River Plaza Apartments on Jefferson Completely Vacant

[royce]

That area craves retail development, but from what I've heard the city doesn't want retail or commercial development south of Jefferson. That's a shame because there is a huge potential to enliven that area with retail and additional residential. Here's my plan: Owen Park needs to be shrunk down to about a third or a quarter of its current size and exist only near the river. Why have two city parks - Owen Park and Erma Henderson Park - that close together?

The Owen Park land close to Jefferson could be used for retail and the remaining 1/3 or 1/2 could be used to build a high rise with ground floor retail, a parking deck, either above the ground floor retail or underground. The River Plaza apartments would be torn down for retail facing Jefferson and the rest of the land would be used for a parking deck for the Whittier and the retail. The Whittier's current parking lot would also be used to form the new retail and residential development.

Now whether to create the retail to look like a strip mall, like Harbortown or to put it close to Jefferson where you park in the parking deck or say on one side of the development with parking that heads toward the river is debatable. I'd rather see the retail up close to Jefferson with a wide plaza so that you don't feel a breeze from cars travelling along Jefferson when you're sitting on a bench eating your ice cream. If you put the parking on the side, like say the west side, then essentially you would create a road that takes you down to the smaller version of Owen Park and then that road would meet a new road that takes you south of the Whittier to Burns Street and Erma Henderson Park. Also, more development could be created on the land that Shoreline East and those other towers use for parking by building underground parking or a parking deck with ground floor retail.

So much potential, but there has to be a collective vision. Are the residents in the area willing to accept new development? Is the city willing to rezone the area for retail? Is there a developer willing to take a risk? Stay tuned.

[Richard]

The city did come up with a master growth plan that shows zoning etc.,it was made public right before Mr Duggin was elected the first time.

I remember the east side or Packard area was designated heavy industrial,with apartments not so much.

If you look at that you can see where future growth is going to be pushed and at what extent.

[archfan]

Designed by Robert J. West for Saul Katz.

1) Owen Park Plaza 8430 East Jefferson built in 1955 Gold Coast, Detroit, MI.

2) River Plaza 8434 East Jefferson built in 1955 Gold Coast, Detroit, MI.

3) An advertisement featuring 8430 and 8434 East Jefferson from a 1955 edition of the Detroit Free Press

Given the number of steel and concrete contractors in the Freep ad, I bet the structure of that building is still usable. They aren't high rises, but they're already built, and 182 units would be nice there.

[EastsideAl]

That area craves retail development, but from what I've heard the city doesn't want retail or commercial development south of Jefferson. That's a shame because there is a huge potential to enliven that area with retail and additional residential. Here's my plan: Owen Park needs to be shrunk down to about a third or a quarter of its current size and exist only near the river. Why have two city parks - Owen Park and Erma Henderson Park - that close together?

The Owen Park land close to Jefferson could be used for retail and the remaining 1/3 or 1/2 could be used to build a high rise with ground floor retail, a parking deck, either above the ground floor retail or underground. The River Plaza apartments would be torn down for retail facing Jefferson and the rest of the land would be used for a parking deck for the Whittier and the retail. The Whittier's current parking lot would also be used to form the new retail and residential development.

Now whether to create the retail to look like a strip mall, like Harbortown or to put it close to Jefferson where you park in the parking deck or say on one side of the development with parking that heads toward the river is debatable. I'd rather see the retail up close to Jefferson with a wide plaza so that you don't feel a breeze from cars travelling along Jefferson when you're sitting on a bench eating your ice cream. If you put the parking on the side, like say the west side, then essentially you would create a road that takes you down to the smaller version of Owen Park and then that road would meet a new road that takes you south of the Whittier to Burns Street and Erma Henderson Park. Also, more development could be created on the land that Shoreline East and those other towers use for parking by building underground parking or a parking deck with ground floor retail.

So much potential, but there has to be a collective vision. Are the residents in the area willing to accept new development? Is the city willing to rezone the area for retail? Is there a developer willing to take a risk? Stay tuned.

