Quick question: Are these architectural monstrosities occupied

[Hermod]

I feel the same way. The 1920's brick houses that ere built there should have been good for the next 50 years if they were cared for. This is WAY better then nothing. I've seen other new construction in the city that's way worse.

One problem is that today, people want more than one bathroom per house [[a master bath and a hall bath for a one story house and an additional half-bath/powder room for a two story house). They want closets that are wider than three or four feet especially in the master bedroom. They want a two car garage [[especially an attached garage). Too many of the 1910-1950 houses in the city do not meet these "wants".

[ghettopalmetto]

I feel the same way. The 1920's brick houses that ere built there should have been good for the next 50 years if they were cared for. This is WAY better then nothing. I've seen other new construction in the city that's way worse.

The problem is, developing previously urban neighborhoods in this manner perpetuates a culture of low architectural expectations. and a self-contained "bunker" mentality [[if you will). A newly-developing suburban area receives millions of dollars in tax subsidies to construct automobile-dependent infrastructure. Detroit isn't getting that money. In a city that needs to maximize its tax revenue per acre, a spread-out, automobile-dependent form of construction is not able to compete with identical-looking sprawling suburbs. Given a choice between one of these houses in Detroit, or the same exact house in a suburban locale with better schools, lower crime, and lower taxes, it's no contest.

The only way Detroit is going to be able to "compete" is to play upon ts natural advantages, that is to say, a dense street grid and walkable/bikeable orientation. This is not the kind of neighborhood that young educated professionals are seeking, so if Detroit wants to see investment in the future, it needs to preserve/rehab/build to meet that future. The 1950s model is dead.

[Hermod]

The only way Detroit is going to be able to "compete" is to play upon ts natural advantages, that is to say, a dense street grid and walkable/bikeable orientation. This is not the kind of neighborhood that young educated professionals are seeking, so if Detroit wants to see investment in the future, it needs to preserve/rehab/build to meet that future. The 1950s model is dead.

They may want "walkable" but they also want to own a car [[Detroit will never be New York). They will want a garage for that car [[preferably two cars). You will then need to provide for garages since street parking in a dense neighborhood is not possible. If you build row houses, you will either need the lower floor to be fronted by a garage or there must be an alley-accessible garage on the back of the house. If you build without garages [[or a high rise without several levels of parking decks) you customer base will be very limited.

[ghettopalmetto]

They may want "walkable" but they also want to own a car [[Detroit will never be New York). They will want a garage for that car [[preferably two cars). You will then need to provide for garages since street parking in a dense neighborhood is not possible. If you build row houses, you will either need the lower floor to be fronted by a garage or there must be an alley-accessible garage on the back of the house. If you build without garages [[or a high rise without several levels of parking decks) you customer base will be very limited.

I don't understand your obsession with New York. But the rest of your post is crap.

I live in a walkable neighborhood, with many single-family homes. Many houses have garages. Still more houses have parking spots behind the residence. And yes, people do park on the street too, so I think that means it's possible.

No one is talking about building high-rises in this particular neighborhood--just decent urban houses, vis-a-vis garages with pre-fab shacks attached to the rear. Your habit of taking an idea to the most absurd extreme really prevents having any kind of constructive discussion.

But your post does aptly illustrate precisely what is wrong with this development [[and most of the United States). That is to say, design is conducted primarily for cars, and then everything else falls by the wayside. It's no surprise we're a completely miserable country if we're designing homes and neighborhoods for cars instead of people.

[Bham1982]

They may want "walkable" but they also want to own a car [[Detroit will never be New York). They will want a garage for that car [[preferably two cars). You will then need to provide for garages since street parking in a dense neighborhood is not possible. If you build row houses, you will either need the lower floor to be fronted by a garage or there must be an alley-accessible garage on the back of the house. If you build without garages [[or a high rise without several levels of parking decks) you customer base will be very limited.

Exactly right.

There is something of a modest revival in urban living in the U.S., but it is still auto-oriented urban living. Excepting NYC, almost nothing gets built anywhere without plenty of parking.

You cannot build a single unit of housing in Chicago, even in the middle of downtown, without at least 1:1 parking ratio. Want a 200 unit apartment building? Fine, but you're getting at least 200 additional parking spaces too. Want a single family house in an in-town neighborhood? Fine, but it will come with parking spaces, either accessed through front driveway or back alley.

So if you're building 100% auto-oriented in Chicago [[or at least auto-accomodated), you already know anything built in Detroit will be totally auto-oriented and suburban form.

