Lafayette Building's top two floors subsiding?

[EastSider]

Sounds like you just choked.

Once again, you throw in a useless post that offers no value whatsoever or is relevant to this thread. It's gettting really lame. All you do is cut and paste a bunch of comebacks you googled or jump up and down in your skirt cheerleading to try to seek approval from people when all you're really doing is making an ass of yourself You're a phoney. Quit trying so hard to fit in. Get a spine and debate the merits instead of wasting everyone's time with this irrelevant bullsh-it.

Wow, did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed or something? I haven't seen you offer any great analysis to threads, so what gives with jumping all over Kraig? Are you upset that he's criticizing ghettopalmetto?

[PQZ]

I'm sorry. I didn't realize that buildings performed and behaved differently based on geographic location.

If you are unaware of the fact that rents and costs vary from market to market, you have missed out on a very basic part of economics and development financing - and that would explain your rather startling inability to understand even the simple concepts discussed here.

[PQZ]

Isn't the overarching issue whether a rehabbed building could be supported by its market? I think so. Once you battle through the dust-up over whether the DEGC operates above-board or stays true to its private nature, if the Lafayette were renovated, restored or redone in some fashion, the owner would have to have income to pay the taxes, loans and other costs.

Eastside nails it.

Yes, that is the overarching issue and the answer is no, the market cannot support a rehabbed Lafayette building. The income is not sufficient to cover loans for the building, even after you add in the state & federal tax credits and the local tax abatements.

Please understand that in order for almost any rehab to work in the Detroit market it needs to have an Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Abatement applied to it for a period of at least ten years - usually its twelve years. That means the building is taxed on it pre-improvement value, not the value of the building afterwards. So yes, taxes do eventually come - twelve years after the rehabilitation.

What strikes me is that the presumption on this board is that all buildings can be rehabbed and make fiscal sense. This is simply not true.

The Detroit developer community and the people charged by the City to do economic development have a strong rack record of creative financing to make rehabilitation happen. The Book Cadillac stands out as a sterling example of this.

When the development community, private and public, takes a run at a building and can't find a way to make it happen despite their many many decades of combined experience and track record of many more rehabs than demos - the reaction on this forum is to assume that the development community has no clue what they are doing and that they are evil people with no vision prone to nefarious activity.

Lip-service is given along the lines of "Oh, I'm not person who things every building could and should be saved..." but the reactions here prove that to be a lie.

[Rocko]

So, to echo an earlier post, has any progress on this deal or changes been made regarding the Lafayette?

[Detroitnerd]

The decision has been made, Rocko. We just won't get to know about it until the wrecking ball starts swinging. Unless we file a FOIA, and maybe even then we won't be able to learn anything. They have this whole thing sewn up so tight you can't even peep it.

[Novine]

"Yes, that is the overarching issue and the answer is no, the market cannot support a rehabbed Lafayette building. The income is not sufficient to cover loans for the building, even after you add in the state & federal tax credits and the local tax abatements."

Once again, this is the justification for knocking down any and every vacant building downtown. We realize there's not currently a market for that space. That's why even the most optimistic discussion for the building has talked about mothballing most of the building. If you believe that this is the "overarching issue", you'll defend the demolition of any building because what's true for the Lafayette is going to be true for any building downtown.

[Lorax]

What hasn't been addressed is the costs of doing business in downtown Detroit, principally the rents still out of line with what other costs are. Not one storefront downtown is worth more than 500/800 bucks a month with the other costs such as insurance, utilities, employees, etc. I doubt you could find a storefront downtown for that price, unless it's less than 1000 square feet.

I have shown the plight of the Lafayette to an architect friend here in Florida, and his contention is that mothballing the building is infinitely less expensive than demolition. His suggestion is to ignore the roof for the moment, and have a type of building "shrinkwrap" stretched over the roof, much like the Rosa Parks Transit canopy, and cinder block in the window openings. That's it. This can be done for less than half the cost of demolition. One day Detroit will need additional space downtown, and until a developer can be found, and Detroit gets it's act together, the building will remain.

Demolishing the Lafayette is not only a mistake in punching a hole in the streetscape, but adds to the emptiness which will only continue to drive away any business looking to locate downtown. Regardless of what others on this thread say about the economics of rehab versus demolition, another empty lot downtown only adds to the decline of the city. Period.

