Joe Louis Arena Demolition
JOE LOUIS ARENA DEMOLITION »

FUN THINGS TO DO IN DETROIT »



Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 126
  1. #1

    Default I-375 New Options

    Free Press has it covered. Vote here: http://www.freep.com/article/2014060...SS06/140606001

    Might I recommend 4 or 6. 5 does not free up any new space for development or productive use besides a bike trail. Aside from leveling the grade and encouraging walking from downtown to the east, 5 is not much better than the status quo. All of the other new options are upgrades, but I submit that 4 and 6 are the most interesting. The main difference is where the new development space is freed up. In 4, it would be a new slew of lots where the current downtown-side southbound service drive is. In 6, it would be a swath corresponding with the current freeway bed, abutted by the two current services drives each services as regular, one-way streets. 6 makes more sense to me. And it's less risky. If development does not happen, the freeway bed can just be green space with a trail to the river.

    In addition, both 4 and 6 have the virtue of creating a new street going down to Atwater St., sweeping just past the Episcopal church on Jefferson. This new street would parallel the preexisting Schweizter place to the west, creating new development parcels and shortening up the mega-blocks on the near-east Riverfront. That is a benefit for pedestrianism and walkable neighborhoods that is not to be overlooked.

  2. #2

    Default

    I like three because it gets rid of that mess on Jefferson and opens the riverfront for development.

    Six is kind of pointless. Unless you want to use if for an express bus route from the Ren Cen, but you will no service any of the rest of downtown with it. In order for it to work as a grade separated bike trail, it must lead somewhere. It will lead to a freeway interchange that you cannot get around.

  3. #3

    Default

    I like 6. The interchange north of Gratiot is under "secondary study area" so I'd assume the interchange would be altered depending on what happens with the primary study area.

  4. #4

    Default

    The good thing about 4 is that the new development is an opportunity to fix the south bound service drive. Right now it's mostly parking garages, which even after surfacing the freeway would still be an unpleasant place to be.

    And they didn't list it as an option, but there's enough space there to have developable land on both sides of the new boulevard instead of only on one. There's enough width for two apartment buildings of the same thickness/type as the ones in lafayette park (apartments on each side of a central hallway). I'm not sure how desirable that depth is to retail though.


    I also think that all of the proposals that surface the freeway should build underground parking garages under the boulevard instead of dirt. It's a good opportunity to do what was done with Grand Circus Park and Hudsons. Most of the hole is already there. The only problem with it though is that I imagine the city would have to be the one to pay for and own the garages and that might not be possible right now.
    Last edited by Jason; June-08-14 at 12:06 PM.

  5. #5

    Default

    6 is okay, although I think the two surface streets should be two-way rather than one way. The others still waste too much of the space on infrastructure for cars.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner View Post
    I like three because it gets rid of that mess on Jefferson and opens the riverfront for development.

    Six is kind of pointless. Unless you want to use if for an express bus route from the Ren Cen, but you will no service any of the rest of downtown with it. In order for it to work as a grade separated bike trail, it must lead somewhere. It will lead to a freeway interchange that you cannot get around.
    True. I'd support filling it in and putting buildings on it rather than leaving it as a bike trail. The bike lanes on the surface streets should be adequate bike infrastructure for transportation purposes, and recreational cyclists have the Dequindre Cut a couple blocks to the east.

  7. #7

    Default

    I like 4 the most. After 4, I would choose 6.

  8. #8

    Default

    oh, boy-- uh-- so how much of the general public is even hip to this as even being "an issue"?
    what are the chances that any proposals are going to be summed up as another state govt.-led takeover?

  9. #9

    Default

    I like 4 the best. Whatever they do just accomplish the goals:

    #1 Get it out of the ground and make a street
    #2 Clear up the river front property
    #3 End the separation between Lafayette Park and downtown by bringing them together as much
    as possible

  10. #10

    Default

    I like No. 4, but I think I'd like a version of No. 5 with new development east of the boulevard better. I think it makes more sense for the boulevard to serve the existing parking garages and other uses west of the freeway, rather than serve the apartment buildings, school, etc on the Lafayette Park side (they'd be better off with smaller street).

    In fact, my guess is that No. 5 with development to the east is what will happen. Because that's going to Dan Gilbert's preferred alternative, and he could personally make this project break even for the state if they give him a reason to buy the newly available land.
    Last edited by Khorasaurus; June-08-14 at 07:19 PM.

  11. #11

    Default

    We need to get a grip on spending. There are 3 I-75 projects that should be stopped. This I-375 thing, the expansion in Oakland County, and the junction with M-59. Last I heard the M-59 deal was $400,000,000 (maybe it was only $40,000,000 but it still money we don't have).

