Lafayette Building's top two floors subsiding?

[Meddle]

I guess we'll know there was a problem when it ends up in a pile on the street.

[Huggybear]

Dave, a 737 [[what hit the World Trade Center) weighs 4-5x as much as the B-25 that hit the Empire State Building. And a 737 flies at double the speed of a B-25.

Since impact energy is mass times velocity squared, you can easily see that the WTC absorbed an impact that was at least 32x what the ESB did - and it's a miracle that any building could take that without going over immediately.

And on the fire issue, jet fuel is in no way comparable to aviation gasoline.

[davewindsor]

Dave, a 737 [[what hit the World Trade Center) weighs 4-5x as much as the B-25 that hit the Empire State Building. And a 737 flies at double the speed of a B-25.

Since impact energy is mass times velocity squared, you can easily see that the WTC absorbed an impact that was at least 32x what the ESB did - and it's a miracle that any building could take that without going over immediately.

And on the fire issue, jet fuel is in no way comparable to aviation gasoline.

Yes, and let's hear your explanation as to why WTC 7 fell when it wasn't even struck by a plane while all the other older buildings around them didn't, Einstein.

[davewindsor]

Davewindsor, unless you're a licensed Professional Engineer, you're not qualified to make the statements you're making.

Says the guy with the ghetto name, huh? What's your interest in seeing the Lafayette's demise? Do you own property nearby? Do you have interest in one of those glass turds around Campus Martius?

[ghettopalmetto]

Says the guy with the ghetto name, huh? What's your interest in seeing the Lafayette's demise? Do you own property nearby? Do you have interest in one of those glass turds around Campus Martius?

I have no fiduciary interest in the Lafayette Building, one way or another.

I am, however, a structural engineer licensed in five states [[disclosure: Michigan is not one of them). Your insistence upon your ignorant, half-cocked theories as fact is simply preposterous.

With this in mind, do you care to explain fundamental concepts of building codes, and structural analysis and design to me? Or do you want to admit that perhaps you've greatly overstepped the boundaries of your knowledge and expertise?

[davewindsor]

I have no fiduciary interest in the Lafayette Building, one way or another.

I am, however, a structural engineer licensed in five states [[disclosure: Michigan is not one of them). Your insistence upon your ignorant, half-cocked theories as fact is simply preposterous.

With this in mind, do you care to explain fundamental concepts of building codes, and structural analysis and design to me? Or do you want to admit that perhaps you've greatly overstepped the boundaries of your knowledge and expertise?

I've ordered structural engineering reports before that were different from other engineering reports on the same property. There's little consistency. One engineer will say something completely different from another. I wouldn't give two cents to your dismal interpretation on the Lafayette or why glass buildings are as safe as older buildings because common sense shows otherwise. I'll pass on your bs claims that these cheaply built glass buildings are just as safe as these older buildings. Just look at WTC 7 vs. the other older buldings during 9/11. Glass buildings are unsafe. That's a fact!

[ghettopalmetto]

I've ordered structural engineering reports before that were different from other engineering reports on the same property. There's little consistency. One engineer will say something completely different from another. I wouldn't give two cents to your dismal interpretation on the Lafayette or why glass buildings are as safe as older buildings because common sense shows otherwise. I'll pass on your bs claims that these cheaply built glass buildings are just as safe as these older buildings. Just look at WTC 7 vs. the other older buldings during 9/11. Glass buildings are unsafe. That's a fact!

It's true that engineers are prone to have differing opinions--just as scientists, doctors, economists, educators and other professionals have differing opinions. On the other hand, your conclusions could be clouded because you don't understand the content of the reports.

The difference between my opinion and yours is that mine is admissible in court, based on education, experience, and current practice. Your opinion is just reiterating bullshit generated by sources deemed not to be credible by the engineering community.

If you're going to go around making generic statements like "glass buildings are unsafe", then YOU are the one who's unsafe. You might as well yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater. Face it--you can't use engineering theory to support a single specious claim you've made. I could certainly use principles of engineering to debunk every damned idiotic thing you've been writing, though. It's just a matter of how long I'm willing to let you make yourself look stupid.

