of far more buildings then they have demolished and, frankly, have established a reasonable track record, yet you are hysterical that every building is endangered.

Here's a differnt way to look at it. The DDA's purpose is to promote growth and redevelopment in the most effective ways possible. They have sunk considerably more resources into preservation than they have demolition.

So if a doctor has more patients who survive than those who die under his care, is he considered successful? If I design more buildings that remain stable than collapse, am I a successful engineer?

I think people have every reason in the world to be frightened at the DEGC's methodology, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST. There is no established, objective basis for determining what should be done with a structure. The fact that DEGC spends a lot of money to purchase buildings means that they take these structures out of the hands of the free market in order to impose their subjective, uninformed, and regressive will on the City of Detroit. Shouldn't a DEGC exist in order to assist developers and building owners in the completion of projects, vis-a-vis attempting to be one of those developers and owners?

The DEGC has no business being in real estate speculation. How many millions are wasted on purchasing buildings for demolition? How many millions more are lost in wages, tax revenue, and decreased property values through the creation of empty lots?

If the DEGC were serious about anything other than demolition, they would act like professionals and conduct the due diligence required and expected of them to evaluate the Lafayette Building [[among others) before deeming it "structurally unsound". WHERE IS THE ENGINEER'S REPORT?

[PQZ]

And until a man named John Ferchill entered the picture, the Book-Cadillac had been slated for demolition as well.

And that is a complete baldfaced lie. The public record bears it out. The DDA gained functional control of the BC in September / October 2001. By February 2002, they had selected a team to conduct a structural, environmental and architectural analysis. I know this because I personally drafted the bid documents, lead the selection team and managed the investigative team.

By December 2002 as the investigation was wrapping up, the DDA had shown the budiling to more than a dozen developers and were in preliminary negotiations with Historic Hospitality Inc, a division of Kimberly Clark. I know this because I was one of five people authorized to have possesion of keys to the building and I had spent countless hours touring the building with developers and discussing potential funding mechanisms.

By spring 2003, the DDA was in active negotiations with HHI and had voted move forward with additional investigations in the building to help further the deal with HHI. I know because I drafted the DDA resolution and presented it to them for voting.

By winter 2003 / 4 the City was investigating all sorts of potential funding streams including an unprecedented move to modify the federal legislation authorising the Empowerment Zone. I know this because I spent weeks researching the precedents for the change to legislation and was in daily contact with HHI on their work.

BY this point, the DDA had expended more than three times the amount estimated to demolish the Lafayette on engineering, environemtnal and legal fees - but still had no guarantee the project could go forward.

Ferchill entered the picture in late 2004 only after HHI had their funding pulled by Kimberly Clark.

Need I go on?

[ghettopalmetto]

And that is a complete baldfaced lie. The public record bears it out.

Then you should have no problem refreshing us all what happened in the time period between Kimberley-Clark pulling out, and John Ferchill stepping in.

[Detroitnerd]

So authorities like DDA get to build their own "teams" for evaluating buildings? Given their quasi-private nature, do we ever get to see the results of these evaluations? Or do they consider it their property?

How about after HHI pulled out? Was the DDA was ready to finally, reluctantly, consider demolition?

[PQZ]

. The fact that DEGC spends a lot of money to purchase buildings means that they take these structures out of the hands of the free market in order to impose their subjective, uninformed, and regressive will on the City of Detroit. Shouldn't a DEGC exist in order to assist developers and building owners in the completion of projects, vis-a-vis attempting to be one of those developers and owners?

The DEGC has no business being in real estate speculation. How many millions are wasted on purchasing buildings for demolition? How many millions more are lost in wages, tax revenue, and decreased property values through the creation of empty lots?

If the DEGC were serious about anything other than demolition, they would act like professionals and conduct the due diligence required and expected of them to evaluate the Lafayette Building [[among others) before deeming it "structurally unsound". WHERE IS THE ENGINEER'S REPORT?

