Lafayette Park/Du Charme Place Development

**DetroiterOnTheWestCoast** · July-10-14, 08:32 PM

I have never heard of this proposed development of 185 housing units in Lafayette Park until today. Does anyone have any more info on it?

"The Detroit City Council recently approved four Detroit Brownfield Redevelopment Authority [[DBRA) brownfield tax increment incentive plans for renovation projects in Midtown and Downtown Detroit. The renovations include mixed use buildings, parking structures, apartments and a distribution/warehouse and office building."

snip

Du Charme Place, LLC, is the developer of Du Charme Place at 1544 East Lafayette Street. The project entails three, four-story buildings with a total of 185 one- and two-bedroom units and 267 parking spaces. The estimated total investment is approximately $30 million. The DBRA approved a TIF plan that will allow recovery of nearly $5 million for eligible activities.

http://staging-degcv3.cirrusabs.com/blog/detroit-city-council-approves-dbra-plans/

**gthomas** · July-10-14, 08:36 PM

Great!!! Lafayette Park needs this type of development.

**stasu1213** · July-10-14, 08:52 PM

Does anyone have pics of the one level homes that used to be in lafayette park?

**313rd** · July-11-14, 11:04 AM

Non-Union --- Wood Framed Units.

**DetroiterOnTheWestCoast** · July-11-14, 01:08 PM

I have no idea if these renders are current or not....

http://mcintoshporis.com/projects/mu...ducharme-place

**gthomas** · July-11-14, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by DetroiterOnTheWestCoast

I have no idea if these renders are current or not....

http://mcintoshporis.com/projects/mu...ducharme-place

It sure does look like current proposed plans, they explained 4-story buildings. That's look about right.

**Detroit Stylin** · July-13-14, 05:30 PM

What is with this ugly azz style of architecture?

**Spartan** · July-13-14, 07:25 PM

Would be nice if there was some commercial aspect of this. Sometimes it feels as though we're out on an all-residential island a bit [[though I suppose some people probably enjoy that).

**Mackinaw** · July-14-14, 07:19 AM

Oh, wonderful. I've long championed densification of LP. Of course ribbons of green space should remain in keeping with the original plan, but it is really just too unacceptably barren for such a central city location, and that emptiness can be and is destabilizing, unsafe, and forbidding at night time. That is particularly the case with this grassland, which is different than lit-up, formal parkland. So, aside from being positive investment news, this is significant urban planning news.

**DetroitPlanner** · July-14-14, 07:44 AM

Originally Posted by Detroit Stylin

What is with this ugly azz style of architecture?

Brutalist revival. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_City_Hall

**Mackinaw** · July-14-14, 10:33 AM

Put something-- particularly retail-- in the ground floor and it becomes a lot less brutal. This across the street from the shopping center, though.

**southen** · July-14-14, 10:41 AM

Originally Posted by Mackinaw

Put something-- particularly retail-- in the ground floor and it becomes a lot less brutal. This across the street from the shopping center, though.

i dont think its the neighborhood for that kind of development sadly. the shopping plaza there has struggled for years to keep tenants and the quality of shops there isnt that great. since those are the only types of places that a plaza in a stable neighborhood can attract im guessing you would find the same quality of store on the ground floor of these places, making them less desirable imo.

i think different materials and passing on the bright colors would do this development well and make it fit in much better.

**Mackinaw** · July-14-14, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by southen

i dont think its the neighborhood for that kind of development sadly. the shopping plaza there has struggled for years to keep tenants and the quality of shops there isnt that great. since those are the only types of places that a plaza in a stable neighborhood can attract im guessing you would find the same quality of store on the ground floor of these places, making them less desirable imo.

i think different materials and passing on the bright colors would do this development well and make it fit in much better.

Not sure I agree. I think the fact that this is a sedate, non-pedestrian neighborhood is largely because its design is its own undoing. What's unique about this development is it is one of the only things in that area that will directly front the street and be approachable. There are thousands of residents in Lafayette Park, a not insignificant amount in the various condo lagoons east of St. Aubin, and this very development will likely add 300 people. I thus see a market for some sort of retail on the street, particularly with smaller/manageable spaces. Plus they are building a parking garage with far more parking spaces than units in the building, which only helps the marketability of any retail spaces.

