Lots of things happening in or around BP this year. What does anyone think about the possible redevelopment of the vacant land? apartments?
Will we get infill housing, will crosswinds or someone continue to fill the southern portion of the nabe?
Any thoughts
I have heard that there have been some talks with the folks who did some condos in art center.
The redevelopment is basically inevitable; the area is too well-located relative to the increasing housing demand downtown and in midtown.
But the timing is always uncertain. Assembling financing for projects in Detroit takes a long time, and the whole EM thing adds additional confusion to the governmental side of it. As usual, you just have to wait to see the contracts signed.
No doubt that will be an up and coming area. Once they break ground for M1 Rail it'll go nuts.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaytheory
M-1 won't do much. This is not a major improvement to the regional transit system. It is an expensive way of carrying those who feel that they are to good to sit on a bus.Quote:
Originally Posted by professorscott
Well, if it going to do anything for anyplace it will do it for Brush Park. However I suspect the good professor may have had his tongue in his cheek.Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner
i think the M-1 wont make that big of a difference because it only goes from downtown to new center. i could walk this distance and more over i'm not saving a whole lot of time or money as i could drive this distance in the comfort of my own vehicle. however, if the M-1 went all the way to 8 mile then my story changes, if i live in Sherwood forest but work downtown then hopping on the light rail would be a quick and convenient way to get about.Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner
I can't wait for M1, because I am too good for a bus!
1953
From what I've heard from city agencies, BP is ripe for the picking, but they are looking to redesign the overlay plan for the area to prevent Crosswinds-type projects from happening again. Think Philly or Toronto type low-rise mixed use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScienceFair
Whats wrong with the Crosswinds plan?
LOL If you're too good for the bus you're too good for the streetcar! You would not believe how many times I have heard people say such things at public meetings and mean it seriously in the last 20 years!Quote:
Originally Posted by 1953
The mode won't do much to increase ridership, but it will attract a small number of 'choice riders' who will stay at downtown hotels and want an adventure to the DIA.
Deja vu. Heard the same things a decade ago back home in Houston when we got our one light rail line "that goes nowhere!!!" "Not enough people live downtown!" "We're a car culture!" "Nobody will use it!" "LOLWUT?" Fast forward a decade and the first line is getting an extension and four more lines are in the works.Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner
Takes a while to change a culture I guess.
I don't know why we have to go over this a million times, but things like M-1 are just as much about increasing development along the route as it is about actually moving people. It's a legit criticism if you're looking at it purely in terms of transportation, and you can decry it if you'd like, but that's not the only reason [[or sometimes even the main reason) streetcars and light rails are developed along certain corridors. M-1 WILL spur higher densities along Woodward and it's immediate side streets if it does nothing else, at all.
Don't get me wrong, I do support it, but expectations need to be realistic. The Euclid BRT has brought billions in new Development to the Core of Cleveland, but it is much longer and connects to more bus and rail lines than what M-1 will do. Yes it is good to have a better connection to the Amtrak Station, but the only other major line that will feed it will be the 14 [[Warren Crosstown). My biggest fear is that once it is in place the Woodward busses will stop N of New Center and folks will be delayed in getting downtown because they will need to wait and transfer to the new line in order to increase its numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasT
Doubtful. DDOT and M1 are separate entities and will be for the foreseeable future. Outside of some sort of grant or other kicker, there is no reason for DDOT to share its ridership with M1 through such an arrangement.Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner
Under RTA they are not separate entities. DDOT, SMART and M-1 will have to run as complimentary services.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eber Brock Ward
The RTA will have review powers over grant applications and such, which gives them an oversight role, but they will most definitely continue to be separate entities for the foreseeable future.Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner
Have you read the legislation? It requires a unanimous [[9/9) vote of the Board in order to acquire an existing transit provider. Even then, were that vote to occur, which is unlikely in the short- and medium-term, it would need to be either [[1) approved by a majority of a popular vote in every constituent county or [[2) be structured so as to ensure that the RTA assumes *no* liabilities and other legacy costs of the existing provider.
