Post Number: 636
|Posted on Wednesday, April 09, 2008 - 4:46 pm: || |
However, In the first picture I don't like that there isn't room for trees to be planted on the right side of the street!
Post Number: 2984
|Posted on Wednesday, April 09, 2008 - 4:50 pm: || |
It's good to see the infill of Detroit first. At least we are seeing investment in Detroit again no matter large or small.
Maybe. I wonder is demand keeping up with all the housing permits that the city has been boasting about for the past couple of years. This might just be the ex-urb problem in reverse...
Post Number: 1032
|Posted on Wednesday, April 09, 2008 - 4:58 pm: || |
here is a link to the google street view taken last summer. In contrast to the first picture above, there are indeed trees infront of the row houses.
Looks pretty nice to me.
+Detroit,+MI+48201,+USA&ll=42. 349434,-83.068829&spn=0.007184 ,0.021544&z=16&layer=c&cbll=42 .345742,-83.069793&cbp=2,313.4 907421811711,,0,-1.76234360352 5819, google view here
Post Number: 56
|Posted on Wednesday, April 09, 2008 - 5:03 pm: || |
We are becoming Farenheit 451, without the book burning, but there are no front porches and the fact that people are getting to know their neighbors. People who do know their neighbors ae those who have lived there all their life, like my dad (we live in the house he grew up in). But when a neighborhood is full of people that moved in they don't take the time to get to know each other, and that's a damn shame. Though the block behind me still has block parties in the middle of the street. My family tries to get to know our neighbors but we seem to fail because of their lack to get to know. Luckily my aunt has a front porch so every summer we sit there and congregate or go to the garage where we deck the garage out and throw little soirees every weekend. But I think developers need to realize that houses should have expression and uniqueness because if they don't they'll be no reason why not to treat the house like crap, then the value goes down, then it turns into crack house. The fifth picture makes me sick because all the houses look the same and have no pazzaz. We shouldn't build levittowns we should neighborhoods
Post Number: 4578
|Posted on Wednesday, April 09, 2008 - 5:18 pm: || |
Great post, Detroitnerd. Thank you for those photos. These are some idiosyncracies that I've harped on and tried to call our attention to on this forum for awhile.
In other parts of the country, low-density, outer-suburbs are now being created with new urbanist models, and other modern 'burbs are seeing the elements of urbanism arrive in their new developments. This has been the case especially in DC and NY metros, in cities like Livingston, NJ, and various new-developing places in VA. Yet here we are importing the already tired and at this point insane model of modern suburbia into the most core neighborhoods of our central city.
Detroit, to a great extent, is defined as a city of detached houses with backyards, and that's fine, and these sorts of neighborhoods can retain predominant here, but why we need single-use housing pods full of curvilinear streets and widely-spaced, poorly-designed homes, or new neighborhoods (even if they're gridded), with monotonous single family homes with garages facing the street and an almost-disconcerting amount of space between them, is beyond me. Just because we have vacant land and low demand in the city doesn't mean that when we take it upon ourselves to develop new neighborhoods those neighborhoods should consume land liberally. And there is no reason to go single-use over mixed-use in an inner-city neighborhood.
Post Number: 1731
|Posted on Wednesday, April 09, 2008 - 6:36 pm: || |
The above photo is of the condo-style units on the Lodge side of the development. Here one sees regimented order, an attempt to have a bit of density. Unfortunately, due to the park-in-rear nature of the development, it's unlikely this "semi-urban" setting will have any street life.
Are you serious. First you complain about parking in the rear then you complain about the welcome to our garage feel of the suburban housing. Well which is it that you want? Last I checked most city living either has parking in the rear or on the street. If you ask me they should be commended. Also, didn't we just have a thread not that long ago bemoaning the loss of alleys (parking in the rear). Also, if you go on many of the side streets in any of the old neighborhoods in Detroit you will be hard pressed to find commercial buildings mixed in with the residential houses. Commercial buildings are generally on the "main drags" of the neighborhoods.
Post Number: 4579
|Posted on Wednesday, April 09, 2008 - 7:15 pm: || |
Gumby, you're not incorrect. Especially outside of Grand Boulevard, Detroit neighborhoods were intensely residential, with most retail on the arteries. Many of the residential blocks were/are quite long. That said, they were still quite walkable by modern standards.
