  Sharmaal Member Username: Sharmaal Post Number: 742 Registered: 09-2004 Posted From: 69.14.76.187 |
I'm posting this letter as a courtesy to a friend that doesn't engage in the Forum... ------------------------------ ------------ I live in the River Place neighborhood of Detroit. From my understanding, Staples plans to open a building on the corner of East Jefferson and Joseph Campeau in the 48207 zip code of Detroit (two blocks from my Loft). As a proponent of Detroit's urban renewal, I wanted to ask you what kind of design/asthetic plans you have for this building. This is currently an emerging neighborhood with a rich architectural history (some blighted buildings and some beautifully restored - but none without charecter). The neighborhood is a diverse group of creative, educated and usually higher income people who pride themeselves a generally being different from the mainstream. I say this as a warning to you, If you build a big box staples with a giant street facing parking lot, it may be received very poorly. A premium is placed on preservation, respect for the past and respect for our surroundings. Will Staples exercise discretion and perhaps plans for a progressive design for the Detroit planned store? Kind regards, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX River Place Drive #XXXX Detroit, MI 48207 ------------------------------ --------- Feel free to email - andrew.thorpe@staples.com | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 1215 Registered: 02-2005 Posted From: 141.213.173.94 |
Very valid points. Why not try?! | ||
Upinottawa Member Username: Upinottawa Post Number: 203 Registered: 09-2005 Posted From: 198.103.184.76 |
Your friend does make a good point. However, the word "warning" in the last paragraph could be construed as overtly aggressive. Suggestion: "I find myself compelled to caution you that if you build...." Staples has "tried" to get urban: does anyone have a photo of the Staples in downtown Kingston, Ontario? (Message edited by upinottawa on February 21, 2006) | ||
Burnsie Member Username: Burnsie Post Number: 390 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 35.8.4.141 |
Sharmaal-- I hope you corrected the spelling on some words before you sent that letter to Staples. You're more likely to be taken seriously with correct grammar. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1259 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
It's all in the zoning for that parcel. The owner/tenant can only abide by the zoning regulations imposed upon it. Staples has two stores in downtown DC--both of which are in office buildings, and neither of which has a parking lot or their typical crap architecture. It also depends on how serious the City is willing to help restore buildings that aren't signature high-rises downtown. | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 2723 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.218.157.164 |
Is our choice only "urban" or "suburban"? I've been in this City most of my life. I'm not terribly worried by how a building looks, but does it fulfill my needs. | ||
Sharmaal Member Username: Sharmaal Post Number: 743 Registered: 09-2004 Posted From: 69.14.76.187 |
Hold on. I'm not making on comments on the content of the letter. Once again, I'm posting for a friend of mine. As far as spell checking or anything, I noticed a few, but I believe he already sent it. Yeah, the "Warning" part didn't rub me the right way either. | ||
Kiki Member Username: Kiki Post Number: 4 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 69.14.28.99 |
True - we need businesses that meet our needs as consumers. However, Detroit has enough cheap architecture. I wish companies would build with a "long term" vision/style. A building that is new in 2006 but craptastic in 2010 doesnt do anything for the future of Detroit. Quality architecture = quality valuable real estate. | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 2724 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.79.119.249 |
I wish that too, but I'm guessing buildings will not be built for references in a book of Architecture but will they fulfill current needs. I remember that space as beautiful Doctor's Hospital, former home of one of the Walkers. If that was not enough to save it, what shall we save? Enjoy your pancakes at IHOP. | ||
Jasoncw Member Username: Jasoncw Post Number: 121 Registered: 07-2005 Posted From: 148.61.248.170 |
How about: According to –source-, Staples Incorporated has plans to open a retail store at –full address-, which is two blocks from my residence. The local community is concerned that the design of the building will not embrace the urban lifestyle, or the rich architectural heritage of the area. Residents here prefer to shop where such things are taken into account, and because of this, the design of the development will influence its sales. On behalf of the community, I would like to encourage a design that would be healthy for our neighborhood, as well as Staples business. | ||
Detroitkev Member Username: Detroitkev Post Number: 40 Registered: 04-2005 Posted From: 69.212.230.115 |
It will be a suburban strip mall, similar to the strip mall that is next to it. Unfortunately, there is not enough value to the land to do otherwise, and also not enough residents within walking distance. When there are 10's of thousands of people living within a 1-2 mile radius, or a mass transit system that can connect others from the downtown area, you will see more dense urban developments. I can't wait for the day when those strip malls, and car dealerships are replaced with loft buildings, hotels, and office buildings with ground floor retail. I am hoping I will live to see it. | ||
Futurecity Member Username: Futurecity Post Number: 229 Registered: 05-2005 Posted From: 69.212.226.166 |
It will be heinous. Guaranteed. (Check back to this post once constuction is complete for full validation of this predicition). | ||
Erikd Member Username: Erikd Post Number: 531 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.242.214.106 |
