 
Detourdetroit
Member
Username: Detourdetroit
Post Number: 430
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 11:33 am: |    |
PS...but you know what, I'm @#&*ing sick and tired of letting Detroit off the hook for this kind of stuff. "Could have been worse..." ain't all it's cracked up to be. and by now we should know better.
Ok, sorry to rant. enough from me for today. |
Cman710
Member
Username: Cman710
Post Number: 565
Registered: 07-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 11:44 am: | |
I am no fan of strip malls, but I am wondering whether many store-owners would rather have parking out front in order to address security concerns. Cars parked out behind anywhere, even in good neighborhoods, are targets for theft and vandalism, especially during the non-busy times of day. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 5280
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 11:50 am: | |
quote:I am no fan of strip malls, but I am wondering whether many store-owners would rather have parking out front in order to address security concerns. Cars parked out behind anywhere, even in good neighborhoods, are targets for theft and vandalism, especially during the non-busy times of day.
I don't know that I believe that. Heck, most stores in big box shopping centers don't even have windows, so I'm not sure how much of a theft-deterrent it is to put cars out front of the store. |
Danny
Member
Username: Danny
Post Number: 7987
Registered: 02-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 11:56 am: | |
Half of the old Downtown Highland Park including the Sears Department Store Building is long gone. But the long ghetto versions of a strip malls and a Arab-owned supermarket is here to stay. |
Mwilbert
Member
Username: Mwilbert
Post Number: 463
Registered: 11-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 12:07 pm: | |
Since it is unlikely that you could have a retail development in Highland Park without parking, you have to have it someplace. I'd rather have the parking in the back, but to make that an improvement for pedestrians or transit users, you need to have front and back entrances, which presumably increases your security costs and might make you set up multiple checkout areas. |
Detroitnerd
Member
Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 3817
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 12:15 pm: | |
I wonder how many businesses closed on the old strip when the new strip mall opened. (You know, kind of like how the Renaissance Center suddenly provided a glut of Class A office space in a struggling downtown, turning much of downtown into Wig Shop Capital of the World.) |
Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 1712
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 12:17 pm: | |
From a developer's point of view, anywhere in metro Detroit, transit does not exist and pedestrians do not exist. Almost everybody drives absolutely everywhere, so that is what developers build to.
M-59 in Macomb County is the absurd limit to this kind of thinking, and is very recent development.
So long as transit is invisible to almost all Detroiters, we can hardly expect developers to get on the nonexistent bandwagon. So we get what we get: stores a tenth of a mile back from the street with acres of parking in front. That is to say, a non-urban environment.
Better than nothing? Sure, OK. But if we accept mediocrity, all we will ever get is mediocrity. It is a basic fact of all of life that you never get more than you ask for. |
Fishtoes2000
Member
Username: Fishtoes2000
Post Number: 746
Registered: 06-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 12:23 pm: | |
quote:I am no fan of strip malls, but I am wondering whether many store-owners would rather have parking out front in order to address security concerns.
There already is significant parking in back of this strip mall on the eastside of Woodward. The Highland Park Park Police cars are parked in back as well. This strip mall is basically an island in a sea of surface lots. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 5281
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 12:47 pm: | |
quote:Almost everybody drives absolutely everywhere, so that is what developers build to.
As I've said before on other threads, developers only build what is legally permitted by zoning. The Village in Grosse Pointe, and even the whole of downtown Ann Arbor, would be illegal, even if that's what the owner wanted to construct.
The real problem is that localities mandate absurd amounts of parking, and don't require it to be located anywhere but directly in front of the building. Access to a commercial strip from a rear parking lot could easily be provided by means of a pedestrian arcade (which in turn, potentially creates additional footage of storefront). Even in the case of grocery stores, where it is optimal to have direct access to the lot, a rear-only entrance still preserves the streetwall and character of the neighborhood at the roadway.
Heck, even small commercial strips with one row of off-street parking in front are infinitely better than behemoth strip shoppingplexes with acres of pavement between the building and the sidewalk. |
Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 1713
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 12:51 pm: | |
No better description exists of the retail environment just about everywhere in Metro Detroit:
"basically an island in a sea of surface lots" |
Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 1714
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 12:58 pm: | |
Dan, you're right about "localities mandate absurd amounts of parking", but there's a reason. Localities are run by politicians who need people to vote for them. If a business in an actual city, where there are side streets with residences, doesn't build its parking lot for the maximum possible business volume, then on the day after Thanksgiving some hapless shopper is going to park in front of someone's house - who then complains to his City Councilman (which the Prof once was).
