Discuss Detroit Archives - Beginning January 2006 15-story residential tower planned for the riverfront Previous Next
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitman
Member
Username: Detroitman

Post Number: 877
Registered: 06-2004
Posted From: 216.78.45.162
Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 10:35 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Residential tower planned on river

Detroit project would bring 240 condos, a signature restaurant, stores to riverfront.

R.J. King / The Detroit News
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pb cs.dll/article?AID=/20051218/B IZ03/512180347/1001/BIZ
Top of pageBottom of page

Mind_field
Member
Username: Mind_field

Post Number: 443
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 209.240.205.61
Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 12:07 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Taller, taller, we want TALLER!
Top of pageBottom of page

Citylover
Member
Username: Citylover

Post Number: 1441
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 4.229.132.113
Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 12:35 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Don't need it..........and mindfield see a psychiatrist for you penis envy condition.....
So the Whittier becomes another ruin and now there is a desire to build another bldg on the water?????
The eastern water front was once very active.I believe most of the bldg are still there.Many of them are nice and interesting.Likely far more interesting than what is proposed.Why is this needed?
Top of pageBottom of page

Mind_field
Member
Username: Mind_field

Post Number: 444
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 209.240.205.61
Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 12:40 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

^damn, somebody sure knows how to hold a grudge, GOY, cl. what's the matter, all the crime in Ann Arbor making you pissy these days? Or haven't you been laid in about 25 years? Either way, you bitch way too much.
Top of pageBottom of page

Citylover
Member
Username: Citylover

Post Number: 1443
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 4.229.132.113
Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 12:48 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Not bitching......just wondering why you et,al are so desirable of new this and new that and taller and bigger and all that when so much of Detroits architectural uniqueness, is wasting away.
Or do you want Detroit to look like Houston?
Since you brought it up (crime that is)Detroit is on pace to equal last years number of murders........I don't know if we have had any murders in AA this year......
Top of pageBottom of page

Huggybear
Member
Username: Huggybear

Post Number: 104
Registered: 08-2005
Posted From: 68.251.24.115
Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 1:19 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

This is great news. That's a huge investment for the near-east riverfront, and it's about time we start creating buildings with a view of something other than cement, abandoned fields, and oversized roadways. Windsor has had riverfront towers for years; it's mindblowing that Detroit never had more.

Places that run for $380K and up are not likely going to be competition for the Whittier.
Top of pageBottom of page

Newbie
Member
Username: Newbie

Post Number: 15
Registered: 05-2005
Posted From: 65.24.198.179
Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 1:22 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Sorry to be out of the loop....What is the current status of the Whittier?
Top of pageBottom of page

Adamjab19
Member
Username: Adamjab19

Post Number: 587
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 69.47.170.119
Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 1:41 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

This is the same company that is redoing the Lafayette Building isn't it? I'll take the old with the new.
Top of pageBottom of page

Skulker
Member
Username: Skulker

Post Number: 3307
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 68.42.176.88
Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 1:48 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The parcel in question is one of the parcels that is under consideration after the October RFPs. This press plant by Peebles is very premature as the EDC has made no determination of which of the seven teams that bid for the same parcels will be selected.

This is nothing but gamesmanship by Peebles.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mike
Member
Username: Mike

Post Number: 524
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 68.41.109.36
Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 1:59 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I do not questin or complain about any new devolopment. But $380,000 to $600,000?

Who in this metro area, that is pretty much anti-urban, anti-mass trasit, anti-Detroit, anti-black, going to pay that much?
Top of pageBottom of page

Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw

Post Number: 1079
Registered: 02-2005
Posted From: 141.213.173.94
Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 2:05 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I don't think this is a substitute for Whittier redevelopment. I'd love to see a re-done Whit, but this is in a seperate category. This is the near-east Riverfront. It's pretty much a downtown site. The east riverfront may sum up the most about why outsiders see Detroit as a joke. Here we have international waterfront, minutes from the city center, sitting completely empty, or blighted, or mis-used. With bids and the awarding of bids coming to a head soon, we'll have proposals for retail, residential, and maybe some office space on the riverfront. This is one of those possibilities. There is a lot of space to fill, and just because someone wants to build a residential tower doesn't mean redevelopment for existing residence towers will be shot. Detroit will only attract more people to live downtown and on the riverfront by offering a mix of old and new style buildings. Even as someone who will probably hate the design of this new building, this still needs to be said.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jasoncw
Member
Username: Jasoncw

Post Number: 64
Registered: 07-2005
Posted From: 67.149.141.170
Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 2:20 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I wonder what would be better, if this is built, or if the same amount of money was spent rehabilitating a strip or two of old buildings. I think it would be better if the area as a whole was improved instead.
Top of pageBottom of page

Llyn
Member
Username: Llyn

Post Number: 1307
Registered: 06-2004
Posted From: 68.61.197.206
Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 3:30 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I thought the rfp's were for a maximum of 5 stories? I'm surprised there isn't more outcry on this board as to what taller buildings will do to the fabric of the neighborhood.