I agree that parking in the rear is fine, and is pretty standard for many urban areas (but not the densest like Manhattan/Brooklyn). Since there is parking in the rear at those new rowhouses, the street should be much narrower, with parking on one side. The way to remedy the liveless sidewalk is to make sure that nearby lots on crossstreets get zoned for commercial/mixed use, and to make sure that their are bus stops at the end of the block. Those rowhouses could also have slightly more substantial front stoops, or perhaps upper-story balconies, in order to get more eyes on the street.
I don't understand why there is a little 8-10' setback on one side but not the other, but that's not of key importance.
Post Number: 1949
|Posted on Wednesday, April 09, 2008 - 9:11 pm: || |
I don't think the houses are occupied except a few, but the condos are pretty full. It seems like there are some young families in there as I see a lot of youngsters. Considering what was there in the past it is a pretty welcome development. Also we get to vote at the senior center.My only gripe with new construction is how quick and cheap it is. Our houses are old but could probably stand up to anything, whereas these newer ones seem fragile. They go up really fast in big pieces. The price ranges on the homes are 150-300,000
Post Number: 1950
|Posted on Wednesday, April 09, 2008 - 9:13 pm: || |
Also if you want to compare suburban style homes in the city, check out the 8 mile neighborhoods and compare them to the inner burbs.
Post Number: 709
|Posted on Wednesday, April 09, 2008 - 10:11 pm: || |
Dtown - you'll have to show me evidence or even a good anecdote to convince me that architecture kills the disposition to socialize. The sociology lit. supports the position that society in general has changed independent of the sorts of homes that have been built.
(Message edited by craig on April 09, 2008)
Post Number: 79
|Posted on Wednesday, April 09, 2008 - 11:30 pm: || |
Many Americans are willing to give up freedom for security, why would you think they wouldn't give up character for security? I don't agree with that way of thinking, but sadly it seems to be the way things go. The thing about this particular new development is (correct me if I'm wrong) that it seems that design was dictated by needs (low cost) and not necessarily by wants (character and walkability). This is a subsidized low income development right?
Also, wants are sometimes dictated by peers. For example, buying one of the new houses by someone who knows only people in or near urban downtowns would face criticism for it's lack of character and unworkability. While someone from a inner suburb, where people prefer safe and quiet neighborhoods close to light commercial, would see this as a very desirable area.
I'm assuming that you guys are referring to the areas like the exurbs in Canton when you talk about suburban style street layouts. I agree that the long winding streets and cal-de-sacs, with only one entrance/exit point are often poorly designed. However I have a theory (which may be wrong) as to why these exist. It's dictated by a need often overlooked on these boards.
A good analogy of this theory in Detroit is this; Millender Center and Riverfront Towers are two Downtown Detroit apartment complexes often considered upscale luxury apartments by many. The apartments features and amenities, as well as prices are pretty similar. Both apartment buildings have all living needs (grocery store, postal services, parking, restaurants etc.), and both are connected to the people mover (at opposite ends of downtown). You could argue that ones choice between the two is location, but I would disagree. I think the difference is in the needs of the renters. Millender Center caters more towards business people. They are either connected to, or very close to many offices (clients), hotels, and government buildings, as well as some entertainment venues. Riverfront Towers on the other hand is secluded. It has heavy emphasis on security, privacy, and peace and quiet. I'm looking past the original reasons these complexes were built this way. Instead I will look at who rents from them today, and why they do so. You will not surprisingly find that Millender Center attracts wealthy business men and women. Riverfront Towers on the other hand is more popular with local sports stars and celebrities. Many of these people are looking to get out of the public eye. Millender Center's business residents priorities are convenience of being close to clients, government agencies, and work.
I think what happens is that these two groups are trend setters. The problem is that most people follow the famous. I know people who overlooked the more convenient Millender Center. Instead, these people chose Riverfront Towers because of status, and to prove to others that the choice they made was good. They just like to brag that lay live in the same places as many local celebrities. This does shut up many bad talking suburbanite family members, but means nothing in reality.
Eventually, everyone wants to live there. Drug dealers who succeed and many others eventually want to live there, and appear successful. The influx of mix causes problems for some of the more well known residents. The celebrities move elsewhere, and the cycle continues.
