Printable View
I've said all along that the key to any revival of Downtown hinges upon the energy efficiency of it's buildings. Here's a great example of retrofitting a sky scraper for energy eficiency, the Empire State building.
http://www.popsci.com/science/articl...nic-skyscraper
Image gallery of the window retrofits:
http://www.popsci.com/technology/gal...ate-goes-green
Aren't we supposed to do this the Cass Tech way? Knock down a building that's been there for decades so we can build a "green" building -- expending 10 times the energy of simply retrofitting the old building? How we s'posed to maintain our city motto: "Tear that schitt down!"
It's a good thing to make every building more energy efficient, but what does that have to do with "reinvigorating" downtown? When i think of that concept i think of streets filled with people on a daily basis, not just when there is an event going on.
Where are these people coming from? Or going to? Empty, functionally obsolete buildings do nothing for the functionality of a city. Reinvigorating existing buildings, or, as DN said, tear that schitt down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mind field
1. Get rid of city income tax
2. Streamline regulations, make pulling permits and getting building inspections as easy as possible, make zoning rules easy and transparent as well
3. Foreclose on any properties delinquent on their property tax, auction the parcels off to the highest bidder, give the owner a two year property tax abatement if they promptly redevelop the land into a habitable commercial/industrial/residential building
You don't spur development by adding regulations and cost.
Well duh. Your original post just spoke about energy efficiency. I'm sure rehabs of large vacant structures would include upgrades of windows, insulation and other finishes to make them much more energy efficient. I still do not understand the correlation in your original post between a downtown revival and the energy efficiency of that downtown's buildings. I know energy efficiency of downtown buildings is not on the list of reasons people move into the city.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stosh
You can't see the reason why there are empty buildings downtown now? They are functionally obsolete. Fix them, fix downtown.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mind field
So you fix up buildings downtown that are "functionally obsolete" [[based on your own metric). What does that have to do with energy efficiency?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stosh
More importantly, who pays the rent for these spaces? You have to have PEOPLE to fill the buildings. The most energy efficient shell isn't going to do a damned thing.
What will it take to invigorate downtown?
Four things from a long list:
Do away with the city income tax. [[A big disincentive to locate in Detroit.)
Do away with the utility tax. [[Another unnecessary expense for a business.)
Get a handle on the crime situation. [[No matter how bad it really is, it is perceived as horrible to most folks outside of Detroit.)
Improve the overall image of Detroit, i.e: corruption, crime, third world educational system, ineffectual and uncaring city government. [[Yes, I know to improve the image you must improve the reality.)
It isn't just because our older building stock is not tip-top in energy efficiency that business do not want to locate downtown.
you do THINK so though, if youre in the Obamacamp...Quote:
You don't spur development by adding regulations and cost. http://detroityes.com/mb/images/buttons/quote.gif
i spent a very exciting 4 days in NYC over labor day...
i couldnt tell you ONE building that was 'green' but i DID see a MILLION PEOPLE down there doing all sorts of shopping and milling around as well as going to the theatre, eating, drinking, shopping, milling around. yes i repeated myself on purpose...
there MUST be something for people to do, and there MUST be someplace for the people to live. i dont think the majority of people i saw who were NOT touristy looking [[cameras and gawking about) were visiting from the suburbs, they probably LIVED nearby...
i know supermarket/grocery store was mentioned in another thread once. that would help alot...
but as mentioned, the infernal income tax is a deal breaker for many many people...
Build a new baseball stadium.....
and when that did not work
Build a new football arena...
and when that did not work
Host a Superbowl....
and when that did not work
Host an Allstar game...
and when that did not work
Host the Final Four...
and when that did not work
Host the Frozen Four...
and on and on and on...
We all know a guy here who is renovating a building in Detroit. He has been doing great work. Had to pay $1,000 permit fee to fix a building he bought from the city for $1. A crack den that was a danger to all and he decided to invest his money into making it nice.
So the permit to rehab is $1K, a full $700 more than a permit in Birmingham, but get this; the place is gutted to the studs, it is all rewired [[and inspected) but he is not allowed to insulate the outside walls until the furnace is installed.
The city is making him install a furnace and run it in an uninsulated building because they say so.
If by "many, many people" you mean "people who live in the suburbs, work in the city, and like to complain about everything Detroit does," and by "deal-breaker" you mean "they complain more about working in Detroit than they would otherwise," then yeah, pretty much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ltdave
No, not those people, he meant the 1 million plus people who have fled the city since Jerry Cavenaugh was able to get the income tax passed.