I would love to see more towers along the river, but I think it would be more aesthetic to also have an area were the river isn't walled in by tall towers and where there's a consistent low rise district instead of a mishmash of sizes of buildings.

Put all those tall towers east of Stroh's.
Top of pageBottom of page

Futurecity
Member
Username: Futurecity

Post Number: 196
Registered: 05-2005
Posted From: 68.252.125.154
Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 3:47 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The big question is -

Will public river access for this project be cut off like it is for Harbortown? Or will public access to the river be maintained/enhanced with this project?
Top of pageBottom of page

Scardetroit
Member
Username: Scardetroit

Post Number: 51
Registered: 03-2005
Posted From: 68.61.196.110
Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 3:53 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Last I knew, public access to the river will be provided through Harbortown with the construction of the Riverwalk along the river through Harbortown.

Someone who actually lives in Harbortown could probably speak more to this.

(Message edited by scardetroit on December 18, 2005)
Top of pageBottom of page

Skulker
Member
Username: Skulker

Post Number: 3308
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 68.42.176.88
Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 3:56 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

I thought the rfp's were for a maximum of 5 stories? I'm surprised there isn't more outcry on this board as to what taller buildings will do to the fabric of the neighborhood.



They were and I am not surprised at the lack of out cry....because you get people asking questions like this....

quote:

Will public river access for this project be cut off like it is for Harbortown? Or will public access to the river be maintained/enhanced with this project?



....despite the number of times this link has been posted.....
http://www.detroitriverfront.o rg/img_content/drc/DRFC_Compos ite_11x17_large.jpg
Top of pageBottom of page

Llyn
Member
Username: Llyn

Post Number: 1309
Registered: 06-2004
Posted From: 68.61.197.206
Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 3:57 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

lol - I was wondering why that question was asked, also...
Top of pageBottom of page

Llyn
Member
Username: Llyn

Post Number: 1310
Registered: 06-2004
Posted From: 68.61.197.206
Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 4:02 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

If Peeebles really wants to build a fiften stroy tower, is there another place east of Stroh's to put it? Maybe between Harbortown and the Uniroyal site?
Top of pageBottom of page

Gmich99
Member
Username: Gmich99

Post Number: 37
Registered: 11-2005
Posted From: 65.29.97.102
Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 9:19 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

This sounds like a Detroit City Council meeting. Complaining about people wanting to invest in the city. Geeze. This city needs everything from one stories to skyscrapers and there is unlimited land to build. Yes it would be nice if someone built a 100 story skyscraper, but that would would handle almost all the squarefootage needs of the downtown. Yes it would be nice if that money was spent to rehab a buildings already existing, but they want to build a new building.

The downtown area is finally looking like a city and not post-nuclear disaster!

(Message edited by gmich99 on December 18, 2005)
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 2793
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.172.95.197
Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 9:22 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The article is ambiguous as to exactly where the location of this proposal is. Skulker, can you fill us end on what lot this is proposed for?
Top of pageBottom of page

Motorcitymayor2026
Member
Username: Motorcitymayor2026

Post Number: 273
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 71.10.63.140
Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 9:32 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I dont understand why people are complaining about someone investing $60 million dollars into detroit, which will add to our skyline, produce shops and restuarants, and add hundreds of new residents to downtown, many of which will be new to the city. plus, the potential new development that it will spur could lead to millions more of investment.

unbelievable

(Message edited by motorcitymayor2026 on December 18, 2005)
Top of pageBottom of page

Susanarosa
Member
Username: Susanarosa

Post Number: 588
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 70.229.125.80
Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 9:39 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I'm pretty sure there was a plan on the table to restore the Whittier over a year ago. Don't know if it's fallen through or not...
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 2796
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.172.95.197
Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 9:39 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Well, while I'm happy with this I'd much rather see people be meticulous and highly critical than people willing to get over-excited over any and everything be it a McDonalds or a high-rise tower.
Top of pageBottom of page

Motorcitymayor2026
Member
Username: Motorcitymayor2026

Post Number: 274
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 71.10.63.140
Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 9:44 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Well I understand that, but a $60 million development in an area of currently unused land.

This is the first major development of this kind since the 80's. I understand people that will be critical of the design of the building and so forth, but for people to complain about the project itself seems unreasonable. Plus, those wishing for the low-rise buildings, remember this is a city, and cities build vertically.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 2797
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.172.95.197
Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 10:20 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

You're always damned if you do, and damned if you don't. You're not going to please all of the people all of the time. Personally, I don't think 15 stories is too tall for anywhere on the eastern riverfront.

But, as has been said, this article was premature seeing as how this is one of many proposals.
Top of pageBottom of page

Royce
Member
Username: Royce

Post Number: 1369
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 69.212.58.147
Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 10:20 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

If you look at the map, it appears that the tower would go on land at Chene and Franklin, which is currently a gravel parking lot used for Chene Park. It would still be a block north of Atwater. I got the sense from reading about development along this stretch of the riverfront that buildings along Atwater and anything built south of Atwater are the buildings that aren't to exceed five stories.

