 
Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok
Post Number: 6356
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 25, 2008 - 11:01 pm: |    |
I guess I can understand where Dan is coming from...
I detest the thought of tearing down the old MGM temporary casino, if it should ever happen. After all MGM spent $220 million putting perfume on that "IRS" pig of a building (it was arguably among the ugliest buildings in Detroit before MGM bought it). And now I would MUCH prefer to see it reused in some capacity (with its' faux art deco finishes) rather than have it torn down for some indignity such as a big box store that only costs 10% of the price of the current building.
And LY... sad but true, the warehouse and docklands district that existed along the Detroit River up until the 1950's when Cobo and the Civic Center flattened the district, today would have made an interesting entertainment district all along the riverfront.
Few people today (outside of this forum) are aware of the fact that Mariners Church once existed (without a tower) on lower Woodward in the warehouse/docklands district (south of Jefferson) before being moved to its' present location in 1955, along with the 1955 addition of a medieval looking brand new tower.
(Message edited by Gistok on February 26, 2008) |
Mcp001
Member
Username: Mcp001
Post Number: 3279
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 25, 2008 - 11:07 pm: | |
The place was a rat-hole (literally)!
Good riddance. |
Outoftown
Member
Username: Outoftown
Post Number: 22
Registered: 02-2008
| | Posted on Monday, February 25, 2008 - 11:15 pm: | |
blah blah "embodied energy" blah blah blah.
Yeah I got to show everyone that I am smarter than they are! I used a term I learned at that last seminar.
Oh no I didn't read the entire paper I cited! I didn't see that the author 1)specifically refers to historically significant buildings and buildings more than 50 years old 2) discusses how newer construction is not designed nor fabricated to last past its intended economic purpose 3) assumes that new construction will take place on the site of the of the destroyed facility. But, the building in question here is not historically significant, nor is it constructed using permanent heavy construction methods, and it will be replaced by park land not with a modern new building! So my entire attempt at showing off just made me look stupid.
This is as bad as dribbling on my khakis! |
Ray1936
Member
Username: Ray1936
Post Number: 2784
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Monday, February 25, 2008 - 11:28 pm: | |
"This is as bad as dribbling on my khakis!"
When you get to my age, you get used to it. |
Royce
Member
Username: Royce
Post Number: 2565
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 - 12:03 am: | |
I hope the whole 26 acres aren't just slated for park land and the Riverwalk. It would be nice to have some low-rise residential on that site. There's already a large area of parkland that is underutilized just east of the printing plant. More park land isn't really needed if the current park land isn't being used.
The printing plant, although not an old building, needs to come down. If it was and old warehouse with two or three floors, I would say redevelop it into residential and retail use. This building in its current state can not add anything to the riverfront. It should come down for a better use, and that is what is happening. Hooray!
BTW, it would be nice if the Riverwalk could actually extend along the shoreline in front or south of the Riverfront Apartments(Condos). It would be a huge waste or time an ambiance to have to walk around this ill-planned-gated-community. Let's hope the DRFC can work some magic on this issue.
(Message edited by royce on February 26, 2008) |
Barnesfoto
Member
Username: Barnesfoto
Post Number: 4785
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 - 1:12 am: | |
I'm a preservationist. That building has no charm or significance. Tear it down. |
Mcp001
Member
Username: Mcp001
Post Number: 3283
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 - 6:31 am: | |
Don't lose any sleep over it.
The way the building was laid out, you really couldn't "redevelop" it into anything. |
Oliverdouglas
Member
Username: Oliverdouglas
Post Number: 165
Registered: 02-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 - 10:01 am: | |
Royce: The under-utilized parkland you refer to is is somewhat isolated; it's inclusion in the Riverwalk should help solve that problem. |
Fishtoes2000
Member
Username: Fishtoes2000
Post Number: 426
Registered: 06-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 - 10:56 am: | |
"Somewhat isolated." I think that's an understatement. It's not a big swath of land and it's often difficult to bike there when the fishing it good. It's just not Riverwalk quality. Heck, I rode in that area for quite some time before I happened to notice it even existed. The Freep building hides it well from the public. |
D_mcc
Member
Username: D_mcc
Post Number: 282
Registered: 12-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 - 12:47 pm: | |
I agree with dan. That building could easily be saved and reused. Recycling buildings is greener than demo-ing one to built another.
