University Club next to fall?

[Bearinabox]

No, the context in which I used the word to which you are referring was indeed correct.

The "DY buzzword" has little or nothing to do with what the market, in its current state, will support. It's about the increasingly out-of-control financial, social and environmental costs associated with the continuing geographic expansion of a region with a stagnant population. The word "sustainable" has meanings besides the one generally used on here, but if you're going to refer to it as a "DY buzzword," then use it the way the buzzword is used.

[DC48080]

The "DY buzzword" has little or nothing to do with what the market, in its current state, will support. It's about the increasingly out-of-control financial, social and environmental costs associated with the continuing geographic expansion of a region with a stagnant population. The word "sustainable" has meanings besides the one generally used on here, but if you're going to refer to it as a "DY buzzword," then use it the way the buzzword is used.

The "continuing geographic expansion" as you call it is the reality. People are moving out of the city of Detroit itself because it is so decrepit. People are leaving the central city in droves and moving to the suburbs or moving out of state.

Despite what you may think, your fantasy of Detroit being some kind of Utopia is not real. The reality is Detroit is disfunctional and most like likely dead, at least for the near future.

It is not the suburbs that are unsustainable, it is Detroit [[in it's current state) that is unsustainable.

[ghettopalmetto]

The "continuing geographic expansion" as you call it is the reality. People are moving out of the city of Detroit itself because it is so decrepit.

Was the City of Detroit decrepit when people began moving out to the suburbs in the 1940s?

Despite what you may think, your fantasy of Detroit being some kind of Utopia is not real. The reality is Detroit is disfunctional and most like likely dead, at least for the near future.

Ever hear of a self-fulfilling prophecy?

[Bearinabox]

The "continuing geographic expansion" as you call it is the reality. People are moving out of the city of Detroit itself because it is so decrepit. People are leaving the central city in droves and moving to the suburbs or moving out of state.

Despite what you may think, your fantasy of Detroit being some kind of Utopia is not real. The reality is Detroit is disfunctional and most like likely dead, at least for the near future.

It is not the suburbs that are unsustainable, it is Detroit [[in it's current state) that is unsustainable.

You're still misusing the word. "Dysfunctional" and "decrepit" have nothing to do with it either. Sigh...

[DC48080]

You're still misusing the word. "Dysfunctional" and "decrepit" have nothing to do with it either. Sigh...

I did not use the word "dysfunctional", but it would indeed apply in this case. And if you cannot see that vast areas of the City are currently decrepit than you are not grounded in reality.

And as far me "still misusing" the word as you put it, sustainable [[or not being so) does not just apply to the suburbs. It very much applies to Detroit and more in particular to the topic of this thread. The University Club was not sustainable, that is why it closed.

[Hermod]

The sad thing is, cities like Warsaw [[undoubtedly with American money) rebuilt their centuries-old buildings brick-by-brick after World War II. We see something 100 years old, call it "unviable", and demolish it in the HOPES that someone builds an EIFS-clad piece of shit in its place.

The level of self-respect we have in this country is nothing short of astounding.

1. Since Warsaw was behind the Iron Curtain, I doubt that much "American money" went to rebuild the buildings in Warsaw.

2. Some "high profile" buildings were rebuilt from the ground up in Europe. Many of the central cities that were completely razed by bombing were rebuilt with modern buildings.

[Hermod]

It isn't just a regional thing really...it is a national/American thing. Europeans and Asians don't seem to pull this shit. Only in America do we see this.

Maybe because in Europe and Asia they don't have a high level of "urban terrorism" driving productive citizens out of the central city?

[Bearinabox]

I did not use the word "dysfunctional"

Whoa, wait, hold up right there. Easily checked, this one. Let's review your previous post:

The reality is Detroit is disfunctional and most like likely dead, at least for the near future.

Oops.

but it would indeed apply in this case. And if you cannot see that vast areas of the City are currently decrepit than you are not grounded in reality.

If you're so grounded in reality, why are you responding to some urbanist straw man who only exists in your head instead of my actual posts? It's awfully tiresome to argue with people who aren't paying any attention.

And as far me "still misusing" the word as you put it, sustainable [[or not being so) does not just apply to the suburbs.

Did I ever say it did? I can't remember having done so. Must have been the urbanist straw man in your head again.

As a matter of fact, I think our whole region is unsustainable, and will remain so until we change our entire approach to regional planning. We have pursued unsustainable policies for many, many years, and now it is biting us in the ass. This affects us all; parsing out precisely which parts of our region are and are not sustainable makes no sense whatsoever. It's not like we can let the entire region implode and have, say, Royal Oak emerge unscathed as a shining beacon of livability because they made good decisions. It doesn't work like that.

It very much applies to Detroit and more in particular to the topic of this thread. The University Club was not sustainable, that is why it closed.

Parsing out building-by-building what is sustainable and what isn't makes even less sense than doing it city-by-city. What's less than "none whatsoever?"

[Bearinabox]

Maybe because in Europe and Asia they don't have a high level of "urban terrorism" driving productive citizens out of the central city?

