Urban Garden where the Lafayette Building once stood

[bailey]

People said that about the B-C, my friend. They said it for my entire lifetime.

You might be right. The optimists might be right. But both of you have ONE thing in common -- no one can predict the future.

Well, if the Book is a measure of success.... I'm think we should hold on the champagne. The condos had to be sold in a fire sale for half their original asking prices. The banks are circling. the developer already lost the Hilton Garden Inn. There are constant rumors about Westin pulling the flag. And Detroit's hotel market isn't exactly stellar. If the Book makes it, needs to be remembered that the deal came together because a whole lotta people and a whole lotta government money came together to make it happen. The deep pockets ...especially the government's, are tapped out. There are 40-some empty buildings in the CBD. Unless the future holds that oil is found beneath Detroit, they aren't all being redeveloped. That much I can be pretty certain of.

[j to the jeremy]

The trends suggest the lot will have much better odds for redevelopment with an abandoned building sitting on it.

True. Look at the Book Caddy, the David Whitney, the Broderick, the Fort-Shelby Hotel, Madison Bldg, etc. All of the biggest projects Downtown recently have been rehabs. All the "prime development real estate" like the Hudson's site, Rivertown, the lots around Grand Circus, Tiger Stadium, pretty much every vacant lot downtown has not been developed after a demolition. Detroit is not going to be a huge new construction market for a LONG time, so why throw away the few assets we have [[old buildings) for redevelopment?

[Detroitnerd]

If I remember correctly, this is what happened.

They said they HAD to demolish the Lafayette building because it was unsightly, and was an eyesore for guests in the B-C. [[Of course, many of these people, had they had their way before, would have demoed the B-C too!)

To mollify resistance, they discussed plans for a PARK to be built on the site of the former Lafayette. Well, a "green space" is better than nothin', right?

Then they realized they didn't have any money budgeted for a park, so they said they'd just plant some stuff.

So now, apparently, without even resources to plant turf, they want to turn it over to "urban gardening," realizing this is another buzzword to mollify people.

So, apparently, it's gross to have an aging office building for these guests at the B-C, but it's cool to have this third-world-style garden with people growing cabbages and stuff downtown? Where is the downtown "community" that will tend to this garden? Wait until they realize that they'll have to fence it off to keep the community that does live down there [[homeless) out!

In short, this is all bullshit designed to mollify people, and it apparently has never been put on a budget, planned, tasked to any body or ANYTHING. In short, it reflects perfectly Detroit's plan for downtown: Demolish it. Anything you can say, do, scheme, lie or dissemble to get another demolition job downtown, say it. "Green space," "parks," "urban gardens" -- it's all crap.

[j to the jeremy]

And while I disagreed with the destruction of the Lafayette, what is "third world" about a veggie garden? Keep it to facts because you have good arguments, you just love putting in little unwarranted jabs at shit for no reason. I know you read the article where all your "who will run the scary garden" questions were answered.

Adamo needs to be chased out of the city. We can agree on that, I think.

[bailey]

True. Look at the Book Caddy, the David Whitney, the Broderick, the Fort-Shelby Hotel, Madison Bldg, etc. All of the biggest projects Downtown recently have been rehabs. All the "prime development real estate" like the Hudson's site, Rivertown, the lots around Grand Circus, Tiger Stadium, pretty much every vacant lot downtown has not been developed after a demolition. Detroit is not going to be a huge new construction market for a LONG time, so why throw away the few assets we have [[old buildings) for redevelopment?

Except that the Broderick has barely begun...and has done this fits and starts redevelopment thing for about 15 years... and the Whitney doesn't even have financing in place... and the madison building was supposed to be done 10 years ago...Post Bar ring a bell?

Why throw away assets? For the reasons noted below by DNerd... those "saviors" of the city at the B-C didn't want to explain to guests why they have to look out their 400 a night window and see a hulking mess for the next 30 years.

[j to the jeremy]

While the Broderick has been going in fits and starts, I think we can agree that there has been NO work done at places like Hudsons or the Statler site. I never said we were a booming economy, that was sort of my point. It seems like the main argument you have is that it's easier to be impatient. If the Madison is getting a high quality renovation now, why be mad it's not the Post Bar? If the Broderick has fucking yellow chutes on it for the first time in forever, why be mad it took so long? That's hardly an argument for tearing down viable buildings.

