Building demo: Lower Woodward at Temple

[Gsgeorge]

A small gray building next to the Detroit Unitarian Church has been demoed in the last couple days. It is a pile of bricks now. No big loss, but I am wondering why, and is the abandoned church adjacent to it the next one to go? I hope not...

Street view

[lo_to_d]

There were actually two buildings demolished. I believe both, and the church are owned by slumlord Sam Kemerko of West Bloomfield. He has been sitting on the property waiting to be bought out by Brush Park developers. I was shocked to see the demo and wonder if he paid for it. I personally complain to the city about the buildings because they were always open and emberrassing to the community. His board up job of the church is a joke. Slumlords run this city!

[RickBeall]

That is the area in front of Brush Park. I hope they do not demo the church.

[DetroitZack]

For once I'm glad to see Detroit demolish a building. I was just recently walking by those buildings photographing Brush Parks old churches.

[royce]

That church may be historic but it has been abandoned for years. No one has been interested in it so it needs to go.

[DetroitZack]

^With that logic many, many buildings in Detroit should be demolished.

[royce]

That's right, DetroitZack. I said it. And, yes, a lot of abandoned buildings in Detroit, that aren't secured, need to be torn down. I believe in preservation, but you can't save everything, and that church just happens to be one I don't feel needs to be saved. For one, there's a church next door so do you need two on the same corner. And secondly, the church is very small and would not suit a healthy as well as large congregation. Now, if someone is interested in turning it into an office, like a law firm, then fine.BTW, didn't one say earlier that the owner of the two buildings torn down also owns the church. DetroitZack, if you got a gripe about preserving the building, then gripe to the owner. That's more beneficial than questioning my logic.

[DetroitZack]

I get it now! Any building that isn't in use and no one has showed interest in should be knocked down. Good luck with that one, royce. Because that doesn't describe many buildings in Detroit [[sarcam) and there definately isn't other buildings falling apart or destroyed by fire that are more worthy of being demolished. Who's to say someone won't come along and find a use for it? I can name many buildings in poor shape [[much worse then this) that have been renovated.

[Lorax]

Zack, I know there are alot of people out there who think any abandoned building should be leveled immediately, PQZ even said as much many threads ago. It's a non-argument as far as I'm concerned- at that rate you'd end up leveling the entire city! It's a stupid argument.

It's criminal what's happened in Detroit, and the demolition derbyists out there need to be kept in check.

The old church on the corner, I was in many years ago, just after the last "religious" occupant left, some hippie congregation that beat drums and tambourines, didn't believe in iconography, so they took chainsaws and cut down the statues of religious figures that once ringed the altar dais. They were made of butternut, beautifully carved, and were thrown in the dumpster in back.

I know this, since the person who rescued the figures lived in the neighborhood at the time, and offered me a "tour" of the abandoned building. The LaFarge window above the altar was also sold off, and eventually everything and anything of value was stripped out, much as the Abysinian church on north Woodward is being stripped now.

[buildingsofdetroit]

A small gray building next to the Detroit Unitarian Church has been demoed in the last couple days. It is a pile of bricks now. No big loss, but I am wondering why, and is the abandoned church adjacent to it the next one to go? I hope not...

Street view

Wow. It was there on Monday. I didn't see any crews or anything there on Monday when I drove by. Amazing how fast things can go in this town after sitting around neglected for decades.

[wolverine]

That's right, DetroitZack. I said it. And, yes, a lot of abandoned buildings in Detroit, that aren't secured, need to be torn down. I believe in preservation, but you can't save everything, and that church just happens to be one I don't feel needs to be saved. For one, there's a church next door so do you need two on the same corner. And secondly, the church is very small and would not suit a healthy as well as large congregation. Now, if someone is interested in turning it into an office, like a law firm, then fine.BTW, didn't one say earlier that the owner of the two buildings torn down also owns the church. DetroitZack, if you got a gripe about preserving the building, then gripe to the owner. That's more beneficial than questioning my logic.

Can us chicagoans have permission then to strip down your city and move pieces of those unwanted buildings out here?

[gumby]

Can us chicagoans have permission then to strip down your city and move pieces of those unwanted buildings out here?

No.
Gotta post more to get to 10 characters in this message.

[Gannon]

OK, Royce.

I have an interest in that building.

I know every cobblestone within it.

I believe it would make a fine center of operations for quite a few endeavors for the greater good of the citizens of this city. Every time I drive by it I see a vision for the future in this very space.


So, now that your statement is false, we can keep another treasure in the rough from being destroyed by those like you who wish to wipe this town down to black bottom dirt again.


Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

[gumby]

Royce has proven time and again that he has a very myopic view when it comes to this kind of thing why are you surprised? I mean according to him Campus Martius was a bad idea because it added about 10 seconds to his trip up Woodward.

Don't get me wrong I am pretty sure I met Royce at one of the forum gatherings and if memory serves he was a rather nice guy, I just think he is often dead wrong when it comes to city planning type issues.

[Gannon]

I think Royce is a great guy, that is why I like teasing him.

No need to get all harsh on him, we all need to learn and grow some.


Lord knows I do.

[royce]

Royce has proven time and again that he has a very myopic view when it comes to this kind of thing why are you surprised? I mean according to him Campus Martius was a bad idea because it added about 10 seconds to his trip up Woodward.

Don't get me wrong I am pretty sure I met Royce at one of the forum gatherings and if memory serves he was a rather nice guy, I just think he is often dead wrong when it comes to city planning type issues.

On the contrary, Gumby, I thought Campus Martius was a bad idea because it added 10 seconds to my trip crossing Woodward. My stance on Campus Martius has mellowed, but not because it's a great traffic controller, but because it is such a great social gathering spot. However, on days when I'm in a rush and they decide to use the red/stop signal for all of the traffic signals surrounding Campus Martius Park, it can be annoying.

Again, I have supported on several occasions the preservation of certain abandoned buildings. I supported saving the Lafayette Building. I supported saving a portion of Tiger Stadium [[for a Detroit Sports Hall of Fame) and the field for baseball playing. I'm in favor of saving all of the buildings on lower Woodward. I would love to see the David Whitney Building become a hotel and the David Broderick Building become apartments or condos.

Now, I'm not in favor of saving Ford Auditorium, the Metropolitan Building, the train station, and the Packard Building. A few lesser known buildings I would like to see torn down include: the apartment building across the street from Cliff Boles, the building that remains on the Statler site, the Eros Lounge and that old parking deck at the corner of Griswold and Grand River [[so that the city could built a much needed parking garage, that would go over the street, for the future apartments/condos planned for the lower Woodward buildings [[like the Eliot), the hotel next to the Masonic Temple, and the church under discussion here.

Now, Gumby, I'm sure that there are a few more buildings that I would like to see saved and a few more that I would like to see torn down. However, to say that I have a myopic view is harsh. I agree that I don't always see things the same way that you or others see them, but the same can be said about many others on this forum. For every person who wants to save a building, there's another that says, "Tear that Schit down." Admittedly, we just have a healthy difference of opinions. C'est la vie. Well, have a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year just the same.

[royce]

Gannon, you're funny. Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year as well.

[wolverine]

On the contrary, Gumby, I thought Campus Martius was a bad idea because it added 10 seconds to my trip crossing Woodward. My stance on Campus Martius has mellowed, but not because it's a great traffic controller, but because it is such a great social gathering spot. However, on days when I'm in a rush and they decide to use the red/stop signal for all of the traffic signals surrounding Campus Martius Park, it can be annoying.

Who is in a rush in downtown Detroit? What is there to rush to anyway? Believe it or not, but good streets slow people down as much as possible. Use the extra 10 seconds to take in your city and enjoy what you have. left

Again, I have supported on several occasions the preservation of certain abandoned buildings. I supported saving the Lafayette Building. I supported saving a portion of Tiger Stadium [[for a Detroit Sports Hall of Fame) and the field for baseball playing. I'm in favor of saving all of the buildings on lower Woodward. I would love to see the David Whitney Building become a hotel and the David Broderick Building become apartments or condos.

Now, I'm not in favor of saving Ford Auditorium, the Metropolitan Building, the train station, and the Packard Building. A few lesser known buildings I would like to see torn down include: the apartment building across the street from Cliff Boles, the building that remains on the Statler site, the Eros Lounge and that old parking deck at the corner of Griswold and Grand River [[so that the city could built a much needed parking garage, that would go over the street, for the future apartments/condos planned for the lower Woodward buildings [[like the Eliot), the hotel next to the Masonic Temple, and the church under discussion here.

If you really call yourself a preservationist, you wouldn't advocate for any building to be demolished, no matter how economically impossible it is. Take the Met for example. If we cast aside the fact that it has difficult floorplates to work with and is in great disrepair, you'll also realize that it forms an integral and unique piece of Detroit's streetwall. One can speak alot about the facade itself, but it really is an important piece of Detroit's downtown cityscape. Eventually there will be demand for something to go in there, but definitely not now. Same could be said for many of Detroit's buildings downtown years ago that have since become renovated. You can't predict that.

