  Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 3783 Registered: 02-2005 |
Finally got a day in the city today after being at school since late August. I was walking around Wayne State/Cass today. First, I was pissed that the DPL main branch isn't open Monday (or Sunday for that matter). What kind of big city library does that? The answer, of course, is one with little funding. They should really try to solicit some more donations or something, though. I was on Ferry St. looking at some potential apartment buildings (west of Woodward). Has anyone ever lived on that row that could make a recommendation? Also, are any of you out there in the WSU brain trust and able to hint at when construction on the new business school will begin? It's still a heavily-used parking lot there at Woodward and Ferry. Are they waiting on a certain donation plateau?...I know they aren't like the UM Biz school which is swimming in money and building a big new building now, thanks to a massive donation, but it would be nice to have a timetable for Wayne's plan. It is nice to see the new townhouses on Woodward/Canfield going up so quickly. Woodward will benefit a ton aethestically from that...but the gas station and chicken store are still drawbacks. Brush Park: lots of construction activity...good to see. The Brush Park north townhouses are going up in a hurry. The mansion rehab at Alfred/John R. appears to have stopped though (after their ambitious complete rebuilding of the upper stories and roof)...anyone know the deal with that? Eastern Market: The rehab of the main shed looks great. They work working busily there today. Across Gratiot I noticed some new lofts going in the building on Jay St. just west of Orleans, and St. Joseph Church is undergoing some needed exterior work i.e. new storm windows to protect its incredible stained glass. The Dequindre Greenway is well on its way. The woods have been cleared and I noticed some leveling/paving going on. With the brush removed, you can see all the bridges that once crossed the cut, but were then removed, presumably with the creation of Lafayette Park. It's a shame the way the grid was torn up like that, and the follow of traffic across the grid was limited to so few points. I hope that one day the better part of Lafayette Park will be repopulated on a grid system. We can certainly leave the towers, but we can do without the excessive greenspace and low-density housing which disrupts our city scape. If you look at the Dequindre Cut now, you can really be informed of how much the grid got wrecked. East Riverfront: The promenade was really busy this afternoon...nice to see it get used. There seems to be more activity in general in the neighborhood...just people checking out the riverwalk. Diverse crowd down there. So what the hell is the deal with this: http://www.renshorecondos.com/ district.html ? We were supposed to have plans unveiled in August. Any inside information out there? Overall, it's nice to see people on the river now, and the effect the riverwalk has had, but I'm pretty restless to see some of the actual development/redevelopment get in motion. Belle Isle: Looks great, but what is the long term plan for the sea of pavement east of Scott Fountain? That is bad news when it is not being used as part of a race track. My guess is that the pavement will stay if we are going to hold a yearly grand prix. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 1874 Registered: 04-2006 |
>What kind of big city library does that? New York's isn't open on Monday either. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 1507 Registered: 07-2004 |
Typically, museums and libraries are closed Mondays. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 10498 Registered: 10-2003 |
I like the Lafayette Park greenspace. The city has a lot more places to revitalize, improve, clean up before they need to even think about replacing that wonderful park with anything. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 3785 Registered: 02-2005 |
I guess I've gotten too used to university libraries. I really wanted to study there today, but ended up at Purdy Kresge. | ||
Gumby Member Username: Gumby Post Number: 1616 Registered: 11-2003 |
quote: A friend of mine who is taking grad classes at WSU lives in the Art Apartment building on E. Ferry. His Apartment is tiny and old. Nothing special but it seems livable. Not a showcase by any sense of the imagination. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 3786 Registered: 02-2005 |
Good to know. For a good cost and a 2 minute walk to the law school I'd gladly take tiny and old. There is also a nice block of cheap food and a party store right there on Cass. Will they ever get rid of that goofy white awning and restore those storefronts, though? Isn't that a university-owned building? Btw, if any has ever lived in the Belmont, let me know what you think of those apartments. Sorry, Lowell, for making this Mackinaw's personal questions and answer thread. | ||
Pam Member Username: Pam Post Number: 2854 Registered: 11-2005 |
quote: What is this "we" you speak of? The people who live there like it the way it is. Also are you aware it is a designated historic district? It's not going anywhere, sorry. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 1508 Registered: 07-2004 |
