Lafayette Building's top two floors subsiding?

[Novine]

"Its perfectly legal, perfectly ethical and quite a clever way to reduce staff and overhead costs for projects while maintaining continuity. Its not nefarious, its not murky. Its effecient and straightforward."

The DDA structure is designed to minimize public input and public oversight while maintaining the appearance of a public body. The creation of the DEGC and the outsourcing of the DDA activities to the DEGC further obscures the ability of the public to know what's going on. The idea that the DDA exercises any real oversight of the DDA activities is a joke. The DDA largely rubberstamps what Jackson and the DEGC do. It's no different than the board of directors at many major corporations who allowed their CEOs to drive the companies off the economic cliff. The DDA board doesn't need to micromanage the activities of the staff. But they need to set appropriate policy direction and they need to ask questions.

Geo. Jackson operates with almost zero oversight or limits because the DDA board allows him to do so. He has no interest in putting in place policies like prioritizing historic preservation over demolition because it would place limits on his ability to wheel-and-deal and at the end of the day, making "a deal" is all that Mr. Jackson seems to care about accomplishing. It's economic development by press release. If there were any actual metrics evaluating job growth, retention and increase in tax base and property values, Mr. Jackson's efforts would be shown to be greatly wanting.

[gnome]

PQZ- I have an unconnected to the thread question, but you seem to be in the know on the Book Cadillac.

There was another thread on long buried/covered streams. One poster SludgeDaddy mentioned that part of Savoyard Creek can still be found near the intersection of Michigan and Washington. I seem to remember that in the sub, sub basement of the B/C there was a water source found, but it couldn't be capped. The soultion was install a sump pit.

My question to you, is that water source in the sub, sub basement of the B/C an existing part of the Savoyard?

[PQZ]

[quote=McIPor;49291]

At the time, as you stated nothing was public. To the best of MPA's knowledge, there were two development teams competing to develop the building. MPA and Acquest had met with Walt Watkins and Brian Holdwick. Walts response to MPA's plans was, "Great, we don't have to do a feasibility study now."

A few weeks later, Doug McIntosh attended a public meeting where to his surprise, his plans were on the wall for KC. When asked about it, he received no explanation. To the best of his knowledge at the time, KC had not yet done any plans of its own. Plans being copyrighted and protected as intellectual property, MPA had a copyright attorney make one call to inquire about the use of its property without permission. No threats of lawsuits or extortion were ever made.

Interesting to hear you mention retribution taken to "marginalize" the firm though. The lesson of your tip unfortunately is don't ever question the DEGC or you will be marginalized. Not what you would like to see from a public agency.

That second hand version of events does not jibe with my recollection of events that I attended.

Acquest did meet with Holdwick and Watkins in a meeting also attended by Zeiler, Brown and I believe Papapanos. In the meeting is was acknowledged that it was good to see that there were plans showed the floor plates could accommodate hotel functions and still meet code.This confirmation from MPA as well as drawings received from the KC architect prior to the Acquest meeting, along with analysis from two certified architects on DEGC staff, reinforced the notion that the contract with Gensler could be modified and indeed it was. Part of Gensler's contract was to perform an analysis of whether modern hotel rooms could be feasible with the existing floor plates. With the analysis presented by KCs architect, then MPA and concurrent review by DDA architects, Watkins correctly concluded that it was reasonable to conclude that hotel rooms were feasible and that the dollars for architectural analysis could be shifted to the examination of facade delamination which was quickly becoming a cause for great concern.

So yes, MPA played a good role in that it triangulated what the DDA already believed to be true, that hotel rooms were feasible.

IIRC:
The drawings by KC and hanging on the wall at the DDA meeting showed a first floor that blew out all the former retail space, relocated the escalators, had a coffee shop & a high end 2 meal restaurant along Michigan and a three meal restaurant along Washington in the old Motor Bar space.

The MPA drawings showed the double corridor and original retail space intact, the escalators in original position and a bar / lounge at the old Motor Bar space.

