 
Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok
Post Number: 4982
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 30, 2007 - 12:12 pm: |    |
Thejesus, that source (NO DEMO/NO MOVE) of the Moose was mentioned on that last thread we had a month ago on a new Arena site. Blair McGowan's son DAN posted that that building "isn't going anywhere". Later VERIFIABLE posted that the building was now owned by an Ilitch LLC, and one of them stipulated (I think it was DAN) that the NO DEMO/NO MOVE clause was in the sales contract. |
Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok
Post Number: 4983
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 30, 2007 - 12:24 pm: | |
There are a few other good reasons why a new Arena will likely not go near any of the casinos...
1) how do you separate PAID arena parking from FREE casino parking.
2) a spike in all 3 Casino attendance after sporting events downtown happens often... but how would a casino handle a deluge in attendance right after a game gets out in an arena right next door? |
Supersport
Member
Username: Supersport
Post Number: 11647
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 30, 2007 - 12:29 pm: | |
quote:Hello, I work at MCC. Rumor has it Ilitch bought the gas station and the area across the street from the casino to build the new Joe. It is said he will put in a skywalk to the casino. I would think this would have to pass gaming. He can't even shuttle to Wings or Tiger games. Only Lion games, per Mi Gaming law.
Funny, because I've seen the Motor City Casino shuttle at most ever Tigers game, and have pondered hopping a ride on it many times to a game while walking down. I don't believe there is any way that the gaming board could prevent you from dropping people off on a public street near the Wings or Tigers games. |
Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok
Post Number: 4985
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 30, 2007 - 12:37 pm: | |
From what I've heard from another MCC casino person is that Ilitch is buying a lot of land in the Midtown area south and west of the Masonic Temple, not just near the casino. |
Billk
Member
Username: Billk
Post Number: 51
Registered: 09-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 30, 2007 - 1:47 pm: | |
1) You cant believe Blair McGown. He is the one that ttold Louis Agulair from the Detroit News that he owned the Moose Lodge and was not selling. The next day the News printed a correction saying the Moose had been sold to an Ilich associate.
2) I'm beginning to think they may want to build an arena closer to the MCC. that way they can keep their parking lots intact. |
Wilus1mj
Member
Username: Wilus1mj
Post Number: 207
Registered: 05-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 30, 2007 - 2:12 pm: | |
The Comerica Park ushers hand out promotional pieces from the MCC when you leave the park...I don't think they're any rules from promoting the casino through shuttles or not. |
Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok
Post Number: 4987
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 30, 2007 - 3:50 pm: | |
Billk, I think you're being a little to judgemental with Blair McGowan right now.
For all we know Mike Ilitch paid him a bundle for that building, and one of the stipulations may have been a non-disclosure agreement until all the parcels are in place for an Arena announcement. So until that time comes, Mr. McGowan may not have been able to tell it like it is.
Last week when Michigan Building owner Anthony Pieroni gave me a tour of the remains of the Michigan Theatre, I asked him point blank if he has been approached about selling his AAA Building (the only part of the Statler block that was NOT owned by the city's Detroit Economic Growth Corporation). He point blank answered me that no one from the city has ever contacted him about that building.
So now if in the next few weeks an announcement is made that the entire Statler block is to become the new Quicken HQ, would I think that Mr. Pieroni is a liar? Hell no!
Some business decisions are made with non-disclosure agreements (for the good of the project), and we just have to accept these as a fact of life, not as a true test of someone's integrity. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 2915
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 30, 2007 - 4:01 pm: | |
More pointless demolition. Hooray.
And Urbanize (pardon me while I laugh at your handle), Atlanta is a piece of shit. |
Llyn
Member
Username: Llyn
Post Number: 1854
Registered: 06-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 30, 2007 - 4:24 pm: | |
quote:And Urbanize (pardon me while I laugh at your handle), Atlanta is a piece of shit.
