Aesthetic's in Detroit

**gthomas** · November-23-12, 05:36 PM

Okay, I have a few concerns and questions. When commercial and residential development happens in this city most plans don't include landscaping and/or exterior lighting [[Tree-lined, bushes, grass, street light-post, building exterior lighting, awnings, trash cans, bike racks..etc), why it's not required, is it a zoning regulation?

I believe good aesthetic sets a standard and visually appealing for future patrons and residents. I'm all for new development but I'm getting sick of getting under-handed when it comes to "Aesthetic's". I will not visit a place or person if it's "visually" not welcoming, if it's dark, trash everywhere, and no type of landscaping I tend to keep moving. So with that being said, I think we should all know how important aesthetic in a urban environment and why we should enforce it.

Ugly examples: I walked along Cass ave at night, it's dark due to "one" street light post on each block. It should have atleast four light post, actually that "one" doesn't even work. No trash cans on Cass at all, up and down etc..These things can go a long way...we need to function as a real city.

**313WX** · November-23-12, 06:54 PM

You might as well get used to those "ugly examples" while you wait for "new Detroit" to sprout up from the ground.

At this time, the city's broke and the plan is to remove half of the streetlight in the entire city. Expect the other "aesthetics" in the mean time to get worse.

**Honky Tonk** · November-23-12, 07:09 PM

"I walked along Cass ave at night, it's dark due to "one" street light post on each block. It should have atleast four light post, actually that "one" doesn't even work. No trash cans on Cass at all, up and down etc."

LOL! Good one! You can always drop by the DPL and put your gum wrapper in one of their new $1000 trashcans.

**MidTownMs** · November-23-12, 10:58 PM

Originally Posted by gthomas

Okay, I have a few concerns and questions. When commercial and residential development happens in this city most plans don't include landscaping and/or exterior lighting [[Tree-lined, bushes, grass, street light-post, building exterior lighting, awnings, trash cans, bike racks..etc), why it's not required, is it a zoning regulation?

I believe good aesthetic sets a standard and visually appealing for future patrons and residents. I'm all for new development but I'm getting sick of getting under-handed when it comes to "Aesthetic's". I will not visit a place or person if it's "visually" not welcoming, if it's dark, trash everywhere, and no type of landscaping I tend to keep moving. So with that being said, I think we should all know how important aesthetic in a urban environment and why we should enforce it.

Ugly examples: I walked along Cass ave at night, it's dark due to "one" street light post on each block. It should have atleast four light post, actually that "one" doesn't even work. No trash cans on Cass at all, up and down etc..These things can go a long way...we need to function as a real city.

There probably are at least four lights posts. Lucky for you one of them was working.

**SWMAP** · November-23-12, 11:19 PM

I do agree with the OP about the lack of requirements for installation of basic amenities such as landscaping, bike racks, dark night sky floodlighting,etc. When new construction is approved. The City seems to think that every white box, stripped down plan using cheap materials is just fine. Witness the buildings and strip malls built for the drug stores, check cashing stores, auto-supply and $75 auto insurance. The standards are really, really low.
Being a little nit-picky: aesthetics is a plural form, not possessive.

**313WX** · November-24-12, 12:41 AM

Originally Posted by SWMAP

I do agree with the OP about the lack of requirements for installation of basic amenities such as landscaping, bike racks, dark night sky floodlighting,etc. When new construction is approved. The City seems to think that every white box, stripped down plan using cheap materials is just fine. Witness the buildings and strip malls built for the drug stores, check cashing stores, auto-supply and $75 auto insurance. The standards are really, really low.
Being a little nit-picky: aesthetics is a plural form, not possessive.

Detroit probably does have zoning requirements [[I.E. see how the city was built in the 1950s).

Of course, they're not enforced now. Quite frankly, a city that's deprived of capital has no room to demand how the few investors it does have should build their structures and their surrounding environments. I mean, while not ideal, a white stripped down box using cheap material is much better than an Urban Prairie, IMO.

