Dan Gilbert Expected To Announce Brush Park Development

Might be announced today, Wednesday?

"Billionaire businessman Dan Gilbert plans a major housing development in Detroit's Brush Park, a sparsely-populated district next to downtown that thrived in the 19th Century but has defied recent attempts at revival, people familiar with the development told the Free Press."

http://www.freep.com/story/money/real-estate/2015/05/05/dan-gilbert-brush-park-detroit-development/26942979/

Need some big developments ala the 6 acre plan discussed a few weeks ago + this one.

My guess that redeveloping Brush Park isn't as difficult as trying to redevelop say major parts of downtown.

It doesn't cost as much to put up housing as hotels, office buildings, etc. and it eats up a lot of vacant land. Plus the demand for housing is stronger than the demand for more office space or more hotel rooms. Right?

Gilberttown plans to annex Brush Park! What a wonderful time to it. Soon that one by 1 and a half mile historic block will be filled with Gilbert's family and friends.

Danny, one good thing about much of Brush Park [[aka "Gilberttown Annex"):

Much of that area is uninhabited [[with the obvious exception of CrossWinds, etc.) which means no displacement of low income people, etc.

The idea for Detroit is to build new housing in the most desirable locations. Rehab housing in other neighborhoods. [It isn't either / or, but both.]. Or rehab shells in Brush Park.

After all who is going to build a new house [[which is expense to do) in an area where the neighborhood does not support the price [[to build) that house?

If only someone had the foresight 10 years ago and said, "hey, lets save these historic, yet crumbling structures, as this may make for a beautiful rehabilitated neighborhood someday."

What a waste. I hope Gilbert's plan fits in with the historic nature of the structures in the area. We all know his design taste can be, well, questionable at times. But either way, great to see any kind of major developments outside of the core CBD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mikeg19

If only someone had the foresight 10 years ago and said, "hey, lets save these historic, yet crumbling structures, as this may make for a beautiful rehabilitated neighborhood someday."

What a waste. I hope Gilbert's plan fits in with the historic nature of the structures in the area. We all know his design taste can be, well, questionable at times. But either way, great to see any kind of major developments outside of the core CBD.

---

Yeah, the image of "slumpy" will always be engrained in my mind. Like with war though, the worst acts must be seen and remembered to avoid a repeat of history.

It's better late than never for Brush Park. I'm hoping this coincides with the rumor of an upscale hotel being built. Also, I wonder what he means by houses that compliment the area? Brick? Should be interesting.

Couple points:

1). Yes, it will be challenging to put up new construction which blends with the historic structures which can be rehabbed.

2). This area doesn't necessarily need high density. It is okay, IMO, to have historic structures which take up significant land area blended with new construction allowing a blended neighborhood with moderate density.

I don't like to say anything good about Kwame but he did get some of the old mansions stabilized [[maybe Bobby Ferguson got a cut) so it is at least possible to rehab those today.

looks like the announcement is coming at noon today

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpartanDawg

looks like the announcement is coming at noon today

---

Thanks for the heads up SpartanDawg.... I feel spoiled lately with the stream of redevelopment announcements by the City/Developers. If the majority of these projects live up to their potential, Detroit will look much healthier in 5 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emu steve

Couple points:
1). Yes, it will be challenging to put up new construction which blends with the historic structures which can be rehabbed.

---

Challenging, yes. Not impossible, though. Gistok provided this link a few years ago showing examples of neo-traditional architecture. I love fresh modern looking buildings, but I would love to see more stuff like the examples on this site built here in Detroit. http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1479484

Attachment 26651
Attachment 26652

Attachment 26653

renderings released. this is very exciting stuff

I can't wait to see what happens to Gilberttown Brush Park sub-division class with the folks in Brewster Projects. It will be like Chicago's Cabrini-Green Housing Projects class with the Gold Coast area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpartanDawg

Attachment 26651
Attachment 26652

Attachment 26653

renderings released. this is very exciting stuff

---

Great stuff. sort of meh on the very contemporary style...but it's dense and it's not like anyone was ever going to rebuild the old places brick for brick.

Also... I get these folks want to drop some people into the renderings to give a visual scale reference and make the developments look lively....but sometimes, less is more. It looks like chaos there.

