Lafayette Building's top two floors subsiding?

**kraig** · July-22-09, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

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.

The question did say repair as well, I see you conveniently didn't answer that part of the question.

I don't support the building coming down. As I've stated before, I'm all for the DEGC letting developers take a look at it. They don't have anything to lose. But I understand where the DEGC is coming from on this one. Having a building, owned by the City, with pipes hanging out of windows and trees growing in and out of it, makes it that much more difficult to market downtown. If you are a developer with no interest in the Lafayette Building or its preservation. Why in the world would you want to do business around it? The BC had the benefit of the Federal Government providing some upkeep while they were using the building back in the 90's. The Lafayette is too far gone to simply hold on to. If someone is ready to try to rehab the building and use it, fine,if not, reality has to take over.

**Novine** · July-22-09, 11:01 AM

"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."

That's DEGC economics for you. Spend $1.4 million to get zero dollars in return. I wouldn't deny that mothballing the Lafayette would exceed the cost of demolition. But that's just a short-term perspective. Over the long-term, the city will capture more value from the Lafayette as a building versus a pile of rubble. Run the numbers Kraig. Show us how demolition and new development in 10 years, which seems like a realistic timeframe for this site, versus mothball and rehab in 10 years compare.

**kraig** · July-22-09, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by Novine

"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."

That's DEGC economics for you. Spend $1.4 million to get zero dollars in return. I wouldn't deny that mothballing the Lafayette would exceed the cost of demolition. But that's just a short-term perspective. Over the long-term, the city will capture more value from the Lafayette as a building versus a pile of rubble. Run the numbers Kraig. Show us how demolition and new development in 10 years, which seems like a realistic timeframe for this site, versus mothball and rehab in 10 years compare.

It would depend on the type of new development or rehab. You see Novine, things that don't exist yet are sometimes considered unknowns. Let's go with the knowns, which would be the cost of demolition vs mothballing. I believe PQZ already gave those numbers 1.4 million vs 4 million. Run that.

**Meddle** · July-22-09, 11:20 AM

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.

Buildings don't generate revenue without occupants. How many buildings in good condition in downtown remain unoccupied?

PQZ · July-22-09, 11:21 AM

1. An empty and mothballed building provides no economic value to the City. It generates no taxes and continues to drain the budget. Mothballing is not a one time expense. There is significant up front cost and continued expenditures.

2. The building today makes no economic sense to rehab. The capital generated from sales / rents is not enough to pay the costs of renovation, even after all the tax credits and financing mechanisms are employed. The City will need to make what amount to cash grants that are substantially larger than demo costs for the project to break even / create return on investment for the developer. This is important: Under this scenario, the building would pay nominal taxes for a period of 12 years AFTER the rehab. There will be effectively no tax generated and returned to the city for a dozen years after a rehab.

3. Mothballing it for a period of ten years preseums there is enough market rebound to create sufficient value to overcome the challenges of market AND recover to the point where the developer is willing to reimburse the CVity for its mothballing investment. Highly unlikely.

**Meddle** · July-22-09, 11:22 AM

I don't recognize this building by name. What intersection are we talking about?

**ghettopalmetto** · July-22-09, 11:24 AM

Kraig,

I didn't ignore the issue of repair. The truth is that NOBODY knows what it will cost to repair the Lafayette building until a Scope of Repair is established. In order to do that, you need an architect and engineer to conduct an evaluation of the building. Are you seeing how this works?

The fact is, you are in no position to determine if the building is "too far gone". NOBODY can make that decision, let alone a lay person such as yourself, until some numbers are obtained in order to conduct a feasibility study.

It's these pre-ordained conclusions by unknowledgable people [[like George Jackson) that are precisely what is so aggravating about the development environment in Detroit.

**catch22** · July-22-09, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by Meddle

I don't recognize this building by name. What intersection are we talking about?

West end of the triangular block formed by Michigan Avenue, Shelby, and Lafayette. Just west of the coney island joints.

**Meddle** · July-22-09, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by catch22

West end of the triangular block formed by Michigan Avenue, Shelby, and Lafayette. Just west of the coney island joints.

If that's the one across the corner from the Federal Courthouse, GSA looked at it in the early 90's as offices for Federal agencies and some Judges. They determined it was unihabitable and beyond [[economically feasible) repair. GSA felt it would cost less to build a new Courthouse or office building.

