  Bragaboutme Member Username: Bragaboutme Post Number: 644 Registered: 02-2008 |
So, the question should be why have developers not stepped to the plate on this building like they did the Book-cadillac and the Fort? Why did it stop there? I don't agree with the parking lot theory, but I do think something needs to be done to this building. | ||
Leannam1989 Member Username: Leannam1989 Post Number: 247 Registered: 06-2008 |
Would you dive in on a major project in this economy? | ||
Eastsideal Member Username: Eastsideal Post Number: 439 Registered: 10-2007 |
quote: Yes, but a significant part of that progress has been the rehabilitation of old, once abandoned, buildings. Creating open surface parking lots and vacant lots, however, is NOT progress. It is a regression to nothing based on a promise of nothing, and at a significant cost too. | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 1381 Registered: 01-2005 |
Gistok: "Good architecture" is in the eye of the beholder. The concept changes periodically. Architecture is trendy, just like high fashion. | ||
Bragaboutme Member Username: Bragaboutme Post Number: 645 Registered: 02-2008 |
I don't think it's a regression I think some places were a hazard and they needed to be torn down. The new development and rehab that we have seen has been because of a viable plan in place. Lets face the fact that evey building can't be saved and start from there, but the stalling and waiting has to stop. | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 6265 Registered: 08-2004 |
3wc, yes good architecture is in many instances "trendy"... but crappy architecture is timeless!  | ||
Swingline Member Username: Swingline Post Number: 939 Registered: 11-2003 |
In response to all of the doubters who wonder why a developer hasn't stepped up to restore the Lafayette, it is important to recall that the building has been off the market and under the control of two different developers for much of the past 5 years. Both development agreements were flawed because they ceded control to developers who were not really interested in the building. The first agreement was with the Peebles Corporation owned by R.Donahue Peebles from Florida. This outfit signed a development agreement with the DDA and then quickly switched its attention to an effort to secure the development rights to the more high profile riverfront sites that were ultimately secured by the Watermark and @water groups. Peebles' efforts toward the Lafayette Building consisted mostly of trying to re-negotiate the original agreement to include publicly financed parking and things went nowhere. (Mr. Peebles is one of the few minority developers in the country that pursue projects nationally and he had a direct line to Mayor Kilpatrick.) The building was tied up for at least two years and Peebles' agreement was only terminated when Quicken Loans came into the picture. The second developer to tie up the building was Rosko Development Company, an entity owned by Quicken Loans. After months of negotiation in 2007, Rosko was given development rights to 4 sites in downtown Detroit including the Lafayette Building. The agreement commenced in November 2007 and gave Rosko one year to complete its due diligence and select a site for a headquarters. The agreement also gave Rosko a right for some extensions of time. It is not clear if the Rosko Development agreement has been terminated. What is clear from public statements from Quicken Loans people is that the Lafayette Building was thrown into the deal as kind of an afterthought because Quicken's original plan was to try to persuade some other companies to relocate downtown and it was useful to this effort to have property control over as many sites as possible. There was never any chance that Quicken was going to use the building for its headquarters. It is not big enough. The bottom line though is that the building has not been marketed through an RFP for at least 5 years. In that time, the historic tax credit program has expanded and improved making things more feasible. Admittedly, the real estate and credit markets have regressed. Ultimately, there is no solid evidence that the building can't be redeveloped. Nobody has done any due diligence or feasibility studies. It's a perfect situation for mothballing until the markets improve. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4638 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: But what you don't understand is that George Jackson has tried TWICE. Therefore, the Lafayette Building NEEDS to go. Now. | ||
Rjlj Member Username: Rjlj Post Number: 850 Registered: 11-2003 |
Well stated Swingline. That has been the case of Preservation Wayne all along. | ||
Leannam1989 Member Username: Leannam1989 Post Number: 248 Registered: 06-2008 |
So, after a building sits empty, how long until we demolish it? 5 years? 10 years? Longer? | ||
Wood Member Username: Wood Post Number: 98 Registered: 05-2006 |
Does anyone on this forum remember if John Conyers ever had offices in the Lafayette Building? I know his offices are currently in the federal building, but I am curious if anyone remembers a time when his offices were in the Lafayette. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 4429 Registered: 02-2005 |
"The bottom line though is that the building has not been marketed through an RFP for at least 5 years." And yet Jackson says that the only option is an RFP for demolition. That's disgusting. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4640 Registered: 10-2003 |
Who needs the Lafayette Building, anyway? It's just another reminder of Detroit's oppressive white-controlled past. | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 1382 Registered: 01-2005 |
The demolition contract for the Statler was $7 million of State money. That did not included at least $3 million of federal money for pre-demolition environmental cleanup. A friend was the losing bidder (actually, he was $50,000 under but missed the bid deadline by 11 minutes.) I'll bet the Lafayette building will cost at least $3 million. Money well spent. | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 1297 Registered: 07-2007 |
