What is going on at Red Wings arena site?

[EL Jimbo]

Yeah, but if the design element is "no buildings allowed nearby", DHS should be laughed out of the room. And, honestly, who cares what they recommend? Have we been suffering a string of stadium-related safety crises or terrorist attacks? If Washington DC has a hockey/basketball arena [[Verizon Center) totally surrounded by other buildings with no "buffer" at all, I bet Detroit can manage to do whatever works for Detroit.

I fail to see the relevance of your argument. Construction of the Verizon Center [[then known as the MCI Center) broke ground 7 years before the Department of Homeland Security even existed and 6 years before 9/11. I'm sure DHS has issues with the Verizon Center's design from a security perspective, but they also realize that the adjacent property is likely owned by other entities than those that own the arena so their ability to change them is limited.

However, in the case of a brand new construction where the arena owner also owns the adjacent property in question, DHS can and does become more insistent in having their security concerns addressed in the design.

Also, don't forget that the new Wings Arena is a different concept with an open air concourse. In theory, a lone gunman or someone with an RPG in one of the top floors could wreak havoc on a crowded concourse during an intermission before police could get up to him.

[Mackinaw]

Also, don't forget that the new Wings Arena is a different concept with an open air concourse. In theory, a lone gunman or someone with an RPG in one of the top floors could wreak havoc on a crowded concourse during an intermission before police could get up to him.

Accordingly, it's insane that the arena can be designed in a way that allows this potential to arise, while a building across the street cannot be redeveloped for similar uses, due to "security." You get my drift on the internal inconsistencies here?

Don't buy whatever Olympia is selling on this matter.

[iheartthed]

The Free Press coverage of parking this morning is scaring the shit out of me. Sounds like "THE DISTRICT" is primarily going to be a surface parking district. I don't understand why Olympia is not providing more structure parking or underground parking on site, or why they aren't being forced to. Alternatively, they should be forced to choose 2 or 3 of their, what, 50 vacant blocks nearby and develop a few mega-garages. Problem solved. If the City council acquiesces to a plan that continues to lock up that whole area for parking rather than neighborhood development, we've got big problems.

Why are you surprised by this at all? What incentive does Ilitch have to do anything other than exactly what he wants? The state gave him the money to build the thing with absolutely no resistance. Why does he give a fuck about your irreplaceable architecture?

[restoretheroar]

the fact that we can't believe Olympia when they even mention that parking lots will be paved and landscaped is pathetic in itself. Their reputation is that in question.

[Cincinnati_Kid]

Spending all this money on a new arena, when our roads are the worst in the country.

[iheartthed]

Spending all this money on a new arena, when our roads are the worst in the country.

Roads are the worst in the country, public transit "system" is the worst in the country, and your state's largest city just went through the largest municipal bankruptcy in the nation's history.

[Mackinaw]

Roads are the worst in the country, public transit "system" is the worst in the country, and your state's largest city just went through the largest municipal bankruptcy in the nation's history.

Hard for me to get too worked up about the connection between these realities and the use of state bonds to finance an arena [[and, despite all of my concerns, it's still more than just an arena).

Much easier for me to get worked up when I consider these realities against the heinous I-94 expansion proposal.

Iheartthed, there are two issues here. One, obviously, preservation. Two, as to all of the already-empty land, will we skimp on the structured/underground parking such that all of the empty land remains empty and used for the least constructive purpose: gameday surface parking? Seperate debates but both certainly go to the issue of whether we are laying the igredients for an actual 'district' or just acceding to Olympia's latest bait-and-switch.

[Dan_the_man]

Roads are the worst in the country, public transit "system" is the worst in the country, and your state's largest city just went through the largest municipal bankruptcy in the nation's history.

And none of the money being spent on the arena could be used for any of that, since it is DDA money that has to be spent within DDA boundaries.

[Dan_the_man]

Sounds like Olympia made their presentation, proposing to tear down Hotel Park Ave. and then took off without any public commentary.

[iheartthed]

And none of the money being spent on the arena could be used for any of that, since it is DDA money that has to be spent within DDA boundaries.

