  E_hemingway Member Username: E_hemingway Post Number: 489 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.42.176.123 |
A rebirth on the city's riverfront Condos to be built where silos stood February 15, 2006 BY JOHN GALLAGHER FREE PRESS BUSINESS WRITER In the latest good news for Detroit's riverfront, athletes-turned-businessmen Jerome Bettis and Dave Bing were chosen Tuesday to build multimillion-dollar residential and retail projects where cement silos stood for decades. Following waterfront improvements like the city's RiverWalk now under construction, the projects promise to turn Detroit's riverfront from a semi-industrial wasteland into a lively neighborhood where residents can live, dine, shop and enjoy splendid views of the river. http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs .dll/article?AID=2006602150409 Itsjeff might also want to take notice of the last quote in the story: "What we like about this" is that the developers "are very anxious to get in the ground as soon as possible," DEGC staffer Peter Zeiler said Tuesday. | ||
Merchantgander Member Username: Merchantgander Post Number: 1582 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 150.198.164.127 |
I don't know who this Peter Zeiler cat is but he is always quoted in articles about developments that never happen. He must be one of KK high school buddies.  | ||
Merchantgander Member Username: Merchantgander Post Number: 1583 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 150.198.164.127 |
I see that KDG is involved with the project. I wonder if they will be willing to post some rendering on here so Danindc can criticize them. | ||
Itsjeff Member Username: Itsjeff Post Number: 5523 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.42.168.211 |
E_hemingway, thanks, but this story is worthless without a picture of Peter Zeiler. | ||
E_hemingway Member Username: E_hemingway Post Number: 492 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.42.176.123 |
As if pictures of Mr. Zeiler have never graced this forum before. I thought someone as creative as yourself would jump at any chance show off your photoshop skills. | ||
Rust Member Username: Rust Post Number: 93 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 64.118.136.130 |
Good job KDG! The designs look great! Your office has to be getting pretty busy. (You wouldn't happen to need any structural engineering or IT help?) Only question I have is will public access to the river be allowed at both sites? | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1216 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.251.23 |
Looks like a retirement community. | ||
Jdkeepsmiling Member Username: Jdkeepsmiling Post Number: 32 Registered: 01-2006 Posted From: 208.50.91.234 |
I have to be honest, i was hoping that at least one of the parcels would de developed into something of a little higher density. Where are the 20 story condo developments? I think that there is a market for a high rise condo building in the redeveloped riverfront. Evenryone seems to think the future of Detroit is in 4 story condo buildings with court in the center, where is the urbanness in this design???? This could be anywhere. | ||
Rusty Member Username: Rusty Post Number: 379 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 71.194.127.158 |
Just based on the photo, reminds me of the Riverfront Towers Complex. I thought the main focus of the new riverfront was to make the area more inviting and people friendly? | ||
Bob Member Username: Bob Post Number: 756 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 152.163.100.8 |
We can criticize it, but it is development that is in Detroit, not out at 60 Mile Road. I this this is great about the amount of people that are investing in Detroit. In bringing their offices, to new housing. This is all good news. | ||
Jdkeepsmiling Member Username: Jdkeepsmiling Post Number: 34 Registered: 01-2006 Posted From: 208.50.91.234 |
I was not arguing that this is good news.... i mean someone pulling a permit to reroof thier house is a success for the city. I was just saying that we seem to be stuck in this 4-5 story stuff with a garden court. It looks like it could be in Livonia. | ||
Merchantgander Member Username: Merchantgander Post Number: 1584 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 150.198.164.127 |
Skulker, do you know if the DECG is selling the land to the developers or giving it to them. I’m hoping for the day when Detroit can sell land at market value to developers instead of giving it away so the development can happen. Unfortunately I don’t think Detroit is there yet. | ||
Lurker Member Username: Lurker Post Number: 1580 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 65.196.220.198 |
I think they should build the original vision of the Fisher Building complex on top of Chene Park. Worry about filling it later. On the Hudsons's block, they should build an exact replica of the Hudson's building. I'm sure they'll find a tenant at some point. Oh yeah, and the city should only approve single family home building permits for victorian style homes. Let's turn back the clock 100 years instead of moving forward. | ||
Mind_field Member Username: Mind_field Post Number: 498 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 209.240.205.61 |
wow, KDG is ubiquitous in Detroit redevelopment these days. | ||
Jdkeepsmiling Member Username: Jdkeepsmiling Post Number: 35 Registered: 01-2006 Posted From: 208.50.91.234 |
Lurker must be a modern achitecture guy....... shiny steel and glass or nothing. | ||
Detroitman Member Username: Detroitman Post Number: 910 Registered: 06-2004 Posted From: 216.78.40.16 |
Overall I like the design of the project, can't wait to see what the finished product will look like. | ||
Dialh4hipster Member Username: Dialh4hipster Post Number: 1430 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.61.187.234 |
I think Lurker is more a pragmatist who realizes that new architecture made to look old ends up just looking stupid. | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1217 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.251.23 |
