Chevrolet offers to refurbish Tiger Stadium site.

[corktownyuppie]

I'm curious about why anyone thought this had any chance of succeeding.

The whole OTSC thing fell apart - as told by one of the articles linked to the MLive one - because the OTSC plan was insufficiently financed to do what it wanted to do. My suspicion is that people in positions of power also assessed the economic development end of it - which was not net positive, or at least not what a huge site like that could command with freeway frontage on one side and Michigan Avenue on the other. The city also made it clear that it was not going to vest any rights in the property to OTSC. Whereupon OTSC [[or its supporters) started getting vitriolic on the city and DDA and DEGC and anyone else that had any involvement.

Now Chevrolet [[or one of its execs) enters the picture with an offer to put some effort into renovating the field [[only). The catch is that someone has to maintain it. The choices Chevy presents are [[a) the City [[which can't afford it) or [[b) OTSC, which has a very poor relationship with the city and has made no secret that it wants permanent control of the ball field, period.

I've seen the usual convergent cynicism [["city sucks," "city doesn't no what it's doing," "city doesn't care about history," and other bromides). And to that, I'll pose my own divergent cynical response: the Chevy offer was either a PR stunt or fantastically misinformed.

First, the premise: youth baseball is not played on major-league-sized fields [[it's played on an infield whose linear dimensions are only 2/3 the size of a professional field). What exactly was going to happen here? Building a pitcher's mound at 40 feet? Building 60 foot baselines inside the 90 foot ones?

Second, the need: Nearby high schools and parks [[ahem, Clark?) already have properly-sized fields. High schools have their own [[larger) fields. Why not renovate one of those? Belle Isle would be a great place to develop this.

Third, the partners: the bankruptcy of the City of Detroit is notorious, and the bad relationship with OTSC was all over the papers. Did this executive ever read the papers? Or was this the kind of goodwill check that no one would ever cash?

It is possible that this was a genuine gesture that simply lacked information, but why not research the situation first?

So if the powers that be didn't want to play ball with OTSC a couple of years ago when it had an unworkable plan [[albeit a plan) and weak financing, why would they change course simply because someone was offering to do work on the field? It still doesn't change an immovable assumption - that the city doesn't want any legal [[or arguably legal) entanglements with the property until it is successfully marketed [[and to address someone's point, there is probably a written agreement that requires Compuware to vacate the Lafayette block at the command of the DDA - and if you believe that OTSC would agree to such a provision, I have a second span to sell you).

The quote misattributed to Einstein is that crazy people do the same thing again and again and expect different results, but whoever said it needs to get that message to OTSC. Tom Linn was a class act [[and continues to be - you'll note that he is the first to admit that the development plan was not all he wanted it to be), but his acolytes exhibit such a lack of advocacy skills - here and in other public fora - that they probably hurt more than they are helping.

We all find ourselves working with, for and against "idiots" on a daily basis; the key is figuring out how to get what we want by understanding what the "idiots" want and learning to communicate with them. If some of the people who are in [[or support) OTSC ever learned this lesson [[one that Coleman Young took to heart), they would be out looking for a job-intensive development [[and bigtime developer) who saw value in having a historic ballfield on-site - rather than being aimlessly confrontational with what will be the power structure for the conceivable future. You've no doubt heard the dictum that making ad hominem attacks is the mark of people who have no better argument.

I don't frankly see how anyone so far has ever catalogued the city's list of manifested concerns and preferences [[without which, no one is ever going to succeed in getting a ballfield-friendly development). I think we can compile the following, which I think we can all agree are either supported by history or fairly supportable:

- The city has huge problems with land acquistion and title fights; hence it is not going to cloud the title to the Tiger Stadium site, even superficially, and it is unlikely to convey any interest in the property without a solid development agreement and a reverter.

