Retail Design Option for Hudson site or Foxtown District

[hudkina]

They can move the entire walls then. It just seems smarter to get rid of the two stations and replace them with a single station at this development.

[DetroitPlanner]

They can move the entire walls then. It just seems smarter to get rid of the two stations and replace them with a single station at this development.

Yeah good idea, spend millions on something un-needed while the rest of the transit infastructure goes to crap. After all, we can't have people walk a half-block!

[hudkina]

Thank God you see it my way.

[mikeg19]

Where's the BRT stop at?

[DetroitPlanner]

Where's the BRT stop at?

On the Woodward side. Ignore the regular buses, eventually the brt will come! [[rolls eyes)

[Wesley Mouch]

Care to elaborate on your photos, gthomas? But I agree with ghettopalmer. This reminds me of the fortress mentality of the Ren Cen.

Certainly a kinder, gentler fortress, no?

I am not overly fond of 'malls'. Would rather browse an urban street. But nothing in this somewhat more psuedo-organic mall design stops real organic growth.

It'll work. Or it won't. And it will, or it won't help other development.

Good to see ideas being implemented here. Just don't get the city involved too much in design. They'll lead it to a worse place.

[DetroitPlanner]

Like it or not, the extra security that a mall will provide will attract more shoppers and expand the marketability of any retail. This is especially true in a place with high crime. The more eyes, the more safer shoppers feel and the more apt they are to open thier wallets if they feel comfortable it won't get snatched out of thier hands.

Design excellence is what is called for here. I would think that the parking lots of Comerica Park provide the best opportunity [[again this is just my humble opinion, no need to jump down my throught). With this, you could provide vistas at either end of a pedestrian only street with the two anchors already established, Fox Theater and the Tiger's Ball Park. A landscaped pedestrian corridor with stores and restraunts on both sides would be inviting and secure.

A development here could be similar to how Downtown Disney in Anahiem connects the two Disney Parks with the Hotels, or another example could be like Universal City Walk. Note, I am not suggesting that we go hog wild and fill the area with cartoon characters and chains that appeal to the ESPNZone, House of Blues, Hooters types. Only that if you build a good environment, you will attract both local and tourist traffic.

Proposing big boxes for Hudson Block is probably less likely to be successful over a long haul. You are already seeing trends of both Best Buy and Walmart going away from the big store formats and I expect this to continue as people become more comfortable with shopping over the internet.

This does not mean all is lost, some things people actually want to buy in person. These include food, clothes and furniture. You need to plan on where the market will be in 5 years, not shooting to compete with what is in the suburban landscape today. Hang on, its going to be a bumpy ride!

[ghettopalmetto]

Certainly a kinder, gentler fortress, no?

I am not overly fond of 'malls'. Would rather browse an urban street. But nothing in this somewhat more psuedo-organic mall design stops real organic growth.

It'll work. Or it won't. And it will, or it won't help other development.

Good to see ideas being implemented here. Just don't get the city involved too much in design. They'll lead it to a worse place.

I like the example of the Galleria Vittorio Emanuele. Citation of these example raises importance in understanding how it differs from a modern "outdoor mall" in its design and function.

The "Galleria" is essentially an arcade, ubiquitious at the time it was constructed [[There is an excellent example of this building type remaining on Euclid Avenue in Cleveland). Arcades came about as a way to gain more street-frontage for retail in the middle of a city block. At present, Detroit isn't hurting for space to locate storefronts.

More importantly, however, the "Galleria" connects two piazzas--great, populated public spaces--at either end. This ensures a throughput of foot traffic in the arcade. In effect, the arcade itself becomes a pedestrian street.

A modern "outdoor mall" gets some of the ideas correct. The problems I see, however, is that [[like a casino) they are designed to be self-contained. Often, they will have only one "open end", and very little relationship to adjacent buildings. The pedestrians are encouraged, by design of the facility, to circulate over and over until all their money is spent [[and then exit to the attached parking garage) instead of passing-through. Even in the SLC example, the mall appears to only connect to a randomly selected segment of sidewalk--there is no place marker or other prominent architectural feature that connects the inwardly-turned mall to the larger realm of the street on the outside. In this regard, it does serve as sort of a bunker.

