Detroit targets Park Ave. Bldg. for demolition

[emu steve]

Hey, don't shoot the messenger [[me or Louis, the Detnews writer):

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...ing-demolition

[animatedmartian]

Can't really blame the city either. It all falls on the dumbass landlord who either didn't decide to maintain the building or sell it to someone who would. At some point, these guys gotta realize that a bucket full of money isn't going to fall out of the sky for them so what's the use on keeping ownership of the building?

[emu steve]

Can't really blame the city either. It all falls on the dumbass landlord who either didn't decide to maintain the building or sell it to someone who would. At some point, these guys gotta realize that a bucket full of money isn't going to fall out of the sky for them so what's the use on keeping ownership of the building?

Maybe our buddy, Gistok, can help explain how this building/property fit into the 'landscape' of a possible [[now dead) plan to put up an arena behind the Fox.

As I remember it, the assumed location was Park/Clifford/W. Elizabeth/W. Montcalm.

This building is on the periphery of that 'arena district'.

Was the 'long game' to hold that property until that area was hot? That would have been some pretty valuable property - anything near the arena should be valuable.

Now that area is 'not hot' - it is an area which might not develop for say 10 years out and might be lower density. [[as I and others have mentioned, that area Park/W. Grand River/W. Adams and the 75 Service Drive would have been ripe for development.).

[ghettopalmetto]

So the City won't issue citations or enforce the building code, but they'll spend millions of taxpayer dollars to demolish [[yet another) historic building, *HOPING* that the land will be redeveloped???

Sometimes, I think Detroit has the absolute stupidest city government on the face of the planet.

[313WX]

So the City won't issue citations or enforce the building code, but they'll spend millions of taxpayer dollars to demolish [[yet another) historic building, *HOPING* that the land will be redeveloped???

Sometimes, I think Detroit has the absolute stupidest city government on the face of the planet.

Well, it is pretty dumb...

[emu steve]

So the City won't issue citations or enforce the building code, but they'll spend millions of taxpayer dollars to demolish [[yet another) historic building, *HOPING* that the land will be redeveloped???

Sometimes, I think Detroit has the absolute stupidest city government on the face of the planet.

I will FREELY admit I don't have a clue as to the dynamics at play here.

It appears that the building is unsafe, owned by an investor who has just 'sat' on the property for decades, and now the city wants to take action...

Question:

What is the 'end game' here?

Is the city trying to 'force the hand' of the owner? Redevelop or sell or tear it down?

Does Ilitch want to buy it after it has been demolished? [Even though it is in the 'sports and entertainment district' I see it as a 'peripheral' parcel, not key, to his 'Columbia' development plans.]

Is the land worth more with the building demolished?

Anyone interested in re-developing the property?

I can't figure out what will happen here...

[animatedmartian]

I will FREELY admit I don't have a clue as to the dynamics at play here.

It appears that the building is unsafe, owned by an investor who has just 'sat' on the property for decades, and now the city wants to take action...

Question:

What is the 'end game' here?

Is the city trying to 'force the hand' of the owner? Redevelop or sell or tear it down?

Does Ilitch want to buy it after it has been demolished? [Even though it is in the 'sports and entertainment district' I see it as a 'peripheral' parcel, not key, to his 'Columbia' development plans.]

Is the land worth more with the building demolished?

Anyone interested in re-developing the property?

I can't figure out what will happen here...

Vacant land is often more valuable than vacant crumbling buildings. This is true in any and every city. In fact, if the city were to gain ownership, then it'd become a liability and if some poor soul gets hit by a falling brick, the city has to take responsibility.

It doesn't matter if Ilitch plans to buy the land or not. The fact is that Park Avenue can't exist as a vacant/crumbling building. Either Sachs renovates it, sells it, or it gets demolished.

The reason that the city doesn't seize the building and auction it like a neighborhood houses is mostly because the downtown landowners have more money and can afford better lawyers. It takes upwards a a couple of months for the city to get a house if the owner puts up a fight. For a downtown high rise, it will take years if not decades while still at the taxpayer's expense. Otherwise, it'd be easy and the city would have done it many times.

Of course I'm upset that Detroit is losing another building, but Sachs is the one to blame for letting it get this way. The city is doing what it's supposed to be doing.

[Mackinaw]

Vacant land is often more valuable than vacant crumbling buildings. This is true in any and every city. In fact, if the city were to gain ownership, then it'd become a liability and if some poor soul gets hit by a falling brick, the city has to take responsibility.