Be careful what you wish for. "Not terribly worried by how a building looks, but does it fulfill my needs" is a perfect description of every suburb filled with strip malls and big box stores. If that is what you are looking for, 14 Mile and John R would be a perfect fit. This area has plenty of affordable housing located within a sea of shopping malls and big box retail. If you need transit, SMART services this area very well with all of the stops at Oakland Mall. As a long time downtowner, I would love to have more retail options in my neighborhood, but I would rather have less retail than live next to strip malls and big box stores. | ||
Reetz12 Member Username: Reetz12 Post Number: 28 Registered: 09-2005 Posted From: 216.144.213.130 |
Unfortunaly the building is going to be mostly brick, with the top band and front entrance being EIFS, nothing exciting by any means, your typical strip mall is very good comparison. Surprisingly though the Staples sits back in the corner of Franklin/Jos Camp not right on Jefferson, with the other retail space right on Jefferson. | ||
Susanarosa Member Username: Susanarosa Post Number: 723 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 208.39.170.77 |
Uhhh, it's next to a strip mall... I can't see what the big deal is here. | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1259 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
There is always some excuse for not having urban design. "Its already near a strip mall", "It's near the perimeter of downtown near the highways", "There was nothing there before". If we use these excuses, then really, there is really not any good spot to build anything urban in our city anymore outside of a few blocks in the middle of downtown. While one could argue that it is near a strip mall, those who live there would also argue it is near a dense urban environment of apartments, bars, and restaurants as well. Why should a poorly planned strip mall, which doesn't match the vision of the riverfront, which is nearly 1/3 empty, dictate how this Staples should be built? Lets compare: Dense urban area being renovated and filled with new residents, bars and lofts, versus shitty strip mall which is loosing occupancy. And we want to build another one of them??? | ||
Merchantgander Member Username: Merchantgander Post Number: 1632 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 150.198.150.244 |
They could argue that but it wouldn't be true. | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1260 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
MG - Perhaps you need to educate yourself with Jos Campau a bit. You seem unfamiliar with Garden Court which is being converted to Condos, River Place which has very successfully been turned into lofts. Atwater Brewery, Rattelsnack, Karras Bros, and the other business that line Jos Campau. It remains largely in tact with almost all buildings occupied. Its one of the few places you can live and walk to restaurants, bars, gym, the river, hotel and offices. | ||
Dabirch Member Username: Dabirch Post Number: 1396 Registered: 06-2004 Posted From: 208.44.117.10 |
Susanarosa lives there. I will give deference to her point of view. | ||
Susanarosa Member Username: Susanarosa Post Number: 725 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 208.39.170.77 |
And know we'll be able to walk to a Staples just the same way we can walk to Lucky Dragon or the Cingular Store or any of the other places located in the Evil Strip Mall. I don't get what the big deal is, but obviously, ya'll see something I don't. | ||
Detroitkev Member Username: Detroitkev Post Number: 41 Registered: 04-2005 Posted From: 69.212.230.115 |
There is a dense urban neighborhood infrastructure, but it is far from dense in that area. No doubt it has potential, and why there wasn't residential componenet to the retail being built is beyond me. We know there is residential demand in the area. | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 2725 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.79.82.71 |
A choice between a weed-filled lot or a Staples where I can actually purchase things I need? Not a difficult choice. | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1262 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
Why does the choice have to be between a big box style development or nothing at all? If the city would set guidelines for urban style development in the riverfront area, its just a matter of placement. Not all or nothing. (Message edited by gogo on February 22, 2006) | ||
Dabirch Member Username: Dabirch Post Number: 1398 Registered: 06-2004 Posted From: 208.44.117.10 |
Jefferson Avenue, the busy, heavily driven, 9 lane arterial road leading out of downtown is not the riverfront area. It is basically a freakin' highway. Now in between Jefferson and the river, that is where we need to focus on "urban style development". | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1263 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
Its that way because we have let it get that way. It is no wider than Woodward in Midtown. As someone who lives near Jefferson, I don't want to be near a highway. Jeffeson is half new suburban strip mall developed, but still remains half intact with urban development. Just because there are stripmalls there now, doesn't mean we should give up on it as a highway. its only that way because we let it be that way. I personally would not like to see Jefferson turn into an even worst highway. The setback of Chene Stripmall takes up 1/3 of the depth of Jefferson to the River. If we cede 1/3 of the rivefront area to this style of development, that hardly leaves room for the type of urban village that everyone shares for the riverfront. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1260 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
