Matty Moroun proposes to sell Michigan Central Depot

[Novine]

"The reason he kept it was not for the building, but for the rail access and tunnel. The building has no value to Manny, never did."

Bingo.

[Fnemecek]

Note that the GSA guy said he was not familiar with this announcement. Could just be more hot air from Moron [[sic).

Also, please note that he is proposing to lease all of the train station part of the building when he doesn't own all of it. His defense when the law suit was first raised was that vandals were entering the building through the portions that the City of Detroit owned; therefore he had no responsibility for the building's current condition.

[casscorridor]

i'm tired of people proposing to tear down the tower but save the station.

it really is pointless, and not practical. the tower could stand for hundreds of years. a better plan would to be just replace windows and do repairs and let it sit empty.

its going to have to be all or nothing.

[MIRepublic]

Was anymore research ever done into what exactly Manny claims the city owns in terms of parcels on the property?

BTW, which corporation owns the actual railways and tunnel behind the station, again?

[Gistok]

Actually Gnome, besides pie-in-the-sky ideas for the MCS... on this one I'm clueless!

But I can say this... that because the property is related to railroads... there are some old arcane federal laws relating to railroad lands that give special powers to railroad landowners.

IIRC, Matty used some of those old railroad laws for some downriver property he owned... I believe it was to be seized for some public use, but the laws still on the books prevented that.

So I don't believe that the city can simply demolish the station, and then send him the bill. It's not that simple with railroad land... especially if the owner is a billionaire [[can afford lots of lawyers).

[wolverine]

i'm tired of people proposing to tear down the tower but save the station.

it really is pointless, and not practical. the tower could stand for hundreds of years. a better plan would to be just replace windows and do repairs and let it sit empty.

its going to have to be all or nothing.

Same here. What boggles me more is the condition of the lower structures. You'd think they'd consider saving the most stable portions of the buildings [[the tower). The lowrise portions are of steel and brick construction while the tower is of reinforced concrete and terra cotta block infill construction. It seems the latter is winning the battle against the elements.

[downtownguy]

I, too, would like to see the tower saved. It's my recollection that most of the tower was never occupied due to the depression anyway.

[Rocko]

If federal money is used, any work done to the structure must be preceded by a thorough Section 106 Review, as required by the national Historic Preservation Act of 1966, and administered through the State Historic Preservation Office. Demolition of the tower is unlikely to pass a Section 106 Review, simply because the tower is so integral to the structure and such an important part of the sense of place and the feel of the building and surrounding area.

The Free Press' Monday Memo today indicated the similar ties and the guidance Detroit can attain from looking at and following along with the revitalization of Buffalo's Central Terminal, which is very similar in many ways to our own MC and its current situation. Here's the link: http://www.freep.com/article/20090504/BLOG2508/90504017

Finally, some classmates and I in the Historic Preservation graduate program at EMU are putting together a blog with links and other information about saving MCS. We're working on it, so it's not in its final form yet, but check it out if you have the time, thanks! http://savemcs.blogspot.com/

[ghettopalmetto]

Same here. What boggles me more is the condition of the lower structures. You'd think they'd consider saving the most stable portions of the buildings [[the tower). The lowrise portions are of steel and brick construction while the tower is of reinforced concrete and terra cotta block infill construction. It seems the latter is winning the battle against the elements.

I have 20 bucks that says the concrete in the tower has structural steel beams and columns encased in it.

[wolverine]

Well, actually that's correct. I said reinforced concrete for a lack of better words. The lower sections are entirely exposed steel however.

[leland_palmer]

Stamper was on Detroit Today this afternoon. The interview is about halfway in.

http://wdetfm.org/audio/detroittoday...N_5-4_full.MP3

[ghettopalmetto]

Well, actually that's correct. I said reinforced concrete for a lack of better words. The lower sections are entirely exposed steel however.

Technically, that's structural steel construction. The concrete material in such construction was used as fireproofing for the structural steel, and isn't typically considered load-bearing [[although it could be considered to act composite with the steel, if one uses a sharp pencil). The integrity of the tower depends on what the steel looks like inside the concrete.

[MIRepublic]

Wait, steel-reinforced concrete is considered a steel construction? I think what you're talking about [[fire-proof steel) is different than what Wolverine was talking about [[load-bearing concrete with steel reinforcement).

[ghettopalmetto]

Wait, steel-reinforced concrete is considered a steel construction? I think what you're talking about [[fire-proof steel) is different than what Wolverine was talking about [[load-bearing concrete with steel reinforcement).

Nope. It's not steel-reinforced concrete. It's structural steel [[wide-flange shapes) encased in concrete. It's a completely different animal.

Concrete of that vintage doesn't have high-enough compressive strength to be used for load-bearing columns in structures of that height. Note that structures evolved from load-bearing masonry walls to structural steel framing beginning in the 1880s.

Reinforced concrete construction was in its infancy, and highly unstandardized, in 1913. Typical concrete strengths at that time ranged from 2000 psi to 3000 psi. If the MCS tower were to be constructed of reinforced concrete today, you would likely need at least 5000 psi concrete in the columns.

[MIRepublic]

I know they are different things. That was what my post was about. I was not aware that the MCS's structure wasn't reinforced concrete, rather concrete-encased steel beems. I was under the impression that the tower floors were reinforced concerete constructions. I guess I was wrong.

[wolverine]

I think it gets confusing because the 2nd floor [[not the mezzanine) has massive girders that transfer the weight of columns above to outer columns. Their thick concrete appearance made me wonder what type of steel member was beneath. But yes, I was aware they were steel encased in concrete, but I wasn't sure what the proper term of this type of construction was.

[d.mcc]

Maybe he just owns it because he thinks it looks cool. If you have that much money, you can afford to do things like that.

Like an art collector, only with buildings

[MIRepublic]

I think it gets confusing because the 2nd floor [[not the mezzanine) has massive girders that transfer the weight of columns above to outer columns. Their thick concrete appearance made me wonder what type of steel member was beneath. But yes, I was aware they were steel encased in concrete, but I wasn't sure what the proper term of this type of construction was.

Wait, so, are you guys talking about the tower or station, or are both exactly the same in construction?

[wolverine]

The lower "station" portions are constructed of exposed steel, whereas the tower from the ground up is steel encased in concrete. FYI, those large domes are not completely self supported, but held in place by large steel trusses above.

[mjs]

I don't understand why people are mad at Moroun for selling it. I thought the idea was to get him to choose between renovating it, securing it from the elements, or selling it. Its being done and the fact that he and thousands of others haven't chosen is a government failure.

From the very beginning, government was responsible for making the only choices being to renovate it, secure it, or sell it. That began to fail when the city tried to weaken secure it and remove sell it. They made it harder to sell buildings, thus move out of the city, by increasing code requirements to sell a building while decreasing enforcement of the buildings not for sale. As renovation costs increased and property values decreased, more and more people said screw it and left the dwellings behind. The city should have been citing more unoccupied buildings and allowing more buildings to be sold as is thus providing more opportunities for renovators.

Fortunately, government, especially the County is changing this by doing more to make owners choose and in cases where the owners can't be found, clearing titles so the properties can be redistributed.

[leland_palmer]

I don't understand why people are mad at Moroun for selling it.

He's not selling it. He want's to lease it.

[mjs]

Ahhh. Now I see. The city has a blight law to fix that should they ever feel like enforcing it. The case overruling Poletown went out of its way in dicta to comment that their ruling still allows for blight law enforcement.