Lafayette Building's top two floors subsiding?

[kraig]

If you spend all your money knocking all the fucking trees down, you don't have much of a forest, do ya?

Such language. I see that the ghettopalmetto meltdown is happening in the a.m. these days. I'll go along with your analogy since I did use forest and trees in my post. No one is looking at knocking down all of the trees. But, from time to time, you are going to have to knock down the diseased and dying trees.

If someone is looking to rehab the Lafayette Building and has the resources to do it, fine. If not, it's also a waste of money to keep the building standing. Let's go back to the knowns and unknowns. 1.4 million for demolition is a known to the DDA/DEGC and is acceptable to them. The cost of maintaining the building and for how long are unknowns. But, it is known that it would cost more than 1.4 million.

[Detroitnerd]

Well, that sums up the problem, I think.

I get the sense that your attitude, right or wrong, is the predominant attitude of the real movers and shakers who are directing development policy. In other words, they really do believe Detroit is a dying city, and that we should knock as much of it down to preserve the buildings that the muck-a-mucks already own.

But there is another attitude, and it's that these buildings are assets that we can capitalize on.

So, I look at the former mind-set and I see that, essentially, it hasn't worked. It had fed a demolition industry that now feeds greedily at the public trough, while our historic buildings go, one by one.

Want more of the same? You're in luck, because that seems to be the MO in our dwindling downtown. The voices who would like to see some new tactics are drowned out by the tidal wave of "experts" and money.

Here's something interesting, though: The SOS crowd in firmly in the saddle. They can do whatever they want. There are few ways to investigate what they're up to, so they're largely unmonitored. There are few ways to change their minds, so they're largely unchallenged. In fact, they've been doing just what they [[and, seemingly, you) want for years and years, and there's no sign of it changing.

So here's the interesting part: There is no credible threat to the same old way of doing "business," but establishment voices so shrill and condemnatory when somebody pipes up and says, "Hey, this isn't working. Let's try something new."

People say that history and identification with landmarks isn't important. But it is important, and a value can be assigned to it.

When Phillip Morris bought Kraft Foods, it paid only $1.3 billion for Kraft’s factories, workforce, production lines, truck fleet etc. It paid $11.6 billion for good will -- for the brand name and customer loyalty associated with the brand.

You see, immaterial things do have value. But you need vision, and you need perspective. To many of us posting on this board, the value of the history, continuity, design, architecture, beauty of these old buildings is worth a great deal more than their mere ability to house offices. That's a large part of the reason why we put so much value on them.

But to the business community, they have no idea of the real value of that. They see ledger sheets of numbers, but I find it hard to believe they see a value for the history of a place. And that sort of blindness to -- and, I believe, embarrassment about -- our old skyscrapers translates into statements like yours.

I understand where you're coming from. And, like I said, your perspective is the prevailing, reigning, unchallenged perspective from our local development kingpins. But there is another way of thinking, and I wish we could develop a better understanding of why that is valuable.

We may well find out that Detroit isn't so different from other real estate markets after all ...

[EastSider]

In other words, they really do believe Detroit is a dying city...

Look around you...it's obvious. People are leaving. The school district is thisclose to declaring bankruptcy. The only way the police department can lower crime is to lie about the numbers and ignore calls to 911. Should I go on? What about the ruins of the Brewster projects? That's not a dying city?

You see, immaterial things do have value. But you need vision, and you need perspective. To many of us posting on this board, the value of the history, continuity, design, architecture, beauty of these old buildings is worth a great deal more than their mere ability to house offices. That's a large part of the reason why we put so much value on them.

These old buildings are commercial structures, and regardless of what sort of navel-gazing terms you toss out, their value is based on the rent they bring in. History, continuity and design don't pay the bills. You can't tell the tax collection department to accept payment in architecture.

This isn't the "movers and shakers" imposing their will upon the Lafayette, this is the market saying this is no raional use for this building. Ask yourself why any given building in Detroit is vacant. Chances are the building wasn't emptied at gun point by the DEGC.

[ghettopalmetto]

Such language. I see that the ghettopalmetto meltdown is happening in the a.m. these days. I'll go along with your analogy since I did use forest and trees in my post. Know one is looking at knocking down all of the trees. But, from time to time, you are going to have to knock down the diseased and dying trees.

If someone is looking to rehab the Lafayette Building and has the resources to do it, fine. If not, it's also a waste of money to keep the building standing. Let's go back to the knowns and unknowns. 1.4 million for demolition is a known to the DDA/DEGC and is acceptable to them. The cost of maintaining the building and for how long are unknowns. But, it is known that it would cost more than 1.4 million.

