  Wilus1mj Member Username: Wilus1mj Post Number: 259 Registered: 05-2005 |
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pb cs.dll/article?AID=/20080411/M ETRO/804110366/1408/LOCAL | ||
Udmphikapbob Member Username: Udmphikapbob Post Number: 549 Registered: 07-2004 |
Left hand not talking to the right? "James Canning, a spokesman for Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, said the city ordered the demolition because the structure is unsafe and its owner has not demonstrated any future use." "Ali Saritas, who was remodeling the first floor of the building in hopes of opening a restaurant, remained optimistic Thursday that the building would be saved. "I'm waiting to hear back from the owner," said Saritas. He and his wife planned to open a Turkish restaurant called Sulpas in the building." | ||
Detroitstar Member Username: Detroitstar Post Number: 1047 Registered: 01-2006 |
Talked to a guy last night who was working to disconnect the utilities. He said that the building has been poorly secured from a structural standpoint over the years. He said it is as if it was cared for in 3 sections, and only about a third of the building was safe. Tear it down and come up with a suitable infill project that will enhance a very important corner. | ||
56packman Member Username: 56packman Post Number: 2161 Registered: 12-2005 |
Quote: Tear it down and come up with a suitable infill project that will enhance a very important corner I'm guessing the formula of 1 car=200 square feet will be brought into play for that site. | ||
Detroithabitater Member Username: Detroithabitater Post Number: 136 Registered: 10-2006 |
AT LEAST save the facade. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4128 Registered: 10-2003 |
Gee, I'm sure glad they got the opinion of a fire captain. </sarcasm> The City is going to make this guy jump through all kinds of hoops (a 24-hour security guard???), and then still impose its will (demolition) upon the owner. All the while, there's absolutely no mention of an engineer being involved in stabilizing the structure. What crap. How in the hell does the City of Detroit ever expect to achieve significant investment if its seemingly only goal is to scorch the earth? | ||
Gambling_man Member Username: Gambling_man Post Number: 1069 Registered: 11-2003 |
This lot will become flat parking for the rest of your lives........where is the uproar for this? God forbid my casino builds a lousy skyway....f**king lazy hippocrates.... | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 5829 Registered: 10-2004 |
I walked/jogged by there a few times last week. There appeared to be free sidewalk access to the front of the building, AFAI remember--only the rear had any security or workers present. If only 1/3 of the building was safe, why doesn't the sidewalk be restricted? Or has that situation changed during the past seven to eleven days? | ||
Rjlj Member Username: Rjlj Post Number: 501 Registered: 11-2003 |
I love this last line from the Robot Sheep: "Canning said the demolition is an example of the mayor's city improvement plan to tear down old and abandoned buildings." These people have no clue and must go. I hope the building is saved. | ||
Dds Member Username: Dds Post Number: 580 Registered: 10-2006 |
quote: What they didn't do was claim that the building was currently part of a lawsuit. There's a building on Bagley near Grand Circus Park that hasn't had a promise or hint of development for years that's an eyesore. It's been allowed to sit and rot away, sometimes unsecured and not a security guard in sight. Claim litigation is in process and I guess the city can't do a damn thing about your building, Mr. Elkus. (Message edited by dds on April 11, 2008) | ||
6nois Member Username: 6nois Post Number: 704 Registered: 11-2006 |
I would hope the city would put a stay on the demolition and allow the owner time to start work on the building, and demonstrate his commitment, instead of just tearing down the building that has plans when other far worse off buildings could be removed, say timber framed houses that have burned and cannot be saved at all. I hope something positive can come of this but I have great doubts. | ||
56packman Member Username: 56packman Post Number: 2162 Registered: 12-2005 |
Like the stay of demolition that was violated in the cases of Little Harry's, Hudson's, the portion of the Packard plant that was demo'ed against a court-ordered stay......... A court ordered stay has as much effectiveness as the city council's resolution against the war in Iraq. Kwame's already called Bobby on it. | ||
Digitalvision Member Username: Digitalvision Post Number: 733 Registered: 11-2003 |
What I'd tell you guys... the city will find a way to tear a building down if it wants to. When will that sink in? You can kvetch all you want to about it on here, but the facts are the facts. This administration would prefer to have parking lots over a rehabbed structure.. I am pleasantly surprised that the owner wants to make it happen. Look at the M-L site. That promised development is never going to happen. What's even scarier and more chilling to the business community is that obviously now the owner has the money to do something with it; and the city is going to not only order that they throw away a bunch of money but then pay for a demolition as well. Real business friendly attitude going on here. Gambling man is right - it will be a permanent parking lot as that owner has about zero incentive to do ANYTHING with the city because he's been railroaded. Disgusting. If this business owner does indeed have a plan - this administration is notorious for not listening when it doesn't fit their desires - he should be whole-heartedly supported. The ML is still a parking lot, and Gambling man is right, this site will be a parking lot virtually FOREVER on a prime strip of real estate. Why would a business owner want to do anything else with the property when he's being told what he HAS to do by the city? If this has been the case with other lots, then it's not surprise we have a sea of ugly surface parking lots today. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 4588 Registered: 02-2005 |
"I would like to ask you to save a 100-year-old building," developer Howard Schwartz told the council. "It's a gorgeous building. The owners have the money to (renovate it.)" And yet the City orders him to tear it down. F*** that. There should be outrage, G_man. I agree with Digitalvision's post. And do we think these people will actually undertake new construction there? Why would they, even if they somehow walked away with this debacle with some funds leftover? They were attached to that building, they had a plan, and then the City treated them like crap after a natural disaster. Forget about it. They might just step back and never accomplish their dreams, or they might move. I'm sure they can find a nice storefront to renovate and start a business in Chicago or Pittsburgh or somewhere else. | ||
