Future of Detroit Theater meeting was packed

[Valerie Molinski]

I personally see absolutely nothing special about that building, other than it used to be a place to see movies. Distinct facade? Where? It looks like a generic structure.

I never went by that place and went "Wow! Look at that! Isn't that interesting?"

Because it isn't.

So if you are going to argue that we need to keep the building around, perhaps something stronger than, "it's old and interesting!" would be a better standpoint.

'Special' and 'historic' is not only defined by the fact that the building was distinct (as in you notice it for whatever reason) to you or me, or that people thought it was beautiful or interesting rather that generic or dull. It could simply be because of the construction of the facade- for example, this building could be the only remaining example of 'X,Y,Z' in the region and therefore worth saving. I am not saying it is the case in the instance of this theater, but there is criteria in place rather than arbitrary standards of current taste.


Maybe George Washington slept upstairs, Paul Newman saw a movie there or Halle Berry had her first kiss during a screening of ET there. Is that enough to make it significant?

[Thealexa Becker]

I personally see absolutely nothing special about that building, other than it used to be a place to see movies. Distinct facade? Where? It looks like a generic structure.

I never went by that place and went "Wow! Look at that! Isn't that interesting?"

Because it isn't.

So if you are going to argue that we need to keep the building around, perhaps something stronger than, "it's old and interesting!" would be a better standpoint.

'Special' and 'historic' is not only defined by the fact that the building was distinct (as in you notice it for whatever reason) to you or me, or that people thought it was beautiful or interesting rather that generic or dull. It could simply be because of the construction of the facade- for example, this building could be the only remaining example of 'X,Y,Z' in the region and therefore worth saving. I am not saying it is the case in the instance of this theater, but there is criteria in place rather than arbitrary standards of current taste.


Maybe George Washington slept upstairs, Paul Newman saw a movie there or Halle Berry had her first kiss during a screening of ET there. Is that enough to make it significant?

See, the thing is...the Detroit Theater is not ANY of those.

I know the criteria for calling something historic. It doesn't change my stance.

Why on earth would everyone get upset about a building that some famous person (or famous dead person) did something mundane in? Of all the reasons to save a building...that has got to be the worst.

Can someone come out and specifically pinpoint what exactly it is about the theater that is so special to constitute this kind of fuss? Something beyond the vague it's historic because its been around forever.

Why is it historic? What details can you provide?

All I am saying is, if people are going to get this bent out of shape over this issue, they better have a very very solidly defined reason that everyone can get behind. Right now all I see is nostalgia.

[Kate McCarthy]

Thealexa,

Regarding why the theater can be considered historic, please go back to the post by Ben VanLear earlier in this thread. I don't think it can be said any clearer.

[Thealexa Becker]

Thealexa,

Regarding why the theater can be considered historic, please go back to the post by Ben VanLear earlier in this thread. I don't think it can be said any clearer.

I have read all the posts in this thread. I actually thought that his assessment was not sufficient. Hence all of my questions which I will repeat here hoping to get an answer.

First of all, I don't agree that it is that distinctive at all.

Regardless, I would NOT call it a landmark. The church down the street is a landmark. That building is not. Even if it is structurally sound. Lots of buildings are.

How specificallyis it part of our heritage? Not just because it has been here a long time. What are it's actual cultural contributions? Does anyone have precise examples?

If people on this thread are going to so ardently defend this building that some people find to be nothing special (or just plain ugly), they are going to need to say something particular about the structure and its importance beyond its "terra cotta facade" and other vague assumptions about its relevance, which is a weak argument as there are much more interesting (and better looking) buildings in the city.

[Michael Loje]

Thealexa, which NEWER(built after world war 2) buildings do you consider to be more significant or attractive than the Detroit Theater?

[Missy Limkemann]

Ok, my 2 cents for what they are worth (which is way less than 2 cents...lol)

Really we need ANOTHER fast food restaurant? Really? There is such a high demand for this? Like the lines out of McDonalds, Burger King etc are so long that people are dying in their cars, or in the restaurant waiting for their food? Yeah didn't think so.

What about the other 2 businesses that are in this building? They lose out too? How is that ok? Someone said "more tax revenue." HOW? They are closing the McDonalds on Sloane to move here. The 2 businesses in the theater building are gone. So unless my math is wrong, that equals "-2" so nope not a higher tax increase. Actually more, because those owners and those that work for them will be out of jobs. More tax decline....(paychecks and all ...)