It doesn't matter if Ilitch plans to buy the land or not. The fact is that Park Avenue can't exist as a vacant/crumbling building. Either Sachs renovates it, sells it, or it gets demolished.

The reason that the city doesn't seize the building and auction it like a neighborhood houses is mostly because the downtown landowners have more money and can afford better lawyers. It takes upwards a a couple of months for the city to get a house if the owner puts up a fight. For a downtown high rise, it will take years if not decades while still at the taxpayer's expense. Otherwise, it'd be easy and the city would have done it many times.

Of course I'm upset that Detroit is losing another building, but Sachs is the one to blame for letting it get this way. The city is doing what it's supposed to be doing.

You really need to back this up with legal citations. Why would it take longer for the City to establish its right to have the building demolished than to establish its right to seize ownership, on account of the same reasons [[dangerous condition, i.e. blight in every sense of the word). Per Michigan Supreme Court, a municipality can take property that is in fact blighted, but may not take land solely for economic redevelopment [[i.e. the Kelo case). If it can obtain an order for the teardown of a building because it is blighted [[or unsafe, etc.), it can seemingly obtain an order transferring title in exchange for reasonable compensation.

I am no Michigan legal expert, but this is the basics as I know it. It really is a question of the City's policy priorities. We can even add in a cost-benefit analysis, too. Is the cost of demolition more or less than the cost of reasonable compensation to Sachs? Maybe not, and certainly not when you take into account the cost of lost history and Kahn architecture.

[animatedmartian]

You really need to back this up with legal citations. Why would it take longer for the City to establish its right to have the building demolished than to establish its right to seize ownership, on account of the same reasons [[dangerous condition, i.e. blight in every sense of the word). Per Michigan Supreme Court, a municipality can take property that is in fact blighted, but may not take land solely for economic redevelopment [[i.e. the Kelo case). If it can obtain an order for the teardown of a building because it is blighted [[or unsafe, etc.), it can seemingly obtain an order transferring title in exchange for reasonable compensation.

I am no Michigan legal expert, but this is the basics as I know it. It really is a question of the City's policy priorities. We can even add in a cost-benefit analysis, too. Is the cost of demolition more or less than the cost of reasonable compensation to Sachs? Maybe not, and certainly not when you take into account the cost of lost history and Kahn architecture.

Sachs can reject whatever amount of compensation the city offers him, can't he? I don't doubt that he'd want more than what the building is actually worth.

[emu steve]

... Per Michigan Supreme Court, a municipality can take property that is in fact blighted, but may not take land solely for economic redevelopment [[i.e. the Kelo case). If it can obtain an order for the teardown of a building because it is blighted [[or unsafe, etc.), it can seemingly obtain an order transferring title in exchange for reasonable compensation.

I am no Michigan legal expert, but this is the basics as I know it...

Is this really true? Could the city have bought dozens of buildings in downtown or Midtown [[e.g., the now demolished Temple Hotel? The two high rise buildings on Cass near the arena footprint, Hotel Americana?, etc etc.). Blighted but safe? Is the building discussed in this thread not blight but UNsafe?

Can Detroit seize any blighted building even if taxes are being paid?

I'd love to see some case law.

Believe me, I know nothing about this type of real estate law so I'm just asking...

EDIT:

I went to Wikipedia and read Kelo. This is what Wikipedia says about MI law:

Michigan

Michigan passed a restriction on the use of eminent domain in November 2006, Proposition 4, 80% to 20%.^[42] The text of the ballot initiative was as follows:^[43]

A proposed constitutional amendment to prohibit government from taking private property by eminent domain for certain private purposes
The proposed constitutional amendment would:

• Prohibit government from taking private property for transfer to another private individual or business for purposes of economic development or increasing tax revenue.
• Provide that if an individual's principal residence is taken by government for public use, the individual must be paid at least 125% of property’s fair market value.
• Require government that takes a private property to demonstrate that the taking is for a public use; if taken to eliminate blight, require a higher standard of proof to demonstrate that the taking of that property is for a public use.
• Preserve existing rights of property owners.

***********

[erikd]

Vacant land is often more valuable than vacant crumbling buildings. This is true in any and every city.

This is a blanket generalization that is only generally true because most of the built environment in modern America consists of crappy single-use structures, constructed with cheap materials, which are not well-suited for renovation or re-use.

However, this generalization rarely applies to downtown Detroit. It is obvious that vacant historic buildings in downtown Detroit are far more valuable and attractive to developers than vacant lots are.

The vast majority of the development in downtown Detroit over the last 10 years has happened in existing buildings, many of which sat vacant and run-down for decades. Conversely, the amount of new construction on cleared downtown lots over the same period [[save for a couple massive special-use casino/stadium projects) has been virtually nil.

