  Detourdetroit Member Username: Detourdetroit Post Number: 203 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.212.225.203 |
So this year's 11 Most Listing was recently announced. A swath of Cincinnati, Over the Rhine, was given the "Most Endangered" status, but the mayor said it was a good thing. How refreshing. Go figure. Mark Mallory for Mayor!!! http://news.enquirer.com/apps/ pbcs.dll/article?AID=200660511 0338 | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 2081 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 4.229.3.170 |
It's good that Cincinnati is embracing historic preservation. Too late for Cincinnati's movie palaces though. Every single downtown Cincinnati movie palace was destroyed between 1955-80. | ||
Eric Member Username: Eric Post Number: 454 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 35.11.210.161 |
Maybe it's because their nomination wasn't based in part on a lie. | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 2085 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 4.229.3.170 |
Eric, I take it you are NOT referring to the city's LIE about saying that the Madison-Lenox was torn down because it was "in imminent danger of collapse", but the LIE about "100 buildings to be torn down or rehabbed" which got misconstrued to be "100 buildings to be torn down". I still think that the city is the bigger liar when compared to the National Trust. Why else would a backhoe start tearing down a building from the middle if it was in that dangerous of a state? | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 7381 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
List of 100 buildings. I recall Skulker requested it awhile back. | ||
Eric Member Username: Eric Post Number: 455 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 35.11.210.161 |
I don't think the Trust is a liar I place the blame squarely on those who did the nominating. As far as I'm concerned them and the city are liars I don't think it's worth getting into debate on which one is bigger | ||
Detourdetroit Member Username: Detourdetroit Post Number: 204 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.212.225.203 |
Can we please nip this one in the bud? Nowhere in the Detroit nomination does it say anything about 100 buildings being torn down. The nomination was written in good faith. Please get beyond the number. The point of my post is that Cincinnati's administration and the Trust seem to be working more collaboratively than was the case here...Cincinnati thinks, "Hot Damn!!! Here's a National Group that can draw positive attention to this situation..." Detroit thinks... .... ... I don't want to even speculate for fear of repercussion. WELL BEFORE the Detroit listing, there was little interest in collaboration. Detroit cannot afford to not be collaborative. If the Detroit preservation community was off base because of lack of information or misinformation, the cataract that stands in the way of public disclosure and transparency is to blame. A lie that was perpetuated because of misinformation or misunderstanding does not wash in my opinion next to a lie that had to be perpetuated under the cover of night and in collusion with Orwellian double speak. Thanks for the distinction Gistok BTW, don't quote me on this, but I would guess that there are not 100s but 1000s of buildings on the BSE's demo list. (Message edited by detourdetroit on May 11, 2006) | ||
Ndavies Member Username: Ndavies Post Number: 1810 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 129.9.163.105 |
Given the fact that the buildings of downtown Detroit were named to the "11 Most Endangered" list last year and given that the local preservation community and the National Trust have not done one damn thing to address the situation except to publish outdated and misleading photographs, what reasonably can Cincinnati expect as an outcome of this listing? The deluge of resources and developers has yet to arrive in Detroit as a result of last years listing as it appears Cincinnati is anticipating. Talking to people inside the REAL development world, there was actually a small, temporary but still noticeable chill that hit development as developers who were in process on projects developed minor cases of cold feet, forcing officials to take time to reassure them that the City was not going to wholesale demolish the CBD as (mis) alleged in a reputable publication. Detroit was not helped in anyway that I can see and actually experienced a temporary slowdown because of false information printed in the Trust's listing. Why should Cincinnati rejoice? The Magic Money Fairy is not going to suddenly arrive in Cincinnati because the Trust is naming the area and is going to "aid the local community council". I also note that the listing is far more balanced and discusses the history of inner city decline as forces beyond the control of the City, that demolition is done for public safety issues facing residents (and not a sensationalized phantom hit-list). It also does not contain direct attacks on the administration of the City, as did the Detroit listing. Perhaps that plays into why the Cincinnati listing was well received? It is truthful and does not contain snarky and misleading attacks of administration officials. | ||
Eric Member Username: Eric Post Number: 457 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 35.11.210.161 |
First the nomination clearly mentions the 100 buildings. I also notice that Statler listing is riddle with things that were refuted on this very forum. It's no wonder the nomination wasn't well received http://igorfilms.com/FoBC/Enda ngered.Detroit.pdf | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1636 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 70.225.113.27 |
Eric: You are correct that the nomination did mention the 100 buildings. However, I hasten to point out that it was 1 sentence in a 27 page nomination package. Even though we screw up on that point, it's still 99.99% accurate. Definately less than where we should have been, but not exactly worthy of contempt. Also, I'd like to ask: what points regarding the Statler do you feel were "riddle with thing that were refuted in on this very forum"? | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1469 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
The major reason that downtown Detroit made the Top 11 list last year is not the "100 buildings", but that the City has no official policy, program, or guidelines for preservation. The City of Detroit is wildly inconsistent with what it preserves and what it demolishes, and when historic properties are concerned, negotiations seems to be conducted behind closed doors more often than not (see Tiger Stadium). There is no transparent, predictable, established process for preservation in Detroit, and in a city with such history and quality architecture, that sets a very scary tone in the preservation community. | ||
The_aram Member Username: The_aram Post Number: 4867 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.41.124.8 |
Now, what exactly are you talking about with theise "outdated" photographs? Surely you're not referencing the photographs in the proposal itself, as I took several of them. I think the problem was that the city fixated on one small portion of the proposal (emphasis on the word 'small') in order to defame the entire thing, as it wasn't what they wanted to hear. Not our fault the city wanted to take it as an insult rather than something to work with. | ||
