We have another building under the threat of demolition in downtown Detroit.
Fort Shelby Residential LLC wants to tear down the building on Fort St. for more parking.
https://www.change.org/p/fort-shelby...YZYKd9nnhEU8hQ
Printable View
We have another building under the threat of demolition in downtown Detroit.
Fort Shelby Residential LLC wants to tear down the building on Fort St. for more parking.
https://www.change.org/p/fort-shelby...YZYKd9nnhEU8hQ
So rehabbing the existing building would be great. Where will they get more parking? If you can fix that problem it will be easier to convince them to not tear down the building.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zads07
Tearing down the building should be criminal. They own the empty lot next to the building on the corner of 1st and Fort St. Build a garage there, problem solved.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBMcB
Looks like they would be lucky to get 50 more surface spots on the building footprint. Are they trying to save money by not building or do they want the space for one big garage?
JC....enough with the damn parking! There should be zoning in the CBD to only allow for new parking if a new building that will be occupied by commercial or residential of greater size is attached to the property!!
There's only two buildings left on that block: the Fort Shelby and the one in question. The rest is surface parking. There's PLENTY of nearby garages and surface lots hotel guests could use, and if they're too far they can use a shuttle or valet. They could also build 2 garages on the 3 surface lots sharing the block with the hotel and the Saturday Night building. There's no reason for us to lose more of our old building stock after the obscene amount we've already lost for grass lots and parking lots.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBMcB
Agreed, I signed the petition.Quote:
Originally Posted by NSortzi
I can't believe this was even proposed. Sheesh. So ignorant.
https://www.freep.com/in-depth/money...rs/1980619002/
Interesting article with a map of who owns every parking lot downtown.
And I guess a modest parking structure on the corner of 1st & Fort never entered their minds, nor did moving the structure elsewhere? SMH~!
Can't get the petition link to work. It shows 0 signatures.
I stayed at the Doubletree Fort Shelby last summer. The place is nearly surrounded by surface lots. Why do they need another?
The link seems to be working fine for me. Just about 1000 signatures!Quote:
Originally Posted by kathy2trips
I agree with everyone here that it would be best in OUR interests that this building be renovated. Problem is that we don't own it, and in society we can't tell people who own things what they can do with it. If it was financially satisfying, I'm sure they would have renovated it by now.....which brings the question, CAN it be renovated. I'll admit, I know very little about the building but sometimes if a place has been vacant and uncared for for too long, it can't be renovated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zads07
Yes, they should have torn down the Shelby, Book Cadillac, Penobscot, David Whitney, Book, Broderick and all those other buildings that sat empty for years! After all, real estate markets never change.Quote:
Originally Posted by jerrytimes
I believe it was vacated fairly recently, possibly within the last year. It seems to be in good reusable condition. The parking lot on Lafayette and Second was for sale over last summer and fall. If parking was an issue then, which I'd assume it was, they should have bought that lot. There could very easily be a garage built on Second from Fort to Lafayette that would be directly attached to the Fort Shelby. I know the public doesn't get to decide these things, but we can still influence it.Quote:
Originally Posted by jerrytimes
Slightly off topic, but the small building that formerly housed Wala Detroit on Washington and W. Lafayette was torn down last week and now there's about 15 parking spots there. This makes the Holiday Inn Express the last building on that block.
This is completely incorrect. I keep reading stuff like this, and maybe this is some sort of libertarian ideal. But in the real world there are all kinds of restrictions on what people can and cannot build, or can and cannot tear down, on their property, from building codes to zoning laws to historic designation, etc. There are literally decades and decades of laws and court decisions on what rights state and local governments have over land use, building law, and property ownership.Quote:
Originally Posted by jerrytimes
Surface parking is a land speculators wet dream. Low investment, guaranteed income, low running costs and you bank on land appreciation.
I don’t blame the owner for deciding to do this. I’m sure based on the current conditions, thier financial evaluation and risk assessment has drawn this conclusion. Would unlikely be the same conclusion in just about any other major downtown but it just goes to show how cheap Detroit still is. That’s a positive to all future land speculators looking to park capital in a growing city.
