Ilitch's Choice: The Eddystone Hotel Lives, Park Avenue Hotel to die

[emu steve]

'Emu Steve, I see your point, but there is still a common thread with recent arena projects involved tearing down a bunch of occupied buildings [[as in Brooklyn and Newark, e.g.). The issue that's common to all of these scenarios is where to draw the line for the wrecking ball? How big does the arena footprint need to be? What sort of use justifies removing extant buildings beyond the footprint? If you want your arena surrounded by a vibrant urban district, should you leave or remove the extant structures? If removal is the answer, shouldn't there be a distinct plan and commitment to replace it with something productive, rather than some amorphous promise that result in surface parking or excess "plaza?"

Interestingly, in Brooklyn and Newark the government stepped in and took properties that were occupied or worth saving [[which isn't even legal in the state of Michigan post-Poletown). In Detroit, the government is at least talking about stepping in and SAVING properties that are in much worse condition. That's a very positive thing. It's a testament to the sound logic of the historic preservation movement in a city that has lost too much as it is and a testament to the city that knows better having been tricked by Olympia before. Now's lets follow through an actually save them! '

**************

As much as it may pain many posters here, each individual case has to stand on its own merits and not against mistakes made in the past.

I'm not sure saving the 2nd building to 'compensate' for mistakes made say 15 - 20 years ago is really fair.

Quite frankly, the magnitude of the issue isn't great: One building which may [[or may not) be in bad shape is the price. No one is talking about demolishing say 3 or 4 buildings. Quite frankly, it is almost amazing that such a large arena project could be done without demolishing more buildings [[see reference above the to the Brooklyn arena).

Doing a 'cost/benefit' analysis: One demolished building in a project which could save a desolate area is not too much of a cost.

As we have posted many, many times: This whole arena project could easily develop Fisher/Temple/Woodward/Cass, plus maybe some of Bush Park, plus some blocks south of the Fisher, etc.

As I [[sometimes) indicate I'm posting from 500 miles away. I can't drive up Temple from Woodward to Cass and try to judge how the blend occurs between structures at Cass/Temple and the arena.

I believe, without reservation, that the Masonic Temple and the adjacent hotel are the foundation for the type of architecture moving north of the arena area.

Yet, by definition, the arena area is 100% new construction, new architecture, etc. There is one building which may come down. Otherwise, a pile of weeds and dirt parking lots for sporting events.

As such the arena area will be free standing. It would be nice if the blocks between Sproat and Temple [[from Woodward/Cass) would buffer the existing area [[e.g., Masonic Temple).

[ghettopalmetto]

As much as it may pain many posters here, each individual case has to stand on its own merits and not against mistakes made in the past.

I'm not sure saving the 2nd building to 'compensate' for mistakes made say 15 - 20 years ago is really fair.

Quite frankly, the magnitude of the issue isn't great: One building which may [[or may not) be in bad shape is the price. No one is talking about demolishing say 3 or 4 buildings.

A building here, and a building there...no big whoop. It's not like half of downtown Detroit hasn't been bulldozed--one little building at a time--in the past 20 years.

But if Detroit gets a downtown Ruby Tuesdays, it'll all be worth it. Just like the $300-something-odd-million stadium project "energized" the parking lots on Woodward.

[Mackinaw]

Bailey you're absolutely right, I was just making a quip within a quip [[that there can be no eminent domain for pure redevelopment in Michigan), which may have been confusing in context. I agree that the City could take all truly blighted properties, including these, for purposes of remedying blight. In fact, I am increasingly a proponent of the city doing so in situations where there is a derlict slumlord and a chance at restoration via an RFP process. It could be a preservation tactic in a with a lot of ambitious redevelopers, preservation interest, and improving economy [[and do more George Jackson in the mix). In fact I think this should be the city's approach with the Park Ave. Building down at Park/Grand Circus [[unfortunately the current approach is to seek a court order that would compel the owner to demolish..I will defer to someone on the Michigan bar to tell me what statute the city gets that power from).

Here, the "market value" of the properties, being in the arena district, is probably too onerous for the city to go this route. Plus any such battle would be inconsistent with the collaborative approach with Olympia that the City is trying to make work. But again, as you say, the legal power is there.

[emu steve]

A building here, and a building there...no big whoop. It's not like half of downtown Detroit hasn't been bulldozed--one little building at a time--in the past 20 years.

But if Detroit gets a downtown Ruby Tuesdays, it'll all be worth it. Just like the $300-something-odd-million stadium project "energized" the parking lots on Woodward.

