Brewster-Douglass housing projects in Detroit may soon be demolished

**Vic01** · March-11-12, 04:35 AM

Here's the article from the Free Press 3-11-12

http://www.freep.com/article/2012031...542/1001/rss01

**Planner3357** · March-11-12, 10:12 AM

Thank God. Those need to go. They are insignificant in all aspects.

**Zacha341** · March-11-12, 10:24 AM

Yep, any hope of restoration or rehab has long past. I wonder if they will be imploded? Nope, they did not do that with the Jeffreys towers that were demolished.

**Flintoid** · March-11-12, 10:45 AM

Hopefully we'll get some nice URBAN development, not a suburban style housing complex.

**313WX** · March-11-12, 10:54 AM

So what's going to be developed in their place?

**gthomas** · March-11-12, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by 313WX

So what's going to be developed in their place?

Commercial and residential development..

**Brian1979** · March-11-12, 12:32 PM

Thank God, those buildings are an eyesore.

**313WX** · March-11-12, 01:22 PM

Originally Posted by gthomas

Commercial and residential development..

Are there official plans for commercial and residential development to begin as of 3/11/12?

Or do you mean it can potentially be land that's used for FUTURE commercial and residential development?

**Genesyxx** · March-11-12, 01:35 PM

Thank the heavens! I'm sure there'll be more residential development in this area soon enough and this will help tons.

**EastsideAl** · March-11-12, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by Flintoid

Hopefully we'll get some nice URBAN development, not a suburban style housing complex.

I doubt it. The strong tendency in Detroit seems to be to replace urban high rise, but hideous and outmoded, housing projects with idealized suburban anti-neighborhoods of boxy and cheaply built townhouses, which are cut off from the street grid and grouped around parking lots.

This is, of course, pretty much as outmoded as the housing projects were, being straight out of urban planning circa 1970. Kind of apropos though for a city and metro area that seems to be permanently stuck in that era in so many ways.

Occurrence · March-11-12, 02:42 PM

I'm all for saving old buildings, but those things are dumb. Get rid of them.

**gthomas** · March-11-12, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by 313WX

Are there official plans for commercial and residential development to begin as of 3/11/12?

Or do you mean it can potentially be land that's used for FUTURE commercial and residential development?

I read what the freep article mention: " We're not going to let the site sit vacant, there will be commercial and residential development.

Now, this is the early stages of this development, so I'm pretty sure there aren't any current plans on the table yet..atleast. But the site has potential for it with the ideal location.

**Richard** · March-11-12, 03:22 PM

Did this development in the 50s cause the downslide of Brush Park or was it already on its way?

**royce** · March-11-12, 03:45 PM

If you didn't hear Bing, he also said "affordable" housing will go on the site in addition to commercial development. "Affordable" is code for public housing. The Hope VI program will probably be the development that takes place. And regarding Hope VI programs, the one at Woodbridge Estates was supposed to have a commercial/retail component at the corner of MLK and the Lodge, but it has never materialized. Garden Estates [[the former Herman Gardens has plans for commercial/retail at the corner of Joy and the Southfield Freeway, but it hasn't materialized either.

Has there ever been a commercial/retail component to public housing? When Hastings Street was leveled to build the Chrysler freeway, it was replaced with the freeway and public housing. Why didn't the government think to rebuild some of the commercial/retail along the west service drive like say from Mack south to the Fisher Freeway service drive or on the east service drive from Mack to Warren and train the residents on how to run the businesses along that strip? Wouldn't that be more empowering for the residents than just giving them a cheap place to live? Also, why destroy every remnant of Hastings Street? Oh, they did keep the fire hydrants.

In addition, why spend money renovating the Brewster/Wheeler rec center? Tear it down and build a new one. However, with the city not able to keep rec centers open, why bother renovating an old one? Honestly, what I would have liked Bing to say is that they'll be clearing the site for market rate homes or brownstone-type townhouses. That would be progress. In the end whatever will be built there probably won't meet most of our expectations. Too bad

**EZZ** · March-11-12, 05:42 PM

Originally Posted by Zacha341

Yep, any hope of restoration or rehab has long past. I wonder if they will be imploded? Nope, they did not do that with the Jeffreys towers that were demolished.

The Jefferies were imploded - I was there. Well these were animated GIF's. Too bad that doesn't work. Can I upload an avi?

**EZZ** · March-11-12, 06:06 PM

Here's a youtube video - enjoy!

**EastsideAl** · March-12-12, 12:59 AM

Originally Posted by Richard

Did this development in the 50s cause the downslide of Brush Park or was it already on its way?

The houses in Brush Park had nearly all been broken up into apartments for many years by the time the Brewster-Douglass projects were built nearby, and the population of the area had been primarily African-American for some time. Interestingly, one of the major problems in that part of the city [[in stark contrast to the situation today) was that it was over-crowded, with more people arriving from the south every day.