Their data is more than 3 years old though so don't put much stock into it.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrChrome
Yeah, I'm pretty baffled that people are unaware of how it works in other cities. You wouldn't be able to tear down a building for a parking lot in much of New York even if you wanted.Quote:
Originally Posted by EastsideAl
Ok.....well is that the case in this situation? If not, then they can do what they want.Quote:
Originally Posted by EastsideAl
It’s also pretty obvious that NYC land is worth more to build up on than to park cars on.Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
Yes, they can do what they want. But they should not be able to tear it down for parking. That's why there is a petition. It's why there is a meeting and they have to go through an HDC meeting just to make sure they can get approval for it. So, really, they can't do all that they want, until it's approved. I truly hope it's denied at the meeting and that the petition works.Quote:
Originally Posted by jerrytimes
Well, we just got more surface parking this week. Wa-la at Washington/Lafayette was demo'ed and it's already more surface parking. The building wasn't historically significant, but it was a functioning business and is now just more wasted land. Frustrating.
Hence why I said "even if you wanted."Quote:
Originally Posted by SammyS
But cities obviously put in these policies to protect from this exact thing.
Designed by Smith, Hinchman & Grylls. Detroit Saturday Night Building, 550 West Fort Street built in 1914 Downtown, Detroit, MI. Includes an image of the building from a 1916 issue of the Western Architect.
Detroit Saturday Night would move to 1959 East Jefferson Avenue in 1929.
You're right no one Parks cars on a surface lot in NYC.Quote:
Originally Posted by SammyS
Attachment 37086Attachment 37087
I love this line of "argument". Yes, it's possible to find a parking lot in NYC. No, they aren't remotely common.Quote:
Originally Posted by gumby
No one claimed there isn't one parking spot in NYC. New parking has essentially been banned in Manhattan since the early 70's. There are very few surface parking lots left in NYC [[which I'm sure you discovered as you desperately searched to find a surface lot).
Also, a tower is going up in the first pic posted, so it was just a temporary lot as the site was being assembled. The second pic shows a narrow lot that will probably be developed with a sliver hotel, which is the norm for those types of sites.
There's surface parking in Shelby Township and surface parking in Hong Kong. Therefore Shelby Township = Hong Kong. Great "argument" there.
Yes, someone did claim that land was so expensive in NYC that they do not waste it on surface parking, read the quote I included in my post. Get out of here with your know-it-all attitude.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
Which is absolutely true. Land in NYC is too valuable to waste on surface parking.Quote:
Originally Posted by gumby
What don't you understand? That quote has nothing to do with your claim. It doesn't mean "there isn't a single parking spot in existence", obviously. Some spots exist, for various reasons [[outdated zoning mandates in fringe areas or interim uses for development assemblages, mostly).
And that isn't my point either, it isn't my fault that you added word into what I said. You are a pompous ass who just loves to hear yourself talk.
Getting back on topic, please people sign the petition and save this building
The city should be imposing a land value tax on lots 20-25% on accessory parking and standalone lots. Downtowns are for businesses, offices, hotels, and residential buildings. Detroit has a parking problem....there are too many lots and garages
Agreed, the land value is not the issue here, greater downtown property is very valuable. The problem is you have slumlords who sit on property and don't have to do anything to keep making easy money.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolverine
The city should be taking it's fair share of that parking lot revenue and discourage this wasteful use of space.
So, more taxes? Bigger Government? Tighter regulations? Less business friendly?
In a word, yes. "Business friendly" doesn't have to mean letting them do whatever they freaking want to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meddle
Letting companies big and small sit on vacant lots downtown scott free is NOT helping the kind of business the city needs. Tax the hell out of surface parking lots and incentivize the owners to build up or sell to someone who will.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meddle
I don't see the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meddle
Disincentivize bad behavior; don't reward it.
Why would the city want to be "Business friendly" to surface lot owners?
