The Observation Deck

Yes, McDonalds is, I'm sure, able to buy the Detroit Theater property and design and build a restaraunt that meets city guidelines. But it is also true that a community is able to make it's distaste known and influence either the corporation or the city. While the 50K Lakewoodites may either want or feel ambivalent about a new McDonalds in the city, there is something that rankles about the specific statement:

"Detroit Theater torn down to build another McDonalds"

I think a good amount of people would get behind that.

Michael Gill

Take a look at this:
http://www.jacobward.com/pubarch1201mcd.html

Interesting article on McDonalds and their approach to building sites.

"We used to hire local architects," Boneau says. But now they act only as "local experts to help us understand code requirements and the rest." The company is extremely strict about the process. "I've learned the hard way that you can't just let local architects loose. We're McDonald's. We have our own way of doing things."

I would prefer it to be a movie theater but it makes NO sense for the city to chase away a company investing in our city. Its not a strip club or a hemp store...it is a McDonalds. They have historic and blended store fronts in cities all over the world. So far I haven't heard of anything that has been acceptable...remember when people were commenting on Deagan's before it opened...oooohh if only Barnacle Bills would come back. It seems to have worked out. McDonald's is no Deagans but if you were inside that movie theater...as much as I will miss it...it will end up like the other theater in Lakewood...

Colleen Wing wrote:I would prefer it to be a movie theater but it makes NO sense for the city to chase away a company investing in our city. Its not a strip club or a hemp store...it is a McDonalds. They have historic and blended store fronts in cities all over the world. So far I haven't heard of anything that has been acceptable...remember when people were commenting on Deagan's before it opened...oooohh if only Barnacle Bills would come back. It seems to have worked out. McDonald's is no Deagans but if you were inside that movie theater...as much as I will miss it...it will end up like the other theater in Lakewood...

Great points!

How about a McDonald's with a strip club and a hemp store? Those would be real happy meals.

I don't know if I mentioned it, but if enough of us got in touch with our council people and the mayor...
At the very least, maybe we could have an impact on the design and traffic flow planning.

If everyone in Lakewood chipped in $13 we could all buy it and run it cooperatively. I didn't do a lot of research on this but they do exist: http://www.city-data.com/forum/nebraska ... towns.html

If any city could do this Lakewood could. We have a volunteer spirit around here and lots of people with experience on nonprofit boards.

That’s a great blog post, Grace, and the great thing about Schlosser’s Fast Food Nation (referenced in the blog) is its top to bottom evaluation of McDonalds’ impact—on the character of cities, on car culture, on the labor market, to the definition of jobs so that employees are more easily replaced.

The architecture blog takes up the corporate architectural agenda, which Schlosser doesn’t do. And it’s clear, the red-haired clown wants to crank out same-ness in that area too.

So to be clear: I don’t endorse demolishing a streetcar era theatre for any reason. To do that is to lose yet another piece of Lakewood’s history, its character, and with that (I think) a significant piece of it’s market appeal. I certainly count myself among folks who like Lakewood in part because the architecture is not disposable.

Demolishing a significant piece of Lakewood’s architecture to build a McDonalds adds insult to injury: Injured by the loss of the building, insulted by the nature of its proposed replacement: A McDonalds would certainly bring more traffic, likely a drive-through with its loudspeakers and its mealtime parade. In that neighborhood, the owners would be hoping for a late night parade, too, because they'd want to sell burgers to all those people coming out of the bars. It would mean more greasy fast food. It would mean another blast of that mustard and ketchup color scheme.

It’s like the economy is saying, “Take that in the name of commerce, you whiney homeowners!”

So how much can we take? It’s one thing if you’ve got zoning regs written out that specifically prohibit the proposal: Zoning code prevented the subdivision of one big residential lot up on Edgewater into more than a dozen cluster homes. Zoning code halted the demolition of the house next to mine, where the owner wanted to put a city-subsidized parking lot for the bars that are his tenants, including McCarthy’s, the self-described “home of cheap ass beer.” It prevented Walgreens from setting up on the Franklin block between Warren and St. Charles.

I’m not aware that any code could save the Detroit Theater neighborhood from a McDonalds.

Unless there’s money to buy the building and a plan to use it, stopping a McDonalds --if they do get to the point of offering a plan--is a big job. It won't be won by slogans or generalized vitriol. It's important to know what the battle is about: Are we talking abut saving a building, or are we talking about what kind of businesses we want on Detroit Avenue?

So what do people think: if they would rehab the building and leave it standing, would that make this any more palatable?

Or are we simply not having it, no way, no how?

michael gill wrote:That’s a great blog post, Grace, and the great thing about Schlosser’s Fast Food Nation (referenced in the blog) is its top to bottom evaluation of McDonalds’ impact—on the character of cities, on car culture, on the labor market, to the definition of jobs so that employees are more easily replaced.

The architecture blog takes up the corporate architectural agenda, which Schlosser doesn’t do. And it’s clear, the red-haired clown wants to crank out same-ness in that area too.

So to be clear: I don’t endorse demolishing a streetcar era theatre for any reason. To do that is to lose yet another piece of Lakewood’s history, its character, and with that (I think) a significant piece of it’s market appeal. I certainly count myself among folks who like Lakewood in part because the architecture is not disposable.

Demolishing a significant piece of Lakewood’s architecture to build a McDonalds adds insult to injury: Injured by the loss of the building, insulted by the nature of its proposed replacement: A McDonalds would certainly bring more traffic, likely a drive-through with its loudspeakers and its mealtime parade. In that neighborhood, the owners would be hoping for a late night parade, too, because they'd want to sell burgers to all those people coming out of the bars. It would mean more greasy fast food. It would mean another blast of that mustard and ketchup color scheme.

