Is McDonald's REALLY best use for Detroit Theater property?

[Bryan Schwegler]

So for those of you against the McDonalds, are you just against McDonalds or also anything else that would tear that building down to build new development?

Part of the issue we have in Lakewood is a fear of tearing down the old to build new. Just because something is old doesn't mean it's historic and doesn't mean it necessarily should be preserved. A good balance is needed. I'm against McDonalds just because I think the last thing we need is more fast food, but I'm all for tearing down the theater if there's a good alternative.

[Stan Austin]

Bryan asked

So for those of you against the McDonalds, are you just against McDonalds or also anything else that would tear that building down to build new development?

You have indeed posed a conundrum

[Michael Loje]

Architecturally, the interior of the Detroit theater is nothing special. In fact, of the eight theater interiors built in Lakewood, and the six of those buildings still standing, only one, the Westwood, was significant. What is unique and attractive about the Detroit is it's terra cotta front. If a McDonalds, a drug store, or anything else is built in the Detroit's place, will it look more charming or attractive? Probably not. These kind of buildings can and have been successfully adapted for modern uses, and there is no reason the Detroit cannot be.

[Michael Loje]

And going back to Bryans point, if we replace enough buildings on Detroit and Madison, we can make Lakewood look like Strongsville. Seventeen years ago, my wife Rhonda and I moved FROM Strongsville to Lakewood because of its livability and charm. A good part of its charm comes from its unique architecture. LETS NOT TRY TO TURN LAKEWOOD INTO STRONGSVILLE. Old buildings CAN be reused.

[Bryan Schwegler]

And going back to Bryans point, if we replace enough buildings on Detroit and Madison, we can make Lakewood look like Strongsville. Seventeen years ago, my wife Rhonda and I moved FROM Strongsville to Lakewood because of its livability and charm. A good part of its charm comes from its unique architecture. LETS NOT TRY TO TURN LAKEWOOD INTO STRONGSVILLE. Old buildings CAN be reused.

You can easily keep the character of Lakewood even if you have new construction. Saying it will look like a strip mall town is not truly the end result every time. Isn't it the architectural review board's job to approve the look of new construction? If you feel new buildings are too "cookie cutter", maybe ask them why they're not doing their job?

But in all honesty, the cost to convert, upgrade, or even make some of these older buildings acceptable for modern use is sometimes just not worth the cost compared to their historical "authenticity". We can't save every building, and I don't believe we should. There really aren't that many worth saving when it comes right down to it. The key is enforcing design standards when they come before the ARB and writing very strict building codes that keep the character of Lakewood even in new construction.

I mean let's be honest, even all those buildings along Detroit and Madison were new at one time and Lakewood still survived.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Bryan

Speaking for myself, I am not opposed to new buildings. I did not chain myself to any of the
new school locations, Dunkin Doughnuts, The Social Security Office, Einstein Bagel, etc.
in some form of protest. I can accept change, and I can accept that it is a community and
I am but one voice in the move towards whatever.

What bothers me, is the change and development without concept plan of even responsibility
and respect for what is there now. In this case and in the case of CVS the residents on the
streets around the building. Those that have been invested for some time. This was one of
the things that bothered me about the Strip Mall that was planned for the end of Detroit
decades ago. A crappy developer that had almost no successes comes up with some half
assed plan, and we act like the French during World War II. Welcome it with open arms,
never vet the idea, and then try to throw out 1,500 people that had chosen Lakewood for
their home. It just seemed terrible short sighted and unprofessional.

Why move to anywhere in this town if it is going to be living next to a strip mall, drive
through, massive bar later just when you get comfortable? The city is the "Best in the
County" and one of the "Coolest In The Nation" we do not have to take what comes here
blindly. We do not have to be excited because someone likes us. We have the ability to
be slightly more selective in moving this city forward.

For some reason, the city seems more desperate to attract new people, then ask and work
on what got or kept the 50,000 here, loving this city. Again it seems short sighted and
terribly foolish to chase the latest cravings in urban living, in an effort to fill 3% maybe
5% of the living space and business space. When we could still improve so much of what
we have now, and do it better, which would stop the leakage to both the west and east.