Update from today. It's implied that since Moten fixed up the Ft. Shelby, he wants a free pass on this one. Getting pretty tired of the conventional wisdom that we should accept at least one historic building demolished in exchange for each one fixed up. Why can't he build a one level ramp in the lot he already has, fix up Det Saturday Night, and make money from both structures?
https://www.freep.com/story/news/loc...ht/2265624002/
Yeah, it's a ridiculous argument for Moten or anyone else to make. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the WBC developer helped push the city to demo the Lafayette Building since it was an eyesore from his structure. Absurd.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burnsie
The area around the WBC drives me nuts. The Lafayette Building would undoubtedly be a beautiful, rehabbed building by now. Right across Shelby was a nice 2-3 story historic building that was demo'ed about six years ago for a parking lot by the Penobscot owner. And now, just a couple weeks ago, WaLa [[admittedly not historic) was demo'ed for a parking lot.
Could be a vibrant few blocks...now just an utter wasteland.
Not surprisingly the last night the HDC recommed saving the building. If you were wondering exactly how spaces this would create 22. That's right this only way he can come up with for 22 parking spaces to sell condos.
https://www.freep.com/story/news/loc...ct/2293566002/
This guy has a good track record, but tearing down a building for 22 PARKING SPACES should be criminal. Not just a building, but a solid building that can be rehabbed quickly.
Detroit DOES NOT NEED MORE PARKING. If he has the money, build a freaking ramp on your other parking lot. Absolutely ridiculous to even suggest a demolition for a parking lot with the amount of rehabs in the city now.
Is the city requiring them to provide x amount of parking spaces per unit?
No the city isn't. He already passed that barrier when he got the original development approved. The buyers of the condos are requiring it. I wouldn't buy a downtown Detroit condo without dedicated parking. It's still Detroit. It's Public transit still sucks. You still need a car to get where you need to go.Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard
The building is saved! Well done to all who put in their two cents to help preserve this historic building.
https://www.facebook.com/Preservatio...type=3&theater
From the link above:
"Safe for now!
Detroit Saturday Night Building
Thanks to your comments to city council and your petition signatures, the Detroit Saturday Night building is safe! The owner, Emmett Moten, and city government are working to find an alternative use for the building, but we have received word from the city that they do not intend to allow demolition to the building. Thank you for your advocacy!"
Praise the lord, it would have been so dumb to take down one of the last remaining extremely old buildings on fort street. I guess city council does listen sometimes after all.
It's back on the docket for demolition.
https://www.facebook.com/HistoricDet...type=3&theater
From Historic Detroit Facebook
"URGENT preservation advocacy call to action: We thought the Detroit Saturday Night Building was spared. We were wrong.
The demolition issue is back before the City Council's Planning & Economic Development Committee at 10 a.m. tomorrow. If you can turn out to testify, please do!"
This Emmett Moten dude is really a piece of trash. It's like these old goons really want to destroy as much as they can before they kick the bucket.
I live in the Fort Shelby building, and we received an email today that demolition is starting this week...they've got the construction equipment in place and the adjacent back lot is closed off...too bad this couldn't be saved
^ it has to be approved, how about you fight it? voice your outrage? Why do you want to live surrounded by empty lots?
This is ridiculous. This owner is awful.Quote:
Originally Posted by KnnNike
Read the 2008 article from Crains about Moten.
It's almost humorous, that much scum in a human body.
Almost every deal and almost very person mentioned in the Crains article, that Moten has dealt with or been apart of in the past, we now know to be scandalous and complete garbage. I wont rehash the development deals or the names, read the 2008 article. Of course, all of players and deals seemed great at the time they took place, but we now now, the dirty details and negative effects theyve had on the city, not withstanding how many hundred of millions of dollars were ill gotten gains on these deals.
This guy makes the current fleecers of the city look like choir boys. Of course, those names are all in the Crains article too.
https://www.crainsdetroit.com/articl...ime-developers
"Can do Moten."
More like can steal and bribe everyone Moten!
One good guy in the Crains article on Moten - Chuck Forbes. And of course, he got screwed by Moten, the Illitches and the city.
Update, the Detroit City Council Planning and Economic Committee voted for an interim historic district status for the building but we're not really out of the woods yet since BSEED granted a demo permit.
