Visual Preference Survey, Texas Donut

**Detroitnerd** · December-29-09, 04:05 PM

Originally Posted by jtf1972

It's a good idea. I like row houses for many reasons including the energy savings that comes with not having every wall of a home being an exterior wall. Whether this works or fails has to do with more than one structure, as simply providing a ramp to a highway out the door does nothing. Retail needs to be planned in. There needs to be a reason to create foot traffic in a neighborhood.

Just to clarify: Are we talking about rowhouses or donuts?

Originally Posted by jtf1972

This is one of my favorite blocks. It's located in the Bronx on Morris Ave. I would love to see something similar in Detroit. [[The "Texas Donut" concept would help clear up the parking problem.) The closest I have seen is at the bend in Ewald Circle at Schoolcraft. [[I always loved that spot!)

Is this a donut? If so, why are all those cars parked in front?

**Detroitnerd** · December-29-09, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by bailey

But you're the one that has been crapping all over the idea of this sort of development in detroit from your first post? The reason is apparently because you dont like how a granny stacker looks in Brush Park. If anyone is "strawman"ing anything down, it's you.

Hm. Let's do a quick replay. Somebody asked me what I thought. I said I thought it was ugly. Get a grip, Bailey: When somebody asks for a general reaction to what something looks like, it's fair game to respond with your honest, if unfavorable, reaction. N'est pas?

That's where that straw man comes in. See, I give my reaction, back it up with discussion, and then you charge in accusing me of "crapping all over the idea" as though I had no point. That is classic straw-manning. Sure, it's fun; but in the long run it's just poor debating.

Wouldn't it be much more interesting to talk about donuts than me or you?

**bailey** · December-29-09, 04:20 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

Hm. Let's do a quick replay. Somebody asked me what I thought. I said I thought it was ugly. Get a grip, Bailey: When somebody asks for a general reaction to what something looks like, it's fair game to respond with your honest, if unfavorable, reaction. N'est pas?

That's where that straw man comes in. See, I give my reaction, back it up with discussion, and then you charge in accusing me of "crapping all over the idea" as though I had no point. That is classic straw-manning. Sure, it's fun; but in the long run it's just poor debating.

Wouldn't it be much more interesting to talk about donuts than me or you?

You gave your "reaction" based on the dislike of something OTHER than what was being discussed. equating the senior living facility "fortress" to the development pictured is factually incorrect as the two are entirely different. I was simply pointing out the object of your ire locally was not anything even remotely like the development noted by the op. Your entire 'discussion', your disgust with the project, and your sardonic quips about brush park not being revitalized by what you seem to think is an example of the development being discussed is based upon a very obvious mistake of fact. But that is really nothing new.

**jtf1972** · December-29-09, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

Just to clarify: Are we talking about rowhouses or donuts?
Is this a donut? If so, why are all those cars parked in front?

It is not a donut. The donut concept is basically row houses, with a common parking area in the center of the block. The apartment building I live in has a common parking garage where tenants rent spaces. Even before ever hearing of the "Texas Donut" I had thought the combination could show promise.

**Detroitnerd** · December-29-09, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by bailey

You gave your "reaction" based on the dislike of something OTHER than what was being discussed. equating the senior living facility "fortress" to the development pictured is factually incorrect as the two are entirely different. I was simply pointing out the object of your ire locally was not anything even remotely like the development noted by the op. Your entire 'discussion', your disgust with the project, and you sardonic quips about brush park not being revitalized by what you seem to think is an example of the development being discussed is based upon a very obvious mistake of fact. But that is really nothing new.

Oh, Bailey. Your game is just to spin your wheels and try to get people to use up their energy correcting you or denying your charges. Instead of bothering about this, I'll just tell you to go jump in a lake.

The real problem with these sorts of ideas? They might work pretty well in some situations, sure. Certainly Houston has no problem putting them up and getting people to use the front doors. But as a design concept in general, I'm doubtful. As an idea for Detroit, I am very disagreeable to it.