Now, getting back to how this all fits in with this topic. This, I think is additional fuel for the exurbs continued growth. Worst of all, many of these celebrities end up creating the courts and gated communities. The desire for those areas (which may make sense to these few individuals ) and street layouts, the cal-de-sacs and courts, now is a image of wealth and success. I think this may also be reflected in the style and nature of the mcmansions. This may also be why greenbelts and government regulation on sprawl will not work without addressing this issue
It's a theory, and it may not be true. It's just one of the logical best guess' I could come up with.
Post Number: 5904
|Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2008 - 12:16 am: || |
Detroitnerd, I feel you, but I think you're a bit to harsh in your judgement. I think to understand where Detroit redevelopment is going you have to understand where it was, and I'm talking specifically about the projects on the site that Woodbridge Estates now occupies (not before that).
The reason, for instance, you see the rather unwelcoming sign at the playground "for residents and guest only" is because of the history of drug dealers and such using the old parks. It's not the outcome, but it's trying. I've also seen the quality (of both function and aesthetics) get better in Detroit.
Fact is, until we see some effective mass transit, we'll continue to see this type of development in large quantities.
What I do agree though is that when you try to building Southfield (choose other random suburb) in Detroit, the former always wins out as sprawl (auto-oriented development) is praised by those that choose to live there not for its beauty, but because of its function.
Really, why buy in a suburban-styled development in Detroit, when you could get the same thing or better in Canton minus the relatively bad schools, crime, and other problems? That's why Detroit is better off, for the time being.
(Message edited by lmichigan on April 10, 2008)
Post Number: 10403
|Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2008 - 12:29 am: || |
These are some of the best looking (and hopeful) photos to be posted here in a long time.
All new neighborhoods look like this before the trees mature. Once they do, they hide (some of) the design flaws, then you can start a thread on
wrong kind of trees
why don't folks rake their leaves
why doesn't the city crack down on overgrown landscaping
As to the old barns, why aren't folks lined up to pay 10X per sq ft for utilities and still not be comfortable? Just where are those cheapskates hiding?
Charming, but not realistic in today's market.
Again, these photos/neighborhoods are great - not for everyone, but great.
Post Number: 5906
|Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2008 - 1:53 am: || |
Why are they great? That's an awfully strong adjective to use for these homes. They are what they are, but "great?" No. I don't even think those enamored with banal suburban designs would call these great.
Post Number: 10406
|Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2008 - 1:59 am: || |
They are great for the reasons outlined in Mbr's post #371 above @ 2:58PM.
Many folks are deriving great satisfaction from these homes, and finally a non-crapola looking street - from one end to the other.
Just because Henry Ford didn't live there at one time doesn't mean it can't be great. The folks need a nice place too.
Post Number: 4580
|Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2008 - 2:07 am: || |
Oh, yeah, they're great! Which one is your fave, Karl? #5, with all the garages? It doesn't look like the rest of Detroit-- which is clearly entirely broken and crapola-- so it is so positive and so great!
Post Number: 10407
|Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2008 - 2:10 am: || |
Perhaps the Jeffries projects were more to your liking, Mackinaw?
Post Number: 190
|Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2008 - 9:42 am: || |
In reference to the first street depicted, I don't think they are great, but there isn't anything inherently unwalkable about them--the problem is that there isn't any reason to walk. Would that really be different if the cars were in front? However, I don't see that there is even any place for shade trees to grow--those little patches of grass on the right side are too close to the building for anything but tiny ornamentals, and the strips on the left side look too close for anything spreading. From the shadows in the picture that that side looks like the shady side anyway.
I agree with whoever said that there wasn't much reason to have such a wide street if auto access is in the back, but usually street width is dictated by code--perhaps the developers could have gotten an exemption if they had thought it worthwhile. Then there might have been enough room for bigger trees, which as someone else said above, can make any development look better over time.
Post Number: 4121
|Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2008 - 9:44 am: || |
I dig the rowhouses in the first photo. Even though the street is fairly wide, the massing and scale still help to create a pleasant street wall. I just can't fathom how you can mix this style with the suburban detached houses in such close proximity.
Now that I think about it, the street in Photo #6 looks pretty pleasant too.