As I indicated, we are talking probably ONE building.

I would think a historic preservationist would trade ONE building for the most exciting development opportunity I can imagine.

I tried to make the point that tearing down a building 20 years ago, while unfortunate, is not germane to today's actions. History is history. Can't undue what has happened.

The reality, today, 2015, is that we are talking about ONE building in a very large developmental area.

P.S. if the arena wasn't built there might not those two buildings come down in the next 10 - 20 years? Those buildings without the development CAUSED BY the arena have almost no economic value. No one would redevelop them the way the area is TODAY. It could remain undeveloped for decades.

We'd still have dirt parking for Tiger baseball games.

[bailey]

As I indicated, we are talking probably ONE building.

I would think a historic preservationist would trade ONE building for the most exciting development opportunity I can imagine.

I tried to make the point that tearing down a building 20 years ago, while unfortunate, is not germane to today's actions.

The reality, today, 2015, is that we are talking about ONE building in a very large developmental area.

P.S. if the arena wasn't built there might not those two building come down in the next 10 years? Those buildings without the development CAUSED BY the arena have almost no economic value.

I think the point was to consider the one doing the tearing down in this instance. Olympia has a track record of pulling things down for no reason other than surface parking.

[Dan_the_man]

As I indicated, we are talking probably ONE building.

I would think a historic preservationist would trade ONE building for the most exciting development opportunity I can imagine.

We aren't really trading this one building for the development though. Illitch isn't going to cancel the development of the arena just because he can't tear down that building. Everything is too far along for that. They can easily find a way to make it work, they just don't want to. This building should be no more difficult to finance the redevelopment of that any of the other buildings in similar shape that have been rehabbed in recent years. Look at the Strathmore as the most recent example. These buildings have the added advantage of being right next to the arena, which I would imagine means they can charge significantly more for rent.

If Olympia can't or doesn't want to make it work, they should sell the buildings to another developer that knows what they are doing in terms of historic rehabs. There is no reason for either of these two buildings to come down.

P.S. This would not be the only building to come down for the arena. There is the Comet Bar [[which is obviously much less significant) as well as the numerous buildings that DTE has already torn down to build their expanded substation. Several of which were homes that were well over 100 years old.

[ghettopalmetto]

As I indicated, we are talking probably ONE building.

I would think a historic preservationist would trade ONE building for the most exciting development opportunity I can imagine.

I tried to make the point that tearing down a building 20 years ago, while unfortunate, is not germane to today's actions. History is history. Can't undue what has happened.

The reality, today, 2015, is that we are talking about ONE building in a very large developmental area.

P.S. if the arena wasn't built there might not those two buildings come down in the next 10 - 20 years? Those buildings without the development CAUSED BY the arena have almost no economic value. No one would redevelop them the way the area is TODAY. It could remain undeveloped for decades.

We'd still have dirt parking for Tiger baseball games.

Well, in that case, fuck it! Tear down everything so we can eat at Hooters!!!

Thanks for the laughs. You can seriously look at a project like the David Whitney, and then argue that we *must* tear down *one* [[but only one???) of these two buildings TO CREATE REDEVELOPMENT. What a fucking joke. You just have not been paying much attention the past 20 years, have you?

[emu steve]

We aren't really trading this one building for the development though. Illitch isn't going to cancel the development of the arena just because he can't tear down that building. Everything is too far along for that. They can easily find a way to make it work, they just don't want to. This building should be no more difficult to finance the redevelopment of that any of the other buildings in similar shape that have been rehabbed in recent years. Look at the Strathmore as the most recent example. These buildings have the added advantage of being right next to the arena, which I would imagine means they can charge significantly more for rent.

If Olympia can't or doesn't want to make it work, they should sell the buildings to another developer that knows what they are doing in terms of historic rehabs. There is no reason for either of these two buildings to come down.

P.S. This would not be the only building to come down for the arena. There is the Comet Bar [[which is obviously much less significant) as well as the numerous buildings that DTE has already torn down to build their expanded substation. Several of which were homes that were well over 100 years old.

Comet bar and a hotel aka brothel? Guys [[and gals) we are grabbing at straws.

The issue, as I understand it, is that one building stands inside the perimeter of the arena complex, it would be very close to his arena [[and architecturally doesn't fit at all) and Ilitch apparently doesn't feel it is appropriate.

It is his land. He owns title to it. The only power the city has is zoning, which is like trying to stop a boulder rolling down hill.

