Tearing down buildings for the 2006 Super Bowl

[bailey]

If you're arguing that historic preservation is a "nicety", then you haven't read Jane Jacobs, and specifically, her chapter on "The Need for Old Buildings".

Not everyone can afford to pay rent sufficiently high to cover construction costs of "Class A" office space or "luxury" apartments. There is a definite need to preserving old buildings [[key word being "preserve" vis-a-vis "allowed to rot"), as their construction and financing costs are paid off. For the marginal cost of renovation, you get to return a property to the tax rolls.

a) none of the buildings that are being mourned here were preserved, or would have been preserved, so wouldn't that undermine the point your are trying to make?
b)There are millions of empty square feet of every class of office space in metro detroit. How is bringing MORE online going to help anything?

I'm glad someone was able to find an excuse to sit on their ass and wait for "something" [[i.e. "jobs") to happen, though. That seems to be the de facto modus operandi in Detroit. Never mind the number of people you could put to work renovating old buildings...

..but if there is no one to occupy those renovated buildings, or when renovated the only results are cannibalization of tenants, putting pressure on already low rents, and adding more supply to an already oversupplied market, where is the benefit?

[PQZ]

Of course, I've heard of it. It's your response to every act of blatant stupidity by the DEGC.

So Mr. GlenBeckecek, you ARE aware that there is preservation activity in Detroit, some of it quite significant...but you just choose to ignore such acticvity and hype up facts for your skewed viewpoint...keep up the fair and balanced reporting! It will surely help Detroit!

[Fnemecek]

a) none of the buildings that are being mourned here were preserved, or would have been preserved, so wouldn't that undermine the point your are trying to make?
b)There are millions of empty square feet of every class of office space in metro detroit. How is bringing MORE online going to help anything?

You raise an excellent point. There is a much larger supply for every class of office space in the Detroit area than the market can currently support.

However, this isn't a problem that we can simply demolish our way out of. We've knocked down millions of square feet of historic buildings and we aren't any closer to improving the overall supply vs. demand problem than we were before Super Bowl XL.

Detroit has a lot of problems. Knocking down historic buildings isn't going to solve any of them any more will than having DEGC bureaucrats second-guess every developers business plan. Unfortunately, we keep doing both; expecting a different result each time.

[Fnemecek]

So Mr. GlenBeckecek, you ARE aware that there is preservation activity in Detroit, some of it quite significant...but you just choose to ignore such acticvity and hype up facts for your skewed viewpoint...keep up the fair and balanced reporting! It will surely help Detroit!

Yes, PQZ. There is some preservation activity in Detroit. If you read all of my posts, you'll notice that I talked about the good stuff several times.

Of course, if you weren't so busy being George Jackson's personal spin doctor, you'd probably notice that while the DEGC produces a few successes here and there, the overall track record seriously lags behind other communities - including other major rust belt ones.

[Detroitnerd]

So Mr. GlenBeckecek, you ARE aware that there is preservation activity in Detroit, some of it quite significant...but you just choose to ignore such acticvity and hype up facts for your skewed viewpoint...keep up the fair and balanced reporting! It will surely help Detroit!

PQZ: You know what you speaks of via personal experience, but I tend to think you're here to do one thing: Defend the status quo. I've seldom seen a willingness to do anything except dismiss critiques of the DEGC. So, while it's a pleasure to see you marshal his facts [[though I suspect it is only when they are convenient to your thesis), let's dismiss these childish charges of "skewed viewpoint." Your viewpoint is pretty clear and unyielding itself.

[Retroit]

I think we may all be going off on tangents, but I think the point that the original poster was trying to make [[correct me if I'm wrong) is that Detroit would be a lot better off if we spent as much effort and money trying to preserve the buildings we already have instead of building fancy new [[and unnecessary, in my opinion) sports stadiums which we use only rarely.

[Fnemecek]

Oh, but it wouldn't be DetroitYES if we didn't have our tangents.

[ndavies]

If you're arguing that historic preservation is a "nicety", then you haven't read Jane Jacobs, and specifically, her chapter on "The Need for Old Buildings".

Not everyone can afford to pay rent sufficiently high to cover construction costs of "Class A" office space or "luxury" apartments. There is a definite need to preserving old buildings [[key word being "preserve" vis-a-vis "allowed to rot"), as their construction and financing costs are paid off. For the marginal cost of renovation, you get to return a property to the tax rolls.

Unfortunately, Detroit's obscene parking requirements and Culture of Demolition waste money on shit that doesn't create value in the local economy.

