Cockrel puts hold on Lafayette demo

[BillyBBrew]

Baby steps...We all learned to walk with baby steps....Thank you Mayor Cockrel.

"We will probably be judged, not by the monuments we've built, but by those which we've destroyed"
Ada Louise Huxtable

[wolverine]

This is good news, even if it's just a delay.

[Huggybear]

Mayor Cockrel has put things on hold to talk to preservation groups about options. The translation is that he is going to see if there is a funded, economically viable alternative to demolition. The key word is "viable." The state money for the LB demolition is restricted, it can't be used for anything other than demolition, and with the City's financial situation, any preservation or re-use is going to be privately funded and financed.

All of this presents some big opportunities. The building could be reused - or at least put into a state that wouldn't make the owner of a nearby $186 million project nervous. And Detroit's preservation organizations [[old or new) could finally succeed at preserving something of value. Both of those things would be great.

The threat is blowing it, with consequences both for the LB and future projects. If this all turns out to be sound and fury, you can bet that the LB will be down by Memorial Day. And by "sound and fury," I mean things like:

• The usual hortatory "the City should..." or "someone should...," or any other sentence that contains the words "mixed use;"
• Blank and unstudied assertions about how little "mothballing" costs;
• Grand plans that have no financing or even a fundraising plan; and
• Taking the approach that if the City [[or DDA, DEGC, Ferchill, etc.) disagrees with something you say, it/he/they is/are acting stupidly.

Long-term, protest never saved anything in this town. Not the Monroe Block, not Hudsons, not the YMCA, not anything. And neither did unfunded proposals - which are a dime a dozen around here. Grownups who actually do restorations of buildings understand that doing it is expensive, and the game is driven by economic reality, or at least proformas that make things look possible. And those that actually do business in this town understand that alienating city government and related organizations gets you nowhere - since virtually nothing gets developed without their assistance. Some people trying to save the LB have acted, to put it frankly, like 14-year-olds. Study projects that have worked. They haven't proceeded from strident confrontation.

The spillover to other projects is of more concern. If any significant number of people advocating for the LB do things that make them look like crackpots this time, imagine how that powers that be will react when it's time to stop the wrecking ball from traveling up Washington Boulevard. If the price of delaying the LB's demise temporarily is losing support for restoring bigger landmarks, then we've won a battle over an unimpressive office building and lost the war over cultural treasures. Similarly, with only so much private money to fund conservancies, every Tiger Stadium takes money from every LB, which in turn takes money from the Book Building, Broderick, Whitney, or whatever the next threat is.

The preservation solution is to get someone interested in the building to get the financing and do the project. "Mothballing" is not practical because it is not a trivial expense; it's going to require a new roof [[which is going to be a cool mil all by itself), repair of the water damage to the upper floors of the building [[including in the exterior masonry), removal of graffiti from hundreds of windows, bay window replacement on the first two floors, and facade restoration and replacement where the hideous granite tiles are [[wait till you see how much damage is done by putting one facade over another). Nor is it closed-ended. When those one-time costs are in the past, there is still the cost over an indefinite term of insurance, security, cleaning, periodic inspections and maintenance. In other words, to keep the building intact, preserve its state, and make it presentable is going to cost as much as it does on a functioning building. That's going to require an endowment in the millions. That type of cost is better borne by a landlord with a rent stream than it is by a city with no money or a conservancy that has to scrape nickels and dimes.

Nothing about this is going to be easy. Ferchill apparently doesn't want to restore it; Quicken didn't want it; and Peebles couldn't finance it. That's not to say it can't be done, but it's going to require some serious effort beyond sending emails.

God speed, Lafayette Building. Hope you make it back.

[buildingsofdetroit]

Huggybear,

That is the single most intelligent, practical pro-demo argument I've heard in the months we've been fighting to save it. If Jackson had you on staff, the building probably would have been down by now.
I don't disagree with anything you've said, but I am curious about why DDA money that would go toward demo can't be used for improvements/renovation, etc. Maybe I'm just not familiar with the rules, but isn't the DDA's purpose to develop? And if so, why would this not be considered legal under the rules of the DDA?

