Metropolitan building to be demoed?

**innercitydoc** · September-18-13, 08:59 AM

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2.../BIZ/309170091

It would be nice if this beautiful building could be saved but the state of disrepair I fear would be too cost prohibitive to be a viable renovation project.

**motz** · September-18-13, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by innercitydoc

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2.../BIZ/309170091

It would be nice if this beautiful building could be saved but the state of disrepair I fear would be too cost prohibitive to be a viable renovation project.

This mad me have a real big sad this morning.

**rjlj** · September-18-13, 10:49 AM

This building does not need to come down. The issues that the building has are notstructural. However, it does havechallenges for re-development that could be overcome.

With all due respect to Bruce Swartz, he is not an architector structural engineer. Of course thebuilding is a mess inside, so was the Broderick, the David Whitney and the BookCadillac. As are the building in CapitolPark and along Woodward that are awaiting re-development.

If the building needs to come down, then prove why it needsto and don’t base it on it looks bad. Ifit comes down, you will never see another building go on this site again.

**CrashDummy** · September-18-13, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by rjlj

This building does not need to come down. The issues that the building has are notstructural. However, it does havechallenges for re-development that could be overcome.

With all due respect to Bruce Swartz, he is not an architector structural engineer. Of course thebuilding is a mess inside, so was the Broderick, the David Whitney and the BookCadillac. As are the building in CapitolPark and along Woodward that are awaiting re-development.

If the building needs to come down, then prove why it needsto and don’t base it on it looks bad. Ifit comes down, you will never see another building go on this site again.

I don't think Swartz was saying anything other than they are not interested in it either way. They were asked if they wanted it. They said no and gave their reason for it. Bedrock seems to be into renovation, not restoration, and this seems to fit their MO. I think it's good to get the ball rolling on this building, and this is just a first step that needs to be done regardless of the outcome. I would still bet that somebody will step up and restore it, but I wouldn't put more than a Hamilton on it.

**innercitydoc** · September-18-13, 11:57 AM

There was a deal that fell through before the recession to convert the building into housing. If I recall, the issues were that the ceilings were too low and radium contamination from the watches that were made there. Nevertheless, i would like to see this building saved even more than the Wurlitzer.

**downtownguy** · September-18-13, 12:05 PM

Are the ceilings in that building any lower than the Broderick or Kales? As for the radium, that's just a marketing opportunity: "Lights included".

**preserve** · September-18-13, 01:36 PM

Why did Mongo want this building in the first place?

**WaCoTS** · September-18-13, 10:04 PM

i was pretty sure the blg was decontaminated in the 1990s. but you know what happens anytime the word "contamination" is uttered...

but yeah, there is nothing wrong with this blg. it is in no worse shape than the Broderick or Whitney, GAR, Book Cadillac, Fort Shelby, Statler...

is it the easiest/most profitable building or parcel to redevelop? no, but it is definitely the most unique. all the slam-dunk renovations are being gobbled up by the developers out for quick / easy turnarounds. now we're getting down to the nitty gritty blgs.

**WPitonya** · September-19-13, 08:46 AM

Believe me, I would absolutely love to see the Metropolitan and Wurlitzer saved and restored/renovated [[my degree is in historic preservation). I believe they are both salvageable, even though the Metropolitan is a bit more challenging.
Just a question though; does anyone think that if they were both demolished, the sites could be combined for a new building [[even with the alley)?

**mikeg19** · September-19-13, 09:09 AM

From what I'm gathering from you guys is that it needs to be taken down to the structural steel for the most part? If the foundation is solid but the facade is crumbling, does the entire brick and mortar need to be replaced? Plus the gutting of the entire place, seems incredibly cost prohibitive. The BC might have been in horrendous shape but they didn't have to replace the facade. Don't get me wrong, I hope that the building is saved. But with that unusual footprint and [[supposedly) too low ceilings, is it realistic to turn this into residential? Would it be more well suited for office space?

**rjlj** · September-19-13, 09:26 AM

The entire brick and mortar would not need to bereplaced. The upper parts have obviouslysuccumbed to water damage, hence the nets & crumbling bricks. You may notice all the façade work currentlytaking place at the upper areas of the David Whitney. They are not removing the entire façade, justthe upper loose parts & replacing them. Same as you would do to your 50 year old chimney on your house.
Do these ceilings look low to you?
http://detroit.curbed.com/archives/2013/09/tour-the-metropolitans-interior-after-34-years-of-vacancy.php

**drjeff** · September-19-13, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by mikeg19

From what I'm gathering from you guys is that it needs to be taken down to the structural steel for the most part? If the foundation is solid but the facade is crumbling, does the entire brick and mortar need to be replaced? Plus the gutting of the entire place, seems incredibly cost prohibitive. The BC might have been in horrendous shape but they didn't have to replace the facade. Don't get me wrong, I hope that the building is saved. But with that unusual footprint and [[supposedly) too low ceilings, is it realistic to turn this into residential? Would it be more well suited for office space?

I don't know if you've driven by the David Whitney building lately, but they are replacing much of the facade on that.

**WPitonya** · September-19-13, 09:53 AM

They are replacing the upper facade on the Whitney to bring it back to its original appearance, not necessarily because it was damaged. On the Metropolitan, you may need to replace much of the mortar and various damaged brick, but you would absolutely not need to replace the entire facade. For the most part, the terracotta looks to be in great shape! I honestly do not see a huge cost in terms of masonry work here - the biggest cost would be the interior and windows.

**mikeg19** · September-19-13, 10:58 AM

Just took a look at the pics on curbed of the interior. It's in a lot better shape then I had been led to believe, and I don't know where this "low ceiling" rumor came from, but they look just fine to me.

**downtownguy** · September-19-13, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by mikeg19

I hope that the building is saved. But with that unusual footprint and [[supposedly) too low ceilings, is it realistic to turn this into residential? Would it be more well suited for office space?

Doesn't residential normally have lower ceilings than office space? I agree, though, that after looking at the pics on Curbed, I can almost see apartments rivaling the Broderick's. In fact, with the odd footprint, I think that would lend to more creative use of the space.

**downtownguy** · September-19-13, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by WaCoTS

i was pretty sure the blg was decontaminated in the 1990s.

I think you're correct about that. I'm not sure how "clean" that makes it, but the ominous radioactive warning signs on the outside-sidewalk level have been gone for a while.