Quote Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto View Post
Who's "trying to preserve"? Every time a building is slated for demolition, people like you come out of the woodwork to say, "Oh well, we tried". How?

You're not for preservation if you advocate off-the-cuff for demolition. The two are mutually exclusive. Show me an empty lot that hasn't sat vacant for decades, and I might start to take you seriously. Detroit doesn't have the money to clear-cut and pray. It's that simple.
How are the demolitions off-the-cuff? If there is someone actively trying to acquire a building and it is demolished, then that is off-the-cuff. When the city tries to force the current owners into fixing up the building and they resist, that is an attempt being made. The city offers tax credits for restoration developments, and yet that is still not enough to quickly spur developers and owners into action. Demolition is then the last resort and unfortunately that's what it comes down to.

You say demolition hasn't worked but then aren't the remaining buildings more likely to be reused if there's now less of them needing costly renovations?