If you're coming at it from the regional master plan angle, or the designated recipient/grant applicant angle, it would be optically bad and politically unlikely that the RTA would funnel Woodward corridor ridership to an entity [[M1) that is likely not a "public transportation provider," and thus generally not subject to the auspices of the RTA, under the Act.
With the 2/2/2/2/1 makeup of the Board's voting members, too much meddling in the providers' business is a nonstarter, barring something else like some large foundation or someone dangling grant money out there in a quid-pro-quo. For a real-life example of how this dynamic works, look to the only two analogous organizations to our current RTA, which are Chicago's RTA and San Fran's MTC.
I saw a movie about the Brewster Projects, last year, at the N'namdi center in Midtown. There was a rep there from the city as well as the film-maker and one of the Avalon Bakery owners. It was a short documentary, actually well done, though, for me, a bit on the Ruin Porn With People side.
The filmmaker had obvious empathy for the folks who once lived there - though the reminisces of latter day crackheads in one of the buildings was overly long.
It seemed, at this event, that they were laying a basis for redeveloping the buildings, though the official line seemed to be that they were going to be demolished.
EBW
The RTA will control the purse strings in regard to funding and will be the agency in charge. However they will let the agencies remain separate for as long as it makes sense to. The previous RTCC arrangement makes the new RTA arrangement look downright progressive.
I disagree in that I believe the legislation makes it clear that they won't be "letting the agencies remain separate" because the RTA lacks any real ability to acquire or otherwise cause the merger of any agencies.Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner
I also think you overstate the ability of the RTA to avoid the purse-strings. Once the paeans to regional harmony are done, it will be each county to themselves and the board will turn into a horse-trading marathon. And while the RTA does have that oversight power, the 5% state money penalty, and a few other tools, found in Section 8 or otherwise, the organization is, sadly, more toothless than beast.
It's only when the RTA receives a dedicated and substantial source of funding -- be it from the vehicle registration fee, the ad val property tax [[lol), or some other source -- that the RTA can really make magic happen. As it stands, it's basically the Board, the CAC, the public transportation advisory council, and the throwaway $250k that they have to work with, and that's not that much. Maybe a staff of 2-3 people, if they hire a qualified CEO[[?).
I am hopeful long-term, though.
So is Crosswinds going to demolish the units they built that were never sold and sit abandoned before they build NEW units in Brush Park ??
Brush Park will be converted to "Brush Parking Lot" when they build the hockeyball stadium.
Well if it is well policed with a more 'choice ridership' it will be different from a standard ride on the DOT busses which overall I know would not want to endure.... LOL!
Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner
Well, for one, the units are practically worthless. Look at the resales. These "prime" condos in a "hot" area are worth less than if they were located in farmland in hicksville Northern Macomb.Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroit Stylin
But I'm sure the taxpayers will be asked to subsidize even more condos, so they can be resold 10 years down the line for 20% of construction costs.
How does this support light rail? Wouldn't Houston be a good example of why not to build light rail?Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasT
They built a single line in Houston, ridership sucks [[lower than the current Woodward bus ridership in Detroit), so now they're considering spending even more on light rail, hoping eventually ridership doesn't suck
Oh, and downtown revitalization? Since they opened the light rail on Houston's Main Street, the Macys closed [[last major store downtown), as did a number of nearby retail outlets. I thought rail transit was supposed to revitalize downtowns?
What evidence do you have for such a claim? And please don't tell me other cities built light rail and development followed, because there's no way to parse out the causal relationships.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dexlin
It would be like me claiming that no light rail spurs higher densities. After all, there was no light rail built down hundreds of urban corridors throughout the world, yet they experienced densification.
Serious question - have you ever been to Houston? Because your description of what's going on downtown is way off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
That Macy's was old and decrepit. I lived downtown and never went there. It needs to be torn down and rebuilt. Just look at the outside of it and imagine how nice the inside was:
http://www.houstonarchitecture.com/H...Jan08-002a.jpg
[[EDIT: Macy's plans to reopen in a newer, smaller store in downtown. They are going to tear this old building down, thank god. It's awful.)