Too bad we replaced a dense city district with a low-density development, no matter how tony it is. | ||
Susanarosa Member Username: Susanarosa Post Number: 1723 Registered: 11-2003 |
quote: Come on, Pam. It's obviously the "we" who are nice enough to visit every three months and tell us everything that's wrong. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 3789 Registered: 02-2005 |
Sorry SR, I was only around all summer and then COULD NOT come back for a period of time. So then I come back and see; wow, progress here and there; lack of movement in other places. And, lo and behold, upon noticing one change (the Greenway), I made another observation, and postulated that maybe Detroit would be better off if its fabric wasn't decimated in the name of renewal. Fucking sue me. Pam, it's historic because the amount of neighborhood that was torn up to build that area was truly epic. It was a historic turn in the course of Detroit's past. Usually, urban living is found in urban areas. I, of course, can understand how the tower in the park appeals to many, many people. But I don't think, in retrospect, that this lifestyle should have been imposed so close to the city center. (Message edited by mackinaw on October 15, 2007) | ||
Gianni Member Username: Gianni Post Number: 312 Registered: 05-2004 |
Mackinaw, I don't know how much you know about the history of Lafayette Park, or what you exactly mean when you refer to Lafayette Park. Do you mean the actual greenspace itself? Who doesn't like parks? Do your mean the National Register Mies van der Rohe Historic District or the City of Detroit Lafayette Park Historic District? Or the entire Lafayette/Elmwood neighborhood that stretches east to Mt. Elliot? Certainly people can disagree about the wisdom of urban renewal projects in general and the Lafayette/Elmwood renewal in Detroit. But more than 50 years later, one cannot really argue about the success of the Lafayette Park part of the development, especially not about how the orignal Mies van der Rohe/Hilberseimer/Caldwell plan turned out. Very simply, it works. If anything, one can lament that the original plan was not carried out as expansively as envisioned, with the areas to the east and south of what is now the Mies historic district being parcelled out to other not so visionary developers, after Herbert Greenwald died in a plane crash. It is unquestionably a great success story. It is one of the most if not the most stable, diverse, walkable and beautiful neighborhoods in Detroit and one with a real sense of community and which attracts a very interesting group of residents who are passionate about the area. Many people consider the Mies units to be works of art in themselves. We regularly get visitors from around the world. As to density, it seems very dense to me. On just one side of a city block there are 46 units, 92 if you count both sides of the street. I find that people who like cities but say they don't like Lafayette Park are speaking more from an ideological than experiential perspective. Some say they are not fans of "modernism." But I think in most cases they just haven't spent enough (if any) time inside the neighborhood, and inside the "glass houses," to really know what it is like. If you had a chance to spend some more time here, walk the streets at different times of the year and different times of day, hang out in the park or on the playground and see the kind of people who live here, you would probably come to love it. And the proximity to the city center is the best part. Anyone can have a park in a suburban or rural area, but a park like this, where you live IN the park and you are 5 minute walk from downtown, that's pretty unique. I disagree that the reason it's historic is because of "the amount of the neighborhood that was torn up." If that were the measure most urban renewal projects would have historic designation. It is historic (at least that's why it is officially designated as such) because it was designed by historic figures in architecture, landscape design and urban planning -- Mies van der Rohe, Herbert Caldwell and Ludwig Hilberseimer, who believed that "God is in the details;" and most of all because it is one of the few true success stories in urban renewal. I don't know about Pam or SR, but I won't fucking sue you. I will invite you to see through your preconceptions and look a little deeper and a little longer next time you are visiting the area. We are not going back to 1950, especially with the historic designation that prevents changes to the modern architecture. Forgive me if you already know about it, but if you are interested in our history, you might check out the recent Waldheim book from Harvard University: http://archidose.blogspot.com/ 2005/01/book-of-moment_1106186 38024676993.html http://arcchicago.blogspot.com /2006/09/detroits-lafayette-pa rk-at-50-miess.html | ||
Bearinabox Member Username: Bearinabox Post Number: 297 Registered: 04-2006 |
