  Reetz12 Member Username: Reetz12 Post Number: 29 Registered: 09-2005 Posted From: 216.144.213.130 |
I have a copy of the layout scanned, need help putting it on the site. | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 2750 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 70.236.161.204 |
What denser neighborhood? I walk that street. Most of the time I'm the only pedestrian, watching a lot of car traffic. Can you just take a moment to analyze what our society is like, rather than pushing an agenda that doesn't work? jams - walking down to the Jefferson bus stop hoping it might be on schedule. (Luv ya jjaba) | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1274 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
I'm not pushing an agenda--just the way cities were built for thousands of years before we started gutting them for cars after WWII. Wouldn't it be more pedestrian-friendly, and thus help foster more pedestrian-oriented development, if buildings were built out to the property line? I think that setting buildings back from the street only fosters and promotes the "highway" feel of Jefferson. In case you can't tell, I'm stubborn. I don't accept the status quo as an excuse. | ||
Dabirch Member Username: Dabirch Post Number: 1403 Registered: 06-2004 Posted From: 208.44.117.10 |
You stated:
All I am saying is that if you put the parking in the rear, then you make less dense the area between Jefferson and the River. It is a zero sum game. If you were arguing no parking at all, then it would be a different discussion. But you are not. | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 2753 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 70.236.161.204 |
It's not going to change, accept the reality. The world cares less and less about pedestrians, like you and I. Sometimes you just have to accept the world has changed. I'd love to walk up Springwell to Vernor to purchase another set of HO figurines at Levitts Hardware Store, but that world no longer exists. This from a guy who drove 20k a year without ever leaving the Tri-county. | ||
Hornwrecker Member Username: Hornwrecker Post Number: 853 Registered: 04-2005 Posted From: 63.41.40.85 |
Danindc, come spend a few days/weeks at the Burton Collection in the DPL going over all of the old Sanborn Fire Insurance maps. After you've done that, you'll have a feel for how Detroit developed over time. I have, and Detroit is a unique study, density only occured during the occasional large population influx due to an expansion in the auto industry. One can really see this when one looks at the locations of idustrial building/failures over time, which I'm currently trying to do. Basically, after the industrial revolution, housing followed industrial plants: first located on the waterways, then the railroads. There is only one geographic/political boundary that limited this spread, and that was the Detroit River. Aside from sporadic apartment dwellings for individuals, everything else was detached single dwellings with small retail at major intersections. Very apparent when looking at the between World Wars era. Rinse and repeat for a hundred years. The only remaining walkable neighborhoods for shopping are in ethnic communities such as Mexicantown, West Warren Ave, Corktown, and Hamtramack, where a small business ethos is prevalent. Everywhere else, when small retail closed up, nobody/nothing replaced it. Highland Park is a good example of when a complete failure happens to retail, probably due to it being a wealthier endo-burb (inner-burb?) than its neighbor Hamtramack. The current urban, CBD living is a newly made Disneyland, it never existed before hipsters wanted to live in lofts. I apologize for the pedantry, but this thread got to me. (Message edited by Hornwrecker on February 23, 2006) | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1275 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
I'm aware that Detroit has almost always consisted of single-family residences. That isn't to say there was never enough density to support neighborhood-oriented, walkable retail districts. The evidence that such neighborhoods once existed in Detroit is all over the main thoroughfares in the form of boarded-up buildings. Am I to understand there is no desire to rebuild those neighborhoods, and instead replace it all exclusively with automobile-oriented strip malls? I mean, I'm not trying to force anything on anyone. Part of me thinks that there is opportunity that's not being taken advantage of. | ||
Hornwrecker Member Username: Hornwrecker Post Number: 854 Registered: 04-2005 Posted From: 63.41.8.199 |
Found a link to Detroit Zoning Maps at the City of Detroit Planning site. In the past there seemed to be no zoning restrictions, kind of like Phoenix. Yesterday I found a hydrogen and oxygen, bottled gas plant right in the middle of a residential block, 1930s era. I wonder who thought it would be a good idea to build houses a few feet from this plant? I've been searching for population density maps for the past 100 years, to check against industrial developement, nothing so far. To get back to a density of what it was at its highest, you'd probably have to retreat back to the 1916 city limits, with the current 48% of peak population. (Message edited by Hornwrecker on February 23, 2006) | ||
Erikd Member Username: Erikd Post Number: 536 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.242.214.106 |
I agree with danindc on this one. It doesn't take any extra effort or expense to build new buildings up to the sidewalk, and put the parking lot in back. I don't see what the big problem is. This is a good solution to provide the same amount of parking, and also create/continue a pedestrian and transit friendy area. It works in Royal Oak, Ferndale, Birmingham, Rochester, and Grosse Pointe. It makes sense to do it the same way in Detroit. The lack of retail in Detroit has nothing to do with the placement of of the parking lot in new developments. Retailers stay away from Detroit because of low income levels, high insurance, high taxes, high crime, racism, etc, not because Detroit won't allow parking lots in the front. In fact, the opposite is true. The suburban areas with stores built out to the sidewalk and parking in the rear are much more attractive to retailers than suburban-style strip malls in Detroit. I don't understand why some people try to paint it as an either-or situation. | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1280 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
You may be right on the gas point, however you are not entirely correct when it comes to the overall cost of owning a car in Hawaii vs Detroit. Detroit still out ranks most areas when it comes to costs of car ownership. Bad weather, high insurance make Detroit one of the most expensive places to own a car, not Honolulu. http://money.cnn.com/2004/09/1 6/pf/autos/newcarcosts/index.h tm http://www.automotivedigest.co m/view_art.asp?articlesID=1643 0 | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3604 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
Has everyone forgotten that we are talking about pedestrian friendliness for a building facing a NINE LANE ARTERIAL? There is no parking on Jefferson along that stretch for very good reason. The figures you post Gogo are for operational expenses (insurance, gas, etc) and not for initial purchase. The insurance costs in Detroit are egregious which many many folks get around through not carrying insurance or commiting insurance fraud. Considering I could cut my insurance bill by more than 60% simply by moving to any one of a number of suburbs is the real issue and cost center here. I am not sure about the data methods used in the studies you linked to, but regardless of methodology, the insurance costs are so out of skew as to be laughable. How is that I am paying nearly as much in PLPD for a ten year old Sable as my friends in Brooklyn heights pay for full coverage on a three year old Volvo S-40? That is the real cost killer. The national fuel average for 2/25 as reported by AAA is $2.29 for regular with premium at$2.49. Honolulu's regular is clocking in at $2.68, nearly 20 cents higher than the national average for premium. Detroit's regular cost is $2.27 or two cents below national average. Having old college buddies that live in Hilo, I am quite aware that they pay anywhere from 15 to 30% more for new cars than those of us on the main land. You can get around insurance costs in Detroit. You can't get around having you car shipped (literally) to the Island. | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1282 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
Skulker - The costs to maintain cars in Detroit are several times more than in Hawaii. Bad roads, bad weather, and car insurance (even if you use a suburban address) outweigh whatever costs gas prices may add. I have lived in Hawaii for 18 years. I'm fully aware of what it costs to own and maintain a car in Hawaii versus Detroit. I'm also aware that the bus system in Hawaii is not all that more comprehensive than Detroit. Its success is based on the density of development there vs here. In your riverfront vision there is parking in front of everything and for every purpose, WHY would anyone ever use Detrotis bus's when they can park infront of everything? A bus ride from east jefferson to new center would take about 15 to get downtown 15 minutes to transfer and 15 minute to new center). An equivalent distance in Hawaii with one transfer would be exactly the same amount of time. The only difference is that in Detroit. I can more easily park in front of my end destination than in Honolulu, so why would I bother with the bus? | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 2757 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.79.99.12 |
This statement by Danindc has been bouncing around in my head for the past day.