Last of the retail? Hardly. They built the 560,000 square foot Houston Pavilions in the heart of downtown [[hey, right by the light rail!) in 07 or 08.
http://blog.chron.com/primeproperty/...2011/12/HP.jpg
http://houstonpavilions.com/images/s...ed-500x334.jpg
God bless em, they can't get away from the strip mall feel but it's got plenty of major retail [[Forever 21, H&M, BCBG, etc), restaurants [[including Yao Ming's restaurant and House of Blues), a trendy bowling alley [[much like Ten in Chicago), and it made to be walkable, with raised walkways from block to block. And pointing out anything regarding retail ignores the way Houston's core is split into two, with the Central Business District and the Shopping/Retail District with the Galleria; the shopping district is way too established for downtown to compete for major retailers. That's like being over near the Sears Tower in Chicago and lamenting the lack of retail in the area. Still, retail is getting better in the business district and some retailers are now returning but mostly it's going to be boutiques that can't afford the Galleria area but still have something to offer in a unique shopping experience.
As far as entertainment, there are several independent bars and restaurants that have sprung up on Main Street [[hey right by the train line!). No, they aren't "major" chains for the most part but they are pretty nice and I prefer them over the TGIF and Applebees types. Google bars in downtown and you'll see [[bars in red, train line in green, new retail center in blue circle):
Attachment 18729
Downtown actually has a nightlife. As little as 15 years ago when I'd intern downtown in high school, that place shut down at 5 pm. Now there are people hanging out well into the night.
http://cdn1.vtourist.com/4/1424766-M...wn_Houston.jpg
Houston's train line could be more successful. It doesn't run through any neighborhoods except West University, which is akin to Indian Village [[and even there, it skirts the edge). Not the type of people that will take the train daily [[although I did when I rented in West U). It entirely skips Houston's Midtown. It skips Houston's 40K-student U of Houston. Despite all of that, Houston's line still averages 37K people a day. Detroit's train will service its Midtown as well as a 30K-student WSU. I think it will be better off.
Are the Crosswinds those ones near Comerica? Sort of looks like an apartment complex? I typically hate those types but really, they aren't bad. They at least walk out on to the street, like a typical walkup.
We looked at those [[assuming those are what y'all are referring to) when we bought last summer. They went typically in the 80K-110K range but for that price, I could get a bigger home with character in Woodbridge [[and built a lot sturdier) so that's what we went with.
I guess prices are going up. This one just sold last month for $140K.
Lol. Flawless victory. I've been down Main Street in Houston and a whole bunch of lofts and apartments have sprung up, as well as bars and restaurants to service them. Think Greektown with a rail line and residential, but more geared toward residents than suburbanites and tourists.Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasT
Quote:
Originally Posted by mauser
Most of are occupied not sure what you are talking about
And don't forget the closed Macys, the shuttered retail, and lower rail ridership in Houston than one bus line in Detroit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eber Brock Ward
And the Houston Pavillions, claimed as a light rail success, isn't even on the light rail line, and has tons of vacancies.
Also don't forget the whole correlation-causation problem. If a loft opens after the light rail, everyone here will attribute it to the light rail, but if one opened before the light rail, no one will attribute it to the absense of light rail.
Did you read the link? It closed because that building absolutely sucks and they are going to reopen in a smaller, newer building that makes sense for an urban environment. It was like a morgue in there with low ceilings and bad [[no) lighting. In case you did not understand how wretched that building is, inside and out:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
http://swamplot.com/wp-content/uploa...s-downtown.jpg
As to your point of the ridership of the Woodward bus, I think that bodes well for the success of the Woodward line, no? It's a popular route. Houston's Main Street is not a major corridor like Woodward. Detroit has so much more to gain from a light rail line down its main artery than even Houston with its line [[which again, serves 37K people a day without even hitting major neighborhoods. In a city that has a huge car culture. In a city that sits at 100 degrees with 100% humidity for extended periods of time in the summer. In a city with half the density of Detroit.)
You serious, Clark? Light rail in yellow, Pavillions in blue. Have you been to Houston? Have you ridden the rail line?Quote:
And the Houston Pavillions, claimed as a light rail success, isn't even on the light rail line, and has tons of vacancies.
