Brush Park loses another

[ghettopalmetto]

Although the city is quick to demo people should have a clue before talking.

This building went up in flames a year or two back, the roof was completely gone and the building was collapsing in on itself. There was no hope or opportunity for anything to happen with the place after the fire.

Put please back to your scheduled programming.

Well, jt1, I do have a clue when it comes to this kind of thing, and I can tell you that no fire put those bricks all over the damned place like that. People rebuild houses after fires all the time--especially since their insurance company covers the loss. There's really no excuse for this kind of neglect.

Huggybear mentioned that preservation and restoration can't subsist on will alone, but they certainly can't subsist without it.

[jt1]

Well, jt1, I do have a clue when it comes to this kind of thing, and I can tell you that no fire put those bricks all over the damned place like that. People rebuild houses after fires all the time--especially since their insurance company covers the loss. There's really no excuse for this kind of neglect.

Huggybear mentioned that preservation and restoration can't subsist on will alone, but they certainly can't subsist without it.

Do you know the condition of the house after the fire? It was completely exposed for a long period of time
Do you know who owns the home and did they have insurance?
Do you honestly believe that insurance would pay to completely rebuild a home that was already a mess?

Ther is so much wrong with your statement it is laughable.

[ghettopalmetto]

JT1, Detroit's fine tradition of Neglect and Demolish continues because people like you continually set the bar low.

If the building was exposed to the elements for a long time after the fire, that's not a result of the fire itself. That's the result of neglect.

Brick masonry construction does not collapse due to mere exposure to elements. Either damage was inflicted upon the building post-fire, or someone failed to stabilize the structure after the fire.

The building may not have been insured, but certainly there is a property owner somewhere. Other cities have historic districts with requirements to maintain architectural standards that come into play with situations like this. Detroit could give a shit less.

You're just repeating the old George Jackson assumption that if a building has been sitting around for a while, it's obviously structurally unsound, and therefore must be demolished.

In any event, it all adds up to a community simply not giving a shit about what it looks like. Yet y'all wonder why businesses don't locate in Detroit....

[bailey]

JT1, Detroit's fine tradition of Neglect and Demolish continues because people like you continually set the bar low.

If the building was exposed to the elements for a long time after the fire, that's not a result of the fire itself. That's the result of neglect.

Brick masonry construction does not collapse due to mere exposure to elements. Either damage was inflicted upon the building post-fire, or someone failed to stabilize the structure after the fire.

The building may not have been insured, but certainly there is a property owner somewhere. Other cities have historic districts with requirements to maintain architectural standards that come into play with situations like this. Detroit could give a shit less.

You're just repeating the old George Jackson assumption that if a building has been sitting around for a while, it's obviously structurally unsound, and therefore must be demolished.

In any event, it all adds up to a community simply not giving a shit about what it looks like. Yet y'all wonder why businesses don't locate in Detroit....

It's my understanding that Boston Edison is the largest residential historical district in the country. People do care. problem being there are half as many living here as there once was. When are you moving back and putting your money where your non stop mouth is?

[ghettopalmetto]

It's my understanding that Boston Edison is the largest residential historical district in the country.

That's fine [[if inaccurate) but we're discussing Brush Park. Do try to keep up.

People do care. problem being there are half as many living here as there once was. When are you moving back and putting your money where your non stop mouth is?

When is Detroit going to stop demolishing itself into the ground? It was said on another thread--people want NICE places to live, not moonscapes. I'll invest money in Detroit when the City becomes intent on creating an attractive environment. My money has nothing to do with the perpetual intellectual laziness that originates from City Hall.

[bailey]

That's fine [[if inaccurate) but we're discussing Brush Park. Do try to keep up.

Your statement was that "nobody cares". I pointed out that there are plenty in the city that do...just not enough to deal with all. It must be jarring when facts interrupt your rants.

How big is the district?

The Boston-Edison Historic District is a thirty-six-block area of homes on four streets: West Boston Boulevard, Chicago Boulevard, Longfellow Avenue, and Edison Avenue, spanning from Woodward west to Linwood. Boston-Edison is the largest residential historical district in the United States. This map shows the size of the neighborhood.

