  Hunchentoot Member Username: Hunchentoot Post Number: 74 Registered: 03-2005 |
The riverfront Free Press plant is coming down now. I had forgotten that it was to be demolished and thought as I passed it the other day how dumb that building looked presenting a windowless brick wall to the street, and as though I commanded demolition forces with my brain-waves, down it comes. It looks like it will open up a lot of space at the river. Hooray! | ||
Detroit_stylin Member Username: Detroit_stylin Post Number: 5539 Registered: 10-2003 |
Where is it located? | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3913 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Wasting a shitload of embodied energy. Hooray! http://www.presnc.org/learnmor e/newsletters/summer1995.html | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 5369 Registered: 10-2004 |
Twelfth, just across the street where the Wabash railroad has its main terminal. | ||
Oldredfordette Member Username: Oldredfordette Post Number: 3980 Registered: 02-2004 |
Jefferson Avenue. http://www.reuters.com/article /pressRelease/idUS166566+03-De c-2007+PRN20071203 This is a very good thing. | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 6354 Registered: 08-2004 |
Dan, sorry but none of us are sorry to see the "mistake on the river" get torn down. It was built there no more than 30 years ago, and many were appalled back then that so much riverfront land went into building a windowless riverfront plant. Don't care how much energy is used in its' destruction, as long as that eyesore is gone... | ||
Texorama Member Username: Texorama Post Number: 170 Registered: 12-2006 |
What's going to happen to the space? Is that going to be one of the nodes of the west Riverwalk? | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3914 Registered: 10-2003 |
Well, as appalling as the building may have been, this is merely indicative of the "scorched-earth" redevelopment policies in Detroit. If lack of windows is problematic, you can always create some by installing lintels. But by golly, we've got to clear everything out of the path of the nature trail! I have to that blind adherence to demolition is why developers and building owners can't make money in Detroit. | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 5314 Registered: 10-2003 |
Tear that schitt down. | ||
Raptor56 Member Username: Raptor56 Post Number: 276 Registered: 05-2007 |
Building and land were sold to the Detroit RiverFront Conservancy back in December. it's going ot be used as part of the river walk http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs .dll/article?AID=/20071202/COL 06/712020695/1002/BUSINESS | ||
Treelock Member Username: Treelock Post Number: 283 Registered: 03-2005 |
Danindc, It's called reclaiming the riverfront, and I doubt you will find many people here who will bemoan the loss of this particular behemoth. | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 5317 Registered: 10-2003 |
I would say I generally agree with Dan in these instances... It's just that in this specific case, tearing it down for the RiverFront is definitely the better way to go. I mean look at this thing.  Soon it will be more beautiful RiverFront. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3915 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: If you substitute "Woodward" for "riverfront", you could easily slide that quote into a thread about Hudsons. I just bemoan that Solution #1 for Redevelopment in Detroit always equates to Demolition. If other options were at least *considered*, it might be different. All of that embodied energy costs money, and that money comes from investors. By choosing to needlessly waste money on doing the same thing over and again, you reduce the amount of capital available for investment, which only perpetuates the cycle. But hey, one less nasty building to look at when strolling the riverfront. God knows you wouldn't want to have to see buildings in a *city*. | ||
Oldredfordette Member Username: Oldredfordette Post Number: 3983 Registered: 02-2004 |
It's an abandoned printing plant, Dan. Nothing to rehabilitate, nothing to save. Not a significant building, no famous architect. Remove it and give it to the conservancy. | ||
Mdoyle Member Username: Mdoyle Post Number: 349 Registered: 10-2006 |
agreed. It's a nondescript brown windowless box, straight up walls with the only feature being the amazing architectural detail of the loading docks. Dan, have you been by this building? It's more useless and ugly than Ford Auditorium. | ||
Fastcarsfreedom Member Username: Fastcarsfreedom Post Number: 267 Registered: 11-2005 |
Mdoyle, you had to bring up Ford Auditorium, didn't you? While you may not appreciate it's looks--it's an architecturally significant building that in way, shape or form ought to be considered in the same sentence as a newspaper printing plant. | ||
Mdoyle Member Username: Mdoyle Post Number: 350 Registered: 10-2006 |
it was a friendly jab. | ||
Baltgar Member Username: Baltgar Post Number: 105 Registered: 06-2006 |
I generally agree with the philosophy Dan is speaking of, but in this case the building needs to go. I actually, see this type of unity for something that all of Metro Detroit agrees upon (riverfront access & parks) as a great step in this divided region. Now if we can only get along on more issues. <sigh> | ||
Oldredfordette Member Username: Oldredfordette Post Number: 3985 Registered: 02-2004 |
We can spend our energy trying to get the Free Press building on Lafayette rehabbed. Another abandoned shell, this one worth saving. | ||
Matt_the_deuce Member Username: Matt_the_deuce Post Number: 798 Registered: 10-2003 |