My only concern with this development would be as a tenant. I would be concerned about the noise coming from the concerts at Chene Park. The sound travels a pretty good distance and would bounce right up against a 15 story building in that location. Just ask the residents at the Pasadena Apartments on Jefferson and DuBois about how loud it can get. Other than that, I don't have a problem with the development.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gumby
Member
Username: Gumby

Post Number: 753
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 204.39.225.108
Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 10:34 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yeah susanarosa,

And unless my camera is lieing I seem to have some pictures of some people doing demo work on the Whittier. I'll post em tomorrow when I get to a computer that can read my camera.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gumby
Member
Username: Gumby

Post Number: 754
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 204.39.225.108
Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 10:37 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

And by demo I mean prepping for restoration.
Top of pageBottom of page

Skulker
Member
Username: Skulker

Post Number: 3309
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 68.42.176.88
Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 10:41 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The map is incorrect. The parcel in question are west of Riopelle and on either side of Atwater.

The City of Detroit through the Economic Development Corporation who acted in partnership with the Planning and Development Department, The City Planning Commission, the Riverfront Conservancy and multiple communtiy groups developed a district plan that refvelcts the desires of the community tempered by economic and market reality. The planning rpocess was led by Cooper Robertson, known for Battery Park and Toronto's waterfront.

This community driven district plan recommended no more than 55' feet as the maximum height along the parcels in question. This recommendation reflected the desire to have the rivver front experienced on a more human scale and to allow higher buildings further away from the river to allow them better view. Towers by the river blocks lots of peoples views.

Starting with lower density development allows for for measured absorption and maximum acreage coverage to prime the development pump better.

Development for developments sake, whether it fits the context or not is a bad approach. There is a balance between good design and bending over and taking it up the ass just to get something done. At this point, 15 stories is completely innappropriate.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 2798
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.172.95.197
Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 11:14 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Royce, I believe the riverfront masterplan includes decommissioning Chene Park as a concert park, and in essence recreating Chene Park near Hart Plaza.
Top of pageBottom of page

Llyn
Member
Username: Llyn

Post Number: 1314
Registered: 06-2004
Posted From: 68.61.197.206
Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 12:37 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"Plus, those wishing for the low-rise buildings, remember this is a city, and cities build vertically."

I was completely unaware of that myself. Huh.
Top of pageBottom of page

Motorcitymayor2026
Member
Username: Motorcitymayor2026

Post Number: 277
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 71.10.63.140
Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 1:06 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Ha. Well it seems like some people are
Top of pageBottom of page

Citylover
Member
Username: Citylover

Post Number: 1447
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 4.229.123.88
Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 1:15 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Cities that need to build may build vertically.But imo Detroit does not "need" to build when so much is not occupied.
I am infinitely more impressed and trusting of what Histeric et,al are doing in refurbishing old bldgs.
For those of you who want these new things what do you suggest be done with the old.......penobscot, guardian,stott, buhl etc, etc?
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 2804
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.172.95.197
Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 1:19 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Citylover, I can't get the mindset that building new means that we are somehow taking away from the old. You act as if the two can coexist together. There is room enough for all types of development in Detroit, refurbishments and new constructions alike. Not everyone once to live in a historic loft, and not everyone wants to live in a newly constructed unit. This in no way undermines what is going on renovation wise in the city. The idea that the city has to fill all of the old before it builds new is incredibly limiting. Detroit can't afford to limit it's list of potential buyers to only those that want to live in refurbished historic buildings.
Top of pageBottom of page

Citylover
Member
Username: Citylover

Post Number: 1448
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 4.229.123.88
Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 1:44 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

In any other city I would agree with you Lmcih...but this is Detroit and no other city has the abandonment that Detroit does.
The reason they are building in NY and Chi is because there is a genuine need and demand, can you honestly say such a demand exists in Detroit?
I realize not everyone wants to live in an old bldg.But there are probably many bldgs right near the area of the one proposed that could fit the bill.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1

Post Number: 6227
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 4.229.99.234
Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 1:53 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Cl - Do you have any understanding of business and how different demographics have different demands.

I appreciate your enthusiasm for saving the old but there are other economic factors in play as well as developing to appeal to a varied group of demographics.