- A development needs to have a large net economic impact to get any traction. There are several things at work here. First, the city is not going to blow this parcel on a couple of tiny stores that employ a handful of people, a seasonal baseball field, a subsidized residential complex, and a school in a city with massive school overcapacity. Whether you look at it from a tax generation standpoint, a jobs generation standpoint, or just the general pain in the neck, there's little incentive to even engage a project like that. Second, if you look at the scant resources the city actually puts into the DDA and DEGC, those organizations are not going to prioritize small-impact projects [[they're more likely to go after things like getting 3,500 BCBS people and 1,500 Quicken people into downtown workplaces). And since the DDA is funded in part by its inventory of property, it is not going to give the property away for a dollar - even if that means waiting a while. It's going to hold out for a good price or what it considers a sufficiently beneficial project. My speculation is that the city is looking for something that will draw major traffic [[and peripheral traffic) to the site [[and Corktown). People joke about Ikea, but look at the corridor it occupies.

- A development needs solid financing - and the type of financing that OTSC proposed either did not represent sufficient owner's equity, sufficient amount, or both for the city's taste.

- The Tiger Stadium site is 9.5 acres, not likely to be contaminated, and sits on two major road corridors. Your best comp in the CBD [[the fomer Detroit General/Receiving site) was purchased by Wayne County for $7 million [[or about $1 million/acre). Again, this isn't going to be given away as a gift without a pretty compelling reason

The city does not view the ballfield as having inherent value. I'm sure that if you came in with the right project that wanted it to stay,it would stay. But I don't think there is any scenario in which OTSC [[or any other nonprofit/nonprofit use) is going to acquire that site - or any part of it - from the city. The city will probbaly allow a semi-permissive use [[a blind eye) until it gets a developer on board. It will not do or sign anything that makes it look like it has less than the 100% right to control the site.

My personal view, as a Detroit person who went to many, many games at the old park, is that there is nothing sacred about a baseball field and that we taxpayers have paid enough to maintain that site as a stadium over the years [[even when it was open). It's time to make that site do something that improves the quality of life for the city as a whole, not just the desires of the "community" [[a word special interests often invoke to lend credence to ther own desires). If the goal is to retain middle class families with disposable income and keep their money in the city, the best use of this site might be a large [[and architecturally appropriate) retail center.

.

Well put.

So my bottom line [[and sorry to be so long-winded) is that the best way to save the field is to help find someone with money and know-how who can be convinced that it adds value to his/her project. Anything else is just banging your head into the wall.

I don't understand why so much of the Detroit "culture" is this "antii-establishment" "anti-power" "anti-money" mentality. You want to solve big problems, you need big resources. You chase them all out of here, well, don't be surprised when the lawns don't get cut.

I'd rather see the Tiger Stadium lot empty for another 5 years and then see a well capitalized developer come in rather than see a strip mall show up. As for small- to medium- sized developers, I agree. If the Michigan Avenue corridor continues to get redeveloped and residential areas stay solid, a major developer will find the site that much more attractive.

But even better, I'd be thrilled to see OTSC come up with a viable plan that will preserve history and build the relationships and trust with the powers that be to make this work. Development deals are COMPLEX. Why not partner up with a group like Roxbury Capital, who has both a major development on Grand Circus Park and one in Midtown coming up in the next 12 months?

Obviously there are conflicts of interest and sometimes what's good for the leg isn't good for the arm. I would love to see the OTSC vision succeed. But when you compare the track record of OTSC to DEGC, as much as DEGC deserves criticism...they actually have some successful projects in their past and have many more on the way. Like it or not, this translates in political capital.

I hope the OTSC gets what they want. But in order for that to happen, they need to stop "fighting the man" and start "becoming the man"

[Mackinaw]

It's not like there's plenty of vacant land in the area or anything.

