"Time Square" Idea for The Lafayette Building

detmich · June-18-09, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by archytech

It's not so much that no one wants to build, rather it is because this city makes it to difficult, too expensive and to burdening to make it happen. Its honestly cheaper, faster and eaiser to build, and get permits in most of the suburbs. Until we can tackle the building and permiting and licensing of buildings and their tenants this city will continue to grow [[or fade) slowly. Many believe that clearing way for new structures, providing parking for a development, or offering some kind of gap financing or tax credit/reduction will help to bring new buisnesses in the city. That may be true in the long run once we can tackle crime and perception, but I must re-iterate that we MUST make it eaiser to start and do buisness in the city. This should be the current adminstration's priority.

Hey, I'd like to build a house on the beach in Hawaii, but it is too difficult and expensive to do so. So I don't. The difference is that someone else like Gabby Reese will build that beach house, while in Detroit there is no one else who will take my place. That is because, for whatever reason you wish to ascribe to it, no one wants to have office buildings downtown. Thus, these buildings are not viable. I just explained this to the third grader I met, she was able to grasp the concept while few on here have made the cognitive leap.

**archytech** · June-18-09, 09:41 AM

Lets have the ball raise though. Its so depressing to see a ball drop.

**bailey** · June-18-09, 10:06 AM

And none of the major demolishion sites since 1998 have resulted in any development.

Ok... well, ignoring Comerica and Compuware, and Ford Field and One Kenedy square..... why is that? Why is an empty lot or a parking lot the highest and best use for these properties? Change that and the preservation vs. demolition question goes away.

**bailey** · June-18-09, 10:19 AM

I'll reiterate that unless you're a licensed Professional Engineer, you have no authority to judge whether or not a building represents a danger to the public. So please, spare us the hysteria.

And unless you are one, you have no authority to lecture the rest about the lack of any danger.

**ghettopalmetto** · June-18-09, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by bailey

And unless you are one, you have no authority to lecture the rest about the lack of any danger.

I'm licensed and registered in four states.

**bailey** · June-18-09, 10:33 AM

And have you examined the building?

**ghettopalmetto** · June-18-09, 11:30 AM

The buildings are viable. But who wants to purchase a building and redevelop it if the DEGC has already made up its mind that it's going to be demolished?

Be honest, pro-demo folks. Nobody is building ANYTHING in the country right now. The benefits of demolition are questionable at best and it will cost money the City doesn't have to do so. There is ZERO impetus to be tearing down viable buildings right now.

**Det_ard** · June-18-09, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

The buildings are viable. But who wants to purchase a building and redevelop it if the DEGC has already made up its mind that it's going to be demolished?

Be honest, pro-demo folks. Nobody is building ANYTHING in the country right now. The benefits of demolition are questionable at best and it will cost money the City doesn't have to do so. There is ZERO impetus to be tearing down viable buildings right now.

Drive through Ann Arbor sometime. Count the cranes. There's a hell of a lot of building in that town.

**ghettopalmetto** · June-18-09, 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by Det_ard

Drive through Ann Arbor sometime. Count the cranes. There's a hell of a lot of building in that town.

By whom? When did they obtain their financing?

DetroitDad · June-18-09, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

By whom? When did they obtain their financing?

There are a lot of smaller projects going on in Detroit and Ann Arbor right now. Banks are making loans, but are requiring a much greater down payment. The days of the super projects are what is gone.

DetroitDad · June-18-09, 01:15 PM

In capitalism money followed by self interests almost always wins, bottom line.

Part of the problem is the tax structure. I'm not sure why Detroit hasn't implemented a hefty flat parking tax based on lot size. A flat parking tax would encourage new buildings and redevelopment, with parking being viewed as only a project necessesity or luxury and not a big business in and of itself. A flat parking tax would also encourage parking garages over surface lots.

Taxes should also be cheaper for large and urban buildings, buildings that meet a certain criteria of urbanism should pay less than the crumby suburban style designs. Right now, the tax and zoning structure encourages suburban style building or parking lots, and discourages density.

LodgeDodger · June-18-09, 11:00 PM

Originally Posted by DetroitDad

In capitalism money followed by self interests almost always wins, bottom line.

Part of the problem is the tax structure. I'm not sure why Detroit hasn't implemented a hefty flat parking tax based on lot size. A flat parking tax would encourage new buildings and redevelopment, with parking being viewed as only a project necessesity or luxury and not a big business in and of itself. A flat parking tax would also encourage parking garages over surface lots.

Taxes should also be cheaper for large and urban buildings, buildings that meet a certain criteria of urbanism should pay less than the crumby suburban style designs. Right now, the tax and zoning structure encourages suburban style building or parking lots, and discourages density.

