Uniroyal property construction

**corktownyuppie** · October-31-11, 07:06 PM

My wish list...I hope they build place that:

[[1) ...will sell. First priority. We don't need a failed development.

[[2) ...is easy to secure. Not saying the place needs to be Fort Knox/Harbortown...but having only 2 or 3 points of entry rather than a traditional "grid" would be preferable, IMHO. If the area *does* need to be gated, all efforts must be made to have visibility of the development from outside, rather than just a 6' brick wall

[[3) ...is walkable to the Riverwalk and to other areas of downtown

[[4) ...is managed by a resident association, which will likely be more able to keep up with resident needs than general levels of city service.

**DTFellow** · October-31-11, 07:16 PM

Anyone know who is cleaning up this brownfield? Looks to me like CERCLA clean up, I saw that the past polluters are paying for it, but who currently controls the parcel, a private party or the city / county?

**stasu1213** · October-31-11, 07:28 PM

The Riverwalk Conservancy should concentrate on extending the riverwalk through the site during this winter so that by spring or summer that portion would be open.

**1953** · October-31-11, 07:35 PM

corktown yuppie: urban vitality will make this area secure, not limited entry.

**corktownyuppie** · October-31-11, 08:41 PM

Originally Posted by 1953

corktown yuppie: urban vitality will make this area secure, not limited entry.

Hey, I agree totally. If the area looks like Charles St in Boston or historic New Orleans, then it will be plenty safe. The problem is that it's a chicken/egg question. You can't have vitality without the people, but you can't convince them to move down here until they know it's safe.

I'm not advocating for another Riverfront Towers by any stretch of the imagination. And I don't want it to be a fortress behind a fence. I'm just saying that by forcing traffic through several [[not necessarily a singular) chokepoint, it might be easier to keep safe. Moreover, if there does have to be fencing, let it be as unobtrusive as possible, and maybe even planned for possible removal in the future.

I live in an area right by some great townhouses/brownstones that contradict just about everything I say up above. So, I know that what you're asking for is totally possible, and I hope we get it. It's all going to depend on the target market, etc. If you're looking to attract high income professionals/retirees [[whether from the city or burbs), maybe the housing association pays for security patrollers as an auxiliary to DPD.

Whatever it is, it needs to be designed to make the city more vibrant and lively. It can't be vibrant if there's crime issues. And it can't be vibrant if it's behind a 10' brick wall.

I think we can find the balance if we try.

**Gistok** · October-31-11, 09:04 PM

Originally Posted by wolverine

The city can't take care of its existing parks. Therefore the city should not plan for more large open green space. Continue the riverwalk, connect with public easements, and develop the hell out of the rest of it.

I'm shocked you'd mention more greenspace. The last time I was in Detroit I saw numerous parks with overgrown weeds and deteriorating playground equipment.

As far as attracting development it's not just views. Indeed they make development more attractive, but the rest has to do with the neighborhood desirability....restaurants, retail, schools, built environment etc. If Jefferson can achieve a sense of place...which would be challenging, it may be successful in attracting more density northward.

I can't speak for DP... but I think what he meant was that it would be nice if the Belle Isle Bridge approach had green space on BOTH sides of it, and not just on the left side [[Gabriel Richard Park). There's plenty of space to accomplish this. To have develpment right up to and abutting the bridge would not be desireable.

DetroitNerd... wouldn't it be easier for you to make 1 post and tell us WHAT you would like to see there, than to make 2 posts and tell us what you WOULD NOT like to see there??

**wolverine** · October-31-11, 10:00 PM

Originally Posted by Gistok

I can't speak for DP... but I think what he meant was that it would be nice if the Belle Isle Bridge approach had green space on BOTH sides of it, and not just on the left side [[Gabriel Richard Park). There's plenty of space to accomplish this. To have develpment right up to and abutting the bridge would not be desireable.

DetroitNerd... wouldn't it be easier for you to make 1 post and tell us WHAT you would like to see there, than to make 2 posts and tell us what you WOULD NOT like to see there??