That is what I had when way back in my High School years in Allen Park. It is also what I had when I lived over my business in Northville, (Hell, if it weren't for my girlfriend in Ann Arbor or my location photo assignments I could go for weeks without touching my car there) I don't think either of those locations would be considered an "Urban experience". Just trying to understand why "Urbanity" is so desirable, when according to my observations most of today's society wants something different. In the 17 years I've lived in the general Downtown area, I've watched several waves of new immigrants come and go. I hope I am very wrong about this latest wave. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3607 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
The idea for the East Riverfront is a dense walkable village with adequate street parking to accomodate visitors and with internal parking for residents that is screened from pedestrians. It is a collaborative and community endorsed plan and establishes the very guidelines needed to make such a vision reality. I like the vision that was developed for the East Riverfront and fully support it. I don't know where you are getting the idea that I want to see the Riverfront as a giant parking lot...however, I am willing to recognize that a retailer providing a service and commodity that is in short supply in an area of 970,000 residentts spread across 138 square miles, might, just might, need some on site parking to accomodate those customers. Silly me. Why would anyone use Detroits bus service when it does not run efficiently, is slow, has poor route coverage to job centers and is not pervasive enough in the neighborhoods to create critical mass? Removing parking from in front of a cafe in the East Riverfront is not going to force folks into using a crappy transit system. They will merely go somewhere else. | ||
Jfried Member Username: Jfried Post Number: 725 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 209.131.7.190 |
you can find the city's new zoning regs here - http://www.ci.detroit.mi.us/le gislative/BoardsCommissions/Ci tyPlanningCommission/planning_ main_frame.htm you'll find that there is a place reserved for a set of overlay districts. the "main street" overlay district is completed and in effect in areas like east jefferson near the grosse pointe border. this district requires buildings to be built to the lot line, rear/side parking, no drive thrus, etc. there is also a "riverfront" overlay district that is being prepared for the east riverfront. this will be similar to the mainstreet district, but written to take even greater consideration of pedestrian scale. the area along jefferson where the new staples is locating will be under the "thoroughfare" overlay, because that's what this area of jefferson is, a "thoroughfare!" jefferson is NOT park of the riverfront district. it's mentioned above several times - we need to pick our battles. jefferson moves a lot of traffic (20-30K +) in this area. pedestrians need to be considered, but there is a big difference between an area being walkable and being pedestian oriented. do we want areas of the city to be dense, "urban", and walkable - YES, but not EVERYTHING needs, or should be developed this way. | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1283 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
I understand what the "vision" for the riverfront area is supposed to be. What I can't reconcile is this vision which everyone has endorsed and what it is becoming. The potential Staples designed like most other big boxes, the West Chene Campus. Even recent projects like the GM UAW headquarters, Michigan Basics and the 5/3rd fall short of anything dense and walkable. Of course, there is always an excuse, its on Jefferson so we will cede 1/3 of the riverfront to stripmalls. Or its near a highway so we will cede that land as well. In the end, it seems this vision only applies to the narrowest slice of the riverfront, making any attempt at being a dense urban village more of a theme park novelty rather than a cohesive policy which dictates how development unfolds. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1276 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
Jfried, in my neighborhood, Pennsylvania Avenue carries 40,000+ vehicles a day (traffic counts on dc.gov), has 8 lanes, but still has on-street parking. Retail and housing are built to the property lines, and the neighborhood is highly walkable and has high transit patronage. Despite the large number of businesses in a small area, not one has a surface parking lot fronting on the street. I think the problem, as I've stated earlier in this thread, is Detroit puts the needs of cars ahead of the needs of people. | ||
Susanarosa Member Username: Susanarosa Post Number: 735 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 208.39.170.77 |
Since I actually, ahem, LIVE THERE... The sign says it's for a Staples Shopping Center and indicates that they're looking for more tenants. So through deductive reasoning I think there will be more than a Staples there. Additionally, Jefferson is NOT the riverfront. Atwater is the riverfront. The Riverwalk is the riverfront. They're three blocks apart. So why don't you instead worry about the urban density of all those abandoned lots and warehouses off Atwater before worrying about the urban density of a (and I hate to repeat what has already been said...) A FREAKING 9 LANE HIGHWAY THREE BLOCKS FROM THE RIVERFRONT. Augh. | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1284 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
Like Woodward in front of the Fox theater? | ||
Rustic Member Username: Rustic Post Number: 2111 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 130.132.177.245 |
this thread is absolutely deranged ... it is as weird as the recent Silo thread ... is there some sorta neurotoxin seeping into the air over there? It started with an oddly strident e-mail to a large corporation opening a big box office supply store (btw if THAT was written by a member of the Detroit's "Creative Class" ay-yi-yiiii!) ... into a discussion of the price of gas in Honolulu ... into a definition of a "Colbert Report"-style wørd: "urbanity" ... | ||
Susanarosa Member Username: Susanarosa Post Number: 736 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 208.39.170.77 |
Dan, as much as you will disagree... you cannot compare DC and Detroit. You can't, and you know it. | ||
Huggybear Member Username: Huggybear Post Number: 157 Registered: 08-2005 Posted From: 192.217.12.254 |
Why don't the Garden Court people focus their energy on a battle they are more likely to win - like having the side of the Staples that faces their building look good? Or toning down the signage so that is not distactingly bright from the residential units? The orientation of the building relative to the street is going to be less controllable. Maybe you could ask them to do it like in GP, where the building and lot are perpendicular to Mack. And back the rear of the building up to Joseph Campau to be less obtrusive. And fighting to eliminate parking is definitely unwinnable. Oh, but wait. We are going to magically turn an unwalkable area into a walkable one by changing one lot. Because I am walking from (for example) Sankore to a law office to Garden Court to Staples then to a massive stripmall with a vacant flagship business? Even on your best day, if the front of Staples was right up to the street, it would make up a line of businesses that a consumer would never casually stroll between. And is Staples going to reorient an entire site to accommodate the pedestrian needs of one (or a couple) residential buildings? Also, if I lived at (or was doing sales for) Garden Court, I'd tell you I wouldn't want any walkability except up and down Joseph Campau. It's a nice street with a realistic scale and businesses that are and act (upper) middle-class. Jefferson is not. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1277 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