I'm with Mackinaw in that I don't think Lafayette Park should have been built in that area in that style. Had I been king of the world at the time, I'd have left the lower east side alone and put Lafayette Park on some vacant land on the edge of town or in an inner suburb. At this point, though, I don't know that I'd advocate messing with what's there and trying to make it more urban. Lafayette Park works well for what it is, and it's pretty interesting to look at. Personally, I'd prefer to live in an older, more urban neighborhood, but Lafayette Park has no trouble attracting residents who love it for what it is. I don't think I have any business telling them what to do with their neighborhood, especially since Detroit is full of neighborhoods that are more to my liking. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 3793 Registered: 02-2005 |
Thanks, Gianni. I certainly disagree with the notion that this wasn't carried out to a great enough extent, as you could guess. Mostly I'm lamenting everything inside of Chrysler, Mt. Elliot, Vernor, and Jefferson. That's a 1.5 mile long, 1 mile wide swath with a complete disruption of the grid between Vernor and Lafayette. One might argue that it is so successful because it stripped the city of its urban attributes at a time when urban attributes were not in style, in a city/region where they were especially deplored. I disagree wholly that they are walkable. Look at Lafayette and Larned...they are mostly fronted by the backsides of townhouses or parking lots. It's rather indistinguishable from Troy or Warren in some parts. These neighborhoods are not mixed-use to a sufficient extent. Where there is non-residential usage, like the grocery stores, it is behind parking lots. There is no cohesive strip of retail. Therefore, in the hundreds or perhaps thousands of times I've traveled Lafayette or Larned, I've never seen more than a few people on the sidewalks at a given time; the destinations are too far dispersed, and too easily accessed alternately by a vehicle. These neighborhoods may have walkable parkland, but hardly walkable streetscapes, and that is what you normally look at in a city. Furthermore, the housing tracts are interrupted by parking areas. Does this look like a walkable neighborhood which uses space efficiently?: http://local.live.com/default. aspx?v=2&cp=r1pwn882dj6b&style =o&lvl=1&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1 000&scene=5646334&encType=1 What about this?: http://local.live.com/default. aspx?v=2&cp=r1q7x982ddxs&style =o&lvl=2&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1 000&scene=5646334&encType=1 Housing units, if they look at anything, look out at parked cars. Meanwhile, the thru streets like Orleans and St. Aubin are forbidding and unsafe because of the lack of windows, lack of light, and lack of eyes looking out onto the street. Most of the streets are also inordinately wide. 1300 Lafayette is a gorgeous building. Most of the other high rises are also really nice. Their context-- surrounded by low-rise housing, or surface parking, or open space-- make them awkward, especially given the relative closeness to the CBD. It's not modern architecture per se that is the problem, it's the implementation of it, and the layout. Tel Aviv is intensely modern, but the polar opposite of the lower east side in its continuity and density. The buildings complement each other, whereas the components in the lower east side make each other seem out of place. I'd love to keep up a reasonable discussion about this area. Bearinabox is right...unless I or someone else has the means to change this area, we have no business telling the people who like it and who live there what to do. Detroit has a lot of different landscapes where everyone can find something they like. Mainly, I'm projecting backwards and looking at historical events in light of what we have today, and pondering whether or not something, even if popular, was for the best for Detroit. If aesthetics and design matter, just as increasing population and tax base in the city matter, then it's a worthwhile discussion. Here is a photo I took of the soon-to-be Greenway: http://www.flickr.com/photo_zo om.gne?id=1584431835&size=l and, for good measure, a photo of the skyline which turned out really well for me: http://www.flickr.com/photo_zo om.gne?id=1585268882&size=l | ||
Aiw Member Username: Aiw Post Number: 6405 Registered: 10-2003 |
The house at John R. & Alfred is done for now. The point of that project was to put a lid on it, and stabilize the structure for future rehabilitation. There is a second house just east from the corner that had the same thing happen to it. | ||
Neilr Member Username: Neilr Post Number: 596 Registered: 06-2005 |
quote: Actually, not so much. At least not in the Mies van der Rohe townhouses. quote: One of the details: the parking areas are all 3 feet below grade level and are further shielded from view by the hawthorn bushes that enclose the fronts of the two-story townhouses. Alfred Caldwell's design for the landscaping, done in conjunction with Mies, consists of three levels. There is an upper story of locust trees which are very sculptural and let in a pleasant dappled light. the next story has flowering trees, such as crabapples. There are also 16, IIRC, varieties of lilacs at this level. Then follows the lower story of the hawthorn bushes. | ||
Supergay Member Username: Supergay Post Number: 103 Registered: 05-2006 |