But should there be? Park space should be useful space. Not just something nice to look at from a high-rise balcony.

Why not development abutting the bridge? There's already a 150' strip of grass near the bridge. Heck, better if the park space on both sides was gone. Imagine commercial and residential buildings flanking both sides of the approach creating a sort of "gateway." It's this sort of impressive urbanity that has been entirely lost in Detroit with green space being a sad substitute for improvement.

**antongast** · October-31-11, 10:32 PM

The Uniroyal site is bordered on the west by Mt. Elliott Park, which is nice enough, but underutilized. It's bordered on the east by Richard Park, which is nice enough, but underutilized. It's bordered on the south by a channel that separates it from Belle Isle. I'm having a hard time imagining a set of circumstances in which the best use of that land would be another park. Whatever problems that neighborhood might have, I think it's safe to say that they aren't caused by a lack of parks.

**Jason** · October-31-11, 11:59 PM

I hope there will be a big variety in building typology, unit types, and ownership types.

I also think it would be cool to integrate some canals/a marina into the development to help foster the boating community which SE Michigan already has but is in a relatively unique position to take more advantage of.

I think Harbor town shouldn't have removed the street grid, but I think the uniroyal site, if you added in a traditional street grid, you've have this peninsula of street grid that doesn't really go or connect to anywhere, and only serves the local residents, so I think it would be a street grid in aesthetic only, not in function.

Even though it's a huge site, I'd rather they pack the units in, and maybe do phases, than try to spread a too-small number of units across the entire site. You can always develop a big open area later, but there's not a lot you can do about the awkward ambiguous lawn spaces you end up with when you just spread the buildings apart until you fill the site. I don't think there needs to be a blade of grass in the entire development. I also hope they deal with parking in a creative way.

**Dexlin** · November-01-11, 03:06 AM

Did everyone miss the huge media announcement on the resumption of the clean-up literally two months ago? I keep seeing folks ask who is cleaning it up. From the September 2 News story:

Detroit— Three companies have agreed to pay $20 million toward the long-awaited cleanup of the former Uniroyal site on the Detroit River, a move Mayor Dave Bing hailed as opening up some of the city's "most valuable real estate."

The first phase of the remediation project is being kicked off with $20 million in private funding from three companies that had facilities on the 43-acre site at one time, Michelin; MichCon, a subsidiary of DTE Energy; and DuPont.

That will cover the western third of the site near Mount Elliott and Jefferson. The Detroit Economic Growth Corp. is in negotiations with Michelin to pay for the rest of the cleanup, said George Jackson, DEGC president.

**DetroitPlanner** · November-01-11, 07:28 AM

Originally Posted by Gistok

I can't speak for DP... but I think what he meant was that it would be nice if the Belle Isle Bridge approach had green space on BOTH sides of it, and not just on the left side [[Gabriel Richard Park). There's plenty of space to accomplish this. To have develpment right up to and abutting the bridge would not be desireable.

DetroitNerd... wouldn't it be easier for you to make 1 post and tell us WHAT you would like to see there, than to make 2 posts and tell us what you WOULD NOT like to see there??

Let me reframe this a bit. At one time Chicago's Lakefront was also heavllily industrialized. Now if you look at Lincoln and Grant Park you see thats W of Lakeshore or Michigan is highly developed while the water side is open space. This was not done overnight.

While in college I ran across old articles about a plan to do exactly this from the Belle Isle Bridge to Downtown while researching another topic at the DPL. Coleman A Young Started the ball rolling when he developed Chene, St. Aubin, and Mt Elliot Parks. Now granted, there was a hiccup in this development when Harbourtown was approved. Parkland can be seen as an attractor for development. Even in miniture examples of this include that most of the homes facing Rouge Park are in much better shape than the homes several blocks from it.

**swingline** · November-01-11, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Let me reframe this a bit. At one time Chicago's Lakefront was also heavllily industrialized. Now if you look at Lincoln and Grant Park you see thats W of Lakeshore or Michigan is highly developed while the water side is open space. This was not done overnight.