[ghettopalmetto]

Exactly right.

There is something of a modest revival in urban living in the U.S., but it is still auto-oriented urban living. Excepting NYC, almost nothing gets built anywhere without plenty of parking.

You cannot build a single unit of housing in Chicago, even in the middle of downtown, without at least 1:1 parking ratio. Want a 200 unit apartment building? Fine, but you're getting at least 200 additional parking spaces too. Want a single family house in an in-town neighborhood? Fine, but it will come with parking spaces, either accessed through front driveway or back alley.

So if you're building 100% auto-oriented in Chicago [[or at least auto-accomodated), you already know anything built in Detroit will be totally auto-oriented and suburban form.

Building a house with a parking spot is not the same as "100% auto-oriented".

By pre-ordaining a conclusion through inertia, you've created a self-perpetuating feedback loop, and thus a false dichotomy.

Detroit needs higher standards, not excuses.

[Bham1982]

Building a house with a parking spot is not the same as "100% auto-oriented".

Well at the very least it's auto-accommodated, and somewhat anti-urban. You can't really get terrific urbanity if you're building everything with the car in mind.

[ghettopalmetto]

Well at the very least it's auto-accommodated, and somewhat anti-urban. You can't really get terrific urbanity if you're building everything with the car in mind.

You're very smart!

[Hermod]

I don't understand your obsession with New York. But the rest of your post is crap.

I live in a walkable neighborhood, with many single-family homes. Many houses have garages. Still more houses have parking spots behind the residence. And yes, people do park on the street too, so I think that means it's possible.

No one is talking about building high-rises in this particular neighborhood--just decent urban houses, vis-a-vis garages with pre-fab shacks attached to the rear. Your habit of taking an idea to the most absurd extreme really prevents having any kind of constructive discussion.

But your post does aptly illustrate precisely what is wrong with this development [[and most of the United States). That is to say, design is conducted primarily for cars, and then everything else falls by the wayside. It's no surprise we're a completely miserable country if we're designing homes and neighborhoods for cars instead of people.

Do you even read anything before jerking your goddamn knee?

1. I probably haven't typed the word New York in here in the past year. I mentioned New York only as an example of one of the few places in the US where you can assume residents will not want provisions for one or more cars at their residence.

2. "Walkable" doesn't just mean sidewalks. It also means that the blocks are not a long trek. If every house has 240 feet of road frontage, the neighborhood may not be very walkable. If you build townhouses/brownstones on 24-30 foot lots, the neighborhood will be more walkable and you will have the "streetwall" you are always bleating about.

3. Okay, tell us about your "decent urban house" and how it will differ from the "shack" that so horrifies you. Pretend I am a developer with money to build.

[Mackinaw]

Just an observation, I think you are ALL pretty much right. And BTW is perfectly okay to invoke NY as the most steadfast/best model of non-automotive urban living that we can point to in America. I think we are all well aware of the similarities and many dissimilarities of Detroit and NY, and can ascribe the correct weight to any comparisons.

[ghettopalmetto]

Do you even read anything before jerking your goddamn knee?

1. I probably haven't typed the word New York in here in the past year. I mentioned New York only as an example of one of the few places in the US where you can assume residents will not want provisions for one or more cars at their residence.

2. "Walkable" doesn't just mean sidewalks. It also means that the blocks are not a long trek. If every house has 240 feet of road frontage, the neighborhood may not be very walkable. If you build townhouses/brownstones on 24-30 foot lots, the neighborhood will be more walkable and you will have the "streetwall" you are always bleating about.

3. Okay, tell us about your "decent urban house" and how it will differ from the "shack" that so horrifies you. Pretend I am a developer with money to build.

Hey, if you want to sleep in a garage with a bedroom behind it, and live in your car at all waking hours, knock yourself out.

I'm just saying that this neighborhood looks like suburban ass, and it's the worst possible thing Detroit could do.

[iheartthed]

Exactly right.

There is something of a modest revival in urban living in the U.S., but it is still auto-oriented urban living. Excepting NYC, almost nothing gets built anywhere without plenty of parking.

You cannot build a single unit of housing in Chicago, even in the middle of downtown, without at least 1:1 parking ratio. Want a 200 unit apartment building? Fine, but you're getting at least 200 additional parking spaces too. Want a single family house in an in-town neighborhood? Fine, but it will come with parking spaces, either accessed through front driveway or back alley.

