Brush Park, M1, whole foods, Brewster Demo and the Possible Red Wings area

[jaytheory]

Lots of things happening in or around BP this year. What does anyone think about the possible redevelopment of the vacant land? apartments?

Will we get infill housing, will crosswinds or someone continue to fill the southern portion of the nabe?

Any thoughts

[jaytheory]

I have heard that there have been some talks with the folks who did some condos in art center.

[mwilbert]

The redevelopment is basically inevitable; the area is too well-located relative to the increasing housing demand downtown and in midtown.

But the timing is always uncertain. Assembling financing for projects in Detroit takes a long time, and the whole EM thing adds additional confusion to the governmental side of it. As usual, you just have to wait to see the contracts signed.

[professorscott]

Lots of things happening in or around BP this year. What does anyone think about the possible redevelopment of the vacant land? apartments?

Will we get infill housing, will crosswinds or someone continue to fill the southern portion of the nabe?

Any thoughts

No doubt that will be an up and coming area. Once they break ground for M1 Rail it'll go nuts.

[DetroitPlanner]

No doubt that will be an up and coming area. Once they break ground for M1 Rail it'll go nuts.

M-1 won't do much. This is not a major improvement to the regional transit system. It is an expensive way of carrying those who feel that they are to good to sit on a bus.

[mwilbert]

M-1 won't do much. This is not a major improvement to the regional transit system. It is an expensive way of carrying those who feel that they are to good to sit on a bus.

Well, if it going to do anything for anyplace it will do it for Brush Park. However I suspect the good professor may have had his tongue in his cheek.

[louis]

M-1 won't do much. This is not a major improvement to the regional transit system. It is an expensive way of carrying those who feel that they are to good to sit on a bus.

i think the M-1 wont make that big of a difference because it only goes from downtown to new center. i could walk this distance and more over i'm not saving a whole lot of time or money as i could drive this distance in the comfort of my own vehicle. however, if the M-1 went all the way to 8 mile then my story changes, if i live in Sherwood forest but work downtown then hopping on the light rail would be a quick and convenient way to get about.

[1953]

I can't wait for M1, because I am too good for a bus!

1953

[DetroitPlanner]

I can't wait for M1, because I am too good for a bus!

1953

LOL If you're too good for the bus you're too good for the streetcar! You would not believe how many times I have heard people say such things at public meetings and mean it seriously in the last 20 years!

The mode won't do much to increase ridership, but it will attract a small number of 'choice riders' who will stay at downtown hotels and want an adventure to the DIA.

[ScienceFair]

From what I've heard from city agencies, BP is ripe for the picking, but they are looking to redesign the overlay plan for the area to prevent Crosswinds-type projects from happening again. Think Philly or Toronto type low-rise mixed use.

[Detroit Stylin]

From what I've heard from city agencies, BP is ripe for the picking, but they are looking to redesign the overlay plan for the area to prevent Crosswinds-type projects from happening again. Think Philly or Toronto type low-rise mixed use.

Whats wrong with the Crosswinds plan?

[j to the jeremy]

M-1 won't do much. This is not a major improvement to the regional transit system. It is an expensive way of carrying those who feel that they are to good to sit on a bus.

Agreed. If M1 is ever extended to 8 mile or beyond, then BP will go crazy.

[Dexlin]

I don't know why we have to go over this a million times, but things like M-1 are just as much about increasing development along the route as it is about actually moving people. It's a legit criticism if you're looking at it purely in terms of transportation, and you can decry it if you'd like, but that's not the only reason [[or sometimes even the main reason) streetcars and light rails are developed along certain corridors. M-1 WILL spur higher densities along Woodward and it's immediate side streets if it does nothing else, at all.

[Bham1982]

M-1 WILL spur higher densities along Woodward and it's immediate side streets if it does nothing else, at all.

What evidence do you have for such a claim? And please don't tell me other cities built light rail and development followed, because there's no way to parse out the causal relationships.

