Residents don't want restaurant at Corktown fire station

[gumby]

I call bullshit on the parking issues in the neighborhood.

[Honky Tonk]

Gee, I wish I could live my life in the internet....

[Johnnny5]

I call bullshit on the parking issues in the neighborhood.

Patrons of the proposed restaurant may make use of those nearby lots. Of course, they likely wouldn't do so until all the free on street parking was filled on 6th Street, Bagley and the next block over.

I'm curious to those here that seem to support this idea. Why should this have been allowed? I get that the building owner wants it [[It increases the value of his property) and that the would be restaurateur would be in support of the zoning change. But why so much support for the idea of a business sidestepping the existing zoning to the detriment of those that live there?

As mentioned by above, this isn't Corktown of 2001. There is a huge demand for a building like this as residential space so it's not going to sit vacant. There's probably just more $$$$$$ to be made by turning it into a restaurant.

Which is more important? The profit margin of the building owner, or the quality of life on one of Corktown's few mainly intact residential streets?

[bust]

Pretty funny for people who bought homes without anywhere to park a car to complain about a lack of parking.

And slow handclap to the genius who suggested a better use of the first floor of that handsome building would be a garage.

[Richard]

or how many do not support this but supported Airbnb.

How does it effect the city as a whole.

As a fire station it provided a service but tax exempt,the newer trucks will not fit in there anymore,so its use as a fire station is non existent,even if it was how many would not be happy with a busy night of sirens.

It was vacant,price was cheap,lawyer buys it and uses it as an office.

Now it is on the property tax roll and city business taxes collected based on professional office.

Prices have gone up,lawyer sells the property at X amount of dollars,in order to pay the value an investor needs to look at highest and best use for their return and investment.

They determine restaurant and two floors of apartments.

So now the city collects a higher property tax rate based on the sale and value of property.

The apartments provide housing options.

The building owner now is paying landlord registration fees to the city.

The building owner is paying taxes on the rental income.

The restaurant is now paying business tax,income tax,employee tax,corporation taxes,and purchasing local supplies.

So what has happened is a building that had limited use is now generating revenue for the city providing jobs,housing options,and eating options.

It is adaptive reuse of existing buildings verses demolition for highest and best use for the city as a whole,the point of the owner making profit is a non argument,because nobody is going to step up and do all of that for free,they are taking the risk so they will reap the rewards,that is kinda how it works.

You can look at the direct impact to the surrounding residents,but you also have to look at the impact on the city as a whole,because it will impact everybody.

Which is how it will be looked at in the rezoning process.

[Honky Tonk]

or how many do not support this but supported Airbnb.

How does it effect the city as a whole.

As a fire station it provided a service but tax exempt,the newer trucks will not fit in there anymore,so its use as a fire station is non existent,even if it was how many would not be happy with a busy night of sirens.

It was vacant,price was cheap,lawyer buys it and uses it as an office.

Now it is on the property tax roll and city business taxes collected based on professional office.

Prices have gone up,lawyer sells the property at X amount of dollars,in order to pay the value an investor needs to look at highest and best use for their return and investment.

They determine restaurant and two floors of apartments.

So now the city collects a higher property tax rate based on the sale and value of property.

The apartments provide housing options.

The building owner now is paying landlord registration fees to the city.

The building owner is paying taxes on the rental income.

The restaurant is now paying business tax,income tax,employee tax,corporation taxes,and purchasing local supplies.

So what has happened is a building that had limited use is now generating revenue for the city providing jobs,housing options,and eating options.

It is adaptive reuse of existing buildings verses demolition for highest and best use for the city as a whole,the point of the owner making profit is a non argument,because nobody is going to step up and do all of that for free,they are taking the risk so they will reap the rewards,that is kinda how it works.

You can look at the direct impact to the surrounding residents,but you also have to look at the impact on the city as a whole,because it will impact everybody.

Which is how it will be looked at in the rezoning process.

When were you in Corktown, last, Richard?

[Richard]

When were you in Corktown, last, Richard?

Never have been there but it is irrelevant,while I agree Detroit is special in its own way,nothing there that is happening,is something that has not been repeated a million times in cities across the country,it is not reinventing the wheel.

The landscape may be different but the metrics stay the same,just as they have the last 100 years.

That is why they have the zoning process,in order to weigh the differences between the residents and the city as a whole and to find a happy medium,anyway you look at it not everybody is going to be happy no matter what is decided,so it is impact weighing.

