Discuss Detroit » Archives - Beginning January 2006 » Letter to Staples regarding the building « Previous Next »
Letter to Staples regarding the building - 1Dabirch100 02-23-06  3:14 pm
Letter to Staples regarding the building - 2Rustic100 02-27-06  5:45 pm
  ClosedNew threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.        

Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 1291
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.100.158.10
Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 5:54 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

So once again, it's a case of "It might work everywhere else, but Detroit is different. How dare you compare Detroit to anywhere else."

Ya reap only what ya sow.

It's also interesting that for a city so hellbent on improving its image, it wants to do nothing to improve the substance behind that image. This is
an opportunity to create a fantastic urban space. Of course, it's easier to make excuses and call people names than to ask difficult questions or do any hard thinking.

Yeah, and how dare any out-of-towners actually take an interest in improving Detroit. Shame on me. How could I be so pretentious and arrogant as to demand better for other people?
Top of pageBottom of page

Rustic
Member
Username: Rustic

Post Number: 2119
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 130.132.177.245
Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 6:18 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

DaninDC ... "everywhere else" ... is what you advocate really working "everywhere else"? You seem to consistently fall back on the DC and inside the beltway suburban VA model to support your position time and time again.

There are plenty of cities that are booming and sucessful by any metric that have not followed the model you advocate so strongly.

BTW Detroit and it's inner ring suburbs once upon a time had plenty of really wonderful streetfront shopping districts with rear parking and they have ALL fallen on hard times compared to what they once were (and some hit the skids not THAT long ago). Consider GR/Greenfield, Livernois/7mile, Gratiot/7, GR/Lahser, 9mile/WW, GP shopping, Michigan/Schaeffer, Michigan/westd-bone ... Even 2 or three suburban examples that are not bombed out husks are not even remotely the robust retail/commercial destinations they once were.

(Message edited by rustic on February 27, 2006)
Top of pageBottom of page

Lurker
Member
Username: Lurker

Post Number: 1601
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 65.196.220.198
Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 6:25 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Wheels on the bus go 'round and 'round, 'round and 'round, 'round and 'round...
Top of pageBottom of page

Kazooexplorer
Member
Username: Kazooexplorer

Post Number: 973
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 155.79.138.253
Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 6:31 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Nuh uh Dan, with your condescending tone you do not get to play the martyr. I think it's great that out of towners take an interest in this town and demand better for its citizens. But that's not what you're doing, you're just getting up on your soapbox preening for us all pretending to grace us with your great intellect. I think I speak for many when I say I've run out of patience reading about how you think washington is such a great city and how you're such a fount of knowledge on how a city should be run. Washington and Detroit are not alike and never can be and your cocky attitude toward this city as a whole and the people who truly care about it is extremely demeaning and unwelcome. Don't confuse caring and feeding your ego.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 1292
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.100.158.10
Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 6:35 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Is "parking in the rear" what really killed off the retail districts in Detroit, or is it that the city has lost half its population in 50 years, and an even larger percentage of its tax base?

I only use the examples of DC and NoVa because they are familiar to me, and I can explain them thoroughly. This is not to say Detroit needs to be exactly the same--it shouldn't. If, however, Detroit ends up replicating places like Houston, it will look like Houston. If you're going to pick a model to emulate, why not choose one that is successful?

I think we're smarter than that on this forum. What I'm seeing is that Detroit has adopted essentially a suburban zoning code for new development. This ensures that Detroit will be no better of a place than any other automobile-dominated streetscape anywhere in America.

This is an oppotunity to create a unique place--something that aside from a few select areas, is severely lacking in Southeast Michigan. More than anything, it's a quality of life issue. Why should this area NOT differentiate itself from the bland hegemony of suburban schlock? Aside from some traffic considerations (not necessarily a bad thing), I haven't seen any valid arguments against an urban build-out of the site.

What I'm advocating and arguing for isn't any different than what a traditional small town looks like. Of course, if it's more important to maintain an automotive sewer to allow cars to reach Grosse Pointe faster, that's Detroit's prerogative. I will say I've never seen so many people argue against having something nice for themselves, which frankly baffles the hell out of me.
Top of pageBottom of page

Rustic
Member
Username: Rustic

Post Number: 2120
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 130.132.177.245
Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 7:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

DaninDC GP and Dearborn lost probably 0% of it's population and probably 0% of it's tax base. The old robust streetfront shopping/commercial in those places are a hollow shadow of what they once were.

DiDC, Consider Michigan and Scheaffer, it pretty much looks identical today to say Gratiot and 7mile 20years ago (that is it is facing a slow decay into rubble). Michigan and Schaeffer is the logical shopping center for the dynamic exciting immigrant community in East Dearborn. Excuse the racist statement but ... East Dearborn Arabs know a bit about running businesses in metro Detroit. ... Now where is the heart of Arab American Detroit? In the glorious old buildings on MICH and Schaeffer conveniently located on major arterial streets? nope ... on nondescript Warren ave. with it's melange 50's 60's era mismatched small retail and 90's era tiny crappy strip malls. Hell these businesses are even invading Detroit proper with the same retail model displacing old porno bookstores, polish barbershops and long empty retail with bakeries, meat markets, clothing stores and travel agencies. (oh yeah in case you are wondering, these people don't walk to these stores they are Detroiters, they drive everywhere even if it means just a half mile or less).

DiDC Consider WEST dearborn. it lost 3 department stores (2 streetfront one with parking out front) in that strip and virtually all of it's other retail and has recently tried reinventing itself as a restaurant row of sorts with condo development following the RO model .. but the commercial strip is by no means the robust shopping district it usedta be: a place where ya can buy the sorta stuff you need (other than going to a different restaurant every day of the week).

Consider GP. It lost its dept store and the shopping is a shadow of what it once was.

Hey give Detroit a 6 B$ subway underneath a population base stabilized by a lower middle class with guaranteed lifetime public sector employment and an ever expanding private sector milking the teat of the gvt and hey maybe things would be different ...
Top of pageBottom of page

Huggybear
Member
Username: Huggybear

Post Number: 160
Registered: 08-2005
Posted From: 192.217.12.254
Posted on Tuesday, February 28, 2006 - 12:24 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

DiDC,

The low-density model is native to Detroit and precedes Houston and LA. If developments in Detroit are "following" a spread-out model, they are not replicating systems from other places - it's the system that has been indigenous for 150 years (since Woodward's recursive plan) and worked fine for about the first 100 of those.

Detroit's residential development ideal was always a predominance of single-family homes - something that no other major city of the time could offer. At the time most of Detroit went up in the 1900s-1920s, apartments were not most people's first choice of dwelling type. Where you do see taller apartment buildings in Detroit (8 stories and above), they often consist of 2,500-3,500 square foot units (at least originally) - palatial then and still pretty palatial today. High density housing has been the exception, not the rule.

The historic ideal for Detroit's commercial and public architecture has long been the "city beautiful" concept: monumental buildings with space (or surrounding development scaled) to appreciate them. This started with the Library and the DIA. It was not impaired at all by the egos of industrialists (like the Fishers) who happened to want monuments to themselves. You can see it in places like New Center and in the Saarinen-derived Civic Center. City beautiful concepts have long informed residential as well: you can see it in residential in Lafayette Park, Elmwood, the Keane, Jeffersonian, Harbortown, etc. This type of planning was a direct and intentional departure from conventional urban planning of the early 1900s, which was to build wall to wall. Washington DC started on "city beautiful" model but has become (particularly in NW) precisely what Detroit’s planners sought to avoid: largely homogenous buildings built to a uniform maximum height, shoulder to shoulder, right out to the street.

The stretch of Jefferson where this Staples is going is a string of what were originally designed as large single-family residences with lawns, studded with an occasional 5-30 story apartment building. It's also intersected by historic greenways. Setbacks are pretty normal - and although not present on every block, prevalent enough that building a big box right on the street would be very noticeable. The danger with Staples is not going to be the setback; that's not at all abnormal.

The big question is whether something with a lot of sodium lights and big, bright signage can be controlled so that it does not disrupt nearby residential.
Top of pageBottom of page

Barebain
Member
Username: Barebain

Post Number: 4
Registered: 02-2006
Posted From: 70.237.161.22
Posted on Tuesday, February 28, 2006 - 9:19 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I've only been reading this thread for the past day or two, but I'm surprised that nobody has quoted the article written on Model D last Tuesday about the Staples development. Have I missed it?


February 21, 2006

Staples to put its first city store on East Jefferson

Staples is getting ready to open its first store in the city of Detroit with a tentative opening set for August 2006. The 14,654-square-foot store will anchor a plaza to be built at the southwest corner of East Jefferson and Jos. Campau.

Rep. John Conyers, D-Detroit, put the wheels in motion for the first office superstore to open in Detroit. “A few years back, Congressman Conyers called and asked, ‘When is Staples coming to Detroit?’ ” says Noal Solomon, vice president of real estate for Staples. “There was an effort from his office to drive more retail to the city, and we were excited to take on that challenge.”

Staples selected its location because of its proximity to downtown and the number of residents in the area. As Solomon stated, “Jefferson is a major road with good accessibility to downtown. In addition, lots of people who live in the area will shop Staples. We wanted a location that would make it as easy as possible for customers who live and work in the area to be Staples customers.”

Each Staples location typically employs 30 associates, says spokeswoman Mylissa Tsai.

Tsai adds, “It’s so important to hire locally — people from the area know the nuances of the area. We try to put a local face behind the Staples brand.”

Solomon is effusive in his commitment to the project. “One of the things that we are proudest of is that this store will be the first office superstore in the city of Detroit. When we let Congressman Conyers and his staff know that the lease had been signed, they were delighted. It’s one thing to talk to a government or chamber of commerce and talk about taking a look at a city — it’s another thing to take action.”

Solomon hopes construction will begin in March in preparation for the August opening, but doesn’t plan on stopping there. “It wouldn’t surprise me if, in the future, we open another store in the city of Detroit.”

Source: Mylissa Tsai, spokeswoman, and Noal Soloman, vice president for real estate, Staples.



I realize that this particular thread is more about development in general (and its great to see that so many people can get so worked up about one building) but it sounds like any debate as to how this Staples is going to be is answered by the Staples spokeswoman: Plaza on Jefferson and Jos. Campau, 14,600 sq ft, (about 60-70 parking spots??, if I remember my zoning ordinances well enough) commitment to both neighborhood and downtown.

And while its just real estate talk, I am hopeful for the project, and it sounds as if everybody will be made happy (or maybe nobody will... hard to tell) with a setback from Jefferson in the shape of a plaza. (parking behind then?) Although, with a 6 month construction deadline, I don't imagine the building is going tobe anything too special. No surprises there.

Viva la Staples!
Top of pageBottom of page

Gogo
Member
Username: Gogo

Post Number: 1298
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 198.208.159.19
Posted on Tuesday, February 28, 2006 - 9:58 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Kzoo - Sticks and stones.

I don't really see anything all that insightful in your post: Detroit is different from DC, gogo is a snob to people who call him an ASSHOLE(surprise!) DaninDC loves DC (surprise!).

Seems the gist of your post is that if I don't agree with you I'll call you names, Detroit can't be modeled after anywhere, it has done such a bang up job on its own, and should therefore look inward only on how to move forward. Give me a break.

Detroit SHOULD and IS looking at other cities to model its riverfront development and many other areas because benchmarking successful developments is the best way to move forward, not benchmarking the failures of Detroits past. If Detroit has done such a great job at its planning and development, why are we where we are now?