**catch22** · July-22-09, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by Meddle

If that's the one across the corner from the Federal Courthouse, GSA looked at it in the early 90's as offices for Federal agencies and some Judges. They determined it was unihabitable and beyond [[economically feasible) repair. GSA felt it would cost less to build a new Courthouse or office building.

It's just NE of the courthouse across the intersection of Lafayette and Shelby, "kitty-corner" as my mother would say. Sounds like the same place.

**Gistok** · July-22-09, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by Meddle

If that's the one across the corner from the Federal Courthouse, GSA looked at it in the early 90's as offices for Federal agencies and some Judges. They determined it was unihabitable and beyond [[economically feasible) repair. GSA felt it would cost less to build a new Courthouse or office building.

The GSA may have said that, but I don't believe it was uninhabitable... the building closed in 1990... so it didn't have much time to sit empty when the GSA looked at it... although it may have been expensive to retrofit it to courtrooms.

I also was skeptical of General Motors when they used the same excuse for moving out of the GM HQ in New Center to the RenCen. They said they would have to stick too much money into it to bring it back. Try telling that to the folks who fixed it up for the State of Michigan to lease it.

**Novine** · July-22-09, 03:18 PM

"It would depend on the type of new development or rehab. You see Novine, things that don't exist yet are sometimes considered unknowns. Let's go with the knowns, which would be the cost of demolition vs mothballing. I believe PQZ already gave those numbers 1.4 million vs 4 million. Run that."

Great news Kraig! You can recycle that answer for just about every old building downtown. In fact, you could have justified demoing almost every building downtown that's been restored in the past 30 years. That's the kind of shortsighted logic prized by the DEGC. I'm sure you would make them proud.

**kraig** · July-22-09, 10:59 PM

Originally Posted by Novine

"It would depend on the type of new development or rehab. You see Novine, things that don't exist yet are sometimes considered unknowns. Let's go with the knowns, which would be the cost of demolition vs mothballing. I believe PQZ already gave those numbers 1.4 million vs 4 million. Run that."

Great news Kraig! You can recycle that answer for just about every old building downtown. In fact, you could have justified demoing almost every building downtown that's been restored in the past 30 years. That's the kind of shortsighted logic prized by the DEGC. I'm sure you would make them proud.

Since I'm sure this is the question you're waiting for, I'll give it to you.

Can you please name the buildings that were abandoned and owned by the City that have been rehabbed in the last thirty years?

**kraig** · July-22-09, 11:10 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Kraig,

I didn't ignore the issue of repair. The truth is that NOBODY knows what it will cost to repair the Lafayette building until a Scope of Repair is established. In order to do that, you need an architect and engineer to conduct an evaluation of the building. Are you seeing how this works?

The fact is, you are in no position to determine if the building is "too far gone". NOBODY can make that decision, let alone a lay person such as yourself, until some numbers are obtained in order to conduct a feasibility study.

It's these pre-ordained conclusions by unknowledgable people [[like George Jackson) that are precisely what is so aggravating about the development environment in Detroit.

I know I'm just a lay person and all. But, I really have to question your ability. Any engineer worth his salt can tell that the Lafayette Building is going to cost more than 1.4 million to repair. If you're honestly saying that you can't tell that just by looking at the building, you need to go into a different field. You aren't cut out for engineering.

**ghettopalmetto** · July-23-09, 07:00 AM

Kraig,

Nowhere did I write that repair would cost less than $1.4 million. I acknowledged that a cost estimate for repair doesn't exist at this time. For all I know, it could be $5 billion, or $5, or anywhere in between. The truth is, no one knows for sure, because the lazy bastards at DEGC are too lazy to find out. Now who's being dishonest?

An engineer knows not to claim as fact any information that he doesn't know for certain. Maybe you'd care to share your life-cycle cost analysis of the Lafayette Building with us?

**Novine** · July-23-09, 12:10 PM

"Since I'm sure this is the question you're waiting for, I'll give it to you."

I'm not looking for a question. I'm making the point that there's no buildings out there that won't cost more to rehab or be mothballed than torn down. Using your "DEGC Math", every building is going to be a candidate for demolition because it's always cheaper to destroy than to fix up, if one is intent on looking at nothing beyond those numbers.

**kraig** · July-23-09, 07:06 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Kraig,

Nowhere did I write that repair would cost less than $1.4 million. I acknowledged that a cost estimate for repair doesn't exist at this time. For all I know, it could be $5 billion, or $5, or anywhere in between. The truth is, no one knows for sure, because the lazy bastards at DEGC are too lazy to find out. Now who's being dishonest?