As for the McDonalds move, the entire premise is short sighted. I may be off on dates but,
sometime when I was in grade school they built the McDonald's I remember being allowed
to go get lunch there once or twice a week! At that time there was no Clifton/Lake Bridge
no I-90 west to Rocky River. So that all traffic going west pretty much went past that
MickeyDs. When the Bridge and I-90 opened in the late 60s it hurt their business, and the
owner has been complaining ever since. Fast forward to 2011 where McDonald's seems
like old news, and possibly the worst of the fast food. Does the move to Detroit Ave, which
at best is a slow nightmare to drive down going to help him? Really? The neighborhood?
The City? The city that has 296 places to buy prepared food in under 5 square miles?

I hate to see the theater go, but have not seen to many success for keeping small privately
owned theaters going without a non-profit, or hobbyist running it. So McDonald's it will be.
But our civic leaders need to wake up and understand what they have here right now. It
is funnt that the rest of the county sees it. Those from outside the state see it. But our
leaders still think we are hard up and have to take whatever comes our way. It is time for
this city to be smarter, and more careful.

FWIW


.

[Michael Loje]

Architectural Revue seems to work less effectively when they are caught between an anxious seller and a seemingly ambivalent buyer. I'm sure that will be the situation with McDonalds/Detroit Theater. Picture this; tear down the theater auditorium, leaving the lobby area and second floor intact. Build the kitchen, rest rooms, and additional dining off the back. The former lobby becomes the main dining area. This way, one of the most recognizable Detroit Avenue features remains intact.

[Rhonda loje]

When the Bridge and I-90 opened in the late 60s it hurt their business, and the
owner has been complaining ever since.

So do we really need that bridge? It's just a speed trap for Rocky River. Why don't we close the bridge and put Clifton Park back together again....wouldn't that help our tax base? Do we really need that bridge since we have 90?

Rhonda

[Mark Mraz]

Being only a Lakewood resident for 2 years and a 27 yr old working professional I figure I would weigh on this matter....possibly from a younger perspective. Please do not take offense to that either.

There is no way in hell I would ever place a McDonalds on Detroit or in Lakewood. It is something that leaves nothing to the imagination. The concept for just putting a McDonalds on land for the sake of putting a McDonalds on land is boring and outdated. It would look foolish on Detroit.

Let Lakewood be Lakewood...do not junk it up with(another) fast food restaurant.
The reason I moved to Lakewood and have stayed in Lakewood(even though I have no family ties,kids, married,etc) is because of the feel I get when I travel all around Lakewood. Old buildings, neighborhood restaurants and bars, people walking the streets, one of a kind places,etc.

What I would put in there? Honestly I have no clue. Not sure if it is possible to put a restaurant in there, but it would be nice to see an Italian restaurant or even possibly a steakhouse type establishment.

I dont know what should go there, but I sure as hell know what shouldn't...a McDonalds.

[Michael Loje]

Let Lakewood be Lakewood...do not junk it up with(another) fast food restaurant.
The reason I moved to Lakewood and have stayed in Lakewood(even though I have no family ties,kids, married,etc) is because of the feel I get when I travel all around Lakewood. Old buildings, neighborhood restaurants and bars, people walking the streets, one of a kind places,etc.

Mark, I agree with you, young or old. But, something is probably already in the works, so we may have to do our best to make it palatable.

I mean let's be honest, even all those buildings along Detroit and Madison were new at one time and Lakewood still survived.

Bryan, age of the building has nothing to do with it. The Detroit was a more attractive building when it was built in 1925 than the Sloane McDonalds was when it was built in 1979. If the front of the Detroit could be incorporated into a new McDonalds, or whatever is ultimately located there, what would be wrong with that?
There HAVE been attractive buildings built in Lakewood in the last 70 years. Rosewood Place is a good example of what can be done by a local developer who is interested in his community. The INA Building and Lakewood Center North are good representatives of their times. But the drug stores, the Burger King, Taco Bell, and the McDonalds all leave something to be desired. Remember, architectural revue has somewhat limited powers

[michael gill]

What slays me is that despite the amount of vacant land, and some truly dilapidated commercial property in town, McDonalds and CVS have it on their agendas to knock down a theater and a church.