[rsa.313]

If one of those planes hit the ESB, I guarantee it would still be there by the way it was built.

absolutley not. the majority of the building might remain standing, but it would probably require billions of dollars and years to restore [[see your own examples referenced below).

From the earlier ESB crash, there was also structural damage and fire due to a direct hit by a plane and yet the fires were put out 40 minutes later and the unaffected floors of the building were open for business a day later.

the crash was between two floors. there was no significant structural damage. fires were put out 40 minutes later because there was still water pressure to the building.

Yet, if we look closer to the WTC South Tower hit, we see the plane entered off center at an angle--missing the inner core, yet the tower goes down just like the North Tower, which was a direct hit.

if you'd look even closer, you'd notice that the hit was much lower on the south tower than the north. which meant the damaged/weakened portion had to support more weight than the north. they were both direct hits, just different locations. the more centrally located hit on the north tower gave more support surrounding the hole. if you punch a hole in a wall it stands a better chance of remaining standing than if you were to remove a corner.

The ESB crash proved the superiority of the older construction methods.

no it doesn't. you're using faulty logic. comparing a building that was hit with a plane that was 1/3 the size of a 767, cruised at less than half the speed of a 767, carried less fuel than a 767, and used less volatile fuel than a 767 does not mean one building is superior than the other. you might make the argument that one building SYSTEM is better than the other, but methods have nothing to do with this comparison. [by the way; the methods used to construct the ESB are still in practice today.]

The outer walls were made of quarried limestone, the interior used grid of steel columns were fireproofed with concrete several inches thick, and they even had a concrete fire seperation between the units and the hallways.

the limestone is not load bearing; it only supports it's own weight.

the columns were NOT encased in several inches of concrete.

there is NO concrete fire separation walls between units and hallways.

It was fireproofed with a thin layer of mineral fiber/cement that was sprayed on, which was easily dislodged.

i wouldn't call getting hit by a 160 foot jet travelling at .86 mach "easily dislodged."

here is a very good comparison of 90 west and 7 WTC: http://911guide.googlepages.com/90west

130 cedar is a reinforced concrete structure, which is different from the two types we've been discussing thus far. the fires it sustained were on the upper floors that did not support massive forces above them. it also is currently undergoing complete rebuilding.

no fires were observed in 140 west and it cost $1.4 billion to restore.

what about the world financial center? it was built in the mid '80's, received heavy damage, was restored, and is now viable again.

what about fiterman hall? it was built in the same method of the ESB, less than 20 years after it, received damage, and now cannot be restored and has to be demolished.

Who cares about your funny numbers of how much it would cost to build and that they've found cheaper and unsafer ways to build highrises?

my "funny numbers" are actual construction costs adjusted for inflation. and shown here it proves the ESB cost less than a quarter of the price of one of the WTC towers, not including foundation work. so there's nothing cheaper about it. and you still haven't proven that modern construction techniques are unsafe.

The newer buildings will not stand up the test of time like older buildings such as the Lafayette.

proof to back that up?

don't get me wrong, i'd love to see the lafayette building restored if it's structurally sound. i'm just trying to set the record straight with facts.

[rsa.313]

I'll pass on your bs claims that these cheaply built glass buildings are just as safe as these older buildings. Just look at WTC 7 vs. the other older buldings during 9/11. Glass buildings are unsafe. That's a fact!

you'll pass on a licensed engineer's statements about structural failure? do you have any facts, calculations, studies, reports, etc. that come to your same conclusion? i can see that you're only interested in advertising your opinion as fact and "common sense" with nothing to actually back it up than other opinions. thus my responses to you have been a complete waste of time.

[davewindsor]

It's true that engineers are prone to have differing opinions--just as scientists, doctors, economists, educators and other professionals have differing opinions. On the other hand, your conclusions could be clouded because you don't understand the content of the reports.

The difference between my opinion and yours is that mine is admissible in court, based on education, experience, and current practice. Your opinion is just reiterating bullshit generated by sources deemed not to be credible by the engineering community.