People haven't fled the city for the past half century because of the setback of a building. I hear many reasons why people have left the city and oddly enough it is not that the setback was not quite right. I do however hear many people who leave michigan say that they did so because they sought an urban environment which cannot be found anywhere in the state. How does it hurt to integrate Staples into this shared vision of a high density urban village rather than give on on that vision?

Whats arrogant is disregarding the shared vision for the riverfront as a high density urban village for the perceived needs of one retailer. Without even attempting to meet the needs of Staples while working with the shared vision of the riverfront, we have basically given up on that vision. Now that is arrogant.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mrfrench
Member
Username: Mrfrench

Post Number: 14
Registered: 01-2006
Posted From: 69.136.146.194
Posted on Tuesday, February 28, 2006 - 11:04 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

GOGO....
I agree with alot of what you are saying but, do
not dismiss the subtleties of psychetecture.
Setbacks, angles and spaces do have an effect on
people in both a positive and negative way.
Designers, Engineers and the likes have been using
this subtle tool for centuries.
It would be nice to see a company like STAPLES
build something other than a giant white box with
10 feet tall red letters for the sign.
Top of pageBottom of page

Rustic
Member
Username: Rustic

Post Number: 2121
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 130.132.177.245
Posted on Tuesday, February 28, 2006 - 11:09 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

dictionary.com:
Arrogant:
1. Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance.
2. Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others: an arrogant contempt for the weak. See Synonyms at proud.
IBM sez "you make the call" as to who is being arrogant on this thread ...
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 1293
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.100.158.10
Posted on Tuesday, February 28, 2006 - 1:54 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Gogo, what you wrote above was essentially what has been on my mind the past 12 hours or so. Think of all the people native to Southeast Michigan who relocated to Chicago, simply because they seek an urban lifestyle. Out-of-state kids probably stick around even less so, although they could greatly contribute to the rebirth of Detroit.

By emulating the strip mall corridor model, Detroit is doing nothing but replicating the Warrens and Sterling Heights of the world. Big whoop. There is a big problem with that--Detroit suffers from an extreme, systematical competitive disadvantage with those places, and won't be able to compete on such an uneven playing field. High taxes, car insurance, you name it--if Detroit replicates suburban ideals, it will fail quicker than you can say "Detroit is not like DC".

This isn't about what I want. My ego does not get ingratiated by posting here. This is about the survival of Detroit, plain and simple.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitkev
Member
Username: Detroitkev

Post Number: 43
Registered: 04-2005
Posted From: 66.178.218.40
Posted on Tuesday, February 28, 2006 - 2:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Is everyone forgetting that building more dense urban developments is more expensive...generally because the land is more expensive. What drives the price of land? I'd say demand...considering that most of the East Riverfront is undeveloped, or in need of redevelopment, it's no shock that any development along Jefferson is going to be suburban in design. The market dictates what is built. Maybe after Atwater, and Franklin streets are filled according to the Riverfront vision, it can then be expanded to Jefferson. When the market dictates, the owners of these shopping centers, and car dealerships will sell their pricey land, and these developments will be replaced by more dense urban developments. I'd rather see something there now & for the next 10 years or so, as opposed to waiting for a development opportunity that meets everyone's guidlines. We need to stop thinking the mentality that hundreds of thousands of people & thousands of businesses are flooding the city wanting to live & shop here. Although I would love that to happen, it's delusional to pretend that it's happening, or will happen within the forseeable future.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mrfrench
Member
Username: Mrfrench

Post Number: 16
Registered: 01-2006
Posted From: 69.136.146.194
Posted on Tuesday, February 28, 2006 - 3:26 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I hear you...
I just think it would be nice if our city planners
had a city plan that included some thought about
how and where these mega chains drop there mega boxes.
Sure, most any new business in the city is good for
the city.
But now is the time to create something new and exciting.
We pretty much have a clean canvas in many areas
of the city to work with.
If we subscribe to the "take what we can get"
philosophy, I'm afraid we'll get taken and they will get.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 1294
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.100.158.10
Posted on Tuesday, February 28, 2006 - 3:36 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

This particular piece of land is currently valued the same--no matter what the building on it looks like. On the contrary, there are many high-value land areas that have crappy suburban architecture.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gogo
Member
Username: Gogo

Post Number: 1299
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 198.208.159.17
Posted on Wednesday, March 01, 2006 - 12:06 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Reflecting the Riverfront

QUESTION

quote:

Its just that it should look the way the Gogo wants it to look, whether it makes money for the owner or not...




ANSWER

quote:

This January, an audience of 400 people representing Detroit neighborhoods, government, business, and industry met at the UAW/GM Center for Human Resources to see design concepts for the east riverfront area prepared by the University of Michigan's annual design charrette. The concepts were developed by teams consisting of nationally renowned architects, landscape architects, planners, and developers who worked with Michigan faculty and students, and Cass Tech architecture students to provide the city with free ideas for the future of this vital waterfront asset.




QUESTION

quote:

Jefferson Avenue, the busy, heavily driven, 9 lane arterial road leading out of downtown is not the riverfront area.




ANSWER

quote:

The success of all of these projets necessarily depends on the improvements of vacant and underutilized land between the river's edge and Jefferson Avenue.





quote:

"Densify" Jefferson Avenue, especially with apartment towers. Jefferson should be an attractive link between downtown and the riverfront. With new housing and retail, it can become a desireable, convenient address that complements new development leading to the river.




QUESTION

quote:

Why is so offensive and egregious to have a high volume arterial that keeps traffic flowing and away from residential areas and pedestrian oriented areas?




ANSWER

quote:

The plan must introduce more well-scaled streets that extend from adjacent neighborhoods to the river and transform Jefferson Avenue from the "edge" of neighborhoods to the "common center" of an integrated community.





quote:

Jefferson remains the workhorse of the street plan and key to connecting the neighborhoods to the north. It will handle a lot of traffic and a variety of uses. But over time Jefferson is expected to change into a high density corridor with service retail.





quote:

The elevation of Jefferson Avenue is approximately 30 feet higher than the river. An analysis of vacant lots along the north side of East Jefferson Avenue revealed the opportunity to develop high-rise infill buildings that are currently vacant and therefore more esily developed. High rise residential is a traditional use along Jefferson Avenue, as evident by Detroit's Gold Coast further east...The proposed buildings massing in this area encourages density and maximizes existing topography and views of the river. New buildings begin high and conclude low near the river.





quote:

There are three keys to the success of the development. The first is the proper utilization fo the amenities of the site. Toward this goal, the design teams have gone a long way in identifying and exploiting physical concepts to take advantage of the river views, the proximity to downtown,and the strong communities north of Jefferson Avenue.




But why listen to everyone who has spent so much time to create a cohesive blueprint for the Riverfront when Staples can layout the vision for us! The vision detailed on the detroitriverfront.org's own website includes none of the design features consistent with most big-box strip mall developments. Other cities have found ways to integrate big-box stores into their high density urban neighborhoods and so can Detroit. If a big box strip-mall style development is best suited for Staples, I'm sure there are many candidates for sites which they can sit on. Is it worth abandoning the shared vision layed out by many for Detroits riverfront as a high density urban environment?
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 1296
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.100.158.10
Posted on Wednesday, March 01, 2006 - 12:17 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Allow me to provide the Top Ten responses to your post, Gogo:

1. Detroit is a city of single family homes
2. Detroit isn't DC (or Chicago, New York, et. al)
3. Detroit doesn't have a subway
4. Detroit has low land values
5. Detroit is the Motor City
6. There's no street parking on Jefferson
7. It will be too expensive
8. You're an arrogant asshole
9. Detroit isn't subsidized by the federal government
10. Detroit doesn't have a built-in employment base

Okay, now that we got those out of the way....

(Message edited by DaninDC on March 01, 2006)
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitkev
Member
Username: Detroitkev

Post Number: 44
Registered: 04-2005
Posted From: 66.178.218.40
Posted on Wednesday, March 01, 2006 - 3:38 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Building high-rises along Jefferson is going to be at least a few years out. We are just getting to the point when 100 units can sell in a single year, in any development. If market conditions continued at the current pace, we would be building one high-rise (say 20 stories) of 200 units, every 2 years. Most developers wouldn't want to take 2 years to sell out a building. Right now, maybe a 10 story building would work...if we built 10 stories, I get the feeling people on here would say it's not high enough or dense enough. You can't please everyone.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 1297
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.100.158.10
Posted on Wednesday, March 01, 2006 - 4:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

You really don't need terribly high buildings to achieve significant population densities. Paris consists mostly of 8 story buildings, but has a population density of 63,000+ people per square mile (roughly equivalent to Manhattan).
Top of pageBottom of page

Skulker
Member
Username: Skulker

Post Number: 3637
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.103.104.93
Posted on Wednesday, March 01, 2006 - 6:12 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Gogo:

All the pieces that you have pulled the lovely quotes from are from a four day charrette of students led a small group of architecture and urban planning professionals whose goals were not necessarily delivering a feasible and implemnatble plan for the City of Detroit. Their goal was to stimulate design ideas and force students through the hoops of quickly refining design ideas.

A four day blitzkrieg of design by students with no community participation is hardly the standard by which a city should redevelop itself.

While the charette did throw out some nice platitude statements, it was NOT community inclusive, had no nod to development and real estate reality and was not endorsed in any way shape or form by the City or any of its agencies.

The Cooper Robertson plan, by contrast was methodical, inclusive, long term and included intensive market analysis and data gathering and conducted by highly respected PROFESSIONALS, not students.

The CR plan calls for high quality design along Jefferson as it is a front door to the district (something that eveyon here agrees to) but makes no mention of density, zero lot line restrictions or other such design guidelines. It instead focuses on encouraging high quality design that is market responsive. High quality design is acheivable with front lot parking, believe it or not. The design review committee at Planning and Development and City Planning Commission that will approve whether the design meets the already pretty stringent design guidelines for the Radial Gateway Thoroughfare was a part of the vision process with CR. Knowing them and their work, I am reasonably confident they will hold the developer to a higher standard than what to are assuming.

While the students vision is lovely it is completely detached from reality and implementability.

No one here has seen the renderings. So why don't you hold off on your hissy fit until we see the renderings.

If the design is reasonably well done and requires a front parking lot to achieve safety and adequate parking to make it successful, I have no problem with that because the reality is that there is no market for a mixed use residential reatil development on Jefferson for the foreseeable future and the market impact of a well done retail strip there will be significant for the area.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 1298
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.100.158.10
Posted on Wednesday, March 01, 2006 - 6:34 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

How is the students' design detached from reality? Is the required construction technology too high-tech, or did they draw a building made of gold with platinum trim? Or is it simply that what they drew is illegal under the current City of Detroit Zoning Regulation?

It seemed that the charrette Gogo referred to involved over 400 people, including seasoned design professionals and community members. Is this not true?
Top of pageBottom of page

Skulker
Member
Username: Skulker

Post Number: 3638
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 68.42.168.34
Posted on Thursday, March 02, 2006 - 1:12 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It is detached from reality in that they did not consult the neighboring communities in a meanigful way, they did not even attempt to design for what would be achievable in the next 5-10 years from a market perspective,

No, it is not true that the charrette involved 400 design professionals and community members. If you reread what he posted, an audience of

quote:

400 people representing Detroit neighborhoods, government, business, and industry met at the UAW/GM Center for Human Resources to see design concepts



.....meaning 400 people showed up to see what the students came up with in their four day charette. Very few, if any, of those 400 (100 of which were the students and teams members) had any participation in the charette. How do I know this? I was one of the very few community consultants to the charette. I saw what happened first hand.