Attachment 18731
The office portion of the Pavillions is fully leased and the retail is at about 65%, which is lower than they'd like, but there are still plenty of new open places there. Again, the CBD is not going to be able to compete with the retail district of Houston - but bars and restaurants are doing just fine, of which there are 10 or so in the Pavillions alone.
How exactly would you like us to show you how rail can be successful if you refuse to consider any actual examples of development along transit stops? If you have a path where there's little-to-no development, and then you put in transit, and then you start to see development sprout up along the transit stops, I think we can all use our common sense there. Of course, the conclusion is subject to rebuttals but your wholescale exemption of any real-life examples is a bit misguided.Quote:
Also don't forget the whole correlation-causation problem. If a loft opens after the light rail, everyone here will attribute it to the light rail, but if one opened before the light rail, no one will attribute it to the absense of light rail.
Nobody is saying that transit and transit alone creates this development, mind you. Yes, it is a variety of factors. I've noticed the tendency of people on this site to let the enemy of the good be the great. "If a solution doesn't fully take care of the problem, then don't implement it!"
"Did we slash Council's perks?" "That's only $6M, a drop in the bucket!"
"Lease Belle Isle?" "That's only $6M, a drop in the bucket!"
"Hey a small advertising agency is opening downtown!" "It's only 40 people and they won't move down there, a drop in the bucket!"
"Hey, a light rail system funded primarily by private businesses!" "It won't completely revitalize downtown on its own, a drop in the bucket!"
Other cities have been collecting those drops for decades and now have a full bucket, just so you know...
And as of 2007, the Woodward Bus line takes 31K people a day. So unless it increased 25% over the last five years while Detroit's population plummeted, that's less than Houston's 37K/day on its light rail, even with the constraints I noted [[hits no major neighborhoods, misses UH and Midtown, sweltering weather, car culture, lack of density).
http://www.modeldmedia.com/features/wtransit77.aspxQuote:
Approximately 31,000 people currently ride the buses that go up and down Woodward each day. That's more people than ride the new light rail lines in Minneapolis [[16,000), Salt Lake City [[19,000) and Denver [[28,000 on two lines), and nearly as many as Dallas [[42,000 over two lines). Transportation Riders United, a non-profit dedicated to improving mass transit in metro Detroit, estimates a Woodward light rail line would attract between 40,000 and 50,000 riders a day.
Texas, you could fly him out there and our resident know-it-all still wouldn't agree with you. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasT
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasT
Does a bus run the same route as the line in Texas? Just curious because it would seem we're going to run buses and a tram along the same line...If I understand the very limited rights of the RTA to arrange the lines.
First, no, this isn't true. Macys closed and they have no plans for a new store in downtown Houston.Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasT
Second, I don't even know what you mean by "smaller newer building that makes sense for an urban environment". Since when were urban department stores characterized by their "smaller, newer" vibe? Downtown stores tend to be the oldest and largest.
And third, you're missing my point. I don't think that Macys closed because they opened light rail. My point is that you're attributing every positive thing that's happened in downtown Houston to light rail, with no evidence that there's any causal relationship, while ignoring all the negative things that have happened at the same time.
I don't believe there ever was a "Main Street Bus Line" because the way Houston is set up, it's not a main thoroughfare, despite the name [[maybe it was back in the day, I guess). There are bus routes that cover Main Street though, like the "South Main Bus", which covers the southern portion of what the train line does [[from Wheeler through the museums, Rice University, and medical center) and the "North Main Bus," which covers the northern portion through downtown Houston. There is a small section of Main in between those two lines that is not covered by bus, Main is not a perfect comparison to Woodward. Main doesn't hit a lot of neighborhoods, none really. Detroit was setup very well for train lines; Houston, not so much. Still, it's been a positive development.Quote:
Originally Posted by bailey
Ok. Just ignore the links. You sort of lost credibility in discussions about what's going on in Houston, friend, when you didn't even know where our train line went. That's ok - I have no idea what's going on in Pittsburgh. That's why I don't post about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
Um, yes, the OLD ones built in a different era, a la the ugly Macy's in Houston, are big. New, urban-oriented stores are small. I realize Birmingham isn't really the place for things like City Targets, like they were building in Chicago when I left, but small is the new big for urban downtowns.Quote:
Second, I don't even know what you mean by "smaller newer building that makes sense for an urban environment". Since when were urban department stores characterized by their "smaller, newer" vibe? Downtown stores tend to be the oldest and largest.