I thought Detroitkev made an interesting comment, in that he implied low land value necessitated a suburban design. I couldn't disagree more. Large parking lots are always unprofitable, unless you charge market rates for parking. I think this store could be built right up to the sidewalk, with parking in the rear. It would be easier to access on foot for those who walk or take the bus, and people could just as easily drive there. On top of that, it would help to better frame Jefferson, and perhaps even slow traffic down a bit. One of those 9 lanes could be converted to on-street parking. The problem is, the City zoning regs will allow nothing of the sort. Gogo, I'm right with you on this one. The City is just too damn lazy to think urban. I think the City sees the suburbs as "successful", and so is trying to replicate the suburbs with new development, which is highly unfortunate. That's a game the City has no chance of winning. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 6838 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 198.208.251.24 |
I always wonder why that seems to be an option that is ignored so much in SE Mich. | ||
Goat Member Username: Goat Post Number: 8130 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 65.92.103.139 |
Because people think there is no parking (if they folks don't see it, it doesn't exist mentality). | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 2727 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.79.82.71 |
I must ask, what is so sacred about "Urban"? I grew up here in Detroit, walking Vernor and Springwell. I enjoy my discovery of little family owned businesses that I spend my money in. I don't own a vehicle, so I know from personal experience what living the "walkable life" is like. The reality is people use vehicles in their day-to-day life. Unless you can change that mindset, opposing anything that doesn't fit your perception of "Urbanity" holds back this City from what it needs. I've bitched for years, we need retail here. If it means some damn ugly buildings, so be it. It might help stop the flow of the population to places that have all that "Suburban" architecture. | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1265 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
Jams - We have retail here (in metro Detroit). If that type of development is what you want, then you have your pick. What we don't have in metro Detroit are much choice by way of urban centers. We are loosing population because of it. If we cede Michigans only major city to suburban style development, what option is there for people who want to live in an urban environment? No option except to move. Is short term gains worth the cost in the long term when simple city regulations can make both possible? There are plenty of areas in the city of Detroit suitable for big boxes and strip malls, downtown, midtown and the riverfront are NOT. | ||
Susanarosa Member Username: Susanarosa Post Number: 728 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 208.39.170.77 |
So people aren't going to move to/or will move out of River Place or Garden Court because there is an (to some)unaestetically pleasing Staples next door (or up the street)? That really doesn't make any sense. | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1266 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
It doesn't always have to be either or. Many cities have found ways to integrate big box retailers into their urban fabric. The problem with strip malls and other big box styles of development is that they often limit what is built around it. Nobody wants to look out of their apartment at a parking lot with a strip mall. A fine dining restaurant doesn't want to sit adjacent to one either. When big box's can be developed into the urban fabric, it doesn't limit what is next to it. An apartment or loft can fit harmoniously adjacent to it, as can a fine dining restaurant. That's the nature of urban environments. Strip malls not only eat up the huge amount of land they occupy, they often limit what is built surrounding them as well. Would you rather live, eat, walk near Chene Stripmall or... http://www.marketwire.com/mw/r elease_html_b1?release_id=1086 04 http://www.forumarc.com/portfo lio/theshops/sam1.html We can't build an urban environment along the riverfront if the only good views are going to look at the river away from jefferson. An urban environment affords good views from all angles, not one. | ||
Rasputin Member Username: Rasputin Post Number: 3492 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 64.12.116.204 |
"Build it, they will come!!" Black-atcha .... supporting Staples & jobs | ||
Swingline Member Username: Swingline Post Number: 404 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 172.157.146.91 |
The store will provide some welcome retail of a type that is sorely needed in and around the CBD. (Yesterday while at the Boat Show where on the spur of the moment, I purchased a new 50' Sea Ray motor yacht (I got $150k off with a Boat Show discount and I put the whole $1.15 Million on my Visa) an out-of-town vendor asked me if there was someplace within walking distance where she could purchase a couple of boxes of inexpensive pens. It was a good thing that the CVS just opened up.) The design of the new store is guaranteed to be awful in large part because of the massively bloated parking ratios required by City of Detroit zoning. | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 2728 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.79.82.71 |
Where is the demand to purchase or lease those buildings on Jefferson that have stood vacant for most of the 17 years I've lived on this side of town? I'm not a fan of much of today's style of commercial architecture, but if it will offer needed goods and services and employ people that need jobs they can get to, I'll take that over an empty City that is pleasing to the eye. I was in Walgreen's on Jefferson yesterday, beats the hell out of going to one in the suburbs as I did for so many years. | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1267 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
Where's the demand to fill Chene Stripmall which remains vacant in many of its spaces? Again, why does it have to be either or?? Nobody is chasing staples away.
