  Tetsua Member Username: Tetsua Post Number: 1072 Registered: 01-2004 |
quote: http://www.detnews.com/apps/pb cs.dll/article?AID=/20070130/M ETRO/701300392/1006/METRO01 | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2090 Registered: 10-2003 |
At risk of seeming overly cynical: how hard was it to come up with the ideas presented? Many of these ideas have already been floated right here on this forum. Nothing mentioned struck me as particularly creative or innovative, but most of the items need to be undertaken, regardless. I agree with the moratorium on building demolitions, although I think the one that could go, ironically, is the old IRS data center currently occupied by MGM. The building is way to o big for a downtown big box store. Unless, of course, a developer can transform it into a mixed-use project not unlike Gallery Place in DC. I get queasy at the mention of "more green space", though. Green space is only effective if it is well-defined around its periphery and serves a useful purpose at all hours of the day. Otherwise, you just end up with another skid row park. | ||
Ndavies Member Username: Ndavies Post Number: 2416 Registered: 10-2003 |
Already covered in: https://www.atdetroit.net/forum/mes sages/5/91827.html?1170177399 | ||
Tetsua Member Username: Tetsua Post Number: 1073 Registered: 01-2004 |
Ooops, sorry bout that | ||
Wolverine Member Username: Wolverine Post Number: 265 Registered: 04-2004 |
There were quite a few interesting visuals presented at the conference. It was exciting to see some fresh ideas that will hopefully be undertaken. After the presentations, a few of us discussed that idea about greenspace, and were kind of turned off about that as well. As if we don't have enough underutilized greenspace. I was also upset that when someone brought up the idea of bringing new affordable housing downtown, some the people there beat around the bush responding to it saying that it would be the improvements to public areas that would benefit Detroiters the most. I think some of the proposals should have consisted of affordable housing to generate more mixed income neighborhoods. | ||
Swingline Member Username: Swingline Post Number: 690 Registered: 11-2003 |
quote:It would not be a fiscally sound decision for the city to force affordable housing set asides into one of the few areas of the city where market demand is somewhat strong. I would venture that 95% of the neighborhoods in Detroit are already de facto "affordable" based on federal standards. Detroit needs to stabilize its tax base through an increase in its median household income (which is what new housing in CBD/Midtown/Riverfront is doing) a lot more than it needs neighborhoods with diverse incomes levels. | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 5450 Registered: 02-2004 |
All of those development plans would be a possibility for Detroit. Let's get those developers a chance to make Detroit a world class city. | ||
Pmardo Member Username: Pmardo Post Number: 46 Registered: 03-2006 |
Most contemporary approaches to urban revitalization negate the interests of working class indigenous residents and instead focus on attracting business and investment while luring the upper and middle classes to act as a social buffer. These approaches may work towards re-creating urban spaces as enclaves of wealth with high real estate values, but they fail in regards to serving the needs of native city residents. Instead, these strategies create the common unintended consequences which we are now familiar with, including gentrification, displacement, cultural takeovers, undesired neighborhood changes, middle-class white cultural domination and occupation, and a lack of inclusiveness and participation from racial and ethnic minorities. A comprehensive, just, and successful approach to urban redevelopment that values the fates of working and lower class indigenous city residents has yet to be seen. Problems related to poverty which are not included in a gentrifying city’s redevelopment strategy are instead transferred elsewhere where they will once again have to be dealt with (or more likely ignored). This is a flawed strategy, and is unfair to both marginalized populations that receive little to no attention as well as to the communities where these problems are shifted to. Yet at the same time, conventional wisdom dictates that cities must remain economically competitive in the region, state, and nation and must not embrace an isolated image of a home for only “poor people.” A comprehensive approach to urban revitalization is needed that takes into account poverty and more common concerns such as downtown development, regional planning, innovation, infill development, etc. These are factors that cannot be ignored, yet where most cities fail is in balancing a rightfully needed focus on mainstream redevelopment strategies with the need to invest in neighborhood resources where (oftentimes poor) city residents live such as schools, community centers, public infrastructure, city services, and other public improvements and fund allocation. City leaders may feel that they must choose between “subsidizing” their poor residents or “investing” in the attraction of business and middle/upper class residents, yet both can be done simultaneously. Unfortunately, there are few examples where cities balance both of these needs and far too many with a weak interest in the former and a strong focus on the latter. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 898 Registered: 04-2006 |
Let me guess Pm, you're in Grad School? here is a book for you: http://www.planning.org/APASto re/Search/Default.aspx?p=1867 Verbosity hurts you! | ||
Pmardo Member Username: Pmardo Post Number: 47 Registered: 03-2006 |
thanks for the recomendation, DP. As to your question, no, I am not in grad school, which I hope to never be if I can avoid it. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 899 Registered: 04-2006 |
attaboy! way to write!! | ||
Wolverine Member Username: Wolverine Post Number: 266 Registered: 04-2004 |
What, you guys act like accomodating affordable housing with luxury housing has never been done before? In Ann Arbor, there is a rule that for X number of luxury units you build, there must be a certain percentage that are geared toward lower income residents. They can be in the same building or constructed elsewhere. In most cases both units are placed downtown. There are lower income residents that want to live in the downtown. Why force them to live elsewhere and be exclusive by building high priced condos and lofts (Message edited by wolverine on January 30, 2007) | ||
Jasoncw Member Username: Jasoncw Post Number: 333 Registered: 07-2005 |
I think mixed income would be good. All that can mean sometimes is that some of the units are smaller and have worse views, and a less expensive room interior. I don't think it would be hard to incorporate different wealths into a building. |