Lurker - Nobody thus far has suggested that they build something old looking. Not in this thread, nor in the hudsons block thread. Its not helpful in the debate of rebuilding Detroit to polarize it by portraying points of views which noone shares in an attempt to make those you disagree with sound out of the mainstream. Good design doesn't involve making everything look old and nobody has shared that opinion. What is troubling, is that the riverfront is being sold as this urban village, yet most of what we are seeing proposed resembles nothing of the sort. A Staples near RiverPlace. A massive Bob Maxey Ford dealership parking lot. And now a semi-gated style retirement community that doesn't look like an urban village at all, but more like a campus more suitable for a medical center. Yes. Its all good development for the city. I think everyone agrees with that, so lets move on and just set that aside already as a given. But the disconnect between the vision that is being set as an urban village, and what is actually happening and being proposed is odd. | ||
1953 Member Username: 1953 Post Number: 683 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 209.104.146.146 |
Why does KDG keep proposing the same design? First for the Hudson's block, now for the riverfront? And why are they so ugly? Someone should put them out of their misery. (Message edited by 1953 on February 15, 2006) | ||
Rust Member Username: Rust Post Number: 94 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 64.118.136.130 |
I disagree with mindset that believes that Detroit needs to be rebuilt on the skyscaper model. IMO the best cities in the world are built on the scale around 4-6 stories. higher than that and parking, traffic, and other basic quality of life issues are compromised. The skylines of New York and Chicago look great from afar but are they walkable for the daily resident are they cheery and sunlit do they relate to the pedestrian on the street or do the overpower them? New skyscapers in Detroit due to the lack of a true mass transit system create huge demands for parking lots and parking structures which decrease the walkability and vibrancy of the community, yes the may be grand from afar, but that mostly satisfies just the ego. Detroit rebuilt on the human scale will be much more interesting vibrant and sustainable. | ||
Lurker Member Username: Lurker Post Number: 1582 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 65.196.220.198 |
You got me. Actually, I like a variety of architecture and prefer that a city offers that. People around here seem to have an affinity for Chicago. You know what Chicago has a lot of? Courtyard buildings, usually about 4-5 stories tall. That and brownstones is pretty much what defines their neighborhoods. Difference is, their courtyard buildings are 75+ years old (and have been occupied the whole time), whereas Detroit is now starting to build some new ones. New builds sometimes means new styles of architecture. Granted, Chicago's lakeshore is lined with high rises, something Detroit's market can't support right now. It took, what, a year, for the first Riverfront Tower to sell out? And that was with 60% of their renters buying places. Try finding enough people to fill a brand new 28 story building right now in Detroit. It's not going to happen. So, at this point in time, Detroit is going to have smaller developments, which are all victories at this point in time. Everyone on here is entitled to their opinion of the style and use of the buildings, just as I can have my opinion of being happy that we have more taxpayers in this city. Detroit's time will come for the big developments, and I am patient enough to wait. | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1218 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.251.23 |
I'd like to add that I appreciate the development up to the riverwalk, I think that is a nice touch that will make the riverwalk connected to the development. And I also like the building facing the road, although I don't understand the setback that appears to be about as deep as half the buildings depth. | ||
Merchantgander Member Username: Merchantgander Post Number: 1585 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 150.198.164.127 |
Bob Maxey and Staples are both off of Jefferson so who cares that is where these types of businesses should be located. People you cannot get a feel for how this development is going to fit in with the surrounding environment from a rendering. This is not going to be a gated community and it doesn’t look like a medical center. I’m starting to think that this website needs a name change. Maybe bitchfest.com or Icomplainabouteverything.com works better. WTF | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3536 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
Lets go over this again. The City of Detroit and the EDC worked with a high profile urban planning and design firm to draw up design guidelines for the area based on market conditions, keeping space open for public use and the desire to create a walkable, pedestrian area. The final vision, adopted by the City Council, and blessed by the Mayor, City Planning Commission, Planning and Development and neighboring community groups contemplates a low to mid rise high density, streetfront oriented walkable village. Building a 20 story high rise necessitates a very large parking deck plopped righ on the river to accommodate the needs of the residents. A large parking deck is NOT condusive to a walkable urban environment. Go visit the RiverFront Towers to get an idea of what high rise on the river means fo pedestrian access and massive parking needs. A 20 story high rise blocks the view of the river for development further behind. By stepping heights up as one get further away the river allows folks to still build high rise along Jefferson where the match the scale of the street and do not impose a barrier to the access on the river. The seven parcels that were up for bid totaled about 1/3 of the roughly 45 acres available through the City in th area. The projected housing market in the next 5 -7 years for that area is 1,500 units. To build one 20 story high rise on one site with an avergae of 15 units per floor would mean 20% of the market capacity would have been absorbed by 4% of the available land. Following this route would leave you with high rise towers surrouned by blight because all market capacity had been absorbed. Think a tricycle in a 3-car garage. The FAR of 4.5-5.0 (Floor Area Ratio, or how many square feet of built space is contained on each square foot of land. Thus a building fully occupying one acre that is five stories high would have an FAR of 5) in the area is entirely appropriate. A 20 story high rise would have an FAR of 20. An entirely innapropriate ratio. 20 story towers are more appropriate on the west riverfront, abutting the Riverfront Towers.
