Freep On Design Of Gilbert's Brush Park Development

**emu steve** · June-12-16, 04:33 AM

Not sure what my favorite arch is, but I know what I don't like.

Brush Park is going to be a strange mixture of arch styles...

http://www.freep.com/story/money/rea...ggan/85640230/

**casscorridor** · June-12-16, 07:58 AM

Originally Posted by emu steve

http://www.freep.com/story/money/rea...ggan/85640230/

Not sure what my favorite arch is, but I know what I don't like.

Brush Park is going to be a strange mixture of arch styles...

The architecture is exciting and not like anything we've seen in Detroit. This is a great development that should repeated throughout the center of the city.

**emu steve** · June-12-16, 08:19 AM

Originally Posted by casscorridor

The architecture is exciting and not like anything we've seen in Detroit. This is a great development that should repeated throughout the center of the city.

Well it isn't going to be designed for seniors whose taste are a bit more traditional. Lol.

But as has been stated many times, maybe even by Danny, those who will live in Brush Park will probably be in the under 39 age group.

Young, with modern tastes, etc. etc. so maybe it is a case of arch meeting the expected residents.

**Gistok** · June-12-16, 10:24 AM

I can understand putting this "new" architecture in an empty standalone field somewhere.... but mixed among the surviving mansions of Brush Park... this is just bad.

Want to see what I mean? Just drive down East Ferry St. Historic District... just past the Heck-Smiley and Freer mansions... and what do you get to... that "triumph of modernism" that required demolishing a few historic mansions to put it in their place... the Merrill-Palmer Institute... which has no relationship with its' surroundings.

At least in recent years the district was "infilled" with newer buildings that respected the history and architecture of the old mansions [[2nd image).

Gilbert's buildings show no respect for what came before... and those older homes stick out like a sore thumb. But this is what we have come to expect of Gilbert's architectural inclinations... as we have seen some of his more garish impulses on his existing building interiors.

But at least this gives us advance warning for what to expect for the Hudson's block.

**mwilbert** · June-12-16, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by Gistok

I can understand putting this "new" architecture in an empty standalone field somewhere.... but mixed among the surviving mansions of Brush Park... this is just bad.

Don't agree. It isn't as if anything new, especially buildings that are taller and more massive, would really look like the older buildings anyway. Certainly one way to deal with building new in an old neighborhood is to mimic the existing buildings, but it isn't the only way. I would never want to remove the historic structures to build this, but as infill I have no problem with it. Of course, we will have to see how it looks when it is actually built.

And yes, I don't expect there to be any attempt to make the Hudson's block match with what is already on Woodward, and I wouldn't want it to.

**Junjie** · June-12-16, 12:07 PM

This particular style is hardly Gilbert's invention. I see buildings going up around DC now with the monocolor facing, very narrow and randomly arranged "barcode" windows, etc. George Washington U. just build a huge new mega-dorm with that styling, immediately behind two smaller historic facades they were forced to preserve.

We should also note that, while the styling may not be to my [[or others') taste, the form of the buildings is very much being done with the existing mansions in mind. The scale, density, and arrangement are very similar to many classic townhome/brownstone neighborhoods that we see in denser cities and they are intentionally keeping the scale low in the mid-blocks to keep the historic structures from being overwhelmed. Even if they don't look very good to some of us, these new buildings will function in a way that should help the neighborhood be successful. Corner stores, people facing the street, variety of activities, all that good Jane Jacobs stuff.

So, I don't like how it looks. But I like how it's been designed, if that makes sense.

**detmsp** · June-12-16, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by emu steve

Brush Park is going to be a strange mixture of arch styles...

You mean like every big city ever? I'm sorry, but this idea that all new construction needs to look like the old stuff is absolutely ridiculous. If EVERYTHING were built to look like it was from the 1920s, we'd end up with a disney world-looking, fake as hell, boring city.

**Gistok** · June-12-16, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by detmsp

You mean like every big city ever? I'm sorry, but this idea that all new construction needs to look like the old stuff is absolutely ridiculous. If EVERYTHING were built to look like it was from the 1920s, we'd end up with a disney world-looking, fake as hell, boring city.

I don't remember anyone posting that everything had to look the same??

But something less striking would make the area more appealing. If you lived in one of the old Brush Park mansions... I doubt you would want to look at all those monochrome block residences out your window...

This is one instance where Orleans Landing should have been built in an area that has surviving historic structures. No one said that modern means ugly....

**DetroiterOnTheWestCoast** · June-12-16, 04:02 PM

Originally Posted by Junjie

This particular style is hardly Gilbert's invention. I see buildings going up around DC now with the monocolor facing, very narrow and randomly arranged "barcode" windows, etc. George Washington U. just build a huge new mega-dorm with that styling, immediately behind two smaller historic facades they were forced to preserve.

We should also note that, while the styling may not be to my [[or others') taste, the form of the buildings is very much being done with the existing mansions in mind. The scale, density, and arrangement are very similar to many classic townhome/brownstone neighborhoods that we see in denser cities and they are intentionally keeping the scale low in the mid-blocks to keep the historic structures from being overwhelmed. Even if they don't look very good to some of us, these new buildings will function in a way that should help the neighborhood be successful. Corner stores, people facing the street, variety of activities, all that good Jane Jacobs stuff.

