Why Have We Decided That A Guy Who Became A Billionaire Selling Us Cheap Pizza Is God

[wolverine]

The real threat was the possibility of moving to the Palace. After all this, people still can't get it through their skulls that this deal isn't really going to cost the city a damn thing, or, at most, very little, and it rids the city of a huge, empty plot of nothing. a plot of nothing for which, to my knowledge, nothing was ever planned

Just because it's being built on a plot of nothing doesn't mean it's a prudent planning decision. Detroit's downtown has a spatial continuity problem because of the freeways and stadia inhibits strong residential and business districts from growing. Really, it's an issue of desirability and freeways and stadiums are incompatible uses with residential and even offices in an urban context. People don't choose to be near their teams or have good freeway access next to where they live. People choose neighborhoods that have street life on a daily basis and storefronts instead of blank walls and overpasses.

[emu steve]

Just because it's being built on a plot of nothing doesn't mean it's a prudent planning decision. Detroit's downtown has a spatial continuity problem because of the freeways and stadia inhibits strong residential and business districts from growing. Really, it's an issue of desirability and freeways and stadiums are incompatible uses with residential and even offices in an urban context. People don't choose to be near their teams or have good freeway access next to where they live. People choose neighborhoods that have street life on a daily basis and storefronts instead of blank walls and overpasses.

I'm not sure if I follow you, but if I were 'designing' CBD, downtown, and Midtown, housing would be in Midtown starting at the Fisher working north. Employment and entertainment within downtown.

However, nothing much has happened in that area [[Midtown) except the townhouses on Woodward.

If there was the demand for hundreds of townhouses, apartments/condos or even singe family houses something should be perking by now. Nothing!

Hence, we had two choices: an arena or urban wasteland.

Let no one say in 10 years that because Ilitich wanted to build an arena that he prevented that Midtown area from developing into a residential area. That somehow he squeezed out residential development.

[rb336]

Let no one say in 10 years that because Ilitich wanted to build an arena that he prevented that Midtown area from developing into a residential area. That somehow he squeezed out residential development.

The arena district includes residential

[401don]

Just because it's being built on a plot of nothing doesn't mean it's a prudent planning decision. Detroit's downtown has a spatial continuity problem because of the freeways and stadia inhibits strong residential and business districts from growing. Really, it's an issue of desirability and freeways and stadiums are incompatible uses with residential and even offices in an urban context. People don't choose to be near their teams or have good freeway access next to where they live. People choose neighborhoods that have street life on a daily basis and storefronts instead of blank walls and overpasses.

Take a look at Toronto, nothing but massive condos sandwiched between the Gardner Expwy, Air Canada and Rogers Centres.

[Honky Tonk]

I had a friend that lived in Detroit while working here. She bought a condo @ the Crosswinds. Game days, it was hell with the crowds, cops, people parked wherever, congestion, and noise. It's not my thing to live that type of situation.

[Bham1982]

I had a friend that lived in Detroit while working here. She bought a condo @ the Crosswinds. Game days, it was hell with the crowds, cops, people parked wherever, congestion, and noise. It's not my thing to live that type of situation.

I am amazed that people in this thread actually defend this sort of living as popular.

If you live next to a sports stadium, most of the time you will be living in an empty wasteland, and about 10% of the time you will be living in a traffic-choked nightmare of drunken louts. Fun times!

There is nothing wrong with sports stadia per se, but they are incompatible with pedestrian/transit centered urban development, and not generally desirable for urban living. If Illitch wants to build his new arena, he should be encouraged to do so, as long as 1. No subsidies and 2. No expectations of spinoff development outside of bars.

[canuck]

Take a look at Toronto, nothing but massive condos sandwiched between the Gardner Expwy, Air Canada and Rogers Centres.

I was about to make that very comment re; wolverine's. It may be an unpleasant reality, but Detroit at least has the land available, and needs the thrust that new sports complexes can bring it. Downtown is where it should happen.

[Bham1982]

We've had this conversation [[thread) before.

We have been able to find a bunch of examples.

I 'contributed' two examples from D.C. i.e., Verizon Centre and Nationals' Park where sports facilities had made huge contribution to development of their respective areas.

The Verizon Center and Nationals Park are perfect examples of poor taxpayer investments inhibiting growth.

The Department of Transportation did not build a new building downtown because the Washington Wizards play nearby. That's completely absurd.

There has been tons of growth in downtown DC, but it has nothing to do with these two venues. It's because of the growth of the federal government in recent years.

[Bham1982]

I was about to make that very comment re; wolverine's. It may be an unpleasant reality, but Detroit at least has the land available, and needs the thrust that new sports complexes can bring it. Downtown is where it should happen.

Correlation obviously doesn't imply causation.

Downtown Toronto is in a massive building boom of condos. To imply it's because they built the Rogers Center on vacant land 30 years ago is absurd. If anything, the sports stadia inhibit development.