I suspect someone will move in. But you go ask the leasing office at Garden Court if they will have an easier time selling their units facing towards downtown if they look out on a parking lot and strip mall, or if they look at at something that is designed in an urban manner in blends with the rest of Jos Campau. I suspect they'd rather have multiple sides of their building with nice views than just one side. | ||
Susanarosa Member Username: Susanarosa Post Number: 729 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 208.39.170.77 |
But the Chene stripmall is already there and obviously folks have chosen to live near it. Also in that few-block radius are motels, car washes, the Omni, car dealerships, the Harbortown stripmall, Walgreens, CVS, the Yandotega (sp?) club, a marina, the Federal Building, the UAW/GM Building, Chene Park, the Life Skills place, an elementary school, a Wayne State University office and a lot of abandoned warehouses. This isn't the hill ya'll should be dying on... | ||
Susanarosa Member Username: Susanarosa Post Number: 730 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 208.39.170.77 |
Like the patio on top of Karras Bros.? I'm guessing Staples would be much quieter... | ||
Merchantgander Member Username: Merchantgander Post Number: 1633 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 150.198.150.244 |
I know the area very well worked over there for a few years that is why I know it is not a dense urban neighborhood. Maybe a nice cute little block but neighborhood I don’t think so. A over block you have a gated UAW HQ behind the strip mall there are some very nice surface parking lots and a few abandon factories. I think you might want to go over there and educate yourself on the area and not drive down JC and think every block is like that. | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1268 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
MG - I lived there for a while and chose it because it was about as an urban an area as Detroit gets. | ||
Merchantgander Member Username: Merchantgander Post Number: 1635 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 150.198.150.244 |
So then you know it is not dense. | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1269 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
I know that compared to 99% of michigan, its about as dense as it gets. One of the few walkable areas in the city where you can get food and drink nearby. Where office workers mix with residents and hotel guests. Where the street facades are mostly uninterrupted. Where there are not large set backs for parking lots which often make walking hazardous. | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 2729 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.251.226.212 |
I still await an answer why is "Urban" so sacred? Detroit is or was the most "Suburban" city in the world. Single family residences were the first choice for most here. Until a few years ago the CBD was just that, a business district. There was not a demand for residential. People wanted HOUSES. The older sections of the City were built in an era prior to the automobile, allowing for the smaller lots. Outside the central area, homes were built for the realities of the time, driveways and garages became the norm. I'm just frustrated by this demand for "Urbanity". It seems to me as inauthentic as the "Modernizations" of the 60's. | ||
Dabirch Member Username: Dabirch Post Number: 1399 Registered: 06-2004 Posted From: 208.44.117.10 |
PArking lot at the river. Parking deck (without ground floor retail) 2 blocks off Jefferson. Giant parking lot block up from Atwater. Giant empty lot at the corner. What type of uninterrupted streetscape are you seeing? (Message edited by dabirch on February 22, 2006) | ||
Merchantgander Member Username: Merchantgander Post Number: 1638 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 150.198.150.244 |
It doesn't get anymore urban then subway shops and surface lots. | ||
Lurker Member Username: Lurker Post Number: 1590 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 65.196.220.198 |
Since the days of the streetcar have passed, has Detroit been an urban, walkable city? No, it is a driving city, where people get in their Oldsmobuick, pull out of the driveway and drive over to the parking lot/garage and do all their shopping in one building. People bitch about having to park two blocks away from something in this town. So, people may have their utopian view of what they want this city to be, but until you change the mindset of the citizens and the government (local and state levels), you are going to see a lot of stripmalls. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1262 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
How do you change the mindset if you only build strip malls? | ||
Susanarosa Member Username: Susanarosa Post Number: 731 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 208.39.170.77 |
Why does the mindset have to be changed at the corner of Jefferson and Jos. Campau? | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3593 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
Amen brudder.....
Can I get a hallelujah? | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1271 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
I don't agree that the lack of streetcars preclude urban style development. Many urban areas throughout the countries don't have streetcars/subways or the like and manage. I do agree that many Detroiters don't know how to shop somewhere unless they see parking right in front of where they are going. I don't agree however that all Detroiters feel this way, there are many examples within our own region that show this. | ||
Eric_c Member Username: Eric_c Post Number: 653 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 68.21.62.206 |
You build transit. Unfortunately, it's cheaper to build buildings with setbacks. | ||
Lurker Member Username: Lurker Post Number: 1591 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 65.196.220.198 |
DaninDC: I don't know the answer to that question. You seem like you are intelligent enough to realize that we live in a country of bland. Troy, MI = Schaumburg, IL = White Plains, NY = everywhere else in this country. The majority of people like sameness and familiarity. That's why Applebees is our "neighborhood" bar and everyone gets exicted at the opening of an inexpensive Swedish furniture store within 3 hours of their home. I don't agree with this mindset, which why I choose not to live it. However, I realize I am in the minority, and I care less and less what other people are doing with their lives. Not giving a shit anymore is my own personal contribution to the bland lifestyle and apathy that this nation practices. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1263 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
Really, Eric C? It's cheaper to build setbacks? I always thought it was more profitable to use every square inch of land possible to generate revenue. Maybe that's one of those bizzaro principles of Only In Detroit Economics that I just don't get. | ||
Lurker Member Username: Lurker Post Number: 1592 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 65.196.220.198 |
Name me a walkable, "urban lifestyle" city (that expands more than a 1 square mile district) that does NOT have an extensive public transportation system. | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1272 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
Honolulu. | ||
Rustic Member Username: Rustic Post Number: 2102 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 130.132.177.245 |
River Place ... Detroit's Honolulu! Aloha Motherfuckers! | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3595 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
Cuz Hawaii is just like the rest of America.... | ||
Lurker Member Username: Lurker Post Number: 1593 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 65.196.220.198 |