First of all, we are heading into a century that is very likely to see volatile gas prices and oil scarcity. Maybe it's not such a hot idea to plan for 2050 or 2100 based on the fuel prices of 2009.

There is a measurable shift underway away from car-dependent neighborhoods and toward bike- and foot-friendly living. Unless there's a lot to walk to around a donut, it's most likely that people will default to driving everywhere, which does little to invigorate the surrounding neighborhood.

So much for general comments. But that last point applies specifically to why I find this design to not be agreeable. Detroit has plenty of fortress-like architecture. We have drive-in developments galore. We even have tubes between buildings so people don't have to walk on the street. And that's a shame, because it's a move away from density and walkability.

Hey, building a donut in Houston is one thing [[and, probably, quite another by 2050), but plopping down fortress-like, drive-in/drive-out blocks in the middle of Detroit is not a design that will add vitality.

I say it again and again, but the best way to add vitality is to capitalize on the organic design, the network of small streets that we retain. Instead, we seem determined to bulldoze away a past that makes us uncomfortable, and to cop out via ideas that "work in Houston."

**DetroitPlanner** · December-29-09, 06:45 PM

DN why not put something up that you would find to be a suitable alternative? The idea behind this thread is a visual preference survey afterall.

**gnome** · December-29-09, 08:24 PM

Attachment 4574

Can't please all the nerds all the time.

EastSider · December-29-09, 08:32 PM

Originally Posted by jtf1972

I dislike the cookie-cutter aspect of the depicted units as well.
...
This is one of my favorite blocks.

Is there an 'irony' thread around here? You don't like cookie cutter but toss up a picture of row houses that are...wait for it...identical except for the smallest details.

**gazhekwe** · December-29-09, 08:39 PM

Hmmm. When you talk about high density areas, I guess the donut works, with the stacked parking in the middle. I don't like its looks all that well because I like a little air space between dwellings, but it does make a lot of sense in high density areas. I guess there are some of those in Detroit, and maybe we could plan for some more.

lilpup · December-29-09, 08:51 PM

Arsonist's field day, or some idiot resident smoking in bed or ignoring candles - so many residents to wipe out in one good shot - have never liked large apartment buildings or condo complexes

MichMatters · December-29-09, 09:45 PM

This seems like a good idea if you're going to build parking with housing, anyway. I mean, if you're already in a car-oriented part of a city, anyway, would you want the parking fronting the street?

PQZ · December-30-09, 09:01 AM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

Oh, man. This is so awesome. This donut is really revitalizing the neighborhood around it.

http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=r1r...r.&rtop=0~0~0~

The Presbyterian Village does not even come close to what the hallmarks of what makes a Texas donut. The first and most obvious is that the the parking is not contained within the building and the second is that it is not built out to the sidewalk.

It amazes me the contradictions on this thread. Folks complain that Detroit does not have the density and development of other cities - desnity that is needed to support local retail and mass transit - yet they don't want units to be attached because they are a fire hazard or there isn't enough light between units???

Detroitnerd:
The Texas Donut is not just in Houston. It is in every major metropolitan area. Detroit seems to be the last place to embrace the donut. So far your solution is to ignore current market demands and force people to give up their cars because gas and oil might be gone in 50 years.

Thats all fine and good, but I don't think a strategy of waiting for the collapse of oil is a good development strategy. Here's a bit of news. When and if an oil collapse causes a fundamental shift in building patterns, other cities will capitalize on it and retain residents too. Everyone will do it, not jsut Detroit.

How do I know this?

Because they are already doing it by building Texas donuts that create density and urbanity in walkable communities that allow households to reduce their automobile dependence.

The donut I live in has much lower parking ratios than traditional apartment /condo buildings. Married couples have downsized to one car. I put about 3,500 miles a year on my car, down from 10,000 -12,000 a year when I lived in Lafayette Park. The only reason I haven't ditched my car entirely is because my job requires me to drive to evening and commuity meetings around town and I don't have access to a fleet car. Its BECAUSE I live in a neighborhood full of donuts that I have been able to reduce my automotive dependence. The form encourages reduction of car travel miles.