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Smiles View Post
    We need to get a grip on spending. There are 3 I-75 projects that should be stopped. This I-375 thing, the expansion in Oakland County, and the junction with M-59. Last I heard the M-59 deal was $400,000,000 (maybe it was only $40,000,000 but it still money we don't have).
    I agree in general, especially about freeway expansions, but I-375 is a special case for three reasons:

    1) It needs to be rebuilt regardless. The bridges all need to be replaced.

    2) The removal options are cheaper than the rebuilding options.

    3) The removal options will create developable land that the state can sell. And by doing that they will recoup part (or even potentially all) of the cost.

    If you want to get upset about freeway projects, turn your attention the $2 billion I-94 project.

  13. #13

    Default

    Maybe someone can explain, with a cross-sectional area of 100ft (by the scale of the car shown on the "extended drive") how Option 5 would ever produce any realistically developable land? There is:

    - Nothing flush against the drive that can simply be expanded.

    - At least one building entrance (Holy Family) that would be blocked.

    - Several major approaches to parking garages, the only workaround for which would be to route cars onto tiny downtown streets.

    HB

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Huggybear View Post
    Maybe someone can explain, with a cross-sectional area of 100ft (by the scale of the car shown on the "extended drive") how Option 5 would ever produce any realistically developable land? There is:

    - Nothing flush against the drive that can simply be expanded.

    - At least one building entrance (Holy Family) that would be blocked.

    - Several major approaches to parking garages, the only workaround for which would be to route cars onto tiny downtown streets.

    HB
    Do you mean Option 4? If so, you make a really good point. Options 5 and 6 are better for new development, because they don't eliminate access to any of the buildings along the existing service drives.

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Khorasaurus View Post
    I agree in general, especially about freeway expansions, but I-375 is a special case for three reasons:

    1) It needs to be rebuilt regardless. The bridges all need to be replaced.

    2) The removal options are cheaper than the rebuilding options.

    3) The removal options will create developable land that the state can sell. And by doing that they will recoup part (or even potentially all) of the cost.

    If you want to get upset about freeway projects, turn your attention the $2 billion I-94 project.
    Excellent points. This is a great opportunity to break up some of the "moat" around downtown while at the same time saving money compared to a full rebuild.

    The I-94 expansion, on the other hand, calls to mind this graph of US DOT vehicle-miles traveled projections compared to reality (black line). I'd imagine MDOT has a similar record:



    http://www.ssti.us/2013/12/new-trave...ate-this-time/

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Khorasaurus View Post
    Do you mean Option 4? If so, you make a really good point. Options 5 and 6 are better for new development, because they don't eliminate access to any of the buildings along the existing service drives.
    Sorry, yes, 4. These all run together on the Freep page.

    Option 5 (the real Option 5!) isn't really a redevelopment-oriented plan (it is not wide enough to support a retain building facing each way); it's going to result in a noisy and not terribly safe park space (you wouldn't bring kids onto a median where they could end up in the left lane of a boulevard, it's going to be loud, and out-of-bounds for sports means in the road).

    Option 6 is the most development-friendly, but bear in mind that the entire footprint of I-375 is 1/2 of the wide block that was to the east of Hastings (which ran where the SB service drive is now). The other half of the block (NB service-->Rivard) was already redeveloped (Jean Rivard Apartments, Woodward Academy, derelict pharmacy school). So you're not going to get a lot out of that middle part (except maybe a ditch that is going to look like hell until they find development opportunities).

    The best way to undo the freeway would be to widen the existing SB service drive into a four-lane street, fill in the freeway, and vacate the NB service drive. That would give you some real space (not as much as the original oversized block, but you don't have eminent domain to reconnect those blocks to Rivard). But you've got a state fixated on certain minimum traffic capacity.

    HB
    Last edited by Huggybear; June-08-14 at 09:18 PM.

  17. #17

    Default

    Now after I-375, can we move onto the Davison?

  18. #18

    Default

    I would rather have density and have something taller rather than worry about how big the blocks are. You wouldn't need a lot of space to build any high rises or mid rises. Something as thin as the Greektown Casino Hotel could easily fit in that public space for option 5.

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Huggybear View Post

    The best way to undo the freeway would be to widen the existing SB service drive into a four-lane street, fill in the freeway, and vacate the NB service drive. That would give you some real space (not as much as the original oversized block, but you don't have eminent domain to reconnect those blocks to Rivard). But you've got a state fixated on certain minimum traffic capacity.

    HB
    I think there's development space in number 5. It would probably have to be designed to have the front entrance on the east-west streets, but it would be possible.

    Regardless, I think they need to keep something where each of the service drives are, because there are uses along both of those that need the access. That's the big problem with number 4.

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Huggybear View Post
    The best way to undo the freeway would be to widen the existing SB service drive into a four-lane street, fill in the freeway, and vacate the NB service drive. That would give you some real space (not as much as the original oversized block, but you don't have eminent domain to reconnect those blocks to Rivard). But you've got a state fixated on certain minimum traffic capacity.