Out of curiosity, would you use the ground floor for residences?

**southen** · July-14-14, 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by Mackinaw

Not sure I agree. I think the fact that this is a sedate, non-pedestrian neighborhood is largely because its design is its own undoing. What's unique about this development is it is one of the only things in that area that will directly front the street and be approachable. There are thousands of residents in Lafayette Park, a not insignificant amount in the various condo lagoons east of St. Aubin, and this very development will likely add 300 people. I thus see a market for some sort of retail on the street, particularly with smaller/manageable spaces. Plus they are building a parking garage with far more parking spaces than units in the building, which only helps the marketability of any retail spaces.

Out of curiosity, would you use the ground floor for residences?

the design of the neighborhood is centered around residential buildings, not so much mixed use. i think this kind of development would stick out and be somewhat isolated. people walk on lafayette but it isnt the type of street that gets a ton of foot traffic. i would think businesses fronting it the street would want that traffic to make up for the parking situation. something like what you describe could work in the future in conjunction with other developments that change the neighborhood character a bit, but the plaza right across the street continues to scrape by and has several storefronts where businesses could move in.

i think residences on the ground floor would work just fine. outside of the towers every resident in the area has a ground floor entrance.

**Huggybear** · July-14-14, 09:23 PM

Originally Posted by Mackinaw

Not sure I agree. I think the fact that this is a sedate, non-pedestrian neighborhood is largely because its design is its own undoing. What's unique about this development is it is one of the only things in that area that will directly front the street and be approachable. There are thousands of residents in Lafayette Park, a not insignificant amount in the various condo lagoons east of St. Aubin, and this very development will likely add 300 people. I thus see a market for some sort of retail on the street, particularly with smaller/manageable spaces. Plus they are building a parking garage with far more parking spaces than units in the building, which only helps the marketability of any retail spaces.

Out of curiosity, would you use the ground floor for residences?

The ground floor is a wall that conceals the sunken parking. The zero lot line looks odd and is actually pointless. This complex actually needs about a 50-100 foot setback to look good on that site.

Lafayette Park was very carefully planned to be serene and green. You'd be pretty much alone in the idea that it needs "densification" or that Caldwell's and Hilberseimer's greenway is not formal park space. Lafayette Park is actually a model for what other parts of Detroit will become [[much more so than the fantasy of "street walls" in neighborhoods that don't have them - let alone never had them). You've probably seen the book; it's the model for "green mixed-rise."

There is no organic demand for retail, and 48207 lacks the demographics to support any major retail outlets. The shopping center was an FHA/HUD mandate to get financing way back in the day - and was tacked onto the design only for that reason. Aside from that, there are fairly heavy, recorded development restrictions - which include height restrictions [[2.5 or 20+ stories; DuCharme had to get a variance); density restrictions; and restrictions against most forms of retail on the south side of Lafayette.

HB

**Mackinaw** · July-14-14, 09:45 PM

Originally Posted by southen

something like what you describe could work in the future in conjunction with other developments that change the neighborhood character a bit, but the plaza right across the street continues to scrape by and has several storefronts where businesses could move in.

No question that shopping plaza has struggled. Is it due to the quality of the establishments that have opened? Or perhaps LP residents aren't doing a great job of supporting local purveyors and are using cars to drive elsewhere? Does the tower in the park design stifle pedestrian and economic activity? Or is there a simple lack of potential customers in LP [[doubtful)?

Notwithstanding the struggles of those businesses, if you are the developer here, you could take a bit of a risk by allocating ground level to retail, banking on the fact that you can offer better, more up to date and appealing space, and on having a bunch of new residents going in your building. And if you are the urban planner, looking to the future, you see the need for more diverse land use in LP, so it would be rational to require a mixed use development along the neighborhood's most prominent avenue. And I also mention the idea that creating a district of sorts can generate business and traffic. For example, a business in a standalone building surrounded by two blocks of green space will not do as good as it would if it were surrounded by, say, 10 other businesses. It's likely the same theory that underpins suburban strip malls. And the idea creating a space where consumers can do a bunch of things in one small area applies with even greater force in an urban area where residents surround the retail district/strip.

