How long after light rail will we start to see parking lots developed?

[BrushStart]

I was bored this evening so I decided to Google street-view the downtowns of a few cities. The one thing that stood out was that cities w/ active street scenes and numerous pedestrians did not have many parking lots while those that appeared desolate and barren had parking lots everywhere.

For instance, compare the downtowns of the these similarly-sized [[population) cities:

Chicago: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Chicag...2,94.62,,0,4.3
&
Houston: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Housto...216.83,,0,4.23

*To be clear, the most urban street in downtown Houston seems to be Main Street, which also happens to be served by light rail. Even so, it does not appear very urban because the rest of city is comprised of poorly-designed office towers and parking lots.

Philly: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Philad...,187.71,,0,3.6
&
Phoenix: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Phoeni...276.91,,0,5.61

After looking at Houston and Phoenix, I was quite proud of downtown Detroit. Our street scene is seemingly more active than Houston's, which has more than 3x the population. But, Detroit could surpass many cities in terms of pedestrian activity if developers in Detroit started to create infill.

Detroit has a significant advantage over newer cities in that the majority of our architecture, including many recent buildings, abuts the sidewalk with first-floor retail. If you look at Houston, there is essentially nothing urban about it. Houston is more akin to Southfield- a suburban office park on a steroids- than it is a true urban environment.

In fact, virtually all of the sunbelt cities, with the exception of downtown Dallas' historic district, are designed completely around the automobile. There is virtually no retail, residential is scarce, buildings are very far apart, and there are parking lots galore. All of their buildings are set back from the sidewalk and are fortress-like. Those cities really can't improve their urban street-scape without bulldozing and starting from scratch. Detroit simply needs to not mess up future developments and make parking a secondary or tertiary consideration. The city also needs to push developers to design pedestrian friendly buildings. Let's keep it dense.

So, all of that leads up to my original question: How long do you think it will take before areas affected by light rail begin to develop from parking lots into buildings? Are there examples from other cities that we can look to for guesstimates?

[Scottathew]

Houston is a BAD example.

Houston has no zoning laws. If you own land, you can do with it whatever you please. That, in part, contributes to it being Illitch's property owning dreams; a giant parking lot.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate what Illitch has done for the city, but he's lacked a vision. Guys like Gilbert and Karmanos [[ugh, I can't stand he hired Kwame) are moving jobs downtown.

Get the jobs to Detroit, and the people will follow. And while we get the jobs down here we just need to address a few secondary issues such as crime and city government waste.

[BrushStart]

Houston is a BAD example.

Houston has no zoning laws. If you own land, you can do with it whatever you please. That, in part, contributes to it being Illitch's property owning dreams; a giant parking lot.

Do you know what the zoning laws are like in Detroit? I am merely an armchair urban planner, so I am not well-informed on the topic. However, the most recent projects are not horribly designed, IMO. I am okay with Compuware, One Kennedy Square, the lofts along Woodward in Midtown, and even The Union, which is finishing up construction near WSU. However, the Crain's campus on Gratiot and Price Waterhouse Cooper are a terrible use of urban space, as well as the area behind Ford Field. Obviously the RenCen could have been done better, but that's an entirely different story. The Comerica Bldg, while beautiful on the skyline, could have been better integrated, but it's not as bad as anything in Houston. One thing Detroit did well in recent years is that many of the newer parking garages have ground-level retail. If we MUST have parking, a stacked garage with retail is the next best compromise, IMO.

[Mikeg]

How long do you think it will take before areas affected by light rail begin to develop from parking lots into buildings?

Despite all of the streetcars lines in Detroit's CBD [[red lines in this c. 1934 map), many of the buildings that had been torn down in the previous 30 years still had not been replaced with infill and their sites were occupied by parking lots [[blue areas).

[Red Devil]

So, all of that leads up to my original question: How long do you think it will take before areas affected by light rail begin to develop from parking lots into buildings? Are there examples from other cities that we can look to for guesstimates?