Look at the Tate Modern in London...That was an empty husk..no windows...a "horrible building" and look at it now:
http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/ |
Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard
Post Number: 5390
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 - 1:10 pm: | |
Now Detroit has building snobs and elites among its arts and croissants crowd...
Unused, functionally fit buildings should be demolished because those Detroiters would rather see vacant lots instead of vacant buildings. A mental or emotional condition apparently caused by decades of having vacant buildings around being unused, due to Detroit's moribund business health--for the most part. |
Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge
Post Number: 5329
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 - 1:41 pm: | |
Arts and croissants, love it.
|
Oldredfordette
Member
Username: Oldredfordette
Post Number: 3999
Registered: 02-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 - 1:46 pm: | |
The Tate remains one of the ugliest buildings in London, and contains some of the ugliest art (imho) in Europe. At least the Tate has free admission.
Please pass the croissants. |
Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard
Post Number: 5393
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 - 1:51 pm: | |
Arts and croissants crowd: The trendy lefties who support having the National Endowment for the Arts pay for such masterpieces as a photo of Christ in a jar of urine and Robert Mapplethorpe's imaginative depictions of the human anatomy and bullwhips. Their hero is John Frohnmayer, the former head of the NEA until President Bush fired him. |
Mcp001
Member
Username: Mcp001
Post Number: 3284
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 - 1:54 pm: | |
And the list of people who can "develop" a building without actually setting foot in it never ceases to amaze me... |
Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge
Post Number: 5330
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 - 1:55 pm: | |
Dang, I was hoping you made that up yourself. Too bad it's Limbaugh. |
D_mcc
Member
Username: D_mcc
Post Number: 283
Registered: 12-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 - 1:58 pm: | |
Last time I ever speak up about renovating instead of dessimating.
GOOOOOO DETROIT!
(Message edited by D_mcc on February 26, 2008) |
Mcp001
Member
Username: Mcp001
Post Number: 3285
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 - 2:06 pm: | |
Trust me.
Leveling the place is doing a service to the community. |
Mbr
Member
Username: Mbr
Post Number: 322
Registered: 03-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 - 2:06 pm: | |
Dan,
This building is probably being torn down relatively cheaply, maybe a few bucks per square foot. It would take orders of magnitude more money than that to do anything appreciable with it. Also, you said it should be a park-related building. Well, that takes it off the tax rolls as well. |
Outoftown
Member
Username: Outoftown
Post Number: 27
Registered: 02-2008
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 - 2:15 pm: | |
By the looks of him I would guess Limbaugh has befriended quite a few croissants in his day. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 3926
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 - 2:15 pm: | |
quote:This building is probably being torn down relatively cheaply, maybe a few bucks per square foot. It would take orders of magnitude more money than that to do anything appreciable with it. Also, you said it should be a park-related building. Well, that takes it off the tax rolls as well.
Are you storing the bricks in your backyard for free?
I think you missed the point. It's not about demolition cost--it's about Detroit's 1960's Scorched Earth Redevelopment Policy, and how expensive it is. |
Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok
Post Number: 6358
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 - 2:21 pm: | |
LOL... thanks for the laugh Johnlodge...
What's the matter LY, can't find anything more current than that old urine and the crucifix stuff from about 15-20 years ago? As if we all supported that rubbish...