Yes! So the demo permit is issued, but interim status allows it to be on the docket at the DHDC for potential historic district status?Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro25
Moten is wasting no time pulling an Ilitch. I hope the city will stop him before its too late. This city has lost too many historic buildings. There is no reason, when we have 24 miles of vacant land, to lose another for a surface parking lot.
Attachment 39024
The far west side of downtown is basically a glorified office park with every SINGLE building having its own surface parking lot or parking structure. This is sad that this guy thinks this is how a big city downtown should function and look like.
NO WAY!! save that building.
Do we start the pool on when it's coming down. I'll put in a bet for 9:00am Saturday.
https://detroit.curbed.com/2019/10/2...wntown-detroit
Funny how these buildings survived all these years not dependent on parking,even through the massive auto age,now all of the sudden they cannot survive without parking even when the future points to less parking is going to be needed.
What a building to destroy for a lousy 12 spaces,not a very good trade off.
How about lets never ever give pension money to scammers ever again.
They're tearing down that building for only 12 parking spots !?
What a travesty !
What is wrong with those people down at city hall ? they'll allow almost anyone who owns a build to demo it for parking spots.
We have learn anything in 50 years SAD
Sadly, the building will be torn down.
This is ridiculous tearing down a perfectly fine building, for TWELVE PARKING SPOTS.
It does not add up,project was funded as a viable project without the parking,then it becomes not a viable project without the parking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro25
Unless the original plan was based on the demolition from the start.
This is infuriating news. Honestly, I'm disgusted with Moten and city government. It seems to me that renovating the building into residential and retail and constructing a new garage on one or two of the lots Moten already owns on the block would make more sense as it would make Moten more money. He could also rent retail space in the new garage as well as rent out parking spaces to downtown employees. And, if he wanted to, a car rental business, gas station or car wash could go in the garage too.
But in typical Detroit fashion, the easy, shortsighted and plainly ignorant option is the one chosen. This is a scar on downtown's revitalization and an embarrassment to the city of Detroit.
Apparently this will be a hard demo since there's live wires and the basement is flooded. I hope there will be protests at least.
It seems most of the time council votes in favor of historical status like when they saved that huge crop of buildings in cass corridor. But now they're suddenly blinded by pension money in a landslide vote? WTF? I want to know who voted against it. Is James Tate the only council member who voted for the historic designation? So he's our only good guy. Wow, just wow.
Every bit of this is so shady, why now suddenly? Why can't he build a garage? Why cant he just make a deal that allows residents to park in a nearby garage? Like there are so many options.
So many back door dealings done and property given to con men back in 80's an 90's that are now still screwing us over as a thanks. Fort shelby's condo problems are not parking. I hope they sit there and never sell, I certainly wont be buying one.
The entire council voted for it's demolition. The one for against was an absentee vote. I agree this off and infuriatingQuote:
Originally Posted by Metro25
That doesn't make sense, so Tate voted against it despite introducing it? How would an absentee vote count? What kind of musical chairs...Quote:
Originally Posted by Seven&wyo
And who exactly was absent?
There are 9 council members. 7 voted against the study. One voted for it. One was absent.
A council member must be present to vote.
Ah, well I just look stupid then. Thanks for the correctionQuote:
Originally Posted by ndavies
Love
I want to know exactly who was absent and who voted for what. Where is this information?
From HistoricDetroit.org
"It's not over yet! City Council will take up the proposed demolition of the historic #Detroit Saturday Night Building at its 10 a.m. meeting tomorrow at CAYMC. The Historic Commission takes it up 5:30 p.m. Wednesday. Show up and be heard! We might still be able to save this one!"
I'm so tired of this rollercoaster of emotions. Preserve historical architecture.. period. It shouldn't be more complicated than that.
You get the feeling with so many issues someone at City Council reads the paper or overhears a comment in a hallway and decides, "oh maybe this does matter. we should probably look at it again."Quote:
Originally Posted by Zads07
^ or maybe they are realizing that they are supposed to be there for the residents,at the very least they are listening.
The Detroit Saturday Night Building demolition has begun.
I hate people...Quote:
Originally Posted by Zads07