Why in the world would you take what has long been a quiet and park-like residential area, some of it still kind of classy, [[and other parts hopefully becoming classy again) and build crappy strip malls there? Trust me as someone who has lived there and has family and friends who live there: the people there don't want it.

[hybridy]

maybe this is obvious, but if I were Detroit I would seize river plaza and promptly demolish them and sue owner to recoup costs [[longshot, I know). I would then sell owen park and river plaza lots to a developer for a mixed-use mid/highrise project [[perfect world = demand/financing). I would also build public riverwalk/boardwalk connecting Gabriel Richard park to Erma Henderson park utilizing eminent domain to acquire right-of-way from all condo/co-ops existing between the 2 parks. I also assume a major development on the uniroyal site that I would market an improved connection to, as well as some form of rapid mass transit on Jefferson to drive demand for the built product.

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

I think taking any existing park land and selling it to a developer is a terrible idea. There is still so much undeveloped land between downtown and the MacArthur Bridge. Any sort of retail right on the water would have to be extremely well done to justify shrinking the park. And I know I’m in the minority here, but I think River Plaza should be rehabbed in a manner that plays up its 50’s roots. I don’t find the complex to be ugly at all.

[ASilvaman]

I'm curious to find out what is planned for the former YMCA buildings just up the street on the opposite side. Has there been any discussion about it's fate? The signs attached to that building says it own by the Feds.

[EastsideAl]

maybe this is obvious, but if I were Detroit I would seize river plaza and promptly demolish them and sue owner to recoup costs [[longshot, I know). I would then sell owen park and river plaza lots to a developer for a mixed-use mid/highrise project [[perfect world = demand/financing). I would also build public riverwalk/boardwalk connecting Gabriel Richard park to Erma Henderson park utilizing eminent domain to acquire right-of-way from all condo/co-ops existing between the 2 parks. I also assume a major development on the uniroyal site that I would market an improved connection to, as well as some form of rapid mass transit on Jefferson to drive demand for the built product.

The eastward Riverwalk expansion has already been floated as a planning trial balloon, and the apartment buildings along there have been nearly unanimous in opposing it. I really doubt that anyone right now is willing to spend what it would take to eminent domain the necessary private land [[and water, since it would have to be built out from the shore in some places). To say nothing of the cost of the years-long court battle that would undoubtedly ensue.

[EastsideAl]

I'm curious to find out what is planned for the former YMCA buildings just up the street on the opposite side. Has there been any discussion about it's fate? The signs attached to that building says it own by the Feds.

That's the former Hannan Y, where I learned to swim! It was used as a residential drug treatment center after its years as a YMCA, and was later occupied by squatting junkies and crackheads for several years. It was also left open to the elements ad had its roof collapse. It is pretty well trashed I think. The feds have quietly been taking control of a number of unused properties along there, presumably as part of their cockamamie border protection strategy and big expansion of Border Patrol, ICE, etc. authority and enforcement that seems to be ongoing along the riverfront to protect us from the possibility of invasion by the Canadian hordes.

[ASilvaman]

That's the former Hannan Y, where I learned to swim! It was used as a residential drug treatment center after its years as a YMCA, and was later occupied by squatting junkies and crackheads for several years. It was also left open to the elements ad had its roof collapse. It is pretty well trashed I think. The feds have quietly been taking control of a number of unused properties along there, presumably as part of their cockamamie border protection strategy and big expansion of Border Patrol, ICE, etc. authority and enforcement that seems to be ongoing along the riverfront to protect us from the possibility of invasion by the Canadian hordes.

That's too bad, thats a perfect spot for a residential conversion, or even a residential tower built on top of it. I think that would look really cool.

[hybridy]

I think taking any existing park land and selling it to a developer is a terrible ideal.

In principle I agree wholeheartedly. The blighted grass lot you cling to, does not a park make.

[EastsideAl]

In principle I agree wholeheartedly. The blighted grass lot you cling to, does not a park make.

