Lafayette Building's top two floors subsiding?

[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?

[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.

[Detroitnerd]

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

Independently conducted?

Publicly available to any layman?

Relatively free of jargon?

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.

And they were available to the public as soon as they were done? How were they made available to the public? Can you please direct me to a link or source where I can find similar information for the Lafayette Building right now?

[EastSider]

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.

That's horseshit, pure and simple. By the time it gets back to the DDA for "discussion" the issue has already been decided. One of the specific reasons for a private entity like the DEGC is its ability to work out of the public eye.

But I still agree with you that the DEGC needs to advance a more comprehensive, core-of-the-city-wide, plan for renovation/demolition and not look at each project as an island unto itself.

[PQZ]

That's horseshit, pure and simple. By the time it gets back to the DDA for "discussion" the issue has already been decided. One of the specific reasons for a private entity like the DEGC is its ability to work out of the public eye.

But I still agree with you that the DEGC needs to advance a more comprehensive, core-of-the-city-wide, plan for renovation/demolition and not look at each project as an island unto itself.

And your assertion is the horseshit of a lazy conspiracy theorist. Yes, broad outlines of deals are discussed by DEGC and then when the appropriate level of detail is reached is sent to the specific agency [DDA, EDC, NDC, DBRA, TIFA] for public discussion and public approval. It is far more common than you think for DDA board members to defer approval of projects while they direct staff to make adjustments.

In the case of EDC, NDC, DBRA and TIFA, there are two public comment periods and a public hearing prior to Board approval. The projects then go to Council where there is another public comment period and another public hearing. This process is valuable and often Council actions and public comments will influence the outcome of the projects or in some cases, scrap the entire project. DBRA and TIFA projects fo course have a third layer of public comment periods and hearings at the state level.

But people are too lazy to pay attention and too lazy to attend meetings. The complete absence of FOBC at a total of nine publicly advertised DBRA and HDC public meetings regarding the Book Cadillac speaks volumes about the handwringers of Detroit. They couldn't even show up to voice support for a project they claim would not have happened without them. And I know they know about them because the notices were posted on this very forum and FOBC membership discussed them on this very forum....and never showed up at a meeting.

[EastSider]

And your assertion is the horseshit of a lazy conspiracy theorist.

The reason for the DEGC's existence, why the mayor supported the creation of it in the first place was to get development decisions out of the public realm by exploiting its non-public nature.

[buildingsofdetroit]

Has anyone heard whether Dennis Kefallinos is making any progress buying the Lafayette?

[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.