[bailey]

While the Broderick has been going in fits and starts, I think we can agree that there has been NO work done at places like Hudsons or the Statler site. I never said we were a booming economy, that was sort of my point.

And my point is the same... we are not now, nor have we been, nor are we likely to be anytime soon in an economic environment that will support rehabbing buildings that have been left to elements for decades either. Either secure the buildings and maintain them in some fashion to prevent further decay, or tear them down. As the city has refused to hold property owners to account do the former [[or as a property owner itself held itself to that standard), the later is the inevitable result

[j to the jeremy]

I agree that they must be secured. But demolition is not inevitable. The city and DEGC make conscious choices not to hold owners accountable, because they are being pressured for big demo jobs by Adamo.

[Gistok]

Well since the Lafayette Building was not an appropriate view for the Westin Book Cadillac, how can a vegetable garden seem appropriate?

Perhaps they should add something commensurate with such a fine establishment... rather than mere peasant fodder.... imagine monied people surrounded by all that expensive finery in a hotel... looking out on common laborers tilling the fields.... unthinkable!

[bailey]

I agree that they must be secured. But demolition is not inevitable. The city and DEGC make conscious choices not to hold owners accountable, because they are being pressured for big demo jobs by Adamo.

I think that is convenient excuse. The city can not have one set of blight rules and level of enforcement for the CBD and another for everywhere else. They've tried that and lost. The city is too big and too broke to do anything to force anyone to maintain their property.

[j to the jeremy]

I think the big demo contracts for downtown should be redirected to the neighborhoods until further notice. We can have Adamo board up downtown windows, seal the buildings, and send the bill to the landlord, whatever state they may be in. Cities can do this when they establish that owners are creating blight by negligence. Hell, attach the bill to their property tax so they have to pay it. Then move out to 'hoods that really need the help. The infrastructure differences between downtown and most neighborhoods are really appalling.

The city can't have 2 separate sets of rules, but they can be creative about how they do things.

[Detroitnerd]

And while I disagreed with the destruction of the Lafayette, what is "third world" about a veggie garden?

Hmmm. Nothing? I have a veggie garden in my backyard. I am simply trying to view this through the subjective prism of anxious city fathers who worry about perceptions of out-of-towners who visit our fair city. Old building=eyesore. People tending vegetables on a downtown parcel=??? Shouldn't the parcel be worth more? You can't fool those out-of-towners as easily as you fool the local yokels.

Keep it to facts because you have good arguments, you just love putting in little unwarranted jabs at shit for no reason.

Easy now. You must admit that much of this discussion of why we demolish buildings over and over when it doesn't work hinges on SOMETHING OTHER THAN FACTS. Perceptions? Biases? Prejudices? Subjective evaluations? In fact, that's sort of the major point of my post. When the facts don't agree, something else is at work.

I know you read the article where all your "who will run the scary garden" questions were answered.

I don't think it's scary. I think it's STUPID. If you want to feed hungry Detroiters, which seems to be the reason for urban gardens going back 115 years or so to Mayor Pingree, PUT THE FUCKING GARDENS IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE PEOPLE NEED THE BASIC SERVICES THEY'RE NOT GETTING. This is a fig leaf, and a slapdash one at that.

Adamo needs to be chased out of the city. We can agree on that, I think.

Yeah. I agree. In fact, probably we agree on most stuff. I have an idea, instead of accusing me of a bad attitude, why don't you just roll out your personal, industrial-grade ball of salt when I start posting, 'kay?

[j to the jeremy]

Yeah sounds good haha it'll probably be a bong not a salt lick though

[Detroitnerd]

Yeah sounds good haha it'll probably be a bong not a salt lick though

My kind of person.

[English]

Well, if the Book is a measure of success.... I'm think we should hold on the champagne. The condos had to be sold in a fire sale for half their original asking prices. The banks are circling. the developer already lost the Hilton Garden Inn. There are constant rumors about Westin pulling the flag. And Detroit's hotel market isn't exactly stellar. If the Book makes it, needs to be remembered that the deal came together because a whole lotta people and a whole lotta government money came together to make it happen. The deep pockets ...especially the government's, are tapped out. There are 40-some empty buildings in the CBD. Unless the future holds that oil is found beneath Detroit, they aren't all being redeveloped. That much I can be pretty certain of.

