Fort Shelby wants to tear down nearby building for parking

[Zads07]

We have another building under the threat of demolition in downtown Detroit.

Fort Shelby Residential LLC wants to tear down the building on Fort St. for more parking.

https://www.change.org/p/fort-shelby...YZYKd9nnhEU8hQ

[JBMcB]

https://www.change.org/p/fort-shelby...YZYKd9nnhEU8hQ

So rehabbing the existing building would be great. Where will they get more parking? If you can fix that problem it will be easier to convince them to not tear down the building.

[Zads07]

So rehabbing the existing building would be great. Where will they get more parking? If you can fix that problem it will be easier to convince them to not tear down the building.

Tearing down the building should be criminal. They own the empty lot next to the building on the corner of 1st and Fort St. Build a garage there, problem solved.

[401don]

Looks like they would be lucky to get 50 more surface spots on the building footprint. Are they trying to save money by not building or do they want the space for one big garage?

[cmubryan]

JC....enough with the damn parking! There should be zoning in the CBD to only allow for new parking if a new building that will be occupied by commercial or residential of greater size is attached to the property!!

[NSortzi]

So rehabbing the existing building would be great. Where will they get more parking? If you can fix that problem it will be easier to convince them to not tear down the building.

There's only two buildings left on that block: the Fort Shelby and the one in question. The rest is surface parking. There's PLENTY of nearby garages and surface lots hotel guests could use, and if they're too far they can use a shuttle or valet. They could also build 2 garages on the 3 surface lots sharing the block with the hotel and the Saturday Night building. There's no reason for us to lose more of our old building stock after the obscene amount we've already lost for grass lots and parking lots.

[p1acebo]

There's only two buildings left on that block: the Fort Shelby and the one in question. The rest is surface parking. There's PLENTY of nearby garages and surface lots hotel guests could use, and if they're too far they can use a shuttle or valet. They could also build 2 garages on the 3 surface lots sharing the block with the hotel and the Saturday Night building. There's no reason for us to lose more of our old building stock after the obscene amount we've already lost for grass lots and parking lots.

Agreed, I signed the petition.

[1953]

I can't believe this was even proposed. Sheesh. So ignorant.

[MrChrome]

https://www.freep.com/in-depth/money...rs/1980619002/

Interesting article with a map of who owns every parking lot downtown.

[kathy2trips]

And I guess a modest parking structure on the corner of 1st & Fort never entered their minds, nor did moving the structure elsewhere? SMH~!

[kathy2trips]

Can't get the petition link to work. It shows 0 signatures.

[iheartthed]

I stayed at the Doubletree Fort Shelby last summer. The place is nearly surrounded by surface lots. Why do they need another?

[NSortzi]

Can't get the petition link to work. It shows 0 signatures.

The link seems to be working fine for me. Just about 1000 signatures!

[jerrytimes]

Tearing down the building should be criminal. They own the empty lot next to the building on the corner of 1st and Fort St. Build a garage there, problem solved.

I agree with everyone here that it would be best in OUR interests that this building be renovated. Problem is that we don't own it, and in society we can't tell people who own things what they can do with it. If it was financially satisfying, I'm sure they would have renovated it by now.....which brings the question, CAN it be renovated. I'll admit, I know very little about the building but sometimes if a place has been vacant and uncared for for too long, it can't be renovated.

[401don]

I agree with everyone here that it would be best in OUR interests that this building be renovated. Problem is that we don't own it, and in society we can't tell people who own things what they can do with it. If it was financially satisfying, I'm sure they would have renovated it by now.....which brings the question, CAN it be renovated. I'll admit, I know very little about the building but sometimes if a place has been vacant and uncared for for too long, it can't be renovated.

Yes, they should have torn down the Shelby, Book Cadillac, Penobscot, David Whitney, Book, Broderick and all those other buildings that sat empty for years! After all, real estate markets never change.