We don't have any visions for our cities, so we just manage day-to-day, which usually means we react to complaints. Residents near business strips don't want shoppers parking on residential streets, and we have no vision, so we simply mandate massive parking areas. This is long term destructive, but I have never met a municipal politician who was a long-term thinker.
The lack of public transit on any reasonable scale - and the result that people have to drive everywhere - is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. The more farsighted professional planners would like to be able to help cities create real urban environments, but they can't, because a basic, essential piece of the urban infrastructure simply doesn't exist.
We decided, between the 1930s and the 1960s roughly, that by God we were going to be the all-cars-all-the-time region, and show the world how it's done. We succeeded. Kind of. |
Jams
Member
Username: Jams
Post Number: 9713
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 1:09 pm: | |
quote:Heck, even small commercial strips with one row of off-street parking in front are infinitely better than behemoth strip shoppingplexes with acres of pavement between the building and the sidewalk.
So if this "New-urban" is so desirable, why does a major road such as Fort Strret between Outer Drive and Eureaka have so many vacant buildings of the "urban" style, yet that "ugly suburban style" with parking in front have full parking lots? |
Redetroit
Member
Username: Redetroit
Post Number: 75
Registered: 04-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 1:12 pm: | |
Does anyone think that this type of development, with secure parking in front, is a requirement of a retail tenant moving into an area? Especially in a city with issues of crime, theft, and vandalism. Ideas of urbanism and zero-lot lines are great, but I think local residents would rather have a safe, clean environment to shop for groceries and other daily needs. |
Bearinabox
Member
Username: Bearinabox
Post Number: 1053
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 1:22 pm: | |
I don't understand what is safe about getting off a bus, walking down the street until you come to a gap in the large iron fence that surrounds the parking lot, walking across the parking lot from one end to the other, dodging cars, and then walking to the store. I would feel safer just getting off the bus and walking into the store. But I guess that's just me. Me and all the other crazy people who catch buses at Woodward and Manchester. |
Detourdetroit
Member
Username: Detourdetroit
Post Number: 431
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 1:23 pm: | |
i can't help myself!
These numbers don't compare favorably to NYC, but they're significant and something to grow from...mind you it's transit we ALREADY HAVE.
http://www.metromodemedia.com/ devnews/masstransit11.aspx
i still think if there was one place where you would aspire to something better it would be the woodward corridor.
http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/ 02/commuting-mass-transit-biz- energy_cz_ms_0702efficiency_ef ficienthoods_slide_9.html?this Speed=20000
i know, i know other forbes' list suck...
as profscott suggests, if "by god" we're going to be all-cars, then my modest proposal is that it's about time we decided to do things differently.
jams, it's not desirable because we're drinking kool aid! |
Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 1715
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 1:24 pm: | |
Bear, the problem is there aren't enough of you and I, and we're invisible to most businesspeople.
Only 2% of the population of Metro Detroit uses the buses regularly. They build shopping centers for the other 98%. We don't count. |
Bearinabox
Member
Username: Bearinabox
Post Number: 1054
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 1:28 pm: | |
I would be interested to see what percentage of the people who shop at Woodward and Manchester use the buses regularly. I'm betting it's quite a bit more than 2%. |
3rdworldcity
Member
Username: 3rdworldcity
Post Number: 1484
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 1:32 pm: | |
Maybe some of you should bother to become informed about the Model T Plaza deal before disparaging the developers for not living in some ivory tower fog and building a shopping center that meets your approval.
I'm very familiar with the deal as one of my partners and a client developed it. First, they bought the Ford plant for basically nothing and were going to strip it and be done with the deal. Then Ford decided to remain in the building and signed a long term lease which made the deal one of the most profitable real estate deals I've ever seen. I'm just sorry I don't have a piece of the deal.
My friends could just have walked away and enjoyed their profits, not that they needed any more money. Instead, because they had much experience developing strip centers, and because the City begged them to develop the frontage, they agreed to put in the strip center. It was a very high risk thing to do at the time and they had to pressure the tenants by calling in some chits, including Farmer Jack, to locate there. My friends viewed the deal more as a public service undertaking, not unlike Taubman and Fisher's development of Riverfront Apartments.