You've hit the reality that DEGC and others can't seem to grasp in their delusion. Vacant land is not a commodity here. Anything on the DEGC's list of semi-commitments and other promising leads can be built in any number of places, and that would probably be better-- for the City and its cultural heritage. If you're going to badger some big box store or the like to open up in Detroit, why must it be built on perhaps the most significant of our thousands of empty acres, and one which presents a great and sentimental [[if simplistic) alternative use that could really benefit a neighborhood in addition to the historical awareness and appreciation of younger generations? When the rest of Detroit looks like Manhattan, then we can talk about turning down free upkeep of historic lots in order to make way for development, or about tearing down historic buildings. In the meantime, stop turning down freebies, and stop tearing things down.

I concur with Detroitnerd's sentiments.

[Novine]

"If the goal is to retain middle class families with disposable income and keep their money in the city, the best use of this site might be a large [[and architecturally appropriate) retail center that makes at least a token attempt to stem the hundreds of millions in retail leakage that occurs because Detroiters can't buy middle-class basics.

I want world peace and ponies for every little girl and boy. No one has come forward showing any interest in the site for such a plan. You lay out all the reasons why this is such a great site for development but no one has come forward with a plan along those lines. How long does the city do nothing, let the land site vacant and dream about retail centers that never appear?

[Detroitdave]

WTF ?! If George and the city think that ANYONE would build a mall on that site , keep DREAMING !
outside of corktown who would shop there ? Have they taken a good look at the neighborhood for miles around there ?
and if they haven't I'm sure whomever would build a mall there has ! There is NO way , anyone in their right minds, would build a mall there at the present moment ,and why would you want to build another mall in this region ? Have they seen what Northland and Eastland malls look like ? Why not just build a big hole and throw money down it .
Don't get me wrong I am a BIG Detroit supporter and I even believe that city loft and shopping downtown would work, but no mall would work in the City limits of Detroit in the foreseeable future, and we ALL know why .
What stores would you put in ? what stores would come ? what people would "hangout" there ?
If Detroit is to ever have any real shopping it HAS to be in a VERY VERY control environment , to make people , and store owners feel safe , Lets be realistic . In my opinion a mall would be a BIG lost .
A ball park for kids ,that GM would build, and keep up, from a company less than 2 miles a way from the site .But in the mean time ,if they want another empty lot in a city full of empty lots for years to come , well they got it !

[HistoryNotHisStory]

Follow the Money Trail people.

Follow the Money trail of the DEGC.

See who gets the contracts and see who they selects.

If GM and Chevrolet are not allowed in the Detroit's economic growth, who is?

Sounds like cronyism to me.

[DetroitUA]

Mall huh? Here's one for you...is a "Mall" even a smart idea now days? Here in Chicago they built a "Mall" on Block 37 downtown that they can't fill 25% capacity. The malls in the burbs have many vacant storefronts as well. People are not "mall rats" anymore...don't really get it. I understand the proposal as Chevrolet would maintain the site as well with volunteers? If not, then I understand the citys hesitance....and what is this I hear of the zoning not being zoned for "entertainment"? It's a freaking baseball stadium lot - did they change the zoning after it was torn down? Wouldnt that zoning already exist from the previous structure?

[louis]

Fuck the DEGC. They want to ink massive deals, but don't understand that places developing best in the city are conglomerations of small businesses in small- to medium-sized existing buildings. Midtown. Southwest. Corktown. They don't even understand or communicate with the neighborhood residents or understand their needs or desires. Fuck the DEGC.

AGREED! why should we sit around waiting for mega giants to expect incentives to come set up shop when there are plenty of bussienses that would love to be hear, in my opinion those small bussineses deserve tax insevtives more than we need to raise taxes on the top 2%

[Jingles in Boofland]

I've seen historical buildings torn down in other cities, but at least there they replace them...sometimes with better buildings, sometimes with useful buildings, but most of the time someone isn't holding on to some empty land hoping that some developer from out of town or something is going to come in and dump a bunch money building something that people won't like.

I thought it was economic growth for Detroit, not economic growth for people in high places.