See any problems in your statement, Kraig? It's you and the uncurious minds who aren't even interesting in making those "unknowns" into "knowns". You're trying to solve a complex system of equations when you only know one of the variables. How do you intend to provide any sort of objective rationale when you have no interest in finding out ALL of the information necessary to make a decision?

Again, this is but one data point on a long-term trend. How you can extrapolate that one data point into perpetuity--and without all relevant information--is beyond me.

[ghettopalmetto]

This isn't the "movers and shakers" imposing their will upon the Lafayette, this is the market saying this is no raional use for this building.

Please inform us as to what study you're citing. There are plenty of occupied structures in downtown Detroit, whose rents are higher than comparable buildings in the suburbs. The data for occupied space doesn't support your conclusion.

[EastSider]

Please inform us as to what study you're citing. There are plenty of occupied structures in downtown Detroit, whose rents are higher than comparable buildings in the suburbs. The data for occupied space doesn't support your conclusion.

The "study" I'm citing is the fact that the building has stood empty for how many years now, to the point of collapse. If there truly were a market for the building, this wouldn't be the case. At a minimum, the owner would have maintained the roof and windows to prevent the large-scale damage we see today.

[ghettopalmetto]

The "study" I'm citing is the fact that the building has stood empty for how many years now, to the point of collapse. If there truly were a market for the building, this wouldn't be the case. At a minimum, the owner would have maintained the roof and windows to prevent the large-scale damage we see today.

Unless you are a licensed Professional Engineer, YOU ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO MAKE THAT STATEMENT, and neither is George Jackson.

PROVE that the Lafayette Building is ready to collapse. Use building codes, principles of engineering, and calculations that would otherwise be required in an expert opinion.

[PQZ]

Again, this is but one data point on a long-term trend. How you can extrapolate that one data point into perpetuity--and without all relevant information--is beyond me.

And that is my point exactly.

The demolition of the Lafayette is one data point in a long term trend of massive investment and effort going in to preservation of buildings in the downtown.

Surrounding the Lafayette builing are the success stories of the Dime Building [[whoops - did you all forget about the $7 million in mezzanine debt + tax credits & abatements from DDA ? DBRA for the Dime? I bet you did!), the Book Cadillac and Fort Shelby.

There were some unfortunate demolitions that were needed to make room for the Book Cadillac parking deck and the loss of the Grand Trunk Building for Dime Building parking deck. Regardless of your dreams and wishes, neither the Dime nor the Book would have been able to secure loans and tenants without the parking. They are a necessary evil.

Now, if we look at the long trend of massive investment in downtown by the DDA we can see a greater trend towards investment and redevelopment than towards demolition. My point all along has been that the hangwringing and name calling is a result of taking the Lafayette out of the larger context of the "long-term trend".

How you can extrapolate the demolition of the Lafayette into a policy of reckless and malevolent demolition with no bias by the DDA towards rehabilitation is beyond me.

[ghettopalmetto]

And that is my point exactly.

The demolition of the Lafayette is one data point in a long term trend of massive investment and effort going in to preservation of buildings in the downtown.

Surrounding the Lafayette builing are the success stories of the Dime Building [[whoops - did you all forget about the $7 million in mezzanine debt + tax credits & abatements from DDA ? DBRA for the Dime? I bet you did!), the Book Cadillac and Fort Shelby.

There were some unfortunate demolitions that were needed to make room for the Book Cadillac parking deck and the loss of the Grand Trunk Building for Dime Building parking deck. Regardless of your dreams and wishes, neither the Dime nor the Book would have been able to secure loans and tenants without the parking. They are a necessary evil.

Now, if we look at the long trend of massive investment in downtown by the DDA we can see a greater trend towards investment and redevelopment than towards demolition. My point all along has been that the hangwringing and name calling is a result of taking the Lafayette out of the larger context of the "long-term trend".

How you can extrapolate the demolition of the Lafayette into a policy of reckless and malevolent demolition with no bias by the DDA towards rehabilitation is beyond me.

How does spending $1.4 million on the Lafayette's demolition translate into increased funding for other projects? You're leaving quite a bit [[of acreage of empty lots) on the table. Has DEGC lined up developers for the "rebirth of downtown Detroit" that was being "held back" by the presence of Hudsons? I mean, it's only been 11 years.... That was money well spent, wasn't it?

How stupid do you think we are? Proximity does not equal correlation does not equal causation, my friend. Don't tell me it's raining when you're pissing down my back.