I also have a sneaking suspicion the auto manufacturers will adapt. I even hear that GM is developing some sort of super secret car that runs on electrical power so folks can still have efficient personal transportation - even before oil collapses. The code name is Volt or sumpin' like that.

**bailey** · December-30-09, 10:17 AM

Oh, Bailey. Your game is just to spin your wheels and try to get people to use up their energy correcting you or denying your charges. Instead of bothering about this, I'll just tell you to go jump in a lake.

Oh Nerd... if pointing out your factual error and your irrational objection to something that [[as pointed out repeatedly by others) meets just about everyone of your requirements is "gaming" well, whatever.

The real problem with these sorts of ideas? They might work pretty well in some situations, sure. Certainly Houston has no problem putting them up and getting people to use the front doors. But as a design concept in general, I'm doubtful. As an idea for Detroit, I am very disagreeable to it.

you've made it clear that use of the front door is a mandate for any building/block. However, you seem to be against it for no rational reason OTHER than it incorporates and allows for car usage and has a back door.

First of all, we are heading into a century that is very likely to see volatile gas prices and oil scarcity. Maybe it's not such a hot idea to plan for 2050 or 2100 based on the fuel prices of 2009.

but wont detroit have a 1st world mass transit system by then? Are you really saying that there will be NO alternatives to gas powered cars in 50 -100 yrs? As a people we're slow to change...but c'mon.

There is a measurable shift underway away from car-dependent neighborhoods and toward bike- and foot-friendly living. Unless there's a lot to walk to around a donut, it's most likely that people will default to driving everywhere, which does little to invigorate the surrounding neighborhood.

as PQZ very clearly noted, these developments are planned to meet your requirements..it's the whole point of the development. we're 50 years [[in detroit...in reality) from a family being able to live car free....lets at least think about developments that make it easier to live with one per family.

So much for general comments. But that last point applies specifically to why I find this design to not be agreeable. Detroit has plenty of fortress-like architecture. We have drive-in developments galore. We even have tubes between buildings so people don't have to walk on the street. And that's a shame, because it's a move away from density and walkability.

Fortress architecture? I still don't understand how this is a fortress like the Ren Cen or Harbor town. Maybe because, like PQZ I lived in one, i thought these created a street wall and vibrant area [[especially when made up of more than one or as infill) not a fortress. I thought street walls were a demand around here?

Tubes between buildings? Toronto has 15 miles of underground tunnels with 4 million sqr ft of retail. Montreal has a whole underground city. Minneapolis, houston, New york, Dallas, Chicago.... all have underground passways that double as retail and transit links which contribute to the density and walkabiltiy of the cities. It's not the tunnels that are the problem. it's how they are done in Detroit that is the problem.

Hey, building a donut in Houston is one thing [[and, probably, quite another by 2050), but plopping down fortress-like, drive-in/drive-out blocks in the middle of Detroit is not a design that will add vitality.

lets be real, one won't be built here before 2050..if ever.... so the entire discussion is moot....but I would bet dollars to doughnuts, a project such as this would do more for the area's vitality than another isolated loft conversion.

I say it again and again, but the best way to add vitality is to capitalize on the organic design, the network of small streets that we retain. Instead, we seem determined to bulldoze away a past that makes us uncomfortable, and to cop out via ideas that "work in Houston."

so, you want vitality and 'density' and walk-ability but you want it spread out on a network of small streets? and this spreading out will result in less car usage? Honestly it sounds like what you're describing already exists in places like Birmingham, RO..etc.-- small streets, single family and multi unit developments all in and around a walkable "downtown". wouldn't you be much happier living there?

