Eastern Market Gateway Project

Last week I attended a community meeting for a new development to be located at the corner of Gratiot and Russell but also bounded by Rivard and Maple. It is going to be a mix of brand new construction with some historic preservation. As of right now it looks like there will be two large buildings constructed with the possibility of what looked to be a 15-story tower in the future if all goes well. It looks as though the buildings along Maple will be preserved as well as parts of the small building with the "Welcome to Eastern Market" mural. In fact they hinted that the mural may become park of a retail or restaurant space which would be rather cool. The BusyBee warehouse building will be mostly demolished except for the wall facing Gratiot, which will help form a retail alley within the project.

Overall I am a fan of what they are looking to achieve and the fact that they have hired a powerhouse firm in Perkins + Will to do the work tells me that it will get done and be of a high quality. One other thing that caught my attention is that they are going to be making 40% of the units affordable which is double what the city typically requires. This could be a big snag for the area and a sign of what is to come in Lafayette Park and Eastern Market.

Attachment 36279

Attachment 36280

Attachment 36281

Attachment 36282

Attachment 36282

Attachment 36283

Attachment 36284

Attachment 36285

I think it's pretty ugly but that is a good site for development.

Just hideous. Looks like some cheap clap trap form the 70s. Entire building resembles broken, plastic window blinds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by southen

The BusyBee warehouse building will be mostly demolished except for the wall facing Gratiot,

---

That in itself is a total failure. That building needs to remain no matter what else.

The pictures are totally offensive to anything resembling good taste.

for a signature site on a major axis into the cbd...bldg looks very bare bones. fine enough, but not fronting gratiot. i don't think the rainbow motif is doing the bldg any favors, but that's just my opinion. too much metal panel really cheapens the overall look, but i guess the developer has to turn a profit and get those 'po'folks' rental credits.

pretty disappointing for mcintosh poris, since they like to hold themselves in such high regard locally. ducharme place looks awful already and this is simply a reboot.

perhaps the local rags should pick up an architecture critic. there's plenty of design ego in the metro to pick from [[LTU, Cranbrook, UofM, UDM, CCS)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hybridy

for a signature site on a major axis into the cbd...bldg looks very bare bones. fine enough, but not fronting gratiot. i don't think the rainbow motif is doing the bldg any favors, but that's just my opinion. too much metal panel really cheapens the overall look, but i guess the developer has to turn a profit and get those 'po'folks' rental credits.

pretty disappointing for mcintosh poris, since they like to hold themselves in such high regard locally. ducharme place looks awful already and this is simply a reboot.

perhaps the local rags should pick up an architecture critic. there's plenty of design ego in the metro to pick from [[LTU, Cranbrook, UofM, UDM, CCS)

---

And possibly, that's exactly what the developers are going for........disposable structures on prime land. Happens in Vegas, Hollywood Hills and many cities around the world. We even enjoy "designed obsolescence" in every day life through cars, electronics, appliances and H&M dress shirts. Try getting 3 washes out of those :rolleyes:

I would really prefer if there was a new four-legged intersection constructed at Antietam, Russell, and Maple.. You could angle-out Antietam to create the geometry needed. It just seems like forceful disconnectivity. I know that is what Mies and those guys were going for with Lafayette Park, but still..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hybridy

for a signature site on a major axis into the cbd...bldg looks very bare bones. fine enough, but not fronting gratiot. i don't think the rainbow motif is doing the bldg any favors, but that's just my opinion. too much metal panel really cheapens the overall look, but i guess the developer has to turn a profit and get those 'po'folks' rental credits.

pretty disappointing for mcintosh poris, since they like to hold themselves in such high regard locally. ducharme place looks awful already and this is simply a reboot.

perhaps the local rags should pick up an architecture critic. there's plenty of design ego in the metro to pick from [[LTU, Cranbrook, UofM, UDM, CCS)

---

I feel like there are a whole lot of firms here that like to hold themselves in high regard locally, and very few genuinely good buildings.

DuCharme Place to me demonstrated that McIntosh Poris is incapable or uninterested in really doing architecture. They did Woodward Garden Apartments, the building at Woodward and Seldon. To me it was very "generic developer contemporary mixed use urban infill" but the site itself was sort of a generic mixed use urban infill site, and it wasn't a horrible building, so it worked out ok.

