 
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4134
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 11, 2008 - 3:38 pm: |    |
^^^Thank you, Mackinaw. You've captured my sentiments exactly.
For years, I've railed that the City of Detroit seems to be on a mission to senselessly demolish as much as possible, and that this practice drives away investment (never mind that it squanders limited resources). Of course, kind folk like Skulker never hesitated to suggest that since I don't actually live in Detroit, that I don't know what I'm talking about. I feel somewhat vindicated here, although the circumstances are terrible.
Frankly, I don't understand the strategy. Is Kwame trying to create a place that looks like Central Nebraska, albeit with a couple stadia and casinos in the middle of it? This practice of rampant demolition is reckless and expensive, plain and simple. I guess since this building isn't part of an officially sanctioned African Town, the owner and tenant can just fuck right off, huh?
If Misters Elkus and Saritas are still in the market to renovate an empty building, we still have plenty here in the District. Lord knows I would love to have a Turkish restaurant in my neighborhood. |
Baltgar
Member
Username: Baltgar
Post Number: 112
Registered: 06-2006
| | Posted on Friday, April 11, 2008 - 3:50 pm: | |
But it fits with his Grand Economic Stimulus Plan to tear down as many abandoned but still usable buildings as possible.
Do Detroit voters really want vacant wasteland over reusing buildings? |
Bearinabox
Member
Username: Bearinabox
Post Number: 585
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Friday, April 11, 2008 - 3:52 pm: | |
quote:Do Detroit voters really want vacant wasteland over reusing buildings? Is this a poll? I certainly don't. |
Digitalvision
Member
Username: Digitalvision
Post Number: 736
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 11, 2008 - 4:26 pm: | |
I understand it completely. Hear me out on this one... not defending, but 'splainin as it was 'splained to me.
Kwame wants a modern city. I've heard him say as much over the past few years (and I wasn't reading the paper).
There is no attachment to old structures - It's a cultural thing, I think. This is how it was explained to me by a good friend...
The buildings so many of us cherish on this board many times were places that black people couldn't go or only could work at with a low wage. There is no connection to those buildings; they have no history. So if they aren't occupied, they're worthless.
There are no photos of grandma in the grand ballroom of the Statler for most black families. Even if they were allowed, it's not like they could afford it for the most part.
There was no dentist office in the Whitney - their dentist office was either in black bottom (gone) or there wasn't a dentist office to go to.
So, since no connection - there isn't the value some of us see in saving the buildings.
It's one of the reasons I think that the preservation community has had trouble getting it's points heard. Now I'm going to get flamed...
An administration representing a city that is 85% black and very poor is not going to listen very intently to a group of almost all white folks, a good number of which are suburbanites without a dime of investment as say a business owner or property owner isn't going to be taken very seriously when the voter base is black, lives in the city, or maybe doesn't live in the city but has a business and/or other property.
Why should they listen intently or take action - you can't vote for'em, you don't own property or a business in the city. You're not their constituency and helping you is not going to help them at the ballot box one iota.
Unless you're going to invest, donate to a campaign, or move in, your voice doesn't matter much when it comes to actually getting things done. And it's the same way in the suburbs in reverse. The city council of Troy couldn't give two sheets to what I think, nor would they ever act on anything I put forward. Why would you expect the same out of Detroit?
And it's not completely a race thing. I know of white business owners, property owners and residents getting things done with the city. But they have chips of some sort in the pot.
Sorry to be blunt - but that's how it has been 'splained to me many times. |
Dds
Member
Username: Dds
Post Number: 588
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Friday, April 11, 2008 - 4:31 pm: | |
quote:I take it you haven't worked on too many buildings, then.
Not many. Just one. A business that took two years to renovate. Before we bought the building and started construction, we made sure the walls and roof wouldn't collapse in a stiff wind before we started knocking stuff around and down inside.
I do have a roommate who helped build Comerica Park, Ford Field, Two casinos and the MGM Grand Hotel. He tells me OSHA sort of frowns on collapsing walls.