What works as a better comparison, then: Gary or Newark? | ||
Susanarosa Member Username: Susanarosa Post Number: 737 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 208.39.170.77 |
How about Cleveland, smartass. Cleveland did a fanstastic job restoring their warehouse district into "the flats" with entertainment, dining, etc. Why don't you look at that type of walkability on the opposite side of Atwater from the Riverwalk when it's created while keeping the already immensely commerical Jefferson Ave. intact? | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1285 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
Susanarosa - Is clevelands warehouse district surrounded by strip malls and located in a vacuum? Urban design doesn't happen in a vacuum, otherwise its merely a novelty like Novi's fountainwalk. It happens as a result of a cohesive plan that applies to a large area. Creating such a district on the narrowest slice of the riverfront would make such an urban experience, just that, an experience, not an actual urban live/work/play district. | ||
Dabirch Member Username: Dabirch Post Number: 1404 Registered: 06-2004 Posted From: 208.44.117.10 |
Jefferson from downtwon is like NY Ave as you are approaching the BW Parkway. There are some older commercial building without parking (like the "last stop" best place to get a 40 on your way to Camden -- actually that store always makes me feel at home), and much of the new development has parking in front and buildings set back from the street. THe streets are very similar, and the purpose of the street -- i.e. leaving one city and going to another is also very similar to jefferson. Penn Ave is a destination area and has an entirely different purpose. Thus, I believe that such a comparison is probably more valid. Or maybe Hawaii Ave? Drive out past Catholic U. and tell me about the unbelievably walkable, dense, urban utopia that is DC. Much of the retail has parking lots in front. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1278 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
I only pulled out that example to illustrate that a traffic volume of 30,000 cars a day is no reason to mandate parking lots fronting the street. There's a reason NY Ave is a craphole in NE--because it's oriented toward moving automobile traffic and little else. The way you become a "destination" (or "neighborhood" to use my quaint passe term for it) is to focus on the human scale--not that which blows by at 35mph+. The Flats in Cleveland are NOT synonymous with the Warehouse District. The Flats is the low-lying area along the banks of the Cuyahoga, while the Warehouse District is the area at the top of the hill adjacent to Public Square. The Warehouse District has gentrified in recent years while the Flats have died. Would you like to know the #1 complaint of people who live and hang out in the Warehouse District? Too many surface parking lots kill off potential activity and keep the area psychologically segregated from Public Square. | ||
Susanarosa Member Username: Susanarosa Post Number: 738 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 208.39.170.77 |
I'm sorry, I know you said that you lived in the area eighteen years ago (?)but have you been to River Place lately? Talk about a vacuum. It's a freakin' gated, planned neighborhood/community in between Jefferson and Atwater with a private parking garage surrounded by abandoned warehouses and commerical property and a freakin' concert venue... Under your argument about planned communities not working surrounded by a vacuum then why are you arguing that River Place/Jos. Campau work? You're contradicting yourself now... Go enjoy the palm trees or somethin' | ||
Susanarosa Member Username: Susanarosa Post Number: 739 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 208.39.170.77 |
I need to apologize, I used an example of a city I haven't been to in over 5 years... Thank you for letting me know what Cleveland is currently like. However, please explain why the Warehouse district is thriving even though folks are still complaining about the amount of surface lots. Under your previous arguments that area shouldn't be thriving at all... You sure are an expert on all cities outside of your own... do you travel a lot or lie a lot? | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1286 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
Susanarosa - I didn't say I lived at Riverplace 18 years ago. | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 4 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 209.220.229.254 |
What's unfortunate is that we "need" 9 lanes on Jefferson/Woodward/Gratiot to move 20-30k vehicles, when they get by moving 25k in Kalamazoo on 3 lanes, 35-40k+ on 4 or 5, and there are never significant traffic jams. | ||
Susanarosa Member Username: Susanarosa Post Number: 740 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 208.39.170.77 |
Oh-kay then... | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1287 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
Susanarosa - You must be illiterate. That statement says that i've lived in Hawaii for 18 years, not that I lived at Riverplace 18 years ago. | ||
Susanarosa Member Username: Susanarosa Post Number: 741 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 208.39.170.77 |
Aw, shucks Gogo, ya got me. I'm illiterate. Better take my MA away... I just inferred that they were the most recent eighteen. Especially since you're so freakin' clueless about the neighborhood you're railing on and on about... | ||
Dabirch Member Username: Dabirch Post Number: 1405 Registered: 06-2004 Posted From: 208.44.117.10 |
Or maybe if you have the whitehouse one corner, the capital just down the street, the FBI, DOJ, DC Government, Reagan Building, etc.,lining your thoroughfare, then a wide heavily travelled street can have a street side,neighborhood, scale. Penn Ave is downtown -- the entire corridor is downtown. It is businesses that people go to work at everyday, oh and there are like 10m tourists a year walking around. jefferson avenue is an artery out of the city. It is not lined with office workers. Apples and hand grenades buddy. NY Ave and jefferson are comparable arteries. And they both bisect some pretty crappy areas. The areas are not crappy because of the parking lots and lack of scale. They are crappy because they are crappy. | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1288 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
What's clueless is those who complain there is no shopping in Detroit and then aim low for big box retailers in stripmall development. If that is what you yearn for, move to Troy. It seems to suite you better and its available right now. Why move the suburbs to Detroit when their already at your finger tips? | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1279 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
The Warehouse District has picked up simply because developers started converting the buildings into apartments. With more residents, the need for restaurants, bars, and such has increased. The Flats was more of a drive-in, drive-out party spot, with very little residential, whereas the WHD has the seeds of a bona fide neighborhood. The parking lots themselves don't kill off the activity in the blocks that contain inhabited buildings, but the lots do cause a segregation of the area from the rest of downtown, and prevent that activity from spreading. The reason is very simple--it's not very interesting to walk past a parking lot, which is the same point I'm attempting (but apparently failing) to make on this thread. ...and no, I don't lie, at least not knowingly. I just pay attention when I go places. | ||
