Discuss Detroit » Archives - July 2008 » Everything is Going to be Alright « Previous Next »
Top of pageBottom of page

Andylinn
Member
Username: Andylinn

Post Number: 891
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Sunday, June 29, 2008 - 12:20 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

My brother and I wrote an article about Detroit for urban planning magazine The Next American City.

What do you guys think?

Check it out here:

http://americancity.org/magazi ne/article/everything-is-going -to-be-alright-demolition-and- adaptive-reuse-in-detroit/
Top of pageBottom of page

Rel
Member
Username: Rel

Post Number: 743
Registered: 02-2008
Posted on Sunday, June 29, 2008 - 1:10 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Good article, guys! Interesting breakdown of renovation vs. demolition costs. Seriously... $108 to demolish a building? Wow.

(Hey, Andy... had a chance yet to drop off that paper shredder to PW? Thanks!)
Top of pageBottom of page

Andylinn
Member
Username: Andylinn

Post Number: 892
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Sunday, June 29, 2008 - 1:56 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Of course the demolition charge is simply the application fee. Actual demolition / construction would cost alot more. The fee structure is simply a sign of the city's agenda.
Top of pageBottom of page

Django
Member
Username: Django

Post Number: 1155
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Sunday, June 29, 2008 - 6:12 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

how come the link will not work for me??
Top of pageBottom of page

Gnome
Member
Username: Gnome

Post Number: 1405
Registered: 08-2007
Posted on Sunday, June 29, 2008 - 7:35 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The most interesting point made: the State put more $ into tearing down the Statler than it did in the entire "Cool Cities" program.

That should have been your lead instead of the tired old 1890 moniker, "Paris of the Mid-west".

I was also surprised to learn it costs 100 times more for renovation permits than it does for demolition permits. Makes sense, but it is disheartening.

Not too sure if the title of the article will make sense to someone not familiar with MOCAD's neon sign. Especially since there is not a photo of the sign or the building.

The article doesn't draw me in. Another crappy story about a crappy city. A emo trip. Two paragraphs in and I want to cut myself, again.

Give me a reason to read. All over the country people ask the same question, Why do people live there? How did it get so shitty? Will it ever change? Inside your article are answers to a few of those questions, but for the most part it's a Debbie Downer piece.

Sorry.
Top of pageBottom of page

Django
Member
Username: Django

Post Number: 1164
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Sunday, June 29, 2008 - 7:41 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Damn Gnome, dont hold anything back now, be honest.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gnome
Member
Username: Gnome

Post Number: 1406
Registered: 08-2007
Posted on Sunday, June 29, 2008 - 7:56 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be harsh, and I am sorry if I came off that way. Andy you asked for a review, ... I guess I've read and re-read the same lead-in so many times, that I expected a different take from such a DetroitAphile as yourself.

I really didn't mean to hurt your feelings, or to be rude to your efforts, ... just the research on demo vs renovation costs proves you did days of research ... I was just hoping for a compelling reason to keep reading.

I'm thinking about the readers of NEXT and what they are looking for. Urbanists, in name and interest, they are looking for examples, test cases, "this is what works", "this is what doesn't" kind of stories. Your piece gives juicey facts and interesting insights, but it is dressed in a ho-hum intro, a Non Sequitur title, and a ending that makes me want to plead for the five minutes back.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gazhekwe
Member
Username: Gazhekwe

Post Number: 2294
Registered: 08-2007
Posted on Sunday, June 29, 2008 - 9:03 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I read it with interest. It does seem to show one area where city and state admin could redirect funding to a more sensible purpose. How to do that? And to what result? Who wants to develop the stock into what kinds of space? Who is working toward this and who do we contact to promote change? Questions, questions and more questions. Detroit, the big question mark -- So much possibility and so little commitment.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw

Post Number: 5047
Registered: 02-2005
Posted on Sunday, June 29, 2008 - 9:21 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Good story-- a good way to describe our issues to non-Detroiters, and, really, better content than we'd normally find in local papers.
Top of pageBottom of page

Rfban
Member
Username: Rfban

Post Number: 280
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Sunday, June 29, 2008 - 9:37 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Nice job Andrew!
Top of pageBottom of page

Gene
Member
Username: Gene

Post Number: 108
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Sunday, June 29, 2008 - 9:37 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Lets see 40 years ago was the start of failed urban policy, Coleman A. Young elected 1974.

