Replanning Downtown Detroit

I was trying to find some images of what the old pedestrian mall on Woodward use to look like when I stumbled on this awesome find: It's an article from the American Institute of Architects[[circa 1959) about a huge plan to redevelop downtown Detroit as a super suburban central district. Pretty much where the People Mover runs today would be one single ring road where you would drive to different campus type mega-blocks and park underground. Most of the streets and urban layout would have been bulldozed with the exception of the major arterials. Only the ring would service the downtown with the arterials and freeways feeding. Everything would be rebuilt like giant shopping malls or suburban styled office building campuses. Even though it appears to be truly a car centric city plan, it still calls for massive regional monorail systems to support the center as well[[surprised me too). Well I’m still reading into it but here are the links for you to enjoy.

http://www.internationalmetropolis.c...006//secg5.jpg

Part One
http://www.internationalmetropolis.com/?p=269
Part Two
http://www.internationalmetropolis.com/?p=270
Part Three
http://www.internationalmetropolis.com/?p=271
Part Four
http://www.internationalmetropolis.com/?p=272
Part Five
http://www.internationalmetropolis.com/?p=273
Part Six
http://www.internationalmetropolis.com/?p=274
Part Seven
http://www.internationalmetropolis.com/?p=275
Part Eight
http://www.internationalmetropolis.com/?p=276

Sounds a lot like what was begun [[but not finished) in Pontiac with the building of Wide Track Drive and the demolition of a lot of the old central area of town.

I was just in Pontiac today and parked in the lot in front of the Phoenix Center. It was filled with maybe 50 cars, something like 10% of its capacity. The dead parking lot faced the historic business district, and I couldn't help but get a little pissed off that ALL THIS PARKING LOT was filled with the same type of buildings. I looked at the activity along Saginaw Street in downtown Pontiac and the absolute DEADNESS and STILLNESS of the ghostly, foreboding Phoenix Center and the surrounding lots, and I said to myself -- WHAT IN THE HELL where they THINKING?

PS = GREAT find, Russix

I have to say, I prefer Part A [[part 2 on the blog) way over the Ren Cen. It's essentially a combination of Chene Park, Riverfront Towers, except closer to downtown and better connected with Hart Plaza. And at the same time it wouldn't have the same negative effects on the office market as the Ren Cen, and certainly would be cheaper to build.

Part E [[part 6 on the blog) isn't great, but it has some virtue. For one, it provides a clear path for future convention center expansions. It provides a large amount of underground parking. Surprisingly, the plan incorporates the most historical buildings in that area, and actually preserves more of the buildings than are currently standing today. The plan would also open up and encourage convention goers to wander about the rest of downtown. The current Cobo is actually more inward looking than this plan. This plan also puts some civic park space in a part of downtown that currently doesn't have any.

The rest of the plans are either silly [[B, C, G), lame [[F), or trivial [[D). I was pretty excited to read the plans, but pretty dissapointed in them.


I do think it's worth pointing out that it was a different time back then. Nowadays whenever one of the many abandoned buildings are not demolished, it's considered a victory, and buildings with normal occupancy levels are uncommon. Back then they had the resources and the confidence to demolish buildings, because they knew that they could replace them with somethig better [[or at least what they thought was better). Or, to put it a different way, if Detroit was suddenly filthy rich, how long do you think those strip malls on Jefferson would last? Back then the now historic buildings were only 30-40 years old, and were considered undesirable. Nowadays buildings from the 70s and 80s are the same age and are considered undesirable. But to make a long story short, many of the ideas from back then were bad ideas, but I don't blame them for trying.

An incredible find! Loved reading each page. I don't know the technicalities of the landscape, but it seems very modern. Awesome.

Note in part 4 of 8, that the middle sketch at the bottom of the page has a helicopter with a landing pad...interesting.

I would like to see the data resources used to justify this plan. It seems to be nothing more than an exercise of modern architects.

That said there is plenty of transit integration. If you notice 4, the CBD is considered the center of all monorails and buses. I see that the police area stayed in the same place and the Greyhound bus depot they tore down to build the Comerica tower was left.

http://www.internationalmetropolis.c...006//secc6.jpg

Kind of looks like downtown Grand Rapids.

Funny how in 1959 the International Style was all the rage. This design has all the charm and warmth of the 1960s modern style of Brasilia, the new capital of Brazil.

Historic preservation basically was non-existent back then. That was the era when we lost the Hammond and Majestic Buildings, as well as Old City Hall and the old Fisher Theatre. This was also around the time of the "modernization" of the David Whitney Building, Michigan Mutual Building, and the first few floors of the Lafayette and United Artists Buidlings.