Well, I guess I could have saved my pixels. I don't agree or disagree with what you say. My point was that no one can predict several decades into the future -- everyone who has tried it has failed.

[BrushStart]

The Lafayette Building should have been mothballed. No question. For what it cost to tear it down, the entire building could have been cleared of debris and new windows installed. Solar powered lights could have been put in to light the building at night. The main entrance could have been well-sealed w/o the use of plywood boards. The whole building could have been made to look acceptable from the outside. In fact, for the million or so bucks spent on its demolition, the city could have paid a night watchman to guard the building for probably a decade. The City could have then aggressively marketed the building the same way Dan Gilbert is doing. But, all we get is lame-ass excuses and a demolition company flush with money. F That.

All that said, anything, and I mean ANYTHING!!!! is better than another parking lot. An "urban garden" or a even a giant concrete wall is better than another parking lot. Anyone who thinks a parking lot is better than a garden is insane. If tourists aren't fooled by a garden, what do you suppose they think of when they see that "downtown" is simply a sea of asphalt? What other city relegates their most valuable real estate to serving as a turd farm for cars? At least a garden or a park gives the impression that we have more respect for a premium piece of land than a parking lot. It AT LEAST makes it look like we've intended it to add some palpable quality to the urban environment for the people who might live, work, and visit this forsaken place.

[Detroitnerd]

The Lafayette Building should have been mothballed. No question. For what it cost to tear it down, the entire building could have been cleared of debris and new windows installed. ...

Totally agree.

All that said, anything, and I mean ANYTHING!!!! is better than another parking lot. An "urban garden" or a even a giant concrete wall is better than another parking lot.

I guess so. But, in the framework of how the Laf fell, the proposed "park" was the "carrot" to mollify critics. I think that's part of why it leaves such a sour taste in my mouth. Also, the people who used the idea of a park as "greenwashing" for their demolition spree, then found no money for a park, fundamentally misunderstand something about urban gardens: A community usually comes together and uses vacant land for growing food, with cooperation from the city. The way they're proposing this is ass-backwards: We demolished it, now you good people come in and [[a) remediate the soil, [[b) build raised beds, [[c) purchase your own compost, [[d) probably travel downtown [[do enough people live there to take care of it?) and tend it for years, [[e) build fences so that the homeless don't eat your tomatoes, and [[f) then, pick the vegetables and drive them back to your out-of-downtown kitchen.

Um ... stupid? Yes, darn stupid. At least to my mind.

[ghettopalmetto]

Totally agree.



I guess so. But, in the framework of how the Laf fell, the proposed "park" was the "carrot" to mollify critics. I think that's part of why it leaves such a sour taste in my mouth. Also, the people who used the idea of a park as "greenwashing" for their demolition spree, then found no money for a park, fundamentally misunderstand something about urban gardens:

You mean George Jackson blatantly LIED to the community? Say it isn't so!

[iheartthed]

I guess so. But, in the framework of how the Laf fell, the proposed "park" was the "carrot" to mollify critics. I think that's part of why it leaves such a sour taste in my mouth. Also, the people who used the idea of a park as "greenwashing" for their demolition spree, then found no money for a park, fundamentally misunderstand something about urban gardens: A community usually comes together and uses vacant land for growing food, with cooperation from the city. The way they're proposing this is ass-backwards: We demolished it, now you good people come in and [[a) remediate the soil, [[b) build raised beds, [[c) purchase your own compost, [[d) probably travel downtown [[do enough people live there to take care of it?) and tend it for years, [[e) build fences so that the homeless don't eat your tomatoes, and [[f) then, pick the vegetables and drive them back to your out-of-downtown kitchen.

The DEGC is not to be bored with your details when there is good government money to funnel to demolition contractors.