Which is relevant because NYC is so intensely anti-Obama.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ltdave
Wait. What? :confused:
Correlation/causation. What about the 250,000-odd people who fled the city before the income tax was passed?Quote:
Originally Posted by gnome
The Second Coming.....
You heard it here first. :)
Here he goes again with that ol' sustainability topic again. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Stosh
Didn't you hear? They were all down in the saltmines plotting the downfall of a once great city.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bearinabox
Be serious.
Companies pay rent for those spaces. They are the ones that pay the bills, not the "people" as you call them. Energy efficiency is a factor in deciding to locate, or relocate a company. It's a fixed cost. If you read the article, you will see that the Empire State building will save over 4 million dollars by doing that renovation, a payback of a little over 3 years. Imagine then, that a developer can rehabilitate the skyscrapers downtown, which will be able to be marketed to companies that will be "bottom line" aware in terms of energy use.Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
They are functionally obsolete as they are today. If rehabbed with a "green" focus, they can be occupied. As it is now, they never will. You have to have something that attracts the business community, something BESIDES the obvious tax credits which everyone and their brother in the country are pimping.
Just the level of inanity that I would have expected. Thanks for reinforcing my beliefs.Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitDad
Patience -- reinvigoration is coming.
More people might help.
Yes Stosh, just wright off the opposition. Stosh, I think your view that both Downtown Detroit skyscrapers and suburbia can be saved simultaneously, is a bit Pollyanna-ish.
Remember Stosh;
Quote:
If this forum was all about positives, it would be a bland and more than likely depopulated place. I know of a couple of forums that concentrate on the positives only, and are heavily moderated to keep them that way.
Quote:
Biggest problem that I've seen here is the omnipresent hipster db's that seem to think they have all the answers, but don't do squat about it.
All that was posted after Stosh called DetroitYES posters "Pollyannas", for expressing their positive views. It looks like maybe Pollyanna grew up and left someone behind...:)Quote:
Just the level of inanity that I would have expected. Thanks for reinforcing my beliefs.
[[Hoping Stosh has a sense of humor).
Downtown Detroit doesn't function like a working downtown because it isn't built like a working downtown. The whole concept of a big-city CBD is to concentrate people, or if you like to take a commodity view of people, to concentrate talent.
Detroit, as part of its whole-hearted embrace of the auto culture, began to insist [[mid last century) that we make room for all the cars people would need, even downtown. So unlike almost every other big-city downtown on Earth, in downtown Detroit parking is relatively plentiful, and cheap.
[[Quick note: anyone who would like to argue "cheap", I invite you to take your car to Detroit, Chicago, Boston or Toronto and park downtown all day. Report back with your findings.)
Having done this, and after the depression aggressively ripping out the former transit system, we built a downtown that was car-friendly and dispersed: that is, no longer a downtown at all. And then the biggest downtown "revitalization" project, the Ren Cen, was a fucking island separate from everything else, and again with a gazillion square feet of parking, further breaking up downtown.
So the fact is, Detroit hasn't any downtown whatsoever. Build one; maybe it will function like most do.
Pollyanna, if you remember the movie, was paralyzed from falling out of a tree. I guess that you can just as easily be compared to her, except that instead of losing the use of the legs, you've just lost your mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitDad
All I offered was a doable solution. You, on the other hand believe that you can simply will the city back to life. Or by a critical mass of hipsters. Pollyanna would be proud.
Edit: And of course, DD has to make up shit just to make himself feel good. Do a search for the term Pollyanna and my screen name, and see what comes up. Just this thread. DD, you are just full of it.
Edit 2: wright? Orville or Wilbur?
Edit 3: I called the FORUM Sumas wanted at the time PollyannisH. There is a semantic difference.Please learn to read to comprehend please.
Companies consist of [[get this): PEOPLE. The biggest factors influencing where a company locates are: 1) the ability to make a buck 2) the talent available in the local workforce and 3) where the CEO wants to live.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stosh
Do you have any idea what the occupancy rates are in Detroit's Class "A" office space? You're proposing to flood the market with all sorts of new square footage, at a cost of millions of dollars, and not have one prospective tenant lined up. Running electricity and heating in empty buildings doesn't exactly "save" anyone money if there isn't anyone there paying rent to even cover the capital and operating costs.
