I'm saying that your avid support of demolition is off-the-cuff. We don't have any facts on this building. No one does. There is no condition assessment, no scope of repair, no cost estimates, nothing. The decision to demolish is pure guesswork, just as it has been with every single demolition in downtown Detroit in the past 20 years.
You're damn right, demolition should be a last resort. Considering that buildings can outlive humans by hundreds of years, I fail to see the impetus to *do something--anything--RIGHT FREAKING NOW*. There's no imperative at work here. Relax.Demolition is then the last resort and unfortunately that's what it comes down to.
No. For the simple reason that nobody wants to renovate a historic building if it sits in a sea of empty lots. Tenants for those properties want to be in a context, not an isolated box. Developers know this. Real estate brokers know this. The only people who don't are 1) George Jackson and 2) the pitchfork-wielding pro-demolition crowd.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?
I'm sure glad that you're able to sleep, boiling down complex construction projects to a simple linear equation from the first lecture of Econ 101. But that's just not reality. Developers are looking for that all-important context--an urban, high-density, walkable mixed-use environment. They're not looking for isolated stand-alone towers that they could easily find in Southfield. Once you start demolishing, you chip away at that context in small increments until you have a moonscape that nobody wants.
Your crude application of elastic supply-and-demand just isn't applicable to an inelastic supply of buildings.
Bookmarks