So, I don't like how it looks. But I like how it's been designed, if that makes sense.

That does make sense. I agree that the scale, density and arrangement are very good. On the other hand, I like the designs a lot; especially the diversity of them. It will look more like an area that developed over several years as opposed to a massive uniform development.

Unlike Gistok, I think it would be a disaster if it looked like the Art Center townhomes. Not that I dislike them, I think they are fine. But there is so much available land, I think a variety of styles is called for.

**Scottathew** · June-12-16, 07:30 PM

Detroit should be a mixture of new things among that is historic. The new construction needs to appeal to their target demographic.

I don't mind the new style mixing with the old.

**Junjie** · June-12-16, 10:05 PM

Originally Posted by DetroiterOnTheWestCoast

That does make sense. I agree that the scale, density and arrangement are very good. On the other hand, I like the designs a lot; especially the diversity of them. It will look more like an area that developed over several years as opposed to a massive uniform development.

Unlike Gistok, I think it would be a disaster if it looked like the Art Center townhomes. Not that I dislike them, I think they are fine. But there is so much available land, I think a variety of styles is called for.

I also like the diversity, and some of the buildings are ok in my book. But the buildings with completely flat faces and then semi-random windows, where some are narrow but some are full size, and there's no obvious pattern to their placement, bug the heck out of me. Maybe I'm just weird for fixating on that.

In any case I'm a big fan of the project and glad to see that they have very much taken urban principles to heart in building this, neither trying anything radical nor trying to build a little subdivision in the heart of the city. Townhouses/duplexes and mid-rise apartments on the corner lots are perfect for this area. Retail mixed in will be great. And the green path through the center is a nice touch.

**archfan** · June-13-16, 01:44 AM

The problem with imitating the 1880's-built houses is that anything modern built to look like them would look off. No one could afford to match the variety of details on the homes that were there, so you would end up with cookie cutter ye olde townhouses. Plus, a row of Ramson Gillis knockoffs would just look silly.

I like the multiple styles, and the density. I hope the spirit extends to future developments. I do agree about the skinny windows, though, especially on the outside of the block. If I had a 5th floor apartment, I'd like more of a view.

**bust** · June-13-16, 04:09 AM

Totally agree with those who are generally very happy with this. Even if like a few others I don't love some of the specifics of the component designs, I love the density, the diversity of styles, the scale, the mixed incomes they're targeting, the first floor retail, the live-work spaces, the transitional indoor / outdoor and private / public spaces, and other nooks and crannies -- the balconies, the roof decks, the porches, the sheltered sidewalks, the pocket parks, the irregular setbacks, etc.. I love the Jane Jacobs-ness of the project overall -- to the extent it can be manufactured new.

Orleans Landing shows promise, for similar reasons. And I love its wide, landscaped sidewalk. But Brush Park otherwise goes much farther with the transitional indoor / outdoor and private / public spaces. This will encourage community. And I'm relieved not to see another faux-historical design. Society has changed since Victorian and Edwardian times, and construction techniques and materials have too. Typing as I am now from a late 19th century brownstone, I welcome the possibilities contemporary architecture provides. We should seek the best we can build within our budgets with the techniques, materials, and expertise available today. Why curtail the possibilities to mimic a bygone era -- especially when the result would inevitably be unconvincing?

Overall, I'm excited for this. I think it will be great for Detroit.

**Danny** · June-13-16, 05:53 AM

Don't you all just love what Dan Gilbert is doing to revitalize Detroit and its midtown hoods. Gilberttown is growing and there no signs of slowing.

**mikeg19** · June-13-16, 06:15 AM

I like the concept a lot. Mid rise buildings bookending the smaller homes. And I think it's pretty cool that they aren't' going all Crosswinds Development and trying to mimic the current structures. I actually think it would be a disservice to try and replicate the Victorian Mansions. It seemingly never works and looks cheap compared to the originals. Go to just about any city on this planet and you have brand new next to old, contrasting styles and construction methods. You're not going to please everyone, but I think in time more people will appreciate the development, although I doubt that they will look exactly like the renderings.

**DeLemur** · June-13-16, 09:29 AM

I'd like to see some unique buildings and the renderings look pretty good. [[who knows what the actual buildings will look like since initial drawings are always different) Much better than stock Auburn style buildings. There may be one in the bunch like that but overall some compelling designs. I do wonder why there aren't any aesthetic ties to the historical buildings. Just a touch here and there would be nice.
Love to see the design effort here. Hope there will be affordable, low and mid level housing for residents beyond senior citizens in this big project as well. Gilbert is really enhancing Detroit and his own large piece of it.

**Jayp213** · June-13-16, 09:45 AM

i love the variety of architecture. every other big city has a mixture of bold architecture that STANDS OUT and is very unique. i've lived in Miami. I've lived in San Francisco. Visited New York MANY times. this is normal stuff to them. I'm not sure why the Michigan motive is to stay stuck in a time-warp or keep a mentality of opposing anything different than the "norm".... Its nice to have something different than just historic-looking all of the time.

