NO, Jimmy Hoffa was in the basement. All evidence had to be removed....!
Printable View
What insurance company would issue any policy for a vacant building open to the elements for 20 years [[or however long it's been) and being lived in by bums? And if this was arson, which it almost certainly was, there's no company on the planet who will pay out without a full investigation. I suspect if the owner was negligent enough to leave the building open, he's not getting a dime.
I agree...torching it was not the way to go. But you can't blame the city for wanting to tear down the rest of it. It was a safety hazard.
And you most certainly cannot compare the Book-Cadillac's renovation to the Luben Apartments...seriously. Why don't you just put the Luben in the same category as the Fort Shelby and Kales building?
Those said building were not even close to the horrible condition this place was in.
It still is a safety hazard, because its still there. Just not the good part, which was no longer on fire.
If it weren't for the risk to firefighters and others, I'd support a vigilante arsonist torching crumbling eyesores that the city can't or won't tear down.
Alright. My imaginary vigilante arsonist can have a sidekick vigilante bulldozerman. Or possibly a fleet of asbestos-abatement and deconstruction/salvage-and-demo minions. If I ever hit the Powerball, I think I'd employ a bunch of guys in vaguely-official uniforms and send them out over the city repairing street lights and broken sidewalks and taking down burned buildings and whatnot. Wait and see how long it takes anyone at City Hall to notice.
Oh, I certainly can blame the City for this one. If we follow your line of thinking, every arson scene would be demolished within hours of the fire. Investigators then have no evidence with which to conduct an investigation or prosecute the offender.
What exactly do you think is going to happen if Mayor Bing and Company continue to give blanket immunity to arsonists?
5 years ago, there would've been a whole bunch of folks in this town would've disagreed with you. A lot of people argued that there was no way it could ever be renovated. Others argued that it would likely close shortly after opening.Quote:
And you most certainly cannot compare the Book-Cadillac's renovation to the Luben Apartments...seriously.
All I'm saying is that this building was a mess to begin with, it needed to be torn down...even before the fire. The arsonists are doing us a favor. Saves for all the paper pushing to get funding to demo each and every derelict building in town. While I don't promote setting fire....if it happens it's less headache for us to deal with.
Yes it would have been nice to save the front facade...but then that would have required structural reinforcement, etc..plus..from the pictures I saw..the top was already falling apart.
God NO! I am not implying that at all...I am honestly asking your true opinion. I want to know what you would have done to keep it cost effective.
I never condone arson..all I said is it saves us paperwork... I think you took my statements too seriously.
My original point is that the most economic friendly decision was to demo the building after the fires had been sent.
So..again...what would you have proposed?
I'll just assume you have no idea what would have been an economically feasible way to handle this, other than to demo the remains.
If you think a professional like myself would approve of such things you're wrong. Like I said...I think you took my earlier statements way too seriously. Good grief.
Sorry, pal. The onus is not on me to do anything. The onus is on you to up your game and not say such stupid shit. Try deflecting if you think it will make you look any smarter. [[Hint: It doesn't.)
If you're a professional, smarten up and stop endorsing crime, fool.
Sorry Planner, but you did shoot yourself in the foot by saying "The arsonists are doing us a favor."
Even if you believe the "ends justify the means" shtick, the act of arson goes WAY beyond an "acceptable" method of dealing with blight.
I have to agree with Kahnman on this one.
Planner3357: You can't say "the arsonists are doing us a favor" and then, in your next breath, say that you don't endorse crime. Those two statements are logically inconsistent.
As for what should have happened with this building, and every other vacant building in Detroit, is for the City of Detroit to stop trying to reinvent the wheel. There are established procedures that have proven to work in other industrial cities of our size [[e.g., Indianapolis, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, etc.).
For starters, since this was in a designated historic district and the building in question was designated as a contributing structure for said district, the fact that the owner hasn't maintained the building constitutes demolition by neglect.
In most cities throughout the U.S., the local authorities respond to demolition by neglect on a proactive basis before it becomes a major problem. In Detroit, however, we do nothing for years and then essentially give the arsonists a license to torch the building.
In the case of Luben Apartments, it would appear that the City's involvement was even more direct than that given the speed with which it was demolished.
We as a community essentially have a choice to make.
- Do we continue to follow the same strategy that Planner3357 advocates, even though it has failed time and time again?
- Or do we learn from other communities and adopt strategies that work?
Personally, I'm ready to see some things happen in Detroit other than arson. For anyone else who is interested, here is an overview of how demolition by neglect works in New Orleans. It's fairly typical of what most cities throughout the U.S. do.
http://www.cityofno.com/pg-99-20-dem...y-neglect.aspx
BTW - continuing with the question of what should happen with properties like the Luben - the U.S. Conference of Mayors did a survey of how other American cities are dealing with these problems. The consistent theme in each city is being proactive with code enforcement.
None of the other cities advocated arson as a solution, as Planner does above.
Arson is a problem; not a solution.
Full report @ http://www.usmayors.org/bestpractice...operties09.pdf
It would be interesting to look into the demo contractor. There is incentive to burn off as much as possible in order to dispose of less upon demolition. I suspect they are paid by the job, not the amount they hull away.
There have been many suspicious fires, and even more suspicious rapid demolitions post burn.
While the homeless are easy targets, whole buildings don't typically go ablaze all at once, engulfing all 3 floors and burning across brick structural walls when lit accidentally.