58 New Town Homes in Midtown

[stinkytofu]

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...-in-10-million

Nice.

[casscorridor]

Looks like crappy suburban projects. And what's up with that parking lot placement? Ugly. Exactly what should not be built in Midtown.

[dtowncitylover]

1) Yes, they do look pretty bad. But 2) I don't understand where they're supposed to be going. E. Ferry is actually pretty built up with specs of emptiness that don't look big enough for much.

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

I think they look better than some of the other newer development in Midtown, and this developer has done some other decent work in the area. Would be nice to see a site plan though.

[Mackinaw]

There are plenty of empty lots awaiting infill along E. Ferry, and there are large lots right by the Chrysler Expressway, where Crain's states this will be located. A lovely overlook of the incinerator awaits...

I applaud the inclusion of affordable units and the fact that it is being done in moderation.

The site plan, with surface parking lagoons, looks less than ideal.

[animatedmartian]

It's possible to get more density if they simply put the parking on the bottom floor of the town homes and added more buildings, similar to the Brush Park condos. But either way, it's infill and not all that different from what already in the area.

[Hypestyles]

aren't these just very preliminary drawings right now?

[animatedmartian]

aren't these just very preliminary drawings right now?

These are starting construction by spring so the chances of the drawing being preliminary is pretty low.

[Jayp213]

ugh this is what i keep on saying!!! im happy for the project but its like detroit will always accept these proposals/renderings with suburban-mindset! i.e. PARKING LOTS.... *shakes head* i understand we are the motor-city [[for all its worth, anyway) and people definitely have cars here but can't anyone see that sub-urbanizing an urban area is going to, in the long run, look pretty crazy?? its like whomever approves these proposals looks up to Royal Oak or Novi for inspiration...

[tielerh11]

It's possible to get more density if they simply put the parking on the bottom floor of the town homes and added more buildings, similar to the Brush Park condos. But either way, it's infill and not all that different from what already in the area.

From this website, sounds like this will be similar to the Brush Park condos with a garage on the ground level: http://www.nailahllc.com/commons.html

[Dan_the_man]

Why can't they just make the units face the street like normal? Nobody is ever going to use that courtyard and gazebo. I don't get why developers insist on these things. Not to mention the one building that is facing the alley for some reason...

[dtowncitylover]

Why can't they just make the units face the street like normal? Nobody is ever going to use that courtyard and gazebo. I don't get why developers insist on these things. Not to mention the one building that is facing the alley for some reason...

Thank you! I understand it now.

What I'm now just realizing is how big those lots are. It seems you could make the alley it's own street and create a Philly or Ballymore streetscape of dense rowhouses, yards fronting each other. But alas instead of creating an urban, walkable landscape we need parking spaces and large yards.

[southen]

while i would love more of an urban development this appears to be in line with some of the newer construction that is already present over there. it also is right next to the freeway, not woodward avenue. i would be disappointed if this was fronting woodward and the the chrysler service drive.

[Detroitnerd]

A lot of these designs have residents turning their backs on the street. That's a major minus for new urbanism.

You get the sense that even though so many Detroit neighborhoods have good bones for redevelopment along classic lines, that the whole parcel has to be replatted to suit developers who are used to setting up "town homes" along I-96.

Also, the freeway expansion will mean that bridge on Ferry over the freeway will be gone. That should be a nice surprise for everybody!

[animatedmartian]

Why can't they just make the units face the street like normal? Nobody is ever going to use that courtyard and gazebo. I don't get why developers insist on these things. Not to mention the one building that is facing the alley for some reason...

Because then there would be a lot of extra space in the back.

http://goo.gl/maps/7NxRN

[BankruptcyGuy]

$10 million / 58 units = $172,000 per unit?
Affordable housing units are not worth that much.
That would be pretty pricey, unless this were a deal funding with low income housing tax credits through MSHDA.

[ndavies]

The problem is building codes in most of the city require parking spaces and larger lots. New building codes require bigger lots than were previously needed. Traditional Detroit sized lots are now non buildable due to building codes. When they built the new North Corktown houses they had to appeal to be allowed to use the traditional lot lines. The lots were not large enough to build a house on.

Also, The banks will not finance developments here without parking. To borrow money off a bank you have to have 1.5 spaces per unit. The building codes in most of the region require 1.5 parking spaces per unit.

[Mackinaw]

Animatedmartian, not sure why the Hubbard St. layout you shared is problematic. The parcel you show is simply underutilized. All of that rear space could include all of the following 1) covered parking, 2) either communal or private landscaped backyards), and 3) trees. The creation of enclosed space behind the buildings while simulatenously providing intimate public space in front of them is just so much wiser than this porous, awkward design on Ferry Street where there is awkward, sprawling green space in front of the building that bleeds directly into the center of lot, such that there is no truly private space, yet also no defined and surveilled public space. The buildings are just floating on wasted space.

Detroitnerd, where is that info about bridge removal coming from? I assume this is in relation to interchange construction related to '94 expansion? I though the '94 expansion wasn't a done deal. Oy, looking at google maps shows how enormous and distruptive that interchange already is.