On the second floor, KC showed a materially different configuration of the lobby and check in areas than MPA. Both plans showed a public lounge space taking advantage of the double height ceilings along Michigan

The third and fourth floor plans showed the resoration of public spaces, especially ballrooms, restorations that ANY development would be REQUIRED to make to obtain historic tax credits. The similarities on those particular spaces were mandated. That said there were also key differences in how the public space such as small conference and breakout rooms were laid out.

A major differeince was the KC plan which showed an addition with a major ballroom with trap door and lifts large enough for cars. The MPA plan did not show a similar addition.

The KC and MPA plans both contemplated hotel rooms of largely the same dimensions [[as one would expect based on current hotel demands and the confines of the existing columns) but there were key differnces in the mix of hotel rooms [[i.e. suites vs. double vs. kings) and the room count differed by more than 15%. The same thing happened with the condos, similar layouts dictated by the building envelope and columns, but again enough material differences that it would have been impossible to conclude copyright violation.

Doug MacIntosh did indeed protest to DDA staff that his plans had been stolen based on the following argument: Both plans showed hotel and condo mix, the hotel rooms were of similar size and both plans showed substantial renovation of ballrooms and historic space. He also approached the representatives of the Stolar Partnership, legal counsel for KC and, with me as witness and party to the conversation, accused KC of stealing the designs from MPA. He bluntly stated that he was going to pursue legal action against KC and the DDA. He also said he would drop the legal action if MPA were brought on board as sub contractors to the project. His statements to Dick Mersman of the Stolar Partnership was the only time I have ever seen Mersman lose his cool. Mersman is a very talented lawyer who essentially put together the St. Louis / Statler deal and with whom I had been dealing with for more than seven months. Mersman took great offense to the notion that his client stole anything or that it had cut corners with the DDA. He pointed out how he could destroy the suit in a matter of minutes because it was completely baseless. In the next 14 months, I did not see Mersman lose his cool again or become that angry with any other party.

The accusations of copyright infringement were and are baseless. They were so egregious as to be completely offensive to reasonable people. The attempt to shoe horn in or be reimbursed for the drawings was a clumsy attempt at extortion.

Any firm that behaves like that is going to have a very hard time regaining credibility with any public agency or any private party. Given that behavior, yes MPA was viewed with skepticism and suspicion - as MPA would do to any party that pulled a stunt like that with them.

[PQZ]

PQZ- I have an unconnected to the thread question, but you seem to be in the know on the Book Cadillac.

There was another thread on long buried/covered streams. One poster SludgeDaddy mentioned that part of Savoyard Creek can still be found near the intersection of Michigan and Washington. I seem to remember that in the sub, sub basement of the B/C there was a water source found, but it couldn't be capped. The soultion was install a sump pit.

My question to you, is that water source in the sub, sub basement of the B/C an existing part of the Savoyard?

Detroit soil, especially the closer you get to the river, is nearly of a slurry consistency, that is - its clayish with a very high water content. The deeper you dig the more water will seep through concrete and foundation seams and cracks. At some point, it is worthless to dig any deeper because the water just cannot be stopped. I am not aware of the Savoyard Creek intersecting the building anywhere, but if was in the genreal area, say 100-200 feet, the creek has likely been filled in and the water diffuses through the soil, saturating everything around it rather than running in a specific channel.

[McIPor]

[quote]

That second hand version of events does not jibe with my recollection of events that I attended.

Acquest did meet with Holdwick and Watkins in a meeting also attended by Zeiler, Brown and I believe Papapanos. In the meeting is was acknowledged that it was good to see that there were plans showed the floor plates could accommodate hotel functions and still meet code.This confirmation from MPA as well as drawings received from the KC architect prior to the Acquest meeting, along with analysis from two certified architects on DEGC staff, reinforced the notion that the contract with Gensler could be modified and indeed it was. Part of Gensler's contract was to perform an analysis of whether modern hotel rooms could be feasible with the existing floor plates. With the analysis presented by KCs architect, then MPA and concurrent review by DDA architects, Watkins correctly concluded that it was reasonable to conclude that hotel rooms were feasible and that the dollars for architectural analysis could be shifted to the examination of facade delamination which was quickly becoming a cause for great concern.

