Discuss Detroit » Archives - July 2007 » Which is better: Vacant lots or "Eyesores?" « Previous Next »
Top of pageBottom of page

Catman_dude
Member
Username: Catman_dude

Post Number: 191
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 8:56 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Some people rather demo or raze an abandoned house or building because of drug squatters or just because a "Slumpyized" (referring to Old Slumpy) just looks hideous. Other people I heard from think an area with abandoned houses have a better chance of coming back to life through rehabilitation from private interests than a "clean slate" of vacant lots. Detroit has plenty of both. What ye thinketh, keeping the eyesores or turning them into vacant lots?
Top of pageBottom of page

Izzadore
Member
Username: Izzadore

Post Number: 49
Registered: 11-2006
Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 9:12 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Vacant Lots, if for no other reason than they are safer.
Top of pageBottom of page

Kgrimmwsu
Member
Username: Kgrimmwsu

Post Number: 98
Registered: 06-2004
Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 9:18 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Vacant lots unless the abandoned structure has historical significance.
Top of pageBottom of page

Tiberius
Member
Username: Tiberius

Post Number: 30
Registered: 06-2007
Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 10:18 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Vacant lots always should win over. Do we really want to have a historically significant eyesore. And as others have pointed out you can't escape the safety issue (fire)
Top of pageBottom of page

Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed

Post Number: 1190
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 10:23 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

An "eyesore" doesn't have to be an "eyesore" if people would be held accountable for properly securing it. So I'd rather see an "eyesore" until a feasible alternative is produced, and not a vacant lot.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw

Post Number: 3294
Registered: 02-2005
Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 10:40 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Eyesore.

Detroit needs to preserve and create density. That means saving any extant buildings that aren't about to fall to the ground, and building new buildings that uphold or improve upon to density of the preexisting housing.
Top of pageBottom of page

Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed

Post Number: 1192
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 10:46 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Btw, is the site of the old Motown building still a vacant lot?

(Message edited by iheartthed on July 20, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge

Post Number: 1221
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 10:49 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"An "eyesore" doesn't have to be an "eyesore" if people would be held accountable for properly securing it. So I'd rather see an "eyesore" until a feasible alternative is produced, and not a vacant lot"

So how many more decades do we wait for this feasible alternative before giving up on this idea? Seems like we've given that a shot already.
Top of pageBottom of page

Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed

Post Number: 1193
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 10:53 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"So how many more decades do we wait for this feasible alternative before giving up on this idea? Seems like we've given that a shot already."

By feasible alternative, I mean actual redevelopment plan... not necessarily rehab the building, but at least option to rehab it will still be there if the building is left standing.
Top of pageBottom of page

6nois
Member
Username: 6nois

Post Number: 385
Registered: 11-2006
Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 12:26 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Eyesores, vacant lots tear up the urban fabric that makes Detroit, Detroit. If buildings are properly secured arson and looting of architectural and mechanical materials are not a problem. Squatters can all help to protect buildings from intentional arson and looting. The most important argument for keeping eyesores is that if they are cleared new buildings will never be what was there, preservation is key. Detroit needs some community groups like Saginaw's Neighborhood Renewal Services which secures and seals empty structures and looks for people to take over the properties.
Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 1237
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 1:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Eyesore, until bricks/stone/whatever starts falling out of the building's exterior and hitting people. Then a vacant lot would be better.
Top of pageBottom of page

Chow
Member
Username: Chow

Post Number: 392
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 1:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I would call our vacant lots eyesores. A complete vacant area is more walkable and has more potential than an open field (at least in a city where we are not developing our vacant lots). Look at Vancouver's Downtown Eastside for an example of this.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 2872
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 2:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Vacant Lots, if for no other reason than they are safer.



How do you figure?
Top of pageBottom of page

Jimaz
Member
Username: Jimaz

Post Number: 2703
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 2:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

How do you figure?

Nowhere to hide? Nothing to steal?

I really think it has to be decided on a case by case basis.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw

Post Number: 3295
Registered: 02-2005
Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 3:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Iheartthed has it right. I'm sick and tired of stuff being torn down just to tear it down...with no plans. The empty lot becomes a bigger blight and embarrassment to the city, IMO. Hell, Grosse Pointe Park is in the process of demolishing a few older buildings on the north side of Jefferson near Alter, and to my knowledge they have no developers lined up to build replacements. That's unacceptable.
Top of pageBottom of page

Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge

Post Number: 1250
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 8:05 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Where is someone more likely to want to build their business or housing development? Next to an empty field, or next to "Old Slumpy"? Or how about between two "Old Slumpys". I'd go for building next to the field.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitrunaway
Member
Username: Detroitrunaway

Post Number: 47
Registered: 06-2007
Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 8:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Eyesore.