I'm not knocking the idea, per se, but as you present it, it's not unlike the Wooden Rabbit in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Let's see some follow-through in the thought process, rather than just throwing ideas at a wall to see what sticks.
It works in NY quite well, doesn't it? Would it hurt to have at least ONE thing that Detroit could claim that they have an advantage over some other city? As it is right now, I don't see any. Flooding the market? I'm talking about creating one.Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
Lost my mind indeed! Then again... you agreed with me when I said; "polar opposites don't repel each other the way you and I do".Quote:
Originally Posted by Stosh
PS: You better get your story straight. What is with all those edits? :D
It's better than the disappearing act that happens when you post most times. Here today, gone today should be your motto. As in "edited by Detroit Dad" where 3/4 of the OP is gone.Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitDad
My story IS straight. I never, ever said what you said I said. [[3 saids in one sentence!)
I said:
And I meant it.Quote:
If this forum was all about positives, it would be a bland and more than likely depopulated place. I know of a couple of forums that concentrate on the positives only, and are heavily moderated to keep them that way. You might seek them out. It would befit the polyannish, chest beating type of forum you wish.
I don't know Stosh. If you ask me, you're getting awfully defensive for a person who has his story straight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stosh
This is really the key that was lost on the original poster. If you do a quick Internet search on this subject, you will find this old DetroitYES topic concerning office vacancy rates, right at the top of the heap;
Discuss Detroit » Archives - July 2008 » Expect near-record office vacancy rates in 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
Sorry, I had to go back to this original post. These aren't solutions. Actually, upgrading buildings to meet energy standards will just balloon rents [[if even anyone is renting) and rack up more debt. While it's nice for a business to say "we occupy a LEED silver building" it's way down on the list of reasons to move into a bulding....rather....can we afford to do business in this place. I find it highly ironic you picked the story on ESB. Please read more articles on this......Quote:
Originally Posted by Stosh
Trust me, I'm all for retrofitting buildings to be energy efficient...that's part of my profession, but these clients come to us because they've already signed tenants.........yet some are still waiting for the money to come in.
Detroit already does have available modern office space, so I'm not sure building or renovating is really the solution here. I used to follow the "If you build it they will come." strategy, but seeing alot of brand new buildings boarded up during this recession has made me think otherwise.
I think alot of the solutions deal with leadership and policies rather than building anything. You first need the incentive to move your business into the downtown. What are taxes like? doing business with the city? Safety? Traffic?
It's going to be alot easier boosting your residential population first. Continue to lure people into living downtown who are willing to put up with the lack of ammenities. Hey, downtown Detroit isn't for me, but I know plenty of people who are willing to give it a shot. As you create density of downtown dwellers, businesses will follow to meet demand, beginning with more fast food places, on to fast casual, then a bank, a dry cleaner, and then eventually retail. Seems to always happen like that.
Strangely, Detroit always tries to do it different with flea markets and a high end restaurant or two, fueled by enormous subsidies. And lay off the TIFs too...IMO it's "Turn Into Failure"
Downtown Detroit is reinvigorated. Compared to 1997 when this website began with the Fabulous Ruins of Detroit tour, downtown has vastly improved. It is like day and night for the better. But, like any deep hole, it takes time to climb out and there are a lot of slips and falls. The good news is that in spite of all its disadvantages, Downtown Detroit is steadily, if hesitatingly, improving.
There are two potential bonanzas that could impact downtown Detroit with little cost. The first is a European Union style treaty with Canada that would allow the unimpeded flow of traffic across the border. This would vastly enhance tourism and make the essentially dead-end riverfront areas of Detroit and Windsor boom. Cross river traffic by pleasure boats, car bicycle and foot could boom. The waste of money consumed by delays, discouragement of travel and border guards would amount to hundreds of millions of dollars in savings every year.
A second, controversial I agree and also requiring outside legislation, would be the establishment of an Amsterdam style regulated red and green zone. The former has always been here, the latter is emerging haphazardly. The city just needs to learn how to regulate and monetize it.
A third is insurance levelization. Those who cry for the ending of taxes should instead turn their sights on this devastating private sector-originated de facto tax. The State of Michigan should be placed under one equal-everywhere rate structure. This 'tax' is more often far greater than the City of Detroit income tax.
The fourth, mentioned above, is the streamlining and expediting of the business development process. The Bing administration is showing good signs of cutting this red tape nightmare and, with the steady march to jail of the pay-to-play thieves, those would line their pockets from this process are being discouraged.