But keep trying... eventually your persistent pessimism may win a few converts... |
Barnesfoto
Member
Username: Barnesfoto
Post Number: 4788
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 - 3:15 pm: | |
The filth of Robert Mapplethorpe:
(those flowers look pornographic!•••••http://www.mapplethorpe.org/se lectedworks.html |
Rhymeswithrawk
Member
Username: Rhymeswithrawk
Post Number: 1151
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 - 8:57 pm: | |
The way the building was laid out, you really couldn't "redevelop" it into anything.
Right on the money. I interned at the Freep when it still used that plant. If you've ever seen the inside of a newspaper printing plant, you know it's basically a warehouse. Presses for a paper of the Freep's size are several stories tall. No joke.
There was nothing that could possibly be done to reuse it that would outweigh a gorgeous riverwalk. A storage warehouse, I guess. But there are already several of those around it.
Hey, I have some nostalgia about the place, but I'd rather focus our redevelopment efforts (and cash) into saving the city's gems, not its unpolished boulders. |
6nois
Member
Username: 6nois
Post Number: 663
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 - 11:08 pm: | |
I have a feeling that the added benefits of the riverwalk will counter the effects of the loss of the Free Press Plant. Revitalization of the riverfront in this way has precedent with the city beautiful movement at the turn of the last century so what is happening here is hardly new. Detroit is really over 100 years behind. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 3930
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - 9:01 am: | |
quote:Revitalization of the riverfront in this way has precedent with the city beautiful movement at the turn of the last century so what is happening here is hardly new.
The City Beautiful movement embraced impressive civic works projects. Many of the great train stations, post offices, and city halls of the U.S. were built under City Beautiful. Cleveland, under Mayor Tom Johnson, was probably one of the biggest beneficiaries (visit the Mall downtown).
Detroit's redevelopment efforts reminisce of Slum Clearance of the 1960s. Anything "old", "unsalvageable", or "in the way" had to be destroyed, in order to create vast, underused tracts of "open space". |
Aiw
Member
Username: Aiw
Post Number: 6562
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - 9:07 am: | |
quote:The Tate remains one of the ugliest buildings in London
I disagree ORF. I think it's an amazing art moderne style industrial building, and the adaptive reuse is world class. |
6nois
Member
Username: 6nois
Post Number: 664
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - 9:09 am: | |
Dan to me Detroits current work goes more along with Burnhams plan for Chicago. Now yes Chicago did have a massive fire, but the idea was the same, to open the waterfront to the public and allow them to use the space. Have you ever walked on the riverwalk on a nice day in the summer? It is hardly a vast underused tract of open space. And as development along the riverwalk continues it will become even more vibrant. |
D_mcc
Member
Username: D_mcc
Post Number: 285
Registered: 12-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - 9:10 am: | |
Bet a lot of people thought that building had absolutely no re-use ability either because it was a big power plant...eh...whatever |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 3931
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - 9:30 am: | |
quote:Dan to me Detroits current work goes more along with Burnhams plan for Chicago. Now yes Chicago did have a massive fire, but the idea was the same, to open the waterfront to the public and allow them to use the space. Have you ever walked on the riverwalk on a nice day in the summer? It is hardly a vast underused tract of open space. And as development along the riverwalk continues it will become even more vibrant.
Chicago developed very differently. After the Great Fire, all the debris was pushed into Lake Michigan, and the city suddenly had massive lakefront acreage. They didn't bulldoze every damn thing in their way just so they could plant some nice grass. Your comparison between Riverwalk and Burnham's plan is near blasphemy. Burnham's plan was a master-planned effort that integrated its parts (civic structures) into a whole. Again, see Burnham's ideas in the Mall Plan he devised in Cleveland.
The Riverwalk, by comparison (IMO), is a strip of parkland that doesn't necessarily play nice with its surroundings. It's just kind of "there", with plans to put "attractions" in the park. It's a nice amenity, but let's be honest about its scale and magnificence. |
6nois
Member
Username: 6nois
Post Number: 665
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - 9:44 pm: | |
I'll admit its not exactly what I would have designed for the park space but it does have positive qualities, and in my own experience from my hometown shows that if you build it people will come and enjoy, keep in mind its a smaller town but the same type of thing was implemented in the early 90's along the river where most of the buildings were already gone and in unused rail right of ways, and the 10 mile loop that was created has been massively successful. I see no reason why Detroit's fledgling system can't be either.