So if you're building 100% auto-oriented in Chicago [[or at least auto-accomodated), you already know anything built in Detroit will be totally auto-oriented and suburban form.

According to the link below Chicago requires ~200 parking spaces/100,000 square feet, while Detroit requires ~250/100,000 square feet. However, Chicago does not require any parking downtown, while Detroit's requirement is city wide.

It's probably well past time Detroit updates its zoning laws. The city should probably just do away with minimum requirements altogether, like San Francisco. I can't imagine what useful function it serves at this point.

http://graphingparking.com/2013/05/1...ice-buildings/

[ghettopalmetto]

According to the link below Chicago requires ~200 parking spaces/100,000 square feet, while Detroit requires ~250/100,000 square feet. However, Chicago does not require any parking downtown, while Detroit's requirement is city wide.

It's probably well past time Detroit updates its zoning laws. The city should probably just do away with minimum requirements altogether, like San Francisco. I can't imagine what useful function it serves at this point.

http://graphingparking.com/2013/05/1...ice-buildings/

Of course, the zoning also has to allow for a pedestrian-friendly built environment [[i.e. reduced setbacks, parking required to be in the rear), and a transportation policy that allows for modes other than driving [[transit, bicycle lanes, sidewalks). For example, requiring every corner store to have a parking lot sized for the Saturday before Christmas isn't going to do much to foster a pedestrian-friendly neighborhood.

The idea is not necessarily to do away with automobiles, but to relegate them to their proper role as a transportation conveyance, and not as an appendage required for every single task imaginable. It starts with the architecture--by allowing garages in front of these houses, it's pretty clear that cars are more important than the people who live in them.

[Bham1982]

According to the link below Chicago requires ~200 parking spaces/100,000 square feet, while Detroit requires ~250/100,000 square feet. However, Chicago does not require any parking downtown, while Detroit's requirement is city wide.

It's probably well past time Detroit updates its zoning laws. The city should probably just do away with minimum requirements altogether, like San Francisco. I can't imagine what useful function it serves at this point.

http://graphingparking.com/2013/05/1...ice-buildings/

But the issue isn't a function of zoning, but rather demand.

Chicago doesn't have 1:1 parking ratio because of zoning, but because the condos wouldn't sell without the on-site parking spaces. You could zone the whole city with no parking requirements, and it wouldn't make a difference, at all. Developers would build the exact same as now.

Same goes for Detroit, but even more extreme. If you think auto-dependency is a problem, and want to fix it, zoning is not really an issue. It's lifestyle preferences.

[Bham1982]

It starts with the architecture--by allowing garages in front of these houses, it's pretty clear that cars are more important than the people who live in them.

Uh, I'm pretty sure that people are riding in those cars, and I'm pretty sure developers wouldn't build front-facing garages if buyers didn't want them.

[ghettopalmetto]

But the issue isn't a function of zoning, but rather demand.

Chicago doesn't have 1:1 parking ratio because of zoning, but because the condos wouldn't sell without the on-site parking spaces. You could zone the whole city with no parking requirements, and it wouldn't make a difference, at all. Developers would build the exact same as now.

Same goes for Detroit, but even more extreme. If you think auto-dependency is a problem, and want to fix it, zoning is not really an issue. It's lifestyle preferences.

Ah, the wonders of the magical "free market", where developers build garages and non-revenue-generating parking spots out of the goodness of their hearts.

You want to talk "lifestyle preferences"? Then why does housing in walkable neighborhoods [[like Birmingham!) always sell at a premium compared to automobile-dependent tract housing? Why is real estate in automobile-dependent Southeast Michigan so much cheaper than in walkable cities on the coasts? It must be because of all the people *demanding* to live in a place where they have to drive for a loaf of bread.

I think you're just a little too in-love with your theories, without a whole lot of hard evidence to support much of anything you're postulating. Truth is, builders construct what is LEGALLY PERMISSIBLE. It doesn't matter one bit what people want, if what they want is ILLEGAL by the zoning regulations.

[iheartthed]

But the issue isn't a function of zoning, but rather demand.

Chicago doesn't have 1:1 parking ratio because of zoning, but because the condos wouldn't sell without the on-site parking spaces. You could zone the whole city with no parking requirements, and it wouldn't make a difference, at all. Developers would build the exact same as now.

Same goes for Detroit, but even more extreme. If you think auto-dependency is a problem, and want to fix it, zoning is not really an issue. It's lifestyle preferences.