I live in Florida, within a mile of the coast. I pay through the nose for homeowners insurance because of the windstorm rider I have to pay. Should the folks in Michigan have to pay for my choice of living within a hurricane prone area of the country? In the same manner, why should the folks in out state Michigan or in other areas of the country have to pay extra for your choice of living within a fire, theft, and vandalism prone area of the country?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowell
I suppose that depends on the definition of reinvigorated. I'm looking at ways to rehabilitate large abandoned buildings in the city, not whether or not there's stadiums and restaurants. The video below is from 2008, which illustrates what I am talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowell
Nice idea, but even in the boom times, or pre 9-11, wasn't even considered. The difference between the two countries is like night and day, and Canada LIKES it that way. Their gun policies preclude any type of coming and going between the nations. Until we change, or they do, not gonna happen.Quote:
There are two potential bonanzas that could impact downtown Detroit with little cost. The first is a European Union style treaty with Canada that would allow the unimpeded flow of traffic across the border. This would vastly enhance tourism and make the essentially dead-end riverfront areas of Detroit and Windsor boom. Cross river traffic by pleasure boats, car bicycle and foot could boom. The waste of money consumed by delays, discouragement of travel and border guards would amount to hundreds of millions of dollars in savings every year.
I am not a big fan of either, but, if it works in Amsterdam, it must be a good idea.:eek:Quote:
A second, controversial I agree and also requiring outside legislation, would be the establishment of an Amsterdam style regulated red and green zone. The former has always been here, the latter is emerging haphazardly. The city just needs to learn how to regulate and monetize it.
Insurance rates are based on risk, arent they? I think that stopping the appalling crime rate in the neighborhoods would be a great first step in reducing the insurance rates charged. I don't believe that charging people more for the bad behavior of others makes any sense at all. Improve the police, improve the rates.Quote:
A third is insurance levelization. Those who cry for the ending of taxes should instead turn their sights on this devastating private sector-originated de facto tax. The State of Michigan should be placed under one equal-everywhere rate structure. This 'tax' is more often far greater than the City of Detroit income tax.
That's right, and there are lots of other little fiefdoms [[suburbs} that do the same thing, based on Detroit's bad example.Quote:
The fourth, mentioned above, is the streamlining and expediting of the business development process. The Bing administration is showing good signs of cutting this red tape nightmare and, with the steady march to jail of the pay-to-play thieves, those would line their pockets from this process are being discouraged.
We have been "reinvigorating" downtown since the 1960s, and things finally tipped about 10 years ago. It's time to think about the neighborhoods, and increasing police budgets and restoring the precincts to have more police presence throughout the neighborhoods would be a huge step in the right direction. Downtown has enough going for it now, let's worry about the rest of the city.
"Insurance rates are based on risk, arent they?"Yes, but they are more defined by who gets to undemocratically draw the [red] lines. My point is that there is should be one line, the Michigan borders, and the total amount of risk be divvied up. Why should someone who lives in a secure property in Detroit and commutes to a job in a suburb pay more than someone from that suburb who commutes to Detroit? Insurance companies use red-lining as a divide and conquer strategy allowing them to charge higher rates to everyone but getting people in lower rate areas to think "At least I am not paying as much as they are." A single rate district for the state would allow consumers to contest the insurance companies rate policies and even form consumer unions to negotiate lower rates for all of us."The difference between the two countries is like night and day, and Canada LIKES it that way."Yes many in Canada do like the separation and treaty will not affect sovereignity, but now that the requirement for Americans to have passports for reentry into the US, their tourism industry is being greatly impacted. Also the cost of delays of commerce which runs into the hundreds of millions annually is a loser for all. None of this waste exists in the European Union.
As for the countries being as different as day and night, I defy you to name any two neighboring countries who have less differences than we do. From our language, outside the Quebec, area, standard of living, dress styles, tastes, culture, our at-parity currencies and more we are almost indistinguishable. Unlike many countries of the European Union, we have not murdered millions of each other citizens in wars, have been at peace for almost two centuries and are allies in war now and in the past. If anything our mutual civility has worked against such a treaty.
A fifth, and very controversial, idea would be for the City of Detroit to 'cherry pick' Detroit -- take all the 'good' and productive areas and turn back the rest of the expensive and non-revenue generating parts to the county or state.
This is being contemplated indirectly with the current 'right-sizing' discussions but leaving the city in control of the land. It is essentially the net effect what suburbanization has done - wall off the primo areas and leave the problems to someone else.