That is just so very very special. |
Urbanize
Member
Username: Urbanize
Post Number: 1952
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Monday, July 30, 2007 - 6:24 pm: | |
"And Urbanize (pardon me while I laugh at your handle), Atlanta is a piece of shit."
Tell all the Corporations in their structured downtown and that locate to their structured downtown with decent talent that work there., the structured College Campuses, The fans of Home Depot and CNN, and African Americans that don't like Detroit. Oh and the Olympics Committee who must be hardcore Coke Fans or something.
(Message edited by Urbanize on July 30, 2007) |
Urbanize
Member
Username: Urbanize
Post Number: 1953
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Monday, July 30, 2007 - 6:28 pm: | |
I don't care what anyone else on this site thinks or whoever, I'm just stating the obvious.
I think Chicago is a piece of shit as well. |
Urbanize
Member
Username: Urbanize
Post Number: 1955
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Monday, July 30, 2007 - 6:39 pm: | |
Not to mention they have one of the best economies in the Country, A lower crime rate, Mass Transit, and GEntrification. Also, it's the most forrested city in the Country and they took our spot as the 9th largest city in the country.
I don't understand how that can be labeled as a piece of shit. I guess it could by cities like Detroit though, |
Tony_pieroni
Member
Username: Tony_pieroni
Post Number: 25
Registered: 02-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - 11:18 am: | |
I'd like to elaborate on my comments to Gistok mentioned above. It's the stone cold truth that I have not been contacted by the City (DEGC or any other branch) about the AAA building. I have posted on detroitYes.com previously that George Jackson, the head of the DEGC, stated under oath in a deposition a year or so ago that the City has never contemplated acquiring the AAA building and that it has always intended to develop around it when the time ever comes to develop the Statler Hilton site. Would he lie under oath?
Furthermore, I have never been contacted about the building by Quicken or any Ilitch entity. I have been contacted from time to time by at least 4 brokers seeking information about the building. A couple claimed to be representing prospective purchasers of the building but have refused to disclose who they were supposed to be representing. I had more than casual discussions with 2 of them but they terminated without any deal being made or even close to one. I think they were lookie loos.
I know there is much interest on this website about a predicted move to the City by Quicken. However, I have not made a deal with anyone and there are no negotiations going on with anyone.
Sorry, but I remain skeptical about the whole thing.
I have however kept an eye on the goings on at the United Artists Building next door and filed a FOIA request with the City to determine the status of building permits and such and none have been issued. Based on what I see going on for many weeks now, it would not be unreasonable to assume the intention is to renovate it. How that makes economic sense I don't know unless it's a tax shelter deal like the Book Cadilac hotel (using our tax dollars.)
Gistok, I'm out of town with limited access to a computer. However, I got your email regarding the lighting of the Michigan Building window and the fact is I have not determined how I am going to do it. When Chez Core ges done (when?) I'll decide and let you know. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 2920
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - 11:29 am: | |
Urbanize, you can glamorize Atlanta with superficial and meaningless "statistics" all you want. At the end of the day, it's still a terrible urban environment. Regrettably, Detroit is quickly headed in the same direction. |
Urbanize
Member
Username: Urbanize
Post Number: 1970
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - 12:06 pm: | |
^^^How are they meaningless and superficial?
Detroit is in worse shape than Atlanta, so you're making no sense in calling their city meaningless and superficial just because they're doing something right that this state and city isn't.
Heck, if it wans't for all the government activity in D.C., Atlanta would be in better shape than them.
Talk about Worst Urban Areas, D.C. would top the list in my opinion.
(Message edited by Urbanize on July 31, 2007) |
Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw
Post Number: 3414
Registered: 02-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - 1:02 pm: | |
Urbanize, I would expect you to understand this: Danindc is not talking about overall economic conditions, growth trends, or the size of a city's slum, he's talking about how the city is literally built, it's aesthetics/design, etc.
You messed up big by calling DC a terrible urban area. Sure it has slums and a few dysfunctions similar to Detroit, but wow it has a beautiful city plan and is mid-density done to perfection.