**royce** · December-31-09, 06:11 AM

There is a development in Atlanta called Atlantic Station that uses a slightly altered Texas Donut for some of its residential units. [[See google maps and focus on the residences between 16th and 18th streets and Mecaslin Street NW). Overall, I like the Texas Donut concept of putting the parking garage in the center of the residential units. However, one section along the four streets of the donut should be devoted to ground-floor retail with some parking in the back for customers. The new Studio One apartments on Woodward is what comes to mind when I think of this. The Ellington also comes to mind, especially when addressing the parking structure for the residential units.

Woodward Place in Brush Park would have been the ideal place to put a Texas Donut with ground-floor retail along Woodward. It is a damn shame that something like this or something like the Ellington or Studio One wasn't thought of by Crosswinds. These developments would have done so much more for the residents and that corner of Woodward than what is currently there. I hope in the near future that Crosswinds would consider moving the current condo residents in those condos along Woodward to other units near by, tear down those units, and replace them with an Ellington-type development. And maybe when the city comes to its senses and stops using the lots along the westside of Woodward for parking, that maybe, just maybe, it will build a Texas Donut and use the parking deck for both residents and sports fans. It can be a win-win situation.

**gnome** · December-31-09, 07:12 AM

royce, I took a google maps streetview tour of the Atlantic Station and it was impressive. Do you have any personal experience with the place? I rather liked it. Thank you.

As far as a Texas Donut goes ... I like the idea of putting the first two stories underground making the roof a green roof gathering place for the residents. That would take the Hulking Onus off the thing... in the photo that started off the thread, the garage in the middle is so massive and unfun ... it makes me shudder to think of the view out the back window.

**Whitehouse** · December-31-09, 08:17 AM

Here I am again with an example from the Netherlands. Near the city of Den Bosch they created some structures like that to mimic some kind of medieval fortresses. In between there is a spectacular landscape with a golf course. Here are some pictures.

Looks like a mock-up but I think this picture is made with tilt-shift.
Very good solution in an already crammed country. I prefer this kind of structure above some carpet lowrise structures....

They build quite a lot of it in that area.

Take a look at this collection!!!!

**gnome** · December-31-09, 09:00 AM

very interesting whitehouse, cool pics, interesting concept. I went to their main site and was able to check things out a little closer.

Here is a video animation of one of the castle units. It is very cool, especially the naked lady in the shower part. Kind of a surprise. You have wait for it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvvZYoRA0P4

**Lowell** · December-31-09, 09:09 AM

A donut approach is very common in German cities I have visited, Berlin in particular. Apartment blocks surround large shared interior courtyards. They provide islands of calm where kids can play watched over without fear of car traffic. Like everything there are pluses and minuses to this approach.

The masters of this approach are the Israeli west bank settlements.

**gazhekwe** · December-31-09, 10:09 AM

Gnome, that video was interesting, and really showed some great ideas. I like the underground parking connected to the each unit so all the ground level in the center is a green commons area. Also love the ground level patio AND the rooftop deck. Outdoor living space is so wonderful.

**GOAT** · December-31-09, 10:42 AM

2 floors below ground and green roofs...who in the hell in Detroit would build it and who in Detroit could afford it?

Some of you people live in a fantasy land. It has to make economic sense first before any of the above can be done. Economically, Detroit is beyond third world; at least 3rd world people work to eat and live and are adaptive. Why? Because they have to or they die?

**Whitehouse** · December-31-09, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by GOAT

2 floors below ground and green roofs...who in the hell in Detroit would build it and who in Detroit could afford it?

Some of you people live in a fantasy land. It has to make economic sense first before any of the above can be done. Economically, Detroit is beyond third world; at least 3rd world people work to eat and live and are adaptive. Why? Because they have to or they die?

The Grinch came in....

**GOAT** · December-31-09, 12:29 PM

Wow! I guess reality is being a grinch. O.k! I'm a grinch so how does that solve the issues of Detroit? How does that negate the truth? I know, calling people grinches or explaining how one thing in a real functioning city works compared to how it will not in a city that doesn't...carry on.