While in college I ran across old articles about a plan to do exactly this from the Belle Isle Bridge to Downtown while researching another topic at the DPL. Coleman A Young Started the ball rolling when he developed Chene, St. Aubin, and Mt Elliot Parks. Now granted, there was a hiccup in this development when Harbourtown was approved. Parkland can be seen as an attractor for development. Even in miniture examples of this include that most of the homes facing Rouge Park are in much better shape than the homes several blocks from it.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, Planner. If you're advocating for a Lakeshore Drive model for East Jefferson development, well, it's dreamy but completely infeasible. There's no point in spending any kind of time pursuing that model. It worked for Chicago, great. It won't work on the East Jefferson corridor with its substantially lower densities, property values and household incomes, not to mention the already existing abundance of riverfront parkland.

Government and the non-profit sector have done their share with the Riverwalk and hopefully now a Uniroyal cleanup. Perhaps now the marketplace can begin to fill in with urban walkable projects that can transform the area into an upscale taxpaying waterfront neighborhood. This area should generate more residents and taxes, not more grass to cut.

**Detroitnerd** · November-01-11, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by Gistok

DetroitNerd... wouldn't it be easier for you to make 1 post and tell us WHAT you would like to see there, than to make 2 posts and tell us what you WOULD NOT like to see there??

I was in a hurry yesterday and shooting from the hip a bit, but I think I said what I'd like to see. I'd like to see the street grid extended, human-scale lots, etc. Sorry, I'll try to express myself more clearly and succinctly next time.

**DetroitPlanner** · November-01-11, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by swingline

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, Planner. If you're advocating for a Lakeshore Drive model for East Jefferson development, well, it's dreamy but completely infeasible. There's no point in spending any kind of time pursuing that model. It worked for Chicago, great. It won't work on the East Jefferson corridor with its substantially lower densities, property values and household incomes, not to mention the already existing abundance of riverfront parkland.

Government and the non-profit sector have done their share with the Riverwalk and hopefully now a Uniroyal cleanup. Perhaps now the marketplace can begin to fill in with urban walkable projects that can transform the area into an upscale taxpaying waterfront neighborhood. This area should generate more residents and taxes, not more grass to cut.

This take a long time to accomplish. Windsor has done this though it is only in the last 20 years that all the land has been assembled. Given that Detroit has lots of land available for development, does it not make sense to use our assets wisely and build upon a nice wide part of the Riverwalk and establish playfields, gardens, etcetera and develop N of Jefferson in a dense fashion? Won't people want to live where they can see or be by the a riverfront park and have other amenities such as transit? Detroit does have a tool in its toolbox that Daniel Burnham never had when he developed Lincoln Park. The Riverwalk is managed by a nonprofit.

**Jason** · November-01-11, 05:49 PM

We already have Hart Plaza and Belle Isle which serve the same purpose as Grant Park and that area in Chicago. The big public events are held there and a lot of the big recreational facilities are there.

I'd also say that that area in Chicago is overscaled, and that it pushes inhabited areas so far away from the lake that people aren't really living/working on it, but are actually pretty far from it.

At the Uniroyal site, people could really be right on the water. Not only that but the MacArthur bridge is about the same length as the distance from Michigan Avenue to the lake is in Chicago. So you could be right on the water and within a short walk of vast park space, and be across the street from a less vast but still plenty big park space [[Richard Park).

So I'd rather see an urban residential neighborhood that's really intimate with the river. I would even bring canals through the site.

**wolverine** · November-01-11, 06:56 PM

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

This take a long time to accomplish. Windsor has done this though it is only in the last 20 years that all the land has been assembled. Given that Detroit has lots of land available for development, does it not make sense to use our assets wisely and build upon a nice wide part of the Riverwalk and establish playfields, gardens, etcetera and develop N of Jefferson in a dense fashion? Won't people want to live where they can see or be by the a riverfront park and have other amenities such as transit? Detroit does have a tool in its toolbox that Daniel Burnham never had when he developed Lincoln Park. The Riverwalk is managed by a nonprofit.