If you're going to go around making generic statements like "glass buildings are unsafe", then YOU are the one who's unsafe. You might as well yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater. Face it--you can't use engineering theory to support a single specious claim you've made. I could certainly use principles of engineering to debunk every damned idiotic thing you've been writing, though. It's just a matter of how long I'm willing to let you make yourself look stupid.

No, my conclusions aren't clouded. Depending on what the engineer reports say or don't and the conclusions they reach determine if the lender will give me financing. Banks don't just throw money at bad reports. If they did, there wouldn't be a need for a structural report to begin with. So, I understand what's in the report and the impact it'll have.

Yes, your opinion is admissible for what it's worth, but what you write can be contradicted by other engineers. You say what I write is idiotic, yet an engineer passed WTC 7 or it wouldn't have been built. Yet, WTC 7 built in the 1980's collapsed without being struck by a plane while neighbouring buildings 5 times the age all remained standing. So who's the idiot? I guess I shouldn't be concerned for my safety after seeing the kind of crap and unsafe buildings engineers now pass because if I don't blindly trust your opinion I'm an idiot. Sounds like an idiotic conclusion to me.

[Huggybear]

Picture of the top floor.

[davewindsor]

the limestone is not load bearing; it only supports it's own weight.

the columns were NOT encased in several inches of concrete.

there is NO concrete fire separation walls between units and hallways.

That's not what I've read, but I'd like to know where you've been getting your data that it's not encased in concrete and there's no fire seperation between units and hallways

here is a very good comparison of 90 west and 7 WTC: http://911guide.googlepages.com/90west

Doesn't this prove my point that older buildings are better built than newer ones?

no fires were observed in 140 west and it cost $1.4 billion to restore.

It cost a lot to build back then too and it was built. Yet, the tools of construction make it less labour intensive to build things. Perhaps, the problem is with trade unions and construction outfits ruining the country today by demanding so much wages . Then, it's up to the government to change the laws to fix this problem instead of building crappier buildings. Maybe a little Reaganomics is in order.

what about fiterman hall? it was built in the same method of the ESB, less than 20 years after it, received damage, and now cannot be restored and has to be demolished.

But it didn't collapse like WTC 7 now, did it? I think I'd rather be in that building than WTC 7 if there are any low flying planes.

my "funny numbers" are actual construction costs adjusted for inflation. and shown here it proves the ESB cost less than a quarter of the price of one of the WTC towers, not including foundation work. so there's nothing cheaper about it. and you still haven't proven that modern construction techniques are unsafe.



proof to back that up?

WTC 7 collapsed without being struck, yet the older buildings around it did not. That proof in the example should be self-evident.

don't get me wrong, i'd love to see the lafayette building restored if it's structurally sound..

Glad you're atleast on board in some sense..

[gnome]

Dave, you might want to know that RSA is one the finest and most experienced architects in the mid-west. Your thoughts are intersting, but you are in a knife fight, armed with an emery board.

[rjlj]

This has to be the biggest armchair expert post I have ever seen. 100% speculation and assumptions based on a single post. And then Huggybear posts a picture of what pretty much proves and shows nothing of what he claimed. It might be best to take the word from an expert who actually looks at the building a reports back before coming to blows.

[Huggybear]

I've been entertained by the street fight going on here - but I'm still puzzled about what is going on with those top floors.

Here are some more pictures in which I think I am seeing:

1. The ceiling [[or pipes?) falling into the top floor.

2. The interior brick columns [[right inside the brown brick pillar of the facade) slumping inward.

3. Disintegration of the brick between floors [[may be ornamental).

4. In the tall picture, you can see what looks like elements of the top floor's floor impinging into the next to the top floor. Look at the very vertex. Follow the perspective line - where the mullion is missing does not look to be in line with the two windows to the right.

In general, this now extends all the way to the Shelby end of the V.

And what is going on with all the missing windows? The windows on this building [[at least above the podium) are wood, rotten, and not worth anything. Vandalism? Or was this part of the same phenomenon that is tearing up the inside of the top floors?