If they are lying, you should let them know.

When is Detroit going to stop demolishing itself into the ground? It was said on another thread--people want NICE places to live, not moonscapes. I'll invest money in Detroit when the City becomes intent on creating an attractive environment. My money has nothing to do with the perpetual intellectual laziness that originates from City Hall

In other words...when someone else fixes the problem you'll be back. Until then you'll rant about all that is being done wrong on a message board. Very effective strategy.

[ghettopalmetto]

Boston-Edison has nothing to do with Brush Park. And I could tell you right now that the Capitol Hill Historic District has far more than 900 houses within its confines. Whatever. It's irrelevant to the trashing of Brush Park.

I'm not waiting for someone else to fix the problem. Right now, the problems are not one of money [[since Detroit obviously has piles of it to demolish buildings) but one of faith and confidence in the City itself. I maintain that the primary problems facing Detroit right now are policy issues, on paper in black-and-white.

No reasonable investor--whether that be homeowner or major developer--is going to sink money into Detroit with its current policies. Investors want to make money on their investment. In a residential real estate environment, that means attractive neighborhoods for homeowners, including landscaping, public services, convenience to commercial amenities, and transportation. Who's going to buy a house on a block that looks like a scrap yard? Who wants to invest in a place that can't stablize a simple structure after it catches fire, and instead waits to let it sit and rot until they demolish it?

It seems that Detroit keeps waiting for someone else to fix its problems, or that if they just demolish one more building, then some big-name developer is going to come and save the day. It's not gonna happen. Not until Detroit starts getting its own house in order.

The City behaves like a junkie. Just one more fix and everything will be better, right? Detroit needs to do some serious soul-searching in rehab if it ever wants to shake its dysfunctionality.

[jt1]

JT1, Detroit's fine tradition of Neglect and Demolish continues because people like you continually set the bar low.

You infer quite a bit here. Because I deal in reality it is setting the bar low? If you can poiint out this money tree that exists in your head please do so. See there is idealism [[which you preach) and reality which includes those pesky things like econcomics and money.

If the building was exposed to the elements for a long time after the fire, that's not a result of the fire itself. That's the result of neglect.

I agree however your belief that money will fall from the sky to repair it is complete ignorance. There are three potential owners [[A) Private citizen [[B) development corporation or [[C) the city.

If it is A or B I can assure you that the rehab costs would not be recovered in a lease or sale. If it is C the city is broke. I wish there were noble people that would save historic buidlings at a loss but it appears that you expect others to do it. I also suspect that you are not offering up one penny of your own money to take on this noble cause.

Brick masonry construction does not collapse due to mere exposure to elements. Either damage was inflicted upon the building post-fire, or someone failed to stabilize the structure after the fire.

I never stated it collapsed. My original statements were that the home was completely gutted and had no roof, was in poor shape after the fire which likely led to the reason to demo it. I may not have been crystal clear but I never stated that the current state was due solely to the fire.

The building may not have been insured, but certainly there is a property owner somewhere. Other cities have historic districts with requirements to maintain architectural standards that come into play with situations like this. Detroit could give a shit less.

As stated above there is probably a property owner that would hav to take a loss on the development of the property or the city. I don't think that anyone wanted to see this building taken down but your idealism with no grasp of finances is ridiculous. I agree that the city should have had stadnards to maintaint the buildings. Can you build me a time machine so i can go back 40-50 years and tell them.

You're just repeating the old George Jackson assumption that if a building has been sitting around for a while, it's obviously structurally unsound, and therefore must be demolished.