But Owen Park wasn't always a "blighted grass lot". It used to be quite a pleasant park actually, with a walkway by the river, a small playground for kids, and little clusters of shade trees with picnic tables nearby. It was THE park for the Indian Village area [[which doesn't otherwise have a park). We spent quite a bit of time there as kids.

[swingline]

The Owen Park site is completely unnecessary greenspace. Within a few hundred yards in each direction the city maintains massive and perfectly adequate riverfront greenspaces at Erma Henderson park and Gabriel Richard park.

During the Archer administration an RFP was circulated for development of Owen Park. A number of submissions were made that incorporated walkability within the site, low-rise apartments, retail frontage along E. Jefferson and public access to the river. Not sure if the city ever made an award of development rights. The proposed development met with predictable criticism from community members declaring that precious river access was being stolen from Detroiters. Those were different economic times and ultimately the numbers didn't pencil out. I also heard 3d or 4th hand that deed restrictions might be a problem at the site as well. Not sure if this is true.

If deed restrictions are surmountable, development of Owen Park should be revisited. It seems that the immediate area could support more retail. It would also seem that rents busting through the $2/sq ft benchmark could support the residential component.

[EastsideAl]

The Owen Park site is completely unnecessary greenspace. Within a few hundred yards in each direction the city maintains massive and perfectly adequate riverfront greenspaces at Erma Henderson park and Gabriel Richard park.

During the Archer administration an RFP was circulated for development of Owen Park. A number of submissions were made that incorporated walkability within the site, low-rise apartments, retail frontage along E. Jefferson and public access to the river. Not sure if the city ever made an award of development rights. The proposed development met with predictable criticism from community members declaring that precious river access was being stolen from Detroiters. Those were different economic times and ultimately the numbers didn't pencil out. I also heard 3d or 4th hand that deed restrictions might be a problem at the site as well. Not sure if this is true.

If deed restrictions are surmountable, development of Owen Park should be revisited. It seems that the immediate area could support more retail. It would also seem that rents busting through the $2/sq ft benchmark could support the residential component.

Well now you've got my blood boiling with that officious and nasty response. I naively thought that this idiotic plan had died the quiet death it deserved. But it seems it still has some supporters who think they can just claim a park for private use.

The "deed restriction" you speak of is that the Owen family, who originally developed Indian Village, left that land to the city to be a park. And specifically left it to be OUR park, for the community in and around Indian Village. I, and my family, were among the community members making that "predictable criticism" that you seem to dismiss so callously. So sorry we weren't willing to roll over and give up public land in our neighborhood, land specifically designated to be a park, for someone else's profit.

The city's response has of course has been to let the park go to hell. To declaim responsibility for it. And to stymie efforts by local people to clean the park up, stop open vehicle access to it, and move it back towards being a usable park again. Now, with the improvements in the surrounding neighborhoods and the city's financial position, we may again have the opportunity to move forward with reclaiming the park. Only, I guess, to run again into folks like you who view a public park as some sort of cash-in opportunity.

The people around here have made clear that they do not want your crappy strip mall and apartment project. There are already several underutilized or empty buildings around here [[like the ones that are the subject of this thread, or the nearby Whittier), and more than enough empty or vacant potential retail space up and down Jefferson, that should be rehabbed and filled long before someone is allowed to make a cash grab at a public park. Especially one with open river access.

But I guess open space and neighborhood parks can be seen as "unnecessary greenspace" if they are not in your goddamned neighborhood. With no connection to it, I suppose it's easy to see a small park in someone else's neighborhood as an "unnecessary" place that can be hijacked for a quick profit opportunity. Well, we are going to continue to fight you if you folks try that thieving crap again. And I'll stand in front of a goddamned bulldozer before I let hare-brained planning jerks like you tell me and the people in this area what parkland we do and don't deserve.

[eastland]

Well now you've got my blood boiling with that officious and nasty response. I naively thought that this idiotic plan had died the quiet death it deserved. But it seems it still has some supporters who think they can just claim a park for private use.

