  Hybridy Member Username: Hybridy Post Number: 148 Registered: 08-2006 |
Just happened upon this development the other day. The lower east side of Detroit on the river is now full of awful mcmansions, gates, and cul-de-sacs. The southeast corner of St Jean and Freud. You'd think these developments would open to all the green space/parks on the river, rather than develop all of it into enclaves. I will try to post some pics. http://www.crainsdetroit.com/a pps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/2006 0821/LIVINGD/60817008/-1/lid&t emplate=printart | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 1415 Registered: 07-2004 |
Further proof that the people behind all this "development" haven't the faintest clue what a city is or should be. | ||
Hpgrmln Member Username: Hpgrmln Post Number: 179 Registered: 06-2007 |
The city needs it. This is the kind of place people are moving to in the suburbs. Detroit is staying competitive. You want people to move back or prevent them from moving out to the 'burbs? Build the kind of housing they'd buy in Oakland county or Plymouth. IF the subdivision stays stable and doesn't go downhill in 10-20 years I don't see how it can be bad. | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 1715 Registered: 10-2006 |
Hpgrmln, is anything better than nothing? | ||
Mikem Member Username: Mikem Post Number: 3472 Registered: 10-2003 |
https://www.atdetroit.net/forum/mes sages/76017/81072.html | ||
Hybridy Member Username: Hybridy Post Number: 150 Registered: 08-2006 |
updated snappies i did not forgoe the series of gates http://udmercy.facebook.com/al bum.php?aid=2011653&l=7f880&id =79600134 | ||
Eric Member Username: Eric Post Number: 930 Registered: 11-2004 |
I really don't see the problem with development like this one, especially given how far they from the downtown area. The ability own homes right on the river is new nothing in this city, just look at a historic neighborhoods like Joseph Berry. Other than the bland architecture of the new homes, there're no major differences just like in the past people will pay a premium to live near the water Opposition to this seems as stupid as 321brian's idea that lofts are bad for city. (Message edited by eric on September 20, 2007) | ||
Hpgrmln Member Username: Hpgrmln Post Number: 180 Registered: 06-2007 |
I cant understand why some people think only lofts are appropriate for Detroit. If you are married with 2-3 kids, a loft isn't viable.People with kids and a decent income level left for sprawling ranches and colonials in Southfield. New construction homes in a low-density area will rival what they moved into. Since safety is still a concern, and you want your kids to have fun playing outside, the gated aspect may help comfort parents. Anyone read the post on here about a possible child predator in Bloomfield? Gates may help filter such people out. Move downtown if you want a townhouse.Building houses further away can bring back the families that left 20 years ago that the city needs to revitalize.One demographic-young, loft-dwelling professionals-wont single-handedly change the city for the better. We'll see whos complaining when a well-to-do black family of 5 who left town in the 90's puts their house in southfield on the market to buy a house in the city that is newer and quite possibly in a safer, more secure neighborhood. | ||
Michigansheik Member Username: Michigansheik Post Number: 235 Registered: 09-2005 |
i love the view of the coal plant! | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 2160 Registered: 06-2006 |
"Hpgrmln, is anything better than nothing?" Given the current state of Detroit, yes. And if you disagree you are in the extreme minority. | ||
Redvetred Member Username: Redvetred Post Number: 49 Registered: 04-2007 |
Nice photos. Thanks. Even Connors Creek Power Plant looks pretty good. I'll bet the enclave even has their own private security which would add to the attractiveness. Things have sure changed. | ||
6nois Member Username: 6nois Post Number: 504 Registered: 11-2006 |
I think its great that they are selling, but gawd those houses are ugly and bland. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 10179 Registered: 10-2003 |
The city is 139 square miles and contrary to what many seem to think has really never been a true urban city. The city was, is and will be primarily single family homes. Just like anything else you have to create and develop what people want and are willing to buy. I don't care for them but others do and will stay in the city due to the option that might not otherwise be there. If this were built in the greater downtown area it would be a shame but it will bring in/retain tax paying residents that probably will require a lot of services from the city. The hope of the entire city be designed in an 'urban' or dense manner is unrealistic. If these were built on the riverwalk I would be upset. Given their location I think they are ugly but probably necessary. | ||
Kathinozarks Member Username: Kathinozarks Post Number: 865 Registered: 11-2006 |