The people who decided to give Ilitch the money to use for this arena are the decision makers for public works projects.

[Cincinnati_Kid]

And none of the money being spent on the arena could be used for any of that, since it is DDA money that has to be spent within DDA boundaries.

Yeah....just shows where the city and state's priorities are. I get that private money and bonds are being used for the arena, but should we be subjugated to more tax increases to fix the roads? I mean you have to try to dodge the potholes to get to the game don't you?

[Dan_the_man]

The DDA has been around for a long time. It isn't something new that was created just to fund the arena. I'm all for wealthy team owners paying for their own buildings, but this money can only be used to improve downtown. granted there are probably other better ways that it could be spent, but George Jackson loves his big projects...

[Mackinaw]

The amount of money the state needs, and the manner in which it needs it, is everything-- and the state bonds for the arena district are not nearly the amount of money [[not even close) nor the type of money [[constant cash flow) that the state needs for comprehensive road repair [[and, ps, TRANSIT upgrades). That's what Prop 1 is going to be all about-- flawed as it is, it is to open up a new and appropriate cash flow to fund the roads. The State's funds for the Arena/development are effectively a loan to the city, and frankly I'd rather see a loan to the city than outlays of cash on hand to fix some roads in suburbia.

Real question is, now that the public is a half-investor in this project, how will we ensure that this project-- every aspect thereof-- serves the public interest? And how do we overcome the greedy influence of those completly lacking in vision, i.e. Olympia?

[Dan_the_man]

We don't. Unless City Council sticks to their guns and demands that Olympia does as they ask. The project is too far along and they won't move to a different location, but Council has to be strong on their demands. In the past the community tried to be involved in the process and got Olympia to agree to a neighborhood advisory council, but it is powerless, only able to offer suggestions that Olympia is free to disregard.

[Mackinaw]

City Council needs to realize that it has the leverage to make exactions, and that the exactions need not be elaborate, but as simple as requiring that a few parking garages be built and one more building be spared. The loss of goodwill to Olympia, and, more importantly, the franchise, were they to scuttle to plan at this point would be tremendous. That won't happen.

Some simple words from Duggan, along the lines of-- we need to see this district materialize, so I encourage City Council to insist on terms that will foster neighborhood creation and real spin-off development-- would be so significant right now because they'd embolden the council and would pit a popular mayor [[within city and region) against a developer that wouldn't dare flake out. Guess who would win. ...the City.

[Junjie]

I fail to see the relevance of your argument. Construction of the Verizon Center [[then known as the MCI Center) broke ground 7 years before the Department of Homeland Security even existed and 6 years before 9/11. I'm sure DHS has issues with the Verizon Center's design from a security perspective, but they also realize that the adjacent property is likely owned by other entities than those that own the arena so their ability to change them is limited.

However, in the case of a brand new construction where the arena owner also owns the adjacent property in question, DHS can and does become more insistent in having their security concerns addressed in the design.

Also, don't forget that the new Wings Arena is a different concept with an open air concourse. In theory, a lone gunman or someone with an RPG in one of the top floors could wreak havoc on a crowded concourse during an intermission before police could get up to him.

This is absolutely ridiculous. Someone could walk into downtown Detroit today with an RPG and shoot it anywhere they wanted. Better tear down every other building so nobody can get an angle down into a crowded office! Install an Iron Dome system near Campus Martius! Play Tigers games in a TV studio!

Why is 9/11 relevant? Will tearing down the Park Avenue Hotel prevent another 9/11? Will we ever be allowed to build buildings next to other buildings again?

Forgive all the snark but the absolutely unthinking nature of the "security" lobby in this country continually harms our public spaces and provides no public benefit.

I think it's much more likely that DHS has some arcane guideline about a "security perimeter", no authority to enforce it, and Olympia has latched onto that as cover for tearing down a building they want gone.

[SpartanDawg]

here is an updated rendering Olympia presented today, showing the eddy stone destroyed and a park in it's place. doesn't actually look too bad.