???

This has to be the biggest armchair expert post I have ever seen. 100% speculation and assumptions based on a single post. And then Huggybear posts a picture of what pretty much proves and shows nothing of what he claimed. It might be best to take the word from an expert who actually looks at the building a reports back before coming to blows.

[Meddle]

davewindsor, You don't by chance use the IDs "John Wade" or "Visual-Audio" on another board, do you?

[ghettopalmetto]

No, my conclusions aren't clouded. Depending on what the engineer reports say or don't and the conclusions they reach determine if the lender will give me financing. Banks don't just throw money at bad reports. If they did, there wouldn't be a need for a structural report to begin with. So, I understand what's in the report and the impact it'll have.

Engineers may have differing opinions, but unlike you, I am obligated to base my professional opinions on facts and objective information. You simply don't have a knowledge of even the most fundamental engineering principles, as evidenced by your ramblings.

I sure hope the reports you purchase are signed and sealed.

You say what I write is idiotic, yet an engineer passed WTC 7 or it wouldn't have been built. Yet, WTC 7 built in the 1980's collapsed without being struck by a plane while neighbouring buildings 5 times the age all remained standing. So who's the idiot? I guess I shouldn't be concerned for my safety after seeing the kind of crap and unsafe buildings engineers now pass because if I don't blindly trust your opinion I'm an idiot. Sounds like an idiotic conclusion to me.

Engineers don't "pass" buildings--they design them. Their seal and signature upon the design documents represents a standard of care the engineer-in-charge is required to meet, which includes, among other things, adhering to building codes and sound engineering practice. A seal and signature indicates a hell of a lot more commitment to protecting life safety than your paranoid off-the-cuff ramblings.

You think newer buildings are unsafe as-constructed? Prove it. Demonstrate, using calculations and engineering principles, that WTC 7 was designed to be an unsafe building.

I don't have any direct knowledge of WTC 7 construction, so I have to rely on third-party information. You can read this summary from Popular Mechanics, which cites NIST investigations. But I'm sure your extensive background in reading reports couched in laymen's language is far superior than any Professional Engineer engaged by NIST.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...42.html?page=5

Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors — along with the building's unusual construction — were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

[ghettopalmetto]

Also, this:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/r...wtc082108.html

[PQZ]

Huggybear:

I spent many an hour [[legally and legitmately) in the Lafayette over the last four - five years. The facade and structural brick systems are showing significant degredation from 18 months ago - at least the areas in your photos are...

The main concern is the delamination of the interior course of bricks on the window columns and what appears to be the complete failure of window framing systems that are collapsing. What you interpret to be pipes I am interpreting to be lintels and floor/ roof slabs meeting the walls and windows. Water penetration from a nearly completely failed roofing and drainage system is allowing significant water penetration. The penetration is causing delamination of the brick which is causing the window framing to collapse. In your bottom photo, it appears the exterior course of decorative brick and stonework between the floors appears to be ready to completely separate and fall off..

Two and a half years ago I asked a handful of contracting firms that were working on historic preservation projects to give me back of napkin estimates to stabilize the roof and drainage systems to prevent further decay. The estimates were woughly $800,000 for a system that would "buy a year or two - maybe", $1.2 million for a similar system and $2.5 - $3.0 million for a more comprehensive system that would last up to five years if the building were under contract for restoration.

Key points here:
The two lower estimates would need an additional expenditure of something in the neighborhood of $200,000 per year to upkeep. The higher estimate was not eligible for tax credits and the system in place would not be reuseable in future development. The entire prophylactic system would be scrapped and that expense not recovered.

Those who say mothballing is "cheaper" than demo have no idea what they are talking about. The demo costs are estimated at $1.4 million. A decent mothballing of the building would run to $4 million or more. In the five to ten year run, demo is a fraction of the cost of mothballing.

In the 10 to 50 year run, the equation becomes fuzzier.