This thread is making me speechless. In the sense that I can't say anything I want to without getting banned. Holy crap, get a clue, kid. | ||
Gianni Member Username: Gianni Post Number: 313 Registered: 05-2004 |
I've walked to the school hundreds of times. You could leave home at 8:14 and be on time for school at 8:15. And without ever crossing a street. I walk to the coffee shop, video store/ice cream shop, Thai Restaurant, and when they were still there, I walked to Richards Drugs (who had a nice selection of wine and knew everyone)and the grocery store. I see my neighbors and chat. I also walk, regularly and with wife and young children to the Riverwalk, downtown including CM, to the stadiums and Joe Louis, to the Puppet Theatre, to the many bars and restaurants, to Eastern Market, to the Music Hall and the Jazz Cafe, etc. OK, the kids don't usually go to the bars. I walk the tree-lined streets and in the park. I've walked the Dequindre Cut before it had a name (with the kids), and the east riverfront when it was mostly industrial wasteland (which I miss, in a way). I guess that's what I mean by walkable. Of course we should have more retail and I understand the whole "Staples" parking lot issue. That's what I mean when I say the plan was not fully executed. I'm talking mostly about the Mies part of Lafayette Park, as well as 1300 and Chateufort on the East side of the park. Much of the rest as I said was done without the same care and the attention to details, and it shows. It's not for everyone. I love Indian Village and Corktown too, among other neighborhoods. I just like mine better. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 3794 Registered: 02-2005 |
Thanks, AIW. So they're waiting on a buyer? ----- 1300 and the areas west of Orleans are very close to downtown, and that enables walking to all those sorts of destinations you mentioned. It's a fantastic location. Most other portions of the renewal zone violate the 10 minute walk rule. In your last paragraph, were you conceding that there should simply be more retail zoned into the park, or that it should be designed better (i.e. not like a Staples)? I think the park would be a much more appealing place to live if it didn't have crappy looking strip malls like the one at Orleans/Lafayette, and then another at Chene/Lafayette prominently located on its edge. These violate most principles of good design, and give us everything that we normally decry about the suburban landscape: too much parking, placed prominently between the road and the storefront at that, and a non-descript low-rise, single use building housing the businesses. I would not have much to complain about if the edges of the park which have frontage on major city thru-streets fit in with the rest of the city. Those superblocks are so massive-- they could have pushed more of the housing and retail right up to the street, and had an even larger park in the middle of the block. Instead we got something that is a major break from the landscape, having bee built on a sprawl pattern (cul-de-sacs, parking lots, 1-2 story buildings). These patterns became all the more egregious as the newer tracts were built further east, i.e. the pointless curves in Chene and MacDougall streets, and too much parking. | ||
Brian_fitzcarraldo Member Username: Brian_fitzcarraldo Post Number: 5 Registered: 10-2007 |
From my experience, Lafayette Park seems to be a magnet for lifelong suburbanites who have to be in Detroit but wouldn't have considered moving here otherwise. I know several WSU med students who live there, for example. Maybe it's useful in that way -- sort of like training wheels for urban living. | ||
Supergay Member Username: Supergay Post Number: 105 Registered: 05-2006 |
quote: OK, now THAT'S funny. Keep going fellas! Your informed understanding of life in Detroit shines like a beacon from every post! (Message edited by supergay on October 16, 2007) | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 3797 Registered: 02-2005 |
Why don't you step up and provide an apologetic for LP? Gianni did pretty well. I don't agree with some of his/her observations but they make it clear that a lot of people like the lifestyle, and that it clearly has been successful (regardless of how successful a traditional urban neighborhood in this area may have been). Now I'd like to have one of you dispute how LP is something other than "training wheels for urban living." LP cannot, by definition, be considering a traditional urban area. By design it turns its back on the rest of the city; by design it gives you space to spread out, and it gives you parking, and it gives you ample green space. These are not markers of traditional urbanism. They are markers of modernism, which is found throughout most suburbs. So Brian connected some dots and suggested that the people who like it are those who like a suburban lifestyle but want to be in the city (i.e. have that great proximity to downtown). Now, explain why this is untrue using something other than anecdotes. | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 3083 Registered: 10-2003 |
There seems to be plenty of room in the city. When you stop seeing vast fields of praire in the middle of the city, then I can understand complaining about "spread out" development being a waste of space or not being urban enough. Perhaps it is a benefit to the city of Detroit to be able to offer such a variety of options within the city proper. Why not capitalize on such advantages to bring people in who might otherwise not come? | ||