The_aram Member Username: The_aram Post Number: 4868 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.41.124.8 |
I would be interested to see you prove this. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1470 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
No kidding. That's the mindset that keeps Detroit from progressing, though. The powers-that-be seem to be more concerned with outsiders dissing Detroit than they are about making Detroit a better place to live. The Mayor and Council could have taken the constructive criticism and run with it, but that would have been too easy. | ||
The_aram Member Username: The_aram Post Number: 4869 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.41.124.8 |
If skulker had spent more time on this Forum discussing and dissecting the other 99.999% of the proposal sent to the National Trust instead wasting thousands (literally) of words on the one sentence of the 26 pages of text that seemed to piss him off... That right there is more indicting of the city powers-that-be than anything else in this matter. | ||
Detourdetroit Member Username: Detourdetroit Post Number: 205 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 205.188.116.137 |
Eric, I apologize. You're right. I take it back. However, I stand behind the application. It was written in good faith and with good intention. It presents a good case and outlines prevalent issues. | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 2086 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 4.229.105.106 |
Folks, well stated... "wildly inconsistent", the term that Danindc used pretty much sums it up. No one on this forum can argue that in some instances the city government has helped preservation, and in other instances they have thumbed their noses at it. | ||
Swingline Member Username: Swingline Post Number: 485 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 4.229.60.55 |
Now, children, is there really a need to reopen the debate about the list of 100 buildings? Both sides of the issue can better spend their energy toward whatever other redevelopment and preservation role they have chosen. As for the effect of the 11 Most Endangered nomination, I disagree with those who claim that it chilled or slowed down progress in the CBD. Brokers and developers I have spoken to do not point to anything about the nomination as a cause for lethargy in the market. Instead, it is the employment situation in southeast Michigan and the usual "Detroit" problems (taxes, insurance and schools) that have held back forward progress on many projects. Indeed, the nomination seems to me a good thing in that it surely raised awareness on many levels (including within local and state government) as to how best to leverage historic preservation in the context of urban redevelopment. The nomination helped sweep away the last vestiges of the discredited "urban renewal" principles of redevelopment that have dominated this city for the last fifty years. Now, with the awareness and "best practices" information that the nomination promoted, Detroiters can be more confident that the private and public sector leadership in Detroit will proceed with CBD development initiatives that take advantage of Detroit's potential as an urban place, rather than as a tabula rasa of cleared lots ready for shiny new projects whose form is dictated primarily by how the automobiles get parked. | ||
Dialh4hipster Member Username: Dialh4hipster Post Number: 1603 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.250.205.35 |
If the powers-that-be seems to be overly concerned about what outsiders think, then certainly outsiders can be faulted for pouncing on any perceived inadequacy in the powers-that-be. And I include many on this site in that assessment, city resident or no. I do think preservation is important, but really right now shouldn't the focus be on SELF-preservation of the city? It's obvious that what has worked in other cities isn't really working here right now, as the market continues to lag. I think the nit-picking is really as indicative of the mindset here as anything: people get caught up in the details and really do seem to lose sight of the big picture. I'm not saying one "side" does that more than another, but I could. | ||
Caseyc Member Username: Caseyc Post Number: 583 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 206.18.111.5 |
I have to say it is an interesting contrast in how this designation from an "outsider" group was received by the different cities (which I thought was the original point of the whole thread). In Cincinnati, Over the Rhine is plagued by crime and drugs and decay, but also has one of the finest stocks of 1870's era Italianate structures in the country. see link of mostly OTR photos... OTR pix....crime and drugs, but also a brand new art school...new lofts and housing....clubs and bars (some failing, others just starting), galleries...crime and drugs and decay....Music Hall (where symphony, opera and ballet perform...as well as a White Stripes concert here and there)....and crime and drugs....Findlay Market (a more intimate, pedestrian friendly Eastern Market)...and crime and drugs....but it is also a neighborhood seeing a lot of new investment. The city is putting a concerted focus on redevelopment there while also preserving the unique and immutable historic qualities of the area. The city recognizes, warts and all, what the problems are, but doesn't hide from spotlights directed upon it by the Historic Trust or elsewhere in order to push things forward. Detroit, on the other hand, based on decades of endemic and overdefensive posturing, continues to engage in the "don't tell us how to run our business" type of brush-offs...taking what could be a positive type of designation and instead turning it into a negative. Why not say, "yes....we have an incredible stock of historic structures, some of which we have restored, some of which are in progress...some of which, regrettably, are beyond salvation....but just look at the potential here." The amazing thing is that so many view preservation as an impediment to development, as a manichean either/or scenario....a position which, to grossly oversimplify, is so visibly jarring in the face of acres upon acres of surface parking lots. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1637 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 69.212.213.155 |
DialH: Please specify. What has been tried in Detroit, on at least a somewhat consistent basis, that has failed here and worked elsewhere? | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1641 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 70.236.180.119 |
bump | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 2100 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 4.229.81.156 |
Bump.... | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 2108 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 4.229.72.55 |
I guess he's not going to answer you Frank. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1655 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 69.215.246.97 |
Oh, well. Sometimes a "no answer" speaks louder than anything else. |
