Is midtown being developed correctly?

Midtown has so many cultural and educational institutions. It seems to be the center of redevelopment of the city. While Woodward has restaurants and storefronts, it seems to be the only commercial strip of the area between Foxtown and New Center. I know light rail is coming up and down Woodward which will be great. Midtown also has a greenloop for walking. I am really interested however in making Midtown much more Pedestrain. Should zoning laws require buildings to abut one another and prevent strip malls or fast food restaurants with parking lots??? I mentioned in an earlier thread about ways to beautify Midtown....[[fountains, statues, and architecture). Detroit is in no position to build an impressive skyline. So, we should think as to how to make Detroit and Midtown as appealing as possible. Zoning and architecture are two important ingredients. What are people's thoughts about the redevelopment of Midtown? Any mistakes being made?? What are some ideas as to what would be nice for Midtown?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Newdetroit

Midtown has so many cultural and educational institutions. It seems to be the center of redevelopment of the city. While Woodward has restaurants and storefronts, it seems to be the only commercial strip of the area between Foxtown and New Center. I know light rail is coming up and down Woodward which will be great. Midtown also has a greenloop for walking. I am really interested however in making Midtown much more Pedestrain. Should zoning laws require buildings to abut one another and prevent strip malls or fast food restaurants with parking lots??? I mentioned in an earlier thread about ways to beautify Midtown....[[fountains, statues, and architecture). Detroit is in no position to build an impressive skyline. So, we should think as to how to make Detroit and Midtown as appealing as possible. Zoning and architecture are two important ingredients. What are people's thoughts about the redevelopment of Midtown? Any mistakes being made?? What are some ideas as to what would be nice for Midtown?

---

Buildings should have 0 setback and be wall-to-wall. A sidewalk surrounded on both sides by cars to me is unpleasant and doesn't give the neighborhood definition. If that is happening, Detroit is operating on a suburban model.

But building close to the street and having lots of transparency at ground level isn't just it. Two terms people should get to know to describe urban environments are "fine grain" and "coarse grain" Coarse grain blocks are comprised of structures that tend to take up more linear street frontage and are sometimes characterized by larger scale modules or subdivisions on their facade.

Here is a coarse grain city block:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Detroi...8.71,,0,-12.54

A fine grain block is made up of many multiple buildings of varying architecture, height, and lot width. Lot widths are very small, and there is more variation in types of businesses at street level.

Here's an example of a fine grain block:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Detroi...38.87,,0,-5.82


Thing is, the above example isn't even the best. I would have picked Greektown as an example, but I wanted to stick around Woodward since that's the focus area of this topic. I'd say Woodward needs to become a little more fine grain. That's difficult when it's such a wide street, which lends itself to larger scale architecture. But fine grain environments tend to be more conducive to pedestrian activity It's okay for city blocks to have a mish-mash of architecture, that's what makes them so interesting. Here's a street in my neighborhood that is one my favorites and a good example of a fine grain urban environment

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4119/...57af5701_z.jpg



My advice for midtown would be, build tall, build low, build narrow and renovate what good building stock you have.

Thanks for the above post...What is your thought about an area having one form of architectural style? For example, the Masonic temple is an impressive building. Would it be a good idea for let's say building between the lodge and woodward and between Mack and the Fisher Freeway to complement this iconic building?? Same facade and green roofs? My point is that I feel that architecture can really make an area impressive. My personal taste is that while architectural diversity is great, which we have in Detroit, it may be nice for a certain confined district to have a uniform architectural style, giving the city a unique feel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Newdetroit

Thanks for the above post...What is your thought about an area having one form of architectural style? For example, the Masonic temple is an impressive building. Would it be a good idea for let's say building between the lodge and woodward and between Mack and the Fisher Freeway to complement this iconic building?? Same facade and green roofs? My point is that I feel that architecture can really make an area impressive. My personal taste is that while architectural diversity is great, which we have in Detroit, it may be nice for a certain confined district to have a uniform architectural style, giving the city a unique feel.

---

Great idea!! How about a combination of early Greece and WWII Warsaw? What an incredible combination and the buildings will already have the green roofs from the vegatation:rolleyes:

I'm not sure if this is off topic, but I really am interested in the future of lower Midtown, the two areas known as Cass Park and Brush Park [[flanking Woodward between MLK/Mack and Fisher Freeway.

The Brush Park and Cass Park areas, with improved transit options, are filled with diamonds in the ruff; ruins that are actually integral parts of a good urban development [[somewhat new urbanist). All that is required in Cass Park and Brush Park is for these ruins to be discovered, fixed up, and redeployed as the assets they are. Some of the hardest things to build or attract are already there, such as schools. Likewise, the MLK and Woodward intersection area serves as a mini downtown which serves the area, already there is medical offices, a local pharmacy, and a grocery store opening there. The Cass Park and Brush Park area also is the nexus that could join together the cultural center, Downtown, Eastern Market, South Woodbridge, and North Corktown.