It is a lot more expensive to re-build and maintain the structures that once lined streets such as Van Dyke, Chene and Gratiot [[especially if you now must be friendly to cars as well), which is why once they're gone, they're gone.

Oh, and the vast majority of these strip malls/suburban-esque structures are actually well lit at night. It's not because the city forces them directly to do so, but because it lowers their liability risk [[I.E. customer could sue CVS because someone robbed them in their parking lot and CVS' parking lot wasn't lit so the victim could see the suspect) and it prevents their already ridiculously high insurance rates from being jacked up even higher.

**wolverine** · November-24-12, 01:27 AM

You're fortunate to get a facade. A new trend is emerging to do core and shell without a front wall. The tenant later decides how it will look. If they never come, the building is taken down. It's terrible, I should show a picture.

**Gistok** · November-24-12, 03:11 AM

Originally Posted by wolverine

You're fortunate to get a facade. A new trend is emerging to do core and shell without a front wall. The tenant later decides how it will look. If they never come, the building is taken down. It's terrible, I should show a picture.

Wouldn't city approvals stop this type of development? In St. Clair Shores the city council put a stop to a Walgreen opening right across the street from a CVS... reason... they figured within a year one or the other would likely go out of business, thus cauising blight with a closed store.

So I don't see an unfinished store as even being allowed in many areas...

**DetroitPlanner** · November-24-12, 11:21 AM

Zoning has nothing to do with trees or sidewalks. Zoning deals with land uses. Other planning ordinances apply for what you want. The problem is that the city is starved for business and will take just about anything. When you are in that position the planning commission, which usually juices the developer to put in such things, has no teeth.

**rutlev** · November-24-12, 12:20 PM

When MDOT updated Michigan Ave, they supplied trash containers - no one emptied them, ever. Some groups started to do a clean up, but found that the inserts were so full they couldn't be lifted out, others had been set afire. So I would guess that no trash cans, are more aesthetic than over filled ones with burned out bottoms.

**DetroitPlanner** · November-24-12, 08:23 PM

Part of the agreement for MDOT to do enhancements is for the local community to maintain the improvements. I would look to either the DPW or to the Corktown CDC.

**gthomas** · November-24-12, 10:12 PM

Originally Posted by SWMAP

I do agree with the OP about the lack of requirements for installation of basic amenities such as landscaping, bike racks, dark night sky floodlighting,etc. When new construction is approved. The City seems to think that every white box, stripped down plan using cheap materials is just fine. Witness the buildings and strip malls built for the drug stores, check cashing stores, auto-supply and $75 auto insurance. The standards are really, really low.
Being a little nit-picky: aesthetics is a plural form, not possessive.

Yes, my point exactly. you will not build such a thing in Birmingham or West Bloomfield. When they build commercial/residential projects it will DEFINITELY includes lush-langscaping, exterior lighting, benches, trash cans etc..We have to stop these developers from coming in and allowing the citizens to settle for less just because the city is desperate? What kind of mess is that, but then complain later about crime, residents getting mugged, store and cars broken into..etc. The little things goes a long way, aesthetics is key, PERIOD. Set a standard, that's why most believe that you can go into the city and do anything, because there isn't any enforcement's and regulation of such things.

Why not privatize lighting and create more of the "Clean Downtown" programs for different neighborhoods. I know funding is strapped, but I believe residents and business alike can help of with maintaining that, especially if it's in front of your property. Start ticketing people who get caught littering and/or being destructive to public property. PERIOD.

**gthomas** · November-24-12, 10:46 PM

Let's compare the rendering and actually "finished" project called the "Auburn": What a difference it makes..look tree-lined streets, signage, exterior lighting etc..

**Honky Tonk** · November-25-12, 05:19 AM

I think the one guy on the left just threw his McDonald's bag on the sidewalk.

**Hermod** · November-25-12, 05:42 AM

The sidewalks are public right-of-way and belong to the city. Placement of streetlights, trees, and trashcans [[and the servicing thereof) are functions of the city bureaucracy and not of the property owner.

