Lafayette Building Demolition

**buildingsofdetroit** · October-16-09, 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by Ltdave

there looks to be a neat curved room on the top floor, with windows or something in the wall. its visible in the shot with the Adamo banner over the spot that read Lafayette...

That's the elevator bank.

**Lowell** · October-17-09, 11:28 PM

Has it been determined if this partial demolition is for a Red Dawn Set? It has a blasted look and the touch of the tree still on top and well...

East Side Upper demoliton looks more like carful deconstruction. I always thought that this side was wasted by not taking advantage of the great vistas it could have offered.

While walking around I ran into a guy that said he was did part of the feasibility study. He was amazed to find the basement, some 30 feet deep were bone dry. As you all may know flooding of abandoned building basements is common place.

**Fnemecek** · October-17-09, 11:44 PM

Originally Posted by Lowell

While walking around I ran into a guy that said he was did part of the feasibility study. He was amazed to find the basement, some 30 feet deep were bone dry. As you all may know flooding of abandoned building basements is common place.

One more piece of evidence as to colossally incompetent this "feasibility" study really was. The "flooded" basement wasn't really flooded after all.

Lorax · October-18-09, 08:32 AM

It's beginning to be more than obvious that the removal of the Lafayette was political, as most demolitions are of recent years.

It was perfectly salvagable, should have been economically mothballed, or simply mitigating the roof would have been sufficient.

The Broderick tower has been vacant longer, as have dozens of other buildings that haven't been even partially sealed up.

Sad when politics/graft get in the way of preservation.

EastSider · October-19-09, 09:41 AM

Originally Posted by Fnemecek

One more piece of evidence as to colossally incompetent this "feasibility" study really was. The "flooded" basement wasn't really flooded after all.

Evidence of what? An inability to recognize downtown's economy is and will be for years in the shitter? We're supposed to take the word of some anonymous person on the internet who allegedly coincidentally bumped into another anonymous person on the street who claimed to be part of the study?

**Fnemecek** · October-19-09, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by EastSider

Evidence of what? An inability to recognize downtown's economy is and will be for years in the shitter? We're supposed to take the word of some anonymous person on the internet who allegedly coincidentally bumped into another anonymous person on the street who claimed to be part of the study?

Was the supposedly "flooded" basement actually flooded?

If not then the exaggerated costs associated with dewatering the basement were even more exaggerated.

**iheartthed** · October-19-09, 09:53 AM

Did they ever tear the building down?

EastSider · October-19-09, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by Fnemecek

Was the supposedly "flooded" basement actually flooded?

If not then the exaggerated costs associated with dewatering the basement were even more exaggerated.

But where's your evidence that the basement was "bone dry?"

**Fnemecek** · October-19-09, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by EastSider

But where's your evidence that the basement was "bone dry?"

The fact that Lowell said it was. His track record of being right is much stronger than the DEGC's.

**kraig** · October-19-09, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by Fnemecek

The fact that Lowell said it was. His track record of being right is much stronger than the DEGC's.

You have to keep it in perspective. Without a steady supply of rain to keep it flooded, the Lafayette Building would dry up like any other building. Hell, even the Roosevelt Warehouse was dry this summer. The real point would be if the person Lowell spoke with had stated that there were no signs of water damage.

**ghettopalmetto** · October-19-09, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by kraig

You have to keep it in perspective. Without a steady supply of rain to keep it flooded, the Lafayette Building would dry up like any other building. Hell, even the Roosevelt Warehouse was dry this summer. The real point would be if the person Lowell spoke with had stated that there were no signs of water damage.

What's your background in building investigations, kraig? Would you like to place a monetary wager on the veracity of your statement?

EastSider · October-19-09, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by Fnemecek

The fact that Lowell said it was. His track record of being right is much stronger than the DEGC's.

Yes, nothing says success more than presiding over this collection of stupid from the safe confines of a remote suburban corner of this International Metropolis.

**Detroitnerd** · October-19-09, 12:20 PM

Wow, this is going to look GREAT when it's done! No more of that ugly old building! Prime lots ready for development! George Jackson is a GENIUS!

*** SATIRE *** SATIRE *** SATIRE *** SATIRE

**ghettopalmetto** · October-19-09, 12:21 PM

Originally Posted by EastSider

Yes, nothing says success more than presiding over this collection of stupid from the safe confines of a remote suburban corner of this International Metropolis.

Lowell's point is valid. Dewatering and waterproofing of the basement would be a major cost component of remediation and renovation. If the estimate of renovation costs, upon which the decision to demolish was based, included costs of dewatering and waterproofing the basement, then the decision to demolish was made under false pretenses. How many other items in the feasibility study are incorrect in their scope, placed in the estimate strictly in order to justify demolition?

It's kind of how George Jackson kept telling everyone that the Lafayette Building was "structurally unsound", when it had been standing just fine for decades. Never mind Mr. Jackson's lack of qualifications to make this conclusion, or the failure to produce a written report by a licensed Professional Engineer that made this conclusion.

**kraig** · October-19-09, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

What's your background in building investigations, kraig? Would you like to place a monetary wager on the veracity of your statement?

Since I'm not a gambler, I think I will decline wagering with someone on a non-gambling website. What exactly are you challenging? My statement is that even though the basement is dry, that does not mean that it hasn't flooded before.

Now, whenever someone is going to invest in any property, they should know the condition that the property is in before making the investment. Whenever dealing with a structure, especially a structure with a basement, one of the first things you look for are signs of water damage and/or flooding.

Again, what is your challenge?