[Mackinaw]

Just to illustrate the opposite approach, while we're having this helpful discussion, here's an example of the most sinful possible "townhouse" layout [[doubly sinful because a bunch of perfectly good, and streetscape-conforming, bungalows were removed for this): https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Gross...classic&dg=brw

[dtowncitylover]

Just to illustrate the opposite approach, while we're having this helpful discussion, here's an example of the most sinful possible "townhouse" layout [[doubly sinful because a bunch of perfectly good, and streetscape-conforming, bungalows were removed for this): https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Gross...classic&dg=brw

Looks like a bad move on SimCity.

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

There is an interesting point made in today's Curbed coverage....."The site plan shown below comes from Nailah's website which still advertises the defunct condo development. Although it has one fewer buildings than Nailah's latest incarnation, we're guessing it'll end up looking similar."


http://detroit.curbed.com/archives/2...enter.php#more

[animatedmartian]

Animatedmartian, not sure why the Hubbard St. layout you shared is problematic. The parcel you show is simply underutilized. All of that rear space could include all of the following 1) covered parking, 2) either communal or private landscaped backyards), and 3) trees. The creation of enclosed space behind the buildings while simulatenously providing intimate public space in front of them is just so much wiser than this porous, awkward design on Ferry Street where there is awkward, sprawling green space in front of the building that bleeds directly into the center of lot, such that there is no truly private space, yet also no defined and surveilled public space. The buildings are just floating on wasted space.

The issue is that it's suburban either way. It's pretty much the suburban model to have greenspace or parking lots within a private development. In an urban environment, all the greenspace is at the neighborhood park and parking occupies the same footprints as the buildings, is on the street, and/or is at a nearby parking garage [[ideally a good percentage of residents should be using transit). This allows for more density within a single development and doesn't waste any space.

With the current design, in both the property on Hubbard and the one on the front of this thread, there's a pseudo-street wall but no more real density than you would get if they were all singe-family homes.

[animatedmartian]

Just to illustrate the opposite approach, while we're having this helpful discussion, here's an example of the most sinful possible "townhouse" layout [[doubly sinful because a bunch of perfectly good, and streetscape-conforming, bungalows were removed for this): https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Gross...classic&dg=brw

I get the feeling that the other two sides of the lot meant to have townhouses to make a U-shape but they were just never built. In this case, there's an actual increase in density compared to the surrounding block, but sacrifices the continuous street wall. Still, with the little park in the middle, they could have made the development smaller so that there isn't so much wasted space.

[Mackinaw]

The issue is that it's suburban either way. It's pretty much the suburban model to have greenspace or parking lots within a private development. In an urban environment, all the greenspace is at the neighborhood park and parking occupies the same footprints as the buildings, is on the street, and/or is at a nearby parking garage [[ideally a good percentage of residents should be using transit). This allows for more density within a single development and doesn't waste any space.

With the current design, in both the property on Hubbard and the one on the front of this thread, there's a pseudo-street wall but no more real density than you would get if they were all singe-family homes.

One issue is structural, so to speak. The aerial of Hubbard St. depicts how much room there is between the streets in that part of the city [[fairly consistent with much of the city, if not deeper than the average backyard). So you are pretty much bound to have a low lot-coverage percentage. The issue becomes where to place the homes, and I think we'd agree that there's some upgrade to the street if the placement is close to the sidewalk. I agree with you that if the development shown on Hubbard St. doesn't really add density [[though there is still probably a small marginal bump in that the homes are attached and there are probably more units/acre then with a few single family homes on the same parcels). It is up to the developer to give constructive use to the unused part of the lot [[the Hubbard St. developer clearly came up short), their choice being backyards, parking, or a second structure positioned on a private late [[now that would increase density). Of course, this entire convo sets aside the possibility of a higher lot-coverage building, but perhaps rightfully so since that would likely require a zoning variance in much of the city.

Back to this Ferry-Chrysler development, when looking at the [[potentially outdated) site plan posted above and on Curbed, it's easy to mentally cut-and-paste the inward-positioned buildings right onto the unused/porous street frontage, thus maintaining the same overall density and creating enclosure. The developer can then do what they wish with the interior of the lot, either adding more units facing an alley-lane, or using it for a mix of parking and recreation. I think we can all agree that the immediate neighborhood [[in part thanks to this developer) already has more than ample street-fronted green space, just look at St. Antoine @ Ferry [[a wide open lawn in the shape of a suburban crescent) and the older development across E. Kirby, where the homes are behind lawns and parking. When you look around, it's as if the city doesn't have zoning laws.

[Detroitnerd]

Detroitnerd, where is that info about bridge removal coming from? I assume this is in relation to interchange construction related to '94 expansion? I though the '94 expansion wasn't a done deal. Oy, looking at google maps shows how enormous and distruptive that interchange already is.

Yup, the I-94 expansion will eliminate plenty of bridges between the "Midtown" area and areas across the freeways, the Ferry vehicular bridge among them. This is especially troubling at a time when the mid-city area is on the upswing and walkability seems key to helping the investment spread to adjoining areas.

Basically, that expansion plan was from the 1990s, when the area was all but written off. Just another way MDOT and SEMCOG present a proud and defiant middle finger to the way things are headed.