I'm glad someone was able to find an excuse to sit on their ass and wait for "something" [[i.e. "jobs") to happen, though. That seems to be the de facto modus operandi in Detroit. Never mind the number of people you could put to work renovating old buildings....

What a f-ing joke. People need jobs to pay for even crappy class c space. Without jobs you can't pay for class A space, class B space or any other kind of space you can think of.

Detroit collapsed because the jobs left. Economic policies were put in place that drove businesses out of the state. This caused the buildings to become worthless. Too high of taxes, too much crime, too much union stanglehold and too much buraucratic bullshit drove the people and businesses out. Until you fix the economic policies that drove the people and businesses out of the city you have no hope in hell of saving most of the buildings in the city.

If the economy can't support a building it will never remain occupied. I haven't seen a single thing from any of the preservationists that makes these buildings financially viable without someone paying enough for their upkeep.

If it was about historic buildings Detroit would be booming. With all the empty crap Detroit isn't booming. The places that have greenfield to build on were and will contiue to boom once the economy recovers.

The city doesn't have any parking requirements in the CBD. The parking requirements come from the users of the buildings and the banks. The users of the buildings won't sign a lease without parking, The banks won't loan money for projects without parking.

And how much do you have in the game? I'm about to lose my life savings and go bankrupt due to a high profile downtown rehab project.

[ndavies]

So, by your logic, if I get wet while standing in the rain then one would conclude that my wet clothes caused it to rain.

I mention this because a) historic preservation creates more jobs than almost any other economic endeavor and b) most cities with strong historic preservation and strong local economies adopted their historic preservation stance first.

And you're standing out there with a spoon expecting it to keep you dry. Yes, a spoon will move water but it won't keep you dry.

Please, historic preservation cannot magically fix a city. Does it help, of course. Unfortunately Detroit has much larger core problems that completely and totally swamp any benefit historic preservation provides.

People need cash to save buildings. no job, no cash, no historic rehab.

[iheartthed]

And you're standing out there with a spoon expecting it to keep you dry. Yes, a spoon will move water but it won't keep you dry.

Please, historic preservation cannot magically fix a city. Does it help, of course.

Your response should have ended there. You went on to totally contradict yourself.

[ndavies]

I think we may all be going off on tangents, but I think the point that the original poster was trying to make [[correct me if I'm wrong) is that Detroit would be a lot better off if we spent as much effort and money trying to preserve the buildings we already have instead of building fancy new [[and unnecessary, in my opinion) sports stadiums which we use only rarely.

We've used those stadiums far more than we've used any of those abandoned buildings.

Those stadiums have stopped some of the hemorrhaging of the CBD. Many new businesses opened in the CBD because those stadiums were built. the CBD would be even emptier without them. More buildings would be near demolition.

I wouldn't have bought my condo in the CBD without them. I sold the condo to build my downtown loft. Then I lost my job and had to move out of state to find a new job. So goodbye Detroit, Goodbye loft of my dreams.

[ndavies]

Your response should have ended there. You went on to totally contradict yourself.

There is no contradiction with what I wrote. When companies won't take a building for free, with a bunch of preservation tax and other credits tacked on to it and fix it up, there is nothing historic preservation legislature can do to prevent the decline.

[Retroit]

ndavies, I think your own personal situation exemplifies the flawed thinking behind the stadiums. There is a belief that they will bring vitality to downtown. But the loss of your very own job and the inability of you to find a new job should have convinced you that stadiums are not the vitality generator that they are promoted as.

Most of the jobs and businesses that stadiums create are not of the year-round variety that a downtown depends on.

[LeannaM]

Detroit has a lot of problems. Knocking down historic buildings isn't going to solve any of them any more will than having DEGC bureaucrats second-guess every developers business plan. Unfortunately, we keep doing both; expecting a different result each time.

True. The only reason I see to demolish an abandoned beauty is if it has SERIOUS [[as in not overdramaticized) structural problems and is a danger to pedestrians. But apparently if the powers that be decide it is dangerous, it will come down.

In 1999, Missouri passed Historic Tax Development Credits. That means an income-producing property that is historic in St. Louis can receive federal and state tax credits. Homes and other properties that do not produce income only get federal credits. Since 1999, Downtown St. Louis has seen dozens of properties renovated due to state and federal tax credits. Busch Stadium was built in 2005, opened in 2006. The planned condos and retail called "Ballpark Village" is currently a dirt lot. The stadium brought in revenue, as did the All-Star Game. Fortunately, the new stadium is built in the same place as the old one, so no buildings were demolished for it.