I disagree. I don't think either look like a retirement community. That said, would a development oriented towards empty nesters be so bad? I think it would be great. Emptynesters have lots of disposable income, tend to be very active and tend to become involved with community and other volunteer organizatins. Certainly wouldn't want retired executives with money to burn and experience to lend to organizations like FOBI settling in our city instead of a Novi condo, now would we? | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1219 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.251.23 |
You are just starting to think that?? 1585 posts and you just came to this conclusion now?? WTF. | ||
Sharmaal Member Username: Sharmaal Post Number: 722 Registered: 09-2004 Posted From: 136.2.1.103 |
I always thought that if you want to build another tall complex (16 stories +) you should do it on the north side of Jefferson. The reason being that people still have a view of the river. Also, if you place it over a parking structure, even the lower units will be pretty high up. Skulker care to comment on my idea. Granted I'm not in this line of work, but it's a Vision I have. | ||
Dialh4hipster Member Username: Dialh4hipster Post Number: 1431 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.61.187.234 |
WTF is right. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3537 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
Looking at the rendering one the Freep Website gives a disroted view of the Bing development. Grab a copy of the paper and look at the ground perspective. It gives a much different feel for the development. The City Homes portion of the development (the two buildings along Atwater)is a three story builing that comes directly to the sidewalk and contains 8,000 square feet of street front retail. The aerial view shows the road infrastrure necessary to move parking for 100 residential units, 8,000 square feet of retail and guest parking. The average joe walking or driving along the street does not see or encounter this infrastructure. IMO, KDG did a very good job on creating balance between public space (streetfront retail and meshing with the RiverWalk) with the privacy, safety and circulation needs of the residents.) The only other solutions would to be to bury ALL parking (an EXTREMELY expensive and impractical solution that close to the river, you know collapsing riverbanks while excavating, seeping water etc) or build a deck that covers the entire area wit the development on top of the deck. This also is an impractical solution with its own design challnges. | ||
1953 Member Username: 1953 Post Number: 686 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 209.104.146.146 |
Look, if you want to develop small, ugly buildings, you are more than entitled to do so. Just don't do it along Detroit's gold coast. Do it in Delray. Come on people, let's dream bigger. P.S. Chicago wants to be us. We are older. | ||
Merchantgander Member Username: Merchantgander Post Number: 1586 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 150.198.164.127 |
It didn't take me 1585 post to figure that out. I know there are allot of clueless armchair developers and wannabe uban designers here since I started reading this site years ago. | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1220 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.251.23 |
Also filled with a lot of arrogant developers who like to tell the public what they want. | ||
Bindetroit Member Username: Bindetroit Post Number: 1248 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.215.79.21 |
Start work this summer? Be up and running in two years? Sounds like a "done deal." Now all they need to do is negotiate a development agreement, get City Council approval, secure financing, complete their due diligence, acquire title, close on the land, rezone the property, complete the environmental clean-up, build whatever is finally approved, and sell the units. Perhaps it's a little early to start packing. | ||
Jdkeepsmiling Member Username: Jdkeepsmiling Post Number: 36 Registered: 01-2006 Posted From: 208.50.91.234 |
Skulker, I think that my refrain for tall buildings was misunderstood. I understand all that you are saying about what the market can support, and how we want to make a walkable community here. I really have no issue with the demographis they are trying to pull in or anything of that nature. I just fully admit to being a tall building guy. I was thinking exactly of the north cost of Chicago when i heard that the riverfront would be redeveloped, so you got me there Skulker. It does make me feel better that there is the potential for some taller development set back along Jefferson. It just seems to me that the river is such a valuble resource, and to put a 4 story subrban style complex is not in the long term best interests of the city. However, I am not one to argue market rate development in Detroit, whatever its form, so I am not really complaining, just expressing a viewpoint. To Merchantgander, I beleive that expressing a viewpoint is exactly what the purpose of these forums are, so I don't understand where you get off complaining about other people complaining. If you don't want to hear people complain, start a blog, where only your opinon is published. I tend to think of these forums as kind of a common class debate forum, where we can all throw ideas around and see what sticks. BTW, I like modern architecture as musch as anyhting else, it just has to be done tastefully. I don't beleive that just becasue something is modern it automatically becomes good. God knows how many bad interpretations of FLW I have seen out there. I just want something that has an actual identity, as opposed to looking like something that could be plopped anywhere. Does anyone out there know if there is a plan to put retail direectly on the riverwalk, such as an ice cream parlor, or is it all going to be part of the developments that connect to the riverwalk? | ||
Merchantgander Member Username: Merchantgander Post Number: 1587 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 150.198.164.127 |
Arrogant developers build what the public wants if they didn't they would lose their ass. They might not build what the person who is never going to buy or move into the area wants or the person that saw Detroit’s river front two years ago and might come back someday wants to look at. (Statement not directed at anyone person) | ||
Atl_runner Member Username: Atl_runner Post Number: 1815 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.209.118.72 |
Thank you! Thank You! Starting at moderate and going from there is perfect. Thank god there is no low income req to meet. | ||
Merchantgander Member Username: Merchantgander Post Number: 1588 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 150.198.164.127 |
JD I complain because it is always the same 5 or 6 people that bitch about every development in the city. | ||
Jdkeepsmiling Member Username: Jdkeepsmiling Post Number: 37 Registered: 01-2006 Posted From: 208.50.91.234 |
Merchantgander, Fair enough, but there have to be those to argue against the ones who get on thier knees and worship every development in the city, otherwise we would never have a good debate | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1221 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.251.23 |