The majority of Chicago's heavy lakefront Residential density is NOT concentrated around parks, but only the lake. Grant Park and Millennium Park are not residential districts. They are primarily hotel and office. Most other development is fairly close to the lake with minimal park space. In fact, there's a proposal right now to rebuild a large section of lakeshore drive and move it further out into the lake, and fill everything in between with lagoon and parks. The proposal is receiving strong opposition since residents don't want to look at a park, they want to see water only. With the exception of Hyde Park and Southshore, the majority of the southside has failed to achieve any spectacular highrise residential development, despite that it has tons of greenspace bordering the lakefront...mostly unusued.

Now, around Lincoln Park and edgewater there is park space, but much of it is programmed with something....a Zoo, a Golf Course, a Conservatory. On the Near Southside, Soldier Field, McCormick Place, and the museum campus.

The parkspace is there to provide circulation between all of this and connect the lake. I find it unlikely Detroit would have these components when you already have them. Maybe they could build lagoons, but building open green space? Why? Rebuild the street grid and connect development close up to the lake. It's supposed to be an urban park....as in a riverwalk.

You already have an area that could be Detroit's "living room" like Millennium Park is to Chicago....Hart Plaza

Uptown-Edgewater-Ravenswood

**Gistok** · November-01-11, 07:40 PM

My point about making the part of the Uniroyal site near the bridge as parkland was to enhance the bridge approach. However, I'm a realist, and can see that Gabriel Richard Park on the east side of the bridge approach is waaaaay underutilized [[don't remember ever seeing anyone there?)... and I could envision it too being developed as part of a grander scheme. But not at the cost of the Riverwalk. I would like to see it continued all the way past Richard Park to the back yard of the Broadhead Armory next door.

I would love to see a pair of apartment towers, similar to the tall narrow one at Harbortown, but something classier... one on either side of the bridge approach... giving it a "pylon gateway" look.

Also, I hate the Jefferson/E.Grand Blvd. interchange... it's one giant clusterfuck of one way ramps and odd shaped traffic islands. The area could do with something simple, yet elegant... such as a large traffic circle [[roundabout). Also, I always thought that the Hurlbut Memorial Gate was a forlorn fence ornament that is a gateway to nowhere... too bad the city didn't have the money to move it... it would make an awesome centerpiece for the just mentioned traffic circle....

**DetroitPlanner** · November-01-11, 07:43 PM

Originally Posted by wolverine

The parkspace is there to provide circulation between all of this and connect the lake. I find it unlikely Detroit would have these components when you already have them. Maybe they could build lagoons, but building open green space? Why? Rebuild the street grid and connect development close up to the lake. It's supposed to be an urban park....as in a riverwalk.

You already have an area that could be Detroit's "living room" like Millennium Park is to Chicago....Hart Plaza

Uptown-Edgewater-Ravenswood

That area is what 5 miles N of downtown? Its nearly Evanston!

The majority of Chicago's waterfront is a park. Why settle for a small concrete bunker like Hart Plaza? Why settle for mediocrity?

To paraphrase:

We only have one shot, why blow it? - Eminem

Make no small plans, they will not stir ones souls - Dan Burnham
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_JWo3cINbY
http://www.cpdit01.com/resources/pla...009-145000.pdf
http://www.cpdit01.com/resources/pla...pment.history/

**animatedmartian** · November-01-11, 08:55 PM

From the Riverfront Conservatory website:
http://www.detroitriverfront.org/cm/attach/6E6B7E32-CFF5-4E9B-9076-EBB27FB9F784/JJR Mt Elliot1.JPG

IMO, that's wayyy too much land to just be green space. Mt. Elliot is a good sized park and just needs a playground area.

But Uniroyal needs development. How dense that development is I guess depends on how much demand there actually is for luxury residences. I wouldn't want them to overbuild and have half the site empty. I like what one previous poster said which was for them to build in phases, that way they can see how the market is doing without losing too much in one go.

**wolverine** · November-01-11, 09:20 PM

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

That area is what 5 miles N of downtown? Its nearly Evanston!

The majority of Chicago's waterfront is a park. Why settle for a small concrete bunker like Hart Plaza? Why settle for mediocrity?