It would be like me claiming that no light rail spurs higher densities. After all, there was no light rail built down hundreds of urban corridors throughout the world, yet they experienced densification.

[marshamusic]

I saw a movie about the Brewster Projects, last year, at the N'namdi center in Midtown. There was a rep there from the city as well as the film-maker and one of the Avalon Bakery owners. It was a short documentary, actually well done, though, for me, a bit on the Ruin Porn With People side.

The filmmaker had obvious empathy for the folks who once lived there - though the reminisces of latter day crackheads in one of the buildings was overly long.

It seemed, at this event, that they were laying a basis for redeveloping the buildings, though the official line seemed to be that they were going to be demolished.

[DetroitPlanner]

EBW

The RTA will control the purse strings in regard to funding and will be the agency in charge. However they will let the agencies remain separate for as long as it makes sense to. The previous RTCC arrangement makes the new RTA arrangement look downright progressive.

[Eber Brock Ward]

EBW

The RTA will control the purse strings in regard to funding and will be the agency in charge. However they will let the agencies remain separate for as long as it makes sense to. The previous RTCC arrangement makes the new RTA arrangement look downright progressive.

I disagree in that I believe the legislation makes it clear that they won't be "letting the agencies remain separate" because the RTA lacks any real ability to acquire or otherwise cause the merger of any agencies.

I also think you overstate the ability of the RTA to avoid the purse-strings. Once the paeans to regional harmony are done, it will be each county to themselves and the board will turn into a horse-trading marathon. And while the RTA does have that oversight power, the 5% state money penalty, and a few other tools, found in Section 8 or otherwise, the organization is, sadly, more toothless than beast.

It's only when the RTA receives a dedicated and substantial source of funding -- be it from the vehicle registration fee, the ad val property tax [[lol), or some other source -- that the RTA can really make magic happen. As it stands, it's basically the Board, the CAC, the public transportation advisory council, and the throwaway $250k that they have to work with, and that's not that much. Maybe a staff of 2-3 people, if they hire a qualified CEO[[?).

I am hopeful long-term, though.

[mauser]

So is Crosswinds going to demolish the units they built that were never sold and sit abandoned before they build NEW units in Brush Park ??

Brush Park will be converted to "Brush Parking Lot" when they build the hockeyball stadium.

[jaytheory]

So is Crosswinds going to demolish the units they built that were never sold and sit abandoned before they build NEW units in Brush Park ??

Brush Park will be converted to "Brush Parking Lot" when they build the hockeyball stadium.

Most of are occupied not sure what you are talking about

[TexasT]

Ok, you are clearly trolling now. Took me a second.

Texas, you could fly him out there and our resident know-it-all still wouldn't agree with you.

Point taken!

[Bham1982]

Ok, you are clearly trolling now. Took me a second.

Yes, how dare I infect this thread with facts!

Carry on, as you were saying, the biggest cities have the smallest department stores, light rail shouldn't be judged on ridership, and all downtown successes should be attributed to light rail, though downtown failures shouldn't...

[canuck]

And as transit goes, if the metro and suburban rail, good bus service didnt exist pouring people in from off-island suburbs, the retail would all be in suburban malls, of course. In fact like Toronto's path, the underground reso system here provides access to these stores as well as cinemas arts and music venues, museums, apt buildings etc... You could step out of your apartment in some cases and never have to go outside to do your groceries, etc...

Light rail will make a difference in Detroit, maybe not in Birmingham.

[Eber Brock Ward]

lol bham, why the "department stores" strawman, when the traditional department store is in its death throes as a retail concept [[did you not read the ny times article she posted: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/26/bu...TE1FRPZoN4IcIA) and macy's is already in discussions about "relocating Macy's into a smaller space within the city's core"?

what's next, will you criticize because there are no buggy whip stores opening up on the light rail line?

[Bham1982]

lol bham, why the "department stores" strawman, when the traditional department store is in its death throes as a retail concept [[did you not read the ny times article she posted: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/26/bu...TE1FRPZoN4IcIA) and macy's is already in discussions about "relocating Macy's into a smaller space within the city's core"?

what's next, will you criticize because there are no buggy whip stores opening up on the light rail line?