[kraig]

What hasn't been addressed is the costs of doing business in downtown Detroit, principally the rents still out of line with what other costs are. Not one storefront downtown is worth more than 500/800 bucks a month with the other costs such as insurance, utilities, employees, etc. I doubt you could find a storefront downtown for that price, unless it's less than 1000 square feet.

I have shown the plight of the Lafayette to an architect friend here in Florida, and his contention is that mothballing the building is infinitely less expensive than demolition. His suggestion is to ignore the roof for the moment, and have a type of building "shrinkwrap" stretched over the roof, much like the Rosa Parks Transit canopy, and cinder block in the window openings. That's it. This can be done for less than half the cost of demolition. One day Detroit will need additional space downtown, and until a developer can be found, and Detroit gets it's act together, the building will remain.

Demolishing the Lafayette is not only a mistake in punching a hole in the streetscape, but adds to the emptiness which will only continue to drive away any business looking to locate downtown. Regardless of what others on this thread say about the economics of rehab versus demolition, another empty lot downtown only adds to the decline of the city. Period.

The Rosa Parks canopy cost 5.5 million. That's almost four times as much as demolition.

[Lorax]

The Rosa Parks canopy cost 5.5 million. That's almost four times as much as demolition.

That wasn't the kind of canopy I was talking about, which I thought was fairly obvious.

There is a tarpaulin material, like shrinkwrap, which could be used to stretch over the roof of the Lafayette, and it would still be half the cost of demolition, according to the architect I know.

[PQZ]

That wasn't the kind of canopy I was talking about, which I thought was fairly obvious.

There is a tarpaulin material, like shrinkwrap, which could be used to stretch over the roof of the Lafayette, and it would still be half the cost of demolition, according to the architect I know.

While the tarp and its installation may or may not initially be less expensive than demolition, annual inspections and repairs will quickly drain costs savings.

The effort to adress 1,500+ windows is more than just the cost of acouple dozen cinderblock per window.

Each window has to be removed and disposed of, each window opening has to be inspected and repaired, if necessary, to support the substantial weight of the cinderblock. [Given the much higher weight of cinderblock over glass, it may not even be feasible]

How do you get the cinder block and the workers up there? Rig swing stages? Probably not going to be able to find a man lift that would be
effective much past the eight or ninth floor.

If you have workers inside the building doing that much work, you may be forced to conduct a site cleanup to remove friable asbestos and other contaminants.

Sorry Charlie, your architect is either telling you what you want to hear or is woefully misinformed if he thinks the building can be adequately mothballed for less than the cost of demolition.

Heres some math, if it cost $90,000 to plywood 200 broken windows at the Metropolitan, thats a unit cost of $450 per window. Estimating 1,400 wondows at the Lafayette brings us a total of $675,000 for just the windows - first time installation costs. Plywood will last you a few years and will continue to leak like a seive. After 5- 6 years, you get to come back replace most if not all of them. So within six years, the plywood alone is the cost of demo and we haven't even begun to adequately mothball the building or address the roof...

[EastSider]

That wasn't the kind of canopy I was talking about, which I thought was fairly obvious.

There is a tarpaulin material, like shrinkwrap, which could be used to stretch over the roof of the Lafayette, and it would still be half the cost of demolition, according to the architect I know.

So you want a building condom?

Practice safe development! Wrap it before you whack it!

[PQZ]

"Yes, that is the overarching issue and the answer is no, the market cannot support a rehabbed Lafayette building. The income is not sufficient to cover loans for the building, even after you add in the state & federal tax credits and the local tax abatements."

Once again, this is the justification for knocking down any and every vacant building downtown. We realize there's not currently a market for that space. That's why even the most optimistic discussion for the building has talked about mothballing most of the building. If you believe that this is the "overarching issue", you'll defend the demolition of any building because what's true for the Lafayette is going to be true for any building downtown.

The nuance here is that not every building costs the same to rehab or commands the same rents. "Market" has many components - price, size, location, view, amenities. There is no evidence that the Lafayette could be competitive on any of these components, especially given the enormous costs for rehab.

There are plenty of buildings in the downtown whose physical condition are such that rehab costs are lower than the Lafayette and have better amenities such as attached or nearby parking that the Lafayette does not. The Kales, Iodent, Merchant's Row and Lofts of Woodward spring immediately to mind.

The Griswold building the DDA is about to purchase is another prime example. It is in far better shape and will cost much less per foot than the Lafayette to rehab. I am going to hazard a guess that the new Book Cadillac Parking deck will somehow be utilized. There is a market for that building, there is not a market for the Lafayette.

