New Potential Riverfront Developments

**mikeg19** · January-25-16, 10:29 AM

Not sure if this is strictly informational and conceptual or if there is any potential for these new developments to take place. It will be interesting to see what the proposals are and how they envision the east riverfront moving forward.

http://www.freep.com/story/money/bus...ment/79124214/

**3WC** · January-25-16, 11:17 AM

Other than Cox and Wallace, who's on the committee that will make the decision? A glaring omission in the Freep article in my opinion.

If it's made up of people of the same ilk as Archer's "Blue Ribbon Committee" to advise him of how to manage the casino siting and operator selection, whoever cares about the riverfront is going to be very disappointed.

Does anybody feel the fix will be in?

**southen** · January-25-16, 11:48 AM

Im not sure how much influence will be had with this. It was my interpretation that the city is just trying to come up with a master plan for the riverfront moving forward. I think Orleans Landing has put the riverfront back on the radar of a lot of people, Gilbert included, and they just want to have something they can show developers.

**mikeg19** · January-25-16, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by southen

Im not sure how much influence will be had with this. It was my interpretation that the city is just trying to come up with a master plan for the riverfront moving forward. I think Orleans Landing has put the riverfront back on the radar of a lot of people, Gilbert included, and they just want to have something they can show developers.

I'm kinda thinking the same thing, but will throwing out some potential plans really sway DG or others to build on buy there? I'd think they would want to do their own thing anyway when it comes to design or usage. Unless there is some sort of additional monies available through the city for following said plan? I don't know that. It will be interesting to see the proposals though. That much is certain.

**Hypestyles** · January-25-16, 01:42 PM

is the DEGC involved? Hopefully not.

**Gistok** · January-25-16, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by 3WC

If it's made up of people of the same ilk as Archer's "Blue Ribbon Committee" to advise him of how to manage the casino siting and operator selection, whoever cares about the riverfront is going to be very disappointed.

Ugh.... we all know how well that went.....

I wonder what the record number of times is.... for shooting one's self in the foot?

**southen** · January-25-16, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by mikeg19

I'm kinda thinking the same thing, but will throwing out some potential plans really sway DG or others to build on buy there? I'd think they would want to do their own thing anyway when it comes to design or usage. Unless there is some sort of additional monies available through the city for following said plan? I don't know that. It will be interesting to see the proposals though. That much is certain.

Gilbert/GM will do what they want with the land, I think this is just a larger use plan for all of the other parcels. It lets potential buyers/developers know what the city would like to see and what their vision for the district is.

**royce** · January-26-16, 01:06 AM

WTF? Why is this necessary? Hasn't it already been decided what the east riverfront is going to look like? Isn't mixed-use development already on the table? Aren't large portions of east riverfront property already in the hands of developers - Jerome Bettis' group and the Uniroyal site and the property directly east of Chene Park; Dave Bing's property just west of Chene Park; the Riverfront Conservancy and the land south of Atwater and east of Rivard; Stroh River Place and their riverside parking lot; GM and all of that property east of the RenCen up to Rivard; and Orleans Landing? What's left? If the city wants to redevelop it's own property like Chene Park, then I can see doing this, but for the rest of east riverfront it simply is a moot point.

BTW, I am so damn tired of hearing about Mayor Archer's failed east riverfront casino deal and all of the businesses that it supposedly forced to close. First, there weren't that many businesses in that area. Secondly, those businesses could have advertised that they were still open and down there once it was decided that the casinos were not going to go down there. It's not like the city began construction that prevented customers from getting to these businesses.

**MSUguy** · January-26-16, 02:04 AM

Originally Posted by 3WC

Other than Cox and Wallace, who's on the committee that will make the decision? A glaring omission in the Freep article in my opinion.

If it's made up of people of the same ilk as Archer's "Blue Ribbon Committee" to advise him of how to manage the casino siting and operator selection, whoever cares about the riverfront is going to be very disappointed.

Does anybody feel the fix will be in?