Brush I would take a look at Denver's RTD system [[I just moved back from there last month). Although they had a development plan for their downtown since the 1980's, Denver's first light rail line opened in 1994 and has undergone a few expansions since. The first section was only about 5 miles long and situated in downtown.

Its become popular and now there is a plan in place to have commuter rail and light rail servicing the whole metro area by the next decade. Guess what is going to be the light rail and commuter hub? You guessed it! The 100 yr old train station which is about a mile from the downtown core and is currently getting renovated. The Denver light rail also runs along the curb in the many of the downtown streets....and you can even take it from downtown all the way to Park Meadows mall, which distance-wise is just about equivalent of going from downtown Detroit to Somerset.

Video: http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/main_124

Pics: http://www.subwaynut.com/denver/18_stout/index.php

Denver's system would be a great model for Detroit. I also think its the most vibrant urban city that you will find between Chicago and SF/LA. Things have really come together quite nicely on the front range.

[Hermod]

Brush I would take a look at Denver's RTD system [[I just moved back from there last month). Although they had a development plan for their downtown since the 1980's, Denver's first light rail line opened in 1994 and has undergone a few expansions since. The first section was only about 5 miles long and situated in downtown.

Its become popular and now there is a plan in place to have commuter rail and light rail servicing the whole metro area by the next decade. Guess what is going to be the light rail and commuter hub? You guessed it! The 100 yr old train station which is about a mile from the downtown core and is currently getting renovated. The Denver light rail also runs along the curb in the many of the downtown streets....and you can even take it from downtown all the way to Park Meadows mall, which distance-wise is just about equivalent of going from downtown Detroit to Somerset.

Video: http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/main_124

Pics: http://www.subwaynut.com/denver/18_stout/index.php

Denver's system would be a great model for Detroit. I also think its the most vibrant urban city that you will find between Chicago and SF/LA. Things have really come together quite nicely on the front range.

A few words about the Denver system.

All of the suburban mayors got together and joined with Denver to enact a special addition to the state sales tax to be devoted to building and operating the transit system.

Whoops! with the recession, sales tax collections are down and operating costs are going up. Now the transit authority finds that their income is inadequate to finish construction and pay for operations. They want another vote to be held for a further increase to the sales tax rate dedicated to transit.

[iheartthed]

Houston is a pretty arbitrary comparison to Chicago. If Chicago's city limits covered a similar percentage of its urban area as Houston's then Chicago would have a population of 4.5M instead of 2.6M. In fact, Houston's urban area is about 100,000 residents smaller than Detroit's.

Likewise, Philadelphia's urban area is nearly twice the size of Phoenix's. Phoenix's urban area is about 1,000,000 residents smaller than Detroit's, even though the municipality of Phoenix has a larger population than the municipality of Detroit.

An urban area is defined as contiguous census block groups with a population density of at least 1,000 people/square mile.

[DetroitPlanner]

Do you know what the zoning laws are like in Detroit? I am merely an armchair urban planner, so I am not well-informed on the topic. However, the most recent projects are not horribly designed, IMO. I am okay with Compuware, One Kennedy Square, the lofts along Woodward in Midtown, and even The Union, which is finishing up construction near WSU. However, the Crain's campus on Gratiot and Price Waterhouse Cooper are a terrible use of urban space, as well as the area behind Ford Field. Obviously the RenCen could have been done better, but that's an entirely different story. The Comerica Bldg, while beautiful on the skyline, could have been better integrated, but it's not as bad as anything in Houston. One thing Detroit did well in recent years is that many of the newer parking garages have ground-level retail. If we MUST have parking, a stacked garage with retail is the next best compromise, IMO.

Zoning is not designing buildings its placing land uses. Crain's campus and Stroh's riverplace were developed by the same company but with dramatically different outcomes. Retrofitting old buildings takes quite a bit more creativity than building new as in the case of Brewery Park. PWC just wanted a building with thier name on it that people could see from the freeway at an exit. Thats what they got. Its like the Cracker Barrel! Crappy locations, but with freeway access and big signage.