On one hand, you have federal and state tax credits that for the project that are "free money" that will reduce the financing needs of the project. The DDA / DEGC do that very well already, having used some very sophisiticated credits for the Book Cadillac. The question is whether those credits are sufficient to cover the costs of the building renovation AND reduce costs enough to make the project viable. The credits not only must cover cost differentials between new vs. rehab, but they must also provide enough benefit that it makes the project work. Even the new build must have fianncial help because the demand is so weak. Will the historic tax credits cover cost differntials AND market gaps. My gut says no.

Because the property is partially a tax foreclosure, the state brownfield tax credits runs with the parcel not the building, meaning new construction on the site can claim brownfield tax credits - so that has no influence either way in the demo / rehab discussion. BTW, same situation applies to the Statler site.

On the demo side of the equation, the City and the DDA have no money to invest in mothballing for speculative purposes when there are active projects seeking the same funds. The choice is the classic bird in hand now vs. two in the bush - next decade.

The funds being used for demo are funds specifically created by the state for demo. The DDA collects all city and county millages with the exception of bonded debt and the 6 mills for schools that goes into the state school funding pool. The DDA uses the funds it it is eleigible to collect for its loans to projects like the Kales and BC and other investments like the Woodward / Washington / Broadway Streetscapes. The demo fund that was created by Granholm and Kilpatrick allows the DDA, for a period of a few years, to collect up to roughly $8 million from the 6 mills for schools. The state is replacing that missing money from the state school funding with tobacco settlement dollars. Schools do not suffer and the City gets a pool of dollars to work with for demo, so it is not forced into the very tough decision of: "write five small business loans or demo a building." They now can write the five loans and move forward with blight removal.

[detmich]

Why is everyone so worried? I think that the kids from SITC will be over there as soon as they're finished restoring the MSC. That will make everything okey dokey! Keep up the good work as Detroit rises!

[kraig]

Very informative post PQZ. Best one on this thread by far. One of the things a lot of people need to understand is that the financial conditions are always going to trump the engineering conditions in situations like this.

Good luck in North Carolina Mr. Z.

[ghettopalmetto]

Those who say mothballing is "cheaper" than demo have no idea what they are talking about. The demo costs are estimated at $1.4 million. A decent mothballing of the building would run to $4 million or more. In the five to ten year run, demo is a fraction of the cost of mothballing.

In the 10 to 50 year run, the equation becomes fuzzier.

Sure, why look beyond 10 years? I mean, buildings don't last that long anyway, right?

Are you including or excluding the taxes that a renovated building would pay? What about increased property values? Do those play in anywhere, or do you just look at immediate short-term results to do your long-term planning?

Very informative post PQZ. Best one on this thread by far. One of the things a lot of people need to understand is that the financial conditions are always going to trump the engineering conditions in situations like this.

Tough to say, kraig, when DEGC refuses to hire an engineer in order to obtain objective data on which to base a decision. That's the entire problem--all these dollar figures [[other than the demo costs) are made up until a scope of work is defined. It's a lot easier to make the simple-minded decision than to have to actually think, or deal with *gasp* unknowns.

[Novine]

"On the demo side of the equation, the City and the DDA have no money to invest in mothballing for speculative purposes when there are active projects seeking the same funds. The choice is the classic bird in hand now vs. two in the bush - next decade."

Which active projects are those? The DDA diverted tens of millions from funds for rehabs for a new Quicken building. No building, no need.

"The funds being used for demo are funds specifically created by the state for demo."

Please document this. It was reported that the funds used to take down the Ilitch-owned buildings around the Fox were the last of those state demo funds.

[kraig]

Sure, why look beyond 10 years? I mean, buildings don't last that long anyway, right?

Are you including or excluding the taxes that a renovated building would pay? What about increased property values? Do those play in anywhere, or do you just look at immediate short-term results to do your long-term planning?



Tough to say, kraig, when DEGC refuses to hire an engineer in order to obtain objective data on which to base a decision. That's the entire problem--all these dollar figures [[other than the demo costs) are made up until a scope of work is defined. It's a lot easier to make the simple-minded decision than to have to actually think, or deal with *gasp* unknowns.

