DetNews: Midtown development sparks battles

[LeannaM]

Sounds like a lot of developers. He wants to tear down historic structures to build a new one, even when the building may not be necessary and the old buildings are probably in fine shape.

And an uneasy decision has to be made by the people in charge.

[Detroitnerd]

Why should he have to buy new land when he already owns land that suits his purposes? It would be one thing if he had bought the property when it was declared historical and was doing this. But, the group is looking to have the land declared historical in response to his plans. That's blocking and obstructing.

OK, now I better understand what you're saying.

Well, I wish this weren't the case, but the preservation movement in Detroit has always been loosely organized and reactive. Whether it's the Horace Dodge house, the Mackenzie House or what-have-you, there doesn't seem to be one standard for historic structures in the city, which leaves preservationists having to react to demolition plans. In fact, that's usually how it started in other cities, much like the campaign to save Grand Central Terminal in New York marked the beginning of the end of New York's Age of the Bulldozer.

Of course, usually, preservationists battle the city or the university or some other public institution. Here it's an individual. But the point remains the same: That neighborhoods have an interest in retaining historic buildings. That mature buildings contribute to the perceived value of a neighborhood, much as mature shade trees do.

And this is a long, ongoing war in Detroit. As different sides come up with new tactics, there are always going to be winners and losers. And, as I said, he may well be entitled to some remuneration for his trouble. And that's where this will likely go anyway: to court or out of court eventually.

Anyway, my long, drawn-out point is that private property is not absolute. We have all sorts of regulations on what may be built. And sometimes when somebody wants to do something, they send Congress racing back to session to craft new rules so it can't happen. It's ugly and it's messy and it's often unfair [[for all sides), but it's our system and it's the best thing we have right now.

Ideally, I would like to see some hard and fast rules about what is historic and what is not, about retroactively declaring something historic [[as in this case), and would even like to see architectural review boards and input from citizens in the case of the largest developments, especially nonprofits.

[Gistok]

He wants to tear down some old buildings that don't fit his purposes and build a new one that does. It's not as though he's planning on abandoning the property or using the property in a different capacity than it's being used now.

It's his property and his money. What's the problem?

Let me tell you a little story that may give you different view of the situation about buiilding ownership...

Back in the late 1990s there was a big push by the big box drug stores [[CVS, Rite Aid, Walgreens, and Eckerd)... to expand their drug store empires into towns and cities all across the country.

In doing so, they often bought the most prime real estate in the smaller towns and cities... namely "the corner of Main and Main" as the National Trust for Historic Preservation called it. On the most prime real estate in towns across America, there would often be the most architecturally significant building in that particular town.

The big drug store chains would buy up the prime property and then demolish the usually architecturally significant property, and put one of their big box stores in its' place.

These drug stores not only destroyed beautiful old buildings... but they also destroyed the streetwall of the towns main block, by building back from the streetfront, and putting a parking lot in front of the setback big box stores, thus further destroying the character of the town center.

The National Trust For Historic Preservation got involved with this mass scale destruction, and put "The Corner of Main & Main" onto their 1999 "List of 11 Most Endangered Historic Places". They called to task the big drug stores for destroying the charm of small town America.

Well with enough pressure [[along with the help of local grass roots efforts and local politicians and zoning boards)... the big box stores finally agreed to stop this wholesale destruction of a significant part of America's architectural heritage. Now the big box stores build new stores so as not to destroy any historic buildings, and it becomes a win-win situation for everyone.

The major example of an attempt of this slaughter locally was in Fraser MI. At the corner of 14 Mile Rd. and Utica Rd. there is a former FRASER STATE BANK building, which is one of the most architecturally significant Art Deco era building in all of Macomb County.

CVS, which was located 2 blocks away in an existing store... wanted to move to the prime 14 Mile/Utica location, knock down the bank building, and rebuild a big box store on that site... thus leaving an empty building 2 blocks away.

Local political and grass root opposition [[they packed the town hall meetings)... ended that folly, and today the former Fraser State Bank Building is still standing and used as a bank by a large multi-state bank. CVS remodeled their store 2 blocks away, and is thriving in that spot. Again... a win-win for everyone.

As the National Trust says... there has to be a balance between the rights of building ownership... and the greater good of the community in preserving [[whenever possible) the architectural heritage of that community.

[Bearinabox]

I would maintain that having the Detroit municipal government in charge for the last fifty years has done much more to make Detroit an unpleasant, unlivable city.