I live in Baltimore now and I'm sure you all may know that Baltimore hasn't quite made a major comeback either. As drive thru some neighborhoods, I see many vacant row/townhouses. However, there are many other vacant properties that are in the process of revitalization. John Hopkins Bio-tech project has a major role in this. Having some sort of shell to work with may be better than an empty slate. Unless, of course, you live by an artist's point-of-view.

I'm anxious to see continued progress of these once abandoned properties continue to come back to life.

Detroit should be no different.
Top of pageBottom of page

Barnesfoto
Member
Username: Barnesfoto

Post Number: 3794
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 8:34 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

see Lowell's picture at left?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<
That's the Western YMCA on Clark. It's an eyesore, owned by a greektown slumlord with a very spotty history of building rehab.

Some stuff he's fixed up (in a half-ass way, but fixed up nonetheless) other buildings he just sits on.
However, the building is irreplaceable.
Lots of Pewabic Tile, but also lots of little tiny rooms for all the single young men that flocked to Detroit in the twenties, like my great uncle, and my grandfather.
And it's in a historic district, which will slow any attempt at demolition.
Did anything historic happen there?
No.
Should it be torn down now, just because nobody has the time or money to rehab it?
No.
Should every single "eyesore" be left standing?
No.
But keep in mind that one man's eyesore is another man's dream project.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lukabottle
Member
Username: Lukabottle

Post Number: 86
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 9:34 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Maybe the question is how bad the eyesore is. There is a point when a house is too far gone to repair.Ferrel dogs and fires are a hazard. Give me a lot. There are less places to hide. The chance of children exploring and getting hurt is another concern. Being a female in the City, I'll take walking by an abandoned lot any day over an abandoned house.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jasoncw
Member
Username: Jasoncw

Post Number: 395
Registered: 07-2005
Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 9:41 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

David Stott (not technically abandoned, but close enough), David Broerick, David Whitney, Book Cadillac, Book Tower, Lafayette Building, MCS UA, most of Woodward... most of downtown actually (and most of the entire city), should all just be demolished?

Hudsons, Statler, Madison-Lennox, Tuller, Donovan & Sanders, all of NE downtown, most of NW downtown, are good to be gone?

Ideally, vacant buildings should be properly secured, maintained, and advertised.

They're not though, but I don't think they should be bulldozed unless they are about to collapse, if there is something better being built in its place, or if it is historically or architecturally worthless.

Whether or not renovations are practical is probably a fine line. The reason the buildings were abandoned in the first place is because the owners didn't see a practical way to make money off of them. Obviously, as the years have gone by business people have found ways of making money. Maybe in another 10 or 20 years, something could work. But I also understand that some things just plain aren't possible, and the best option can be to demolish, but I think it needs to be thoroughly thought out.

Besides, people don't visit downtowns to see parking lots.
Top of pageBottom of page

Tiberius
Member
Username: Tiberius

Post Number: 32
Registered: 06-2007
Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 10:10 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Let's take the train station as an example. It's hard to come to terms with this, but you know it's never going to be used again, unless of course someone else is making a movie that needs a huge decaying building. Meanwhile it serves as a reminder of what it once was. Personally I'd rather see it go green.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 2876
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 10:26 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The problem not being addressed in this thread is Detroit's method of property taxation. If Detroit taxed land, instead of the buildings (and their current usage), you'd see a lot more owners willing to either redevelop or sell. Since they pay virtually nothing in taxes on these properties, there is no financial incentive to do anything with MCS and other like properties. When a proposal is presented, as with the Book Cadillac, then, it requires massive subsidies to offset the increase in taxation just to make the project workable.

I believe in the District of Columbia, vacant properties ar taxed at 80 mills, whereas a typically commercial property is taxed at 10-12 mills. I can't remember the figures, exactly, but the vacant rate is a multiple of the occupied building rate. The exact millages are posted on dc.gov.

Manny Maroun should be getting the ever-loving sh*t taxed out of him on MCS. Instead, he gets a green light to let it rot. And the masses are left feeling so hopeless that they actually clamor for destruction of such a magnificent edifice.
Top of pageBottom of page

Ffdfd
Member
Username: Ffdfd

Post Number: 112
Registered: 09-2006
Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 10:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

quote:

Vacant Lots, if for no other reason than they are safer.



How do you figure?


Is this a serious question danindc? You don't think vacant lots are safer than abandoned buildings? Is this because you have an irrational fear of pheasants?
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 2877
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 10:34 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

^^^Yes, it's a very serious question that no one has attempted to answer. Empty buildings don't exactly go around killing people, ya know.

I know that abandoned buildings have a habit of becoming havens for illicit drugs and prostitution. But do you mean to say that no crime could possibly take place in an empty lot? Bear in mind that MUCH suburban crime tends to occur in shopping mall parking lots.