You do understand that mothballing a building isn't the same as renovating a building? The City wouldn't make money off of just mothballing the building.

Having an engineer look at a building for the unknowns is very critical, there's no denying that. But, when the knowns are already telling you it's cheaper to demolish, it may be a waste of time and resources to consult with an engineer. The DEGC knows that demolition will cost 1.4 million. From the DEGC's standpoint, it's a waste of time to consult with an engineer when they know that the engineer is not going to come back with a cost of mothballing the building for less than that. As an engineer, wouldn't you be suspect of any engineer that did come back with an amount that's lower than the 1.4 million? Furthermore, the cost of a qualified engineer to take even a cursory look would be somewhere in the five figure range and probably six figures for the detailed look that would be necessary. As an experienced engineer, do you think that there is a reputable firm out there that would tell the DEGC it would cost less than 1.4 million to repair the building and seal it up?

RSA, please feel free to answer that question too. And remember, GP and RSA, your credibility is on the line here. Everyone is going to see through any emotional BS answers.

[ghettopalmetto]

You do understand that mothballing a building isn't the same as renovating a building? The City wouldn't make money off of just mothballing the building.

Having an engineer look at a building for the unknowns is very critical, there's no denying that. But, when the knowns are already telling you it's cheaper to demolish, it may be a waste of time and resources to consult with an engineer. The DEGC knows that demolition will cost 1.4 million. From the DEGC's standpoint, it's a waste of time to consult with an engineer when they know that the engineer is not going to come back with a cost of mothballing the building for less than that. As an engineer, wouldn't you be suspect of any engineer that did come back with an amount that's lower than the 1.4 million? Furthermore, the cost of a qualified engineer to take even a cursory look would be somewhere in the five figure range and probably six figures for the detailed look that would be necessary. As an experienced engineer, do you think that there is a reputable firm out there that would tell the DEGC it would cost less than 1.4 million to repair the building and seal it up?

RSA, please feel free to answer that question too. And remember, GP and RSA, your credibility is on the line here. Everyone is going to see through any emotional BS answers.

You're completely missing the point, Kraig. Here's why:

1. An empty lot is *guaranteed* to make zero money for the city in the long-term, and the proposed landscaping will in fact cost money. I'm not talking about "mothballing". I'm talking about the lost potential for development once this building is demolished.

2. There are no "knowns" telling the DEGC demolish. Good science demands a null hypothesis. To what have they compared the cost of demolition? Where's the benefit/cost analysis? There is no established objective basis for comparison at this time. By refusing to perform the due diligence necessary to reach an objective and fact-based decision, the DEGC has, in effect, made a completely emotional decision to demolish the Lafayette Building.

3. An engineer wouldn't be engaged to suggest means of mothballing. Joe Contractor off the street can do that much cheaper. An engineer would be hired to conduct a feasibility study and define a scope of repair to ensure stability and sound condition of the structure--which is necessary should a renovation be undertaken. If it takes two engineers one week to conduct the investigation, you're looking at about $10,000, or 0.7% the cost of demolition. That's not much money to pay to obtain an objective answer, especially when one considers the cost of constructing a new building on the site, and any subsidies that would be required to do so.

What the "pro-demolition" argument is missing is that the Lafayette Building has been paid off for quite some time. Instead of recovering those sunk costs, the DEGC has voted to spend money to reintroduce those costs, in that new design work, foundations, and structure would need to be erected for any new building on the site.

4. Yes, repairs would likely cost more than the cost of demolition. But if the building is repaired and renovated, it would be returned to the tax rolls and contribute to the city's economic well-being. This is known as a "long-term" approach, as opposed to the "Holy Shit the Economy Sucks at this One Little Blip In Time Fucking Bulldoze Everything!" approach.

5. The only reason the Lafayette Building would HAVE to be demolished RIGHT NOW is if its existence were an immediate danger to life and property. Again, the DEGC cares enough to not hire an engineer to make this determination.

But hey, this is just my opinion. Feel free to support yet another giant moonscaped hole in the middle of downtown Detroit if you think that's gonna help anything.