You need to follow the thought process of Danindc, not ignore it. He's talking about design, not pure economics.
I started this whole thing by saying that I think Ilitch envisions a suburbanized downtown i.e. a new sunbelt city. Detroit's economy can get 500 percent better, but if we tear up our city (specifically our central areas) any further, instead of building on the beauty that we already have, I will LEAVE. |
Urbanize
Member
Username: Urbanize
Post Number: 1974
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - 1:20 pm: | |
You must understand though. Design doesn't mean one little thing when you don't have the proper growth to support it. Detroit (except for spurts of development downtown which half of you all are against) is still in a steady decline. On the other hand, many other regions are experiencing a development boom. What I've learned is that the Average Bob doesn't move to a place for it's design and history (maybe the few hundred people on this particular site do), but for the cost and assets of living available in the region.
In addition, D.C. again would not be the Urban Area it is if it wasn't for the government. I never said it was a terrible Urban area, but the Sprawl, Pollution, and Civic issues there are unbelievable. I said IF it wasn't for the government locating there, it would be a piece of shit. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 2922
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - 1:42 pm: | |
Urbanize, it's quite clear that you really don't grasp the topic being discussed. I would advise you to comment on what you know. If I cared to take this thread completely off track, I would demolish the content of your last three posts.
Stop making excuses for turning downtown Detroit into a piece of suburban crap. |
Rb336
Member
Username: Rb336
Post Number: 940
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - 1:45 pm: | |
hey, NYC turned 42nd street into a strip mall |
Urbanize
Member
Username: Urbanize
Post Number: 1976
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - 1:54 pm: | |
"Urbanize, it's quite clear that you really don't grasp the topic being discussed. I would advise you to comment on what you know. If I cared to take this thread completely off track, I would demolish the content of your last three posts.
Stop making excuses for turning downtown Detroit into a piece of suburban crap."
Ok, So you're saying keep the Abandoned Abestos Filled Buildings and wait for 19 and 20th century developers (which we're not even in anymore) to come by and rehab them for the sake of preserving both history and the urban feel?
That's the stupidest Idea I have ever heard.
Development is development, no matter where it is. This mentality of (Suburban and Urban development) is just crazy. What does matter is if it's benefiting the region and not the 1920s. If the development involves the removing of buildings past their prime in a relatively small downtown, then do it. I don't see why you people make it difficult for certain projects to occur (that will benefit the region in the long run) just because you don't like them.
On the other hand, I want High Density Urban housing in our neighborhoods, but y'all bitched about it claiming it will create some 3rd world issues.
(Message edited by Urbanize on July 31, 2007) |
Detroit_stylin
Member
Username: Detroit_stylin
Post Number: 4509
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - 2:01 pm: | |
Urbanize I cant even front, but you are positing like you have been smoking some serious ish bruh...
What qualifications do you have up under your belt that allow you to make the statements that you make? Are you an 'URBAN' planner with madd amounts of experience under your belt with respect to planning URBAN areas? |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 2923
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - 2:02 pm: | |
quote:Ok, So you're saying keep the Abandoned Abestos Filled Buildings and wait for 19 and 20th century developers (which we're not even in anymore) to come by and rehab them for the sake of preserving both history and the urban feel?
That's the stupidest Idea I have ever heard.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.
You keep thinking it's a stupid idea. That's your prerogative. But don't question why Detroit has fallen leagues behind most other metropolitan areas in the nation. And certainly don't be surprised when people who have the talent, aptitude, and interest to help improve Detroit would rather put their energies to use somewhere else. |
Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw
Post Number: 3418
Registered: 02-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - 2:04 pm: | |
Danindc is right, but let me just say that Detroit is far from being a modern clusterfuck city, and in my opinion, we're still actually headed in the right direction. There have been a lot of victories for urbanism lately.
1) I'll start with one word: Midtown. All the new construction has followed good design rules, and we have seen a ton of preservation and rehabs from New Center to Brush Park.