I just think it's a shame that one of the few truly higher-density building styles in Detroit is reserved for a low-income project, which only perpetuates the stigma that density is only for the poor.
Post Number: 4581
|Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2008 - 9:55 am: || |
Well, Karl, I heard the conditions weren't so great there, but you know what, something like that belongs in the City more than something like that new Woodbridge subdivision. They used space more efficiently, and provided much-needed low-income housing.
Mwilbert, I had mentioned street width. I think it's probably dictated by code, which is dictated, normally, by public safety interests who want to be able to fit, like, three firetrucks down a street at once or something.
Post Number: 1085
|Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2008 - 10:57 am: || |
Street widths seem pretty good in this new neighborhood. Not overly wide or anything. Streets that are too wide promote excessive automobile speeds which then discourage any pedestrian activity and also make it unsafe for children. The public safety folks (fire marshall) can often really cause problems with larger planned developments by insisting on streets wide enough to accomodate their largest equipment. This is especially so in suburban jurisdictions. Achieving minimal added fire safety is not a sufficient reason to saddle residential neighborhoods with excessive concrete and speeding motorists.
Post Number: 583
|Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2008 - 11:37 am: || |
quote:Housing projects--high-rises surrounded by plazas with no street grid and no non-residential activity--do not belong in a city either. They belong on Big Beaver Road.
something like that belongs in the City more than something like that new Woodbridge subdivision.
Post Number: 574
|Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2008 - 12:01 pm: || |
Well, Karl, I heard the conditions weren't so great there, but you know what, something like that belongs in the City more than something like that new Woodbridge subdivision. They used space more efficiently, and provided much-needed low-income housing.
And they kept just the poor people in one area so they were easier to watch and keep out of the affluent areas, right?
Post Number: 54
|Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2008 - 1:35 pm: || |
I get what you are talking about concerning these developments. The only problem is a large section of old Detroit, is this very kind of housing, just built 50 years prior. Large portions of Detroit are very suburban with a streetcar suburb slant to them.
I recently reread Jane Jacobs' "The Death and Life of Great American Cities," which has a few passages on Detroit. I was especially struck by the observation she made about how the sprawling single-use development that marks the area inevitably results in there being no way to develop street life and as such no way to develop a sense of there being "neighborhoods." She argued that it was this that caused Detroit to be blighted by what she termed "gray zones," and what caused people to continually move farther and farther out from the city, since the only selling point of these sterile developments is that they're new, and once the newness wears out, so does the appeal.
Okay, this doesn't seem like a terribly deep observation -- until you realize that she wrote this in 1961. If Detroit is built up to look like it used to, it'll start rotting just like it did before. And just like Warren, and Sterling Heights, and eventually Troy will, as people (white and black) who have the option to leave go off in search of places worth living in.
Post Number: 216
|Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2008 - 2:02 pm: || |
I live very close to this development, and within 500 feet to their proposed next site (on the Southeast corner of Canfield and Trumbull.)
While I know many neighbors in the actual Woodbridge Historic District I have never met anyone in Woodbridge Estates and can't speak for the quality of life there. Other neighbors have complained of the industrial lighting at night, and excessive security detail though these probably yield a sense of security to the residents.
The problem I do have is with Woodbridge Estates ongoing efforts to move into the Historic District, and their unwillingness to work within the framework of neighborhood organizations in an underhanded way. Their proposed site is kitty-corner from Bonnie Bridge Villa, which after 2+ years is four (unsold) townhouses and a block of cement footings, graffiti, and trash; it is also just down Trumbull from a proposed brownstone development that fell through and left the neighborhood with a large open pit.
While I understand Woodbridge Estates' desire to move into the neighborhood proper and more firmly link itself with the "Woodbridge" that it is already marketing around. I find the unbridled, speculative, subsidized construction threatening to the neighborhood and property values. I would urge them to complete the construction and sales they are already committed to before starting more in an area that is becoming saturated with new housing.
Post Number: 1956
|Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2008 - 2:11 pm: || |
i don't mind the security, all it is is one dude in a truck. He patrols my street even though we aren't in the development.
