http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...text|FRONTPAGE
So sad to see this. I was very excited for this building to be rehabbed.
Printable View
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...text|FRONTPAGE
So sad to see this. I was very excited for this building to be rehabbed.
Maybe I won't check this site for the next week.
Here's a good one. It looks like the deal is done.
http://detroit.curbed.com/archives/2014/03/abandoned-hebrew-school-will-have-25-apartments-by-2015.php
While I, too, am disappointed about the Wurlitzer, I am not entirely surprised. I am not any kind of expert, but that building gives the appearance of needing more work relative to its size than most of downtown's other renovations. Heck, even MCS gives the appearance of being structurally sound. The Wurlitzer I think looks like if you sneezed too hard nearby we might all be killed. Perhaps the would-be developers just ran the numbers and realized that they couldn't recoup. I have a feeling that Papa Joe's was essentially the same story: even if it was busy, the build-out cost makes it very hard to ever be in the black.
But it is not unusual for some projects to not go forward; I'm not too discouraged. When I was in NY, I followed developments in the neighborhoods I lived and worked in: lots of things get announced that end up not panning out. But many things still get developed. I'm going to concentrate on those things that are getting done downtown, and hope that projects like the Wurlitzer find someone who can make it work; if it can't be made to work, I would rather see it torn down than stay as is. Not necessarily tomorrow, but if in a year no one can put together a workable plan to save it, it should go.
Is there really that much to be disappointed in? A group comes in and makes an offer on the building, says nothing about their plans, in fact says nothing at all about it, then backs out on the deal. That's all that happened. Or didn't happen. I would love to see this building restored, but there was never much substance to get excited about in the first place.
Why???????Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyinBrooklyn
I don't think it's going anywhere for now. I'm just worried that when Gilbert erects his new building on the Hudson's site, he won't want that eyesore in the sight line. I know he's looked at it previously as an opportunity, but didn't have interest for the price.
I think dilapidated buildings, especially in very dense areas, cast a negative pall on the immediate area, and drive down rents/property values in surrounding buildings. Obviously dilapidated buildings can also pose safety threats and be home to vermin & pigeons.I would rather it not be torn down; but I prefer that to our discussing its prospects for renovation in 2024. It looks shabbier than just about any building in it's vicinity. I hope someone can make a go of a renovation, don't get me wrong. But one bad tooth ruins the smile. If saving it isn't realistic, tear it down. If it is, now is the time the boom is hitting downtown.Quote:
Originally Posted by downtownguy
Sorry, but I think you are wrong... the Kales Building is doing OK, even increasing rents... even though it is surrounded by empty buildings 2 buildings along W. Adams, the United Artists and the former Charlevoix Buildings...Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyinBrooklyn
As long as the building has been mothballed and there is hope, then I don't think the last unrestored building on any block should fall for that reason [[that it's still not restored).
However, that said... I think that the building should not be a safety hazard for surrounding buildings, and the city should get even tougher for the current owners...
The buildings along Grand Circus Park are part of a more open-feeling section of downtown than where the Wurlitzer is. Also, more active development is underway around there, making the Wurlitzer more and more of an anomaly. It is also, by appearance, much more run down than any other building in such a busy area. There are empty buildings, and then there are vertical train wrecks. The Wurlitzer is on the path to the latter.
I am not saying the Wurlitzer or any other building should be torn down in a hurry. But hasn't it been more than 30 years? We shouldn't wait for the 50th anniversary of abandonment to tear it down. And yes, the city should use stronger tactics to get people to make sure their buildings meet at least basic code.
When your neighbors move out, you don't need to tear down their house. But when that house is an eyesore and increasingly a danger to the neighborhood, of course the neighbors will want it torn down. Same thing here. I think the city should demand it be returned fully to code [[including with windows and working infrastructure), with work starting in 2014 and be finished by the end of 2015. If not, the city should seize it and begin the demo process. That gives it 1-2 years to be on the path to being an asset, or it would come down. I think that's reasonable for the owners and anyone who would want to redevelop it, but also provides an assurance to the neighbors that they will eventually not have an unsafe eyesore lingering there.