Tearing down buildings for the 2006 Super Bowl

[PQZ]

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?

The Facade Improvement program filled substantial gap costs. In the case of the Cliff Bell's / Park Bar building, it was more than 10% of the overall project cost. Jerry Belanger, the owner of the building and proprietor of Park Bar has repeatedly stated in press coverage that the project [[and thus neither bar) would have happened absent the Facade Improvement Program.

It is rightly pointed out that the pace of renovation has slowed considerably since the Superbowl in 2006. The facade program greatly accelerated the amount of work being done in the CBD. When the program rolled out, the pace of such work in 2004-2005 was much greater than in 2000 - 2003. Part of that increased pace was the economy, the majority of it can be traced back to the program. Much like the slower pace of renovation and restoration in 2007 - 2009 can be traced back to the recession.

So...we have a program administered by the City that had a positive influence on preservation or improvement of 90 buildings....the majority of which were on the "hit list".

Plain and simple. To answer Leanna's original question:

The direct programs for the Superbowl resulted in an estimated* 90 improved buildings and 3 buildings demolished.

[[*I no longer have the documentation handy, can't verify that exact number)

[Retroit]

Is it a simple matter of tallying the saved, improved, and demolished, or shouldn't we be looking at space available and occupancy rates?

[Fnemecek]

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?

There are several points to mention at this point.

• A facade improvement is a facade improvement - nothing more; nothing less. It's a good start, but it doesn't constitute a building being saved.
• No one has ever said that every building has to be saved, regardless of its condition. The criticisms of the DEGC and the various property owners have to do with how they make their decisions.
• It should be the property owner who takes care of a property. Of course, one of the issues in Detroit is that many historic buildings are owned by the City of Detroit. Therefore, the City and DEGC are inherntly a part of the discussion. In addition, all too often, the City of Detroit interjects itself to push for demolition - such as was the case with the Madison-Lenox.

[bailey]

A facade improvement is a facade improvement - nothing more; nothing less. It's a good start, but it doesn't constitute a building being saved.

But it's exactly the "start" that everyone claims is needed to attract a tenant, stabilize the buildings...etc right? which would mean that in 90 cases cited, the DEGC and the evil lord Jackson, did exactly what they should do?

No one has ever said that every building has to be saved, regardless of its condition. The criticisms of the DEGC and the various property owners have to do with how they make their decisions.

I'm curious if that is really true. I mean what building has ever gotten the Dyes/preservationist crowd, seal of approval for demo? I can think of no time with regard to any building in or around the CBD that was demoed pre or post SBXXL in which that decision to demo not been met here with an outcry.

The only conclusion to make is that no building in or around the CBD is ever a candidate to be demolished.

It should be the property owner who takes care of a property. Of course, one of the issues in Detroit is that many historic buildings are owned by the City of Detroit. Therefore, the City and DEGC are inherently a part of the discussion. In addition, all too often, the City of Detroit interjects itself to push for demolition - such as was the case with the Madison-Lenox.

But the buildings themselves didnt end up in the hands of the city through anything other than their failure and after [[in most cases) decades of neglect, right? Again were back to the starting point here.... if there is no one anywhere with any viable plan that makes sense to renovate...and no demand for any of the space even if renovated, how long is the building supposed to stand empty and how much money is to be spent keeping that building up?

[PQZ]

There are several points to mention at this point.

• A facade improvement is a facade improvement - nothing more; nothing less. It's a good start, but it doesn't constitute a building being saved.
• No one has ever said that every building has to be saved, regardless of its condition. The criticisms of the DEGC and the various property owners have to do with how they make their decisions.
• It should be the property owner who takes care of a property. Of course, one of the issues in Detroit is that many historic buildings are owned by the City of Detroit. Therefore, the City and DEGC are inherntly a part of the discussion. In addition, all too often, the City of Detroit interjects itself to push for demolition - such as was the case with the Madison-Lenox.

A couple points to make:

• The Facade Improvement Program was not just paint on doors and sills. In many cases, it paid for the restoration of entire facade systems along with new windows, a significant portion of the renovation costs on many buildings - costs that would have killed the project and kept the building vacant if the tab had not been picked up entirely by the DDA.
• Folks like to criticize the decisions of the DDA, yet make no effort to contract the DDA or attend public meetings or even bother to pick up free, public documentation about the decisions.
• I guess "many" is a relative term. I can count eight currently owned by the City or DDA in the immediate downtown area. Three are occupied, one is being marketed for leased space, one is in contract negotiation for renovation, the other three sit vacant while the DDA markets them. Of course the Kales, Vinton and BC were pubclicly owned as were the Statler and Lafayette. Draw your own conclussions about scale and percentages from those facts.

[Novine]

"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."

Nice effort to ignore the point of the comment. The fact that Detroit and Michigan are in the mess that they are in has little to do with the tax policies of the state as they apply to businesses. Your inability to articulate how those tax policies are biased against businesses as opposed to how clearly they hurt those of low and middle income residents only reinforces my point.

[Novine]

"Folks like to criticize the decisions of the DDA, yet make no effort to contract the DDA or attend public meetings or even bother to pick up free, public documentation about the decisions."

The information that the DDA can't find the time to put on the city's web site? Who's on the board? When do they hold their meetings? How are they spending the millions of tax dollars they take in? That information?

[bailey]

"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."

Nice effort to ignore the point of the comment. The fact that Detroit and Michigan are in the mess that they are in has little to do with the tax policies of the state as they apply to businesses. Your inability to articulate how those tax policies are biased against businesses as opposed to how clearly they hurt those of low and middle income residents only reinforces my point.

I'm ignoring content? Well, let's review shall we? I didn't make any statement about the tax burden of businesses, that was someone you were quoting. I dont have a dog in that fight...however, IIRC, the personal tax burden in Michigan is below the national average, the rate at which the flat tax is charged is near the bottom -38 or 39th , while the buisness taxes had us somewhere around the middle of the states, my only comment was to point out that in a state that is , as you claim, so 'tilted' toward business, there sure isnt a lot of business going on.

[Fnemecek]

I'm curious if that is really true. I mean what building has ever gotten the Dyes/preservationist crowd, seal of approval for demo? I can think of no time with regard to any building in or around the CBD that was demoed pre or post SBXXL in which that decision to demo not been met here with an outcry.

Preservation Wayne endorsed the Adams Theater demolition when it went before the Historic District Commission for approval.

Demolition of the Peoples Outfitters Bldg. didn't require any special approval since it wasn't inside of a historic district. However, I don't know of anyone who publicly complained about its demise to make way for the Book Cadillac parking structure.

There are a couple of others, but those are the ones that I recall off the top of my head.

[Fnemecek]

The Facade Improvement program filled substantial gap costs. In the case of the Cliff Bell's / Park Bar building, it was more than 10% of the overall project cost. Jerry Belanger, the owner of the building and proprietor of Park Bar has repeatedly stated in press coverage that the project [[and thus neither bar) would have happened absent the Facade Improvement Program.

Which is why I listed Cliff Bell's as one of the buildings that were saved on that list you asked for.

A facade improvement is great. I commend everyone involved for making them possible.

I'm just saying that every facade improvement isn't the same as a building that's saved. It's a first down; not a touch down.