Instead of stark black and white, there are many shades of grey when it comes to the development game.

[Lorax]

While the tarp and its installation may or may not initially be less expensive than demolition, annual inspections and repairs will quickly drain costs savings.

The effort to adress 1,500+ windows is more than just the cost of acouple dozen cinderblock per window.

Each window has to be removed and disposed of, each window opening has to be inspected and repaired, if necessary, to support the substantial weight of the cinderblock. [Given the much higher weight of cinderblock over glass, it may not even be feasible]

How do you get the cinder block and the workers up there? Rig swing stages? Probably not going to be able to find a man lift that would be
effective much past the eight or ninth floor.

If you have workers inside the building doing that much work, you may be forced to conduct a site cleanup to remove friable asbestos and other contaminants.

Sorry Charlie, your architect is either telling you what you want to hear or is woefully misinformed if he thinks the building can be adequately mothballed for less than the cost of demolition.

Heres some math, if it cost $90,000 to plywood 200 broken windows at the Metropolitan, thats a unit cost of $450 per window. Estimating 1,400 wondows at the Lafayette brings us a total of $675,000 for just the windows - first time installation costs. Plywood will last you a few years and will continue to leak like a seive. After 5- 6 years, you get to come back replace most if not all of them. So within six years, the plywood alone is the cost of demo and we haven't even begun to adequately mothball the building or address the roof...

This architect friend has done this sort of work for buildings in other cities as adjunct to new construction, and has said that based on the figures we saw for demolishing the Lafayette, mothballing would be roughly half.

Not all windows would probably be secured, if they hadn't been breached- the lower floors obviously would to prevent access.

I think I would trust the opinion of someone who's done this before, and to much larger buildings as well.

Also, where do you get your costs of plywood from? Seems really high, since the last time I bought plywood it wasn't nearly that expensive, and in quantity it would be even less. For 450.00 per window, you could get new windows installed.

[PQZ]

This architect friend has done this sort of work for buildings in other cities as adjunct to new construction, and has said that based on the figures we saw for demolishing the Lafayette, mothballing would be roughly half.

Not all windows would probably be secured, if they hadn't been breached- the lower floors obviously would to prevent access.

I think I would trust the opinion of someone who's done this before, and to much larger buildings as well.

Also, where do you get your costs of plywood from? Seems really high, since the last time I bought plywood it wasn't nearly that expensive, and in quantity it would be even less. For 450.00 per window, you could get new windows installed.

In the spring of 2005, I solicited public bids to do emergecy board up and very limited mothballing activity at the Metropolitan building. The $450.00 per window figure was from the lowest bid price to perform the work on approximately 200 windows. As I clearly noted in the previous post, the cost is not just the plywood. There are many other cost factors.

1. You can't reach all the windows with a man lift, so you would need to rig swing stages. Start at $30,000 MINIMUM for rigging and mobilization - more likely the cost goes well north of $50,000.

2. You have to close sidewalks, properly barricade them etc. so add in fencing, traffic controls, scaffolding etc. All that costs money to mobilize, install and maintain. As well as the lane closure fees charged by the city.

3. You have to pay union workers to do the work.

4. You have to dispose of the broken windows properly.

5. If the there is friable asbestos or other contaminants in the way of the crews working inside the building, you will have to take mitigation action. If you are lucky its bunny suits, negative pressure respirators, boots and then disposal of the suits.

All those go into the average cost of the windows. Which - as I pointed out - was $90,000 to do 200 windows.

That $450 cost was triangulated by the bids I received, contracted & managed on four other buildings in Detroit. I have direct experience with the costs and factors for this sort of work as managing work like that is part of what I do for a living.

All due respect to your architect friend in another state who is not familiar with the building, he is way off the mark. Additionaly your cost savings approach of only doing windows that are currently broken is irresponsible and will not solve the problem. It will result in continued damage and higher expenses in the long run as windows will continue to break and will continue to need boarding up. Do it all at once. It is far more cost effective.

So perhaps you would now like to trust the experience, not opinion, of someone who does mothballing activites for a living?

[Lorax]

So, in the case of a city-owned building, would there be costs involved with regard to the street closures, police, etc.? Does the city bill itself? Just asking.

Also, why wouldn't you seal up the windows from the inside? Any removal of broken glass could be accomplished from the inside as well. Many buildings are sealed from the inside, thus avoiding the need for scaffolding.

