  Rb336 Member Username: Rb336 Post Number: 8330 Registered: 02-2007 |
don't know if it affects the coneys, but the city has put out an RFP for environmental services related it the demolition of the building | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 8029 Registered: 02-2004 |
Need more sources. Why is the Lafayette building is being demolished? | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 3874 Registered: 07-2004 |
Because it's an embarrassment to Detroit's leaders. (A parking lot, however, would be progress.) | ||
J_to_the_jeremy Member Username: J_to_the_jeremy Post Number: 146 Registered: 03-2007 |
This is unfortunate... There are so many better uses of city money, contractor money... | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 3875 Registered: 07-2004 |
 DETROIT, 2023: Claiming the impending "victory over blight," Detroit leaders say that, after the shell of a church and a vacant administration building come down next month, downtown Detroit will have leveled all troubled buildings and be poised for a comeback. Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick said, "When you have this much prime real estate in one downtown, you can't help but have the investment community come calling." Detroit, which once had a downtown of motley skyscrapers, has aggressively knocked down buildings deemed, "old, unstable or less-than-Class A," and has acres of open space ready for "any kind of development the business community wants: Parking garages, technology campuses, green space. We have lots of room now, and we're ready for investment of any kind. We'd even be happy to get rid of any annoying streets that are in the way of today's outsized visions." The meeting of Detroit leaders was nearly unanimous in its praise for the renewal plan. One vote of dissent was from an architecture and urban planning consultant from the East Coast. After seeing the clean slate Detroit's leaders have created, the man turned visibly pale, stared at the open land, and began quietly weeping. | ||
J_to_the_jeremy Member Username: J_to_the_jeremy Post Number: 147 Registered: 03-2007 |
That was one of the more spot on posts I've seen on here, ever. | ||
Rsa Member Username: Rsa Post Number: 1599 Registered: 10-2003 |
RFP for environmental services does not necessarily mean the building is coming down. this could be an RFP for remediation of toxic substances within the building (eg. asbestos, oils, battery acids, etc.). this could be a preliminary measure to tear it down. however it could also be prep work to turn the building over to a possible developer. just something to consider before everyone claims that the "sky is falling." i also raise this question: why/how would the city tear this building down when there is a $200 million budget shortfall and the majority of buildings on kwame's "hit-list" (many of which are in worse shape than the lafayette)are still standing? | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 3876 Registered: 07-2004 |
Rsa: I'm not saying the sky is falling. Given the feast Detroit has become for demo contractors, I wouldn't be surprised if somebody quietly planned to demo the Lafayette. You know me: Taking any and every opportunity to satirize the "demolish it and they will come" strategy that has plagued Detroit for too long.  | ||
Digitalvision Member Username: Digitalvision Post Number: 1493 Registered: 11-2003 |
It's probably not city money, since the feds are more than happy to pay for many kinds of demolition, and although I don't have the cold documents in front of me, this does not surprise me whatsoever. As soon as the B-C was built the Lafayette's days were numbered. The building is too big and doesn't have the same redeeming emotional connection. You can only pull off so many Book-Cadillac remodels in a local economy that's been in a recession for almost a decade. I hate to say this, but to visitors staying at the Book Cadillac or other places, they don't view our vacant buildings as possibilities, they wonder why the eyesores haven't been torn down yet. Those visitors from out of town would rather see a parking lot and feel safer next to a parking lot, and view it as progress. I don't personally agree, but I know what sells, and demo is really easy to sell to the majority public in Detroit. | ||
Rb336 Member Username: Rb336 Post Number: 8331 Registered: 02-2007 |
actually, the rfp specifically states that it is for demolition | ||
Rjlj Member Username: Rjlj Post Number: 766 Registered: 11-2003 |
Link please? | ||
Angry_dad Member Username: Angry_dad Post Number: 284 Registered: 02-2006 |
Now this is critical!!! What will happen to the coneys????? Tear them down and why would anybody go downtown anymore? | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 3877 Registered: 07-2004 |
I authorize the creation of the Historic Coney Island Defense Fund, starting with my own $10 donation.  | ||
Publicmsu Member Username: Publicmsu Post Number: 795 Registered: 11-2003 |
The new and improved Coney Island parking lot? | ||
Digitalvision Member Username: Digitalvision Post Number: 1494 Registered: 11-2003 |
They are separate buildings, in fact, have a building between the Lafayette and their building. I'm too lazy to walk outside and snap a picture, so he's a link to Google. So I'm guessing they won't come down. Crisis averted. 0%2C-15.188133140376268,http:/ /maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=e n&geocode=&q=book+cadillac+hot el,+detroit,+mi&sll=37.0625,-9 5.677068&sspn=34.038806,60.732 422&ie=UTF8&ll=42.333407,-83.0 50761&spn=0,359.985173&z=16&iw loc=A&layer=c&cbll=42.331677,- 83.049154&panoid=UcIfRt_UPbWFQ h3FWCPlAw&cbp=12,159.256534420 54067,,0,-15.188133140376268 | ||
Detroitstar Member Username: Detroitstar Post Number: 1399 Registered: 01-2006 |
Who in the hell would want to stay at the BC with a view of the Lafayette Building in it's current condition? You couldnt pay me what they are asking to have that kind of view. I dont want to see the building go, but if given the choice I'm gonna go with something being better than nothing. | ||
E_hemingway Member Username: E_hemingway Post Number: 1882 Registered: 11-2004 |
So much for Cockrell's green agenda. Tearing down the Lafayette is pretty much the antithesis of sustainability. Add on his plan to use most of the federal foreclosure money for demolition and it's getting harder and harder to believe what he says. Most of his inaugural address was about how he wants to be the environmentally friendly mayor and he follows that up with wanting to raze just about everything in sight and find another excuse to keep the incinerator polluting? The more of his actions I see the more Kwame-like he appears. If this is true, he has pretty much has lost my vote. | ||