Dabirch Member Username: Dabirch Post Number: 1406 Registered: 06-2004 Posted From: 208.44.117.10 |
If that is the point you are trying to make, I think we are all in agreement. Glad we cleared that up. | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 2759 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 70.236.167.119 |
Gogo With all due respect, YOU'RE AN ASSHOLE! I haved lived in this City most of my life. I've lived here way longer than before it was COOL. If it means I no longer have to go to the suburbs to purchase items I need in a "Suburban" style building, I'll happily open my wallet. If you want a museum, great. I happen to need a City where I can supply my needs. | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1289 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
Jams it seems the city that will fullfill the needs you have already exists. If you want a stripmall you can park in front of, if you want a Staples you can park in front of there are many of cities for the picking that will fullfill you needs. What this region lacks is an urban area. I'm not trying to be an ass, just pointing out that what you seem to yearn for already exists in Troy, Novi, or Warran. Bon apetite. Enjoy. People move from cities in favor of the suburbs all over the country in every metro area. For schools for their children, because they love applebees or staples, or whatever it is they move to the suburbs from the urban center when it suites their lives. The difference with Detroit is that, people don't move in the other direction when they want an urban experience as they do in other cities. They move to Chicago instead. And if you think anyone is moving to Detroit because it COOL you are seriously confused. PS: You don't need to say "with all due respect" when you don't mean it. I'm ok with you calling me an ASSHOLE. There is no respectful way to call someone that, so please don't bother pretending to be respectful. (Message edited by gogo on February 24, 2006) | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1280 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
Or you can completely ignore that I was referring to Pennsylvania Avenue SE on Capitol Hill, which is lined with stores and houses. Do you know where those 40,000+ cars a day come from? That's right! Maryland! Commuter road anyone?
Because God deemed it so? How does a street get "crappy"? Is a street born crappy, or is that a choice the street gets to make? | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 2760 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 70.236.167.119 |
It's amazing, No one has defined "Urban" that doesn't describe a suburban landscape. | ||
Dabirch Member Username: Dabirch Post Number: 1407 Registered: 06-2004 Posted From: 208.44.117.10 |
I never said the streets were crappy -- I said the areas were crappy. You know, a lot of poverty. Run down. Abandonned. Vacant. Crappy. Not quite sure why you keep responding to my posts. I already admitted that the point you were attempting to make -- that it is not very interesting to alk past a parking lot -- has already been made. We agree. We all agree. Ideal, utopian, unique, dense, walkable, urban villages are hampered when they are filled with parking lots. We get it. | ||
Merchantgander Member Username: Merchantgander Post Number: 1639 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 68.61.196.207 |
Dabirch, I don't think you understand how dense this area is.  | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 2761 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 70.236.167.119 |
Would you people stop taking up my time. I have to walk up to the bus stop to catch the Van Dyke line to Gratiot to transfer to the SMART bus so I can buy .05mm pencil leads in an ugly store in Roseville. See you in 3 or 4 hours. | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1290 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
Nobody is saying that Staples is unwelcome in Detroit. I'm happy to see Staples and all other development in Detroit. It has NOTHING to do with whether staples should or shouldn't locate in Detroit. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3610 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
Its just that it should look the way the Gogo wants it to look, whether it makes money for the owner or not... | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1281 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
Classic Detroit attitude: Demand nothing, expect little, and make excuses for everything else. Starting to remember why I left.... | ||
Jfried Member Username: Jfried Post Number: 726 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 209.131.7.190 |
gogo - the truth is that most of us here would love to see the type of urban design you have described (over & over again), but the fact is that 98% of the people who live here don't give a shit. people want safe, convenient retail - nothing more. how can you expect the city to put a high priority on creating design standards, when there is no push from electorate to do so? if this were a text book your ideas would have been implemented years ago, but this is the real world. you need to be more realistic. | ||
Dabirch Member Username: Dabirch Post Number: 1409 Registered: 06-2004 Posted From: 208.44.117.10 |
Classic DC attitude - know everything, expect everything, demand respect instead of earning it, listen to no one, argue about everything, and treat all of those not fortunate enough to live in DC as provencial hicks. Pretty certain I remember why I left. | ||
Jfried Member Username: Jfried Post Number: 727 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 209.131.7.190 |
dan - if this shit is as simple as you make it sound why don't you move back and fix this whole sprawl problem for us? | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3611 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
And who says DaninDC is a smug little shit? I'm starting to believe you left because you don't have the balls to stay and do the hard work required to make Detroit better. This isn't about demanding nothing, expecting little and making excuses...it about Detroit being well underserved with retail and Metro Detroit being completely auto dependent. Will this site need to accommodate parking some how? Yes it does. Fact of life that won't change until mass transit is pervasive and efficient. Now DEAL with it and come up with something that looks good, does not create traffic hazards and is not prohibitively expensive. Not a single one of the folks here complaining have even SEEN a site plan, they are merely making assumptions. They are also being very brave with other peoples money, demanding that the site have no parking but completely unwilling to pony up their own cash to start an office supply store without parking. Gimme a break. | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3612 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
Huggybear brings up a good point. Rear parking would likely come in off of Jos. Campau as the sight line for a zero lot line build out on to Jefferson would force cars to pull out and block the sidewalk on Jefferson. Traffic and safety would never let that happen with good reason. That forces everything over to Jos Campau.