Your uneducated harping just shows how you truly don't think things through and how poor your grasp of business truly is.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 2806
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.172.95.197
Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 1:54 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Fit what bill? Peebles wouldn't be proposing a 15-story tower (of all things) if they didn't study this first. The fact that it is proposed at 15 stories surpsises me, in fact. There must be some kind of demand to warrant such a proposal.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1

Post Number: 6228
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 4.229.99.22
Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 1:59 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Nope LMich. People on this forum have more business savvy and have done more research than people willing to put real dollars into development.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 2807
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.172.95.197
Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 2:01 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jt1, I appreciate your opinions, but could you spare us the sarcasm tonight? :-) I really don't see why you're being so testy with Citylover in this particular thread. He hasn't attacked anyone...yet.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1

Post Number: 6229
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 4.229.99.22
Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 2:03 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

True - My apologies to CL for venting my frustration in the form of sarcasm and my condescending tone.
Top of pageBottom of page

Eric
Member
Username: Eric

Post Number: 257
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 69.136.144.196
Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 2:11 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

You ever happen to think how new construction has spured rehab. Do really think we'd see all the downtown rehabs without Compuware or those in Brush Park without Woodward Place? The idea the new construction automatically harms old asinine
Top of pageBottom of page

Citylover
Member
Username: Citylover

Post Number: 1449
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 4.229.123.88
Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 2:28 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

So no one is willing or able to answer my very simple question?
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 2809
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.172.95.197
Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 2:41 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It's already been answered. If it's not to your liking I can't help you with that. It's funny how you skipped over the last few comments.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1

Post Number: 6230
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 4.229.99.79
Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 2:48 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

For those of you who want these new things what do you suggest be done with the old.......penobscot, guardian,stott, buhl etc, etc?)




Cl, the title of the article and the thread answers your question:

Residential tower planned on river. Do you think that the Guardian and the Penobscott would, could or should be residential?

Teh role of devil's advocate gets old. A city the size of Detroit must offer many types of residential options to appeal to a large cross section of citizens and potential citizens.

Please be rationale and separate residential space from the under-utilized office space. It makes for a silly argument.
Top of pageBottom of page

Citylover
Member
Username: Citylover

Post Number: 1451
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 4.229.123.88
Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 3:13 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Give me a break JT1.A fundamental point of any idea business or otherwise must be simple common sense.There are so many bldgs and houses in Detroit that could be turned into condo's or house businesses that are now empty; some sadly probably beyond redemption that the idea of bldg new seems downright silly to me.
Unless you are content to have suburban style bldgs like the CW.......
I don't know whether the Penobscot or any other bldg should be condo's.But you are missing a key point and that is that there is a lot a ton actually of empty real estate in Detroit (almost all of GCP for example) downtown........yet somehow there is a desire to bldg new......
As for my being silly fuck you I am tired of your patronizing as I am only expressinga desire to see Detroit retain some architectural ID.And there has been several proposals to turn more than a few office bldgs into condo's........
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 2811
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.172.95.197
Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 3:26 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hey, how many vacant apartment buildings lay downtown? Jt1 made a good point. You are comparing apples to oranges, and you're making very little sense. The argument that "well, there are so many empty buildings so we must not build anything new" is STILL weak, and you've done very little to tie your ideas together or make them coherent. Don't get mad just because everyone is punching holes in your weak argument. You don't have to like new construction residential, but if you're going to decry it be honest and simply say you don't like it. Quit trying to spin some incoherent and bogus argument about empty office buildings somehow remaining empty because of new construction residential projects.
Top of pageBottom of page

Eric
Member
Username: Eric

Post Number: 258
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 69.136.144.196
Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 3:38 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

There'd be no need to patronize you if you got a fucking clue .How you can not get in your that not all buildings are equal is beyond me


quote:

And there has been several proposals to turn more than a few office bldgs into condo's........




Yeah, there's a reason becuase that space is many cases is obsolete for modern office, space but perfectly fine for residental.

That "suburban" building you ignorantly complain about is one of the very reasons that there's interest downtown rehabs, but screw it if takes new build spur interest save old building it not worth it
Top of pageBottom of page

Broken_main
Member
Username: Broken_main

Post Number: 549
Registered: 06-2005
Posted From: 198.109.44.2
Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 5:01 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

I don't know if we have had any murders in AA this year......



http://www.mlive.com/news/aane ws/index.ssf?/base/news-15/113 388180489980.xml&coll=2

As far as the topic of this thread. I am sure the developer has done his homework and has crunched his numbers of the feasibility of this project. Evidently, someone must see a market in the Detroit area for these homes. with prices like that, no one from the hood is gonna be leaving soon. Therefore we must assume that some new money will be brought in. Also there is a recent trend of people desiring to live downtown and the surrounding areas. I really see nothing wrong with this project going forward, or the Whittier, or the Lafayette. They are 3 totally different areas/markets.

I mean come on guys, someone is showing an interest in the city. Let them come!!! And they will bring their desires(retail, business, and restaurants) with them. I am sure once they move in there will be an increased necessity for us to bring A-1 retailers and businesses to the downtown area.

I read earlier in the thread about this being a "city". Big city, big buildings mean a larger tax base, better services, parks, and police.

wake up sleepyheads...opportunity is knocking at the door.
Top of pageBottom of page

Rust
Member
Username: Rust

Post Number: 57
Registered: 08-2004
Posted From: 64.118.136.130
Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 9:37 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Wow!! Hard to believe how riled up everyone is over a development proposal that isn't even the winning proposal for this site yet. Lets wait to the EDC receives all their proposals and makes their selection before we start critiquing them. From what are informed insider (Skulker) is saying it sounds like the parties involved have really thought this project out and IMO are on the right track. Build to big and you hinder oppurtunity further away from the river and probably IMO create a greater need for oversized parking structure/parking lots.