An engineer knows not to claim as fact any information that he doesn't know for certain. Maybe you'd care to share your life-cycle cost analysis of the Lafayette Building with us?

If the people at the DEGC know that the building will cost 1.4 million to tear down and they know that the cost to repair and mothball the building is more than 1.4 million. Why would they hire an engineer to point out the obvious?

Experts are hired to tell clients what they don't know or are unsure of. Everyone that's posted on this thread, even us lay people, know that the building is going to cost more than 1.4 million to repair and mothball. Hiring an engineer to confirm the obvious is a waste of time and money.

**kraig** · July-23-09, 07:14 PM

Originally Posted by Novine

"Since I'm sure this is the question you're waiting for, I'll give it to you."

I'm not looking for a question. I'm making the point that there's no buildings out there that won't cost more to rehab or be mothballed than torn down. Using your "DEGC Math", every building is going to be a candidate for demolition because it's always cheaper to destroy than to fix up, if one is intent on looking at nothing beyond those numbers.

In other words, you couldn't come up with any. Money is invested to make more money, not to put yourself in a holding pattern. If there's serious interest in developing a building like the Lafayette, then by all means, the DEGC should go for it. But right now, two floors have collapsed and there's a tree growing inside of it. When's a good time to tear it down? After it falls on some people while Charlie Leduff is filming another segment of "Hold the Onions"?

**Huggybear** · July-23-09, 10:51 PM

Originally Posted by kraig

If the people at the DEGC know that the building will cost 1.4 million to tear down and they know that the cost to repair and mothball the building is more than 1.4 million. Why would they hire an engineer to point out the obvious?

Good point - and one that's been lost here.

If any known single aspect of a project pushes it past the point of economic viability using all available economic development tools, you don't need to look to any of the unknowns - because at best they will not affect anything.

A similar situation is this: you bought a new car - and now you want to sell your old car. Its blue book would be $400 - but the engine is trashed. If it costs $2,000 to replace the engine, would you really hire a mechanic to look at the suspension and the tires? I don't think anyone would argue that it would be a rational conclusion to scrap the car. You could conceivably "mothball" the car until at some point in the distant future it became valuable, but all that time, you will have been paying to garage it and performing some ongoing maintenance to keep it running. You may never recover the money spent to keep it in salable condition, particularly if it's decades before its value increases sufficiently. This is precisely PQZ's point.

**Sebastian** · July-23-09, 11:05 PM

Originally Posted by davewindsor

The WTC was cheaply built--mostly steel and glass. The inherent problem was with structural steel. If structural steel is heated at 2000 degrees for a couple minutes, which is easily done when a fire breaks out in an enclosed unit, the steel bends like licorice and the above floor ends up collapsing into the one below because the steel lost its ability to support the weight above. When you have a couple floors plus the weight of several dozen floors above it collapse on floor below it, the whole thing comes down. BUT, concrete can protect against the immediate effects of that heat that structural steel cannot, so you're not going to have the kind of "spontaneous progressive collapse" in the Empire State Building like you did with WTC.

You need to do a reality check, since you don't know what you're talking about. The WTC didn't collapse, it *exploded*. Didn't you notice the billowing clouds of concrete dust? Does concrete just explode when it collapses? No, it doesn't. it fractures and makes a big pile of rubble; it doesn't get ejected a hundred feet in a lateral direction. And where was all the concrete from all those floors? In a pile of rubble on the ground? No--because it had all blown away in clouds of dust. Pulverized -- by what?

No steel frame building has ever collapsed due to a fire, and yet we're supposed to believe that three of them collapsed on the same day - one of which had insignificant fire damage? Look at footage of WTC # 7 collapsing, and try to convince yourself that that building was not deliberately imploded. That's right, forget about the twin towers for a sec and just watch #7 coming down on that fateful day. And if you still believe that happened because of a couple small office fires, then I have nothing else to tell you.

**Novine** · July-23-09, 11:19 PM

"No steel frame building has ever collapsed due to a fire, and yet we're supposed to believe that three of them collapsed on the same day - one of which had insignificant fire damage?"

Not to waste time on this threadjacking debate but perhaps you missed the Detroit area news this week where a tanker fire underneath an overpass caused the failure and collapse of the bridge due to the failure of the steel beams supporting the bridge.

http://www.freep.com/article/20090716/NEWS05/90716049/

**Novine** · July-23-09, 11:22 PM

"In other words, you couldn't come up with any."