So yes, MPA played a good role in that it triangulated what the DDA already believed to be true, that hotel rooms were feasible.

IIRC:
The drawings by KC and hanging on the wall at the DDA meeting showed a first floor that blew out all the former retail space, relocated the escalators, had a coffee shop & a high end 2 meal restaurant along Michigan and a three meal restaurant along Washington in the old Motor Bar space.

The MPA drawings showed the double corridor and original retail space intact, the escalators in original position and a bar / lounge at the old Motor Bar space.

On the second floor, KC showed a materially different configuration of the lobby and check in areas than MPA. Both plans showed a public lounge space taking advantage of the double height ceilings along Michigan

The third and fourth floor plans showed the resoration of public spaces, especially ballrooms, restorations that ANY development would be REQUIRED to make to obtain historic tax credits. The similarities on those particular spaces were mandated. That said there were also key differences in how the public space such as small conference and breakout rooms were laid out.

A major differeince was the KC plan which showed an addition with a major ballroom with trap door and lifts large enough for cars. The MPA plan did not show a similar addition.

The KC and MPA plans both contemplated hotel rooms of largely the same dimensions [[as one would expect based on current hotel demands and the confines of the existing columns) but there were key differnces in the mix of hotel rooms [[i.e. suites vs. double vs. kings) and the room count differed by more than 15%. The same thing happened with the condos, similar layouts dictated by the building envelope and columns, but again enough material differences that it would have been impossible to conclude copyright violation.

Doug MacIntosh did indeed protest to DDA staff that his plans had been stolen based on the following argument: Both plans showed hotel and condo mix, the hotel rooms were of similar size and both plans showed substantial renovation of ballrooms and historic space. He also approached the representatives of the Stolar Partnership, legal counsel for KC and, with me as witness and party to the conversation, accused KC of stealing the designs from MPA. He bluntly stated that he was going to pursue legal action against KC and the DDA. He also said he would drop the legal action if MPA were brought on board as sub contractors to the project. His statements to Dick Mersman of the Stolar Partnership was the only time I have ever seen Mersman lose his cool. Mersman is a very talented lawyer who essentially put together the St. Louis / Statler deal and with whom I had been dealing with for more than seven months. Mersman took great offense to the notion that his client stole anything or that it had cut corners with the DDA. He pointed out how he could destroy the suit in a matter of minutes because it was completely baseless. In the next 14 months, I did not see Mersman lose his cool again or become that angry with any other party.

The accusations of copyright infringement were and are baseless. They were so egregious as to be completely offensive to reasonable people. The attempt to shoe horn in or be reimbursed for the drawings was a clumsy attempt at extortion.

Any firm that behaves like that is going to have a very hard time regaining credibility with any public agency or any private party. Given that behavior, yes MPA was viewed with skepticism and suspicion - as MPA would do to any party that pulled a stunt like that with them.

Unfortunately, Doug McIntosh is no longer alive to dispute your claims against him.

Had you or any other paid staff member taken a moment to show Doug KC's drawings you claim had been done prior to his, Doug may not have been upset. Doug had obviously never seen any other drawings since they were not public until that meeting, so his response was not baseless or egregious as you suggest.

There was no "attempt" at extortion, and beyond his being upset at the public meeting, and one phone call made to inquire about it, the issue was never pursued. Doug never received any acknowledgement from the DEGC for his apparent contribution to the project and by your own admission was dismissed and slandered afterwards.

Many people often get upset at public meetings. Thats the nature of democracy. As you stated previously, the DEGC is not a public entity so it can do as it pleases without public oversite.