This must be a big story since it displaced the traditional sports items from the top of the Free Press front page. I don't remember that ever happening before.

Good stuff.

One tangent point, and 'no big deal': This will slow down development west of Cass in Ilitchville because if one is given a choice of living in Brush Park or out west of the [[Masonic) Temple, I'd guess the vast majority would choose Brush Park.

That said, I've always felt that Brush Park is residential. West of Cass, whatever wants to come there. Could be commercial. Could be a soccer stadium [[thou I doubt it). Maybe some residential.

Watching the webcast: 8.4 acres. $70M. No tax credits. Had nine serious proposals. Drawings are concepts, not architectural. Has four mansions and work will begin very soon on them. Development will be a mix of rentals and for sale. This project needs to go to the city council.

Mayor says work is beginning in areas where the city controls the land [[e.g., Brewster). Some land in Brush Park [[obviously) is privately owned.

The renderings, though I understand are only conceptual, do not look anything like the period homes already there. Was this not touted as part of the RFP? It's the same modern architecture that is going along Woodward, which I do not mind, but seems to go against what was said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tkelly1986

The renderings, though I understand are only conceptual, do not look anything like the period homes already there. Was this not touted as part of the RFP? It's the same modern architecture that is going along Woodward, which I do not mind, but seems to go against what was said.

---

Well he talked briefly about things like carriage homes, etc.

I wouldn't pay any attention now to the drawings. Maybe it is kind of 'stock' which could be used for concept with any number of different projects.

My guess: anyone who privately owns one of those old abandoned mansion homes is sitting on something which has a lot of potential as development ramps up. The right house at the right location at the right time [[e.g., 2016 or 17).

I lived just north of Cabrini Green while the changes occurred and if this development moves forward it won't have many similarities. Cabrini Green was a pocket of poverty mostly surrounded by wealth and any Brush Park development would be a pocket of relative wealth next to mostly poverty and a half mile by half mile pocket of relative wealth.

One prediction with getting land to develop in Brush Park.

With the arena we saw the problems of getting all of the needed land.

Here [[Brush Park) the city controls a lot of land and will do a RFPs and pick the development plans.

But what about the privately held land?

Will a number of the private land owners play "Land Lotto" and try to get rich on their land? Will that cause areas which are developed and areas which will look as bad as they do today?

EDIT: Of course, the big difference is if someone owns a 1/2 city block and wants to 'hold up' a developer for it, the developer say, "Nope" and lets the 1/2 block sit there undeveloped... Can't do that with a very large sports facility. D.C. had to go through eminent domain to get the land where 2nd base is at Nationals Park...

... how involved will Detroit's new "city planning czar" be involved with this? Is the DEGC involved with this at all [[hopefully not?) what are the most progressive plans for housing formats and/or commercial development on those lots? How expensive would it be to try and "recreate" some of the vintage housing still left there? What about new formats?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TTime

I lived just north of Cabrini Green while the changes occurred and if this development moves forward it won't have many similarities. Cabrini Green was a pocket of poverty mostly surrounded by wealth and any Brush Park development would be a pocket of relative wealth next to mostly poverty and a half mile by half mile pocket of relative wealth.

---

Brush Park was a pocket of poverty before Cabrini Green was ever built.

This is a great development all around. Good use of space, very dense, with three-floor walk-up/townhouses in the middle of the blocks and 4-5 floor apartment buildings on Brush and John R, with what I am assuming to be commercial space on the ground level. The architecture is rather boring but it's honestly much better than the "Crosswinds" townhouses built along Woodward, and Detroit needs more contemporary architecture. And let's not forget about walking distance to Whole Foods and Eastern Market! My only concern for the whole area is stadium traffic and sports fans taking up all the street parking.

I'm surprised that nothing was mentioned about Nicole Curtis and the Ransom Gillis House or that no questions were asked about that. She had stated probably a month ago that the Gillis house was going to be her next project. I wonder if that's still the case with this new development. It clearly shows a redeveloped Gillis house in the rendering above, but will it be Gilbert or Curtis that will be doing it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wheels

Brush Park was a pocket of poverty before Cabrini Green was ever built.