Dan is trolling a bit - he must be feeling a little emboldened now that someone has moved to Charlotte. Or, Dan feels that Detroit shouldn't be allowed to better it's environment - even if it does'nt jibe with his views of energy use. I'm sure he feels like we need to keep this building as some form of punishment for putting it up in the first place. Dan - sometimes you make good points, but your arrogance is deafening. | ||
Diehard Member Username: Diehard Post Number: 336 Registered: 03-2005 |
I'd often thought it could have been turned into some sort of banquet hall or community center if they installed windows facing the river. Not the prettiest of buildings, but at least that would have made it work with the Riverwalk. | ||
Boynamedsue Member Username: Boynamedsue Post Number: 33 Registered: 03-2005 |
tear. it. down. | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 5318 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Look at the picture, and explain how one would stroll the riverfront with the building there. SOME buildings do have to come down now and then. It just happens too often in Detroit, and to the wrong buildings. | ||
Mbr Member Username: Mbr Post Number: 321 Registered: 03-2005 |
Dan, Woodward = Apples Riverfront = Oranges | ||
Oldredfordette Member Username: Oldredfordette Post Number: 3986 Registered: 02-2004 |
You can stroll down the riverfront with that building there. There is a walkway that runs behind the riverfront plant, in the summer you will find dozens of folks fishing and sitting and catching the breeze off the water. There is a tiny park just to the east of the plant, you can pull off into a nearly invisible drive and park just past the large lot. Not enough, not nearly enough. Does every single building have to ripen and rot before they get dealt with? The news of this building's demolition should be cause for celebration. | ||
Hybridy Member Username: Hybridy Post Number: 219 Registered: 08-2006 |
http://maps.live.com/?q=&mkt=e n-us&scope=&FORM=LIVSOP#JnE9eX AuMTgwMStXJTQwMitKZWZmZXJzb24r QXZlbnVlK2RldHJvaXQlMmMrbWklN2 Vzc3QuMCU3ZXBnLjEmYmI9NTQuMjEz ODYxMDAwNjQ0OSU3ZS01OC44ODY3MT g3NSU3ZTI3LjgzOTA3NjA5NDc3Nzgl N2UtMTA3LjMxNDQ1MzEyNQ== | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3917 Registered: 10-2003 |
As we all know, part of Detroit's persistent problems with redevelopment is capital funding. Millions are being spent to buy this particular property, demolish the building, and remove it from the tax rolls. The same money could be used for a bang-up renovation, and use the building for park-related programming, or throw the money into a revenue-generating property. I'm not saying this is the most fantastic building ever. I am suggesting, however, that slash-and-burn isn't the only way to redevelop. Did anyone ever consider whether demolition was absolutely necessary? Or did they just draw a bunch of pretty lines on a map and found that this structure was in the way? People on these threads keep saying that Detroit needs creative solutions. Well, repeating the same idea over-and-over again, that is, creating Projects in stark isolation from each other, isn't terribly creative, and is the antithesis of the urbanity that Detroit desperately craves. | ||
Oldredfordette Member Username: Oldredfordette Post Number: 3992 Registered: 02-2004 |
Maybe this is a bad example Dan. I guess I see your point about so many of the buildings in Detroit, but this building is useless and the future of the property is bright. I repeat - this is a good thing. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 5378 Registered: 10-2004 |
I have to agree with Dan on this one. The building is useless because Detroit is essentially useless itself in that it already has hundreds to thousands of unused buildings in various states on condition. However, this building is in relatively decent shape and could be put to use if Detroit wasn't so utterly devoid of businesses, in general. If you take the time to view the map in this thread, you would notice that thee is still access to the river along the south side of the building. So what if the buildings remains? What's so damn important about tearing it down when it's in nice shape? Are we going to tear down the dry dock by Clark Street too? It's on the river? Myself, I'd rather have this whole parcel, including the Riverfront Apartments, like it was over a hundred years ago when it was an active part of Detroit. (Message edited by LivernoisYard on February 25, 2008) | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3918 Registered: 10-2003 |
The question I'm asking, which Livernoisyard picked up on, is whether this park is PART of the City of Detroit, or is it yet another isolated ATTRACTION to which you have to drive? I think by leaving the building, there's a more interesting interaction taking place--something sorely missing from the stadium and casino developments (save for Greektown). Sure, the building isn't that great in its current form. That doesn't mean it can't be useful. Other cities have plenty of ordinary structures that have been redeveloped, and not just those with sentimental value or a famous architect's name attached. This is a structurally sound, relatively new building. It's irresponsible--fiscally, environmentally, and otherwise--to promote such wanton destruction and further the disposable culture already too prevalent in Southeast Michigan. What happens when a building owner seeks a structure in the area--does the City then kick in subsidies to construct something similar to what they already paid to demolish? Just because you have eggs, cheese, and vegetables doesn't mean you have an omelette. |