Post Number: 4582
|Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2008 - 2:21 pm: || |
Dds, that was the problem, and that's why today's more sophisticated approaches to low-income housing have the potential to be much better. Housing developers should have incentives, and in some places, even be forced by law, to mix a certain percentage of affordable/below market rate homes into their construction. Integration like this is important to at least try to forge when to create a new neighborhood. In fact, inasmuch as the law has the power to affect these outcomes, I have a strong desire to learn about the laws pertaining to this as I now embark on law school. As I am against housing pods which separate families based on income in modern suburbia (by grouping houses that are 150-250k on one side of a wall and houses that are 250k-450k on the other side), I am against creating new housing "project" for low-income people in the city. Having said that, the presence of those low-income housing units at Jefferies was more beneficial than the current landscape which probably houses ZERO of the people that used to live in that locale, and which is less befitting to an inner city location.
But thanks for bringing that up, Dds. I know you weren't trying to put words in my mouth or anything!
Post Number: 4583
|Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2008 - 2:25 pm: || |
Mackcreative, you make good points about how this might detract from demand for the historic homes in the beautiful, old part of Woodbridge. I think that it indeed does, strictly speaking, but the improvement of that adjacent neighborhood might have positive externalities for the old neighborhood, because the surrounding area is at least perceived of as safer and cleaner etc etc (even if it looks like Rochester Hills).
Great post, Fmstack.
(Message edited by mackinaw on April 10, 2008)
Post Number: 728
|Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2008 - 2:28 pm: || |
Bingo Mackinaw... I believe Mack's property values will only rise with this change.
Perception is everything in the real estate game - have been told that many times by quite a few realtors.
Post Number: 217
|Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2008 - 2:34 pm: || |
Perception is exactly what I was getting at: if this project (the extension onto Trumbull) moves forward with sales success and sensitivity towards integration into the aesthetic of the existing neighborhood it will be beneficial to my property value. If it fails and leaves a big gaping pit, partially completed construction, or vacant homes it will negatively impact.
Post Number: 577
|Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2008 - 2:40 pm: || |
I know you weren't trying to put words in my mouth or anything!
Heaven forbid! Besides, the words coming out of your mouth are quite enough.
Of course the new housing has few, if any of the previous residents. They were relocated to other new developments. My roommate's brother was relocated from a run down low income complex to the Woodbridge Estates when they first opened.
Having said that, the presence of those low-income housing units at Jefferies was more beneficial than the current landscape
Exactly what YBI said when they operated out of there.
Post Number: 730
|Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2008 - 3:01 pm: || |
Putting poor and disadvantaged people with few prospects into the equivalent of a rusty vertical sardine can is NOT a good idea.
Then I think, Mackcreative, it might be in your best financial interest if this development is going to happen (and I don't know if it is, I don't live or have invested in that neighborhood) to support it.
Post Number: 4585
|Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2008 - 3:24 pm: || |
Just to be even more clear, I don't support the notion of housing projects. I just think very little of the the new Woodbridge sub.
Dds, just say, "mack, you'll never be right, you don't know anything," so that I can know that I don't have to spend time responding to you.
Post Number: 579
|Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2008 - 4:01 pm: || |
Where's the fun in that?
Post Number: 87
|Posted on Friday, April 11, 2008 - 1:51 am: || |
Am I wrong in assuming that new housing could improve the value and future of historic structures? For example, if you were to restore a few historic houses and surround them with new homes, and that area was popular and had high occupancy, wouldn't the demand for the historic structures go up? I mean, historic homes in the suburbs seem to be the most desirable in the more popular suburban developments. That especially seems to hold true once the "new home smell" wears off. This also seems to hold true among infill housing in areas known for their history. I would think the problems occur when there is a greater supply of historic homes than demand.
Post Number: 4586
|Posted on Friday, April 11, 2008 - 2:41 am: || |
Sean, the best example would probably be Brush Park. Redevelopment of the remaining old houses is trudging along. Obviously, you cannot do without new infill there; nobody expects those old mansions to be renovated as they sit on islands (sometimes they are literally among a few remaining on a block), and so your theory plays out nicely there. And with the slow market, the new housing needs to be built in measured increments.
I'm interested in knowing a little more about the old apartment buildings in SW Brush Park, near the earliest Crosswinds developments, especially the building on Adelaide between Woodward and John R., and how they are faring today, especially in terms of before and after.
Post Number: 2220
|Posted on Friday, April 25, 2008 - 3:23 pm: || |
or, easier still, *bump*
Post Number: 11556
|Posted on Friday, April 25, 2008 - 3:24 pm: || |
Very nice of you 'nerd.