"As young Americans move to cities, retailers that grew up in the suburbs are following them. And unlike previous efforts, they are doing it the cities’ way. With little room to expand in the suburbs, retailers, including Office Depot, Wal-Mart and Target, are betting that opening small city stores will help their growth.
It is a significant shift from their approach in the past, when they tried to cram their big-box formats into cities, often prompting big fights. This time, the retailers studied city dwellers with anthropological intensity and overhauled things as varied as store sizes [[the city stores are a small fraction of the size of the suburban ones), packages [[they must be compact enough for pedestrians) and signs [[they are simple, so shoppers can get in and out within minutes)."
Link. Same thing they said regarding the Macy's in downtown Houston: "“After further investigation by the building’s owner, no financially feasible scenario was found for maintaining a smaller store in the old structure,” Bob Eury, executive director for the Houston Downtown Management District, said in Mayor Parker's statement. “A new location is our only option, and quite frankly, a new, smaller store will bode better for downtown in the long run.”"
Linked above. Yes, if we're talking 8 & Woodward, put in a full size Meijers. If we're talking about dense, urban areas, you're looking at specialized, smaller City Targets:
http://www.takefiveaday.com/wp-conte...CityTarget.jpg
Or a Walmart Express:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zQhBfnKL0b...129_153345.jpg
I was really confused when people kept saying there are no grocers or stores in Detroit until I realized they were applying a suburban mentality to an urban center. I shop at Ye Olde Butcher Shoppe and CVS, smaller, urban-oriented stores, exactly like I did in Chicago [[except it was Olivia's and CVS). I would not expect - or want - a full-sized Meijers to be plopped down in Midtown. Even the new Detroit Whole Foods is half the size of a suburban WF - that's just how you do things in a denser area of the city with urban characteristics.
I clearly said, in the very post you responded to: "Nobody is saying that transit and transit alone creates this development, mind you." Why does that statement make you think that I am attributing "every positive thing that's happened in downtown Houston to light rail"?Quote:
And third, you're missing my point. I don't think that Macys closed because they opened light rail. My point is that you're attributing every positive thing that's happened in downtown Houston to light rail, with no evidence that there's any causal relationship, while ignoring all the negative things that have happened at the same time.
You're now just making up stuff. There's no basis for any of your claims.Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasT
Again, there is no new Macys in Downtown Houston. The current Macys closed, and there is no new Macys being planned. This all happend after the light rail was built.
The light rail runs down Main Street, which is where the closed Macys sits [[yet you claim there's no relationship between the two), and then you claimed the half-empty Houston Pavillions [[which isn't even on the light rail) should be attributed to the light rail route.
No. Urban stores are typically big stores. I have never heard of downtown department stores being small. They are usually flagship sized stores.Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasT
Please show us a major U.S. city where the downtown department stores are the small stores, and the suburban and rural department stores are the big stores.
Houston's Macys closed because it wasn't making money. It has nothing to do with "too big" or anything. It wasn't even "too big", because they had closed off a bunch of floors. Macys has no plans for anything in downtown Houston.
And I have no idea why you're going on about Office Depot, CityTarget, and the like. We're talking about department stores. What does Office Depot have to do with Macys and urban department store flagships?
Ok, you are clearly trolling now. Took me a second.
Point taken!Quote:
Originally Posted by Islandman
Yes, how dare I infect this thread with facts!Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasT
Carry on, as you were saying, the biggest cities have the smallest department stores, light rail shouldn't be judged on ridership, and all downtown successes should be attributed to light rail, though downtown failures shouldn't...
lol bham, why the "department stores" strawman, when the traditional department store is in its death throes as a retail concept [[did you not read the ny times article she posted: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/26/bu...TE1FRPZoN4IcIA) and macy's is already in discussions about "relocating Macy's into a smaller space within the city's core"?
what's next, will you criticize because there are no buggy whip stores opening up on the light rail line?