Why blame the State?
Top of pageBottom of page

Titancub
Member
Username: Titancub

Post Number: 122
Registered: 08-2006
Posted on Sunday, June 29, 2008 - 9:57 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Andylinn - good article, a nice read.

The cool cities stat is incredible, esp given all the pub that the program has received.
Top of pageBottom of page

Andylinn
Member
Username: Andylinn

Post Number: 894
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Sunday, June 29, 2008 - 12:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Interestingly, in the print version of the magazine, they used a photo Rob and I took of the MOCAD sign. Why it does not appear in the online version I shall never know. Thanks for the feedback, guys.

In answer to your comments Gnome, I appreciate your feedback, honestly I do. A challenge I have in writing articles such as this is that I will not compromise myself academically, I will write an academically honest paper, but at the same time, I will not be some schmuck who trashes Detroit. I want to highlight hope. Thus, I tried to do both, I illustrated the ineptitude of the state and city, but also showed the reader what honestly remarkable things were going on at Avalon, the HUB, Russel, CAID, MOCAD, etc...

Gnome, I actually agree with you that "Paris of the Midwest" is a tired opening statement. Rob's and my original opening was description of the demolition of Hudson's. We described how majestic the building was, how historic it was, and how it was just an underground parking structure right now. We had a quote from archer saying "Let the future begin" as he pushed the ceremonial demolition plunger. The magazine's editorial staff cut that line. I think they thought for a national audience, the next section, the section about Paris of the Midwest, was better.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mbr
Member
Username: Mbr

Post Number: 405
Registered: 03-2005
Posted on Sunday, June 29, 2008 - 4:07 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Good article overall. A few comments:
1. I don't think the relatively low cost for a demo permit is at all connected to the number of buildings demolished. A demo permit is basically just a guy checking to make sure all the utilities have been shut off. A rehab or construction permit involves an analysis of thousands of different rules, codes, and regulations that require intense scrutiny for public safety. Also, it's a stretch to call permit fees city policy. I think it is city policy to require BS&E to cover their costs with permit fees.

2. The comparison to Cool Cities is a compelling statement but misses the point I believe. It's a small piece in the overall redevelopment puzzle (http://ref.michigan.org/medc/s ervices/general/cat/products/) At the Statler, asbestos and PCB's were removed by the state so that it could be rehabbed. When the city decided to tear it down, they spent $7m. By comparison, I don't know the exact number, but I think projects in the City of Detroit have received well over $100m in Brownfield Tax Credits, a state program.

3. Your second sentence is great, one of the best summaries of Detroit i've read. I often reference the high water mark when speaking of Detroit. If you consider that mark somewhere in the 1950's near peak population and before urban renewal that represents about 60 years of steady decline. Assuming Detroit began to fundamentally rebound today, a reasonable assumption is that it might take 60 years or more to reach that point again or anywhere near it. The conclusion is, is it reasonable to keep a building stock at the "high water mark" which means buildings could sit vacant or underutilized for 50-100 years.
Top of pageBottom of page

Retroit
Member
Username: Retroit

Post Number: 257
Registered: 04-2008
Posted on Sunday, June 29, 2008 - 4:38 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Mbr, on point #3, how do you know we haven't passed the halfway mark? Goes back to the old question "Why can you only run halfway into the woods?" Answer: Because after that point, you'll be running OUT of the woods.

Andylinn, your editor should have let you keep your first opening.

Editor, trust your writers.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroiterbychoice
Member
Username: Detroiterbychoice

Post Number: 44
Registered: 04-2008
Posted on Sunday, June 29, 2008 - 10:23 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


every
Top of pageBottom of page

Alan55
Member
Username: Alan55

Post Number: 1896
Registered: 09-2005
Posted on Sunday, June 29, 2008 - 10:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The demo permit cost vs. rehab / new construction permit cost is kind of a non-issue. If any of the old demo'd buildings were in Ann Arbor or Royal Oak, for example, someone would have rehabbed them for another use because there is demand. The only thing demo vs. rehab does is act as sort of a thermometer letting you gage the vibrancy of the market.
Top of pageBottom of page

Andylinn
Member
Username: Andylinn

Post Number: 896
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Monday, June 30, 2008 - 10:25 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Alan, true. I think you are right in that no developer will be stopped by a few hundred in fees. However, I think that the fee structure is indicative of the priorities of the city. It is a fact that they will charge you more in fees for rehab than for demolition. I would argue that fees for rehabs of buildings, especially the historic buildings mentioned in the article, should be subsidized by the fees for demolition.