Not at all. I am stating that abuilding that had a terrible fire, no roof and was a mess of rubble and charred remains should not be left [[with nobody putting up money) to be a health hazard to the people that live next door to it. I'm curious, where do you live? Would you be happy to have a burnt out building that is a breeding ground for rats and crackheads directly next to you [[Granted the pile of rubble is no better when it comes to mice, rodents, etc). My guess is no but it is clear that your idealism doesn't like that pesky reality

In any event, it all adds up to a community simply not giving a shit about what it looks like. Yet y'all wonder why businesses don't locate in Detroit

So a building on John R in Brush Park has an impact to business decisions? The taxes are ignroed, the crime is ignored, the lacking quality of DPD is ignored but sinking shitloads of money into something that will lose money in Brush Park will bring business in? I share your optimism that everythign can be reparied but I also live in this pesky little thing called the real world which must consider economics, trade offs on how to best spend money, safety for people in the neighborhood, etc

Unfortunately, the city has so many issues that people do give a shit about that this demolition, while tragic is not very high on the list.

If you can supply me a ticket to a world where money falls from tress I would be eternally grateful. If you can also get me a letter from any business or citizen of another city that would consider moving to the city if this home was repaired it woudl be greatly appreciated.

So after my ranting I pose a question to you: How much of your own money has been invested in improving buildings that have no hope of returning your money?

[jt1]

Onre more point:

I do agree that the city must have better standards and, more importantlym, enforce them.

The issue however is that the city owns 10s of thousands of properties and most of the blight would result in the city fining itself. So how do you propose this be addressed?

[ghettopalmetto]

Jt1, I've thought about your question for a bit. In my opinion, the biggest challenge facing the City of Detroit is its fiscal solvency. Not only does this affect city services, but the bond rating of the City as well. The City of Detroit has infrastructure to support over 2 million people over 139 square miles, while its current population is less than half that.

What realistically needs to happen is a geographic consolidation. I won't go into the rationale of "how" this should be done, as it's been discussed elsewhere. What a consolidation would require, though, is a focus on those geographic areas with a stable population, and close to amenities like transportation and employment. Brush Park would be a key focus area in any consolidation effort.

Through a consolidation, the City would have to relocate people inhabiting areas where services are proposed to be cut off, and those areas abandoned. Brush Park, I think, represents a prime opportunity to recreate a stable in-town neighborhood. As discussed in Jane Jacobs seminal work "The Death and Life of Great American Cities", old, existing buildings are necessary for this, as they are already paid-for. Even if a building is damaged, stabilizing the structure, replacing a roof, and making repairs is going to be cheaper than complete demolition, followed by design and construction of an entirely new structure.

In short, buildings in locations like Brush Park will need to be reused for residential and commercial space. Spending money to demolish these structures is anathema to the goal of creating stable, vibrant neighborhoods that generate economic activity and provide tax revenue for the City of Detroit.

There may be cases where demolition is justified, but I don't see that in the willy-nilly approach Detroit is taking. There appears to be a lack of a systemetized, rational methodology. In short, the City needs to start by adopting a plan that makes sense, and then being proactive enough to implement it with the force of law. Anything short of this is a disservice to the taxpayers.

[jerrytimes]

Seeing this makes me so mad at this city. Not that that helps anything.....

[DetroitDad]

I seem to remember coming across a couple of these Brush Park homes a couple years ago, when looking through real estate listings, and they had astronomically high asking prices, as did several of the vacant lots in the area.

I'm not sure who owns these homes now, or what the asking prices are since the mortgage crisis hit. I am not surprised it is hard to find up to date information on properties in Brush Park, as it seems to be a victim of investors coming into snatch up properties on the cheap, and thinking they can flip them for insane amounts of money sometime in the future, a common occurrence in Detroit.

A quick search does however bring up some of the new Woodward Place condos in the neighborhood, once priced somewhere in the low $300,000 range, now in foreclosure and being sold for $75,000 - $80,000.

[jt1]

Jt1, I've thought about your question for a bit. In my opinion, the biggest challenge facing the City of Detroit is its fiscal solvency. Not only does this affect city services, but the bond rating of the City as well. The City of Detroit has infrastructure to support over 2 million people over 139 square miles, while its current population is less than half that.

What realistically needs to happen is a geographic consolidation. I won't go into the rationale of "how" this should be done, as it's been discussed elsewhere. What a consolidation would require, though, is a focus on those geographic areas with a stable population, and close to amenities like transportation and employment. Brush Park would be a key focus area in any consolidation effort.

