Urban Garden where the Lafayette Building once stood

[Al Publican]

See the thread that I just began on "Farm City."

[detmsp]

Did you ever stop to think that there wouldn't *be* an empty lot if the DEGC hadn't spent seven figures to tear down the Lafayette Building???

Did you ever stop to think that the Lafayette Building is gone and there's nothing we can do about it now? This wasn't the choice between the Lafayette and a garden. It was the choice between a vacant lot and a garden. I'll take the garden.

And for those who think this is a poor use of space, keep in mind that the garden is really just a cheap temporary thing. If someone really wants that lot to build an apartment building or whatever, the garden won't stop it from happening.

[ghettopalmetto]

Did you ever stop to think that the Lafayette Building is gone and there's nothing we can do about it now? This wasn't the choice between the Lafayette and a garden. It was the choice between a vacant lot and a garden. I'll take the garden.

Yes, the Lafayette Building is gone. When you trick yourself into thinking, however, that this was a false choice between a garden and an empty lot, you've let George Jackson--Detroit's very own Albert Speer--continue on his carte blanche ruination spree unchecked. Demolition of the Lafayette was not--NOT--inevitable. By conveniently ignoring this nontrivial fact, you're allowing the seeds to be planted for the next in what is a string of horribly expensive publicly-funded demolitions that have resulted in very little benefit for--and actually detract from--Detroit.

By persisting in this line of thinking, you'll only get more demolished buildings. I have mixed feelings about this garden. Sure, it may look decent, but I'd rather have a building on-site with the potential to generate jobs and tax revenue, and contribute to the urbanism of Detroit. On that site, a taco stand would be an improvement over a garden.

And for those who think this is a poor use of space, keep in mind that the garden is really just a cheap temporary thing. If someone really wants that lot to build an apartment building or whatever, the garden won't stop it from happening.

Sure. You know what else is temporary? The Hudson's parking garage. The landscaped lighted parking lot on the site of the Madison-Lenox. The empty Tiger Stadium site. The patch of grass known as the Kern Block, which sat undeveloped for decades. I don't think you understand--when it comes to demolition in Detroit, there is no such word as "temporary".

And "cheap"? Earth-moving vehicles are NEVER cheap. Some "community garden". There are STRUCTURES being built on that site!!! You're delusional if you think this is "cheap" and "temporary". It's just going to be another underused, overignored patch of "green space"--a whole block from Campus Martius.

I think you may be just a little naive for your own good.

[detmsp]

You have got to be kidding me. I never said that demolishing the Lafayette was inevitable! I'm very disappointed that the Lafayette is gone, but I have accepted the reality that it is! The issue we now face is what to do with an empty lot. Some people have suggested we beautify it with a garden. You on the other hand have suggested... nothing. That's right, nothing. Instead of trying to find the best solution we have to this empty lot, you'd rather we sit on our hands and complain about it.

Instead of putting your energy into poo pooing any plans for the place it once stood, why don't you put your energy into saving the next building at risk of being demolished? That might actually accomplish something, unlike your complaining about the garden.

[ghettopalmetto]

You have got to be kidding me. I never said that demolishing the Lafayette was inevitable! I'm very disappointed that the Lafayette is gone, but I have accepted the reality that it is!

Really? I believe these were your words:

This wasn't the choice between the Lafayette and a garden. It was the choice between a vacant lot and a garden.


How does this statement NOT assume the inevitability of demolition??? What about my taco stand? When did that option get ruled out? When did we rule out the possibility of selling the land, or at least making it available for development?

If someone wants to build on that site, do you know what response they'll get? "Oh, sorry--we just spent millions of dollars building a garden for transients to use as a toilet. You'll have to find another site."

The issue we now face is what to do with an empty lot. Some people have suggested we beautify it with a garden. You on the other hand have suggested... nothing. That's right, nothing. Instead of trying to find the best solution we have to this empty lot, you'd rather we sit on our hands and complain about it.

I would rather have an ugly-ass empty lot. At least that way, people will bitch and piss and moan, and start to ask why they had to spend a million and a half dollars to demolish a building when the magical impending redevelopment that Speer, er, Jackson promised did not materialize.

[Fnemecek]

I would rather have an ugly-ass empty lot. At least that way, people will bitch and piss and moan, and start to ask why they had to spend a million and a half dollars to demolish a building when the magical impending redevelopment that Speer, er, Jackson promised did not materialize.

