The Observation Deck

In what sense is it unfortunate that the Detroit Theater is not a nice house?

michael gill wrote:In what sense is it unfortunate that the Detroit Theater is not a nice house?

The sixth sense.

I see dead theaters.

I don't understand.

I am also confused: first by your suggestion that it is "unfortunate" that the Detroit Theater is not a nice house; and second by your quote from an old movie.

By saying that you see dead theaters, are you suggesting that if it were a nice old house instead of a theater, then it wouldn't have gone vacant?

I posted that link and reference because it shows that communities can stand up for the architecture that gives them their character, and that sometimes big companies --including the one that is going to knock down the Detroit -- sometimes respond by respecting the local buildings.

michael gill wrote:I am also confused: first by your suggestion that it is "unfortunate" that the Detroit Theater is not a nice house; and second by your quote from an old movie.

By saying that you see dead theaters, are you suggesting that if it were a nice old house instead of a theater, then it wouldn't have gone vacant?

I posted that link and reference because it shows that communities can stand up for the architecture that gives them their character, and that sometimes big companies --including the one that is going to knock down the Detroit -- sometimes respond by respecting the local buildings.

OK, all I am infering is that the picture of the house posted here was nice but is not representative of the building in Lakewood (other than the fact that we can attempt to have McD's fit inside of an existing structure)

Even if they would move into the building and make some changes... that building is pretty ugly IMO and would be like throwing flowers on top of a pile of manure. So, in short, hopefully we can force McD's to build a new place with Lakewood stylings rather than try to improve the structure which is there.

J, if the exterior of the Detroit is ugly, what buildings on Detroit or Madison are not ugly?

First of all, please don't call the Sixth Sense an old movie...otherwise that means that I am old and I'm only 20. The movie came out when I was 9...

I also agree the Detroit theater is ugly. There are not a lot of pretty buildings in Lakewood that aren't houses, but I don't see the relevance to asking what buildings J thinks are not ugly. Those buildings aren't being shut down. The Detroit Theater is. And it is ugly.

I have no objection to McDs setting up shop there. I just think it would be neat to have a retro McDs. That would be such a fun novelty.

Thealexa, it IS important. Most observers of the architectural scene in Lakewood do see the exterior of the Detroit as significant. You seem to disagree. Maybe I should ask, what other buildings do you view as expendable? What buildings, other than houses, should be saved?

Michael Loje wrote:Thealexa, it IS important. Most observers of the architectural scene in Lakewood do see the exterior of the Detroit as significant. You seem to disagree. Maybe I should ask, what other buildings do you view as expendable? What buildings, other than houses, should be saved?

It ISNT important, because we are talking about ONE BUILDING, not the entirety of Detroit Avenue. And that ONE BUILDING is not attractive. This should not be extended to include scenarios involving the entire street, as it will invite needless speculation and discussion about non-issues.

It isn't that I think buildings should just be torn down indiscriminantly like you seem to be suggesting. I am saying that the overwhelming fuss over the loss of this one building is a little ridiculous. Which there is ample evidence of on most of the threads involving it.

I think I have answered a similar question to this on another thread...

That said, I will restate my point that I think a retro McDs would be cool, if the architectural board can swing it.

Thealexa Becker wrote:

Michael Loje wrote:Thealexa, it IS important. Most observers of the architectural scene in Lakewood do see the exterior of the Detroit as significant. You seem to disagree. Maybe I should ask, what other buildings do you view as expendable? What buildings, other than houses, should be saved?

It ISNT important, because we are talking about ONE BUILDING, not the entirety of Detroit Avenue. And that ONE BUILDING is not attractive. This should not be extended to include scenarios involving the entire street, as it will invite needless speculation and discussion about non-issues.

It isn't that I think buildings should just be torn down indiscriminantly like you seem to be suggesting. I am saying that the overwhelming fuss over the loss of this one building is a little ridiculous. Which there is ample evidence of on most of the threads involving it.

I think I have answered a similar question to this on another thread...

While I agree that perhaps too much fuss is being made for a marginal building, I can't agree with you that because it is only ONE building, it is therefore not important. There are many historic districts where each building in and of itself is not necessarily 'important'- it is the sum of the parts that make places like that special and worth saving.

To be clear, I am not say this is the case here. I just can't support your overall argument. One stone or brick within the construct of a wall is not important. It's when you start removing one here, one there... until finally the entire thing comes crashing down.