In my personal opinion, I think Detroit would be better served by keeping things simple. Instead of continuing to seek mega-development Projects [[which can look just like something somewhere else), it might be easier if we imagined each portion of the city as its own small town. But that's a discussion for another thread.

[ghettopalmetto]

Like it or not, the extra security that a mall will provide will attract more shoppers and expand the marketability of any retail. This is especially true in a place with high crime. The more eyes, the more safer shoppers feel and the more apt they are to open thier wallets if they feel comfortable it won't get snatched out of thier hands.

Is that why no one ever gets mugged in a shopping mall parking lot? All the eyes of fellow shoppers and hired security patrols?

Where in the hell do you shop--Thunderdome?

[DetroitPlanner]

One thing left out of GP's explaination is that Gallerias/Arcades/Market areas are commonly used to break up large blocks where it allows more pedestrian activity, it does not suck it off of the street grid, but encourages it. In most places they do connect two focal points as GP mentioned about the Pizzas.... err Piazzas!

[DetroitPlanner]

Is that why no one ever gets mugged in a shopping mall parking lot? All the eyes of fellow shoppers and hired security patrols?

Where in the hell do you shop--Thunderdome?

Close, the Family Dollar on Michigan near Lonyo!

I am not saying that it will eliminate all crime, but it sure the heck is a deterrant for much of it. Provide enough deterrants and the criminals will not bother as they are general dumb and lazy.

[canuck]

I think if there is to be a mall, it has to be purposely designed to regenerate retail in the proximate areas around it. How about a couple of showcase pavilion-type galleries and music venues in vacant spaces at various nodes downtown that would serve as showcases for Detroit music and art?

Sprinkle these around office courtyards and near existing businesses as gathering places. These would serve the multiple purpose of promoting art and help local businesses' staying power. I like the idea of pop-ups in Detroit. It seems the ideal city for ephemeral stuff. It may be that Detroit's identification with built-in obsolescence could be turned to advantage, if all of metro coincides on that point. I mean, with the upheavals of 20th century industrialization, huge migrations into the city from all over the world and the southern states, Detroit experienced a huge inflation and deflation to feed the outlying areas.

It is a culture unto its own really. There are other american cities with similar
roadmaps, but none as vast and far reaching as this one. It is a gorgeous melange of all the myths that make up the american imagination; restlessness, speed, lack of foresight, but especially lack of hindsight, creative construction and destruction like the indian god shiva intended. It is a gypsy eden, and a bucolic campground.

Detroit has all the elements of a good road movie; the goodwill, the unknown, the space, the blandness, the patina, the violence. What other city greets you with an iron fist pointing straight you?

Use that, I beg you.

[gthomas]

Is that why no one ever gets mugged in a shopping mall parking lot? All the eyes of fellow shoppers and hired security patrols?

Where in the hell do you shop--Thunderdome?

This can work in Foxtown if they incorporate retail in with the new Red Wings Arena. Nice Design, activities, and amenities..

[ghettopalmetto]

This can work in Foxtown if they incorporate retail in with the new Red Wings Arena. Nice Design, activities, and amenities.

I think that's a good idea in the first place. The kicker is, the arena would have to front on the sidewalk [[e.g. Verizon Center in DC), and not set back behind an enormous parking lot like Comerica Park. That was a HUGE missed opportunity.

Frankly, I'm not a fan of redevelopment through large developer-dictated projects. In every case, you're going to end up with the same retail mix as you would in a suburban shopping mall. Why? Because it's a low-risk tried-and-true formula for the developer.

Rather than a single developer dictating the fate of a huge portion of downtown, or for that matter, the City dictating where bars/restaurants/shopping/music venues should go, why not let individual property owners partake? For one, it makes the city more interesting. Second, it lowers the hurdler for entry into the market, and thus makes redevelopment easier. For example, a single property owner would only have to control one building, instead of an entire city block.

I'm also not a proponent of the phony "festival" atmosphere...what happens to that space when there isn't a sporting event, which is a vast majority of the time?

Thoughts from the peanut gallery?