I am not saying that the theater is the grand building that is gorgeous and the angels sing when you pass it, but seriously a flippin McDonalds? Can't we come up with something oh I don't know, better? When is it too much? How many fast food joints does one city need? And how many "doubles" do we need? We have 2 taco bells, 2 burger kings, 2 mcdonalds (oh wait they are closing one to build this one..oh yeah still 2), etc etc. I would settle for something better, more of a healthy option. Geez turn in to something like a West Side Market or something. Fresh produce (LEAF), fresh meats and eggs for those that eat that (I do by the way) and some good fresh food. We don't need anymore processed "who knows what you are really eating" food. Let's get healthy!!!!!

Ok, like I said these are just random thoughts, my 2 cents, not that it is worth much, but I just think there could be better. I think we as a city deserve better.

[Matthew Lee]

Missy, I think that you and I are definitely on the same page here.

Thealexa, I think you raise some good discussion points.

Personally, I do not care about saving the theater. I'm sorry, but I don't. I do care about the two businesses located there and the affect on them. And I really, really, really care about having a McDonald's move in to the location.

I think there are two things to consider that nobody has offered any concrete information on:

(1) Overall economic impact to Lakewood of the move. I would love to see this and what the numbers are expected to be. This should take into account the net of all impacted including : closing the McDonalds on Sloane, opening a new one, construction revenue generated, jobs generated, closing/relocating of two businesses, affect on housing prices, etc. Obviously, this doesn't have to be done but I would personally love to see it.

(2) Overall impact to traffic. THIS is the one I am more concerned about and, yes, it is because my family, my daughter, her friends, etc. will be impacted. How is it in the good of the community to have this located at the end of a street where thousands of children pass each day on their way to Harding School, Grant School, etc. This can't be good by any stretch of imagination. People who are checking out their Egg McMuffin drive-through order aren't paying attention to kids in the street. They just aren't.

So, in a nutshell, I am not opposed to removing the Detroit Theater. But I am opposed to a McDonalds moving to that location.

[J Hrlec]

Missy, I think that you and I are definitely on the same page here.

Thealexa, I think you raise some good discussion points.

Personally, I do not care about saving the theater. I'm sorry, but I don't. I do care about the two businesses located there and the affect on them. And I really, really, really care about having a McDonald's move in to the location.

I think there are two things to consider that nobody has offered any concrete information on:

(1) Overall economic impact to Lakewood of the move. I would love to see this and what the numbers are expected to be. This should take into account the net of all impacted including : closing the McDonalds on Sloane, opening a new one, construction revenue generated, jobs generated, closing/relocating of two businesses, affect on housing prices, etc. Obviously, this doesn't have to be done but I would personally love to see it.

(2) Overall impact to traffic. THIS is the one I am more concerned about and, yes, it is because my family, my daughter, her friends, etc. will be impacted. How is it in the good of the community to have this located at the end of a street where thousands of children pass each day on their way to Harding School, Grant School, etc. This can't be good by any stretch of imagination. People who are checking out their Egg McMuffin drive-through order aren't paying attention to kids in the street. They just aren't.

So, in a nutshell, I am not opposed to removing the Detroit Theater. But I am opposed to a McDonalds moving to that location.

Here's some contuinued thoughts on this...

1) Ideally McDonald's wouldn't be my first choice either, however, I believe it is the owner's right to sell his property under the city guidelines of zoning or other codes.

2) I think some ideas I have heard are OK, but they probably are simply pipe dreams. If you can do it, do it fast... or any potential sale should be allowed.

3) I would guess a McDonald's would serve more people than the theater or the (2) attached stores do combined... that is only an assumption, but i don't think there would really be a loss of business. There no reason they couldn't move to another one of Lakewood's many vacant storefronts.

4) Traffic should be addressed, but is it a problem? Do we not want any really successful places (chain or private) to open in Lakewood... because anything popular would increase traffic with people coming to it. Plus there are children everywhere in Lakewood (look around)...I don't think assumptions based on possible traffic vs. children in a specific commercially zoned area could be valid.

[Thealexa Becker]

Thealexa, which NEWER(built after world war 2) buildings do you consider to be more significant or attractive than the Detroit Theater?

First of all, what does this have to do with my question about why the theater is so special? We aren't talking about other buildings, we are talking about this building. So really, my opinion on other buildings is irrelevant.