Go back a few years and you can see these same exact discussions when it came to downtown,now it is spreading out across the city,is that a bad thing?

It is going to happen,as values increase the current uses will change because most cases the previous uses will not generate the income to cover the increase in value once sold.

That is actually a good thing,it is how it is approached is what will determine growth,the bigger problem would be if investors did not see potential in investing in Corktown.

But it does not matter anyways,the change was denied and the surrounding residents decided to risk thier own funds to make it into an apartment building as a whole,but they did not,if they had seen the profit in it they would have already done it.

So now it becomes clear in the future where to invest and where not to.

But five years from now when the revenue becomes stagnant the residents of Corktown will be saying that they need businesses to increase the tax base,while driving by a building that will now sit,it is predictable.

[Honky Tonk]

Never have been there but it is irrelevant,

A couple of years ago, when I posted that I was in agreement with Mike Dug-in about tearing down abandoned homes in blighted neighborhoods, you posted that tearing down homes in neighborhoods, destroys neighborhoods, and those homes should be rehabbed and saved. @ that time I offered to take you for a tour of some of the neighborhoods, and then have you tell me you thought they should be saved. You replied you'd never been here, and you lived in FL. Now, sight unseen, you're telling me a restaurant in a small, quiet, residential, Detroit neighborhood, where people take pride in ownership and taking care of their properties, should be disrupted by converting a 2 story building, into a bar/restaurant, that stays open until 2 a.m., with valet parking, valet guys running up and down the block, cars starting up and driving, car doors slamming, and intoxicated patrons, all hours of the evening, is fine, for the greater good of tax revenue. [[let's not forget the "losses" write-offs, shall we?) I guess my question to you is, how can anyone living 2,200 away, [[or 25 miles away for that matter) possibly have any idea "what's good for the neighborhood"? I can't imagine myself sitting on a website and trying to armchair quarterback what's good for Orlando, especially having never been there.

[Richard]

You are basing your assumption on the operating hours of an establishment in the decision making process and using that as an argument of sorts.

That was and is the whole purpose of the review process,they could have said or limited hours of operations or,but they said point blank no,do you know for a fact that they were going to stay open until 2 am.

I have a pizza place that serves alcohol,beer,just because one applies or wants to serve alcohol it does not equate to people throwing up in the streets at 2 am.

The whole point of my issue with demolitions,and Belle Island was not to look at today and look at long term,even from 2000 miles away,I can see buildings being renovated and put back online that nobody ever thought would be,right or wrong?

I was not armchair quarterbacking 7 years ago trying to bring investment and jobs to a city and being told no,not now,wait until the bankruptcy is over with.

I see that it is a common theme though,we do not want outside investment just mind your own business and let us do our thing because we know best.

How well does circling the wagons work?

But hey keep making the mistakes from the past,it is a long road and as was already posted money takes the path of least resistance and the country is full of Detroit's,some are business and investment friendly and some are not.

But for the record I am in Tampa,I moved to Orlando in 1980 and at that time you could walk into the mayors office with a beef,after 5 you could walk downtown core and never see a soul or a car,the police patrol was so bored they would do bike safety inspections,before that I was born and raised in Minneapolis/St Paul.

At one time they were all in the same boat as Detroit is now,it could be argued that they are in a different place now,so I do not need to be there to experience what has happen already across the county,because it is the same story everywhere you go and it does not change,even if you completely stabilize every neighborhood in the city,it will always be an evolving process,that is what cities do.

[JBMcB]

But why so much support for the idea of a business sidestepping the existing zoning to the detriment of those that live there?

The office building that was there before 'sidestepped' zoning to be an office. If you want to renovate it to be an apartment building, that would be 'sidestepping' the zoning as well, unless they gut the building to the exterior walls and completely redo the interior.

There is already a restaurant two blocks down the street on Bagley. Are the residents having problems with it?

[Johnnny5]

The office building that was there before 'sidestepped' zoning to be an office. If you want to renovate it to be an apartment building, that would be 'sidestepping' the zoning as well, unless they gut the building to the exterior walls and completely redo the interior.

There is already a restaurant two blocks down the street on Bagley. Are the residents having problems with it?

The article mentions that, and it also states that the neighborhood was in support of the zoning change to office space in order to save the building [[Detroit in the mid 1980's). That's not the scenario today, and there's a huge difference between a building supporting a small office [[that likely closed by 6pm) and a restaurant that may serve 100's of people every day and possibly stay open late into the night.