I completely agree - My wife and I had to move back to Detroit about three years ago to take care of her mother [[who is 90) when nobody in her family would trouble themselves, or step up to do it - We lived in New Hampshire for over 25 years - There you couldn't tear down a building on a whim to build something else without moving heaven and earth, and you still weren't able to do it - You couldn't build a home in an old neighborhood unless it conformed with the architecture that was already there [[my uncle's home in NH was built in 1767) -

Living in Royal Oak now, I see these new, ostentatious, hideously ugly, monstrosity homes, that were built after another home was tore down, sitting in amongst the other homes on the street that were built in the 1920s, that look glaringly out-of-place - It's just plain ugly, with a greedy message telling everyone to "Look at me! Look at me! I've arrived!".

[MSUguy]

So if the powers that be didn't want to play ball with OTSC a couple of years
ago when it had an unworkable plan [[albeit a plan) and weak financing, why would
they change course simply because someone was offering to do work on the field?
It still doesn't change an immovable assumption - that the city doesn't want any
legal [[or arguably legal) entanglements with the property until it is
successfully marketed [[and to address someone's point, there is probably a
written agreement that requires Compuware to vacate the Lafayette block at the
command of the DDA - and if you believe that OTSC would agree to such a
provision, I have a second span to sell you)

You're right that the city still full has right the develop the Lafayette site anytime. If you're right that they would not agree to let the city develop the site in future then they were right to turn it down. This something though that would perfect as stopgap over the weedy lot that exsist today. Even better if it could be incoporated into any future development

- A development needs to have a large net economic impact to get any
traction. There are several things at work here. First, the city is not going to
blow this parcel on a couple of tiny stores that employ a handful of people, a
seasonal baseball field, a subsidized residential complex, and a school in a
city with massive school overcapacity. Whether you look at it from a tax
generation standpoint, a jobs generation standpoint, or just the general pain in
the neck, there's little incentive to even engage a project like that. Second,
if you look at the scant resources the city actually puts into the DDA and DEGC,
those organizations are not going to prioritize small-impact projects [[they're
more likely to go after things like getting 3,500 BCBS people and 1,500 Quicken
people into downtown workplaces). And since the DDA is funded in part by its
inventory of property, it is not going to give the property away for a dollar -
even if that means waiting a while. It's going to hold out for a good price or
what it considers a sufficiently beneficial project. My speculation is that the
city is looking for something that will draw major traffic [[and peripheral
traffic) to the site [[and Corktown). People joke about Ikea, but look at the
corridor it occupies.

This wereI kinda disagree the city has pulled large impact over the RecCen, the Millender Center, Riverfront Apartments. All were hailed signaling the city's rebirth, but they did little revive the city. The biggest difference between is that small businesses followed Compuare, Quicken and BCBS. In Detroit small projects make a big impact if building get renovated we noitce it. I just wonder if holding for the big project is hurting us long term. That's said I don't know if OTSC larger project is really viable.

[1953]

Shoeless George Jackson is mouthing off in the Detroit News today about how his terrible decision making is somehow justified....god I hate that guy...

http://goo.gl/sVsxR

[Vox]

GM or someone should offer to buy the property for a bargain price for a pie in the sky project designed to make the city happy, then decide not to build the project, but retain ownership of the land.

[1953]

I wonder what the asking price is...

[old guy]

Chevy abandons Tiger Stadium offer for another field

http://www.detnews.com/article/20110...-another-field

[corktownyuppie]

GM or someone should offer to buy the property for a bargain price for a pie in the sky project designed to make the city happy, then decide not to build the project, but retain ownership of the land.

Don't think they can.

- The city has huge problems with land acquistion and title fights; hence it is not going to cloud the title to the Tiger Stadium site, even superficially, and it is unlikely to convey any interest in the property without a solid development agreement and a reverter.

