Discuss Detroit Archives - Beginning January 2007 Status of Brodhead Naval Armory? Previous Next
Top of pageBottom of page

Al_t_publican
Member
Username: Al_t_publican

Post Number: 128
Registered: 06-2004
Posted on Thursday, January 11, 2007 - 5:28 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

While back in Detroit last summer I noticed weeds growing around the vacant armory.

Are there any plans for the building? Who owns it, DoD, CoD, or is it private property.

I was born across the street from the armory at what was then called Jennings Hospital. (I wonder if the vibe from the armory had any influence on me joining the Marines in '67?)
Top of pageBottom of page

Swingline
Member
Username: Swingline

Post Number: 669
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Friday, January 12, 2007 - 3:40 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

bump. I know the roof leaks and the scrappers have already caused damage. The city is providing no security. They aren't even lighting the place at night.
Top of pageBottom of page

Michigansheik
Member
Username: Michigansheik

Post Number: 176
Registered: 09-2005
Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 8:02 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

thats sad but not surprising, sadly.

can citizens run over scrappers?
Top of pageBottom of page

56packman
Member
Username: 56packman

Post Number: 905
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 8:28 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Detroit should have GIVEN the building to the Marine corp when the deed went over to the CoD.
The Marines at least kept the place open and in use.

SEMPER FI
Top of pageBottom of page

Rsa
Member
Username: Rsa

Post Number: 996
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 10:16 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

actually packman, it was the other way around. the marines moved out (due to the military downsizing and relocation programs) and the building reverted back to the city.
Top of pageBottom of page

56packman
Member
Username: 56packman

Post Number: 908
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 11:51 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It was my understanding that the building was built on land that the CoD donated/"loaned" in the 30's and that there was an agreement penned at the time the "loan" was arranged that the US military had use the land and building for 75 years (give or take) and after that the building and land would revert to the CoD. When this was discovered or when the military was reminded of this ancient agreement, they just said OK, and made plans to be elsewhere. I could have this wrong (not the first time)-- would like to know the real-deal.
Top of pageBottom of page

Rsa
Member
Username: Rsa

Post Number: 999
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 12:15 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

i don't know the specifics of the plan, but the relocation of the marines was due to the downsizng and consolidations plans that came out of the clinton era. it called for a phased withdrawl from the armory because it was deemed obsolete and uneeded. if you recall the navy used to share the armory. they were the first to leave, consolidating to selfridge. the marines held out as long as they could, but could not survive the latest rounds of "cuts". this is also the reason why so much maintenance of the building got "deferred".

what i'm not sure of is the specifics of the agreement. my understanding is that the city owned the land, but the u.s. government built and owned the building. the stipulation in the deed, however, was that if the government ever left the building, it would revert to the city. i'm almost positive that the city did not force them out, particularly because they don't have a use for the building (as evidant by the rfp's that have been sent out in the past few months).

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