For example, Zimmerman Volk, a very well respected housing market analysis firm had predicted a certain number of housing units (1,500) that could be absorbed over a period of five years. That market study was shared with the charette participants. The team of students I worked with developed a plan that included more than 21,000 units of housing in an area that was less then 1/4 of the total market area.

Consider this, the City of Detroit leads the metro area with 1,100 housing permits this year spread over the 138 square miles of Detroit. In order to satsfy the total units proposed by the team of students, JUST the riverfront district would have to equal the total new housing starts for Oakland and Macomb counties every year for a period of six years straight.

AINT GONNA HAPPEN!
Top of pageBottom of page

Gogo
Member
Username: Gogo

Post Number: 1300
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 198.208.159.17
Posted on Thursday, March 02, 2006 - 9:01 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Its interesting that you claim that the Cooper Robertson study is more inclusive of the community than the report I've referred to, yet it cannot be found posted anywhere on the detroitriverfront.org. Sounds very inclusive when nobody can even read it. Cooper Robertson was one of the professionals involved with the design charrette which produced the report I have posted.

But that's ok, I'm the arrogant one, referring to a highly publicized study that was shared with many and praised by the media and public alike, while you refer to a study which nobody seems to be aware of and cannot be found anywhere within the detroitriverfront.org website for the public to view.

The study you refer to is supposed to guide development for the riverfront and yet isn't even available for people to easily view, sounds very inclusive. Probably because it falls short of any vision that people have for what the riverfront should be.

Seems deceiving to publish a highly praised vision which seems to only be used to create enthusiasm, but then not publish a study which is actually being used to implement development along the riverfront. A study which seems to contradict the vision which has excited many about Detroits riverfront.

(Message edited by gogo on March 02, 2006)
Top of pageBottom of page

Skulker
Member
Username: Skulker

Post Number: 3639
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.103.104.93
Posted on Thursday, March 02, 2006 - 10:15 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The charette to which Gogo is referring was organized and run by UM and all webhosting, promotions and availability of the document is through UM NOT the City or any of its agencies and NOT the Riverfront Conservancy. The only deception is from IDIOTS like Gogo who seem to think that a student project slapped together in four days and thrown up on a university website is somehow the official vision and planning document for the City of Detroit.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gogo
Member
Username: Gogo

Post Number: 1301
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 198.208.159.17
Posted on Thursday, March 02, 2006 - 10:26 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Its the ONLY vision that has been shared with the public. It is the ONLY vision shared on the detroiriverfront.org's own website.

Idiots like yourself seem to expect everyone to get behind you when you haven't even shared the vision of the riverfront that your working towards. Seems that the riverfronts development is best left to businesses like Staples to decide for us.

I suspect you'd like to dismiss the vision shared for the riverfront on the detroitriverfront.org website because it is inconsistent with your low density, strip mall vision of the riverfront which leave the planning of our riverfront to Staples. Despite the many design professionals that were involved in the Design Charette including COOPER ROBERTSON.

Dismiss the charette if you want, but it was more inclusive and better published to the community than the imaginary report you seem to be basing your riverfront vision on and seems to be guiding the direction of development of the riverfront.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 1299
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.100.158.10
Posted on Thursday, March 02, 2006 - 11:11 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

So, 21000 housing units on the riverfront might be unrealistic in the short term, but how does that justify building a suburban strip mall on the riverfront? Do you just dismiss the work of the students wholesale because you don't like one of their ideas? And shouldn't students be welcomed as part of the "community" anyway, at least until they become part of the Chicago "community"?

Even in the professional world, the original plans are often too ambitious, which is why we have things like "value engineering" and "phased construction". If you only ever strive for crap, though, crap will be the best you can ever hope to get.
Top of pageBottom of page

Skulker
Member
Username: Skulker

Post Number: 3641
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.103.104.93
Posted on Thursday, March 02, 2006 - 11:27 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

Its the ONLY vision that has been shared with the public.




Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

That is an outright lie and you damn well know it. This very forum carried several notices from interested posters about the public visioning sessions and rollouts. The East Riverfront District Plan committee held more than six community input sessions, held two interim public rollouts, two interim presentations to City Council and held three public final project presentations as well as making the plans available for general public viewing for more than a week at Stroh Riverplace. Futhermore, public presentations for public body approval were made to the EDC Board of Directors, The City Planning Commission, The Board of Zoning Appeals and three public hearings at City Council as part of the rezoning process. Where were YOU during all this process, seeing as you seem all so very concerned about it???

The amount of public input makes your comment that the charrette was more inclusive absolutely laughable.

Perhaps you are unaware that the Conservancy is not a public body and is not the planning or implementation authority for the City of Detroit. Their bailiwick extends to the Riverwalk eazsement and associated parks only. Their decision to host any documents is soley theirs and is a sop to the UM Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning in order to suck up to Al Taubman in their fundraising efforts.

Hard copies of the Cooper Roberston study are available at the Municipal Library in the Coleman A Young Building, through City Council and the City Planning Commission if you are interested in obtaining one. I don't know all the details, but from what I understand Cooper Robertson takes a highly proprietary interest in their renderings and documents and charges very high fees to make digital copies of their work available. Fees that were high enough (well in to the six figures range) that the agencies involved in the district planning process felt the money was better spent elsewhere, especially given the transparency and openness of the planning process. Cooper Robertson delivered sufficient final print copies to the various agencies for their use. Some may have scanned them but not though to make them available on various websites. At mmore than 120 pages of color images, the file would not be small.

Contrary to your rather McCarthyesque accusations about my intents to dismiss the UM charette and to cede all power in the City to Strip Mall Inc, I am merely trading in facts. The fact is the UM charette was nothing more than a four day design exercise by students led by a multi disciplinary team.
Top of pageBottom of page

Scardetroit
Member
Username: Scardetroit

Post Number: 56
Registered: 03-2005
Posted From: 63.236.225.250
Posted on Thursday, March 02, 2006 - 11:29 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The charette was not the ONLY vision that has been shared with the public as Gogo is indicating. I went to one of the public meetings that was hosted down at Stroh River Place that presented some of the findings of the Cooper Robertson Study (seems like it was almost a couple years ago now). As to why the study hasn't been made available publicly, I'm not sure. Everyone I talked to at the public meeting was very excited about the vision for the East Riverfront District that the Cooper Robertson study laid out, including myself.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gogo
Member
Username: Gogo

Post Number: 1302
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 198.208.159.17
Posted on Thursday, March 02, 2006 - 11:37 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

All the public meeting you mentioned express the very same concerns I have repeated on here. What was not shared was an outcome of these general meetings and a vision of what these meeting with community input yielded. Based on your statements here there seems to be HUGE disconnect between the concerns expressed at these public meetings about what the riverfront should be, and what is actually happening.

The public meetings DID express a strong desire to make historic preservation and adaptive reuse a pivotal feature of the riverfront development. So far, it seems that a token few buildings are being reused while the others have already been razed.

The public meetings DID express an emphasis on a high density urban environment, yet what is being proposed is a Staples shopping center with a set back and parking in front.

So while you continue to base your vision on the riverfront on illusive proposals and studies which have largely been unavailable to the public, I am merely repeating the concerns expressed at the public meetings you have mentioend, the design charrettes that involved many design professionals and which were shared with the media.
Top of pageBottom of page

Rustic
Member
Username: Rustic

Post Number: 2129
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 130.132.177.245
Posted on Thursday, March 02, 2006 - 11:44 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Gogo, you are deluding yourself. Apparently you imagine what you desire is somehow reflects reality. Further, what you desire does not necessarily represent: (1) what your community desires, (2) what is best for your community, (3) what can actually be achieved in your community. It is merely what you want.

But whatever, no matter what, the simple fact is this: if it ever comes to pass that high density housing in that location is a practical reality and/or there is enough $$$ to built it, it WILL get built whether or not there is a crappy (or even a nice) office supply store there.

This is Detroit. Detroit tears down schitt for development all the time, historic schitt and run down schitt, shabby schitt, schitt that is still viable, someimes whole neighborhoods (populated or not). Detroit tears down tall buildings (e.g. for Comerica Park) to tarpaper shacks (e.g. St. Anne's) for development projects. Sometimes Detroit tears down schitt piecemeal (e.g. Brush Park), or sometimes in one fell swoop (e.g. Poletown). Detroit tears down houses, neighborhoods, downtown highrises, streetfront retail etc etc. (This has ALWAYS been the case with Detroit -- why do you think that most of the older parts of a 300 year old city look like they were built overnight 80 years ago, lol!) Sometimes Detroit does it boiling hot FAAAASST (e.g. Ford Field)... sometimes Detroit does it crockpot SLOOOOW (e.g. North Corktown).

Detroit is sloughing off block after block, MILE after MILE, on STREET after STREET of streetfront retail -- how could a single one story bigbox building even remotely be a stumbling block to potential redevelopment? (Remember there was a f-ing HOSPITAL near there before that for christ sakes! Detroit has a BIGGGG eraser on its drafting table and isn't afraid to use it!)

Meanwhile ya got a place to buy yer drafting supplies to sketch out your own idea as to how yer neighborhood high rise should look. What's the big deal?

(Message edited by rustic on March 02, 2006)
Top of pageBottom of page

Gogo
Member
Username: Gogo

Post Number: 1303
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 198.208.159.17
Posted on Thursday, March 02, 2006 - 11:55 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Rustic - My desire reflects what was shared at the public meetings as well as the proposals shared on the detroitriverfront.org website. What I have a problem with is the disconnect between the vision being shared and promoted with the public, and the developments that are actually happening. I have not come across ANY proposal for the riverfront which includes low density strip malls as the riverfront vision.

What is the point of having community input, design proposals, a master plan, etc. when in the end it seems that anything goes and there really is no plan for the visions which have been shared and gotten people excited?

Its like Troy's talk of making Big Beaver into SW Michigans Magnificent Mile. Nothing more than talk to get people excited, but in the end, they'll continue with business as usual building the same ol same ol. Same for Detroits riverfront. Seems the city and planners spew out nice phrases and graphics, but in the end its business as usual. Same ol crap being built.

(Message edited by gogo on March 02, 2006)
Top of pageBottom of page

Skulker
Member
Username: Skulker

Post Number: 3642
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.103.104.93
Posted on Thursday, March 02, 2006 - 12:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Wait a second, I'm confused Gogo...

First you claim that there was not public input and that there were no public meetings and nothing was inclusive, then you make claims as to what occurred at those [non] meetings. Which is it?



quote:

What was not shared was an outcome of these general meetings and a vision of what these meeting with community input yielded.



That statement is flat out wrong. The final district plan incoporates those comments and was rolled out on mulitple occassions in public forums.


quote:

The public meetings DID express a strong desire to make historic preservation and adaptive reuse a pivotal feature of the riverfront development. So far, it seems that a token few buildings are being reused while the others have already been razed.



The East Rivefront District still retains the a very large majority of its historic building stock from what was there 10 years ago. You know the stuff like the empty warehouses across from the Chene East parcel that still sit there vacant. The buildings that were demolished were ones that even local preservation activists did not object to being demolished. Did anyone really think you could do something with the old Club Taboo?


quote:

The public meetings DID express an emphasis on a high density urban environment, yet what is being proposed is a Staples shopping center with a set back and parking in front.