[PQZ]

How does spending $1.4 million on the Lafayette's demolition translate into increased funding for other projects? You're leaving quite a bit [[of acreage of empty lots) on the table. Has DEGC lined up developers for the "rebirth of downtown Detroit" that was being "held back" by the presence of Hudsons? I mean, it's only been 11 years.... That was money well spent, wasn't it?

How stupid do you think we are? Proximity does not equal correlation does not equal causation, my friend. Don't tell me it's raining when you're pissing down my back.

So far, I think you are pretty damn stupid and pretty irrational.

You have consistently shown an inability to think critically about the economics of renoavtion, demolition and what to do with very limited budgets and instead cling to a dogma. each time a direct question is asked, you deflect and answer by raing a different question.

The statement was about proximity as you are awkwardly suggesting.

You posited that looking at the restoration of one building was an isolated data point not indicative of a trend. I pointed out that even looking within a two block radius, the multiple data points taken together showed a bias towards renovation, not demolition. Looking across the entirely of the downtown, the bias towards renovation vs. demolition is even more apparent.

The area where it really gets skewed is when you look at the DDA's total investments. Over the last dozen years or so the investments in renovation are nearly fifteen times the investment in demolition.

I note you cite a single data point - The Hudsons Building - to prove a trend.

If you like, we could draw a one block radius around the Hudsons site where I can show you six or seven examples of investment in renovation - and zero in demolition. That is a data trend.

Now, considering the Book Cadillac is having a hard time selling condos and Lofts of Woodward and Merchants Row are struggling to stay above the low 80s in occupancy percentage - and considering that the combined square footage of these projects with the Kales thrown in less than a million square feet - can you realistically say that there would have been a market for the 2.2 million square feet of space at the Hudsons Building?

Can you?

Yes or no.

No deflections please.



Which is the greater data trend?

[ghettopalmetto]

So far, I think you are pretty damn stupid and pretty irrational.

You have consistently shown an inability to think critically about the economics of renoavtion, demolition and what to do with very limited budgets and instead cling to a dogma. each time a direct question is asked, you deflect and answer by raing a different question.

The statement was about proximity as you are awkwardly suggesting.

You posited that looking at the restoration of one building was an isolated data point not indicative of a trend. I pointed out that even looking within a two block radius, the multiple data points taken together showed a bias towards renovation, not demolition. Looking across the entirely of the downtown, the bias towards renovation vs. demolition is even more apparent.

The area where it really gets skewed is when you look at the DDA's total investments. Over the last dozen years or so the investments in renovation are nearly fifteen times the investment in demolition.

I note you cite a single data point - The Hudsons Building - to prove a trend.

If you like, we could draw a one block radius around the Hudsons site where I can show you six or seven examples of investment in renovation - and zero in demolition. That is a data trend.

Now, considering the Book Cadillac is having a hard time selling condos and Lofts of Woodward and Merchants Row are struggling to stay above the low 80s in occupancy percentage - and considering that the combined square footage of these projects with the Kales thrown in less than a million square feet - can you realistically say that there would have been a market for the 2.2 million square feet of space at the Hudsons Building?

Can you?

Yes or no.

No deflections please.



Which is the greater data trend?

When I was designing buildings, I had a "tendency" to design buildings that were safe. If I had designed a single structure that had failed and killed or hurt someone, though, guess who would be out of a job??? A "trend" toward renovation is wholly unacceptable when you're discussing priceless architecture and urban fabric. Once it's gone, you don't get a do-over on that mistake. Ergo, it's batshit insane to examine "tendencies" when none of the God damned parts fit together into anything cohesive.

We can agree that Right Now, nothing is feasible with the Lafayette Building. You somehow think you can look into perpetuity and prove that renovation will NEVER be feasible based strictly on Right Now. I'm saying that we don't have that level of information, because NOBODY knows what's going to happen in 10, 20, or 50 years.

How do you expect redevelopment to ever happen if DEGC exercises a heavy-handed demolition policy? Who do you think is going to want to locate on a moonscape?

Since you're practically a Nobel laureate in economics, I don't think I need to explain to you the tremendous expenses of foundations and superstructure that a demolition suddenly adds to the tab of any would-be developer. This [[for those who can add) means that development is LESS likely, because not only do you increase construction costs in the same rental market, but you throw away shitloads of tax credits too. Tax credits, I might add, that made the Book-Cadillac renovation possible in the first place.

I'm glad you brought your self-righteous arrogant airs back to the Forum. Please teach us more about the cost of everything and value of nothing, Mr. Bean Counter. We'd sure like to move along this recreation of "Escape From New York" a lot faster than it's been going.