Through a consolidation, the City would have to relocate people inhabiting areas where services are proposed to be cut off, and those areas abandoned. Brush Park, I think, represents a prime opportunity to recreate a stable in-town neighborhood. As discussed in Jane Jacobs seminal work "The Death and Life of Great American Cities", old, existing buildings are necessary for this, as they are already paid-for. Even if a building is damaged, stabilizing the structure, replacing a roof, and making repairs is going to be cheaper than complete demolition, followed by design and construction of an entirely new structure.

In short, buildings in locations like Brush Park will need to be reused for residential and commercial space. Spending money to demolish these structures is anathema to the goal of creating stable, vibrant neighborhoods that generate economic activity and provide tax revenue for the City of Detroit.

There may be cases where demolition is justified, but I don't see that in the willy-nilly approach Detroit is taking. There appears to be a lack of a systemetized, rational methodology. In short, the City needs to start by adopting a plan that makes sense, and then being proactive enough to implement it with the force of law. Anything short of this is a disservice to the taxpayers.

I agree with all of that 100%

[LeannaM]

The city should sell the bricks, rather than arresting people for taking them. Probably people who want bricks for the historical value wouldn't mind paying a small amount for them. Better than the decades-old brick being dumped somewhere.

[English]

I seem to remember coming across a couple of these Brush Park homes a couple years ago, when looking through real estate listings, and they had astronomically high asking prices, as did several of the vacant lots in the area.

I'm not sure who owns these homes now, or what the asking prices are since the mortgage crisis hit. I am not surprised it is hard to find up to date information on properties in Brush Park, as it seems to be a victim of investors coming into snatch up properties on the cheap, and thinking they can flip them for insane amounts of money sometime in the future, a common occurrence in Detroit.

A quick search does however bring up some of the new Woodward Place condos in the neighborhood, once priced somewhere in the low $300,000 range, now in foreclosure and being sold for $75,000 - $80,000.

The prices in Midtown and Downtown Detroit have always frustrated me. If prices had reflected demand, the density would have followed and then prices would have risen accordingly once the economy picks up again.

The theory of the older folks in the ghettohoods is that the pricing is intentionally that high to keep out certain "elements" -- people who can afford mortgages in a lower price range, but who aren't seen as the right kind of people for the neighborhood. Wasn't the whole idea behind the new Woodbridge Estates construction a mixed-income development? I moved away mid-decade as they were just getting their first residents. How did that work out?

Now that I might be back, everyone is assuming that I will be moving to Southfield or Oak Park. Because, as they put it, "you'll never be able to afford mortgage, insurance, or taxes in an area that you want." I am also a single 30 something woman, and they think I'll run away screaming. I think they're nuts. There has never been a better time to buy than now. And as some of you know, Midtown is my favorite area of the city. It's almost my "hometown within my hometown."

The company I am interviewing with set me up at the Inn on Ferry Street. It was wonderful, and I laughed when the desk clerk talked about how wary out-of-town visitors are about staying actually *in* Detroit. I went driving around Midtown a bit... it's not all bad. Some places that were open when I lived down there are closed [[I don't think I'll ever get over Agave, especially when the SIGN is still up and LIT at night), but there are some new places as well. In particular, I can't believe that there are several coffee shops within walking distance! That is a huge development, because without Avalon, there are MANY mornings I would have gone into Cass Tech with no coffee. [[Hope the new places aren't affecting their business, though!)

[[BTW, for DYes folks who are following, I'll know whether I have the job or not within the next week or so.)

[Bearinabox]

In particular, I can't believe that there are several coffee shops within walking distance! That is a huge development, because without Avalon, there are MANY mornings I would have gone into Cass Tech with no coffee. [[Hope the new places aren't affecting their business, though!)

Which ones are you referring to? I really miss the vibe of Amsterdam Espresso, and think the neighborhood could use another place like that. Starbucks and Biggby's just don't cut it for me.