So, a developer comes to the City and says, "I own two buildings and if I owned the building in between them, I could build one elevator system and the project would work. The imputed value of the building I need is $500,000. The owner wants $1,500,000. Nobody can make a project work at that building for that price. Ever."

Five years later nothing has changed and all three are still vacant. So the DDA steps in, buys the building for $1,500,000 and then sells it to the developer for $500,000 and bingo, just like the project pencils out and all three buildings are renovated.

Shoudl the DDA continued to sit on its hands? If you say yes, imagine Woodward without Merchants Row or Lofts of Woodward, because that is the outline of what happened in both cases. Without that move, Howard Schwartz and his ilk would still own vacant, abandoned buildings and not a single one of them would be renovated.

As to your question on the engineers report, please reread the bid demolition package which contains data collected by an engineering company that analysed the building to see if it was safe enough to remediate. Take that engeneering report, add to it the expertise of the numerous certified engineers, architects and project managers on DECG staff and they have the expertise to make the call.

If your car catches fire and the engine melts, do you need a mechanic to tell you the car is going to cost alot to restore?

[PQZ]

Then you should have no problem refreshing us all what happened in the time period between Kimberley-Clark pulling out, and John Ferchill stepping in.

Gladly.

The DDA continued paying for remediation and abatement activity to the tune of nearly $4 million out of its own pocket as a good faith gesture to the development community that they were serious about the project while talking to Ferchill and two other firms. Ferchill eventually got comfortable with the project and the DDA entered into negotiations and eventually trasnferred development rights to Ferchill.

[Novine]

"So the DDA has gone to extraordinary lengths to promote the redevelopment of far more buildings then they have demolished and, frankly, have established a reasonable track record, yet you are hysterical that every building is endangered."

It's not hysterical. It's the reality of how the DDA/DEGC operates. No plan, no guidance, no indication of what is worth preserving and what's not. It means that every building is at risk because the DDA/DEGC has no methodolgy for their demolition activities.

As for the track record, where are the metrics showing what DDA/DEGC has accomplished? Employment numbers? Increased property values? Surely they have something more than press releases to determine how effective their demolition strategy has been?

[PQZ]

So authorities like DDA get to build their own "teams" for evaluating buildings? Given their quasi-private nature, do we ever get to see the results of these evaluations? Or do they consider it their property?

The bid specs for a phased analysis were created and publicly advertised for a period of 30 days. Bids were due 90 days later. The bids were public and are part of the public records. More than seven "teams" bid. "Teams" were created by and between the bidders as joint ventures because no one firm had the range of skills needed. The individual firms courted each other to create winning teams. Architectural firms do not have staff to conducts Phase I and II analyses. Environmental firms do not have staff that can conducted structural engiennering tests. Engineering firms do not have architects that can do programmtic studies to allocate space efficiently.

The winning "team" consisted of
Gensler - one of the largest and most progrssive architectural firms globally
Wiss Janney Elstner - a national engineering firm with a sterling reputation
healthAIR - a small but extremely capable environmental firm out of Plymouth who's satff went above and beyond.

Their report is public record.

[Detroitnerd]

So, the reports written up by the "engineers" about the building are:

Independently conducted?

Publicly available to any layman?

Relatively free of jargon?

[EastSider]

The winning "team" consisted of

Gensler - one of the largest and most progrssive architectural firms globally
Wiss Janney Elstner - a national engineering firm with a sterling reputation
healthAIR - a small but extremely capable environmental firm out of Plymouth who's satff went above and beyond.

Their report is public record.

If we're talking here about the BC reports, when did the reports for each phase finally become publically available? When phase 3, I believe it was, work was completed and the report completed, there was a period of time when the two groups were each denying it was available.

My knock against the DEGC and the relationship between the DDA and the DEGC is the element of secrecy in the proceedings. The DDA refers the work to the DEGC, and then can play a game with the FOIA and the other public-access laws, because the DEGC is a private non-profit.

And I'll second PQZ's analysis that the DEGC under Mr. Jackson has not completed a thorough, comprehensive assessment of Detroit's building stock.