Seriously. I don't really know one way or another. I'm just saying that people should think about the question before shooting from the hip.
Top of pageBottom of page

Digitaldom
Member
Username: Digitaldom

Post Number: 652
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 10:38 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Vacant too many homes.. NO chance of rehab or it would have been done.. Protect kids.. DEMO.. This is a public safety issue
Top of pageBottom of page

Jimaz
Member
Username: Jimaz

Post Number: 2710
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 10:50 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Of course crime could "possibly" take place in an empty lot. It's less likely than near an abandoned bunker though.

It has to be judged on a case by case basis.
Top of pageBottom of page

Terryh
Member
Username: Terryh

Post Number: 408
Registered: 11-2006
Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 11:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Vacant lots are obviously more attractive to developers, unless, of course, the structure has historical significance and can be rebuilt.
Top of pageBottom of page

Dougw
Member
Username: Dougw

Post Number: 1809
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Saturday, July 21, 2007 - 12:32 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

The problem not being addressed in this thread is Detroit's method of property taxation. If Detroit taxed land, instead of the buildings (and their current usage), you'd see a lot more owners willing to either redevelop or sell. Since they pay virtually nothing in taxes on these properties, there is no financial incentive to do anything with MCS and other like properties. When a proposal is presented, as with the Book Cadillac, then, it requires massive subsidies to offset the increase in taxation just to make the project workable.


You are absolutely right. The sad thing is, it's even worse than you think. Not only is the above true, but property tax increases for vacant buildings and land are capped so that speculators who are hanging on to empty buildings actually pay a much lower tax than a new owner would pay if the property were sold. (The tax increase cap makes some sense for homesteads, but the legislation was bungled to include all types of property, even vacant land and buildings.)

So, there's little incentive to sell, and the amount of abandoned property in the city and region just continues to increase. It's a fucking disaster and no one seems to give a damn.
Top of pageBottom of page

Wolverine
Member
Username: Wolverine

Post Number: 352
Registered: 04-2004
Posted on Saturday, July 21, 2007 - 5:35 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I think vacant lots are ugly, so I'd rather have eyesores. Besides, cities are supposed to be composed of buildings, not empty lots.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 1317
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Saturday, July 21, 2007 - 8:11 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

If we can get better police protection and enforcement of blight laws: vacant homes

If we can't: Rip them down. No one should have to live next to a crackhouse, methlab, or eyesore.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitprincess
Member
Username: Detroitprincess

Post Number: 4
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Saturday, July 21, 2007 - 5:38 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Historical sites, need to be rehabbed. Decay, I say tear it down. It does nothing but bring the grit in. bums, cracky's & crazies living in them. Disgusting! if we do not have them there, then the grit will not be there. That would be paradise!
Top of pageBottom of page

Andylinn
Member
Username: Andylinn

Post Number: 449
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Saturday, July 21, 2007 - 6:17 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

when thinking about this question, ONE neighborhood came to mind first...

Brush Park

drive through there, and the argument for PRESERVING buildings is made for you... no that all of the homes have been vouched for... either renovated or in the process... the vacant land makes me weep...
Top of pageBottom of page

Exmotowner
Member
Username: Exmotowner

Post Number: 364
Registered: 06-2005
Posted on Saturday, July 21, 2007 - 6:31 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Im a preservationist. Save em if you can. Detroit has too much beautiful architecture to lose. I do think the owners need to be held accountable for, and If I was living back there, I'd be at every council meeting demanding to know why they are not!
Top of pageBottom of page

Paulmcall
Member
Username: Paulmcall

Post Number: 265
Registered: 05-2004
Posted on Sunday, July 22, 2007 - 8:56 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

If it helps one less kid getting killed or raped, I say tear the places down.
The city has a history of slum lords and other people who abandon houses. Those places are left to rot. Arsonists, druggies and perverts use them as cover for their crimes.
I don't see a backlog of people lining up to rehab buildings in Detroit. Even if they were, city government is too incompetent and filled with red tape to help fix the places up before they go completely to hell.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 2887
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Sunday, July 22, 2007 - 9:04 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

If it helps one less kid getting killed or raped, I say tear the places down.
The city has a history of slum lords and other people who abandon houses. Those places are left to rot. Arsonists, druggies and perverts use them as cover for their crimes.



Considering it isn't the actual buildings committing these crimes, it sounds like a policing problem to me.
Top of pageBottom of page

Patrick
Member
Username: Patrick

Post Number: 4720
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Sunday, July 22, 2007 - 9:12 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hmmm, how about asbestos in these vacant buildings? Is this a problem?
Top of pageBottom of page

Paulmcall
Member
Username: Paulmcall

Post Number: 287
Registered: 05-2004
Posted on Thursday, July 26, 2007 - 9:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

What is your response time for the police these days?
Abandoned buildings are famous for housing drug addicts and a prime spot for rapists and arsonists. Cops have a hard enough time catching guys in plain sight. This is just another place for criminals to hang out.

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.