Track75 Member Username: Track75 Post Number: 2651 Registered: 10-2003 |
An architect once told me that architects aren't really capable of doing their best work until they're at least in their 50's. There's just so much to know. Apparently the great thing about being an urban designer is that you can pretty much know it all while still in college. | ||
Oakmangirl Member Username: Oakmangirl Post Number: 531 Registered: 08-2007 |
LP cannot, by definition, be considering a traditional urban area. By design it turns its back on the rest of the city... Clearly, Mackinaw, you have not seen the urban living around Rittenhouse Square in Philadelphia. There are apts. and townhomes with parking, ample shopping, a library- all centered around green space. They're have been "garden city" movements since the 1800's; largely to alleviate some of the squalid urban living conditions-this is all well-documented. I guess I don't understand what the issue is? Green space? Parking? I would say that by design, the city has turned its back on us. The focus of this thread should be why no urban density co-exists with LP. | ||
Dds Member Username: Dds Post Number: 403 Registered: 10-2006 |
The Houston Heights is a great example of this type of development and how well it works within walking distance of traditional urbanism. If I still lived in Houston, I would be there or Montrose (I think Janesback can back me up on this) I no way, shape or form does The Heights "turn it's back on the rest of the city." In fact, it has become a destination in itself that kept the inner urban ring somewhat alive in the depressed 80's of Houston's history. I would venture to say, since a majority of Houston's population live in single family units and condos (not high-rises) Much like Detroit, Detroit could learn a lot by studying why The Heights and Montrose are so successful urban areas. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 3799 Registered: 02-2005 |
Thanks for the link Dds. You weren't comparing HH to Laf Park were you? I read the website and it sounds like a great place, but different from LP. It looks like it features a traditional layout. Oakmangirl, usually you are very sharp with your posts. I'm not getting the comparison to Rittenhouse Square. I've been there; it is a great place. Inasmuch as it has green space and condo living right in downtown Philadelphia I guess it's like Lafayette Park, but the enormous difference is that Rittenhouse is a traditional public square, bounded by streets, surrounded by a grid. It's more akin to Cass Park or Grand Circus Park. In fact, Rittenhouse Square is just like Cass Park...only 75' feet larger on each side. This: http://local.live.com/default. aspx?v=2&cp=39.949461~-75.1715 36&style=a&lvl=17&tilt=-90&dir =0&alt=-1000&scene=1925070&enc Type=1 bears no resemblance to this: http://local.live.com/default. aspx?v=2&cp=42.337492~-83.0338 95&style=a&lvl=16&tilt=-90&dir =0&alt=-1000&scene=3779062&enc Type=1 Rittenhouse has a clearly defined edge, does not mix housing with parkland (there are no parking lots or culdesacs on the block it occupies), has a focal point, and is not inordinately large and rambling. The garden city movement and city beautiful movement are awesome. Detroit's downtown is a product of it, with it's pocket parks and squares like GCP and Campus Martius. Well defined public parkland like Belle Isle or Central Park are also products of a similar mindset. The attempts at modernist utopia like LP may have the same intent, but are a vast break from the tradition of the garden city/city beautiful movements in the implementation. | ||
Dds Member Username: Dds Post Number: 404 Registered: 10-2006 |
quote: Traditional how? It's in a grid pattern, yes. That was because it was originally a planned suburban community almost 4 miles from the "traditional" urban center. As downtown Houston expanded, it was annexed. In that sense, to me, it isn't very urban at all. Shotgun bungalows along with Victorian mansions don't fit my traditional urban definitions. I wasn't actually comparing the two, just pointing out that two very non-traditional urban areas can sometimes work and be successful, no matter what their history. Now, if you are looking for successful areas near downtown Houston that don't follow a grid, then you need to look around Rice University and Hermann Park and also the areas that border Brays Bayou throughout the south end of Houston proper. Many of those are self-contained neighborhoods with retail and etc. that in some ways remind me of LP. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 3802 Registered: 02-2005 |