What if, for example, after proving your financial strength, you were rushed through a special rehab approval court, and the fee was $10, whereas to demolish a standing structure, you had to go through the normal (slow) Detroit approval process and pay $1000. That would be a no small incentive for developers to conserve resources and precious structures.
Top of pageBottom of page

Charlottepaul
Member
Username: Charlottepaul

Post Number: 2577
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Monday, June 30, 2008 - 12:54 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

A very well-rounded article that gives a small glimpse of the goings on in Detroit. If nothing else, the example of the permit costs serves at least as an ironic example (even if there is no intent on the city's part for these costs).

However, the quote at the end by Vandyke seems to almost argue that history is Detroit more than even the buildings themselves (and perhaps almost argues against the theme of the article). Are the buildings themselves the history?
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitderek
Member
Username: Detroitderek

Post Number: 40
Registered: 09-2007
Posted on Monday, June 30, 2008 - 1:05 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Cool article - Detroiterbychoice - that was the picture they were originally going to use for this article ( my version of a similar shot ) . Not sure what happened - I had originally been contacted by Samantha Schneider at the magazine for use of my picture. Oh well.
Top of pageBottom of page

Andylinn
Member
Username: Andylinn

Post Number: 898
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Monday, June 30, 2008 - 1:06 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Interesting point, Charlotte. I think what Vandyke intends by the statement is that the buildings are the history.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mbr
Member
Username: Mbr

Post Number: 406
Registered: 03-2005
Posted on Monday, June 30, 2008 - 4:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Andy, to build on your point above, I think Detroit needs to take a much more user friendly approach to the whole permitting process. It would cost some money but if you had a 1st floor retail operation, set up like a Kinko's, and emphasize customer service that would do wonders for fixing the perception that it is difficult to build in the city. Other cities have done it, can't remember which off hand, maybe NYC.
Top of pageBottom of page

Birdie
Member
Username: Birdie

Post Number: 47
Registered: 04-2007
Posted on Tuesday, July 01, 2008 - 12:40 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

super article andy and rob!
Top of pageBottom of page

Alan55
Member
Username: Alan55

Post Number: 1904
Registered: 09-2005
Posted on Tuesday, July 01, 2008 - 2:25 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Andy, I will build on your statement above about how permit costs should be cheaper for rehab vs. demo.

We have things backwards for all construction in this state, not just Detroit. I can't help but shake my head when I see a new strip mall being built across the street from a similar-sized, 30-year-old strip mall that is half-empty and deteriorating. We give incentives to new construction, whether it is thru up-front tax programs, or by having the community subsidize required infrastructure for new subdivisions.

We need to do a better economic job of helping the person who is buying a 60-year-old existing house that needs a new roof, furnace, plumbing, shrubbery, etc. and less well helping the subdivision builders putting up a sub out at 86 Mile Road and Van Dyke.

There is a joke that points out how we are doing things wrong:

Dateline, 2033, Auburn Hills, Michigan: The Detroit Pistons have announced that since the neighborhood surrounding the Palace of Auburn Hills has become so deteriorated and crime-ridden, the team will move out to a new sports facility that should be completed in the next 24 months. The State has stepped forward with guarantees of infrastructure improvements around the new stadium, to the tune of $250 million dollars.

The new facility will be called The Palace of Bad Axe.
Top of pageBottom of page

Charlottepaul
Member
Username: Charlottepaul

Post Number: 2587
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Tuesday, July 01, 2008 - 8:25 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yeah Alan my favorite author that advocates for regional cooperation has many examples of cases like that. He even takes it a bit further:

“Regions spend billions of dollars building infrastructure such as schools, freeways, and sewers, which add enormous value to outer-ring land. To the extent that these public expenditures serve to transfer value, they are wasted. Adding to this dysfunction, the infrastructure of new cities is often paid for by taxes and fees levied on residents and businesses in older parts of the region.” (63)

Orfield, Myron. Metropolitics: A Regional Agenda for Community and Stability. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1997

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