It’s like the economy is saying, “Take that in the name of commerce, you whiney homeowners!”

So how much can we take? It’s one thing if you’ve got zoning regs written out that specifically prohibit the proposal: Zoning code prevented the subdivision of one big residential lot up on Edgewater into more than a dozen cluster homes. Zoning code halted the demolition of the house next to mine, where the owner wanted to put a city-subsidized parking lot for the bars that are his tenants, including McCarthy’s, the self-described “home of cheap ass beer.” It prevented Walgreens from setting up on the Franklin block between Warren and St. Charles.

I’m not aware that any code could save the Detroit Theater neighborhood from a McDonalds.

Unless there’s money to buy the building and a plan to use it, stopping a McDonalds --if they do get to the point of offering a plan--is a big job. It won't be won by slogans or generalized vitriol. It's important to know what the battle is about: Are we talking abut saving a building, or are we talking about what kind of businesses we want on Detroit Avenue?

So what do people think: if they would rehab the building and leave it standing, would that make this any more palatable?

Or are we simply not having it, no way, no how?

I don't mind if it does end up there or not...all I know if without renovation that building is an eyesore no matter what era it came from. Who else is a potential occupant?

[quote="J I don't mind if it does end up there or not...all I know if without renovation that building is an eyesore no matter what era it came from. Who else is a potential occupant?[/quote]

I mostly agree with Mr. Gill on this one. But you ask an excellent question:

"Who else is a potential occupant?"

When the State and County announced the $7 million renovation of the Capital Theater and the creation of the Gordon Square arts district they killed the Detroit Theater. People wanted to deny it but they knew that would be the result. There is only so much business to go around.

There is no practical or financial reason the money couldn't have been spent on the Detroit Theater and in Lakewood, it actually made more sense to do it in Lakewood. The decision was a political one and Lakewood has no political clout.

I noticed that Ed Fiztgeralds name is on a new street renovation project in Rocky River. The County is helping to finance a new street scaping project on old Lake Road. The goal is to create a "Little Italy" like shopping and restaraunt district. Meanwhile, the Madison Avenue street scaping and cafe district has been quietly shelved. I'm sure County officials are well aware of the fact that there is only so much business to go around.

What are County institutions doing for Lakewood? They are continuing and expanding their homeless resettlement programs. I guess we can't accuse them of ignoring Lakewood. I'm sure they have big plans for the City.

I also loathe the demolition of our historic buildings but haven't we gone through the "use" question with the Hilliard theatre also? Unless a developer has a viable use for the building, it's just going to sit there.

While we may not prevent another McDonalds, can we at least add an ordinance to prohibit future "drive thrus"? It's a waste of gas and definitely increases noise and exhaust in the area. I know other cities have enacted this.

Bill, the Capital Theater project happened for a few reasons. First, it was located in a building that was already owned by an active nonprofit. There was great community support and involvement in rehabbing the Gordon Square Arcade and the Capital. Across the street, there was already a history of live theater with the Cleveland Public Theater. The nonprofit created interest among restauranteurs who have located in the district. This project has been quietly evolving for about twenty five years. We in Lakewood could learn a lot from this.
The Detroit Theater was owned and operated as a private business. Chances are the impact of the Capital did not cause the demise of the Detroit. I would bet there was minimal overlap of their audiences. The ever shortening time of release of DVD's and the economy in general probably was responsible.

Bryan Schwegler wrote:

Brian Pedaci wrote:McD's makes more sense for the Tuffy spot on Bunts and Detroit, but I understand why they want to be more west - closer to the bars.

Why does that spot make more sense than the Detroit Theater spot?

Already vacant, the cross-street has greater traffic capacity and a traffic light.

I guess I also find myself in general agreement with Bill Call on this point: to take this building off the chopping block requires either an immediate (or nearly immediate) viable use, or it needs an entity with deep enough pockets to acquire the place and wait until something viable comes along.

Consider the situation in Collinwood: Northeast Shores CDC now owns the LaSalle. They're trying to figure out what to do with it. Lakewood doesn't have a cdc or any nonprofit entity in position to buy the Detroit and hang on to it until someone comes up with something to do. Lakewood Alive? The Historical Society? I'm sure officers of those organizations will correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that neither is in position to acquire and hold a piece of the city until some suitable restoration or rennovation comes along.

In several situations, non-profits have formed with a mission to do just that. Think Playhouse Square. Think of the organization Michael Moore supports in Traverse City Michigan, which renovated and operates the old theatre there. Think of Northeast Shores. Sure, Northeast Shores doesn't have its developer yet. But they also still do have their neighborhood theatre. And they have the possibility that someone come up with something great.

Lakewood needs someone to do that. And if we don't have that, we're at the mercy of whoever comes along, including McDonalds.

Having said all that, I wouldn't say that the example of the Hilliard/ Westwood theatre shows that there's no viable use awaiting this building.

The Detroit is not nearly as decrepit as the Hilliard theatre. It is not falling apart. It's not nearly as large, and therefore isn't nearly as big a job. Its roof has not leaked for a decade, as the Hilliard's roof has. It's in a busy, generally thriving neighborhood. THere's all kinds of commerce going on around the Detroit. And it has parking.

All those advantages add up to demolition, though, unless someone stands up and says this matters. Somebody with money and a plan.

Brian Pedaci wrote:McD's makes more sense for the Tuffy spot on Bunts and Detroit, but I understand why they want to be more west - closer to the bars.

The Tuffy building appears to be operating as a garage again, fyi.

I heard that the Cross Fit gym guy was looking for a bigger space than his current one on Madison and was interested in the theater. Not sure if the owner is more interested in selling versus renting it out, though.

Thank you for the article in the LO.

I wrote letters to both the Mayor and our Councilperson.

I supported the idea of an ordinance against drivethroughs.