On Thu, 21 May 1998, Norm/Ilene Tyler wrote:
> Well, friends, it was depressing, as I expected, and we lost another
> building to the pressures of economic threats and ignorance. That's my
> feeling now, although I don't want to insult my fellow commissioners -
> ask good 'ol Larry how and why he voted the way he did! - as it took
> determination and guts to vote "no" in the face of a likely lawsuit
> against the city if their request for permission to demolish was not
> granted.
>
> The vote was 5 for and 2 against, so apparently my arguments were not
> convincing enough. The city staff historic coordinator also opposed the
> demolition, but she can't vote. The city attorney could only sit
> quietly by in the meeting, in case we needed a legal read on a specific
> issue, but probably held her breath about the possibility of
> litigation. In any case, we all agree our historic ordinance needs to
> be tightened up for such cases.
It is indeed an awful situation. The building is a large brick and stucco
house on Hill Street near the University of Michigan campus. Built in
1908 as a single family home, it was occupied by a fraternity until 1994,
when they were forced to move out over code violations.
In December 1994, while the house was vacant, homeless people moved in; a
fire they started devastated the house and left a large hole in the roof,
some eight or ten feet across. The insurance company refused to pay
*anything* because of the vacant status of the house at the time. Four
years passed; water, weather, and vandals did extensive damage to the
building.
Allowing that to happen was undoubtedly a failure on our part -- we could
have, should have, proceeded to cite the owners for demolition by neglect.
Of course, the answer would have been: in the absence of any fire
insurance proceeds, where are the resources for repairs or even tarping?
(Because of the structurally compromised tile roof, collapsed in the
center around the hole, tarping would have been unusually expensive.)
Then, in 1997, a developer purchased it with plans to immediately demolish
the structure. No doubt he assumed that the situation would be similar to
what happened to another historic house just a few blocks away on East
Huron, where following a fire, the house was simply demolished without any
review or input from the HDC. (I didn't personally inspect the damage to
the interior of the East Huron Street house, but the exterior was largely
intact after the fire.)
In any case, the city's process, that failed to save the East Huron Street
house, did force the developer to come before us for permission to
demolish the Hill Street house.
The developer presented some reports from contractors who estimated that
rehabilitation of the Hill Street house would cost between $1.5 million
and $2.0 million, and pointed out that (given the limited size of the
building) the rental housing market couldn't possibly pay back that amount
of investment. We disputed some of the alleged structural problems, but
even friendly estimates for rehab came in at about those numbers.
Worsening the problem here (and the pressure for redevelopment) is the
zoning. The house is part of an historic streetscape with large houses set
back from the street. Unfortunately, this one lot (unlike its neighbors)
has *much* higher density zoning. Obviously the developer plans to
construct a high density apartment complex on the site. Most of the
neighbors who spoke at our hearing expressed no concern for the historic
structure, but worried about what was going to replace it.
Yet the crazy zoning (in direct contradiction to preserving the
streetscape) is still not being challenged at this point. And the
ordinance for this district does not give the HDC any review over new
construction. We all agree that this should be changed, but there is no
actual movement toward making this happen.
It was frustrating to hear the neighbors, who were quick to write off the
house, calling it "derelict" or "eyesore", but pleaded with us to maintain
the deep setback and large trees. They were unwilling to hear that the
existence of the other amenities depended on the continued existence of
the house.
And of course the developer was quick to condemn the many large oaks on
the site, calling them "rotten" and "killer trees" that might fall on
somebody.
Action on this application was repeatedly postponed for various reasons
(the applicant's attorney was out of town, etc.), and in the meantime the
city building department demanded that the house be made more secure
against intruders, in particular, that the fire escapes be removed. The
fire escapes were then ripped from the house, bringing down chunks of the
parapets and leaving big gashes in the facade. (When this evidence of bad
faith was mentioned in last night's HDC meeting, along with slides showing
the damage, the developer's attorney objected to it as "inflammatory".)
Also during this process, the same developer further antagonized everyone:
he purchased another house, on Washtenaw Avenue (adjoining the same
historic district and within the area under consideration for an expansion
of that district), and razed it, completely bulldozing the once wooded
site.
During these months, we all hoped that a buyer with experience in
rehabbing burned-out structures would come forward with plans for the Hill
Street house. Under our ordinance we certainly had the power to deny
demolition if selling the property was an alternative. Even the developer
admitted this.
There had been some interest by several buyers right after the fire, but
the owners at that time refused to consider them. Four years later, after
even more extensive damage, and given the cost of a valuable site, we had
nobody with the resources to do it.
The only possibility we had left to save the house would have been to deny
the demolition, and withstand a costly lawsuit, in the hope that the
developer would change his mind, or that a buyer would show up before the
weather caused even more deterioration. Failing that, we could hold up
the demolition in an effort to get some leverage for input on design of
the replacement structure.
But the majority of the commission was doubtful about how well that kind
of decision could be explained to the community, in an environment where
almost nobody held out any hope that the building could be repaired, and
the courts were unlikely to support us.
> Next month we have to do it all again. I'm sure the request will be
> framed differently, but it will likely involve at least partial
> demolition of our 1941 art deco/moderne bus station. It's one of a
> kind, located on the fringe of downtown, in an area ripe for new
> construction. With several nearby vacant parcels owned by the same
> person, I fail to see the justification to push for development of this
> parcel, unless he can fully incorporate the existing building into the
> proposed project. Of course, we have no right to require that, and he
> resents even mentioning the subject.
Our hand is much stronger in this situation. It's an Individual Historic
Property, it does have economic use, and there is plenty of room on the
site (the bus station lot and the adjoining one under one ownership) for
new construction. The three-dimensional features of the bus station,
including the vertical sign and covered driveway, are character-defining,
visible from the street, and preclude a simple facade job. Moreover,
there is tremendous community support for this building.
Larry
|