Asbestos wasn't even discussed, and it shouldn't be figured into any costs, since it need not be disturbed when sealing it up. Any renovation at a later date would take that into consideration.

What I was advocating for, and what my architect friend contends, is that you don't need to be so intrusive, since mothballing by his definition involves sealing up the building from illegal entry and water intrusion as primary directives.

I remember seeing a building he was working on here in Miami that was mothballed for about 3 years, and just the glass in the sash windows were removed, from the inside, and a type of heavy duty clear plastic sheeting was stretched over plywood panels cut to fit the window openings and secured with a type of bar through the wood, and anchored to the inner wall surrounding the window frame, forming almost a "T" shaped armature. There was an ingenious type of spinner that pressure fitted the panel to window frame. It makes the exterior appear like there's an ongoing, or upcoming renovation based on how it looked.

I apologize for the layperson's way of describing what I saw, but it seemed effective, and lasted well, even with the heavy rains and hurricane force winds we have here. He says there are many ways to seal up a building, many materials that can be used, depending on location. Dade county has rather stiff rules regarding windows and shutters, and his system passed code locally.

I think what you are proposing goes further than it needs to in order to preserve a building in stasis for some future renovation. When I see the condition of the David Whitney Building, or the Broderick, and neither have had the benefit of mothballing in the way you suggest, and certainly both are still considered restorable.

The United Artists has a new roof, supposedly, and still has it's original windows, some damaged, some not, so chances are, if that one gets restored with the rows of bricks missing from the piers along the street side, then the Lafayette should have a chance too.

[Detroitnerd]

Good post, Lorax!

[Detroit500]

Let's face it, this building is coming down. Ferchill wants to have the various Book Brothers buildings in pristine shape on the block [[since they're the most viable) and wants the Lafeyette to go.

[kraig]

So, in the case of a city-owned building, would there be costs involved with regard to the street closures, police, etc.? Does the city bill itself? Just asking.

Also, why wouldn't you seal up the windows from the inside? Any removal of broken glass could be accomplished from the inside as well. Many buildings are sealed from the inside, thus avoiding the need for scaffolding.

Asbestos wasn't even discussed, and it shouldn't be figured into any costs, since it need not be disturbed when sealing it up. Any renovation at a later date would take that into consideration.

What I was advocating for, and what my architect friend contends, is that you don't need to be so intrusive, since mothballing by his definition involves sealing up the building from illegal entry and water intrusion as primary directives.

I remember seeing a building he was working on here in Miami that was mothballed for about 3 years, and just the glass in the sash windows were removed, from the inside, and a type of heavy duty clear plastic sheeting was stretched over plywood panels cut to fit the window openings and secured with a type of bar through the wood, and anchored to the inner wall surrounding the window frame, forming almost a "T" shaped armature. There was an ingenious type of spinner that pressure fitted the panel to window frame. It makes the exterior appear like there's an ongoing, or upcoming renovation based on how it looked.

I apologize for the layperson's way of describing what I saw, but it seemed effective, and lasted well, even with the heavy rains and hurricane force winds we have here. He says there are many ways to seal up a building, many materials that can be used, depending on location. Dade county has rather stiff rules regarding windows and shutters, and his system passed code locally.

I think what you are proposing goes further than it needs to in order to preserve a building in stasis for some future renovation. When I see the condition of the David Whitney Building, or the Broderick, and neither have had the benefit of mothballing in the way you suggest, and certainly both are still considered restorable.

The United Artists has a new roof, supposedly, and still has it's original windows, some damaged, some not, so chances are, if that one gets restored with the rows of bricks missing from the piers along the street side, then the Lafayette should have a chance too.

What's the name and size of the building in Miami? What was the cost? What's the name of the company that did the work?

[PQZ]

So, in the case of a city-owned building, would there be costs involved with regard to the street closures, police, etc.? Does the city bill itself? Just asking.

Also, why wouldn't you seal up the windows from the inside? Any removal of broken glass could be accomplished from the inside as well. Many buildings are sealed from the inside, thus avoiding the need for scaffolding.

Asbestos wasn't even discussed, and it shouldn't be figured into any costs, since it need not be disturbed when sealing it up. Any renovation at a later date would take that into consideration.

What I was advocating for, and what my architect friend contends, is that you don't need to be so intrusive, since mothballing by his definition involves sealing up the building from illegal entry and water intrusion as primary directives.