Bham1982, TexasT is right about smaller department stores, Montreal has 6 department stores and 10 shopping malls downtown all competing with smaller street retailers/boutiques. The trend has been to offer boutique style shopping within the largest stores for a long time. The big ones that didnt follow that route closed and reopened under other banners with boutique style divisions. The reason again is that street and mall retailers are nimble and the brand recognition is as strong if not stronger than the big retailers. People want H&M and Sephora, and Lululemon more than they do Sears or The Bay when it comes to fashion.
Simpsons dept store in Montreal closed and was picked up by a small dept store from Quebec City; Simons', and they only use a couple of stories of the old building. Les Ailes de la Mode took up the old Eaton's dept store which was a 9 floor establishment. They only used four. I could give you more examples.
And as transit goes, if the metro and suburban rail, good bus service didnt exist pouring people in from off-island suburbs, the retail would all be in suburban malls, of course. In fact like Toronto's path, the underground reso system here provides access to these stores as well as cinemas arts and music venues, museums, apt buildings etc... You could step out of your apartment in some cases and never have to go outside to do your groceries, etc...
Light rail will make a difference in Detroit, maybe not in Birmingham.
First, you're misusing "strawman".Quote:
Originally Posted by Eber Brock Ward
Second, you think Macys [[right on the light rail hub) is irrelevent, but the other developments [[not on the light rail line) are examples of transit-oriented development? Huh?
Third, Macys is NOT relocating in downtown Houston. The mayor announced a committee to "explore alternatives" which means nothing. Macys is done.
Fourth, the NY Times article is NOT talking about department stores. It's talking about suburban big box and attempts at relocating downtown.
Fifth, somehow big traditional department stores are opening up in urban centers all over the place [[Macys in the Bronx, Nordstrom in Manhattan, Bloomingdales in Soho, Santa Monica, and San Francisco) yet apparently they're "horse and buggy" when they close.
Somehow Macys Corp is throwing off huge profits and is investing billions in downtown stores [[a half billion in Macys 34th Street alone, and nearly that amount in Bloomingdales 59th Street), but when they fail in Houston, or Detroit, its obviously because people no longer shop in department stores, right? Been to Somerset lately?
No, he's actually wrong, and I should know, because, to some extent, it's my business.Quote:
Originally Posted by canuck
The largest department stores, all of them, are in downtown districts. This is true in the U.S., in Canada, in Europe, and in Japan. I don't know about the rest of the world.
If I listed the 10 largest Macys stores, they would all be in central business districts. If I listed the smallest stores, they would all be rural or exurban stores. There's a direct relationship between urbanity and store size.
Macys in Downtown Houston failed because it wasn't making enough money. It wasn't a big store anyways, because they had closed off a number of floors a couple years back.
The largest department stores are obviously all situated in downtowns, nobodey is debating that, the issue is about the trend toward smaller sized stores, so we are back to square one, since you conclude by saying essentially the same thing.
But about transit and its relative importance in the equation; dont you think that a rail line makes a difference over bus routes on a street like Woodward?
I mean can you imagine that even for a moment, setting aside emotional attachment to the status quo?
Did you look at the map? How are you possibly saying that the other developments are not on the rail? They are directly on the line.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
Attachment 18731
Macy's closed THIS month - they have said "no comment" but the leader of the downtown planning corp has said that Macy's is looking for new space. I've posted links to that - you've posted nothing but your opinion about a store in a city that it sounds like you've never even been to.Quote:
Third, Macys is NOT relocating in downtown Houston. The mayor announced a committee to "explore alternatives" which means nothing. Macys is done.
Macy's closed because it was too big, ugly, unattractive, musty, and city-dwellers don't like department stores. Why do you think Chicago's are in the tourist area? Bucktown/Wicker Park had great shopping, chains even, no department stores. That's the future for these high density areas that are attracting young people who want that urban experience. For suburbanites who want to go to a mall in a different city, yes, a huge old Macy's will do. We have that in Houston's Galleria.