http://www.enterprisehonolulu. com/html/display.cfm?sid=164 | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1273 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
Honolulu has buses, no different than Detroit. I agree they are better managed than Detroit, but buses just the same. No subways. No street cars. No monorails. | ||
Lurker Member Username: Lurker Post Number: 1594 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 65.196.220.198 |
I would say that being named "America's Best Transit System" by The American Public Transit Association would put it in a separate league than Detroit. A league that would foster a walkable, urban environment. | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 2730 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.251.226.212 |
Great comparison. Honolulu and Detroit. How many days of freezing weather do they get? I'm considering an offer of employment at the moment that will require me to take two bus lines and a walk of a mile and a half both ways. Is that "Urban" enough for you? This 3 year experiment of mine not having a vehicle at my disposal has taught me, it really sucks. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3596 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
So buses are not public transportation even though the American Public Transit Association feels compelled to name TheBus "America's Best Transit System" not once but twice? WTF???? | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1274 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
Well I suppose their is no winning with those who choose to succumb to mediocrity. There is always an excuse to build cheaper, ugly, crappier, we don't have this or we don't have that. We aren't like Honolulu because... We aren't like somewhere else because... Ann Arbor is about a square mile in size. No major mass transit. Austin only has buses, but I suppose you will find some study that shows its bus system ranks slightly above Detroits so it shouldn't count either. I suppose unless I found a city exactly like Detroit, with the same ranking of Bus service, then I could justify urban design. But even then, I'm sure you'd find something different that would make urban design infeasible. | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1275 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
And Detroit has no mass transit at all? DDOT doesn't count for anything? So basically the summation of all this is that we don't build anything urban because we don't have mass transit. We dont' have mass transit because we dont have anything urban. (Message edited by gogo on February 22, 2006) | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 2731 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.251.226.212 |
Anyone willing to give me an answer to my question, why "Urban" is so sacred? Otherwise where is the retail in Detroit if it is so desirable? jams - on the Eastside trying to buy sheets, towels and underwear. (Apologies to jjaba) | ||
Lurker Member Username: Lurker Post Number: 1595 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 65.196.220.198 |
Detroit has public transportation. I don't think anyone is arguing that. What I am arguing is that you cannot easily live here without a car. Yes, it can be done. So, until you change the car mindset of this town, you are not going to have a walkable, urban city. I lived four years of my life without a car, 2 in Chicago and 2 in NYC. My wife and I just pared down our garage to one car, but we can't go any lower than that. We could probably do it in Honolulu. | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1276 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
Regarding Honolulu, more people use the bus than Detroit because its often easier than having a car, which makes it more profitable than operating DDOT. Which makes more urban design and density possible, which makes more people use the bus. See how that cycle can work in the opposite direction as well. The question is, how will Detroit ever turn the cycle regarding density and mass transity if we continue t accept that mass transit is useless and therefore density is pointless. Compare the bus routes of Honolulu and Detroit, you will see that they are by and large similar. The key difference is density. Detroit lacks it and Honolulu has it, which makes its bus system more useful. (Message edited by gogo on February 22, 2006) | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1264 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
Amen, Gogo. You only get what you demand, and if you're content with crap, you'll get crap. | ||
Lurker Member Username: Lurker Post Number: 1596 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 65.196.220.198 |
I'm glad you shouted loud enough for DC to get their subway system. Kudos to you, Dan. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3598 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
No one is arguing that, what is being argued is the fucntionality of the Detroit transit system, which is quite low. Until there is an efficient, pervasive and functional transit system, there will be no way for developers to build on a largely urban model and ensure enough foot traffic to keep projects open and profitable. Honlulu has such as system. Detroit does not. Stpales could easily build on an "urban model" with zero lot line build out and minimal to no parking but it would quickly go out of business because of lack of ability to generate a critical mass of customers being able to shop their store. I am not condoning that, I am simply stating the facts. There is plenty of land and opportunity still around Detroit to begin developing in a more urban context...however, to stall any development because it does not fit a certain aesthetic is to cut off the nose to spite the face. | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1277 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
I encourage you to compare the routes of both Honolulu and Detroit, they both cover their areas of service equally well. What makes theBus in Honoluu more useful than DDOT in Detroit is that Honolulu is dense and Detroit is not. In Detroit, developments like Chene Stripmall make it easier to drive there even if you live .5 miles away than walk or take a bus there. In Honolulu there is no such convenient parking, so it is better to walk or take a bus. How do you propose we achieve this balance, if we continue to develope low density with more parking than we need rather than high density which favors walking or transit?? | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 2732 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.251.226.212 |
Gogo, What really is your point? I lived in the era where business owners lived in the apartments above their shops, Hell I did for several years, until the ex demanded we buy a house. That is not the reality today. Commercial buildings are not built that way anymore. The reality is people want and are provided businesses they can drive to, with easy parking in front. I've run several businesses with parking behind, not the way to ingratiate yourself with customers. I live the "Urban" experience everyday, I think last year I was not out of Detroit more than 10 times. | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1278 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
Quick question: What came first? High density or Mass Transit? If we have neither, what do we expect should come first? Will high density promote the need for mass transit as it has in other large cities, or will a mass transit in a low density city encourage high density? I'm unfamiliar with a mass transit built near low density which then yielded high density. I can think of many cities which were very dense which consequently enabled mass transit. | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1279 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
That's not urban, thats sheltered.