Wow, sounds a remarkably like the East Riverfront area before the casino acquisition....and you say the Flats aren't doing so well? Huh....who would thunk? | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1282 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
From that bastion of neo-liberal extremism, the National Trust: http://www.nationaltrust.org/m agazine/archives/arch_story/07 1505.htm ...and this piece of elitist drivel: Ask Chain Stores and Franchises to Fit In http://www.cdtoolbox.net/development_issues/000187.html (Message edited by DaninDC on February 24, 2006) | ||
Lurker Member Username: Lurker Post Number: 1598 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 65.196.220.198 |
Um, 2 of the 3 buildings pictured have parking up front. | ||
Islandman Member Username: Islandman Post Number: 86 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 68.42.171.59 |
What's interesting about this thread is that there has been 0 mention of Walgreens anmd CVS, which both used a suburban design a few blocks away. The CVS is definitely walkable from Riverplace, as is the strip mall at Chene, there is nothing else on Jefferson to walk to. Hell, the CVS went so far to not have a sidewalk around their building (not the perimeter, but the building itself). It is a very anti pedestrian parking lot, to say the least. There is no density south of Jefferson right now. What am I using as a comparison? The north side of Jefferson up to Vernor following along Chene, plus or minus half a mile east and west. That is density. Other than Riverplace, the building across from where Staples is going to be, and the Iron Street lofts, the brewewies, this place is a ghost town. Unfortunately, we are cut off from the north side by Jefferson. Let's not forget the HUNDREDS of cars that ignore that streetlight at Joseph Campau and Jefferson. You won't catch me trying to cross there ever. | ||
Dabirch Member Username: Dabirch Post Number: 1410 Registered: 06-2004 Posted From: 208.44.117.10 |
Thank you Mr. Lurker. Beautiful. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1283 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
Lurker and Dabirch, you missed the boat entirely. The articles I linked to weren't about "parking in the front" as much as they were about retailers being willing to work within whatever legal framework they are given. In the case of low-expectations, throw-me-whatever-crumbs-you-c an-give-me Detroit, though, I can see this will never be an issue to worry about. Why do I waste my time? | ||
Lurker Member Username: Lurker Post Number: 1599 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 65.196.220.198 |
Why do you waste your time, Dan? We hillbillies operate on a much lower plane than you. Maybe when you visit for the holidays, you can spread some magical DC pixie dust on us, and we will finally see the light. | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 2762 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 70.236.167.119 |
Islandman, Actually I mentioned being in that Walgreen's in this thread. Not a huge fan of the conglomerate, but since they offer what I need in my "neighborhood", I'll patronize them. I grew up with a Cunningham's with a luncheon counter, on a busy commercial street, it's from a different era. I'm happy retail is finally coming back to this City, ugly buildings or not. Gogo, apologies for my namecalling. I'm just so frustrated that in all of the years that I haved lived here with so few choices, when we are finally getting some retail back, people bitching about how a building looks gets under my skin. | ||
Merchantgander Member Username: Merchantgander Post Number: 1640 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 68.61.196.207 |
Dan can you please name one person that asked you to post on this site, you arrogant prick. You are the one wasting everyone else’s time with your pie in the sky absolutely no market for ideas. If business people in Detroit listened to you they would go broke. | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 2763 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 70.236.167.119 |
Lurker, I appreciate you not running me over in your car when I walk on Jefferson. I know, it is probably confusing to actually see a pedestrian on that street, but it occasionally happens. | ||
Islandman Member Username: Islandman Post Number: 87 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 68.42.171.59 |
Jams, I meant in the context of the way the building looked (urban/suburban). One thing to remember about this area is the width of the streets. Even Joseph Campau would have to be widened to provide efficient traffic flow to a rear parking area. Nothing is more enjoyable than the traffic snarls that Chene Park creates in the summer months. | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 2764 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 70.236.167.119 |
I-man. I can really appreciate that. Living on Van Dyke, I sat in my car, when I had one, up to 30 minutes before I could pull out when the police closed west bound turns off Belle Isle. | ||
Erikd Member Username: Erikd Post Number: 538 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.242.214.106 |
I am really surprised by the heated debate and divide on this issue. I never thought I would see so many forumers this strongly opposed to the idea of requiring parking lots to be placed in the rear. (Just like Royal Oak, Ferndale, Grosse Pointe, B-ham, Rochester, etc.) Nobody is saying that Staples shouldn't be allowed to have a parking lot. Nobody is saying that Staples should be required to build a multi-story building with apartments above it. We would simply like to see a slight change in the site plan that places the building near the sidewalk, and the parking lot in the rear. This is not a pie-in-the-sky idea that would only work in fantasy land. Many Detroit suburbs, especially the ones that are doing a good job of attracting businesses and residents, require new buildings to be built out to the sidewalk with parking in the rear. Why are Royal Oak and Ferndale so much more attractive to new businesses and residents than Hazel Park, Madison Hts, or Oak Park? Do you really believe that new business and residents would be flocking to Ferndale if 9 & Woodward looked like 9 & John R? If people prefer strip malls over the "outdated" style of buildings up to the sidewalk and parking in the rear, why are the expensive condos and high end businesses locating at 11 & Main instead of 11 & John R? The answer seems obvious to me... | ||
Bobj Member Username: Bobj Post Number: 464 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 68.40.89.238 |
Good point Erikd, people do seem to be migrating back to the building near the sidewalk idea as represented by the cities you mentioned, after many years of the strip mall idea. many cities are seeing the loft/condo idea boom in their downtown areas as walking around becomes more popular than driving around. I go to Lansing and Jackson quite a bit and both have several downtown building renovations or new (old style) construction going on with lofts/apts/condos. | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 2765 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 70.137.106.61 |
The issue was about those of us accepting a compromise of the mode. I'd guess most of us would prefer to see spectacular "Urban" architecture but not at the cost of badly needed retail. We've not seen details of what will be built. It may be "Urban" or it might be built as a "Suburban-style" building. Some of us just take the position that if compromises need to be made in order to get that retail, we will accept them. There is plenty of room in this City for both. | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 2766 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 70.137.106.61 |
I find it ironic, my most "Urban" living experience according to many here, residence above first floor retail, up to the sidewalk buildings, walkable streets, parking lots behind commercial areas, etc. was when I lived above my business just off Main Street in NORTHVILLE. I don't find many here extolling the virtues of that city as an urban experience. | ||
Rustic Member Username: Rustic Post Number: 2113 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.163.181.81 |
Jams, look at a term that is being bandied about: "urbanity". "Urbanity" is a made up word to describe a development model. It is not necessarily any more honest or organic than building subdivisions of greenfield "ranch" houses or high rise public housing projects in residential neighborhoods 50 years ago. "Urbanity" as extolled by DaninDC could describe any old time shopping district city, suburb or even small town. It is not necessarily coupled to an "urban" experience, in fact, it could be in some cases anti urban if it is used artificially impose changes in the existing character of an urban environment to fit the model or if it were used to build up exurban areas surrounding an eroding urban core. Re staples, hey big deal, if the land becomes more valuable that crap will git torn down and replaced by something better, meanwhile ya got a place to go to buy ink jet cartridges and cheep assemble yerself desks. | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 2768 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.218.156.17 |