[PQZ]

Dear DannyCakes:

We can agree that Right Now, nothing is feasible with the Lafayette Building. You somehow think you can look into perpetuity and prove that renovation will NEVER be feasible based strictly on Right Now. I'm saying that we don't have that level of information, because NOBODY knows what's going to happen in 10, 20, or 50 years.

We can howvere, reasonably predict the cost of demolition and we can reasonably predict the cost of mothablling for the next 10 years. Mothballing will be exponentially more expensive. Those dollars must come from somewhere and they would come at the expense of other projects.

So far, no renovation project of any scale beyond 30,000 square feet or so in the downtown area has been able to work without direct cash from the DDA - in addition to the numerous tax credits and tax abatements thrown into the project. So the DDA must choose where to spend the money. What is the appropriate mix of project subsidy, mothballing and demolition with the limited funds available?

You posit that the DDA funds would be better spent on mothballing the Lafayette. OK, lets follow that thought for a few moments. Which projects would you then choose to be cancelled in downtown to free up the funds necessary for mothballing? Capital Park redevelopment? The cross street improvements program? The cash being used to buy the Capital Park building? The cash subsidy going into to the former Pepper's Shoes Building? Should the Small Business Loan Transaction fund be eliminated? Should the DDA stop contributing to Clean Detroit?

Which one would you choose? This isn't a theoretical exercise - its the exercise the "bean counters" go through on a daily basis. Don't deflect. Make a choice. Which one? Show us you have the stones to make a choice.

How do you expect redevelopment to ever happen if DEGC exercises a heavy-handed demolition policy? Who do you think is going to want to locate on a moonscape?

But redevelopment IS happening. You choose not to acknowledge this. You cite the Book Cadillac later in your screed...how did that happen? Oh yeah, the DDA spent millions to subsidize the project.

You choose to ignore that fact that the DDA spends nearly 15 times as much on renoavtion of existing buildings as it does on demolition.

I don't think I need to explain to you the tremendous expenses of foundations and superstructure that a demolition suddenly adds to the tab of any would-be developer. This [[for those who can add) means that development is LESS likely, because not only do you increase construction costs in the same rental market, but you throw away shitloads of tax credits too. Tax credits, I might add, that made the Book-Cadillac renovation possible in the first place.

The loss of foundations and superstructures is a potential cost. You should well know that exisiting foundation and superstructures may not be efficient or may be in such condition that the cost of their restoration and refursbishment is actually greater than the cost to remove and replace with new foundations and superstructures.

You should also be aware that the cost to restore an historic facade can be more expensive than a facade on a new building.

The argument that a building is always cheaper to rehab than to build new is patently false and you, as an alleged building designer, ought to know that.

The very existance of the tax credits you cite reinforces the notiuon that renovation is not cheaper If renovation of buildings was cheaper than new build, there would be no need for tax credits. Developers would default to restoration as a cheaper alternative over new build. Developers default to new build in general becasue their job is to make enough money to continue building things. Assuming they choose new build because they are somehow morally defective or completely unable to understand the beauty of old buildings is not a rational assumption.

Because renovation is more expensive, we as a country and in most states, provide tax credits to bring the cost of renovation in line with or below new build to incent renovation. So the existance of the tax credit programs proves the argument that renovation is more expensive in general.

There are exceptions and each case much be individually weighed. A balnket statement either way - demo everything or save everything - it inane and dangerous.

[Detroitnerd]

I dunno, PQZ. I think we'd all be excited to tell the DDA/DEGC what not to do. Or to tell them ANYTHING to do ... for a change.

[Novine]

"We had to develop a comprehensive redevelopment plan for the central business district that included a clear-eyed examination of each vacant building and which should be saved for future use and which should not."

We? Had to? Comprehensive Redevelopment Plan? As there is no plan, who is the we that did this?

[ghettopalmetto]

PQZ,

You know damn well what "opportunity costs" are. You know that you can't compare a one-time demolition fee to what it would currently cost to conduct a full rehabilitation of the structure, as that is an apples-to-cheeseburgers comparision.

You also know damn well that DEGC has not conducted due diligence by refusing to hire an A/E to perform an OBJECTIVE, RATIONAL BASIS for decision-making. This decision to demolish the Lafayette is complete and made-up bullshit, and you know it. It's based on some childish, irrational hope that this demolition might "inspire" someone to build a Fotomat in downtown Detroit.

I agree with you that numbers need to be run--but there aren't any numbers to run when you don't even conduct the most basic of feasibility studies!!!