I would also like to point out the city is not directly involved in the Riverfront Concervancy, it is a nonprofit and has a 44 member board made up of business and government leaders (2). The money is an endowment and the project is a public private venture with large sums of the money being raised through foundations and corporations. And in large part the project has gained large amounts of public and private support from land owners and the city, gaining easements and use of city owned land for 90 years. I hardly see the not playing nice, and I hardly see how you see the riverfront as such a negative thing.
On another note I thought you would get a kick out of a study I heard about where it proposed that the life span of a building should be 10-15 years, because with in that time span a new buildings energy efficiency would overcome the older buildings energy losses. |
Outoftown
Member
Username: Outoftown
Post Number: 31
Registered: 02-2008
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - 10:43 pm: | |
" quote:
Dan to me Detroits current work goes more along with Burnhams plan for Chicago. Now yes Chicago did have a massive fire, but the idea was the same, to open the waterfront to the public and allow them to use the space. Have you ever walked on the riverwalk on a nice day in the summer? It is hardly a vast underused tract of open space. And as development along the riverwalk continues it will become even more vibrant.
Chicago developed very differently. After the Great Fire, all the debris was pushed into Lake Michigan, and the city suddenly had massive lakefront acreage. They didn't bulldoze every damn thing in their way just so they could plant some nice grass. Your comparison between Riverwalk and Burnham's plan is near blasphemy. Burnham's plan was a master-planned effort that integrated its parts (civic structures) into a whole. Again, see Burnham's ideas in the Mall Plan he devised in Cleveland.
The Riverwalk, by comparison (IMO), is a strip of parkland that doesn't necessarily play nice with its surroundings. It's just kind of "there", with plans to put "attractions" in the park. It's a nice amenity, but let's be honest about its scale and magnificence."
end-quote
Yeah Dan is right again. That river walk is much more like New York's Hudson River Park. And I am sure you all know how much that thing sucks. I mean looking over New York Harbor could never compare to the majesty of Lake Michigan in Chicago. And New York tore down all those old warehouses and docks left idle and decaying when the United States Line went bankrupt in the 80s. That was so beautiful, full of embodied energy.
Now it's just people biking, walking, jogging, skating, sunning, kayaking, sailing, playing volleyball. God I miss those decrepit old hulks.....
Thanks Dan for sharing your good taste with all of us. I mean anyone who wears an "Enjoy Vagina" shirt must be tops in the taste department, n'est pas? |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 3934
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - 11:23 pm: | |
^^^I don't think I ever knocked the Riverwalk. Seems there's some selective reading comprehension going on here.
Can't debate the salient points of an argument, so make personal attacks, huh? |
Burnsie
Member
Username: Burnsie
Post Number: 1300
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 28, 2008 - 8:43 am: | |
So, Danindc, you'd rather have a warehouse that nobody WITH A REAL PLAN wants, that blocks the view of the river, and takes up room that people could enjoy? |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 3936
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 28, 2008 - 8:55 am: | |
^I'm not saying the building HAS to be saved, but it seems that (once again) demolition was the only option that was ever considered. This practice is wasteful, in terms of materials and in terms of capital resources. Unfortunately, it's business-as-usual in the D. There are very few current projects I can think of offhand that haven't required demolition of an existing structure.
To address your points, Burnsie:
1. There are thousands of properties in Detroit without a "real plan". What makes this one special (other than, "it's in the way")?
2. The view of the river is trivial. It's not as if there aren't any other vantage points. Isn't the idea to view the river from the walk? I suppose anything east of Michigan Ave in Chicago should be bulldozed because it blocks the view of the lake.