Cass Park is intersected by Grand River and Woodward, making it extremely desirable if public transit is improved on those routes. Woodward and Grand River are straight shots to two of the wealthiest job centers in the region. Besides mass transit, Midtown is surrounded by a freeway loop that allows for quick entry and exit by car [[or bus, if the bus used the freeways).

What do you guys think; maybe we need a larger overseeing guiding body that works on uniting the "islands" of Detroit?

PS: If you want a good nest egg, buy some property in Cass Park that doesn't cause an impediment to other developments. Preferably, I'd like to see current Detroiters benefit from all this, but after seeing how many people are at the Quick Stop in line to buy lottery tickets every morning, my faith in their investment choices has been shaken.

Great analysis as always, Wolverine. I echo the call for fine-grained development.

Sadly, much of the Woodward-adjacent land toward the bottom of Midtown has been totally cleared and is now packaged as big blocks, in much the same way that most urban renewal products have proceeded. In my view this retards development [[by preferencing major, flashy multi-million dollar projects over a series of small, piecemeal developments...such that bigger, riskier loans that take longer to get must be procured by whatever ambitious developer finally comes along) and leads to the less-than-ideal coarse-grained or simply big-block developments that you properly lament.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the prominent Warren-Woodward corner is headed in much the same direction, too [[with Wayne buying and tearing down the SW corner)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolverine

Buildings should have 0 setback and be wall-to-wall. A sidewalk surrounded on both sides by cars to me is unpleasant and doesn't give the neighborhood definition. If that is happening, Detroit is operating on a suburban model.

But building close to the street and having lots of transparency at ground level isn't just it. Two terms people should get to know to describe urban environments are "fine grain" and "coarse grain" Coarse grain blocks are comprised of structures that tend to take up more linear street frontage and are sometimes characterized by larger scale modules or subdivisions on their facade.

Here is a coarse grain city block:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Detroi...8.71,,0,-12.54

A fine grain block is made up of many multiple buildings of varying architecture, height, and lot width. Lot widths are very small, and there is more variation in types of businesses at street level.

Here's an example of a fine grain block:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Detroi...38.87,,0,-5.82


Thing is, the above example isn't even the best. I would have picked Greektown as an example, but I wanted to stick around Woodward since that's the focus area of this topic. I'd say Woodward needs to become a little more fine grain. That's difficult when it's such a wide street, which lends itself to larger scale architecture. But fine grain environments tend to be more conducive to pedestrian activity It's okay for city blocks to have a mish-mash of architecture, that's what makes them so interesting. Here's a street in my neighborhood that is one my favorites and a good example of a fine grain urban environment

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4119/...57af5701_z.jpg



My advice for midtown would be, build tall, build low, build narrow and renovate what good building stock you have.

---

I love the descriptions. Based on what you've shown, I would have to say I think the course grain development looked better than the fine grain example [[at least on Woodward). That made me start to think about it and the Greektown example of fine grain development looks fantastic. In DC, you see both. Some of it is in separate areas. Sometimes, they're in the same areas. The thing is, it works. Dupont Circle, Adams Morgan, and U Street are mostly fine grain. Downtown DC is course grain. Chinatown is a mix.

Detroit would do well in making sure that the frontage on Woodward is mostly building facades. This does a lot for appearance sake. I personally hate visiting downtown due to all the surface parking lots. It makes the areas look so disjointed.

Yes I would support building tight up next to the Whitney mansion. Why not connect all of the mansions that make up the bed and breakfast near the DIA while we are at it? And why should the DIA and library have set-backs?

Be careful what you wish for folks.

Wolverine....North Wells in Old Town....great neighborhood. Everything from shopping and eating on ground level, to residential filled in above stores and stand alone residential buildings. Street parking, Private parking [[via alley's) and I think only one small public surface parking lot? Bike Lanes on the streets, walking distance to all amenities and plenty of taxi cabs for travels into the city. Oh to dream that one day the Cass Corridor, could be like that!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mackinaw

Sadly, much of the Woodward-adjacent land toward the bottom of Midtown has been totally cleared and is now packaged as big blocks, in much the same way that most urban renewal products have proceeded.

---

For some reason there seems to be a continuing preference in Detroit for the superblock, closed off, model of redevelopment that is essentially made up of cul-de-sacs leading to townhouses around a parking lot. You see it in everything from older developments like Lafayette and Elmwood Parks to almost brand-new ones like Woodbridge Estates. And I'd bet that's what Detroit's wizard urban planners have in mind for that south Midtown area [[well, that and maybe Illitch's new arena along with the parking fields for it).