The DRFC has RPQ on its website in addition to Wallace and Cox the selection committee will include:
William Gilchrist, New Orleans Director of Place Based Planning; Jed Howbert, the mayor's Exec Director, Jobs and Economy Team; Elizabeth Meyer, Dean, University of Virginia School of Architecture; Christopher Leinberger Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute

So reading through it these are some of the things that each team will be expected to include in their proposal one in particular stands out:

Urban design guidelines Land-use plan with density and height standards Evaluation of master plan and zoning ordinance, and recommended modifications in accordance to theland-use and urban design plans

Proposed retail corridors including ideal commercial nodes, parcels and typologies for development Development parcel strategies with a prioritized list of potential sites for near-term rehabilitation, reuse, and redevelopment

Conceptual framework plan for transit including: Implementation strategy Connectivity and expansion of M1 Rail via East Jefferson Avenue, including proposed design, budget andfinancing Improved connections to DDOT bus system, and recommended service and station improvements [[e.g.,enhanced bus stops and pedestrian infrastructure accessibility)

http://www.detroitriverfront.org/sit...1.5.2015_0.pdf

**Gistok** · January-26-16, 04:57 AM

Originally Posted by royce

BTW, I am so damn tired of hearing about Mayor Archer's failed east riverfront casino deal and all of the businesses that it supposedly forced to close. First, there weren't that many businesses in that area. Secondly, those businesses could have advertised that they were still open and down there once it was decided that the casinos were not going to go down there. It's not like the city began construction that prevented customers from getting to these businesses.

Royce, you are of course forgetting that the city had already spent $150 million [[casino money) to buy out a big chunk of businesses in that area. $150 million was the limit as to how much to spend on property, and by the time the city got to that amount [[thanks to speculators who moved faster than the city did)... there were holdouts that were asking for BIG payouts.

Here's a quote from what happened with Archer's "great" idea....

"The Rivertown was originally intended to be the location of all three of Detroit's permanent casinos. Speculators moved in and drove up the real estate prices forcing the city to abandon the idea. Unfortunately, the damage was already done. The majority of the businesses in the district had been sold or shut down in anticipation of a payday that never came. At that point, the majority of Rivertown became a ghost town."

**mikeg19** · January-26-16, 07:03 AM

Worst thing ever was not having the casinos clumped together. Nobody wants to go to MotorCity, then hop in a car to MGM, then drive to Greektown. That walkability factor would have been nice. And besides Greektown, MGM and MotorCity are basically on islands, creating relatively low development near them. I'm sure there are some who like that they are spread out, but IMO it would have been better having them closely situated.

**downtownguy** · January-26-16, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by Gistok

"The Rivertown was originally intended to be the location of all three of Detroit's permanent casinos. Speculators moved in and drove up the real estate prices forcing the city to abandon the idea. Unfortunately, the damage was already done. The majority of the businesses in the district had been sold or shut down in anticipation of a payday that never came. At that point, the majority of Rivertown became a ghost town."

It's ironic, too, that the reason Archer gave for moving to the riverfront was that the locations the casinos were considering had already been bid up due to speculators. So, in a stroke of genius, he decides to move them instead to prime riverfront property where a vibrant nightlife existed alongside many long standing businesses, and disrupt everything.

**mwilbert** · January-26-16, 04:13 PM

Originally Posted by mikeg19

Worst thing ever was not having the casinos clumped together. Nobody wants to go to MotorCity, then hop in a car to MGM, then drive to Greektown. That walkability factor would have been nice. And besides Greektown, MGM and MotorCity are basically on islands, creating relatively low development near them. I'm sure there are some who like that they are spread out, but IMO it would have been better having them closely situated.

I agree. They should have been clustered, and spreading them out screws up multiple parts of town. But I don't know where that location should have been.

**Tuere** · January-26-16, 04:25 PM

I don't remember the businesses that closed due to the failed casino plan. I do recall going to a couple of restaurants that seem to still be in place in one form or another today. Would someone please share some of the names of the establishments you can recall closing? Do we know if it was around 5-10 establishments or closer to 20 plus? It would be nice to know whether the reality of the failed plan actually matches the perception.

**southen** · January-26-16, 05:47 PM

I went to the presentations today. A lot of what they are hoping to do is come up with a blueprint/plan for the entire area in regards to the public realm, development and transportation. The teams differed a little bit on the kind of redevelopment but the biggest thing I took away is that they want more "place making" in regards to the parks and riverwalk through design and expansion. They want the riverfront and possible infrastructure improvements to help drive the market, but each team also had a financial component tasked to finding funding through different avenues and bringing players to the table locally and nationally.

Part of the funding for this was from Bedrock, so I wonder if what they determine through this process will really influence what happens east of the Ren Cen.

**SpartanDawg** · January-26-16, 07:24 PM

Originally Posted by southen

I went to the presentations today. A lot of what they are hoping to do is come up with a blueprint/plan for the entire area in regards to the public realm, development and transportation. The teams differed a little bit on the kind of redevelopment but the biggest thing I took away is that they want more "place making" in regards to the parks and riverwalk through design and expansion. They want the riverfront and possible infrastructure improvements to help drive the market, but each team also had a financial component tasked to finding funding through different avenues and bringing players to the table locally and nationally.