[Honky Tonk]

You are basing your assumption on the operating hours of an establishment in the decision making process and using that as an argument of sorts.

That was and is the whole purpose of the review process,they could have said or limited hours of operations or,but they said point blank no,do you know for a fact that they were going to stay open until 2 am.

I have a pizza place that serves alcohol,beer,just because one applies or wants to serve alcohol it does not equate to people throwing up in the streets at 2 am.

The whole point of my issue with demolitions,and Belle Island was not to look at today and look at long term,even from 2000 miles away,I can see buildings being renovated and put back online that nobody ever thought would be,right or wrong?

I was not armchair quarterbacking 7 years ago trying to bring investment and jobs to a city and being told no,not now,wait until the bankruptcy is over with.

I see that it is a common theme though,we do not want outside investment just mind your own business and let us do our thing because we know best.

How well does circling the wagons work?

But hey keep making the mistakes from the past,it is a long road and as was already posted money takes the path of least resistance and the country is full of Detroit's,some are business and investment friendly and some are not.

But for the record I am in Tampa,I moved to Orlando in 1980 and at that time you could walk into the mayors office with a beef,after 5 you could walk downtown core and never see a soul or a car,the police patrol was so bored they would do bike safety inspections,before that I was born and raised in Minneapolis/St Paul.

At one time they were all in the same boat as Detroit is now,it could be argued that they are in a different place now,so I do not need to be there to experience what has happen already across the county,because it is the same story everywhere you go and it does not change,even if you completely stabilize every neighborhood in the city,it will always be an evolving process,that is what cities do.

The common theme here is: Yes, come into Detroit, invest, grow, but don't do it @ the expense of established residents that have stuck it out through thick and thin. There are plenty of places left for investors to invest. Not every investment is beneficial to the citizens. There are already 10-12 restaurants in the immediate area, why the hell do you want to open another huge one in the middle of a residential neighborhood? People have paid, and continue paying taxes to live in the City. They deserve better than this. And no, you don't have any idea what's going on here because you don't live here.

[JBMcB]

That's not the scenario today, and there's a huge difference between a building supporting a small office [[that likely closed by 6pm) and a restaurant that may serve 100's of people every day and possibly stay open late into the night.

OK, I can understand that, but what about Lady Of The House, which is two blocks down on Bagley from the fire station? Is it causing problems? I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere.

[Honky Tonk]

OK, I can understand that, but what about Lady Of The House, which is two blocks down on Bagley from the fire station? Is it causing problems? I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere.

You mean this one, on the corner of Bagley & Trumbul Ave, with it's own parking lot, outside the residential area?


https://www.google.com/maps/place/14...!4d-83.0651019

[Johnnny5]

Not that I know of, but they also have dedicated parking and aren't asking for a change in the zoning. The request for a zoning change/variance is the issue here. Unless they can show that this would do no harm to, or get approval from the existing residents then it should be an automatic denial. I'm glad to see the city agreed.

[Meddle]

A lot of assumption here. For us distant armchair folks, what do we know about this place? Were they seeking a liquor license? Were hours ever mentioned? Seating capacity? Type of food?

Perhaps it was more of a cafe' bistro type place that wouldn't be open late?

I can tell you from first hand knowledge having been in Engine 8 a number of times [[as well as several other firehouses), it wasn't a huge place. By the time they got a kitchen, prep area and storage among other back room type areas, there wouldn't have been much room for tables. I can't see more than 20 or 30 patrons at a time.

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

The building owner now is paying landlord registration fees to the city.

The building owner is paying taxes on the rental income.

The restaurant is now paying business tax,income tax,employee tax,corporation taxes,and purchasing local supplies.

So what has happened is a building that had limited use is now generating revenue for the city providing jobs,housing options,and eating options.

It is adaptive reuse of existing buildings verses demolition for highest and best use for the city as a whole,the point of the owner making profit is a non argument,because nobody is going to step up and do all of that for free,they are taking the risk so they will reap the rewards,that is kinda how it works.

You can look at the direct impact to the surrounding residents,but you also have to look at the impact on the city as a whole,because it will impact everybody.

Which is how it will be looked at in the rezoning process.