Maybe when you spend a little bit more time in a city that does work, you will not subscribe to the mindset in metro Detroit that many have where if Detroit doesn't work, it should be razed and redeveloped in the models of the suburbs which apparently do work. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1265 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on this forum. Do you honestly mean to tell me the store would do less business if it sat 100 feet closer to the street? There's no reason they can't front the building on the sidewalk and put a parking lot behind the building, and God forbid, create on-street parking on Jefferson. | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 2733 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.251.226.212 |
We're talking about a weed-filled lot, that had an historic building on it, that was razed for what purpose? Deal with reality. Changes happen. I'd love to see those "Urban" buildings along Jefferson filled with vibrant businesses, but it ain't happening. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3599 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
Transit absolutely has to come first. An attempt to retro fit piecemeal high density development without mass transit goes bankrupt very quickly, so individual developers won't do it and a City that tries to force it across the board will not get investment. I don't know of any high density cities that consquently enabled mass transit, I would like to see the examples. Becareful on how you define transit. Upgrades to the typology and technology are not introduing mass transit, it is merely maintaining it. If you are thinking that NYC with its subways introduced mass transit to the City, you are following a false argument. NYC already has mass transit. Subways were the next typology. The exception to that may be Portland where urban growth boundaries were enacted BEFORE sprawl could really take off. As it grew to larger sizes (both geographic and population wise) they added typologies of mass transit, but from the get go had a high fucntioning mass transit system. The gist is that a repalcing a high functioning mass transit bus system or trolley system with light rail is NOT adding mass transit. It is merely uprgrading mass transit. Be careful to parse that out. Introduing high function mass transit has worked wonders in creating dense urban environment nodes around stops. Other cities like Houston, LA and San Diego are starting to experince this. Metro Detroit needs a high function mass transit system if it wants to drive denser development in the City and in the Region. What that system is and how it should operate is a subject of debate. Railheads can't look past choo choo trains and deride busses as crappy. Maybe they should go visit Honolulu. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3600 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
I think you missed the key portion of my post which was "and minimal to no parking". And yes, without sufficient parking, the store will not thrive. We have plenty of examples to show around Detroit where lack of parking drives down customer count to the point that retailers cannot survive. Moving the building to the front lot line and putting the same amount of parking in the rear does nothing to change density or make it more "urban". It might be a more aestheticly pleasing design to some (me included), but that action brings up a whole new set of traffic management issues on a high volume, relatively high speed thoroughfare that have to be taken into consideration. Jos. Campau can get very bottlenecked there as it is already heavily parked by visitors to Garden Court. Traffic management with an entrance off Jos Campau could get tricky. It would have to come in off Jefferson but may cause pedestrian screening issues. Zero lot line with parking in back MAY be doable, but safety concerns with a nine lane road out front take precedence. | ||
Eric_c Member Username: Eric_c Post Number: 654 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 68.21.62.206 |
Yes, Danindc! You smart-assed prick! It's cheaper to build a building with a parking lot than it is to build a comprehensive, region-wide transit system! Don't you think I recognize a retailer profits most when he uses every square inch of land for inventory?! Of course! Unfortunately, "Detroit Economics" (as you put it) dictates that you provide parking for the vast majority of your customers who will arrive via their automobile. Again, we have no mass transit, and until we do, we will have parking lots. Snarky, shit-assed, smart-mouthed fuck. Right back-atcha. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3602 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
Or it so freaking expensive to own a car that many people who would normally have a car, do not. All cars (and their repair parts) have to be shipped in, there are no refinering on the islands and feul is very very expensive...... | ||
Itsjeff Member Username: Itsjeff Post Number: 5557 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 208.27.111.125 |
<---loves EricC with all his heart | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1266 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
Eric C, your statement was that it is cheaper to build with setbacks--not necessarily cheaper to build one parking lot than building a comprehensive regional transit system (which is a fallacious comparison on so many levels, but off topic). I interpreted your statement to read that it is cheaper to build a setback than to build to the lot line. I don't know what you know, which is why I asked a very simple question. Use better diction next time, and spare the personal vitriol. According to this thread, you can't build transit in Detroit because there's no density to support it, and you can't build dense because there's no transit. How does it follow that crappy architecture is acceptable? I'm at a loss, really. Somehow, we have on this thread equated single-family homes with suburbia, as if no other city has single family homes. Even in small towns, people are able to walk to the corner store, and what is a neighborhood really other than a small town within a larger political unit? Additionally, we have accepted a fate that was decided by people sixty years ago, and that is to do away with rail transit and emphasize automobile travel over all else. Is Detroit so castrated and powerless that it cannot break the cycle? Two weeks ago, everyone on this board was raving how Detroit hosted the Super Bowl. Suddenly, everyone is resigned to accepting suburban-style development in the middle of the city. I can't help but scratch my head. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1267 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