The Plaza has been moderately successful, unlike Riverfront.
The design of the Plaza was implemented to provide for outlot development down the road. The configuration was designed to give the most bang for their bucks. They weren't interested in creating another Somerset in that location. Who would have been, except maybe a couple of folks on here?
I read all the criticisms from people on here who don't recognize how much better off HP is as a result of the risks taken by my friends.
Tell you what, all you urban planners on here who never seem to be satisfied with any departure from your textbook view of the world should do as follows:
Beg, borrow, steal or just go out and accumulate a few million dollars legally, acquire the land, finance, and develop your own shopping center. See if anybody comes, and if they do, if you make a profit. Lots of luck.
(Message edited by 3rdworldcity on December 02, 2008) |
Detroitnerd
Member
Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 3818
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 1:39 pm: | |
3rdworld: You and your friends can suck it.  |
Detourdetroit
Member
Username: Detourdetroit
Post Number: 432
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 1:43 pm: | |
granted yes, my hat already is off for the good intent, as posted above, but how hard would have been to do exactly the same development, but with the parking in the rear?
urban planning shouldn't be viewed as a textbook exercise. ideally, it's about marrying private and public interest to the benefit of place. we don't seem to get that here. instead, our "place" is best lived behind the wheel, as the good professor suggests. |
Jams
Member
Username: Jams
Post Number: 9715
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 1:56 pm: | |
Also there are two storefronts about a block from my house that just lowered the asking rent to $500/month from $750 {about 1000 sq ft each), street parking in front and limited parking in rear.
Should be an urbanist's delight. |
Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 1716
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 2:01 pm: | |
Detour, it's simple: the developers build the shops in the rear of the lot with the parking in front for precisely two reasons.
1. It's the only thing they know how to do, since most Detroit developers have never built anything in a real city before.
2. Cities allow it to be done this way.
In HP's case, as 3rdworld implies, the City was absolutely desperate and not in a position to formulate unusual demands. (And in metro Detroit, demanding near-street construction is very unusual.)
If you want developers to want to build at the street, then you have to provide them with some sense that they'll get customers by so doing. In metro Detroit, that is simply not the case.
Bear's point about the number of bus passengers in that bus-heavy location is well taken - except the developers aren't people who live in HP and are familiar with the location in that way; they simply develop the same kinds of things all over the region, and to them Woodward and Manchester isn't substantially different from Big Beaver and Rochester, except for the economics of the nearby population (a situation which would cause a developer to want to minimize risk and not do unusual things).
We have, as I've said (actually I've beaten it to death) an infrastructure problem. We can change that; then it will be possible for developers to consider urban-style development. Until then, it doesn't make a lot of sense for them to do it.
As usual, all of this is just ITPVHO. |
Bearinabox
Member
Username: Bearinabox
Post Number: 1056
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 2:02 pm: | |
quote:Tell you what, all you urban planners on here who never seem to be satisfied with any departure from your textbook view of the world should do as follows:
Beg, borrow, steal or just go out and accumulate a few million dollars legally, acquire the land, finance, and develop your own shopping center. See if anybody comes, and if they do, if you make a profit. Lots of luck. My view of the world doesn't come from a textbook. It comes from having to live, shop and catch buses in the goddamn thing. Nice to know that my opinion is worthless because I'm not a multimillionaire, though. |
Jams
Member
Username: Jams
Post Number: 9716
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 2:20 pm: | |
Bearinabox,
I haven't owned a car, by choice, in almost 8 years now.
Since I've moved out of the City after 20 years, I'm rethinking that position. That mile walk from the grocery store this morning was not as pleasant as it was on those balmy September days.
Despite the fact I walk, bicycle, and bus as my primary transportation, if I were again making the decision of locating a business, parking is a reality that must be addressed in that decision.
One thing I've learned is that you spend much less money, when you are limited to what you can physically carry. |
Gnome
Member
Username: Gnome
Post Number: 2187
Registered: 08-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 2:37 pm: | |
Thought that was you I saw you this morning Jams.
Just before I snapped this pic |
Detroitrise
Member
Username: Detroitrise
Post Number: 3971
Registered: 09-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 2:48 pm: | |
quote:Strip malls are the antithesis of a city.