The "deed restriction" you speak of is that the Owen family, who originally developed Indian Village, left that land to the city to be a park. And specifically left it to be OUR park, for the community in and around Indian Village. I, and my family, were among the community members making that "predictable criticism" that you seem to dismiss so callously. So sorry we weren't willing to roll over and give up public land in our neighborhood, land specifically designated to be a park, for someone else's profit.

The city's response has of course has been to let the park go to hell. To declaim responsibility for it. And to stymie efforts by local people to clean the park up, stop open vehicle access to it, and move it back towards being a usable park again. Now, with the improvements in the surrounding neighborhoods and the city's financial position, we may again have the opportunity to move forward with reclaiming the park. Only, I guess, to run again into folks like you who view a public park as some sort of cash-in opportunity.

The people around here have made clear that they do not want your crappy strip mall and apartment project. There are already several underutilized or empty buildings around here [[like the ones that are the subject of this thread, or the nearby Whittier), and more than enough empty or vacant potential retail space up and down Jefferson, that should be rehabbed and filled long before someone is allowed to make a cash grab at a public park. Especially one with open river access.

But I guess open space and neighborhood parks can be seen as "unnecessary greenspace" if they are not in your goddamned neighborhood. With no connection to it, I suppose it's easy to see a small park in someone else's neighborhood as an "unnecessary" place that can be hijacked for a quick profit opportunity. Well, we are going to continue to fight you if you folks try that thieving crap again. And I'll stand in front of a goddamned bulldozer before I let hare-brained planning jerks like you tell me and the people in this area what parkland we do and don't deserve.

I agree with you totally.

[Honky Tonk]

I agree with you totally.

Make that 3. You want to live next to a mall, they're building a shitload right
next door to Lakeside. Have a nice day.

[Richard]

It is like when they slammed freeways through the neighborhoods around the country,once you destroy the character of a neighborhood it is gone,just as the dedication is.

That is why they invented the burbs,for those who prefer cookie cutter settings.

[Richard]

[/LEFT]
[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]
[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]

Given the number of steel and concrete contractors in the Freep ad, I bet the structure of that building is still usable. They aren't high rises, but they're already built, and 182 units would be nice there.

I think it is cool that it was posted,RCA prewired the building for TV with no guarantee that only RCA tvs would be used,unlike the cable companies of today.

It shows even in the 1950s the city was still cutting edge.

[royce]

Eastside Al and DetroiterOnTheWestCoast, I would normally object to a park being redeveloped into a private development. I am against the taking of Wigle Park [[Selden and the Lodge) for private residential development. My main objection to it is because there is no other park land in that area for recreational use. You have to go over to Tobin Park [[ Mack and Chrysler) to find a comparable park. And that park has been carved in half for private development and I'm not happy with that.

My issue with Owen Park is that it is a small, very unused park that to me is an unnecessary redundancy. You have Erma Henderson Park [[EHP) less than 100 yards away. EHP is a bigger park with parking access. It is big enough for a softball diamond and a football/soccer field. It just seems like that would be the park for Indian Village residents to use since it's in Indian Village.

The surface parking lots that the three towers, like Shoreline East, use to the west is also a waste of space. I would prefer development there as well. Developing that area, if not with a strip mall, but as I described earlier a residential development or mixed-use with ground floor retail could do wonders to enhance that area. I look at the fact that there are many senior citizens in that area. Currently the only retail is a party store west of Van Dyke, a gas station at Van Dyke, and a local grocery store at Seminole/Seneca. A coffee shop, a pharmacy, a bank, and some restaurants on the south side of Jefferson would mean that these folks wouldn't have to try to cross busy Jefferson, some with motorized wheelchairs.

I'll admit I don't live in the area, but I grew up not to far away. When I was younger I thought about living there and I even remember being shown an apartment at River Plaza. However, because it lacks amenities that I mentioned above, I have no desire to live in that area, especially as I near retirement and would enjoy living in a walkable area that doesn't require me to have to take a car to do my daily errands.

I know people in Detroit get comfortable with living a certain way, but I find too often that we are afraid of change because it's different. It's looking at something from the view of half-empty as opposed to half- full. That point of view is what hinders us as a city, and I think it's time we stop being afraid of change.