2)Next, the East Riverfront plan is consummately urban. It's rather high-density, too. (well, at least the developments closer to the Ren Cen are slated to be high-rise). There will be no superblocks, there will be preservation a few old structures like the Globe Bldg., and the new housing structures will be as street-focused as they are water-focused. The neighborhood will be mixed use. The new developments will be built around the very well-preserved Jos. Campau St. corridor, with the rehabbed Riverplace multi-use building, and the rebabbed Garden Court apartment building.
3) Campus Martius: the re-creation of urban public space.
4) The new attitude on parking: it's expected to be built up with ground-floor retail, and it's expected to blend with its surroundings.
5) Preservation victories. Sure we can dwell on the Madison-Lenox and Statler...they still make me mad, but a lot of places would have done away with the Book-Cadillac, Fort-Shelby, UA, Broderick, maybe even some of the Merchant's Row buildings. Everything that still remains in Brush Park is being rehabbed, despite the fact that many were falling to the ground.
We have a huge stock of pre-depression downtown architecture, only NY and maybe Chicago beat us in terms of pre-depression downtown square footage (and we get style points because of all the prolific architecture.) This is in spite of the fact that we created a large riverfront civic center and turned half of the downtown into parking lots.
We haven't completely screwed ourselves yet! |
Billk
Member
Username: Billk
Post Number: 55
Registered: 09-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - 2:04 pm: | |
Ok, I apologize for disparaging Mr. McGowan if he was under a non-disclosure clause. |
Urbanize
Member
Username: Urbanize
Post Number: 1977
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - 2:07 pm: | |
"But don't question why Detroit has fallen leagues behind most other metropolitan areas in the nation."
Like I'm trying to say, Detroit
IS NOT LIKE MOST OTHER METROPOLITAN AREAS.
MOST OTHERS METROPOLITAN AREAS WEREN'T ABANDONED AND LEFT TO ROT.
MOST OTHER METROPOLITAN AREAS ARE BETTER STRUCTURED (excluding historical designs). |
Urbanize
Member
Username: Urbanize
Post Number: 1978
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - 2:09 pm: | |
I used Caps in my post by the way because I thought I stated that in earlier posts. |
Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok
Post Number: 4988
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - 2:10 pm: | |
Thanks for the update and candor Mr. Pieroni! I'll post my comments on the Michigan window on the other thread (Detroit's Greatest Window).
Looks as though if Quicken does use the Statler Block, it will be a smaller footprint. I was wondering about the problems posed with the People Mover tracks crossing the block. But without your building as part of that potential development, the PM track issue is a moot point. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 2924
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - 2:17 pm: | |
quote:Like I'm trying to say, Detroit
IS NOT LIKE MOST OTHER METROPOLITAN AREAS.
MOST OTHERS METROPOLITAN AREAS WEREN'T ABANDONED AND LEFT TO ROT.
MOST OTHER METROPOLITAN AREAS ARE BETTER STRUCTURED (excluding historical designs).
Now think about why that is. It's certainly not some predestined fate that was assigned to Detroit, was it? I'd like to think all of the above were results of conscious, poorly-made decisions that continue to this day. None of the above changes unless the thinking and decision making process change first.
You ask for what you've always asked for, you're gonna get what you always got. |
Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100
Post Number: 1285
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - 2:21 pm: | |
quote:Ok, So you're saying keep the Abandoned Abestos Filled Buildings and wait for 19 and 20th century developers (which we're not even in anymore) to come by and rehab them for the sake of preserving both history and the urban feel?
That's the stupidest Idea I have ever heard.
Urbanize, have you ever seen a truly modern city? It is disgusting IMO. There is no building diversity at all, and it gets very old to look at very fast. Here, we at least have some architectural gems to look at.
|
Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100
Post Number: 1286
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - 2:23 pm: | |
All three of those shots are from Seoul. The last one gives you the best vantage of the city. All of those tannish color buildings you see are apartment buildings. That is about 75% of the city right there. So now tell me why we shouldn't save our old buildings? |