Should have thought about that when we ripped up the street cars & burned down the "urban" buildings in '67. |
Townonenorth
Member
Username: Townonenorth
Post Number: 426
Registered: 10-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 2:56 pm: | |
The model of businesses locating near the street, with on street parking, was fine in it's day.
Growing up along a city streetscape with 3 grocery stores, butchers, 3 bakeries, restaurants and bars, pool halls, furniture, 5 and dime stores, you name it, was great. And all of this within a block of where I lived. Corner stores within the neighborhoods filled in as well.
Where I live right now, I have to walk at least 8 blocks to reach the nearest "grocery" store. Not counting the gas station 3 blocks away. Everything else is filled in with contractors,or things that the average consumer won't patronize.
I've seen businesses attempt to open only to be held back by excessive regulation by the city. Or being charged outrageous inspection fees, etc. Changing the zoning laws (within reason) may help some.
When cities embrace the little shop owner again, making it easier to actually open a business, maybe then the model of your walkable city will be a reality. |
Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 3662
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 2:56 pm: | |
Eh, I'm not kissing Rich Uncle Pennybags' ass because he shafted Ford on a real estate deal, and then turned around and made money by doing something he claimed was "charity". It's a shitty design for an urban center, charity or not.
The Highland Park I remember from 15 or so years ago looks a hell of a lot better than the one that exists today. That was before this "charity project" was brought in to save HPs soul. That was back when Sears still existed there... With parking in the back. |
Detroitnerd
Member
Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 3820
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 2:57 pm: | |
Streetcars were gone by the end of 1956. And not so much of the city burned in 1967. |
Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 1717
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 3:33 pm: | |
Town, "The model of businesses locating near the street, with on street parking" is a very modern design in all modern, thriving cities.
Field trip time: go to Portland or Minneapolis or Denver or Toronto, take the rapid transit from the airport in toward the central city, and walk around. You'll see lots of streetfront shops (many with apartments above - imagine), lots of pedestrians, and a kind of city life we in Detroit can only imagine, unless we're old enough to remember it (which the Prof is not).
The model we continue to use in Detroit is the outmoded model. Look at the results we're getting. Even in a good year (economically for the auto biz) our regional population is flat, which means it's declining relative to the rest of the country. Our 18 to 34 year old demographic has almost entirely vanished. Yet we don't change how we do things. |
Detourdetroit
Member
Username: Detourdetroit
Post Number: 433
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 3:39 pm: | |
Exactly prof...
it's the outdated infrastructure of our mind. |
Detroitnerd
Member
Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 3821
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 3:49 pm: | |
Profscott: As usual, a perfect summary stated in a civil tone.
I'd add that it's not just a brain-drain, it's also a feedback loop. The people who want to live in the 21st century city leave Detroit, and the people who are satisfied with the 20th century "donut" are the ones who stay. Which means that not only are the people who desire change not here to dictate it, but the people who stay see no reason to do it.
Honestly, though, I don't understand. The people who don't want change, they aren't COMPLETELY hostile to ALL cities. Don't they go to the Ann Arbor Art Fair and see the historic buildings all built to the street? Don't they see how they have to park several blocks away and walk through an interesting, dense, walkable environment?
Don't they go out to eat in the smaller walkable environments in Birmingham, Ferndale and Royal Oak and enjoy the culture of the street?
Don't they also vacation in Toronto or Chicago and see how you can walk, take a cab, free yourself of the car and enjoy how everything is compressed into one place?
I find it hard to understand how these people can then not make the leap to understanding that this can happen IN OUR CITY CENTER TOO. That if we decide to NOT pour our resources into more low-density housing tracts, wider freeways, expanded interchanges, office towers surrounded by parking lots, we'll free up the money to make our urban environments livable and stimulating.
Why, instead, do we have people who actually say that building a strip mall is akin to a public service undertaking? What's standing in the way of understanding that what's good for other American cities would be revolutionary here? |
Cman710
Member
Username: Cman710
Post Number: 566
Registered: 07-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 3:52 pm: | |
Personally, I prefer the older style of urban design, with businesses out in front. And I do not think strip malls are ideal. At the same time, we should note that there are also successful cities that have been built using that model. Look at the booming cities of Texas as an example. I do not think these cities are nearly as interesting as cities built along the "older" model, but it would be hard to argue that they are not among the most growing, successful cities of the last 30 years. Whether this model will succeed in the next 30 years is a second question, but I think that it nonetheless bears mentioning.