The thing is, we really don't need to add the Lafayette Bldg. the long list of sites that are just a vacant lot but could have been more if it weren't for the DEGC. We already have:

• The vacant lot that used to be the Madison-Lennox;
• The vacant lot that used to the Tuller Hotel; and
• The vacant lot that used to be the Statler Hilton Hotel.

I won't even get into the vacant lot that used to Tiger Stadium or the old Hudson's site.

There are ample opportunities to point out that demolition does not lead to new development. If anything, the fact that the best we've managed to accomplish by demolishing historic buildings is a garden says even more than vacant lot.

[401don]

A single garden can send some sort of positive message that we're trying something new, unique and green on a downtown lot. However putting a 2nd one a block away, on Woodward no less, sends a totally different message. I still can't believe Karmonos and Gilbert think this is a good idea when they're trying to promote downtown as both a place to live and as a new high tech zone.

[j to the jeremy]

Tech and heavy industry are two separate fields. Green movements and technology should be moving hand in hand in the 21st century. [[not that I'm equating this to building solar panels in abandoned factories)

[stasu1213]

I think that a glass house for exotic plants would had been better such as the one on Belle Isle but a smaller version. What will the lot look like in the Winter. I had always thought that the spot should had been another small park where venues are held such as bands, poetry, picnic for those who are in the Book Cadillac and Holiday Inn Express. Events could had been held in the park at the same time events are held at campus martius.

[Flintoid]

Ok this is getting annoying. Here's what happened, they tried to knock down the Lafayette and we, at least almost all of us, opposed its demolition. We fought the demolition and were sad to see the building go. Just because we accept that there can still be a silver lining to a bad story does not mean that we support and accept the demolition of historic buildings. It means that we fight for what we believe in, but if we lose, we still do what we can to make Detroit a better place. ghettopalmetto, these are the facts, in the year 2011 the choice was between a vacant lot or a thriving garden. I'll choose the garden every day of the week. Don't let poor decisions of the past hamper a positive future. Protesting this garden won't bring the Lafayette back, it's just being ignorant.

[gthomas]

Ok this is getting annoying. Here's what happened, they tried to knock down the Lafayette and we, at least almost all of us, opposed its demolition. We fought the demolition and were sad to see the building go. Just because we accept that there can still be a silver lining to a bad story does not mean that we support and accept the demolition of historic buildings. It means that we fight for what we believe in, but if we lose, we still do what we can to make Detroit a better place. ghettopalmetto, these are the facts, in the year 2011 the choice was between a vacant lot or a thriving garden. I'll choose the garden every day of the week. Don't let poor decisions of the past hamper a positive future. Protesting this garden won't bring the Lafayette back, it's just being ignorant.

Thank you! Well said..this whole region need to be smacked!!! Wake up and focus on what we can do NOW and in the future. So many people so stuck on the past and can't let go! It's sad.. Thats why we're 15 yrs behind most major cities...smh! The answer is in your face everyday. Can't get light rail off the ground, not even efficient bus and cabs. Which all major cities has some sort of mass transit. Lets move foward Detroit..smh.

[ghettopalmetto]

Don't let poor decisions of the past hamper a positive future. Protesting this garden won't bring the Lafayette back, it's just being ignorant.

No one is saying that the Lafayette is going to have a miraculous resurrection if the garden idea is abandoned.

I do think there is a danger, however, in readily accepting the crumbs that George Jackson throws to the peasants. It's a power play. Just like people have excused every terrible Mike Ilitch decision based on his restoration of the Fox Theatre, I honestly think that people are going to be more willing to overlook Jackson's destruction spree by willingly accepting such a token gesture. It's just not good enough. Detroit deserves better than urban tchotchkes.

This stupid-ass garden is the urban planning equivalent of a $300 tax rebate check.

[detmsp]

This stupid-ass garden is the urban planning equivalent of a $300 tax rebate check.

And what pray tell would be the equivalent of an empty lot?

The idea that somehow building a garden will encourage future demolitions is absolutely ridiculous.

We need to start focusing on the future not the past. Instead of whining about a building that is gone, lets find good use for the land and work to prevent the next Lafayette from meeting the wrecking ball. Crying won't get us anywhere.

[ghettopalmetto]

And what pray tell would be the equivalent of an empty lot?

The idea that somehow building a garden will encourage future demolitions is absolutely ridiculous.

We need to start focusing on the future not the past. Instead of whining about a building that is gone, lets find good use for the land and work to prevent the next Lafayette from meeting the wrecking ball. Crying won't get us anywhere.