[Lorax]

I just wrote in the other LB post that Cockrel needed to grow a pair and do the right thing- guess he's a bigger man than I thought! Good news for now. We need to keep the pressure on. Exposing the extravagance of paying for a demolition when a mothballing will do for now will accomplish more in such dire times.

I knew he was a better politician than people were giving him credit for. Just goes to prove community organizing which is a dirty term to repugnicans really works. Look where it got Obama- President!

[E hemingway]

Well written Huggybear. But I thought the demo money was coming from the DDA. If that's true, the DDA can use its money to raze or redevelop a building. I also think you overstate the cost of mothballing. But I agree that for preservation groups to be taken seriously they can't come calling to use the city's money only. Ideally, the DEGC would put out another request for proposals to redevelop the building to see what's out there right now. I think they would be surprised by what comes back. The DEGC should also hold a public meeting or two to see what how the taxpayers want their money spent on their property.

[Gistok]

C. Howard Crane was a good friend of fellow architect Albert Kahn. Kahn's 1920 General Motors HQ masterpiece was the inspiration for Crane's Lafayette Building. Crane took a difficult site, and created an architecturally pleasing structure, made of quality materials.

Early 20th century architecture may not be to everyones taste, but this structures architectural qualities are hardly insignificant...

[Huggybear]

BoD and EHemingway, if you get restricted funds [[an earmark), you have to spend it the way your funding source prescribes [[and sometimes within time limits) - or not at all. That's true whether you're a local government unit getting money from the state or a nonprofit getting money from a foundation or a donor. There are state grants for dangerous building demolition [[I think the program started right before the Superbowl we hosted), and if this is where the demo money is coming from, you can't repurpose it - even if it's for abatement through other means like fixing the building up. If the demo were being paid through unrestricted funds then yes, you could spend the money some other way. I don't know what restrictions exist on DDA's tax increment income, which is probably as close to unrestricted income as it has.*

*As a note, it was in the paper that DDA committed $9mm to the Woodward rail project, which may have taken up unrestricted funds that could have been used for building renovation.

In my view, part of the problem is with the state - which funds demolitions with cash but seems to encourage preservation primarily through historic tax credits. Demos are relatively straightforward, but reusing old buildings sometimes requires gutting or reconfiguring them in tax-credit-unfriendly ways. And historic tax credits do nothing to foster redevelopment of a site with a new building. The best choice for the Lafayette Building site [[if it's not the existing structure) might be a modern 3-to-4 story commercial building with residences above. But the state is never going to help with that. The state will, however, help make the site a vacant lot, a park, a weedfield, or a parking lot. Some fundamental change is necessary at the state level to encourage redevelopment when re-use is not commercially viable.

And not to be unduly unkind to my favorite coney place [[Lafayette, of course...), any renovation or redevelopment plan is going to need to do something with the buildings to the east, which are both run down and out of scale with everything around them.

[Bearinabox]

And not to be unduly unkind to my favorite coney place [[Lafayette, of course...), any renovation or redevelopment plan is going to need to do something with the buildings to the east, which are both run down and out of scale with everything around them.

Isn't that what makes cities interesting? If every building downtown was exactly the same, it wouldn't be a very interesting place to spend time.

[E hemingway]

I was under the impression that these were general fund DDA dollars, not earmarks. Earmarks were used for the recent demolitions to expand the Foxtown wasteland, but I don't think that was the situation with the Lafayette. You're right if they fund are earmarks, but I question if that was the source of the money. However, this is an important point worth exploring.

However, the first thing the DEGC should do is put out a new request for proposals for redevelopment of the building. This will honestly guage what interest there is in redeveloping the Lafayette. If a developer or two come forward with a viable plan, problem solved.