Jim is right to note that there's not a plan to keep this from happening. But how developers target these properties when there are so many other options is beyond me.

http://gyroscopethattakesyouplaces.word ... get-on-it/

[Michael Loje]

Michael,
Its simple. The church, the commercial block owner and the theater owner all want to sell NOW.

[Bryan Schwegler]

Bryan, age of the building has nothing to do with it. The Detroit was a more attractive building when it was built in 1925 than the Sloane McDonalds was when it was built in 1979. If the front of the Detroit could be incorporated into a new McDonalds, or whatever is ultimately located there, what would be wrong with that?

Nothing is wrong with that. But my main point is I'm also not opposed to demolition of the entire building if there's something else that can be put there and it can be constructed in a way that fits Lakewood. I'm not in favor of McDonalds at all going anywhere.

I think you're confusing what I was originally asking which was if it wasn't a McDonalds, let's say a tech company wanted to build a headquarters here and wanted to tear down that entire building and build something new, would you be opposed to demolishing the building? Or is it just McDonalds?

I think the only building I'd ever be in favor of tearing down to build a McDonalds is our city hall building since I think the McDonalds would be an improvement to how it looks right now.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Bryan, age of the building has nothing to do with it. The Detroit was a more attractive building when it was built in 1925 than the Sloane McDonalds was when it was built in 1979. If the front of the Detroit could be incorporated into a new McDonalds, or whatever is ultimately located there, what would be wrong with that?

Nothing is wrong with that. But my main point is I'm also not opposed to demolition of the entire building if there's something else that can be put there and it can be constructed in a way that fits Lakewood. I'm not in favor of McDonalds at all going anywhere.

I think you're confusing what I was originally asking which was if it wasn't a McDonalds, let's say a tech company wanted to build a headquarters here and wanted to tear down that entire building and build something new, would you be opposed to demolishing the building? Or is it just McDonalds?

I think the only building I'd ever be in favor of tearing down to build a McDonalds is our city hall building since I think the McDonalds would be an improvement to how it looks right now.

Brian

So the question no one seems able to answer is, "What is Lakewood?" It would seem to
build a McDonald's to fit in, we need to understand what IT is? Also that would indicate
there is some form of plan to where IT is going. Or we build to fit in and now it doesn't.

The Architectural Review Board seemed to think Walgreend and Sherwin Williams "fit" in
Lakewood and that turned Waren and Madison into an atrocity, and very dangerous
intersection for cars, bikes, walkers, handicapped, etc.

Does the Social Security office "fit in" or does Dunkin Doughnuts? Are we ready to be as
funky as RedBank and Freemont, or are we headed to copy the soulless Crocker Park?
Who decides? Historical Society? Architectural Review Board? LakewoodAlive?

And then look at Grant, City Hall, Bailey Building v2 not v3/1 redux. These were
momentous days in Lakewood's history. I remember getting in the car to visit all three
when they were built.

It would seem as long as this project has been around, people have been trying to
understand what Lakewood is, and to date...

FWIW

.

[Michael Loje]

Bryan, I think you're confused by what I'm saying. Simply put, any new building that replaces an old building should be an IMPROVEMENT over what is being replaced, no matter what the occupant is. If it can't be an IMPROVEMENT, efforts to incorporate elements of the original structure should be made. Usually, that IS economically feasible.
Any proposal to replace the Detroit Theater with an architecturally superior building, that is to say an IMPROVEMENT, would be welcomed by me.
As to WHO the occupant is, in this case McDonalds, that is a decision to be made by the buyer and seller. Unfortunately, if that happens, it will probably result in an architecturally inferior building(the typical McDonalds). For that reason, as well as nutritional considerations, I oppose McDonalds.
Lastly, I would disagree with your choice of city hall being the prime candidate to replace with a McDonalds. All the new drug stores, the Payless shoes, the Taco Bell, Burger King(which also replaced a theater) and any gas station built after 1960 would all be better candidates.