[EastSider]

To Eastsider:
The DEGC has no funds to and leaglly cannot conduct work like that which was conducted on the BC. The DDA proceedings were completely open, public and transparent. Failure on the publics part to attend publicly advertised and regularly scheduled meetings is the failure of the public and interested parties, not secrecy by a public body.

That's horseshit, pure and simple. By the time it gets back to the DDA for "discussion" the issue has already been decided. One of the specific reasons for a private entity like the DEGC is its ability to work out of the public eye.

But I still agree with you that the DEGC needs to advance a more comprehensive, core-of-the-city-wide, plan for renovation/demolition and not look at each project as an island unto itself.

[PQZ]

[quote=McIPor;49366]

Unfortunately, Doug McIntosh is no longer alive to dispute your claims against him.

Had you or any other paid staff member taken a moment to show Doug KC's drawings you claim had been done prior to his, Doug may not have been upset. Doug had obviously never seen any other drawings since they were not public until that meeting, so his response was not baseless or egregious as you suggest.

There was no "attempt" at extortion, and beyond his being upset at the public meeting, and one phone call made to inquire about it, the issue was never pursued. Doug never received any acknowledgement from the DEGC for his apparent contribution to the project and by your own admission was dismissed and slandered afterwards.

Many people often get upset at public meetings. Thats the nature of democracy. As you stated previously, the DEGC is not a public entity so it can do as it pleases without public oversite.

Dismissed, not quite. Slandered, no. Viewed with a big dose of skepticism, yes.

The reality is that MPA knew another developer was looking at the building. MPA should have expected that there would be renderings at a public meeting for which notice had been given about entering into an MOU for redevelopment. Did any really expect the DDA to enter into an MOU or the Brownfield Authority to start tax credit proceeding without drawings? C'mon. You are smarter than that. I would expect far more professionalism that was exhibited. Yes, people get upset, but people who want to be taken seriously ought to be able to behave in a far more professional manner.

And please understand that this is not an attempt to slander a person who, sadly, is no longer with us. However, false assertions have been made regarding events to which I was a witness and partial participant. I have no dog in the fight either way. I am more concerned about the truth of the events and setting the record straight..

And recall, the meeting was a public DDA meeting with press and Council representatives there as the MOU was of great public interest. It was not a secret DEGC meeting.

KC & their architect were afforded the same professional courtey that Acquest and MPA were afforded, namely the general [[and specific) eal outline and drawings were withheld from BOTH parties. KC et al did not see your drawings and Acquest's deal structure. MPA and Acquest did not see deal structure or drawings of the KC plan. If you want the protective courtesy, you sould not expect to see other people's work.

Doug's contribution was to confirm a decision that was 99% complete and likely woild have occurred regardless of the drawings shown. The verbal thanks given to Doug by Watkins i.e. "Thanks, we are comfortable we don't need to pay Gensler for architecturak work" was appropriate and commensurate with the contribution.

[PQZ]

That's horseshit, pure and simple. By the time it gets back to the DDA for "discussion" the issue has already been decided. One of the specific reasons for a private entity like the DEGC is its ability to work out of the public eye.

But I still agree with you that the DEGC needs to advance a more comprehensive, core-of-the-city-wide, plan for renovation/demolition and not look at each project as an island unto itself.

And your assertion is the horseshit of a lazy conspiracy theorist. Yes, broad outlines of deals are discussed by DEGC and then when the appropriate level of detail is reached is sent to the specific agency [DDA, EDC, NDC, DBRA, TIFA] for public discussion and public approval. It is far more common than you think for DDA board members to defer approval of projects while they direct staff to make adjustments.

In the case of EDC, NDC, DBRA and TIFA, there are two public comment periods and a public hearing prior to Board approval. The projects then go to Council where there is another public comment period and another public hearing. This process is valuable and often Council actions and public comments will influence the outcome of the projects or in some cases, scrap the entire project. DBRA and TIFA projects fo course have a third layer of public comment periods and hearings at the state level.