[Mackinaw]

Awesome!

Great job to all you who helped to affect this stay.

Keep talking to the mayor and to your friends/family to spread the word.

Convince the city of the merits of securing the building and preserving it for when the market is good again.

[rjlj]

Very true bearinabox.

I think Metro Detroit has not had a true downtown city for so long, that they forget what makes a city interesting. We are too use to seeing McMansion's and cookie cutter stripmalls that we think this is the norm.

[DetroitScooter]

Congrats to everyone who contacted the mayor's office! Now let's keep up the pressure and send another email with a message of [[1) thanks and [[2) volunteering to help preserve these significant buildings as part of supporting the growth of Detroit. Be in this thing for the long haul!

[Rocko]

Surprised no one posted this - from Crains Detroit dated April 3. You be the judge:

Jackson defends DEGC track record on historic preservation

By Nancy Kaffer

George Jackson is fighting back.

Following weeks of criticism after a Downtown Development Authority decision to raze the long-abandoned Lafayette Building, a petition drive and a pledge by Detroit Mayor Ken Cockrel Jr. to re-evaluate the demolition decision, the Detroit Economic Growth Corp.'s CEO has issued a fiery statement defending the DEGC’s historic preservation track record.

“Compare our scorecard to the ‘successes’ of these self-described ‘preservationists’ and it becomes very clear who is actually saving buildings, and who is simply generating noise,� Jackson wrote.

The DEGC has worked to preserve and protect 130 historic buildings, he wrote, including the Detroit Opera House, the Fort Shelby Hotel, the Kales Building and the Westin Book Cadillac, and has demolished two long-vacant city-owned buildings and part of Tiger Stadium in the last four years, while funding the demolition of 11 privately owned, blighted structures.

The Lafayette Building is a no-go for redevelopment — the DEGC’s been working to redevelop the Lafayette since Jackson’s arrival in 2003, he wrote, with no success.

“The Ferchill Group, a Cleveland-based developer that specializes in historic redevelopment projects and who redeveloped the Book Cadillac building, took a long look at it and declined, saying ‘the economics weren’t even close,’� Jackson wrote.

“The reality is the building is badly deteriorated. It has structural issues. The efficiency of the floor plan is problematic. In short, the costs of rehabilitating it are just too great to allow a viable business plan.�

And the Lafayette isn’t safe, he wrote.

“At the same time, pieces of the building are falling to the ground, creating a hazard for pedestrians,� Jackson wrote.

The DEGC worked to save the Book for six years, Jackson said.

“So it should be no surprise that I’m bothered by the strident claims of a small group of individuals who continually whine that the DEGC has no sense of history,� he wrote. “Or worse, that we are involved in some kind of ‘conspiracy’ to rob Detroiters of their vintage buildings. With loud voices and well-placed calls to reporters, they always get good coverage whenever a blighted structure must be demolished — either for the safety of the community or the potential for redevelopment.�

Jackson closed with suggestions for those who want to preserve old buildings: “Patronize businesses that are in vintage buildings. Each time a restoration generates profits, it raises the chances for another one,� he wrote. “Don’t complain. Recruit investors and developers and help us match them with businesses willing to pre-buy or pre-lease space. Put skin in the game, not just talk.�

Also key, he said, is advocacy for better laws and more stringent enforcement of existing blight-fighting tools.

“Spend time going after bad property owners, instead of vilifying organizations that actually do preservation, such as DEGC and the city of Detroit,� he wrote.

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...FREE/904039972

[Lorax]

What I find amazing is the tone of his response. The larger question isn't who is championing it's preservation or demise, it is the cost.

It IS less expensive to mothball the LB than to demo it.

There is obviously pressure from the BC owners to demo it. Or, as I have mentioned before, look into the contract for demolition, see who gets it, and who got the contract for the other 11 buildings they demoed and you'll find your answer.

Follow the [[public) money.