Rustic, Agreed, thanks for a cooler head. Too bad that even just the Old Walker House could not have been saved, when Doctor's Hospital was razed on that site. That would be a fight to the finish for many of us,today, for that grand building. jams - on the Eastside perusing some old photos and postcards of what East Jefferson was like in the days of the really rich. (jjaba would have gone sockless in those days) | ||
Taj920 Member Username: Taj920 Post Number: 91 Registered: 01-2004 Posted From: 68.42.252.205 |
15 years ago, the Mack-Alter development wanted to do storefronts at the sidewalk, parking in the back. A prominent local retail consultant told them no, it would never work. People want the convenience and safety of having parking in front. After several years of failure, they finally followed this guy's advice, and the development seems to be doing good. Lesson learned: Don't try and force a bad business model on a developer just for the sake of preservation. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1284 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
I'm not understanding something here. The posters claiming that an "urban" store design, one that is built to the property line with parking in rear, would be more expensive--what is the basis for your claim? Aren't we really just talking about putting essentially the same building in a different relationship to the street? How does that increase costs? Even if it does cost a bit more to build an *attractive* looking store, i.e. using masonry facade instead of EIFS, retailers (especially large chain retailers) are often willing to spend the money in order to fit into a community. This is why I specifically posted the links to the two articles above. A developer is only going to provide the bare minimum that the city legally requires. Is it such a crime to demand decent looking buildings? | ||
Romanized Member Username: Romanized Post Number: 195 Registered: 02-2005 Posted From: 71.4.97.70 |
This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I hope you did not really send that. And people still have the nerve to wonder why this city is struggling. | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1291 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 63.240.133.93 |
No. It is the way the Riverfront public forums decided it should look when discussions of the riverfront were had. It is what all those who came together to map a vision for the riverfront decided. It is the vision that has gotten so many excited about the riverfronts development. As Dan has already said, placement of the structure relative to the site costs no more money whether it is set back or up against Jos Campau. So your harping on how expensive minor changes like this will be are baseless. The question is not whether or not Staples should build in the riverfront area. The question is how can it best do it to incorporate into the vision that has been laid for the riverfront. It seems to me that nobody here is even willing to try. They are more focused on whether or not it should build at all, as if working with them to fit into the riverfronts vision that has been set by many is going to make them not build at all. It is not a matter of being realistic or not, its a matter of settling for crap. Discussions with retailers like staples to contribute to the riverfronts vision are best done at the begining. Making modifications that work with Staples requirements and the vision of the riverfront will benefit everyone. I'm unsure why design modifications so that the site does not resemble a strip mall, would make someone downtown drive to the suburbs instead of around the corner to park. Or why the placement of a building would cost more in one location than another. Seems like lazy excuses for those who would rather settle for crap, than actually implement a cohesive riverfront vision that so many spent the time to map out based on many peoples input. People are arguing how far they currently have to drive to get to an office supply store, yet seem so put out to have to drive around the corner to park. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1286 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
Gogo, you arrogant fucking prick. :-) | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3618 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
1. Some folks have called for no parking for the site for a number of different reasons. I think we can all agree that is unworkable. The site needs parking, otherwise the store will fail. 2. Some folks have called for the store to be less "suburban" and more "urban". This has translated into a zero lot line, rear parking solution, as if having a store right against the street makes the site more walkable and pedestrian friendly. While there is some validity to that argument, it is not the whole story. Studies indicate that some people feel less secure in open space (i.e. walking past a large parking lot makes them feel exposed) while others feel more secure in open spaces (i.e. buildings will narrow alleys allow for perpetrators to hide) 3. Pedestrian comfort and safety depend on a host of variables including traffic speed. Feeling "pinned" between fast flowing street and wall makes many pedestrians uncomfortable. In this case a pedestrian is on a 12 foor wide sidewalk pad with a hard wall on one side and a nine lane arterial with traffic flowing at 40-50 MPH. If there is an emergency, there are no parked cars to buffer them and there options for running one way or another to avoid the incident are severely limited. 4. The Radial Gateway Thoroughfare overlay will require fencing, lighting and landscaping to enahnce the visual appeal of the throughway, which serves as a regional arterial to move tens of thousands of cars across significant distances. Folks are making an analogy between this area and the potential for a walkable area like Royal Oak. I think a better comparison is Birmingham. Recall that Birmingham has many features to it, including a dense downtown just a few blocks from a major nine line arterial that mives high volume traffic at high volume speeds (Woodward) that hasn't seemed to impact their success. The Reiverfront District area behind the street face of Jefferson is analogous to downtown Birmhingam. The street face of Jefferson is analogous to the street face of Woodward, where you see *horrors* set backs and surface parking! Even Birmingham recognizes that there must be differing rules for differing street types. 5. Building to the sidewalk on Jefferson with rear parking creates several issues. A. Entry off Jos. Campau requires removal of on street parking and forces more traffic on to a low volume pedestrian scaled street with very sharp turning radii, making for traffic snags and snarls. This will impact the pedestrian use of the area that has been forming over the last few years. B. A Jefferson entry would need to be west of the building as an entry to the east of the building would be unworkable so close to the intersection of Jefferson and Jos. Campau. C. A Jefferson entry to the west would have sightlines that are impreactical and unsafe for entry into a nine lane arterial. Sight lines for a 40-50 MPH thoroughfare must be much longer and much more unobstructed to rpevent acccidents. In order to gain adequate sight lines, cars woudl need to pull out over the.....sidewalk. Not very pedestrian friendly. You also have a blind spots for folks coming out. Jefferson is not and will not be a heavily pedestrianed area. Drivers will become careless and not stop or slow completely when coming through the alley. It already happens at Harbortown. Take it from a bicyclist who uses Lafayette to get to Belle Isle instead of Jefferson because of the heavy auto traffic coming in and out of lots. This isn't about being anti urban, its about appropriate design and human safety in appropriate places. | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1292 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 63.240.133.93 |
Speed limit on Jefferson is not 40-50. Additionally, nobody drives even close to this speed on the lanes closest to the sidewalks. These lanes are mostly used as turning lanes. The sidewalk width on Jefferson provides ample space for a car to stick out while looking both ways for traffic. The argument that Jefferson is a freeway is ridiculous. Its only a freeway because we have let it become this way. If we want to practice what we preach when it comes to developing the Riverfront, then we need to envision ways to make it happen, not excuses for why it cannot. Jefferson is no wider than Woodward in front of the Fox or in front of the Max or Majestic Cafe, or Gratiot near Eastern Market, yet traffic manages to merge onto these arteries just fine. | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 2775 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.248.73.166 |
Gogo, I'm just curious, outside the reality, what is your vision of what East Jefferson should be? | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3620 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
Do we even drive on the same street? The functional speeds are well over 40 MPH
True, they are usually decelerating rather quickly and that is where accidents happen, when there is a change in speed and direction.