Part of the funding for this was from Bedrock, so I wonder if what they determine through this process will really influence what happens east of the Ren Cen.

Those parking lot seas east of the Ren Cen are soooooo prime for residential development it makes me want to vomit. High rise condos on those blocks [[and future JLA site) would be absolutely dynamite.

I think right now I-375 is the biggest hindrance to them. If it becomes a surface street i would expect announcements for projects immediately after.

The way that freeway is built currently discourages people from walking east of downtown on jefferson... make it a surface street and you instantly have so much space ready to go for development... really hope this comes to fruition in the next 5 years

**mwilbert** · January-26-16, 08:54 PM

Originally Posted by SpartanDawg

Those parking lot seas east of the Ren Cen are soooooo prime for residential development it makes me want to vomit. High rise condos on those blocks [[and future JLA site) would be absolutely dynamite.

I think right now I-375 is the biggest hindrance to them. If it becomes a surface street i would expect announcements for projects immediately after.

The way that freeway is built currently discourages people from walking east of downtown on jefferson... make it a surface street and you instantly have so much space ready to go for development... really hope this comes to fruition in the next 5 years

Those lots will always be prime targets for development. While there is a growing number of people who want to live downtown, it is finite, and I'd rather see areas redeveloped that fill in empty buildings or vacant lots that are actually near other locations that would benefit. As you say, that area is pretty cut off from the rest of downtown, and for that exact reason isn't critical to improve.

No doubt it will happen eventually, but I'm not in a hurry. Someone is going to have to be left to pay to live in the Fisher Building and the Book Tower.

**royce** · January-26-16, 11:33 PM

Again, why is this necessary when this discussion about what to do with the east riverfront was done years ago? Three or four story buildings are to go along the northern edge of Atwater, taller buildings in the back towards Jefferson and all of it a part of a mixed-use development. For recreation you already have the RiverWalk, the Dequindre Cut, the Outdoor Adventure Center, Chene Park, Rivard Plaza, Milliken Park, Mt. Elliot Park, Gabriel Richard Park, and bike lanes marked on Atwater. What more do you need for recreation?

In my first post I mentioned the parcels along the river that are privately owned. How is this exercise going to affect the views of the owners of these properties? Don't they already have a vision? Hasn't the city, through zoning, given them the green light to develop the land as they envision it, with approval by the city council and/or zoning commission?

This "request for qualifications" is being conducted by the planning department and they are paying for it? Why do they need a "competition" to develop non-city land when they are the city's planners? Again, if this was put out there to see what to do with Chene Park, then that's one thing. But to conduct this exercise when most of the land is privately owned is a waste of time.

**southen** · January-27-16, 12:47 AM

Discussion and zoning only go so far, what they are looking for is a more comprehensive plan and a team that is able to help in it's execution. It isnt simply coming up with drawings or a list of desires, this process involves community involvement, reaching out to public and private sector resources and working toward funneling funds toward riverfront projects. Green infrastructure and transit are also part of the planning process, so it goes far beyond simply stating what they would like to see to current landowners, they are creating a partnership to help facilitate a lot of what is going on.

As far as recreation they are looking to expand the riverwalk as well as the programming of the riverfront. In terms of land ownership the city owns quite a bit of land and then there is the GM owned parcels as well as those at the Uniroyal site which would both be influenced by the city's recommendations going forward. The individual commercial properties are free to do what they want, but this process is going to provide resources to these owners to either develop the property on their own or pair them with someone interested in the area.

If you read the article you would see that it simply isn't just the planning department and the RFQ is being financed by the city as well as the Knight Foundation, Kresge, and Bedrock. I would suggest checking it out tomorrow morning if you have the time and you would see that it isn't a waste of time. The ideas being shared by these groups of national and international designers and investors will be invaluable moving forward.

**archfan** · January-27-16, 01:42 AM

Probably 5-10 is more like it, but mostly within walking distance. Rivertown, Woodbridge Tavern and Soup Kitchen are the ones I can dredge up.

**mikeg19** · January-27-16, 06:57 AM

To me, I feel like the east riverfront is not going to be a major issue. The demand is going to be there to live/work/play with the Riverwalk. The few parcels that are left between Ren Cen and Belle Isle on the river seem to be on developers radars and some things are already happening, and others have been on the back burner waiting for market conditions to improve [[Uniroyal Site Mr. Bettis?)