This may well be true, but I don't think it negates or diminishes my point.

[gregster]

Let me tell you a little story that may give you different view of the situation about buiilding ownership...

Back in the late 1990s there was a big push by the big box drug stores [[CVS, Rite Aid, Walgreens, and Eckerd)... to expand their drug store empires into towns and cities all across the country.

In doing so, they often bought the most prime real estate in the smaller towns and cities... namely "the corner of Main and Main" as the National Trust for Historic Preservation called it. On the most prime real estate in towns across America, there would often be the most architecturally significant building in that particular town.

The big drug store chains would buy up the prime property and then demolish the usually architecturally significant property, and put one of their big box stores in its' place.

As the National Trust says... there has to be a balance between the rights of building ownership... and the greater good of the community in preserving [[whenever possible) the architectural heritage of that community.

This is exactly what happened in downtown Keego Harbor. The beautiful art deco Keego cinema was demolished by Rite-Aid. When will people realize that building a Rite Aid in place of a 1940s classic cinema building is not progress. When archaeologists dig this up, they'll either laugh or cry.

[Hermod]

This is exactly what happened in downtown Keego Harbor. The beautiful art deco Keego cinema was demolished by Rite-Aid. When will people realize that building a Rite Aid in place of a 1940s classic cinema building is not progress. When archaeologists dig this up, they'll either laugh or cry.

Exactly what do you do with a classic "cinema building"?

You cant make a go showing movies. Even the megaplexes are working on the margin of profitability.

You could become the home of some "artsy fartsy" local theater group IF the group has money or some financial "angel".

You could become a "mini-mall" of small shops like the "Hills Theater in Rochester.

Or, you could sell the building to someone who will use the land for a productive economic purpose.

How many theaters in Detroit which were far more grand than this little theater in Keego Harbor have been demolished to no purpose whatsoever?

[Huggybear]

For a new development, the 1940s-looking yellow brick buildings can go. Yesterday. But of the blue-painted brick one on the corner, how would you fill out your petition to City Council? There are specific criteria for historic district designation - and neither absolute age nor the fact that you like the style has anything to do with it.

[Gsgeorge]

Exactly what do you do with a classic "cinema building"?

You cant make a go showing movies. Even the megaplexes are working on the margin of profitability.

You could become the home of some "artsy fartsy" local theater group IF the group has money or some financial "angel".

You could become a "mini-mall" of small shops like the "Hills Theater in Rochester.

Or, you could sell the building to someone who will use the land for a productive economic purpose.

How many theaters in Detroit which were far more grand than this little theater in Keego Harbor have been demolished to no purpose whatsoever?

Serve beer. Fill seats. I'd love to see one small theater around Detroit offer up beer and/or food along with the usual treats. They do at the Alamo chain in Austin, TX and those cinemas don't have a problem staying open--in fact, they're among the most successful businesses in town. Many are in 'small' old theaters with fewer screens.

[kraig]

Let me tell you a little story that may give you different view of the situation about buiilding ownership...

Back in the late 1990s there was a big push by the big box drug stores [[CVS, Rite Aid, Walgreens, and Eckerd)... to expand their drug store empires into towns and cities all across the country.

In doing so, they often bought the most prime real estate in the smaller towns and cities... namely "the corner of Main and Main" as the National Trust for Historic Preservation called it. On the most prime real estate in towns across America, there would often be the most architecturally significant building in that particular town.

The big drug store chains would buy up the prime property and then demolish the usually architecturally significant property, and put one of their big box stores in its' place.

These drug stores not only destroyed beautiful old buildings... but they also destroyed the streetwall of the towns main block, by building back from the streetfront, and putting a parking lot in front of the setback big box stores, thus further destroying the character of the town center.

The National Trust For Historic Preservation got involved with this mass scale destruction, and put "The Corner of Main & Main" onto their 1999 "List of 11 Most Endangered Historic Places". They called to task the big drug stores for destroying the charm of small town America.

Well with enough pressure [[along with the help of local grass roots efforts and local politicians and zoning boards)... the big box stores finally agreed to stop this wholesale destruction of a significant part of America's architectural heritage. Now the big box stores build new stores so as not to destroy any historic buildings, and it becomes a win-win situation for everyone.