Maybe I should have clarified that outer walls don't just collapse on buildings that have been under months of renovation without reflecting on the credibility of the contractor, which was my original point. |
Chow
Member
Username: Chow
Post Number: 464
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 11, 2008 - 4:47 pm: | |
Don't try to speculate about things you have no understanding of. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4137
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 11, 2008 - 5:20 pm: | |
quote:An administration representing a city that is 85% black and very poor is not going to listen very intently to a group of almost all white folks, a good number of which are suburbanites without a dime of investment as say a business owner or property owner isn't going to be taken very seriously when the voter base is black, lives in the city, or maybe doesn't live in the city but has a business and/or other property.
Why should they listen intently or take action - you can't vote for'em, you don't own property or a business in the city. You're not their constituency and helping you is not going to help them at the ballot box one iota.
Unless you're going to invest, donate to a campaign, or move in, your voice doesn't matter much when it comes to actually getting things done. And it's the same way in the suburbs in reverse. The city council of Troy couldn't give two sheets to what I think, nor would they ever act on anything I put forward. Why would you expect the same out of Detroit?
That makes sense. Unfortunately, a lot of us who would otherwise be residents/employees/employers have already left Detroit and Michigan, thanks to the "fuck you, we don't need you" attitude you explained above.
Why would we expect consideration from the City of Detroit? Perhaps it's because we're educated, have good incomes, take care of our homes, and care about our communities--all things that Detroit sorely lacks in the status quo. You would expect that Detroit would love to have more people around pulling weight instead of being dead weight.
I don't mean this as a knock on Detroit. It just seems like there is a REAL misconception on the part of KK and the Council that Detroit is "just fine" as it is. They don't give two shits about improving the City, as long as black people get to fuck it up instead of Whitey.
My $.02. |
Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 2992
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Friday, April 11, 2008 - 5:30 pm: | |
He's owned it since 1975 and just now wants to cry foul that they're forcing him to tear it down? |
Chub
Member
Username: Chub
Post Number: 514
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 11, 2008 - 5:32 pm: | |
That's exactly what I was thinking ^ |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4138
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 11, 2008 - 5:34 pm: | |
^It took the City 33 years to realize that someone had free and clear title to the property. |
Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw
Post Number: 4591
Registered: 02-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 11, 2008 - 6:07 pm: | |
DV, I don't think that hypothesis is hard to believe. I don't want to believe it though.
I thought it was a pretty universal belief that Detroit, especially our surface lot of a downtown, has been decimated enough, and redevelopment of all our old buildings should be prioritized. It doesn't make any sense to tear down more buildings when you already have so many lots to target for infill (if the "grand plan" even calls for infill).
(Message edited by mackinaw on April 11, 2008) |
Digitalvision
Member
Username: Digitalvision
Post Number: 738
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 11, 2008 - 7:08 pm: | |
Danindc, Mackinaw...
Although this happens in EVERY city, you gotta look deeper as to why it's stronger here. In this region, white folks have been telling black people what to do for more than a century.
White folks told black folks where their houses could be, and always in the worst areas of town.
And then told them they are second in line for jobs, and ineligible for housing assistance.
And then told them they can't go to the good hospital - and when black folks opened their own hospital, they wouldn't let the black doctors get the training they needed to get certified to get federal money because black doctors couldn't go to accredited medical colleges (this wasn't that long ago).
Same with schools.
I could keep going and going... but this board continually forgets the sad history that shapes this city and it's attitudes.
Pittsburgh is majority white. San Francisco is a calico city. Chicago, 42% white and blacks are 36-37%. New York isn't majority black, it's only 28% black.
Frankly, if you look at the history, what else would you expect? You've got a city in the control of a people who've been told what to do, how to do it, where to do it for hundreds of years and then you expect them to have forgotten about it in 20 years? |
Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw
Post Number: 4592
Registered: 02-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 11, 2008 - 7:25 pm: | |
Connecting all of that to preservation could make for an impactful academic paper. I don't buy it now, because I've never heard any of these sentiments actually get expressed, but like I said, I can see some merit in it.
It is pretty damn sad, though, because "modern" cities are ones like Houston, Phoenix, and LA. Yeah, they have lots of people, and are by all accounts successful economies, but they aren't traditional cities. If Detroit makes a 180 degree turn from being a traditional or hybrid-traditional city to a modern one, it would be sad from the perspective of those [white, black, and everyone else] who seek to respect history and urbanism. |
Rocket_city
Member
Username: Rocket_city
Post Number: 783
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Friday, April 11, 2008 - 7:41 pm: | |
I'm sure JoAnn Watson will have it moved piece by piece over to her new Blacktown District where Harmonie Park once stood. |
Mwilbert
Member
Username: Mwilbert
Post Number: 197
Registered: 11-2007
| | Posted on Friday, April 11, 2008 - 7:50 pm: | |
It is no doubt true that a lot of people have a lot of memories, either personal or passed-down, of bad stuff that has happened before. I understand why that might make people resistant to suggestions/advice/orders from people who they associate with those bad memories. But I don't understand what that has to do with this particular case.