What I want to see is a plan for the land between COBO and the Ambassador Bridge. You can even throw in Hart Plaza with that as well. That entire side west of COBO might as well be in Lapeer, because that's how far away it feels from downtown. Obviously we have the JLA development coming in the next 5 years, which hopefully will be executed smartly to reconnect that area to downtown. But then there are the two huge parcels of land that need to go through to Riverside Park: the space directly next to the Riverfront Apts, and the rail yard next to/under the bridge. Not sure if Matty owns/leases that land to the rail company, but booting them out of there and connecting that to Riverside needs to be something looked at. I don't know the likelihood of that happening, but we need that "bridge to bridge" connection. Thoughts?

**southen** · January-27-16, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by mikeg19

To me, I feel like the east riverfront is not going to be a major issue. The demand is going to be there to live/work/play with the Riverwalk. The few parcels that are left between Ren Cen and Belle Isle on the river seem to be on developers radars and some things are already happening, and others have been on the back burner waiting for market conditions to improve [[Uniroyal Site Mr. Bettis?)

What I want to see is a plan for the land between COBO and the Ambassador Bridge. You can even throw in Hart Plaza with that as well. That entire side west of COBO might as well be in Lapeer, because that's how far away it feels from downtown. Obviously we have the JLA development coming in the next 5 years, which hopefully will be executed smartly to reconnect that area to downtown. But then there are the two huge parcels of land that need to go through to Riverside Park: the space directly next to the Riverfront Apts, and the rail yard next to/under the bridge. Not sure if Matty owns/leases that land to the rail company, but booting them out of there and connecting that to Riverside needs to be something looked at. I don't know the likelihood of that happening, but we need that "bridge to bridge" connection. Thoughts?

What they said is that those areas will be the focus of future public meetings. If you look at the PDF posted above Hart Plaza is mentioned as a future project and has a 50 million dollar price tag next to it. I dont know what that means or how accurate it is but it is definitely on the radar of these groups. They also mentioned the railway blocking the West Riverfront from Riverside Park. Maroun owns the land but they said that his company is in favor of extending the riverwalk and is working with the conservancy right now.

I personally don't think anything in Detroit is a slam dunk. The city has been through so many ups and downs that it is hard to say that the riverfront will evolve the way we want as quickly as we want without any additional help or planning. Right now it appears as though the east riverfront will be the next area to see growth so I think it is important to focus and put resources there as opposed to spreading things out to Cobo or the west riverfront. If the east takes off it is safe to say that it will bolster downtown and eventually spill over to the west side. Just my 2 cents though.

**esighed** · January-27-16, 11:30 AM

I was there yesterday and the members of the committee to select a team are Moddie Turay from DEGC, Richard Hosey owner of Hosey Development, Jed Howbert, City of Detroit, William Gilchrist Planning -City of New Orleans,Maurice Cox Planning Dir. Detroit, Dorothee Imbert Professor OSU, and Mark Wallace Pres. DRFC. There was talk of a loop around the east riverfront area that would include Jefferson but many of those parcels are privately owned so they said Jefferson didn't need 9 lanes with 28,000 cars per day. They are talking about 4 lanes with bikes like the Jefferson East project. Also they talked about several ways to get from Jefferson to the river like the Dequindre Cut.
3 options for the whole site are 1)bookend projects at the Uniroyal site and the GM lots, 2) "acupuncture" sites all over the area, 3) Large project in the middle of the 460 acres. They compared the Detroit site with Delaware river area in Philadelphia, Brooklyn New York project and Brazil project. Mark Wallace thinks input from the public is very important to planning process. The next meetings will probably have that option.

**mikeg19** · January-27-16, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by southen

What they said is that those areas will be the focus of future public meetings. If you look at the PDF posted above Hart Plaza is mentioned as a future project and has a 50 million dollar price tag next to it. I dont know what that means or how accurate it is but it is definitely on the radar of these groups. They also mentioned the railway blocking the West Riverfront from Riverside Park. Maroun owns the land but they said that his company is in favor of extending the riverwalk and is working with the conservancy right now.

Well I'm glad to hear it's on the radar. I wonder what Matty will want in exchange for the railyard. Hell, if you look at Google Maps, the Riverfront portion is completely unused for any rail operations, so you could actually extend the Riverwalk all the way to Riverside without any kind of upheaval if they wanted. It'd just be more aesthetically pleasing to see some sort of park area or mixed use development than a railway right there.