I admit my theory of endogenous growth might be too risky to some developers. At any rate, even as a single-use complex, this development is very promising. I doubt this parcel has been used for anything since the bulldozers met it during urban renewal over 60 years ago.

**southen** · July-15-14, 10:22 AM

the shopping center tends to cater more to the people east of the cut than to most of the lafayette park residents i know. LP is a middle class to upper middle class neighborhood. there are a lot of people with means who dont necessarily frequent dollar stores, or the ready labor. there is the typical detroit stigma that comes with retail in the city. the types of places that want to tap into the people who live in the neighborhood dont want to take the risk to be there. its much easier to cater to folks a mile or two away who arent as wealthy. i know many residents want a coffee shop in the plaza, like cafe con leche's pop up a few years ago, but the market isnt strong enough for it and the plaza itself has seen better days. i think a development like du charme could help tip the scales, but im pretty sure the dollar store and laundromat have long term leases, and those places dont typically attract the other kinds of retail that i see the people that live around me wanting.

i think the type of development you are advocating would be much better served in the gratiot corridor between downtown and eastern market. i kind of see that being the commercial/mixed use area for lafayette park. its within walking distance of LP and already has good bones for retail.

the residents in LP are very passionate about maintaining the neighborhood as it is. just look at the response to 1-375 from the people that live here. i would imagine there could be some resistance to a development that changed the character of the neighborhood from being strictly residential.

**hybridy** · July-15-14, 01:08 PM

how unfortunate that the residential component has to sit on a parking podium with an interior courtyard. god forbid new residents intermingle with their neighbors. while i am all for less surface parking, the residential should be at grade with below grade parking. what a delightful experience for any pedestrians walking by. why not take a page from some long standing multifamily structures in the city...https://www.google.com/maps/place/20...77e257!6m1!1e1

**Jason** · July-15-14, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by Huggybear

The ground floor is a wall that conceals the sunken parking. The zero lot line looks odd and is actually pointless. This complex actually needs about a 50-100 foot setback to look good on that site.

Lafayette Park was very carefully planned to be serene and green. You'd be pretty much alone in the idea that it needs "densification" or that Caldwell's and Hilberseimer's greenway is not formal park space. Lafayette Park is actually a model for what other parts of Detroit will become [[much more so than the fantasy of "street walls" in neighborhoods that don't have them - let alone never had them). You've probably seen the book; it's the model for "green mixed-rise."

There is no organic demand for retail, and 48207 lacks the demographics to support any major retail outlets. The shopping center was an FHA/HUD mandate to get financing way back in the day - and was tacked onto the design only for that reason. Aside from that, there are fairly heavy, recorded development restrictions - which include height restrictions [[2.5 or 20+ stories; DuCharme had to get a variance); density restrictions; and restrictions against most forms of retail on the south side of Lafayette.

HB

I think that's a shame. Lafayette Park's urban design is high quality and successful, and I'm going to assume that the restrictions were there to encourage/enforce having something compatible. And now after all this time, something is going to be built on that site they are given a variance to basically do the wrong thing. imo variances are for when, through their creativity or vision or whatever, architects/developers come up with something that is better than what was previously intended and I don't think that's the case here.

I think it's disappointing that they just plunked down their standard "mixed use/multi-family residential" building without any consideration for the site and its surroundings. In their description of the project they say "DuCharme Place lies in the shadow of one of Detroit's most venerated examples of modern architecture and urban planning - Mies Van der Rohe's Lafayette Park." and I don't get the sense that they were passionate about making something equally as good.

The part that they did put some thought into is the covered parking with landscaped roof which is imo unnecessary and expensive.

Form-wise, the neighborhood is comprised of a flat ground plane with prismatic building masses. Some buildings are raised on pilotis to emphasize that. The parking plinth interrupts that relationship between the buildings and the ground plane. The same applies to the building in general. Lafayette and Orleans is not the same as Woodward and Selden.

I think the covered parking is unnecessary because in this situation I don't think a normal surface lot would be undesireable. If the parking is going to be covered then it makes sense to do something with the roof, but the site is right in between a gigantic park and the dequindre cut so I think having more "greenspace" is overkill. The extra greenspace might be more valuable if it was in the form of private patios for individual units. I also think there's a conceptual and functional difference between rowhouses integrated with landscape [[which would be great) and apartments overlooking a landscaped parking roof.