What Detroit needs most is large stretches multi unit residential (and it seems the city is chasing this goal)designed in a urban/pedestrian friendly manor. These districts will feed the retail and office markets downtown and elsewhere. Building lower will increase the footprint of the development and keep parking needs to a more manageable scale while still creating the urban/pedestrian friendly environment Detroit needs.

If Detroit can have the discipline to redevelop smartly where it can be choosy. (On the riverfront Detroit can be more choosy than elsewhere) Those who desire highrise development will find their wishes fulfilled as these get will built further back from the river. Those who desire more historic preservation (I include myself in this category) will also find benefits from new low scale development as that is less likely to oversaturate the market and will create the pedestrian environment that most historic building will fit into just fine.

Last thought I have on this is: Is there any chance that Peebles is playing the city by first announcing the Lafayette building than making a bold but premature announcement on the riverfront?

(Message edited by rust on December 19, 2005)

(Message edited by rust on December 19, 2005)

(Message edited by rust on December 19, 2005)
Top of pageBottom of page

Citylover
Member
Username: Citylover

Post Number: 1452
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 4.229.126.41
Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 9:49 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Broken main your handle is appropriate.Ypsilanti Twp is not Ann Arbor it is about 8-10 mi's from Ann Arbor.I wonder what reaction(I already know)I would get if I assumed the few murders outside of Detroit say in Warren or other suburbs were Detroit murders.
On your second broken point I think it is telling how desperate some of you sound.Skulker wrote on this very thread that the bldg proposed is not appropriate for the sight and that the the anouncement of the bldg was premature....."gamesmanship" is how he put it......hardly seems like someone that has "crunched numbers" and figured out all the angles.
The other irony is how this whole attitude plays into the sprawl mentality.Detroit is fairly unique in the number of empty bldgs there are.Many of those could be turned into loft/residential..........Kale s and hopefully the Broderick........adaptive reuse is the term I believe.
Or we could have the mentality of constantly wanting to build new and then wonder why the sprawl continues.
I am not against bldg new things when there is a genuilne need.But what I sense on this forum is hubris.
Top of pageBottom of page

Genesyxx
Member
Username: Genesyxx

Post Number: 368
Registered: 02-2004
Posted From: 209.69.165.10
Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 11:56 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

What happened to the vision of retail and shops along the east riverfront? Isn't that why they're making the riverwalk in the first place? Sounds like they're deviating from set plans.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1

Post Number: 6234
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 198.208.251.23
Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 12:00 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Cl - Do you think all of the people that live in Woodward place would live in Detroit, spend money in Detroit, pay taxes in Detroit if those were not built?

If you say no then you understand the point that there are different demnads from different people and there can be both new and old to appeal to a wide range of people.

Your argument of rehab/infill only is the same as the people that insist that all Detroit development should be affordable to the poor.

Lots of different demographics. A city should have options that appeal to them all. Living in the Stott building may be a dream to some and living in a new condo on Woodward may be a dream to others.

Please tell me you understand something that is so painfully obvious and logical.

I support new construction when it may bring in residents that would not look at other available options. That is what something like this would do. I am all for renovation and saving old buildings but the primary goal for the city is to attract residents, tax dollars and people that have income to support local business even if that is a mix of old and new.
Top of pageBottom of page

Merchantgander
Member
Username: Merchantgander

Post Number: 1395
Registered: 01-2005
Posted From: 150.198.164.127
Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 12:21 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

CL you are also missing the point that not everyone wants to live downtown. The river front and downtown are two different areas. While you want some cohesion you do not necessary want to wait to develop the river front until all of down town is filled.
Top of pageBottom of page

Skulker
Member
Username: Skulker

Post Number: 3314
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.103.104.93
Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 1:02 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Gensyxx:
Good observation

Rust:
Excellent analysis all around - hit the the multiple nails right on their heads.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitduo
Member
Username: Detroitduo

Post Number: 386
Registered: 06-2005
Posted From: 194.138.39.53
Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 1:50 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

If someone came tomorrow and said they had $100Billion and they wanted to plow down the entire city, replace everything with new buildings, new jobs and new businesses and new housing and bring $millions into the city, I'd say, bring it on. To shit on the idea that someone wants to invest and build something that doesn't exist is just absurd. WHO GIVES A FLYING LEAP? It's money coming into the city, bringing urban living, which is sorely needed. even if it's NEW.