**Armin** · June-13-16, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by Jayp213

i love the variety of architecture. every other big city has a mixture of bold architecture that STANDS OUT and is very unique. i've lived in Miami. I've lived in San Francisco. Visited New York MANY times. this is normal stuff to them. I'm not sure why the Michigan motive is to stay stuck in a time-warp or keep a mentality of opposing anything different than the "norm".... Its nice to have something different than just historic-looking all of the time.

Completely agree. I don't know what everyone is bitching about. I think the renderings look great. I can't wait to see it built.

**Gistok** · June-13-16, 12:40 PM

I was reading about some of the corregated metal residential buildings as part of this development. Not being familiar on what one can do with the material... it seems that there is quite a bit that can be done with it.....

https://www.google.com/search?q=corr...ih=729#imgrc=_

And speaking of corrugated metal... there were some news articles about using cargo containers for residential over by the Dequindre Cut. It would be interesting to see that being developed.

**mwilbert** · June-13-16, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by Gistok

I was reading about some of the corregated metal residential buildings as part of this development. Not being familiar on what one can do with the material... it seems that there is quite a bit that can be done with it.....

https://www.google.com/search?q=corr...ih=729#imgrc=_

And speaking of corrugated metal... there were some news articles about using cargo containers for residential over by the Dequindre Cut. It would be interesting to see that being developed.

While I think we can agree that this isn't a great period for architectural craftsmanship and detailing, which is one reason to preserve what we have, it is an amazing time for architectural materials and technology.

**wolverine** · June-13-16, 08:49 PM

This project looks like a close cousin of Chicago's Parkside oldtown. I'm cautiously optimistic.

Almost everything torn down long ago
A dozen historic relics saved
Some townhouses built in the 90's
Some midrise built post modern arch in the 2000's
A splurge on very contemporary architecture in the past couple years.

The pro's:
Decent mix of style instead of the neighborhood all the same
Filled in a dead zone of Chicago

The cons:
The modern stuff didn't translate into reality as well as the renderings promised.
It all feels very coarse grain despite trying to make it like a neighborhood.

It will be interesting to see what they'll do and run with good design. Because if they value engineer this it could end up looking g pretty bad.

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · June-14-16, 12:26 AM

I like a lot of the designs, at least aesthetically [[I am not privy to specs on any of them, except the published renderings). They are interesting and unique. They have a few things going for them:

1) The "new" and modern look will appeal to a lot of affluent/upwardly mobile new urbanites. Those are exactly the folks looking to place roots downtown, and who makeup a lot of the customer base for the downtown restaurant/bar/retail we want to see thrive.

2) Unlike old-timey "modern" architecture in Detroit & elsewhere, they seem like they will be substantially integrated into their neighborhoods [[with ample park-like features, sidewalks, bike paths, etc), not just standalone edifices awaiting their owners to drive home from work.

3) The various small-scale projects in Brush Park will be different enough from one another to allow different types of residential situations [[lofts, duplexes, small and efficient to modern and luxurious) that will appeal to many types of renters and buyers.

While these are renderings and not the final product, I think they suggest that area will be hopping, thriving and growing for years to come. It is an interesting and mostly very good time to be a Detroiter.

**casscorridor** · June-14-16, 07:57 AM

The faux-historic architecture of previous Brush park developments [[i.e. Crosswinds) actually is a disservice to what is left of the actual historic architecture. It's something you'd find in the suburbs of Detroit. Contemporary urban architecture is such a new thing to Detroit that it will take some time to get used to but will be much better in the end. Each new era will contribute a new style, and in the end neighbourhoods will be a mix of styles built over the years. Unfortunately, Detroit missed out on half a century of new styles. I think I heard this is the largest development of its kind since Lafayette Park.

**wolverine** · June-14-16, 08:20 AM

Originally Posted by casscorridor

The faux-historic architecture of previous Brush park developments [[i.e. Crosswinds) actually is a disservice to what is left of the actual historic architecture. It's something you'd find in the suburbs of Detroit. Contemporary urban architecture is such a new thing to Detroit that it will take some time to get used to but will be much better in the end. Each new era will contribute a new style, and in the end neighbourhoods will be a mix of styles built over the years. Unfortunately, Detroit missed out on half a century of new styles. I think I heard this is the largest development of its kind since Lafayette Park.

Not that I'm a traditionalist advocate but part of the problem is that many architects are bad at it. That doesn't mean modern designs will come out good either. Poorly chosen materials and bad craftsmanship can ruin a design. In fact there's more pressure on the contractor with modern designs to perform to create perfectly flat facades, crisp corners and clean material transitions

**SammyS** · June-14-16, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by casscorridor

The faux-historic architecture of previous Brush park developments [[i.e. Crosswinds) actually is a disservice to what is left of the actual historic architecture......

I'm hearing a lot of flak towards the Crosswinds development, or at least it's architectural style. I'll venture to say that if a referendum was to take place regarding its future, most would vote for the wrecking ball.

Do eminent domain laws still exist?

Disclaimer: I own one of these.