And again, we get back to the crux of the issue. There needs to be a balance between marketability and stringent design control. Nobody here has seen a copy of the site plan, no-one knows what the final parking will look like and no-one knows how many spaces will be at the site. Marketability and pedestrian safety seem to have been trumped by a desire for certain design in some folks minds.

Rustic:
The reason tha most of Detroit looks like it was built 80 years ago is because most of it was built less than 80 years ago. Detroit had 250,000 residents in 1900, but more tna 1.3 million by 1930. The construction boom started in the 1910-1920 era. BTW, Detroit is not the only place that tears down shit all the time. Every major City does. Its part of the urban dynamic and reconfiguring the urban landscape to suit new needs, lifestyles and market conditions.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gogo
Member
Username: Gogo

Post Number: 1304
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 198.208.159.17
Posted on Thursday, March 02, 2006 - 12:21 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Skulker - I did not say there were no public forums, I said that public input does not appear to be reflected in the vision of the riverfront which is being developed. I know there was public forums, I referred to them in the Silo thread as shams because the concerns raised at these public forums are not being reflected in the development of the riverfront area.
Top of pageBottom of page

Rustic
Member
Username: Rustic

Post Number: 2130
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 130.132.177.245
Posted on Thursday, March 02, 2006 - 1:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Gogo, your post 1303 makes perfect sense. What it describes is that you bought into an ILLUSION not a REALITY. Perhaps ya got sold into some sorta marketting scheme, nuthin wrong with that of course ... but at some point recognize reality, come-on!

Skulker, as you know, pre auto boom Detroit was clustered tightly about what is now the CBD and up WW for a couple of miles. Auto boom Detroit basically clear cut it's older areas virtually in total (much more so than other industrial cities that boomed roughly about the same time) and at the same time expanded ever outward. Further it goes deeper than THAT. Pre auto boom detroit at IT grew clear cut virtually all of the older historic structures (much more so than other similarly OOOOLD cities along the Eastern Seaboard: BOS, NYC, PHI, BAL, DC, Savannah) or elsewhere NO, MONT. I wasn't criticizin' merely observin' ... YAY Detroit!

Skulker of course Detroit isn't the only place that tears schitt down ... but you'd think from the posts on this thread tho that this cinderblock Staples is gonna be around for the next 100 years or so. ... perhaps it is but a hiccup in the grand scheme of things ... Yay Detroit!

(Message edited by rustic on March 02, 2006)
Top of pageBottom of page

Gogo
Member
Username: Gogo

Post Number: 1305
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 63.240.133.93
Posted on Thursday, March 02, 2006 - 1:56 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Rustic - VISION not ILLUSION. Big difference and something that is distinctly lacking from Skulker. If Skulker would share the vision he is working towards for the riverfront, perhaps we'd be less surprised when we see another stripmall pop up along the riverfront. So far, I haven't seen any visions for the riverfront that include low density strip malls.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jams
Member
Username: Jams

Post Number: 2800
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 70.236.184.231
Posted on Thursday, March 02, 2006 - 2:35 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Gogo,
As you seem to have made what the development of that weed-filled lot will be such an important point. Have you contacted Staples with your concerns? Asked them if the design plans are completed, if they are, are they available to be seen by the public and commented on?

Making assumptions about what should or should not be built is a fruitless exercise without solid evidence.
Top of pageBottom of page

Huggybear
Member
Username: Huggybear

Post Number: 166
Registered: 08-2005
Posted From: 192.217.12.254
Posted on Thursday, March 02, 2006 - 8:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

Why not? Wouldn't building to the property line be a first step toward creating a denser neighborhood?


People seem to be using buzzwords of "density," "urban," and "walkable" as interchangeable concepts – when they aren’t.

“Density” in its true sense is not improved by building up to the property line - unless you are filling a lot - we're talking about moving parking, not expanding the building.

“Density” is a pretty nebulous concept, starting with how you measure it. Lafayette Towers, for example, are high density on their footprints, medium-high density on their lots, and medium-low when you consider the neighborhood and all the open space around the buildings.

“Urban” is similarly poorly defined. The word is an adjective relating to urbs, the Latin word for a medium to large city. In some contexts, “urban” is used as a proxy for “black.”

In the context of development, “urban” is an advertising term that connotes an apartment block built to the street. And it's clear from some of the buildings in Royal Oak ('Skyloft', the new building north of the Main Art) that 'urban' architecture bears no necessary connection to proper massing for the area (some does: compare the Ellington's match with the surrounding Orchestra Hall and the Max).

“Walkable” is something that doesn’t necessary follow from being “dense” or “urban.” Dallas is a great example of a downtown that is dense and urban but not walkable. Ditto with its tollway suburbs, which feature office buildings ten stories high, shoulder to shoulder, with absolutely no way to travel between them except by car. Better yet, how about Rosslyn, Arlington, which is dense and unwalkable (unless you like walking through alleys and parking to get to things).

But on to a couple of points and a couple of questions:

1. Ok, so people are excited by a vision that never will come to pass. Not like it’s the first time that’s ever happened. Economic development always hinges on maximizing benefit while doing something that is… well, doable. I’ve been around long enough to have seen a bunch of pie-in-the-sky projects that never reached fruition. Why? Economics. If you don’t have (or can reasonably generate) the demand, you can’t get sales. If you can’t get sales, you can’t get financing. If you can’t get financing, it doesn’t matter whether the fantasy development is 1 person, 1,000 people or 21,000 people. Four hundred people and a couple score of architecture students might like the idea of ginormous high rises on Jefferson, but without demand or financing, it is going nowhere.

2. Flip over the “take what you can get” argument for a second. At what point do you say enough is enough and that blighted property has to start pulling its weight by generating taxes or economic activity? Sometimes you have to turn the property into something productive – and although it may not always be your first choice of what, you have to eat. Otherwise, the property is just a demoralizing influence on surrounding residents, a weed-strewn public embarrassment that people in the suburbs talk about, and a financial drag. Isn’t the City paying bond interest on all the waterfront property it originally bought for the casinos?

3. What would people expect the reaction of existing riverfront property owners to be if you suddenly saturated the market with a megaproject? Wouldn’t that make the prices of their property plunge? One thing that seems painfully apparent in Detroit (particularly downtown and along Jefferson) is that new property sells and old property stagnates. Lots of people will say they like something in the abstract – but you can imagine how they would react if they couldn’t move into that development because they couldn't sell their old homes.

4. (Regarding the store) You aren't going to see a backlash from the people who own homes, rent apartments, work and operate businesses along Joseph Campau? Because you can just do a curb cut on a street with two parking and two driving lanes? When you look at who might be inconvenienced, it is probably more than half of the people who live near the site. No. It's more likely all of them, since Joseph Campau feeds Garden Court, River Place and the River Place lofts.

5. In real life, hasn’t a disturbing number of Detroit’s “urban” and “dense” projects failed at some point? Like every high-rise office building built before 1980? The Renaissance Center before 1996? Scores of five-to-ten-story yellow-brick H-shaped, indisputably “urban-style” apartment buildings? The Jeffries and Brewster projects in the 1990s? 1300 East Lafayette in the early 1980s? I know people like to use dense, functional cities as an example of how density is great but it has been a fairly consistent failure here. I think the issue is that people make an unfounded causal connection between density and economic viability. Economic viability supports density, but density does not automatically create economic viability.

6. What is the proposal for a “real” transit system that actually helps and that can get built? Would Jefferson at Joseph Campau ever be on that line?

I ask because the much-lamented DSR is apparently one of the causes of Detroit’s extreme spread. Such a progressive, wide-ranging system at a time when no one had (or could afford) cars enabled people to locate far from where they worked and shopped. It did the same when there were cars and traffic but no freeway. These lines were long lines that terminated in the middle of nowhere when built. The rise of interstate freeways, and Detroit’s forward-thinking adoption of them (at least people thought so at the time) made the DSR obsolete. It wasn’t some automotive conspiracy. It was being supplanted by a different public system that was designed to be efficient and succeeded.

Fast forward to the 21st century, and to get anywhere near a functioning system, you need to get a lot of people in the region to sign on. Do you think people all over SE Michigan would ever pay higher taxes to maintain a system that ran only in Detroit? And if it went from Detroit to other places, do you think it would stop just past Eight Mile? Hell no. It would run to the middle of nowhere. And in a sense, it could facilitate people’s not living in Detroit.

So you burn all your political capital building a system. You build up Woodward and maybe Gratiot because they’re big enough to support a rail line and you can hit a bunch of cities with one line. And you can use the service to get them to pay for part of it. It’s hard to see Jefferson playing any part – would Grosse Pointers let a system like that terminate in their city (cf Georgetown, DC)? How would you get to Macomb County without cutting a swath through Lakeshore Drive or through a residential neighborhood? If you can’t serve areas up Jefferson outside Detroit, how are you going to pay for that line?

7. Everyone wants to work on a dense model because that’s (allegedly) why people leave for “real cities.” If there were good-paying jobs or some kind of plan for the economy of this state, I would be surprised if that’s the answer you got. I put it out there that if people are really leaving for economic and not architectural reasons, you could spend an enormous amount of money trying to convert things here from a 1920s parkland model to an 1890s (slash 1990s) “urban” development model – and never succeed. Not only is there a problem with changing a living organism’s DNA (so to speak), changing the architecture does not change the underlying issues.

8. (Again, the store) Hope and human life are more important than how one office supply store looks. Or, alternately, architecture was made to serve man and not the other way around.

Some people don’t want the store. Or they don’t want it unless… They don’t have any idea what it will look like. Come on. We’re talking about a vacant lot on a choppy stretch of the street.

If making that building a certain way is such a priority that you would torpedo the deal, look hard at how you value architecture versus human life. The office supply situation in particular is incredible – since your nearest options open in the evening are a 16 mile round trip west, a 28 mile round trip north or a 24 mile round trip east. Should 31,000 Detroiters who live in 48226 and 48207 be forced to waste 1/2 to 1 hour of their lives night driving on freeways because a much smaler number of other people didn’t get their first choice of how a single store should look? I have no doubt that the massive inconvenience of certain types of shopping is far more demoralizing and off-putting to people who do or would live here than retail store architecture. I don't hear anyone complaining about the nearby Shell station. Or as someone else pointed out, the CVS or the Walgreen's.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jams
Member
Username: Jams

Post Number: 2803
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 70.236.184.231
Posted on Thursday, March 02, 2006 - 9:46 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Huggybear,
Thank you for those well thought out posts. Despite the heat that has been created on this thread, I've learned much about planning from you, Skulker, Rustic, and even Gogo and Danindc, from the thought put into the various posts in this thread.

My reactions come from a gut level. I've lived in this specific area for over 17 years and realize what has been lacking in it for so many of them. I appreciate your ability to eloquently express the points I've wanted people to understand for so long.
Top of pageBottom of page

Islandman
Member
Username: Islandman

Post Number: 89
Registered: 08-2004
Posted From: 68.42.171.59
Posted on Thursday, March 02, 2006 - 10:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

A response I received from Mr. Solomon, in charge of real estate acquisition for our state for Staples:

I am sorry I don't have any elevations I can forward since while I have seen
them, I don't currently have them. Since our landlord already filed the
plans with the city when they applied for a building permit, you could
possibly see them at the city if you wanted to. Thanks for your interest in
Staples.