---

Cabrini Green was built in the 40's, 50's and 60's and I don't know when Brush Park went bad but a friend of mine [[in his late 60's) told stories of Brush Park brothels of his youth [[that funny enough, existed in the multi-units that Bernie eventually ended up rehabbing back in the early 2000's) and taking that guys age into consideration tells me Brush Park has been rough for awhile....sorry for my wordiness.

I wonder at what point anyone in the Ilitch family starts to feel embarrassed to be in the same room with Gilbert. "Uhh... good job on the preservation, jobs and housing in the city Dan. We are billionaires also and own a shit load of property in town... umm.. thanks, we have been waiting for someone like you for a long time."

Seventy million dollars in investment; not subsidized; nine proposals for the area......how can anyone seriously argue that the city does not have true momentum? And this is so soon after the Brewster announcement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroiterOnTheWestCoast

Seventy million dollars in investment; not subsidized; nine proposals for the area......how can anyone seriously argue that the city does not have true momentum? And this is so soon after the Brewster announcement.

---

I'll take the bait. It's quite simple to argue against this momentum. I would offer to take you for a car ride through the city and let what we see do the talking. The positives can be seen in 5 minutes but the jaw dropping negatives might take awhile. Also, the continued deterioration of most neighborhoods coupled with looming overall population loss don't really help your obvious momentum argument. Just being realistic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TTime

I'll take the bait. It's quite simple to argue against this momentum. I would offer to take you for a car ride through the city and let what we see do the talking. The positives can be seen in 5 minutes but the jaw dropping negatives might take awhile. Also, the continued deterioration of most neighborhoods coupled with looming overall population loss don't really help your obvious momentum argument. Just being realistic.

---

"Momentum" does not mean that there are not serious issues and continuing deterioration and population loss in much of the city. But for a long long time many have argued that nothing could be done without substantial subsidies. And every new project seemed to take forever to launch, and have subsidies involved. However, that is no longer the case - so apparently something has changed. I'd certainly say that there is some momentum because each new project seems to add to the demand and in fact make subsequent projects easier, not more difficult.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroiterOnTheWestCoast

"Momentum" does not mean that there are not serious issues and continuing deterioration and population loss in much of the city. But for a long long time many have argued that nothing could be done without substantial subsidies. And every new project seemed to take forever to launch, and have subsidies involved. However, that is no longer the case - so apparently something has changed. I'd certainly say that there is some momentum because each new project seems to add to the demand and in fact make subsequent projects easier, not more difficult.

---

I can't speak to the breakdown of subsidized vs nonsubsidized projects and whether or not projects will be completed quicker than the past but you make some fair points. There are definitely some nice projects in the works and time will tell whether or not they all pan out.

Momentum is kind of relative. For years...decades really...I waited for the city of Detroit to hit rock bottom and begin to rebound. And for years I was fooled by some fleeting sign of progress. I thought Dennis Archer would begin the turnaround. Then I was encouraged by a young and energenic Kwame. After nearly two terms of that felon, I thought Dave Bing would lead the city and at least return respect and honor to the mayoral seat. Small pockets of success would come, but hardly anything that I would consider a sustained push.

Finally [[and I don't know whether to attribute any of this to Duggan), it seems like Detroit can really say they hit bottom [[during the end of the Kilpatrick Administration), stabilized itself to an extent [[during the Bing era) and is beginning an ascent.

Many many problems remain for certain. Below average city services, those awful car insurance rates, crime, single-parent families, blight, and the school system are all justifyable reason to avoid living in Detroit. Yet some people are choosing to move back. My wife and I walk through Brush Park on the way to baseball games and look longingly at the Condo's and think...could we REALLY end up back here in 10 years? We take in a lot of baseball and hockey games. When the new hockey arena is completed...we could walk to BOTH baseball and hockey games if we wanted to.

Momentum. It's an interesting term. Something is changing for the better in Detroit and at least my perception is that it's more sustainable than what we've seen in the past few decades. The one thing that unites this forum is love for the city and a longing for a return to some kind of properity. It's happening. Not as fast as we all want...but it's happening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheUsualSuspect

Momentum is kind of relative. For years...decades really...I waited for the city of Detroit to hit rock bottom and begin to rebound. And for years I was fooled by some fleeting sign of progress. I thought Dennis Archer would begin the turnaround. Then I was encouraged by a young and energenic Kwame. After nearly two terms of that felon, I thought Dave Bing would lead the city and at least return respect and honor to the mayoral seat. Small pockets of success would come, but hardly anything that I would consider a sustained push.

