  Rhymeswithrawk Member Username: Rhymeswithrawk Post Number: 1165 Registered: 11-2005 |
Quote Hizzoner: "We will demolish 50 vacant commercial and apartment structures around the city. Traditionally, our demolition budget goes primarily to abandoned homes because commercial structures are so expensive to take down, so they sit there year after year … decade after decade." Wonder which buildings are on the mayor's hit list? | ||
Gannon Member Username: Gannon Post Number: 11788 Registered: 12-2003 |
UM, look around where the Ferguson trucks parked a few hours ago? | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 1735 Registered: 02-2006 |
Ugh. Great, more intersections with a total lack of retail, just gas stations at 3 corners, and a CVS at the other. When these buildings are gone, they're gone forever and never coming back. | ||
Mayor_sekou Member Username: Mayor_sekou Post Number: 1962 Registered: 09-2006 |
I hope Lee Plaza is on that list, its long overdue. | ||
French777 Member Username: French777 Post Number: 356 Registered: 10-2006 |
No!! Not the Lee Plaza That place is due to be renovated soon. Hopefully! | ||
Ffdfd Member Username: Ffdfd Post Number: 269 Registered: 09-2006 |
Lee Plaza is due to be renovated right after the Packard Plant. | ||
Aiw Member Username: Aiw Post Number: 6572 Registered: 10-2003 |
Yeah right after the Packard Plant starts making Packards again. | ||
Detroitrise Member Username: Detroitrise Post Number: 1750 Registered: 09-2007 |
Ew, it would suck to lose the Lee Plaza. Ok, WHY IN THE HECK are we renovating an abandoned motor factory? If it's for more condos/apartment, then what for? We can't even sell the condos that are already on the market. | ||
Andylinn Member Username: Andylinn Post Number: 763 Registered: 04-2006 |
they were joking... if anyone demolishes lee plaza... i'll kill 'em. | ||
Mayor_sekou Member Username: Mayor_sekou Post Number: 1969 Registered: 09-2006 |
I like Lee Plaza too but honestly its not looking good for that building, and next to MCD and Tigers Stadium it is one of the biggest abandoned structures in the city. | ||
Bobj Member Username: Bobj Post Number: 4216 Registered: 11-2003 |
How about Michigan Central Depot?? Oh yeah, I forgot Police HQ is going there! | ||
Wolverine Member Username: Wolverine Post Number: 436 Registered: 04-2004 |
I'll admit Lee Plaza is getting close to being a "total loss" but there are many more structures in the city we should be concerned with than investing all the demolition dollars into taking down one large building. Start with all the burned out houses. I agree with focusonthed's post. It sucks seeing the suburbanization of the city. While it's a model that seems to be working, it's certainly isn't a high quality replacement in terms of placemaking. (Message edited by wolverine on March 11, 2008) | ||
Gannon Member Username: Gannon Post Number: 11790 Registered: 12-2003 |
It would be interesting if he was thinking MCD. Prop up his buddy Manny for the bridge project...that just might keep him in office a while longer. At least he'd be able to afford better PR people and attorneys. | ||
Rhymeswithrawk Member Username: Rhymeswithrawk Post Number: 1167 Registered: 11-2005 |
"No!! Not the Lee Plaza That place is due to be renovated soon. Hopefully!" Due to be renovated soon? Says who? There is no chance that building will ever be saved. It is beyond gone. There's the B-C and Fort Shelby and then there's the Lee. Fdfd is right: The Packard stands about as much of a chance. | ||
Hamtragedy Member Username: Hamtragedy Post Number: 112 Registered: 10-2007 |
Drive north of Lee Plaza along Grand River, turn right at Chicago, and you've got about 10 3-6 story apartments bldgs. on those first couple blocks. All of them abandoned and stripped. It's so much more than Lee Plaza, (whose copper roof disappeared Dec '05 one weekend before the YMCA's copper roof on E Jefferson). Beautiful functioning buildings, all within the last 15 years. That's disappointing. BTW, what's going on at Packard? Are the scrappers taking the steel windows?? | ||
Civilprotectionunit4346 Member Username: Civilprotectionunit4346 Post Number: 641 Registered: 06-2007 |
Packard got hit hard after the guards left that where on the one side of Packard. Ive seen more of the the window frames have been disappearing. This will only speed up the natural decay of the building as more elements are allowed inside the building. | ||
Gsgeorge Member Username: Gsgeorge Post Number: 594 Registered: 08-2006 |
Bring down all the abandoned homes on the Eastside, move the intact ones over to the Westside, and we've got ourselves a viable metropolis once again! | ||
Detroitrise Member Username: Detroitrise Post Number: 1752 Registered: 09-2007 |