Everything that we have seen over the last decade proves that buildings like the Park Ave are much more likely to attract development if they are left standing than if they are demolished.

Speculative demolition of historic buildings, based on the misguided hope that the property would be more attractive as an empty lot, has proven to be a total failure in downtown Detroit. It is mind-boggling that anybody familiar with development in downtown Detroit would continue to support this counter-productive process.

[animatedmartian]

This is a blanket generalization that is only generally true because most of the built environment in modern America consists of crappy single-use structures, constructed with cheap materials, which are not well-suited for renovation or re-use.

However, this generalization rarely applies to downtown Detroit. It is obvious that vacant historic buildings in downtown Detroit are far more valuable and attractive to developers than vacant lots are.

The vast majority of the development in downtown Detroit over the last 10 years has happened in existing buildings, many of which sat vacant and run-down for decades. Conversely, the amount of new construction on cleared downtown lots over the same period [[save for a couple massive special-use casino/stadium projects) has been virtually nil.

Everything that we have seen over the last decade proves that buildings like the Park Ave are much more likely to attract development if they are left standing than if they are demolished.

Speculative demolition of historic buildings, based on the misguided hope that the property would be more attractive as an empty lot, has proven to be a total failure in downtown Detroit. It is mind-boggling that anybody familiar with development in downtown Detroit would continue to support this counter-productive process.

And yet the condos in Brush Park were built long before anyone touched Hotel Eddystone or Park Avenue Hotel.

I'm not saying the vacant buildings should be demolished on speculation, but that the buildings will remain vacant until the market supports the costs of redeveloping them to a satisfactory condition. Unless you want them to be renovated into public housing projects then they'll get renovated tomorrow with minimal restoration if any at all. But if people want the "grandeur" and quality that the buildings used to have, then Detroit's luxury market will have to greatly expand for developers to get a reasonable ROI for that quality. Who knows how long we'd be waiting for that point all the while the building still isn't being maintained and sits vacant. In the mean time, developers can build whatever the current market supports on vacant land and get a reasonable ROI.

Much like how there's a current proposal for 250 apartments in the new Statler City project and yet only 105 apartments with the renovation of David Whitney next door. DW's renovation costs $85 million compared to Statler City's new construction of $45 million. All the while, Park Avenue, Cadillac Tower, David Stott, United Artists, and the Wulitzer all still sit vacant with undetermined futures. Why is there new construction at all if these older vacant buildings aren't being utilized?

[rjlj]

Strongly agree.

This is a blanket generalization that is only generally true because most of the built environment in modern America consists of crappy single-use structures, constructed with cheap materials, which are not well-suited for renovation or re-use.

However, this generalization rarely applies to downtown Detroit. It is obvious that vacant historic buildings in downtown Detroit are far more valuable and attractive to developers than vacant lots are.

The vast majority of the development in downtown Detroit over the last 10 years has happened in existing buildings, many of which sat vacant and run-down for decades. Conversely, the amount of new construction on cleared downtown lots over the same period [[save for a couple massive special-use casino/stadium projects) has been virtually nil.

Everything that we have seen over the last decade proves that buildings like the Park Ave are much more likely to attract development if they are left standing than if they are demolished.

Speculative demolition of historic buildings, based on the misguided hope that the property would be more attractive as an empty lot, has proven to be a total failure in downtown Detroit. It is mind-boggling that anybody familiar with development in downtown Detroit would continue to support this counter-productive process.

[animatedmartian]

So the City won't issue citations or enforce the building code, but they'll spend millions of taxpayer dollars to demolish [[yet another) historic building, *HOPING* that the land will be redeveloped???

Sometimes, I think Detroit has the absolute stupidest city government on the face of the planet.

So what if the city pressures him to enforce the codes? He doesn't have to do anything even if the city threatens to demolish it. All he has to do [[and has been doing) is get a lawyer to argue that the city is wrong and he's within code.

[Mackinaw]

So what if the city pressures him to enforce the codes? He doesn't have to do anything even if the city threatens to demolish it. All he has to do [[and has been doing) is get a lawyer to argue that the city is wrong and he's within code.

Not so. The city can file the appropriate lawsuit and have a judge or jury [[likely cannot make it to a jury) make the determination. I think you forgot about that last part.

The question is what to do next. If the City is doing good by its promise to create economic redevelopment and a great American downtown, preservation is the only option, or at least one that needs to be thoroughly and properly exhausted through a policy of finding interested developers, putting them on timetables and requiring them to secure the building, and making whatever tax abatements are necessary. The only other acceptable alternative is an RFP to demo and IMMEDIATELY commence the building of something new on the site.