[masterblaster]

In principle I agree wholeheartedly. The blighted grass lot you cling to, does not a park make.

Actually, Owen Park once had a large, well-manicured fountain and a wading pool, as shown in post #21 in the following thread entitled, "Original Features of Detroit's grand old squares and parks"

https://www.detroityes.com/mb/showth...074#post512074

[archfan]

Well now you've got my blood boiling ...

The "deed restriction" you speak of is that the Owen family, who originally developed Indian Village, left that land to the city to be a park. And specifically left it to be OUR park, for the community in and around Indian Village. I, and my family, were among the community members making that "predictable criticism" that you seem to dismiss so callously...

Ok, but other than that, what do you think of the plan?

It seems like IV could make the case to claw back the deed from the city, but then would be on the hook to maintain it themselves.

[swingline]

Well now you've got my blood boiling with that officious and nasty response. I naively thought that this idiotic plan had died the quiet death it deserved. But it seems it still has some supporters who think they can just claim a park for private use.

The "deed restriction" you speak of is that the Owen family, who originally developed Indian Village, left that land to the city to be a park. And specifically left it to be OUR park, for the community in and around Indian Village. I, and my family, were among the community members making that "predictable criticism" that you seem to dismiss so callously. So sorry we weren't willing to roll over and give up public land in our neighborhood, land specifically designated to be a park, for someone else's profit.

The city's response has of course has been to let the park go to hell. To declaim responsibility for it. And to stymie efforts by local people to clean the park up, stop open vehicle access to it, and move it back towards being a usable park again. Now, with the improvements in the surrounding neighborhoods and the city's financial position, we may again have the opportunity to move forward with reclaiming the park. Only, I guess, to run again into folks like you who view a public park as some sort of cash-in opportunity.

The people around here have made clear that they do not want your crappy strip mall and apartment project. There are already several underutilized or empty buildings around here [[like the ones that are the subject of this thread, or the nearby Whittier), and more than enough empty or vacant potential retail space up and down Jefferson, that should be rehabbed and filled long before someone is allowed to make a cash grab at a public park. Especially one with open river access.

But I guess open space and neighborhood parks can be seen as "unnecessary greenspace" if they are not in your goddamned neighborhood. With no connection to it, I suppose it's easy to see a small park in someone else's neighborhood as an "unnecessary" place that can be hijacked for a quick profit opportunity. Well, we are going to continue to fight you if you folks try that thieving crap again. And I'll stand in front of a goddamned bulldozer before I let hare-brained planning jerks like you tell me and the people in this area what parkland we do and don't deserve.

I see. Owen Park exists for the special enjoyment of Indian Villagers. Apparently the two existing riverfront parks [[Erma Henderson and Gabriel Richard) plus Mollicone Park on Burns Ave are insufficient for Al’s recreational needs. We won’t even mention the availability of that crummy little nearby park known as Belle Isle because after all it costs $15/year for an annual pass. It’s baffling that with only a modest few hundred acres of riverfront parkland already existing nearby, the city isn’t planning to spend millions of $$$ to remake Owen Park into a showplace for the special enjoyment of the local residents.


Owen Park is surplus. The city needs the tax base much more than a few locals need an additional expensive-to-maintain park so they can walk their dogs somewhere without having to pick up after them.


And no one is talking about building a cheap suburban strip mall or fast food outlets on the site. That argument is a red herring. It’s hard to understand why locals wouldn’t want more retail and restaurant options within walking distance.

[Honky Tonk]

I see. Owen Park exists for the special enjoyment of Indian Villagers. Apparently the two existing riverfront parks [[Erma Henderson and Gabriel Richard) plus Mollicone Park on Burns Ave are insufficient for Al’s recreational needs. We won’t even mention the availability of that crummy little nearby park known as Belle Isle because after all it costs $15/year for an annual pass. It’s baffling that with only a modest few hundred acres of riverfront parkland already existing nearby, the city isn’t planning to spend millions of $$$ to remake Owen Park into a showplace for the special enjoyment of the local residents.