"Good use" for that land is something with a tax-paying building on it. There is no need for a garden--there's a wonderful public space [[and not some leftover remnant) a whole block away. And look at how substantial this "garden" is going to be--it's going to take serious money to ever get rid of it, thus preventing any future "good use" without incurring even more expenses.

This green scrap is the biggest tube of lipstick I've seen in quite some time.

In order to create what people SAY they want [[redevelopment), you need to have the conditions that PERMIT what you want to exist. What you're hoping to do is analagous to planting seeds on Mars and hoping that a jungle sprouts. It just ain't gonna happen--you've eliminated the conditions that make such a thing possible. Nobody looking to erect a building is going to spend the money to first bulldoze George's Garden of Eden.

[Flintoid]

ghettopalmetto you're being ridiculous. Your honestly proposing the idea that a vacant gravel lot is better than a garden, plain and simple. It's impossible to discuss the issue with someone that closed minded.

[ghettopalmetto]

ghettopalmetto you're being ridiculous. Your honestly proposing the idea that a vacant gravel lot is better than a garden, plain and simple. It's impossible to discuss the issue with someone that closed minded.

Show me where anyone has ever erected a building on top of an existing public garden anywhere. If anyone were to even *try*, you damn well know there would be cries of what an "asset" the garden is to the "community". Don't be mistaken--this thing is no mere placeholder until a developer comes along with bags of cash--this sucker is permanent. That is the gist of my "ridiculousness".

The point is, Detroit needs a real strategy if redevelopment is going to happen. Right now, it's nothing more than a string of silly decisions isolated from one another. There is no coherent context or plan in which they fit.

The garden is an afterthought, meant to appease people just like you, Flintoid. On this count, it has already wildly succeeded--you've clearly forgiven George Jackson and the DEGC for their ham-handed approach to "development".

Instead of worrying about demolitions and silly "gardens", what is DEGC actually doing to promote DEVELOPMENT??? We were promised that the *very* expensive demolition of the Hudson's building would lead to new construction. When that didn't pan out, we were told that an expensive underground parking garage was necessary for that development to happen. It's nearly 13 years later--what the hell?

In the meantime, King George keeps demolishing Detroit's history and viable urban fabric left-and-right, and YOU pay for it. Yet we're all supposed to be happy because a residual scrap of land in a prime location is going to become some ham-handed afterthought "community garden". Unless George himself is going to be out there landscaping and maintaining the thing, I call Bullshit.

[royce]

Well, here's my take on this issue. George Jackson and the DEGC promised a "pocket" park. Then they realized that they didn't have money to build one. Walks in Compuware, who was planning to build a garden on the Hudson's site. However, there are drainage issues. So, George says to the DEGC, "Hey, let's not waste the free money and effort that was going to go on the Hudson's site. Let's put the garden on the Lafayette site, since we don't have money to do anything anyway. This will fulfill our promise of a "pocket" park. Besides, we really didn't have any idea of how to market the Lafayette site to a developer anyway, so this is best solution that we can come up with that will make everybody happy. Sounds good, DEGC? OK, let's go with that."

Now, I don't have an issue with Compuware wanting to spend their money to build something on the Lafayette Building site. A garden is better than a vacant lot or parking lot. However, who's going to pay to clean up this mess if and when a developer decides to want to build on this site? If Compuware doesn't dismantle the garden, then the likelihood of who's going to pay for clearing the site again will fall on the taxpayers here in the City of Detroit. That's when it will be realized that the decision to let Compuware build a garden on the Lafayette site was a poor one. However, I'm sure that that's the last thing on George Jackson's mind.

[ghettopalmetto]

Well, here's my take on this issue. George Jackson and the DEGC promised a "pocket" park. Then they realized that they didn't have money to build one.

DEGC might have money if they spent it on activities like marketing and brokering deals with developers instead of using it on capital-intensive ventures like demolition of buildings owned by the City of Detroit.

Hell--if they would have spent a few thousand bucks to hire a structural engineer, they may have found that the Lafayette Building wasn't so "structurally unsound", and thus save a million and a half bucks. Now they've invested all that money, and with no capital assets remaining to show for it.

[detmsp]

Some of you are being ridiculous. A bunch of fence posts and some walkways are not going to impede future development. The cost of removing this is going to be a drop in the ocean compared to the cost of building a new office building. Thinking that this will deter a developer is like thinking people will stop being cars if AutoZone raises the price of air filters. Hell you can knock down an entire house for $10k [[source: http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/in...of_detroi.html) and that has a foundation to remove! And even if this was a sticking point for a developer [[which it won't be) don't you think the city would pay for it? Look at the millions of dollars being thrown at Gilbert and others to promote development... You don't think they'd spend a couple G's to remove the garden?