The argument sounds like my Mom... You can't have any dessert until you eat all of your peas, first. Well, you know what? What if I eat my peas AND my ice cream at the same time? It can be done and frankly, if I start eating the ice cream and decide the peas just aren't what I want anymore... well, then that's just what it is. If YOU like the peas, well then, YOU eat 'em. I want my ice cream.
Top of pageBottom of page

Citylover
Member
Username: Citylover

Post Number: 1453
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 4.229.123.98
Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 2:01 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I don't know the answe to your 1st question jt1....do you?
I have never said infill and rehab only, but I do think that the desire for new is not good for the old.......and as a fan of the CITY OF DETROIT I do not like at all putting up generic bldgs just for the sake of new.I bet I could find several bldgs in the area that could be rahabbed and serve the same purpose.
Detroit duo your idea can best be described as ridiculous and idiotic.......and about as likely as landing on the sun unharmed.........but if that is what you desire move to Vegas.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1

Post Number: 6241
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 198.208.251.23
Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 2:06 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

How is hoping for rehab while disliking new good for the city of Detroit.

From your tone and everything you have posted I infer you to be a fan of old Detroit architecture, not the city of Detroit.

To continually complain and criticize any idea that may increase population and tax base because it is new is not a benefit to the city of Detroit.

How about we put a halt on all new construction, regardless of business feasability until all old is rehabbed, even if the new may make the market strong enough to support higher rent/sale rates and make the rehabs viable.


quote:

bet I could find several bldgs in the area that could be rahabbed and serve the same purpose.




Screw costs and potential sale/lease costs. We don't need no stinking business case we want old saved.

making Downtown and the river more viable will enable more rehabs to financially beneficial. but again, who cares about those pesky business cases we should od it anyway. And by we, I actually mean someone else.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitduo
Member
Username: Detroitduo

Post Number: 387
Registered: 06-2005
Posted From: 194.138.39.53
Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 2:14 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

That's what I love about you, Citylover. Open-minded, well tempered and rational thinking.

btw, I never said it was realistic, but I guess making metaphors is beyond your mental ability. Then again...you are living a metaphor...loving the City of Detroit, but living in Ann Arbor. Tell you what. When you decide to put some money into a structure in Detroit and actually do something other than bitch and complain about new developments, then we'll talk, but before that, STFU!
Top of pageBottom of page

Citylover
Member
Username: Citylover

Post Number: 1454
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 4.229.123.98
Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 2:17 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The ironic thing to me jt1 is you seem to support this despite the fact that Skulker and Rust have both written that this may not be the best idea.......why?
Top of pageBottom of page

Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1

Post Number: 6244
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 198.208.251.23
Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 2:22 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I don't have a solid opinion on this either way as I haven't seen anything real. I am simply arguing against your 'anything new is bad' mentality and lack of consideration to real business and financial reality when you harp on the 'new is bad because old should come first' non sense.

i support new development that makes sense whereas you seem to be saying that you only support new when all of the old is filled regardless how they affect the market and how new may really enhance the possibility of restoring old.

I am arguing for common sense, not this specific development.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 2813
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.172.95.197
Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 4:02 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Outside of the side arguments going on here, how is developing ONE parcael on the East Riverfront for high-rise (and in most big cities 15-stories would be a mid-rise) bad for the area? The neighborhood should be a good mixture of the few rehabbed low-rises/street fronts that are left, new low-rise/streefront construction, and a few residential towers where they can fit. I don't see why it would be totally out of character to develope a handful of high-rises in a relatively long neighborhood that is largely destroyed/condemened now, anyway. We're not talking of them building something even as tall as the Lafayette Towers, so why are some pushing for now high-rises at all in this area that is large enough with enough empty space to support all types of developments that will help build a cohesive neighborhood? You look on almost any other big city waterfront and there is almost always a portion with mid-to-high-rise residential that complement the surrounding neighborhood. It would make more since to actually have a few high-rises that line the coast starting taller at the RenCen and slowly tappering off towards Harbortown.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitkev
Member
Username: Detroitkev

Post Number: 31
Registered: 04-2005
Posted From: 66.178.218.40
Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 5:17 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

My thoughts on this is the same with Brush Park. People complained about the suburban condos at Woodward Place. What would be better a high rise (surrounded by blight) being built once every 10 years on that land, or have what is there now (10-20 smaller buildings making the area seem more like a livable community)? When we start running out of space, is when we start building higher density development. That is why the next phase of Brush Park has midrises. Same should go for the Riverfront. Start with lower buildings, and depending on the interest, the next phase can include higher buildings
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 2815
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.172.95.197
Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 5:24 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It all boils down to what the demand for this area really is, and if there is not that much demand, can it simply be created? It could go either way, really. If market perfectly, almost any area in any city in any country can be made "desirable." Who knows, maybe some marketing firm will be able to create a hype that everyone buys into.
Top of pageBottom of page

623kraw
Member
Username: 623kraw

Post Number: 720
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 68.41.224.200
Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 6:36 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

There are lights on at the Whittier as of last night...something is happening
Top of pageBottom of page

Skulker
Member
Username: Skulker

Post Number: 3317
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.103.104.93
Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 11:28 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

1. The entire 70 or so acres of the development parcels is predicted to have an absorption of about 1,500 units over a 5-6 year period. That works out to about 21 units per acre. A reasonable density once you add in parking, access, garbage storage a little bit of first flor retail etc. A bit of quick math estimates this proposal to finish out closer to 50 units per acre. That is more than double the predicted absorption. Build the tower, fill it up and you have absorbed a lot of the market leaving no demand for the rest of the vacant blocks...which sit for years to come. You then have an isolated tower looking out on blight as a gated community. NOt the urban village that was envisioned in the community planning process.