But people are too lazy to pay attention and too lazy to attend meetings. The complete absence of FOBC at a total of nine publicly advertised DBRA and HDC public meetings regarding the Book Cadillac speaks volumes about the handwringers of Detroit. They couldn't even show up to voice support for a project they claim would not have happened without them. And I know they know about them because the notices were posted on this very forum and FOBC membership discussed them on this very forum....and never showed up at a meeting.

[gnome]

PQZ- Good posts, let me say it's nice having an informed voice chime in on these issues. It is my hope, you'll take the passion exhibited on this Board as; one, a frustration with our collective history of destruction and demo; two, that destruction being decided behind some smokey curtains [[the Madison Lenox is a particular sore spot followed closely by the Donovan); three, and maybe the most important, a genuine concern to bring the City back from the brink.

I'd say that last point is one of common interest. Everyone would like to see the City move forward in a productive fashion. Preservation is part of that.

Now, you have mentioned your group has held public hearings and that folks just don't show up. Could you point me to a source where the schedule for your meetings are posted? Beside trolling the Legal News, or the Classified Pages of the FreePress or News ... where is your schedule posted?

[PQZ]

PQZ- Good posts, let me say it's nice having an informed voice chime in on these issues. It is my hope, you'll take the passion exhibited on this Board as; one, a frustration with our collective history of destruction and demo; two, that destruction being decided behind some smokey curtains [[the Madison Lenox is a particular sore spot followed closely by the Donovan); three, and maybe the most important, a genuine concern to bring the City back from the brink.

I'd say that last point is one of common interest. Everyone would like to see the City move forward in a productive fashion. Preservation is part of that.

Now, you have mentioned your group has held public hearings and that folks just don't show up. Could you point me to a source where the schedule for your meetings are posted? Beside trolling the Legal News, or the Classified Pages of the FreePress or News ... where is your schedule posted?

Not my "group". I haven't lived in the state for 18 months. Call DEGC and ask for the receptionist for the regularly scheduled meetings. They should also have a way for you to be notified.

I understand people being frustrated, but it also is mind boggling how people are unable to look at the enitrety of the picture.

Like it or not, the private market has collapsed in Detroit. The only way anything gets done is with public subsidy. Its a fact, plain and simple. If the arm chair developers are pointing out that this project or the other has been done and the DEGC / DDA doesn't 'get it', they are completely missing the fact that their case study only happened because of the DDA / DEGC. So yes. The DDA gets it. The arm chair mud slingers don't.

That may stick in some people's craw, but I challenge anyone to point out a redevelopment in the downtown that was not assisted by the DDA in some fashion. Just one. Only one.

[kraig]

Not my "group". I haven't lived in the state for 18 months. Call DEGC and ask for the receptionist for the regularly scheduled meetings. They should also have a way for you to be notified.

I understand people being frustrated, but it also is mind boggling how people are unable to look at the enitrety of the picture.

Like it or not, the private market has collapsed in Detroit. The only way anything gets done is with public subsidy. Its a fact, plain and simple. If the arm chair developers are pointing out that this project or the other has been done and the DEGC / DDA doesn't 'get it', they are completely missing the fact that their case study only happened because of the DDA / DEGC. So yes. The DDA gets it. The arm chair mud slingers don't.

That may stick in some people's craw, but I challenge anyone to point out a redevelopment in the downtown that was not assisted by the DDA in some fashion. Just one. Only one.

Excellent posts. Get ready for a lot of responses that deflect from the challenge.

[PQZ]

Excellent posts. Get ready for a lot of responses that deflect from the challenge.

Allow me to amend that to DDA / DBRA.

[Gistok]

"Gnome: - I have an unconnected to the thread question, but you seem to be in the know on the Book Cadillac.

There was another thread on long buried/covered streams. One poster SludgeDaddy mentioned that part of Savoyard Creek can still be found near the intersection of Michigan and Washington. I seem to remember that in the sub, sub basement of the B/C there was a water source found, but it couldn't be capped. The soultion was install a sump pit.