Noal Solomon
Vice President, Real Estate
Staples
11 Gannet Ct.
Wayne, NJ 07470-8465
(973) 341-9571
www.staplesrealty.com
States: DE, IL, IN, IA, KS, MI, MN, MO, NE, ND, NJ, OH, E PA, SD, WI

***So, the plans are final, and are possibly available via the city. Good luck with that..
Top of pageBottom of page

Rustic
Member
Username: Rustic

Post Number: 2131
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.163.181.81
Posted on Thursday, March 02, 2006 - 11:23 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

H'bear, terrific post.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gogo
Member
Username: Gogo

Post Number: 1306
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 198.208.159.17
Posted on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 8:47 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

H'bear - another one who has missed the point.

As I've already mentioned, the question is not whether or not Staples should build on the riverfront. While you say that some think it should and others think it shouldn't, I don't know of anyone who is disputing that it should.

The question is will Staples decide the vision for the riverfront or will we? Will Staples set the tone for direction of development or will a vision that has incorporated the concerns of the city, public and community?

I know this has been a long thread, but if you reread it, nobody is disputing your many points. You express concerns of costs, and as DaninDC has said over and over, placement and other features that would allow Staples to fit into the neighborhood and the future vision of the riverfront cost little or nothing.

You express concerns about people having to drive 30 minutes to another staples. Is someone really going to choose to drive 30 minutes to the suburbs rather than around the corner to park?

You express concerns about past "urban" projects in the city that have failed. That is because they have all been designed in vacuums and urban environments do not happen in vacuums. You cannot build one building in the middle of a parking lot or divided by a wide road and call it a day. An urban environment happens as a result of policies and guidelines for development that tie an entire neighborhood together. The failures of the RenCen, Riverfront Towers and other "urban" projects are failed and flawed because of a lack of vision that goes beyond the parcel they are built on. Similar to the lack of vision of building a strip mall on the riverfront.

Obviously there are realities of costs and safety that must be factored into every development, but they should be weighed equally with the concerns, and vision of the riverfront development. Not developed in a vacuum unrelated or disconnected from the entire community around it.
Top of pageBottom of page

Romanized
Member
Username: Romanized

Post Number: 199
Registered: 02-2005
Posted From: 71.4.97.70
Posted on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 9:22 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

How many times will people have to beat you over the head with this, "Its not about your precious vision. Its about demand." You are arrogant enough to think that your little vision will single-handedly reverse market conditions and bring density and all this other crap. Your wrong. Like many others have been.

If the riverfront is miles long why throw a hissy fit over one practical store the residents actually want? This move did not come about in a vacuum. It comes from the fact that Detroit lacks the basic retail the burbs take for granted. Only so many people want to drive 30 min to get the basics.

I just pray your e-mails go straight into this guys trash.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gogo
Member
Username: Gogo

Post Number: 1307
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 198.208.159.17
Posted on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 9:38 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Romanized - You're obviosuly not paying attention. ITS NOT MY PRECIOUS VISION. Its the only vision that has been shared. I'll settle for ANY vision for the riverfront. Just please let me know what this vision is so that development along the riverfront moves towards that common vision.

One of Detroits biggest problems is its lack of vision. We have lots of development in the city, but often times they are all going in opposite direction and contradict and conflict each other. The riverfront appears to be heading in the same direction of missed opportunity and conflicting visions, making any attempt for a cohesive neighborhood difficult when there isn't a common vision.

If there is a vision for the riverfront that incorporates stripmalls and big box style developments, please share it. As of yet, I have see no vision. No vision = no future. Seems to me, many are more interested in whatever development plops itself infront of them, rather than best optimizing its impact on Detroit by incorporating it into Detroits future as well as its present, and not just on its present.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jams
Member
Username: Jams

Post Number: 2806
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 69.219.21.209
Posted on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 11:15 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Gogo,
The communication from Noal Solomon
Vice President, Real Estate
Staples, states they have a landlord who is responsible for the site plan.

Shouldn't the next logical step be to find who that is and address concerns to him/her/them?
Top of pageBottom of page

Gogo
Member
Username: Gogo

Post Number: 1310
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 198.208.159.17
Posted on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 11:31 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jams - City planning and development guidelines are not determined by a single land lord or business, they are determined by the city's planning and development department, the neighborhood and others. Its policy that needs to be set on a larger scale and implemented across the entire riverfront, reflective of the vision that takes into account many factors including community concerns, market demands and all the other stuff others have mentioend on here.

Staples landlord will just build whatever city code and the planning department guidelines say they should build. Often times, its the cities own code that requires a certain setback, a certain number of parking spaces, not the business.

The city code and development guidelines should be reflective of the vision of the riverfront, whatever it is. Not left to individual land owners to go in different directions. Development and its impact on the city is optimized when it is all working together, not individually. Staples shouldn't be developed in a vacuum, but as a piece of the entire riverfront.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jams
Member
Username: Jams

Post Number: 2807
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 70.236.178.219
Posted on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 11:43 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

But the point of this thread has been very specific to this one lot.

Assumptions have been made without knowing any of the specific details. Possibly the developer may very well be concerned about fitting in to the vision, possibly not, but now is the time to find out.

Can't bitch about what you don't like, if you don't make the attempt to influence the results prior to the actual construction.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 1308
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.100.158.10
Posted on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 11:56 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Developers are pretty good about fitting into "visions" and zoning regs. They don't make money otherwise!
Top of pageBottom of page

Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1

Post Number: 6887
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 198.208.251.24
Posted on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 12:12 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

If it is leased space does anyone know how long of a lease Staples signed?
Top of pageBottom of page

Track75
Member
Username: Track75

Post Number: 2234
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 12.75.18.156
Posted on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 12:22 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Very nice post, Huggybear.

I understand the battle Gogo and DiDC are fighting here, but the value of a full-line office supply store to the downtown area is huge. I did the evening runs to the burbs for toner and whatnot as a downtown resident. I have not-so-fond memories of having to rush out from the Ren Cen to the burbs at 8:30 p.m. to get supplies in order to finish a proposal. That is a ridiculous situation in a major city CBD.

So maybe the store will look like a typical Staples store. Maybe it won't herald the rebirth of an urban, walkable riverfront district. Maybe it will in some very small way detract from the overall district more than other past and future commercial developments (doubt it).

BFD. It's needed, it's overdue, it's coming and people are very happy about that. When it opens we can all buy a copy of SimCity and design a theoretically perfect version of Detroit.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gogo
Member
Username: Gogo

Post Number: 1312
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 198.208.159.17
Posted on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 12:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Track75 - You know what is also needed besides an office supply store? Another large grocery store like Farmer Jack or Kroger, another Home Depot, a new Police Headquarters. Should we place them on the riverfront too?

Detroit needs all of these things, but in order for them and the business around them to succed they all need to work together not in isolation.

The Ren Cen, built as an island on the edge of downtown, is just hitting its stride as it works to integrate into the neighborhood around it and not as a remote development in isolation.

Campus Martius park and surrounding developments are more successful than the American Axle headquarters because the individual buildings, park and developments surrounding CMP work together towards a common vision rather than as an isolated project. How many Compuware employees use their lunch hour to eat out, run errands and support nearby businesses? How many American Axle employees do this?

Now if there were an area of Detroit which was zoned and envisioned to be more of an office park with strip malls, then those American Axle employees would probably be more likely to get out during lunch and run errands.

I'm really unsure how many more times I can say that nobody is disputing that Staples is needed and welcomed in Detroit, so I'm unsure why so many continue to harp on this point.

What we now need to do is figure out the best way to incorporate it into Detroits future and the changing landscape of the riverfront and other areas of the city so that it can contribute to Detroits present AND future.

Based on all visions and plans for the riverfront, a low density strip mall is inconsistent with this. Does this mean we should send Staples away? NO. Does this mean that we can find somewhere in between that works with their needs and the riverfronts future? YES.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jams
Member
Username: Jams

Post Number: 2808
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 70.236.194.239
Posted on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 1:03 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Gogo,
You've been given an opportunity to make a difference. It is all well and good arguing points on an inter-net forum. But if you believe you can contribute to changing a mindset that you don't agree with, make your voice be heard to those that matter.

No matter what comes of it, most of us here will applaud you for trying.

The longest journey begins with the first step
Top of pageBottom of page

Track75
Member
Username: Track75

Post Number: 2235
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 12.75.18.156
Posted on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 1:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I see your point, gogo. My impression however is that you and Dan have gone a bit overboard but as I've learned from my brother (BA architecture, MA urban design and a proponent of NU and TND with missionary zeal), it's an occupational hazard to be so passionate about certain design issues as to appear "a mite touched".

I think you'd agree that most folks don't care as much about the aesthetic aspects of their world as they do the utilitarian aspects. So despite the harm to the vision of the riverfront that you describe, most folks would love a nice new FJ or Kroger on Jefferson. IMO Home Depot or a PD HQ seems like a poor fit, but some folks would surely love to see a big ole' Home Depot close-in on Jefferson even if it totally blew up the riverfront vision. Not everone values aesthetics as highly as you and others. Particularly folks who are just making do, for whom your concerns may seem irrelevant.

I know you could describe why a walkable integrated properly scaled urban sensitve design is great for everyone, even those who just want to get a binder for their kids' school work before thay have to head out to second shift at the box factory, but they really don't care. Sorry if I called your baby "ugly", I'm just trying to provide some perspective.
Top of pageBottom of page

Huggybear
Member
Username: Huggybear

Post Number: 167
Registered: 08-2005
Posted From: 192.217.12.254
Posted on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 1:25 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Gogo, my only point re the driving time is that there seems to be a contingent that puts the aesthetic or choice of business above all else - and that this would be a bitter pill for a lot of people to swallow.

But on the urbanism point, I don't think that where Detroit's setup conforms to the conventional idea of "urban," that it was designed in a vacuum or without vision. In fact, a lot of interesting things were built on Judge Woodward's exotic-shaped lots. If there had been a real lack of vision, the streets would have been realigned to a conventional gridiron (the "necklace" area is pretty unusual; the only other place I remember seeing something similar is in Amsterdam). The old CBD was (and still is) very well packed (example: Woodward, Griswold, Washington Boulevard), had a lot of street level retail, was never denied transport, roads or parking - but it still ultimately failed. It may be on the upswing, but despite a lot of hard work and money spent, there are still a ton of vacant buildings and lots, most of which are not $100 million projects.

[Is the real reason why this indisputably authentic city experience is coming along so slowly that your average Metro Detroiter is more interested in building new "cities" without poor people and without minorities (or at least visible ones)? That's the message I get when I see "new urban" developments and "lifestyle centers" going up everywhere in suburban areas. I hope I am reading this wrong.]

I think at some level, every other "urban" project I discussed had a defect. But for the others, those defects were not related to density, urbanism or walkability (i.e., the basic issues we have been discussing here) - they seem to be related to other architectural, planning and economic miscalculations - which can just as easily occur with anything anyone proposes, no matter whether it is "urban" or "suburban." For this reason, I am much more circumspect about student work (of any kind) because it lacks the experience and mature judgment of practitioners.

