Creating Density in Downtown

[EL Jimbo]

Now I know that right now, we have a hard enough time filling the current buildings that exist downtown, but I also know that our auto-centric focus on transportation and our lack of quality transit options poses another real issue for the downtown area.

I recently came across an article written about a proposal for Portland, Oregon where they were trying to find ways to create an automobile free downtown by 2050. There proposal was to build several massive parking structures that had direct access to freeways. From there, commuters could link to mass transit options or walk to their destinations. The idea is that he availability of parking at these structures would alleviate the need for other parking space and would increase demand for more buildings.

Anyway, I thought it was cool and possibly applicable to Detroit since we already have one parking structure on the periphery of downtown with direct access to the freeway.

http://hugeasscity.com/2010/01/14/th...ark-ride-ever/

[iheartthed]

Doesn't sound like a good idea. But wasn't there a similar proposal floated for Detroit that was spoken of on here a few months ago?

[EL Jimbo]

I like the idea because it removes the need for a lot of space that I feel is wasted as parking structures and surface lots.

[iheartthed]

I like the idea because it removes the need for a lot of space that I feel is wasted as parking structures and surface lots.

It does, but it's not like Detroit doesn't already have the infrastructure in place for suburban commuter lines. I'm not sure what the situation is in Portland, but if the local transit authorities in Detroit could use what already exists then there wouldn't be a need to ban automobiles from downtown in order to create density.

[EL Jimbo]

I don't necessarily think you would need to ban automobiles downtown. I think the idea would be to eliminate the NEED for them downtown. By offering massive parking structures right on the periphery of the downtown area connected to mass transit that would get you where you needed to go in the downtown area, it would make driving in the downtown area unnecessary. In turn, that would eliminate the need for additional surface lots and structures inside the downtown area. This [[assuming the existing building space was filled) would spur more building development within the downtown area.

I don't think it has as much to do with banning automobiles downtown, it has more to do with finding a better way to integrate automobile transportation with the downtown environment.

[ndavies]

While you've figured out a way to get more buildings in one place. What you haven't told us is why any business/individual would relocate into this high density environment? What benefit would it be to a business or individual to move into this environment?

High density neighborhoods happen for economic or geographic reasons. What stops the sprawl and brings people and businesses back to the core of the region?

Why would anyone take multiple forms of transit to get somewhere if they don't absolutely have to? Why go downtown in my car, park, transfer to transit and then eventually walk a block, when I can take a shorter ride in my car to the mall or office park and park near the building? Why would any typical middle class metro area family want to deal with the added aggravations of such an arrangement?

[Mikeg]

How does the Portland proposal plan to handle the 9 million vehicles that arrive and depart their downtown area by tunnel each year?

[EL Jimbo]

While you've figured out a way to get more buildings in one place. What you haven't told us is why any business/individual would relocate into this high density environment? What benefit would it be to a business or individual to move into this environment?

High density neighborhoods happen for economic or geographic reasons. What stops the sprawl and brings people and businesses back to the core of the region?

Good questions. As I stated earlier, I was not addressing the demand issue with this topic. I stated right away in my original post that this scenario would assume high occupancy rates of existing buildings downtown. Clearly this is not the case.

As far as how it creates demand, I don't think even in a perfect scenario it would create it at all. In any healthy, dense area, one of the restrictions to the area is accessibility. For the auto-centric, this means access to parking. In dense environments, parking space is at a premium [[hence the $75 an hour parking I saw in Manhattan 3 years ago).

This limited access to parking for residents, workers, and visitors limits the amount of development in the area because you have to devote so much prime real estate to accommodating the necessary parking. By moving the needed parking just outside of the prime development area [[the downtown area) you still have nearby access but have opened up that prime downtown real estate previously devoted to parking for further development.

This, of course, assumes the demand already exists. Portland creates this demand through their Greenbelt. I think that idea has long since sailed for Detroit.

Why would anyone take multiple forms of transit to get somewhere if they don't absolutely have to? Why go downtown in my car, park, transfer to transit and then eventually walk a block, when I can take a shorter ride in my car to the mall or office park and park near the building? Why would any typical middle class metro area family want to deal with the added aggravations of such an arrangement?

1. Isn't that what people do in cities throughout the entire world? I sat next to a guy from Connecticut a few years back who drove to a train station in Connecticut, caught a 45 minute train to Grand Central Station, and then caught a cab to his office. People do this EVERY DAY.

If Detroit is the example of what happens to the exception I'm not sure that is a ringing endorsement.

2. If it is such a hassle to use multiple forms of transportation, how come the Tiger Train sells out so fast every summer when they do that? Furthermore, if walking is such a huge issue or using multiple modes of transit such a huge issue, why is it that people are willing to walk 10 or more blocks or take the People Mover and then still walk a block just so they can save 15 bucks on parking when they go to a game downtown?