Two things I have a problem with: 1. Estates? These are NOT estates and I hate that developers (or whoever names these things) use that word to describe their 1/4 or less acre plots of land where they plop down a crappy house. A BIG house does not an ESTATE make. 2. Garages in front. Block after block of fargin' beige garages. I thought builders were over that when we realized that it only alienates us from our neighbors. Go to work, drive into the garage, enter the house, sit ALONE in your house. Who's your neighbor? Don't know, don't ever see any PEOPLE. I understand that they want to take advantage of the canal view, but come on! How about lovely outdoor living spaces IN FRONT and IN BACK? I believe that front entry garages with no front porch living space further isolates already isolated people. I thought that builders were finding that out years ago and began changing the configuration of garages in developments to improve a sense of neighborhood. I guess I'm wrong. Oh well, those are my beefs. | ||
Fareastsider Member Username: Fareastsider Post Number: 603 Registered: 08-2006 |
Some people complain about ANYTHING. New large all brick homes on the water available in the D. What the hell is the problem. ( PLease dont tell me about the bad urban design, house style etc.) There is plenty of choice in the city and who here is a builder that knows how crappy that these houses are anyways. I know old houses are built better but come on not every house is a pile of sticks. | ||
Waxx Member Username: Waxx Post Number: 270 Registered: 09-2006 |
I have some pix of the Morgan Waterfront Estates on flickr. I'll post some later on tonight. | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 2179 Registered: 06-2006 |
"Some people complain about ANYTHING. New large all brick homes on the water available in the D. What the hell is the problem." They complain because it allows them to feel like Detroit is in the state it'd in because this is what residents CHOOSE, and not because this is all the city is capable of achieving... They're sort of like those freaky people you see with the black lipstick, piercings everywhere, with fucked up hair doos...they're generally ugly, but if they do all that stuff to themselves, then it allows them to fool themselves into believing they aren't really ugly, that they just look that way because they choose to look that way... (Message edited by thejesus on September 20, 2007) | ||
Lefty2 Member Username: Lefty2 Post Number: 181 Registered: 07-2007 |
nice pads but i'd hate to own when the real taxes kick in in 12 years | ||
Hybridy Member Username: Hybridy Post Number: 153 Registered: 08-2006 |
oh jeebus i do happen to be of caucasian decent, however i never embraced the nail painting, hair dying look i am merely disappointed how the project was executed, but i do understand the necessity for this so-called "caliber" of housing to be in any major city. anyone with a smidgen of common sense knowledge of architecture or planning should be disappointed with a enclave full of "semi-custom" look alikes. the little land detroit has facing the river on our international border should be full of public green space and mixed-use mixed-income high density. not highrise, high density. ps-this isn't freakin shelby and i am 100% certain i am a better looking cat than yourself sorry thats life bro | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 1725 Registered: 10-2006 |
"The city is 139 square miles and contrary to what many seem to think has really never been a true urban city. The city was, is and will be primarily single family homes." Bet those lots are wider than the 30 foot norm of the majority of the city. | ||
Fareastsider Member Username: Fareastsider Post Number: 607 Registered: 08-2006 |
the 30 foot wide lots are found in the oldest part of the city built from the 1920s and earlier. Mainly within the Boulevard or in Hamtramck. Surveying in the city for a number of years I would say that 40ft or 45ft is the norm. Though that is just by chance of when Detroit was built. by the fifties it was about 50-60 wide norms. To the 70 ft normal today. Hell a city with a blanket of 40 foot wide lots and a backyard is what made Detroit special as a city of homes. Nobody builds on a 40 foot wide lot anymore. Most of the new homes built in existing neighborhoods are about 50 to 60 wide by using parts of lots in the existing platted subdivision. | ||
Classico Member Username: Classico Post Number: 64 Registered: 12-2005 |
Fact: Just because the city was built largely single family doesn't mean we fill it with McMansion/pulte style throwaway,bland housing. Fact: Not every development has to be a loft development. So by using this property this should also mean that not every non-loft development should resemble a Macomb Township builder grade, Pulte home. God forbid if we got creative with the materials we used to construct our housing in the Metro Detroit area. Why does every new house have to be the same generic cardboard cutout floor-plan that has been used for the past 30 years. Half brick with taupe siding and a Great celling. Barf. Here's my question. Someone who is willing to buy a house that resembles the ones being built in Morgan Woods..err creek or wtf ever, must be the same person who would be willing to buy one in anywhere sprawl-burg U.S.A. Right? Where efficient city services, much better schools, and much lower property taxes are to boot. Why not just move to one of those areas where that type of housing and your in the closet lifestyle, is more catered too? Sure there's the small percentage that