Post Number: 872
|Posted on Friday, April 25, 2008 - 4:27 pm: || |
GOOD URBAN DESIGN DOESNT SOLVE EVERYTHING! Otherwise Detroit would not be in the shape it is in it did. The "I am so smart because I recognize and live in a well designed urban area and everyone else is dumb for living in subdivisions" attitude is out of control on this forum. Good job paying attention in the intro to urban design class or reading Origin of the Urban Crisis. Teach us ALL now how we are zombies lost without our front porches. Reminds me of the southpark episode where everyone was so smart after their first semester of college and got high and complained about evil corporations. Oh yea and the trees you think they grew overnight in the older neighborhoods? Those take time.
(Message edited by fareastsider on April 25, 2008)
Post Number: 4693
|Posted on Friday, April 25, 2008 - 4:40 pm: || |
1950-2000 was the peak of the fossil fuel era, when driving was cheap and easy, and every place built then was basically built for driving. Metro Detroit and its population became completely enamored with this model, and took it to the extreme, and large porportions of our regional population (because they were so enamored and because of the strife and segregation and anti-city sentiment that is worse in Detroit than many/most other places) chose this car-focused, un-urban landscape. Thus, Detroit emptied out at an alarming rate, neighborhoods became more vacant than occupied, and the divestment liquadated the tax base and commensurate services, sending Detroit into a spiral where its urban qualities (no matter how nice they were) could not save it. Poor governance for many periods of time did not help. The point is, good design should not have been expected to save Detroit, and it defintely can not save Detroit now since much of its old design has been obliterated. Even parts of NYC came close to emptying out, and surely destabilized, during the peak of the fossil fuel/anti-city era 1965-85, but they weren't made to look like 1945 Dresden, and they bounced back.
Now, that fossil fuel era is rapidly coming to a conclusion. Sustainability is of utmost long-term importance, and important to more and more people in the short run is the ability to get around without a car. Cities and places with urban properties are also en vogue again, as America comes to its senses regarding the cheapness of modern suburbia. So, if Detroit was not completely torn up, and people didn't leave to the extent that they did, it would have bounced back pretty well by now, like most other old American cities. Those places are capitalizing on good design, because they have it; Detroit is not, to any great extent, because much of that design is gone. So, Detroit has to preserve what it has, and build new on a traditional model, in order to save itself like other cities.
Post Number: 725
|Posted on Friday, April 25, 2008 - 4:56 pm: || |
I think that if we had the right leadership, Detroit could become a leader in urban sustainability simply because so much of it is vacant. Eat and buy LOCAL! (Then again, I've been in Ann Arbor for 3 years now, so I've become a semi-vegetarian, granola eating, HFCS vilifying kook. )
Post Number: 12
|Posted on Saturday, April 26, 2008 - 2:49 pm: || |
GOOD URBAN DESIGN DOESNT SOLVE EVERYTHING! Otherwise Detroit would not be in the shape it is in it did.
Good urban design might not solve everything, but it might have helped. We don't know because Detroit doesn't have it. Except for the Central Business District, Detroit is all low-density development.
Post Number: 307
|Posted on Saturday, April 26, 2008 - 3:35 pm: || |
Mackinaw, I have to disagree about the end of fossil fuels. Petroleum will always be needed to produce plastics that are the lifeblood of technological advancement. Gas powered cars will not be extinct any time soon.
There is nothing wrong with the homes in the Woodbridge Area. I would prefer infill homes to be respectful in design to the neighborhood they are placed. Purists probably hate Disney-esque designs, but I've seen a few in the old part of Warren that look good and fit in well. Brush Park definitely needs infill that is similar to what was there, with good quality materials.
If I had a preference for what I would like to see within the Grand Boulevard loop it would be well designed brick townhouses, row houses, and condo/apt. mid rises to 40 floors. The market will ultimately determine what gets built.
Every new development MUST interact with it's surrounding neighbors to be successful. The Woodbridge Area NEEDS accessible retail that can be equally utilized by the new neighborhood and the historic district. Gated inclusive communities do not belong in Detroit, especially within the Grand Boulevard loop.
(Message edited by warrenite84 on April 26, 2008)