Here's an article from 1997 about St. Louis.
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/02/us...-st-louis.html
Of the buildings mentioned in the first paragraph - the Ambassador was demolished in 1996. The Arcade/Wright is currently sitting. Its developer went bankrupt, so it's waiting for a new developer. The Statler and Fur Exchange are both hotels now. The Fur Exchange began demolition in 1997, but was saved by Charles Drury. It's a Drury hotel now. The Statler is a Renaissance Grand hotel. It did go into bankruptcy last year, but it's still open and well-kept.

Anyway, historic tax credits can work if different factors come in to play at the right time. Stadiums can help. Mostly they bring temporary construction jobs. They may bring in more fans for a season or two [[while people sight see). If the team does well, people will come out to the ballpark anyway. Comerica Park may bring more money to Downtown. Tiger Stadium wasn't Downtown right? So putting Comerica Downtown will, obviously, bring some money to Downtown. New stadiums are great, and they will bring money to their city. But they're not a cure-all. They're only part of the puzzle of Downtown. If you build a new stadium, but demolish a bunch of buildings, is it worth it? Well, that's in the eye of the beholder.

I don't see the point in demolishing the buildings for the Super Bowl. People aren't going to home and say, "Wow. That city had so many lovely parking lots and a few less empty buildings." I'm not trying to diss Detroit, I'm just saying, I don't see how tearing down buildings make any city's appearance any better, especially when the city [[like Detroit, or Downtown St. Louis 10 years ago, or some other cities) has many more empty buildings. Visitors aren't going to notice one or two less empty buildings. But the city is the deprived of future potential development.

Can every building be saved? Probably not. But you can mothball them for a little longer, rather than tearing them down for something like the Super Bowl. Even for a new stadium, there may be no need to tear down a lot of buildings. Want more parking? Build another garage, rather than one more surface parking lot.

Just my $.02. Obviously Detroit is not St. Louis. But there may be hope yet for both cities.

[detroitsgwenivere]

I thought you all would be interested in this tidbit [[if you didn't already know). Carla Henderson, director of BS&E, told a group of us this evening that the demolition of the Lafayette Building was paid for by Superbowl 06' grant funds.

[ghettopalmetto]

And you're standing out there with a spoon expecting it to keep you dry. Yes, a spoon will move water but it won't keep you dry.

Please, historic preservation cannot magically fix a city. Does it help, of course. Unfortunately Detroit has much larger core problems that completely and totally swamp any benefit historic preservation provides.

People need cash to save buildings. no job, no cash, no historic rehab.

Ain't no one gonna work in an empty lot, either, sir. If you're starting a small business, do you expect to buy an empty lot and construct your own building? Or are you perhaps looking to lease some space in an existing building? You tell me.

One of the reasons Philadelphia [[to use one example) is seeing a renaissance is specifically because they didn't bulldoze their building stock. The building stock is what makes it a great place. Most housing in that city was constructed before the Great Depression, and is being fixed up for far lower cost than that of a Pulte home. It's all simple mathematics, really.

You can't tell me that your proximity to Commercialism Park even compares to a place like Capitol Hill, Rittenhouse Square, or the North End of Boston. By your logic, Charleston, SC must be a complete shit city, because they have no professional sports venues, and just a bunch of crummy old buildings with way-too-narrow streets.

If you get rid of the buildings, THERE IS NO REASON TO BE THERE. You can wait for "jobs" [[whatever that means) to show up, and continue to make excuses. But others are voting with their feet. The "jobs" of which you speak are going to places that have preserved their historic building stock because THOSE PLACES HAVE CHARACTER AND ARE ENJOYABLE.

Wake up, dammit.

[Gistok]

Actually GP Philadelphia did bulldoze one significant part of the citys historic building stock... so did Baltimore and Cincinnati.

None of these 3 cities has a single major surviving downtown movie palace from the 1920s.

Philadelphia's greatest theatres were the Mastbaum and the Stanley... both long ago pounded to rubble.

The 4,717 seat Mastbaum was the largest and most magnificent movie palace in all of Pennsylvania, comparable in grandeur and size to the Detroit Fox. It was build in a different style however... in a French Renaissance/Papal Palatial Style that overpowered the patrons.

And in the discussion of St. Louis.... the 3,009 seat Ambassador Theatre/Building was a great loss. It was a 3/4 scale of the Michigan Theatre [[both Rapp & Rapp, architects), although not quite as opulent, and with Art Deco touches. Sadly it was still in great condition when it was razed. Chuck Forbes purchased seats and chandeliers from the Ambassador to use in our Gem Theatre.