I remember seeing a building he was working on here in Miami that was mothballed for about 3 years, and just the glass in the sash windows were removed, from the inside, and a type of heavy duty clear plastic sheeting was stretched over plywood panels cut to fit the window openings and secured with a type of bar through the wood, and anchored to the inner wall surrounding the window frame, forming almost a "T" shaped armature. There was an ingenious type of spinner that pressure fitted the panel to window frame. It makes the exterior appear like there's an ongoing, or upcoming renovation based on how it looked.

I apologize for the layperson's way of describing what I saw, but it seemed effective, and lasted well, even with the heavy rains and hurricane force winds we have here. He says there are many ways to seal up a building, many materials that can be used, depending on location. Dade county has rather stiff rules regarding windows and shutters, and his system passed code locally.

I think what you are proposing goes further than it needs to in order to preserve a building in stasis for some future renovation. When I see the condition of the David Whitney Building, or the Broderick, and neither have had the benefit of mothballing in the way you suggest, and certainly both are still considered restorable.

The United Artists has a new roof, supposedly, and still has it's original windows, some damaged, some not, so chances are, if that one gets restored with the rows of bricks missing from the piers along the street side, then the Lafayette should have a chance too.

Yes, the City will charge the DDA for street closures. The departments overseeing the closures pay for their time and staff through fees collected for such activity. They don't get any money form the general budget, they are enterprise opertations. When the window sills have been compromised screwing plywood to the inside of the frames does nothing to prevent water penetration. All you have done is install a pigeon barrier. If you want a modicum of water protection the plywood needs to be installed on the exterior of the frame. One option is to have folks on manlifts or swings stages postion the plywood and screw it in to the framing. Generally there is anoter person station inside the buidling that open the window and then attaches a 2X4 to the plywood to act as a security brace for the plywood and to help keep the seal tight.The other option is to have a three man crew working from the inside that removes all the glass from all the frames, passes the plywood out through the window and then pulls it tight against the frame with screws run to the inside of the framing. Screws run through the frame and then partially in to the plywood are not as strong as screws run through the plywood and partially into the frame.Doing it from the exterior is faster and cheaper and provides a better lasting and much more water resistant solution in the long run. In either method, you will have some work crews on the interior of the building, which is littered with friable asbestos that has fallen from the ceiling, from pipe wrap, from decaying mastics - along with very high levels of pigeon shit. It is likely that the crews working from the inside will need to have some protective gear which costs money to use and dispose of and slows crews down.And no, what I propose does not go beyond stasis. It is the bare minimum if you want to to prevent further substantive decay. The wrost would be to spend half the demo cost on a half assed mothballing that doesn't actually mothball.

[McIPor]

I would hope any aspestos, lead paint or friable materials would be removed whether the building is renovated or demolished. Does the DEGC have an environmental report regarding the hazardous materials in the building? Or is the plan to create another death cloud similar to Hudsons? If the latter, how many $ millions are they putting aside for lawsuits from the air pollution caused by the demolition?

Also, the Lafayette has parking garages on both side of it. One across Michigan, the other across lafayette. Any future tenents could walk across the street

[rjlj]

Was that a joke about parking across the street? You know people are not permitted to walk in this town.

Could you imagine the amount of progress that could be made in this city if people associated with the DEGC were actually working on deals rather than spending time posting on an internet forum?

[esp1986]

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.

Speaking of building permits, can anyone tell me where they can be found on the internet, is there a database?? If so where?? Thanks

[d.mcc]

Speaking of building permits, can anyone tell me where they can be found on the internet, is there a database?? If so where?? Thanks

The glorious city of Detroit Building and Permits website hasn't been updated since 2007...

[ghettopalmetto]

If you want a modicum of water protection the plywood needs to be installed on the exterior of the frame. One option is to have folks on manlifts or swings stages postion the plywood and screw it in to the framing.

Is Detroit suddenly in a hurricane-prone region? There's no reason plywood has to be affixed to building framing, so long as the connections are capable of resisting components-and-cladding wind loads as calculated per ASCE 7.

Screws run through the frame and then partially in to the plywood are not as strong as screws run through the plywood and partially into the frame.

Screws have the same strength regardless of how they are installed. I think you're referring to the tensile load capacity of the connection.

[d.mcc]

Is Detroit suddenly in a hurricane-prone region? There's no reason plywood has to be affixed to building framing, so long as the connections are capable of resisting components-and-cladding wind loads as calculated per ASCE 7.




Screws have the same strength regardless of how they are installed. I think you're referring to the tensile load capacity of the connection.

You sure do talk a big game