2. High rise in a City like Detroit without good transportation options necessitates a lot of parking. See the parking deck at Riverfront Towers as an example. Below grade parking decks are simply far too expnsive too build that close to the river, making above grade parking the only option. Intergrating an urban village feel into the area becomes more costly and much more challenging especially when you have 400+ residents & their guests cars cutting across pedestrian rights of way in a small concentrated parcel.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mind_field
Member
Username: Mind_field

Post Number: 448
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 209.240.205.61
Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 11:56 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hmmm, so I guess a tall tower (30+ stories) immediately east of the Rencen on the River East parcel is out of the question then? Are the DEGC and GM even working in conjunction on River East development, or is it all up to GM?

I mean come on.....even Omaha, Nebraska has a 32 story condo tower proposed in it's downtown, and Grand Rapids has an at least 30 story residential tower under construction! Why can't Detroit seem to get anything over 15?!?
Top of pageBottom of page

Dabirch
Member
Username: Dabirch

Post Number: 1239
Registered: 06-2004
Posted From: 208.44.117.10
Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 12:00 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

What is the fascination with the heighth of a building?

As has been stated numerous time, in this and other threads, there is a large swath on nearly abandoned land.

Building numerous low-rise with ground level retail vs. a couple 30 story towers which are isolated seems like a no brainer.

It is the sense of community that needs to be built -- not some isolated urban tower.
Top of pageBottom of page

Merchantgander
Member
Username: Merchantgander

Post Number: 1407
Registered: 01-2005
Posted From: 150.198.164.127
Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 12:06 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Skulker, does the 70 acres include the uniroyal site because I thought that the Bettis proposal had 2,000 units by itself?
Top of pageBottom of page

Llyn
Member
Username: Llyn

Post Number: 1317
Registered: 06-2004
Posted From: 68.61.197.206
Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 12:20 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

mg - there was a map of the parcels in Crain's. They do not include the uniroyal site.
Top of pageBottom of page

Skulker
Member
Username: Skulker

Post Number: 3318
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.103.104.93
Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 12:21 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

MG:....No, the 70 acres does not include the Uniroyal site. The Uniroyal site is a 12-15 year build out.

Mind_field:....Harbortown, Riverfront Towers, Detroit Tower & the rest of the mini "Gold Coast" east of Grand Boulevard. That product is there already. The product not there already is the dense urban village.

There are plenty of exisiting gated high rises, but no walkable villages. Have you even spent anytime in Detroit?
Top of pageBottom of page

Merchantgander
Member
Username: Merchantgander

Post Number: 1409
Registered: 01-2005
Posted From: 150.198.164.127
Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 12:22 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thanks
Top of pageBottom of page

Mind_field
Member
Username: Mind_field

Post Number: 449
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 209.240.205.61
Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 12:37 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Ok, If I had to choose between a dense urban village of 5 story buildings, or a single tall tower, I would choose the low rise village, I just thought there would be more than enough demand for both to happen.

And, IMO, I think Stroh River Place is a nice, walkable district on the river, although Detroit could use many more such districts.

And why is it that a new high rise on the Detroit River has to be inherently gated? Just because Harbortown is?
Top of pageBottom of page

Aldermandavis
Member
Username: Aldermandavis

Post Number: 2
Registered: 12-2005
Posted From: 198.208.159.18
Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 12:45 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Who's going to move into the condos? Is there a demand for high end housing like this is Detroit? With the auto industry in a slump like it is...and all the young people moving out of Detroit to more progressive cities....I hope the purchasers of these units and all the other units are able to sell.
Top of pageBottom of page

Skulker
Member
Username: Skulker

Post Number: 3319
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.103.104.93
Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 1:05 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Aldermandavis:
Zimmerman/Volk, a veryt well respected housing market analysis firm did the market study. Although and ineaxct science, there are some robust predictions that can be made utilizing dozens of statistics and measurements that take into account past and predicted growth patterns, including the overall health of local economic engines like the auto industry. These measurementa address the issues you raise. Their sophisticated modeling indicated an absorption of 1,500 units in a 5-6 year time frame for the area.