[iheartthed]

Ain't no one gonna work in an empty lot, either, sir. If you're starting a small business, do you expect to buy an empty lot and construct your own building? Or are you perhaps looking to lease some space in an existing building? You tell me.

One of the reasons Philadelphia [[to use one example) is seeing a renaissance is specifically because they didn't bulldoze their building stock. The building stock is what makes it a great place. Most housing in that city was constructed before the Great Depression, and is being fixed up for far lower cost than that of a Pulte home. It's all simple mathematics, really.

You can't tell me that your proximity to Commercialism Park even compares to a place like Capitol Hill, Rittenhouse Square, or the North End of Boston. By your logic, Charleston, SC must be a complete shit city, because they have no professional sports venues, and just a bunch of crummy old buildings with way-too-narrow streets.

If you get rid of the buildings, THERE IS NO REASON TO BE THERE. You can wait for "jobs" [[whatever that means) to show up, and continue to make excuses. But others are voting with their feet. The "jobs" of which you speak are going to places that have preserved their historic building stock because THOSE PLACES HAVE CHARACTER AND ARE ENJOYABLE.

Wake up, dammit.

It makes you wonder. If they would put as much effort into rebuilding infrastructure, improving transit, etc., as they do for demolishing buildings... Then maybe they wouldn't have to be in the business of demolishing buildings!

[PQZ]

Yes, PQZ. There is some preservation activity in Detroit. If you read all of my posts, you'll notice that I talked about the good stuff several times.

Of course, if you weren't so busy being George Jackson's personal spin doctor, you'd probably notice that while the DEGC produces a few successes here and there, the overall track record seriously lags behind other communities - including other major rust belt ones.

I haven't read all of your posts, but I find that claim to be preposterous. Even when the 65 + plus buildings that received funds from the facade improvemnt program for the Superbowl are mentioned, you dismiss the discussion. This coming from the same person who helped spread the rumor of the "hit list". I have yet to see a thread devoted to the many many successful renovations and rehabs around town. In fact, when I directly challenge you and the rest of the forum to take a run at listing the historic properties that HAVE been rehabbed I am met with either silence or claims of "But whats really improtant is that there have been a couple that have been demolished". I find it hard to believe that the preservation community does not have a comprehensive listing of projects.

I can see why you would avoid listing the successful renovations though - once the real story is out, perhaps you are exposed as just the crank you are.

And far from being Jackson's personal spin doctor, all I am trying to do is help folks realize that there is much much more to the story than you are misrepresenting.

So here's your chance Preservation Community in Detroit.....go ahead, start listing the vintage and historic buildings that have been saved.....

[Novine]

" Economic policies were put in place that drove businesses out of the state. This caused the buildings to become worthless. Too high of taxes, too much crime, too much union stanglehold and too much buraucratic bullshit drove the people and businesses out."

Which tax policies were those? The flat rate income tax rate that allows poor people to pay more of their income in taxes than the rich? The business tax reform that gave property tax reductions to commercial and industrial property owners? A school funding system that is overly reliant on sales taxes paid predominantly by consumers? I'll agree that Michigan's tax system is screwed up. The claim that taxes are too high for businesses is hard to accept when the entire system is tilted in their favor.

[Fnemecek]

PQZ:
Again with the demand for a list???

Right, because between the AIA Guide, BuildingsofDetroit.com and umpteen lists that have been published in the one newspaper or another, there's a critical shortage building lists in this town.

Okay - well - it is the Christmas season. I'll post a list for you.

Demolished
Adams Theater
Chin Tiki
Donavon Bldg.
Lafayette Bldg.
Madison-Lenox
Peoples Outfitters
Statler Hilton
Tiger Stadium

Saved
Book-Cadillac Hotel
Cliff Bell’s
Ft. Shelby Hotel
Harmonie Club
Iodent
Kales Bldg.
Lofts @ Woodward
Lofts of Merchants Row

In Limbo
Broderick Tower
Detroit Life
Film Exchange
Ford Auditorium
Free Press Bldg.
GAR Bldg.
Globe Trading Bldg.
Metropolitan Bldg.
Michigan Central
National Theater
Packard Plant
Temple of Oddfellows
United Artists
Vinton Bldg.
Wayne County Bldg.

Facade Improvements
90 Buildings

Happy?

[PQZ]

PQZ:
Again with the demand for a list???

Right, because between the AIA Guide, BuildingsofDetroit.com and umpteen lists that have been published in the one newspaper or another, there's a critical shortage building lists in this town.

Okay - well - it is the Christmas season. I'll post a list for you.