The projects were conceived to clear the 'slum' of old houses that was Paradise Valley, and to alleviate the over-crowding of families into 'outdated' older buildings. This included clearing out the 'dilapidated' commercial strip on narrow Hastings St. and replacing it with the 'modern' Chrysler Fwy. At the time, the tentative plans were to eventually do the same to the Brush Park area, which was seen back then as being full of embarrassingly old, outdated, garishly ugly, overcrowded, and unsanitary old buildings.

Brush Park actually remained pretty fully populated, if increasingly poor and suffering from the same crime and drug problems as many other areas in the city, until the mid-70s. Then an ill-conceived and grossly mismanaged "historic preservation" project began clearing tenants out of some of the buildings, and closed some of the streets off, thus isolating many houses. In the end the money disappeared [[quite mysteriously), very little renovation or preservation was done, and the wholesale emptying and destruction of Brush Park was underway.

**EastsideAl** · March-12-12, 01:02 AM

Originally Posted by royce

In addition, why spend money renovating the Brewster/Wheeler rec center? Tear it down and build a new one. However, with the city not able to keep rec centers open, why bother renovating an old one?

You do realize the historical nature of that rec center, right? Particularly for the African-American community. I know a lot of older people who find it deeply shameful that it was abandoned it and left open to trespass in the first place.

**mikefmich** · March-12-12, 01:33 AM

I don't know what you consider "older" Al, but I for one would be happy to see the rec center saved, & consider it a worthwhile endeavor.

Gotta love Bing's quote in that article....I'll bet you can't Mr. Bing.
Asked what would replace the housing projects, Bing responded: "I can't get into that."

**Király** · March-12-12, 01:42 AM

Brush Park's Victorian homes had already fallen out of favor with the city's establishment by the 1920s. By then the houses were old and too small for the high rolling big spenders, who had moved on to the stately mansions and large grounds of Boston-Edison, Indian Village, and Palmer Woods.

**Zacha341** · March-12-12, 05:41 AM

Wow! I did not know those were zipped down 'implosion' style. I don't live too far from there the noise must have wound all down the lodge on up thru to West Grand Blvd. Thanks for the vid EZZ!

**Dexlin** · March-12-12, 05:51 AM

I see a little confusion in some of the history of Brewster-Douglass, here. While I'm sure it replaced a bit of Brush Park, what it largely replaced were dilapidated tenement-like housing, primarily. Even most folks of Paradise Valley saw the Brewsters as an improvement, at the time. In fact, it wasn't until the Chrysler was constructed taking out the Hastings business district that the experiment began to fall apart and Brush Park [[to the west) had long been on the skids, if even still a vibrant, occupied neighbrohood at the time.

The projects would have failed, regardless, but they were actually seen by their residents as an improvement, at the time. When built, they weren't the catalyst for the decline, which was already happening [[if even under the radar) in the inner-city at the time.

**Huggybear** · March-12-12, 07:04 AM

Originally Posted by Zacha341

Wow! I did not know those were zipped down 'implosion' style. I don't live too far from there the noise must have wound all down the lodge on up thru to West Grand Blvd. Thanks for the vid EZZ!

Not true of all of them - at least one had the four wings knocked off with excavators and then was pulled down with cables, I believe the one closest to the Lodge.

HB

**Detroitnerd** · March-12-12, 10:15 AM

Sure they'll be demolished.

And replaced with another single-purpose building that will last for another 30 years. All involved will make a ton of money. And the resulting project will be a mystifying failure after just 10 years.

I mean, they wouldn't do anything CRAZY, like replat the street grid, parcel up lots and let people develop a neighborhood again.

**EastsideAl** · March-12-12, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by Dexlin

I see a little confusion in some of the history of Brewster-Douglass, here. While I'm sure it replaced a bit of Brush Park, what it largely replaced were dilapidated tenement-like housing, primarily. Even most folks of Paradise Valley saw the Brewsters as an improvement, at the time. In fact, it wasn't until the Chrysler was constructed taking out the Hastings business district that the experiment began to fall apart and Brush Park [[to the west) had long been on the skids, if even still a vibrant, occupied neighbrohood at the time.

The projects would have failed, regardless, but they were actually seen by their residents as an improvement, at the time. When built, they weren't the catalyst for the decline, which was already happening [[if even under the radar) in the inner-city at the time.

I agree with all of this. I didn't mean to confuse things or imply above that Brewster-Douglass replaced Brush Park, or, for that matter, suggest that area residents were generally unhappy with the building of the projects. I was just answering the previous posters question about the effect of Brewster-Douglass on the decline of Brush Park.

I did want to bring up the fact though, that as hard as it may be to believe today, up until about the '70s what we now look at as the beautiful old houses of Brush Park were widely perceived as old, outdated and disposable as the tenements and aging frame houses of Paradise Valley. In fact, Victorian and 19th century architecture in general was seen as embarrassing and something that needed to be eliminated. Just witness the fate of old City Hall.

I wonder if we'll feel the same way someday about the architecture of the 1950s & 60s that we're so busy blowing up today? Not to start the whole 'new urbanism' argument again, because I mostly agree with that point of view, but those buildings were certainly viewed as beautifully clean and modern, and a huge improvement on the buildings of the old city, by the both the people who built them and most of the public at the time.