However, I would say probably only the Library. To be honest, I can't think of any buildings that are non-residential in Lakewood outside of the Library that are distinctive. Sure I know what they look like, but they aren't anything special, just like the Detroit Theater.

You might not agree with me, but then again, I don't agree with all the angst over this building.

Matthew,

I agree with you and your questions. I feel like many questions raised here that are in opposition to saving the theater are not being answered fully.

J,

McDonalds would not be my first choice, either. People shouldn't try to halt a sale though, because, it's been several years, there's a good chance the seller won't get a better offer.

And I completely agree that there is no proof that it will decrease business. As for traffic, I personally think the most dangerous area of Detroit traffic wise is between Andrews and Warren. Whoever redesigned the traffic flow there did a horrible job. I walk that area pretty consistently and believe me, the area by the theater has nothing on that mess.

This whole discussion about the theater, from what I have read, was spawned from a mixture of disappointment that the theater was closing and irritation that the McDonalds was opening. Now I feel it has turned into an anti-chain sentiment mixed with undue nostalgia over a building that people didn't really care about that much before.

Again, I liked that fact that we had a theater, but I will say again, this debate is ridiculous and out of proportion.

[Michael Loje]

Thealexa, just curious. These discussions have become so fractured and diffuse, we are now talking about 15 different subjects. My main concern is preserving the "charm" of Detroit Avenue. And I know thats a subjective thing. There are many people that prefer the "charm" of Brookpark Road in Cleveland. I'm just curious as to how some of the more vocal of us here feel about this subject. As an aside, talking about charm, check out downtown Willoughby.

[michael gill]

When the National Register of Historic Places determined that the entire city of Lakewood is eligible for designation as a historic district, it was because of the intact layout of commercial corridors as they were defined by streetcar lines, and because of the amount of intact architecture of that era throughout the city, particularly along those lines. All the people involved with various historical /architectural boards in town probably remember this. It was just a few years ago.

That is not to say the whole city should seek that designation--just to note that the feel of the city is a matter of the sum of its parts. Lose the parts one by one . . . lose the distinctive character of the city.

[Missy Limkemann]

Someone said "something is better than nothing" and maybe not on this particular thread, but there was that discussion. So riddle me this. Say it wasn't McDonalds coming in. Say it was oh a "peep" show type of place, you know Larry Flint's next Hustler Club or something to that sort, would you still be ok with it? I mean it is better than nothing.

Not that I would want that either. I just don't get another fast food type of joint. Or at least one that we have already.

Plus looking at the land area, how would it fit? There is that convienent store (what ever the name) that is next to it, plus the parking area is small, the lot is small, how would it fit? It would almost have to sit on the sidewalk to make room for the drivethru and the dumpsters. Oh and the semi truck that delivers the food to mcdonalds. that has to have room too...hmm...where would that go? just thinking out loud on this point. sorry.

[J Hrlec]

Someone said "something is better than nothing" and maybe not on this particular thread, but there was that discussion. So riddle me this. Say it wasn't McDonalds coming in. Say it was oh a "peep" show type of place, you know Larry Flint's next Hustler Club or something to that sort, would you still be ok with it? I mean it is better than nothing.

Not that I would want that either. I just don't get another fast food type of joint. Or at least one that we have already.

Plus looking at the land area, how would it fit? There is that convienent store (what ever the name) that is next to it, plus the parking area is small, the lot is small, how would it fit? It would almost have to sit on the sidewalk to make room for the drivethru and the dumpsters. Oh and the semi truck that delivers the food to mcdonalds. that has to have room too...hmm...where would that go? just thinking out loud on this point. sorry.

I personally have used the statement, "Mostly anything is better than empty buildings." on another thread. Not sure if this is what you're referring to... but completely different than "something is better than nothing"

I don't think talking about hypotheticals really addresses the specific happening with the Detroit theather, although it would be interesting to see if a strip club would even be allowed in this space, which depending on the answer would make it more irrelevant.

As far as space, the lot is pretty large and I'm sure its use can be maximized. Since this discussion is taking place I would assume the property would work for their needs.

[mike fridrich]

I do not know how much space the McDonalds folks need but Fridrich Moving on Madison Ave/ Ferndale might be availiable for sale, it's 5 parcels of land ,about 25,000sq ft.
nothing historical about our building.
Madison needs a McDonalds
Mike Fridrich
President

[Stan Austin]

Mike--- what relation is Ron to you? Both of us were LHS '67