To paraphrase:

We only have one shot, why blow it? - Eminem

Make no small plans, they will not stir ones souls - Dan Burnham
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_JWo3cINbY
http://www.cpdit01.com/resources/pla...009-145000.pdf
http://www.cpdit01.com/resources/pla...pment.history/

That area is what 5 miles N of downtown? Its nearly Evanston!

The area near Belle Isle is also somewhat distant from downtown Detroit, not as far as Edgewater from Oak, but what has that got to do with it? It's halfway to Evanston...still City of Chicago. And how does that disqualify any logic here. There's no real useful park space between Randolph and North Ave downtown. It's a narrow ribbon of green along the lakefront trail. It's also the busiest section because there is more neighborhood density up alongside it.

If Detroit were to build more neighborhood development up to the river, it would reinforce the importance and urban experience of the riverwalk, much like the highline in New York is a better experience with the buildings around it as opposed to open fields and trees.

If the new development isn't built like a fortress, it may just improve new sense of place and bring new businesses to Jefferson that aren't in the form of strip retail. As soon as you build that up, you'll get your northward development.

The majority of Chicago's waterfront is a park. Why settle for a small concrete bunker like Hart Plaza? Why settle for mediocrity?

Technically you are right, the majority of it is park considering the lakefront trail is a park.....even where it's nothing more than a strip of concrete. But in the case of Chicago, the greater the amount of greenspace between the first city street and the lake, the LESS urban density there is. The only exception is between North Ave and Diversey, where most of the city park attractions are.

If you've ever heard me talk about the density of new urban development on this website, I believe it's affected by two things, proximity to a body of water or transportation. The closer to the shore or subway stop, the bigger the building.

As for Hart Plaza....notice I said COULD. Why settle for mediocrity? Who is settling for mediocrity? I think Hart Plaza needs an overhaul. The city seems to know that since we've seen recent proposals.

We only have one shot, why blow it? - Eminem

As much as I love hip-hop, I'd never quote Eminem....but I'll run with it. The city has had plenty of shots. If you are so fascinated by Burnham, I think there's been at least a century of opportunity to follow a similar plan. Detroit chose an island instead of a riverfront. To be honest, I think that's way cooler than an expansive landside park. Think of it like your central park. The more rarity of park space, the more interesting the Riverwalk and Belle Isle become. I seriously wouldn't waste this premium riverfront real estate on open space.

Make no small plans, they will not stir ones souls - Dan Burnham

Burnham was a great architect. And you can't seem to go a week in this city without hearing that phrase. Damn shame the big plans were never realized. And though some of those plans had been started, they still won't be finished for decades to come.

**stasu1213** · November-02-11, 05:20 AM

It could be turned into open green space with sidewalks and bike trails that would lead to the riverwalk from Jefferson. Maybe some of the space could be as a smaller size campus martius with a smaller size amphitheatre. Maybe a docking for tour ships and the spot could have small retail stores and restaurants inside a park-like setting

**1953** · November-02-11, 08:40 AM

We've sanctified green space unfairly; it has value, but mostly as a change of scenery from the built environment and as a recreation site. If you want lots of green space, move to the country. If you want some, largely programmed green space, the city is your bag.

**JDKeepsmiling** · November-02-11, 09:56 AM

Originally Posted by gnome

Or how about something that would employ a bunch of folks so they could buy houses in the rest of the city. How about a tire factory? Come on, who's with me?

Agreed, fully. Although to be truthful, I would think a better use of the space would be the current plan over a tire factory, lets just shuffle that inland a couple of miles.

**j to the jeremy** · November-02-11, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by 1953

We've sanctified green space unfairly; it has value, but mostly as a change of scenery from the built environment and as a recreation site. If you want lots of green space, move to the country. If you want some, largely programmed green space, the city is your bag.

I don't completely agree, but Detroit does not need more greenspace, generally. If someone wants to build buildings here, I say let them. After all, the riverwalk and Belle Isle are right next to this property and the Riverwalk will even use some of it.