Printable View
This picture:
http://www.detroityes.com/mb/attachm...id=29054&stc=1
seems to show a sidewalk along Woodward running continuously across Gratiot, blocking Gratiot traffic from continuing onto State or turning onto Woodward. Is that correct? When was that sidewalk in place, and why? Was it part of the Woodward transit mall?
Yes. The road dead-ended at a very small parking lot halfway between Woodward and Farmer and the rest of the way to Woodward was just a big sidewalk. State Street ended the same way across Woodward.
It wasn't until 2001 that both streets were re-extended to intersect with Woodward.
Yes on all counts. As part of the 'malling' of Woodward, the Woodward/Gratiot/State corner was turned into a carless plaza. Gratiot was cut off with a dead end after Farmer at the truck entrance in the middle of Hudsons. I'm not quite sure where the cut off on State was, but I remember walking past the newly-vacant Kresge's store on the pedestrian walkway.
It was part of the plan to make downtown more "pedestrian-friendly" for shoppers, which was behind the building of the Woodward and Washington Blvd. malls. The Gratiot-State crossing was probably the least busy one on Woodward, easily bypassed by traffic, and was at the point where Hudsons would meet the new Cadillac Center Mall that was to be built just across Gratiot on the old Kern Block [[it never was built, of course, and Compuware is there today), so it kind of made sense.
Interesting. Of course, by the time the picture I posted was taken, Hudson's was vacant, the Cadillac Center idea was dead, Compuware was still years away, and the awkward little pedestrian "plaza" was sitting empty.Quote:
Originally Posted by EastsideAl
These ideas always sound good on paper, but very few pedestrian malls have actually worked in reality. Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, Battle Creek, Jackson, and Detroit have all pulled them out and seen upticks in commercial activity once cars return.
The pedestrian plaza wasn't the reason that the area declined. It was in decline long before the pedestrian plaza was built. Removing it had nothing to do with the revival either, other than it being a casualty of the new investment/interest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khorasaurus
Fulton Mall in Brooklyn is also a pedestrian mall that went into severe decline around the same period that downtown Detroit declined. It remained a pedestrian mall and is going through a revival now because Brooklyn in general is very hot.
Yes and no. Downtown Detroit retail declined for a number of reasons, but cutting off automobile traffic from driving past [[and parking in front of) the storefronts certainly didn't help. If people don't drive down a street, they won't ever know what retailers are there.Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
The only way pedestrian malls work is if you have a ton of existing pedestrian traffic [[like New York has in places) or a major anchor that acts as a destination. When Detroit had Hudson's, it had those conditions. But just as it lost the conditions, it installed a pedestrian mall [[or similar idea..."transit" mall) which just accelerated the decline.
I like the current configuration of Woodward in that area, especially with the new streetcars, although I think it needs more on-street parking.
The pedestrian mall only affected one corner of downtown Detroit. What happened to the rest of downtown, or the city for that matter? Grand River and Greenfield suffered a worse fate than Woodward and Gratiot. This corner of downtown didn't suffer a more dramatic deterioration than other parts of the city. I find it hard to believe that the pedestrian mall was much of a factor at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khorasaurus
Again, I bring up Fulton mall because it did indeed decline and also rebounded without changing the set up of being a pedestrian mall. That it is a pedestrian mall probably has nothing to do with either its success or failure.
I guess I could follow your argument if you said that places that propose these pedestrian malls tend to have other factors which make it hard for urban shopping districts to be successful. New York happens to be a place where urban shopping districts have remained viable. If that is what you are saying then I agree.
Agreed. BTW, one thing that I have always wondered about, regarding the fate of the downtown Hudson's store is: if Hudson's had built a 6-10 story parking deck on the Kern Block site that connected to the store and offered free validated parking, would the store still have closed when it did or would it have remained opened longer, attracting mall customers to come back to the flagship store because it offered free parking just like the malls?Quote:
Originally Posted by Khorasaurus
I think internet shopping would have eventually killed them.Quote:
Originally Posted by royce
Maybe it it survived long enough, it would've eventually ended up under the Macy's nameplate, albeit with several floors shuttered.Quote:
Originally Posted by royce
Many major cities did hold onto their downtown retail battleships. We were unfortunate in that it was a really big battleship -- and our city leadership focused more on remembering their historical racism than it did on adjusting their property taxes to the realities of the 80s.Quote:
Originally Posted by mtburb
I do have to think that there are some people who realize today just how valuable that building would be in today's market -- but instead fed off the carcass.
Does anyone know how closed CAY came to any of the big deal he was working on -- most notably the Blue Cross/Blue Shield relocation?
I asked this questions some time ago and basically was told that while that sounds nice, the fate was already sealed. The malls were built and with more stores and variety, Hudson's could just not compete. While parking was key, you still need money to upkeep and patrol a parking deck and Hudson's alone could not have done that. And if Cadillac Mall was realized then you needed two or three more parking decks. Pulling out the streetcar, then building freeways, and leading them to uncontrolled sprawl is what led to the death of Detroit's retail core, let's always remember that.Quote:
Originally Posted by royce
Detroit's retail core would have died regardless of streetcars or whether or not freeways were built. Big-city cores aren't major regional retail hubs in all but two or three U.S. cities.Quote:
Originally Posted by dtowncitylover
IMO, if Hudsons had built a parking garage with free parking, or if Cadillac Center had been built, it would have extended the downtown retail shelf life, but probably no more than 10 years or so [[maybe 15 with the mall). The end result in 2015 would be the same.