But then they did DuCharme Place. The site and the context were completely different but they still used the exact same "generic developer contemporary mixed use urban infill" approach as Woodward Garden Apartments, even using the same building products and details [[which is 110% fine if they're suitable for both buildings, but here they weren't). Based on the 3D walkthroughs on Apartments.com, the units are poorly designed. The living/dining rooms don't seem capable of arranging furniture properly, bedrooms don't all have windows [[new construction on a completely empty block and you couldn't figure out how to give all the bedrooms windows!?!?!?), some areas of the units are cramped and others are too big. And then to add insult to injury they released this elaborate write up about how deeply related their building was to its surroundings despite having zero formalistic or philosophical connections.

Moving onto this new building, it's still generic developer contemporary mixed use urban infill, but again by coincidence that's more closely in tune with the site they have. And while it's still the architectural equivalent of clip art or stock photography, it looks like they didn't just copy and paste an old project onto the site, which is good. I appreciate that they picked up on the potential of the alley network there, but the cynic in me thinks that 1. that's just the rationale they used to have the retail facing the parking lot in the back and 2. it's continuing their habit of shallow pinterest-esque "design trends" but this time the design trend is the activated alleys established by Gilbert's projects. I also think the balcony level on the second floor is nice even though I have no idea what it actually is.

I feel like a more thoughtful walk around the site would have been beneficial to the firm. To the south you have Lafayette Park, where you have a combination of timeless aesthetic qualities [[composition, proportion, materials, light and shadow), professional competency [[sensible floor plans where the bedrooms have windows), guided by a lot of philosophical and theoretical thought which determined the firms values and design priorities. To the north you have Eastern Market, where there are a bunch of old industrial buildings, which tend to be organically and functionally designed, with a little bit of ornamental or aesthetic elaboration [[in other words, buildings that could be described as being unintentionally but naturally principled). And with this project you have a lot of the cliche offset windows and rainbows and things which really have no architectural basis.

Overall, it's not the end of the world, but it's still another missed opportunity.

Demolishing the Busy Bee building for what the picture lists as "commercial parking" would be a huge waste, even if they saved the Gratiot facing wall.

I'm also not a fan of the architecture pictured for this location. Midtown or even Corktown, OK. But I would like to see something that ties in better with the area, similar to what they did with Orleans Landing. That being said, I do like the scale of this project, six stories is more than I would have expected, and the density is adds would be great!

This entire frontage between the three orange arrows needs to be preserved, even if they gut everything inside and behind and make new, more modern space.

Attachment 36344

What was/is inside the building marked with the green question mark? I seem to remember an inside marketplace of some kind with a number of vendors of meats, cheeses, etc.

That's Gratiot Central Meat Market. I remember a few years ago, I got stuck on Gratiot because the SWAT team raided them for Bridge Card fraud.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meddle

This entire frontage between the three orange arrows needs to be preserved, even if they gut everything inside and behind and make new, more modern space.

---

That's the other side of Gratiot from where this project is supposed to be going up. Kittie corner actually. Most of the proposed site is just a dirt lot with the exception of the Busy Bee warehouse.

Uninspired monotony. Also, why can't their architects make decent renderings? I get that they are a small firm, and renderings take time and money to produce, but considering investment from the city I think it should be expected so that the public knows exactly what it's getting.

As others mentioned, that’s the wrong block. Gratiot Central Meat Market is still there and going strong. The old Busy Bee Hardware Store recently closed and the building was sold with plans for redevelopment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jason

I feel like there are a whole lot of firms here that like to hold themselves in high regard locally, and very few genuinely good buildings.

DuCharme Place to me demonstrated that McIntosh Poris is incapable or uninterested in really doing architecture. They did Woodward Garden Apartments, the building at Woodward and Seldon. To me it was very "generic developer contemporary mixed use urban infill" but the site itself was sort of a generic mixed use urban infill site, and it wasn't a horrible building, so it worked out ok.

But then they did DuCharme Place. The site and the context were completely different but they still used the exact same "generic developer contemporary mixed use urban infill" approach as Woodward Garden Apartments, even using the same building products and details [[which is 110% fine if they're suitable for both buildings, but here they weren't). Based on the 3D walkthroughs on Apartments.com, the units are poorly designed. The living/dining rooms don't seem capable of arranging furniture properly, bedrooms don't all have windows [[new construction on a completely empty block and you couldn't figure out how to give all the bedrooms windows!?!?!?), some areas of the units are cramped and others are too big. And then to add insult to injury they released this elaborate write up about how deeply related their building was to its surroundings despite having zero formalistic or philosophical connections.