[dexterferry]

you're right, the tone of his response makes it clear that Jackson really, really wanted this building to come down.

if he and the DECG really want to come off with dignity here, he should paint the demolition of the lafayette as necessary but certainly regrettable. instead his tone indicates, as Lorax suggests, that there are other factors at play here than "pedestrian safety" and the difficult road ahead for rehabilitation.

[LeannaM]

So, at what point is a building "not salvageable"? And why do you demo during a recession, when no one would rehab anyway?

[Bearinabox]

So, at what point is a building "not salvageable"?

The point at which George Jackson gets tired of looking at it.

And why do you demo during a recession, when no one would rehab anyway?

Because this is Detroit. Trying to make sense of it will only make your head hurt.

[Lorax]

As I have said along, as with most things, follow the money trail.

Hold these civil servant's feet to the fire, and ask the question: "In a recession/depression where is the logic in spending anymore than the absolute minimum to shore up vacant buildings?"

Why the urgency now? It's been vacant for 20 years and could remain so for another 20 with only roof and cornice stabilization, and cinderblocking up the lower floor windows, saving taxpayers several million bucks over demolition in the process.

[buildingsofdetroit]

Surprised no one posted this - from Crains Detroit dated April 3. You be the judge:

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...FREE/904039972

Wow. That has to be one of the most blatantly one-sided pieces of journalism I've ever seen. Not even an ATTEMPT to get the opinion of the other side as Jackson just wails left and right on the preservationists. Real fair. A REAL crappy piece of journalism.

[Gsgeorge]

No kidding... check this out from the crains article:

Based on incorrect information provided to Crain’s, a previous version of this story gave an incorrect number of vintage building restorations and adaptive reuses by the DEGC.

That number went from 130 to 54. Sounds like someone is padding their resume...

[ghettopalmetto]

Wow. That has to be one of the most blatantly one-sided pieces of journalism I've ever seen. Not even an ATTEMPT to get the opinion of the other side as Jackson just wails left and right on the preservationists. Real fair. A REAL crappy piece of journalism.

It's worth noting that someone so committed to preservation of building stock, like George Jackson claims to be, wouldn't be so casually dismissive and, dare I say, disdainful toward citizens who are supposedly working toward the same goals he is.

[Lorax]

More than likely, like most city of Detroit department heads, there's probably kickbacks from demolition contractors, planning agencies, etc.

The trend since the Bush administration has been to label things such as government acts and agencies with a name which is exactly the opposite of what they are charged to defend- i.e. the 'Clean Air Act' [[really dirty, polluted air), the 'Patriot Act' [[really the government spying & snitching on citizens act), 'Enhanced Interrogation' [[really torture). The list goes on and on.

Mr. Jackson's department is charged with defending public and private architecture, and in turn consumes large amounts of public capital to demolish privately owned buildings, and really has a lousy record of securing city-owned structures.

Why was the Lee Plaza allowed to have it's copper roof stripped without anyone noticing?

Why was Hudson's stripped of all of it's interior features?

Why was the Book Cadillac stripped of it's fixtures, original elevator doors and bronze door hardware? Which by the way is appearing on salvage reclaimation sites all over the web right now.

The problems are systemic. Detroit government needs a complete dismantling and reorganization with a new charter, ward system, etc.

Jackson's problem is he's really a self-serving civil servant. What he's suppose to be advocating for is the the city's built environment. What he's doing is steering demolition contracts and using taxpayer funds to do it.

The Lafayette Building demolition represents a new pool or sportscar to people like him.

[Rocko]

I concur that this could be a most important GREEN building rehab, and could be used at least in part as a training center for the GREEN building trades. It could even be the headquarters for the City of Detroit Green Task Force, something Mayor Cockrel helped create and oversee.

Salute to Mayor Cockrel for at least considering options other than demolition and not just taking George Jackson's misguided and self-serving ridiculusness without question.

>>>Rocko, once referred to as BusterWMU