[ghettopalmetto]

The DDA continued paying for remediation and abatement activity to the tune of nearly $4 million out of its own pocket as a good faith gesture to the development community that they were serious about the project while talking to Ferchill and two other firms. Ferchill eventually got comfortable with the project and the DDA entered into negotiations and eventually trasnferred development rights to Ferchill.

Wasn't environmental remediation of the Book-Cadillac necessary whether the building was demolished or renovated? You make it sound like DDA was conducting remediation out of some sense of altruism.

Do you also mean to imply that Ferchill--an experienced developer--involved itself in a project in which it was not initially comfortable? This seems like such an unlikely scenario that some explanation is warranted. Professionals do not pursue work with which they are not comfortable, based on their expertise, and I hardly think that DDA and DEGC were stroking a hesitant Ferchill's ego convincing them they could get the project done.

If I do recall correctly, the plan was to demolish the Book-Cadillac if talks with all three prospective developers fell through--a further continuation of DEGC's perverse philosophy that a single data point carries more weight than any long-term trend. And now the Lafayette Building finds itself in the same scenario--"just because".

[PQZ]

To Detroiterd:
Yes, yes, and yes. Perhaps you could ask FOBC if they ever bothered to ask for copies of the reports. It seems they would have followed the issue closely as they knew about it and tried to sell information to the DDA.

To Eastsider:
The DEGC has no funds to and leaglly cannot conduct work like that which was conducted on the BC. The DDA proceedings were completely open, public and transparent. Failure on the publics part to attend publicly advertised and regularly scheduled meetings is the failure of the public and interested parties, not secrecy by a public body.

Ghettopalmetto:
Yes, the remediation would need to take place for any disposition of the building - demo or rehab. Considering the substantional mobilization costs, the prudent move was to continue remediation on the building to save project costs. Had the only intent been to demolish the building, the DDA would have ceased spending dollars and pursued state and federal dollars which would have delayed the process by a year or more.
RE: Ferchill - a project like that takes many many months of due dilligence in which broad outlines of financing and costs are drawn and then successively refined. "Getting comfortable" is a term of art used int he development community that describes the process of going from many unknowns and thus no commitement to do a project to going to few unknowns and being "comfortable" that enough risk assessment has been conducted to warrant investment.

There were no firm decisions to demolish the Book Cadillac if Ferchill was unable to pull it off. That said, I would have been fully supportive of the demolition of the building.

If, after millions of dollars in legal fees and engineering / environmental work spent by the DDA and afyer millions spent by multiple developers on due dilligence - if the numbers simply did not workj, that there was no clever or creative way to make the project at least vaguely viable, the DDA would have to cut off investment at some point.

The hard cold truth is that the cost to restore some buildings is far far outweighed by their economic return and social good. Fact. Cold. Plain. Simple.

Banks and developers use a measurement called capitalization value - which is a simple formula. How much "rent / profit" can be collected over a period of years minus cost to own and build the project. If the cost is greater than the rent / profit, sorry charlie, no loans, no projects.

In the case of the BC the cap value on the hotel protion was in the $55 to $60 million range. The cost was in excess of $120 million. That is, the building cost nearly twice what it would be able to generate to pay loans. The most a bank would lend was $56 million. The other $64 million had to come from tax credits, government loans etc.

At some point, a building will have a cost far greater than its value and at that point, it drains money away from other priorities. At that point a decision must be made to cut losses. After three developers, tens of millions spent on the building, if Ferchill was not going to be able to pull it off, if changing federal law was not going to help the building, well then someone has to make the hard decision that it isn't saveable.

If your argument is that all building ought to be saved, regardless of cost then you are an irresponsible fool who has no understanding of the real issues facing cities.

[PQZ]

BTW, the other two developers which were large firms who had done mulitple projects of similar scale, politely declined to investigate further. Both later in off the record discussion said they saw no way the building cousl be saved and were both mildly stunned by what they termed "excessive" public investment in the BC.