[Dan_the_man]

Comet bar and a hotel aka brothel? Guys [[and gals) we are grabbing at straws.

There were also at least four other buildings demolished by DTE. Three historic houses and a mechanic that was operating until they got bought out.

It is his land. He owns title to it. The only power the city has is zoning, which is like trying to stop a boulder rolling down hill.

That and the historic designation that the building has. There is no way that the Historic District Commission is going to give him permission to tear the building down.

[Mackinaw]

Well said, Dan.

Emu Steve, he also knowingly purchased a building in a historic district, which was on the national register of historic places, too. At this point, any substantial historic building in Detroit is a public good, let alone one with such designations. You invite a highly predicatable and legitimate fight when you say you want to tear one down.

[ABetterDetroit]

Does not the preservationist point of view in this thread amount to trying to close the barn door after all the horses have left? The city sold him the land for the grand sum of one dollar. That was the correct time to extract concessions from Ilitch that were in the city's best interest. If saving these buildings was the priority, that was the time to do it. I wouldn't have. I would have made him replace all the sq. footage of these buildings with new construction for residential housing at the same time that this arena was built on land he already owns in the downtown area. That wasn't done either. Again, too late. Take the deal and give up the one building and get on with the new half a billion dollar project now without delay. The city's efforts would be better spent applying pressure to owners of architectually significant vacant buildings that the only plan appears to be to let them rot into rubble.

[emu steve]

Well said, Dan.

Emu Steve, he also knowingly purchased a building in a historic district, which was on the national register of historic places, too. At this point, any substantial historic building in Detroit is a public good, let alone one with such designations. You invite a highly predicatable and legitimate fight when you say you want to tear one down.

I assume the rest of the project proceeds from day one and the 2nd parking deck is placed on hold pending any legal challenges???

As I viewed the drawing in today's Detnews, the building in question is actually located in what is to be a corner of the parking deck.

It is not some plaza.

Matter of fact, the building abuts the parking garage so that lower level floors [[of the residential building) have a picturesque view of parked cars.

It would be an interesting place to live... parking deck on one side and a big arena on the other... oh, boy...

[DetroitBoy]

Does not the preservationist point of view in this thread amount to trying to close the barn door after all the horses have left? The city sold him the land for the grand sum of one dollar. That was the correct time to extract concessions from Ilitch that were in the city's best interest. If saving these buildings was the priority, that was the time to do it. I wouldn't have. I would have made him replace all the sq. footage of these buildings with new construction for residential housing at the same time that this arena was built on land he already owns in the downtown area. That wasn't done either. Again, too late. Take the deal and give up the one building and get on with the new half a billion dollar project now without delay. The city's efforts would be better spent applying pressure to owners of architectually significant vacant buildings that the only plan appears to be to let them rot into rubble.

I agree. They aren't anywhere when the deals are being made. Then like the annoying spinster Aunt, they rear their ugly heads and make caustic comments to poison the well.

Rip those derelicts down and start pouring concrete!

[stinkytofu]

I would love for some of the organizations that have been involved in building rehabs for the past decade - Roxbury, Ferchill, Karp, Beal, etc. - to get vocal about how feasible they view the rehab of the buildings to be. Perhaps one of them even shows some interest in getting involved...

[RaumVogel]

I know I'm being "armchair" here.But I can't bring myself to see the advantage of wasting already apparently sound structures.Just because these structures don't have windows or copper left in them,is it really more economically viable to tear them down?I am not a structural engineer...so I guess I'm looking for a little education here.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ca...64866e!6m1!1e1

They seem to be as solid as rocks to me.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3411...Ew!2e0!6m1!1e1

[ghettopalmetto]

I know I'm being "armchair" here.But I can't bring myself to see the advantage of wasting already apparently sound structures.Just because these structures don't have windows or copper left in them,is it really more economically viable to tear them down? I am not a structural engineer...so I guess I'm looking for a little education here.

The one factor that is often overlooked is the intrinsic work contained in a building, even if the shell is the only system that remains. Think of the thousands of man-hours of labor--and the energy--that it took to design the building, procure the materials and transport them, and construct it. The foundations, the columns, walls, beams, floors, roof, exterior cladding...All of that work is already done. Demolition and replacement [[If, in fact, there is to be replacement), requires that all of that work be done all over again. To say nothing of all the waste disposal that would be required. Not only that, but demolition and replacement means that the building takes much more time to deliver to market, and as we all know, time is money. Installing new plumbing and windows is a piece of cake compared to building a new structure from scratch.