Perhaps the zoning officials did look at "the impact on the city as a whole", and decided that a restaurant at this location could have a negative impact on the value of the residences nearby, thus affecting the tax base in the area. Is one new business, which conceivably can located elsewhere, necessarily worth lessening the value of the neighboring properties? A zoning variance shouldn't be given without careful consideration.

The building in question [[as is the case with so many old fire stations) looks like a grand old structure and in today's environment, should find a viable way of being reused.

[Honky Tonk]

A lot of assumption here. For us distant armchair folks, what do we know about this place? Were they seeking a liquor license? Were hours ever mentioned? Seating capacity? Type of food?

Perhaps it was more of a cafe' bistro type place that wouldn't be open late?

I can tell you from first hand knowledge having been in Engine 8 a number of times [[as well as several other firehouses), it wasn't a huge place. By the time they got a kitchen, prep area and storage among other back room type areas, there wouldn't have been much room for tables. I can't see more than 20 or 30 patrons at a time.

I'm thinking maybe only 21 or 32...


https://www.google.com/maps/uv?hl=en...DMu0GcaL1Ji3Og

[Richard]

Perhaps the zoning officials did look at "the impact on the city as a whole", and decided that a restaurant at this location could have a negative impact on the value of the residences nearby, thus affecting the tax base in the area. Is one new business, which conceivably can located elsewhere, necessarily worth lessening the value of the neighboring properties? A zoning variance shouldn't be given without careful consideration.

The building in question [[as is the case with so many old fire stations) looks like a grand old structure and in today's environment, should find a viable way of being reused.

It is listed as 7000 sqft,so at 3500 sqft per level because it looks consistent in street view,that gives you how many apartments,3,1000 sqft ones or 6 1000 sqft ones based on both levels.

Now take the cost of the building,cost of the build out,projected carrying costs and then to have what the residents want,apartments on both levels.

Then one must ask if converting it entirely to apartments was the way to go,and considering by all appearances,Corktown is a desirable place to live,how come the existing owner did not convert it into apartments?

Could it be that the numbers do not support a complete apartment conversion?

Surly somebody would have jumped all over that money maker by now.

So the residents decide that the only option or what they prefer is apartments and apparently the numbers do not match that scenario,would they support the demolition of the building and allow another in its place that has multiple stories?

So what are the options left? Another obsolete building on the demolition list.

Put a post it note on the fridge for 5 years down the road when Corktown sees stagnating revenues and the individual taxpayers have to cover the costs in increased taxes,they may be okay now because there is movement but once the movement stops,it will be,what can we do to attract businesses in order to increase revenues.

Notice the pattern?

[Honky Tonk]

It is listed as 7000 sqft,so at 3500 sqft per level because it looks consistent in street view,that gives you how many apartments,3,1000 sqft ones or 6 1000 sqft ones based on both levels.

Now take the cost of the building,cost of the build out,projected carrying costs and then to have what the residents want,apartments on both levels.

Then one must ask if converting it entirely to apartments was the way to go,and considering by all appearances,Corktown is a desirable place to live,how come the existing owner did not convert it into apartments?

Could it be that the numbers do not support a complete apartment conversion?

Surly somebody would have jumped all over that money maker by now.

So the residents decide that the only option or what they prefer is apartments and apparently the numbers do not match that scenario,would they support the demolition of the building and allow another in its place that has multiple stories?

So what are the options left? Another obsolete building on the demolition list.

So either a restaurant or blight and demolish, good call.

[1953]

It should be a restaurant, because this is a city, and, in a city, restaurants and houses can be located next to each other. That's it. There are parts of Detroit where uses are well segregated, but this isn't it. If you don't like hustle and bustle, don't move to the heart of the city. I don't care if you moved there in 1867, 1967, or will move here in 2067. Its a city, its for people to live, work, and play in, and there's just no reason to block a restaurant in this building.

[Richard]

So either a restaurant or blight and demolish, good call.

It is not a call,more so an observation of the history of what happens to obsolete buildings in the city,they have a tendency to become cute little parking lots.

Am I right or wrong?

They could have easily allowed restricted use as a compromise,but they said no,we want apartments.Maybe the answer is HUD backed 400 sqft section 8 apartments,that would probably be feasible,or a city backed drug rehab center dormitory,no parking problems then.

They would not be able to use the,we want apartments argument because they will be getting what they wished for.

See the unlimited possibilities that are available when you really think about it.

[Honky Tonk]

It is not a call,more so an observation of the history of what happens to obsolete buildings in the city,they have a tendency to become cute little parking lots.