Mschievous Member Username: Mschievous Post Number: 314 Registered: 04-2008 |
Who is John Galt? Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged" | ||
Bearinabox Member Username: Bearinabox Post Number: 1076 Registered: 04-2006 |
quote:I agree. Something (a building, even a vacant and somewhat run-down building) is better than nothing (Detroitnerd's photo above). | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 5316 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: "Demolition" doesn't always imply structural demolition. They could be doing "soft" demolition of the building (non load-bearing partitions, HVAC, plumbing, electrical, etc). Concerning the Book-Cadillac, I think a huge part of the appeal of that building is that it is located smack downtown, vacant buildings notwithstanding. If someone wants to stay or live in an open field, there's always Auburn Hills. | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 624 Registered: 06-2008 |
*claps* | ||
Busterwmu Member Username: Busterwmu Post Number: 589 Registered: 09-2004 |
"The greenest building is the one that is already built." It's true and it's been proven. The inherent energy within a building is enormous, especially one the size of the Lafayette. I know we really don't have the money or the drive, but couldn't we just do a Statler type external fixup from the 90s, with blanket out windows, awnings, and coverings that make it look less desolate and empty? How about opaque frost glass windows? It is one of the last buildings that maintains it's cool crennelated cornice. It's just really unfortunate that due to one building's success, an adjacent building in the same shape must come down, rather than get a temporary extension and perhaps once the credit crunch is over, a new lease on life for itself. Sad day for historic preservation, adaptive reuse, downtown revitalization, and the future of Detroit. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 3677 Registered: 04-2006 |
I think most people who stay downtown wonder why the buildings are empty, not why they haven't been torn down. Detroit has already torn down plenty of lots that nobody has to wonder about anymore. It still looks equally, if not more depressing. Once the Lafayette Building is torn down and have been a gravel lot for 5 years (see northwest corner of Woodward and I-75 for example), they will wonder why downtown Detroit is filled with so many vacant lots. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 2055 Registered: 04-2006 |
I don't see it on the City's rfp site: http://www.detroitmi.gov/Depar tments/Finance/PurchasingDivis ion/ItemsOuttoBidRFPs/tabid/15 29/Default.aspx | ||
Spiritofdetroit Member Username: Spiritofdetroit Post Number: 1259 Registered: 11-2006 |
hemingway - you really disagree with Cockrel's idea to knock down as many of the abandoned, burned out hulks across Detroit's neighborhoods? Seriously?? These places destroy neighborhoods, become a haven for crime, ruin property values, etc. And, he is losing your vote because he plans on leveling burnt out, abandoned crack houses? | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 5319 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: I don't know that I believe that. Normally, when one vacant building is occupied, it helps increase demand in the immediate area. I think the recent City demolition policies are a lot of smoke-and-mirrors, preying on peoples' ignorance of how the real estate and construction industries operate. Two vacant buildings, one gets occupied, so the other one MUST come down? The math doesn't add up. If the City had any brains, they'd be sinking money into stabilizing and mothballing old buildings, which is far cheaper, and does a much better job of preserving property values. Vacant buildings at least have potential, and it's much cheaper to renovate a building (even in the future, assuming a rebounding economy) than to tear it down and build a new one from scratch. Frankly, I think the City just likes to waste money they don't have, because it's a lot easier to claim "progress", since demolition is far more visible and intuitive to the lay public. | ||
Hunchentoot Member Username: Hunchentoot Post Number: 118 Registered: 03-2005 |
This treatment of the built environment is not inevitable, this is a mental disease. The preservationist groups and individuals write eloquently all day long and we almost never stop anything from coming down. The industry of demolition must be itself dismantled. Can we voice our views coherently to anybody with the power to change this behavior? Detroitnerd is eloquent, and I've written in a similar spirit and with similar passions about previous demolitions, but that has been used up in me. We are *fucked up* and are collectively deserving of the bleak wasteland we create for ourselves out of the raw materials of irreplaceable weathered beauty and urbanity. Fuck these people. Fucking fuck. We're fucked. If anybody agrees with me but unlike me isn't angry beyond reason, please help to organize whatever is necessary to stop this. | ||
Detourdetroit Member Username: Detourdetroit Post Number: 451 Registered: 10-2003 |
it's our mentality of waste...dumb and dumberer. i agree with *heart*... why do we demolish then wonder why downtown is desolate. BC disproved the erroneous theory that Compuware and LAMR would never have happened w/o Hudson's 2.2 m.s.f. demo. mothball it properly and shift to an asset management mentality. to its credit CofD has been trying w/Lafayette, but that doesn't mean it should be written off as IMPOSSIBLE. | ||
Sean_of_detroit Member Username: Sean_of_detroit Post Number: 2366 Registered: 03-2008 |
Quote: I hate to say this, but to visitors staying at the Book Cadillac or other places, they don't view our vacant buildings as possibilities, they wonder why the eyesores haven't been torn down yet. Those visitors from out of town would rather see a parking lot and feel safer next to a parking lot, and view it as progress. ^That would make logical sense, but isn't what happened with both the Hudson and Statler sites (mostly because they remain vacant, and you can't park on them). Both really detract from the area, and the Statler area still manages to appear unsafe (now you can see four vacant buildings instead of one). Both demolitions also damaged surrounding structures, and not all of those structures were able to be fixed. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 5320 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: But if your neighborhood looks like Southern Illinois, why pay City of Detroit taxes and put up with the schools and services? Wouldn't you just move to Southern Illinois? |