Moving onto this new building, it's still generic developer contemporary mixed use urban infill, but again by coincidence that's more closely in tune with the site they have. And while it's still the architectural equivalent of clip art or stock photography, it looks like they didn't just copy and paste an old project onto the site, which is good. I appreciate that they picked up on the potential of the alley network there, but the cynic in me thinks that 1. that's just the rationale they used to have the retail facing the parking lot in the back and 2. it's continuing their habit of shallow pinterest-esque "design trends" but this time the design trend is the activated alleys established by Gilbert's projects. I also think the balcony level on the second floor is nice even though I have no idea what it actually is.

I feel like a more thoughtful walk around the site would have been beneficial to the firm. To the south you have Lafayette Park, where you have a combination of timeless aesthetic qualities [[composition, proportion, materials, light and shadow), professional competency [[sensible floor plans where the bedrooms have windows), guided by a lot of philosophical and theoretical thought which determined the firms values and design priorities. To the north you have Eastern Market, where there are a bunch of old industrial buildings, which tend to be organically and functionally designed, with a little bit of ornamental or aesthetic elaboration [[in other words, buildings that could be described as being unintentionally but naturally principled). And with this project you have a lot of the cliche offset windows and rainbows and things which really have no architectural basis.

Overall, it's not the end of the world, but it's still another missed opportunity.

---

Totally agree with you. The staggered look for windows is really offputting to me, it induces a kind of vertigo or malaise from looking at the buildings that mimic that look. There are plenty in Montreal, and the color Orange on large panels is another one of those period accents that kill me. This reminds me of the overused turquoise green panels in the fifties and early sixties that were used on so many public buildings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jason

I feel like there are a whole lot of firms here that like to hold themselves in high regard locally, and very few genuinely good buildings.

DuCharme Place to me demonstrated that McIntosh Poris is incapable or uninterested in really doing architecture. They did Woodward Garden Apartments, the building at Woodward and Seldon. To me it was very "generic developer contemporary mixed use urban infill" but the site itself was sort of a generic mixed use urban infill site, and it wasn't a horrible building, so it worked out ok.

But then they did DuCharme Place. The site and the context were completely different but they still used the exact same "generic developer contemporary mixed use urban infill" approach as Woodward Garden Apartments, even using the same building products and details [[which is 110% fine if they're suitable for both buildings, but here they weren't). Based on the 3D walkthroughs on Apartments.com, the units are poorly designed. The living/dining rooms don't seem capable of arranging furniture properly, bedrooms don't all have windows [[new construction on a completely empty block and you couldn't figure out how to give all the bedrooms windows!?!?!?), some areas of the units are cramped and others are too big. And then to add insult to injury they released this elaborate write up about how deeply related their building was to its surroundings despite having zero formalistic or philosophical connections.

Moving onto this new building, it's still generic developer contemporary mixed use urban infill, but again by coincidence that's more closely in tune with the site they have. And while it's still the architectural equivalent of clip art or stock photography, it looks like they didn't just copy and paste an old project onto the site, which is good. I appreciate that they picked up on the potential of the alley network there, but the cynic in me thinks that 1. that's just the rationale they used to have the retail facing the parking lot in the back and 2. it's continuing their habit of shallow pinterest-esque "design trends" but this time the design trend is the activated alleys established by Gilbert's projects. I also think the balcony level on the second floor is nice even though I have no idea what it actually is.

I feel like a more thoughtful walk around the site would have been beneficial to the firm. To the south you have Lafayette Park, where you have a combination of timeless aesthetic qualities [[composition, proportion, materials, light and shadow), professional competency [[sensible floor plans where the bedrooms have windows), guided by a lot of philosophical and theoretical thought which determined the firms values and design priorities. To the north you have Eastern Market, where there are a bunch of old industrial buildings, which tend to be organically and functionally designed, with a little bit of ornamental or aesthetic elaboration [[in other words, buildings that could be described as being unintentionally but naturally principled). And with this project you have a lot of the cliche offset windows and rainbows and things which really have no architectural basis.

Overall, it's not the end of the world, but it's still another missed opportunity.

---

I agree that Ducharme Place was a swing and a miss. The facade materials seem unlikely to hold up over time. It exudes modular construction like a freeway interchange Hampton Inn. The project has no relation to the sidewalk or the street. With no front door and prominent restricted automobile entrances the project seems designed for the Green Zone in Baghdad rather than a North American urban site.

This latest Eastern Market project seems far more connected to its site. But the DuCharme Place results and the poor renderings do not generate confidence that the materials will rise above slap-dash. It's a great location for in-fill though. Besides the cost, does anybody know of any obstacles to restoring the Russell/Antietam intersection?

I echo those above who say, great site, awful design.

1953