Same principles apply. We're talking about stores that service the surrounding community, not tourist attractions. If you are going on a shopping "expedition" in Houston, you go to the Galleria area where there are big [[old) stores. But when you're talking about shopping for that population that's moving back into the old downtowns, no, that's not working.Quote:
Fourth, the NY Times article is NOT talking about department stores. It's talking about suburban big box and attempts at relocating downtown.
Big traditional department stores?Quote:
Fifth, somehow big traditional department stores are opening up in urban centers all over the place [[Macys in the Bronx, Nordstrom in Manhattan, Bloomingdales in Soho, Santa Monica, and San Francisco) yet apparently they're "horse and buggy" when they close.
The Bronx is opening a small [[160K sq ft) Macy's on the end of the borough in a shopping mall. This store is smaller than usual, as the trend currently goes. The Macy's that closed in Houston was originally 800K sf, and tried to pare down to 500K sf [[not small, as you tried to argue) before opting out of the old, ugly brickbox
The Bloomingdales in SoHo you mentioned? "The store, which opened in April of last year at 504 Broadway, marked a departure for the chain, both in layout and merchandise. Unlike the other Bloomingdale’s stores across the country, the SoHo unit is small [[only 80,000 square feet of selling space)." Link.
The Bloomingdales in Santa Monica? "Bloomingdale's is testing out a newer concept. Instead of massive department stores, the brand is building smaller stores. The next one is planned for Santa Monica, California." Link
As the NY Times says in its discussion of the new Nordstroms:"New department stores have become a rarity, especially with the growth of online shopping. And New York’s retail cemetery is filled with those that have expired: Gimbels, Bonwit Teller, S. Klein, Hearn’s, Saks-34th Street, B. Altman, Sterns, Alexanders, Orbach’s and Abraham & Straus."
Department stores that are trying to service this growing urban population are going to need to adapt, just like the other big box stores are doing.
The trend is for fewer large department stores mostly in suburban locations. If you take a snapshot of large department stores located in dense urban areas. You will see a sharp decrease in number at ten year intervals since 1960.
Here is the blog of a local guy who has chronicled the death of the american department store. It is a great read for those interested in the history of downtowns. http://departmentstoremuseum.blogspot.com/
The fact is that not only the number of departments stores are down, thereyare now only a few unique companies left. Many department stores operate under different names with slightly different markets [[Macys/Bloomingdales, Kmart/Sears). Those that are left have nowhere near the number of departments as they once had. When I was a kid you could buy appliances, fabrics, pet supplies, rare coins and stamps, and all sorts of things at Hudsons. Those departments are all long gone. Customer service is way down as well. The counters have been replaced with piles of clothes or stuff stacked on the walls. Check out some of the directories of the grand old stores on the link above if you don't believe me.
Regardless of all of this. The area that this thread originally began to discuss is on an upswing. That is a good thing in general. Lets hope that in the near future the development happens in a way that is not as heavilly subsidized as it has in the past. Lets start looking at other parts of the City that need help too. There is more to the City than this small area.
Thanks! I can't wait to get some time to read this - looks like a great read for those interested in the history of SHOPPING.;)Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner
Thanks Detroitplanner, a lot of good stuff in there.
Interesting arguments, but I will direct my thoughts back to Brush Park development. First of all, it's unfortunate that the Crosswinds' development "Woodward Place" was built when it was. That section of Woodward could have used several Ellington/Studio One-styled structures along Woodward. Actually, if they could put the residents in the current structures along Woodward somewhere temporarily, Ellington/StudioOne-types could still be built there.
Secondly, Crosswinds did not make good use of the alleys in that area. Sure they put townhouses facing them and made pedestrian paths out of the alleys, but they should have made those pedestrian paths wide enough for two lanes of car traffic[[a parking lane for visitors and a driving lane) and a sidewalk. It would have created more foot traffic in the area.
Thirdly, the townhouse concept where someone lives above you or below, in my opinion, was and is a bad idea. If I live in a townhouse I want all the floors to myself. Actually, the townhouses that face the alleys are more appealing to me than the ones that face Woodward and most of the side streets. These types [[the three story ones) would have looked better than what they have on Woodward.