Finally [[and I don't know whether to attribute any of this to Duggan), it seems like Detroit can really say they hit bottom [[during the end of the Kilpatrick Administration), stabilized itself to an extent [[during the Bing era) and is beginning an ascent.

Many many problems remain for certain. Below average city services, those awful car insurance rates, crime, single-parent families, blight, and the school system are all justifyable reason to avoid living in Detroit. Yet some people are choosing to move back. My wife and I walk through Brush Park on the way to baseball games and look longingly at the Condo's and think...could we REALLY end up back here in 10 years? We take in a lot of baseball and hockey games. When the new hockey arena is completed...we could walk to BOTH baseball and hockey games if we wanted to.

Momentum. It's an interesting term. Something is changing for the better in Detroit and at least my perception is that it's more sustainable than what we've seen in the past few decades. The one thing that unites this forum is love for the city and a longing for a return to some kind of properity. It's happening. Not as fast as we all want...but it's happening.

---

Excellent post.

One thing about Brush Park: It needs thousands of residents to become what it needs to be as a place, or community, for quality of life.

I forgot the number of housing units for the other announced or unannounced projects, but when they hit say one thousand then BP will be on its ways back.

Nice thing about these apartment complexes is that they'll produce good population density which is important in an urban area.

I've long thought that BP, more than downtown, is the place to live. Not surrounded by really tall buildings [[which I don't like for residential living) yet will be a quick M-1 ride away from downtown say for work...

Wonder if this is the story of the RFP for the land which Gilbert is going to develop?

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2014/01/...redevelopment/

If so, the timeline from announcement to announcement of a selected developer was 16 months.

One other thought:

Wasn't there another announced project [[couldn't find the thread) of say 150 housing units on Edmund and John R???

If so, isn't it tangent to this development??? That would be 500 new housing units alone.

Correct, Steve.

TTime, just to make sure we're on the same page, you'd say the same about Chicago, right? It's south and west sides resemble Detroit's rough zones, if not with more violence and even starker segregation.

Perception and relativity are everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mackinaw

Correct, Steve.

TTime, just to make sure we're on the same page, you'd say the same about Chicago, right? It's south and west sides resemble Detroit's rough zones, if not with more violence and even starker segregation.

Perception and relativity are everything.

---

So the two Edmund / John R tangent developments are 500 housing units and Ilitches plan maybe 500 [[rough guess) adjacent to the arena and Comerica, then that would be 1,000 new housing units completed when the first puck is dropped at the new arena, all within say a 1/2 mile radius of say Henry / Woodward.

That's pretty damn impressive for a city some folks were writing an obituary for...

I'm an ardent advocate for historic design and reuse, yet this project has my full approval. Its dense, includes the historic properties that remain, and seems to be of the right scale, intensity, financing, and proximity to downtown that will make it an all around win. Kudos to the development team behind this plan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1953

I'm an ardent advocate for historic design and reuse, yet this project has my full approval. Its dense, includes the historic properties that remain, and seems to be of the right scale, intensity, financing, and proximity to downtown that will make it an all around win. Kudos to the development team behind this plan.

---

I agree.

One thing I always think about in urban settings is population density.

Not sure I would want to have the only house on a block.

There is safety in numbers. And more people means more amenities everything from more street lighting, better street plowing, more police presence as well as more commercial establishments to serve those residents.

Actually no I wouldn't say that at all. Have you been to The McCormick Center, The South Loop, Wicker Park, Bucktown, Little Italy, China Town, South Michigan Avenue, The West Loop, Greektown or Hyde Park recently? I don't like to compare Detroit and Chicago because they are so different but yes of course the south side and far west sides have serious crime issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TTime

I'll take the bait. It's quite simple to argue against this momentum. I would offer to take you for a car ride through the city and let what we see do the talking. The positives can be seen in 5 minutes but the jaw dropping negatives might take awhile. Also, the continued deterioration of most neighborhoods coupled with looming overall population loss don't really help your obvious momentum argument. Just being realistic.