Owen Park is surplus. The city needs the tax base much more than a few locals need an additional expensive-to-maintain park so they can walk their dogs somewhere without having to pick up after them.


And no one is talking about building a cheap suburban strip mall or fast food outlets on the site. That argument is a red herring. It’s hard to understand why locals wouldn’t want more retail and restaurant options within walking distance.

You're an idiot, Swingline, you have no idea WTF you're talking about. Scores of non-IV Detroit residents, from surrounding neighborhoods, use Owen park. By your own argument, there are already restaurants and retail "within walking distance" in that neighborhood. Detroit just finished clearing factories so everyone can see the river, and now you want to block everyone's view again with high rises, so a handful of snot-nosed non-tax paying hipsters can have a cup of coffee looking @ the river while everyone else gets to stare @ their building. Henderson has no waterfront access, Mellicone has no waterfront access, Gabriel Richard has a fence now, for the "River Walk". From the heart, GO HOME.

[swingline]

You're an idiot, Swingline, you have no idea WTF you're talking about. Scores of non-IV Detroit residents, from surrounding neighborhoods, use Owen park. By your own argument, there are already restaurants and retail "within walking distance" in that neighborhood. Detroit just finished clearing factories so everyone can see the river, and now you want to block everyone's view again with high rises, so a handful of snot-nosed non-tax paying hipsters can have a cup of coffee looking @ the river while everyone else gets to stare @ their building. Henderson has no waterfront access, Mellicone has no waterfront access, Gabriel Richard has a fence now, for the "River Walk". From the heart, GO HOME.

I am home Honky and I know just as much about Owen Park as you do.

You’re right about one thing. Scores of Detroiters use Owen Park every week. About 3 or 4 score. While I won’t engage you in ad hominems, I will say that advocating for maintaining 20 acres of trees and grass on valuable riverfront land for the use of a few dozen visitors per week is awful public policy. More people use the riverfront Rivard Plaza in two hours than use Owen Park in a week.

Your statement about protecting people’s views of the river sounds like it came from one of those folks who believe that E. Jefferson should be our version of Chicago’s Lake Shore Drive. Make everything south of E. Jefferson all pretty and green so folks have nice grass and water to look at while whizzing along in their vehicles. Yeah, that’ll promote economic development. Ooh, look at the sailboats. Aah, the water is so blue. We could really be world-class if the city would just plant some trees and flowers on the Uniroyal site, right? And while they’re at it, maybe they can time those traffic lights on E. Jefferson a little better so you can get home from the expressway in 7 minutes rather than 10.

Also, let me correct a few errors in your post. Indeed, Erma Henderson Park does include several hundred feet of waterfront access. Detroiters from all over the city use it. Lots of fisherman too. I never said that Mollicone Park had waterfront access. My obvious point was that it is another [[quickly improving through the assistance of a neighborhood group) recreational option for West Village, Indian Village and East Village. There is no shortage of parks for these neighborhoods. And what’s wrong with the modest fencing at Gabriel Richard Park? Do you need access to every foot of shoreline so you can jump in and go swimming wherever you want?

Finally, it sounds like you don’t care for hipsters, but I don’t care if the potential new residents are hipsters, seniors, students, refugees, Republicans or angry white dudes. If development at Owen Park can add new amenities and taxpayers to that neighborhood, the city should try to make it happen. Most Detroiters will survive losing a glimpse of the river from 1000 feet away while driving along in their cars.

[EastsideAl]

\My issue with Owen Park is that it is a small, very unused park

The park is "very unused" because the city removed the amenities that were there, abandoned it, let it go to hell, allowed people to drive across the grass and park cars in the park [[it was never designed for vehicle access), fought the people in the neighborhood who wanted it maintained as a public park, and even ticketed people who tried to do a little maintenance work on it.

Indian Village doesn't have more retail because it was built, and has long been zoned, not to have commercial activity. It was designed to be a quiet, comfortable residential oasis in the the city. I'm not at all sure why that's something that needs to be "fixed".