MG - Developers in Detroit and city planners have gotten it wrong over and over again. Riverfront Towers, Joe Louis and COBO, GM's poletown plant. One overthought development after another. All big fat failures. If there is a a reason that some people sound like they are skeptical of city planners and developers in Detroit, its for good reason. They have a track record that stinks. Sorry, if "trust us, we know what we're doing" or "any development is good development" doesn't cut it. If ever there was an argument against any development being good development, Detroit is a great example. Compare the riverfront vision that was universally embraced... http://www.detnews.com/apps/pb cs.dll/article?AID=/20060120/B IZ/601200381/1001 with the proposal that is shown today. Not really the same thing. (Message edited by gogo on February 15, 2006) | ||
Jdkeepsmiling Member Username: Jdkeepsmiling Post Number: 38 Registered: 01-2006 Posted From: 208.50.91.234 |
Gogo, you are referancing different parcels of land. I have no doubt that what is pictured in your link may come to fruition, but that is in the River East area, being developed by GM. This parcel that we are talking about is East of that and is on the sight of the old silos. I believe that the redering released today is the first of this proposed redevelopment. | ||
Merchantgander Member Username: Merchantgander Post Number: 1589 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 150.198.164.127 |
Gogo I would disagree that all of the projects you listed have been complete failures. | ||
Dabirch Member Username: Dabirch Post Number: 1376 Registered: 06-2004 Posted From: 208.44.117.10 |
Ummm...1980's, 1980's, 1960's, 1980's Not sure if any of those people are still alive -- let alone actively planning any of these projects. Now, look at what the recent cast has done: Campus Martius; CoPa; Ford Field; River Walk... Let us not point to failures of the past (when the entire rationale for development and urban planning/renewal schools of thought were much different) to anticipate what will come of today's planning. Different mindset, different people, different goals, and (hopefully) different outcomes. | ||
Merchantgander Member Username: Merchantgander Post Number: 1590 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 150.198.164.127 |
Excellent post Dabirch | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1222 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.251.23 |
The success of a project cannot be measure 5 years after its done. The true test is over the long haul. I'm unsure some would point to Comerica Park as a successful development, creating another large abandoned structure and simply shifting activity from one area of the city to another. At best its a wash as far as what it has done for the city. I agree that many new developments are certainly going in a good direction. Does that mean that we should all sit back and let the city planners and developers take over again? Does it mean that they should be deaf to the desires of the people who live here? Isn't that what allowed projects like the ones of the 60-80's happen in the first place? | ||
Jdkeepsmiling Member Username: Jdkeepsmiling Post Number: 39 Registered: 01-2006 Posted From: 208.50.91.234 |
Here Here Dabirch. I mean just walk along Woodward between Campus Martius and Grand Circus Park....thats positive development. | ||
Bob Member Username: Bob Post Number: 758 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 152.163.100.8 |
Even though Tiger Stadium is abandoned, Corktown itself has continued to survive and attract development and retain its residents. | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1223 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.251.23 |
Its interesting that people point to woodward between CMP and GCP, Corktown and Ford Field as models of successful developments in the city. All of which involve restoration/rehab of existing structures, and not razing everything to build something new. | ||
Lurker Member Username: Lurker Post Number: 1583 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 65.196.220.198 |
Like razing concrete silos to build condos? Should they have rebuilt those historic structures? | ||
Jdkeepsmiling Member Username: Jdkeepsmiling Post Number: 40 Registered: 01-2006 Posted From: 208.50.91.234 |
Gogo, also included in that strech would be Compuware, and the new deck with the CVS in it. Defintely not rehab. Also the very park you start at CMP was not even there ten years ago, so i would say it is agood mix of redev and nc. Unfortunatly, last time I checked, it was hard to turn a cement silo into lofts, so it had to come down. | ||
Dabirch Member Username: Dabirch Post Number: 1377 Registered: 06-2004 Posted From: 208.44.117.10 |
Bring back the berms! | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3538 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
Gogo: I am beginning to strongly doubt your ability to look at pictures and visualize what the fianl build out will be. The developments selected meet the guidelines of the East Riverfront District in term of zero lot linbe build out on streetways, active first floor retail and a solid urban street wall. Are you basing your opinion solely on the aerial view on the Freep website? If so you are not comparing street perspective to street perspective. Pick up a physical copy of the paper. The images there are very similar to the ones you linked to in the GM story. | ||
Merchantgander Member Username: Merchantgander Post Number: 1591 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 150.198.164.127 |
Gogo, I’m curious what have you done the last 40 years to stop city planners and developers projects that don't live up to your standards. | ||
Swingline Member Username: Swingline Post Number: 402 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 172.132.224.240 |
It is definitely wise to maintain a healthy skepticism of municipal planning in Detroit. The decade-long (or more)tardiness of our planning powers that be to embrace the benefits of adaptive reuse, historic preservation and the remaking of the CBD and the riverfront into residential uses provide more than enough reason to exercise vigilance. Having said that, I like the scale of the two proposed projects. Hi rise development is not needed south of Jefferson. Our riverfront is not going to replicate N. Lakeshore Drive in Chicago. We have to get that through our heads. Rust's post #94 above is an excellent and succinct statement of the context of these issues and the goals that Detroit should have for this area. Most folks in the planning soups get it these days and we are seeing development that is stabilizing Detroit's tax base and attracting taxpayers. But politics is never out of the picture though. And politics can produce bad results. Does anybody think that we are past the days of favored "developers" or "co-developers" getting awarded projects that require little or no equity and are guaranteed a nice return because the city pays for all the new infrastructure costs? The vision that the soups and the Riverfront Conservancy has produced for the riverfront is a good one. These projects seem to fit in with the vision. I'm anxious to see the bricks and mortar. | ||
Darwinism Member Username: Darwinism Post Number: 400 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 69.215.30.34 |
Thou shall not be skeptics ..... If Skulker endorses the projects, they shall be treated as sacred commandments. Not to be debated, not to be critisized, not to even be questioned in any shape way or form, period. Don't even try to compare Detroit's waterfront developments to Chicago's or Cleveland's or anywhere else, because that is not acceptable. Heed the warning before lightning strikes you. | ||
Dabirch Member Username: Dabirch Post Number: 1378 Registered: 06-2004 Posted From: 208.44.117.10 |
Finally Darwinism is beginning to see the light
Damn straight they are both lakes we are just a little river.