I do think that a more urban approach is best, but my point is only that there is not just one model that can work.
Also, in the end, I think that a focus on transportation, education, and creating a favorable economic business environment will be more important for the regions success than whether we have strip malls or not. |
Detourdetroit
Member
Username: Detourdetroit
Post Number: 434
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 3:54 pm: | |
oh boy, prof and nerd are on a roll!
i just can't understand the disconnect with people in the region. instead of seeing the opportunity to build up a city here, they go someplace else to get their urban fix, whilst their own city rots. |
Jams
Member
Username: Jams
Post Number: 9718
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 4:15 pm: | |
quote: Look at the results we're getting. Even in a good year (economically for the auto biz) our regional population is flat, which means it's declining relative to the rest of the country. Our 18 to 34 year old demographic has almost entirely vanished. Yet we don't change how we do things.
I'd think that has more to do with the job market, than if one parks in front or back of a store.
And you are right about the charm of the Royal Oaks, Northvilles, Wyandottes, etc but they are the exceptions not the rule. Most of the older inner-ring suburbs have a surplus of empty commercial structures in their old "downtowns while those front parking lots are filled with cars. |
Detroitnerd
Member
Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 3824
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 4:21 pm: | |
Graying suburban downtowns are often being capitalized on. Take, for instance, Dearborn's three "downtowns." The only one that's fading right now is Fairlane Mall. The eastern downtown is booming with Arab-American businesses. The western downtown is being remade with lofts and condos. Where people are smart enough to capitalize on it, it's working. |
Detourdetroit
Member
Username: Detourdetroit
Post Number: 435
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 4:26 pm: | |
if nearly 20% of average american humanity* is desirous of living in a dense urban environment, does se michigan even do a passing job of providing options for that demographic??? that's one million people who are severely underserved because we've let suburban mindset program all aspects of our daily existence.
This is a conservative post citing figures
http://www.nationalcenter.org/ NPA312.html |
Townonenorth
Member
Username: Townonenorth
Post Number: 427
Registered: 10-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 4:33 pm: | |
quote:The model we continue to use in Detroit is the outmoded model.
Exactly. I'm all for a walkable, urban environment. I'm all for efficient timely public transportation. But none of this matters if we don't have business to fill the retail spots, as well as an effective police force to protect it.
It's all about disinvestment, folks. And your inner ring suburbs are feeling it as much as the urban core is.
When insurance companies redline business for having too many windows (true story!) how can one have a walkable environment from business to business that retains the pedestrian's interest?
When cities stop pouring millions into hunting these large corporations to bring in "jobs" to a city, and invest in a sustainable model of walkable scale, "neighborhoods", then maybe someday there will be some kind of regeneration. |
Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 1718
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 4:33 pm: | |
They're not underserved, Detour; they go live somewhere else. We have made (as a region) a conscious choice not to serve that group of people.
You asked why they go somewhere else to get their urban fix; the reason is we don't want them (well, us). Our choices have clearly laid out where we want to be as a region. Well, congratulations to us; we're there. |
Detourdetroit
Member
Username: Detourdetroit
Post Number: 436
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 4:45 pm: | |
yes and no prof. there are still a lot us underserved. yes, we've chosen this mode as a region (yes, congrats us). no, while it's true many have left, there are a lot of people hungry for urbanity (they get their fix elsewhere and put up with the reality of life here). also, we don't have leadership that values the planning, construction and maintenance of the urban environment. maybe it's time for some of us to step up to the plate and make a case??? |
Lowell
Moderator
Username: Lowell
Post Number: 5187
Registered: 09-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 4:54 pm: | |
quote:The Highland Park I remember from 15 or so years ago looks a hell of a lot better than the one that exists today. That was before this "charity project" was brought in to save HPs soul. That was back when Sears still existed there... With parking in the back.
I disagree. By that time Sears was an island unto itself and just because it abutted Woodward it was still, in essence, no different that the strip malls today - the only difference is the parking in back. The situation was dreadful and getting worse. Meanwhile everything around it was dead or dying. I would have loved to have seen that art deco-style monster survive but it didn't.
As for the old downtown, it is lying there just waiting for anyone to develop it in any new urbanism or any other manner. But, as much as I hate to admit it, it would fail terribly. Parking, the relative security of the openness with no hidden corner and plenty of eyes is what is required.