The major example of an attempt of this slaughter locally was in Fraser MI. At the corner of 14 Mile Rd. and Utica Rd. there is a former FRASER STATE BANK building, which is one of the most architecturally significant Art Deco era building in all of Macomb County.

CVS, which was located 2 blocks away in an existing store... wanted to move to the prime 14 Mile/Utica location, knock down the bank building, and rebuild a big box store on that site... thus leaving an empty building 2 blocks away.

Local political and grass root opposition [[they packed the town hall meetings)... ended that folly, and today the former Fraser State Bank Building is still standing and used as a bank by a large multi-state bank. CVS remodeled their store 2 blocks away, and is thriving in that spot. Again... a win-win for everyone.

As the National Trust says... there has to be a balance between the rights of building ownership... and the greater good of the community in preserving [[whenever possible) the architectural heritage of that community.

Now, let's look at that issue from the perspective of Detroit, the spots where CVS and Walgreen's have located here have been in areas were, for the most part, they replaced regular abandoned buidlings, regular being not historic. Most of those stores are thriving and are probabl relied on more by Detroit residents than the stores are relied on by the residents of a city like Fraser.

And that's the perspective we should look at. What's the best fit for Detroit. When you have a city that has lost about 60% of its population over the past five decades, you're going to have a lot of old and/or abandoned buildings in prime real estate locations all over the city. Something has to about them. Travel the City and look at what you have in those old abandoned banks. Most of them are either still empty or sell human hair. The point is, the banks aren't going to open back up in those buildings because those buildings do not suit their purposes.

[Bearinabox]

The point is, the banks aren't going to open back up in those buildings because those buildings do not suit their purposes.

Which buildings can be made to serve which purposes is relative, not absolute.



Of course businesses will take the path of least resistance if left to their own devices, but communities have a responsibility to ensure that what businesses do with their property is compatible with the direction the community is trying to go and the aesthetic it is trying to cultivate. The problem with Detroit as a whole is that it has no coherent direction. Thankfully, the UCCA is stepping up to the plate, at least within its own jurisdiction.

[lo_to_d]

Doesn't UCCA have development plans for an apartment building on Woodward but no funding? If this guys for real on a multi-million dollar investment, couldn't they work out some sort of partnership deal on the that property? I know it's easier said then done, but we need to start to work together. Or maybe the property right across the street. I think its WSU owned and its an ugly ass building, but vital retail there, couldn't WSU partner. More housing would do great there. But, like usual, there is probably more to the story then the article tells.

[kraig]

Which buildings can be made to serve which purposes is relative, not absolute.



Of course businesses will take the path of least resistance if left to their own devices, but communities have a responsibility to ensure that what businesses do with their property is compatible with the direction the community is trying to go and the aesthetic it is trying to cultivate. The problem with Detroit as a whole is that it has no coherent direction. Thankfully, the UCCA is stepping up to the plate, at least within its own jurisdiction.

Nice. But let's get back to midtown. There's an owner, let's emphasize that, owner, of some apartment buildings that no matter what he does to the facade or renovations to the building. He's not going to see the return on his investment due to the limitations on the size of the apartments in the buildings, not to mention the limited parking.

Therefore, the owner, let's keep emphasizing that, of the apartment buildings decides that he's going to tear down the buildings and put up a new, larger building that will more likely be updated to handle all of the current technology that the old buildings may not be able to handle and provide adequate parking for the tenants.

Bear in mind, with financial resources being "relative, not absolute". The property owner has to decide to manage his resources to provide for the potential tenants/clients/customers of his property. Because they're the ones that are going to provide the means to sustain the property, not the UCCA. This isn't a situation like Tiger Stadium or the Lafayette where a vacant lot will replace the structures.

What someone thinks is good for an area has to also be balanced with what can sustain an area. A project that cannot sustan itself does nothing to sustain an area. Case in point, Zoccora's [[sorry if I mispelled it) on Woodward. While being praised as something needed in the neighborhood, as well as, being praised by the preservation and community based groups. Those of us that understand market based business and sustainablity, while hoping it would work, knew that it didn't have a snowballs chance in hell of making it. It wasn't set up to have enough visitors on a daily basis to make it, period.

Sometimes it may be a good idea to let the experienced people that know business and are actually the ones taking the risk to run their businesses the way they want to. We have to face facts. Some older things are going to be replaced by newer things. But, it's his money and his risk, he has a right to do it his way.