Good, then we are all in agreement. | ||
Upinottawa Member Username: Upinottawa Post Number: 196 Registered: 09-2005 Posted From: 198.103.184.76 |
Could someone scan the freep images (with legal credits, etc.)? | ||
Rust Member Username: Rust Post Number: 97 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 64.118.136.130 |
Chicago's waterfront is great, probably the most impressive in the world. Detroit has the oppurtunity to also have a world class waterfront. It should evolve somewhat organically. We should necessarily try to mimic another city. I once was also of the mindset of "lets model Jefferson Avenue after Sheridan/Lakeshore Dr. in Chicago" but Detroit is a different city. The river is a different scale than Lake Michigan we already have some great buildings (Stroh's riverplace for example) along the river. Chicago filled in Lake Michigan in a huge landfill operation to create their park system. This enabled to them to create a clear divide (Sheridan Ave.) between the city and the park system. It also allowed them to put Lakeshore Drive in the middle of the park system creating the stunning views of the Lake and city. Realize those stunning views are only afforded to the apartment/condo dwellers living in the wall of building lining Sheridan the rest enjoy the view from the park system. In Detroit the majority of the land between Jefferson and the river is private, contains great architecture and can be developed in a way that is truly unique and peculiarly Detroit. Perhaps in some ways it will can be better than Chicago. Lets adaptively reuse what can be salvaged of the existing architecture and complement it with new architecture that adds to the vibrancy and scale of the waterfront. Lets keep access to the river open to the pedestrian/biker. I think on this measure KDG has achieved success with their design. | ||
Llyn Member Username: Llyn Post Number: 1415 Registered: 06-2004 Posted From: 68.61.197.206 |
I'm a little surprised that some of my esteemed forumers want to build large towers right on the river. It was just a few years ago that Comerica was roundly criticized for wanting to build a tower and "wall off the river". What's with you people! If I have any criticism of the project at all, it's that I would've hoped that the whole riverfront south of Atwater would be turned into park and not developed, with development taking place across the street only. That said, I much prefer the smaller buildings rather than building a shield of steel and glass along the riverfront. It's not that I don't like tall buildings... I very much do! It's just inappropriate in that neighborhood. And I don't understand how someone can criticize the city for the way it's handled historic properties (some of which (ML) is justified (ML) in my opinion (ML)) and at the same time want to disrupt the character of an existing historic neighborhood by constucting tall buildings all out of proportion to the surrounding fabric. At least be somewhat consistent with height requirements. And... "disroted view" "fianl" "zero lot linbe build out" skulker, have you become the street prophet? "Like razing concrete silos to build condos? Should they have rebuilt those historic structures?" *gasp* *sputter* Stop it lurker! Wait, what if we updated those silos... windows in the upper levels with lace curtains (I mean how expensive can it be to core through 2 feet of concrete)? Some large tasty french doors where the trucks used to drive in? | ||
Hornwrecker Member Username: Hornwrecker Post Number: 816 Registered: 04-2005 Posted From: 63.41.8.94 |
Real estate: A rebirth on the city's riverfront Condos to be built where silos stood. February 15, 2006  An artist's rendering of Chene West, one of the planned developments on the riverfront. The project is headed by ex-Detroit Piston Dave Bing. Ex-Pittsburgh Steeler Jerome Bettis is involved with a nearby project. (Kraemer Design Group) Copyright © 2006 Detroit Free Press Inc. Not cheese-gratery enough for my taste. (Message edited by Hornwrecker on February 15, 2006) | ||
Lurker Member Username: Lurker Post Number: 1585 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 65.196.220.198 |
Also keep in mind that since the Freep changed their web design, they haven't been able to post a clear picture or drawing of anything. It's always out of focus. | ||
Rusty Member Username: Rusty Post Number: 380 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 71.194.127.158 |
I thought this area was supposed to be an urban village? Why the need for privacy and "safety fences" IMO, this would be fine, if located on the other side of the road. Especially if bordered by other structures to help create a nice street wall. However since the lot is located in the middle of two public parks, I think it should be left untouched and added to the park system. That would create a welcoming view of the river from the street. | ||
Hornwrecker Member Username: Hornwrecker Post Number: 818 Registered: 04-2005 Posted From: 63.41.8.94 |
Lurker, it took a lot of tweaking in PS to even get it looking that bad, the Freep has a bad astigmatism. | ||
Lurker Member Username: Lurker Post Number: 1586 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 65.196.220.198 |
What fences, Rusty? | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1224 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.251.23 |
Yes. I understand renderings are often not very accurate, that is why I've curbed my critism. I think the main idea of having build out to the riverwalk and to the street is good. The rendering seems to have an odd setback which could just be the odd perspective. I didn't mean to imply that cement silos should be redeveloped into a boutique hotel. I was referring to the many many buildings razed between Jefferson and the river which could contribute to the urban feel that have made so many areas of Detroit vibrant (greektown, corktown, midtown). CVS, Compuware were built on existing blocks which compliment the neighborhood they surround. This rendering looks like a bunch of buildings scattered about a parcel of land (like a campus). | ||
Gambling_man Member Username: Gambling_man Post Number: 646 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 199.178.193.5 |
That looks like Chene Park and the Marina in the picture........isn't the Marina EAST of Chene Park? | ||
Ndavies Member Username: Ndavies Post Number: 1644 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 129.9.163.233 |
Nope, the State Park marina is west of Chene park. | ||
Merchantgander Member Username: Merchantgander Post Number: 1592 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 150.198.164.127 |
http://www.detroitriverfront.o rg/img_content/drc/DRFC_Compos ite_11x17_large.jpg This might help. | ||
Bobj Member Username: Bobj Post Number: 451 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 65.221.183.120 |
More good news! | ||
Tetsua Member Username: Tetsua Post Number: 524 Registered: 01-2004 Posted From: 69.246.5.196 |
Here's a much better looking image of both drawings http://www.freep.com/assets/st atic/pdf/front.pdf | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1225 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.251.23 |
Thanks Tetsua. This perspective is much more flattering. The setback isn't as prominent from this view. | ||
Llyn Member Username: Llyn Post Number: 1416 Registered: 06-2004 Posted From: 68.61.197.206 |