With all the blithering that takes place here on DetroitYes about the need for "streetwalls", how can that also include a requirement for a setback with lush landscaping, a serene garden, and park benches?

**DetroitPlanner** · November-25-12, 09:33 AM

Hermrod, the property owner must maintain the sidewalk. If the snow does not get shoveled and a person slips on the ice, then it is the fault of the property owner. Likewise if it needs replacement, the City will do that and bill the property. While it is in the public ROW it is the responsibility of the owner, not the City.

**Hermod** · November-25-12, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Hermrod, the property owner must maintain the sidewalk. If the snow does not get shoveled and a person slips on the ice, then it is the fault of the property owner. Likewise if it needs replacement, the City will do that and bill the property. While it is in the public ROW it is the responsibility of the owner, not the City.

I know about shoveling snow on the public sidewalks as I did enough of it over the years. That being said, the property owner cannot just dig up a city sidewalk and plant trees. I have been in enough tussles with both municipalities and homeowners associations on landscaping in the drainage swales. Nor is the property owner responsible for the placement of streetlights and he cannot just place streetlights there where he wants them. My street is very inadequately lighted by the city, so the various homeowners have placed driveway post lights OFF the city right-of-way to make the street more friendly.

**Hermod** · November-25-12, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by gthomas

Let's compare the rendering and actually "finished" project called the "Auburn": What a difference it makes..look tree-lined streets, signage, exterior lighting etc..

They are following the Detroit tradition of having trees growing out of the roof.

**Honky Tonk** · November-25-12, 11:18 AM

Originally Posted by Hermod

They are following the Detroit tradition of having trees growing out of the roof.

You don't see foliage design like this in Auburn Hills.

**gthomas** · November-25-12, 02:59 PM

The Woodward streetscape project from I-94 to CMP is a great example. It's relatively clean, well lit, plenty of trash cans, bike racks, bus shelters, tree-lined and visually appealing. Businesses are adding to it by applying for facade grants etc..I know u remember how Woodward was before, you wouldn't catch me walking a night.

**scottn55** · November-25-12, 03:09 PM

Here in Ypsi people apparently think it's great sport to toss our public trash cans and benches into the river. What the hell is wrong with people?

**gthomas** · November-25-12, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by Hermod

I know about shoveling snow on the public sidewalks as I did enough of it over the years. That being said, the property owner cannot just dig up a city sidewalk and plant trees. I have been in enough tussles with both municipalities and homeowners associations on landscaping in the drainage swales. Nor is the property owner responsible for the placement of streetlights and he cannot just place streetlights there where he wants them. My street is very inadequately lighted by the city, so the various homeowners have placed driveway post lights OFF the city right-of-way to make the street more friendly.

I'm not saying just go dig up and start planting trees, why not ask the city and grant permission once you were approve to develop the site. Why it's not a option
and if it was, why wouldn't the developer include it?

**MidTownMs** · November-25-12, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by Honky Tonk

You don't see foliage design like this in Auburn Hills.

Is that the old Vanity Ballroom on Jefferson? It looks like it.

**Honky Tonk** · November-25-12, 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by MidTownMs

Is that the old Vanity Ballroom on Jefferson? It looks like it.

Yes it is. The picture is from 2010. The tree is much bigger now. We know how to do things right in Detroit!

**Honky Tonk** · November-25-12, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by scottn55

Here in Ypsi people apparently think it's great sport to toss our public trash cans and benches into the river. What the hell is wrong with people?

It's FUN! Have you tried it? Seriously, you hit a very good point. You can have all the trees and trashcans you want, if people don't have a clue, or care, it's not going to make a bit of difference. I've literally seen people steps away from a trash recepticle just toss whatever they're eating right down on the street. My favorite is tossing your garbage out the car window. We have manicured hedges where I live. They're always FULL of styrafoam containers, bags, and other lunch items, pop and beer cans, liquor bottles, and some unmentionables. There's a trashcan 20 feet from there.