Most people who shop there are from nearby neighborhoods or HP Detroit. If they had to go to the old downtown, park in back [where a lot of parking still exists] they simply wouldn't do it. |
Jams
Member
Username: Jams
Post Number: 9719
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 5:07 pm: | |
quote:maybe it's time for some of us to step up to the plate and make a case???
Please! I spend a much greater portion of my income with independent bakeries, butcher shops (two within a 1/2 mile from my house), restaurants, etc. than I do with chains.
Hell, I can't tell you the number of times I passed ACO to get what I needed from the independently owned hardware stores about a mile and a half away.
Yet, I realize I'm in the minority and unless there is enough of a market to support those businesses to establish themselves and survive, it doesn't matter if you park in the front or the rear. |
Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 1720
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 5:10 pm: | |
Detour, I agree with "step up to the plate". Right now in the state legislature there are several transit-related bills in the works; write your state rep and senator and tell them to support these bills. Go to your local planning commission meeting and ask them why they are still designing communities for the 1950s.
Lowell, it's good to hear from you, but I question the "park in back" comment - the point of much of our discussion is that, for those of us who use the pitiful transit system, HP would be a much better shopping destination if we didn't have to hoof it through hundreds of feet of parking lot - especially at this specific location where so many bus routes converge.
By the way, the Prof is more-or-less white, and notices that when he is at Wood/Manch waiting for this or that bus, everyone looks at him like he's crazy. Or am I just hypersensitive? |
Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 3663
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 5:16 pm: | |
Urban romanticizing aside, there are some serious issues regarding sustainability that are not addressed by Detroit's current culture. You can point to Dallas and Houston and say "those cities are booming", but neither of them are as densely populated as Detroit, neither of them have been as big for as long as Detroit. Will those towns still be booming in 40 years if they continue building themselves in the same way? As soon as the oil dries up, so will each of those towns.
(And Dallas, while only being half as densely populated as Detroit, is already leaps and bounds ahead of Detroit in addressing mass transit related issues.)
What happens to metro Detroit if (when) oil shoots back towards $5/gallon and stays there? Why is it that property in all corners of metro Detroit has remained comparably cheap for being such an old and large metropolis? It's no coincidence that during the housing fallout this year, the most stable real-estate prices were in densely populated, older urban centers - not newly built exurbs. It's also interesting that the metropolitan areas hurt the most by declining property values were those that did not surround a strong urban center.
Detroit right now is an experiment, not the rule. In how many places on Earth is the local population forced to jump into a car and drive to a big box in the middle of a sea of asphalt in order to purchase their basic life necessities? Can a major metropolis remain sustainable if 80-90% of the residents are forced to do this? How long can Detroit continue living this way before it completely fizzles out?
Let's not even touch on all the opportunities for the exchanging of ideas that is lost because people are either 1) stuck behind a steering wheel or 2) locked up in a McMansion at the end of a cul-de-sac of some fortress-like subdivision. And I'm not anti-suburb before someone says it. I think there exists a balance for both lifestyles in Detroit, and the rest of first world. But I also see that Detroit is overly-tilted to one side of this balance, and doesn't seem to realize the value and diversifying. |
Detourdetroit
Member
Username: Detourdetroit
Post Number: 437
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 5:28 pm: | |
jams, i meant our region's leadership, not people who practice what they preach. Although for the quality of place's sake, i would argue that situations where parking in the rear is mandated is better on many levels
i also have a problem with lowell's comment about t-plaza land, which goes back to an earlier post. why couldn't the exact same development that was built have been built to front woodward? i really don't see in the case of such a large development parcel why the shopping couldn't have addressed the street. as a frequent bus rider myself (and someone who has shopped at T-plaza) i am pretty nonplussed by walking through a sea of parking to get to where i want to go. adding a mix of uses would have been even better, ala a few newer developments like Ellington and Studio One which are a step in the right direction. |
Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 3664
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 5:29 pm: | |
quote:
I disagree. By that time Sears was an island unto itself and just because it abutted Woodward it was still, in essence, no different that the strip malls today - the only difference is the parking in back. The situation was dreadful and getting worse. Meanwhile everything around it was dead or dying. I would have loved to have seen that art deco-style monster survive but it didn't.