---

Some parts of the city have momentum in one direction, some parts in another. But it is pretty clear that greater Downtown is currently on an upswing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emu steve

I agree.

One thing I always think about in urban settings is population density.

Not sure I would want to have the only house on a block.

There is safety in numbers. And more people means more amenities everything from more street lighting, better street plowing, more police presence as well as more commercial establishments to serve those residents.

---

I'm not sure I'd want to have the only, or one of few single family houses on the block after this gets built either. Seems like its street wall is going to go: SF Victorian/apartment block/old SF Victorian/B&B Victorian/lofts. Not all of those old places have been made into B&B's or multi families right?

Not at all downvoting the development. but as some of the long time residents are pointing out in the follow up articles on this....its not the "complementary" concept they were led to believe was coming. It's a historic district. Seems like it's not being very attuned to that with these designs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bailey

I'm not sure I'd want to have the only, or one of few single family houses on the block after this gets built either. Seems like its street wall is going to go: SF Victorian/apartment block/old SF Victorian/B&B Victorian/lofts. Not all of those old places have been made into B&B's or multi families right?

Not at all downvoting the development. but as some of the long time residents are pointing out in the follow up articles on this....its not the "complementary" concept they were led to believe was coming. It's a historic district. Seems like it's not being very attuned to that with these designs.

---

What bothers me is the timetable. Let me explain.

The guy from Gilbertville [[guess I've got hooked on a Dannyism), said that the drawings are really only concept drawings. Some bland drawings maybe used the architects for another project. The only thing it is really trying to show is the presence of buildings, streets, etc.

That said, if they are going to do say carriage homes, the architects better be working overtime getting things ready to present to the community and city council in the next couple weeks so they can comment and in the council's case, vote.

I'd like to see bay windows, front porches, and brick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emu steve

What bothers me is the timetable. Let me explain.

The guy from Gilbertville [[guess I've got hooked on a Dannyism), said that the drawings are really only concept drawings. Some bland drawings maybe used the architects for another project. The only thing it is really trying to show is the presence of buildings, streets, etc.

That said, if they are going to do say carriage homes, the architects better be working overtime getting things ready to present to the community and city council in the next couple weeks so they can comment and in the council's case, vote.

---

Why can't they work on it leisurely? Are you assuming they haven't started? They may very well be 80% done. Or hell even 95% done. You have no idea, so why are you "bothered"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by detmsp

Why can't they work on it leisurely? Are you assuming they haven't started? They may very well be 80% done. Or hell even 95% done. You have no idea, so why are you "bothered"?

---

I don't know. Maybe you are right. Maybe they decided not to 'show their hand' and will have full fledged drawings in two weeks for the community and the city council.

Maybe they didn't want to have a 'design debate' yesterday and the simplest way is not to show the actual renderings.

That said, the Gilbert spokesman really wasn't prepared to answer questions on the design. He just threw something out about maybe carriage homes [[this was during the webcast) and said the design wasn't done. Seemed unable to make a statement about the number of apartment units and how many town or carriage homes.

Please throw some money across the border to Windsor. Ontario ends at London, we're told, and anything in between is considered part of Michigan. Don't let a perfectly good city go to waste because Canucks are too damn stupid to see its' potential.

My major concern is how are they going to develop the alleys that exists now. Are they going to be wide enough for car traffic and a sidewalk? One of the things that Crosswinds did was put townhouses facing the old alleys, but they didn't make them wide enough for a sidewalk, parking lane, and a one-way right of way. Had they done that, you would have had more foot traffic in front of the townhouses that faced the alley. More foot traffic would have added to a sense of safety and convenience for visitors.

I hope this development takes that into consideration. Some of these new developments never consider that a person living in one of their units might have guests who need to have somewhere to park. It's not an issue when you build on a street that already exists. However when the developer is trying to jam residential units where backyards and garages used to be, then they need to create a new "lane" and not just a passage way for the grounds keeping crew.