Downtown Houston ripped down much of thier downtown during urban renewal of the 1960's. You can't really compare anywhere else to it. Between all the parking lots and lack of zoning, its in its own category and needs its own solutions.

[BrushStart]

Zoning is not designing buildings its placing land uses. Crain's campus and Stroh's riverplace were developed by the same company but with dramatically different outcomes. Retrofitting old buildings takes quite a bit more creativity than building new as in the case of Brewery Park. PWC just wanted a building with thier name on it that people could see from the freeway at an exit. Thats what they got. Its like the Cracker Barrel! Crappy locations, but with freeway access and big signage.

Downtown Houston ripped down much of thier downtown during urban renewal of the 1960's. You can't really compare anywhere else to it. Between all the parking lots and lack of zoning, its in its own category and needs its own solutions.

The reason I ask is because I believe light rail will drive increased density, but only if developers utilize the land properly. It's cliche, but Detroit really does have "good bones." However, if you look at the light rail in Houston, it looks pitiful because nothing around it is built for pedestrians. I don't know what their ridership is like, but even if people do ride it, there's nothing you can walk to from the stops except parking garages and a few insular office towers. There's no stores or restaurants, no theatres or bars, it's just a barren office park. It has no soul.

What can the city do to either encourage or compel pedestrian-friendly development? The answer to that question may be key to whether light rail is a viewed as a success or failure 10-15 years from now. Developers have an inherent incentive, at least on the surface, to build selfish, insular buildings. By using up excessive amounts of space, they ensure no competition around them. By dedicating a copious amount of space to parking, they ensure that their building is the most accessible to cars. However, these things frustrate the purpose of having a cohesive urban format that makes it easy for people to access things quickly. There is no point to even having a city if it is going to just be a very large suburban office park. You lose all of the benefits of urban design when you do that and your downtown highrises essentially become a token skyline to put on postcards, like you have in Houston.

[jtf1972]

Every location is unique and requires its own solutions, but I think we can agree that a great key to determining these solutions is examining other cities to see what works and what doesn't. Mistakes have been made in the planning of every city. Learning from these errors can help us avoid making even more of our own.

[Detroitnerd]

Any parking requirements should be eased or eliminated for all buildings withing walking distance of light rail.

All building should go right to the street, and the powers that be should be stressing why it's important to have shops on ground floor.

Ten-year ban on demolition downtown; funds instead to go to mothballing.

That's a few ideas for a start.

[DetroitPlanner]

What can the city do to either encourage or compel pedestrian-friendly development? The answer to that question may be key to whether light rail is a viewed as a success or failure 10-15 years from now. Developers have an inherent incentive, at least on the surface, to build selfish, insular buildings. By using up excessive amounts of space, they ensure no competition around them. By dedicating a copious amount of space to parking, they ensure that their building is the most accessible to cars. However, these things frustrate the purpose of having a cohesive urban format that makes it easy for people to access things quickly. There is no point to even having a city if it is going to just be a very large suburban office park. You lose all of the benefits of urban design when you do that and your downtown highrises essentially become a token skyline to put on postcards, like you have in Houston.

Horse of a different color. What we have around here is not poor zoning, its we allow developers to develop with little regard to best land use practices. If this is what you want be an advocate for proper land use. SEMCOG several years back put together an excellent resource for local governments on land use. Unfortunately SEMCOG can't legally tell local units how they can develop, only gently prod them. Begining on page 141 are sections about TOD or corridor development. Searching Transit as a keyword will come up with hundreds of ideas.

[Mikeg]

How long do you think it will take before areas affected by light rail begin to develop from parking lots into buildings?

If Detroit's past history is any indicator, I think I have a rough answer to your question: "a long time". By 1952 only 16.7% of the vacant parcels being used as parking lots 18 years previously had since been built upon.