3. People will go where the work is. If someone's suburban office gets moved downtown, are they going to quit because of the "aggravation" of having to park in a structure and walk to their building?

4. You are assuming that all the cars would be strictly for commuters. Residents living within the downtown area would also have their cars parked their as well. They would be closer to the stores, restaurants, and other attractions in this area than any mall.

5. Lastly, this scenario doesn't seem all that inconvenient compared to times when people currently have to drive in a downtown environment. In fact, at worst it would probably be about the same.

[Detroitnerd]

I can't wait for this high-tech future Detroit where I get to drive everywhere ...

[Hermod]

People will go where the work is. If someone's suburban office gets moved downtown, are they going to quit because of the "aggravation" of having to park in a structure and walk to their building?

If I have a business located in a suburban office, why would I move it downtown??

The only reason the RenCen has anybody in it is that Henry the Deuce twisted people's arms economically on the basis of "you move in or Ford cuts your water off".

The old days of doctors, dentists, lawyers, and accountants wanting to be in skyscrapers by a transit hub is long gone. Now they want to be in loiw rise buildings with acres of parking.

[iheartthed]

If I have a business located in a suburban office, why would I move it downtown??

To be near your customers. To be closer to home. To attract employees. To be closer to transit. Etc.

The old days of doctors, dentists, lawyers, and accountants wanting to be in skyscrapers by a transit hub is long gone. Now they want to be in loiw rise buildings with acres of parking.

That was probably true in 1984. Not sure if that applies everywhere today.

[DetroitPlanner]

That was probably true in 1984. Not sure if that applies everywhere today.

Sorry this was true in 1974. By 1984 downtown had few doctors left in it. The real reason for the change can probably be found in Doctors chasing the dollars to the suburbs and the rise of doctors needing to share costs in larger offices that were typically associated with labs and medical centers. Technology had changed and so did medicine's geography. Doctors increasingly sent patentients for more testing as testing evolved. This is why you see so few doctors in independant practice now.

If downtown had the medical center things might have been different, but that was located where it was to be close to WSU and existing hospitals like Harper.

You still see a fair number of accountants and lawyers downtown, except they would never be caught dead on a bus or any other form of public transport.

[jtf1972]

The old days of doctors, dentists, lawyers, and accountants wanting to be in skyscrapers by a transit hub is long gone. Now they want to be in loiw rise buildings with acres of parking.

If things continue the way they are, these doctors, dentists, lawyers, and accountants will have lots of open parking spaces before having to close their operation due to a dwindling customer base as people spread further and further out.

A higher density core city is needed. Economically, the city needs federal assistance [[wont get it from the state) to make doing business in the city more affordable than in even the suburbs. If Detroit can lower property taxes and eliminate city income taxes, plus impose regulations so lease rates cannot be artificially inflated by suburban interests there will be a great deal less vacant space.

Then much of the area that is currently vacant needs to be built up with low-rise construction. Not every lot needs to be a skyscraper. It's better to have property taxes coming in from a 1, 2 or 3 level building than an empty lot.

The reason federal assistance is needed is to stem the problem created by a dwindling tax base and increased operational costs. The US can toss a billion here, there & everywhere around the world for kazoo training for underprivileged orphans or whatever else comes along, but to budget money to keep the core of our civilizations from rotting would be socialism?

[casscorridor]

You still see a fair number of accountants and lawyers downtown, except they would never be caught dead on a bus or any other form of public transport.

I don't think that is true to say about all of them, I see plenty of accountant looking and lawyer looking people on the people mover... but that isn't taking them home. Maybe not as often on DDOT as SMART, but how do you know when someone is an accountant or a lawyer? I'm just going by people in nice suits n briefcases n shit. I'm sure if there was innercity and commuter rail systems that you'd see plenty of proffessionals as well as every kind of worker riding them. Our current bus only system is frustrating and generally those who have the means don't use it regularly. But there are acceptions, and more and more people are seeing the benifits of riding transit opposed to driving, even on an all bus system such as ours. More people are seeing the benifits of living, working and doing business in an urban area.

As of the subject post... I think banning cars outright from Downtown would be rediclious. Cars should be able to share the streets with pedestrians, bikes and trains. It makes for a dynamic urban landscape. I think in Downtown Detroit, as well as in the entire metro region, we have a situation where cars take priority over pedestrians, bikers and transit riders. This has to be turned over. People taking priority over cars. Places designed for the pedestrian, not the car. People first, car later... not the other way around, which is how the suburbs are built. Everyone loves little downtowns in the suburbs because they were built at a time when things were built to the scale of the person, not of the automobile. Besides, it's not like downtown has a shortage of parking!!! There is garages everywhere, located near people mover stations. Greektown garage is free.