you have a person who loves McMansion builder grade four walls and a roof housing AND the allure of a depressed Older rust belt city, but thats gotta be a very rare moment in life. I guess I just don't see how it all adds up. The plus side is that its a small strip(on prime water estate though) hidden and away from the core. It still doesn't take away the fact of why build it as is. A shit looking housing development is a shit looking housing development any way you spin it. If the trend in Detroit in the near future is "McMansion styled living in the heart of the city", then yes I would have a major beef with it. This is why God made the Canton's of the world. You put dirty industrial downriver and you put Pulte homes in Macomb Township. I thought everybody was clear on this ;) (Message edited by classico on September 24, 2007) (Message edited by classico on September 24, 2007) | ||
Classico Member Username: Classico Post Number: 65 Registered: 12-2005 |
Hpgrmln, Wow. So let me get this straight. Your advocating that we should continue to replicate inefficient bland throwaway culture(for the most part) and duplicate it within the limits of a once proud city? Quick fix anyone? How about this. You build quality homes/communities within the context of their history and surroundings, with a node to future amenities. You know, the thing that makes great stable, strong, desirable communities that last hundreds of years opposed to 15-20 years. There's no reason why you can't build safe family styled neighborhoods the way they once where(slightly modified of course). Why does safe.family.house have to be anonymous with Plymouth styled, over-sized lot, gated community, sterile housing? Is it because thats all we know these days? We don't have to build that for Detroit or any major city to work. I'm of the impression people who want to raise their families within the city(non suburbia) as opposed to outside of it are of a different breed anyways. If they wanted the housing you speak of, they most likely wouldn't be living in the city. I always hear people say don't force urban centered developments in the suburbs, well then the same goes for the other way around doesn't it? Work forcing you to transplant is one thing, but under your own power is another. Let me guess,your one of those people who think the reason Detroit isn't the great pillar of society it should be, is because of the fact it hasn't become a processed homogeneous landscape ripe of Best Buys, McMansions and 12 lane super Highways? Because, if it had that, Detroit would surely be great, right? Is this really how your average American thinks? Good gracious, no wonder we're in this bind. | ||
Hpgrmln Member Username: Hpgrmln Post Number: 185 Registered: 06-2007 |
Palmer Woods has huge houses on big lots. I believe it to be one of the cities healthiest neighborhoods. I don't hear anyone complaining about those houses. Victoria Park brought badly-needed higher-income families into the city,and now that section of the city (not far from Morgan Creek) is redeveloping and slowly coming back around. Im not saying build these neighborhoods anywhere in the city you can,but I believe there is a market for them and a compromise is needed. They should allow a few such developments in parts of the city to increase its chances of a revival. But hey, we can agree to disagree. After all, we can't convince everyone to see things our way. | ||
Swingline Member Username: Swingline Post Number: 901 Registered: 11-2003 |
Classico, many of your complaints are misplaced when you attempt to apply it to the Morgan Creek development. First of all, it is important to get your facts straight. This is not a large lot development of the suburban sort that you sniff at dismissively. The actual lots in Morgan Creek are quite small and the FAR of these large homes is quite big. Density for this project is over 4 per acre and that includes some common greenspace areas. Lots for the detached homes look to be no more than 7-8K square feet. Next, this property was vacant land formerly used for industrial purposes. The nearest housing is single family detached new construction. You personally may dislike the McMansion architecture, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't a good choice for the site. I also would have preferred an edgier architectural theme that took advantage of the industrial surroundings but it is not as if these homes displaced some former kind of vernacular at the site. It was vacant land for decades. There was no surviving vernacular. What would have you built that would have actually sold? Third, the whole premise of your complaints seems to be that this is an "urban" site that requires something that looks, well, more urban. Some would argue that the entirety of Detroit does not have to be rebuilt in the image of Midtown or downtown, or Toronto or the North side of Chicago, for that matter. Indeed, this site is quite isolated and will never be part of a traditional urban pedestrian oriented district. There will never be a bus line closer than 3/4 of a mile. Any future resident will always have to own a car and use it to go anywhere other than for a stroll around the neighborhood. Detroit benefits when it can stabilize or increase it's taxpayer base. This project, in a small way, succeeds at that. | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 5394 Registered: 08-2004 |