My question to you, is that water source in the sub, sub basement of the B/C an existing part of the Savoyard? "

Detroit soil, especially the closer you get to the river, is nearly of a slurry consistency, that is - its clayish with a very high water content. The deeper you dig the more water will seep through concrete and foundation seams and cracks. At some point, it is worthless to dig any deeper because the water just cannot be stopped. I am not aware of the Savoyard Creek intersecting the building anywhere, but if was in the genreal area, say 100-200 feet, the creek has likely been filled in and the water diffuses through the soil, saturating everything around it rather than running in a specific channel.

Gnome, when I had a private tour of the former Michigan Theatre basement, which is mostly a separate structure from the Michigan Building itself... I inquired about the electricity that still services that area, and was told that it was for the continuously running sump pump in the sub-basement.... without which it would start filling with water.

As PQZ alluded to, this appears to be a common problem with many downtown buildings [[due to soil and drainage), and explains the flooded basement conditions of abandoned or power shut-off downtown buildings.

I bet that explains the piano swimming in the orchestra pit of the formerly abandoned Grand Circus [[formerly Capitol) Theatre before it was restored as the Detroit Opera House.

[Novine]

"That may stick in some people's craw, but I challenge anyone to point out a redevelopment in the downtown that was not assisted by the DDA in some fashion. Just one. Only one."

Do you pay attention to what anyone here is saying besides yourself [[and Kraig)? The beef people have with Geo. Jackson and the DDA/DEGC isn't that they spend public money on projects. It's how that public money is being spent. They don't want it being spent on demolition that's unneeded and adds nothing to the downtown [[and has a lot of long-term negatives). All of the other areas where DDA money is being spent doesn't change the fact that the demolitions that they have funded have largely been unneeded, unwarranted, wasteful, in some cases promoting the interests of private property owners at public expense [[Ilitch) and have done little to create actual development in downtown. You can continue to defend those wasteful ways but no one here is being distracted by your efforts to divert attention from that central fact.

[EastSider]

And your assertion is the horseshit of a lazy conspiracy theorist.

The reason for the DEGC's existence, why the mayor supported the creation of it in the first place was to get development decisions out of the public realm by exploiting its non-public nature.

[buildingsofdetroit]

Has anyone heard whether Dennis Kefallinos is making any progress buying the Lafayette?

[kraig]

"That may stick in some people's craw, but I challenge anyone to point out a redevelopment in the downtown that was not assisted by the DDA in some fashion. Just one. Only one."

Do you pay attention to what anyone here is saying besides yourself [[and Kraig)? The beef people have with Geo. Jackson and the DDA/DEGC isn't that they spend public money on projects. It's how that public money is being spent. They don't want it being spent on demolition that's unneeded and adds nothing to the downtown [[and has a lot of long-term negatives). All of the other areas where DDA money is being spent doesn't change the fact that the demolitions that they have funded have largely been unneeded, unwarranted, wasteful, in some cases promoting the interests of private property owners at public expense [[Ilitch) and have done little to create actual development in downtown. You can continue to defend those wasteful ways but no one here is being distracted by your efforts to divert attention from that central fact.

Like I said, deflection.

[Novine]

Irrelevant. PQZ could have just as easily said "I challenge anyone to point out a redevelopment in the downtown that was not assisted by the City of Detroit/State of Michigan/Fill in the Blank in some fashion?" Whether the DEGC/DDA has a role in development downtown isn't the issue. The DDA exists because it's supposed to encourage "Downtown Development". The debate is how the DDA spends/wastes its money. When tax dollars are spent on unneeded, unnecessary demolitions that add nothing to foster downtown development, those dollars are wasted. Is that the position you want to defend? Go for it. If you want to defend subsidizing the Mike Ilitch's getting their buildings demoed on the public dollar, step up and stand behind your position. You can deflect all you want but at the end of the day, that's what the debate is about. If Geo. Jackson wants to be the demolition man of downtown, then he's going to get the criticism for the wasteful use of public tax dollars and it's criticism well-earned.