I am sure there aren't a lot of votes in saving the Oddfellows building, but neither are there a lot of votes in demolishing it. Given that the owners appear to want to save it (and I can't say that their actions exactly scream competence either) I don't understand why the city is so anxious to demolish it, if in fact its foreseeable future is as a parking lot. If the administration has some particular animus against the owners, sure. If they have some other secret plan for it, then the whole thing would be a lot more understandable too.
But it appears that they are insisting upon demolishing a building that someone seemed to be in the process of redeveloping for no apparent reason. It is hard for me to believe that it is just some kind of generalized racial petulance. Maybe, but I would tend to think better even of the mayor. |
Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw
Post Number: 4593
Registered: 02-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 11, 2008 - 8:58 pm: | |
I basically agree with Mwilbert, regarding the case at hand. |
Jams
Member
Username: Jams
Post Number: 8331
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 12, 2008 - 6:29 am: | |
Digitalvision has some very valid points that need to be considered by some of the avid "urban planners" here.
Take note of the developments of some of the Church-based economic developments that are pointed to as successful accomplishments in establishing new businesses and other endeavors that provide jobs for the community.
It does not seem that "New Urbanism" ranks high in the priority list, if it does not provide jobs or other economic benefits to the community.
If you are truly interested in moving Detroit forward, take the time to understand those POVs, before determining the direction we move towards. |
Fury13
Member
Username: Fury13
Post Number: 4123
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 12, 2008 - 10:02 am: | |
"..."modern" cities are ones like Houston, Phoenix, and LA. Yeah, they have lots of people, and are by all accounts successful economies, but they aren't traditional cities. If Detroit makes a 180 degree turn from being a traditional or hybrid-traditional city to a modern one, it would be sad from the perspective of those [white, black, and everyone else] who seek to respect history and urbanism."
Bingo. Take that, along with Digitalvision's insightful posts on the subject, and you will begin to understand why New Urbanism will not take hold here in any significant way. It's simply not wanted here.
You're never going to see the classic urban environment created (or re-created) in Detroit. There may be pockets of urbanism here and there, but you're not going to see NYC-, Chicago- , or Philly-style neighborhoods here.
That's why many who craved a real city experience left Detroit in the first place (for NYC, or Chicago, or DC, or Philadelphia, etc., etc.). |
Detourdetroit
Member
Username: Detourdetroit
Post Number: 387
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 14, 2008 - 8:42 pm: | |
Apparently the demo order was rescinded... bricks cleared. temporary scaffolding and stabilizers added... |
Charlottepaul
Member
Username: Charlottepaul
Post Number: 2452
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Friday, April 18, 2008 - 10:07 pm: | |
Bump. April 18th, going on the 19th. What is the status? |
Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw
Post Number: 4643
Registered: 02-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 18, 2008 - 11:51 pm: | |
Did the rescinding of the demo order make any media?
I walked by there a couple times this week and you could see the renovation progress on the ground floor. The site certainly appeared secure. The facade of the building is still in good shape. |
Charlottepaul
Member
Username: Charlottepaul
Post Number: 2456
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, April 20, 2008 - 12:45 pm: | |
"The facade of the building is still in good shape."
Sure about that? What happens on the next day with 60 MPH winds? I mean I am all for rehab. of old buildings, but sometimes one has to pick his battles. If the owner did do all that the city required of him to secure the site, then he should be allowed to 'waste' his money preserving that building until his heart is content. |
Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw
Post Number: 4646
Registered: 02-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, April 20, 2008 - 1:43 pm: | |
I'm not sure what you mean, especially in terms of you chiding someone for "wasting" their money to bring back an historic edifice that could benefit them and the City.