I calculated that percentage by using the 1952 Detroit Edison aerial photo of the CBD and comparing it to the c. 1934 map I posted above. On the aerial photo I counted 36 of the 43 parking lots identified in the c. 1934 map as still being used for parking 18 years later. Of course, other features in the CBD had not remained static over those 18 years - there were fewer streetcar lines in service and many more parking lots.

[Hypestyles]

how can the city charter improve zoning laws.. what role can city council play.. what if the DEGC were dissolved?

[DetroitPlanner]

how can the city charter improve zoning laws.. what role can city council play.. what if the DEGC were dissolved?

a. Zippo
b. City Council controls the planning commission.
c. Dissolving DEGC is not the answer, they are an semi-independent body to promote economic development and have nothing to do with zoning. Besides zoning is not the issue. If anything dissolving the DEGC would make things worse.

[Detroitnerd]

Dissolving DEGC would mean fewer demolitions. Good news for Detroit in the long run. Bad news for Adamo in general.

[ghettopalmetto]

What can the city do to either encourage or compel pedestrian-friendly development? The answer to that question may be key to whether light rail is a viewed as a success or failure 10-15 years from now. Developers have an inherent incentive, at least on the surface, to build selfish, insular buildings. By using up excessive amounts of space, they ensure no competition around them. By dedicating a copious amount of space to parking, they ensure that their building is the most accessible to cars. However, these things frustrate the purpose of having a cohesive urban format that makes it easy for people to access things quickly. There is no point to even having a city if it is going to just be a very large suburban office park. You lose all of the benefits of urban design when you do that and your downtown highrises essentially become a token skyline to put on postcards, like you have in Houston.

Developers don't care so much about "competition" in the sense that geographic separation from nearby buildings will not necessarily drive up demand in their buildings. Hell--look at real estate in Manhattan and San Francisco. Developers care about retaining tenants who pay their rent. End of story. In order to retain those tenants, though, it helps if the surrounding environment is attractive to current and prospective tenants.

Developers only build massive parking lots because the zoning regulations REQUIRE them to do so. Do you think anyone in his right mind would voluntarily pony up millions of dollars to build space that doesn't generate any revenue?

It could take 5 or 25 years before Detroit starts seeing its parking lots "filled-in". A lot of it will depend on the economy, the lending environment, occupancy rates in existing buildings, and needless to say, what kind of zoning regulations of the City of Detroit adopts for the Woodward Corridor.

[ghettopalmetto]

Horse of a different color. What we have around here is not poor zoning, its we allow developers to develop with little regard to best land use practices. If this is what you want be an advocate for proper land use.

I don't understand the distinction. Can you elaborate on this a bit, please?

[DetroitPlanner]

I don't understand the distinction. Can you elaborate on this a bit, please?

Zoning is essentially a map of land uses. It is supported by a bunch of goals, objectives and ordinances that spell out definitions, minimums, and other legal stuff.

Zoning does little to spark a developer to develop land in a way that is to its best use. It provides the lowest common denominator. Proper land use will limit the amount of driveways, increase pedestrian and transit accessibility, allow for the best use of the land in ways that have the best impact on the social, economic, and environmental sectors.

A responsible planning commission would push for more than the lowest common denomenator through making allowances in the zoning in order to achieve the best land use. These allowances or variances are key. You can have great development in areas with poor zoning or poor development in areas with great zoning. Its all in the land use.

Example of a bad variance could be allowing a sllaughterhouse in a residential area.
A good example would be reducing the number of parking spaces where public transport is present, or perhaps demanding connections with adjacent land owners where none currently exist.

[BrushStart]

If Detroit's past history is any indicator, I think I have a rough answer to your question: "a long time". By 1952 only 16.7% of the vacant parcels being used as parking lots 18 years previously had since been built upon.