"Bring down all the abandoned homes on the Eastside, move the intact ones over to the Westside, and we've got ourselves a viable metropolis once again!" Uh, no.  | ||
Fury13 Member Username: Fury13 Post Number: 4098 Registered: 10-2003 |
Now, why would Detroiters want to move to Muskegon or Grand Rapids? | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4007 Registered: 10-2003 |
I cannot fathom why the City of Detroit is a direct player in the local real estate market. Wouldn't it be better for the City's budget if they actually enforced their building codes, instead of spending scads of money on demolition? Unfortunately, it looks like a northern incarnation of Houston isn't too far away. | ||
Galexc Member Username: Galexc Post Number: 3 Registered: 07-2007 |
Lee Plaza is DONE!•• It really needs to come down at this point. Yes, it would be sad to see it go because of the potential and promise that it once had, however, there is nothing left of it besides its brick shell. If it stays up any longer the thieves will begin taking the bricks one by one and the city won't even have to worry about the expense of demolishing it. | ||
Wschnitt Member Username: Wschnitt Post Number: 69 Registered: 07-2007 |
What intersection is the lee plaza at? | ||
Detroitrise Member Username: Detroitrise Post Number: 1754 Registered: 09-2007 |
<iframe></iframe><br><small><a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?f= q&hl=en&geocode=&q=2240 +West+Grand+Blvd.&sll=37.0 625,-95.677068&sspn=31.371 289,59.238281&ie=UTF8& ll=42.369008,-83.097582&sp n=0.014269,0.028925&t=p&am p;z=14&source=embed">View Larger Map</a></small> On W. Grand Blvd and Linwood, not far from the New Center area. | ||
Viziondetroit Member Username: Viziondetroit Post Number: 1475 Registered: 11-2003 |
"When these buildings are gone, they're gone forever and never coming back." ^^ would you rather they sit vacant? I'd rather see a vacant lot than ANOTHER vacant and burned out building. A lot can be developed into something else, a huge building in this market will just remain as it is. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4009 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Some people would rather see the City fiscally solvent. Detroit doesn't need more empty lots, and certainly doesn't need to spend more money in order to create empty lots. | ||
Shark Member Username: Shark Post Number: 337 Registered: 12-2003 |
Some people also don't have to look at crack-dens in their neighborhood everyday... | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1162 Registered: 12-2006 |
The City can't enforce building codes because properties have no value. A property owner can just walk away from a building or lot rather than spend money to keep it up to code. Land in much of Detroit has negative value. Here is what I mean. If you are a builder, and you can spend $150,000 building a house and then sell it for $200,000, the implication is that the lot was worth $50,000. The same house sells for different amounts in different places because of differing land values. In much of Detroit you can build a house for $150,000 but you'd do well to sell it for $75,000, which is why I say land has negative value. In that situation, enforcing anything on a landowner is next to impossible. They try, but there's not much chance of success. This isn't true throughout the City, but in some areas it is. | ||
Mbr Member Username: Mbr Post Number: 344 Registered: 03-2005 |
Just because you build a house on land and can't sell it for the price you built it for does not mean that land has a negative value. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1163 Registered: 12-2006 |
Many would agree with you. "Negative land value" is just my choice of a phrase to explain that phenomenon. There are other reasons for a house to sell below its cost of construction, such as paying too much for material or building badly. But when you have tens of thousands of houses on one side of (say) the Dearborn-Detroit border worth $X, and a bunch of houses on the other side worth $Y, there must be some explanation for the consistent difference. I refer to it as "negative land value". Finally, when you can't give land away, I would argue it must have negative value. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4010 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Demolition seems like a fairly pricey method of law enforcement, no? quote: If a derelict property becomes a hazard to human health and life, doesn't the City have legal recourse? Certainly, someone is named is on the deed.... | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1164 Registered: 12-2006 |