If we want to revisit the "dense," "urban" or "walkable" models in Detroit, to me it makes more sense (given the limited resources available) to fill in and extend the existing CBD than to go agonize about a small patch of Jefferson Avenue a couple of miles out. There's less disruption, more consistency with what is there, and a lot more bang for the buck. There are a bunch of sites that - given suficient political will or the right kind of pressure - could be repurposed and could meaningfully add to the CBD. These include empty lots, surface parking, and elements that might be able to function just as well elsewhere (jails, juvenile homes, telephone central offices, etc).

Jefferson Avenue as a corridor, although it has its sore spots, is relatively functional and has a high proportion of functioning businesses. While it would always be possible to do a project on Jefferson a couple miles from the CBD, it would be disruptive to existing businesses and would have to be huge to have an impact. Closer to the river and to the west of Chene Park, though, it would be more worthwhile - more open lots (well, brownfields), a street grid, lots of problems that redevelopment could fix rather than create.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 1309
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.100.158.10
Posted on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 1:31 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I disagree. I think most people DO care about what their built environment looks like. Most folks just aren't conscious of it--it's more psychological and embedded in the subconscious than anything. How else does one explain the flood of suburbanites into places like Georgetown every weekend? Why are they not at the pre-fab shopping emporium (with requisite acres of parking) in their suburban wonderlands? Do people go to Chicago or to Schaumburg for the weekend?

I'm still not understanding how people can think building "urban" creates inconvenience. I find it inconvenient to have to drive everywhere. My personal take is that Detroit has seen so little new construction in the past 50 years, it has forgotten how to be a city, and equates aspects of suburbia with success. It's not an either/or game. There IS more than one way to build!
Top of pageBottom of page

Jams
Member
Username: Jams

Post Number: 2809
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 70.236.194.239
Posted on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 2:06 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

How else does one explain the flood of suburbanites into places like Georgetown every weekend?




Same reason people go to DisneyWorld, a diversion from their day-to-day lives.

You keep on with the same arguments comparing DC to Detroit. They are two different entities. My experiences in DC are limited so I can't comment on that. But having spent most of my 50+ years in Metro Detroit (mostly in the City proper), I still stand by my earlier contention. Most of the City was built on what you would refer to as a "Suburban mode" surrounding the CBD "urban" business district, with pockets of industrial areas scattered throughout.

So, yes, Detroit is different from other more "Urban" cities.
Top of pageBottom of page

Focusonthed
Member
Username: Focusonthed

Post Number: 17
Registered: 02-2006
Posted From: 209.220.229.254
Posted on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 2:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

People don't go to Chicago on the weekend because the architecture is pleasing. They go because there are things to do, and lots. You can't expect the addition (or not) of a Staples to have any measurable effect on Detroit in this regard.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 1310
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.100.158.10
Posted on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 3:00 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

Same reason people go to DisneyWorld, a diversion from their day-to-day lives.




Hey, thanks for likening my city to a faux plastic utopia, asshole. But I'm the arrogant prick....
Top of pageBottom of page

Jams
Member
Username: Jams

Post Number: 2812
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 70.236.194.239
Posted on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 3:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I WOULD state the same thing about the suburbanites that come to Downtown Detroit for sporting events, concerts, or just to have a night off.

Lower the sensitivity meter.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 1311
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.100.158.10
Posted on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 3:24 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jams, I agree with you on that. It drives me nuts when people treat the city as some sort of Disneyland. Some of us actually live and work here, ya know?

Could it be that Detroiters, in a sense, are "afraid" of urban streetscapes for the reason that it seems more Disneyesque than "real"? From what has been posted on this thread, I get the sense that many don't perceive an urban streetscape as being all too functional.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jams
Member
Username: Jams

Post Number: 2814
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 70.236.194.239
Posted on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 3:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Danindc,
Consider that some like "Urban", others don't. When I moved back to near the center City 17 years ago, my customer base was in the suburbs.

If by chance my choice of residence came up, the usual response was "Why would you live there?" I'ved lived without readily available or only a limited choice of goods and services for a long time. Now that there is a new interest in the City, I'd hate to see it die off because it must be a certain mode.

I live here, it is the imposition of a style or mode that rankles me if compromises allow what I and my neighbors to get what we need in our day-to-day lives in OUR neighborhood.

We're really not an "Urban" city, in your thoughts regarding needs of the City, you must put that into the equations. I'm still skeptical of all these people claiming to desire the "Urban experience", I've seen several waves come and go here. I always hope I'm wrong this time.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 1312
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.100.158.10
Posted on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 3:58 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I know what you're saying. I wouldn't advocate anything that doesn't fit into the fabric of Detroit, and I DO think you should be able to take care of your personal business within your own neighborhood.

Along those lines, I hardly think a typical, off-the-shelf suburban-style strip mall has any place along the East Riverfront. It's a bad precedent, simply because the City will *never* be able to compete against the suburbs in that game. I'm not saying there need to be high-rises, or even apartment buildings, but the buildings should be in context and reflect, somewhat, the surrounding area as well as what has historically been constructed in Detroit.

This is an opportunity to create something very authentic and real--something with a soul. I'd hate to see Detroit throw that away just because strip malls are more familiar.
Top of pageBottom of page

Skulker
Member
Username: Skulker

Post Number: 3645
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.103.104.93
Posted on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 4:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

Should we place them on the riverfront too?


Lest anyone forget, Jefferson is not the "riverfront". It is a major retail arterial. It is NOT as if the Staples will be south of Atwater with its dumpsters facing the Riverwalk.
On that note, the sky is falling panic over the misperceived lack of adherance to the East Riverfront District Plan is misguided. The first two parcels to be released for redevelopment that are on the Riverfront are both projects that meet or exceed the guidelines for density, height, mixed use and zero lot line development. The City has chosen to NOT issue development rights on three other parcels because the plans did not meet the minimum requirements for the district. Recall that the Staples project is between two private parties and as long as it meets the requirements of the regulatory agencies, there is nothing the City can do. So far, from what I understand the project meets those requirements.



Warning: Rant Below -


quote:

How many Compuware employees use their lunch hour to eat out, run errands and support nearby businesses? How many American Axle employees do this?



Gogo What the fuck is it with you and the American Axle HQ? Seriously. What the fuck?

Do you have any concept or clue as to what occurs there and what actually drives real estate investments infacilities that are global engineering centers and headquarters for heavy manufucaturers?

The HQ was built on AAM owned land that they paid significant sums to acquire and remediate when they took over the old Chevy Axle Forge No. 5. They did a GOOD thing. They took obsolete factories and contaminated land and removed the blight and created a valuable, taxable use.

The new HQ is adjacent to their flagship foundry and their international training facility. The new HQ is adjacent to their quaility control and testing laboratory. The new HQ houses their technical and engineering staff that interact with the forge and assembly plant which acts as their development laboratory. The enginners travel back and forth between the training and the testing facilities all day long. This has massive competitive and operational advantages as technical and engineering staff can walk out the door and in five minutes be on the shop floor seeing what is really going on instead of being disconnected from the real workday world.

It is built adjacent to land that was one of the first neighborhoods in Detroit to be completely abandoned because as soon as folks could get away from a polluting, nasty factory, they did. 15 years ago that area was little better than Delray is today. AAM chose a site that has great connection to the real environment of their core business in order to remain competitive. The site has great freeway visibility and access and is in area that would never again have residential or retail usages. What other use is appropriate to be sandwiched on a 1/4 mile long strip of land between a freeway and an axle forge? It is a great example of a manufacturer creatively reusing contaminated land and bringing new jobs to the City.

And you sniff you shitty little nose at it because you think it should have been located near a mixed use urban walkable district or near shopping? Golly, two miles away s all of downtown Hamtramck, a pretty nice little walkable space. A a person with several frieds that work at the AAM HQ, I frequently meet them for lunch at places like oh say...Under the Eagle.

Would you really have AAM forgo the operational advantages of their location and leave the land empty with no other uses, but instead force AAM to build near a downtown simply because you want their employees to walk around at lunch time? Because if they built to your demands, thats what would happen.

Get a fucking clue. Seriously. Get a fucking clue.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 1313
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.100.158.10
Posted on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 5:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Skulker, I don't think Gogo was arguing that American Axle should have located downtown or any other neighborhood. To me, he was trying to illustrate that buildings that integrate into their surroundings are more apt to be better connected and generate more activity. For example, it's a piece of cake for a Compuware work to go out on the street to grab lunch. That's all--nothing more.
Top of pageBottom of page

Huggybear
Member
Username: Huggybear

Post Number: 168
Registered: 08-2005
Posted From: 192.217.12.254
Posted on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 5:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

I get the sense that many don't perceive an urban streetscape as being all too functional.


For purposes of attracting people, the perception of functionality (right or wrong) sometimes *is* functionality. And it's not at all strange that people started perceiving street-front retail as dysfunctional. Or that retail started accommodating the perception.

Setting aside the CBD, Detroit's narrow-scale streetscape (at least on major corridors) was largely wiped out before WWII, when a lot of major roads were widened to handle huge traffic (Woodward being the most egregious example). What existed after WWII was street-front retail on relatively big roads, with parking behind. Once serviced by the DSR and cars, then by more cars. So far, so good.

But when freeways went in parallel to those roads, the corridor retail took another huge hit. For example, I moved here in the late 1970s when they were opening I-96 in Detroit. It didn't take 5 years see a major deterioration of businesses along Grand River, to which I-96 is almost dead parallel. As the corridor got uglier and uglier, the only things that thrived had parking lots that you could see from the street or that had clearly fenced parking lots. I think the basic way to sum up the "why" is the same reason animals don't like to stick their heads in blind holes.

In the post-freeway world, why might someone avoid businesses with parking behind? The alleys and back streets in Detroit often have small turning radiuses, are poorly lit, torn up, full of the fruits of illegal dumping, and peppered with broken glass. If a person thought he stood a good chance of getting attacked or having a car torn up by visiting a local business, he would probably avoid going there. You can chalk it up to irrationality or ignorance on the part of the public, but these things are there to contend with.

From a business owner's standpoint, some of these problems are not easily solved; the back of a business in a lot of places butts up against an alley across which is a residential neighborhood of single family homes. How do you light a back lot without putting an orange glow through everyone's living room window? If your access is through an alley or a street the city owns, how can you make sure that the road surface remains in good condition? It's probably not irrational for some business owners to want parking in front, accessible from a road that actually gets maintenance.
Top of pageBottom of page

Skulker
Member
Username: Skulker

Post Number: 3646
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.103.104.93
Posted on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 5:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Well Dan, I may have jumped the gun a little, but Gogo has offered up AAM more than once in the past as an example of "bad" urban design. If he intended to do what you have interpreted, I think he did a very poor job. Its also highly disingenuous.

We all get it. Seriously, we do. We all understand that some buildings function better than others for encouraging pedestrian activity.

There are some of us that also get that in some cases, the use of the building is not always going to be one suitable for being highly or soley pedestrian oriented. We also get that sometimes on high speed, high traffic volume corridors there are safety and market draw issues that need to be accommodated. Some folks here can't seem to get that.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 1314
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.100.158.10
Posted on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 6:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

We also get that sometimes on high speed, high traffic volume corridors there are safety and market draw issues that need to be accommodated.




Let me ask this. Was Jefferson always a high-speed thoroughfare? If not, what caused it to morph into one? Did the then-existing streetscape falter before or after the change? And are any or all of these things foregone conclusions or natural evolutions, or are they in fact the product of decisions and actions made by people, and can thus be reversed?