I just don't see how, in an environment where the Book-Cadillac, Fort-Shelby, David Whitney, Kales, and others can be successfully renovated, that one of these two buildings just *has* to come down. The only reason I see is a short-sighted owner decision. And, as we all know how this works in Detroit, Mike Ilitch is usually aided-and-abetted by the City of Detroit and/or DEGC with their lavish cash subsidies that tilt the decision-making process.

I think it's even more egregious a sin that the City of Detroit allows this to take place when so much public money is involved. But then again, short-sightedness rules the day in the D...remember not too long ago when we were told that the Lafayette Building had to come down *right freaking now* because there was no market for it at that one point in time? And now there's a flurry of activity, seemingly everywhere except on the Lafayette block.

It's just a shame. Ilitch owns something like 45 blocks of vacant lots on which he can build, yet he's hellbent on destroying the intrinsic value that these buildings hold. And for what?

[emu steve]

Well said, Dan.

Emu Steve, he also knowingly purchased a building in a historic district, which was on the national register of historic places, too. At this point, any substantial historic building in Detroit is a public good, let alone one with such designations. You invite a highly predicatable and legitimate fight when you say you want to tear one down.

What makes this fight interesting is this is the only site which would work for Ilitch and the arena.

As has been pointed out by Gistok, the Ilitch folks spent forever trying to assemble a site for an arena and finally got one [[of three) to work [[the other two, behind the Fox and be the MC Casino didn't work for various reasons).

Sometimes in life, compromises need to be made.

I've been on this board for years following the arena and this plan is by far as good as one can hope in a country not ruled by a king.

I still maintain the three things which are bulworks of rebuilding the city and downtown/midtown are:

1). Successful resolution of the bankruptcy.

2). The new arena.

3). The M-1 rail.

Those three must go forward to successful completion...

[Dan_the_man]

I don't see how saving this building would hold up the project or impact it in any major way. At worst they would have to relocate a parking structure? Pardon me, but is it really a big deal if people have to walk an extra block to the arena?

The hotel doesn't sit on the site of the new arena, and as previously said, the Illitch's knew it was historic when they bought it, so I don't know what their plan was. Maybe they were hoping that Kwame would have made his "comeback" by now so that he could authorize another emergency demolition like he did with the Madison Lennox?

If this building was fixed up, and didn't have the bottom several stories blocked by a parking structure, it would be a very desirable place to live. People would pay good money to rent those apartments. Better yet, since the plans for the area call for building a hotel, why not just rehab the already existing hotel into a new hotel.

[Bham1982]

Interestingly, in Brooklyn and Newark the government stepped in and took properties that were occupied or worth saving [[which isn't even legal in the state of Michigan post-Poletown). In Detroit, the government is at least talking about stepping in and SAVING properties that are in much worse condition.

You're totally conflating stuff.

There were no such buildings taken and/or demolished, in either the Brooklyn or Newark cases. There were eminent domain proceedings in both cases, but in neither case were there any major buildings like the Eddystone or Park Ave. hotel in play.

And in the case of Brooklyn, the arena was a small part of a much larger residential development. The arena was not the main focus, and the site is primarily a below-grade railyard that is being decked over.

[Bham1982]

I still maintain the three things which are bulworks of rebuilding the city and downtown/midtown are:

1). Successful resolution of the bankruptcy.

2). The new arena.

3). The M-1 rail.

Those three must go forward to successful completion...

Issues #2 and #3 have almost nothing to do with Detroit's future prospects. The idea that replacing one hockey arena for another, and replacing some buses with trolleys will be the keys to Detroit's future, is completely absurd.

[dtowncitylover]

Issues #2 and #3 have almost nothing to do with Detroit's future prospects. The idea that replacing one hockey arena for another, and replacing some buses with trolleys will be the keys to Detroit's future, is completely absurd.

Obviously, investing in diverse transit options to rebuild a transit system has nothing to do with rebuilding a city's inner core. Nothing at all.

[Mackinaw]

emu Steve, as Dan points out based on your own typically thorough analysis, the Park Ave. hotel site is mostly likely targeted for a garage. Let's all go stand on Woodward now and look west across that flat moonscape....think we can find an alternate site? Yes. And hell, if the district is gonna be so gawddarn dense that there's no place else to put a garage, then let's start digging underground. A parking garage just doesn't justify killing off a public good.

GPalmetto: everything you said.

