Catman_dude Member Username: Catman_dude
Post Number: 191 Registered: 03-2006
| Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 8:56 am: | |
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? |
Izzadore Member Username: Izzadore
Post Number: 49 Registered: 11-2006
| Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 9:12 am: | |
Vacant Lots, if for no other reason than they are safer. |
Kgrimmwsu Member Username: Kgrimmwsu
Post Number: 98 Registered: 06-2004
| Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 9:18 am: | |
Vacant lots unless the abandoned structure has historical significance. |
Tiberius Member Username: Tiberius
Post Number: 30 Registered: 06-2007
| Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 10:18 am: | |
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) |
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 1190 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 10:23 am: | |
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. |
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw
Post Number: 3294 Registered: 02-2005
| Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 10:40 am: | |
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. |
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 1192 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 10:46 am: | |
Btw, is the site of the old Motown building still a vacant lot? (Message edited by iheartthed on July 20, 2007) |
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge
Post Number: 1221 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 10:49 am: | |
"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. |
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 1193 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 10:53 am: | |
"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. |
6nois Member Username: 6nois
Post Number: 385 Registered: 11-2006
| Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 12:26 pm: | |
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. |
Scs100 Member Username: Scs100
Post Number: 1237 Registered: 12-2006
| Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 1:28 pm: | |
Eyesore, until bricks/stone/whatever starts falling out of the building's exterior and hitting people. Then a vacant lot would be better. |
Chow Member Username: Chow
Post Number: 392 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 1:52 pm: | |
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. |
Danindc Member Username: Danindc
Post Number: 2872 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 2:02 pm: | |
quote:Vacant Lots, if for no other reason than they are safer. How do you figure? |
Jimaz Member Username: Jimaz
Post Number: 2703 Registered: 12-2005
| Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 2:08 pm: | |
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. |
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw
Post Number: 3295 Registered: 02-2005
| Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 3:28 pm: | |
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. |
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge
Post Number: 1250 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 8:05 pm: | |
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. |
Detroitrunaway Member Username: Detroitrunaway
Post Number: 47 Registered: 06-2007
| Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 8:13 pm: | |
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. |
Barnesfoto Member Username: Barnesfoto
Post Number: 3794 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 8:34 pm: | |
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. |
Lukabottle Member Username: Lukabottle
Post Number: 86 Registered: 12-2004
| Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 9:34 pm: | |
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. |
Jasoncw Member Username: Jasoncw
Post Number: 395 Registered: 07-2005
| Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 9:41 pm: | |
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. |
Tiberius Member Username: Tiberius
Post Number: 32 Registered: 06-2007
| Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 10:10 pm: | |
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. |
Danindc Member Username: Danindc
Post Number: 2876 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 10:26 pm: | |
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. |
Ffdfd Member Username: Ffdfd
Post Number: 112 Registered: 09-2006
| Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 10:29 pm: | |
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? |
Danindc Member Username: Danindc
Post Number: 2877 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 10:34 pm: | |
^^^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. |
Digitaldom Member Username: Digitaldom
Post Number: 652 Registered: 08-2004
| Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 10:38 pm: | |
Vacant too many homes.. NO chance of rehab or it would have been done.. Protect kids.. DEMO.. This is a public safety issue |
Jimaz Member Username: Jimaz
Post Number: 2710 Registered: 12-2005
| Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 10:50 pm: | |
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. |
Terryh Member Username: Terryh
Post Number: 408 Registered: 11-2006
| Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 11:09 pm: | |
Vacant lots are obviously more attractive to developers, unless, of course, the structure has historical significance and can be rebuilt. |
Dougw Member Username: Dougw
Post Number: 1809 Registered: 11-2003
| Posted on Saturday, July 21, 2007 - 12:32 am: | |
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. |
Wolverine Member Username: Wolverine
Post Number: 352 Registered: 04-2004
| Posted on Saturday, July 21, 2007 - 5:35 am: | |
I think vacant lots are ugly, so I'd rather have eyesores. Besides, cities are supposed to be composed of buildings, not empty lots. |
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner
Post Number: 1317 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Saturday, July 21, 2007 - 8:11 am: | |
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. |
Detroitprincess Member Username: Detroitprincess
Post Number: 4 Registered: 07-2007
| Posted on Saturday, July 21, 2007 - 5:38 pm: | |
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! |
Andylinn Member Username: Andylinn
Post Number: 449 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Saturday, July 21, 2007 - 6:17 pm: | |
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... |
Exmotowner Member Username: Exmotowner
Post Number: 364 Registered: 06-2005
| Posted on Saturday, July 21, 2007 - 6:31 pm: | |
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! |
Paulmcall Member Username: Paulmcall
Post Number: 265 Registered: 05-2004
| Posted on Sunday, July 22, 2007 - 8:56 pm: | |
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. |
Danindc Member Username: Danindc
Post Number: 2887 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Sunday, July 22, 2007 - 9:04 pm: | |
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. |
Patrick Member Username: Patrick
Post Number: 4720 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Sunday, July 22, 2007 - 9:12 pm: | |
Hmmm, how about asbestos in these vacant buildings? Is this a problem? |
Paulmcall Member Username: Paulmcall
Post Number: 287 Registered: 05-2004
| Posted on Thursday, July 26, 2007 - 9:53 pm: | |
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. |