[Gistok]

Sometimes it may be a good idea to let the experienced people that know business and are actually the ones taking the risk to run their businesses the way they want to. We have to face facts. Some older things are going to be replaced by newer things. But, it's his money and his risk, he has a right to do it his way.

That's assuming that this developer actually knows what he's doing. Detroit is littered with buildings that were torn down, but the new plans never came to fruition.

Just look at the fiasco of the demolition of the Madison Theatre in 2000 by Lawson Co. They too had big plans for building on the site of the former theatre... but somewhere along the way something went wrong.... and the site of the former Madison Auditorium is still a parking lot... although many years later the still standing lobby/office block portion of the building still standing eventually became Angelina's Bistro.

If this Schaefer developer has already spent over $1 million on the existing buildings and only now finds that it wasn't worth it... sounds to me this guy has a serious learning curve issue on development in Detroit, and hasn't done his homework before he started pumping money into these historic apartments.

And it sounds like he's talking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time... first he says he wants to provide student housing.... and then complains that there the existing units are too small and there's no parking. He spent over $1 million already... and only now came to the conclusion that it won't work?? Student housing is mainly comprised of small units... and often on campus students don't have a car. So his logic doesn't make sense.

I would take the side of the UCCA [[with a proven successful track record) over that of an unknown developer any day. They seem to know what they're doing, since the area has been flourishing under their guidance, even in trying times.

[Bearinabox]

But, it's his money and his risk, he has a right to do it his way.

Where did this right come from? Did he buy it at Wal-Mart? Did some watery tart throw it at him in a farcical aquatic ceremony? I don't get why you're saying "he has a right" as though it were some sort of objective truth.

[DetroitZack]

I went to the apartment buildings in question today and just kinda wandered around. I must say I am in support of creating the Woodward-Palmer-Cass-Kirby Historic District. There are some nice apartments buildings in that area, especially the ones in dispute. I would love to see old pictures of this area, I'm sure there was many others. I will post some pictures later.

[Rocko]

I too am in support of the proposed Woodward-Palmer-Cass-Kirby local Historic District. Midtown's momentum seems to be largely due in part to the restoration and adaptive use of historic properties. The same can't be said about all parts of the city, and that's perfectly ok. But HERE, it is working, and it's something the district is becoming known for. I'm all in support of more/better student housing, being a student myself, but we have so much vacant land, it just seems backward to tear down some useful, operating, income producing structures, not to mention their historic status, and replace them. Good for the UCCA making their stand. Hopefully the City Council will vote yes on the HD soon and then it will be up to the HDC to call the shots.

PS, I have always preferred the News over the Free Press, but it's articles like this that make me even more of a supporter. I can read this article on line, but I bought a copy of Friday's paper with my $1 to show my support. The News often has good articles about historic buildings, development news, new businesses and the like.....and it's not all hype like it is in the other paper. Glad to see!

[casscorridor]

This won't happen. This guy is an idiot. If he has any brains at all he'll try to work something out with the University or the UCCA to find an empty lot to build on. There is a parking lot on the south side of W Ferry that could do. A new ten story building would be huge.

Another possible new development... does anyone know if anything ever happened with that five story retail/apartment building that was proposed for Cass south of Warren?

Also, I love the idea of having another microbrewery on W Canfield, maybe a brewery district could form??

[Huggybear]

Just look at the fiasco of the demolition of the Madison Theatre in 2000 by Lawson Co. They too had big plans for building on the site of the former theatre... but somewhere along the way something went wrong.... and the site of the former Madison Auditorium is still a parking lot... although many years later the still standing lobby/office block portion of the building still standing eventually became Angelina's Bistro.

Maybe they should have gutted the theater and turned it into a parking garage so that it could be used by the national media as a symbol of how dysfunctional Detroit is? But seriously, what would you have done with a theater that was beyond repair?

[Fury13]

I'm not sure exactly which buildings are the Campus Village buildings, except for the Verona. And THAT one, at the very least, should be sacrosanct... it's definitely historic and one of the few viable 19th-century Romanesque-style apartment buildings left in the city.

[casscorridor]

Maybe they should have gutted the theater and turned it into a parking garage so that it could be used by the national media as a symbol of how dysfunctional Detroit is? But seriously, what would you have done with a theater that was beyond repair?

What is beyond repair is highly subjective.