**ghettopalmetto** · October-19-09, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by kraig

Since I'm not a gambler, I think I will decline wagering with someone on a non-gambling website. What exactly are you challenging? My statement is that even though the basement is dry, that does not mean that it hasn't flooded before.

Now, whenever someone is going to invest in any property, they should know the condition that the property is in before making the investment. Whenever dealing with a structure, especially a structure with a basement, one of the first things you look for are signs of water damage and/or flooding.

Again, what is your challenge?

First, you implied that any flooding in the basement of the Lafayette Building would be due strictly to rain. Are you ruling out all other sources?

Second, you assumed there was structural damage to the basement, caused by water. What evidence do you have for this?

The corollary to your statement that I've quoted above is that before making a decision to demolish based on "prohibitive" rehabilitation costs, the DEGC should know the condition of the property before making the investment, whether that investment is rehabilitation or demolition. Lowell's anecdote suggests a failure to do this.

**kraig** · October-19-09, 12:57 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

First, you implied that any flooding in the basement of the Lafayette Building would be due strictly to rain. Are you ruling out all other sources?

Second, you assumed there was structural damage to the basement, caused by water. What evidence do you have for this?

The corollary to your statement that I've quoted above is that before making a decision to demolish based on "prohibitive" rehabilitation costs, the DEGC should know the condition of the property before making the investment, whether that investment is rehabilitation or demolition. Lowell's anecdote suggests a failure to do this.

No, I'm not ruling out other sources. I simply went to the main source that isn't subject to an on/off switch.

Second, please read my posts more carefully, I didn't assume anything. I simply pointed out that there is a difference between a basement being dry and there being no sign of water damage.

Now, you being the one that's always professing to have so much Engineering experience should recognize that there is a difference between the two as well.

In an attempt to answer the question that there hasn't been any structural damage in the basement which statement do you think carries more weight?

It was bone dry.

Or

There was no sign of structural damage due to flooding.

My statement is that from any type of investigation, whether it's building, legal or engineering. Is that technically speaking, "bone dry" doesn't mean shit. Now, bet on that.

**Detroitnerd** · October-19-09, 01:01 PM

George Jackson talking about how the Lafayette Building is "structurally unsound" reminds me of a certain president saying a certain country had weapons of mass destruction.

**Fury13** · October-19-09, 01:05 PM

Is this building down yet? The Arcade Bar next door needs a parking lot.

Oh, wait...

EastSider · October-19-09, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Lowell's point is valid.

What point?! How do we know this phantom participant was telling the truth when he talked to Lowell?

All we know at this point is that Lowell is claiming some guy on the street told him the basement was "bone dry."

I'll call bullshit on this alleged statement, because I don't believe that it was "bone dry." Somebody up above noted how unusual it would be. Every other abandoned building has water in the basement. Are we supposed to assume that the Lafayette somehow magically kept the water out? There was a tree growing from the roof, for Cripe's sake, and how many windows broken?

Through all of that, we're supposed to believe there was no water in the basement?

**ghettopalmetto** · October-19-09, 02:25 PM

Y'all can speculate all you want about water in the basement, possible sources, and whether or not it caused damage. That's chicken feed.

The real issue is that IF THERE WERE A GOD DAMNED WRITTEN REPORT, SIGNED AND SEALED BY A PE, we wouldn't be having this idiotic discussion.

**kraig** · October-19-09, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Y'all can speculate all you want about water in the basement, possible sources, and whether or not it caused damage. That's chicken feed.

The real issue is that IF THERE WERE A GOD DAMNED WRITTEN REPORT, SIGNED AND SEALED BY A PE, we wouldn't be having this idiotic discussion.

Ah, the infamous ghettopalmetto meltdown. I knew it was coming as sure as I knew you would deflect away from your losing argument. Always happens, always will. And you can bet that ritalin you're about to take on that.

By the way, I bet that the WRITTEN REPORT, SIGNED AND SEALED BY A PE wouldn't just say bone dry. LMAO.

Retroit · October-19-09, 02:57 PM

Sorry to interrupt the debate, but does anyone know what will happen with this building when the filming is done?

**ghettopalmetto** · October-19-09, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by kraig

Ah, the infamous ghettopalmetto meltdown. I knew it was coming as sure as I knew you would deflect away from your losing argument. Always happens, always will. And you can bet that ritalin you're about to take on that.

By the way, I bet that the WRITTEN REPORT, SIGNED AND SEALED BY A PE wouldn't just say bone dry. LMAO.

I wouldn't use "bone dry" in a report. But if you think that phrase has no meaning in colloquial conversation, you're out of your gourd.

By the way, Kraig, what was the name of the Professional Engineer who declared the Lafayette Building structurally unsound? His seal should be on the front of that report. You know, the one that DEGC failed to make public?

Now, run along and go play. Pompous jackasses like you don't get to decide what is and is not a "losing argument". I might remind you that you don't know the first thing about buildings, so I'd suggest that you keep your self-satisfied arrogance to yourself on this thread.

**Lowell** · October-19-09, 03:04 PM

Let me make it clear... I repeated what a person I met told me. He seemed very informed, claimed he had also worked on the Hudson's feasibility and was allegedly entering the Lafayette the next day. We bantered about the usual reasons, footprint, parking etc. but did not go into any depth.

I did not see the basement and there in nothing in what I wrote above that offers any evidence one way or the other. He did express the 'dry basement' finding with a sense of amazement, something I found surprising too, because he said it was such a rarity. The thought crossing my mind was, "Here's a guy whose feasibility studies leads to demolition of classic and historic buildings, I wonder if he ever ponders that?'

But I didn't ask, because, well I didn't care and was in a hurry.