I think you're switching cause and effect. American central cities have been given over to crime and poverty because we as a culture decided that neither central cities nor poor people were worth caring about. Invest in solving social problems, and you end up with fewer social problems. Invest in improving central cities, and you end up with nice central cities. Isolate the social problems in the central cities and then spend a few decades pretending that neither of them exist, and you end up with something very like present-day Detroit.

[ghettopalmetto]

1. Since Warsaw was behind the Iron Curtain, I doubt that much "American money" went to rebuild the buildings in Warsaw.

2. Some "high profile" buildings were rebuilt from the ground up in Europe. Many of the central cities that were completely razed by bombing were rebuilt with modern buildings.

I'm not sure about Warsaw, but we sure as shit spent billions of dollars to rebuild Western Europe and Japan after World War II. Yet, our cities are the ones that look like they sustained combat.

Mostly, because we spent billions of dollars creating and marketing a naive, idealistic, and wholly dysfunctional and unsustainable product called "The American Dream".

And mostly, because we're a bunch of uncultured fucking rednecks who only care about getting as much square footage as we can in a vinyl-sided piece-of-shit house.

[kraig]

Has anyone with some ideas thought about sitting down with Mr. Ammori and just talking with him? If interested parties put their heads together there's a strong possibility that a plan could be put together that could preserve the building and serve the purpose of the owner as well. And building a relationship between the business owner and the community probably wouldn't hurt.

[n7hn]

Has anyone with some ideas thought about sitting down with Mr. Ammori and just talking with him? If interested parties put their heads together there's a strong possibility that a plan could be put together that could preserve the building and serve the purpose of the owner as well. And building a relationship between the business owner and the community probably wouldn't hurt.

That sounds too proactive........ cant we just cry and whine about it?

[Hermod]

I'm not sure about Warsaw, but we sure as shit spent billions of dollars to rebuild Western Europe and Japan after World War II. Yet, our cities are the ones that look like they sustained combat.

Mostly, because we spent billions of dollars creating and marketing a naive, idealistic, and wholly dysfunctional and unsustainable product called "The American Dream".

And mostly, because we're a bunch of uneducated fucking rednecks who only care about getting as much square footage as we can in a vinyl-sided piece-of-shit house.

So when I lived in a vinyl-sided house, I was uneducated?

If I move back into my grandparent's shingle-sided house on St Clair near Warren [[assuming that it is still standing) I suddenly get a PhD?

No thanks, I prefer having more than one pot to piss in in my home. I prefer adequate electrical wiring. I like having more than 10 feet between my house and my neighbor's house.

[ghettopalmetto]

Sorry, Hermod. I meant "uncultured". Didn't mean to imply you were stupid. I'll edit my post above.

[ghettopalmetto]

Has anyone with some ideas thought about sitting down with Mr. Ammori and just talking with him? If interested parties put their heads together there's a strong possibility that a plan could be put together that could preserve the building and serve the purpose of the owner as well. And building a relationship between the business owner and the community probably wouldn't hurt.

Isn't that the stated raison d'etre of the DEGC?

Oh wait--they only do demolition. My bad.

[iheartthed]

As a matter of fact, I think our whole region is unsustainable, and will remain so until we change our entire approach to regional planning. We have pursued unsustainable policies for many, many years, and now it is biting us in the ass. This affects us all; parsing out precisely which parts of our region are and are not sustainable makes no sense whatsoever. It's not like we can let the entire region implode and have, say, Royal Oak emerge unscathed as a shining beacon of livability because they made good decisions. It doesn't work like that.
Parsing out building-by-building what is sustainable and what isn't makes even less sense than doing it city-by-city. What's less than "none whatsoever?"

Good point. I was driving along Michigan Avenue in Dearborn around last Christmas and I couldn't help but notice all of the abandoned buildings dotting the landscape. This clearly isn't just a Detroit proper problem anymore.

[Hermod]

Sorry, Hermod. I meant "uncultured". Didn't mean to imply you were stupid. I'll edit my post above.

You don't have to edit, I am a big boy and can handle the rough and tumble of the internet without getting offended..

BTW, I now live in a stucco-sided house. I moved out of vinyl in 1996.

[Hermod]

I'm not sure about Warsaw, but we sure as shit spent billions of dollars to rebuild Western Europe and Japan after World War II. Yet, our cities are the ones that look like they sustained combat.

We did rebuild western Europe [[West Germany, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Italy) under the Marshall Plan. This was direct aid towards rebuilding to keep them from "going commie" after the war. It also led into our involvement in Vietnam, because we helped the French regain their colonial empire so the French wouldn't "go commie" in despair [[the commies got about 20% in French elections).

Japan rebuilding was an inadvertent result of the Korean War where japan was pressed into service as our logistics base and their industries were revitalized by contracts for repair and rebuild of WWII equipment for the use of the US in Korea.

[kraig]

Isn't that the stated raison d'etre of the DEGC?

Oh wait--they only do demolition. My bad.

If needed, the DEGC could probably be brought in once the owner decides what kind of assistance he would require from them. Going through the DEGC is not an automatic requirement in order to develop a project. Unless he's looking for tax breaks, city council approval or special technical assistance that the DEGC provides, he probably won't go to them.