I find myself liking the pictures of both projects in the screenshot. Especially the Betters project. The Bing project may need more of a "stone" feel to the building facade to really fit the neighborhood. I like the design, though. I know, I suck. Live with it. | ||
Eric Member Username: Eric Post Number: 338 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 35.11.210.161 |
The aerial doesn't do the Bing project justice seeing it from the ground gives a much better feel of how it'll turn out. The only thing I'd change are the townhouses those should replaced with a building more like those along Atwater | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3539 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
Or perhaps the market conditions needed to make such projects happen weren't here..... Gogo: As I suspected, once you were able to see the full set of renderings you could see the vision in the project. Nothing like jumping to conclusions and assuming the worst, eh? Darwinism: Are you going to add something useful to this thread? | ||
Tetsua Member Username: Tetsua Post Number: 525 Registered: 01-2004 Posted From: 69.246.5.196 |
What is proposed for the remaining parcels of land in the river east district? Are they supposed to be strictly residential, or is it mixed. | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1226 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.251.23 |
As far as development in Detroit goes, I think its always safer to assume the worst. What is the advantage/disadvantage of having Bettis develope multiple sites along the riverfront. I'd think it'd make more sense to have multiple developers handle different areas rather than having one, especially since the Uniroyal site hasn't even started. | ||
Lurker Member Username: Lurker Post Number: 1588 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 65.196.220.198 |
I think he has a finite amount of money that he is willing to invest for the riverfront. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3543 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
Bettis Betters bid on more than just the parcel they were awarded. Risk management, design diversification and the desire to encourage competition drove them not being selected for more parcels in this area. Local developers already have people in place to do projects, but they also sometimes have blinders on to real opportunity because they are not seeing the picture in context. Out of town developers have to set up satellite offices and learn the lay of the land in a new town, all of which adds expense and makes it more difficult for out of towners, but out of towners often have fresh eyes and aren't needlessly jaded. Bettis Betters still have fresh eyes, but have a lot of the local infrastructure now in place to make this a good deal for them. The EDC awarded these parcels based on the experience and cacapcity of the developer as well as the overall quality of proposal and its harmony with the District Plan. If it has been awarded it was clearly the best proposal for that parcel. If nothing has been awarded for a parcel, then either there weren't quality proposals or the EDC is still trying to sort through competing quality proposals. Thats your perogiative. It has been my experience that an approach such as that is just as bad as being hopelessly optimistic. If you assume everything will suck, it blinds to what is good and blinds you to what is necessary to make things better. It becomes a self fulfilling prophesy. Thats really too bad for you. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3544 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
Now all they need to do is... negotiate a development agreement, Developers already have a copy of the standard development agreement that will be the form of agreement. get City Council approval, Council has already approved transfer of the land predicated on the EDC plan for the area, based largely upon the District Plan. No other Council approvals are needed except for any NEZ or brownfield incentives. secure financing, Developers needed to show evidence of pre-commitment letters for bank financing as part of their RFP response three months ago, they are well along their way. complete their due diligence, MDEQ and DEA have already conducted environmental due dillgence that will be shared with developers. acquire title, Title is transfered at financial closing. close on the land, Land is closed when they close their financing. rezone the property, Land is already rezoned SD4 which allows the proposed developments. complete the environmental clean-up, That can be started relatively quickly and is what most folks anticpate when they say work could begin this summer. build whatever is finally approved, The developers are going to knock each other over to be first in ground. and sell the units. Sales will likely start in late spring. Most of this activity is concurrent and not necessarily critical pathway type stuff. | ||
Jjaba Member Username: Jjaba Post Number: 3087 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 67.160.138.107 |
Is Jerome Bettis also building on the US Rubber E. Jefferson brownfield site? jjaba | ||
Royce Member Username: Royce Post Number: 1442 Registered: 07-2004 Posted From: 70.227.217.52 |
Building on the river is great. However, building these two residential developments next to an amphitheater that has musical acts performing from late spring to early fall will be a tough selling point for prospective buyers. Now, if rumors are true that Chene Park will be moved to the Ford Auditorium/Hart Plaza area, then it's not a problem. Also, I was just on Atwater today and observed that the cement silo to the east of Chene Park is being torn down. Next to the silo is a shipping lane, which appears to be a boat slip in the artist rendering. Between the shipping lane and the eastern boundary of Chene Park, there's not a lot of room. So whatever they build there is going to have a tight fit. From looking at the rendering, it's not quite clear where the garage entrances go. I'm just curious where the residents will park there cars. BTW, the Detroit Riverfront Conservancy still plans on cutting Atwater off at Orleans to make more room for Tri-centennial Park. I think Atwater should remain open because, like Lakeshore Drive in Chicago or the Grosse Pointes, there should be a road where you can see the river while driving. The fact is I don't always want to get out of my car to see the river, especially in the winter. Also, I like taking serene scenic drives from time to time. Rerouting traffic from Atwater to Franklin destroys these opportunities. It is a shortsighted decision given the fact that Atwater is the closest street to the Detroit River, and only travels a short distance. I would think that it would be a given that this street would remain open, but I've seen how easy this city can close off streets, so I'm not surprised. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3546 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.42.168.34 |
The planning for Chene Park is moving right along. Yep, look at the hard copy of the article, it shows the site is less than 2 acres. Th Bing development has a parking deck that the marian homes and condo tower sit on. Look at the rendering, the entrance to the left hand side underneath the condo tower, with a loop drive way for pick up / drops offs. Bettis Betters sit on a parking agrage hat is fronted by teh retail component with entry off Atwater. The Conservancy would not be responsible for the closing of Atwater. It would be MDNR and the decision is far from set in stone. I would lay odds it won't be closed. | ||