3. Detroit has NO shortage of "room". Detroit does have a shortage of well-planned public spaces.
Again, it's not that this structure HAS to be saved. It's simply incredibly frustrating to the urban context that any new plan automatically requires demolition of the existing.
Is there a rendering of the plan for the completed Riverwalk? The website seems to be incomplete in this regard. |
Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok
Post Number: 6378
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 28, 2008 - 5:43 pm: | |
Dan, I think that Detroit is looking more across the river at Windsor on how they want to do their riverfront with parks, etc. Of course, Windsor has the better view across the river...
One other thing Dan... I think that some folks on this forum get Ad Hominem with you because you seem to continuously defend your position, almost to the point of obsessiveness.
Sometimes an plain empty warehouse... is just a plain empty warehouse! Detroit has hundreds of them. One of the things that the National Trust for Historic Preservation has said in the past... "we can't save every building, nor should we try"! |
Guideboat
Member
Username: Guideboat
Post Number: 8
Registered: 02-2008
| | Posted on Thursday, February 28, 2008 - 7:02 pm: | |
Does the Riverfront Conservancy own or have easements to the land to the southwest of the Freep plant? From the photo it looks like quite a bit of the yard is already torn up. Is the remaining rail yard in use?
I think any public redevelopment along the river is a good thing, even if it is just a ribbon park in front of industrial or other buildings. Very few industries rely on the river for shipping anymore. I don't believe the Free Press received paper or other deliveries by water (I could be wrong). At least Detroit has this second chance to open up river frontage. One wishes the city had the foresight to open up this parcel before the plant was initially built. I'm sure there were other off-river properties on which the plant could have been built.
The land from the Free Press on down the river is looking pretty empty. I hope the parkway system has the momentum to continue down the river. The possibility of regaining so much public access to the river is exciting and need not be at odds with future business or industrial development of any kind.
I hope that the riverfront can eventually connect to some of the GreenWays Initiatives:
www.atfiles.org/files/pdf/Detr oitGwy.pdf |
Burnsie
Member
Username: Burnsie
Post Number: 1302
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 28, 2008 - 7:48 pm: | |
A small portion of the RR yard is in use. It serves a Norfolk Southern RR transload facility. But there is more than enough unused space next to it to extend the Riverwalk.
(Message edited by Burnsie on February 28, 2008) |
Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard
Post Number: 5430
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 28, 2008 - 8:16 pm: | |
The RR yard near 12th Street is used for hazardous chemical loads. |
Busterwmu
Member
Username: Busterwmu
Post Number: 431
Registered: 09-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 06, 2008 - 5:06 pm: | |
Up until the beginning of last year, the NS still served the Free Press plant each weekday with paper roll boxcars. Even after they stopped working the plant, sometimes they would stop their locomotive on the old FreeP lead along the river for lunch.
Both NS and CSX run weekday local jobs from Oakwood and Rougemere Yards respectively through Delray to the Boat Yard Line to work various industries. NS maintains about 15 tracks of the old Boat Yard to run around their train and store cars (well cars and centerbeams, commonly). CSX keeps a few tracks in place at 15th Street for a transloading facility, beside the old approach to the bridge to FSUD. |
Guideboat
Member
Username: Guideboat
Post Number: 11
Registered: 02-2008
| | Posted on Thursday, March 06, 2008 - 6:19 pm: | |
FSUD? |
Busterwmu
Member
Username: Busterwmu
Post Number: 433
Registered: 09-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 06, 2008 - 6:57 pm: | |
Fort Street Union Depot, built in 1893, demolished in 1974, today the site of WCCC on Fort across from Fort Street Presbyterian Church. |
Rhymeswithrawk
Member
Username: Rhymeswithrawk
Post Number: 1164
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 08, 2008 - 4:35 pm: | |
A look at the Union Depot:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9iT 8xq3A-pE
Sorry, shameless self-promotion. |
New threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.