[EastSider]

Has anyone heard whether Dennis Kefallinos is making any progress buying the Lafayette?

I hope not.

[ghettopalmetto]

Irrelevant. PQZ could have just as easily said "I challenge anyone to point out a redevelopment in the downtown that was not assisted by the City of Detroit/State of Michigan/Fill in the Blank in some fashion?" Whether the DEGC/DDA has a role in development downtown isn't the issue. The DDA exists because it's supposed to encourage "Downtown Development". The debate is how the DDA spends/wastes its money. When tax dollars are spent on unneeded, unnecessary demolitions that add nothing to foster downtown development, those dollars are wasted. Is that the position you want to defend? Go for it. If you want to defend subsidizing the Mike Ilitch's getting their buildings demoed on the public dollar, step up and stand behind your position. You can deflect all you want but at the end of the day, that's what the debate is about. If Geo. Jackson wants to be the demolition man of downtown, then he's going to get the criticism for the wasteful use of public tax dollars and it's criticism well-earned.

And let's not forget that "oversight" consists largely of an enormous rubber stamp for the unsubstantiated whims of DEGC.

[kraig]

GP and Novine, you two are the perfect examples of not seeing the forest for the trees. You focus on the building that no developer of good reputation is interested in and ignore the good works that have been done by the DDA/DEGC.

You have a tremendous resource like PQZ, who knows the DDA/DEGC processes like the back of his hand, at your disposal, and instead of asking questions and engaging in discussions that could advance future projects. You decide to argue with him over a building where two floors have collapsed and a tree is growing inside of it. Talk about Tunnel Vision.

[ghettopalmetto]

GP and Novine, you two are the perfect examples of not seeing the forest for the trees. You focus on the building that no developer of good reputation is interested in and ignore the good works that have been done by the DDA/DEGC.

You have a tremendous resource like PQZ, who knows the DDA/DEGC processes like the back of his hand, at your disposal, and instead of asking questions and engaging in discussions that could advance future projects. You decide to argue with him over a building where two floors have collapsed and a tree is growing inside of it. Talk about Tunnel Vision.

If you spend all your money knocking all the fucking trees down, you don't have much of a forest, do ya?

[EastSider]

If you spend all your money knocking all the fucking trees down, you don't have much of a forest, do ya?

Detroit's got too much 'forest' right now. Some of the 'trees' are going to have to come down if we want to reverse the course of the city.

It would have been nice if someone had stepped up and converted the Lafayette right when the courts were done with it, but they didn't. Maybe there's a lesson there for the preservationistas in our fair burgh.

Simply put, there's no market in Detroit for whatever you can turn the Lafayette into. Office space? Not when the rest of the "vintage" buildings are teetering. Residential? The Book-Cadillac can't sell their high-rise condos. Ground-floor retail? We've got enough vacant space like that already.

Putting more of this space on the market will only serve to lower the rents in the existing buildings, pushing all of those buildings one step closer to being yesterday's news.

[Detroitnerd]

"Putting more of this space on the market will only serve to lower the rents in the existing buildings, pushing all of those buildings one step closer to being yesterday's news."

We had to demolish downtown to save it.

[EastSider]

"Putting more of this space on the market will only serve to lower the rents in the existing buildings, pushing all of those buildings one step closer to being yesterday's news."

We had to demolish downtown to save it.

We had to develop a comprehensive redevelopment plan for the central business district that included a clear-eyed examination of each vacant building and which should be saved for future use and which should not.

Why does this idea stick in your craw? Detroit's a dying city. We're abuzz with the idea of returning sections of the city to nature [[not that nature needs our help) and somehow think the CBD is or should be immune to this process?

Why? Because it's where people go to "entertain themselves" and cheer on "our" sports teams and then retreat to the safety of someplace other than a third-world city neighborhood?

If you think it should be different, buy a soon to be vacant commercial building and make a go of it. The Stott's on the market, isn't it? You could try something a little easier and play around with the old State of Michigan buildings if you want.