Fourthly, a hockey arena along the west side of Woodward would be an awful answer to developing that area. Yes, that area could use some kind of development, but I don't think any kind of development is better than none in this case. Again, Ellington/StudioOne-types of development would be ideal for the west side of Woodward as well. Maybe even build a Texas-donut type of development. An arena on that side would only attract traffic on game days, but the area would still be just as desolate on non-game days as it is now.
Fifthly, M-1 rail along Woodward shoud replace bus service and go just north of Maple in Birmingham. That's not going to happen, but it would be a big step in showing the world that Detroit takes eco-friendly, energy-efficient transit seriously, even if that transit is only on one main street in Detroit. Also, as someone mentioned earlier, we snobs would rather ride a comfortable-riding rail car than a pot hole bouncing bus any day.
Finally, Red Cross needs to give up their land on the corner of Mack and Woodward so another Ellington-type development could go up. That would do wonders for that corner. Besides, the Red Cross doesn't need all of that surface parking. Indeed, they could partner up with the Ellington-type development and build a much needed parking structure for both concerns. Well, this has been my two cents.
Totally agree with this. My parents are in their 70's and are looking for a condo. Since both have lived in single family homes their entire lives, they are not comfortable with either the apartment style or the this arrangement. Both have mobility issues and they want to be on one floor. They sure the heck would not want to have one of the upper condo units where you have to walk up 2 stories to get to your first floor!Quote:
Originally Posted by royce
Seniors are the largest growing segment of the housing market. To have half of your units being the upper level of stacked townhomes is not a good approach.
Agreed. If M1 is ever extended to 8 mile or beyond, then BP will go crazy.Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner
That makes no sense. You said your parents wanted one-level living. With the upper-lower arrangement, they could buy a lower-level single-floor unit, even if they didn't want an upper level unit . If you have a stacked unit, there are no single-level units and they can't buy any of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner
He said his parents had lived in single family homes and that they don't like the apartment style. I think he was implying that his parents don't like the idea of having to share a building with another tenant. Detroitnerd would probably call them racists because of that. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by mwilbert
Sure, but he was specifically saying that the unit-over-unit layout was bad, and that makes no sense in the context of older parents who want one-floor living. I think the best arrangement for older folks in the city is probably apartment/condo living in an elevator building. If I could get my parents to move out of their four-floor house, which is about as likely as getting them to move to a moon colony, that is what I would be advocating for them, unless I could find a house where they could stay with me in a one-floor accessory apartment.
That is what I was saying. I have tried to get them interested in an apartment style unit but they freak-out at not having a basement or a garage to put their crap. Then they complain because the only thing they can find is in soul-less places in strip mall city. When I suggest them moving from a colonial to a nearby ranch in Rosedale they look at me like I am crazy as they have it in their head they want a condo with an attached garage. People in their 70's do not want a house with a lot of stairs. They want homes with less stairs. This is by far the fastest growing market. In Detroit however everyone thinks that having a house is normal, so this market segment gravitates towards ranch style condos, preferrably detached [[till they see the price tags against the attached ones!)Quote:
Originally Posted by subsidized
Great point regarding the Red Cross. I think it is really holding back the connection between Brush Park and Midtown. Having some pedestrian oriented development on the south side of Mack would really bring the are together. Right now, that whole corner is dead space.Quote:
Originally Posted by royce
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScienceFair
He's talking about the abandoned and scrapped incomplete condos at John R and Erskine, not the ones at Woodward and I75.
FYI the city wants to reopen Erskine all the way to Woodward, and is trying to get Red Cross to donate that land and possibly the land at the corner of Woodward/Mack. Not sure how likely that is, but obviously the city can't afford to buy it back from them.
Also, the master plan for Brush Park is currently being redrawn, with the input of the residences, to exclude developments like Crosswinds from happening again. Funny how they were built just 10 years ago, yet EVERYONE at the meeting with the city groaned in disapproval when the city planner mentioned them.
Crosswinds was in bed with Archer and family. It was his kids and Crosswinds that worked together to destroy the neighborhood by Sinbads after the CDC asked the City for help getting some infill homes on empty or abandoned lots.