"We shape our buildings, and then our buildings shape us." --Winston Churchill

"Think you can. Think you can't. Either way, you'll be correct." --Henry Ford
Top of pageBottom of page

Itsjeff
Member
Username: Itsjeff

Post Number: 5632
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 68.42.168.211
Posted on Saturday, March 04, 2006 - 8:03 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

yawn
Top of pageBottom of page

Rustic
Member
Username: Rustic

Post Number: 2138
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.163.181.81
Posted on Saturday, March 04, 2006 - 10:25 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

DaninDC, "Was Jefferson always a high-speed thoroughfare?" ... well browse the Old Auto Factory thread and look at the major factories that once lined Jefferson from just north of there along Jefferson for a couple of miles (e.g Hudson, Chrysler, "Uniroyal", Champion plus all sorts of smaller shops and industrial offices.) (There is one photo of the Hudson Factory that shows the DSR cars discharging people on Jefferson and CAR CARS CARS up and down the street.) In addition consider that that RIVERFRONT area from the site of the RenCen addition up river for about a mile or so was heavily industriallized BEFORE the Auto BOOM. Further, most of the residential neighborhoods (including one high density cluster) located upstream on either side of Jefferson date to the 1890's-1920's, Further out much of the housing in the SOUTH part of GP dates to the 20's or earlier. ... soo ... if ya lived or worked up there and ya wanted to go to/from the CBD (at least since Detroit became well polulated) Jefferson was yer route --- a high traffic corridor. (Consider the tunnel bypass to avoid Jefferson Ave traffic from EGB into BI it musta been BRUTAL back in boomtown Detroit.)

Maybe waay back when if it was an Ojibway trail or sumptin it mighta been a low traffic road, but since Detroit became urban and expanded out thatta way Jefferson's been Jefferson ...
Top of pageBottom of page

Hornwrecker
Member
Username: Hornwrecker

Post Number: 873
Registered: 04-2005
Posted From: 63.41.8.207
Posted on Saturday, March 04, 2006 - 1:59 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

On a past thread Mikem posted about old freeway proposals, here's a map showing traffic volumes from 1941. E. Jefferson looks like it had the heaviest traffic back then for the Eastside.

1941 traffic volumes
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 1315
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.100.158.10
Posted on Sunday, March 05, 2006 - 4:31 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yeah, I get it. Jefferson is an arterial road, and always has been. That still doesn't answer my question.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gogo
Member
Username: Gogo

Post Number: 1315
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 198.208.159.17
Posted on Monday, March 06, 2006 - 9:12 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Skulker - I use the AAM as an example of something designed in a vacuum. Not as a bad design. It is a bad design, only in the sense that the efforts to develop it only yield the same amount that you put into it, nothing more. Good planning and development feeds off each other. Whether it is a planned suburb with office parks and nearby stripmalls designed for easy accessibility with cars in mind. Or a downtown with high density and walkability.

It is my observation that there is very little vision in Detroit for what areas should be what and as a result we have many developments going on, but all in different directios and nothing working together.

Detroit IS big enough for all types of development as you mentioned, but to get the biggest impact of all of these developments, there should be some sort of vision so that they work together rather than going in different directiosn.

If the riverfront is going to be a high density urban village, than it should be a high density urban village. Building codes, designs and developments should match this objective. If other areas are design to be office parks with lots of parking and access to strip malls, then let them be that.

Instead we have no vision for many areas of Detroit and as a result we have talk of high desnity along the riverfront, but in actuality we have low density being planned for certain areas. This is inconsistent.

You conveniently quoted only part of my rant on AAM, but did not finish. As I mentioned, if American Axle were not designed in a vacuum, but as part of a master plan where other office parks and strip malls were nearby, then those office workers would be much more likely to utilize the services and businesses in Detroit.

Instead we have office campus here, loft there, stripmall here, and none of it working together or supporting each other. Same for a stripmall on what is envisioned to be a high desnity urban village.

PS: Lots of people saying "yawn" or "this thread is boring" but still coming back to read all of this boring stuff. There are many other threads for you to read if you want to read something interesting, try the one thread post thread its riveting.
Top of pageBottom of page

Itsjeff
Member
Username: Itsjeff

Post Number: 5635
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 208.27.111.125
Posted on Monday, March 06, 2006 - 10:58 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

deadhorse
Top of pageBottom of page

Goat
Member
Username: Goat

Post Number: 8194
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 70.53.96.11
Posted on Monday, March 06, 2006 - 12:07 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Have you kicked it yet Itsjeff?

Sorry couldn't have dinner with you folks on Sat. night.
Top of pageBottom of page

Swingline
Member
Username: Swingline

Post Number: 412
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 172.129.17.117
Posted on Monday, March 06, 2006 - 2:15 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I’m real late to this thread but I’m going to kick that stupid fucking horse anyway.

This debate about the Staples store is an important one for Detroit, not because every new retail project should require such close scrutiny or because the construction of one office supply store will be a savior or a death knell for a neighborhood. Rather it’s important because it exposes some serious weaknesses in the plans for the East Riverfront that could stall or impair all the good work that’s been done recently by the City and the Riverfront Conservancy.

As an aside, I think that all the name calling and nastiness in this thread really sucks. Accusing out of town posters of arrogance, etc. is unnecessary simply because they suggest that similar development issues are resolved differently elsewhere. It’s pretty hard to listen well and maintain openness to new or different ideas when all one is thinking about is how stupid are another’s comments.

If the Staples store is built on the conventional suburban design model (which Detroit’s zoning usually promotes) it will inhibit and detract from the Cooper Robertson plan for the riverfront district. Furthermore, what the Staples project exposes is that another automobile oriented strip mall development on Jefferson Avenue is being made possible because the city and its planners haven’t sought to include a “fix” of this street along with all the planned mixed use re-development of the area south of Jefferson. Jefferson Avenue sorely needs a “road diet” and it needs a form-based coding overlay to the existing zoning. In other words, the street is too big and its bigness and existing zoning make it impossible to re-develop it on anything other than a strip mall and big box model. Such development existing as a gateway will not enhance or promote the cool new riverfront area.

Form based codes are difficult to implement but they usually succeed where a master plan is in place. The Cooper Robertson plan and the city’s planning goals for the riverfront satisfy this requirement. A slower street that is better framed by a built environment will not only promote the riverfront’s aspirations as an upscale mixed use neighborhood, it would also be a catalyst to promote development north of Jefferson for the “affordable” and middle income markets. Taking these steps on Jefferson Avenue would provide confidence to developers to look beyond the least common denominator goals of the typical automobile oriented suburban model to designs that are more compact and have more potential to become unique retail and entertainment destinations.

I know. The funding is not there to do the road diet thing and it’s a real shame because the result is going to be more strip malls and parking lots on Jefferson Avenue. The consequences could be that all of the effort being expended now by the city, GM, big name foundations and various community groups will not succeed in creating urban fabric and places of any real quality along the riverfront.
Top of pageBottom of page

Spitty
Member
Username: Spitty

Post Number: 434
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 136.2.1.101
Posted on Monday, March 06, 2006 - 2:37 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

Gogo,
The communication from Noal Solomon
Vice President, Real Estate
Staples, states they have a landlord who is responsible for the site plan.

Shouldn't the next logical step be to find who that is and address concerns to him/her/them?




Absolutely yes to that last question... and every time I read another line of debate on this topic, I'm disappointed that nobody's even seen nor posted the plans yet.
Top of pageBottom of page

Rustic
Member
Username: Rustic

Post Number: 2148
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 130.132.177.245
Posted on Monday, March 06, 2006 - 2:41 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

DaninDC, actually you asked several leading questions not just one. IMO it represented a train of thought that betrayed a lack of understanding of what that stretch of Jefferson Ave was/is in Detroit. I understand you are not particularly familiar with Detroit, that's fine. Hey no one is perfect: for example I would be completely unable to find anything walkable or even particularly pleasant about the buildings in Crystal City VA (to me it is the prudential center/big beaver rd copy/pasted a few times with nicer weather and better jobs) but you apparently know of some portion that you think is nice. Anyway pointing out the historic mass of industry/population hourglassed along there and the fact that it was a high volume road even in the olden tymes sorta wipes out the implication of your leading questions re Jefferson.

Let's bring this thread back on point. Compare best case/worst case REALISTIC senarios. Best case senario: I GUESS is a streetfront Staples built with rear parking (curb cuts offa Jos Campeau?!?) and some facadework to blend into an imagined streetscape that doesn't exist now and never existed (have I got it right? I think so.) ... vs ... Worst case senario: a cinderblock suburban style fugly Staples setback with a small parking moat in front and Jefferson Ave curbcuts which is out of place with both the older rehabbing area a block or so toward the river and what some people would like to see throughout the area. Those are the choices ... IMO no big diff ... the best case senario might be a little prettier, but nuthin to get worked up about. Now ... a Staples vs a row of highrise residential, or a Staples vs Toyota's World HQs, or a Staples vs a satellite office of the Dept. of Homeland Security ... well that's another story but a Staples turned one way with bric-a-braq stuck to one side vs one turned the other way without the doo-dads ... what's the big deal?
Top of pageBottom of page

Gogo
Member
Username: Gogo

Post Number: 1318
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 198.208.159.17
Posted on Monday, March 06, 2006 - 3:05 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Rustic - I don't think it all boils down to doo-dads or no doo-dads. I think it boils down to a common vision which is shared and reflected thru the city and its building codes, Cooper Anderson, Riverfront Conservancy, and other agencies; and one that is not shared or reflected in various components of the city and development and works in opposing directions. The riverfront vs staples highlights an inconsistency in those developing the riverfront, the city, and other agencies who do not seem to be on the same page.

You can have a cinderblock building built to a common setback with adjacent buildings which blends into the surrounding neighborhod (there is nothing particularly pretty about the new Greektown Parking Garage, but the common setback, density and scale make it blend in with its surrounds). Similarly, you can have a brick building, surrounded by a parking lot which doesn't fit in (see Michigan Basics and 5/3rd). You can also have a single block development built as a high density loft development, but if it is surrounded by a gated community, stripmall, or other things which do not fit in, it falls short of being anything one would associate with a loft neighborhood. Cooper Anderson alone cannot make a high density urban village by designing it on the few blocks which they have control over. This requires a common vision with the city and other agencies which modify and enforce design principles and city codes to reflect that vision. Otherwise any attempts at a high density urban village will merely be an oasis.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jams
Member
Username: Jams

Post Number: 2833
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 69.212.124.161
Posted on Monday, March 06, 2006 - 3:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

With the daily volume of traffic on East Jefferson, let alone, special events, where would you propose that traffic be diverted?
Top of pageBottom of page

Jams
Member
Username: Jams

Post Number: 2834
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 69.212.124.161
Posted on Monday, March 06, 2006 - 3:41 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

This statement struck me as somebody not aware of what is in that area already.

quote:

... it would also be a catalyst to promote development north of Jefferson for the “affordable” and middle income markets




That area between Jefferson and Gratiot between I-75 and Mt Elliot is quite developed already. There are a few areas that might be built further, but only as infill.

(Message edited by jams on March 06, 2006)
Top of pageBottom of page

Gogo
Member
Username: Gogo

Post Number: 1320
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 198.208.159.17
Posted on Monday, March 06, 2006 - 3:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

City of Detroit Master Plan: Near East Riverfront


quote:

Policy 2.1: Throughout the area, encourage the conversion of obsolete industrial buildings into residential lofts.





quote:

Policy 3.1: Encourage high-density mixed-use development along Jefferson.