First, you're misusing "strawman".

Second, you think Macys [[right on the light rail hub) is irrelevent, but the other developments [[not on the light rail line) are examples of transit-oriented development? Huh?

Third, Macys is NOT relocating in downtown Houston. The mayor announced a committee to "explore alternatives" which means nothing. Macys is done.

Fourth, the NY Times article is NOT talking about department stores. It's talking about suburban big box and attempts at relocating downtown.

Fifth, somehow big traditional department stores are opening up in urban centers all over the place [[Macys in the Bronx, Nordstrom in Manhattan, Bloomingdales in Soho, Santa Monica, and San Francisco) yet apparently they're "horse and buggy" when they close.

Somehow Macys Corp is throwing off huge profits and is investing billions in downtown stores [[a half billion in Macys 34th Street alone, and nearly that amount in Bloomingdales 59th Street), but when they fail in Houston, or Detroit, its obviously because people no longer shop in department stores, right? Been to Somerset lately?

[TexasT]

First, you're misusing "strawman".

Second, you think Macys [[right on the light rail hub) is irrelevent, but the other developments [[not on the light rail line) are examples of transit-oriented development? Huh?

Did you look at the map? How are you possibly saying that the other developments are not on the rail? They are directly on the line.

Third, Macys is NOT relocating in downtown Houston. The mayor announced a committee to "explore alternatives" which means nothing. Macys is done.

Macy's closed THIS month - they have said "no comment" but the leader of the downtown planning corp has said that Macy's is looking for new space. I've posted links to that - you've posted nothing but your opinion about a store in a city that it sounds like you've never even been to.

Macy's closed because it was too big, ugly, unattractive, musty, and city-dwellers don't like department stores. Why do you think Chicago's are in the tourist area? Bucktown/Wicker Park had great shopping, chains even, no department stores. That's the future for these high density areas that are attracting young people who want that urban experience. For suburbanites who want to go to a mall in a different city, yes, a huge old Macy's will do. We have that in Houston's Galleria.

Fourth, the NY Times article is NOT talking about department stores. It's talking about suburban big box and attempts at relocating downtown.

Same principles apply. We're talking about stores that service the surrounding community, not tourist attractions. If you are going on a shopping "expedition" in Houston, you go to the Galleria area where there are big [[old) stores. But when you're talking about shopping for that population that's moving back into the old downtowns, no, that's not working.

Fifth, somehow big traditional department stores are opening up in urban centers all over the place [[Macys in the Bronx, Nordstrom in Manhattan, Bloomingdales in Soho, Santa Monica, and San Francisco) yet apparently they're "horse and buggy" when they close.

Big traditional department stores?

The Bronx is opening a small [[160K sq ft) Macy's on the end of the borough in a shopping mall. This store is smaller than usual, as the trend currently goes. The Macy's that closed in Houston was originally 800K sf, and tried to pare down to 500K sf [[not small, as you tried to argue) before opting out of the old, ugly brickbox

The Bloomingdales in SoHo you mentioned? "The store, which opened in April of last year at 504 Broadway, marked a departure for the chain, both in layout and merchandise. Unlike the other Bloomingdale’s stores across the country, the SoHo unit is small [[only 80,000 square feet of selling space)." Link.

The Bloomingdales in Santa Monica? "Bloomingdale's is testing out a newer concept. Instead of massive department stores, the brand is building smaller stores. The next one is planned for Santa Monica, California." Link


As the NY Times says in its discussion of the new Nordstroms:"New department stores have become a rarity, especially with the growth of online shopping. And New York’s retail cemetery is filled with those that have expired: Gimbels, Bonwit Teller, S. Klein, Hearn’s, Saks-34th Street, B. Altman, Sterns, Alexanders, Orbach’s and Abraham & Straus."

Department stores that are trying to service this growing urban population are going to need to adapt, just like the other big box stores are doing.