[canuck]

Your assertion that sports venues inhibit development is too pretty twisted. How about this tower built as a residential condo development tied to the Bell Centre and exhibiting the team's logotype?

Across the street is another 50 storey condo called L'Avenue which refers to L'Avenue des Canadiens. Deloitte has a new 32 storey office tower built on the other side of the Bell Centre as well. Down Mountain Street near St Antoine, a new series of office and condo towers totalling 4 million sq ft will be built in the next fifteen years by the same developer. The proximity to the arena was of course only one of the factors along with highway access ramps nearby, suburban rail and metro stops merging in the area.

In the Toronto example that don401 gives, you also need to take a look at what T.O. did with the old Maple Leaf Garden. Ryerson U scooped it up to expand their campus, and a massive Loblaws supermarket was implanted on the ground floor. In my opinion, this was a better use than what was done with the old forum in Montreal in terms of attracting and retaining businesses in the area.

[Bham1982]

Your assertion that sports venues inhibit development is too pretty twisted. How about this tower built as a residential condo development tied to the Bell Centre and exhibiting the team's logotype?

No, my assertion isn't "pretty twisted"; it's common knowledge.

I have no idea what Bell Centre is or why you think it's a counterargument. No one said that an arena is like Cherenobyl. Stuff can still be built nearby.

The point is that arenas don't cause development. It doesn't mean that arenas lead to wastelands. Just like a power plant or warehouse or freeway can be surrounded by development, so can an arena; doesn't mean the warehouse caused the development.

The Gardiner didn't "cause" condos to be built next-door, nor did the Rogers Center, nor did the CN Tower. Chinese nationals aren't parking their money in Canadian condos because of the Blue Jays. If you imploded the Rogers Center, you would just get more condo safe deposit boxes for non-Canadians.

[canuck]

No, my assertion isn't "pretty twisted"; it's common knowledge.

I have no idea what Bell Centre is or why you think it's a counterargument. No one said that an arena is like Cherenobyl. Stuff can still be built nearby.

The point is that arenas don't cause development. It doesn't mean that arenas lead to wastelands. Just like a power plant or warehouse or freeway can be surrounded by development, so can an arena; doesn't mean the warehouse caused the development.

The Gardiner didn't "cause" condos to be built next-door, nor did the Rogers Center, nor did the CN Tower. Chinese nationals aren't parking their money in Canadian condos because of the Blue Jays. If you imploded the Rogers Center, you would just get more condo safe deposit boxes for non-Canadians

.


Bell Centre is where the Habs pounded the Wings last friday.

I also dont think arenas are an automatic gateway to development, residential or otherwise. It takes a little bit more than that. There has to be a constant appraisal of the environment, historical considerations, potential for moving throngs of people safely and rapidly. If you add density to the core, even if it is sporadic, there is a chance that you can define opportunities for residential and office development nearby. Stadia and other developments are not therefore mutually exclusive, wtf?

[Hermod]

Every developer whether he is just seeking zoning, wants tax abatement, or wants actual cash subsidies and grants always tells the PTB that his development will cause gold coins to rain out of the sky on the surrounding area.

[emu steve]

The Verizon Center and Nationals Park are perfect examples of poor taxpayer investments inhibiting growth.

The Department of Transportation did not build a new building downtown because the Washington Wizards play nearby. That's completely absurd.

There has been tons of growth in downtown DC, but it has nothing to do with these two venues. It's because of the growth of the federal government in recent years.

I believe we've had this debate before. Don't know if it was you and I or someone else and I.

DOT didn't turn an urban wasteland into a development mecca

The green line [[subway stop) didn't either.

I remember when D.C. was considering possible locations for a stadium [[e.g., Navy Yard, L'Efant Plaza, NoMa and I think one more), I drove [[NOT walked) though the area.

Total urban wasteland.

It had the subway stop, DOT, etc. BUT was still an urban wasteland.

Subway stop is no guarantee of development.

It turned when speculation occurred when a baseball stadium was believed headed to there. Developent slowed because of the crash of 2008, but if Detroit can do 1/3 of what the D.C ball park district did for D.C. pop the champagne.

[emu steve]

The Verizon Center and Nationals Park are perfect examples of poor taxpayer investments inhibiting growth.

The Department of Transportation did not build a new building downtown because the Washington Wizards play nearby. That's completely absurd.

There has been tons of growth in downtown DC, but it has nothing to do with these two venues. It's because of the growth of the federal government in recent years.

You are either 1/2 wrong or 100% wrong.

The Verizon Center was Abe Pollin's money. It was not D.C. money. Taxpayers did not pay.

Secondly, many believe the real growth of the federal government came after 9/11.

Verizon Center was built in the 90s.