Detroit's 2 main housing styles of the 20's-40's... 1) A 3 story 2 family brick house with a downstairs and upstairs huge porch at the front, with a hip roof and a 3 pane attic window. Houses built very closely together with garage entrance via alley in the back. 2) A 2 story 1 family wood house where the roof overhangs the front porch with a 3 pane dormer window... but most of the 2nd story windows are under the side gables. Now I've described at least 50% of the mass produced houses built in Detroit between the 20's and 40's (most of these are now gone and replaced with an urban prarie). These homes did not have a lot of character, and there were street after street of the same style houses. So how come now this becomes an issue with new housing? I hate cookie cutter homes just like the next guy, but they're not just exclusive to the suburbs in the last 50 years... they've been here in Detroit for many decades before then... | ||
Classico Member Username: Classico Post Number: 66 Registered: 12-2005 |
Swingline, I realize these lots are not that big and as well what the site formerly was. The whole premise of my "complaints" is not that it just has to be "urban", but as I mentioned, if your going to build brand new housing in an area such as that one at least make an attempt at context with the surrounding area. It doesn't, it looks like any other housing unit of its kind built today in a non-urban setting. I never said this development had to mirror one in Downtown or Midtown. How about it just taking some things from decent looking architecture that surrounds it. I'm sorry, single family detached McMansion style housing the way it is normally built is never a good choice for any site IMO. Greenfield out in Brownstone or city block within the city. What would I have built? Not those. I would have at least gone with a design that pays homage to the area. Is that really so much to ask for? Like I said as well, in the grand scheme of things its not a very big deal, but at the same time this type of development if built within the city limits(or any older community) should at least attempt to have some context to what is already there. That is HPG, Palmer Woods homes are not Tract housing resembling most of what you see out in Macomb Township though. You can't even remotely compare the two. Of course no one would argue against building more architecturally pleasing, character laden, better built, high income housing in the city. I wouldn't call Morgan Creek any of those. Listen. It's not about that something is being built within the city, its the quality and context of what you want to build. Obviously a few developments of this sort are not going to harm anyone or anything in the grand scheme of things. I just strongly believe the development style of Morgan creek is not what the city Detroit needs more of. In fact I would say not many places do. | ||
Classico Member Username: Classico Post Number: 67 Registered: 12-2005 |
Gistok, I'll tell you one difference. Those homes you described still were city block friendly and oriented. Their function and form blended well into their environment. Unless new housing developments in more urban areas fit the same model, I see a huge issue. New housing today doesn't have the form and function in mind for a urban environment. It would have to have those two aspects fitted, if that is done then I really wouldn't have a problem. I'm not solely talking about Morgan Creek when I say this, for the record. Obviously some things have changed, such as auto storage. As well they were built mainly middle class and down. They may have not had great ceilings and double French doors, but IMO they still had a world more charm and character than much of the new housing built today. Houses that are cookie cutter today spread to every income level. Has peoples taste deteriorated that much, or has the whole housing industry become that much more streamlined and unimaginative? Affordable housing/working class housing is one thing, but building upper middle class housing and ending up with the same cookie cutter ideals is a BIG ISSUE. I don't know, maybe people just don't have as much pride anymore or the taste threshold has been lowered considerably. (Message edited by classico on September 24, 2007) (Message edited by classico on September 24, 2007) | ||
Cybersanford Member Username: Cybersanford Post Number: 32 Registered: 06-2007 |
They should of left the clapboard rotten old crack houses instead. They had a lot of character and "D" charm. I really loved the faux finish chared look on the window-less ones, and the ones that were leaning on a nice angle from the urban brick miners. It gave a unique and diversified look to the "hood". They fit the area very well! It looked like Detroit from 1970-present. New single family homes have no place in Detroit! Why would I want to look at "cookie cutter" houses that are clean and have landscaped yards? May as well move out to Swelby Twp! This is a crime and should go under review by city council. How dare they allow building of uniform brick house with lawns and no old tire piles in the front yards! Call Kwame right now! Bassstards! P.S. take the gates down on the dead end streets so the homeless and thugs have better access! |