Merchantgander Member Username: Merchantgander Post Number: 1594 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 150.198.164.127 |
Skulker will the city be receiving any funds for the land? Anything close to market value. | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1227 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.251.23 |
Regarding development in Detroit. Its track record speaks for itself. While I see great developments all around, I also see many many many missed opportunities and bad urban design. And not just in the 70s and 80s. MGM casino, American Axle, the New Federal Reserve, PWC, all done in recent years. The riverfront development says things like an "urban village" then immediately proceeds to raze everything urban in sight including many structures along Franklin street. The design of the parcel shown in this article has many nice features, however it still resembles something of a campus with many unrelated buildings squished together rather than an urban village. It reminds me of the buildings built E. of Ford Field. The PWC and parking structure. Its in an urban environment. Its built up to the street. And yet it somehow doesn't live up to what it could be. Seems more like a campus than anything urban. | ||
1953 Member Username: 1953 Post Number: 687 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 209.104.146.146 |
Amen Gogo! | ||
Llyn Member Username: Llyn Post Number: 1417 Registered: 06-2004 Posted From: 68.61.197.206 |
Doesn't the new road accomplish the same thing as Atwater does now? It curves around the state park and connects back to Atwater per the renderings... "perogiative" "parking agrage hat is fronted by teh retail component" Yep, skulker really is the street prophet... | ||
Rsa Member Username: Rsa Post Number: 776 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 70.227.13.69 |
royce, you should check out a place called belle isle. really great scenic drives... so...any word on when we'll hear about the other sites? hmmm? | ||
Jjaba Member Username: Jjaba Post Number: 3089 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 67.160.138.107 |
Skulker tells it like it tis. There's a lotta hoops for The Bus to push through. jjaba invokes Skippers Rules, believe it when you see it in Detroit. jjaba | ||
Michikraut Member Username: Michikraut Post Number: 105 Registered: 05-2004 Posted From: 80.136.127.229 |
hmmm- "jdkeepsmiling" likes "tall towers" hmmm- Freud has a theory about that? ;-) To keep trying to compare Chicago with Detroit is nonsense- different markets, distances from Downtown,(shopping, cultural events, night life), and demographics. There is no rule to say in the future such developments could not happen. The Towers in Chicago(by Mies van der Rohe??) were also a result of demand for living space in a desirable neighborhood. In fact I believe two or three Mansions (by famous Architects ??(White?) had to make way for the towers, a controversy Detroit is familiar with. Lets face it, nothing is permanent and especially today- the lifespan of a building or developement in only 15-20 years. If by then, the demand is there- Towers will be built. Until then- lets support new developement in Detroit, for the tax base it increase, people it brings to town, and the jobs it will provide. It is alright to critisize but unless one is going to do better and provide an alternative- Well, lets tone down the negativity. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3548 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
Exactly how was American Axle supposed to build an "urban village" with one building on industrially zoned land with freeway frontage? Is is really appropriate to build hhousing and dense urban villages right next to an axle forge? Recall there was once a vibrant neighborhood there that was one of the first to be abandoned because no-one wanted to live next to a fucking axle forge! The same one operating there right now. C'mon Gogo, a truly BAD planning decision would to have been to try to for urbanism on M-4 land. The Federal Reserve has been gone over ad nauseum. The Fed Reserve is built to the specs it has with the setbacks it has for security reasons, plain and simple. Should the City have let the Fed Reserve move out of the City and sit on the land for another 50 years waiting for someone to come a long and build a neighborhood there?
Which were mostly contaminated and obsolete manufacturing facilities that would not convert well to residential or retail uses. Had they been easily converted, they likely would have been converted a long time ago. Everyone likes to get misty eyed about the great bar distirct that was down there. It seems to me if it was really that great and the other building readily adaptable, something would have happened. The main block was the "urban" buildings were contaminated and not suitable for adaptive reuse in any meaningful manner. I agree, PWC is not that urban of a feel but is not much different from offices in other cities with similar locations hard up against major arterials and freeways. Due to the isolation of the site created by the roadways servicing a major freewway exit and entrance and a stadium and you aren't going to get much foot traffic over there from the rest of the CBD, so its design is not offensive and adapts to the real environment of of the area. The renderings of the new plans for east riverfront do seem isolatled because they are not part of a drawing that shows the whole build out of the entire area. The prohjects will be part of the over all fabric. They are the first ones ine the ground so they will seem isolated and disconnected. BECAUSE THEY ARE. Once the tother parcels come on line and are built up the fabric will take shape. Its like looking a triangle of fabric and complaining it doesn't look lik e a quilt. MG: The land will be sold at a cost that will not recoup the WAAAAAAY over market value paid by the casinos (recall the city got this land for free from the casinos) but it will be market sensitive. It is also my understanding that the deals to be negotiated has the EDC getting a share of profits after certain threshholds are met. For example, if the developer is anticipating $200 per foot sales prices and the sales price hits $225, the EDC will get a portion of the extra $25 above projection. Those details are still to be worked out from what I hear. | ||
Merchantgander Member Username: Merchantgander Post Number: 1600 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 150.198.164.127 |
Thank you. That is good to hear. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3550 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
Just to amp that up a little. The acreage came to the city with no purchase costs whatsoever except staff time at P&DD processing the transactions negotiated by the EDC. Even legal tabs were picked up by the casinos. ANY sale proceeds are gravy for the City. | ||
Merchantgander Member Username: Merchantgander Post Number: 1603 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 150.198.164.127 |
I know that it was all part of the casino deals. My only concern was maybe the city was handing the land over for almost nothing. It sounds like a good deal for the city. | ||
Gambling_man Member Username: Gambling_man Post Number: 647 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 199.178.193.5 |