This seems both terribly out-moded and anti-urban at the same time. Around here it's almost as if Jane Jacobs and all of the people who followed her never lived, or that their work had never reached our remote part of the world. In my mind it all goes back to my long-time contention that most people in this area aren't particularly interested in urban settings or a vibrant urban life, and in fact don't really care for city living at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EastsideAl

For some reason there seems to be a continuing preference in Detroit for the superblock, closed off, model of redevelopment that is essentially made up of cul-de-sacs leading to townhouses around a parking lot. You see it in everything from older developments like Lafayette and Elmwood Parks to almost brand-new ones like Woodbridge Estates. And I'd bet that's what Detroit's wizard urban planners have in mind for that south Midtown area [[well, that and maybe Illitch's new arena along with the parking fields for it).

This seems both terribly out-moded and anti-urban at the same time. Around here it's almost as if Jane Jacobs and all of the people who followed her never lived, or that their work had never reached our remote part of the world. In my mind it all goes back to my long-time contention that most people in this area aren't particularly interested in urban settings or a vibrant urban life, and in fact don't really care for city living at all.

---

What? You don't like my idea to cul de sac Woodward? :)

You forgot about the two most recent doozies: MGM and DTE!

Once the rail line is completed, and even when it is under construction, a development boom will likely take place. I think this is a compelling reason why the University Cultural Center Association [[UCCA) should develop a master plan for the neighborhood. That plan shouldn't be too strict, but it should guide the direction of development toward strong urbanism. Some examples would be building new streets to add connectivity, because many blocks in Midtown are so large, or recreating the "green alley" all over, and creating non-linear districts around the stations. Another example would be to favor the "fine grain" development... many many small buildings on narrow lots built up to the street. With so much empty land, building a bunch of 3-5 story buildings makes a lot of sense, so we can fill the whole neighborhood with buildings. Taller buildings should be closest to the stations and all surface parking lots should be eliminated to create a continuous street wall, without "dead zones". Also, adding new bridges over the freeway to increase connectivity, but this may be a little harder due to interference from MDOT [[who wants to demolish neighborhoods and eliminate connections over the freeway not add new ones).

A Plan by UCCA would not have any teeth. It would need to come from the planning department or through the complete streets legislation from the agency you have just villified.

My guess is that these large developments are more profitable, and likely a safer bet for the lender[[s).

It's probably like the "buy in bulk" theory. The more you buy, the less it costs.

In Chicago, smaller apartment/condo buildings are going up all the time. But, each unit can sell for a lot more than they can here. Therefore, if one unit sells in this hypothetical Chicago condo building, it will cover more of the cost of the development than the same size building in Detroit.

So, Detroit must build/sell lots of these units to cover the cost of the development.

If that makes any sense...

Check out this recent thread: Deconstruction at Woodward + Warren

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by casscorridor

Once the rail line is completed, and even when it is under construction, a development boom will likely take place.

---

God bless you college kids-- We need someone to live in a dream world

The condos at "Nine on Third" will triple in value--get in now!!!!

I don't think he's living in a dream world. It's pretty obvious what is happening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lincoln8740

God bless you college kids-- We need someone to live in a dream world

The condos at "Nine on Third" will triple in value--get in now!!!!

---

http://detnews.com/article/20101019/...city+visionary

Lincoln,

Since it's in your neck of the woods, have you noticed the "Mansartization" of Kercheval on the Hill? All the drab 1950s architecture is either being rebuilt or re-clad in earlier architectural periods. Ditto for the recent addition of Grosse Pointe South High School.

While many architects cringe at this "pastische" old architecture, the area actually looks better than it did 20 years ago... although some would say in a Disneyland sort of way. But it appears to be of quality material... not Lee Press-On bricks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gistok

Lincoln,

Since it's in your neck of the woods, have you noticed the "Mansartization" of Kercheval on the Hill? All the drab 1950s architecture is either being rebuilt or re-clad in earlier architectural periods. Ditto for the recent addition of Grosse Pointe South High School.

While many architects cringe at this "pastische" old architecture, the area actually looks better than it did 20 years ago... although some would say in a Disneyland sort of way. But it appears to be of quality material... not Lee Press-On bricks.

---

I have no idea what "mansatization" means but I completley agree with you. Espescially with regards to South High School. If you compare the South addition with that of Lakview, which looks okay now but will be ugly and completley out of date within 7 years, South is head and shoulders above it. How about the addition on Parcells? It looks great--it could have been built around the 40's!!!