As for the old downtown, it is lying there just waiting for anyone to develop it in any new urbanism or any other manner. But, as much as I hate to admit it, it would fail terribly. Parking, the relative security of the openness with no hidden corner and plenty of eyes is what is required.
I'm not claiming that Highland Park was a utopia then, but it was a lot better looking than it is today. I'm only in my mid 20s, so my memories of HP only go back about 20 years. And while in 1990 I very much saw the difference between shopping at the Sears on Woodward in HP and the Sears in Fairlane, at least there was still a Sears in HP.
There was also still a shopping district along Woodward around the Sears that resembles Harlem's 125th St, or Fulton Street in Bed Stuy Brooklyn today. The last time I drove through HP, none of that was left.
I also remember traveling with my relatives to HPs still functioning City Hall to pay parking fines and/or inquire about city services. The last time I drove past the area where City Hall is located everything looked bombed out -- again, a far cry from how it looked 15 or so years ago. |
Lowell
Moderator
Username: Lowell
Post Number: 5190
Registered: 09-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 5:53 pm: | |
The triumph of the auto-culture has left us largely helpless, except for situations were population density is so great the cars are an impediment, like in Manhattan.
I am not sure what HP's ordinances are, but most jurisdictions require x number of parking spaces or the zoning boards won't let it happen. I became familiar with this when I was contracted to set up the area's first cyber-cafe in B'ham in 95. The owners had to crawl before the zoning commission several times and jump through several hoops to be meet that criteria. [Of course once the got it and opened they totally ignored it and no one cared. LOL]
Just saying your business is all foot based and will be good for everybody, community and all won't wash. Everyone knows folks will still come in their cars and choke off existing businesses, unless there is zero parking. In a way, Model T Plaza is almost a caricature of what the plant behind it brought to the world. The Michigan Theater/parking lot, site of Henry Ford's original shop is similarly ironic. |
Townonenorth
Member
Username: Townonenorth
Post Number: 429
Registered: 10-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 6:04 pm: | |
Lowell is correct. Planning commissions are notorious for picking on parking as a needed evil. God forbid you don't have enough spaces.
I know of nice respectable businesses that were told flat out (bakeries and restaurants) that the buildings they wanted to locate in were not suitable to their purposes because they lacked parking.
They still sit, vacant. Go figure. |
Sumas
Member
Username: Sumas
Post Number: 398
Registered: 01-2008
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 7:20 pm: | |
Everyone has given me something to think about. I remember Jefferson Chalmers, Seven & Gratiot and of course downtown. We took the bus everywhere. Back then the bus system was very efficient. Given efficient transit, I prefer the close to the street elevations which are very pedestrian friendly. As a driver, I feel much safer with front lot parking. Don't know why. |
Rooms222
Member
Username: Rooms222
Post Number: 151
Registered: 04-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 7:45 pm: | |
I think the Highland Park developments are of the CPTED or Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design School.
http://www.cptedsecurity.com/c pted_design_guidelines.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPTED
This calls for the open parking in front. Pedestrians and Bus Riders are viewed as potential thieves and vandalizers, and their movements should be controlled upon chosen paths, so entrances are limited.
(Message edited by rooms222 on December 02, 2008) |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 5282
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 8:10 pm: | |
quote:I'm all for a walkable, urban environment. I'm all for efficient timely public transportation. But none of this matters if we don't have business to fill the retail spots, as well as an effective police force to protect it.
I wonder how many would-be businesses never open simply because they are required by law to spend tens of thousands of dollars providing a "free" good, that being parking. Imagine how much more money 3rdworldcity's friends could have made through their "charity work" if Highland Park didn't require them to pave the vast majority of their property with asphalt. |
Detroitrise
Member
Username: Detroitrise
Post Number: 3974
Registered: 09-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 8:34 pm: | |
quote:And not so much of the city burned in 1967.
But the densest neighborhoods did (like 12th street).
Whatever areas didn't "burn" were destroyed to the point where the businesses just left & these storefronts became victims of our demolition sprees.
Also, good mass trainsit infrastructure leads to more urban development (since you can have better walkability & less parking). |
Townonenorth
Member
Username: Townonenorth
Post Number: 430
Registered: 10-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 8:51 pm: | |
I saw a study once somewhere calculating the cost of "free" parking.
Here's a similar article, but not the one I had read originally.
http://www.emagazine.com/view/ ?2418 |
|
New threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.