Yes, but you're missing a major point. You can't compel me at gunpoint to do something with my building. You can put a lien on the property, but so what? I've walked away from it. What do you suggest the City can do under that circumstance? I can't be arrested unless, for example, I'm renting an unsafe property to someone. If it's empty, I can only be civilly liable, and the only real method to get at that is through liens; and a lien on a property of no value is worthless. Demolition is not a method of law enforcement at all, but a recognition of reality, sadly. | ||
Dan Member Username: Dan Post Number: 1510 Registered: 10-2003 |
Take down the Lee Plaza if you must, but stay away from MCS | ||
Viziondetroit Member Username: Viziondetroit Post Number: 1476 Registered: 11-2003 |
"Some people would rather see the City fiscally solvent. Detroit doesn't need more empty lots, and certainly doesn't need to spend more money in order to create empty lots." ^businesses don't move into areas with vacant buildings right next to them nor do they want to demo them... so it's a catch 22. One one hand spend the money to demo it and loose money or spend money to demo the building and sell the land to a developer and gain property taxes and/or employment taxes. Do the math, which one makes more sense? | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 1736 Registered: 02-2006 |
Viziondetroit, you're assuming that the same businesses would move into an area surrounded by empty lots. We're not talking about demoing one or two derelict buildings here and there. Look around Detroit. We're talking about the wholesale clearing of blocks and miles. | ||
Gencinjay Member Username: Gencinjay Post Number: 4 Registered: 03-2008 |
In an ideal world there would be enough people willing and able to renovate what's there, but we aren't in an ideal world. The clearing of blocks and miles may make it more appealing to large developers to come in and do something. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4012 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Actually, businesses DO move into areas with vacant buildings next to them. It's called "redevelopment". quote: When was the last time this happened in Detroit? Hudsons' site has been vacant for 10 years. There is some serious misunderstanding on these boards of what encourages and discourages investment. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1166 Registered: 12-2006 |
Well, what encourages investment in a City is low crime, low taxes, high pedestrian traffic and good transit. Detroit has none of these, and doesn't plan to have any of them. So all this talk is just twiddling around the edges of things. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4013 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Well, it's unfortunately not just talk. The City is about to spend millions of dollars it can't afford on a program that 1) removes urban fabric, scale, and character and 2) does absolutely nothing to generate the conditions Professorscott lists, and in fact, deprives money from efforts that could be made to create those conditions. Detroit could be doing a hell of a lot better if it just stopped spending so much damned money on tearing itself down. | ||
Cub Member Username: Cub Post Number: 148 Registered: 02-2007 |
You have to remember who said that these things are going to happen. KK has said this before in his addresses and hardly anything has come to fruition. So until I see them actually happening its just another lie. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1167 Registered: 12-2006 |
I don't know, Dan, I see your point, but I've lived around here for a long time and I have to tell you that vacant lots are less of a problem than abandoned buildings. Lots of negative stuff happens inside the abandoned buildings, and if you do want to redevelop property around here, it is easier to interest a developer in a vacant, grass-covered parcel (or group of parcels) than in a building that's been left to go back to nature for years or decades. Hard to rehab such a building. Still, I agree, the amount of money to do it is kind of staggering. Nobody running Detroit seems to think in a businessman's terms, which would be roughly as follows: what we've been doing the past 20 or 30 or 50 years isn't working, so let's try doing things differently. What they seem to think instead is: I've got my phony-baloney job with benefits and a pension, so let's not rock the boat too hard. And that's why we're failing. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4014 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: I couldn't agree more. | ||
Rbdetsport Member Username: Rbdetsport Post Number: 478 Registered: 11-2005 |
Was anyone disappointed that he did not mention anything about Cobo or the new DDOT Line? |