[canuck]

ghettopalmetto

Frankly, I'm not a fan of redevelopment through large developer-dictated projects. In every case, you're going to end up with the same retail mix as you would in a suburban shopping mall. Why? Because it's a low-risk tried-and-true formula for the developer.

Rather than a single developer dictating the fate of a huge portion of downtown, or for that matter, the City dictating where bars/restaurants/shopping/music venues should go, why not let individual property owners partake? For one, it makes the city more interesting. Second, it lowers the hurdler for entry into the market, and thus makes redevelopment easier. For example, a single property owner would only have to control one building, instead of an entire city block.

I'm also not a proponent of the phony "festival" atmosphere...what happens to that space when there isn't a sporting event, which is a vast majority of the time?

Thoughts from the peanut gallery?

Well for one thing, the individual property owners have not been very forthcoming in the development stakes. There would have to be a developer style clout to enable this movement to happen, in chamber of commerce style.
Where is the will?

I think that malls have done a lot of damage in suburban retail areas, but not so much in downtowns. The ideal urban design will favor pedestrian circulation and thus resolve possible conflicts between small and big retail interests. Remember that smaller less capitalized stores have survived where other big ones have failed. This is not only the resut of David vs Goliath. It has more to do with creativity. In other words I think we can safely assume that a well intentioned shopping plaza as open as possible to the street combined with injected retail onto major and minor arteries would bring in a desired clientele. This clientele will want what it can get from chic and strip malls in the burbs, but in the city. Circulation is the key word, and the funny correlation between circulation and transit is also to be noted as a key ingredient in successful urban engineering.

[ghettopalmetto]

ghettopalmetto


Well for one thing, the individual property owners have not been very forthcoming in the development stakes. There would have to be a developer style clout to enable this movement to happen, in chamber of commerce style.
Where is the will?

You know as well as I do that the City of Detroit has rigged the game against small property owners. Time after time, they and the DEGC show themselves to be in bed with folks like Mike Ilitch, on whom they shovel lavish subsidies. Ilitch can get public money to build Comerica Park, "maintain" Tiger Stadium, and demolish the Madison-Lenox. Where, I ask you, is a small business loan program???

There's no question the City plays favorites, going back to ca. 1998 when Dennis Archer bent over backward for the casinos and ended up killing the east Riverfront [[because of resulting speculation) in the process.

They'll go on and on about Compuware, but what are they doing to support small entrepreneurs???

I think that malls have done a lot of damage in suburban retail areas, but not so much in downtowns.

I would argue that the two malls in downtown Cleveland helped kill Euclid Avenue by sucking foot traffic off the street. Similar story in Green Bay. And oh yeah, the misguidedly-named Renaissance Center. There are numerous places in America with thriving urban streets, from small towns to large cities. Most of them do just fine without the sterility of a shopping mall. This is just more of that failed "destination" logic....

The ideal urban design will favor pedestrian circulation and thus resolve possible conflicts between small and big retail interests. Remember that smaller less capitalized stores have survived where other big ones have failed. This is not only the resut of David vs Goliath. It has more to do with creativity. In other words I think we can safely assume that a well intentioned shopping plaza as open as possible to the street combined with injected retail onto major and minor arteries would bring in a desired clientele.

You talk about malls in one sentence, and "urban design" in the next. Which is it? You do realize that ALL of the elements you discuss in this paragraph, which are desirable, do not necessitate construction of a soul-sucking homogenous shopping mall. Let the creativity come from the entrepreneurs. This needs to be a bottom-up process, not top-down. The City of Detroit has a proven track record of knowing jack shit about real estate development. It's not up to the City, DEGC, or any Taubman to "get creative". The other name for top-down creativity is "contrived".

Fix the zoning regs to permit mixed-use development all throughout downtown, and get a decent transit system working to do away with the cumbersome parking requirements. This stupid fixation on "entertainment districts" has been a distraction for too many decades already.

And just who is your clientele in your mall? The people who live in the suburbs? We're supposed to think Detroit is suddenly going to bump jump and thrive if you put a J. Crew and Banana Republic downtown?

[canuck]

Well there is no queston that if promoters are run amok and left to decide, if there is no balance of interests, then yes; trouble for small business ensues.