[stasu1213]

I had heard years ago that busses will be banned from downtown. They will drop off passengers on the outskirs of downtown then you will have to take a shuttle bus or walk to your place of employment. That is why Campus Martius was designed the way it was. I think that having more retail and moms and pops grocery stores would increase the density. Also policeofficers walk the beat or riding their bicycles around downtown to run delerics away from the doorways of the lofts that people resides and be a deterrent of crimes

[iheartthed]

Sorry this was true in 1974. By 1984 downtown had few doctors left in it.

This doesn't negate what I said.

The real reason for the change can probably be found in Doctors chasing the dollars to the suburbs and the rise of doctors needing to share costs in larger offices that were typically associated with labs and medical centers. Technology had changed and so did medicine's geography. Doctors increasingly sent patentients for more testing as testing evolved. This is why you see so few doctors in independant practice now.

If downtown had the medical center things might have been different, but that was located where it was to be close to WSU and existing hospitals like Harper.

You still see a fair number of accountants and lawyers downtown, except they would never be caught dead on a bus or any other form of public transport.

The professional offices went to the suburbs for one reason: their clients moved there.

I work in midtown Manhattan and there are plenty of doctors offices, dentist offices and accountants inhabiting skyscrapers. Why? Because Midtown has a daytime population of 3 million people.

[Hermod]

To be near your customers. To be closer to home. To attract employees. To be closer to transit. Etc.
.

Are my customers downtown in Detroit?
Do I want to live in Detroit?
Do I want to hire employees that live in Detroit?
Do I want to hire employees dependent on public transit?

To a lot of business men, the answer to these questions is "Hell No"

[professorscott]

Most businessmen locate their businesses in other regions where they have the options at which you jeer; they locate in neither Detroit nor its suburbs.

It occurs to me while reading some of the nonsense in this thread that many of our fellow bloggers have apparently never been to any functioning metropolitan region anywhere. I would suggest that some of you go to Portland, or Toronto or Denver or Boston or New York or Atlanta or Chicago, and see what a functioning urban area looks like and how it behaves.

Uniformly, these cities have invested vast sums in good public transportation, and each and every one of them is doing far, far better than our region. Most of them had a particular old-line manufacturing industry which failed, and which failed long before ours started to fail. They succeed because they have created an infrastructure which attracts a variety of business endeavors, and this infrastructure absolutely always includes good public transit.

"Car-free" might turn out to be overkill, I don't know. But "cars-only" is an abject failure, a catastrophe of biblical proportions, and I cannot understand why some of our fellow bloggers don't realize it.

[bartock]

Are my customers downtown in Detroit?
Do I want to live in Detroit?
Do I want to hire employees that live in Detroit?
Do I want to hire employees dependent on public transit?

To a lot of business men, the answer to these questions is "Hell No"

As someone who worked in the suburbs and recently came to work downtown, the two things that I heard most about why I should NOT have come downtown is that while being in a larger building with the urban landscape, views, etc., is great, the parking [[costs...although Detroit is comparably very cheap with other cities) and taxes outweigh any good. Again, this is what I had heard.

What I have found is that the parking and taxes do not bother me one bit. However, the reason for this is that the building I'm in has parking attached to the building amd two very friendly attendants on each floor of parking. I moved to built-out space, and the building owners in the fall re-did all of the concrete in the front of the building, continue to invest in upgrading [[wireless, etc.) the technology, have working elevators and are very attentive to tenants. In other words, the additional costs of parking, driving an extra ten miles to work, etc., are outweighed by the benefits.

I think the Prof is right...seems to me that people wouldn't mind the extra taxes, etc., of being downtown if those people could experience/believe in a tangible benefit of those extra funds. Look at the perception...most people I have talked to that have worked downtown in recent years believe that the tax dollars went right into Kwame's pocket. Hopefully, this will change. Hopefully, light rail will break ground this summer and downtown begins to set the underpinnings [[infrastructurally, if that's a word) of what a "real" downtown looks like. Whether the professional people from the suburbs use it or not, it goes back to perception and function. As has been said, there is plenty of parking down here. Create demand, and then buildings like the Penobscot - which should be a "destination" building - will perhaps be run by responsible owners, who have the tenant numbers and rates to match the high-quality maintenance and service that building deserves. I will stop rambling.

[iheartthed]

Are my customers downtown in Detroit?
Do I want to live in Detroit?
Do I want to hire employees that live in Detroit?
Do I want to hire employees dependent on public transit?

To a lot of business men, the answer to these questions is "Hell No"

So? To a lot of businessmen, the answers to these questions as it pertains to Michigan is "Hell no". What does that have to do with making downtown Detroit functional again?

In my office, every single person here uses some form of mass transit to get to work everyday. Every single person in this office has at least a bachelors degree, and many hold higher level degrees. So I'm not sure how employees being dependent on mass transit is relevant to the discussion.

