Printable View
They are tearing down the old Hotel [[Holiday Inn?) building at Woodward and I-94 by the Wayne State Campus. Does anyone know what is planned for that site?
Is a new School of Business building still in the pipeline? Also is the Woodward and Warren site all for Wayne State? I heard that a market rate apartment structure was planned for the lot off of Cass accross from Old Main.
Thank God. What an ugly bldg.
What building? There's nothing there big enough to be a Holiday Inn.
The building used to be a Michigan Dept of Corrections half way house. The address is 5801 Woodward. Wayne State bought it but I think they are just tearing it down now for safety but have no current plans for the land.
Well, so be it. It's not old enough to be architecturally significant, anyway. At some point, we'll have to start worrying about preserving midcentury buildings, but I'm not crazy about this one. Look at the way it turns a nearly blank wall on Woodward.
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=...220.53,,0,0.28
See ya! Won't be missed.
Does anyone know if Wayne State has any other demolitions for vacant lots planned, besides this and the commercial building at Woodward and Warren?
Obviously neither of these were super duper mindblowing, but I'm just curious. I used to work for an urban university that had been piecemeal tearing down this and that building around it for 25 years, the farcical result being huge swaths of green space with university logo'ed fences around them, but not much of a neighborhood to speak of. It was amazing how hard it was to find goods and services around there, given the thousands of students on site.
Oooh! I like the appartments on the opposite side of the street. But they more or less are on the prairie right now...
Image of motel from 1976:
http://tinyurl.com/5801woodward
Yeah and they tore it down fast. I drove by in mid-day and it was pretty busted up, that evening it was down. Presto!Quote:
Originally Posted by Road_warrior
Four legs good, two legs better? So something is not "architecturally significant" until it's really old? That's not the way historic preservation works. Read the historic district guidelines.
And isn't it that mentality that devastated the ranks of now-older buildings as time marched on?
"It's 1930, so we can tear down the ugly 1890s buildings. They're only 40 years old."
"It's 1970, so we can tear down the ugly 1930s buildings. They're only 40 years old."
"It's 2010, so we can tear down the ugly 1970s buildings. They're only 40 years old."
This was, after all, what led to the destruction of Old City Hall.
And when "some point" in your mind comes that we should be worried about the mid-century... is it going to be a sudden acerbic cry from you that we need to save some completely worthless mid-century building due to its "fine detailing," "quality materials," and "irreplaceable density" - when the truly significant, more redevelop-able, and better-finished examples are all long gone?
If something is worth saving, it's worth saving here and now - not when the only way of saving examples of an era is when you are down to selecting from marginal examples spared by chance from the wrecking ball. Waiting for that last minute puts you into an near no-win situation.
This former motel may not be something to save, but your comment sheds a lot on the Animal Farm-style preservationist rhetoric on DetroitYes: Victorian good, everything else disposable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitnerd
Wayne State University...a world of opportunity [[for demolition contractors, field mice, and parking lots pavers).
Seriously, we have to stop WSU before they demolish the whole city.
This is a hideous building. good ridanceQuote:
Originally Posted by Huggybear
Huggybear, I can appreciate your sensitivity to this, but I'm afraid that is all too often how historic preservation works -- on the ground. Sure, there are books with guidelines, but a lot of this rests on public taste. And it's proven time and again: The things one generation considers outdated, obsolete or old-fashioned are often embraced by the next generation. Is that something we should also buck up against? Sure. But, looking at what the wrecking ball is sweeping away right now, I'd say we'd do best to focus on the earlier stuff now, and to save our fights over the midcentury stuff. It's not being swept away left and right. And the stuff that's being demolished, like this, doesn't seem very impressive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Huggybear
And that's one of the basic tenets of preservationism: Choose your battles wisely.
I'll let those who made the comments defend their own reasoning. However, as someone who has argued for historic preservation both on Detroit YES and off, I'll simply say that my reasoning has always been consistent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Huggybear
If a structure is on the National Register of Historic Places, or is clearly eligible for inclusion, then I want it saved. Otherwise, in my opinion, it's not something that I worry about from a historic preservation standpoint.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1953
In Cleveland this is said about the Cleveland Clinic.
Why all of this discussion? He never asked about presevation of the building, just why it is being taken down now and what will replace it. Who knows it could be replaced with something that will knock your socks off like a new freeway exit! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by leady106
Third person: DetroitPlanner runs and hides!
The reason I never asked about the preservation of this particalar building is because it was a third way down when I saw it. I have an interest in all architectural styles and regret demolition of any viable structures for environmental, and financial reasons. I believe Mid-century architecture in Metro Detroit is the most underapreiacted era in our own region due to the long term adverse effect on our urban area's livability.
I am constantly disapointed in the Detroit area's lack of inative towards renovation, restoration or adaptive re-use of abandoned or underuse buildings.I like most D-yesers have the desire to change the fate of such structures, but lack the resources to do anything about it.
It was still owned by the State of Michigan and had to be maintained by the maintenance workers at my facility and was becoming a burden.The State had a chance to unload it and therefore has gotten rid of any liability issues that may have arisen should an incident have occured there.When the State closed the Center there,it should have tried to either unload it[[unlikely in this economy)and had it torn down.Finally it is gone.No more maintenance and no more liabilty issues.A win-win situation.
I noticed that too! We drove past it around noon and by six there was nothing there anymoreQuote:
Originally Posted by Zacha341