Rehab has already begun on the Ransom Gillis House. Still no update on whether or not Nicole Curtis is involved.

http://detroit.curbed.com/archives/2...ns-of-life.php

Petoskey-Otsego has to be the next neighborhood. Da**it, somebody help us out!

The Historic District Commission according it's facebook the other day is holding a special session today at 5:30 13th floor of the municipal center on this project.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by royce

My major concern is how are they going to develop the alleys that exists now. Are they going to be wide enough for car traffic and a sidewalk? One of the things that Crosswinds did was put townhouses facing the old alleys, but they didn't make them wide enough for a sidewalk, parking lane, and a one-way right of way. Had they done that, you would have had more foot traffic in front of the townhouses that faced the alley. More foot traffic would have added to a sense of safety and convenience for visitors.

I hope this development takes that into consideration. Some of these new developments never consider that a person living in one of their units might have guests who need to have somewhere to park. It's not an issue when you build on a street that already exists. However when the developer is trying to jam residential units where backyards and garages used to be, then they need to create a new "lane" and not just a passage way for the grounds keeping crew.

---

Maybe some people enjoy a street with no car traffic.

Last night's meeting:

http://www.mlive.com/business/detroi..._story_package

I guess barring any craziness next month, this project is a go. Next up for Brush Park, the Brewstar Douglas site.

Have there been any plans announced a block away from this [[on Woodward between Alfred and Edmund) yet?

Wonder what the total for new residences under construction in the D for 2016 will be? It's starting to look like a pretty impressive number.

Here's a quick map I put together with some of the developments, plus the arena and M-1 Rail. Gilbert's is the big one in the middle, then the Scott at top left and Brewster Wheeler at right.

[[Edit: Strike this part!) As ever the issue seems to be things actually getting built. Did the Scott ever start construction? I haven't been that way in some months. This article from June suggested it was a matter of weeks.

The Brewster Wheeler project on the map is the 150 units mentioned here. Any news on that?

Others that people know about? Even just these three add up to a lot if they all come through.

Attachment 29530

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Junjie

Here's a quick map I put together with some of the developments, plus the arena and M-1 Rail. Gilbert's is the big one in the middle, then the Scott at top left and Brewster Wheeler at right.

As ever the issue seems to be things actually getting built. Did the Scott ever start construction? I haven't been that way in some months. This article from June suggested it was a matter of weeks.

The Brewster Wheeler project on the map is the 150 units mentioned here. Any news on that?

Others that people know about? Even just these three add up to a lot if they all come through.

Attachment 29530

---

The Scott, as of a few weeks ago. Attachment 29531

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erikd

The Scott, as of a few weeks ago. Attachment 29531

---

Awesome, thanks for the update!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erikd

The Scott, as of a few weeks ago. Attachment 29531

---

built from wood? haha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by casscorridor

built from wood? haha

---

cheaper than light gauge steel at the moment...those are the options for low to mid rise structures in the us of a

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hybridy

cheaper than light gauge steel at the moment...those are the options for low to mid rise structures in the us of a

---

Do folks want to live in apartment structures with wood floors, rather than concrete?

Isn't that a big drawback of garden style apartments: wood floors and not concrete like in mid rise and higher?

Not sure about your question exactly but I am guessing you are not talking about floor covering, bur rather what separates the levels of the buildings.

I've lived in both pre-1900 buildings and brand-new buildings made of concrete. Really no difference in terms of sound dampening and such as to your above/below neighbor. If anything, the older buildings dampen the sound better but you get more creaking and groaning.

The bigger deal is internal walls and how well your walls control sound between wall to wall neighbors and sound hallways. New buildings suck in this regard in almost all cases, and I think it borders on fraud to have any new building marketed as 'luxury' or 'upscale' apartments but not have basic sound dampening. My best experience has been with historic townhouses, where thick, plastered walls with brick behind them meet wall to wall. It's like quadruple thickness and you do not hear a thing from next door save for if there is some sort of chute/alley or unintended crack through which limited sound may permeate. Sadly, nothing of the sort is going to be built in Detroit or really anywhere on a going-forward basis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ekleezy

Have there been any plans announced a block away from this [[on Woodward between Alfred and Edmund) yet?