Detroit has been badly managed, poorly distributed, maintained in evergrowing
blight and distress for decades. The region has to be the solution, the clientele has to be regional also. Leaders and shopowners, Good Girls go to Paris meets Taubman meets Bing meets Patterson.

I think that the wider view shows that there is little meeting of interests in the recent history of Detroit. Not enough cohesiveness to address transit, retail, and the effects in the long term from avoiding these issues. So you are right when you say the small street frontage must be enhanced, but I see this as a problem of balancing interests so that in the short and long run, everybody gets a piece of the action, and citizens of greater Detroit can access the heart of a vibrant metro.

I also am more attracted to smaller more creative businesses, but Detroit is so important that it cannot ignore large hotel developments or mixed use office/condos or large malls. The problem is in achieving balance by favoring circulation, pedestrian access, eliminating the need for car travel as the only solution to travel. Good planning will require severe limits on the types of projects that damage Detroit and restores the available retail spaces on all streets to a higher level. But it is wishful thinking to hope for a small entrepreneurship that can tackle this gigantic task. It is a meeting of interests big and small, political and commercial, citizens and leaders deciding the where to go, the what to do.

[gthomas]

Gilbert mentioned building "2" residential towers on Hudson site with retail, I was looking up some cool buildings that can look pretty cool on the site. Here's one I thought could fit very well and was architecturally stunning.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

[QUOTE=gthomas;317547]Gilbert mentioned building "2" residential towers on Hudson site with retail, I was looking up some cool buildings that can look pretty cool on the site. Here's one I thought could fit very well and was architecturally stunning.

GThomas, I agree completely that a really cool unique building or two could be visually very pleasing downtown. I am not sure if residential could fill that hole [[units in a building like the one you posted I imagine would carry pricetags Detroit can't pay for yet). But the Hudson's site, old Statler site on GCP, and any new arena really should be striking, whatever is built. It would be a shame if they were turned into ho-hum buildings. Although it would be worse for them to stay empty eternally, I think.

[ghettopalmetto]

Gilbert mentioned building "2" residential towers on Hudson site with retail, I was looking up some cool buildings that can look pretty cool on the site. Here's one I thought could fit very well and was architecturally stunning.

I didn't know you needed six years of schooling to design a glass box. I think I built something like that out of Legos when I was five.

[downtownguy]

I kinda like it. But I would turn that serpentine design into a "D". haha!!

[casscorridor]

Detroit doesn't need landmark modernist/postmodernist architecture, or any landmark architecture for that matter. What we need is modest buildings of 4-12 stories throughout Downtown and the surrounding areas to build up density and develop a thriving street life. After that we can think about landmarks and skyscrapers or whatever.

[gthomas]

I kinda like it. But I would turn that serpentine design into a "D". haha!!

Now that will be cool to see, but I do think we need more modern skyscrapers, even if it's only 7-10 story buildings.

[gthomas]

I think that's a good idea in the first place. The kicker is, the arena would have to front on the sidewalk [[e.g. Verizon Center in DC), and not set back behind an enormous parking lot like Comerica Park. That was a HUGE missed opportunity.

Frankly, I'm not a fan of redevelopment through large developer-dictated projects. In every case, you're going to end up with the same retail mix as you would in a suburban shopping mall. Why? Because it's a low-risk tried-and-true formula for the developer.

Rather than a single developer dictating the fate of a huge portion of downtown, or for that matter, the City dictating where bars/restaurants/shopping/music venues should go, why not let individual property owners partake? For one, it makes the city more interesting. Second, it lowers the hurdler for entry into the market, and thus makes redevelopment easier. For example, a single property owner would only have to control one building, instead of an entire city block.

I'm also not a proponent of the phony "festival" atmosphere...what happens to that space when there isn't a sporting event, which is a vast majority of the time?

Thoughts from the peanut gallery?

Here is a video fly-thru of the Edmonton arena:

• Video Link

__________________

[canuck]

Here is a video fly-thru of the Edmonton arena:

That' a nice looking building. I hope it happens. I like the huge glass curtain that opens the arena up to the exterior. Is that something that exists anywhere else?