"I'll bet the Lafayette building will cost at least $3 million. Money well spent." You're living up to your screen name. Only those could potentially profit from the demolition of the Lafayette would consider that a worthwhile expenditure in a city of such great need. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4642 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: And a return of ZERO! How exciting! | ||
Sean_of_detroit Member Username: Sean_of_detroit Post Number: 2340 Registered: 03-2008 |
I'm just offering some thoughts. I know that not enough people with money are going to be buying condos at the desperate Book Cadillac with abandoned buildings next door. Abandoned buildings have little to do with aesthetics, and more to do with the perception and reality of attracting crime and squatters. It is a pity that our preservation groups are less organized and credible *than our city government is in the eyes of the public. Why do preservation efforts only ramp up when demolition is announced for a structure? Why aren't they spending their hours on the Book Tower and MCS, before demolition is announced? For Christ sakes. They are making the community look like such a joke every time they wait until the last minute. That kind of method also hurts the attractiveness of our city to developers who can't be sure if preservationists are going to toss in some added expenses. All our buildings also can not be saved. How many major abandoned buildings are Downtown right now, two dozen? How about braking the task up and concentrating on securing maybe five or less at a time? Maybe work on the most significant and likely to be redeveloped, so that the others will be more desirable, that way you won't be spreading yourselves to thin? Edit: Grammar (Message edited by sean_of_detroit on March 26, 2009) | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 1298 Registered: 07-2007 |
"Why do preservation efforts only ramp up when demolition is announced for a structure?" Sean, I'll assume that you're not familiar with the work of Preservation Wayne or other groups. Otherwise, you would know that the claim that the groups "only ramp up when demolition is announced" is false. Even George Jackson at DEGC, the King of Demolition, knows that's not the case. | ||
Detroitchef Member Username: Detroitchef Post Number: 154 Registered: 09-2008 |
I'd just assume that he's clueless about what it takes to renovate a building, or I'd assume he's really, really that far out of touch with reality. Sean, if you truely felt that way, why aren't yo out there trumpeting the 'neglected' buildings before they decide to implode them, and beat the 'not credible' preservationists to the punch? Oh right, too busy arguing about the casino bathroom attendants. My bad, carry on. | ||
Rjlj Member Username: Rjlj Post Number: 851 Registered: 11-2003 |
Funny^^^ | ||
Wpitonya Member Username: Wpitonya Post Number: 94 Registered: 08-2005 |
"Why do preservation efforts only ramp up when demolition is announced for a structure?" Agreed. Lets pick a building now that is not currently on the chopping block, but you wouldn't be surprised if it was, and attempt preservation efforts. MCS?? | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 1299 Registered: 07-2007 |
The problem is that every building in DEGC's sphere of influence is threatened. All it takes is for Ilitch to take an interest in it or for George Jackson to wake up some morning and decide "time to create another parking lot" and we have a demolition crisis. Instead of constantly battling DEGC's demolition threats, how about some insistence on a "plan" from DEGC for the vacant lots that they've already created. Not one more cent for demolition until "King of the Parking Lots" George Jackson actually brings new development to one of the eyesore parking lots he's created during his tenure heading up DEGC. | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 6266 Registered: 08-2004 |
Folks who are not members of Preservation Wayne often do not understand many of the good deeds that they've done (and are doing)... For example Preservation Wayne has hosted Loft Development Workshops for building owners to become informed on the use of tax credits and other tools for redeveloping their buildings. | ||
Detroitbill Member Username: Detroitbill Post Number: 697 Registered: 09-2006 |
Hate to say this but this once beautiful building is a a horrific eyesore now, and very little hope of ever being anything else, Its a a disgrace next to the Book Cadillac, and does nothing but bring down the neighborhood. It would be wonderful to be saved but it aint gonna happen, especially now. The same with the building that was where the Book Parking Garage. Many lamented its loss but at times in life you have to move on. Im personally all for the Lafayettes removal. We need to get these major eyesores off of our landscape. An empty lot is far more marketable for some purpose in a prime area than a terribly neglected gem that nobody desires but everyone wishes would be fixed up. | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 1300 Registered: 07-2007 |
While "Thejesus" continues to work on that list of sites that have gone from demolition to new development, let's go back to the July 2008 report on the activities of the DDA. In that report, the City Council's analyst noted that within the DDA district, property values have been falling, not increasing. That decline had led to a drop in revenue of almost $2 million. If George Jackson's demolition strategy was helping property values within the district, that would be reflected in increasing or steady property values within the district. Instead, property values within the district continue to fall. In the same amendment to the DDA plan, the DDA proposed reducing the amount of funding for rehabilitation projects by over $50 million while increasing the funding for demolition and "land assemblage". | ||
Wolverine Member Username: Wolverine Post Number: 636 Registered: 04-2004 |