So let the free market figure that out. Get rid of the zoning laws requiring parking and if the developers decide that it's necessary for their business then they will make the decision to build it.

[ghettopalmetto]

So let the free market figure that out. Get rid of the zoning laws requiring parking and if the developers decide that it's necessary for their business then they will make the decision to build it.

Bingo. There is no "free market" in Michigan. A person with choices has one realistic option: buy a tract home and drive drive drive. Because that's the *only* thing the law allows.

[softailrider]

One problem is that today, people want more than one bathroom per house [[a master bath and a hall bath for a one story house and an additional half-bath/powder room for a two story house). They want closets that are wider than three or four feet especially in the master bedroom. They want a two car garage [[especially an attached garage). Too many of the 1910-1950 houses in the city do not meet these "wants".

What you're saying is true. However, in a lot of other places [[most) people live in the original housing of that particular area's era. If they want larger closets or more bathrooms bad enough they hire a contactor and remodel. The fact is that the houses in the area we're referring to have been vandalized, torched, stripped or not maintained so they're not usable anymore. If that had not happened there would not have been any need to put up that crappy new construction.

[ABetterDetroit]

I don't see how houses filled in in the gap toothed empty lots in the city can please "everyone" aesthetically. All market demands should be met in regards to housing. Plenty of space to try different things.

[Hermod]

What you're saying is true. However, in a lot of other places [[most) people live in the original housing of that particular area's era. If they want larger closets or more bathrooms bad enough they hire a contactor and remodel. The fact is that the houses in the area we're referring to have been vandalized, torched, stripped or not maintained so they're not usable anymore. If that had not happened there would not have been any need to put up that crappy new construction.

This is the house I grew up in. I0681 Nottingham [[just south of Grayton). Originally two small bedrooms and one bath. Later the second floor was finished in for two more bedrooms. So one bathroom for four bedrooms [[and seven people living in the house). One car detached garage out back. Dinky little closets for the downstairs bedrooms. Tiny kitchen which was too small to eat in. No contractor could ever economically add another bath or larger closets without creating a planning disaster.

Attachment 24163

[Jimaz]

As a rule I usually prefer practicality over aesthetics but there's just something too discordant about those garages.

The front facade of a building is going to convey a special message for the life of the architecture. That message should be accordingly selected with careful deliberation. The message I get from those garages is that the occupants care more about interacting with or through automobiles than with other human beings. It reminds me of that annoying "talk to the hand" meme from years ago. It also subtracts from the internal view of the external front approach, subliminally isolating the occupants from their environment.

This seems the exact opposite of the philosophy expounded by a remarkably insightful architectural book, A Pattern Language, by Christopher Alexander, et. al.

[Hermod]

You know, if someone was to v rebuild Hudson's you guys would complain about the layout of the window displays.

[mwilbert]

Uh, I'm pretty sure that people are riding in those cars, and I'm pretty sure developers wouldn't build front-facing garages if buyers didn't want them.

This isn't really true. It is very likely that buyers want garages. It probably isn't true that they particularly want front-facing garages--that is just what the developer is offering because it is the easiest and cheapest way to do it. On the other hand, I doubt the buyers have any big objection to it either.

While many people, including me, think the results look terrible, it is my observation that a large proportion of people care little or nothing about how things look [[or alternatively, have really questionable taste), so they are indifferent to the placement of the garage. The real question is whether anything should be done to regulate ugliness. I can see both sides on that.

[royce]

This is the house I grew up in. I0681 Nottingham [[just south of Grayton). Originally two small bedrooms and one bath. Later the second floor was finished in for two more bedrooms. So one bathroom for four bedrooms [[and seven people living in the house). One car detached garage out back. Dinky little closets for the downstairs bedrooms. Tiny kitchen which was too small to eat in. No contractor could ever economically add another bath or larger closets without creating a planning disaster.

Attachment 24163

If the houses on Hibbard didn't have that attached garage, they wouldn't be that much bigger than that house on Nottingham. Those McMansions in Dearborn or Birmingham wouldn't look so out of place if that tiny bungalow wasn't next to it. The McMansions on those narrow lots actually make great use of space because very little space is "wasted."

BTW, why is it that when the garage is in the front, the front entry of the house usually starts way in the back on either side of it or in the middle? Why can't the front entry be flush [[even) with the garage? The space it takes to walk to the front door could be a small office or an attractive entry foyer or hallway. Everytime I visit a house like this, I visually pull the front door forward.