Thealexa Becker wrote:That said, I will restate my point that I think a retro McDs would be cool, if the architectural board can swing it.

Simulacra is not the right answer. Detroit Ave is not Disney, who does that type of thing very well. And that type of thing needs to be done well, or else it comes off ridiculous and cheesy.

Valerie Molinski wrote:While I agree that perhaps too much fuss is being made for a marginal building, I can't agree with you that because it is only ONE building, it is therefore not important. There are many historic districts where each building in and of itself is not necessarily 'important'- it is the sum of the parts that make places like that special and worth saving.

To be clear, I am not say this is the case here. I just can't support your overall argument. One stone or brick within the construct of a wall is not important. It's when you start removing one here, one there... until finally the entire thing comes crashing down.

I am not making a general argument that is meant to apply to all sets of buildings, so it isn't an overall argument. And yes, historical districts are important. I am literally only talking about that section of Detroit Avenue, which is NOT a historical district.

That being said, have you looked at that section of Detroit recently? It's not great. So "removing one brick" so to speak is not going to make it more or less important, when it already is unremarkable. The building is next to a convenience store for cryin out loud. We aren't talking about it being next to the Notre Dame Cathedral.

And I think that marginal building is a great way of thinking about the Detroit Theater. It was marginally important, but no one went there, and now it is closed. Which is a bummer, but it is time to focus attentions on more pressing matters, like preventing other businesses from going under.

Simulacra is not the right answer. Detroit Ave is not Disney, who does that type of thing very well. And that type of thing needs to be done well, or else it comes off ridiculous and cheesy.

I thought that ridiculous and cheesy was the point of retro? And if Detroit Avenue were like Disney, all the businesses would be filled up.

Thealexa Becker wrote:I am not making a general argument that is meant to apply to all sets of buildings, so it isn't an overall argument. And yes, historical districts are important. I am literally only talking about that section of Detroit Avenue, which is NOT a historical district.

That being said, have you looked at that section of Detroit recently? It's not great. So "removing one brick" so to speak is not going to make it more or less important, when it already is unremarkable. The building is next to a convenience store for cryin out loud. We aren't talking about it being next to the Notre Dame Cathedral.

And I think that marginal building is a great way of thinking about the Detroit Theater. It was marginally important, but no one went there, and now it is closed. Which is a bummer, but it is time to focus attentions on more pressing matters, like preventing other businesses from going under.

Simulacra is not the right answer. Detroit Ave is not Disney, who does that type of thing very well. And that type of thing needs to be done well, or else it comes off ridiculous and cheesy.

I thought that ridiculous and cheesy was the point of retro? And if Detroit Avenue were like Disney, all the businesses would be filled up.

You are missing my point. You are arguing that there is nothing special that specific building. I am saying that perhaps the sum of the parts is what is important here. Yes, it is next to a UDF. So, where does it stop?

Are you taking the stance that it already sucks, why not just go with it and let whatever happens happen? I did not say that stretch of Detroit was 'important,' just that when you start chipping away at the urban fabric over and over, there is nothing left. It just keeps spreading down the street. Yep, it sure is a bummer. Let's not get in the way of progress. Piece by piece.

Again, not advocating saving the theater building. I do agree with what the ABR is advocating, however, which is an urban approach to the site in lieu of the suburban prototype. What has been chipped away over time is the 'streetcar route' design where the new buildings are pulled off the street and creates a hole with a parking area out front. That should still be important along Detroit Ave.

And we have bigger fish to fry? Agree. However, complacence is why we are here right now, discussing this. Had the owner not been complacent about attracting customers and generating revenue to keep up his property, had the rest of us gone there and patronized the business, we might not be here discussing this. Hindsight is 20/20. We are getting another drive through even if people don't want it there because we don't have zoning laws to address this on the books.

And I think I share this opinion with others who live in Lakewood- I live here instead of in Westlake precisely BECAUSE it isn't Disney, a simulation of downtown like Crocker Park.


Disclaimer: My personal views on this matter do not reflect those of nor are necessarily shared by those I am related to on the Lakewood ABR. I trained as an architect, hold a certificate in historic preservation, practice design as a profession, and am a citizen of Lakewood.

Valerie Molinski wrote:You are missing my point. You are arguing that there is nothing special that specific building. I am saying that perhaps the sum of the parts is what is important here. Yes, it is next to a UDF. So, where does it stop?