Exactly what should this criteria be? It sounds, to me, as if you're trying to regulate taste and design, which are subjective.

DetroitDad · June-19-09, 01:58 AM

Originally Posted by LodgeDodger

Exactly what should this criteria be? It sounds, to me, as if you're trying to regulate taste and design, which are subjective.

LodgeDodger,

The suburbs and city have already done that with many zoning laws and community ordinances. Many such things discourage urbanism, or even make good urban design illegal. Did you know there are proven methods to activate streets by building design and placement alone? I'm not saying regulate architectural styles or look, just such things as discouraging excessive surface parking and large set backs.

Don't you want a community that is interesting to walk around?

LodgeDodger · June-19-09, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by DetroitDad

LodgeDodger,

The suburbs and city have already done that with many zoning laws and community ordinances. Many such things discourage urbanism, or even make good urban design illegal. Did you know there are proven methods to activate streets by building design and placement alone? I'm not saying regulate architectural styles or look, just such things as discouraging excessive surface parking and large set backs.

Don't you want a community that is interesting to walk around?

No Dearie, this community is already interesting enough to walk around.

**GOAT** · June-19-09, 01:30 PM

Guys if it is such a great place then pool your cash together and buy it instead of living in some fantasy sim world. The dump should be levelled.

DetroitDad · June-19-09, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by LodgeDodger

No Dearie, this community is already interesting enough to walk around.

Sweetie, have you ever been to Foxtown, up the Cass Corridor, or past the 1200 block of Woodward in the Winter?

**bailey** · June-18-09, 01:46 PM

The benefits of demolition are questionable at best and it will cost money the City doesn't have to do so. There is ZERO impetus to be tearing down viable buildings right now.

Again... a building that has been empty for 13 years is by the definition of "abandoned", not "viable". if it was it wouldn't be in the DEGC's hands.

By whom? When did they obtain their financing?

It always helps to have a University with a 7 billion dollar endowment in the neighborhood. Many of AA's projects are university related.

**ghettopalmetto** · June-18-09, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by bailey

Again... a building that has been empty for 13 years is by the definition of "abandoned", not "viable". if it was it wouldn't be in the DEGC's hands.

In my opinion, "viable" means it can be reused. "Not viable" means it could *never* be reused. Abandoned has no bearing on these terms, as "viable" would pertain to a specific use of the building, e.g. whether or not it is viable to use as office space vis-a-vis condos.

Originally Posted by bailey

It always helps to have a University with a 7 billion dollar endowment in the neighborhood. Many of AA's projects are university related.

This is precisely why Ann Arbor has construction. Most of the projects under construction by the University have likely spent years in planning and identifying financing. Try finding a private sector project anywhere that has obtained financing since October.

**staticstate** · June-18-09, 03:47 PM

where'd that pic go with the super-imposed billboard? someone should link it. it looked cool

Retroit · June-19-09, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by staticstate

where'd that pic go with the super-imposed billboard? someone should link it. it looked cool

This picture was posted by forummember Thejesus on March 29, 2009 in response to a suggestion I made on Ye Olde Forume. I don't know how to post a link, but the thread is still there. It's titled "Lafayette Building appears doomed" [[12th one down).

**Hypestyles** · June-18-09, 03:02 PM

interesting... why not, if the right investors are in place..

DetroitDad · June-19-09, 12:28 PM

Broken up boards like those in Times Square would probably be more practical and eye pleasing. Pie shaped boards actually on top of the Arcade Bar up the Lafayette Building might look better. Getting American Coney Island on board would also make it seem more vibrant.

**bailey** · June-19-09, 01:40 PM

Why don't you pony up the money to demolish it???

Those that live in the City are ponying up the money...aren't they?

**GOAT** · June-19-09, 01:51 PM

I don't have to. I believe the city owns it and therefore it should go. If it is owned by a private person they should be made to fix it up or have it demolished. It can't sit that way forever!

Pick your battles folks not every building in Detroit can or will be saved. This is one that needs to be let go. There are others that are more important that need the money and time to be saved.

**ghettopalmetto** · June-19-09, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by GOAT

I don't have to. I believe the city owns it and therefore it should go. If it is owned by a private person they should be made to fix it up or have it demolished. It can't sit that way forever!

Pick your battles folks not every building in Detroit can or will be saved. This is one that needs to be let go. There are others that are more important that need the money and time to be saved.

In the meantime, spend millions of dollars the City doesn't have in order to create a moonscape in which no one will ever want to invest. Because, dammit, *something* just *has* to be done *right now*, or by golly, George Jackson is just going to piss himself.