"The Verizon Center was built in the mid-1990s solely with private financing and was originally owned by Abe Pollin from 1997 to June 2010. "

Source: Wikipedia.

[Honky Tonk]

I was about to make that very comment re; wolverine's. It may be an unpleasant reality, but Detroit at least has the land available, and needs the thrust that new sports complexes can bring it. Downtown is where it should happen.

We're already being "thrusted" by Ilitch, if you get my drift...

[emu steve]

The Verizon Center and Nationals Park are perfect examples of poor taxpayer investments inhibiting growth.

The Department of Transportation did not build a new building downtown because the Washington Wizards play nearby. That's completely absurd.

There has been tons of growth in downtown DC, but it has nothing to do with these two venues. It's because of the growth of the federal government in recent years.

Rather than taking my word for it, here is a study from M.I.T. which specifically looked at the Verizon Center and had a very strong conclusion:

http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/58643

From the abstract:

"The benefits analyzed are derived from the changes in the local real estate markets that may be connected to the arena or stadium construction. The subject case study illustrates some of the broader economic benefits related to urban real estate renewal. Washington, DC provides a recent example of urban arena development that led to significant local investment in the development of the surrounding area. Construction of the Verizon Center led to development of residential, office, and retail product in the immediate area. The case study explores the factors [[specific to the site, team owners, local developers, and city officials) that create a fertile environment for urban real estate renewal..."

[Bham1982]

You are either 1/2 wrong or 100% wrong.

The Verizon Center was Abe Pollin's money. It was not D.C. money. Taxpayers did not pay.

Taxpayers paid for Nationals Park.

Obviously no one has any problem if a private developer chooses to build a stadium. Just don't claim it leads to spin-off development, when it doesn't.

[Bham1982]

Rather than taking my word for it, here is a study from M.I.T. which specifically looked at the Verizon Center and had a very strong conclusion:

You found somone's senior thesis. Congratulations.

If you're really scouring a senior thesis to see evidence that arenas cause development, that's all we need to know.

[noise]

You found somone's senior thesis. Congratulations.

If you're really scouring a senior thesis to see evidence that arenas cause development, that's all we need to know.

Not only that, but the author's last name is Rizzo!

[canuck]

We're already being "thrusted" by Ilitch, if you get my drift...

True. My lower back hurts thinking back to the Jeffrey Loria debacle in this city...

I am totally frustrated by the capitalistic BS that underlies all of our efforts at city building too. The wealth is more concentrated and the extremely wealthy are therefore more arrogant in negotiating deals with the civic powers that be.

I am also a realist when it comes to the kind of things that make a city tick, and Detroit is a sports driven city from the start. It is not an emerging ma With all its problems, it needs to get punters into the city center and find ways of generating interest around the new venues, hotels, convention centers and whatnot. It is less a question of arenas vs other econonomy boosters and more a question of how to attract and retain residents and visitors if these new projects come online.

The developers need to be taken to task on these responsibilities, and the city committees and boards of trade must be more dynamic to that end.

[emu steve]

You found somone's senior thesis. Congratulations.

If you're really scouring a senior thesis to see evidence that arenas cause development, that's all we need to know.

Actually the thesis was for a masters degree from the dept. of architecture at M.I.T.

Next I'll scour for books written on Verizon Center development. This subject has been written about many, may times [[BTW, I worked at 6 and E. St N.W. during the 1980s and in the TechWorld area in the early 90s. I'm personally familiar with the area - both would be served by the Gallery Place metro stop).

Abe Pollin is revered in D.C. for what he did with Verizon Center and the Gallery Place area.

[emu steve]

http://books.google.com/books?id=SVS...%20%22&f=false

[canuck]

The Gardiner didn't "cause" condos to be built next-door, nor did the Rogers Center, nor did the CN Tower. Chinese nationals aren't parking their money in Canadian condos because of the Blue Jays. If you imploded the Rogers Center, you would just get more condo safe deposit boxes for non-Canadians.

Toronto's condo ownership may be fueled by a lot of absentee ownership but you know that Greater Toronto is also home to a half million Chinese, and that it is impossible to avoid the presence of a very lively pan-Asian community disseminated throughout the region. Asian investment isnt just a fly-by-night in Toronto, or Vancouver but obviously, the pressure on homeowners is pretty high in some quarters because of the heated market. Developers rely on a large block of offshore investors to start massive projects. I suppose these developers have important call centers to attract potential buyers far and wide.

There's a shady Chinese-Cambodian developer in Montreal [[Kheng Ly) promoting a large two tower project [[Yul Condos) two blocks west of Bell Centre developments. He also has offices opened in Chinese cities and Ho Chi Minh City to sell these Condos in Montreal.

[Detroitnerd]

Not only that, but the author's last name is Rizzo!

Hahaha. Not old Frank Rizzo? There's a definite conflict of interests there ...