Typically a high rise community is going to be agted simply because of the sheer number of visitors, deliverymen, repair men etc that will have access to the inside of the building. In an environment like Detroit where residents cars come in and out all day long, the most efficient way to secure a building like the ones at Harbortown and Riverfront towers is through fencing and gates. And efficiency is key. Riverfront Towers LOST money for its first 15 years. Harbortown had its mortgaeg note bought twice. Cost control is paramount. Gates are cheaper than multiple security personnel.
Top of pageBottom of page

1953
Member
Username: 1953

Post Number: 644
Registered: 12-2004
Posted From: 209.104.146.146
Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 1:16 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

How many hours of productivity annually do you suppose are lost by companies who employ Detroityes.com forumers?
Top of pageBottom of page

Citylover
Member
Username: Citylover

Post Number: 1456
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 4.229.123.76
Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 3:46 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Detroit duo do you remember that famous quote attributed to Abe Lincoln and maybe some other person?.....The one about a wise man keeping his mouth shut as to how wise he actually is?......and how opening his mouth would remove any question about his supposed intelligence?
Well your post in which you claim to be speaking metaphorically sorta reminds me of that quote.........you might look the word up(metaphor) because your post had nothing,categorically nothing to do with the word or the definition.
Now my bringing up the quote which of course I did not quote night be called an analogy.But you were trying to.........I am not sure what you were trying.. but your idea of a metaphor is wrong, try again.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitduo
Member
Username: Detroitduo

Post Number: 392
Registered: 06-2005
Posted From: 194.138.39.53
Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 4:12 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I am not sure what you are talking about?

Metaphor: a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them.

I replaced your: fix the old before building new - with - My Mom wanting me to eat my peas before having Icecream. Seems to fit. But maybe analogy is the more accurate word. Regardless... the meaning was still correct.

Besides, I have NEVER strutted around on this forum claiming to be some "wise man" or know it all... unlike others. I am only giving my opinion and accepting others opinions and also willing to open my mind to learn something, instead of throwing a fit and flaming people when they don't see things my way.

OH and you know what? It's OK when people don't agree with me. I can agree to disagree. *shrug*
Top of pageBottom of page

Rsa
Member
Username: Rsa

Post Number: 727
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 70.227.207.208
Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 4:14 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

wow CL, i don't think i've ever seen anybody so successfully reflect the intent and meaning of their quote within their own statement...

how about this quote: "brevity is the soul of wit."
Top of pageBottom of page

Citylover
Member
Username: Citylover

Post Number: 1458
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 4.229.123.108
Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 5:43 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

That is a good quote RSA and I don't claim to be immune from what I said or from your quote.....
However Detroit duo did not use a metaphor he/she talked directly about the very topic at hand and went further and insulted my "mental" abilites....perhaps detroitduo meant my intelligence.....
There was nothing metaphorical about it.
Top of pageBottom of page

Rsa
Member
Username: Rsa

Post Number: 728
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 70.227.207.208
Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 5:47 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

gotcha. i commend you on not being tempted to say something snide back to me (genuine complement, not being sarcastic).
Top of pageBottom of page

Citylover
Member
Username: Citylover

Post Number: 1460
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 4.229.123.108
Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 6:36 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

ThankS Rsa.I admit that DD's post did have a paragraph about Mom and peas etc and that could be analagous or metaphorical......my apoologies.....again I don't claim to be immune from mistakes.
However insulting my intelligence is a quick way to end any meaningful discussion(or anyone elses).
The fact is that you all better damn well hope there is someone with my line of thinking or your city will end up looking like Troy or S'field.
A good comparision is Ann Arbor.There is a demand for bldg in A2.There is a premium on space as well as land becomes sparser in the city.Recently a developer proposed a high rise condo around the medical center.City council approved but the historic commission said no saying it did not fit the neighborhood.Now some people were likely annoyed, some did not care and some were happy.....regardless I am glad that the commission took their task seriously enuff to really care about how it would affect the neighborhood.The developer is welcome to bring another proposal .
The point being embracing the idea of new things coming to the city w/o taking into acct the effect on the "feel" of the city and specific area is unwise imo.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 2827
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.172.95.197
Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 6:53 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I'm not trying to be mean (really, because I've been called out more than once on my grammer and spelling), but is anyone else finding it difficult to read and fully comprehend Citylover's post without paragraphs, and in place the ......? Could you help a brotha' out, CL?
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitduo
Member
Username: Detroitduo

Post Number: 394
Registered: 06-2005
Posted From: 69.212.63.213
Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 10:22 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

CL, I will appologize about the snide remark regarding your intelligence.

That said, had you started your rant with the explaination in your last post instead of the way you did, I would have been less likely to lose my patience. Your ideas are certainly welcome and I like to hear them. I would prefer the well thought out ideas in the last post. It makes the discussion easier.

Thank you and have a nice day.
Top of pageBottom of page

Citylover
Member
Username: Citylover

Post Number: 1461
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 4.229.132.126
Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 10:37 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Lmich I am having no problems regarding my post.However I can see(literally) how you do....
So I shall attempt a new paragraph and say to Detroitduo in jest .....The day is over!............Something wrong with my machine LMICH ......

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