The reverter is the "out clause" for the city. If you promise to build Disney World on the corner of MI and Trumbull but you haven't done anything with it...the city can re-possess and revoke your rights to it. Good policy. Wish we had it for more land.

[corktownyuppie]

I completely agree - My wife and I had to move back to Detroit about three years ago to take care of her mother [[who is 90) when nobody in her family would trouble themselves, or step up to do it - We lived in New Hampshire for over 25 years - There you couldn't tear down a building on a whim to build something else without moving heaven and earth, and you still weren't able to do it - You couldn't build a home in an old neighborhood unless it conformed with the architecture that was already there [[my uncle's home in NH was built in 1767) -

Living in Royal Oak now, I see these new, ostentatious, hideously ugly, monstrosity homes, that were built after another home was tore down, sitting in amongst the other homes on the street that were built in the 1920s, that look glaringly out-of-place - It's just plain ugly, with a greedy message telling everyone to "Look at me! Look at me! I've arrived!".

I get the disgust with the "ostentatious" "monstrosities"...but that's what economic development looks like in our modern era. And before we go criticizing it, consider the other option: vacant, undeveloped lots, all over Detroit.

If Detroit's biggest complaint was that all the new homes for the tax-paying nouveau rich somehow failed to coincide with our personal preferences for historical preservation, well...those are what I'd consider to be good problems to have.

[DetroitPole]

I'm pretty sure a few people on this thread either work for DEGC or white collar positions for the City...

[CLAUDE G]

Im seriously beginning to think that the Tiger Stadium site was cleared and is being reserved as a potential location for a new Hockey Arena.

The location is easy to get to from the Freeway, the location is right and there is plenty of vacant lots that Illitch can easily take over to provide parking.

The Hockey arena is either going go to on the other side of I-75 on Woodward, or the Old Tiger Stadium site.

Until a site is choosen, no progress will be made at Tiger Stadium. Eventhough fixing the field is short term, the city is going to have an even bigger problem on their hands if Chevrolet invests a few million dollars fixing the place up and a Hockey arena gets built there.

The Stadium didn't have to be torn down. There was so much historic significance to that stadium, it had unlimited potential....

#1 The city could have offered tours simmilar to Feinway Park in Boston.
#2 There was the potential to rent out the stadium for special events
#3 There is potential for the film industry. The place would have been perfect for any classic baseball movie that involved a classic stadium.

All these above items can be used to maintain the building, and if there was a shortfall there was clearly a line of people willing to make private donations.

The only reason why the stadium was torn down is because the right oppertunity came up where some asshole decided to demolish it for free for the cost of the scrap metal. To be honest, I think the city had a seceret deal worked out under the table, as there could not have been that much scrap metal to cover the cost of the entire demolition.

[erikd]

Well put.

I don't understand why so much of the Detroit "culture" is this "antii-establishment" "anti-power" "anti-money" mentality. You want to solve big problems, you need big resources. You chase them all out of here, well, don't be surprised when the lawns don't get cut....I hope the OTSC gets what they want. But in order for that to happen, they need to stop "fighting the man" and start "becoming the man"

The Detroit political class is the furthest thing from an anti-establishment, anti-money mindset chasing away outside investment. If anything, Detroit government officials are extreme supporters of outside investors and frequently obstructionists to local community and business interests. Despite the occasional "I want them to look like me" comments made by a couple of ignorant city council members, the wealthy white business owners from outside of the city are treated like gods by Detroit government, while local business owners and community groups are ignored or relegated to the back burner.

The Tiger Stadium site is a perfect example of the city government completely ignoring the wishes of the community, and turning down millions of dollars to fund a project that the local community overwhelmingly supports, in favor of chasing investment from some outsider big-box chain.

[sycloneman]

Someone mentioned attempting to reach Bing himself to express their thoughts on this topic. Best way I'd suggest is through Twitter. Afterall it got us a statue of Robocop! Actually we could put the statue on the old site!