"I wasn't actually comparing the two, just pointing out that two very non-traditional urban areas can sometimes work and be successful, no matter what their history." HH would be non-traditional in what sense? In that it is different from the the city around it? I can understand what you're saying in that sense. Bungalows and victorian mansions certainly have a place in American cities. If they are placed reasonably close together and on a simple street plan, then they are certainly fit into a traditional urban mode. Under the header of traditional urbanism you have a great range of density. You could have something like Indian Village at the lower end of the density spectrum for traditional urbanism, and high-rises at the upper end. Non-traditional design/modernism also has a wide range of densities. In Lafayette Park, the two opposite ends of the spectrum are represented. That kind of makes it awkward, but it is the arrangement of the buildings, and curving/dead end streets that make it so non-traditional. I think we're just having some confusion over terminology here. | ||
Supergay Member Username: Supergay Post Number: 106 Registered: 05-2006 |
Mackinaw cannot get past the city grid. If there is no city grid then it does not belong in a city. What is ridiculous is that you have only one standard for urban, when in fact it can describe many things. Why is LP such an affront to you anyway? Do you have similar beefs with the Victorian neighborhood in Corktown? The acres and acres of urban prairie in Brush Park? There is no guarantee that the lost street grid you mourn so much would have saved this area any more than it saved the areas north of GCP where stadia now exist, or Brush Park, or North Corktown. I think you need to admit that you just don't get it and move on. | ||
Dabirch Member Username: Dabirch Post Number: 2442 Registered: 06-2004 |
quote: How can you say that Indian Village is in any way analagous to "traditional urbanism" (whatever that means)? There is nothing urban about Indian Village -- except the mindset of some of its residents and the theft rate of cars left on the street. It is not dense. It was built as sprawling. It was laid out to be anti-urban. Individual houses and individual driveways, and large lots. Much akin to your beloved GPP. | ||
Oakmangirl Member Username: Oakmangirl Post Number: 532 Registered: 08-2007 |
Mackinaw, I understand that RS and LP are conceptually different in that one seems more a planned community, but there are plenty of self-contained high rises around the Square. I don't see how they would differ that much if LP were a part of a thriving district or neighborhood. My point was to focus on how to build up around it instead of berate it, but perhaps RS isn't the best contemporary comparison. I think it would be helpful to know more of LP's conceptual history; what was the purpose of it in the urban landscape? I guess we just disagree that a city can't have a "rambling" oasis and that nearly all has to be a concrete grid. I'm thinking of ancient cities where residences were interconnected and there were no streets; for all its modern style, LP really does have some historic precedence. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 3804 Registered: 02-2005 |
Urban prairie is also terrible. It's extremely saddening. As Detroit redevelopments over the next decade, though, watch as beautiful developments are built on those empty blocks in Brush Park, with all the properties of what used to be there (minus the Victorian splendor which cannot be replaced). Those streetscapes will foster mixed used development, pedestrianism and a vibrant street life, and safety. At some point in the future, Detroit will run at full capacity again. Infill will occur in all corners of the city, and we'll wonder why so many acres are off-limits to new development on the lower east side. Traditional neighborhoods tend to correspond with the most sought-after places to live, even in America. You can't refute that. You can say that I "just don't get it" and should "move on" (or do you mean move out?), but I'm still waiting for you to say why a modern landscape is BETTER for creating a great city. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 3805 Registered: 02-2005 |
Dabirch, if you go by the distances the homes are setback from the street, the distances between the homes, the presence of alleys, and the fact that much higher density housing and stores/retail is within blocks (i.e. west village and the apartment buildings on Jefferson), IV is urban. It's just at the low-density end. There has to be a lower bound. It's a tad extreme to call it sprawling. Again, terminology issues. We've boiled down our debate to traditional v. anti-traditional. It's not unlike so many other topics. | ||
Oakmangirl Member Username: Oakmangirl Post Number: 533 Registered: 08-2007 |
LP isn't necessarily a modern landscape; it's a mix of ancient city planning with modern architecture. What exactly is a "traditional neighborhood"? Your criticism, that there should be no enclaves like LP, could be leveled at Brush Park. | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 6543 Registered: 10-2003 |
Mackinaw, Indian Village was not even within the border of Detroit when it was first developed. It was designed as a suburb. | ||
Dabirch Member Username: Dabirch Post Number: 2443 Registered: 06-2004 |
Mackinaw -- By early 20th century standards, IV was "sprawling". It was anti-urban. It was built to allow people to live close to the city center, while given them all of conveniences of non-urban living. Sounds a lot like LP 50 years later, no? | ||
Gianni Member Username: Gianni Post Number: 314 Registered: 05-2004 |