[j to the jeremy]

Some of you are being ridiculous. A bunch of fence posts and some walkways are not going to impede future development. The cost of removing this is going to be a drop in the ocean compared to the cost of building a new office building. Thinking that this will deter a developer is like thinking people will stop being cars if AutoZone raises the price of air filters. Hell you can knock down an entire house for $10k [[source: http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/in...of_detroi.html) and that has a foundation to remove! And even if this was a sticking point for a developer [[which it won't be) don't you think the city would pay for it? Look at the millions of dollars being thrown at Gilbert and others to promote development... You don't think they'd spend a couple G's to remove the garden?

People just love to bitch

[erikd]

For what feels like the 50th time I am not now, nor have I EVER advocated that knocking down old buildings is a BETTER long term strategy than mothballing. I am saying that the buildings WERE NOT, ARE NOT, going to be preserved, mothballed...whatever...for a future renovation.

Bailey,

Your assertions on this topic seem to be based on outdated information and opinion. Over the last 7-8 years, downtown Detroit has had a remarkable number of vacant buildings restored and re-used.

The Iodent, Cliff Bells, Kales, Hartz, Eureka, Lafer, Ferguson, Healy, Beck, Carleton, 1260 Library, Madison, 1216 Beaubien, Book Cadillac, Fort Shelby, and the five buildings of Merchants Row all stand as examples of newly renovated buildings in downtown Detroit. The David Broderick Tower will soon join this list, and there are a number of other vacant buildings that developers are making plans to redevelop.

Compare all of these vacant building rehabs with the failed strategy of speculative demolition, which is the concept that you promote. Over the last 15 years, the city has spent millions of dollars to tear down vacant downtown buildings, under the premise that these properties will be easier to redevelop, and more attractive to investment, as vacant lots.

The results of speculative demolition [[AKA, if you tear it down, they will come) have proven to be a complete and total failure. The Hudson, Tuller, Statler, Madison Lenox, Motown HQ, Fine Arts, and now the Lafayette, are just a few examples of downtown buildings that the city has paid to demolish, with the hope that demolition will lead to redevelopment. The results speak for themselves, as all of these sites remain undeveloped to this day. To take it a step further, I can't even think of one example of speculative demolition over the last 15 years in downtown Detroit that has resulted in redevelopment of the site.

This isn't about dogma, it's about results. Do you actually think that demolishing the remaining vacant downtown buildings will yield better results than letting them stand? Do you think that Detroit would be better if we had demolished the long-vacant Book Cadillac and Fort Shelby hotel buildings like we did the Tuller and Statler? Do you think that the large vacant lots bordering Grand Circus Park are more likely to be redeveloped than the Broderick and Whitney? Do you think that the Lafayette site is more likely to be redeveloped now that the beautiful historic building is gone? Do you think that demolishing the remaining vacant buildings on lower Woodward, next to Merchant's Row and the Lofts at Woodward, would make the area more attractive to new investment?

[Mark The kid]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/detroitmi97/5888810854/ there is a link to my picture of the work and I think they should of saved the lafayette building but its gone and the park/urban garden will be a lot better then a parking lot or a lot filled with weeds!

[cramerro]

Walked by during lunch today - still lots of activity. They appear to be using some sort of stainless steel for the sides, also complete with irrigation.
Attachment 9993
Attachment 9991

Here are the updates from today - about same vantage points. As mentioned there were a lot of people out there working today - most of the landscaping was on-site ready to plant.

[Gistok]

A garden is better than a vacant lot or parking lot. However, who's going to pay to clean up this mess if and when a developer decides to want to build on this site?

Royce, you have to remember this is the DEGC we're talking about... as with the Madison-Lenox fiasco... there's nothing that a back-hoe, and a few debris carrying dumptrucks can't take care of in a hurry.....

[cramerro]

Here are the updates from today - about same vantage points. As mentioned there were a lot of people out there working today - most of the landscaping was on-site ready to plant.

Latest...


I also didn't realize that the plans/renovation of the Arcade Bar building were legit. Looks like they're going to have a patio in the garden from the bar/club - interesting idea and nice to have that whole block with some decent activity again. See the DetNews article for details:

http://www.detnews.com/article/20110...ndscape’