Demolished
Adams Theater
Chin Tiki
Donavon Bldg.
Lafayette Bldg.
Madison-Lenox
Peoples Outfitters
Statler Hilton
Tiger Stadium
Grand Trunk
The complex of buildings on Griswold and Mich. Can't recall name
YMCA
Wolverine Hotel

Saved
Book-Cadillac Hotel
Cliff Bell’s [[and Park Bar)
Ft. Shelby Hotel
Harmonie Club
Iodent
Kales Bldg.
Lofts @ Woodward [[3 individual buildings)
Lofts of Merchants Row [[5 individual buildings)
Detroit Opera House
Dime Bank
1529 Broadway
The Harmonie Pointe Building + 2 more in Harmonie Park
City Club? [[kitty corner from Iodent)
Fox Theater
Gem / Century
Elwood


In Limbo
Broderick Tower
Detroit Life
Film Exchange
Ford Auditorium
Free Press Bldg.
GAR Bldg.
Globe Trading Bldg.
Metropolitan Bldg.
Michigan Central
National Theater
Packard Plant
Temple of Oddfellows
United Artists
Vinton Bldg.
Wayne County Bldg.

Facade Improvements
90 Buildings

Happy?

So the score appears to be:
120 saved
13 demoed
15 in limbo

Thats an .810 winning percentage. For a city that has lost nearly 60% of its population, thats pretty good. It could be better though.

The list seems oddly defined. The list of buildings saved is confined to the CBD, but the list of buildings demolished or at risk goes well beyond the CBD. For example, there is no inclusion of the buildings restored along Michigan Avenue in Corktown, but Tiger Stadium and MCS are listed. Another example would be the listing of the Donovan in Midtown, but no other listing of Midtown properties such The Carola, Carleton, Brownstones on John R, and any of the dozen or so loft projects in the Cass Corridor or even the

My point is this:

There is significant renovation and preservation activity in Detroit. Continually asserting that there is none or that the City has a hard on for demo ignore the reality. If the debate is to be elevated to something useful and productive in the long run, this forum should be about discussing WHY some worked and other didn't. The trite and easy response is to scream "Government is Full of Idiots"....yet those same "idiots" are the ones that made things like the BC and Opera House happen...

I'd like that .810 to be a better number. Learning what makes the .810 work will help more than screaming about the .190 that didn't.

Just sayin'

[Novine]

Calling a building that gets a facade improvement "saved" is a stretch. Who in the development or preservation community considers a building saved from demolition when the only improvement has been to the facade? Would you list all of the storefront businesses that popped up on Woodward for the Superbowl as new businesses started in Detroit?

[Fnemecek]

I second Novine's comment that facade improvement does not constitute a building being saved. It's a facade improvement - nothing more; nothing less. If the rest of the building isn't taken care of, it's still in danger.

As for what buildings made my list of saved [[whether it's in the CBD, Midtown or Corktown), I simply took a list that George Jackson sent around to the new media earlier this year and then added a couple of others. He didn't take credit for the Iodent or Cliff Bell's, but I gave him credit for those two regardless.

Since you added the Opera House and a couple of other buildings to the saved list, one should point out that the Opera House was brought back on-line in 1998 - 3 years before the current leadership of the DEGC came into office. The Fox Theater and several others were also saved before the current DEGC leadership came into office.

Finally, it should also be noted that almost everyone of the buildings on this saved list, as well as all of the facade improvements, were deals that were announced prior to Super Bowl XL. The track record post-SBXL has been decidedly skewed towards demolition.

[bailey]

Calling a building that gets a facade improvement "saved" is a stretch. Who in the development or preservation community considers a building saved from demolition when the only improvement has been to the facade? Would you list all of the storefront businesses that popped up on Woodward for the Superbowl as new businesses started in Detroit?

Do you people even listen to yourselves? Seriously wtf? What do you want them to do? Now facade improvement is not enough!?! Not only must no building ever be demolished for any reason, it's now the DEGC...or some government entity's--never the property owner's of course-- responsibility to 100% re-hab EVERY building in detroit no matter what the condition?

Which tax policies were those? The flat rate income tax rate that allows poor people to pay more of their income in taxes than the rich? The business tax reform that gave property tax reductions to commercial and industrial property owners? A school funding system that is overly reliant on sales taxes paid predominantly by consumers? I'll agree that Michigan's tax system is screwed up. The claim that taxes are too high for businesses is hard to accept when the entire system is tilted in their favor.

Yes, Detroit and Michigan as a whole are business utopias. This is evidenced by the robust job creation, the record setting new business start ups, and the incredibly low unemployment numbers.