    HB
    I would strongly suggest you look at the demand here. MDOT does not creat the demand, it is the Ren Cen, the Tunnel, Eastern Market, Housing, hotels, and many other corporations. By improving access to the riverfront you will also create demand, not only by those who live there, but by those who will want to visit the new walkable area by driving there. Yes I do see the irony, but it is reality. Trips will be generated and not every trip will be made by walking.

  21. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Huggybear View Post
    Sorry, yes, 4. These all run together on the Freep page.

    Option 5 (the real Option 5!) isn't really a redevelopment-oriented plan (it is not wide enough to support a retain building facing each way); it's going to result in a noisy and not terribly safe park space (you wouldn't bring kids onto a median where they could end up in the left lane of a boulevard, it's going to be loud, and out-of-bounds for sports means in the road).

    ...
    Really good point on 5. Near where I lived in Arlington VA there was a similar park with three lanes of one-way traffic on each side (Gateway Park in the middle of Lee Highway) and no one ever used it except for the homeless. Now they're in the middle of trying to do a big redevelopment effort to make it not terrible, but good luck given the location. 4 and 6 would both be a lot better I think.

  22. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Khorasaurus View Post
    Regardless, I think they need to keep something where each of the service drives are, because there are uses along both of those that need the access. That's the big problem with number 4.
    To be clear, I don't really support this project (except inasmuch as it would fix the Jefferson/I-375 interaction, which is currently very poor). But if you have to do it, do it in a way that actually results in more land (or, heavens forbid, rapid transit). The "non-motorized transit" argument is a joke unless you get rid of what's at the north end of I-375 (which is a nest of freeways and a very bike-unfriendly boulevard).

    That said, it's actually the case that none of the things on the northbound service drive are really dependent on it. Their main driveways all face Rivard, Larned or Lafayette. The only exception (you can see this on satellite) is one bank of the Jean Rivard Apartments - but the entrance to that lot could easily be reoriented to Larned.

    HB

  23. #23
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,501

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Junjie View Post
    Excellent points. This is a great opportunity to break up some of the "moat" around downtown while at the same time saving money compared to a full rebuild.

    The I-94 expansion, on the other hand, calls to mind this graph of US DOT vehicle-miles traveled projections compared to reality (black line). I'd imagine MDOT has a similar record:



    http://www.ssti.us/2013/12/new-trave...ate-this-time/
    I hope my comment isn't so generic to be of little value:

    My guess is that the Great Recession might have accounted for some fraction, say 1/2, of the under utilization (below projection).

    As a general rule, I would be VERY, VERY careful about using any statistics from the period of say 2008 - 2010. Folks, for political reasons, were extrapolating data from that period and extending it 5, 10 or 20 years.

    That might have been more nefarious than even silly.

    One can not postulate a rule based on the exception to the rule (The Great Recession).

    The two 'exceptions to the rule' for the last 20 years have been the 'boom times' of the 1990 (with a federal budget surplus to boot) and the Great Recession.

    May not see either for a long, long time.

  24. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Huggybear View Post

    That said, it's actually the case that none of the things on the northbound service drive are really dependent on it. Their main driveways all face Rivard, Larned or Lafayette. The only exception (you can see this on satellite) is one bank of the Jean Rivard Apartments - but the entrance to that lot could easily be reoriented to Larned.

    HB
    I wonder why there isn't an option to run the new boulevard along the southbound service drive and eliminate the northbound service drive in favor of new development (i.e. a reverse Number 4). As you say, the northbound drive is more expendable.

  25. #25

    Default

    Back in November when removing I-375 was first proposed, I remember the typical anti-Detroit knee-jerk reaction from some was "This isn't a priority, spend money elsewhere" or "It will cost too much."

    Seeing that something will need to be done to this stretch anyway AND it's cheaper to make it a surface street...it seems clear that the freeway should be removed. Win-win...saves money and makes downtown more appealing.

    I voted for #4, but I wouldn't have a problem with any plan that removes the freeway. I wish there were ways to remove (or cover) more of the moat surrounding downtown...

Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Instagram
BEST ONLINE FORUM FOR
DETROIT-BASED DISCUSSION
DetroitYES Awarded BEST OF DETROIT 2015 - Detroit MetroTimes - Best Online Forum for Detroit-based Discussion 2015

ENJOY DETROITYES?


AND HAVE ADS REMOVED DETAILS »





Welcome to DetroitYES! Kindly Consider Turning Off Your Ad BlockingX
DetroitYES! is a free service that relies on revenue from ad display [regrettably] and donations. We notice that you are using an ad-blocking program that prevents us from earning revenue during your visit.
Ads are REMOVED for Members who donate to DetroitYES! [You must be logged in for ads to disappear]
DONATE HERE »
And have Ads removed.