---

Nothing on the horizon. Unlikely to see anything on that block in the near term save for surface parking for the Wings arena, sadly. The northern half of the vacant property includes the former First Unitarian Church. The church burned in a suspicious fire coincident with the 2014 announcement of the Wings arena across Woodward. The pink limestone Richardsonian Romanesque church underwent an emergency demolition and was reduced to rubble within a few days of the fire. That property, and the adjacent vacant lot to the south, are owned by a fellow named Salim Kemenko. Kemenko had previously petitioned to demo the church, but was denied by the Historic District Commission because the building was listed on the National Register and sits within the Brush Park Historic District. This Metro Times article tells the story.

But I digress.

Just south of that is a lot owned by the City of Detroit, the smallest lot of the four on the block, followed by a half-acre parcel owned by an entity called American Property Exchange.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bucket

Nothing on the horizon. Unlikely to see anything on that block in the near term save for surface parking for the Wings arena, sadly. The northern half of the vacant property includes the former First Unitarian Church. The church burned in a suspicious fire coincident with the 2014 announcement of the Wings arena across Woodward. The pink limestone Richardsonian Romanesque church underwent an emergency demolition and was reduced to rubble within a few days of the fire. That property, and the adjacent vacant lot to the south, are owned by a fellow named Salim Kemenko. Kemenko had previously petitioned to demo the church, but was denied by the Historic District Commission because the building was listed on the National Register and sits within the Brush Park Historic District. This Metro Times article tells the story.

But I digress.

Just south of that is a lot owned by the City of Detroit, the smallest lot of the four on the block, followed by a half-acre parcel owned by an entity called American Property Exchange.

---

I've always been fascinated by the block, that is, its location, yet, isn't the block pretty small and hard to develop for residential usage?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mackinaw

...I've lived in both pre-1900 buildings and brand-new buildings made of concrete. Really no difference in terms of sound dampening and such as to your above/below neighbor. If anything, the older buildings dampen the sound better but you get more creaking and groaning...

---

I've lived in pre-1900's buildings the better part of my adult life, including the brownstone where I live today, and this has not been my experience at all. I can often make out the conversations of my neighbors above and below and the groaning I hear isn't just from the wood floors. Concrete dampens sound incredibly better. And it can be covered in hardwood if that's what you prefer. That said there are of course construction techniques to dampen sound in wood floors available today that were clearly not used where I've lived.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Junjie

Here's a quick map I put together with some of the developments, plus the arena and M-1 Rail. Gilbert's is the big one in the middle, then the Scott at top left and Brewster Wheeler at right.

[[Edit: Strike this part!) As ever the issue seems to be things actually getting built. Did the Scott ever start construction? I haven't been that way in some months. This article from June suggested it was a matter of weeks.

The Brewster Wheeler project on the map is the 150 units mentioned here. Any news on that?

Others that people know about? Even just these three add up to a lot if they all come through.

Attachment 29530

---

completely agree.

i can't imagine all of this 'luxury' inventory being absorbed even with M-1 + the Arena...there's only so many empty nesters and pseudo-urban millenial-somethings willing to dump $1500-3500 every month to RENT.

it'll come down to timing. who can get out of the ground fastest and capture the limited appetite that exists.

I am not sure what the exact level of demand for higher end units downtown/midtown is. But i don't think anyone does. As long as they keep selling/renting, they will keep building. I have a suspicion demand might be higher than we think. When [[down the road) the DPS system is either fixed or [[better still) a genuine school choice system in place, I think more families will seek to live downtown. While that won't be a huge number of people, I think it will be more than the very few now. When you see a stroller in downtown/midtown, it is probably a visitor, not a resident.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emu steve

Couple points:

1). Yes, it will be challenging to put up new construction which blends with the historic structures which can be rehabbed.

2). This area doesn't necessarily need high density. It is okay, IMO, to have historic structures which take up significant land area blended with new construction allowing a blended neighborhood with moderate density.

---

Nowhere 'needs' high density. But if land values increase, then it will come -- whether its thought of as 'needed' or not.

My fear is that if you don't allow for density and your create an urban mall feel, you'll end up with incentive to eliminate all but the most valuable historic structures.

I think you can have the density that the market will likely demand from Brush Park AND retain some historic character.