I know we all would've preferred if they saved both but I can live with this.

[southen]

that rendering still isnt accurate as it doesnt reflect the surface parking they're hinting at.

[rex]

She [[Councilmember Raquel Castaneda-Lopez) asked for the zip codes of Red Wings suite holders, who would use most of the on-site parking.
"I would put that in the 'none of your business' category," said Heapes [[design manager). "But we can give a summary of that."

[rex]

im sorry but the proposed arena is hideous. I realize they're the Red Wings but does the arena have to be that red?

[SpartanDawg]

that rendering still isnt accurate as it doesnt reflect the surface parking they're hinting at.

I read the surface parking was going to all be south of I-75... aka the already dead zone. i'm fine with them having it there until there is demand to build actual buildings

[ghettopalmetto]

I read the surface parking was going to all be south of I-75... aka the already dead zone. i'm fine with them having it there until there is demand to build actual buildings

But even when that demand manifests, the excuse will be that Olympia needs the lots for arena parking!

If Olympia is good at one thing, it's leveraging enormous, specially-targeted tax subsidies for their own benefit. The development business, not so much.

[gvidas]

If you go to the MI DEQ Asbestos Notification search page [[http://www.deq.state.mi.us/asbestos_.../AbSearch.aspx) and look at 110 Sproat [[The Eddystone) and 2643 Park [[The Harbor Light), the notifications are essentially identical. Asbestos to be removed by hand prior to interior demolition as part of a planned renovation.

Maybe deducing anything from such a formulaic document is trying to interpret tea leaves. But by contrast the asbestos notifications for the Brewster highrises [[2913 / 2700 St Antoine) clearly were for demo.

[EL Jimbo]

This is absolutely ridiculous. Someone could walk into downtown Detroit today with an RPG and shoot it anywhere they wanted. Better tear down every other building so nobody can get an angle down into a crowded office! Install an Iron Dome system near Campus Martius! Play Tigers games in a TV studio!

Why is 9/11 relevant? Will tearing down the Park Avenue Hotel prevent another 9/11? Will we ever be allowed to build buildings next to other buildings again?

Forgive all the snark but the absolutely unthinking nature of the "security" lobby in this country continually harms our public spaces and provides no public benefit.

I think it's much more likely that DHS has some arcane guideline about a "security perimeter", no authority to enforce it, and Olympia has latched onto that as cover for tearing down a building they want gone.

perhaps if you turned off the snark and turned on your brain you would see the relevance of 9/11 to a discussion on event security. I'm not sure what rock you've been living under for the past 14 years, but the rest of us noticed that security issues have taken on greater importance since those attacks happened. Arenas built prior to 9/11 [[like the Verizon Center) didn't have the same security precautions built into them that post 9/11 construction is more likely to have.

Heck, the Department of Homeland Security wouldn't even exist if not for 9/11. If you can't understand the impact and relevance 9/11 had on the security concerns of the design of public or other gathering spaces then there is really no point continuing a discussion with you as you lack the required knowledge to have a worthwhile debate on the issue.

[mwilbert]

perhaps if you turned off the snark and turned on your brain you would see the relevance of 9/11 to a discussion on event security. I'm not sure what rock you've been living under for the past 14 years, but the rest of us noticed that security issues have taken on greater importance since those attacks happened. Arenas built prior to 9/11 [[like the Verizon Center) didn't have the same security precautions built into them that post 9/11 construction is more likely to have.

Heck, the Department of Homeland Security wouldn't even exist if not for 9/11. If you can't understand the impact and relevance 9/11 had on the security concerns of the design of public or other gathering spaces then there is really no point continuing a discussion with you as you lack the required knowledge to have a worthwhile debate on the issue.

I can't speak for Junjie, but it seems to me that one can understand the "impact and relevance of 9/11" without thinking it should be a dominant factor in the design of urban spaces. In a country filled with soft targets, worrying about hardening a few specific gathering places seems kind of silly. No doubt there are specific locations that are such attractive targets symbolically that they should get special attention, but I don't see why a random arena would meet that criterion.