Skulker, be careful when you imply that the casinos paid "market value"......the DEGC took the casinos' money and spent WAAAAAAAY too much for the land on the riverfront..........especially considering they didn't get all of it........ | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3552 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
The higher than market pricing was not a function of careless or indiscriminare spending, it was a function of over zealous juries awarding "fair market values" of 2-3 times more than appraised values on some parcels..... | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 1777 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 4.229.72.205 |
Been away for a while..... looks like I got back and see the same "old vs. new" architecture debate, ad nauseum. Give it up, some prefer old, others new. But to say making new architecture look old looks stupid.... well that's not exactly true. Post Moderne architecture has a certain charm and warmth, that looks anything but stupid. The new GM/UAW center east of River Place is NEW made to look OLD. It looks great! I don't know how this development is going to look, the pic's aren't detailed enough. I just hope that the complex exudes "some" warmth, and not another cold Lafayette Park type environment. And speaking of Lafayette Park, although Mies Van Der Rohe (a fellow German compatriot) did a decent job, the design does lack warmth. But that's a matter of personal taste. Just like the new townhouses on Ferry Ave., warm architectural touches on new buildings (such as brick and stone facing) can add a degree of charm, that is missing from a lot of modern architecture. Well at least the Chene complex doesn't have that "Frank Gehry" charm of crushed tin cans..... And speaking of Frank Gehry (off topic here).... a while back during one of our old vs. new architure discussions, someone mentioned that the Gehry's Guggenheim Museum in Bilboa Spain is "innovative" in its' design (I agree). And it is so well loved that over 6 million people have visited it... Well I found out some interesting facts about those 6 million visitors..... 5.9 million of them were tourists on packaged Spanish bus tours that visited the pilgrimage cities of northern Spain (Leon, Burgos, Santiago de Compostella) and the Guggenheim in Bilboa was added to the package tour itinerary by travel & tourism people.... not folks fighting to get to see the Guggenheim. It would be the same thing as saying that the Fox Theatre has such wonderful architecture that 2 million people come to see it every year.... when we know that most came to see the show! | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1236 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.251.23 |
Gistok - If you are referring to my comments, you have misread them. It is not the style of architecture that concerns me, it is the urban design. Urban design consists of all architecture, new and old. When the city is forced to work with older buildings, they are more likely to work around the urban design of those structures: dense, built up the street, human scale etc. Like the CVS parking garage, or infill housing on the far east side, etc. When the city/developers razes everything and starts from scratch, they take more liberties at modify the urban design of the area and often end up with campuses (PWC, American Axle), large scale sprawling buildings (MGM, Federal Reserve), ,suburban styles (Farmer Jack, Michigan Basics Building) or odd setbacks and lawns which nobody uses (Crains, GM UAW). None of which contribute much to an urban environment. I was not implying that everything should be built with old architectural styles, but in an urban manner which we seem incapable of doing today when given huge swaths of land to develop. | ||
Brian Member Username: Brian Post Number: 3301 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.37.83.110 |
skulker you were doing pretty good until you were asked for financial info. The city and others disagreed on the value. The juries were not over zealous but were provided two scenarios for determining the market value. The riverfront has always been more valuable than similar land in similar condition because of its prime location. (Recall how you said the BC was HOT property and that does not sit on the river.) Other than that skulker I agree with the things you have written and echo a sentiment that some folks here seem to want to wish the worse for Detroit. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3559 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
"Appraised value" means that three seperate and independent real estate valuation firms analysed the properties and gave to the judges and juries their professional and considered opinions of the value of the parcels, give all variables such as condition, location , potential use etc. Those INDEPENDENT and objective valuations were compared to the valuations from the EDC and the valuations from the plaintiff. In all cases the palintiffs valuations were significantly higher than the independent evaluators. In all cases, juries awarded the higher valuation, regardless of the valuation from independent appraisers and in some cases even awarded HIGHER valuations than the plaintiff requested. | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 1794 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 4.229.6.164 |
Gogo, nope, I wasn't referring to your comments! A mix of old and new is fine. I was referring to another comment about making new buildings look old. I just want something with charm to be built there, something that will make people enjoy their surroundings. It can be modern, and yet fun. Speaking of building on the waterfront. In yesterday's Shores Sentinel newspaper, an announcement was made to build a 17 story condo tower located at Miller Marina in St. Clair Shores. This is in addition to a (delayed) 33 story condo tower at Jefferson Beach Marina. These 2 towers will compliment the existing 27 story tower at 9 Mile Rd. All 3 of these are between Jefferson and the water. In SCS this make sense, since the water is not visible from Jefferson. | ||
Royce Member Username: Royce Post Number: 1447 Registered: 07-2004 Posted From: 70.227.217.52 |
Eventhough Atwater is the closest street to the Detroit River in Detroit, it would be nice if a new road was built that would be even closer to the river. Building condos and retail shops between Atwater and this closer river street would be ideal. GM appears to be creating a Riverside Drive that will be south of Atwater, but it ends at Rivard. A road closer to the river and next to the riverwalk would add more activity to the shoreline. People driving along would stop to take pictures, buy a hot dog, etc... Rsa, Belle Isle does offer those scenic driving routes, but why do I have to cross the river to get that river view instead of having those views on the mainland? | ||
E_hemingway Member Username: E_hemingway Post Number: 496 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.42.176.123 |
Just wanted to push this thread into triple-digit posts. | ||
Tetsua Member Username: Tetsua Post Number: 526 Registered: 01-2004 Posted From: 69.246.5.196 |
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs .dll/article?AID=/20060220/BUS INESS04/602200318 | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 1211 Registered: 02-2005 Posted From: 141.213.173.94 |
I love when these generalized 'articles' come out of nowhere. But, he does provide a good summary of what the riverfront ought to be. |