And then the time and budget spent on the covered parking is an opportunity cost. Instead of the covered parking and landscaped roof there could have been a better facade for example. And I don't think the project was in a position to skimp on the basics for an amenity that might not even have an overall positive impact on the quality of the project.

Out of all of this I think all the building needed to be was a long box with a nice curtain wall and sensible units, and it would have worked well on its own merits as well as in the context of the neighborhood. Or it could have been a dynamic arrangement of rowhouse slabs although you wouldn't be able to fit as many units on the site. idk, whatever the case I don't think this project is as good as it could have been.

**royce** · July-16-14, 03:09 AM

This development will probably be an "affordable" housing project since the sight was once the sight of one-story senior citizen 'subsidized" housing. Very few of us on this forum will have an opportunity to live there because our incomes will be too high. That's unfortunate. Lafayette Park already has a large chunk of affordable/subsidized housing.

Something of note, I have noticed that many HUD developments lack a commercial or retail component. Woodbridge Estates was supposed to have one on the corner of MLK and the Lodge service drive. Nothing there but vacant land. The former Herman Gardens now called Gardenview Estates is supposed to have a retail component at the corner of Joy and the Southfield Freeway. That has yet to materialize as well. Also, when completed, Gardenview Estates is supposed to have this two to three block pond along the Southfield service drive. Wouldn't this be a great spot for a strip mall for the tenants of the complex? My point here is that HUD is willing to subsidize housing for low-income folks, but it doesn't offer them opportunities through owning businesses or managing the retail component so that they can better themselves financially. I guess that would mean that folks who did that would make too much money and would technically not qualify to live there anymore. However, I've always thought that public housing is supposed to be only a temporary situation, is it not?

**southen** · July-16-14, 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by royce

This development will probably be an "affordable" housing project since the sight was once the sight of one-story senior citizen 'subsidized" housing. Very few of us on this forum will have an opportunity to live there because our incomes will be too high. That's unfortunate. Lafayette Park already has a large chunk of affordable/subsidized housing.

this is just speculation correct? i have yet to see anything that says these units will be for affordable housing and not market rate.

**Jason** · July-16-14, 12:30 PM

"The project, financed under the HUD 221 [[d)[[4) program, is also utilizing Brownfield Tax Credits, CRP Loan/Grants and City Tax Abatements. McIntosh Poris Associates is working closely with the Owner's to coordinate work to meet milestones related to this financial matrix."

The HUD website says that "Section 221[[d)[[4) insures mortgage loans to facilitate the new construction or substantial rehabilitation of multifamily rental or cooperative housing for moderate-income families, elderly, and the handicapped. Single Room Occupancy [[SRO) projects may also be insured under this section." http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?...coophsg221d3n4

It looks like it's a pretty non-specific program, and that anyone can live there. Although imo whether it's low income, luxury, or anything in between shouldn't change anything.

**stasu1213** · July-16-14, 12:48 PM

I thought that Lafayette Park was designated a historical landmark or area. What's stopping developers from building in the park area behind Lafayette Towers

**animatedmartian** · July-16-14, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by stasu1213

I thought that Lafayette Park was designated a historical landmark or area. What's stopping developers from building in the park area behind Lafayette Towers

The area north of Lafayette Street is designated historical. South of Lafayette is not.

**Mackinaw** · July-16-14, 11:28 PM

Originally Posted by royce

My point here is that HUD is willing to subsidize housing for low-income folks, but it doesn't offer them opportunities through owning businesses or managing the retail component so that they can better themselves financially. I guess that would mean that folks who did that would make too much money and would technically not qualify to live there anymore. However, I've always thought that public housing is supposed to be only a temporary situation, is it not?

Whether this is apropos or not to this development, I agree. This is a problem.

Southen: I think it's pretty sad that LP residents-- it's a dense area with some money-- can't support one small retail area because it seemingly isn't nice enough. On the other hand, perhaps some new retail spaces, such as one for that coveted coffee shop that even the snootiest of residents couldn't deny, would do the trick.