Bham: you were quoting me via an emu Steve post, and no I was not conflating, I was just making a passing observation that struck me as interesting: in Brooklyn and Newark the city/state took occupied and/or rehab-able buildings, whereas here the city is trying to safe a building that is in much worse shape. Not trying to make any point, and the eminent domain aspects are not material to the analysis, just a footnote. My point in the post this quote originally appeared in is that the common issue here in Detroit and those east coast cities is where to draw the line: how much "room" do we need to make for the arena, how many buildings [[whether large or small, doesn't matter) outside the footprint should come down [[whether through eminent domain or acquiescence, doesn't matter)? In both of the east coast cities other ancillary, but substantial developments [[i.e. high rise housing) were promised. Years later, Brooklyn is only starting to see that come to fruition, and Newark's arena is still surrounded by surface parking where there used to be buildings. Do we believe that Detroit's gonna outperform these places? While I hope so, I am also realistic, and this is all the more reason to be stingy in allowing tear-downs beyond the footprint. Once it's gone its gone, and that odds are pretty damn high that we'll merely be parking cars on top of the site. We who care should not accept that as progress.

And even if we can be 100% certain that all of the "district" renderings will come to vivid life in short order, and that we'll outperform the ancillary district development in Brooklyn and Newark, I still don't think demo is our best option. Just too much wasted resources and too great an opportunity cost. I want my city to show more ambition.

[hewettbr]

The most important thing is how much will it cost to rehab these buildings, i agree the area would be best with both of these building restored as well as the Alhambra Apartment building at Temple and Park Avenue.

emu Steve, as Dan points out based on your own typically thorough analysis, the Park Ave. hotel site is mostly likely targeted for a garage. Let's all go stand on Woodward now and look west across that flat moonscape....think we can find an alternate site? Yes. And hell, if the district is gonna be so gawddarn dense that there's no place else to put a garage, then let's start digging underground. A parking garage just doesn't justify killing off a public good.

GPalmetto: everything you said.

Bham: you were quoting me via an emu Steve post, and no I was not conflating, I was just making a passing observation that struck me as interesting: in Brooklyn and Newark the city/state took occupied and/or rehab-able buildings, whereas here the city is trying to safe a building that is in much worse shape. Not trying to make any point, and the eminent domain aspects are not material to the analysis, just a footnote. My point in the post this quote originally appeared in is that the common issue here in Detroit and those east coast cities is where to draw the line: how much "room" do we need to make for the arena, how many buildings [[whether large or small, doesn't matter) outside the footprint should come down [[whether through eminent domain or acquiescence, doesn't matter)? In both of the east coast cities other ancillary, but substantial developments [[i.e. high rise housing) were promised. Years later, Brooklyn is only starting to see that come to fruition, and Newark's arena is still surrounded by surface parking where there used to be buildings. Do we believe that Detroit's gonna outperform these places? While I hope so, I am also realistic, and this is all the more reason to be stingy in allowing tear-downs beyond the footprint. Once it's gone its gone, and that odds are pretty damn high that we'll merely be parking cars on top of the site. We who care should not accept that as progress.

And even if we can be 100% certain that all of the "district" renderings will come to vivid life in short order, and that we'll outperform the ancillary district development in Brooklyn and Newark, I still don't think demo is our best option. Just too much wasted resources and too great an opportunity cost. I want my city to show more ambition.

[ghettopalmetto]

The most important thing is how much will it cost to rehab these buildings, i agree the area would be best with both of these building restored as well as the Alhambra Apartment building at Temple and Park Avenue.

Well, that's hard to say when the issue isn't studied. What we get told, time-and-again, is that "the building must come down now, or else!*. There are never any feasibility studies done.

Even still...forcing an immediate decision to either demolish or renovate is unnecessary. Market conditions constantly change. And Olympia already owns acres of surface lots on which they can build their private Disneyland.

[bailey]

Well, that's hard to say when the issue isn't studied. What we get told, time-and-again, is that "the building must come down now, or else!*. There are never any feasibility studies done.

Even still...forcing an immediate decision to either demolish or renovate is unnecessary. Market conditions constantly change. And Olympia already owns acres of surface lots on which they can build their private Disneyland.

But this building is inside the perimeter of the Little Caesars Playland... thus IT MUST GO. Because...reasons. This time the "reason" is Homeland security, so there is no need to have the "yes it is"/"no it isnt" feasibility argument -- they have a new excuse! "We'd love to save it, but Obama says it has to go!" #thanksObama.