Why are you so vehemently sticking up for your old employer when you know damn well they haven't done their homework on this one?

[Detroitnerd]

All this talk of known unknowns reminds me of a fable.
Attachment 2553

[Toolbox]

I see four pages of ramblings on saving this building, but no real good reason other than it is old. What is the significance of this building?

A better thing to do is find out what is happening without any building permits at the UA building.

[ghettopalmetto]

I see four pages of ramblings on saving this building, but no real good reason other than it is old. What is the significance of this building?

Um, because the City of Detroit has much better uses for the $1.4 million it would spend on demolition?

I'm jus sayin....

[bailey]

Um, because the City of Detroit has much better uses for the $1.4 million it would spend on demolition?

I'm jus sayin....

hey, that's 1.4 million pumped into the local economy. its a stimulus.

would the 1.4 million be better spent paying Dan Gilbert's merry band of mortgage brokers to lease some more space in Compuware?

[EastSider]

"We had to develop a comprehensive redevelopment plan for the central business district that included a clear-eyed examination of each vacant building and which should be saved for future use and which should not."

We? Had to? Comprehensive Redevelopment Plan? As there is no plan, who is the we that did this?

That post was a rhetorical device in direct response to a comment along the lines that "We had to destroy downtown to save it."

I believe this thread is the one where PQZ mentioned the lack of said plan, and I agree with him. It might be another thread, though.

[kraig]

Um, because the City of Detroit has much better uses for the $1.4 million it would spend on demolition?

I'm jus sayin....

Does the city have much better uses for the more than $1.4 million it would spend to mothball the Lafayette Building?

An answer without a meltdown would be appreciated.

[Bearinabox]

I see four pages of ramblings on saving this building, but no real good reason other than it is old. What is the significance of this building?

What is "significance?" You mean like George Washington Slept Here? I don't understand how that is a relevant question. Are you advocating the demolition of all buildings in which George Washington did not sleep?

The relevant question, IMO, is "will replacing the Lafayette with a poorly-placed bum-magnet of a "park" make downtown better or worse than it is currently?"

A better thing to do is find out what is happening without any building permits at the UA building.

Go for it.

[buildingsofdetroit]

Getting away from the personal attacks, does anyone know whether the DEGC is giving Keffilanos the time of day since he said he wants to buy it and save it?

[McIPor]

The "study" I'm citing is the fact that the building has stood empty for how many years now, to the point of collapse. If there truly were a market for the building, this wouldn't be the case. At a minimum, the owner would have maintained the roof and windows to prevent the large-scale damage we see today.

The "Owner" is the city of Detroit. Its been empty since 1997. Much of the damage was caused in the winter of 97 when all the water that had been left by the owner in the tank atop the building and in the pipes burst. I went in the building that winter. The lobby floor could have been a skating rink. The water damage was bad and that was less then a year after it was shuttered. Had the owners drained the tank and pipes, different story.

Same owners who removed the guard and turned off the heat of the book cadillac in the late 90's or early 2000's. Up to that point, much of the interior was intact, along with the windows and copper roof. Would have saved millions had the guard been kept. Demolition by neglect. Private owners get ticketed and fined for this.

Hudsons was demolished in 1998. Site is still vacant 11 years later. Took 40 years to build on the Kerns block after Kern's was demolished in 1960. Monroe Block's been empty for 30 years. Tuller site, 25 years. Tear down the Lafayette building and it will probably be empty for 10 - 40 years based on those statistics.

[McIPor]

Does the city have much better uses for the more than $1.4 million it would spend to mothball the Lafayette Building?

According to this weeks Free press, Mayor Bing is looking for $20 million to keep the city from going bankrupt. That would be a much better use of the $1.4 million in my book. Charleston great architecture was saved because of the poverty there after the civil war to the 1970's. Luckily, they couldn't afford to tear down or build new buildings, so now it's one of the only colonial cities in the country still intact.

Let Dennis Kafalonos buy the building. He could do a facade improvement, and occupy the first 2-3 floors. At least he keeps the heat and lights on in his buildings. More then we can say for city owned properties.

The value of The lafayette building is the terra cotta and limestone facade, stone lobbies and the cultural history. No new building that might be built someday will ever match the quality of that. I'd much rather look out the windows of the Book Cadillac at that then the cheesy Holiday Inn, bad ATT, McNamara Federal building or the side of the Griswold parking structure any day!. Not to mention once the lafayette building is gone, the view will be across Lafayette to another uglyass parking structure. Nice views for upscale living