EMU Steve, personally, that's irrelevant. The street and the landscape is ruined whether cars use the lots or not. It is not adequate justification even if the lot is full and it has those New Jersey-style crane apparatuses to stack the cars. Just not acceptable.

[mikeg19]

I'm not an attorney, but is it possible to seize a building from an absentee land owner? It doesn't state if back taxes are owed or not in the article.

But hey, screw it. Tear everything down. Bulldoze downtown.

[Honky Tonk]

Good ol' Mikey, making Detroit a better place for you and me. But mostly for him.

[Mackinaw]

This is unfuckingacceptable. First, I echo what GP said. Second, why the hell can't the city employ its seize and auction approach here? Third, have they no conception of what makes Park Ave. appealing? It's the historic buildings and feeling of enclosure. Soon, it will be Park[ing Lot] avenue, with stunning views of Illitch gravel lot land, accented with an old building or two as an homage to our fallen empire. What a joke. Save the Park Ave Bldg! Save the shadow of a real city we have left. Buildings and people make cities. Parking spaces do not.

[emu steve]

This is unfuckingacceptable. First, I echo what GP said. Second, why the hell can't the city employ its seize and auction approach here? Third, have they no conception of what makes Park Ave. appealing? It's the historic buildings and feeling of enclosure. Soon, it will be Park[ing Lot] avenue, with stunning views of Illitch gravel lot land, accented with an old building or two as an homage to our fallen empire. What a joke. Save the Park Ave Bldg! Save the shadow of a real city we have left. Buildings and people make cities. Parking spaces do not.

I have a question about the parking space comment.

I assume that tearing down buildings and adding more parking spaces there isn't a big financial winner. [[actually a question).

My question: OTHER THAN when the Tigers [[or Lions) are playing is there a lot of demand for parking in the area essentially behind the Fox?

I was watching a SUNDAY Tiger game on Fox Sports Detroit [[actually it was Ilitch's B-Day) and they had a great panoramic view of the Comerica Park area extending say west of Cass.

The parking lots appeared to be full.

I thought, gee, this is all TIGERS GAME DAY parking. What does it look like on a Monday afternoon?

Then the questions are:

Is there a DEMAND for more parking spaces? Or are parking spaces the lesser of two equals, with the other, being a crumbling building with no apparent good options and heavy caring costs????

[animatedmartian]

Is there a DEMAND for more parking spaces? Or are parking spaces the lesser of two equals, with the other, being a crumbling building with no apparent good options and heavy caring costs????

Pretty much the latter. Owners get revenue from parking lots. They don't get revenue from vacant buildings. Mostly because taxes are lower on a parking lot than they are on a building.

It would actually be in the city's best interest to preserve the building and have it reused rather than turning it into a parking lot, but if at any point the building could just fall over into the street, well then public safety becomes more valuable than potential tax revenue.

[ghettopalmetto]

It would actually be in the city's best interest to preserve the building and have it reused rather than turning it into a parking lot, but if at any point the building could just fall over into the street, well then public safety becomes more valuable than potential tax revenue.

And that's why there are building codes and property maintenance codes. But enforcement of those codes doesn't jive with Detroit's dream of demolishing every single damned thing they can.

[animatedmartian]

And that's why there are building codes and property maintenance codes. But enforcement of those codes doesn't jive with Detroit's dream of demolishing every single damned thing they can.

Again, you forget that landlords can get lawyers and fight the city. Just like how anyone can fight a speeding ticket in court, so can a landlord on building codes.

[motz]

This is unfuckingacceptable. First, I echo what GP said. Second, why the hell can't the city employ its seize and auction approach here? Third, have they no conception of what makes Park Ave. appealing? It's the historic buildings and feeling of enclosure. Soon, it will be Park[ing Lot] avenue, with stunning views of Illitch gravel lot land, accented with an old building or two as an homage to our fallen empire. What a joke. Save the Park Ave Bldg! Save the shadow of a real city we have left. Buildings and people make cities. Parking spaces do not.

How much do you think it would take to rehab that building?

[Wesley Mouch]

How much do you think it would take to rehab that building?

25 years ago, it was $90-120/foot. So today I'd bet $200-300/foot would give you a ballpark. 100,000 s.f. = +/- $20-30m.

Anyone with better s.f. budgets for historic building reno?

[Hypestyles]

too bad it couldn't have been turned into lofts. Ah well.