[BrushStart]

I guess so. But, in the framework of how the Laf fell, the proposed "park" was the "carrot" to mollify critics. I think that's part of why it leaves such a sour taste in my mouth. Also, the people who used the idea of a park as "greenwashing" for their demolition spree, then found no money for a park, fundamentally misunderstand something about urban gardens: A community usually comes together and uses vacant land for growing food, with cooperation from the city. The way they're proposing this is ass-backwards: We demolished it, now you good people come in and [[a) remediate the soil, [[b) build raised beds, [[c) purchase your own compost, [[d) probably travel downtown [[do enough people live there to take care of it?) and tend it for years, [[e) build fences so that the homeless don't eat your tomatoes, and [[f) then, pick the vegetables and drive them back to your out-of-downtown kitchen.

Um ... stupid? Yes, darn stupid. At least to my mind.

I am totally with you in that they definitely used "greenspace" as a ruse to demolish irreplaceable architecture and historic buildings. The whole thing is a F-ing charade to line the pockets of a few crooks.

However, now that what's done is done, anything beats a parking lot. I agree, though, that a downtown garden to produce food is total nonsense. Outside of personal rooftop gardens, agriculture does not belong in a city's central business district. Period. In the neighborhoods, fine, in North Corktown, surely, but not downtown. I would much rather see that space used as an open-air market, where vendors could sell fresh produce, not grow it. Set it up like Harmonie Park/Paradise Valley, except permit vendors to use the space. Throw in a few items of plant life to make it look park-like. I mean, how productive could a garden of that size even be? How much produce will it generate and how many people will it feed versus how much effort it will take to maintain it? It doesn't make any sense...

[Hypestyles]

I think the big demo contracts for downtown should be redirected to the neighborhoods until further notice. We can have Adamo board up downtown windows, seal the buildings, and send the bill to the landlord, whatever state they may be in. Cities can do this when they establish that owners are creating blight by negligence. Hell, attach the bill to their property tax so they have to pay it. Then move out to 'hoods that really need the help. The infrastructure differences between downtown and most neighborhoods are really appalling.

The city can't have 2 separate sets of rules, but they can be creative about how they do things.

how can the demolition resources be diverted to knocking down abandoned/derelict warehouses and apartment complexes in the neighborhoods?

[Detroitnerd]

I am totally with you in that they definitely used "greenspace" as a ruse to demolish irreplaceable architecture and historic buildings. The whole thing is a F-ing charade to line the pockets of a few crooks.

However, now that what's done is done, anything beats a parking lot. I agree, though, that a downtown garden to produce food is total nonsense. Outside of personal rooftop gardens, agriculture does not belong in a city's central business district. Period. In the neighborhoods, fine, in North Corktown, surely, but not downtown. I would much rather see that space used as an open-air market, where vendors could sell fresh produce, not grow it. Set it up like Harmonie Park/Paradise Valley, except permit vendors to use the space. Throw in a few items of plant life to make it look park-like. I mean, how productive could a garden of that size even be? How much produce will it generate and how many people will it feed versus how much effort it will take to maintain it? It doesn't make any sense...

That's actually a good idea. After all, Eastern Market used to be in Cadillac Square, right? And they moved it because downtown was too congested for that use anymore. So since downtown isn't so congested ...

[bailey]

...It doesn't make any sense...

should probably replace "Speramus Meliora; Resurget Cineribus" as Detroit's motto.

[Detroitnerd]

"That don't make no sense."

[BrushStart]

That's actually a good idea. After all, Eastern Market used to be in Cadillac Square, right? And they moved it because downtown was too congested for that use anymore. So since downtown isn't so congested ...

Thanks... wish I could say, "That's why they pay me the big bucks..." But, really, EM is soooo crowded these days that another market would help alleviate some of the congestion and stress of shopping there. With every "Kurt & Sue" from the 'burbs coming down to EM on Saturdays, it gets a little annoying. I welcome them with open arms, but I don't think the people with fanny packs and cameras understand that, for people in city, EM is our grocery store. I'll be trying to get all my shopping done in under an hour and folks are leisurely strolling around, drinking coffees and stopping to take pictures in front of the cucumber stand. I don't mind that people want to come down to EM just for the experience and to buy a bag of pistachios, but honestly, the congestion at EM has hit critical mass. I'd love an open-air market downtown to avoid all of that.