[NSortzi]

I agree with everyone here that it would be best in OUR interests that this building be renovated. Problem is that we don't own it, and in society we can't tell people who own things what they can do with it. If it was financially satisfying, I'm sure they would have renovated it by now.....which brings the question, CAN it be renovated. I'll admit, I know very little about the building but sometimes if a place has been vacant and uncared for for too long, it can't be renovated.

I believe it was vacated fairly recently, possibly within the last year. It seems to be in good reusable condition. The parking lot on Lafayette and Second was for sale over last summer and fall. If parking was an issue then, which I'd assume it was, they should have bought that lot. There could very easily be a garage built on Second from Fort to Lafayette that would be directly attached to the Fort Shelby. I know the public doesn't get to decide these things, but we can still influence it.

Slightly off topic, but the small building that formerly housed Wala Detroit on Washington and W. Lafayette was torn down last week and now there's about 15 parking spots there. This makes the Holiday Inn Express the last building on that block.

[EastsideAl]

Problem is that we don't own it, and in society we can't tell people who own things what they can do with it.

This is completely incorrect. I keep reading stuff like this, and maybe this is some sort of libertarian ideal. But in the real world there are all kinds of restrictions on what people can and cannot build, or can and cannot tear down, on their property, from building codes to zoning laws to historic designation, etc. There are literally decades and decades of laws and court decisions on what rights state and local governments have over land use, building law, and property ownership.

[SammyS]

Surface parking is a land speculators wet dream. Low investment, guaranteed income, low running costs and you bank on land appreciation.
I don’t blame the owner for deciding to do this. I’m sure based on the current conditions, thier financial evaluation and risk assessment has drawn this conclusion. Would unlikely be the same conclusion in just about any other major downtown but it just goes to show how cheap Detroit still is. That’s a positive to all future land speculators looking to park capital in a growing city.

[gencinjay]

https://www.freep.com/in-depth/money...rs/1980619002/

Interesting article with a map of who owns every parking lot downtown.

Their data is more than 3 years old though so don't put much stock into it.

[iheartthed]

This is completely incorrect. I keep reading stuff like this, and maybe this is some sort of libertarian ideal. But in the real world there are all kinds of restrictions on what people can and cannot build, or can and cannot tear down, on their property, from building codes to zoning laws to historic designation, etc. There are literally decades and decades of laws and court decisions on what rights state and local governments have over land use, building law, and property ownership.

Yeah, I'm pretty baffled that people are unaware of how it works in other cities. You wouldn't be able to tear down a building for a parking lot in much of New York even if you wanted.

[jerrytimes]

This is completely incorrect. I keep reading stuff like this, and maybe this is some sort of libertarian ideal. But in the real world there are all kinds of restrictions on what people can and cannot build, or can and cannot tear down, on their property, from building codes to zoning laws to historic designation, etc. There are literally decades and decades of laws and court decisions on what rights state and local governments have over land use, building law, and property ownership.

Ok.....well is that the case in this situation? If not, then they can do what they want.

[SammyS]

Yeah, I'm pretty baffled that people are unaware of how it works in other cities. You wouldn't be able to tear down a building for a parking lot in much of New York even if you wanted.

It’s also pretty obvious that NYC land is worth more to build up on than to park cars on.

[Zads07]

Ok.....well is that the case in this situation? If not, then they can do what they want.

Yes, they can do what they want. But they should not be able to tear it down for parking. That's why there is a petition. It's why there is a meeting and they have to go through an HDC meeting just to make sure they can get approval for it. So, really, they can't do all that they want, until it's approved. I truly hope it's denied at the meeting and that the petition works.

[stinkytofu]

Well, we just got more surface parking this week. Wa-la at Washington/Lafayette was demo'ed and it's already more surface parking. The building wasn't historically significant, but it was a functioning business and is now just more wasted land. Frustrating.

[iheartthed]

It’s also pretty obvious that NYC land is worth more to build up on than to park cars on.

Hence why I said "even if you wanted."

But cities obviously put in these policies to protect from this exact thing.