Back then movie palaces had much of their ornate plaster covered in drapery [[like in the United Artists Theatre), and theatre owners boasted "look at all the expense we went thru so you won't have to look at all that old stuff anymore!".

We can be thankful that this scheme wasn't implemented, and that the Woodward Plan of radiating streets downtown was not destroyed.

That's because in the context of the time, those buildings were essentially bling. You threw on as much ornament from some unrelated historical style [[a non-western one if you wanted to be "exotic") to show how incredibly rich you and your company were, or for theaters, to give people the temporary fantasy of feeling rich. In the 50s and 60s people were thinking of a different kind of society for their future.

Today we're also looking for a different kind of future, and some times we build faux historic architecture because it "has character" and connotes a time way back when, when life was simple and the community was stronger, etc. [[of course, this past is romanticized), or we build these over the top shiny blob/crystals things, maybe to overcompensate.

Nowadays, all that can be said about that architecture is that it's purdy, which it is, and historic, which it also is, and that from building to building, or in general, there are good and bad things about it. But that architecture isn't going to win any moral or philisophical points.

Quote:

---

That's because in the context of the time, those buildings were essentially bling. You threw on as much ornament from some unrelated historical style [[a non-western one if you wanted to be "exotic") to show how incredibly rich you and your company were, or for theaters, to give people the temporary fantasy of feeling rich.

---

I would say this country back then looked to Europe both to copy and for direction. Once local folks could afford to travel they were wowed by what was going on in Europe and wanted to bring it back home. Around 1870 when the old 2nd Empire-inspired City Hall was built, the redesign of Paris and reinvention of the French economy from agriculture to industrial was back then "the buzz." Historical Detroit wasn't just ornamental excess, but signs of the times. Was actually reading Hawkins Ferry's book last night and admiring the mixture of architectural styles Arts & Crafts, Neo-Gothic, Ruskin, Richardson, Victorian, and 2nd Empire that existed back in old old Detroit.

Kudos on an excellent find. Provides a great point of reference re: the unbelievable intentions of planners in the mid-century, and how the idea of what makes a good city took such a radical departure from normal, at least among civic leaders and planners, for a couple of decades. I'm sure that if the willingness to spend had been present, we would be stuck with this. Thank goodness.

Mackinaw, what upsets me about this is that this is pushed as a plan, yet they do not have anything that supports that it is possible. It is easy to pull stuff like this out of your rear, make up artificial businesses needs that will somehow magically get filled by de-mapping the traditional downtown and replacing it with the latest fad architecture. This is similar to the announcement of Cadillac Center on the Monroe Block, all smoke and mirrors, nothing behind it.

There is no analysis of population, need, financial capacity, or what has or has not worked under similar conditions. People are dazzeled by what is new and often forget that they may be getting sold snake oil. There is nothing organic about this concept, meaning that you kill off everything that is there in order to grow something new. The most effective plans build incrementally off small improvements. Sure Burnham said 'Make no small plans, they do not stir men's souls" but much of his plan for Chicago was never implemented because it was impractical. The stuff that was implemented, was implemented over decades and enhanced what was previously there, not totally destroyed it.

Absolutely right. Planning for organic growth is the best solution. There's no reason not to plan or not to draw pictures, but making plans does not require superblocks and an absence of streets.

Ironically enough, Detroit has a fairly successful enormous superblock renewal development in Lafayette Park. Yet it is not successful in bringing lively streets and mixed used development to its well-located area, solely because of its design. In a future, prosperous Detroit I would suggest harmonizing Lafayette Pk.-- keep the towers and much of the greenery, but build new multi-use, traditional structures right up along the streets like Lafayette and Larned so that you have human beings and productive use there rather than grass. But I digress.

I've had a copy of that for years.

Me too. Ever since I posted it on my website in 2006 ;)

That plan to build a replica to Logan's Run is a BUST! It never happen and never will be. Downtown Detroit will stay as is a replica of the Great Depression.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danny

That plan to build a replica to Logan's Run is a BUST! It never happen and never will be. Downtown Detroit will stay as is a replica of the Great Depression.

---

Sorry Danny Logan's run is alive and well in the RenCen or Fairlane.

Mackinaw, one of the most successful superblocks has been WSU.

My eyes sting from all of that modernism. I really like the idea of the lagoon and island, but the four apartment towers would block the view down Woodward and across Jefferson, so I will nix that. The idea of an international village has appeal too, but there was nothing "international" about the architecture in those drawings. Running it north from Cobo along Washington Blvd is a good spot. How many foreign consulates are there - or were there in Detroit anyway? No, friends, diversity is King - in populous and architecture. And yes, Gistok, your beloved United Artist Theater was sparred, and was probably still showing the world premiere of "Anatomy of a Murder" at the time this issue of AIA Journal was being readied for publication.