| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
EllenJ
Active Poster
USA
189 Posts |
 Posted - 10/07/2009 : 09:11:57 AM
|
Wow, after reading the article on Bruce Snook's site it is sad that this brick building cannot be saved. They just don't make buildings like that anymore. Just the fact that it is so close to downtown makes me think that one day it could be renovated into something super nice. If nothing else it illuminates character and solidarity in its structure imo.
With all the REAL eyesores that I see when I drive around TR why would this building be a target for demolition? For more parking space???? I respond "huh" ~ how many major businesses are there downtown NOW that are in great need of that extra parking space?
Perhaps, one day this building could become a major draw let alone another inspirational reminder of TR's history. But apparently it is on the fast track of becoming a victim of demise more than likely one day to be replaced by another "pre-fab/pole barn" monstrosity built somewhere within the city limits or on its outskirts.
|
|
|
Buck
Forum Admin
USA
5354 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2009 : 10:00:20 AM
|
TR City Commission authorizes demolition of 110 East Michigan Avenue.
Government is too big and too important to be left to the politicians. |
 |
|
|
lovinlife
Member
USA
76 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2009 : 01:21:10 AM
|
| I think there will by end be $100,000 into that vacant land. |
|
|
|
Buck
Forum Admin
USA
5354 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2009 : 2:01:59 PM
|
End of the line for building at 110 East Michigan Avenue.
How much did the city pay for that building just to pay more to tear it down?
Government is too big and too important to be left to the politicians. |
|
|
|
silentTRobserver
Frequent Poster
652 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2009 : 8:00:28 PM
|
| Was it owned by someone who is a friend of someone on the Commission or working for the City? |
|
|
|
amazon
Member
54 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2009 : 06:58:10 AM
|
| 100K is a bargain compared to what it takes to rehabilitate and update code in a defunct building. They took the cheaper route, I'm sure. |
|
|
|
cball
Member
37 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2009 : 08:29:56 AM
|
| No - the cheaper route was to not pay $85k for a building that had little or no value. If the previous owner couldn't sell it what made the city think they could? The city had no funds to rehab the structure and once again has thrown good money after bad just like the Welton fiasco. |
|
|
|
cball
Member
37 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2009 : 09:12:30 AM
|
| After my last post it made me wonder who the city bought the building from so did some checking in the tax records and found that the seller was Kenneth Comstock. He had bought the property in 2001 for $71k when it was still generating cash flow. Why then would the city pay a 20% premium over the previous price in a market that was stagnant at best for something that no longer generated any cash flow due to the condition? I just don't get it. |
|
|
|
Buck
Forum Admin
USA
5354 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2009 : 12:39:52 PM
|
quote:
"We hired six people through Perry Personnel to do the demolition on of the inside of the building," said Tom Meyer of Meyer Ventures, who contracted with the city for the building's removal. "I believe it will keep the cost of the demolition down, require fewer loads to the landfill (because we can pack the demo material into the truck tighter), and provide work for six local men and Perry Personnel, a local company. Next week we will have a large excavator on site to knock the building down. We will then load the bricks into a dump truck and haul them to the landfill. After that we will fill the basement with dirt."
We are not giving the city gov enough credit on this. They were obviously thinking a head of the curve because, as it turns out, they bought and are now destroying the building as part of a local stimulus effort.
Demolition in process for phone co. building - Three Rivers Comercial
Government is too big and too important to be left to the politicians. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Slated Demolition of building on E. Michigan Ave.