I calculated that percentage by using the 1952 Detroit Edison aerial photo of the CBD and comparing it to the c. 1934 map I posted above. On the aerial photo I counted 36 of the 43 parking lots identified in the c. 1934 map as still being used for parking 18 years later. Of course, other features in the CBD had not remained static over those 18 years - there were fewer streetcar lines in service and many more parking lots.

That's interesting. I appreciated your map above. I wonder how well your comparison will translate to present-day. Obviously, 16% is not a big change in usage. However, car ridership grew dramatically between 1936 and 1952. Also, as you mentioned, street car lines began to be decommissioned during that period.

I think the answer may be a quotient of value of the land and demand for development. If the land would be more valuable as a building than a parking lot because there is demand for development, then the parking lot will be converted. Otherwise, it will likely remain a parking lot so long as it is more profitable.

It seems that parking lots beget parking lots, i.e. once you start building them, it makes less and less sense to build dense buildings with smaller urban footprints. If your neighbors on both sides are sprawled out with adjoining parking, why should you then design your building to be pedestrian friendly? Your neighbors have already screwed up the flow of the landscape. It is so critical that we start to undo what we've done by encouraging better developments going forward. If 30% of the parking lots within the impact range of light rail are developed into urban buildings, that would be a major improvement, especially if they were in prominent locations. These are the parcels that I absolutely believe need to be developed:

• The large parking lot next to Cadillac Tower fronting Campus Martius
• The lots on both sides of Bates at Congress fronting Cadillac Square
• The lots on the north and east sides of the Wayne County Bldg
• The Hudson's site [[it's technically not a parking lot, but it's important infill)
• The Ilitch parking lots west of Woodward behind Foxtown
• The sea of dirt parking lots west of Woodward between I-75 and Temple
• The lot at Woodward and Erksine
• The large vacant lot next to Bonstelle Theatre
• The lot across from the Whitney at Woodward and Canfield
• The large WSU lot at Woodward and W. Ferry
• The lots at Woodward and Harper and Amsterdam
• And many more...

These lots will all be directly impacted by the presence of light rail, but they are tremendous eye-sores and completely disrupt the urban fabric.

[esp1986]

It all depends on demand. Demand drives property values, and consequently rents. We are already seeing rental rates rise in the downtown area with more than a year until more units come to market [[Broderick Tower, Sept. 2012). Right now, Detroit is becoming the place to be. Provided the rail line happens and businesses continue to move back to the city, not necessarily just downtown, but all along the Woodward Corridor, property values will rise. As this happens, projects downtown will become more viable, whether it be new construction or renovation, as of now, because of low property values and corresponding rental rates, revenues fail to cover project costs.

If LRT can be effective at bringing people to and from Downtown and Midtown, creating demand for space, property values will slowly rise and when a project can become viable enough to be built on an empty lot, it will happen. Problem is, with no property value, it makes absolutely no sense to build up since it is so much cheaper to build out, which is why these parcels continue to sit.

[j to the jeremy]

I don't understand the distinction. Can you elaborate on this a bit, please?

Zoning = "You can only build retail / housing / mixed use there"

Land use = "let's build a strip mall" versus "let's build a streetwall"

Extremely oversimplified, of course.

[Detroitnerd]

I'm not sure. I have had some friends on the Hamtramck zoning board [[and zoning board of appeals) and they often ask that people build to street. I hear the ZBA usually doles out easy variances, though.

[Scottathew]

The city of Detroit actually did something right with the Hudson's lot. Although it looks ugly, there are footings for a building coming out of the city underground lot.

[ghettopalmetto]

Zoning = "You can only build retail / housing / mixed use there"

Land use = "let's build a strip mall" versus "let's build a streetwall"

Extremely oversimplified, of course.

But zoning regulations can also dictate setback lines [[minimum or maximum), width of sidewalk required, minimum/maximum number of parking spaces, where parking is permitted to be constructed, maximum floor area ratio, building heights, things like that. All of those factors contribute to how the land is used. That's why I don't understand the distinction between "zoning", which is the legal statute used to effect "land use" policy.