My experience has always been very different. When I ride my bike there, I almost always have to come to a complete stop several times because the sidewalks are blocked by cars trying to turn on to Jefferson.
See analogy to Woodward in Birmingham above. Jefferson was designed to be and functions as a regional arterial as was Woodward. Such arterials can and do exist in close proximity. If such an arterial is so destructive to creating nice urban environments, why isn't downtown Birmingham a ghost town?
The large majority of merging traffic in front of the Majestic and the Max are coming off of side streets, most of which are traffic light controlled. For the most part the sidewalks in this area are wider and have parrallel street parking that further insulate the pedestrian from traffic. Note that there are multiple police officers during events controlling traffic in front of the Fox. In order to get the same effect of the Max and MAjestic at the Staples site, traffic would have to be brought in off Jos. Campau and I don't feel that kind and level of traffic is appropriate on a narrow street like that. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1287 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
...and what level of traffic would that be? Are we thinking that Staples would see traffic akin to the Saturday before Christmas on a regular basis? Is there any reason you couldn't have on-street parking on Jefferson, at least during non-rush hours? Is there any reason why cars should not be discouraged to drive above 40 mph on Jefferson? Even skulker noted that as-is, Jefferson is very unsafe. Wouldn't cars slow down to safer speeds if the street were framed better by buildings and if there were on-street parking? Isn't safety more important than whether or not you're able to burn through town at 100 mph? | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1293 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 63.240.133.93 |
Speed limit on Jefferson is 35mph. People do drive faster, but only where they are given the opportunity to do so. When people are given 9 lanes of road with no street parking, and can see side traffic coming from 2 blocks away, they definitely do go faster. In areas that are more dense and have buildings closer to Jefferson with on street parking, people tend to go slower in the right lanes (in front of Power House or Pasadena Apartment building), similar to areas of Woodward. | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 2776 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 70.236.194.246 |
What has been built on East Jefferson in the past 15 years in an "urban" style? The party store next to the McMillan House? CVS? 5th/3rd? Ihop? Chene Strip Mall? How many of the old urban buildings along Jefferson have sat vacant or turned over one business after another? I'm not a newcomer to this area, I've driven, bicycled, and walked that road more times than I could ever count. As skulker has made his points, I live 1/2 a block off Jefferson, walk off my porch and look south, the thing that looms is Solidarity House. Look north and all you see is house after house, with a few apartment buildings. Many of us in the area, at first were opposed to the new Sunoco station and we were able to prevent the drive-through proposed. But it is now part of our neighborhood and we have come to accept the convenience of it. When Riviera Market was modernized to Indian Village Market, again, community opposition to its "Suburban" feel. Yet the parking lot is always filled and the neighborhood now supports it strongly. I'll support Skulker in many of his views as I know little or nothing about the fine points, but I do know that this area needs a variety of choices in retail. | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 2777 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 70.236.194.246 |
"for the neighborhood appeal" | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3621 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
I think we are driving on two different streets.
I did not say Jefferson was unsafe. I pointed out that it is a high volume, high speed arterial where it may not be appropriate for heavy pedestrian activity and trying to force the two to coexist together is where the safety issue comes in. The volume of traffic that Jefferson carries is pretty significant. Folks already cut over to Larned and Lafayette to skirt the back ups during rush hour. Slowing the traffic further will only force even more traffic through to established residential areas. As a 12 year resident of one of those established high density, pedestrian residential areas, that is not an outcome I welcome. 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? It seems to work for Birmingham...I fail to see how a setback store at this site negatively impacts the Riverfront District. On the converse, I can see a host of traffic and safety issues from a zero lot line development. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1288 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
No one is against Staples, Jams. You're contending, though, that success of a business is dependent upon the architecture and orientation of the building to the street, which is absolute hogwash. | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 2779 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 70.236.194.246 |
My contention is I NOT PARTICULARILY WORRIED ABOUT THE LOOK OF A PARTICULAR BUILDING, but will it help me and my community? Remember, the particular lot we are speaking of was an historic building torn down for what, a weed-filled lot for how many years? | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1294 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
Skulker - A comparison of Woodward in Birmingham isn't really equivalent. Woodward is the only major arterial through Birmingham, Jefferson is not the only major road through Detroit. But even as a comparison, all of the apartments and buildings near downtown Birmingham and abutting woodward are built up to the sidewalk, contributing to the high density of downtown Birmingham. The strip malls and big boxes east of Woodward, contribute nothing to the downtown. Detroit has plenty of highways dissecting it as it is. If you need to travel at high speeds from Grosse Pointe to downtown, there is I-94. Woodward was always designed to be a major arterial of Detroit, and yet it was designed with many storefronts adjacent to the sidewalk. There is a big difference between being a major arterial and a freeway. Nobody is saying that Jefferson shouldn't continue to be a major arterial, just like woodward or Michigan avenue will always be major roads. | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1295 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
Jams - And I mean this in the most respectful way, you're an IDIOT. For the bazillionth time. NOBODY IS AGAINST STAPLES. So get off it already about what value it will have to you and the community. We get it. Nobody is arguing against that point. The question IS NOT whether or not Staples should build in Detroit. The question is how can it do it in the best way that integrates into the vision for the Riverfront and the community around it (Garden Court, River Place). | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 7 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 209.220.229.254 |
I don't think anyone is scared away from Michigan Ave. in Chicago, or Times Square in New York, simply because there is traffic. Times Square is gigantic, Mich. Ave. is at least 8 lanes as I remember...the speed issue may be something, but I live in Ferndale and people cross Woodward there (8 lanes + median) at will. | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 2780 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 70.236.194.246 |
What is that "Vision"? I see strip-malls, gas stations, party stores all along Jefferson, why the argument about this site? | ||
Skulker Member Username: Skulker Post Number: 3624 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.103.104.93 |