Gogo--Arlington, Virginia is probably the best example of a place where improved transit has enabled higher density construction. http://www.co.arlington.va.us | ||
Eric_c Member Username: Eric_c Post Number: 655 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 68.21.62.206 |
Perhaps better diction on your part would have spared you from my acidic remarks. I believe that practical, efficient mass transit throughout Metro-Detroit would indeed enhance the current state of the region, PROVIDED the system's right-of-ways are conceived from the onset as development engines for new urban commuter corridors. A Detroit-area rapid transit system, with few exceptions, would not necessarily do well to try to mimic current auto routes. Instead, residents and community leaders would be wise to view the development of such a system as a way to promote brand-new economic development in underutilized areas throughout the region. Public investment in a properly planned and executed network of transit AND appropriate zoning could credibly enhance Southeastern Michigan's economy by creating opportunities for private investment in areas where there are currently, seemingly few. I see the return of streetcars to Woodward specifically as a small but significant step toward the realization of a true regional transit system and the development of urban commuter corridors. Woodward stands out as the most logical place to institute such a line as it lends itself almost immediately to transits' highest and best use. At once, the urban density of the corridor combined with the current level of disinvestment indicates that a strategy of public commitment to attract private capital to the area would yield the greatest potential return. In the form of a dedicated streetcar line, even if initially limited to between Campus Martius and the Boulevard, this public commitment would increase the value of property throughout the corridor. A fixed-route transit line would promote in-fill and spin-off developments, increase the desireabilty of the route as a place to live and conduct business, as well as provide a practical means of commuting between Downtown, Midtown and New Center. It is my contention that traditional streetcars are the mode of transportation best suited to Woodward Avenue, particularly in the CBD. Streetcars would be ideal on Woodward because the overall scale of the street allows for their efficient function, but I wouldn't consider them necessary, for example on Jefferson, Big Beaver or Wayne Roads. The metro area will have some type of improved transit sooner or later, but I also believe that the area has sprawled out too far from the core to make any one model practical on a regional level. Some areas will always have a need for cars and parking. Regardless, we would be best served by building a permanent system that keeps as it's purpose the stabilization of existing areas and the sensible pioneering of new growth in previously-undeveloped or less-desireable sections of the metro. Everyplace else would still get cars and parking lots. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1268 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
I agree wholeheartedly. It would be foolish to try to eliminate roads and cars, and it would be a complete waste of money to try to implement high levels of transit service in low-density corridors like Big Beaver. With that said, I still don't think a lack of a good transit system mandates strip-mall architecture. There are many examples of pedestrian-friendly urban environments already existing in Southeast Michigan. I'm not saying that Detroit needs to build to the density of Manhattan or downtown Chicago, but it can certainly improve upon the current level, lest Detroit morphs into the overgrown suburb it never was. | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 2734 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.251.226.212 |
Since today was a mild one, I walked Jefferson from Van Dyke to Harbortown and back. Passed very few pedestrians, about half asked me for a smoke or a quarter, lotsa cars though. Casually checked out the number of people in the various businesses. Not so surprising to me, the businesses that offered convenient parking were far busier than those that didn't. Just some anectdotal observation. | ||
Eric_c Member Username: Eric_c Post Number: 656 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 68.21.62.206 |
"With that said, I still don't think a lack of a good transit system mandates strip-mall architecture." ------------------------------ -------------------- You're right. It mandates auto-centered architecture. "There are many examples of pedestrian-friendly urban environments already existing in Southeast Michigan." ------------------------------ -------------------- ...and one needs an automobile to get to all of them. "I'm not saying that Detroit needs to build to the density of Manhattan or downtown Chicago, but it can certainly improve upon the current level..." ------------------------------ -------------------- I agree. It won't become necessary however, until there is meaningful, fixed-route transit. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1269 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
How ever does the village in Grosse Pointe manage? Royal Oak? Ferndale? Until Detroit (and Michigan) stops putting the considerations of cars before people, you're never going to create a quality urban environment. | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 2743 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.79.88.133 |
I keep asking, what is this "quality Urban environment" that you hold so dear? Have you ever gone grocery shopping for the week on foot or on the bus, carried your dry-cleaning 6 or 7 blocks? | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1270 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
I didn't realize it was a crime to have urbanity in a city. God forbid you're able to take care of your daily needs without getting into a car. You do know that Detroit will never be able to compete with its own suburbs if it adopts suburban patterns of development, right? Since I don't have a car, I do all my grocery shopping (and everything else) on foot and public transportation. Piece of cake, but then again, my neighborhood was stupid enough to be walkable instead of paving acres of land for cars. | ||