Seems even the cities own Planning & Development Department shares the Riverfront vision laid out from the design charrette. I suppose this was also written by a bunch of pie-in-the-sky interns as well though.
Top of pageBottom of page

Spitty
Member
Username: Spitty

Post Number: 435
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 136.2.1.101
Posted on Monday, March 06, 2006 - 3:54 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Why don't you try contacting the city before you accuse them of abandoning their vision? The Staples guy told you who has the plans, why not see if you can have a look at them, and see if they agree with what you would like before you go any further discussing what might be?
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 1316
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.100.158.10
Posted on Monday, March 06, 2006 - 4:00 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

With the daily volume of traffic on East Jefferson, let alone, special events, where would you propose that traffic be diverted?




It doesn't need to be diverted anywhere. I posted earlier that Pennsylvania Ave SE in DC carries more traffic than East Jefferson, but remains walkable. I was told that wasn't a fair comparison for whatever the bullshit excuse du jour was that day.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jams
Member
Username: Jams

Post Number: 2844
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 69.212.124.161
Posted on Monday, March 06, 2006 - 5:51 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Are we talking about auto traffic or pedestrian traffic?

These are two different subjects. You say the Auto traffic doesn't need to be diverted, but the street should be narrowed and slowed. I'm just asking how? There are only limited parallel routes on that side of town, granted much less used, (much to the delight of us who use them to avoid the Jefferson congestion)but to increase the congestion without alternatives seems rather unrealistic.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 1320
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.100.158.10
Posted on Monday, March 06, 2006 - 6:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

You take a lane each direction for on-street parking, and lower the speed limit to 25 or 30 through that stretch. Not too difficult or expensive. I wouldn't anticipate much, if any, increase in congestion.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jsmyers
Member
Username: Jsmyers

Post Number: 1465
Registered: 12-2003
Posted From: 209.131.7.68
Posted on Monday, March 06, 2006 - 6:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

You take a lane each direction for on-street parking, and lower the speed limit to 25 or 30 through that stretch. Not too difficult or expensive. I wouldn't anticipate much, if any, increase in congestion.




I agree Danindc, except that I wouldn't have the speed limit be 35. If there is congestion and parked cars, peopel won't go it, but late at night, when there is little traffic, it will be more appropriate. 35 mph is also about the speed where traffic throughput per land is maximized.

On thing to be concerned about is the effect that congestion can have on transit service.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jams
Member
Username: Jams

Post Number: 2847
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 69.212.124.161
Posted on Monday, March 06, 2006 - 6:23 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

OK, what is there to walk to once you've parked on East Jefferson?

Holding on to what you believe East Jefferson should be, just doesn't work for me. Yes, I'm a layman, but what is already there, what has been built, I see everyday. So unless everything on Jefferson is just all blown away and a whole new road is built with all new buildings, you're stuck with the reality of what that road is.

You may not like it, but all those "Suburban" parking lots are filled with cars, the vacant "Urban" buildings remain vacant year after year, but that is my reality.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jsmyers
Member
Username: Jsmyers

Post Number: 1466
Registered: 12-2003
Posted From: 209.131.7.68
Posted on Monday, March 06, 2006 - 6:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

You may not like it, but all those "Suburban" parking lots are filled with cars, the vacant "Urban" buildings remain vacant year after year, but that is my reality.




They remain vacant primarily for two reasons:

1. Redevelopment is often required to provide off street parking, even when there is no land to put it on.

2. There is no on-street parking to support those buildings, nor does it exist to make walking safer and nicer in order to reduce the need for parking.

If off-street parking requirements were relaxed, and there was on-street parking, you'd see many of those buildings find life.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jams
Member
Username: Jams

Post Number: 2848
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 69.212.124.161
Posted on Monday, March 06, 2006 - 6:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Actually in front of many of those vacant buildings on East Jefferson, parking is permitted.
But at the moment there is no reason to park.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 1322
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.100.158.10
Posted on Monday, March 06, 2006 - 6:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Well, I think having to stop at Staples would be a good reason to park.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jsmyers
Member
Username: Jsmyers

Post Number: 1468
Registered: 12-2003
Posted From: 209.131.7.68
Posted on Monday, March 06, 2006 - 6:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

Actually in front of many of those vacant buildings on East Jefferson, parking is permitted.




I was actually thinking that might be the case. it seems that many areas have permitted parking. The problem is that people also travel on those lanes, and it is not apparent always that parking is allowed. Curb bump outs would help this.

But I believe you really have to look to #1 on my list to understand why many of these buildings are not used.

Of course you can always through up #3:

A narrow, treeless, sidewalk with 45 mph traffic isn't a nice place to be.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jams
Member
Username: Jams

Post Number: 2849
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 69.212.124.161
Posted on Monday, March 06, 2006 - 7:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

OK, one more time, I walk and bicycle E. Jefferson from Van Dyke to the CBD and back quite a bit. I look forward each year to when the crocuses flower on certain lawns,in the fall I know where the Black Walnuts drop to the ground.

I state that to affirm I'm aware of what happens on that road. I find it laughable it is "walkable potential". I fully support the revitalization of Rivertown" as Urban, dense, and walkable but the reality is East Jefferson will be a entity unto itself. It will not be disimilar to Michigan, Warren, and numerous other avenues in Detroit that camouflage the vibrant neighborhoods that lay behind the alley.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jams
Member
Username: Jams

Post Number: 2852
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 69.212.124.161
Posted on Monday, March 06, 2006 - 8:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

#4 There has been no demand to revitalize those buildings for 20+ years.

I'll happily support any of you who think differently and put up the cash to do it.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 1324
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.100.158.10
Posted on Tuesday, March 07, 2006 - 11:18 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

You could have all the cash in the world--if the City doesn't change the zoning along Jefferson, the money issue is moot.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jsmyers
Member
Username: Jsmyers

Post Number: 1472
Registered: 12-2003
Posted From: 209.131.7.68
Posted on Tuesday, March 07, 2006 - 11:50 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

#4 There has been no demand to revitalize those buildings for 20+ years.



Demand doesn't matter if it is illegal to do so. The zoning ordinance in many communities is often circumvented for powerful developers, so you are right that the demand hasn't been strong enough to involve the powerful, but that doesn't mean the holdup is just demand.


quote:

You could have all the cash in the world--if the City doesn't change the zoning along Jefferson, the money issue is moot.



Not necessisarily, nothing get zoning changed faster than a moneyed interest with political skills.

Here is the zoning ordinance, see for yourself:

http://www.ci.detroit.mi.us/le gislative/BoardsCommissions/Ci tyPlanningCommission/


quote:

It will not be disimilar to Michigan, Warren, and numerous other avenues in Detroit that camouflage the vibrant neighborhoods that lay behind the alley.



You have a point, but I'd like to add a few things to it. One of the reasons those streets are as they are is the zoning ordinance. Another thing is that they (at least Michigan) have walkabble stretches. They also have stretches that will never really be walkable.

I wouldn't advocate that the entire Jefferson from Brush to Alter be made walkable. But there are significant portions that should be, including everything from 375 to Outer Drive. Just like Michigan should be walkable through Corktown, but won't be over the freeways or under the rail lines.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gogo
Member
Username: Gogo

Post Number: 1321
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 198.208.159.19
Posted on Tuesday, March 07, 2006 - 11:53 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Dan - I actually think the city zoning favors high density mixed use development along Jefferson already.

staples

You will see properties along Jefferson Avenue on the south side are zoned SD4. SD4 is described in the cities ordinances as...


quote:


DIVISION 12. SD4—SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, RIVERFRONT MIXED USE

Sec. 61-11-211. Description; purpose.

(a) The SD4 District is intended for areas indicated in the Detroit Master Plan as appropriate for high intensity residential and commercial mixed-use development due to regional significance and unique locational attributes and amenities, such as the Riverfront. While recognizing that, although it may be desirable to retain in such areas a mix of existing uses, such as offices, lofts, and certain industrial establishments, due to the local ambience it provide, increased industrialization of such areas by very intense and abrasive land uses is considered inappropriate.

(b) SD4 regulations are intended to promote the public health, safety and general welfare, to encourage the use of the land in accordance with its character and adaptability, to avoid the overcrowding of population, to control congestion of the public roads and streets, to reduce hazards to life and property, to facilitate land use and development, and to encourage innovative, high intensity developments while simultaneously protecting those attributes and amenities which make such areas unique. These objectives shall be accomplished by a system of flexible regulations, performance requirements, and review procedures.




I'm really unsure how one could argue that a car dealership parking lot, or a stripmall with a bigbox store in the traditional bigbox format would be consistent with this.

Hopefully it will conform with these ordinances, but given that a car dealership parking lot was approved for development along this thoroughfare it does raise question as to whether or not these ordinances are actually being followed.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jsmyers
Member
Username: Jsmyers

Post Number: 1473
Registered: 12-2003
Posted From: 209.131.7.68
Posted on Tuesday, March 07, 2006 - 12:06 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

That is good to read!

Gogo: This zoning ordinance is new for the city. When most of the things you mention were built, I'm sure there was a less urban zoning district in place (there still is in much of the city).

Unfortunately, I'm sure there are still off-street parking requirements in SD-4. This is a big part of what make fixing up old buildings difficult.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gogo
Member
Username: Gogo

Post Number: 1322
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 198.208.159.19
Posted on Tuesday, March 07, 2006 - 12:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yes. This is from May 2005 I beleive. Previous zoning was for Casinos.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jams
Member
Username: Jams

Post Number: 2858
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 70.236.179.217
Posted on Tuesday, March 07, 2006 - 12:15 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Here's what struck me in Paragraph b:

quote:

to encourage the use of the land in accordance with its character and adaptability, to avoid the overcrowding of population, to control congestion of the public roads and streets,




That can be construed that the City does not prefer "HigHh Density", as well.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 1325
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.100.158.10
Posted on Tuesday, March 07, 2006 - 12:22 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"High density" doesn't have a direct correlation with "congestion". My neighborhood is a heckuva lot denser than many suburban neighborhoods with stop-and-go traffic on six-lane highways. The difference is that my neighborhood is built to a sufficient density that one can walk around without getting killed by a car travelling at 45 mph.

It's all about spatial relationships. A Le Corbusier "tower in the park" might have the same average density as an entire village, but remain isolated and remote. The relationship of the buildings to their environment are what determine the levels of congestion and walkability that will result. I think, Jams, you are aptly (and inadvertently) illustrating the trap we've fallen into, which is we try to determine everything with quantifiable raw numbers and try to draw comparisions before even drawing a nice little picture.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jams
Member
Username: Jams

Post Number: 2860
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 70.236.179.217
Posted on Tuesday, March 07, 2006 - 1:23 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

BTW Gogo, good job on the research.
Top of pageBottom of page

Barebain
Member
Username: Barebain

Post Number: 12
Registered: 02-2006
Posted From: 66.208.220.242
Posted on Tuesday, March 07, 2006 - 6:05 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Another thing to remember about those zoning ordinances, is that there was a time in our history when cities were overcrowded, polluted, and unhealthy places to live. This reality had been caused by the rise of industry, and was a big reason people wanted to escape to the suburbs. I belive the language of 'controlling congestion' and '(promoting) public health' was intended to address that particular issue.

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.