Are these Detroit buildings worth saving?

[Michigan]

No... I finally realized that I would make better use of my time arguing with Danny than to try debating you....

FLW was a genius... but with a big ego... that was never in question... And just like many more modern architects... [[such as Frank Gehry, and the Dane who designed the Sydney Opera House)... architects who design unusual or "innovative" architecture.... that often means "maintenance nightmare".

But that doesn't mean that we should completely dismiss them just based on some of their quirkiness or flawed brilliance.

You really hate it when someone exposes you.

[douglasm]

I have nothing against "historic fabric", but I'm talking about a 20 year timeline here. IF it has been abandoned or vacent for 10 years and IF there is no plan that would bring the building back to economic stability over the next 10 years, maybe tearing it down should be considered. I'd consider historic preservation [[if done in a sound financial way) to be an economic plan. What I don't like seeing is things like the Lafayette Building rotting from the inside out. It is sad to think about, but some buildings are probably in such shape that their marketability is pretty much shot no matter whose fault it was.

[ghettopalmetto]

I have nothing against "historic fabric", but I'm talking about a 20 year timeline here. IF it has been abandoned or vacent for 10 years and IF there is no plan that would bring the building back to economic stability over the next 10 years, maybe tearing it down should be considered.

How did you develop your arbitrary time frame?

I get to feeling that some people see vacant buildings as "unnatural", and wouldn't be too upset to demolish real estate as soon as it becomes vacant. You do have to recall that at this moment in time, we are in the worst economic recession in 70 years. When the national economy rebounds, Detroit will be in a poor position to follow suit because of the financial obstacles presented by: 1) the need to renovate spaces that have been allowed to fall to shit through poor building code enforcement and 2) the virtual requirement to build a brand-new building from scratch vis-a-vis remodeling space in an existing structure [[see #1 above).

I'd consider historic preservation [[if done in a sound financial way) to be an economic plan. What I don't like seeing is things like the Lafayette Building rotting from the inside out. It is sad to think about, but some buildings are probably in such shape that their marketability is pretty much shot no matter whose fault it was.

Maybe the City of Detroit should be spending its money maintaining its properties, and trying to sell them and lease them [[*ahem* like the Kales Building) instead of spending millions to demolish them left-and-right. It's a bit hard to have any kind of progress toward filling those spaces when your financing mechanisms are so heavily biased toward demolition.

Anyone who has followed the city's economic development plan knows that as pertains to vacant structures, the script goes like this:

1) Pick vacant building to put "on trial"
2) Select one pet developer to walk through building
3) Have unqualified person declare building "structurally unsound"
4) Release no information to the public
5) Shut out community groups
6) Throw a 7-figure sum at Adamo Demolition
7) Watch weeds grow on resulting lot

How many times are you going to let the City tell you that "If we just demolish this one building, it will spark a renaissance!"???

[Hermod]

This is simply wrong. "What you got now" is the deliberate result of a secretive, private group of people who shut out all parties other than their pet pre-selected developers, and spend millions upon millions of public dollars to demolish the city's historic fabric with absolutely zero long-term vision or plans for filling the residual space, and even less accountability to the public.

Ooooh, ooooh, "secretive private group"!!! Who could it be? Is it the Bilderburgers? Is it the Illuminatti? Maybe it is the Temple of the Dawn! Tell us more about the conspiracy to destroy Detroit to ready it as a spaceship pad for the alien invasions.


Old rule of thumb: Never ascribe to malevolence that which can adequately be explained by incompetence.

[douglasm]

First off, it's a conceptual idea. The time frame was chosen because 20 years seems like an awful long time for a building to sit abandoned.

Now, from a practical standpoint, I get the feeling sometimes that maybe demolition is something that should be seriously considered. I know that it's something that can not be reversed once it's done, but to clear out some buildings that have absolutely no hope of redevelopment might increase the chances of more worthy buildings being saved. The argument could be made that there are so many abandoned buildings in the inner city core that it takes the sparkle out of the buildings that have a chance of being saved.

Sure, I'd like to save them all, but preservation for perservations sake alone, although a lofty goal, is not a practical solution.

[ghettopalmetto]

Now, from a practical standpoint, I get the feeling sometimes that maybe demolition is something that should be seriously considered. I know that it's something that can not be reversed once it's done, but to clear out some buildings that have absolutely no hope of redevelopment might increase the chances of more worthy buildings being saved. The argument could be made that there are so many abandoned buildings in the inner city core that it takes the sparkle out of the buildings that have a chance of being saved.

It seems like you're trying to apply some sort of "supply-and-demand" principle to this scenario. Note that this has been the de facto policy of the City of Detroit since at least 1998, when the Hudson's demolition was promised to "make way for new development".

To date, ZERO buildings have been rehabilitated as a direct result of the demolition policy. The empirical evidence speaks for itself.

[douglasm]

Similar idea. More like the thinning of a forest.

Here's the problem I have with saving everything. What are you going to do with them? If there is no development plan for unused buildings, and no effort made to secure them, what do you do, let them rot? More Lafayette Buildings is just what Detroit needs. If someone has a better idea I'd like to hear it.

[ghettopalmetto]

So the alternative is let them rot?

No, the alternative is what I described above. You put money into maintenance so that the buildings remain structurally viable. You don't ignore the buildings and let trees grow out of them, and then whine when your pet pre-selected developer doesn't want to spend the money to address the results of your years of neglect.

The City doesn't have millions of dollars to moonscape downtown. It needs to spend its money in ways that seed potential for investment. I don't know how any sane person can argue in favor of the status quo when IT DOES NOT WORK. Detroit needs to spend its money to create value, not destroy it.