Well here's my own opinion. You may not agree with it, but here's some things I've considered. Public danger? It's unlikely there are structural problems, though there are definitely some cosmetic issues: facade pieces coming loose or the cornice falling that could harm someone. This can be repaired I'm sure for much less than the cost of demolishing the whole building. Public Eyesore? This comes down to the opinion of the person. I know there's a lot of people on this board who don't care about architecture or history. That's fine, but also sad. It's your city. Have some pride for its past, even if it's covered in grime. Apparently some of you say "ouch!" when you drive or walk past it. You'd rather see it gone, though I doubt it will benefit you other than allowing extra sunlight to pass through. I'm certain visitors notice it at the Book Cadillac. The good news is they've already been hit by visual landscape of depression and misery on their drive in. I really wish the priorities for demolition could be diverted elsewhere where it will actually make a difference. Ask me about this. After visitors see 10, 20, 100 abandoned structures along the interstate, they will also be shocked to find the lights out on Washington Blvd as they arrive. In short, the Lafayette is least of the city's worries. Not Practical to Renovate? Every building has a purpose and vintage buildings are "in" as far as residential uses go. What a perfect fit for apartments or condos. Units would be long and narrow (long walls would have all windows) Promising future for the site? Look, the city has many spots to build on. The most solid proposal for a new office building was Quicken and I still see undeveloped Statler and Hudson sites. With that said, actually do something with the money. Spend it on facade improvements, spruce up public areas...something that will make a bigger impact with less money. (Message edited by wolverine on March 27, 2009) | ||
Leannam1989 Member Username: Leannam1989 Post Number: 249 Registered: 06-2008 |
I'm not sure demolishing the Lafayette Building will have a major impact on the perception of Detroit from visitors. It'll just be one more empty lot. | ||
Ktkeller08 Member Username: Ktkeller08 Post Number: 39 Registered: 10-2008 |
I know every time a decent sized building like this ends up slated for demolition, opposition mounts. But honestly, how many buildings can you mothball? I know mothballing buildings isn't really happening now, but what if it had been for the last how many years? I mean if we had mothballed Hudson's, and the Madison-Lenox, and the Statler. Or what if we end up mothballing United Artists Theater Building, or the Broderick Tower, or the Book Tower, or the Metropolitan Building, or MCS?? I mean if Detroit had been mothballing all along instead of taking buildings down, would we have more occupied buildings? Or would we just have a whole lot more vacant buildings instead of parking lots? It's almost like figuring out the best option of the two worst ones. But in a city that's lost over half of everything in the last 50 years, you can't mothball everything. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4334 Registered: 10-2003 |
Apparently, the DDA has enough time and resources into buying a parking garage: DDA to buy 600-space parking garage It'd be nice if they'd put as much energy into the more creative, if even tougher, work of the reuse of actual buildings. | ||
Barebain Member Username: Barebain Post Number: 36 Registered: 02-2006 |
I've not read every post on this thread but the vast majority, especially those claiming that a building such as the Lafayette is impractical to renovate, are missing some very key points in what really happens when renovating an historic building. Yes, having to selectively demo a structure (as opposed to tearing it down completely) is a picky process that offers all sorts of challenges and surprises. (Structural concerns, water intrusion, hazardous materials, etc.) But the cost of such work is not much different from a full demo. Furthermore, a full demo does not necessarily save a future project from hidden surprises. (See the array of very real problems, cost adds and time delays, associated with the demo of AC Lindell and the construction of the Rosa Parks Transit Center) Moreover, once demo has been completed, a brand new project has to sink a great deal of money into a new superstructure, whereas the rehab project only has to patch and repair the old. The most important difference, however, comes in the form of tax credit opportunities at both the state and federal levels. Historic tax credits are a huge boon to developers looking to cut at least a quarter of the project budget. (The state just recently extended these benefits to include up to 40% of the renovation costs – 40%!) Add in additional Brownfield and New Market Tax credits, and historic rehab projects can receive almost half of their funding in the form of Government ca$h. This is real money, and financiers want it. (Ask Bank of America why they sent a representative to the City Council hearing on the matter) The best part, is that the government requirements are not that difficult to accommodate. Yes, time need be spent on the application forms, but the fees for this work are a drop in the bucket compared to the savings they generate. As for mothballing buildings, this process does help in the long run. Yes, it does create a bunch of enclosed empty structures, and may not necessarily speed development, but the practice does do important things that may help. The biggest concern in renovating these beauties is all the hidden damage caused by years of neglect. Water infiltrating a building is what kills them ultimately. As soon as that water is stopped, buildings can be saved an immeasurable amount of damage. If a developer is confident that a building has been protected, it can save many headaches in the future, and may even create a tipping point in choosing one building over another. None of these arguments even address the cultural and ecological impacts of tearing down old buildings. In fact, all of these arguments are fairly straightforward, and without much to dispute from a financial perspective. I would hope that our DEGC knows all of this stuff, and it concerns me that they aren’t thinking more creatively about our empty buildings here in Detroit. |