The theatre could have been reused as a theater. lol. I like Angelinas and all, but a theater would have been better. They could have worked the layout so Angelinas could fit too. Oh well though, too late now. Much more important is the United Artists Theatre, which I really hope will be preserved and I think there is a very good chance that it will.

Back in Midtown, a new theater should be opening sometime, after the restoration of the Garden Block which includes one of the oldest neighborhood cinemas, and when it was built, the largest outside of Downtown. I don't know if it will be for music, stage, movies or what. But it will join a growing number of theaters in Midtown -- Burton Theatre, Detroit Film Theatre, Majestic Theatre, Hillberry Theatre, Bonistelle Theatre, Fine Arts Theatre [[vacant), Orchestra Hall, any others?

[Gistok]

Maybe they should have gutted the theater and turned it into a parking garage so that it could be used by the national media as a symbol of how dysfunctional Detroit is? But seriously, what would you have done with a theater that was beyond repair?

First of all the Madison Theatre auditorium was in much better shape than either the National or the United Artists.

But that wasn't the point I was trying to make at all Huggybear. The point was... a developer had these big plans to tear down a historic building and replace it with retail on the first floor and parking garage above it... which would have been fine. The auditorium came down... but then nothing was ever built to replace it.

This developer for the historic W. Ferry appartments sunk a million into the historic buildings [[he claims)... and now all of a sudden he had a revelation that this wasn't working... so he wants to tear the old buildings down and try something else.... sounds like this fellow was just as "savvy" as the Lawson Co. folks were... W. Ferry could also end up being just an empty parking lot...

[English]

I'll tell a story that I think is a good analogy to some of the problems we have with development in Midtown.

I was walking through Greektown to get to my favorite hole-in-the-wall, and I saw the same old blues busker I always saw, playing on the corner of St. Antoine and Monroe streets. But this time, I notice he wasn't alone; another busker was playing electric guitar catercorner. Well, being a joker, I rolled up to the bluesman and offered him a dollar, saying, "This is for you because I see your competition has gone electric."

But you know what happened? He refused the dollar. He said, "I can't accept your dollar because you're giving it for the wrong reason. You see, we're not competing. The more buskers down here, the more people come. The more people come, the more money we all make. So keep your money and please understand we're trying to make something bigger than us here."

Boy, was I humbled. I was just trying to make a joke and I got schooled. But the truth is, many of our local "developers" would be better off to understand this gentleman busker's point: It's not about creating your own personal monopoly and just wiping out and harassing the competition just because you're on one corner and there's somebody across the street doing something similar. It's about creating a critical mass. The more the merrier. Ultimately, that's what makes a city: Lots of different players creating something that has plenty of choices, which draws more people, which helps everyone make more money.

But instead of this forward-thinking mentality, why do we still have people who think they must own it all, eliminate competition and buy up every property? It means fewer people doing creative things! And, really, we should be growing up and doing just the opposite.

My 2 cents.

Awesome anecdote, Detroitnerd. I do think that things are changing. The political and business establishments will eventually realize that things can't proceed as usual.

[Detroitnerd]

Travel the City and look at what you have in those old abandoned banks. Most of them are either still empty or sell human hair.

My nonsense detector just started buzzing. What banks have you seen turned into wig shops. As a matter of fact, where have you seen lots of wig shops since, say, 1999? Do you even travel in the city anymore?

[kraig]

My nonsense detector just started buzzing. What banks have you seen turned into wig shops. As a matter of fact, where have you seen lots of wig shops since, say, 1999? Do you even travel in the city anymore?

Wig/Weave/Human Hair/Beauty Supply shops are all over the place. There's one on the same side of Woodward as the Compuware Building a couple of streets down that had been pretty much the only thing still open, during the daytime, between the space that Hudson's occupied and Madison for the past decade.

Take a drive down Gratiot or Grand River and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.

[Detroitnerd]

Wig/Weave/Human Hair/Beauty Supply shops are all over the place. There's one on the same side of Woodward as the Compuware Building a couple of streets down that had been pretty much the only thing still open, during the daytime, between the space that Hudson's occupied and Madison for the past decade.

Take a drive down Gratiot or Grand River and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.

Maybe in the old days we had more of them, but I don't think we have as many as we used to in the old days, back when we used to joke that Detroit was "Wig Capital of the World." But it doesn't seem to be like the old days anymore.

Just one of those things that makes me sit up and wonder if there's anything else outdated in the mix of ideas you bring to the forum. Maybe I'm wrong, though.