I'm not familiar enough with all of the buildings the City/DDA has owned over the years to give you a definitive answer. What is the answer?

But more on point, using your math [[and the math used by Geo. Jackson), almost every building that the DDA/DEGC owns or controls will be a candidate for demolition because in every case, running the numbers for demolition versus maintaining a building for future use is always going to be biased towards demolition. That means that every building that the DDA/DEGC has an interest in should automatically be considered under threat of demolition. The actions of the DDA/DEGC have demonstrated that to be true and your explanation of the logic behind it shows how narrow-minded and short-sighted the thinking of those at the DDA/DEGC is in on this issue.

**Sebastian** · July-23-09, 11:30 PM

Originally Posted by Novine

"No steel frame building has ever collapsed due to a fire, and yet we're supposed to believe that three of them collapsed on the same day - one of which had insignificant fire damage?"

Not to waste time on this threadjacking debate but perhaps you missed the Detroit area news this week where a tanker fire underneath an overpass caused the failure and collapse of the bridge due to the failure of the steel beams supporting the bridge.

http://www.freep.com/article/20090716/NEWS05/90716049/

My bad, I was under the impression I could comment on whatever was said in this thread.

And since I wasn't talking to you specifically, I think you're guilty of response-jacking. So I guess we're even :-)

**Trumpeteer** · July-24-09, 07:15 AM

Originally Posted by Sebastian

You need to do a reality check, since you don't know what you're talking about. The WTC didn't collapse, it *exploded*. Didn't you notice the billowing clouds of concrete dust? Does concrete just explode when it collapses? No, it doesn't. it fractures and makes a big pile of rubble; it doesn't get ejected a hundred feet in a lateral direction. And where was all the concrete from all those floors? In a pile of rubble on the ground? No--because it had all blown away in clouds of dust. Pulverized -- by what?

No steel frame building has ever collapsed due to a fire, and yet we're supposed to believe that three of them collapsed on the same day - one of which had insignificant fire damage? Look at footage of WTC # 7 collapsing, and try to convince yourself that that building was not deliberately imploded. That's right, forget about the twin towers for a sec and just watch #7 coming down on that fateful day. And if you still believe that happened because of a couple small office fires, then I have nothing else to tell you.

An airliner crashing into an office tower fully loaded with fuel does a tad more than cause " a couple small oddice fires". Now your thoughts on jet contrails?

**davewindsor** · July-24-09, 08:11 AM

Originally Posted by Sebastian

You need to do a reality check, since you don't know what you're talking about. The WTC didn't collapse, it *exploded*. Didn't you notice the billowing clouds of concrete dust? Does concrete just explode when it collapses? No, it doesn't. it fractures and makes a big pile of rubble; it doesn't get ejected a hundred feet in a lateral direction. And where was all the concrete from all those floors? In a pile of rubble on the ground? No--because it had all blown away in clouds of dust. Pulverized -- by what?

No steel frame building has ever collapsed due to a fire, and yet we're supposed to believe that three of them collapsed on the same day - one of which had insignificant fire damage? Look at footage of WTC # 7 collapsing, and try to convince yourself that that building was not deliberately imploded. That's right, forget about the twin towers for a sec and just watch #7 coming down on that fateful day. And if you still believe that happened because of a couple small office fires, then I have nothing else to tell you.

That's the most idiotic statement I heard yet. The NY Fire Chief determined caused of WTC 7's collapse was due to fire, not an exlposion. Why would I try to convince myself otherwise? Are you a Fire Marshall? Have you even bothered to read the articles posted in this thread posted by rsa and ghetto? RSA's diagram from the Science Times article showed a comparison between 70 West with WTC 7 and how the spray on fire proofing could have fallen off the steel support beams to lead to its collapse during a fire versus the 4-6 inch clay block tile that protected the steel support beams on 70 West. An unsafe and cheap modern building practice that caused WTC 7 to collapse while 70 West remained standing.

Ghetto's Popular Mechanic's article stated that the "one primary reason for the building's failure" were "the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor" and according to their "preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors, it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

One column is damaged by a piece debris from another building and the whole thing collapses. That is called modern ways of building on the cheap: engineers trying to find cheaper ways to build buildings that end up collapsing from their own weight. Quite unlike the older buildings which are many more times safer, solid and built to last.