Okay, I am not seriously proposing this, just pushing buttons as to why Detroit has to carry the vast majority of the region's problems, the high insurance rates, crime, blight, the homeless and impoverished and other problems while everyone gets to lob bombs whining how f***** up it is. It is to make a point that Detroit and downtown are disadvantaged and that should be compensated if it hopes to succeed.
Here how a cynical 'It's not our problem' gerrymandered Detroit could look.
Attachment 7575
"Get a handle on the crime situation. [[No matter how bad it really is, it is perceived as horrible to most folks outside of Detroit.)"!
DITTO! Until crime, robberies and breaking and entering go down substantially people are not going to frequent downtown businesses and business will choose to go elsewhere [[where they don't have to wrestle about permits, pay higher insurance, extra security, high taxes etc.), withstanding what is done to a given building.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC48080
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowell
Between the two examples you gave, the owner of the secure property in Detroit would be a higher risk, since his property would, statistically, have a larger chance of being broken into and robbed. The insurance for the guy that parks his car in Detroit and drives home to the suburbs is a different story. If he gets his car broken into repeatedly, his rates will go up, the rate of claims drives the cost. That's why he probably parks in a parking garage instead of the street. Are you speaking of auto or homeowners, or both? Where I live, my rates HAVE gone up a lot. I am probably paying that tax already.It is a matter of guns and crime that they are, rightfully, afraid of. Oh, and probably also hard drugs as well. When I used to go to Canada pre 9-11, that was a topic that came up a lot there with the people that I spoke with. These people were rather bitter about the influence that the USA was having on THEIR culture. And I suppose that there is some validity to that statement, if you watch CBC. It's decidedly Canadian in it's theme and culture. Also, I don't see them recinding the Canadian content rules for their media outlets. I remember when they cut out CKLW's playlist years ago. They are rightfully proud of their heritage.Quote:
"The difference between the two countries is like night and day, and Canada LIKES it that way."
Yes many in Canada do like the separation and treaty will not affect sovereignity, but now that the requirement for Americans to have passports for reentry into the US, their tourism industry is being greatly impacted. Also the cost of delays of commerce which runs into the hundreds of millions annually is a loser for all. None of this waste exists in the European Union.
As for the countries being as different as day and night, I defy you to name any two neighboring countries who have less differences than we do. From our language, outside the Quebec, area, standard of living, dress styles, tastes, culture, our at-parity currencies and more we are almost indistinguishable. Unlike many countries of the European Union, we have not murdered millions of each other citizens in wars, have been at peace for almost two centuries and are allies in war now and in the past. If anything our mutual civility has worked against such a treaty.
I do wish that we could go back to just showing driver's licences at the border too though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowell
Personally, I'd sooner give the bordering suburban cities the option of attaching the abandoned areas which Detroit no longer wants. If I were them, I'd be looking into detaching themselves from the city as well, perhaps to form their own government, or maybe to join with other entities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnome
I am sure the city wants a functioning HVAC system installed and inspected prior to closing the walls.
The ductwork needs to be up to code for sizing, balance, firestopping and the electrical power feed and the gas lines will need to be inspected prior to closing the system in the walls.
They are not saying install the HVAC and run it full bore cause we say so.
Is the rough plumbing installed and inspected too?
Let's recognize that regulating insurance in this way represents a subsidy. I think you can make a reasonable case for subsidizing people who live in poor, high-crime areas as opposed to subsidizing people who live near oceans. It doesn't appear that we need to make an effort to attract people to live near oceans. I will also point out that in fact the federal flood insurance program and FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers do subsidize people who live in flood-prone areas, even though they don't cover wind-related damage.Quote:
I live in Florida, within a mile of the coast. I pay through the nose for homeowners insurance because of the windstorm rider I have to pay. Should the folks in Michigan have to pay for my choice of living within a hurricane prone area of the country? In the same manner, why should the folks in out state Michigan or in other areas of the country have to pay extra for your choice of living within a fire, theft, and vandalism prone area of the country?
In fact, the US as a whole is a giant mass of conflicting subsidies, including those subsidies [[Federal Highway Administration, federal tax deduction on mortgage interest, federal mortgage subsidies favoring suburban development, etc.) which did so much to empty out Detroit in the first place. I would prefer a more transparent system of payments for stuff that we want to support, so that what we are actually doing would be clearer and the costs more apparent, but that isn't the system we have.