Cockrel puts hold on Lafayette demo

[Lonyo exit]

I cant believe it! Lets hope it lasts.

[President Sekou]

Hoooray! A large abandoned architectually insignificant structure with falling debris located directly across the street from Detroit's nicest hotel will still stand. Yay! Now it can stand there for decades!!!! just like it is now. Preservation rocks.

[buildingsofdetroit]

Of course, you realize, Prez, that the Book-Caddy was slated for demolition, too. I don't see you cheering preservation on that one.

Something tells me Geo. Jackson is REALLY pissed about this.

Viva la revolucion!

[cman710]

Let's all keep in mind that Cockrel has not stated he is committed to preserving the building. He has only committed to discuss the issue with preservation groups and re-evaluate.

[BillyBBrew]

Baby steps...We all learned to walk with baby steps....Thank you Mayor Cockrel.

"We will probably be judged, not by the monuments we've built, but by those which we've destroyed"
Ada Louise Huxtable

[wolverine]

This is good news, even if it's just a delay.

[Huggybear]

Mayor Cockrel has put things on hold to talk to preservation groups about options. The translation is that he is going to see if there is a funded, economically viable alternative to demolition. The key word is "viable." The state money for the LB demolition is restricted, it can't be used for anything other than demolition, and with the City's financial situation, any preservation or re-use is going to be privately funded and financed.

All of this presents some big opportunities. The building could be reused - or at least put into a state that wouldn't make the owner of a nearby $186 million project nervous. And Detroit's preservation organizations [[old or new) could finally succeed at preserving something of value. Both of those things would be great.

The threat is blowing it, with consequences both for the LB and future projects. If this all turns out to be sound and fury, you can bet that the LB will be down by Memorial Day. And by "sound and fury," I mean things like:

• The usual hortatory "the City should..." or "someone should...," or any other sentence that contains the words "mixed use;"
• Blank and unstudied assertions about how little "mothballing" costs;
• Grand plans that have no financing or even a fundraising plan; and
• Taking the approach that if the City [[or DDA, DEGC, Ferchill, etc.) disagrees with something you say, it/he/they is/are acting stupidly.

Long-term, protest never saved anything in this town. Not the Monroe Block, not Hudsons, not the YMCA, not anything. And neither did unfunded proposals - which are a dime a dozen around here. Grownups who actually do restorations of buildings understand that doing it is expensive, and the game is driven by economic reality, or at least proformas that make things look possible. And those that actually do business in this town understand that alienating city government and related organizations gets you nowhere - since virtually nothing gets developed without their assistance. Some people trying to save the LB have acted, to put it frankly, like 14-year-olds. Study projects that have worked. They haven't proceeded from strident confrontation.

The spillover to other projects is of more concern. If any significant number of people advocating for the LB do things that make them look like crackpots this time, imagine how that powers that be will react when it's time to stop the wrecking ball from traveling up Washington Boulevard. If the price of delaying the LB's demise temporarily is losing support for restoring bigger landmarks, then we've won a battle over an unimpressive office building and lost the war over cultural treasures. Similarly, with only so much private money to fund conservancies, every Tiger Stadium takes money from every LB, which in turn takes money from the Book Building, Broderick, Whitney, or whatever the next threat is.

The preservation solution is to get someone interested in the building to get the financing and do the project. "Mothballing" is not practical because it is not a trivial expense; it's going to require a new roof [[which is going to be a cool mil all by itself), repair of the water damage to the upper floors of the building [[including in the exterior masonry), removal of graffiti from hundreds of windows, bay window replacement on the first two floors, and facade restoration and replacement where the hideous granite tiles are [[wait till you see how much damage is done by putting one facade over another). Nor is it closed-ended. When those one-time costs are in the past, there is still the cost over an indefinite term of insurance, security, cleaning, periodic inspections and maintenance. In other words, to keep the building intact, preserve its state, and make it presentable is going to cost as much as it does on a functioning building. That's going to require an endowment in the millions. That type of cost is better borne by a landlord with a rent stream than it is by a city with no money or a conservancy that has to scrape nickels and dimes.

Nothing about this is going to be easy. Ferchill apparently doesn't want to restore it; Quicken didn't want it; and Peebles couldn't finance it. That's not to say it can't be done, but it's going to require some serious effort beyond sending emails.

God speed, Lafayette Building. Hope you make it back.