[Gsgeorge]

Now, I'm not in favor of saving Ford Auditorium, the Metropolitan Building, the train station, and the Packard Building. A few lesser known buildings I would like to see torn down include: the apartment building across the street from Cliff Boles, the building that remains on the Statler site, the Eros Lounge and that old parking deck at the corner of Griswold and Grand River [[so that the city could built a much needed parking garage, that would go over the street, for the future apartments/condos planned for the lower Woodward buildings [[like the Eliot), the hotel next to the Masonic Temple, and the church under discussion here.

These are all the worst ideas ever conceived by a self-proclaimed "preservationist". Ever. I mean in the history of preservation. You want to knock down the TRAIN STATION???? No comment there. The Metropolitan Building, one of the earliest and few remaining examples of Neo-Gothic architecture in a skyscraper? You want to knock down Eros Lounge, a functioning building with a stripclub tenant? There's one less business in Detroit. You want to build a NEW parking garage on the site of an already-existing parking garage, and make it cover each side of the street, destroying the intimacy, sightlines, and architectural integrity of the Capitol Park neighborhood? You want to destroy the Hotel Charlevoix, one of Detroit's oldest commercial buildings? You want to take down the Hotel Fort Wayne, a salvageable building and an important part of Temple Streets revitalization?

No wonder Detroit looks the way it does. Even our preservationists advocate demolition of historic structures and superblock developments in historic neighborhoods...

[royce]

Well then, Wolverine and Gsgeorge, I guess I'm not a preservationist, according to the criteria you two have established. I make no apologies for my views. In this life, regardless of any and all of our good intentions, we simply can not please everybody all the time. I don't pretend to try. However, I will say that it is a naive view to think that true preservationists believe that all buildings must be saved at all times. If that is the case, then where was the protest from preservationists when public housing projects were torn down across the country to put in less dense residential units. Were you, Wolverine and Gsgeorge, up in arms over this lack of preservation? Surely, someone, years down the road, could have found good uses for these buildings, right?

[hudkina]

Are you seriously comparing a 50's-era low-incoming housing development with virtually no architectural significance to buildings like the Charlevoix and Metropolitan?

[Gsgeorge]

This is too funny.

First off I don't agree with the view that if you're a preservationist then ALL buildings must be saved. That's simply impractical. But I think recognizing historical and architectural significance is a major criteria. All of the buildings you listed are architecturally significant, with perhaps the exception of the parking garage [[even that building has a distinctly modern design). Several of the buildings are historically significant-- the station, the Charlevoix, the Metropolitan. Perhaps the only point I agree with you on is getting rid of the AAA building on the Statler site. But comparing these buildings--all of which are in some way historically or architecturally significant or contribute to Detroit's built environment--to bland 1950s housing projects, most of which replaced historically or architecturally significant neighborhoods in the first place, is an improper and naive comparison.

[wolverine]

Well then, Wolverine and Gsgeorge, I guess I'm not a preservationist, according to the criteria you two have established. I make no apologies for my views. In this life, regardless of any and all of our good intentions, we simply can not please everybody all the time. I don't pretend to try. However, I will say that it is a naive view to think that true preservationists believe that all buildings must be saved at all times. If that is the case, then where was the protest from preservationists when public housing projects were torn down across the country to put in less dense residential units. Were you, Wolverine and Gsgeorge, up in arms over this lack of preservation? Surely, someone, years down the road, could have found good uses for these buildings, right?

You are a realist.

But from a preservation standpoint, certainly, all buildings should be considered. Although preservationists begin with a value-judgment point...completely opposite of what you are suggesting. The no-use, no-purpose is exactly why there's been a rush to demolish so many important buildings.

Now, I'm not up in arms over public housing demolition, Personally I'm not interested in that architecture, but I'm sure someone out there is and making great efforts to save some of these buildings. Heck, a late 1940's early 50's hospital out here in Chicago is in a firestorm preservation war despite that there is no plan for its future. I'll pick and choose what buildings I think are worth saving, but it's based off the craft, materials, the details that were involved in its construction, its structural condition, and finally its importance in shaping the urban surroundings. Just because it's empty or duplicate program of a neighboring structure is not part of my criteria.

[Danny]

Who needs that building! It was a part of the crackhead shelter.

[gumby]

you are right royce. Perhaps myopic was a bit strong but none the less I respectfully disagree with most of your ideas posted here in regards to urban planning.