Discuss Detroit Archives - January 2008 State of the City Address: Demolition Previous Next
Top of pageBottom of page

Rhymeswithrawk
Member
Username: Rhymeswithrawk

Post Number: 1165
Registered: 11-2005
Posted on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 - 6:45 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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?
Top of pageBottom of page

Gannon
Member
Username: Gannon

Post Number: 11788
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 - 6:51 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

UM, look around where the Ferguson trucks parked a few hours ago?
Top of pageBottom of page

Focusonthed
Member
Username: Focusonthed

Post Number: 1735
Registered: 02-2006
Posted on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 - 7:39 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mayor_sekou
Member
Username: Mayor_sekou

Post Number: 1962
Registered: 09-2006
Posted on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 - 7:44 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I hope Lee Plaza is on that list, its long overdue.
Top of pageBottom of page

French777
Member
Username: French777

Post Number: 356
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 - 8:02 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

No!!

Not the Lee Plaza

That place is due to be renovated soon.

Hopefully!
Top of pageBottom of page

Ffdfd
Member
Username: Ffdfd

Post Number: 269
Registered: 09-2006
Posted on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 - 8:04 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Lee Plaza is due to be renovated right after the Packard Plant.
Top of pageBottom of page

Aiw
Member
Username: Aiw

Post Number: 6572
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 - 8:07 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yeah right after the Packard Plant starts making Packards again.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitrise
Member
Username: Detroitrise

Post Number: 1750
Registered: 09-2007
Posted on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 - 8:09 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.
Top of pageBottom of page

Andylinn
Member
Username: Andylinn

Post Number: 763
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 - 8:48 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

they were joking... if anyone demolishes lee plaza... i'll kill 'em.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mayor_sekou
Member
Username: Mayor_sekou

Post Number: 1969
Registered: 09-2006
Posted on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 - 8:50 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.
Top of pageBottom of page

Bobj
Member
Username: Bobj

Post Number: 4216
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 - 8:51 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

How about Michigan Central Depot??

Oh yeah, I forgot Police HQ is going there!
Top of pageBottom of page

Wolverine
Member
Username: Wolverine

Post Number: 436
Registered: 04-2004
Posted on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 - 9:13 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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)
Top of pageBottom of page

Gannon
Member
Username: Gannon

Post Number: 11790
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 - 9:22 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.
Top of pageBottom of page

Rhymeswithrawk
Member
Username: Rhymeswithrawk

Post Number: 1167
Registered: 11-2005
Posted on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 - 9:42 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"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.
Top of pageBottom of page

Hamtragedy
Member
Username: Hamtragedy

Post Number: 112
Registered: 10-2007
Posted on Wednesday, March 12, 2008 - 1:13 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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??
Top of pageBottom of page

Civilprotectionunit4346
Member
Username: Civilprotectionunit4346

Post Number: 641
Registered: 06-2007
Posted on Wednesday, March 12, 2008 - 10:03 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gsgeorge
Member
Username: Gsgeorge

Post Number: 594
Registered: 08-2006
Posted on Wednesday, March 12, 2008 - 10:14 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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!
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitrise
Member
Username: Detroitrise

Post Number: 1752
Registered: 09-2007
Posted on Wednesday, March 12, 2008 - 10:31 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"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. :-(
Top of pageBottom of page

Fury13
Member
Username: Fury13

Post Number: 4098
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 12, 2008 - 10:33 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Now, why would Detroiters want to move to Muskegon or Grand Rapids?
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 4007
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 12, 2008 - 10:36 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.
Top of pageBottom of page

Galexc
Member
Username: Galexc

Post Number: 3
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Wednesday, March 12, 2008 - 10:48 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.
Top of pageBottom of page

Wschnitt
Member
Username: Wschnitt

Post Number: 69
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Wednesday, March 12, 2008 - 10:57 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

What intersection is the lee plaza at?
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitrise
Member
Username: Detroitrise

Post Number: 1754
Registered: 09-2007
Posted on Wednesday, March 12, 2008 - 11:07 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

<iframe></iframe><br><small><a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?f= q&amp;hl=en&amp;geocode=&amp;q=2240 +West+Grand+Blvd.&amp;sll=37.0 625,-95.677068&amp;sspn=31.371 289,59.238281&amp;ie=UTF8&amp; ll=42.369008,-83.097582&amp;sp n=0.014269,0.028925&amp;t=p&am p;z=14&amp;source=embed">View Larger Map</a></small>

On W. Grand Blvd and Linwood, not far from the New Center area.
Top of pageBottom of page

Viziondetroit
Member
Username: Viziondetroit

Post Number: 1475
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 12, 2008 - 11:10 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"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.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 4009
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 12, 2008 - 11:12 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

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.



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.
Top of pageBottom of page

Shark
Member
Username: Shark

Post Number: 337
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 12, 2008 - 11:28 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Some people also don't have to look at crack-dens in their neighborhood everyday...
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 1162
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Wednesday, March 12, 2008 - 11:29 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mbr
Member
Username: Mbr

Post Number: 344
Registered: 03-2005
Posted on Wednesday, March 12, 2008 - 12:17 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 1163
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Wednesday, March 12, 2008 - 12:35 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 4010
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 12, 2008 - 12:39 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Some people also don't have to look at crack-dens in their neighborhood everyday...



Demolition seems like a fairly pricey method of law enforcement, no?

quote:

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.



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....
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 1164
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Wednesday, March 12, 2008 - 1:00 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.
Top of pageBottom of page

Dan
Member
Username: Dan

Post Number: 1510
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 12, 2008 - 1:18 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Take down the Lee Plaza if you must, but stay away from MCS
Top of pageBottom of page

Viziondetroit
Member
Username: Viziondetroit

Post Number: 1476
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 12, 2008 - 1:28 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"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?
Top of pageBottom of page

Focusonthed
Member
Username: Focusonthed

Post Number: 1736
Registered: 02-2006
Posted on Wednesday, March 12, 2008 - 2:07 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gencinjay
Member
Username: Gencinjay

Post Number: 4
Registered: 03-2008
Posted on Wednesday, March 12, 2008 - 2:15 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 4012
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 12, 2008 - 2:17 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

^businesses don't move into areas with vacant buildings right next to them nor do they want to demo them.



Actually, businesses DO move into areas with vacant buildings next to them. It's called "redevelopment".

quote:

or spend money to demo the building and sell the land to a developer and gain property taxes and/or employment taxes.



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.
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 1166
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Wednesday, March 12, 2008 - 2:31 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 4013
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 12, 2008 - 2:38 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

So all this talk is just twiddling around the edges of things.



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.
Top of pageBottom of page

Cub
Member
Username: Cub

Post Number: 148
Registered: 02-2007
Posted on Wednesday, March 12, 2008 - 2:44 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 1167
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Wednesday, March 12, 2008 - 2:53 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 4014
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 12, 2008 - 3:01 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

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.



I couldn't agree more.
Top of pageBottom of page

Rbdetsport
Member
Username: Rbdetsport

Post Number: 478
Registered: 11-2005
Posted on Wednesday, March 12, 2008 - 7:52 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Was anyone disappointed that he did not mention anything about Cobo or the new DDOT Line?

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.