Lurker Member Username: Lurker Post Number: 1597 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 65.196.220.198 |
Like I said before, Dan, I congratulate you on shouting loud enough to get the District to build it's mass transit. Did you do an online petition or what? I sure wish we here in lil' ol' Michigan had more DaninDCs. At least the climate would be warmer from the additional hot air. | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 2744 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 70.236.161.204 |
This is not a P*ssing contest. You seem to revere "Urban" for its own sake. I'm simply asking for a definition. I've not owned a car in over 3 years. And no, it is not a piece of cake. Much planning and time management goes into the most mundane tasks. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1271 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
Since you don't own a car, I don't understand why you're so anti-urban. Perhaps you can explain why someone without their own vehicle prefers a city that's made more for cars than for him. My definition of urbanity is having neighborhoods that are relatively self-contained, where most daily needs can be accomplished without leaving the neighborhood. Typically, this involves a choice of transportion mode, whether that be car, foot, transit, or bicycle. I'm certainly curious to know what your definition is. Detroiters seem, on the whole, to be frightened that Detroit is actually *gasp* a city. | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 2745 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 70.236.161.204 |
Me..."Anti-urban? Will have to share that with a few of my friends. That statement brought quite chuckle out of me on my walk to and from the grocery store. (Had to choose between kitty litter and potatoes, kitties lost this one  ). I love those old commercial buildings with the apartments on the second floor. Can't get any more urban than that. But as a business owner in today's society, choosing one of those to locate my business would be the equivalent of economic suicide without readily available parking. I'm a realist. In order to have goods and services readily available to me, I'll accept strip malls and "suburban style" buildings. Do I like the crappy architecture? Not very much, but if it gets me retail that in the past I had to drive to the suburbs for I'll applaud it. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1272 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
Hey, I'm just trying to learn here. I realize that there is a distinctly different status quo and culture between our two cities of residence. I guess I'm attempting to gauge the sentiment of you guys regarding what you want to see. I get the sense that Detroiters have a tendency to equate "suburban" with "new", "modern", and "successful", and at the same time equate "urban" with "old" and "outdated". Frankly, that scares me. I think I might need to get my hands on a copy of the City of Detroit zoning regulations. Anyone know where I can find obtain one? | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 1 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 209.220.229.254 |
Retail with apartments on the second floor, with parking in the back? Crazy. Oh snap, that's where I live. But that's in Ferndale. It'd never work in Detroit, 1 mile away, right? Right? | ||
Dabirch Member Username: Dabirch Post Number: 1401 Registered: 06-2004 Posted From: 208.44.117.10 |
That is really quite a ridiculous statement. Look nobody posting here wants to live int he suburbs -- in fact as far as I know each of the people carrying on the argument (myself, Merchantgander, Eric_c, Jams, Susanarosa) regarding the Staples lives in the city and lives here by choice. That being said, for certain parts of the city, including Jefferson Ave., the train is out of the station. Forcing parking in the back, and having building structures up to the sidewalk in this situation, at this location, is not going to do anything to make Detroit more walkable and more urban. If anything, it would look out of place and out of context. We work with what we have. If this were the Tiger stadium lot, there would be an uproar, and much fighting -- because that is a walkable, dense, urban neighborhood. For better or for worse, Jefferson is not -- nor will it be. So please save us the condescending "you guys are so stupid for prefering a suburban lifestyle" implication load of crap. We live here, we shop here, we work here, we walk here (and we drive here). There are battles to be fought and victories to be gained. This, my friend, ain't one of them. | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 2749 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 70.236.161.204 |
Danindc, Being polite as I can be, Why the hell are you so locked into what must be "URBAN"? For some reason, at least in this area, for the most part do not choose it. This is a automobile oriented society (God, I hate to think of the hoops I'd have to jump through if I tried to bring a horse here as my primary transportation) You derided me in an earlier post for noting Detroit as a "Suburban city". It is. Aside from a few business and industrial areas, what are the discernable differences between most of Detroit neighborhoods and those of particularily the inner-ring suburbs? Other than a lack of retail? | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1273 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
Why not? Wouldn't building to the property line be a first step toward creating a denser neighborhood? Trying to learn and exchange ideas here, no matter how "condescending" that may be. | ||
Dabirch Member Username: Dabirch Post Number: 1402 Registered: 06-2004 Posted From: 208.44.117.10 |
Why would it be denser if you have parking in the back? There would still be the same amount of density. I am pretty sure that it is a zero sum game. I guess visually it would look different from Jefferson. And quite frankly, in between jefferson and the river is the area that has the opportunity to create a dense walkable area. Not the 9 lane higway that is Jefferson Ave. Putting parking behind the building would actually impede the development of that area. |