Am I right or wrong?
They could have easily allowed restricted use as a compromise,but they said no,we want apartments.Maybe the answer is HUD backed 400 sqft section 8 apartments,that would probably be feasible,or a city backed drug rehab center dormitory,no parking problems then.
They would not be able to use the,we want apartments argument because they will be getting what they wished for.

See the unlimited possibilities that are available when you really think about it.

Dead wrong. Some end up that way, some don't. This is an established neighborhood that's on the rise, on steroids. Ford Motor Company just bought the biggest eye sore on the block, and their going to revamp it. The second building they've revamped. If I had the money, and the inclination, I'd do a feasibility study, divide it into 2 or 4 high-end luxury apartments. Someone @ the top of the food chain would pay good money to live there. You could leave one or two open for short term lease. Ford brings employees in from all over the globe for special projects. HUD?!?! Oh please! Go re-read my post about distance and not having a clue. The City made a good call on this one.

[Richard]

Dead wrong. Some end up that way, some don't. This is an established neighborhood that's on the rise, on steroids. Ford Motor Company just bought the biggest eye sore on the block, and their going to revamp it. The second building they've revamped. If I had the money, and the inclination, I'd do a feasibility study, divide it into 2 or 4 high-end luxury apartments. Someone @ the top of the food chain would pay good money to live there. You could leave one or two open for short term lease. Ford brings employees in from all over the globe for special projects. HUD?!?! Oh please! Go re-read my post about distance and not having a clue. The City made a good call on this one.

You hit the jist of it all when you say "if I had the money I would do feasibility study"

It is hard to comment on how something will not work without a feasibility study.

If i was at the top of the food chain,I would not be renting,and if I was it would be in something like a penthouse in the Book Cadillac,that has a wow factor and a parking garage for my Porsche and not parking on the street while living in a firehouse.

It has a cool factor for you and me maybe but top of the food chain would not be mixing there.

High end does not mix in a market that is based on average rents,you are only going to get what it is worth.

I take it that most that oppose it have not also done a feasibility study in the determination that it must be apartments,because they live there,they know,so they would be jumping all over it.

I would say the person that came up with the business on the bottom with residential on top,which is an ideal situation,actually did a feasibility study and that is what they came up with in order to make the numbers work.

What is wrong with it becoming HUD or a drug rehab live in facility?,are you saying that those people are not welcome in the new Corktown?

You are aware of the rule of any new apartments coming online must retain a percentage for market rental rates? You live there correct?

So if you have two that are high end you still have to set aside 1 for market rate,so you have just removed 25% from your market profit right off of the top.

So you have 3 luxury apartments and one market rate,you are losing money before even you have nailed a welcome sign on the wall.

So you are spending close to a million,if not over,in order to receive a return that equates to one market rate rental,if you are lucky and have no vacancies.

Good luck with that,to many easier and less headache projects with higher returns to mess around when spending that kind of money.

If it was feasible as an apartment building,people would have been lined up around the block a long time ago in order to convert it.

The only thing that has changed is Fords purchase and the current owner can bail with profit based on speculation,it is the only thing that has made it desirable.

But along with speculation comes increased prices,higher mortgages,higher property taxes and changes to current zoning because if you do not it puts a whole lot of properties in a hold status and it will stall.

No matter what you are only going to get market rates based on supply and demand.

[detroitsgwenivere]

I live over here. I don't want another restaurant on the block. Nobody that I've talked to that lives here wants that corner to become a restaurant. Honky Tonk pretty much said it all, no point in being redundant.

And yes, parking is an issue in the evening hours by Lady of the House. But not in the sense that parking is an issue like on a typical block in Hamtramck. Its more like the place seats way more people than they have available parking spaces in their own lot. They are right next to a lot that offers available parking space for rent yet they haven't taken the owner up on it, and the neighbors have definitely noticed.

People keep referring to all of this supposed available parking, like as if these lots aren't privately owned. If they aren't available for sale or rent, then business patrons park where they perceive that it's safe and that means the blocks with the cute Victorian houses, and the residents are just shit outta luck. Just wait until all of the new residents start moving into these condos at MI and Trumbull, people think Corktowners are a bunch of whiners now... Me thinks that a parking structure will be in our future at some point. Hopefully.

One thing we do have in Corktown, are a bunch of connected squeeky wheels with friends on various boards and such. If the neighbors really don't want it, it's probably not going to happen.