And I don't think the transit mall had a major effect one way or the other. These were mostly installed in the 1970's, when urban retail was generally dying. It isn't like urban retail didn't die in cities that didn't build pedestrian malls.
You don't get how cities work do you? Most cities in the 1950s had major retail hubs in their downtown cores. Then freeways were built and tore apart our urban fabric bleeding cities of their population, urbanity, and historical retail hubs. This is Jane Jacobs 101.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
Big city cores aren't major regional retail hubs ANYMORE. Most cities at their 20th-century heights were retail hubs, with streetcar or subway service in and out into the neighborhoods. The major cities, like NY, Chicago, and Boston never [[and really couldn't) get rid of their subways. But cities like Baltimore, Detroit, Cincinnati got rid of their streetcar systems, built the freeways and watched population and retail bleed.
Though I do agree with the second and third paragraphs.
I suspect you've never read Jane Jacobs, and don't have the first clue how cities work. "Death and Life" wasn't even written when downtown retail centers died.Quote:
Originally Posted by dtowncitylover
Your notion that Downtown Detroit would still be the region's retail hub if freeways weren't built is absolutely hilarious, and supported by nothing. Plenty of American cities didn't build vast freeway systems, yet basically none remain the primary retail hub.
This is all wrong. All these cities had massive disinvestment in their regional transit systems, all these cities had massive freeways built. If anything, NYC had some of the worst transit disinvestment in global history.Quote:
Originally Posted by dtowncitylover
It's the same story where armchair DYes urban planners think they've got it all figured out. The same ones who think the Woodward Trolley will somehow cause Somerset and Twelve Oaks to move to Woodward/Gratiot, and who think that yuppies would live in Dexter Davison and Warrendale if not for those pesky freeways.
The only U.S. city with a truly dominant retail hub in 2015 is NYC, though SF and Chicago are also arguably their leading regional hubs. Boston has some decent downtown retail. After that, it gets pretty slim pickings, regardless of whether the region has a robust freeway system or not.
If relative lack of freeways meant strong downtown retail then a host of cities, such as Honolulu, Phoenix, Tampa and Sacramento [[all in the bottom ten of freeways miles per capita) would have vibrant core retail, but they don't.
Typical Bham and of course very laughable. I highly doubt you've read Life and Death.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
If Detroit had invested and had at least kept their last and two most used streetcar lines, Woodward and Gratiot, and modernized and kept them over the past 60 years Detroit would be a very different landscape today. They weren't taken out because of lack of ridership [[it's a known fact that most Detroiters did not want to get rid of them). They were taken out because cars, buses, roads, and the freeways were the future. And now we know what effect they had on the Midwest/eastern urban landscape.
Life and Death was written by a woman [[who was an "armchair urban planner" herself btw) who saw the impending doom of freeways. And she was right. She saved NYC and Toronto from building freeways that would have decimated neighborhoods, it's a shame she couldn't stop more cities.
Had our investments gone to creating better transit systems, sustaining neighborhoods instead of paving over them, and limiting urban sprawl, then yes I do believe Detroit would be better off and healthier. Instead we built massive freeways by paving over them, created un-urban neighborhoods within cities [[Lafayette Park, Brewster Homes), and allowed unregulated urban sprawl because... well, America. And sprawl was built around what, children? The mall. Hell even the man who designed Northland regretted his creation later in life.
Now we're building M-1 Rail not because we want Somerset or 12 Oaks downtown but because we know that strong urban cores are an integral part of a healthy region and this includes having a mass transit component and returning to traditional urbanity that Jane Jacobs espouses in her works. But sometimes it's easy to make a mistake, but it's harder to undo what we did and that is what we are seeing and a reason why Detroit's "comeback" has taken 40 years and why it still hasn't come back, though the past 5 years have been amazing for investment and positive coverage compared to previous 25.
I also know a yuppie, white family who lives at Dexter and Davison too, actually.
I also read The Death and Life of Great American Cities. I even have a copy handy. Jacobs presents her opinion on this matter in detail in Chapter 18: "Erosion of Cities or Attrition of Automobiles".
She argues that the infrastructure that supports car traffic [[freeways, parking lots, wide streets, etc.) erodes cities by thinning the density of their downtowns, making cities less convenient, less compact, less lively, and less safe. And by diminishing the healthy diversity of downtowns, automobile infrastructure reduces the reasons to use them, which perpetuates a vicious cycle. She points to Los Angeles as the most egregious example, and in the same sentence writes Detroit is almost as bad [[p. 351).
Her well-known solution is to encourage mixed uses in diverse human-scaled architecture concentrated among small blocks convenient for pedestrians. And yes she strongly advocates for public transportation. She argues convenient transportation alternatives to cars are needed that do not require so much space, do not dilute density, and don't divide and destroy the urban fabric.
In fact as early as on page 4, in her introduction, she writes that expressways "eviscerate great cities."
Thank you, that was beautiful and well-stated. I wonder what would have happend if we had kept the Woodward streetcar line like New Orleans preserved their St. Charles line. Funny about Dexter-Davison - I have seen a couple times, a 40's year old white man walking his dog in the Russell Woods neighborhood. Dexter-Davison had the bones for a great urban neighborhood. What a shame.Quote:
Originally Posted by dtowncitylover
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3891...8i6656!6m1!1e1