Brian Fitzcaraldo's comment about LP as "training wheels for lifelong suburbanites who have to be in Detroit but wouldn't have considered living here otherwise" is laughable and couldn't be further off the mark. It perfectly illustrates what I said earlier that most people who say they don't like LP don't really know it. Of course we have some new young "hipster" types, the same kind of people who are moving to Corktown or the new loft developments. We also have some empty nesters who have moved back to the city. But we have "charter members" who were here on day one. People in LP lived through the riots and stayed. They were living and thriving urban dwellers long before the lofts, before CM, the revival of downtown. There was no "flight" white or black. We have a lot of senior citizens who have lived here for decades, probably before most of the posters here were born. We have many people who work in the suburbs but choose to live here. I have a neighbor who lives and works in Chicago but comes home to LP on the weekends. Most of the LP residents are lifers. They wouldn't think of moving to the suburbs. Does someone have to live next to a crackhouse to be a bona fide city dweller? Mackinaw, I mean that more retail could have been planned and could have been better designed. Maybe ground floor retail in the towers (there is a party store in the Pavillion, that's about it), or integrated parking structures and retail. (The two Lafayette Towers have a swimming pool integrated in their parking structure.) I don't know what happenned with retail. When LP was being planned around 1954, Northland Center just opened, so maybe the cat was already out of the bag. Plus the decline of downtown retail hadn't really started, so there were options like Hudson's already for shopping. The LP shopping center seems like it was an afterthought, although the neighborhood in the recent past fought for and won historic designation when the owner threatened to tear it down without a plan to replace it. We ended up with a renovated center, but it's been a mixed bag in terms of the tenants since. And I have no idea what Detroitrise is talking about. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 3806 Registered: 02-2005 |
^^Neither do I. Dabirch, I know exactly what you mean in pointing out how each neighborhood was at the time a relative shift. But the gradations from one model to the next are much more severe when you look at LP. (There was also plenty of precedent for Indian Village. Take Brush Park, a more central and older neighborhood, as an example.) LP was really a complete break from tradition. Some of us think that's a good thing. Some of us think that was bad. If you're like me, the location and implementation of the new style is the cause for complaint. I will admit, as I obviously should, that LP, right now, is an asset to the city because it comprises of dedicated residents and taxpayers (who clearly have preferences which I do not). IF Detroit ever comes to a point where a new master plan is created with the goal of increasing central neighborhood population, then I think a middle ground should be struck where the low-rise housing in LP is re-arranged, and structures that aren't historically significant are replaced. Additionally, the greenspace could be formalized and curtailed a bit. You could connect the park space to the greenway and the riverfront and create a flowing, yet well-defined parkland similar to Fairmount in Philadelphia, Branch Brook in Newark, or even the park system on the NW side of Toledo. And if something that radical is not warranted, perhaps the edges of LP that front on the thoroughfares could be redesigned to remove parking lagoons and move structures closer to the road (and increase greenspace on the interior of the park at the same time)? ...just a modest proposal. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 4359 Registered: 10-2004 |
DPL stocks up on audio books for its adult resident readers. | ||
Track75 Member Username: Track75 Post Number: 2653 Registered: 10-2003 |
Mackinaw, rather than looking at LP from a (rather doctrinaire) urban design perspective, look at it from the perspective of those living there. Ask the question that I think is of primary importance: "Does it work for them?" Clearly, the answer is "Yes!". Of much less importance but still a valid question is "How does it work (or not) for those near LP?" That's harder to answer but also less important than how it works for the residents. It works better than a lot of other city neighborhoods, that's for sure. You could speculate that some other design would be better, but the dense, lively traditional neighborhood you envision in place of LP may have ended up being just another blown out formerly nice traditional neighborhood in the city. LP is a unique draw. It offers significant design, a nice park, some retail and a very stable citizenry. So the impact of LP is most importantly clearly positive for the residents and probably positive for those nearby. LP may run contrary to your urban ideal but bottom line, theoretical design standards are clearly outweighed by the fact that Lafayette Park works. It seems shortsighted to dismiss an actual tangible success for a SimCity-ish approach of what "urban" should be. |