[Detroit500]

The fact of the matter is public transportation has an incredibly negative connotation in the metro region. Whereas cities like New York do not have a stigma attached with riding the subway, trains, buses, etc. that simply is not the case in Metro Detroit. There also is the simple fact that, if I am a suburban dentist, doctor, etc. right now it makes no sense for me to move my business within the city limits -- both economically and in terms of where my clients live.

Frankly, people have to move to the city before businesses will move to the city -- the same way that people moved to the suburbs, and then businesses followed. Businesses need to look at data that suggests they will be able to have enough clients bringing in revenue to offset their costs [[costs which due to a higher tax base, etc. will be higher within the city limits than in suburbia) and turn a profit.

[iheartthed]

The fact of the matter is public transportation has an incredibly negative connotation in the metro region. Whereas cities like New York do not have a stigma attached with riding the subway, trains, buses, etc. that simply is not the case in Metro Detroit. There also is the simple fact that, if I am a suburban dentist, doctor, etc. right now it makes no sense for me to move my business within the city limits -- both economically and in terms of where my clients live.

Frankly, people have to move to the city before businesses will move to the city -- the same way that people moved to the suburbs, and then businesses followed. Businesses need to look at data that suggests they will be able to have enough clients bringing in revenue to offset their costs [[costs which due to a higher tax base, etc. will be higher within the city limits than in suburbia) and turn a profit.

People in the Detroit area don't use transit because there is no transit. If you ripped up the NYC subway lines and commuter lines then midtown Manhattan would look just like downtown Detroit.

[Detroitnerd]

Always this weird discussion about fixing Detroit.

1) We must get the PEOPLE to move in again!

I guess this means we need to get people with money to move in again. Or stanch the flow of people from the city. Or something like that. But why will people with money move into the city?

2) We must fix the services so people can move in!

Yes, I guess we need to fix the services, provide adequate police, fire, schools, mass transit, etc. But that can't happen because ...

3) We need to lower taxes in the city to attract businesses!

That way, we'll be able to draw jobs, and jobs draw people. The only problem is that the tax revenues won't come from the industries. It's equally unlikely the revenues will come from the workers. Unfortunately, there will be no money to do the things that draw people into the city. Besides, it would be politically impossible to find the revenue at all because

4) The city must not grow at the expense of the suburbs!

That would be crazy, because that's where the people with the money and power to make the important decisions would be alienated.

So, here we are again, throwing around the same, mutually exclusive ideas within the narrow bandwidth of Reagan-era thinking.

How about this: Just as the United States came up with a federally subsidized system for moving people out of our cities, we need to come up with a similar system to entice them back into our cities. That means hundreds of billions of dollars in spending to make fund education and health care, build light rail systems, mitigate pollution, lower taxes and boost city residency over the next 20 to 30 years.

Of course, we can't do that because we've blown all our money by throwing fistful after fistful of it at the military, bankers and insurance companies. Sorry.

Go back to debating points one through four. Rinse. Repeat.

[Bearinabox]

Of course, we can't do that because we've blown all our money by throwing fistful after fistful of it at the military, bankers and insurance companies. Sorry.

Also, because using the federal government to revive our cities would be communism, and enacting any such policies would turn us into the Soviet Union overnight. Using the federal government to empty out the cities, on the other hand, is called "letting the market work."

[Hermod]

Also, because using the federal government to revive our cities would be communism, and enacting any such policies would turn us into the Soviet Union overnight. Using the federal government to empty out the cities, on the other hand, is called "letting the market work."

What is the upside to anybody living outside the city limits of Detroit, being they in thye suburbs, Michigan out of the metro area, or elsewhere in the US of bankrolling a "Marshall Plan" for Detroit?

Cities are where they are and what they are for a reason. Detroit was once a river port. The happy accident that men who got rich in lumber from northern Michigan chose to settle in Detroit and had money to invest jump started the budding auto industry, a serendipitous coincidence that led to the growth of the great industrial hub.

Post war, there began a massive movement of factories from their cramped quarters in built out Detroit to the burbs along with the movement of their workers to the burbs. At first this didn't hurt Detroit because the guys moving to the burbs were depression-era doubled up in their parents homes.

Then came the growth of the suburban and outer ring of the city medical and legal professional buildings [[my orthodontist moved from the Broderick Tower to Meyers and Evergreen). The shops in Detroit began to build branch stores in the burgeoning suburban shopping centers.

Then came the riots and people became reluctant to travel into the city for any reason. Coleman Young and his kleptocracy took over the city and anyone that was left completely gave up and moved out.

Now, African Americans who have the means bail out to Southfield or Inkster.

Does the riverport do any significant cargo business?? No
Is Detroit the capitol of the state?? No
Do any major corporations have their headquarters in Detroit?? No [[except for the RenCen and GM building)

So, why Detroit??