So right now, it's up to those that have an interest in preserving the property to communicate their concerns, thoughts and ideas to the owner.

It's past time that the historic/preservation and business communities start working together.

[Detroitnerd]

It's past time that the historic/preservation and business community start working together.

The preservation community seems to pick its battles pretty well. But the view from the other side seems to be more extreme: "I own this property and nobody is going to tell me what I may or may not do with it, at any time. And the same should go for all private property owners in all instances." [[Only Moroun has done them one better; demanding the right to do as he pleases with other people's private property!)

My point, though, is, how can two sides of the discussion work together when the initial positions are so far apart?

[kraig]

The preservation community seems to pick its battles pretty well. But the view from the other side seems to be more extreme: "I own this property and nobody is going to tell me what I may or may not do with it, at any time. And the same should go for all private property owners in all instances." [[Only Moroun has done them one better; demanding the right to do as he pleases with other people's private property!)

My point, though, is, how can two sides of the discussion work together when the initial positions are so far apart?

"The preservation community seems to pick its battles pretty well." So you're idea of working together is to pick the fights that can be won or something? You then immediately point the finger at the business community and pretty much say that it's their fault.

The problem, as seen by the business community, is that the first contact that businesses have with the historic/preservation community is some type of boycott, demand for a public hearing, injunction or protest. At which point, sitting down and calmly discussing the issues will probably not happen. At best, a judge may order both sides to sit down and talk. But most of the talking will be done by the lawyers.

I'm talking about cooler heads prevailing from the beginning. No finger pointing, no media manipulation, no protests and no boycotts. Simply two sides sitting down and talking. It may not be that easy, but it can be that simple.

[ghettopalmetto]

The problem, as seen by the business community, is that the first contact that businesses have with the historic/preservation community is some type of boycott, demand for a public hearing, injunction or protest. At which point, sitting down and calmly discussing the issues will probably not happen. At best, a judge may order both sides to sit down and talk. But most of the talking will be done by the lawyers.

I'm talking about cooler heads prevailing from the beginning. No finger pointing, no media manipulation, no protests and no boycotts. Simply two sides sitting down and talking. It may not be that easy, but it can be that simple.

Based on recent experience, the following is a typical chronology of situations like this:

1. Historic building is purchased by a would-be developer.

2. After months or years of letting the building continue to sit vacant, would-be developer is revealed to be a speculative slumlord.

3. Building continues to sit and rot. Slumlord allows building to deteriorate, conducting little if any maintenance. Claims restoration is "unviable".

4. DEGC seizes property.

5. DEGC brings in a single pre-ordained developer to walk-through building. Single pre-ordained developer finds building does not work for his purposes at this discrete point in time.

6. George Jackson [[P.E., of course) declares building "structurally unsound".

7. DEGC ignores commentary, including potential redevelopment plans, from concerned members of the public, calling any reuses "unviable" while producing nothing in the way of documentation to support this assertion.

8. DEGC spends a 7-figure sum of public money to demolish building.

9. Lot sits empty for years, growing weeds and blighting the community.


It's really no wonder why the preservation community in Detroit is a bit edgy when a building of this quality changes hands.

[kraig]

Based on recent experience, the following is a typical chronology of situations like this:

1. Historic building is purchased by a would-be developer.

2. After months or years of letting the building continue to sit vacant, would-be developer is revealed to be a speculative slumlord.

3. Building continues to sit and rot. Slumlord allows building to deteriorate, conducting little if any maintenance. Claims restoration is "unviable".

4. DEGC seizes property.

5. DEGC brings in a single pre-ordained developer to walk-through building. Single pre-ordained developer finds building does not work for his purposes at this discrete point in time.

6. George Jackson [[P.E., of course) declares building "structurally unsound".

7. DEGC ignores commentary, including potential redevelopment plans, from concerned members of the public, calling any reuses "unviable" while producing nothing in the way of documentation to support this assertion.

8. DEGC spends a 7-figure sum of public money to demolish building.

9. Lot sits empty for years, growing weeds and blighting the community.


It's really no wonder why the preservation community in Detroit is a bit edgy when a building of this quality changes hands.

So what is your strategy besides whining, bitching and moaning? Because right now is the time to do something. Before steps 2-9, as you see them, happen.

[LodgeDodger]

That sounds too proactive........ cant we just cry and whine about it?

I wonder if Goodman has approached the owner? But it is a good idea, if no one has yet approached him.

After all this, I'm sure anyone approaching the owner would get the broom.

[ghettopalmetto]

So what is your strategy besides whining, bitching and moaning? Because right now is the time to do something. Before steps 2-9, as you see them, happen.

There's nothing "whining, bitching, or moaning" about encouraging a responsible, methodical approach for putting buildings like this back to productive use. Time and again, multiple strategies have been proposed, including but not limited to:

*raising the property tax rate for vacant properties

*enforcing building codes and levying fines when the owner maintains the property in a state of disrepair

*using DEGC to work with building owners, advising them of historic preservation tax credits that are available for redevelopment