**Whitehouse** · December-31-09, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by GOAT

Wow! I guess reality is being a grinch. O.k! I'm a grinch so how does that solve the issues of Detroit? How does that negate the truth? I know, calling people grinches or explaining how one thing in a real functioning city works compared to how it will not in a city that doesn't...carry on.

Just like you I haven't got a presto solution to all problems. I'm no God. But your look in life seems to be a bit dark. Sure, most of the things posted here are dreams never to be fulfilled. Sometimes a dream does come true and a building is saved. Which makes us all extatic.

What's wrong with a bit of daydreaming? Why shoot those dreams down?

**ghettopalmetto** · December-31-09, 12:45 PM

In general, I like the Texas donut. It puts parking where it should be--hidden, and in the rear. The streetwall created by building out to the lot line promotes walkability and is something that Detroit sorely lacks. Never mind that the increase in land-use intensity puts a greater amount of leasable [[and taxable) real estate on a smaller plot of land than "traditional" post-WWII development.

On the other hand, building a Texas donut in itself won't perform miracles. The surrounding blocks have to also be built to the lot lines, and there needs to be mixed-use zoning of these areas in order to accommodate the variety of uses that will generate pedestrian traffic. If the donut remains a drive-in drive-out island, you haven't really accomplished anything toward this end.

The donuts harken back to the days when carriage houses were placed behind residences. It's a good compromise between constructing a densely-populated, mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented environment, and the reality that automobiles aren't going anywhere anytime soon. On the other hand, building such donuts with excessive parking requirements are likely to be costly and wasteful. For example, the Target store in Washington, DC has a two-level underground parking garage with 1000 spaces, paid for by the city government at the behest of the developers. Since the store is in a densely-populated pedestrian-friendly neighborhood that is well-served by transit, the garage has yet to see even 50% occupancy at any given time. Take $50,000 per underground spot and multiply that by 500, and you have 25 million bucks down the drain.

With that said, it would be cool to see Detroit build more in this style. If only one could convince the all-knowing City Council that cities are supposed to function for people, and not cars.

PQZ · December-31-09, 01:53 PM

Just to be clear RE: parking requirements in Detroit.

The City's parking requirements through zoning are much lower than any surrounding community's and during a benchmarking exercise a few years ago, were found to be roughly equivalent in the minimum standards to other cities such as Chicago and Boston for new development. Detroit does not really cap maximum parking, leaving that to the market to dictate what is needed.

The parking levels seen for projects in Detroit are a function of underwriting standards imposed by banks. They are not a function of local governmental policy.

The issue lies not with Council and zoning policy but with the complete lack of meaningful transportation alternatives driving demand structures. The influence of the City Council or Mayor on that regional issue is severely limited.

Development isn Detroit is stuck in a chicken and the egg situation. Suburban parking levels are needed to serve the developments due to lack of transportation. Lack of density created by the suburban parking makes it hard to meet the ridership levels needed to satisfy federal funding guidelines.

The LRT for Woodward is a start, but I am pessimistic that the funding on the private side will come through. Even if a steady and sufficient funding stream were to be identified and magically enacted, any rail network is 25 to 30 years from full completion in metro Detroit, a period during which suburban parking levels will continue to be constructed.

Charlotte has a half cent sales tax that covers the entire county and funds the entirely of the transit system from bus to new rail systems. Because of the economic slow down, new rail construction is being delayed by 3 - 8 years and some elemnts, such as the planned streetcars, are being taken out of the plan and new financing models are being evaluated to find ways to pay for it outside of the sales tax.
http://www.charmeck.org/Departments/...ystem+Plan.htm

Detroit is a very long way from having a dedicated funding stream. Perhaps if the Woodward segment is built, it will nudge the region toawrds adedidcated model. Be warned though, it will take 8 - 10 years to build sufficent reserve until significant rail activity can occur. Charlotte passed its half cent sales tax in 1998 and opened its first leg of rail in 2007. The next leg won't open until 2016 at the earliest.

So in the meantime, clustered Texas Donuts that promote walkability with retail opportunities over a several block span is the perfect solution for Detroit.