You are thinking of Old Woodward. That area is less than two or three blocks from the Woodward loop that extends to the east that you apparently dislike. My point is that the use of the Woodward loop (and even all of Woodward from 696 up to Birmingham through Royal Oak) functions in the same manner as Jefferson: that is, a major arterial with convenience retail geared for high volume traffic counts (something you DONT get on a highway. Its existance hasn't caused the downfall of Birmingham or Royal Oak. I would argue that having arterial retail adjacent to the downtown areas has HELPED those communitoes to thrive as folks have the urban experience combined with day to day convenience. Why then, would it be so terrible to have such an arterial in Detroit? Given the fact that we don't really have such an area in Detroit, the nascent emergence of Jefferson in having that kind of retail ought to be welcomed. There is enough space in Detroit to accomodate many different types of use. The case of Birmingahm shows that downtowns can thrive in spite of (I would argue they thrive BECAUSE of) close proximity to convenience retail on arterials. There is no reason to believe that the East Riverfront district will fail or be less desireable if there is a setback at a Staples on Jefferson. After numerous iterations, the only resolution Cooper Robertson and the district steering cmmittee were able to express to address the conflict on Jefferson was to narrow Jefferson and create a local access lane (Think Grand Boulvard west of Henry Ford Hospital). This is expensive and, as noted by CR, fraught with technical difficulties. It also requires MDOT approval which is iffy at best. | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1296 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
Skulker, I am not thinking of Old Woodward, I am referring to the Apartment buildings on the west side of the woodward loop you are referring to. They are all built abutting the sidewalk on both the woodward loop and old woodward side contributing to the high density of that area. Had they they placed stripmalls in place of those apartments, it would greatly reduce the urban feel of Birmingham, similar to how strip malls along Jefferson will greatly reduce the density and urban feel of the riverfront. I agree, there is enough space in Detroit to accomodate all types of development, so place a stripmall in one of those locals. You cannot, on one hand, attempt to create an urban environment, and then on the other continue to build sparse, low density strip malls. There is plenty of room for that in Detroit, but not where a high density urban environment is envisioned. The lack of planning in Detroit has created a mish-mosh of development. Different areas should require different standards for development. Downtown, Midtown, New Center, Riverfront are all envisioned to be high density urban environments and the development and zoning requirements should match that. There are also areas of Detroit where a more suburban vision is envisioned, Jefferson Village, Warren/Connor, and other areas that are more suitable for strip malls. This doesn't mean that Staples can't build in either, what it does mean is that if we ever hope to achieve such visions, then we need to be consistent with our planning requirements. (Message edited by gogo on February 27, 2006) | ||
Huggybear Member Username: Huggybear Post Number: 158 Registered: 08-2005 Posted From: 192.217.12.254 |
I'm not sure how you can fiat obedience to a traffic signal and the speed limit - people blow the light at that corner regularly and even Sunday traffic in that stretch runs 10-15mph above the speed limit (as is normal on any Detroit surface street). Buildings have nothing to do with it - there are plenty of zero lot lines and even some spots with street parking farther east on Jefferson, but neither has slowed down traffic at all. Detroit has one traffic car per precinct. Dan, in general, I appreciate your architectural and development ideas within the context of Washington DC - a city with a built-in growth industry (government and related services), half the space, a monstrously costly rail transit system ($6 billion and 30 years to build - so far) to support it. But I find it a little unfair (if not myopic) to assume that the *end* result (or architecture) of an artificially-created governmental district can be imposed, ex nihilo, on Detroit. Because you can do it in DC does not mean you can do it here - or even northern Virginia for that matter. (Message edited by Huggybear on February 27, 2006) | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1289 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
Why would it be so terrible to have a pedestrian-accessible street in Detroit? Why can't you have both? As I already noted, Pennsylvania Avenue on Capitol Hill in DC carries more traffic than Jefferson Ave, but is still highly pedestrian-oriented and lined with a mix of successful retail establishments. It seems to work okay. I use this as but one example--there are many others from other cities. I don't understand why this has to be an "either-or" decision when it can be "both"? I'm of the opinion that Detroit deserves to have new construction that is a cut above the off-the-shelf crap you can find in any suburb. Staples has apparently already decided they can make money in the neighborhood, so I don't think they are going to suddenly turn tail and flee if the City requires their building to fit a certain context. I finally found some photos of Penn Ave SE. After looking at them, I hope you'll understand why I think it's an appropriate model for arterial roads in Detroit. I have to shrink them down to fit, but once I do, I'll post for evaluation. | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 2781 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 70.236.194.246 |
Gogo
This is the reality I live. What do you propose it should be? And no I won't give up the "mantra" We need retail". Why should I have to accept going to a suburb to get what I need in the City I live in? Do I need a Cheesecake Factory, or an Applebees or any of a number of bars or restaurants that are everywhere? HELL NO! Do I need places in my City that offer sheets, towels, underwear, and many mundane needs for day-to-day life? HELL YES!! If 14mile and John R is such a despicable area, why the constant traffic jams, when so many vacancies and businesses in Detroit wither? | ||
Gogo Member Username: Gogo Post Number: 1297 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
Jams - Who is disagreeing with you and your "Mantra" We need retail? You seem to be having a dialogue with yourself. Nobody is disagreeing with your mantra. Nor did anyone say John R and 14 mile are despicable. But like I already said, you're an IDIOT. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1290 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
Okay, I had to shrink the photos down to post. This is Pennsylvania Avenue SE on Capitol Hill. Note that over 40,000 vehicles a day travel this road, which is a major commuter route from Anacostia and Maryland. I wouldn't expect that the buildings in Detroit would look identical, nor should they, but the form is worth noting. I think if you look at the last photo especially, you'll see why I think major arterials in Detroit can be developed in the same manner (and I don't mean the U.S. Capitol).      | ||
Jsmyers Member Username: Jsmyers Post Number: 1455 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 209.131.7.68 |
Danindc, I agree with you. We have to have both. | ||
Kazooexplorer Member Username: Kazooexplorer Post Number: 972 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 155.79.138.253 |
Why, with all that greenspace Penn Ave looks exactly like Jefferson Ave. Clearly Danindc knows exactly what's best for Detroit, he should be our city manager. And Gogo, you're a pretentious snob. God I hate snooty engineers! | ||
Rustic Member Username: Rustic Post Number: 2117 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 130.132.177.245 |
huggybear wrote ^^^ what he said! |