The key is that the City shouldn't be telling anyone to tear down buildings that the City doesn't own, short of a building that can be proven to be harmful to the general public. Even the slightest possibility of this building being re-used is worth keeping it around; it has more worth and potential constructive use [as a place for people to live and work, without having to spend big $ and time building another building] than a parking lot. Once it's gone, you can't have it back. How many times do you walk around downtown and lament for what has been lost? |
Patrick
Member
Username: Patrick
Post Number: 5343
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 20, 2008 - 1:47 pm: | |
Mackinaw makes a good point about the City minding their own business. I do feel that if the building is a public safety hazard, then it needs to be taken down. Imagine if there had been children playing next to the building when it partially fell apart. If one section collapsed, then another could as well. |
E_hemingway
Member
Username: E_hemingway
Post Number: 1656
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, April 20, 2008 - 5:28 pm: | |
Walked past it today. The place is secured with small construction equipment (cherry picker, bobcat, etc.) inside a fenced off area. A security guard was walking around. It looked like the owners were beginning to reinforce the building and continue the renovation in earnest. |
Lowell
Board Administrator
Username: Lowell
Post Number: 4767
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 20, 2008 - 5:37 pm: | |
I noticed the same E Hemingway. It looked like a very serious effort. That it hopeful news. It would be a tragedy to lose a building with such character and history. |
Erikd
Member
Username: Erikd
Post Number: 1011
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 24, 2008 - 11:18 pm: | |
There has been daily work on the building since the wall collapse happened.
The workers have installed temporary supports in the building, and they have been carefully removing the remaining portions of the rear wall, leaving a perfectly straight cut at the end of each side wall. |
Digitalvision
Member
Username: Digitalvision
Post Number: 772
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 24, 2008 - 11:24 pm: | |
Awesome to hear... absolutely awesome.
Sometimes, the good surprises even the most cynical of us. Love to see it. |
Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw
Post Number: 4687
Registered: 02-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 24, 2008 - 11:49 pm: | |
Thanks, Erikd.
And take that, doubters! |
Hybridy
Member
Username: Hybridy
Post Number: 246
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Friday, April 25, 2008 - 12:05 am: | |
Hopefully this unfortunate natural damage will force the developer to finish the job he set out to do in 1975. Its obvious that nothing in Detroit happens quickly, but I am very disappointed that so many people have bought up pieces of the city only to let them rot until the market turns then turn around and make a huge profit from its sale. Its good marketing no doubt, but its got this city stuck in the mud. Had I the financial means, I would be a bit more earnest in my efforts. But why should anyone listen to rationalism? |
Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok
Post Number: 6718
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 25, 2008 - 1:52 pm: | |
This thread shows the poor choice in words that some people on this forum use for thread titles. I didn't read this thread (not realizing they were talking about a building) until the thread was pretty much exhausted.
Thread titles should give one a clue as to what is going to be discussed. Much too often thread title ambiguity seems to be the norm here. |
Detroitrise
Member
Username: Detroitrise
Post Number: 1998
Registered: 09-2007
| | Posted on Friday, April 25, 2008 - 5:25 pm: | |
Oh gawd! Another surface lot to compliment our vibrant CBD.  |
Neilr
Member
Username: Neilr
Post Number: 718
Registered: 06-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 26, 2008 - 1:50 pm: | |
This morning I noticed the complete rear wall has been removed, as described by Ericd. All the floors have newly installed, most likely temporary, supports. The mezzanine and second floors look pretty level. The third floor still sags somewhat and the fourth floor appears to have several pronounced sags. The work clearly appears to be preservative rather than demolition. |
Rhymeswithrawk
Member
Username: Rhymeswithrawk
Post Number: 1188
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 26, 2008 - 3:54 pm: | |
I stopped by after lunch at Bahn Thai last week and asked a hardhat if it was being saved, he said it was. Hard to believe a gem can rot for decades and decades and all it takes is for its back wall to collapse before work is started to save it. ::shrug:: At least it's being saved. I cringe thinking about the loss of the Monroe Block for that huge parking lot in the city center. |
Eric
Member
Username: Eric
Post Number: 1133
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, April 26, 2008 - 11:26 pm: | |
Good see that everything worked out, but it's a shame that it took a wall collapsing and the city threating demolition to make the owner take renovation seriously. |
Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan
Post Number: 5956
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 26, 2008 - 11:39 pm: | |
Wait, didn't the city just say they are going to demand it be brought down? |
New threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.