Downtownguy Member Username: Downtownguy Post Number: 131 Registered: 07-2004 |
As I am prone to do when I get furious over boneheaded decisions such as this, I have called the Mayor's Office to register my discontent (313-224-3400). I also spoke to Mr. Dan Lopez in the Buildings & Safety Engineering Dept. (313-224-2733) and several Council Member's staff (phone numbers at http://www.ci.detroit.mi.us/le gislative/) Here's a developer (Mr. Schwartz) that could use our support. Call, write, email or fax your elected leaders if you have a chance before time runs out. I'll bet the bulldozers are just around the corner. | ||
Dds Member Username: Dds Post Number: 582 Registered: 10-2006 |
quote: So why didn't we hear of these big business plans before the building collapsed? Isn't that a bit suspicious? Coincidental? I'm not saying they weren't in the works, but wouldn't you want to ensure that your building would stand up to a heavy wind if you were planning all this development? Before I would plan investment, I'd want to make sure the structure was stable. This place has been abandoned for years! Also, doesn't someone on this board find out about development like that from a little birdy from time to time? Has this place gone that far down hill since Skulker left? | ||
Tarkus Member Username: Tarkus Post Number: 480 Registered: 04-2006 |
"Tear that schitt down." | ||
Mauser765 Member Username: Mauser765 Post Number: 2617 Registered: 01-2004 |
the City has demolished structures (or otherwise rendered them, uh - let's just say "inert") out from under financed and motivated owner/developers in the past. | ||
Chow Member Username: Chow Post Number: 462 Registered: 10-2003 |
Dds, people have been working on that building for several months now. Nothing visible from the outside, but people in and out non-the-less. | ||
Sciencefair Member Username: Sciencefair Post Number: 76 Registered: 10-2007 |
I agree that it's a shame to level a building that was supposed to be saved, but I also feel like the dude had 30 years to fix it up and take care it so this wouldn't happen. | ||
Chow Member Username: Chow Post Number: 463 Registered: 10-2003 |
If we hold that standard to this building owner than I sure as hell hope we start doing the same with all of the other slumlords downtown. The tragedy isn't just that we are losing a historic structure, but that this will surely become surface parking on perhaps what one of the best locations downtown... between Greektown and Campus Martius (with great sight-lines from CM). | ||
Dds Member Username: Dds Post Number: 583 Registered: 10-2006 |
quote: In the first week of working on it, after an engineer inspected it, they should have realized the walls were unstable, don't you think? If they're that stupid they deserve to lose the building. | ||
Viziondetroit Member Username: Viziondetroit Post Number: 1617 Registered: 11-2003 |
I guess Cracker Jack Construction should not have been hired to inspect | ||
Detroithabitater Member Username: Detroithabitater Post Number: 137 Registered: 10-2006 |
did we learn nothing from the Monroe block? | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 4589 Registered: 02-2005 |
"So why didn't we hear of these big business plans before the building collapsed?" Not everything gets hyped-up before it happens, Dds. Plus, do you think our local papers and other sources are really dependable, especially for keeping tabs on small businesses in the City before they open? Even ModelD neglects a lot of smaller developments, or doesn't cover them until the place opens. Just because you didn't hear about it doesn't mean the owner/developer doesn't have any credibility. If you can dig up info on Schwartz and show me a bad track record, then I'll look at them more skeptically. The odds are, with a location like that, something was going to open soon in that building, and be quite successful. Now we'll have a successful, fabolously-located parking lot. | ||
Dds Member Username: Dds Post Number: 586 Registered: 10-2006 |
quote: If work had been going on for months, as Chow suggests, and the outer wall still collapsed, how soon do you think something was going to be able to be established? quote: And Toebe Construction and Stevin Construction (contractors on the Zilwaukee Bridge) had credibility until the northbound span started sinking. Quality of workmanship is a mirror of credibility. Outer walls don't just collapse on buildings that have been under months of renovation. Inside issues, maybe. | ||
Eric_c Member Username: Eric_c Post Number: 1197 Registered: 11-2003 |
"Now we'll have a successful, fabulously-located parking lot." -Mackinaw Across from a parking deck that sits across from a parking deck that sits across from a parking deck! No worries, though - they all have first floor retail space! | ||
Dds Member Username: Dds Post Number: 587 Registered: 10-2006 |
quote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the proper terminology "ground floor retail?" | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4133 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: I take it you haven't worked on too many buildings, then. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 4590 Registered: 02-2005 |
Well of course a business won't be opening within a few months of a wall collapse. That probably changes their timetable a bit, no? But according to the developer, the desire is still there, and the City is putting a halt to somebody's plans to fix a building on their own, and open a business. Hmmmm...that sounds like something the City should be doing. And what harm does the collapsed wall do to the City at large? Is there any social benefit that will be derived that would cause the city to decide that it's better that the building is completely gone, as opposed to sitting in its current state for a time, until they rebuild the wall? I was just there yesterday. It sure as hell didn't bother me, and knowing someone was going to rebuild the wall, I didn't think much of it. Neither did all the other people walking around and packing the restaurants near Greektown. So there's a pile of bricks...big damn deal. The City's logic is beyond me. There's no sense in defending them when they are telling someone that intends to rebuild the structure that they cannot do it, and that they have to tear down their entire building, and spend an assload of their own money in the mean time. |