Are you taking the stance that it already sucks, why not just go with it and let whatever happens happen? I did not say that stretch of Detroit was 'important,' just that when you start chipping away at the urban fabric over and over, there is nothing left. It just keeps spreading down the street. Yep, it sure is a bummer. Let's not get in the way of progress. Piece by piece.

Again, not advocating saving the theater building. I do agree with what the ABR is advocating, however, which is an urban approach to the site in lieu of the suburban prototype. What has been chipped away over time is the 'streetcar route' design where the new buildings are pulled off the street and creates a hole with a parking area out front. That should still be important along Detroit Ave.

And we have bigger fish to fry? Agree. However, complacence is why we are here right now, discussing this. Had the owner not been complacent about attracting customers and generating revenue to keep up his property, had the rest of us gone there and patronized the business, we might not be here discussing this. Hindsight is 20/20. We are getting another drive through even if people don't want it there because we don't have zoning laws to address this on the books.

And I think I share this opinion with others who live in Lakewood- I live here instead of in Westlake precisely BECAUSE it isn't Disney, a simulation of downtown like Crocker Park.


Disclaimer: My personal views on this matter do not reflect those of nor are necessarily shared by those I am related to on the Lakewood ABR. I trained as an architect, hold a certificate in historic preservation, practice design as a profession, and am a citizen of Lakewood.

clap, clap, clap, clap, clap

nice post.

Always amazes me that we are in such a hurry to become what attracted no one here. It
just seems so short sighted. What brought in people to the 80% that is filled. It would seem
easier to find the 20%, than changing everything and hoping to get that 20% while keeping
any of the 80% that moved here because of what it is.

So much of this came about from the need of a very small group of people that said one
night nearly tens years ago... "Well then, we will educate these people on why we need
economic development. They just seem stupid to the reason..." And slowly they became
the driving force in Lakewood. And the only real reason Lakewood is now like a boat
without any leadership.

If you listen to those, they will describe the Lakewood glass as half full or half empty. The
truth is the Lakewood glass in 90% filled, and looking pretty good to other choices in the
area. If a person gets paid to sell us economic development, then guess what, they will
sell and sell and sell and sell. Because that is what they know, and WHAT THEY GET PAID
TO SAY. Get it.

FWIW


.
.

Valerie,
Good post. One question for you, and here I presume you are speaking strictly of the facade; In describing the building as marginal, do you mean as compared to an ideal, or to what is already on the street, or to a likely McDonalds proposal?

Valerie Molinski wrote:You are arguing that there is nothing special that specific building. I am saying that perhaps the sum of the parts is what is important here. So, where does it stop?

I would assume it stops when we can fill vacancies in the existing building.

Valerie Molinski wrote:Again, not advocating saving the theater building. I do agree with what the ABR is advocating, however, which is an urban approach to the site in lieu of the suburban prototype.

So it sounds like we actually agree

Valerie Molinski wrote:Just that when you start chipping away at the urban fabric over and over, there is nothing left. It just keeps spreading down the street. What has been chipped away over time is the 'streetcar route' design where the new buildings are pulled off the street and creates a hole with a parking area out front. That should still be important along Detroit Ave.

Once again, I personally agree the design should fit Lakewood. We should also note that we have chipped away from what Lakewood was a century ago...it is progress. Sure we need to be cautious but even with all the "chipping" over the decades Lakewood is still the coolest suburb around.

Valerie Molinski wrote:And I think I share this opinion with others who live in Lakewood- I live here instead of in Westlake precisely BECAUSE it isn't Disney, a simulation of downtown like Crocker Park.

Agreed again, but the difference is I believe the loss of this building will not make us Westlake. We can infer this or that and make assumptions of what it may lead to...but that is really all it is assumptions.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:Always amazes me that we are in such a hurry to become what attracted no one here.

I am not bold enough to say I personally know what attracted most of the residents to Lakewood. Of course I have ideas of ewhat some are. Sure I hear opinions here and on other forums... but there are 50,000 residents. I mean do you think most residents said..."I am coming to Lakewood because they do not have a McD's on Detroit!" or "I am coming to Lakewood because they have a theater I will never go to!" Total assumption on my part here... but I think many were more concerned about how safe lakewood is, how good the schools are, how walkable the area is, how great the residents are... but not as much about whether 1 or several of the building were torn down to create newer structures.